On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 3:55:21 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> On Thursday, August 3, 2023 at 1:34:28 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 4:44:29 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > On Sunday, July 30, 2023 at 8:48:50 AM UTC, George Dance wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 8:07:28 PM UTC-4, Michael Monkey aka "Michael Pendragon" wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 7:53:16 PM UTC-4, George Dance wrote:
> > > > > > > On Saturday, July 29, 2023 at 5:19:52 PM UTC-4, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Roadside Poems for Summer Travelers," edited by Lucy Larcom (1876), lists the author of the poem as "Unknown." It is also called "Leaving the City" in that volume. See p.29 at: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Roadside_Poems_for_Summer_Travellers_Edi/wID1v-JwmDwC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22one+cloud+stood+overhead+the+sun+%E2%80%93+a+glorious+trail+of+dome+and+spire+%E2%80%93%22&pg=PA29&printsec=frontcover
> > That's a source I hadn't seen, but it changes nothing. As with the Adams anthology, it looks like Larcom just found the poem in /Chambers's Journal/ and reprinted it.
> >
> It shows that Larcom was unable to determine the poem's authorship in 1876 (two years after O'Donnell's death).

Larcom may have been "unable to determine the poem's authorship" simply because she didn't try to. What makes you think she did?

> Dowling's collection was published 15 years later. O'Donnell, being deceased, was not around to confirm that the poem was his. Therefore, Dowling had to have acquired that information from a secondary source (since neither the original publication, nor the version in Lucy Lacorm's anthology, had listed the author's name).

As I've already told you, the editor's name was Frank Kelly; Dowling just wrote an introduction. Kelly and O'Donnell were both members of the same literary society, so they'd have been acquaintances if not friends.
> This casts some doubt on the poem's authorship -- particularly since the only "source" we have been informed of is of a circumstantial nature (“Mr John H. O’Donnell, son of the poet, [who] placed at Mr. Kelly’s disposal a collection of his father’s verses cut from magazines and newspapers.”).

No, that is another false statement from you, Lying Michael. According to Dowling's introduction:
"For months Mr Kelly devoted the scanty leisure of his days to the object he had at heart. He ransacked the British Museum, transcribed hundreds of poems, and entered into correspondence with people who could give him copies of verses, or supply information 'on the subject of his research. A notion may be formed of the labour expended from the fact that he has had to exclude for want of room, a greater mass of MS. than would make three volumes as bulky as this one." (viii)
https://archive.org/details/poemsjohn00odonrich/page/n11/mode/1up

You were already informed of that.

> A collection of magazine and newspaper clippings only shows that John Francis O'Donnell had seen fit to save copies of the poems in question. It does not *prove* that all of the poems that he saved were his own. As previously explained, I have saved copies of many poems that I liked. In fact, I still have a few original copies of poems that had been sent to me for "Penny Dreadful" and "Songs of Innocence & Experience."

Since there's no reason to think that the poem was even in the collection of "clippings," I don't see any point in reading the rest. You don't know where and when Kelly encountered the poem, or why he was convinced it was O'Donnell's.

> It is, therefore, not inconceivable that Mr. O'Donnell kept copies of poems that he liked in his collection of clippings. Also bear in mind that Mr. O'Donnell, so far as anyone knows, did not collect these clippings with any plans of having them submitted to a publisher after his death. He kept them for his own, unknown reasons.
>
> As previously noted: It is highly probable that the poems in his collection of clippings were his own -- but there is also reason to suspect that one or two of them might have been the work of someone else.
>
> Would a box (or possibly, a scrapbook) of poems clipped out of magazines and newspapers be admitted in a court of law as incontrovertible evidence? Hardly.
>
> It would be considered circumstantial evidence, and would only determine the probability of the poem having been O'Donnell's.

See above.
> > > > > > > > "Chambers Journal of Popular Literature Science and Arts" (1874) calls it "July Dawning" (p. 432) and gives no author for the poem.
> > > > > > > > https://www.google.com/books/edition/Chamber_s_Journal_of_Popular_Literature/GonJt3HiSu8C?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22The+windmill+shook+its+slanted+arms,%22&pg=PA432&printsec=frontcover
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Through the Year With the Poets," edited by Oscar Fay Adams (1886) (pp. 15-16) calls the poem "July Dawning," with the author listed as "Unknown."
> > > > > > > > https://archive.org/details/throughyearwithp07adamiala/page/14/mode/2up
> > > >
> > > > > > > > "Poems by John Francis O'Donnell," compiled by John T. Kelly, with an introduction by Richard Dowling, was not published until 1891. Mr. O'Donnell died in 1874. The poems to be included came from a number of people, including “Mr John H. O’Donnell, son of the poet, [who] placed at Mr. Kelly’s disposal a collection of his father’s verses cut from magazines and newspapers.” (At viii in the book.)
> > > > > > > > https://books.google.com/books?id=UiBIAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=A+July+Dawn,+by+John+Francis+O%27Donnell&source=bl&ots=lMGLR3_vxN&sig=ACfU3U1jCGgCQYUx2Hoa2Afr7v8Tn2k_5w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiP-dHPv7SAAxXKl2oFHWEABCkQ6AF6BAgtEAM#v=onepage&q=A%20July%20Dawn%2C%20by%20John%20Francis%20O'Donnell&f=false
> > > > > > > > The poem is called "A July Dawn" in that book (pp. 54-55).
> > > > No shit. That's the source I used for the text, and that's the name on the poem. Let's note that you found no
> > > Did you freeze up again, George Dance? We would recommend that you go to a doctor for that, since it has happened so frequently. Stopping mid-sentence as you do may mean low Mensa levels.
> > Sorry; reading your list of "sources" that I'd already tracked down was getting boring, so I probably nodded off. I believe that was what I was going to say: that while you did a good job of looking, you found no new information that would lead anyone to doubt O'Donnell's authorship.
> >
> You've been nodding off quite a bit, of late, old man. Are you suffering from narcolepsy?

Are you suffering from ADHD? Or just trolling again? In either case, please try to stay on topic.

> > > Note that book was published in 1891.

> > Again, no shit. As you know, all that information -- the poem title, the book title, and the date -- were on the blog; that's where you originally got them from.
> >
> My, but you're a snippy little cunt!
Oh, shut the fuck up, troll, if you have nothing better to contribute to the discussion than that. .

> There is nothing wrong with reminding you (and any potential readers) that the collection in question was compiled and published 17 years after O'Donnell's death

Well, thank you, Captain Obvious. I think everyone could solve 1891-1874=x for themselves, but if you think you're contributing to the discussion ....

> , and was therefore done so through secondary sources (including the aforementioned circumstantial evidence).

You're saying the editor couldn't have talked to the author in 1891 because the author was dead? Thank you again, Captain Obvious.

> > > If there were no obvious errors, that was because you directly copied the poem from another source.
> > That's called a non-sequitur. Of course I copied the poem from another source -- I gave the source on the blog -- and I've told you before that I prefer to copy them rather than retype them. That doesn't guarantee there wouldn't be any "obvious errors" though; that would depend on whether my source contained "obvious errors" or not.
> >
> That is not a non-sequitur, Mr. Dunce.
>
> NancyGene is implying that the *only* reason there were no errors in your copy of the poem was because you had copy/pasted it from another source.
> IOW: She is saying that you are too incompetent an editor to have corrected any errors on your own.

Oh, so they were just trolling again. Got it.

> Since a non-sequitur is a conclusion that does not follow logically from the argument that preceded it, your labeling it as such is wrong.

Sorry, Michael, but the conclusion "there were no errors in the poem" does not logically follow from "you directly copied the poem from another source". One has nothing to do with the other. In human logic, anyway; YLMV.

> > > However, the use of dashes in the poem varies according to the source material. In "Through the Year With the Poets," (1886), there are commas and no dashes. The 1874 printings (with no attribution), use em dashes.
> >
> > > We found that "Discover Poetry" has the "July Dawning" poem attributed to "Richard Watson Gilder." https://discoverpoetry.com/poems/july-poems/ We wondered why that was, but see that "July Dawning" (with no author credit) directly precedes Mr. Gilder's poem "A Midsummer Song" in "Through the Year With the Poets" (1886). https://archive.org/details/throughyearwithp07adamiala/page/n5/mode/2up (pp. 15-17).

> > Yes, that's where I started off, too. But I read through Gilder's book and couldn't find the poem there. So I checked with Adams and found the same thing you did. I mean, you did a good job and all, but you are not telling me anything new.
> >
> Once again, I need remind you that the world does not revolve around George Dance.
>
> NancyGene is providing both you, and any readers, with a detailed description of how her research into the subject proceeded.

Then don't bitch about me talking about my own research.

> > > See above on some controversy about the poem. Note that we are not Michael's "buffoon." If you cannot carry on a civil discussion, we will have the Mounties mount you.
> > I am sorry, but as long as you choose to run in the same troll pack as the Monkey and the Chimp, you are going to be NastyGoon the Big Buffoon. If you wish to be treated to in a more civil manner, I'd be happy to; all you have to do is start behaving like someone who deserves to be treated that way.
> >
> Seriously?
> "I won't be your friend and will call you all sorts of names unless you stop being friends with my enemies!"
> You're even more childish (and petty) than I thought, Mr. Dance.

Oh, grow up. If you can't handle being called a name, maybe you should both leave Usenet. Go to your private facebook group, where you don't have to worry about what others call you.

> > > > > Do you want your blog to incorrectly list sources as "Mamories of the Irish Franciscans"?
> > > > That question of yours makes no sense at all, Michael. Why would my blog list a "source" that I haven't used? Once again, that typo which NG found (and which I'd fixed before you'd even showed up in the thread) has nothing to do with the poem or its source or the blog at all.
> > > It was on your blog site, for an unknown amount of time.
> > See, NG, that's what happens when you run in a pack with Lying Michael; you start telling clumsy, easily disproven lies just like him. We know that typo was *not* on the blog, because you posted a screenshot of it:
> >
> Where's the lie, George?

NG's, you mean? "It was on your blog site..." (right after I'd pointed out that it wasn't). ",,, for an unknown amount of time" was also untrue, but I'd ascribe that to NG's ignorance rather than deliberate dishonesty.

> NancyGene has provided archived evidence that the error at one time had been "published" on your blog.
> > https://imgur.com/gallery/mjEYKXl

I don't believe you actually think that's my "blog," since you've been to the blog (remember that I've published your poetry there) and should be able to remember it. There's a chance you may have forgotten, considering that was a few years ago. But NastyGoon has no such excuse, since they've been to the blog numerous times in July.
> > Anyone who's been on my poetry blog (including you, multiple times) knows that that is *not* it.

> Are you pretending that someone went through the trouble of creating (and archiving) a fake blog page? To what end would someone have done such a thing?

That's perhaps the stupidest strawman argument you've come up with thing you've said so far in this discussion, Michael; and you've already set a high barrier. Why do you think someone would try to create a "fake blog page" and not try to make it look like a real blog page?

> Did they hope that someone like NancyGene would discover the fake error years later and proceed to rub your nose in it?

It was your stupid idea; don't expect me to help you explain it.

> > Face it, you found no real or pretend "errors" on the blog, so you went looking elsewhere for "errors" you could troll about.
> How would one find a "pretend error," George?

You find something that isn't an error and call it one, of course. NastyGoon tends to do that a lot.
> If a "pretend error" is only pretend, it would not be an error at all. Are you saying that NancyGene was unable to find any non-errors on your blog?

None that they could call errors.

> > > It is an embarrassing and funny error.
> > No, it isn't that embarrassing. It looks like you get embarrassed by such things, since you delete all the posts where you make mistakes; but no one else really cares. Mistakes happen, and all one can do is fix 'em.
> >
> The idea that someone would publish a book about the "Mammaries of Irish Franciscans" is extremely funny, George.

It is a bit funnier than the actual typo NG found, which explains why you'd opt for a pretend "error" instead.

> Once again your utter inability to recognize humor of any kind is in evidence. When an editor makes an error that is going to cause everyone who reads it to laugh, he should be extremely embarrassed by it.

Since the only way anyone is going to read about "Mammaries of Irish Franciscans" is by reading it in one of your posts in this thread, or any of the multiple threads you're sure to start repeating it in), so I can't say that I'm worried about that.

> > > Was there an interest in the mammaries of those Franciscans? It certainly does have something to do with the poem and the blog, since it was on the blog
> > No, NastyGoon, it was *not* on the blog. You really are turning into Michael Monkey; now you've even started Goebbelsing.
> Once again, NancyGene found an archived page of your blog which *shows* that the error was there.

No, Michael; NastyGoon did not find "an archived page" of my blog. NastyGoon took a screen shot of something else.
> AFAICS, you are being your naturally duplicitous self: implying that the error *never* existed by referring to current, corrected version of your blog (without specifying it as such).

Then I suggest you work on your reading comprehension. What I told you was:
"Once again, that typo which NG found (and which I'd fixed before you'd even showed up in the thread) has nothing to do with the poem or its source or the blog at all."
> This demonstrates how deeply such deceitfulness has become a part of your nature.

I think it demonstrates more about your penchant for making up and attacking a straw man when you can. This is what, four so far in this post? Or five?

> > > and in the bibliography for Mr. O'Donnell. He did not study mammaries..
> > > >

> > > Do you really believe that? We do not. ("the poems" are two words)
> > Why not? What makes you think Michael Monkey bothers with any of that? That's what he has you for.
> I have read Mr. O'Donnell's poem.
> I didn't read it on the Baby Monkey blog. I read the original version that NancyGene had supplied a link to.

Tell someone who cares, Michael Monkey.

> > > > Well, let's look at the "errors" you and your colleague claim to have found in this poem. Exactly one: you're now saying I got the author wrong simply because NastyGoon (who, according to you, "knows how to do a little research") did too little of it this time and came up empty-handed. So the two of you 'speculated,' and decided that O'Donnell "probably" did not write it. You couldn't find any errors in this poem, so you made up a "probable" one.
> >
> > > Look at our citations, George Dance. The first two printings of the poem that survive do not have an identified author.
> > I've looked at them. You really have just one source, /Chambers's/. Larcom and Adams were American anthologists; it looks like in this case they just nicked an unsigned poem from a British journal, so they're not independent sources. They attributed it to author unknown because there was no author given on that page in /Chambers's/.
> >
> What's your point?

As I just explained, NG found one source: /Chambers's Journal/. All the other sources

> Editors were unable to identify the poem's authorship when it was still relatively current.

As I already explained to you, there's no reason to think that either Larcom or Adams tried to identify the author.

> Would an editor 15 years later have more, or less, resources at his disposal?

More, I'd say; he was the Director of the Irish Literary Club (as the Society was called then), knew O'Donnell, and knew who O'Donnell's friends were. He also had access to the British Museum archives, and spend months going through them in the course of writing the book. While there's no indication that Larcom or Adams did any research on the subject.

> > > One source on the Internet says it was written by Mr. Gilder.
> > Well, we both know how that happened. While Discover Poetry is a good site to find poems other sites don't carry, it can't be considered a reliable source for determining authorship. That's all you can conclude from that.
> >
> The point remains that there is no reliable source for determining the authorship of this poem.

So you've claimed. But you haven't actually done any research on it yourself; as I said, you're just doing backup trolling in a couple of threads.

> There is no direct evidence of its authorship

You mean, NastyGoon didn't find any, and you didn't even look for any (so of course you couldn't find any either). That's hardly definitive.

> , and the secondary evidence it's based on is circumstantial. The best we can do is to say that there is probable cause to believe Mr. O'Donnell was the author.

You can say whatever you want. I told you what I'd say; that you've provided no reason for questioning the authorship.

> > > We do not have the clippings of newspaper articles or other papers that were gathered for the "Poems" book, so we do not know for sure who actually write it.
> > "...we do not know for sure who actually *wrote* it." (past tense). The papers probably went to the Irish Literary Society, and are wherever their files went. If there were a question of authorship, they'd be available, but there really is none.
> >
> This is an assumption on your part. You have no proof whatsoever that the Irish Literary Society had been contacted, and none that they had any record of the poem's author.

We know that both the author and the editor were members of the Southwark Irish Literary Club (which became the Irish Literary Society in 1892), and that Kelly was the Secretary. There'd be no need for him to "contact" himself.

> > > It may have been Mr. O'Donnell or he may have appropriated it.
> > I'm sorry, NG, but just because we haven't seen the source material, that is no reason to insinuate that O'Donnell was a plagiarist -- or that the editor, Frank T. Kelly, was incompetent. I have no reason to doubt that all the poems in the book are O'Donnell's own.
> >
> NancyGene has cast no such aspersions on either individual.
>
> The inclusion of an anonymously published poem in a posthumous collection (17 years after the supposed author's death) is necessarily going to be suspect. Unless a signed copy, or an original copy in the author's hand, exists, one can only go by circumstantial evidence.
Well, you'll have to go look and see if there is one. That would be a more productive use of your time than what you're doing at present.

> And, as I have shown you earlier, over 100 poems have been mistakenly attributed to Edgar Poe over the years. Incorrectly attributing poems to authors in posthumous collections happens far more frequently than you are aware..

> > > Note that we did not write (nor did Michael) that he "probably" did not write the poem.
> > You wrote only: "We wonder if Mr. O'Donnell actually wrote the poem?"
> > Michael Monkey answered your question: " it's highly probable that a mistake or two had been made. One cannot blame George "BM" Dance for this." ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >
> > You're right: Michael Monkey didn't say I made a "probable" error. He said I made a "highly probable" mistake.
> No, you dunce, I said no such thing.
>
> I said that it is highly probable that one or two poems were incorrectly attributed to O'Donnell in Dowling's collection of his works. I also said that you were *NOT* to be blamed for Mr. Dowling's errors.
> LEARN TO READ!

I read it just fine. You claimed that Kelly made a "mistake" in attribu

> > > > Do you think your notion that I'd change anything on the blog or wiki because two unreliable sources made up a story like that, much less that I'd believes you'd done me an "invaluable favor" by getting me to do that, deserves anything but scorn?
> > > Then you are a fool, George Dance.
> > There you go, lashing out just like someone I won't mention again in this post.
> She is not lashing out at you, George.
>
> You claim that anyone who has the temerity to correct your blog is deserving of your scorn.

No, I did not; that's yet another strawman from you. I specifically refer to two unreliable trolls, NastyGoon and her backup, Michael Monkey Peabrain. As for anyone else, we'll look at what they have. You two had nothing that I can see.

> You are the definition of a fool.

Wow! NastyGoon's backup troll agrees with NastyGoon. Stop the fricking presses!

> > Instead of that, let's look at your evidence. You found one source for the poem - /Chambers's/ - as all the other sites seem to have copied from that one. Did O'Donnell contribute to /Chambers's/? Indeed he did; according to the Digital Victorian Poetry Project, he contributed 16 poems in total to the magazine -- including "July Dawning":
> > https://dvpp.uvic.ca/prs_417.html
> >
> You're repeating yourself, Mr. Dunce.

Since you haven't responded to that citation, I think it's fair to repeat it.

> > I'm sure you'd have run into that site, in time. It took me long enough -- a good part of three weeks -- to find it. And you were pressed for time, as you needed something for your troll war.

> > > Also, "believes" should be "believe."
> > Shall I expect another imgur picture? if so, please do not label it as from my "blog."

> It was a picture taken of your blog.

No, Michael, it was not. You're Goebbelsing again.

> What else should one label it as?

An old screenshot from somewhere other than my blog. Maybe you can say it was from a "whatever".