On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 3:45:39 PM UTC-5, Faraway Star wrote:
> 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
> Is that tear in your eye, whiner...?
>
> Ha ha.

On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 4:53:38 PM UTC-5, Ash Wurthing wrote:
> On Sunday, November 26, 2023 at 3:45:39 PM UTC-5, Faraway Star wrote:
> > 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
> > Is that tear in your eye, whiner...?
> >
> > Ha ha.
> let me repost this since block quote markup screwed up the first try
> What's even funnier, is everyone is wonderin' exactly what you nailed onhim!
> "Exactly, you nailed that onme, Doc...!"
> General-Zod Oct 31, 2022, 9:09:53 PM
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/564o4vvQEbI/m/TBz3CrMUAQAJ
> /point 8672 9407

George J. Dance wrote:

> On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 6:03:52 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
>> On Monday, October 23, 2023 at 3:52:34 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
>> > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 7:05:17 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
>> > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 8:53:28 PM UTC, George J. Dance wrote:
>> > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 3:19:43 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
>> > > > > On Saturday, October 21, 2023 at 6:14:32 PM UTC, George J.. Dance wrote:
>> > > > > > Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
>> > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October, by Alfred Austin
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > In the slant sunlight of the young October,
>> > > > > > Dew-dashed lay meadow, upland, wood, and pool;
>> > > > > > Mid-time delicious, when all hues are sober
>> > > > > > [...]
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > #pennyspoems
>> > > >
>> > > > > George Dance, you have the wrong version here of the lines from Mr. Austin's play ("The Human Tragedy"). You are claiming it is the 1862 version, but what you have copied is actually the 1876 version in the play.
> I checked the edition I'd copied it from, and decided to use that date (1891) instead. Much better.
>> > > That may be, but you have 1862 on your blaarrrgg.
>> > In the interest of accuracy, please stop saying that. I just told you that i'd changed the date on PPB to 1891 - which you're capable of verifying for yourself.
>> We wanted to spare ourselves the experience of revisiting your blaarrrgg.

>> If you changed the date, please give us credit for correcting your information.

> Even if I felt like giving you unearned credit for my change, I am certainly not going to use your "name" on my blog. For all I know, you'll just use that as an excuse to whine here (and complain to google) that I'm using it "without permission" like your Monkey and Chimp chums have done.

>> > > What you copied isn't the 1862 version. Accuracy counts.
>> > Which is why I changed the date to 1891. I checked out your claim and discovered that Austin had published two revised editions, with Blackwood in 1876 and with Macmillan in 1891. [*]
> Since I'd used the 1891 edition, I substituted that date instead. Now please stop giving the wrong date.
> * Macmillan published its edition in 1889 and 1891.

>> George Dance, why are you unable to say that you were wrong and thank us?

> Why must you lie so much, NG? I thanked you days ago:
>> > > > Well, thank you for letting me know.

>> You continually deflect from the original problem.
> NG, "the original problem" no longer exists.
> (1) you claimed I'd put the wrong date (1862) on the text, and I thanked you for telling me that.
> (2) I checked out the 1862 edition and found that the text was different
> (3) so i changed the date to 1891. That ends it.

> Since then you've been lying about all three things. That's the only "problem" here that needs attention.

>> > > Why is it that every time we look more closely into the information you have supplied for an old poem, you have inaccurate information?

>> > Actually, we know no such thing. What we do know is that every time you complain about inaccurate information on the blog, you think you've found some. And why is that? Because we both know that, if you didn't think you'd found some, you wouldn't be complaining about it. Because we know the second fact, we know the first by logical implication (contraposition). See how that works?
>> 1. We don't visit your blaarrrgg often.

> Oh, bullshit. You sniff around it every time I post a poem. When you don't find any (as with Tennyson Turner and Dixon this month), you simply pretend you found that poem somewhere else.

>> 2. We don't often look further into the poems that you select.

> Again, bullshit. You check every date on every poem.

>> 3. The poems that we do investigate have problems with inaccurate information and we supply adequate proof that it is inaccurate.

>> 4. "Why is it that every time we look more closely into the information you have supplied for an old poem, you have inaccurate information?"

>> > > > BTW, while I haven't seen the earlier versions, I'm sure "The Human Tragedy" was never a "play" but always a "poem". The two words mean different things, and since (unlike some of your colleagues) you seem at least capable of learning what words mean and how to use them correctly, I thought it worth telling you that.
>> >
>> > > Thank you, we do know that, but Mr. Austin says his "poem" has "4 Acts." Do poems have "acts" as in plays?
>> > Not as a rule. 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.

>> Also, "scenes" and "acts" as in a "play."

> That doesn't help your case: there are no "scenes" in Austin's poem. And there are no "Acts" either, in the first edition that you insisted was a "play" - that's divided into cantos. If it's a play, why is it not divided into acts or scenes?

>> You are wrong.

> No, NG; you're wrong: 4 times now.

>> > > Perhaps it is a "lyrical drama" such as Shelley's "Prometheus Unbound?" That "poem" also has 4 acts. We see that Shelley's work is described as "a lyrical drama published in 1820. Shelley wrote the play to be a closet drama, which is a play not performed on stage but rather played out in the reader's mind."
>> > > https://study.com/learn/lesson/prometheus-unbound-percy-bysshe-shelley-summary-analysis.html#:~:text=Percy%20Bysshe%20Shelley's%20Prometheus%20Unbound,out%20in%20the%20reader's%20mind.

>> > Well, yes, "Prometheus Unbound" is a drama (a type of play), in which the story is told by the characters. Since it's a 'closet drama' the reader can't see the play and [has to] imagine it, but it's clearly indicated in the text as you could tell if you looked at it. "The Human Tragedy" is no such thing, as you could tell if you'd looked at its text.
>> Nonsense.

> So you haven't looked at the text of either work.

>> > > We also see this at the beginning of Act IV:
>> > >
>> > > "The Human Tragedy ACT IV
>> > > by Alfred Austin
>> > > Alfred Austin
>> > > Personages:
>> > > Gilbert- Miriam-
>> > > Olympia- Godfrid.
>> > > Protagonists:
>> > > Love- Religion-
>> > > Patriotism- Humanity.
>> > > Place: Rome-Paris.
>> > > Time: August 1870 -Close of May1871"
>> > >
>> > > That certainly sounds like Mr. Austin is "setting the stage."
>> > Sure it does; he wants his readers to think of his characters as not individuals, but players acting out the eternal human tragedy of his titles. But that doesn't turn his poem into a play. It's a long poem, told by a narrator.

>> Nonsense. George Dance, you are wrong.

> Nonsense, NG, you are wrong.

Nancy G is a sleazy and malicious stalker troll, and usually wrong about everything...

"Tear in her eye."

George J. Dance wrote:
>
> Today's poem on Penny's Poetry Blog:
> In the slant sunlight of the young October, by Alfred Austin

> In the slant sunlight of the young October,
> Dew-dashed lay meadow, upland, wood, and pool;
> Mid-time delicious, when all hues are sober
> [...]

> https://gdancesbetty.blogspot.com/2023/10/in-slant-sunlight-of-young-october.html

> #pennyspoems

Another read

Yo

Outstanding