Bizarre. But then again, many of your posts are.
Instead of quibbling over what encyclopedia.com says about Edgar Lee Masters, why don't you attempt to rebut his work? You have posted openly partisan Lincolnite sources such as Jaffa around here and, while I made due note of their biases, I also took the time to rebut their arguments. The very least you can do is afford Masters the same.
I had not need to "defend" Masters. Until you, or your Brigade brothers, can show fault with his comments that I posted, it stands unchallenged on the merits.
I documented that the source used to attack him was was biased. I showed the same source used to smear Masters by unsupported, ad-hominem attack, praised the untruthful, ridiculous prose of Carl Sandburg as a monumental, prize-winning effort.
I then document what Sandburg had written in his prize-winning effort, and I proceeded to destroy it. It is not possible that Sandburg was blindly unaware of the words that were spoken by Lincoln in front of an audience of thousands in the Lincoln-Douglas debates. It is thus evident that his effort was deliberately untruthful. To such nonsense is awards given to Lincoln apologists to maintain a myth.
I documented the attack source as lacking merit.
The material of Edgar Lee Masters that I posted continues to stand quite well on its own. Notably, you have desperately attempted to change the subject, and you and your Brigade brothers have been unable, as usual, to meeting any argument on the merits.