The book appears to be from around 1942 to 1943 by the pulp paper and general appearance.
Question: The fact that it lists titles that weren't even written until a decade after 1932 wasn't enough of a clue to figure out that it's neither a '1st edition' not a 'Printing year: 1932' book?That was hardly necessary. The person who commented was nitpicking about the item specifics, which we all know tend to be wrong. Why would someone attack a seller over the item specifics?
Answer: Well,thank you for being so kind with your response. The others interested can determine how to bid on the book.
The seller selected "1st edition" in the item specifics, which can be considered true depending upon how the term is defined. While I dislike that term greatly, any book that has the original text could be considered a first edition. However, most people feel that it means first printing. Regardless, collectors should not attack sellers when the term is used incorrectly.
The seller also selected 1932 as the printing year, which is not true. Since the book was copyrighted in 1932, I can see why someone would use that year. It's not a big deal. As a buyer, I never look at the item specifics unless I cannot see the books in a picture well and am trying to figure out if they are hardcover or softcover books, such as with the Wanderer editions.
Even if the seller was gushing about how the book was a true first printing and was dead wrong, treating the seller badly is inappropriate. A gentle note informing the seller about the age of the book is a better approach. We end up all looking bad when one of us acts like this.