On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 11:20:17 AM UTC-5, George J. 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!
> Yes, Jordy, you're right that Michael Monkey's clattering was neither nice nor fair; but you cannot expect either fairness or niceness from Michael Monkey. Michael's problem is that when someone claims he's wrong, he does not think they're not asking him to correct his mistake (like a normal person would think). Rather, he sees the criticism as an "attack" on his very identity (his belief that he's someone who never makes mistakes). He reacts (as you say) emotionally, like an animal; he has to choose between fight and flight, and (since he's actually perfectly safe hiding behind his keyboard) he'll always choose to fight.
>
> Which is why, even though Michael Monkey cries "peace" a lot, when he's not crying "peace" he's picking fights. Unlike Zod, I don't think he's consciously being hypocritical or duplicitous in that. I think it's more likely that when he goes into a meltdown like this he can't remember what he thought or felt in his right mind, and when he's in his right mind he can't remember what he thought or felt when he was melting down. Whether Zod's right or I am, though, the effect is the same: our resident Monkey comes across as thoroughly hypocritical and/or duplicitous.
>

ROTFMAO.

Once again, you're IKYABWAI-ing (practically word for word is several places) my recent description of... wait for it... George J. Dunce.

Why am I not surprised?

Michael Pendragon
"Another example of a poem that crosses inia dream or alternate rest."
-- Will Donkey, dreaming inia alternate rest stop.
https://imgur.com/gallery/dpR2ESh
https://imgur.com/gallery/rtvGMMt

Faraway Star wrote:

> On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 10:25:16 AM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
>> On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 4:54:30 PM UTC-5, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
>> > On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 1:55:15 PM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
>> > > NancyGene wrote:
>>
>> > > > We also see in “The Argus,” Friday, January 8, 1896, “The New Poet Laureate:” “His most ambitious work, The Human Tragedy, appeared in the year following [1862], but was afterwards withdrawn from circulation, and reissued in a revised form some years later. It attracted scarcely any attention in England, and the unmerited indifference exhibited towards it by the writer's own countrymen was reprehended at the time by the Revue des Deux Mondes. Mr. Austin developed in this poem the human tragedy in Its religious, romantic, ethnical, and humanitarian aspects; and the disappointment occasioned by its failure served to infuse a good deal of bitterness into his next work, The Golden Age, a satire […]."
>> > >
>> > > Hmmm ... that's two more sources that don't say /The Human Tragedy/ is a play. After three weeks, the only people you've found claiming it is one are yourself and your Bandar-Log "colleague".
>> > >
>> > Hmm... Lying Dunce. On Nov 3, 2023, 5:16:13 PM, NancyGene posted the following:
>> >
>> > George Dance thinks we are catty by saying that Mr. Austin wasn't held in high esteem as a poet. He should also take that up with Britannica.
>> Sounds like NastyGoon is trying, and failing, to read my mind again. In fact, I said their claim that Austin wasn't a good poet was catty.
>> > "His [Alfred Austin's] acerbic criticism and jingoistic verse in the 1870s led Robert Browning to dismiss him as a 'Banjo-Byron,' and his appointment to the laureateship in 1896 was much mocked. He also published a series of stiff verse dramas, some novels, and a good deal of lyrical but very minor nature poetry."
>> > https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alfred-Austin
>>
>> > Hmm, verse dramas! "These plays contain poetic elements, like rhyming lines, and more commonly, lines that are written in blank verse. They might also be structured in a way that makes them appear more like stanzas than paragraphs or individual lines of dialogue."
>> > https://poemanalysis.com/genre/poetic-drama/#:~:text=These%20plays%20contain%20poetic%20elements,or%20individual%20lines%20of%20dialogue.
>> Michael, I already told you two that Austin wrote verse dramas. He published 8 verse dramas; /The Human Tragedy/ wasn't one of them.
>> > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/-Gaq3wjWZjY/m/ErVQpFI5BgAJ
>> > Why do you lie so much, Dunce?
>> What are you claiming is a "lie", Lying Michael? Are you saying it's a lie that NG found "two more sources that don't say /The Human Tragedy/ is a play" when it turns out they found a third source that doesn't say it's a play?
>> > Why do you think that you won't be caught in your lies, whey you always are?
>> Why do you think that if you stamp your little foot and scream "YOU'RE LYING!" in a thread, anyone besides your Goon and your Asstroll will believe you?
>> > Are you delusional, dense, or both?
>> Are you still pretending that you three aren't in this thread just to troll?

> Why should he bother to deny it..???

> Ha ha.

Exactly.

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 10:25:16 AM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 4:54:30 PM UTC-5, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 1:55:15 PM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
> > > NancyGene wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 12:23:56 PM UTC, NancyGene wrote:
>
> > > > We also see in “The Argus,” Friday, January 8, 1896, “The New Poet Laureate:” “His most ambitious work, The Human Tragedy, appeared in the year following [1862], but was afterwards withdrawn from circulation, and reissued in a revised form some years later. It attracted scarcely any attention in England, and the unmerited indifference exhibited towards it by the writer's own countrymen was reprehended at the time by the Revue des Deux Mondes. Mr. Austin developed in this poem the human tragedy in Its religious, romantic, ethnical, and humanitarian aspects; and the disappointment occasioned by its failure served to infuse a good deal of bitterness into his next work, The Golden Age, a satire […]."
> > >
> > > Hmmm ... that's two more sources that don't say /The Human Tragedy/ is a play. After three weeks, the only people you've found claiming it is one are yourself and your Bandar-Log "colleague".
> > >
> > Hmm... Lying Dunce. On Nov 3, 2023, 5:16:13 PM, NancyGene posted the following:
> >
> > George Dance thinks we are catty by saying that Mr. Austin wasn't held in high esteem as a poet. He should also take that up with Britannica.
> Sounds like NastyGoon is trying, and failing, to read my mind again. In fact, I said their claim that Austin wasn't a good poet was catty.
> > "His [Alfred Austin's] acerbic criticism and jingoistic verse in the 1870s led Robert Browning to dismiss him as a 'Banjo-Byron,' and his appointment to the laureateship in 1896 was much mocked. He also published a series of stiff verse dramas, some novels, and a good deal of lyrical but very minor nature poetry."
> > https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alfred-Austin
>
> > Hmm, verse dramas! "These plays contain poetic elements, like rhyming lines, and more commonly, lines that are written in blank verse. They might also be structured in a way that makes them appear more like stanzas than paragraphs or individual lines of dialogue."
> > https://poemanalysis.com/genre/poetic-drama/#:~:text=These%20plays%20contain%20poetic%20elements,or%20individual%20lines%20of%20dialogue.
> Michael, I already told you two that Austin wrote verse dramas. He published 8 verse dramas; /The Human Tragedy/ wasn't one of them.
> > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/-Gaq3wjWZjY/m/ErVQpFI5BgAJ
> > Why do you lie so much, Dunce?
> What are you claiming is a "lie", Lying Michael? Are you saying it's a lie that NG found "two more sources that don't say /The Human Tragedy/ is a play" when it turns out they found a third source that doesn't say it's a play?
> > Why do you think that you won't be caught in your lies, whey you always are?
> Why do you think that if you stamp your little foot and scream "YOU'RE LYING!" in a thread, anyone besides your Goon and your Asstroll will believe you?
> > Are you delusional, dense, or both?
> Are you still pretending that you three aren't in this thread just to troll?

Typical Pendragon troll monkey shit.

And so it goes.

On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 10:25:16 AM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 4:54:30 PM UTC-5, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 1:55:15 PM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
> > > > NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 12:23:56 PM UTC, NancyGene wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > We also see in “The Argus,” Friday, January 8, 1896, “The New Poet Laureate:” “His most ambitious work, The Human Tragedy, appeared in the year following [1862], but was afterwards withdrawn from circulation, and reissued in a revised form some years later. It attracted scarcely any attention in England, and the unmerited indifference exhibited towards it by the writer's own countrymen was reprehended at the time by the Revue des Deux Mondes. Mr. Austin developed in this poem the human tragedy in Its religious, romantic, ethnical, and humanitarian aspects; and the disappointment occasioned by its failure served to infuse a good deal of bitterness into his next work, The Golden Age, a satire […]."
> > > >
> > > > Hmmm ... that's two more sources that don't say /The Human Tragedy/ is a play. After three weeks, the only people you've found claiming it is one are yourself and your Bandar-Log "colleague".
> > > >
> > > Hmm... Lying Dunce. On Nov 3, 2023, 5:16:13 PM, NancyGene posted the following:
> > > George Dance thinks we are catty by saying that Mr. Austin wasn't held in high esteem as a poet.

Which is not true, BTW.

He should also take that up with Britannica.
> > Sounds like NastyGoon is trying, and failing, to read my mind again. In fact, I said their claim that Austin wasn't a good poet was catty.
> > > "His [Alfred Austin's] acerbic criticism and jingoistic verse in the 1870s led Robert Browning to dismiss him as a 'Banjo-Byron,' and his appointment to the laureateship in 1896 was much mocked. He also published a series of stiff verse dramas, some novels, and a good deal of lyrical but very minor nature poetry."
> > > https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alfred-Austin
> >
> > > Hmm, verse dramas! "These plays contain poetic elements, like rhyming lines, and more commonly, lines that are written in blank verse. They might also be structured in a way that makes them appear more like stanzas than paragraphs or individual lines of dialogue."
> > > https://poemanalysis.com/genre/poetic-drama/#:~:text=These%20plays%20contain%20poetic%20elements,or%20individual%20lines%20of%20dialogue.
> > Michael, I already told you two that Austin wrote verse dramas. He published 8 verse dramas; /The Human Tragedy/ wasn't one of them.
> Based on what evidence?

The evidence that I've already given you, Michael. /The Human Tragedy/ is not written in the style of a play, with all the lines spoken by characters. It was written as a narrative poem (as you at least have admitted, whether NG does or not), and it remained a narrative poem after he revised it.

> > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/-Gaq3wjWZjY/m/ErVQpFI5BgAJ
> > > Why do you lie so much, Dunce?
> > What are you claiming is a "lie", Lying Michael? Are you saying it's a lie that NG found "two more sources that don't say /The Human Tragedy/ is a play" when it turns out they found a third source that doesn't say it's a play?
> >
> I'm saying that NancyGene posted corroborative evidence that it is a play. I'm also accusing you of intentionally ignoring said evidence.

Well, you're wrong again, Michael. NG, for all their scouring of the web, has not found one source that agrees with you two that /The Human Tragedy/ is a play rather than a narrative poem.

> > > Why do you think that you won't be caught in your lies, whey you always are?
> > Why do you think that if you stamp your little foot and scream "YOU'RE LYING!" in a thread, anyone besides your Goon and your Asstroll will believe you?

> I think that you were caught dead to rights, Dunce.
> I reposted NancyGene's evidence, which you're still pretending doesn't exist.

Obviously you can't mean what you just reposted here, since I went to the trouble of replying to it again (which I couldn't do if it I were pretending it "doesn't exist", could I?). If NG posted something else in their troll-thread about the poem, then feel free to repost that instead.
> If you can *refute* NancyGene's evidence with *evidence from reputable* sources, go ahead.

The only "evidence" I've seen from NG here is that Austin wrote plays as well as narrative poems. Since I've already told you) the same thing, why should I try to "refute" that?

> If not, you're the one who's stomping his feet.
> > > Are you delusional, dense, or both?
> > Are you still pretending that you three aren't in this thread just to troll?
> No one wants to troll you, Dunce.

That protestation would have been more convincing if you'd dropped the name-calling for at least that one sentence. As it is, methinks the Peabrain doth protest too much.

> I was not familiar with Mr. Austin, and based on the reviews (provided by NancyGene), "The Human Tragedy" looks worthy of my attention.

IOW, you want to know if the poem is good or bad before you read it. As I've said, you've got that exactly exactly backwards. if you want to know how good the poem is, try reading some of it.
>
> NancyGene magnanimously corrected your errors

No, Michael, you're simply repeating old and refuted lies, again. NastyGoon tried to "correct" the lines I'd posted, but failed: thg lines they called "definitive" turned out to have come from an earlier draft that Austin had withdrawn from circulation.

> , and has provided additional information regarding both the poet and the play. Yet you insist on pettily attacking her over semantics -- when her referring to it as a "play" is perfectly acceptable (and most likely in keeping with the author's intent).

Of course it's "acceptable" to you if NG calls Austin's epic a play - whatever your allies come up with is "acceptable" to you. They're your allies, after all. If NG called Austin's poem a dildo, you'd probably try to shove the book up your ass. But that would not make the book a dildo, any more than calling it a "play "makes it a play.

>
> In short, you're a petty, ungrateful Dunce, who launches childish attacks against anyone who corrects his mistakes.

And yet you insist, while spewing your monkeyshit shit like the above, that you're *not* trolling, and you're *not* having a meltdown. As I explained, that's why you come across as hyporcritical and duplicitous.

> I'm here both to support NancyGene

And NG is here to support you. But, duplicitous little shit that you are, you insist that you're *not* a team.

> , and to learn more about Mr. Austin and his play.

Then open the book and start reading it. Reading a book or a poem -- not collecting second-hand opinions of it -- is the way to learn something about it.

> You're the asshole who brought the childish name-calling into play.

Sorry, Michael, but that statement of yours has already been shown to be falase: 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>

Which allows me to ask another perennial question: Why do you lie so much, Michael Monkey?

On Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 04:35:42 UTC-5, George J. wrote:
> On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 10:25:16 AM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 4:54:30 PM UTC-5, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 1:55:15 PM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
> > > > > NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 12:23:56 PM UTC, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > We also see in “The Argus,” Friday, January 8, 1896, “The New Poet Laureate:” “His most ambitious work, The Human Tragedy, appeared in the year following [1862], but was afterwards withdrawn from circulation, and reissued in a revised form some years later. It attracted scarcely any attention in England, and the unmerited indifference exhibited towards it by the writer's own countrymen was reprehended at the time by the Revue des Deux Mondes. Mr. Austin developed in this poem the human tragedy in Its religious, romantic, ethnical, and humanitarian aspects; and the disappointment occasioned by its failure served to infuse a good deal of bitterness into his next work, The Golden Age, a satire […]."
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmmm ... that's two more sources that don't say /The Human Tragedy/ is a play. After three weeks, the only people you've found claiming it is one are yourself and your Bandar-Log "colleague".
> > > > >
> > > > Hmm... Lying Dunce. On Nov 3, 2023, 5:16:13 PM, NancyGene posted the following:
> > > > George Dance thinks we are catty by saying that Mr. Austin wasn't held in high esteem as a poet.
> Which is not true, BTW.
> He should also take that up with Britannica.
> > > Sounds like NastyGoon is trying, and failing, to read my mind again. In fact, I said their claim that Austin wasn't a good poet was catty.
> > > > "His [Alfred Austin's] acerbic criticism and jingoistic verse in the 1870s led Robert Browning to dismiss him as a 'Banjo-Byron,' and his appointment to the laureateship in 1896 was much mocked. He also published a series of stiff verse dramas, some novels, and a good deal of lyrical but very minor nature poetry."
> > > > https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alfred-Austin
> > >
> > > > Hmm, verse dramas! "These plays contain poetic elements, like rhyming lines, and more commonly, lines that are written in blank verse. They might also be structured in a way that makes them appear more like stanzas than paragraphs or individual lines of dialogue."
> > > > https://poemanalysis.com/genre/poetic-drama/#:~:text=These%20plays%20contain%20poetic%20elements,or%20individual%20lines%20of%20dialogue.
> > > Michael, I already told you two that Austin wrote verse dramas. He published 8 verse dramas; /The Human Tragedy/ wasn't one of them.
> > Based on what evidence?
> The evidence that I've already given you, Michael. /The Human Tragedy/ is not written in the style of a play, with all the lines spoken by characters. It was written as a narrative poem (as you at least have admitted, whether NG does or not), and it remained a narrative poem after he revised it.
> > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/-Gaq3wjWZjY/m/ErVQpFI5BgAJ
> > > > Why do you lie so much, Dunce?
> > > What are you claiming is a "lie", Lying Michael? Are you saying it's a lie that NG found "two more sources that don't say /The Human Tragedy/ is a play" when it turns out they found a third source that doesn't say it's a play?
> > >
> > I'm saying that NancyGene posted corroborative evidence that it is a play. I'm also accusing you of intentionally ignoring said evidence.
> Well, you're wrong again, Michael. NG, for all their scouring of the web, has not found one source that agrees with you two that /The Human Tragedy/ is a play rather than a narrative poem.
> > > > Why do you think that you won't be caught in your lies, whey you always are?
> > > Why do you think that if you stamp your little foot and scream "YOU'RE LYING!" in a thread, anyone besides your Goon and your Asstroll will believe you?
>
> > I think that you were caught dead to rights, Dunce.
> > I reposted NancyGene's evidence, which you're still pretending doesn't exist.
> Obviously you can't mean what you just reposted here, since I went to the trouble of replying to it again (which I couldn't do if it I were pretending it "doesn't exist", could I?). If NG posted something else in their troll-thread about the poem, then feel free to repost that instead.
> > If you can *refute* NancyGene's evidence with *evidence from reputable* sources, go ahead.
> The only "evidence" I've seen from NG here is that Austin wrote plays as well as narrative poems. Since I've already told you) the same thing, why should I try to "refute" that?
> > If not, you're the one who's stomping his feet.
> > > > Are you delusional, dense, or both?
> > > Are you still pretending that you three aren't in this thread just to troll?
> > No one wants to troll you, Dunce.
> That protestation would have been more convincing if you'd dropped the name-calling for at least that one sentence. As it is, methinks the Peabrain doth protest too much.
> > I was not familiar with Mr. Austin, and based on the reviews (provided by NancyGene), "The Human Tragedy" looks worthy of my attention.
> IOW, you want to know if the poem is good or bad before you read it. As I've said, you've got that exactly exactly backwards. if you want to know how good the poem is, try reading some of it.
> >
> > NancyGene magnanimously corrected your errors
>
> No, Michael, you're simply repeating old and refuted lies, again. NastyGoon tried to "correct" the lines I'd posted, but failed: thg lines they called "definitive" turned out to have come from an earlier draft that Austin had withdrawn from circulation.
> > , and has provided additional information regarding both the poet and the play. Yet you insist on pettily attacking her over semantics -- when her referring to it as a "play" is perfectly acceptable (and most likely in keeping with the author's intent).
> Of course it's "acceptable" to you if NG calls Austin's epic a play - whatever your allies come up with is "acceptable" to you. They're your allies, after all. If NG called Austin's poem a dildo, you'd probably try to shove the book up your ass. But that would not make the book a dildo, any more than calling it a "play "makes it a play.
> >
> > In short, you're a petty, ungrateful Dunce, who launches childish attacks against anyone who corrects his mistakes.
> And yet you insist, while spewing your monkeyshit shit like the above, that you're *not* trolling, and you're *not* having a meltdown. As I explained, that's why you come across as hyporcritical and duplicitous.
> > I'm here both to support NancyGene
> And NG is here to support you. But, duplicitous little shit that you are, you insist that you're *not* a team.
> > , and to learn more about Mr. Austin and his play.
> Then open the book and start reading it. Reading a book or a poem -- not collecting second-hand opinions of it -- is the way to learn something about it.
> > You're the asshole who brought the childish name-calling into play.
> Sorry, Michael, but that statement of yours has already been shown to be falase: 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>
>
> Which allows me to ask another perennial question: Why do you lie so much, Michael Monkey?

Why do you lie so much dance?

On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 4:35:42 AM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
> On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 10:25:16 AM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 4:54:30 PM UTC-5, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 1:55:15 PM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
> > > > > NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 12:23:56 PM UTC, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > We also see in “The Argus,” Friday, January 8, 1896, “The New Poet Laureate:” “His most ambitious work, The Human Tragedy, appeared in the year following [1862], but was afterwards withdrawn from circulation, and reissued in a revised form some years later. It attracted scarcely any attention in England, and the unmerited indifference exhibited towards it by the writer's own countrymen was reprehended at the time by the Revue des Deux Mondes. Mr. Austin developed in this poem the human tragedy in Its religious, romantic, ethnical, and humanitarian aspects; and the disappointment occasioned by its failure served to infuse a good deal of bitterness into his next work, The Golden Age, a satire […]."
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmmm ... that's two more sources that don't say /The Human Tragedy/ is a play. After three weeks, the only people you've found claiming it is one are yourself and your Bandar-Log "colleague".
> > > > >
> > > > Hmm... Lying Dunce. On Nov 3, 2023, 5:16:13 PM, NancyGene posted the following:
> > > > George Dance thinks we are catty by saying that Mr. Austin wasn't held in high esteem as a poet.
> Which is not true, BTW.
> He should also take that up with Britannica.
> > > Sounds like NastyGoon is trying, and failing, to read my mind again. In fact, I said their claim that Austin wasn't a good poet was catty.
> > > > "His [Alfred Austin's] acerbic criticism and jingoistic verse in the 1870s led Robert Browning to dismiss him as a 'Banjo-Byron,' and his appointment to the laureateship in 1896 was much mocked. He also published a series of stiff verse dramas, some novels, and a good deal of lyrical but very minor nature poetry."
> > > > https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alfred-Austin
> > >
> > > > Hmm, verse dramas! "These plays contain poetic elements, like rhyming lines, and more commonly, lines that are written in blank verse. They might also be structured in a way that makes them appear more like stanzas than paragraphs or individual lines of dialogue."
> > > > https://poemanalysis.com/genre/poetic-drama/#:~:text=These%20plays%20contain%20poetic%20elements,or%20individual%20lines%20of%20dialogue.
> > > Michael, I already told you two that Austin wrote verse dramas. He published 8 verse dramas; /The Human Tragedy/ wasn't one of them.
> > Based on what evidence?
> The evidence that I've already given you, Michael. /The Human Tragedy/ is not written in the style of a play, with all the lines spoken by characters. It was written as a narrative poem (as you at least have admitted, whether NG does or not), and it remained a narrative poem after he revised it.
> > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/-Gaq3wjWZjY/m/ErVQpFI5BgAJ
> > > > Why do you lie so much, Dunce?
> > > What are you claiming is a "lie", Lying Michael? Are you saying it's a lie that NG found "two more sources that don't say /The Human Tragedy/ is a play" when it turns out they found a third source that doesn't say it's a play?
> > >
> > I'm saying that NancyGene posted corroborative evidence that it is a play. I'm also accusing you of intentionally ignoring said evidence.
> Well, you're wrong again, Michael. NG, for all their scouring of the web, has not found one source that agrees with you two that /The Human Tragedy/ is a play rather than a narrative poem.
> > > > Why do you think that you won't be caught in your lies, whey you always are?
> > > Why do you think that if you stamp your little foot and scream "YOU'RE LYING!" in a thread, anyone besides your Goon and your Asstroll will believe you?
>
> > I think that you were caught dead to rights, Dunce.
> > I reposted NancyGene's evidence, which you're still pretending doesn't exist.
> Obviously you can't mean what you just reposted here, since I went to the trouble of replying to it again (which I couldn't do if it I were pretending it "doesn't exist", could I?). If NG posted something else in their troll-thread about the poem, then feel free to repost that instead.
> > If you can *refute* NancyGene's evidence with *evidence from reputable* sources, go ahead.
> The only "evidence" I've seen from NG here is that Austin wrote plays as well as narrative poems. Since I've already told you) the same thing, why should I try to "refute" that?
> > If not, you're the one who's stomping his feet.
> > > > Are you delusional, dense, or both?
> > > Are you still pretending that you three aren't in this thread just to troll?
> > No one wants to troll you, Dunce.
> That protestation would have been more convincing if you'd dropped the name-calling for at least that one sentence. As it is, methinks the Peabrain doth protest too much.
> > I was not familiar with Mr. Austin, and based on the reviews (provided by NancyGene), "The Human Tragedy" looks worthy of my attention.
> IOW, you want to know if the poem is good or bad before you read it. As I've said, you've got that exactly exactly backwards. if you want to know how good the poem is, try reading some of it.
> >
> > NancyGene magnanimously corrected your errors
>
> No, Michael, you're simply repeating old and refuted lies, again. NastyGoon tried to "correct" the lines I'd posted, but failed: thg lines they called "definitive" turned out to have come from an earlier draft that Austin had withdrawn from circulation.
> > , and has provided additional information regarding both the poet and the play. Yet you insist on pettily attacking her over semantics -- when her referring to it as a "play" is perfectly acceptable (and most likely in keeping with the author's intent).
> Of course it's "acceptable" to you if NG calls Austin's epic a play - whatever your allies come up with is "acceptable" to you. They're your allies, after all. If NG called Austin's poem a dildo, you'd probably try to shove the book up your ass. But that would not make the book a dildo, any more than calling it a "play "makes it a play.
> >
> > In short, you're a petty, ungrateful Dunce, who launches childish attacks against anyone who corrects his mistakes.
> And yet you insist, while spewing your monkeyshit shit like the above, that you're *not* trolling, and you're *not* having a meltdown. As I explained, that's why you come across as hyporcritical and duplicitous.
> > I'm here both to support NancyGene
> And NG is here to support you. But, duplicitous little shit that you are, you insist that you're *not* a team.
> > , and to learn more about Mr. Austin and his play.
> Then open the book and start reading it. Reading a book or a poem -- not collecting second-hand opinions of it -- is the way to learn something about it.
> > You're the asshole who brought the childish name-calling into play.
> Sorry, Michael, but that statement of yours has already been shown to be falase: 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>
>
> Which allows me to ask another perennial question: Why do you lie so much, Michael Monkey?

You know Pendragon, if he's typing, he's probably lying.

🙂

On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 3:47:59 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 4:35:42 AM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 8:00:38 PM UTC-5, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > On Thursday, November 9, 2023 at 10:25:16 AM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
> > > > On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 4:54:30 PM UTC-5, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 1:55:15 PM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
> > > > > > NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 12:23:56 PM UTC, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > We also see in “The Argus,” Friday, January 8, 1896, “The New Poet Laureate:” “His most ambitious work, The Human Tragedy, appeared in the year following [1862], but was afterwards withdrawn from circulation, and reissued in a revised form some years later. It attracted scarcely any attention in England, and the unmerited indifference exhibited towards it by the writer's own countrymen was reprehended at the time by the Revue des Deux Mondes. Mr. Austin developed in this poem the human tragedy in Its religious, romantic, ethnical, and humanitarian aspects; and the disappointment occasioned by its failure served to infuse a good deal of bitterness into his next work, The Golden Age, a satire […]."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hmmm ... that's two more sources that don't say /The Human Tragedy/ is a play. After three weeks, the only people you've found claiming it is one are yourself and your Bandar-Log "colleague".
> > > > > >
> > > > > Hmm... Lying Dunce. On Nov 3, 2023, 5:16:13 PM, NancyGene posted the following:
> > > > > George Dance thinks we are catty by saying that Mr. Austin wasn't held in high esteem as a poet.
> > Which is not true, BTW.
> > He should also take that up with Britannica.
> > > > Sounds like NastyGoon is trying, and failing, to read my mind again.. In fact, I said their claim that Austin wasn't a good poet was catty.
> > > > > "His [Alfred Austin's] acerbic criticism and jingoistic verse in the 1870s led Robert Browning to dismiss him as a 'Banjo-Byron,' and his appointment to the laureateship in 1896 was much mocked. He also published a series of stiff verse dramas, some novels, and a good deal of lyrical but very minor nature poetry."
> > > > > https://www.britannica.com/biography/Alfred-Austin
> > > >
> > > > > Hmm, verse dramas! "These plays contain poetic elements, like rhyming lines, and more commonly, lines that are written in blank verse. They might also be structured in a way that makes them appear more like stanzas than paragraphs or individual lines of dialogue."
> > > > > https://poemanalysis.com/genre/poetic-drama/#:~:text=These%20plays%20contain%20poetic%20elements,or%20individual%20lines%20of%20dialogue.
> > > > Michael, I already told you two that Austin wrote verse dramas. He published 8 verse dramas; /The Human Tragedy/ wasn't one of them.
> > > Based on what evidence?
> > The evidence that I've already given you, Michael. /The Human Tragedy/ is not written in the style of a play, with all the lines spoken by characters. It was written as a narrative poem (as you at least have admitted, whether NG does or not), and it remained a narrative poem after he revised it.
> > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/-Gaq3wjWZjY/m/ErVQpFI5BgAJ
> > > > > Why do you lie so much, Dunce?
> > > > What are you claiming is a "lie", Lying Michael? Are you saying it's a lie that NG found "two more sources that don't say /The Human Tragedy/ is a play" when it turns out they found a third source that doesn't say it's a play?
> > > >
> > > I'm saying that NancyGene posted corroborative evidence that it is a play. I'm also accusing you of intentionally ignoring said evidence.
> > Well, you're wrong again, Michael. NG, for all their scouring of the web, has not found one source that agrees with you two that /The Human Tragedy/ is a play rather than a narrative poem.
> > > > > Why do you think that you won't be caught in your lies, whey you always are?
> > > > Why do you think that if you stamp your little foot and scream "YOU'RE LYING!" in a thread, anyone besides your Goon and your Asstroll will believe you?
> >
> > > I think that you were caught dead to rights, Dunce.
> > > I reposted NancyGene's evidence, which you're still pretending doesn't exist.
> > Obviously you can't mean what you just reposted here, since I went to the trouble of replying to it again (which I couldn't do if it I were pretending it "doesn't exist", could I?). If NG posted something else in their troll-thread about the poem, then feel free to repost that instead.
> > > If you can *refute* NancyGene's evidence with *evidence from reputable* sources, go ahead.
> > The only "evidence" I've seen from NG here is that Austin wrote plays as well as narrative poems. Since I've already told you) the same thing, why should I try to "refute" that?
> > > If not, you're the one who's stomping his feet.
> > > > > Are you delusional, dense, or both?
> > > > Are you still pretending that you three aren't in this thread just to troll?
> > > No one wants to troll you, Dunce.
> > That protestation would have been more convincing if you'd dropped the name-calling for at least that one sentence. As it is, methinks the Peabrain doth protest too much.
> > > I was not familiar with Mr. Austin, and based on the reviews (provided by NancyGene), "The Human Tragedy" looks worthy of my attention.
> > IOW, you want to know if the poem is good or bad before you read it. As I've said, you've got that exactly exactly backwards. if you want to know how good the poem is, try reading some of it.
> > >
> > > NancyGene magnanimously corrected your errors
> >
> > No, Michael, you're simply repeating old and refuted lies, again. NastyGoon tried to "correct" the lines I'd posted, but failed: thg lines they called "definitive" turned out to have come from an earlier draft that Austin had withdrawn from circulation.
> > > , and has provided additional information regarding both the poet and the play. Yet you insist on pettily attacking her over semantics -- when her referring to it as a "play" is perfectly acceptable (and most likely in keeping with the author's intent).
> > Of course it's "acceptable" to you if NG calls Austin's epic a play - whatever your allies come up with is "acceptable" to you. They're your allies, after all. If NG called Austin's poem a dildo, you'd probably try to shove the book up your ass. But that would not make the book a dildo, any more than calling it a "play "makes it a play.
> > >
> > > In short, you're a petty, ungrateful Dunce, who launches childish attacks against anyone who corrects his mistakes.
> > And yet you insist, while spewing your monkeyshit shit like the above, that you're *not* trolling, and you're *not* having a meltdown. As I explained, that's why you come across as hyporcritical and duplicitous.
> > > I'm here both to support NancyGene
> > And NG is here to support you. But, duplicitous little shit that you are, you insist that you're *not* a team.
> > > , and to learn more about Mr. Austin and his play.
> > Then open the book and start reading it. Reading a book or a poem -- not collecting second-hand opinions of it -- is the way to learn something about it.
> > > You're the asshole who brought the childish name-calling into play.
> > Sorry, Michael, but that statement of yours has already been shown to be falase: 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>
> >
> > Which allows me to ask another perennial question: Why do you lie so much, Michael Monkey?
> You know Pendragon, if he's typing, he's probably lying.

And so are you too, then -- by your own laming ASSertions. I told you I would make you fools eat your words-- I was just off busy with my old "company" while people went 'round 'n 'round with Dance, getting no where-

On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 4:26:10 AM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
> NancyGene wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 3:02:53 AM UTC-9, NancyGene wrote:
> >> On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 10:51:30 AM UTC-9, NancyGene wrote:
> >> > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:23:26 PM UTC-2, ME wrote:
> >> > > On Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 14:09:04 UTC-5, ME wrote:
> >> > > > On Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 13:52:41 UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> >> > > > > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 3:05:33 AM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
>
> >> > > > > > So where is your quote from "Austin's Preface" Michael? Or anywhere else that Austin allegedly says that he 'wanted [The Human Tragedy] to be thought of as "Dramatic Verse"' and/or that 'he believed [Dramatic Verse] "to be the highest form of poetry'?
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > AND:
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > > I can't "refute" evidence that you don't supply, Michael. You've given us no evidence that Austin thought Dramatic Verse was "the highest form of poetry" or that he tried to turn /The Human Tragedy/ into Dramatic Verse. (Even your "AllPoetry" quote doesn't say that, BTW.)
> >> > > > > __________
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > “On the Position and Prospects of Poetry”
> >> > > > > Alfred Austin, pp. xxii and xxiii
> >> > > > > in:
> >> > > > > “THE HUMAN TRAGEDY
> >> > > > > BY ALFRED AUSTIN
> >> > > > > NEW AND REVISED EDITION
> >> > > > > LONDON
> >> > > > > MACMILLAN AND CO.
> >> > > > > AND NEW YORK
> >> > > > > 1889”
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > “[…] so is there an ascending scale of growth and dignity in Poetry, represented by Descriptive, Lyrical, Reflective, and Epic or Dramatic Poetry; the highest Poetry being epic and dramatic poetry, because, in their full development, epic and dramatic poetry include and employ all other kinds of poetry, whereas in other forms of poetry they themselves are not included. This is what Milton must have had in mind when he penned the lines in ‘Paradise Regained’—
> >> > > > >
> >> > > > > ‘Aeolian charms and Dorian lyric odes,
> >> > > > > And his who gave them birth, but higher sung,
> >> > > > > Blind Melesigenes, then Homer called.’ “
> >> > > > And their circle jerk goes on …….
> >> > > As I said….,
> >> > George Dance will state his question another way, deny that he doubted that Austin said what he said, and call us names. He will sneak our research into his bllaaarrrggg and call it his.
> >> The proof is in the preface, George Dance.
>
> > George Dance stated in another thread: "Then open the book and start reading it. Reading a book or a poem -- not collecting second-hand opinions of it -- is the way to learn something about it."
> Indeed, NastyGoon. Since your monkey has bothered to read any of Austin's poem, his opinion of it is entirely based on second-hand opinions. Same for you; you may have read the 8 lines you copied, but there's no sign that you've read anything else, and your opinions (that it's a "play" and a not very good one) has also been based entirely on second-hand opinions.
> > George Dance doesn't practice this philosophy, since George Dance obviously didn't read Austin's preface to "The Human Tragedy," or George Dance would have known that Austin considered epic and dramatic poetry to be the highest poetry.
> The problem with that bit of Bandar-logic, NastyGoon, is that I did know that "Austin considered epic and dramatic poetry to be the highest poetry" and you know that I do, since you've already read me saying that:
> <quote>
> > > >> > > >> {Alfred Austin] believed that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest or greatest form of poetry, and that great poetry must be narrative poetry.</q>
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/FRQDPlBv69M/m/tYyZ547SBwAJ?hl=en
>
> We know that you've read that, as it's in the same post from which you copied the quotes you used to open this thread. Was your only reason for opening a new thread to misrepresent the discussion?

True, it's a form of deflection.

> > We don't think that George Dance fully reads any of the poems that George Dance features on George Dance's blaaarrrggg.
> Now, now I've never said that I've "fully" read Austin's 10,000-line epic.. But of course I've read some of it, more than than what I've blogged, and more than enough to know that it's not a "play" (as you still insist on calling it).
>
> And, of course, both you and your monkey have to pretend that I haven't read any of it, since:
> (1) He still hasn't read any of Austin's poem, while you appear to have read no more than the 8 lines you Googled; and
> (2) You're both trying to pretend that you know more about the poem than I do.
> Given that, the two of you have to pretend that I haven't read any of it, either.

(Moved from the troll thread)

Will Dockery wrote:

> On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 4:26:10 AM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
>> NancyGene wrote:
>>
>> > On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 3:02:53 AM UTC-9, NancyGene wrote:
>> >> On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 10:51:30 AM UTC-9, NancyGene wrote:
>> >> > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:23:26 PM UTC-2, ME wrote:
>> >> > > On Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 14:09:04 UTC-5, ME wrote:
>> >> > > > On Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 13:52:41 UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
>> >> > > > > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 3:05:33 AM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > > > So where is your quote from "Austin's Preface" Michael? Or anywhere else that Austin allegedly says that he 'wanted [The Human Tragedy] to be thought of as "Dramatic Verse"' and/or that 'he believed [Dramatic Verse] "to be the highest form of poetry'?
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > AND:
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > > I can't "refute" evidence that you don't supply, Michael. You've given us no evidence that Austin thought Dramatic Verse was "the highest form of poetry" or that he tried to turn /The Human Tragedy/ into Dramatic Verse. (Even your "AllPoetry" quote doesn't say that, BTW.)
>> >> > > > > __________
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > “On the Position and Prospects of Poetry”
>> >> > > > > Alfred Austin, pp. xxii and xxiii
>> >> > > > > in:
>> >> > > > > “THE HUMAN TRAGEDY
>> >> > > > > BY ALFRED AUSTIN
>> >> > > > > NEW AND REVISED EDITION
>> >> > > > > LONDON
>> >> > > > > MACMILLAN AND CO.
>> >> > > > > AND NEW YORK
>> >> > > > > 1889”
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > “[…] so is there an ascending scale of growth and dignity in Poetry, represented by Descriptive, Lyrical, Reflective, and Epic or Dramatic Poetry; the highest Poetry being epic and dramatic poetry, because, in their full development, epic and dramatic poetry include and employ all other kinds of poetry, whereas in other forms of poetry they themselves are not included. This is what Milton must have had in mind when he penned the lines in ‘Paradise Regained’—
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > ‘Aeolian charms and Dorian lyric odes,
>> >> > > > > And his who gave them birth, but higher sung,
>> >> > > > > Blind Melesigenes, then Homer called.’ “
>> >> > > > And their circle jerk goes on …….
>> >> > > As I said….,
>> >> > George Dance will state his question another way, deny that he doubted that Austin said what he said, and call us names. He will sneak our research into his bllaaarrrggg and call it his.
>> >> The proof is in the preface, George Dance.
>>
>> > George Dance stated in another thread: "Then open the book and start reading it. Reading a book or a poem -- not collecting second-hand opinions of it -- is the way to learn something about it."
>> Indeed, NastyGoon. Since your monkey has bothered to read any of Austin's poem, his opinion of it is entirely based on second-hand opinions. Same for you; you may have read the 8 lines you copied, but there's no sign that you've read anything else, and your opinions (that it's a "play" and a not very good one) has also been based entirely on second-hand opinions.
>> > George Dance doesn't practice this philosophy, since George Dance obviously didn't read Austin's preface to "The Human Tragedy," or George Dance would have known that Austin considered epic and dramatic poetry to be the highest poetry.
>> The problem with that bit of Bandar-logic, NastyGoon, is that I did know that "Austin considered epic and dramatic poetry to be the highest poetry" and you know that I do, since you've already read me saying that:
>> <quote>
>> > > >> > > >> {Alfred Austin] believed that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest or greatest form of poetry, and that great poetry must be narrative poetry.</q>
>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/FRQDPlBv69M/m/tYyZ547SBwAJ?hl=en
>>
>> We know that you've read that, as it's in the same post from which you copied the quotes you used to open this thread. Was your only reason for opening a new thread to misrepresent the discussion?

> True, it's a form of deflection.

>> > We don't think that George Dance fully reads any of the poems that George Dance features on George Dance's blaaarrrggg.
>> Now, now I've never said that I've "fully" read Austin's 10,000-line epic.. But of course I've read some of it, more than than what I've blogged, and more than enough to know that it's not a "play" (as you still insist on calling it).
>>
>> And, of course, both you and your monkey have to pretend that I haven't read any of it, since:
>> (1) He still hasn't read any of Austin's poem, while you appear to have read no more than the 8 lines you Googled; and
>> (2) You're both trying to pretend that you know more about the poem than I do.
>> Given that, the two of you have to pretend that I haven't read any of it, either.

> (Moved from the troll thread)

Quite right...!

On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 4:30:18 PM UTC-5, General-Zod wrote:
> Will Dockery wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 4:26:10 AM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
> >> NancyGene wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 3:02:53 AM UTC-9, NancyGene wrote:
> >> >> On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 10:51:30 AM UTC-9, NancyGene wrote:
> >> >> > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:23:26 PM UTC-2, ME wrote:
> >> >> > > On Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 14:09:04 UTC-5, ME wrote:
> >> >> > > > On Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 13:52:41 UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> >> >> > > > > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 3:05:33 AM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
> >>
> >> >> > > > > > So where is your quote from "Austin's Preface" Michael? Or anywhere else that Austin allegedly says that he 'wanted [The Human Tragedy] to be thought of as "Dramatic Verse"' and/or that 'he believed [Dramatic Verse] "to be the highest form of poetry'?
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > AND:
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > I can't "refute" evidence that you don't supply, Michael. You've given us no evidence that Austin thought Dramatic Verse was "the highest form of poetry" or that he tried to turn /The Human Tragedy/ into Dramatic Verse. (Even your "AllPoetry" quote doesn't say that, BTW.)
> >> >> > > > > __________
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > “On the Position and Prospects of Poetry”
> >> >> > > > > Alfred Austin, pp. xxii and xxiii
> >> >> > > > > in:
> >> >> > > > > “THE HUMAN TRAGEDY
> >> >> > > > > BY ALFRED AUSTIN
> >> >> > > > > NEW AND REVISED EDITION
> >> >> > > > > LONDON
> >> >> > > > > MACMILLAN AND CO.
> >> >> > > > > AND NEW YORK
> >> >> > > > > 1889”
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > “[…] so is there an ascending scale of growth and dignity in Poetry, represented by Descriptive, Lyrical, Reflective, and Epic or Dramatic Poetry; the highest Poetry being epic and dramatic poetry, because, in their full development, epic and dramatic poetry include and employ all other kinds of poetry, whereas in other forms of poetry they themselves are not included. This is what Milton must have had in mind when he penned the lines in ‘Paradise Regained’—
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > ‘Aeolian charms and Dorian lyric odes,
> >> >> > > > > And his who gave them birth, but higher sung,
> >> >> > > > > Blind Melesigenes, then Homer called.’ “
> >> >> > > > And their circle jerk goes on …….
> >> >> > > As I said….,
> >> >> > George Dance will state his question another way, deny that he doubted that Austin said what he said, and call us names. He will sneak our research into his bllaaarrrggg and call it his.
> >> >> The proof is in the preface, George Dance.
> >>
> >> > George Dance stated in another thread: "Then open the book and start reading it. Reading a book or a poem -- not collecting second-hand opinions of it -- is the way to learn something about it."
> >> Indeed, NastyGoon. Since your monkey has bothered to read any of Austin's poem, his opinion of it is entirely based on second-hand opinions. Same for you; you may have read the 8 lines you copied, but there's no sign that you've read anything else, and your opinions (that it's a "play" and a not very good one) has also been based entirely on second-hand opinions.
> >> > George Dance doesn't practice this philosophy, since George Dance obviously didn't read Austin's preface to "The Human Tragedy," or George Dance would have known that Austin considered epic and dramatic poetry to be the highest poetry.
> >> The problem with that bit of Bandar-logic, NastyGoon, is that I did know that "Austin considered epic and dramatic poetry to be the highest poetry" and you know that I do, since you've already read me saying that:
> >> <quote>
> >> > > >> > > >> {Alfred Austin] believed that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest or greatest form of poetry, and that great poetry must be narrative poetry.</q>
> >> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/FRQDPlBv69M/m/tYyZ547SBwAJ?hl=en
> >>
> >> We know that you've read that, as it's in the same post from which you copied the quotes you used to open this thread. Was your only reason for opening a new thread to misrepresent the discussion?
>
> > True, it's a form of deflection.
>
> >> > We don't think that George Dance fully reads any of the poems that George Dance features on George Dance's blaaarrrggg.
> >> Now, now I've never said that I've "fully" read Austin's 10,000-line epic.. But of course I've read some of it, more than than what I've blogged, and more than enough to know that it's not a "play" (as you still insist on calling it).
> >>
> >> And, of course, both you and your monkey have to pretend that I haven't read any of it, since:
> >> (1) He still hasn't read any of Austin's poem, while you appear to have read no more than the 8 lines you Googled; and
> >> (2) You're both trying to pretend that you know more about the poem than I do.
> >> Given that, the two of you have to pretend that I haven't read any of it, either.
>
> > (Moved from the troll thread)
> Quite right...!

NancyGene is just another poetry newsgroup troll, so what do you expect?

🙂

On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 6:05:28 AM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
> Michael Pendragon wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 4:45:58 AM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
> >> NancyGene wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 3:02:53 AM UTC-9, NancyGene wrote:
> >> >> On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 10:51:30 AM UTC-9, NancyGene wrote:
> >> >> > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:23:26 PM UTC-2, ME wrote:
> >> >> > > On Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 14:09:04 UTC-5, ME wrote:
> >> >> > > > On Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 13:52:41 UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> >> >> > > > > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 3:05:33 AM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
>
> >> >> > > > > > So where is your quote from "Austin's Preface" Michael? Or anywhere else that Austin allegedly says that he 'wanted [The Human Tragedy] to be thought of as "Dramatic Verse"' and/or that 'he believed [Dramatic Verse] "to be the highest form of poetry'?
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > AND:
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > I can't "refute" evidence that you don't supply, Michael. You've given us no evidence that Austin thought Dramatic Verse was "the highest form of poetry" or that he tried to turn /The Human Tragedy/ into Dramatic Verse. (Even your "AllPoetry" quote doesn't say that, BTW.)
> >> >> > > > > __________
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > “On the Position and Prospects of Poetry”
> >> >> > > > > Alfred Austin, pp. xxii and xxiii
> >> >> > > > > in:
> >> >> > > > > “THE HUMAN TRAGEDY
> >> >> > > > > BY ALFRED AUSTIN
> >> >> > > > > NEW AND REVISED EDITION
> >> >> > > > > LONDON
> >> >> > > > > MACMILLAN AND CO.
> >> >> > > > > AND NEW YORK
> >> >> > > > > 1889”
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > “[…] so is there an ascending scale of growth and dignity in Poetry, represented by Descriptive, Lyrical, Reflective, and Epic or Dramatic Poetry; the highest Poetry being epic and dramatic poetry, because, in their full development, epic and dramatic poetry include and employ all other kinds of poetry, whereas in other forms of poetry they themselves are not included. This is what Milton must have had in mind when he penned the lines in ‘Paradise Regained’—
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > ‘Aeolian charms and Dorian lyric odes,
> >> >> > > > > And his who gave them birth, but higher sung,
> >> >> > > > > Blind Melesigenes, then Homer called.’ “
> >> >> > > > And their circle jerk goes on …….
> >> >> > > As I said….,
> >> >> > George Dance will state his question another way, deny that he doubted that Austin said what he said, and call us names. He will sneak our research into his bllaaarrrggg and call it his.
> >> >> The proof is in the preface, George Dance.
> >>
> >> > George Dance stated in another thread: "Then open the book and start reading it. Reading a book or a poem -- not collecting second-hand opinions of it -- is the way to learn something about it."
> >> Indeed I did, NastyGoon. We were discussing your catty dismissal of Austin as a "not a very good poet" (or however you put it), which was based entirely on second-hand opinions; but it applies to him as well, since he hasn't read any of it either.
>
> > HINT: When you use a pronoun ("him"), it's advisable to first establish the identity of the individual to whom you would have it apply.
> I got a 503 error when I posted my message, so I rewrote it and reposted. "His" identity is given there. As if that mattered; I'm sure that "he" recognized himself immediately.
> >> > George Dance doesn't practice this philosophy, since George Dance obviously didn't read Austin's preface to "The Human Tragedy," or George Dance would have known that Austin considered epic and dramatic poetry to be the highest poetry.
> >> The problem with that, NastyGoon, is that I did know "that Austin considered epic and dramatic poetry to be the highest poetry" and and you already know that; since you've read where I've stated it:
> >> <quote>
> >> > > >> > > >> {Alfred Austin] believed that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest or greatest form of poetry, and that great poetry must be narrative poetry. </q>
> >> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/FRQDPlBv69M/m/tYyZ547SBwAJ?hl=en
>
> > NOTE: I'm the one who pointed that out to you, Dunce.
> Now, that's not exactly true, Michael. This is what you've been purportedly "pointing out":
> <quote> Oct 24, 2023, 10:55:02 AM:
> 'Mr. Austin's" Dramatic Verse" could be referred to as a "play" or a "poem." That's what "Dramatic Verse" is.[...]
> 'Mr. Austin's poem falls under the same category as Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound" (as NancyGene has noted) and Byron's "Manfred."
> 'I have cited passages from Mr. Austin's biography (at All Poetry) and from the Preface of the 1879 and 1889 editions of his poem that support this conclusion.' [...]
> 'The fact that he *chose* to separate it into Acts shows that he wanted it to be thought of as "Dramatic Verse" (which is what he believed to be the highest form of poetry, and which he felt was exemplified in the plays of William Shakespeare).'
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/FAv8zWFQ-lo/m/H7Fv0puqBAAJ?hl=en
>
> IOW: you were the first to *post on AAPC* that Austin believed there was a "highest form" of literature. But you were mistaken about what he thought that "highest form" was. Since rather than admit your mistake you doubled down on it, the logical conclusion is that you're now lying about what Austin actually wrote.
> > Prior to that time, you had no knowledge of it whatsoever.
> > I am so glad, Lying Michael, that you managed to show what a liar you are just before you leveled that accusation.
> >> We know you read that, since it's from the very post you copied the quotes in your OP for this thread. Was your only reason for opening a new thread so that you could misrepresent the discussion?
> >>
>
> > Since you've already spread this discussion over several threads, this new thread makes the topic (Mr. Austin's evaluation of dramatic verse) easy to locate.
> Now you're being dishonest again, Lying Michael. As those of us who can count know, your NastyGoon (whoS BEEN trying to prove Austin's epic /The Human Tragedy/ is a plAy) has both made more posts and opened more threads on the subject than I have. This is a NastyGoon thread, for instance, one I only recently discovered.
> >> > We don't think that George Dance fully reads any of the poems that George Dance features on George Dance's blaaarrrggg.
> >> Well, of course you'd think that. After all, you know that you and your monkey don't read the poems, but you also want to believe that you know more about them than I do; so of course you'd want to believe that I don't read them, either.
> >>
>
> > When I haven't read a poem, I always clearly state that fact.
>
> > With the exception of book-length poems, like Mr. Austin's, I always read them prior to responding.
> No one expects you to have read *all* of Austin's >10,000-line epic, Michael. As I said in the repost I mentioned, I sure haven't read all of it, either. But, in this case, one doesn't have to: anyone who reads even the first page of a poem can tell right away whether it's a narrative poem or a play. And, since you're still claiming that his epic is a play (a "closet drqama" in your words), the logical conclusion is that you haven't even read that much.
> > Why do you lie so much, Dunce?
> When Lying Michael is caught in a lie,
> There's one trick he is sure to try --
> "I know you are, but what am !"
> - from "TYhe Ballad of Lying Michael" (a work in progress)

Well put, and moved from the troll thread.

🙂

Will Dockery wrote:

> (Moved from the troll thread)

I snipped all that, since it's in the archives and we don't have to keep reading it. But I do think it's a good idea that you (and Zod?) had, to copy some of the best posts from NG's multiple troll threads on the topic, so that someone who reads only the official PPB threads can still follow the full discussion on the poem. IN that light, here's a good one I wrote this morning. (As a personal bonus, reposting it allows me to quickly proof and clean up my own copy.

NancyGene wrote:

> On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 9:45:58 PM UTC+12, George J. wrote:
>> NancyGene wrote:
>>
>> > On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 3:02:53 AM UTC-9, NancyGene wrote:
>> >> On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 10:51:30 AM UTC-9, NancyGene wrote:
>> >> > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:23:26 PM UTC-2, ME wrote:
>> >> > > On Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 14:09:04 UTC-5, ME wrote:
>> >> > > > On Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 13:52:41 UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
>> >> > > > > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 3:05:33 AM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > > So where is your quote from "Austin's Preface" Michael? Or anywhere else that Austin allegedly says that he 'wanted [The Human Tragedy] to be thought of as "Dramatic Verse"' and/or that 'he believed [Dramatic Verse] "to be the highest form of poetry'?
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > AND:
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > > I can't "refute" evidence that you don't supply, Michael. You've given us no evidence that Austin thought Dramatic Verse was "the highest form of poetry" or that he tried to turn /The Human Tragedy/ into Dramatic Verse. (Even your "AllPoetry" quote doesn't say that, BTW.)
>> >> > > > > __________
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > “On the Position and Prospects of Poetry”
>> >> > > > > Alfred Austin, pp. xxii and xxiii
>> >> > > > > in:
>> >> > > > > “THE HUMAN TRAGEDY
>> >> > > > > BY ALFRED AUSTIN
>> >> > > > > NEW AND REVISED EDITION
>> >> > > > > LONDON
>> >> > > > > MACMILLAN AND CO.
>> >> > > > > AND NEW YORK
>> >> > > > > 1889”
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > “[…] so is there an ascending scale of growth and dignity in Poetry, represented by Descriptive, Lyrical, Reflective, and Epic or Dramatic Poetry; the highest Poetry being epic and dramatic poetry, because, in their full development, epic and dramatic poetry include and employ all other kinds of poetry, whereas in other forms of poetry they themselves are not included. This is what Milton must have had in mind when he penned the lines in ‘Paradise Regained’—
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > ‘Aeolian charms and Dorian lyric odes,
>> >> > > > > And his who gave them birth, but higher sung,
>> >> > > > > Blind Melesigenes, then Homer called.’ “
>> >> > > > And their circle jerk goes on …….
>> >> > > As I said….,
>> >> > George Dance will state his question another way, deny that he doubted that Austin said what he said, and call us names. He will sneak our research into his bllaaarrrggg and call it his.
>> >> The proof is in the preface, George Dance.
>>
>> > George Dance stated in another thread: "Then open the book and start reading it. Reading a book or a poem -- not collecting second-hand opinions of it -- is the way to learn something about it."
>> Indeed I did, NastyGoon. We were discussing your catty dismissal of Austin as a "not a very good poet" (or however you put it), which was based entirely on second-hand opinions; but it applies to him as well, since he hasn't read any of it either.
> The opinions were from critics of the day, contemporary with Austin. Do you ignore all reviews and opinions from qualified people, in favor of just your own opinion?

Oh, no, NastyGoon, you're misunderstanding again. One should read all the reviews. However, when it comes to believing[...]ng him. you have to use your own judgement, put them in context, and consider the sources. The "opinions ... of the day" have actually been from other poets, Austin's competitors. Poets like Browning and Blunt were not dispassionate critics: they were convinced that they were "better" poets than Austin [...] (and may have been; I'm not getting into that), so it's reasonable to think they were both jealous and butthurt when Austin became Poet Laureate, while neither of them were even considered for the job.

(I've witnessed that very thing first hand; for example, I remember how jealous and butthurt Jim Senetto became when Will Dockery got a book published by George J. Dance and he didn't. So I do know what I'm talking about.)

>> > George Dance doesn't practice this philosophy, since George Dance obviously didn't read Austin's preface to "The Human Tragedy," or George Dance would have known that Austin considered epic and dramatic poetry to be the highest poetry.

>> The problem with that, NastyGoon, is that I did know "that Austin considered epic and dramatic poetry to be the highest poetry" and and you already know that; since you've read where I've stated it:

> Then why did you say to Michael: "So where is your quote from "Austin's Preface" Michael? Or anywhere else that Austin allegedly says that he 'wanted [The Human Tragedy] to be thought of as "Dramatic Verse"' and/or that 'he believed [Dramatic Verse] "to be the highest form of poetry'?" AND "I can't "refute" evidence that you don't supply, Michael. You've given us no evidence that Austin thought Dramatic Verse was "the highest form of poetry" or that he tried to turn /The Human Tragedy/ into Dramatic Verse. (Even your "AllPoetry" quote doesn't say that, BTW.)" .....if you already knew where it was?

As I've already explained, Michael was misquoting Austin, and, more importantly, was misrepresenting him. Austin said that narrative poetry (whether written in epic or dramatic style) [was] the highest form of poetry. Michael's account made no mention of epic poetry at all -- in Michael's account "Dramatic Verse" was the highest form and dumb old epic poetry wasn't even worth a mention.

> George Dance, you are are losing focus.

No, NastyGoon. Here's where the focus is, and should stay:

Alfred Austin wrote an epic poem, /The Human Tragedy/. Perhaps because of the title, perhaps because he called his Cantos "Acts," you got the idea Austin's epic was a play -- you mistakenly called it a play, and I corrected you. Since you and your monkey don't like to be corrected, given that you want to be seen as "so much smarter," than anyone else, you've been spreading the nonsense that Austin'g epic really was a play.

You've finally conceded that his original (1862) verse was an epic poem; your current story is that Austin turned it into a play in his 1876 revision.

>> <quote>
>> > > >> > > >> {Alfred Austin] believed that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest or greatest form of poetry, and that great poetry must be narrative poetry. </q>
>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/FRQDPlBv69M/m/tYyZ547SBwAJ?hl=en
>> We know you read that, since it's from the very post you copied the quotes in your OP for this thread. Was your only reason for opening a new thread so that you could misrepresent the discussion?

> No, it was to make sure that you saw the origin of the quote that Austin thought that dramatic verse was the highest form of poetry.

As we've seen, that quote did not say "that dramatic verse was the hi[g]hest form of poetry". Austin thought that narrative poetry, whether written in dramatic style as a play (like Shakespeare) or in straight narrative as an epic (like Milton) was the highest form. Austin's quotes do not say that "dramatic verse" was higher or better than epic poetry, while Michael's quotes say exactly that.

> Remember that you questioned Michael as to the source? Sheesh. You seem to have both short and long-term memory loss.

As I've explained, and we all can see since you've given the source, Michael was misrepresenting his source; he was dishonestly pretending that Austin thought dramatic poetry was "higher" than epic poetry. Why? So that stupid people, who've never read the poem, would believe that was why Austin turned his epic poem into a "closet drama" (which, to repeat, never happened).

>> > We don't think that George Dance fully reads any of the poems that George Dance features on George Dance's blaaarrrggg.
>> Well, of course you'd think that. After all, you know that you and your monkey don't read the poems, but you also want to believe that you know more about them than I do; so of course you'd want to believe that I don't read them, either.

NancyGene wrote:
> The opinions were from critics of the day, contemporary with Austin. Do you ignore all reviews and opinions from qualified people, in favor of just your own opinion?

DUNCE: Oh, no, NastyGoon, you're misunderstanding again. One should read all the reviews. However, when it comes to believinging him.
>

You're stuttering, Dunce, and have misused a period instead of a comma. I know that "Team Donkey" is fond of accusing others of having a "MELTDOWN," but you are the one who displays the telltale effects of one most frequently..

> you have to use your own judgement, put them in context, and consider the sources. The "opinions ... of the day" have actually been from other poets, Austin's competitors. Poets like Browning and Blunt were not dispassionate critics: they were convinced that they were "better" poets than Austin (and they may have been correct (and may have been; I'm not getting into that), so it's reasonable to think they were both jealous and butthurt when Austin became Poet Laureate, while neither of them were even considered for the job.

DUNCE: (I've witnessed that very thing first hand; for example, I remember how jealous and butthurt Jim Senetto became when Will Dockery got a book published by George J. Dance and he didn't. So I do know what I'm talking about.)
>

Why do you lie so much, Dunce?

No one remembers any such thing, because it never happened.

Jim has a poetry collection, "Cardboard Mansions," published at Amazon, and did so at the time.

https://www.amazon.com/Cardboard-Mansions-J-D-Senetto/dp/1329079825

The reason that Jim (and everyone else) was annoyed with your publishing the Donkey was that you inconsiderately chose to compile/edit/proofread the book *here,* rather than through personal emails. In doing so, you used AAPC for what should have been personal correspondence, thereby wasting everyone else's time.

The fact that you did so for approximately 2 1/2 years (when anyone else would have had the book published in less than a month) only compounded your offense.

>> > George Dance doesn't practice this philosophy, since George Dance obviously didn't read Austin's preface to "The Human Tragedy," or George Dance would have known that Austin considered epic and dramatic poetry to be the highest poetry.

>> The problem with that, NastyGoon, is that I did know "that Austin considered epic and dramatic poetry to be the highest poetry" and and you already know that; since you've read where I've stated it:

> Then why did you say to Michael: "So where is your quote from "Austin's Preface" Michael? Or anywhere else that Austin allegedly says that he 'wanted [The Human Tragedy] to be thought of as "Dramatic Verse"' and/or that 'he believed [Dramatic Verse] "to be the highest form of poetry'?" AND "I can't "refute" evidence that you don't supply, Michael. You've given us no evidence that Austin thought Dramatic Verse was "the highest form of poetry" or that he tried to turn /The Human Tragedy/ into Dramatic Verse. (Even your "AllPoetry" quote doesn't say that, BTW.)" .....if you already knew where it was?

DUNCE: As I've already explained, Michael was misquoting Austin, and, more importantly, was misrepresenting him. Austin said that narrative poetry (whether written in epic or dramatic style were the highest form of poetry. Michael's account made no mention of epic poetry at all -- in Michael's account "Dramatic Verse" was the highest form and dumb old epic poetry wasn't even worth a mention.
>

As I'd guessed in my previous response, this is yet another example of your niggling attempts nitpick the words used in a paraphrased reference to a passage I'd directly quoted.

Do you understand what a paraphrase is?

Do you understand that when discussing a passage one has quoted verbatim, it is unnecessary to point out *everything* contained in said passage?

Furthermore "dramatic style (poetry)" = "dramatic verse."

Quibbling over Mr. Austin's not having placed the words "dramatic" and "verse" together, is petty beyond belief.

> George Dance, you are are losing focus.

DUNCE: No, NastyGoon. Here's where the focus is, and should stay:

> Alfred Austin wrote an epic poem, /The Human Tragedy/. Perhaps because of the title, perhaps because he called his Cantos "Acts," you got the idea Austin's epic was a play -- you mistakenly called it a play, and I corrected you. Since you and your monkey don't like to be corrected, given that you want to be seen as "so much smarter," than anyone else, you've been spreading the nonsense that Austin'g epic really was a play.

You've finally conceded that his original (1862) verse was an epic poem; your current story is that Austin turned it into a play in his 1876 revision.
>

No, Lying Dunce -- NancyGene has never conceded any such thing.

Mr. Austin's revision (wherein he divided his work into "Acts," merely supports NancyGene's original claim that he considered his work to be a "closet drama."

>> <quote>
>> > > >> > > >> {Alfred Austin] believed that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest or greatest form of poetry, and that great poetry must be narrative poetry. </q>
>> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/FRQDPlBv69M/m/tYyZ547SBwAJ?hl=en
>> We know you read that, since it's from the very post you copied the quotes in your OP for this thread. Was your only reason for opening a new thread so that you could misrepresent the discussion?

> No, it was to make sure that you saw the origin of the quote that Austin thought that dramatic verse was the highest form of poetry.

DUNCE: As we've seen, that quote did not say "that dramatic verse was the hidhest form of poetry". Austin thought that narrative poetry, whether written in dramatic style as a play (like Shakespeare) or in straight narrative as an epic (like Milton) was the highest form. Austin's quotes do not say that "dramatic verse" was higher or better than epic poetry, while Michael's quotes say exactly that.
>

While it's true that Mr. Austin never said that "dramatic verse was the hidhest[sic] form of poetry," he did say that it was (along with epic verse) the *highest* form.

> Remember that you questioned Michael as to the source? Sheesh. You seem to have both short and long-term memory loss.

DUNCE: As I've explained, and we all can see since you've given the source, Michael was misrepresenting his source; he was dishonestly pretending that Austin thought dramatic poetry was "higher" than epic poetry. Why? So that stupid people, who've never read the poem, would believe that was why Austin turned his epic poem into a "closet drama" (which, to repeat, never happened).
>

Since I had quoted both of my sources verbatim, I could not possibly have been misrepresenting them by only mentioning the relevant portions in my paraphrased reference to the same.

Why do you lie so much, Dunce?

>> > We don't think that George Dance fully reads any of the poems that George Dance features on George Dance's blaaarrrggg.
>> Well, of course you'd think that. After all, you know that you and your monkey don't read the poems, but you also want to believe that you know more about them than I do; so of course you'd want to believe that I don't read them, either.

> Judging by what you post on AAPC about the poem (4 lines), we have no reason to believe that you have read any more of the poem than those lines.

DUNCE: Of course; if all you've read is a 4-line quote, there's no reason to believe anything. Including your belief that I haven't read any of the poems I've blogged. Your only reason for thinking that is your own unwarranted belief that you're "smarter" than your opponents. (Whether you actually think that, or whether you're simply aping Michael Monkey, is irrelevant.
>

We think you don't read the poems because you copy/paste them with any typos/errors intact.

We think you don't read the poems because you post the copy/pasted excerpts from them without offering any original comments on them.

We think you don't adequately research the poems because you attribute incorrect publication dates to them.

> Maybe not even those, since they are copied and pasted.

DUNCE: Now, that is just stupid. Do you copy and paste the things you do (in this and other threads) without reading them? Have you ever copied and pasted something that you've never read? Why in the hell would you think that anyone else does. HINT: If you want to appear "amart" then you really should not write such stupid things.
>

If you want to appear "smart," you should first learn how to spell it correctly.

-- Michael Pendragon

Jesika: [Addressing Will Donkey] You have no concept of what 'thought provoking' means, do you?

Parse Tree: He has no thoughts to provoke.

On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 7:40:22 AM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
> Will Dockery wrote:
>
> > (Moved from the troll thread)
> I snipped all that, since it's in the archives and we don't have to keep reading it. But I do think it's a good idea that you (and Zod?) had, to copy some of the best posts from NG's multiple troll threads on the topic, so that someone who reads only the official PPB threads can still follow the full discussion on the poem. IN that light, here's a good one I wrote this morning. (As a personal bonus, reposting it allows me to quickly proof and clean up my own copy.
>
> NancyGene wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 9:45:58 PM UTC+12, George J. wrote:
> >> NancyGene wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Sunday, November 12, 2023 at 3:02:53 AM UTC-9, NancyGene wrote:
> >> >> On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 10:51:30 AM UTC-9, NancyGene wrote:
> >> >> > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 5:23:26 PM UTC-2, ME wrote:
> >> >> > > On Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 14:09:04 UTC-5, ME wrote:
> >> >> > > > On Saturday, 11 November 2023 at 13:52:41 UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> >> >> > > > > On Saturday, November 11, 2023 at 3:05:33 AM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > So where is your quote from "Austin's Preface" Michael? Or anywhere else that Austin allegedly says that he 'wanted [The Human Tragedy] to be thought of as "Dramatic Verse"' and/or that 'he believed [Dramatic Verse] "to be the highest form of poetry'?
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > AND:
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > I can't "refute" evidence that you don't supply, Michael. You've given us no evidence that Austin thought Dramatic Verse was "the highest form of poetry" or that he tried to turn /The Human Tragedy/ into Dramatic Verse. (Even your "AllPoetry" quote doesn't say that, BTW.)
> >> >> > > > > __________
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > “On the Position and Prospects of Poetry”
> >> >> > > > > Alfred Austin, pp. xxii and xxiii
> >> >> > > > > in:
> >> >> > > > > “THE HUMAN TRAGEDY
> >> >> > > > > BY ALFRED AUSTIN
> >> >> > > > > NEW AND REVISED EDITION
> >> >> > > > > LONDON
> >> >> > > > > MACMILLAN AND CO.
> >> >> > > > > AND NEW YORK
> >> >> > > > > 1889”
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > “[…] so is there an ascending scale of growth and dignity in Poetry, represented by Descriptive, Lyrical, Reflective, and Epic or Dramatic Poetry; the highest Poetry being epic and dramatic poetry, because, in their full development, epic and dramatic poetry include and employ all other kinds of poetry, whereas in other forms of poetry they themselves are not included. This is what Milton must have had in mind when he penned the lines in ‘Paradise Regained’—
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > ‘Aeolian charms and Dorian lyric odes,
> >> >> > > > > And his who gave them birth, but higher sung,
> >> >> > > > > Blind Melesigenes, then Homer called.’ “
> >> >> > > > And their circle jerk goes on …….
> >> >> > > As I said….,
> >> >> > George Dance will state his question another way, deny that he doubted that Austin said what he said, and call us names. He will sneak our research into his bllaaarrrggg and call it his.
> >> >> The proof is in the preface, George Dance.
> >>
> >> > George Dance stated in another thread: "Then open the book and start reading it. Reading a book or a poem -- not collecting second-hand opinions of it -- is the way to learn something about it."
> >> Indeed I did, NastyGoon. We were discussing your catty dismissal of Austin as a "not a very good poet" (or however you put it), which was based entirely on second-hand opinions; but it applies to him as well, since he hasn't read any of it either.
> > The opinions were from critics of the day, contemporary with Austin. Do you ignore all reviews and opinions from qualified people, in favor of just your own opinion?
>
> Oh, no, NastyGoon, you're misunderstanding again. One should read all the reviews. However, when it comes to believing[...]ng him. you have to use your own judgement, put them in context, and consider the sources. The "opinions ... of the day" have actually been from other poets, Austin's competitors. Poets like Browning and Blunt were not dispassionate critics: they were convinced that they were "better" poets than Austin [...] (and may have been; I'm not getting into that), so it's reasonable to think they were both jealous and butthurt when Austin became Poet Laureate, while neither of them were even considered for the job.
>
> (I've witnessed that very thing first hand; for example, I remember how jealous and butthurt Jim Senetto became when Will Dockery got a book published by George J. Dance and he didn't. So I do know what I'm talking about.)
> >> > George Dance doesn't practice this philosophy, since George Dance obviously didn't read Austin's preface to "The Human Tragedy," or George Dance would have known that Austin considered epic and dramatic poetry to be the highest poetry.
> >> The problem with that, NastyGoon, is that I did know "that Austin considered epic and dramatic poetry to be the highest poetry" and and you already know that; since you've read where I've stated it:
> > Then why did you say to Michael: "So where is your quote from "Austin's Preface" Michael? Or anywhere else that Austin allegedly says that he 'wanted [The Human Tragedy] to be thought of as "Dramatic Verse"' and/or that 'he believed [Dramatic Verse] "to be the highest form of poetry'?" AND "I can't "refute" evidence that you don't supply, Michael. You've given us no evidence that Austin thought Dramatic Verse was "the highest form of poetry" or that he tried to turn /The Human Tragedy/ into Dramatic Verse. (Even your "AllPoetry" quote doesn't say that, BTW.)" .....if you already knew where it was?
>
> As I've already explained, Michael was misquoting Austin, and, more importantly, was misrepresenting him. Austin said that narrative poetry (whether written in epic or dramatic style) [was] the highest form of poetry. Michael's account made no mention of epic poetry at all -- in Michael's account "Dramatic Verse" was the highest form and dumb old epic poetry wasn't even worth a mention.
>
> > George Dance, you are are losing focus.
>
> No, NastyGoon. Here's where the focus is, and should stay:
>
> Alfred Austin wrote an epic poem, /The Human Tragedy/. Perhaps because of the title, perhaps because he called his Cantos "Acts," you got the idea Austin's epic was a play -- you mistakenly called it a play, and I corrected you. Since you and your monkey don't like to be corrected, given that you want to be seen as "so much smarter," than anyone else, you've been spreading the nonsense that Austin'g epic really was a play.
>
> You've finally conceded that his original (1862) verse was an epic poem; your current story is that Austin turned it into a play in his 1876 revision.
> >> <quote>
> >> > > >> > > >> {Alfred Austin] believed that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest or greatest form of poetry, and that great poetry must be narrative poetry. </q>
> >> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/FRQDPlBv69M/m/tYyZ547SBwAJ?hl=en
> >> We know you read that, since it's from the very post you copied the quotes in your OP for this thread. Was your only reason for opening a new thread so that you could misrepresent the discussion?
> > No, it was to make sure that you saw the origin of the quote that Austin thought that dramatic verse was the highest form of poetry.
>
> As we've seen, that quote did not say "that dramatic verse was the hi[g]hest form of poetry". Austin thought that narrative poetry, whether written in dramatic style as a play (like Shakespeare) or in straight narrative as an epic (like Milton) was the highest form. Austin's quotes do not say that "dramatic verse" was higher or better than epic poetry, while Michael's quotes say exactly that.
>
> > Remember that you questioned Michael as to the source? Sheesh. You seem to have both short and long-term memory loss.
>
> As I've explained, and we all can see since you've given the source, Michael was misrepresenting his source; he was dishonestly pretending that Austin thought dramatic poetry was "higher" than epic poetry. Why? So that stupid people, who've never read the poem, would believe that was why Austin turned his epic poem into a "closet drama" (which, to repeat, never happened)..
> >> > We don't think that George Dance fully reads any of the poems that George Dance features on George Dance's blaaarrrggg.
> >> Well, of course you'd think that. After all, you know that you and your monkey don't read the poems, but you also want to believe that you know more about them than I do; so of course you'd want to believe that I don't read them, either.
> > Judging by what you post on AAPC about the poem (4 lines), we have no reason to believe that you have read any more of the poem than those lines.
>
> Of course; if all you've read is a 4-line quote, there's no reason to believe anything. Including your belief that I haven't read any of the poems I've blogged. Your only reason for thinking that is your own unwarranted belief that you're "smarter" than your opponents. (Whether you actually think that, or whether you're simply aping Michael Monkey, is irrelevant.
>
>
> > Maybe not even those, since they are copied and pasted.
>
> Now, that is just stupid. Do you copy and paste the things you do (in this and other threads) without reading them? Have you ever copied and pasted something that you've never read? Why in the hell would you think that anyone else does. HINT: If you want to appear "smart" then you really should not write such stupid things.

On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 7:40:22 AM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
> Will Dockery wrote:
>
> > (Moved from the troll thread)
> I snipped all that, since it's in the archives and we don't have to keep reading it. But I do think it's a good idea that you (and Zod?) had, to copy some of the best posts from NG's multiple troll threads on the topic, so that someone who reads only the official PPB threads can still follow the full discussion on the poem. IN that light, here's a good one I wrote this morning. (As a personal bonus, reposting it allows me to quickly proof and clean up my own copy.
>
> NancyGene wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 14, 2023 at 9:45:58 PM UTC+12, George J. wrote:
> >> NancyGene wrote:
>
> >> >> > > > > > So where is your quote from "Austin's Preface" Michael? Or anywhere else that Austin allegedly says that he 'wanted [The Human Tragedy] to be thought of as "Dramatic Verse"' and/or that 'he believed [Dramatic Verse] "to be the highest form of poetry'?
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > AND:
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > > I can't "refute" evidence that you don't supply, Michael. You've given us no evidence that Austin thought Dramatic Verse was "the highest form of poetry" or that he tried to turn /The Human Tragedy/ into Dramatic Verse. (Even your "AllPoetry" quote doesn't say that, BTW.)
> >> >> > > > > __________
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > “On the Position and Prospects of Poetry”
> >> >> > > > > Alfred Austin, pp. xxii and xxiii
> >> >> > > > > in:
> >> >> > > > > “THE HUMAN TRAGEDY
> >> >> > > > > BY ALFRED AUSTIN
> >> >> > > > > NEW AND REVISED EDITION
> >> >> > > > > LONDON
> >> >> > > > > MACMILLAN AND CO.
> >> >> > > > > AND NEW YORK
> >> >> > > > > 1889”
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > “[…] so is there an ascending scale of growth and dignity in Poetry, represented by Descriptive, Lyrical, Reflective, and Epic or Dramatic Poetry; the highest Poetry being epic and dramatic poetry, because, in their full development, epic and dramatic poetry include and employ all other kinds of poetry, whereas in other forms of poetry they themselves are not included. This is what Milton must have had in mind when he penned the lines in ‘Paradise Regained’—
> >> >> > > > >
> >> >> > > > > ‘Aeolian charms and Dorian lyric odes,
> >> >> > > > > And his who gave them birth, but higher sung,
> >> >> > > > > Blind Melesigenes, then Homer called.’ “
> >> >> > > > And their circle jerk goes on …….
> >> >> > > As I said….,
> >> >> > George Dance will state his question another way, deny that he doubted that Austin said what he said, and call us names. He will sneak our research into his bllaaarrrggg and call it his.
> >> >> The proof is in the preface, George Dance.
> >>
> >> > George Dance stated in another thread: "Then open the book and start reading it. Reading a book or a poem -- not collecting second-hand opinions of it -- is the way to learn something about it."
> >> Indeed I did, NastyGoon. We were discussing your catty dismissal of Austin as a "not a very good poet" (or however you put it), which was based entirely on second-hand opinions; but it applies to him as well, since he hasn't read any of it either.
> > The opinions were from critics of the day, contemporary with Austin. Do you ignore all reviews and opinions from qualified people, in favor of just your own opinion?
>
> Oh, no, NastyGoon, you're misunderstanding again. One should read all the reviews. However, when it comes to believing[...]ng him. you have to use your own judgement, put them in context, and consider the sources. The "opinions ... of the day" have actually been from other poets, Austin's competitors. Poets like Browning and Blunt were not dispassionate critics: they were convinced that they were "better" poets than Austin [...] (and may have been; I'm not getting into that), so it's reasonable to think they were both jealous and butthurt when Austin became Poet Laureate, while neither of them were even considered for the job.
>
> (I've witnessed that very thing first hand; for example, I remember how jealous and butthurt Jim Senetto became when Will Dockery got a book published by George J. Dance and he didn't. So I do know what I'm talking about.)
> >> > George Dance doesn't practice this philosophy, since George Dance obviously didn't read Austin's preface to "The Human Tragedy," or George Dance would have known that Austin considered epic and dramatic poetry to be the highest poetry.
> >> The problem with that, NastyGoon, is that I did know "that Austin considered epic and dramatic poetry to be the highest poetry" and and you already know that; since you've read where I've stated it:
> > Then why did you say to Michael: "So where is your quote from "Austin's Preface" Michael? Or anywhere else that Austin allegedly says that he 'wanted [The Human Tragedy] to be thought of as "Dramatic Verse"' and/or that 'he believed [Dramatic Verse] "to be the highest form of poetry'?" AND "I can't "refute" evidence that you don't supply, Michael. You've given us no evidence that Austin thought Dramatic Verse was "the highest form of poetry" or that he tried to turn /The Human Tragedy/ into Dramatic Verse. (Even your "AllPoetry" quote doesn't say that, BTW.)" .....if you already knew where it was?
>
> As I've already explained, Michael was misquoting Austin, and, more importantly, was misrepresenting him. Austin said that narrative poetry (whether written in epic or dramatic style) [was] the highest form of poetry. Michael's account made no mention of epic poetry at all -- in Michael's account "Dramatic Verse" was the highest form and dumb old epic poetry wasn't even worth a mention.
>
> > George Dance, you are are losing focus.
>
> No, NastyGoon. Here's where the focus is, and should stay:
>
> Alfred Austin wrote an epic poem, /The Human Tragedy/. Perhaps because of the title, perhaps because he called his Cantos "Acts," you got the idea Austin's epic was a play -- you mistakenly called it a play, and I corrected you. Since you and your monkey don't like to be corrected, given that you want to be seen as "so much smarter," than anyone else, you've been spreading the nonsense that Austin'g epic really was a play.
>
> You've finally conceded that his original (1862) verse was an epic poem; your current story is that Austin turned it into a play in his 1876 revision.
> >> <quote>
> >> > > >> > > >> {Alfred Austin] believed that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest or greatest form of poetry, and that great poetry must be narrative poetry. </q>
> >> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/FRQDPlBv69M/m/tYyZ547SBwAJ?hl=en
> >> We know you read that, since it's from the very post you copied the quotes in your OP for this thread. Was your only reason for opening a new thread so that you could misrepresent the discussion?
> > No, it was to make sure that you saw the origin of the quote that Austin thought that dramatic verse was the highest form of poetry.
>
> As we've seen, that quote did not say "that dramatic verse was the hi[g]hest form of poetry". Austin thought that narrative poetry, whether written in dramatic style as a play (like Shakespeare) or in straight narrative as an epic (like Milton) was the highest form. Austin's quotes do not say that "dramatic verse" was higher or better than epic poetry, while Michael's quotes say exactly that.
>
> > Remember that you questioned Michael as to the source? Sheesh. You seem to have both short and long-term memory loss.
>
> As I've explained, and we all can see since you've given the source, Michael was misrepresenting his source; he was dishonestly pretending that Austin thought dramatic poetry was "higher" than epic poetry. Why? So that stupid people, who've never read the poem, would believe that was why Austin turned his epic poem into a "closet drama" (which, to repeat, never happened)..
> >> > We don't think that George Dance fully reads any of the poems that George Dance features on George Dance's blaaarrrggg.
> >> Well, of course you'd think that. After all, you know that you and your monkey don't read the poems, but you also want to believe that you know more about them than I do; so of course you'd want to believe that I don't read them, either.
> > Judging by what you post on AAPC about the poem (4 lines), we have no reason to believe that you have read any more of the poem than those lines.
>
> Of course; if all you've read is a 4-line quote, there's no reason to believe anything. Including your belief that I haven't read any of the poems I've blogged. Your only reason for thinking that is your own unwarranted belief that you're "smarter" than your opponents. (Whether you actually think that, or whether you're simply aping Michael Monkey, is irrelevant.
>
>
> > Maybe not even those, since they are copied and pasted.
>
> Now, that is just stupid. Do you copy and paste the things you do (in this and other threads) without reading them? Have you ever copied and pasted something that you've never read? Why in the hell would you think that anyone else does. HINT: If you want to appear "amart" then you really should not write such stupid things.

On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 10:34:54 AM UTC-5, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> NancyGene wrote:

> > The opinions were from critics of the day, contemporary with Austin. Do you ignore all reviews and opinions from qualified people, in favor of just your own opinion?
> DUNCE: Oh, no, NastyGoon, you're misunderstanding again. One should read all the reviews. However, when it comes to believing[ them,]
>
> You're stuttering, Dunce, and have misused a period instead of a comma. I know that "Team Donkey" is fond of accusing others of having a "MELTDOWN," but you are the one who displays the telltale effects of one most frequently.

Seriously, Monkey? Where did you get the idea that "stuttering" is the sign of a "MELTDOWN"? Do you really believe that? Or is that just something you and NastyGoon learned on your "debate teams" -- "If your opponent stutters, forget what you're debating and switch to making personal attacks on him!"?

> > you have to use your own judgement, put them in context, and consider the sources. The "opinions ... of the day" have actually been from other poets, Austin's competitors. Poets like Browning and Blunt were not dispassionate critics: they were convinced that they were "better" poets than Austin (and they may have been correct (and may have been; I'm not getting into that), so it's reasonable to think they were both jealous and butthurt when Austin became Poet Laureate, while neither of them were even considered for the job.

*crickets*. As I said, "forget what you're debating" ...

> DUNCE: (I've witnessed that very thing first hand; for example, I remember how jealous and butthurt Jim Senetto became when Will Dockery got a book published by George J. Dance and he didn't. So I do know what I'm talking about.)
>
> Why do you lie so much, Dunce?
> No one remembers any such thing, because it never happened.

You don't "remember any such thing" because Jim was your ally and your slurp-puppet.
>
> Jim has a poetry collection, "Cardboard Mansions," published at Amazon, and did so at the time.
Wh> https://www.amazon.com/Cardboard-Mansions-J-D-Senetto/dp/1329079825

Yes, Michael, we know; you both bragged of it often enough. Jim's one "proof" that he was a poet and Will wasn't was that he had a book, and Will didn't. Then Will got one.
>
> The reason that Jim (and everyone else) was annoyed with your publishing the Donkey was that you inconsiderately chose to compile/edit/proofread the book *here,* rather than through personal emails. In doing so, you used AAPC for what should have been personal correspondence, thereby wasting everyone else's time.

Yes, I've read that story from you before, Michael; and your periodically regurgitating it doesn't make it any more believable. IMO, any would-be writer can benefit by learning what goes into putting out a book, so I think our threads on the book were beneficial; but, for those like you who didn't, there was no reason for you to be reading those threads in the first place as they were clearly marked as such: they were none of your business, and you knew they were none of your business. You and your slurppuppet Jim chose to waste your own time sticking your nose into our business; stop trying to pretend that was our fault just because it was our business.
> The fact that you did so for approximately 2 1/2 years (when anyone else would have had the book published in less than a month) only compounded your offense.

We may have talked about doing *a* book for that long, but the total time to produce Will's SP, from conception to publishing date, was IIRC about 3 months. Once again: why do you lie so much, Michael Monkey?

> >> > George Dance doesn't practice this philosophy, since George Dance obviously didn't read Austin's preface to "The Human Tragedy," or George Dance would have known that Austin considered epic and dramatic poetry to be the highest poetry.
>
> >> The problem with that, NastyGoon, is that I did know "that Austin considered epic and dramatic poetry to be the highest poetry" and and you already know that; since you've read where I've stated it:
>
> > Then why did you say to Michael: "So where is your quote from "Austin's Preface" Michael? Or anywhere else that Austin allegedly says that he 'wanted [The Human Tragedy] to be thought of as "Dramatic Verse"' and/or that 'he believed [Dramatic Verse] "to be the highest form of poetry'?" AND "I can't "refute" evidence that you don't supply, Michael. You've given us no evidence that Austin thought Dramatic Verse was "the highest form of poetry" or that he tried to turn /The Human Tragedy/ into Dramatic Verse. (Even your "AllPoetry" quote doesn't say that, BTW.)" .....if you already knew where it was?

> DUNCE: As I've already explained, Michael was misquoting Austin, and, more importantly, was misrepresenting him. Austin said that narrative poetry (whether written in epic or dramatic style were the highest form of poetry. Michael's account made no mention of epic poetry at all -- in Michael's account "Dramatic Verse" was the highest form and dumb old epic poetry wasn't even worth a mention.
>
> As I'd guessed in my previous response, this is yet another example of your niggling attempts nitpick the words used in a paraphrased reference to a passage I'd directly quoted.
>
Michael: when you said you quoted a passage from Austin's preface, I asked you to produce it. You still haven't.

Now that NastyGoon has supplied quotes from the preface, it's clear why you didn't: there was no such passage, since Austin never said there (or, most likely, anywhere) what you'd claimed he did.

> Do you understand what a paraphrase is?

Sure. Do you understand that a paragraph can be accurate or inaccurate, correct or incorrect? Yours was inaccurate and incorrect.

> Do you understand that when discussing a passage one has quoted verbatim, it is unnecessary to point out *everything* contained in said passage?

Michael; once again, no one has seen your so-called verbatim quote. When you were asked to produce it, or a link,to it, you tried to fob off a quote from fricking *AllPoetry* instead. Nor could your NastyGoon produce it, either; they had to Google the relevant quotes on their own (and found only quotes that completely undercut your argument).
>
> Furthermore "dramatic style (poetry)" = "dramatic verse."

Michael, neither "dramatic verse" nor "dramatic style (poetry)" are the same thing as "epic and dramatic poetry". The latter category includes epic poetry; the former does not.

> Quibbling over Mr. Austin's not having placed the words "dramatic" and "verse" together, is petty beyond belief.

Which explains why you'd want to pretend anyone is quibbling over that.

> > George Dance, you are are losing focus.
> DUNCE: No, NastyGoon. Here's where the focus is, and should stay:
> > Alfred Austin wrote an epic poem, /The Human Tragedy/. Perhaps because of the title, perhaps because he called his Cantos "Acts," you got the idea Austin's epic was a play -- you mistakenly called it a play, and I corrected you. Since you and your monkey don't like to be corrected, given that you want to be seen as "so much smarter," than anyone else, you've been spreading the nonsense that Austin'g epic really was a play.
>
> You've finally conceded that his original (1862) verse was an epic poem; your current story is that Austin turned it into a play in his 1876 revision.
> MONKEY: No, Lying Dunce -- NancyGene has never conceded any such thing.

Wrong, Lying Michael. In yet another of their troll-threads, NastyGoon has conceded exactly that, in the Bandar-Log way, by pretending they never called the 1862 poem a play in the first place:

'If he looks above, we say "Mr. Austin seems to have published this 1862 version of the book/play, then recalled the copies for revision." We didn't say that the 1862 publication was a play at that point. It became one later."
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/X1hBOAzcciA/m/nYLmz1S6BgAJ?hl=en

I notice that you two like to call everything your opponent says a "lie" without ever showing any evidence, in the hope something will stick. Is that yet another tactic you picked up on your "Debating Team"?
>
> Mr. Austin's revision (wherein he divided his work into "Acts," merely supports NancyGene's original claim that he considered his work to be a "closet drama."

It's your claim that (because he called his cantos Acts") he considered his epic poem to be a "closet drama" rather than an epic poem (which, remember, he considered the "highest form" of poetry). The quotes NastyGoon (not you) found in his 1876 preface do not support your claim in any way.

> >> <quote>
> >> > > >> > > >> {Alfred Austin] believed that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest or greatest form of poetry, and that great poetry must be narrative poetry. </q>
> >> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/FRQDPlBv69M/m/tYyZ547SBwAJ?hl=en
> >> We know you read that, since it's from the very post you copied the quotes in your OP for this thread. Was your only reason for opening a new thread so that you could misrepresent the discussion?
>
> > No, it was to make sure that you saw the origin of the quote that Austin thought that dramatic verse was the highest form of poetry.
> DUNCE: As we've seen, that quote did not say "that dramatic verse was the hidhest form of poetry". Austin thought that narrative poetry, whether written in dramatic style as a play (like Shakespeare) or in straight narrative as an epic (like Milton) was the highest form. Austin's quotes do not say that "dramatic verse" was higher or better than epic poetry, while Michael's quotes say exactly that.
> >
>
> MONKEY: While it's true that Mr. Austin never said that "dramatic verse was the hidhest[sic] form of poetry," he did say that it was (along with epic verse) the *highest* form.

On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 1:30:27 PM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
> On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 10:34:54 AM UTC-5, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > NancyGene wrote:
>
> > > The opinions were from critics of the day, contemporary with Austin. Do you ignore all reviews and opinions from qualified people, in favor of just your own opinion?
> > DUNCE: Oh, no, NastyGoon, you're misunderstanding again. One should read all the reviews. However, when it comes to believing[ them,]
> >
> > You're stuttering, Dunce, and have misused a period instead of a comma. I know that "Team Donkey" is fond of accusing others of having a "MELTDOWN," but you are the one who displays the telltale effects of one most frequently.
> Seriously, Monkey? Where did you get the idea that "stuttering" is the sign of a "MELTDOWN"? Do you really believe that? Or is that just something you and NastyGoon learned on your "debate teams" -- "If your opponent stutters, forget what you're debating and switch to making personal attacks on him!"?
>

Stuttering (especially the keyboard var.) is a sign that one is flailing -- desperately jabbering away with an ever-increasing awareness that his foot is in his mouth, but if he attempts to remove it, everyone will know.

> > > you have to use your own judgement, put them in context, and consider the sources. The "opinions ... of the day" have actually been from other poets, Austin's competitors. Poets like Browning and Blunt were not dispassionate critics: they were convinced that they were "better" poets than Austin (and they may have been correct (and may have been; I'm not getting into that), so it's reasonable to think they were both jealous and butthurt when Austin became Poet Laureate, while neither of them were even considered for the job.
> *crickets*. As I said, "forget what you're debating" ...

I'm sorry, George, but your comment is impossible to address. I cannot possibly know whether Mr. Browning and Mr. Blunt were motivated by feelings of jealousy and "butthurt."

Your comment is speculative at best, and based on... nothing.

I'm sure that you would experience feelings of jealousy and "butthurt" over the success of one of your peers, but you're known for your pettiness, whereas Browning and Blunt were not.

> > DUNCE: (I've witnessed that very thing first hand; for example, I remember how jealous and butthurt Jim Senetto became when Will Dockery got a book published by George J. Dance and he didn't. So I do know what I'm talking about.)
> >
> > Why do you lie so much, Dunce?
> > No one remembers any such thing, because it never happened.
> You don't "remember any such thing" because Jim was your ally and your slurp-puppet.

I don't remember it, because it never happened.

If you can show proof that Jim acted "butthurt," please post it.

I don't think anyone here saw your "publication" of Will's donkeyspew as anything to be jealous of.

> > Jim has a poetry collection, "Cardboard Mansions," published at Amazon, and did so at the time.
> Wh> https://www.amazon.com/Cardboard-Mansions-J-D-Senetto/dp/1329079825
>
> Yes, Michael, we know; you both bragged of it often enough. Jim's one "proof" that he was a poet and Will wasn't was that he had a book, and Will didn't. Then Will got one.

Do you have any idea how spitefully childish you sound.

Jim is a talented poet. The Donkey is the worst so-called "poet" I have ever read.

The only "proof" necessary is their poetry.

> > The reason that Jim (and everyone else) was annoyed with your publishing the Donkey was that you inconsiderately chose to compile/edit/proofread the book *here,* rather than through personal emails. In doing so, you used AAPC for what should have been personal correspondence, thereby wasting everyone else's time.
> Yes, I've read that story from you before, Michael; and your periodically regurgitating it doesn't make it any more believable. IMO, any would-be writer can benefit by learning what goes into putting out a book, so I think our threads on the book were beneficial; but, for those like you who didn't, there was no reason for you to be reading those threads in the first place as they were clearly marked as such: they were none of your business, and you knew they were none of your business. You and your slurppuppet Jim chose to waste your own time sticking your nose into our business; stop trying to pretend that was our fault just because it was our business.
>

There is nothing beneficial from reading personal note passed between you and your Donkey.

> > The fact that you did so for approximately 2 1/2 years (when anyone else would have had the book published in less than a month) only compounded your offense.
> We may have talked about doing *a* book for that long, but the total time to produce Will's SP, from conception to publishing date, was IIRC about 3 months. Once again: why do you lie so much, Michael Monkey?
>

You talked about it a long time, exchanged what should have been personal emails regarding it for a long time, argued over what should and shouldn't be included for a long time, and spend approximately 2 1/2 years doing all of the above.

Book production begins when the Acquisitions Editor contracts with the Author. That would have been the point at which you'd agreed to publish a book.

> > >> > George Dance doesn't practice this philosophy, since George Dance obviously didn't read Austin's preface to "The Human Tragedy," or George Dance would have known that Austin considered epic and dramatic poetry to be the highest poetry.
> >
> > >> The problem with that, NastyGoon, is that I did know "that Austin considered epic and dramatic poetry to be the highest poetry" and and you already know that; since you've read where I've stated it:
> >
> > > Then why did you say to Michael: "So where is your quote from "Austin's Preface" Michael? Or anywhere else that Austin allegedly says that he 'wanted [The Human Tragedy] to be thought of as "Dramatic Verse"' and/or that 'he believed [Dramatic Verse] "to be the highest form of poetry'?" AND "I can't "refute" evidence that you don't supply, Michael. You've given us no evidence that Austin thought Dramatic Verse was "the highest form of poetry" or that he tried to turn /The Human Tragedy/ into Dramatic Verse. (Even your "AllPoetry" quote doesn't say that, BTW.)" .....if you already knew where it was?
>
> > DUNCE: As I've already explained, Michael was misquoting Austin, and, more importantly, was misrepresenting him. Austin said that narrative poetry (whether written in epic or dramatic style were the highest form of poetry.. Michael's account made no mention of epic poetry at all -- in Michael's account "Dramatic Verse" was the highest form and dumb old epic poetry wasn't even worth a mention.
> >
> > As I'd guessed in my previous response, this is yet another example of your niggling attempts nitpick the words used in a paraphrased reference to a passage I'd directly quoted.
> >
> Michael: when you said you quoted a passage from Austin's preface, I asked you to produce it. You still haven't.

There is no single quote that includes all of the necessary elements. I *paraphrased* the general idea expressed over seven pages of his Preface. To wit:

Preface: On the Position and Prospects of Poetry,
p ix: Austin divides poetry into the following categories: "Descriptive, Lyrical, Reflective, and Narrative Poetry, respectively Epic and Dramatic Poetry." He continues to say that "epic Poetry and dramatic Poetry have assuredly fallen on evil days."
p x: he lists examples of epic and dramatic poets as "Chaucer, Spenser, Milton, Byron, even Shakespeare himself."
pp xv-xvi: "I suppose it is everybody's opinion that the most delightful of all love-stories in verse is *Romeo and Juliet.*"

From the above examples, it is clear that he is including Shakespeare's plays as examples of "Dramatic Poetry" and "Verse."

> Now that NastyGoon has supplied quotes from the preface, it's clear why you didn't: there was no such passage, since Austin never said there (or, most likely, anywhere) what you'd claimed he did.
>

See above.

> > Do you understand what a paraphrase is?
> Sure. Do you understand that a paragraph can be accurate or inaccurate, correct or incorrect? Yours was inaccurate and incorrect.

I said "paraphrase," Dunce. Not "paragraph."

The two words are *not* interchangeable.

> > Do you understand that when discussing a passage one has quoted verbatim, it is unnecessary to point out *everything* contained in said passage?
> Michael; once again, no one has seen your so-called verbatim quote. When you were asked to produce it, or a link,to it, you tried to fob off a quote from fricking *AllPoetry* instead. Nor could your NastyGoon produce it, either; they had to Google the relevant quotes on their own (and found only quotes that completely undercut your argument).
> >

On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 7:34:20 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> George J. wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 10:34:54 AM UTC-5, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > NancyGene wrote:
> >
> > > > > The opinions were from critics of the day, contemporary with Austin. Do you ignore all reviews and opinions from qualified people, in favor of just your own opinion?
> > > > DUNCE: Oh, no, NastyGoon, you're misunderstanding again. One should read all the reviews. However, when it comes to believing[ them,]
> > > >
> > > > You're stuttering, Dunce, and have misused a period instead of a comma. I know that "Team Donkey" is fond of accusing others of having a "MELTDOWN," but you are the one who displays the telltale effects of one most frequently.
> > > Seriously, Monkey? Where did you get the idea that "stuttering" is the sign of a "MELTDOWN"? Do you really believe that? Or is that just something you and NastyGoon learned on your "debate teams" -- "If your opponent stutters, forget what you're debating and switch to making personal attacks on him!"?
> > > > > you have to use your own judgement, put them in context, and consider the sources. The "opinions ... of the day" have actually been from other poets, Austin's competitors. Poets like Browning and Blunt were not dispassionate critics: they were convinced that they were "better" poets than Austin (and they may have been correct (and may have been; I'm not getting into that), so it's reasonable to think they were both jealous and butthurt when Austin became Poet Laureate, while neither of them were even considered for the job.
> > > *crickets*. As I said, "forget what you're debating" ...
> > > > DUNCE: (I've witnessed that very thing first hand; for example, I remember how jealous and butthurt Jim Senetto became when Will Dockery got a book published by George J. Dance and he didn't. So I do know what I'm talking about.)
> > > >
> > > > Why do you lie so much, Dunce?
> > > > No one remembers any such thing, because it never happened.
> > > You don't "remember any such thing" because Jim was your ally and your slurp-puppet.
> > > >
> > > > Jim has a poetry collection, "Cardboard Mansions," published at Amazon, and did so at the time.
> > > Wh> https://www.amazon.com/Cardboard-Mansions-J-D-Senetto/dp/1329079825
> > >
> > > Yes, Michael, we know; you both bragged of it often enough. Jim's one "proof" that he was a poet and Will wasn't was that he had a book, and Will didn't. Then Will got one.
> > > >
> > > > The reason that Jim (and everyone else) was annoyed with your publishing the Donkey was that you inconsiderately chose to compile/edit/proofread the book *here,* rather than through personal emails. In doing so, you used AAPC for what should have been personal correspondence, thereby wasting everyone else's time.
> > > Yes, I've read that story from you before, Michael; and your periodically regurgitating it doesn't make it any more believable. IMO, any would-be writer can benefit by learning what goes into putting out a book, so I think our threads on the book were beneficial; but, for those like you who didn't, there was no reason for you to be reading those threads in the first place as they were clearly marked as such: they were none of your business, and you knew they were none of your business. You and your slurppuppet Jim chose to waste your own time sticking your nose into our business; stop trying to pretend that was our fault just because it was our business.
> > > > The fact that you did so for approximately 2 1/2 years (when anyone else would have had the book published in less than a month) only compounded your offense.
> > > We may have talked about doing *a* book for that long, but the total time to produce Will's SP, from conception to publishing date, was IIRC about 3 months. Once again: why do you lie so much, Michael Monkey?
> > > > >> > George Dance doesn't practice this philosophy, since George Dance obviously didn't read Austin's preface to "The Human Tragedy," or George Dance would have known that Austin considered epic and dramatic poetry to be the highest poetry.
> > > >
> > > > >> The problem with that, NastyGoon, is that I did know "that Austin considered epic and dramatic poetry to be the highest poetry" and and you already know that; since you've read where I've stated it:
> > > >
> > > > > Then why did you say to Michael: "So where is your quote from "Austin's Preface" Michael? Or anywhere else that Austin allegedly says that he 'wanted [The Human Tragedy] to be thought of as "Dramatic Verse"' and/or that 'he believed [Dramatic Verse] "to be the highest form of poetry'?" AND "I can't "refute" evidence that you don't supply, Michael. You've given us no evidence that Austin thought Dramatic Verse was "the highest form of poetry" or that he tried to turn /The Human Tragedy/ into Dramatic Verse. (Even your "AllPoetry" quote doesn't say that, BTW.)" .....if you already knew where it was?
> > >
> > > > DUNCE: As I've already explained, Michael was misquoting Austin, and, more importantly, was misrepresenting him. Austin said that narrative poetry (whether written in epic or dramatic style were the highest form of poetry. Michael's account made no mention of epic poetry at all -- in Michael's account "Dramatic Verse" was the highest form and dumb old epic poetry wasn't even worth a mention.
> > > >
> > > > As I'd guessed in my previous response, this is yet another example of your niggling attempts nitpick the words used in a paraphrased reference to a passage I'd directly quoted.
> > > >
> > > Michael: when you said you quoted a passage from Austin's preface, I asked you to produce it. You still haven't.
> > >
> > > Now that NastyGoon has supplied quotes from the preface, it's clear why you didn't: there was no such passage, since Austin never said there (or, most likely, anywhere) what you'd claimed he did.
> > > > Do you understand what a paraphrase is?
> > > Sure. Do you understand that a paragraph can be accurate or inaccurate, correct or incorrect? Yours was inaccurate and incorrect.
> > > > Do you understand that when discussing a passage one has quoted verbatim, it is unnecessary to point out *everything* contained in said passage?
> > > Michael; once again, no one has seen your so-called verbatim quote. When you were asked to produce it, or a link,to it, you tried to fob off a quote from fricking *AllPoetry* instead. Nor could your NastyGoon produce it, either; they had to Google the relevant quotes on their own (and found only quotes that completely undercut your argument).
> > > >
> > > > Furthermore "dramatic style (poetry)" = "dramatic verse."
> > > Michael, neither "dramatic verse" nor "dramatic style (poetry)" are the same thing as "epic and dramatic poetry". The latter category includes epic poetry; the former does not.
> > > > Quibbling over Mr. Austin's not having placed the words "dramatic" and "verse" together, is petty beyond belief.
> > > Which explains why you'd want to pretend anyone is quibbling over that.
> > > > > George Dance, you are are losing focus.
> > > > DUNCE: No, NastyGoon. Here's where the focus is, and should stay:
> > > > > Alfred Austin wrote an epic poem, /The Human Tragedy/. Perhaps because of the title, perhaps because he called his Cantos "Acts," you got the idea Austin's epic was a play -- you mistakenly called it a play, and I corrected you. Since you and your monkey don't like to be corrected, given that you want to be seen as "so much smarter," than anyone else, you've been spreading the nonsense that Austin'g epic really was a play.
> > > >
> > > > You've finally conceded that his original (1862) verse was an epic poem; your current story is that Austin turned it into a play in his 1876 revision.
> > > > MONKEY: No, Lying Dunce -- NancyGene has never conceded any such thing.
> > >
> > > Wrong, Lying Michael. In yet another of their troll-threads, NastyGoon has conceded exactly that, in the Bandar-Log way, by pretending they never called the 1862 poem a play in the first place:
> > >
> > > 'If he looks above, we say "Mr. Austin seems to have published this 1862 version of the book/play, then recalled the copies for revision." We didn't say that the 1862 publication was a play at that point. It became one later."
> > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/X1hBOAzcciA/m/nYLmz1S6BgAJ?hl=en
> > >
> > > I notice that you two like to call everything your opponent says a "lie" without ever showing any evidence, in the hope something will stick. Is that yet another tactic you picked up on your "Debating Team"?
> > > >
> > > > Mr. Austin's revision (wherein he divided his work into "Acts," merely supports NancyGene's original claim that he considered his work to be a "closet drama."
> > > It's your claim that (because he called his cantos Acts") he considered his epic poem to be a "closet drama" rather than an epic poem (which, remember, he considered the "highest form" of poetry). The quotes NastyGoon (not you) found in his 1876 preface do not support your claim in any way.
> > > > >> <quote>
> > > > >> > > >> > > >> {Alfred Austin] believed that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest or greatest form of poetry, and that great poetry must be narrative poetry. </q>
> > > > >> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/FRQDPlBv69M/m/tYyZ547SBwAJ?hl=en
> > > > >> We know you read that, since it's from the very post you copied the quotes in your OP for this thread. Was your only reason for opening a new thread so that you could misrepresent the discussion?
> > > >
> > > > > No, it was to make sure that you saw the origin of the quote that Austin thought that dramatic verse was the highest form of poetry.
> > > > DUNCE: As we've seen, that quote did not say "that dramatic verse was the hidhest form of poetry". Austin thought that narrative poetry, whether written in dramatic style as a play (like Shakespeare) or in straight narrative as an epic (like Milton) was the highest form. Austin's quotes do not say that "dramatic verse" was higher or better than epic poetry, while Michael's quotes say exactly that.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > MONKEY: While it's true that Mr. Austin never said that "dramatic verse was the hidhest[sic] form of poetry," he did say that it was (along with epic verse) the *highest* form.
> > >
> > > Which wouldn't have helped you, since that does not give Austin a motive for changing, or pretending to change, his epic poem into "dramatic verse." Which is why you had to lie and misrepresent.
> > > > > Remember that you questioned Michael as to the source? Sheesh. You seem to have both short and long-term memory loss.
> > > > DUNCE: As I've explained, and we all can see since you've given the source, Michael was misrepresenting his source; he was dishonestly pretending that Austin thought dramatic poetry was "higher" than epic poetry. Why? So that stupid people, who've never read the poem, would believe that was why Austin turned his epic poem into a "closet drama" (which, to repeat, never happened).
> > >
> > > > Since I had quoted both of my sources verbatim, I could not possibly have been misrepresenting them by only mentioning the relevant portions in my paraphrased reference to the same.
> > > And there you go again, with the claim that you're previously quoted your "Dramatic Verse" bullshit from the preface. You've been asked to produce the quote, either by copying or by giving the link, and you've consistently dodged the request. It's reasonable to think that Lying Michael is lying yet again.
> > > > Why do you lie so much, Dunce?
> > > Why do you project so much, Michael Monkey?
> > > > >> > We don't think that George Dance fully reads any of the poems that George Dance features on George Dance's blaaarrrggg.
> > > > >> Well, of course you'd think that. After all, you know that you and your monkey don't read the poems, but you also want to believe that you know more about them than I do; so of course you'd want to believe that I don't read them, either.
> > > >
> > > > > Judging by what you post on AAPC about the poem (4 lines), we have no reason to believe that you have read any more of the poem than those lines.
> > > > DUNCE: Of course; if all you've read is a 4-line quote, there's no reason to believe anything. Including your belief that I haven't read any of the poems I've blogged. Your only reason for thinking that is your own unwarranted belief that you're "smarter" than your opponents. (Whether you actually think that, or whether you're simply aping Michael Monkey, is irrelevant.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > MONKEY: We think you don't read the poems
> > > anip
> > >
> > > Yes, Michael MOnkey; we've all heard those stories before, too.
> > > > > Maybe not even those, since they are copied and pasted.
> > > > DUNCE: Now, that is just stupid. Do you copy and paste the things you do (in this and other threads) without reading them? Have you ever copied and pasted something that you've never read? Why in the hell would you think that anyone else does. HINT: If you want to appear "amart" then you really should not write such stupid things.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > MONKEY: If you want to appear "smart," you should first learn how to spell it correctly.
> >
> > Michael Monkey can't figure out how to defend his NastyGoon's illogic here. But he did find a typo-lame to deflect with, which should be enough for him to pretend that he's "winning" his silly little debate.
> Again, meanwhile Pendragon's in such a tizzy he's making plenty of typos in his troll posts.
>
> I spotted Pendragon using "to" for "too" earlier in the day.

On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 8:37:07 PM UTC-6, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 7:42:34 PM UTC-6, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 7:34:20 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > George J. wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 10:34:54 AM UTC-5, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > NancyGene wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > > The opinions were from critics of the day, contemporary with Austin. Do you ignore all reviews and opinions from qualified people, in favor of just your own opinion?
> > > > > > DUNCE: Oh, no, NastyGoon, you're misunderstanding again. One should read all the reviews. However, when it comes to believing[ them,]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You're stuttering, Dunce, and have misused a period instead of a comma. I know that "Team Donkey" is fond of accusing others of having a "MELTDOWN," but you are the one who displays the telltale effects of one most frequently.
> > > > > Seriously, Monkey? Where did you get the idea that "stuttering" is the sign of a "MELTDOWN"? Do you really believe that? Or is that just something you and NastyGoon learned on your "debate teams" -- "If your opponent stutters, forget what you're debating and switch to making personal attacks on him!"?
> > > > > > > you have to use your own judgement, put them in context, and consider the sources. The "opinions ... of the day" have actually been from other poets, Austin's competitors. Poets like Browning and Blunt were not dispassionate critics: they were convinced that they were "better" poets than Austin (and they may have been correct (and may have been; I'm not getting into that), so it's reasonable to think they were both jealous and butthurt when Austin became Poet Laureate, while neither of them were even considered for the job.
> > > > > *crickets*. As I said, "forget what you're debating" ...
> > > > > > DUNCE: (I've witnessed that very thing first hand; for example, I remember how jealous and butthurt Jim Senetto became when Will Dockery got a book published by George J. Dance and he didn't. So I do know what I'm talking about.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Why do you lie so much, Dunce?
> > > > > > No one remembers any such thing, because it never happened.
> > > > > You don't "remember any such thing" because Jim was your ally and your slurp-puppet.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Jim has a poetry collection, "Cardboard Mansions," published at Amazon, and did so at the time.
> > > > > Wh> https://www.amazon.com/Cardboard-Mansions-J-D-Senetto/dp/1329079825
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, Michael, we know; you both bragged of it often enough. Jim's one "proof" that he was a poet and Will wasn't was that he had a book, and Will didn't. Then Will got one.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The reason that Jim (and everyone else) was annoyed with your publishing the Donkey was that you inconsiderately chose to compile/edit/proofread the book *here,* rather than through personal emails. In doing so, you used AAPC for what should have been personal correspondence, thereby wasting everyone else's time.
> > > > > Yes, I've read that story from you before, Michael; and your periodically regurgitating it doesn't make it any more believable. IMO, any would-be writer can benefit by learning what goes into putting out a book, so I think our threads on the book were beneficial; but, for those like you who didn't, there was no reason for you to be reading those threads in the first place as they were clearly marked as such: they were none of your business, and you knew they were none of your business. You and your slurppuppet Jim chose to waste your own time sticking your nose into our business; stop trying to pretend that was our fault just because it was our business.
> > > > > > The fact that you did so for approximately 2 1/2 years (when anyone else would have had the book published in less than a month) only compounded your offense.
> > > > > We may have talked about doing *a* book for that long, but the total time to produce Will's SP, from conception to publishing date, was IIRC about 3 months. Once again: why do you lie so much, Michael Monkey?
> > > > > > >> > George Dance doesn't practice this philosophy, since George Dance obviously didn't read Austin's preface to "The Human Tragedy," or George Dance would have known that Austin considered epic and dramatic poetry to be the highest poetry.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >> The problem with that, NastyGoon, is that I did know "that Austin considered epic and dramatic poetry to be the highest poetry" and and you already know that; since you've read where I've stated it:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Then why did you say to Michael: "So where is your quote from "Austin's Preface" Michael? Or anywhere else that Austin allegedly says that he 'wanted [The Human Tragedy] to be thought of as "Dramatic Verse"' and/or that 'he believed [Dramatic Verse] "to be the highest form of poetry'?" AND "I can't "refute" evidence that you don't supply, Michael. You've given us no evidence that Austin thought Dramatic Verse was "the highest form of poetry" or that he tried to turn /The Human Tragedy/ into Dramatic Verse. (Even your "AllPoetry" quote doesn't say that, BTW.)" .....if you already knew where it was?
> > > > >
> > > > > > DUNCE: As I've already explained, Michael was misquoting Austin, and, more importantly, was misrepresenting him. Austin said that narrative poetry (whether written in epic or dramatic style were the highest form of poetry. Michael's account made no mention of epic poetry at all -- in Michael's account "Dramatic Verse" was the highest form and dumb old epic poetry wasn't even worth a mention.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As I'd guessed in my previous response, this is yet another example of your niggling attempts nitpick the words used in a paraphrased reference to a passage I'd directly quoted.
> > > > > >
> > > > > Michael: when you said you quoted a passage from Austin's preface, I asked you to produce it. You still haven't.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now that NastyGoon has supplied quotes from the preface, it's clear why you didn't: there was no such passage, since Austin never said there (or, most likely, anywhere) what you'd claimed he did.
> > > > > > Do you understand what a paraphrase is?
> > > > > Sure. Do you understand that a paragraph can be accurate or inaccurate, correct or incorrect? Yours was inaccurate and incorrect.
> > > > > > Do you understand that when discussing a passage one has quoted verbatim, it is unnecessary to point out *everything* contained in said passage?
> > > > > Michael; once again, no one has seen your so-called verbatim quote. When you were asked to produce it, or a link,to it, you tried to fob off a quote from fricking *AllPoetry* instead. Nor could your NastyGoon produce it, either; they had to Google the relevant quotes on their own (and found only quotes that completely undercut your argument).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Furthermore "dramatic style (poetry)" = "dramatic verse."
> > > > > Michael, neither "dramatic verse" nor "dramatic style (poetry)" are the same thing as "epic and dramatic poetry". The latter category includes epic poetry; the former does not.
> > > > > > Quibbling over Mr. Austin's not having placed the words "dramatic" and "verse" together, is petty beyond belief.
> > > > > Which explains why you'd want to pretend anyone is quibbling over that.
> > > > > > > George Dance, you are are losing focus.
> > > > > > DUNCE: No, NastyGoon. Here's where the focus is, and should stay:
> > > > > > > Alfred Austin wrote an epic poem, /The Human Tragedy/. Perhaps because of the title, perhaps because he called his Cantos "Acts," you got the idea Austin's epic was a play -- you mistakenly called it a play, and I corrected you. Since you and your monkey don't like to be corrected, given that you want to be seen as "so much smarter," than anyone else, you've been spreading the nonsense that Austin'g epic really was a play.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You've finally conceded that his original (1862) verse was an epic poem; your current story is that Austin turned it into a play in his 1876 revision.
> > > > > > MONKEY: No, Lying Dunce -- NancyGene has never conceded any such thing.
> > > > >
> > > > > Wrong, Lying Michael. In yet another of their troll-threads, NastyGoon has conceded exactly that, in the Bandar-Log way, by pretending they never called the 1862 poem a play in the first place:
> > > > >
> > > > > 'If he looks above, we say "Mr. Austin seems to have published this 1862 version of the book/play, then recalled the copies for revision." We didn't say that the 1862 publication was a play at that point. It became one later."
> > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/X1hBOAzcciA/m/nYLmz1S6BgAJ?hl=en
> > > > >
> > > > > I notice that you two like to call everything your opponent says a "lie" without ever showing any evidence, in the hope something will stick.. Is that yet another tactic you picked up on your "Debating Team"?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mr. Austin's revision (wherein he divided his work into "Acts," merely supports NancyGene's original claim that he considered his work to be a "closet drama."
> > > > > It's your claim that (because he called his cantos Acts") he considered his epic poem to be a "closet drama" rather than an epic poem (which, remember, he considered the "highest form" of poetry). The quotes NastyGoon (not you) found in his 1876 preface do not support your claim in any way..
> > > > > > >> <quote>
> > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> {Alfred Austin] believed that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest or greatest form of poetry, and that great poetry must be narrative poetry. </q>
> > > > > > >> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/FRQDPlBv69M/m/tYyZ547SBwAJ?hl=en
> > > > > > >> We know you read that, since it's from the very post you copied the quotes in your OP for this thread. Was your only reason for opening a new thread so that you could misrepresent the discussion?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, it was to make sure that you saw the origin of the quote that Austin thought that dramatic verse was the highest form of poetry.
> > > > > > DUNCE: As we've seen, that quote did not say "that dramatic verse was the hidhest form of poetry". Austin thought that narrative poetry, whether written in dramatic style as a play (like Shakespeare) or in straight narrative as an epic (like Milton) was the highest form. Austin's quotes do not say that "dramatic verse" was higher or better than epic poetry, while Michael's quotes say exactly that.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > MONKEY: While it's true that Mr. Austin never said that "dramatic verse was the hidhest[sic] form of poetry," he did say that it was (along with epic verse) the *highest* form.
> > > > >
> > > > > Which wouldn't have helped you, since that does not give Austin a motive for changing, or pretending to change, his epic poem into "dramatic verse." Which is why you had to lie and misrepresent.
> > > > > > > Remember that you questioned Michael as to the source? Sheesh.. You seem to have both short and long-term memory loss.
> > > > > > DUNCE: As I've explained, and we all can see since you've given the source, Michael was misrepresenting his source; he was dishonestly pretending that Austin thought dramatic poetry was "higher" than epic poetry. Why? So that stupid people, who've never read the poem, would believe that was why Austin turned his epic poem into a "closet drama" (which, to repeat, never happened).
> > > > >
> > > > > > Since I had quoted both of my sources verbatim, I could not possibly have been misrepresenting them by only mentioning the relevant portions in my paraphrased reference to the same.
> > > > > And there you go again, with the claim that you're previously quoted your "Dramatic Verse" bullshit from the preface. You've been asked to produce the quote, either by copying or by giving the link, and you've consistently dodged the request. It's reasonable to think that Lying Michael is lying yet again.
> > > > > > Why do you lie so much, Dunce?
> > > > > Why do you project so much, Michael Monkey?
> > > > > > >> > We don't think that George Dance fully reads any of the poems that George Dance features on George Dance's blaaarrrggg.
> > > > > > >> Well, of course you'd think that. After all, you know that you and your monkey don't read the poems, but you also want to believe that you know more about them than I do; so of course you'd want to believe that I don't read them, either.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Judging by what you post on AAPC about the poem (4 lines), we have no reason to believe that you have read any more of the poem than those lines.
> > > > > > DUNCE: Of course; if all you've read is a 4-line quote, there's no reason to believe anything. Including your belief that I haven't read any of the poems I've blogged. Your only reason for thinking that is your own unwarranted belief that you're "smarter" than your opponents. (Whether you actually think that, or whether you're simply aping Michael Monkey, is irrelevant.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > MONKEY: We think you don't read the poems
> > > > > anip
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, Michael MOnkey; we've all heard those stories before, too.
> > > > > > > Maybe not even those, since they are copied and pasted.
> > > > > > DUNCE: Now, that is just stupid. Do you copy and paste the things you do (in this and other threads) without reading them? Have you ever copied and pasted something that you've never read? Why in the hell would you think that anyone else does. HINT: If you want to appear "amart" then you really should not write such stupid things.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > MONKEY: If you want to appear "smart," you should first learn how to spell it correctly.
> > > >
> > > > Michael Monkey can't figure out how to defend his NastyGoon's illogic here. But he did find a typo-lame to deflect with, which should be enough for him to pretend that he's "winning" his silly little debate.
> > > Again, meanwhile Pendragon's in such a tizzy he's making plenty of typos in his troll posts.
> > >
> > > I spotted Pendragon using "to" for "too" earlier in the day.
> > Not that a dropped "o" is much of a typo
> Sure it is.
>
> "two" "to" and "too" mean different things.
>
> Words matter.

On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 10:58:20 AM UTC-5, Faraway Star wrote:
> On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 8:37:07 PM UTC-6, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 7:42:34 PM UTC-6, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 7:34:20 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > George J. wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 10:34:54 AM UTC-5, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > NancyGene wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > The opinions were from critics of the day, contemporary with Austin. Do you ignore all reviews and opinions from qualified people, in favor of just your own opinion?
> > > > > > > DUNCE: Oh, no, NastyGoon, you're misunderstanding again. One should read all the reviews. However, when it comes to believing[ them,]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You're stuttering, Dunce, and have misused a period instead of a comma. I know that "Team Donkey" is fond of accusing others of having a "MELTDOWN," but you are the one who displays the telltale effects of one most frequently.
> > > > > > Seriously, Monkey? Where did you get the idea that "stuttering" is the sign of a "MELTDOWN"? Do you really believe that? Or is that just something you and NastyGoon learned on your "debate teams" -- "If your opponent stutters, forget what you're debating and switch to making personal attacks on him!"?
> > > > > > > > you have to use your own judgement, put them in context, and consider the sources. The "opinions ... of the day" have actually been from other poets, Austin's competitors. Poets like Browning and Blunt were not dispassionate critics: they were convinced that they were "better" poets than Austin (and they may have been correct (and may have been; I'm not getting into that), so it's reasonable to think they were both jealous and butthurt when Austin became Poet Laureate, while neither of them were even considered for the job.
> > > > > > *crickets*. As I said, "forget what you're debating" ...
> > > > > > > DUNCE: (I've witnessed that very thing first hand; for example, I remember how jealous and butthurt Jim Senetto became when Will Dockery got a book published by George J. Dance and he didn't. So I do know what I'm talking about.)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Why do you lie so much, Dunce?
> > > > > > > No one remembers any such thing, because it never happened.
> > > > > > You don't "remember any such thing" because Jim was your ally and your slurp-puppet.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Jim has a poetry collection, "Cardboard Mansions," published at Amazon, and did so at the time.
> > > > > > Wh> https://www.amazon.com/Cardboard-Mansions-J-D-Senetto/dp/1329079825
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, Michael, we know; you both bragged of it often enough. Jim's one "proof" that he was a poet and Will wasn't was that he had a book, and Will didn't. Then Will got one.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The reason that Jim (and everyone else) was annoyed with your publishing the Donkey was that you inconsiderately chose to compile/edit/proofread the book *here,* rather than through personal emails. In doing so, you used AAPC for what should have been personal correspondence, thereby wasting everyone else's time.
> > > > > > Yes, I've read that story from you before, Michael; and your periodically regurgitating it doesn't make it any more believable. IMO, any would-be writer can benefit by learning what goes into putting out a book, so I think our threads on the book were beneficial; but, for those like you who didn't, there was no reason for you to be reading those threads in the first place as they were clearly marked as such: they were none of your business, and you knew they were none of your business. You and your slurppuppet Jim chose to waste your own time sticking your nose into our business; stop trying to pretend that was our fault just because it was our business.
> > > > > > > The fact that you did so for approximately 2 1/2 years (when anyone else would have had the book published in less than a month) only compounded your offense.
> > > > > > We may have talked about doing *a* book for that long, but the total time to produce Will's SP, from conception to publishing date, was IIRC about 3 months. Once again: why do you lie so much, Michael Monkey?
> > > > > > > >> > George Dance doesn't practice this philosophy, since George Dance obviously didn't read Austin's preface to "The Human Tragedy," or George Dance would have known that Austin considered epic and dramatic poetry to be the highest poetry.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >> The problem with that, NastyGoon, is that I did know "that Austin considered epic and dramatic poetry to be the highest poetry" and and you already know that; since you've read where I've stated it:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Then why did you say to Michael: "So where is your quote from "Austin's Preface" Michael? Or anywhere else that Austin allegedly says that he 'wanted [The Human Tragedy] to be thought of as "Dramatic Verse"' and/or that 'he believed [Dramatic Verse] "to be the highest form of poetry'?" AND "I can't "refute" evidence that you don't supply, Michael. You've given us no evidence that Austin thought Dramatic Verse was "the highest form of poetry" or that he tried to turn /The Human Tragedy/ into Dramatic Verse. (Even your "AllPoetry" quote doesn't say that, BTW.)" .....if you already knew where it was?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > DUNCE: As I've already explained, Michael was misquoting Austin, and, more importantly, was misrepresenting him. Austin said that narrative poetry (whether written in epic or dramatic style were the highest form of poetry. Michael's account made no mention of epic poetry at all -- in Michael's account "Dramatic Verse" was the highest form and dumb old epic poetry wasn't even worth a mention.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As I'd guessed in my previous response, this is yet another example of your niggling attempts nitpick the words used in a paraphrased reference to a passage I'd directly quoted.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > Michael: when you said you quoted a passage from Austin's preface, I asked you to produce it. You still haven't.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now that NastyGoon has supplied quotes from the preface, it's clear why you didn't: there was no such passage, since Austin never said there (or, most likely, anywhere) what you'd claimed he did.
> > > > > > > Do you understand what a paraphrase is?
> > > > > > Sure. Do you understand that a paragraph can be accurate or inaccurate, correct or incorrect? Yours was inaccurate and incorrect.
> > > > > > > Do you understand that when discussing a passage one has quoted verbatim, it is unnecessary to point out *everything* contained in said passage?
> > > > > > Michael; once again, no one has seen your so-called verbatim quote. When you were asked to produce it, or a link,to it, you tried to fob off a quote from fricking *AllPoetry* instead. Nor could your NastyGoon produce it, either; they had to Google the relevant quotes on their own (and found only quotes that completely undercut your argument).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Furthermore "dramatic style (poetry)" = "dramatic verse."
> > > > > > Michael, neither "dramatic verse" nor "dramatic style (poetry)" are the same thing as "epic and dramatic poetry". The latter category includes epic poetry; the former does not.
> > > > > > > Quibbling over Mr. Austin's not having placed the words "dramatic" and "verse" together, is petty beyond belief.
> > > > > > Which explains why you'd want to pretend anyone is quibbling over that.
> > > > > > > > George Dance, you are are losing focus.
> > > > > > > DUNCE: No, NastyGoon. Here's where the focus is, and should stay:
> > > > > > > > Alfred Austin wrote an epic poem, /The Human Tragedy/. Perhaps because of the title, perhaps because he called his Cantos "Acts," you got the idea Austin's epic was a play -- you mistakenly called it a play, and I corrected you. Since you and your monkey don't like to be corrected, given that you want to be seen as "so much smarter," than anyone else, you've been spreading the nonsense that Austin'g epic really was a play.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You've finally conceded that his original (1862) verse was an epic poem; your current story is that Austin turned it into a play in his 1876 revision.
> > > > > > > MONKEY: No, Lying Dunce -- NancyGene has never conceded any such thing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wrong, Lying Michael. In yet another of their troll-threads, NastyGoon has conceded exactly that, in the Bandar-Log way, by pretending they never called the 1862 poem a play in the first place:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 'If he looks above, we say "Mr. Austin seems to have published this 1862 version of the book/play, then recalled the copies for revision." We didn't say that the 1862 publication was a play at that point. It became one later."
> > > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/X1hBOAzcciA/m/nYLmz1S6BgAJ?hl=en
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I notice that you two like to call everything your opponent says a "lie" without ever showing any evidence, in the hope something will stick. Is that yet another tactic you picked up on your "Debating Team"?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mr. Austin's revision (wherein he divided his work into "Acts," merely supports NancyGene's original claim that he considered his work to be a "closet drama."
> > > > > > It's your claim that (because he called his cantos Acts") he considered his epic poem to be a "closet drama" rather than an epic poem (which, remember, he considered the "highest form" of poetry). The quotes NastyGoon (not you) found in his 1876 preface do not support your claim in any way.
> > > > > > > >> <quote>
> > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> {Alfred Austin] believed that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest or greatest form of poetry, and that great poetry must be narrative poetry. </q>
> > > > > > > >> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/FRQDPlBv69M/m/tYyZ547SBwAJ?hl=en
> > > > > > > >> We know you read that, since it's from the very post you copied the quotes in your OP for this thread. Was your only reason for opening a new thread so that you could misrepresent the discussion?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No, it was to make sure that you saw the origin of the quote that Austin thought that dramatic verse was the highest form of poetry.
> > > > > > > DUNCE: As we've seen, that quote did not say "that dramatic verse was the hidhest form of poetry". Austin thought that narrative poetry, whether written in dramatic style as a play (like Shakespeare) or in straight narrative as an epic (like Milton) was the highest form. Austin's quotes do not say that "dramatic verse" was higher or better than epic poetry, while Michael's quotes say exactly that.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > MONKEY: While it's true that Mr. Austin never said that "dramatic verse was the hidhest[sic] form of poetry," he did say that it was (along with epic verse) the *highest* form.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Which wouldn't have helped you, since that does not give Austin a motive for changing, or pretending to change, his epic poem into "dramatic verse." Which is why you had to lie and misrepresent.
> > > > > > > > Remember that you questioned Michael as to the source? Sheesh. You seem to have both short and long-term memory loss.
> > > > > > > DUNCE: As I've explained, and we all can see since you've given the source, Michael was misrepresenting his source; he was dishonestly pretending that Austin thought dramatic poetry was "higher" than epic poetry. Why? So that stupid people, who've never read the poem, would believe that was why Austin turned his epic poem into a "closet drama" (which, to repeat, never happened).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Since I had quoted both of my sources verbatim, I could not possibly have been misrepresenting them by only mentioning the relevant portions in my paraphrased reference to the same.
> > > > > > And there you go again, with the claim that you're previously quoted your "Dramatic Verse" bullshit from the preface. You've been asked to produce the quote, either by copying or by giving the link, and you've consistently dodged the request. It's reasonable to think that Lying Michael is lying yet again.
> > > > > > > Why do you lie so much, Dunce?
> > > > > > Why do you project so much, Michael Monkey?
> > > > > > > >> > We don't think that George Dance fully reads any of the poems that George Dance features on George Dance's blaaarrrggg.
> > > > > > > >> Well, of course you'd think that. After all, you know that you and your monkey don't read the poems, but you also want to believe that you know more about them than I do; so of course you'd want to believe that I don't read them, either.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Judging by what you post on AAPC about the poem (4 lines), we have no reason to believe that you have read any more of the poem than those lines.
> > > > > > > DUNCE: Of course; if all you've read is a 4-line quote, there's no reason to believe anything. Including your belief that I haven't read any of the poems I've blogged. Your only reason for thinking that is your own unwarranted belief that you're "smarter" than your opponents. (Whether you actually think that, or whether you're simply aping Michael Monkey, is irrelevant.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > MONKEY: We think you don't read the poems
> > > > > > anip
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, Michael MOnkey; we've all heard those stories before, too.
> > > > > > > > Maybe not even those, since they are copied and pasted.
> > > > > > > DUNCE: Now, that is just stupid. Do you copy and paste the things you do (in this and other threads) without reading them? Have you ever copied and pasted something that you've never read? Why in the hell would you think that anyone else does. HINT: If you want to appear "amart" then you really should not write such stupid things.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > MONKEY: If you want to appear "smart," you should first learn how to spell it correctly.
> > > > >
> > > > > Michael Monkey can't figure out how to defend his NastyGoon's illogic here. But he did find a typo-lame to deflect with, which should be enough for him to pretend that he's "winning" his silly little debate.
> > > > Again, meanwhile Pendragon's in such a tizzy he's making plenty of typos in his troll posts.
> > > >
> > > > I spotted Pendragon using "to" for "too" earlier in the day.
> > > Not that a dropped "o" is much of a typo
> > Sure it is.
> >
> > "two" "to" and "too" mean different things.
> >
> > Words matter.
> Pendragon is one stupid mother fucker....

On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 5:04:24 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 8, 2023 at 1:55:15 PM UTC-5, George J. wrote:
> > NancyGene wrote:
> >
> > > On Sunday, October 22, 2023 at 12:23:56 PM UTC, NancyGene wrote:
> >
> > > We also see in “The Argus,” Friday, January 8, 1896, “The New Poet Laureate:” “His most ambitious work, The Human Tragedy, appeared in the year following [1862], but was afterwards withdrawn from circulation, and reissued in a revised form some years later. It attracted scarcely any attention in England, and the unmerited indifference exhibited towards it by the writer's own countrymen was reprehended at the time by the Revue des Deux Mondes. Mr. Austin developed in this poem the human tragedy in Its religious, romantic, ethnical, and humanitarian aspects; and the disappointment occasioned by its failure served to infuse a good deal of bitterness into his next work, The Golden Age, a satire […]."
> >
> > Hmmm ... that's two more sources that don't say /The Human Tragedy/ is a play. After three weeks, the only people you've found claiming it is one are yourself and your Bandar-Log "colleague".

> Obsessed, you are, George Dance!

Bored you sound, NastyGoon. Is that why you've run away from the discussion?

> The sources also do not say that "The Human Tragedy" was a floor wax or a delicious dessert topping.

A pity, that. It would be amusing to have Michael Monkey pontificate about how Austin thought that floor wax or dessert toppings were the highest form of literature.

> And, actually, we have not been looking for other citations. It is a play.

So you've decided to stick with calling it a play, rather than a floor wax or a dessert topping. A wise choice on your part.

> As Michael points out in the message just posted, Austin wrote "verse dramas."

Michael Monkey "pointed it out" because you said it and you're his ally. Having him quote you, and then quoting him, is no more impressive than just saying it yourself three times.
> We think that Michael Pendragon was right when he said that you use Debating Techniques 101.* How would you know if we were or were not looking for "people" who said it was a play?

Ever since you were told that it wasn't play, weeks ago, you have been frantically trying to prove that it is, too, one. If you weren't looking for evidence that it was a play, just what have you been up to? You're not just being one of those illiterate Googlers Michael was inveighing about, who muck things up by throwing in random quotes that have nothing to do with the actual discussion?

> After 125 years, not many people have thought of "The Human Tragedy" at all. It is only thanks to our bringing it to AAPC's attention that it is being discussed in 2023. Mr. Austin thanks us -- cannot you do that too?

I'm sure my posting of his work got more attention than it normally would have, thanks to your mistake in calling his poem a play. I notice the thread is up to 600 views now. If you want to take credit for that, be my guest. However, you don't want all these alleged readers to get the wrong information, would you?
> *We also took Debating in college. We got an A.

Figures. That explains why you'd worry about everyone else using unfair "Debating Techniques 101" back at you.

On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 9:40:16 PM UTC-6, George J. wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 10:58:20 AM UTC-5, Faraway Star wrote:
> > On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 8:37:07 PM UTC-6, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 7:42:34 PM UTC-6, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 7:34:20 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > George J. wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 10:34:54 AM UTC-5, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The opinions were from critics of the day, contemporary with Austin. Do you ignore all reviews and opinions from qualified people, in favor of just your own opinion?
> > > > > > > > DUNCE: Oh, no, NastyGoon, you're misunderstanding again. One should read all the reviews. However, when it comes to believing[ them,]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You're stuttering, Dunce, and have misused a period instead of a comma. I know that "Team Donkey" is fond of accusing others of having a "MELTDOWN," but you are the one who displays the telltale effects of one most frequently.
> > > > > > > Seriously, Monkey? Where did you get the idea that "stuttering" is the sign of a "MELTDOWN"? Do you really believe that? Or is that just something you and NastyGoon learned on your "debate teams" -- "If your opponent stutters, forget what you're debating and switch to making personal attacks on him!"?
> > > > > > > > > you have to use your own judgement, put them in context, and consider the sources. The "opinions ... of the day" have actually been from other poets, Austin's competitors. Poets like Browning and Blunt were not dispassionate critics: they were convinced that they were "better" poets than Austin (and they may have been correct (and may have been; I'm not getting into that), so it's reasonable to think they were both jealous and butthurt when Austin became Poet Laureate, while neither of them were even considered for the job.
> > > > > > > *crickets*. As I said, "forget what you're debating" ...
> > > > > > > > DUNCE: (I've witnessed that very thing first hand; for example, I remember how jealous and butthurt Jim Senetto became when Will Dockery got a book published by George J. Dance and he didn't. So I do know what I'm talking about.)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Why do you lie so much, Dunce?
> > > > > > > > No one remembers any such thing, because it never happened.
> > > > > > > You don't "remember any such thing" because Jim was your ally and your slurp-puppet.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Jim has a poetry collection, "Cardboard Mansions," published at Amazon, and did so at the time.
> > > > > > > Wh> https://www.amazon.com/Cardboard-Mansions-J-D-Senetto/dp/1329079825
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, Michael, we know; you both bragged of it often enough. Jim's one "proof" that he was a poet and Will wasn't was that he had a book, and Will didn't. Then Will got one.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The reason that Jim (and everyone else) was annoyed with your publishing the Donkey was that you inconsiderately chose to compile/edit/proofread the book *here,* rather than through personal emails. In doing so, you used AAPC for what should have been personal correspondence, thereby wasting everyone else's time.
> > > > > > > Yes, I've read that story from you before, Michael; and your periodically regurgitating it doesn't make it any more believable. IMO, any would-be writer can benefit by learning what goes into putting out a book, so I think our threads on the book were beneficial; but, for those like you who didn't, there was no reason for you to be reading those threads in the first place as they were clearly marked as such: they were none of your business, and you knew they were none of your business. You and your slurppuppet Jim chose to waste your own time sticking your nose into our business; stop trying to pretend that was our fault just because it was our business..
> > > > > > > > The fact that you did so for approximately 2 1/2 years (when anyone else would have had the book published in less than a month) only compounded your offense.
> > > > > > > We may have talked about doing *a* book for that long, but the total time to produce Will's SP, from conception to publishing date, was IIRC about 3 months. Once again: why do you lie so much, Michael Monkey?
> > > > > > > > >> > George Dance doesn't practice this philosophy, since George Dance obviously didn't read Austin's preface to "The Human Tragedy," or George Dance would have known that Austin considered epic and dramatic poetry to be the highest poetry.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >> The problem with that, NastyGoon, is that I did know "that Austin considered epic and dramatic poetry to be the highest poetry" and and you already know that; since you've read where I've stated it:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Then why did you say to Michael: "So where is your quote from "Austin's Preface" Michael? Or anywhere else that Austin allegedly says that he 'wanted [The Human Tragedy] to be thought of as "Dramatic Verse"' and/or that 'he believed [Dramatic Verse] "to be the highest form of poetry'?" AND "I can't "refute" evidence that you don't supply, Michael. You've given us no evidence that Austin thought Dramatic Verse was "the highest form of poetry" or that he tried to turn /The Human Tragedy/ into Dramatic Verse. (Even your "AllPoetry" quote doesn't say that, BTW.)" .....if you already knew where it was?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > DUNCE: As I've already explained, Michael was misquoting Austin, and, more importantly, was misrepresenting him. Austin said that narrative poetry (whether written in epic or dramatic style were the highest form of poetry. Michael's account made no mention of epic poetry at all -- in Michael's account "Dramatic Verse" was the highest form and dumb old epic poetry wasn't even worth a mention.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As I'd guessed in my previous response, this is yet another example of your niggling attempts nitpick the words used in a paraphrased reference to a passage I'd directly quoted.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Michael: when you said you quoted a passage from Austin's preface, I asked you to produce it. You still haven't.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Now that NastyGoon has supplied quotes from the preface, it's clear why you didn't: there was no such passage, since Austin never said there (or, most likely, anywhere) what you'd claimed he did.
> > > > > > > > Do you understand what a paraphrase is?
> > > > > > > Sure. Do you understand that a paragraph can be accurate or inaccurate, correct or incorrect? Yours was inaccurate and incorrect.
> > > > > > > > Do you understand that when discussing a passage one has quoted verbatim, it is unnecessary to point out *everything* contained in said passage?
> > > > > > > Michael; once again, no one has seen your so-called verbatim quote. When you were asked to produce it, or a link,to it, you tried to fob off a quote from fricking *AllPoetry* instead. Nor could your NastyGoon produce it, either; they had to Google the relevant quotes on their own (and found only quotes that completely undercut your argument).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Furthermore "dramatic style (poetry)" = "dramatic verse."
> > > > > > > Michael, neither "dramatic verse" nor "dramatic style (poetry)" are the same thing as "epic and dramatic poetry". The latter category includes epic poetry; the former does not.
> > > > > > > > Quibbling over Mr. Austin's not having placed the words "dramatic" and "verse" together, is petty beyond belief.
> > > > > > > Which explains why you'd want to pretend anyone is quibbling over that.
> > > > > > > > > George Dance, you are are losing focus.
> > > > > > > > DUNCE: No, NastyGoon. Here's where the focus is, and should stay:
> > > > > > > > > Alfred Austin wrote an epic poem, /The Human Tragedy/. Perhaps because of the title, perhaps because he called his Cantos "Acts," you got the idea Austin's epic was a play -- you mistakenly called it a play, and I corrected you. Since you and your monkey don't like to be corrected, given that you want to be seen as "so much smarter," than anyone else, you've been spreading the nonsense that Austin'g epic really was a play.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You've finally conceded that his original (1862) verse was an epic poem; your current story is that Austin turned it into a play in his 1876 revision.
> > > > > > > > MONKEY: No, Lying Dunce -- NancyGene has never conceded any such thing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Wrong, Lying Michael. In yet another of their troll-threads, NastyGoon has conceded exactly that, in the Bandar-Log way, by pretending they never called the 1862 poem a play in the first place:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 'If he looks above, we say "Mr. Austin seems to have published this 1862 version of the book/play, then recalled the copies for revision.." We didn't say that the 1862 publication was a play at that point. It became one later."
> > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/X1hBOAzcciA/m/nYLmz1S6BgAJ?hl=en
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I notice that you two like to call everything your opponent says a "lie" without ever showing any evidence, in the hope something will stick. Is that yet another tactic you picked up on your "Debating Team"?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Mr. Austin's revision (wherein he divided his work into "Acts," merely supports NancyGene's original claim that he considered his work to be a "closet drama."
> > > > > > > It's your claim that (because he called his cantos Acts") he considered his epic poem to be a "closet drama" rather than an epic poem (which, remember, he considered the "highest form" of poetry). The quotes NastyGoon (not you) found in his 1876 preface do not support your claim in any way.
> > > > > > > > >> <quote>
> > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> {Alfred Austin] believed that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest or greatest form of poetry, and that great poetry must be narrative poetry. </q>
> > > > > > > > >> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/FRQDPlBv69M/m/tYyZ547SBwAJ?hl=en
> > > > > > > > >> We know you read that, since it's from the very post you copied the quotes in your OP for this thread. Was your only reason for opening a new thread so that you could misrepresent the discussion?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No, it was to make sure that you saw the origin of the quote that Austin thought that dramatic verse was the highest form of poetry.
> > > > > > > > DUNCE: As we've seen, that quote did not say "that dramatic verse was the hidhest form of poetry". Austin thought that narrative poetry, whether written in dramatic style as a play (like Shakespeare) or in straight narrative as an epic (like Milton) was the highest form. Austin's quotes do not say that "dramatic verse" was higher or better than epic poetry, while Michael's quotes say exactly that.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > MONKEY: While it's true that Mr. Austin never said that "dramatic verse was the hidhest[sic] form of poetry," he did say that it was (along with epic verse) the *highest* form.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Which wouldn't have helped you, since that does not give Austin a motive for changing, or pretending to change, his epic poem into "dramatic verse." Which is why you had to lie and misrepresent.
> > > > > > > > > Remember that you questioned Michael as to the source? Sheesh. You seem to have both short and long-term memory loss.
> > > > > > > > DUNCE: As I've explained, and we all can see since you've given the source, Michael was misrepresenting his source; he was dishonestly pretending that Austin thought dramatic poetry was "higher" than epic poetry. Why? So that stupid people, who've never read the poem, would believe that was why Austin turned his epic poem into a "closet drama" (which, to repeat, never happened).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Since I had quoted both of my sources verbatim, I could not possibly have been misrepresenting them by only mentioning the relevant portions in my paraphrased reference to the same.
> > > > > > > And there you go again, with the claim that you're previously quoted your "Dramatic Verse" bullshit from the preface. You've been asked to produce the quote, either by copying or by giving the link, and you've consistently dodged the request. It's reasonable to think that Lying Michael is lying yet again.
> > > > > > > > Why do you lie so much, Dunce?
> > > > > > > Why do you project so much, Michael Monkey?
> > > > > > > > >> > We don't think that George Dance fully reads any of the poems that George Dance features on George Dance's blaaarrrggg.
> > > > > > > > >> Well, of course you'd think that. After all, you know that you and your monkey don't read the poems, but you also want to believe that you know more about them than I do; so of course you'd want to believe that I don't read them, either.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Judging by what you post on AAPC about the poem (4 lines), we have no reason to believe that you have read any more of the poem than those lines.
> > > > > > > > DUNCE: Of course; if all you've read is a 4-line quote, there's no reason to believe anything. Including your belief that I haven't read any of the poems I've blogged. Your only reason for thinking that is your own unwarranted belief that you're "smarter" than your opponents. (Whether you actually think that, or whether you're simply aping Michael Monkey, is irrelevant.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > MONKEY: We think you don't read the poems
> > > > > > > anip
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, Michael MOnkey; we've all heard those stories before, too.
> > > > > > > > > Maybe not even those, since they are copied and pasted.
> > > > > > > > DUNCE: Now, that is just stupid. Do you copy and paste the things you do (in this and other threads) without reading them? Have you ever copied and pasted something that you've never read? Why in the hell would you think that anyone else does. HINT: If you want to appear "amart" then you really should not write such stupid things.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > MONKEY: If you want to appear "smart," you should first learn how to spell it correctly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Michael Monkey can't figure out how to defend his NastyGoon's illogic here. But he did find a typo-lame to deflect with, which should be enough for him to pretend that he's "winning" his silly little debate.
> > > > > Again, meanwhile Pendragon's in such a tizzy he's making plenty of typos in his troll posts.
> > > > >
> > > > > I spotted Pendragon using "to" for "too" earlier in the day.
> > > > Not that a dropped "o" is much of a typo
> > > Sure it is.
> > >
> > > "two" "to" and "too" mean different things.
> > >
> > > Words matter.
> > Pendragon is one stupid mother fucker....
> As he keeps proving, he's lost without his "wavy read line".

On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 7:10:41 AM UTC-5, Faraway Star wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 9:40:16 PM UTC-6, George J. wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 10:58:20 AM UTC-5, Faraway Star wrote:
> > > On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 8:37:07 PM UTC-6, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 7:42:34 PM UTC-6, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 7:34:20 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > > George J. wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 10:34:54 AM UTC-5, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The opinions were from critics of the day, contemporary with Austin. Do you ignore all reviews and opinions from qualified people, in favor of just your own opinion?
> > > > > > > > > DUNCE: Oh, no, NastyGoon, you're misunderstanding again. One should read all the reviews. However, when it comes to believing[ them,]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You're stuttering, Dunce, and have misused a period instead of a comma. I know that "Team Donkey" is fond of accusing others of having a "MELTDOWN," but you are the one who displays the telltale effects of one most frequently.
> > > > > > > > Seriously, Monkey? Where did you get the idea that "stuttering" is the sign of a "MELTDOWN"? Do you really believe that? Or is that just something you and NastyGoon learned on your "debate teams" -- "If your opponent stutters, forget what you're debating and switch to making personal attacks on him!"?
> > > > > > > > > > you have to use your own judgement, put them in context, and consider the sources. The "opinions ... of the day" have actually been from other poets, Austin's competitors. Poets like Browning and Blunt were not dispassionate critics: they were convinced that they were "better" poets than Austin (and they may have been correct (and may have been; I'm not getting into that), so it's reasonable to think they were both jealous and butthurt when Austin became Poet Laureate, while neither of them were even considered for the job.
> > > > > > > > *crickets*. As I said, "forget what you're debating" ...
> > > > > > > > > DUNCE: (I've witnessed that very thing first hand; for example, I remember how jealous and butthurt Jim Senetto became when Will Dockery got a book published by George J. Dance and he didn't. So I do know what I'm talking about.)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Why do you lie so much, Dunce?
> > > > > > > > > No one remembers any such thing, because it never happened.
> > > > > > > > You don't "remember any such thing" because Jim was your ally and your slurp-puppet.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Jim has a poetry collection, "Cardboard Mansions," published at Amazon, and did so at the time.
> > > > > > > > Wh> https://www.amazon.com/Cardboard-Mansions-J-D-Senetto/dp/1329079825
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes, Michael, we know; you both bragged of it often enough. Jim's one "proof" that he was a poet and Will wasn't was that he had a book, and Will didn't. Then Will got one.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The reason that Jim (and everyone else) was annoyed with your publishing the Donkey was that you inconsiderately chose to compile/edit/proofread the book *here,* rather than through personal emails. In doing so, you used AAPC for what should have been personal correspondence, thereby wasting everyone else's time.
> > > > > > > > Yes, I've read that story from you before, Michael; and your periodically regurgitating it doesn't make it any more believable. IMO, any would-be writer can benefit by learning what goes into putting out a book, so I think our threads on the book were beneficial; but, for those like you who didn't, there was no reason for you to be reading those threads in the first place as they were clearly marked as such: they were none of your business, and you knew they were none of your business. You and your slurppuppet Jim chose to waste your own time sticking your nose into our business; stop trying to pretend that was our fault just because it was our business.
> > > > > > > > > The fact that you did so for approximately 2 1/2 years (when anyone else would have had the book published in less than a month) only compounded your offense.
> > > > > > > > We may have talked about doing *a* book for that long, but the total time to produce Will's SP, from conception to publishing date, was IIRC about 3 months. Once again: why do you lie so much, Michael Monkey?
> > > > > > > > > >> > George Dance doesn't practice this philosophy, since George Dance obviously didn't read Austin's preface to "The Human Tragedy," or George Dance would have known that Austin considered epic and dramatic poetry to be the highest poetry.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >> The problem with that, NastyGoon, is that I did know "that Austin considered epic and dramatic poetry to be the highest poetry" and and you already know that; since you've read where I've stated it:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Then why did you say to Michael: "So where is your quote from "Austin's Preface" Michael? Or anywhere else that Austin allegedly says that he 'wanted [The Human Tragedy] to be thought of as "Dramatic Verse"' and/or that 'he believed [Dramatic Verse] "to be the highest form of poetry'?" AND "I can't "refute" evidence that you don't supply, Michael. You've given us no evidence that Austin thought Dramatic Verse was "the highest form of poetry" or that he tried to turn /The Human Tragedy/ into Dramatic Verse. (Even your "AllPoetry" quote doesn't say that, BTW.)" .....if you already knew where it was?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > DUNCE: As I've already explained, Michael was misquoting Austin, and, more importantly, was misrepresenting him. Austin said that narrative poetry (whether written in epic or dramatic style were the highest form of poetry. Michael's account made no mention of epic poetry at all -- in Michael's account "Dramatic Verse" was the highest form and dumb old epic poetry wasn't even worth a mention.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As I'd guessed in my previous response, this is yet another example of your niggling attempts nitpick the words used in a paraphrased reference to a passage I'd directly quoted.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Michael: when you said you quoted a passage from Austin's preface, I asked you to produce it. You still haven't.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Now that NastyGoon has supplied quotes from the preface, it's clear why you didn't: there was no such passage, since Austin never said there (or, most likely, anywhere) what you'd claimed he did.
> > > > > > > > > Do you understand what a paraphrase is?
> > > > > > > > Sure. Do you understand that a paragraph can be accurate or inaccurate, correct or incorrect? Yours was inaccurate and incorrect.
> > > > > > > > > Do you understand that when discussing a passage one has quoted verbatim, it is unnecessary to point out *everything* contained in said passage?
> > > > > > > > Michael; once again, no one has seen your so-called verbatim quote. When you were asked to produce it, or a link,to it, you tried to fob off a quote from fricking *AllPoetry* instead. Nor could your NastyGoon produce it, either; they had to Google the relevant quotes on their own (and found only quotes that completely undercut your argument).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Furthermore "dramatic style (poetry)" = "dramatic verse.."
> > > > > > > > Michael, neither "dramatic verse" nor "dramatic style (poetry)" are the same thing as "epic and dramatic poetry". The latter category includes epic poetry; the former does not.
> > > > > > > > > Quibbling over Mr. Austin's not having placed the words "dramatic" and "verse" together, is petty beyond belief.
> > > > > > > > Which explains why you'd want to pretend anyone is quibbling over that.
> > > > > > > > > > George Dance, you are are losing focus.
> > > > > > > > > DUNCE: No, NastyGoon. Here's where the focus is, and should stay:
> > > > > > > > > > Alfred Austin wrote an epic poem, /The Human Tragedy/. Perhaps because of the title, perhaps because he called his Cantos "Acts," you got the idea Austin's epic was a play -- you mistakenly called it a play, and I corrected you. Since you and your monkey don't like to be corrected, given that you want to be seen as "so much smarter," than anyone else, you've been spreading the nonsense that Austin'g epic really was a play.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You've finally conceded that his original (1862) verse was an epic poem; your current story is that Austin turned it into a play in his 1876 revision.
> > > > > > > > > MONKEY: No, Lying Dunce -- NancyGene has never conceded any such thing.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Wrong, Lying Michael. In yet another of their troll-threads, NastyGoon has conceded exactly that, in the Bandar-Log way, by pretending they never called the 1862 poem a play in the first place:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > 'If he looks above, we say "Mr. Austin seems to have published this 1862 version of the book/play, then recalled the copies for revision." We didn't say that the 1862 publication was a play at that point. It became one later."
> > > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/X1hBOAzcciA/m/nYLmz1S6BgAJ?hl=en
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I notice that you two like to call everything your opponent says a "lie" without ever showing any evidence, in the hope something will stick. Is that yet another tactic you picked up on your "Debating Team"?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Mr. Austin's revision (wherein he divided his work into "Acts," merely supports NancyGene's original claim that he considered his work to be a "closet drama."
> > > > > > > > It's your claim that (because he called his cantos Acts") he considered his epic poem to be a "closet drama" rather than an epic poem (which, remember, he considered the "highest form" of poetry). The quotes NastyGoon (not you) found in his 1876 preface do not support your claim in any way.
> > > > > > > > > >> <quote>
> > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> {Alfred Austin] believed that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest or greatest form of poetry, and that great poetry must be narrative poetry. </q>
> > > > > > > > > >> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/FRQDPlBv69M/m/tYyZ547SBwAJ?hl=en
> > > > > > > > > >> We know you read that, since it's from the very post you copied the quotes in your OP for this thread. Was your only reason for opening a new thread so that you could misrepresent the discussion?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > No, it was to make sure that you saw the origin of the quote that Austin thought that dramatic verse was the highest form of poetry.
> > > > > > > > > DUNCE: As we've seen, that quote did not say "that dramatic verse was the hidhest form of poetry". Austin thought that narrative poetry, whether written in dramatic style as a play (like Shakespeare) or in straight narrative as an epic (like Milton) was the highest form. Austin's quotes do not say that "dramatic verse" was higher or better than epic poetry, while Michael's quotes say exactly that.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > MONKEY: While it's true that Mr. Austin never said that "dramatic verse was the hidhest[sic] form of poetry," he did say that it was (along with epic verse) the *highest* form.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Which wouldn't have helped you, since that does not give Austin a motive for changing, or pretending to change, his epic poem into "dramatic verse." Which is why you had to lie and misrepresent.
> > > > > > > > > > Remember that you questioned Michael as to the source? Sheesh. You seem to have both short and long-term memory loss.
> > > > > > > > > DUNCE: As I've explained, and we all can see since you've given the source, Michael was misrepresenting his source; he was dishonestly pretending that Austin thought dramatic poetry was "higher" than epic poetry. Why? So that stupid people, who've never read the poem, would believe that was why Austin turned his epic poem into a "closet drama" (which, to repeat, never happened).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Since I had quoted both of my sources verbatim, I could not possibly have been misrepresenting them by only mentioning the relevant portions in my paraphrased reference to the same.
> > > > > > > > And there you go again, with the claim that you're previously quoted your "Dramatic Verse" bullshit from the preface. You've been asked to produce the quote, either by copying or by giving the link, and you've consistently dodged the request. It's reasonable to think that Lying Michael is lying yet again.
> > > > > > > > > Why do you lie so much, Dunce?
> > > > > > > > Why do you project so much, Michael Monkey?
> > > > > > > > > >> > We don't think that George Dance fully reads any of the poems that George Dance features on George Dance's blaaarrrggg.
> > > > > > > > > >> Well, of course you'd think that. After all, you know that you and your monkey don't read the poems, but you also want to believe that you know more about them than I do; so of course you'd want to believe that I don't read them, either.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Judging by what you post on AAPC about the poem (4 lines), we have no reason to believe that you have read any more of the poem than those lines.
> > > > > > > > > DUNCE: Of course; if all you've read is a 4-line quote, there's no reason to believe anything. Including your belief that I haven't read any of the poems I've blogged. Your only reason for thinking that is your own unwarranted belief that you're "smarter" than your opponents. (Whether you actually think that, or whether you're simply aping Michael Monkey, is irrelevant.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > MONKEY: We think you don't read the poems
> > > > > > > > anip
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes, Michael MOnkey; we've all heard those stories before, too.
> > > > > > > > > > Maybe not even those, since they are copied and pasted.
> > > > > > > > > DUNCE: Now, that is just stupid. Do you copy and paste the things you do (in this and other threads) without reading them? Have you ever copied and pasted something that you've never read? Why in the hell would you think that anyone else does. HINT: If you want to appear "amart" then you really should not write such stupid things.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > MONKEY: If you want to appear "smart," you should first learn how to spell it correctly.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Michael Monkey can't figure out how to defend his NastyGoon's illogic here. But he did find a typo-lame to deflect with, which should be enough for him to pretend that he's "winning" his silly little debate.
> > > > > > Again, meanwhile Pendragon's in such a tizzy he's making plenty of typos in his troll posts.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I spotted Pendragon using "to" for "too" earlier in the day.
> > > > > Not that a dropped "o" is much of a typo
> > > > Sure it is.
> > > >
> > > > "two" "to" and "too" mean different things.
> > > >
> > > > Words matter.
> > > Pendragon is one stupid mother fucker....
> > As he keeps proving, he's lost without his "wavy read line".
> "Yeaf"
>
> "Peach treaty"

On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 9:08:26 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 7:10:41 AM UTC-5, Faraway Star wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 9:40:16 PM UTC-6, George J. wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, November 21, 2023 at 10:58:20 AM UTC-5, Faraway Star wrote:
> > > > On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 8:37:07 PM UTC-6, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 7:42:34 PM UTC-6, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, November 20, 2023 at 7:34:20 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > > > George J. wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 10:34:54 AM UTC-5, Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > > > > NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The opinions were from critics of the day, contemporary with Austin. Do you ignore all reviews and opinions from qualified people, in favor of just your own opinion?
> > > > > > > > > > DUNCE: Oh, no, NastyGoon, you're misunderstanding again.. One should read all the reviews. However, when it comes to believing[ them,]
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You're stuttering, Dunce, and have misused a period instead of a comma. I know that "Team Donkey" is fond of accusing others of having a "MELTDOWN," but you are the one who displays the telltale effects of one most frequently.
> > > > > > > > > Seriously, Monkey? Where did you get the idea that "stuttering" is the sign of a "MELTDOWN"? Do you really believe that? Or is that just something you and NastyGoon learned on your "debate teams" -- "If your opponent stutters, forget what you're debating and switch to making personal attacks on him!"?
> > > > > > > > > > > you have to use your own judgement, put them in context, and consider the sources. The "opinions ... of the day" have actually been from other poets, Austin's competitors. Poets like Browning and Blunt were not dispassionate critics: they were convinced that they were "better" poets than Austin (and they may have been correct (and may have been; I'm not getting into that), so it's reasonable to think they were both jealous and butthurt when Austin became Poet Laureate, while neither of them were even considered for the job.
> > > > > > > > > *crickets*. As I said, "forget what you're debating" ...
> > > > > > > > > > DUNCE: (I've witnessed that very thing first hand; for example, I remember how jealous and butthurt Jim Senetto became when Will Dockery got a book published by George J. Dance and he didn't. So I do know what I'm talking about.)
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Why do you lie so much, Dunce?
> > > > > > > > > > No one remembers any such thing, because it never happened.
> > > > > > > > > You don't "remember any such thing" because Jim was your ally and your slurp-puppet.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Jim has a poetry collection, "Cardboard Mansions," published at Amazon, and did so at the time.
> > > > > > > > > Wh> https://www.amazon.com/Cardboard-Mansions-J-D-Senetto/dp/1329079825
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yes, Michael, we know; you both bragged of it often enough. Jim's one "proof" that he was a poet and Will wasn't was that he had a book, and Will didn't. Then Will got one.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The reason that Jim (and everyone else) was annoyed with your publishing the Donkey was that you inconsiderately chose to compile/edit/proofread the book *here,* rather than through personal emails. In doing so, you used AAPC for what should have been personal correspondence, thereby wasting everyone else's time.
> > > > > > > > > Yes, I've read that story from you before, Michael; and your periodically regurgitating it doesn't make it any more believable. IMO, any would-be writer can benefit by learning what goes into putting out a book, so I think our threads on the book were beneficial; but, for those like you who didn't, there was no reason for you to be reading those threads in the first place as they were clearly marked as such: they were none of your business, and you knew they were none of your business. You and your slurppuppet Jim chose to waste your own time sticking your nose into our business; stop trying to pretend that was our fault just because it was our business.
> > > > > > > > > > The fact that you did so for approximately 2 1/2 years (when anyone else would have had the book published in less than a month) only compounded your offense.
> > > > > > > > > We may have talked about doing *a* book for that long, but the total time to produce Will's SP, from conception to publishing date, was IIRC about 3 months. Once again: why do you lie so much, Michael Monkey?
> > > > > > > > > > >> > George Dance doesn't practice this philosophy, since George Dance obviously didn't read Austin's preface to "The Human Tragedy," or George Dance would have known that Austin considered epic and dramatic poetry to be the highest poetry.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >> The problem with that, NastyGoon, is that I did know "that Austin considered epic and dramatic poetry to be the highest poetry" and and you already know that; since you've read where I've stated it:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Then why did you say to Michael: "So where is your quote from "Austin's Preface" Michael? Or anywhere else that Austin allegedly says that he 'wanted [The Human Tragedy] to be thought of as "Dramatic Verse"' and/or that 'he believed [Dramatic Verse] "to be the highest form of poetry'?" AND "I can't "refute" evidence that you don't supply, Michael. You've given us no evidence that Austin thought Dramatic Verse was "the highest form of poetry" or that he tried to turn /The Human Tragedy/ into Dramatic Verse. (Even your "AllPoetry" quote doesn't say that, BTW.)" .....if you already knew where it was?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > DUNCE: As I've already explained, Michael was misquoting Austin, and, more importantly, was misrepresenting him. Austin said that narrative poetry (whether written in epic or dramatic style were the highest form of poetry. Michael's account made no mention of epic poetry at all -- in Michael's account "Dramatic Verse" was the highest form and dumb old epic poetry wasn't even worth a mention.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > As I'd guessed in my previous response, this is yet another example of your niggling attempts nitpick the words used in a paraphrased reference to a passage I'd directly quoted.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Michael: when you said you quoted a passage from Austin's preface, I asked you to produce it. You still haven't.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Now that NastyGoon has supplied quotes from the preface, it's clear why you didn't: there was no such passage, since Austin never said there (or, most likely, anywhere) what you'd claimed he did.
> > > > > > > > > > Do you understand what a paraphrase is?
> > > > > > > > > Sure. Do you understand that a paragraph can be accurate or inaccurate, correct or incorrect? Yours was inaccurate and incorrect.
> > > > > > > > > > Do you understand that when discussing a passage one has quoted verbatim, it is unnecessary to point out *everything* contained in said passage?
> > > > > > > > > Michael; once again, no one has seen your so-called verbatim quote. When you were asked to produce it, or a link,to it, you tried to fob off a quote from fricking *AllPoetry* instead. Nor could your NastyGoon produce it, either; they had to Google the relevant quotes on their own (and found only quotes that completely undercut your argument).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Furthermore "dramatic style (poetry)" = "dramatic verse."
> > > > > > > > > Michael, neither "dramatic verse" nor "dramatic style (poetry)" are the same thing as "epic and dramatic poetry". The latter category includes epic poetry; the former does not.
> > > > > > > > > > Quibbling over Mr. Austin's not having placed the words "dramatic" and "verse" together, is petty beyond belief.
> > > > > > > > > Which explains why you'd want to pretend anyone is quibbling over that.
> > > > > > > > > > > George Dance, you are are losing focus.
> > > > > > > > > > DUNCE: No, NastyGoon. Here's where the focus is, and should stay:
> > > > > > > > > > > Alfred Austin wrote an epic poem, /The Human Tragedy/.. Perhaps because of the title, perhaps because he called his Cantos "Acts," you got the idea Austin's epic was a play -- you mistakenly called it a play, and I corrected you. Since you and your monkey don't like to be corrected, given that you want to be seen as "so much smarter," than anyone else, you've been spreading the nonsense that Austin'g epic really was a play.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You've finally conceded that his original (1862) verse was an epic poem; your current story is that Austin turned it into a play in his 1876 revision.
> > > > > > > > > > MONKEY: No, Lying Dunce -- NancyGene has never conceded any such thing.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Wrong, Lying Michael. In yet another of their troll-threads, NastyGoon has conceded exactly that, in the Bandar-Log way, by pretending they never called the 1862 poem a play in the first place:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 'If he looks above, we say "Mr. Austin seems to have published this 1862 version of the book/play, then recalled the copies for revision." We didn't say that the 1862 publication was a play at that point. It became one later."
> > > > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/X1hBOAzcciA/m/nYLmz1S6BgAJ?hl=en
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I notice that you two like to call everything your opponent says a "lie" without ever showing any evidence, in the hope something will stick. Is that yet another tactic you picked up on your "Debating Team"?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Mr. Austin's revision (wherein he divided his work into "Acts," merely supports NancyGene's original claim that he considered his work to be a "closet drama."
> > > > > > > > > It's your claim that (because he called his cantos Acts") he considered his epic poem to be a "closet drama" rather than an epic poem (which, remember, he considered the "highest form" of poetry). The quotes NastyGoon (not you) found in his 1876 preface do not support your claim in any way.
> > > > > > > > > > >> <quote>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> {Alfred Austin] believed that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest or greatest form of poetry, and that great poetry must be narrative poetry. </q>
> > > > > > > > > > >> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/FRQDPlBv69M/m/tYyZ547SBwAJ?hl=en
> > > > > > > > > > >> We know you read that, since it's from the very post you copied the quotes in your OP for this thread. Was your only reason for opening a new thread so that you could misrepresent the discussion?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > No, it was to make sure that you saw the origin of the quote that Austin thought that dramatic verse was the highest form of poetry.
> > > > > > > > > > DUNCE: As we've seen, that quote did not say "that dramatic verse was the hidhest form of poetry". Austin thought that narrative poetry, whether written in dramatic style as a play (like Shakespeare) or in straight narrative as an epic (like Milton) was the highest form. Austin's quotes do not say that "dramatic verse" was higher or better than epic poetry, while Michael's quotes say exactly that.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > MONKEY: While it's true that Mr. Austin never said that "dramatic verse was the hidhest[sic] form of poetry," he did say that it was (along with epic verse) the *highest* form.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Which wouldn't have helped you, since that does not give Austin a motive for changing, or pretending to change, his epic poem into "dramatic verse." Which is why you had to lie and misrepresent.
> > > > > > > > > > > Remember that you questioned Michael as to the source? Sheesh. You seem to have both short and long-term memory loss.
> > > > > > > > > > DUNCE: As I've explained, and we all can see since you've given the source, Michael was misrepresenting his source; he was dishonestly pretending that Austin thought dramatic poetry was "higher" than epic poetry. Why? So that stupid people, who've never read the poem, would believe that was why Austin turned his epic poem into a "closet drama" (which, to repeat, never happened).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Since I had quoted both of my sources verbatim, I could not possibly have been misrepresenting them by only mentioning the relevant portions in my paraphrased reference to the same.
> > > > > > > > > And there you go again, with the claim that you're previously quoted your "Dramatic Verse" bullshit from the preface. You've been asked to produce the quote, either by copying or by giving the link, and you've consistently dodged the request. It's reasonable to think that Lying Michael is lying yet again.
> > > > > > > > > > Why do you lie so much, Dunce?
> > > > > > > > > Why do you project so much, Michael Monkey?
> > > > > > > > > > >> > We don't think that George Dance fully reads any of the poems that George Dance features on George Dance's blaaarrrggg.
> > > > > > > > > > >> Well, of course you'd think that. After all, you know that you and your monkey don't read the poems, but you also want to believe that you know more about them than I do; so of course you'd want to believe that I don't read them, either.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Judging by what you post on AAPC about the poem (4 lines), we have no reason to believe that you have read any more of the poem than those lines.
> > > > > > > > > > DUNCE: Of course; if all you've read is a 4-line quote, there's no reason to believe anything. Including your belief that I haven't read any of the poems I've blogged. Your only reason for thinking that is your own unwarranted belief that you're "smarter" than your opponents. (Whether you actually think that, or whether you're simply aping Michael Monkey, is irrelevant.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > MONKEY: We think you don't read the poems
> > > > > > > > > anip
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Yes, Michael MOnkey; we've all heard those stories before, too.
> > > > > > > > > > > Maybe not even those, since they are copied and pasted.
> > > > > > > > > > DUNCE: Now, that is just stupid. Do you copy and paste the things you do (in this and other threads) without reading them? Have you ever copied and pasted something that you've never read? Why in the hell would you think that anyone else does. HINT: If you want to appear "amart" then you really should not write such stupid things.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > MONKEY: If you want to appear "smart," you should first learn how to spell it correctly.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Michael Monkey can't figure out how to defend his NastyGoon's illogic here. But he did find a typo-lame to deflect with, which should be enough for him to pretend that he's "winning" his silly little debate.
> > > > > > > Again, meanwhile Pendragon's in such a tizzy he's making plenty of typos in his troll posts.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I spotted Pendragon using "to" for "too" earlier in the day.
> > > > > > Not that a dropped "o" is much of a typo
> > > > > Sure it is.
> > > > >
> > > > > "two" "to" and "too" mean different things.
> > > > >
> > > > > Words matter.
> > > > Pendragon is one stupid mother fucker....
> > > As he keeps proving, he's lost without his "wavy read line".
> > "Yeaf"
> >
> > "Peach treaty"
> >
> > Ha ha.
> Hilarious.

On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 9:20:39 PM UTC-5, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 9:08:26 PM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 23, 2023 at 7:10:41 AM UTC-5, Faraway Star wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, November 22, 2023 at 9:40:16 PM UTC-6, George J.. wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > The opinions were from critics of the day, contemporary with Austin. Do you ignore all reviews and opinions from qualified people, in favor of just your own opinion?
> > > > > > > > > > > DUNCE: Oh, no, NastyGoon, you're misunderstanding again. One should read all the reviews. However, when it comes to believing[ them,]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > You're stuttering, Dunce, and have misused a period instead of a comma. I know that "Team Donkey" is fond of accusing others of having a "MELTDOWN," but you are the one who displays the telltale effects of one most frequently.
> > > > > > > > > > Seriously, Monkey? Where did you get the idea that "stuttering" is the sign of a "MELTDOWN"? Do you really believe that? Or is that just something you and NastyGoon learned on your "debate teams" -- "If your opponent stutters, forget what you're debating and switch to making personal attacks on him!"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > you have to use your own judgement, put them in context, and consider the sources. The "opinions ... of the day" have actually been from other poets, Austin's competitors. Poets like Browning and Blunt were not dispassionate critics: they were convinced that they were "better" poets than Austin (and they may have been correct (and may have been; I'm not getting into that), so it's reasonable to think they were both jealous and butthurt when Austin became Poet Laureate, while neither of them were even considered for the job.
> > > > > > > > > > *crickets*. As I said, "forget what you're debating" ....
> > > > > > > > > > > DUNCE: (I've witnessed that very thing first hand; for example, I remember how jealous and butthurt Jim Senetto became when Will Dockery got a book published by George J. Dance and he didn't. So I do know what I'm talking about.)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Why do you lie so much, Dunce?
> > > > > > > > > > > No one remembers any such thing, because it never happened.
> > > > > > > > > > You don't "remember any such thing" because Jim was your ally and your slurp-puppet.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Jim has a poetry collection, "Cardboard Mansions," published at Amazon, and did so at the time.
> > > > > > > > > > Wh> https://www.amazon.com/Cardboard-Mansions-J-D-Senetto/dp/1329079825
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yes, Michael, we know; you both bragged of it often enough. Jim's one "proof" that he was a poet and Will wasn't was that he had a book, and Will didn't. Then Will got one.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The reason that Jim (and everyone else) was annoyed with your publishing the Donkey was that you inconsiderately chose to compile/edit/proofread the book *here,* rather than through personal emails. In doing so, you used AAPC for what should have been personal correspondence, thereby wasting everyone else's time.
> > > > > > > > > > Yes, I've read that story from you before, Michael; and your periodically regurgitating it doesn't make it any more believable. IMO, any would-be writer can benefit by learning what goes into putting out a book, so I think our threads on the book were beneficial; but, for those like you who didn't, there was no reason for you to be reading those threads in the first place as they were clearly marked as such: they were none of your business, and you knew they were none of your business. You and your slurppuppet Jim chose to waste your own time sticking your nose into our business; stop trying to pretend that was our fault just because it was our business.
> > > > > > > > > > > The fact that you did so for approximately 2 1/2 years (when anyone else would have had the book published in less than a month) only compounded your offense.
> > > > > > > > > > We may have talked about doing *a* book for that long, but the total time to produce Will's SP, from conception to publishing date, was IIRC about 3 months. Once again: why do you lie so much, Michael Monkey?
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > George Dance doesn't practice this philosophy, since George Dance obviously didn't read Austin's preface to "The Human Tragedy," or George Dance would have known that Austin considered epic and dramatic poetry to be the highest poetry.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >> The problem with that, NastyGoon, is that I did know "that Austin considered epic and dramatic poetry to be the highest poetry" and and you already know that; since you've read where I've stated it:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Then why did you say to Michael: "So where is your quote from "Austin's Preface" Michael? Or anywhere else that Austin allegedly says that he 'wanted [The Human Tragedy] to be thought of as "Dramatic Verse"' and/or that 'he believed [Dramatic Verse] "to be the highest form of poetry'?" AND "I can't "refute" evidence that you don't supply, Michael. You've given us no evidence that Austin thought Dramatic Verse was "the highest form of poetry" or that he tried to turn /The Human Tragedy/ into Dramatic Verse. (Even your "AllPoetry" quote doesn't say that, BTW.)" .....if you already knew where it was?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > DUNCE: As I've already explained, Michael was misquoting Austin, and, more importantly, was misrepresenting him. Austin said that narrative poetry (whether written in epic or dramatic style were the highest form of poetry. Michael's account made no mention of epic poetry at all -- in Michael's account "Dramatic Verse" was the highest form and dumb old epic poetry wasn't even worth a mention.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > As I'd guessed in my previous response, this is yet another example of your niggling attempts nitpick the words used in a paraphrased reference to a passage I'd directly quoted.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Michael: when you said you quoted a passage from Austin's preface, I asked you to produce it. You still haven't.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Now that NastyGoon has supplied quotes from the preface, it's clear why you didn't: there was no such passage, since Austin never said there (or, most likely, anywhere) what you'd claimed he did.
> > > > > > > > > > > Do you understand what a paraphrase is?
> > > > > > > > > > Sure. Do you understand that a paragraph can be accurate or inaccurate, correct or incorrect? Yours was inaccurate and incorrect.
> > > > > > > > > > > Do you understand that when discussing a passage one has quoted verbatim, it is unnecessary to point out *everything* contained in said passage?
> > > > > > > > > > Michael; once again, no one has seen your so-called verbatim quote. When you were asked to produce it, or a link,to it, you tried to fob off a quote from fricking *AllPoetry* instead. Nor could your NastyGoon produce it, either; they had to Google the relevant quotes on their own (and found only quotes that completely undercut your argument).
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Furthermore "dramatic style (poetry)" = "dramatic verse."
> > > > > > > > > > Michael, neither "dramatic verse" nor "dramatic style (poetry)" are the same thing as "epic and dramatic poetry". The latter category includes epic poetry; the former does not.
> > > > > > > > > > > Quibbling over Mr. Austin's not having placed the words "dramatic" and "verse" together, is petty beyond belief.
> > > > > > > > > > Which explains why you'd want to pretend anyone is quibbling over that.
> > > > > > > > > > > > George Dance, you are are losing focus.
> > > > > > > > > > > DUNCE: No, NastyGoon. Here's where the focus is, and should stay:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Alfred Austin wrote an epic poem, /The Human Tragedy/. Perhaps because of the title, perhaps because he called his Cantos "Acts," you got the idea Austin's epic was a play -- you mistakenly called it a play, and I corrected you. Since you and your monkey don't like to be corrected, given that you want to be seen as "so much smarter," than anyone else, you've been spreading the nonsense that Austin'g epic really was a play.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > You've finally conceded that his original (1862) verse was an epic poem; your current story is that Austin turned it into a play in his 1876 revision.
> > > > > > > > > > > MONKEY: No, Lying Dunce -- NancyGene has never conceded any such thing.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Wrong, Lying Michael. In yet another of their troll-threads, NastyGoon has conceded exactly that, in the Bandar-Log way, by pretending they never called the 1862 poem a play in the first place:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > 'If he looks above, we say "Mr. Austin seems to have published this 1862 version of the book/play, then recalled the copies for revision." We didn't say that the 1862 publication was a play at that point. It became one later."
> > > > > > > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/X1hBOAzcciA/m/nYLmz1S6BgAJ?hl=en
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I notice that you two like to call everything your opponent says a "lie" without ever showing any evidence, in the hope something will stick. Is that yet another tactic you picked up on your "Debating Team"?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Mr. Austin's revision (wherein he divided his work into "Acts," merely supports NancyGene's original claim that he considered his work to be a "closet drama."
> > > > > > > > > > It's your claim that (because he called his cantos Acts") he considered his epic poem to be a "closet drama" rather than an epic poem (which, remember, he considered the "highest form" of poetry). The quotes NastyGoon (not you) found in his 1876 preface do not support your claim in any way.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> <quote>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > >> > > >> {Alfred Austin] believed that narrative poetry, whether epic or dramatic, was the highest or greatest form of poetry, and that great poetry must be narrative poetry. </q>
> > > > > > > > > > > >> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/FRQDPlBv69M/m/tYyZ547SBwAJ?hl=en
> > > > > > > > > > > >> We know you read that, since it's from the very post you copied the quotes in your OP for this thread. Was your only reason for opening a new thread so that you could misrepresent the discussion?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > No, it was to make sure that you saw the origin of the quote that Austin thought that dramatic verse was the highest form of poetry.
> > > > > > > > > > > DUNCE: As we've seen, that quote did not say "that dramatic verse was the hidhest form of poetry". Austin thought that narrative poetry, whether written in dramatic style as a play (like Shakespeare) or in straight narrative as an epic (like Milton) was the highest form. Austin's quotes do not say that "dramatic verse" was higher or better than epic poetry, while Michael's quotes say exactly that.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > MONKEY: While it's true that Mr. Austin never said that "dramatic verse was the hidhest[sic] form of poetry," he did say that it was (along with epic verse) the *highest* form.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Which wouldn't have helped you, since that does not give Austin a motive for changing, or pretending to change, his epic poem into "dramatic verse." Which is why you had to lie and misrepresent.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Remember that you questioned Michael as to the source? Sheesh. You seem to have both short and long-term memory loss.
> > > > > > > > > > > DUNCE: As I've explained, and we all can see since you've given the source, Michael was misrepresenting his source; he was dishonestly pretending that Austin thought dramatic poetry was "higher" than epic poetry. Why? So that stupid people, who've never read the poem, would believe that was why Austin turned his epic poem into a "closet drama" (which, to repeat, never happened).
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Since I had quoted both of my sources verbatim, I could not possibly have been misrepresenting them by only mentioning the relevant portions in my paraphrased reference to the same.
> > > > > > > > > > And there you go again, with the claim that you're previously quoted your "Dramatic Verse" bullshit from the preface. You've been asked to produce the quote, either by copying or by giving the link, and you've consistently dodged the request. It's reasonable to think that Lying Michael is lying yet again.
> > > > > > > > > > > Why do you lie so much, Dunce?
> > > > > > > > > > Why do you project so much, Michael Monkey?
> > > > > > > > > > > >> > We don't think that George Dance fully reads any of the poems that George Dance features on George Dance's blaaarrrggg.
> > > > > > > > > > > >> Well, of course you'd think that. After all, you know that you and your monkey don't read the poems, but you also want to believe that you know more about them than I do; so of course you'd want to believe that I don't read them, either.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Judging by what you post on AAPC about the poem (4 lines), we have no reason to believe that you have read any more of the poem than those lines.
> > > > > > > > > > > DUNCE: Of course; if all you've read is a 4-line quote, there's no reason to believe anything. Including your belief that I haven't read any of the poems I've blogged. Your only reason for thinking that is your own unwarranted belief that you're "smarter" than your opponents. (Whether you actually think that, or whether you're simply aping Michael Monkey, is irrelevant.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > MONKEY: We think you don't read the poems
> > > > > > > > > > anip
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Yes, Michael MOnkey; we've all heard those stories before, too.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe not even those, since they are copied and pasted.
> > > > > > > > > > > DUNCE: Now, that is just stupid. Do you copy and paste the things you do (in this and other threads) without reading them? Have you ever copied and pasted something that you've never read? Why in the hell would you think that anyone else does. HINT: If you want to appear "amart" then you really should not write such stupid things.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > MONKEY: If you want to appear "smart," you should first learn how to spell it correctly.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Michael Monkey can't figure out how to defend his NastyGoon's illogic here. But he did find a typo-lame to deflect with, which should be enough for him to pretend that he's "winning" his silly little debate.
> > > > > > > > Again, meanwhile Pendragon's in such a tizzy he's making plenty of typos in his troll posts.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I spotted Pendragon using "to" for "too" earlier in the day..
> > > > > > > Not that a dropped "o" is much of a typo
> > > > > > Sure it is.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "two" "to" and "too" mean different things.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Words matter.
> > > > > Pendragon is one stupid mother fucker....
> > > > As he keeps proving, he's lost without his "wavy read line".
> > > "Yeaf"
> > >
> > > "Peach treaty"
> > >
> > > Ha ha.
> > Hilarious.
> What's even funnier