Confirmation Bias and The Determination of Authorship . . .
neonprose
Bacon's articulation of Confirmation
Bias is all over the Internet. I googled
"Francis Bacon" and "confirmation
bias" and got over 23,000 results.
Here's a part of Bacon's several writings on confirmation bias.
"It is the peculiar and perpetual error
of the human understanding to be
more moved and excited by affirm-
atives than by negatives.
and . . .
The human understanding when it
has once adopted an opinion . . .
draws all things else to support and
agree with it.
And though there be a greater
number and weight of instances to
be found on the other side, yet these
it either neglects or despises, or else
by some distinction sets aside or
rejects.
Novum Organum.
Bacon is called "the man who could
see through time," the paragraph
above reflects the despicable 19th
century Stratfordian attack on Bacon
and the Baconians which has not
ceased to this day.
And that coming from a faction that
has never proved that their candidate
was even literate. He certainly could
not spell his name.
<http://www.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/shakespeare/signatures.jpg>
The attacks on the Kathman-Ross
site are particularly vitriolic. Ross
wrote a vicious piece against Penn
Leary, a lawyer from the midwest
who served as a pilot in WWII.
And having not been able to prove
the literacy of their candidate they
simply used the fact that they
dominate university lit departments
to seize the entire First Folio for
Shackespeare (spelling on his will).
It has not ceased to this day.
Bacon also wrote that biased
assessment of evidence drove "all
superstitions, whether in astrology,
dreams, omens, divine judgments or
the like".
At this point I would classify the Shake-
speare authorship dispute under "superstition" because the evidence
for most of the candiates is more frail assumptions than fact.
So this is an opportunity to face up to
the evidence and eliminate those factions which substitute
superstitions
(or more likely seize evidence from some other authorship faction to
apply to their own candidate, in lieu of real evidence), or who base
their authorship claims on traditions, unknowlegeable witnesses,
flawed narratives (or in some instances, unbridled passion) not on the
scientific method.
I'm embarassed by the sheer passion these factions express for their
dead candidates.
Literary necrophilia.
I've been saying from the beginning
that the authorship dispute is a "question in science."
So we can extrapolate from Bacon's
statement in regard to "confirmation
bias" that there are varying degrees
of confirmation bias in each of the
authorship factions.
Peter Groves
> _________________________________
>
> Bacon's articulation of Confirmation
> Bias is all over the Internet. I googled
> "Francis Bacon" and "confirmation
> bias" and got over 23,000 results.
>
This is Elizabeth's idea of 'research'. She perhaps hasn't noticed
that without a grammatical connection bewteen the two terms (e.g.
"Francis Bacon knew nothing about confirmation bias") this is evidence
of precisely nothing.
I think it's rather endearing that Elizabeth has preserved the
virginal bloom of her ignorance despite years of posting to HLAS; here
she reveals her amusing belief that there awas such a thing as
"correct spelling" in Elizabethan England.
>
> <http://www.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/shakespeare/signatures.jpg>
>
> The attacks on the Kathman-Ross
> site are particularly vitriolic. Ross
> wrote a vicious piece against Penn
> Leary, a lawyer from the midwest
> who served as a pilot in WWII.
>
> <http://bit.ly/g2uQg8>
Unfortunately she can't remember where, so no source (again), but I'm
sure it was really vicious, Dave Kathman being the thuggish bruiser
type.
Peter G.
neonprose
> On Apr 14, 12:47 pm, neonprose <neonpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > _________________________________
>
> > Bacon's articulation of Confirmation
> > Bias is all over the Internet. I googled
> > "Francis Bacon" and "confirmation
> > bias" and got over 23,000 results.
>
> This is Elizabeth's idea of 'research'. She perhaps hasn't noticed that without a grammatical connection bewteen the two terms (e.g.> "Francis Bacon knew nothing about confirmation bias") this is evidence
> of precisely nothing.
Groves. Bacon ORIGINATED the concept
of "confirmation bias." Why would I get
results that said "Francis Bacon knew nothing
about confirmation bias?" if Bacon was the
first to describe "confirmation bias?"
Didn't you see my earlier post on Bacon and
confirmation bias?
Here's some more of the 23,000 results you aren't required to view:
Francis Bacon on confirmation bias - Thought for the Week - Site ...
Francis Bacon on confirmation bias. ed young. 20 Jun 2006 8:37 PM.
Comments 1. " It is the peculiar and perpetual error of the human
understanding to be more ...
blogs.msdn.com › Thought for the Week - Cached
Confirmation Bias
--Francis Bacon. Confirmation bias refers to a type of selective
thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms
one's beliefs, ...
https://notes.utk.edu/.../7803a6500b6a93b185256e3d000c63a3?... -
Cached - Similar
Confirmation bias - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - 12:04am
Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is
a ..... Engraved head-and-shoulders portrait of Francis Bacon wearing
a hat and ruff. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias - Cached -
There "awas?"
Does this mean you've lost your virginity
for incorrect spelling?
>
> > <http://www.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/shakespeare/signatures.jpg>
>
> > The attacks on the Kathman-Ross
> > site are particularly vitriolic. Ross
> > wrote a vicious piece against Penn
> > Leary, a lawyer from the midwest
> > who served as a pilot in WWII.
>
> > <http://bit.ly/g2uQg8>
>
> Unfortunately she can't remember where, so no source (again), but I'm
> sure it was really vicious, Dave Kathman being the thuggish bruiser
> type.
I think Kathman is a good critic. I read
some of his articles for the last edition of the
Dictionary of National Biography but when it
comes to his idolatry of Shackespeare of
Stratford (btw, Shackespeare's own spelling,
not mine) Kathman is utterly ruthless.
Not unexpectly, Kathman had a seizure when
I told him that his Shakespeare Authorship Theory was an example of
petitio principii. Circular
argument, snake eating its tail, etc.
ignoto
> On Apr 14, 12:40 am, Peter Groves<metrical...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 14, 12:47 pm, neonprose<neonpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> _________________________________
>>
>>> Bacon's articulation of Confirmation
>>> Bias is all over the Internet. I googled
>>> "Francis Bacon" and "confirmation
>>> bias" and got over 23,000 results.
>>
>> This is Elizabeth's idea of 'research'. She perhaps hasn't noticed that without a grammatical connection bewteen the two terms (e.g.> "Francis Bacon knew nothing about confirmation bias") this is evidence
>> of precisely nothing.
>
> Groves. Bacon ORIGINATED the concept
> of "confirmation bias."
"what we doxastically embrace reveals our preferences - what we care
about - as surely do our actions. It is easy to imagine that Plato had
something like this in mind, when in the Phaedo (103d) he has Socrates
say: "[E]very where in our investigations the body is present and makes
for confusion and fear, so that it prevents us from seeing the truth".
This would later be a theme of the stoics who emphasized that if we
could only bring ourselves to care less (or not at all) about mundane
matters our cognitive processes would function properly (ie result in
true justified beliefs). A cognizer without such mundane cares and
motivated solely by an interest in truth (a "practically care-less
cognizer" we might term her), would, not doubt, do better than we in
collecting knowledge" Dion Scott-Kakures, Motivated Believing: Wishful
and Unwelcome, Noûs Vol. 34, No. 3, Sep., 2000 at 371
Ign.
nordicskiv2
<7f520cdf-28b2-4fd3...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Peter Groves <metri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 12:47 pm, neonprose <neonpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > _________________________________
> >
> > Bacon's articulation of Confirmation
> > Bias is all over the Internet. I googled
> > "Francis Bacon" and "confirmation
> > bias" and got over 23,000 results.
> This is Elizabeth's idea of 'research'.
For a good laugh and a splendid example of Elizabeth's "research"
by means of counting Google hits, see
Elizabeth had claimed that support for Shakespeare as author of the
canon was "soft" in academia, and that alternative authorship courses
were cropping up in high school and college literature classes. When
I asked Elizabeth for her "evidence" for this contention, it turned
out that she had merely done a Google search for "de vere" and "earl
of oxford" among .edu domain names! I repeated the search using
exactly Elizabeth's search terms, and the results were hilarious!
> She perhaps hasn't noticed
> that without a grammatical connection bewteen the two terms (e.g.
> "Francis Bacon knew nothing about confirmation bias") this is evidence
> of precisely nothing.
Exactly. Indeed, in the search to which I alluded above, one of
Elizabeth's "academic pages" turned up by her Google search was Alan
Nelson's page on Oxford -- presumably *even Elizabeth* must be aware
by now that Nelson was not exactly teaching Oxfordian authorship
courses at Berkeley. However, here she actually repeats the *same
stupid mistake*!
Indeed, she has preserved that ingénue's ignorance better than
anyone else posting to h.l.a.s., with the possible exception of Mr.
Innes. (Even Art and Crowley, of all people, have learned at least a
*little* -- for example, Art now knows (I hope!) which natural numbers
are both the sum of two consecutive integers and the difference of
their squares, as well as the chronological order of Herodotus and
Virgil, and even Crowley has learned that a sonnet containing a
grotesque grammatical howler, hermaphroditic rhymes, missing feet,
etc. is unlikely to be Shakespearean.)
> here
> she reveals her amusing belief that there awas such a thing as
> "correct spelling" in Elizabethan England.
> > <http://www.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/shakespeare/signatures.jpg>
> >
> > The attacks on the Kathman-Ross
> > site are particularly vitriolic. Ross
> > wrote a vicious piece against Penn
> > Leary, a lawyer from the midwest
> > who served as a pilot in WWII.
> >
> > <http://bit.ly/g2uQg8>
>
> Unfortunately she can't remember where,
Of course not! This is the perishable internet, Wayback doesn't
have a search feature yet, and the dog ate her homework. (I forgot --
she also spilled coke on her keyboard, and her hard drive failed.)
> so no source (again),
It's extremely amusing that Elizabeth's apparently believes that
Leary's service as a pilot has any bearing on the validity of his
crank cryptography, but it's difficult to imagine why else she would
have taken the trouble to post the link above (complete with photo of
Leary in his aviator's garb standing in front of an old propeller
aircraft) -- yet she does *not* post a link to the Kathman-Ross piece
that she absurdly mischaracterizes as "vitriolic."
> but I'm
> sure it was really vicious, Dave Kathman being the thuggish bruiser
> type.
Here's the article:
<http://shakespeareauthorship.com/bacpenl.html>.
It affords some amusing reading. Readers can judge for themselves
whether it is "particularly vitriolic" and "vicious". The most
charitable explanation is that Elizabeth misconstrues the word
"vitriolic" as synonymous with "decisive," or "vicious" as synonymous
with "conclusive."
> Peter G.
>
> >
> > And having not been able to prove
> > the literacy of their candidate they
> > simply used the fact that they
> > dominate university lit departments
> > to seize the entire First Folio for
> > Shackespeare (spelling on his will).
> >
> > It has not ceased to this day.
> >
> > Bacon also wrote that biased
> > assessment of evidence drove "all
> > superstitions, whether in astrology,
> > dreams, omens, divine judgments or
> > the like".
> >
> > At this point I would classify the Shake-
> > speare authorship dispute under "superstition" because the evidence
> > for most of the candiates [sic] is more frail assumptions than fact.
> >
> > So this is an opportunity to face up to
> > the evidence and eliminate those factions which substitute
> > superstitions
> > (or more likely seize evidence from some other authorship faction to
> > apply to their own candidate, in lieu of real evidence), or who base
> > their authorship claims on traditions, unknowlegeable [sic] witnesses,
> > flawed narratives (or in some instances, unbridled passion) not on the
> > scientific method.
> >
> > I'm embarassed [sic] by the sheer passion these factions
> > express for their dead candidates.
Indeed, the sheer passion of certain Baconians who routinely invent
"facts" and "quotations" that are easily shown to be complete rubbish
and who moreover make claims based upon "sources" that actually say
exactly the opposite is embarrassing in the extreme! In fact, I can't
imagine how Elizabeth can continue posting here in view of this
lamentable and farcical track record, but perhaps, like Innes, she's
utterly impervious to embarrassment.
neonprose
> In article
> <7f520cdf-28b2-4fd3-85fa-36b5c4e84...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> Peter Groves <metrical...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 14, 12:47 pm, neonprose <neonpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > _________________________________
>
> > > Bacon's articulation of Confirmation
> > > Bias is all over the Internet. I googled
> > > "Francis Bacon" and "confirmation
> > > bias" and got over 23,000 results.
> > This is Elizabeth's idea of 'research'.
>
> For a good laugh and a splendid example of Elizabeth's "research"
> by means of counting Google hits, see
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/4xv977o>.
Webb. Google "Bacon" and "confirmation
bias" and see for yourself that Bacon was
the first to articulate confirmation bias.
And by the way, Webb, when are you going
to initiate your FIRST POST in what, 20 years?
on the actual
SUBJECT MATTER
of this forum. That would be the Shake-
speare authorship dispute.
You're just in here to do your daily dump
of cyber-bullying which is, of course illegal
in the US thanks to the passage of Federal
Cyber-bullying Statutes.
How does it feel to be CRIMINAL, Webb?
Art has a much better legal position than
I have because I haven't deteriorated under
your constant HARASSMENT. I just look at
you as some guy with a problem.
> Elizabeth had claimed that support for Shakespeare as author of the
> canon was "soft" in academia, and that alternative authorship courses
> were cropping up in high school and college literature classes.
Now there you go, Webb.
You're an academic. Why don't you
INITIATE YOUR FIRST POST
by writing about whether or not support
for Shakespeare (whom btw you've never
supported one way or the other), is "soft"
in academia.
> When
> I asked Elizabeth for her "evidence" for this contention, it turned
> out that she had merely done a Google search for "de vere" and "earl
> of oxford" among .edu domain names!
We would really love to read your FIRST treatise
on some element of the Shakespeare authorship
question.
> exactly Elizabeth's search terms, and the results were hilarious!
What about that brain surgery? I don't know
how invasive it is but the article on OCD said
it looked "promising."
Peter Groves
Drawing attention to Elizabeth's incorrigible incompetence, folly and
carelessness as an amateur "scholar" is, a serious criminal offence,
David. I hope you realise you could be breaking rocks in Alcatraz, or
whatever has replaced it.
Peter G.
neonprose
> On Apr 16, 9:14 am, neonprose <neonpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 15, 12:08 pm, nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> > > In article
> > > <7f520cdf-28b2-4fd3-85fa-36b5c4e84...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Peter Groves <metrical...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
<snip of some really ugly male bonding>
And btw, a few years ago I found the parody that
the Strats fear was parodied by their Corn Hoarder
but the SHIT dumped on me in this forum is forcing
me to consider whether or not I want to share it.
John W Kennedy
> And btw, a few years ago I found the parody that
> the Strats fear was parodied by their Corn Hoarder
> but the SHIT dumped on me in this forum is forcing
> me to consider whether or not I want to share it.
Let me see if I have that straight.
You have found a text. We will call it text P. You do not further
identify or describe it.
Text P is a parody of text R, which you also do not further identify or
describe.
You believe that Shakespeare was not the author of the plays and poems
published as by him, but you do believe that some people believe (and
tremble) that he wrote text Q, which is a parody of text P. You do not
further identify text Q, either.
You do not even indicate whether text Q or text R is extant.
And you do not wish to say anything about text P, or to publish it.
Doesn’t that all seem just a wee little bit tenuous, even to you?
--
John W Kennedy
Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!
http://www.SKenSoftware.com/Double%20Falshood
Peter Groves
> On Apr 15, 4:49 pm, Peter Groves <metrical...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 16, 9:14 am, neonprose <neonpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 15, 12:08 pm, nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > In article
> > > > <7f520cdf-28b2-4fd3-85fa-36b5c4e84...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > Peter Groves <metrical...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <snip of some really ugly male bonding>
Elizabeth calls Terry Ross's gentle ironies at the expense of the
Baconian crackpot Penn Leary "vicious" and "vitriolic"; my mildly
sarcastic response to her hysterical denunciation of David as a
'criminal" constitutes "really ugly male bonding". Perhaps she's not
getting enough sleep.
>
> And btw, a few years ago I found the parody that
> the Strats fear was parodied by their Corn Hoarder
> but the SHIT dumped on me in this forum is forcing
> me to consider whether or not I want to share it.
Drawing attention to Elizabeth's grotesque errors is, apparently,
"dumping SHIT" on her. Well, I suppose we can live without another of
her fantasies being "shared" with us.
Peter G.
nordicskiv2
<bcebe4f9-c1b5-49f0...@u12g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
neonprose <neon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 15, 12:08 pm, nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> > In article
> > <7f520cdf-28b2-4fd3-85fa-36b5c4e84...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> > Peter Groves <metrical...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Apr 14, 12:47 pm, neonprose <neonpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > _________________________________
> >
> > > > Bacon's articulation of Confirmation
> > > > Bias is all over the Internet. I googled
> > > > "Francis Bacon" and "confirmation
> > > > bias" and got over 23,000 results.
> > > This is Elizabeth's idea of 'research'.
> > For a good laugh and a splendid example of Elizabeth's "research"
> > by means of counting Google hits, see
> >
> > <http://tinyurl.com/4xv977o>.
> Webb. Google "Bacon" and "confirmation
> bias" and see for yourself that Bacon was
> the first to articulate confirmation bias.
From the Wikipedia article that comes up first in the search:
"Before psychological research on confirmation bias, the
phenomenon
had been observed anecdotally by writers, including the Greek
historian Thucydides (c. 460 BC – c. 395 BC), Italian poet Dante
Alighieri (1265–1321), English philosopher and scientist Francis
Bacon (1561–1626),[47] and Russian author Leo Tolstoy (1828–
1910).
Thucydides, in the History of the Peloponnesian War wrote, 'it is
a habit of mankind ... to use sovereign reason to thrust aside
what they do not fancy.'[48] In the Divine Comedy, St. Thomas
Aquinas cautions Dante when they meet in Paradise,
'opinion—hasty—often can incline to the wrong side, and then
affection for one's own opinion binds, confines the mind.'[49]"
Thus the article does NOT say that Bacon was the FIRST to articulate
confirmation bias, only that he was among several writers to comment
upon the phenomenon anecdotally before the advent of psychological
research -- unless perhaps Elizabeth believes that Bacon preceded
Thucydides and Dante chronologically, which would not surprise me too
much; after all, this is the same Elizabeth Weir who opined that
Newton engaged in a rancorous priority dispute with Hegel (who was
born nearly a half-century after Newton's death), that Ovid was
banished (to Yugoslavia, no less!) by the emperor Claudius, whose
reign commenced a half-century after Ovid's exile, and many, many
other equally comic chronological contretemps.
In any event, Bacon's anecdotal mention of confirmation bias was
*not* what was at issue, nor was it what Peter brought up. What *was*
at issue was the fact that, as Peter has already pointed out, a search
for "confirmation bias" and "Bacon" without some grammatical logical
connection between the two is utter folly, since such a search would
count among its hits a hypothetical page that said "Francis Bacon knew
nothing about confirmation bias". But Peter has already pointed this
out, and Elizabeth predictably missed the point. I don't know why I
should try to explain again, but I remain ever the optimist that even
the apparently ineducable are not beyond hope.
> And by the way, Webb, when are you going
> to initiate your FIRST POST in what, 20 years?
> on the actual
>
> SUBJECT MATTER
>
> of this forum. That would be the Shake-
> speare authorship dispute.
The
SUBJECT MATTER
of this forum is not the Shakespeare authorship dispute, although that
topic is not explicitly banned here as it is in more serious moderated
Shakespeare online forums. On the contrary, the
GROUP'S CHARTER,
which Elizabeth has apparently
NEVER BOTHERED TO PERUSE,
reads as follows:
"CHARTER
The unmoderated newsgroup humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
will be for discussion of:
1 - The plays and poems of William Shakespeare and other
English writers of the 16th and 17th centuries.
2 - The life and times of Shakespeare and his contemporaries.
3 - The production, staging, and acting of Shakespeare's
plays,
including current and past productions.
4 - Shakespeare's influence and impact on subsequent
literature
and culture.
5 - Shakespeare's authorship including his sources, allusions
in his works, publication of his works, possible
collaborations, and possible pseudonymity."
[...]
> > Elizabeth had claimed that support for Shakespeare as author of the
> > canon was "soft" in academia, and that alternative authorship courses
> > were cropping up in high school and college literature classes.
> Now there you go, Webb.
>
> You're an academic. Why don't you
>
> INITIATE YOUR FIRST POST
I would *not* be
INITIATING MY FIRST POST;
I have pointed this out many times before, but Elizabeth remains as
sadly ineducable as ever.
> by writing about whether or not support
> for Shakespeare (whom btw you've never
> supported one way or the other),
I have said on numerous occasions that, while I am *open* to the
idea that someone other than Shakespeare may have written the plays
and poems attributed to him if convincing evidence is found, and while
I have been sufficiently interested in the idea to have read
critically a reasonable sample of the works promoting such alternative
authors, I see no reason whatever to doubt the conventional
attribution to William Shakespeare of Stratford, since the "case" for
the conspiracy theories promoting most alternative "candidates" is
utterly ludicrous, generally arising from a potent combination of:
(1) thoroughgoing ignorance of history (such as Elizabeth furnishes on
a nearly weekly basis),
(2) farcical incompetence in the specialized knowledge that scholars
of literary history bring to their discipline (including classical and
modern foreign languages, paleography, Renaissance social history,
statistics, etc.),
(3) wanton wishful thinking apparently actuated by pure ideology, and
(4) abysmal ignorance of the standards and methodology employed by
real historians, scientists, and scholars,
among other serious shortcomings too numerous to list.
> is "soft"
> in academia.
It is not. I know of very few academics who teach alternative
authorship courses. Indeed, most academic anti-Stratfordians are, not
surprisingly, in departments other than English or history, just as
most academic partisans of Velikovsky or perpetual motion machines (or
von Däniken or alien abduction) are in departments other than the
physical sciences.
> > When
> > I asked Elizabeth for her "evidence" for this contention, it turned
> > out that she had merely done a Google search for "de vere" and "earl
> > of oxford" among .edu domain names!
> We would really love to read your FIRST treatise
> on some element of the Shakespeare authorship
> question.
It would by no means be my first, but Elizabeth has not been paying
attention. Indeed, she has attributed her *own words* to others
within mere days of having written them, so the likelihood of her
remembering accurately anything that I or anyone else wrote is remote
indeed.
> > exactly Elizabeth's search terms, and the results were hilarious!
> What about that brain surgery?
I have no idea. I concede that yours does not seem to be
functioning as well as it might, but surgery sounds like a dangerous
step apt to be fraught with complications, so I strongly encourage you
to try other measures first. Learning some rudimentary history would
be a good first step.
[...]
neonprose
> On 14/04/11 6:02 PM, neonprose wrote:
>
> > On Apr 14, 12:40 am, Peter Groves<metrical...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Apr 14, 12:47 pm, neonprose<neonpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> _________________________________
>
> >>> Bacon's articulation of Confirmation
> >>> Bias is all over the Internet. I googled
> >>> "Francis Bacon" and "confirmation
> >>> bias" and got over 23,000 results.
>
> >> This is Elizabeth's idea of 'research'. She perhaps hasn't noticed that without a grammatical connection bewteen the two terms (e.g.> "Francis Bacon knew nothing about confirmation bias") this is evidence
> >> of precisely nothing.
>
> > Groves. Bacon ORIGINATED the concept
> > of "confirmation bias."
>
> "what we doxastically embrace reveals our preferences - what we care
> about - as surely do our actions.
Bacon despised Aristotle, tolerated Plato
but his scientific method is taken from
Hebrew Scripture where in Genesis God
commands Adam to "name each thing
according to it's properties."
> It is easy to imagine that Plato had
> something like this in mind, when in the Phaedo (103d) he has Socrates
> say: "[E]very where in our investigations the body is present and makes
> for confusion and fear, so that it prevents us from seeing the truth".
"Truth comes out of error more readily than
out of confusion." -- Francis Bacon
Bacon advanced science by making "error"
the way to truth. That's kind of the basis
of scientific trials. That and the analogy-
making of English common which I suppose
means making analogies to precedent law.
> This would later be a theme of the stoics who emphasized that if we
> could only bring ourselves to care less (or not at all) about mundane
> matters our cognitive processes would function properly (ie result in
> true justified beliefs).
I'm not temperamentally constructed to
be a Stoic.
> A cognizer without such mundane cares and
> motivated solely by an interest in truth (a "practically care-less
> cognizer" we might term her), would, not doubt, do better than we in
> collecting knowledge" Dion Scott-Kakures,
Well, that's me, a care-less cognizer."
Well, with the exception of Ignoto, that
was a thuggish experience. Male bonding
around the browbeating of a woman is
. . .typical, I suppose.
neonprose
> In article
> <7f520cdf-28b2-4fd3-85fa-36b5c4e84...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Do you have an actual life, Webb, apart
from making a fool of yourself in HLAS?
neonprose
> On Apr 16, 9:14 am, neonprose <neonpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
But Groves, I know who wrote the parody
and who wrote the response to the parody.
The author wrote it in defense of his niece,
Lady Mary Wroth.
Crowley isn't going to post it right away
because he's trying to figure out a way
to assign it to Oxford.
Shackespeare didn't write it not only due
to his illiteracy but because he was not
invited to live at Court. The palace had
hundreds of apartments for the courtiers
but Shacke-speare (spelling on the will)
was never a courtier.
He was the proprietor of a profitable
whorehouse among his other illegal ventures
in partnership with the notorious London
criminal Francis Langley but Shackespeare
reprieves himself by the generosity to his
relatives and heirs as shown in his will.
I have to like him a little bit more, especially
since he repaired his family fortunes after
they were ruined by the Church of England's
harsh fines levied on the English Catholic
yeoman class but unfairly, not on the earls of Lancashire who were
permitted to keep private chapel, no questions asked.
Bacon is credited with the Queen's speech
in which she states (or reads) that she does
not want to look through the windows into
mens' souls. No one was going to look into
the souls of earls who paid no recusancy fines,
but the Church was punishing to the lower
classes.
We Calvinists HATE religious intolerance.
The Strats don't want to know how much
this fellow was worth because that would
conflict with their idea, such as it is, that
he "wrote for money."
There was no profit in the theatre. I've
read Henslowe's diaries. He didn't leave
his daughter a bequest of 50,000 pounds
by paying his actors and writers a decent
wage.
[Change of topic].
<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/
The_Old_Palace_of_Whitehall_by_Hendrik_Danckerts.jpg>
Actually, I looked it up. The palace had 1,500
rooms and there was a whole lot goings on in
those rooms.
The Queen would invite these naive young
daughters of the aristocracy to come to Court
as Maids of Honor and when they got pregnant
she would scream her head off at them, slap
them silly, and send then away from Court.
Lady Anne, an ardent Calvinist, took another
approach.
When her niece, one of the Russell girls, the
niece of the Duke of Bedford, her mother was
Lady Anne's sister Lady Elizabeth,Russell, was
about to be married at Westminster when Lady
Anne heard, apparently from the Queen, that
that Essex was trying to seduce this still-innocent
young girl so Lady Anne wrote to Essex threatening to kill him.
It seems to have worked.
The "canopy" reference in the Sonnets could
be to the fact that Lady Anne was so effective
in preserving her niece's virginity that the
Queen allowed Bacon to carry the processional
royal canopy over the Queen on her way to
the church.
This is actual fact, Bacon was allowed to carry
the canopy because his mother had saved her
niece's virginity.
The chances of the owner and operator of
a bawdy house, recollecting that he carried
the royal canopy, a special honor in that era,
are
Z I P.
Were't ought to me I bore the canopy,
With my extern the outward honouring,
Or laid great bases for eternity,
Which prove more short than waste or ruining?
Have I not seen dwellers on form and favour
Lose all and more by paying too much rent,
For compound sweet forgoing simple savour,
Pitiful thrivers, in their gazing spent?
No, let me be obsequious in thy heart,
And take thou my oblation, poor but free,
Which is not mixed with seconds, knows no art,
But mutual render, only me for thee.
Hence, thou suborned informer! A true soul
When most impeached stands least in thy control.
I don't understand the Strats, they're like
the guests at Menken's banquet, turning
around, catching and eating flies.
Peter Groves
> On Apr 15, 12:08 pm, nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article
> > <7f520cdf-28b2-4fd3-85fa-36b5c4e84...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> > Peter Groves <metrical...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 14, 12:47 pm, neonprose <neonpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > _________________________________
>
>
> Do you have an actual life, Webb, apart
> from making a fool of yourself in HLAS?
I tink we all know who habitually makes a fool of herself in HLAS.
And to point it out once more to you (since you are rather slow on the
uptake), it's pontificating fools (like you, Crowley, Innes &c.) who
get taken to task, not women. You just happen (unlike Melanie, say,
or Lyra) to fall into both categories.
Peter G.
nordicskiv2
<7f520cdf-28b2-4fd3...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
Peter Groves <metri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 14, 12:47 pm, neonprose <neonpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > _________________________________
> >
> > Bacon's articulation of Confirmation
> > Bias is all over the Internet. I googled
> > "Francis Bacon" and "confirmation
> > bias" and got over 23,000 results.
> This is Elizabeth's idea of 'research'. She perhaps hasn't noticed
> that without a grammatical connection bewteen the two terms (e.g.
> "Francis Bacon knew nothing about confirmation bias") this is evidence
> of precisely nothing.
I don't know why I didn't think of it earlier, Peter, but now that
you mention her incompetent searches, it occurs to me that this sort
of blunder may underlie a great many of Elizabeth's "facts." For
example, if one does a Google search of the terms "Old English" and
"nineteenth century," one finds:
-------------------------------------------
About 2,250,000 results (0.22 seconds)
-------------------------------------------
No doubt Elizabeth will take that as decisive confirmation of her
farcical claim that Old English was still spoken in some shires as
late as the nineteenth century. In fact, that search produces very
nearly *one hundred times* as many hits as the search "confirmation
bias" and "Francis Bacon," which produces a paltry 23,200 results;
thus it *must* be true!
Of course, most of the "hits" are like the following:
--------------------------------------------
Old English Sheepdog History
Old English Sheepdog History In The Nineteenth Century. Throughout the
nineteenth century, one finds conclusive evidence that the breed was
very fairly ...
www.pet-dog-magazine.com/old-english-sheepdog-history.html - Cached
--------------------------------------------
-- but the utter irrelevance of search results has never deterred
Elizabeth from making ludicrous claims unsupported by the outcomes of
her searches, as her hilarious search for "academic" pages mentioning
Oxford showed.
[...]
> > The attacks on the Kathman-Ross
> > site are particularly vitriolic. Ross
> > wrote a vicious piece against Penn
> > Leary, a lawyer from the midwest
> > who served as a pilot in WWII.
> >
> > <http://bit.ly/g2uQg8>
> Unfortunately she can't remember where, so no source (again), but I'm
> sure it was really vicious, Dave Kathman being the thuggish bruiser
> type.
Here she has made at least a tiny bit of progress, thereby
rewarding my optimism that she may not be completely ineducable. Of
course, she *still* does not furnish her supposed sources, and she
still hurls wild, unfounded accusations of fraud, dishonesty, theft,
viciousness, etc. at all and sundry, but formerly she consistently
spelled the word as "viscious" (dozens of times, in fact) -- indeed,
she was so consistent that the spelling was a sort of hallmark of her
style, like "plagerize".
Do you recall the thread in which KQKnave compiled a sort of
"Benezet test" consisting of selections from Elizabeth's posts and
from Faker's posts, then challenged h.l.a.s. readers to identify the
authors of each selection? Most were readily identifiable on the
basis of orthography alone, and I recall this idiosyncrasy being
almost like a fingerprint. True, Faker had his own idiosyncratic
style -- e.g., he characterized himself as "mere armature," and his
heterodox authorship opinions he described as "hieratical" -- but
these are actual English words, unlike many of Elizabeth's coinages
(e.g., "syallabant"). In short, Faker's gaffes were usually more like
George W. Bush's ("disassemble" for "dissemble", "vulcanize" for
"Balkanize", etc.), while Elizabeth's are generally of a different
nature.
> Peter G.
>
[...]
> > So this is an opportunity to face up to
> > the evidence and eliminate those factions which substitute
> > superstitions
> > (or more likely seize evidence from some other authorship faction to
> > apply to their own candidate, in lieu of real evidence), or who base
> > their authorship claims on traditions,
Actually, it would be a significant improvement if Elizabeth could
base her claims even on some verifiable tradition -- the tradition
might be unreliable, of course, but a proof that such a tradition even
*existed at all* would be a huge improvement. For example, to my
knowledge, there is no extant "tradition" that Southampton used to
hang around the theaters hoping to play female roles, that he was
eventually given a few such parts, and that he was very convincing as
a girl on stage, yet Elizabeth has made these assertions not as an
existing tradition, but *as fact*. Similarly, I know of no
"tradition" (except possibly among Baconians who merely invent "facts"
that they find congenial) that "shake-scene" meant "stage-hand" in
Elizabethan theater slang, but Elizabeth has asserted this also as
*fact*.
> > unknowlegeable [sic] witnesses,
> > flawed narratives (or in some instances, unbridled passion) not on the
> > scientific method.
> >
> > I'm embarassed [sic] by the sheer passion these factions express
> > for their
> > dead candidates.
One *certainly* cannot blame Elizabeth for being "embarassed [sic]"
by the passion of certain fringe Baconians who invent on the fly
various "facts" and "quotations" that they find convenient; it must be
mortifying to have to face up to the fallout from an assertion like
"O[ld] E[nglish] was still spoken in some shires until the 1800s" or
"'Verulam' means 'state of truth' in Latin..."
nordicskiv2
<6741fc1c-bd80-4a1a...@l36g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>,
neonprose <neon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 15, 4:49 pm, Peter Groves <metrical...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 16, 9:14 am, neonprose <neonpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> But Groves, I know who wrote the parody
> and who wrote the response to the parody.
> The author wrote it in defense of his niece,
> Lady Mary Wroth.
Source? Or even evidence?
> Crowley isn't going to post it right away
> because he's trying to figure out a way
> to assign it to Oxford.
>
> Shackespeare didn't write it not only due
> to his illiteracy
There is, of course, overwhelmingly strong evidence that
Shakespeare was literate -- which, like all evidence that she finds
inconvenient, Elizabeth simply ignores.
> but because he was not
> invited to live at Court. The palace had
> hundreds of apartments for the courtiers
> but Shacke-speare (spelling on the will)
> was never a courtier.
>
> He was the proprietor of a profitable
> whorehouse
Source?
> among his other illegal ventures
> in partnership with the notorious London
> criminal Francis Langley but Shackespeare
> reprieves himself by the generosity to his
> relatives and heirs as shown in his will.
>
> I have to like him a little bit more, especially
> since he repaired his family fortunes after
> they were ruined by the Church of England's
> harsh fines levied on the English Catholic
> yeoman class but unfairly, not on the earls of Lancashire who were
> permitted to keep private chapel, no questions asked.
>
> Bacon is credited with the Queen's speech
> in which she states (or reads) that she does
> not want to look through the windows into
> mens' souls. No one was going to look into
> the souls of earls who paid no recusancy fines,
> but the Church was punishing to the lower
> classes.
>
> We Calvinists HATE religious intolerance.
Calvin himself had a decidedly mixed record in this regard, not
unlike most religious leaders of his era.
> The Strats don't want to know how much
> this fellow was worth because that would
> conflict with their idea, such as it is, that
> he "wrote for money."
>
> There was no profit in the theatre.
There was for shareholders in successful acting companies. I
suggest that Elizabeth reread Dave Kathman's posts on Honigmann and
Brock's _Playhouse Wills 1558-1642_. Better yet, she might even try
reading the book itself.
> I've
> read Henslowe's diaries. He didn't leave
> his daughter a bequest of 50,000 pounds
> by paying his actors and writers a decent
> wage.
Shakespeare didn't become wealthy merely as a writer; he was a
shareholder in the company.
> [Change of topic].
>
> <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/
> The_Old_Palace_of_Whitehall_by_Hendrik_Danckerts.jpg>
>
> Actually, I looked it up. The palace had 1,500
> rooms and there was a whole lot goings on in
> those rooms.
Source?
> The Queen would invite these naive young
> daughters of the aristocracy to come to Court
> as Maids of Honor and when they got pregnant
> she would scream her head off at them, slap
> them silly, and send then away from Court.
>
> Lady Anne, an ardent Calvinist, took another
> approach.
>
> When her niece, one of the Russell girls, the
> niece of the Duke of Bedford, her mother was
> Lady Anne's sister Lady Elizabeth,Russell, was
> about to be married at Westminster when Lady
> Anne heard, apparently from the Queen, that
> that Essex was trying to seduce this still-innocent
> young girl so Lady Anne wrote to Essex threatening to kill him.
Source?
> It seems to have worked.
>
> The "canopy" reference in the Sonnets could
> be to the fact that Lady Anne was so effective
> in preserving her niece's virginity that the
> Queen allowed Bacon to carry the processional
> royal canopy over the Queen on her way to
> the church.
>
> This is actual fact, Bacon was allowed to carry
> the canopy because his mother had saved her
> niece's virginity.
Source?
[...]
> I don't understand the Strats, they're like
> the guests at Menken's [sic] banquet, turning
> around, catching and eating flies.
That's preferable to whatever Elizabeth is ingesting. It can't be
legal!
neonprose
> In article
> <7f520cdf-28b2-4fd3-85fa-36b5c4e84...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
>
> > On Apr 14, 12:47 pm, neonprose <neonpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > _________________________________
>
> > > Bacon's articulation of Confirmation
> > > Bias is all over the Internet. I googled
> > > "Francis Bacon" and "confirmation
> > > bias" and got over 23,000 results.
> > This is Elizabeth's idea of 'research'. She perhaps hasn't noticed
> > that without a grammatical connection bewteen the two terms (e.g.
> > "Francis Bacon knew nothing about confirmation bias") this is evidence
> > of precisely nothing.
Webb. If Bacon is widely recognized to have been
the first to identify confirmation bias, I'm not going
to get that many results for "Bacon did not identify
confirmation bias."
In fact here's the Crude Google Calculator for
results taken about 30 seconds ago:
No results found for "bacon was not the first
to identify confirmation bias"
Here's another search done about a minute ago
to confirm the one above.
Your search - "bacon was not the first to
identify confirmation bias" - did not match
any documents.
That means, Webb, that there are no documents
online that state that Bacon was not the first to
identify confirmation bias.
<snip of Webb's mania>
David L. Webb
<4d15df1c-ddb9-4f9c...@t16g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
neonprose <neon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 16, 7:01 am, nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> > In article
> > <7f520cdf-28b2-4fd3-85fa-36b5c4e84...@z7g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> > Peter Groves <metrical...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Apr 14, 12:47 pm, neonprose <neonpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > _________________________________
> >
> > > > Bacon's articulation of Confirmation
> > > > Bias is all over the Internet. I googled
> > > > "Francis Bacon" and "confirmation
> > > > bias" and got over 23,000 results.
>
> > > This is Elizabeth's idea of 'research'. She perhaps hasn't noticed
> > > that without a grammatical connection bewteen the two terms (e.g.
> > > "Francis Bacon knew nothing about confirmation bias") this is evidence
> > > of precisely nothing.
> Webb.
Weir. That's Peter Groves to whom you're responding above -- but you
never were competent at attributions of authorship.
> If Bacon is widely recognized to have been
> the first to identify confirmation bias, I'm not going
> to get that many results for "Bacon did not identify
> confirmation bias."
You won't get any results for *that* search regardless of *who* first
noticed the phenomenon! That's as stupid as typing "Columbus did not
discover the Atlantic Ocean" in a search box, then concluding that,
because the search returned no results, Columbus *did* in fact discover
the Atlantic Ocean.
> In fact here's the Crude Google Calculator for
> results taken about 30 seconds ago:
Why don't you try *actually reading* some of documents that your
search finds for a change? For example, in the VERY FIRST ONE, you
could read:
"Before psychological research on confirmation bias, the
phenomenon had been observed anecdotally by writers, including
the Greek historian Thucydides (c. 460 BC c. 395 BC), Italian
poet Dante Alighieri (12651321), English philosopher and
scientist Francis Bacon (15611626),[47] and Russian author Leo
Tolstoy (18281910). Thucydides, in the _History of the
Peloponnesian War_ wrote, 'it is a habit of mankind ... to use
sovereign reason to thrust aside what they do not fancy.'[48]
In the _Divine Comedy_, St. Thomas Aquinas cautions Dante when
they meet in Paradise, 'opinion‹hasty‹often can incline to the
wrong side, and then affection for one's own opinion binds,
confines the mind.'[49]"
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias#Informal_observation>
Are you suggesting that Bacon predated both Dante AND Thucydides?! If
so, you may want to talk further with Art, who thinks that Virgil
predated Herodotus.
> No results found for "bacon was not the first
> to identify confirmation bias"
That's because only an incompetent would frame the search in that way.
> Here's another search done about a minute ago
> to confirm the one above.
>
> Your search - "bacon was not the first to
> identify confirmation bias" - did not match
> any documents.
>
> That means, Webb, that there are no documents
> online that state that Bacon was not the first to
> identify confirmation bias.
No, it means nothing of the kind. In fact, this document says that
Bacon was not the first to identify the phenomenon:
"Before psychological research on confirmation bias, the
phenomenon had been observed anecdotally by writers, including
the Greek historian Thucydides (c. 460 BC c. 395 BC), Italian
poet Dante Alighieri (12651321), English philosopher and
scientist Francis Bacon (15611626),[47] and Russian author Leo
Tolstoy (18281910)."
Unless you're suggesting that Bacon predated both Dante and Thucydides
-- which, in view of your fantasized dispute between Newton and Hegel
(the latter of whom was born well after the former died) would not
surprise me at all -- then the conclusion is inescapable that Bacon was
not the first to comment upon the phenomenon of confirmation bias.
> <snip of Webb's mania>
Since you *still* do not know how to use a search engine competently,
and since you *still* have not learned that counting Google hits is not
a reliable means of deciding questions of fact, I'm restoring part of
the post that you deleted in case it may be of help to you:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
neonprose
> In article
>
> neonprose <neonpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 15, 4:49 pm, Peter Groves <metrical...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 16, 9:14 am, neonprose <neonpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > But Groves, I know who wrote the parody
> > and who wrote the response to the parody.
> > The author wrote it in defense of his niece,
> > Lady Mary Wroth.
>
> Source? Or even evidence?
What right to you have to demand to see
sources or even evidence when you have
YET TO INITIATE YOUR FIRST ON-TOPIC
POST IN THIS FORUM, WHAT HAS IT BEEN,
TWENTY YEARS?
You've written literally thousands of yards
of harassing even vicious posts but you have
YET TO PRODUCE
ONE
that argues that Shackepeare wrote the
Shakespeare works.
So when are you finally going to write a
post in defense of Shackespeare, Webb?
Let's see your evidence that Shacke-
speare (spelling on his will) could even
write?
Where are all the manucripts you imagine
he left us?
--------------------------------------------------
Actually I'd rather you spent that time
with a surgeons, you have to do something
about your OCD, you don't want to end your
life in an institution going budah budah budah
with your forefinger and your lower lip.
I don't think the operation is intrusive,
it's probably more like the trepanage
the Aztecs used to do. Drill a little hole
in the forehead and snip the corpus
callosum to stop the madness.
For your own sake and for the sake of
your family, please check into the brain
surgery they're doing to relieve Obsessive
Compulsive Disorder. OCD is progressive,
don't fool around with it.
I'll have to restart this post . . .
Gary
SNIP
> Do you recall the thread in which KQKnave compiled a sort of
> "Benezet test" consisting of selections from Elizabeth's posts and
> from Faker's posts, then challenged h.l.a.s. readers to identify the
> authors of each selection? Most were readily identifiable on the
> basis of orthography alone, and I recall this idiosyncrasy being
> almost like a fingerprint.
That's interesting because I can't shake the idea that
Elizabeth and John Baker are the same person.
- Gary
neonprose
Baker is the one with the penis and the three beautiful
wives, each of whom gave Baker a very handsome
son. His kids are move-star handsome. Baker wasn't
that bad looking when he was young, I don't know
what jail has done to him.
My god, he was imprisoned for taking a shotgun
and shooting up a sweater.
A wool cardigan to be precise.
He pulled it off the clothes line, threw it on
the ground and filled it full of lead, I believe
it was buckshot.
I mean it was noisy but it didn't hurt anyone.
If I were the judge I would have fallen off the
bench laughing, not given Baker seven years.
Baker really attracted some stunning-looking
women but I think the marriages were brief.
His personal photos used to be on line, I think
the Internet Archives has archived his old
website.
I accessed his archived web pages to get
a link to the Van Mander painting Game of Chess
which shows Bacon in the act of checkmating
Jonson.
So even in the 16th century the English knew
who was writing the great plays.
Melanie Sands
>
> Shackespeare didn't write it not only due
> to his illiteracy
There is no proof he was illiterate.
And even a person who cannot read can
dictate to someone who can write.
>but because he was not
> invited to live at Court. The palace had
> hundreds of apartments for the courtiers
> but Shacke-speare (spelling on the will)
> was never a courtier.
>
> He was the proprietor of a profitable
> whorehouse among his other illegal ventures
> in partnership with the notorious London
> criminal Francis Langley but Shackespeare
> reprieves himself by the generosity to his
> relatives and heirs as shown in his will.
There is no proof that the Blackfriars house
was a "whorehouse"
> We Calvinists HATE religious intolerance.
I thought you said you were an atheist?
> The Strats don't want to know how much
> this fellow was worth because that would
> conflict with their idea, such as it is, that
> he "wrote for money."
It's all about money. Money, land, property,
material gain. Collecting stuff.
Jane Austen knew that.
And when it's not about money, it's about power.
> There was no profit in the theatre. I've
> read Henslowe's diaries. He didn't leave
> his daughter a bequest of 50,000 pounds
> by paying his actors and writers a decent
> wage.
50'000 pounds then value or now value?
Shakespeare was the co-owner of the Globe Theatre.
I think they must have had a hierarchy system,
with the senior actors and owners getting
a larger percentage than the little 'uns.
>
> I don't understand the Strats, they're like
> the guests at Menken's banquet, turning
> around, catching and eating flies.
Why? All we do is look at a man who may
have been 50% self-taught, who received a
few years schooling at Stratford, who had
a gift for rhetoric, who was verbally
quick on his toes, who was quick to learn
and had a good ear for energetic drama.
There are quite a few people like him.
If Heminges and Condell etc. hadn't published
his works in 1623 would Shakespeare be remembered
today?
And as for manuscripts - all the atni-Strats keep
harping on about manuscripts, but none have yet
to produce any that show any of the plays, poems
or sonnets, or any part of them, written in
the hand of Marlowe, Oxford, Bacon, Derby etc.
Anyway, Ms. Weir, don't mind the shit-dumping you've
been receiving - people take notice of you -
I kood rite wottevuh ay lyke and spel it enny witsh
wayee, they'd stil eegnaw me.
Nott thatd itt mat-hers, wott pipple here sey. We nose
wee oll luvs itch othuh sorta kinda.
Mellinee
John W Kennedy
> On 16 Apr., 09:22, neonprose <neonpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There was no profit in the theatre. I've
>> read Henslowe's diaries. He didn't leave
>> his daughter a bequest of 50,000 pounds
>> by paying his actors and writers a decent
>> wage.
>
> 50'000 pounds then value or now value?
I don’t know, but Henslowe was filthy rich before he even got involved
in theatre.
> Shakespeare was the co-owner of the Globe Theatre.
> I think they must have had a hierarchy system,
> with the senior actors and owners getting
> a larger percentage than the little 'uns.
As in a modern law firm, you were either a partner, and rich, or an
associate, and barely making a living wage.
--
John W Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
Melanie Sands
> On 2011-04-18 09:11:50 -0400, Melanie Sands said:
>
> > On 16 Apr., 09:22, neonprose <neonpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> There was no profit in the theatre. I've
> >> read Henslowe's diaries. He didn't leave
> >> his daughter a bequest of 50,000 pounds
> >> by paying his actors and writers a decent
> >> wage.
>
> > 50'000 pounds then value or now value?
>
> I don’t know, but Henslowe was filthy rich before he even got involved
> in theatre.
>
> > Shakespeare was the co-owner of the Globe Theatre.
> > I think they must have had a hierarchy system,
> > with the senior actors and owners getting
> > a larger percentage than the little 'uns.
>
> As in a modern law firm, you were either a partner, and rich, or an
> associate, and barely making a living wage.
>
Yes but were they really rich? They were all
Lord Somebody's men - and thus presumably financially
supported to a certain extent - but outside of Hollywood
have you ever seen a rich actor?
Melanie
John W Kennedy
Before Hollywood, actors got rich playing the metropolises. (Some
actresses, of course, got rich other ways, but that doesn’t apply to
our period.)
--
John W Kennedy
"The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich
have always objected to being governed at all."
-- G. K. Chesterton. "The Man Who Was Thursday"
BCD
***David Garrick. http://www.theatrehistory.com/british/garrick001.html
***Well, ok, I haven't actually *seen* him. Damn, I hate these trick
questions.
Best Wishes,
--BCD
Gary
> On Apr 16, 7:03 pm, Gary <g...@nomorespam.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 16Apr2011 07:01:13 -0700 (PDT), nordicskiv2 wrote:
>>
>> SNIP
>>
>>> Do you recall the thread in which KQKnave compiled a sort of
>>> "Benezet test" consisting of selections from Elizabeth's posts and
>>> from Faker's posts, then challenged h.l.a.s. readers to identify the
>>> authors of each selection? Most were readily identifiable on the
>>> basis of orthography alone, and I recall this idiosyncrasy being
>>> almost like a fingerprint.
>>
>> That's interesting because I can't shake the idea that
>> Elizabeth and John Baker are the same person.
>>
>> - Gary
>
> Baker is the one with the penis and the three beautiful
> wives, each of whom gave Baker a very handsome
> son. His kids are move-star handsome. Baker wasn't
> that bad looking when he was young, I don't know
> what jail has done to him.
SNIP
In any event, Elizabeth, I hope that John's recent problems
work out well for all concerned.
- Gary
nordicskiv2
<f13fdfad-7366-49d2...@w36g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
neonprose <neon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 16, 7:03 pm, Gary <g...@nomorespam.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, 16Apr2011 07:01:13 -0700 (PDT), nordicskiv2 wrote:
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> > > Do you recall the thread in which KQKnave compiled a sort of
> > > "Benezet test" consisting of selections from Elizabeth's posts and
> > > from Faker's posts, then challenged h.l.a.s. readers to identify the
> > > authors of each selection? Most were readily identifiable on the
> > > basis of orthography alone, and I recall this idiosyncrasy being
> > > almost like a fingerprint.
> > That's interesting because I can't shake the idea that
> > Elizabeth and John Baker are the same person.
> >
> > - Gary
> Baker is the one with the penis
Huh? To my knowledge, *nobody* has so much as *mentioned* Baker's
penis, except Elizabeth (with the possible exception of Faker himself,
on the occasion when he disgorged his tasteless and needlessly graphic
account of his sexual initiation, attained by copulating with a tree);
have Baker's private parts become Elizabeth's latest preoccupation,
now that North Korean submarine attacks on gulf oil platforms are
passé?
> and the three beautiful
> wives, each of whom gave Baker a very handsome
> son. His kids are move-star handsome. Baker wasn't
> that bad looking when he was young, I don't know
> what jail has done to him.
>
> My god, he was imprisoned for taking a shotgun
> and shooting up a sweater.
No, the charges were much graver than that; see below.
> A wool cardigan to be precise.
Source? The press accounts that I've seen are unanimous in
characterizing the garment as a sweatshirt.
> He pulled it off the clothes line, threw it on
> the ground and filled it full of lead, I believe
> it was buckshot.
>
> I mean it was noisy but it didn't hurt anyone.
>
> If I were the judge I would have fallen off the
> bench laughing, not given Baker seven years.
Huh? Has Elizabeth been hallucinating again? The judge did *not*
give Baker seven years. According to the Lewis County government's
online news release, Baker was sentenced, after his guilty plea, to
twelve months and one day in prison, followed by 18 months community
service after his release; he was also ordered to have no contact with
Pamela Hollinger (the woman whose domicile Baker, armed with a propane
torch, allegedly threatened to burn down) or Deana Morris (whom Baker
allegedly threatened with a shotgun). Elizabeth can find the Lewis
Country Prosecutor's press release here, where she can acquaint
herself with the actual facts of the case rather than merely making
things up, as is her custom:
<http://lewiscountywa.gov/news-releases-february-2010-12>
Moreover, the charges were more serious than merely shooting up a
sweatshirt; they included assault, domestic violence, possession of
methamphetamine, and felony harassment, the latter stemming from a
separate incident in which Baker allegedly threatened to kill a
witness in the case. Elizabeth can read about the subsequent arrest
for witness tampering here:
<http://www.chronline.com/news/article_7e4bbd81-5d75-580a-97a5-
a188afb4bb79.html>
Moreover, although Elizabeth envisions herself as the judge "fall[ing]
off the bench laughing," I can assure her that matters such as witness
tampering, death threats, and other aspects of the case are taken
extremely seriously by both law enforcement and the judicial system,
as indeed they should be.
Finally, to forestall more flights by Elizabeth into lurid
fantasies, she can acquaint herself with the press reports of the
investigation of Baker on 82 counts of fraud here:
<http://tdn.com/news/state-and-regional/washington/
article_51d86d1e-30b0-11e0-931f-001cc4c002e0.html>
or here:
<http://www.theolympian.com/2011/02/06/1533459/claim-burial-fund-
misused.html>.
The investigation is said to be in progress, so there is no knowing
how it will turn out; however, the pending nature of the case will
probably fail to deter Elizabeth from fantasizing some lurid outcome
and posting it as "fact."
> Baker really attracted some stunning-looking
> women but I think the marriages were brief.
>
> His personal photos used to be on line, I think
> the Internet Archives has archived his old
> website.
>
> I accessed his archived web pages to get
> a link to the Van Mander painting Game of Chess
> which shows Bacon in the act of checkmating
> Jonson.
Huh? What makes Elizabeth think (Neuendorffer disclaimer invoked)
that Bacon is one of the chess players in the painting?
> So even in the 16th century the English knew
> who was writing the great plays.
Huh? Even if the chess player *were* Bacon, which has by no means
been established, what conceivable connection would that
identification have with the question of whether sixteenth-century
Englishmen knew who was writing great plays?! Merely playing chess
with a playwright doesn't make one a fellow playwright.
John W Kennedy
There is an old (but not sufficiently old) tradition that the painting
portrays Shakespeare and Jonson. One of them might be Jonson, I
suppose. The other one certainly isn’t Shakespeare.
--
John W Kennedy
"Information is light. Information, in itself, about anything, is light."
-- Tom Stoppard. "Night and Day"
David L. Webb
John W Kennedy <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> On 2011-04-19 12:35:33 -0400, nordicskiv2 said:
>
> > In article
> > <f13fdfad-7366-49d2...@w36g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
> > neonprose <neon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I accessed his archived web pages to get
> >> a link to the Van Mander painting Game of Chess
> >> which shows Bacon in the act of checkmating
> >> Jonson.
> > Huh? What makes Elizabeth think (Neuendorffer disclaimer invoked)
> > that Bacon is one of the chess players in the painting?
> There is an old (but not sufficiently old) tradition that the painting
> portrays Shakespeare and Jonson. One of them might be Jonson, I
> suppose. The other one certainly isn’t Shakespeare.
Indeed. And I know of no tradition, old or otherwise, that the other
player is Bacon. Elizabeth is making things up, as usual.
neonprose
> On 2011-04-19 12:35:33 -0400, nordicskiv2 said:
>
> > In article
> > neonprose<neonpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I accessed his archived web pages to get
> >> a link to the Van Mander painting Game of Chess
> >> which shows Bacon in the act of checkmating
> >> Jonson.
>
> > Huh? What makes Elizabeth think (Neuendorffer disclaimer invoked)
> > that Bacon is one of the chess players in the painting?
>
> There is an old (but not sufficiently old) tradition that the painting
> portrays Shakespeare and Jonson. One of them might be Jonson, I
> suppose. The other one certainly isn’t Shakespeare.
Read my post above to Webb which quotes Greene's
description of Shackespeare (his spelling).
And I can post images of Bacon that show that
his features are much closer to those of the chess player
on the right in the Van Mander than they are to Greene's
description of Shackespeare (his spelling).
Contrary to careless scholarship, most of it on the
part of the Strats, Jonson and Shackespare were
never rivals. In fact Jonson lived with Bacon in
Bacon's various houses for years.
Another fact not researched or acknowledged by
Strats.
Jonson moved from Northumberland House (it's
thought that his exquisite Italic hand is on the
cover of the Northumberland Manuscript) to
Twickenham when Bacon got a revision of a lease
on his cousin, Sir Edward Bacon's. estate (76 acres
of forests and orchards and a large house), all now
under the asphalt of the enormous parking lot at
at the Twickenham Soccer Statdium).
As far as I know, when the reversion to the lease
ran out, Bacon and Jonson went back across the
Thames to live in one of Bacon's brother's several
houses in Bishop's Gate. Near the theatres.
Bacon's aunt, Lady Lucy Russell (next in line to be
Countess of Bedford) kept a salon at her house a
few estates up the road from Bacon's estate.
Jonson discovered the salon and became it's
leading wit for the next seven or eight years,
while still living with Bacon.
I think Jonson and Lucy Bedford were having an
affair because they were always quarreling and
making up.
Jonson eventually wrote a mask for Lucy Russell
in which she danced bare breasted.
It's too bad that the Van Mander has been clipped
because in the original there was writing in gold
paint across the wall behind the chess players, some
mysterious figure in a scarlet hooded cloak with his
back turned to the viewer, watching Bacon about to
take Jonson's queen, and other details that have been
cut from both the left and right sides of the portrait.
Peter Groves
> On Apr 19, 12:05 pm, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 2011-04-19 12:35:33 -0400, nordicskiv2 said:
>
> > > In article
> > > <f13fdfad-7366-49d2-8e6b-1fa47c3f6...@w36g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
> > > neonprose<neonpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Contrary to careless scholarship,
Priceless!
> most of it on the
> part of the Strats, Jonson and Shackespare were
> never rivals. In fact Jonson lived with Bacon in
> Bacon's various houses for years.
>
And this has precisely what relevance to the undoubted rivalry of
Shakespeare and Jonson?
Peter G.
TomFoster
> … all now
> under the asphalt of the enormous parking lot at
> at the Twickenham Soccer Statdium).
>
quoted by Elizabeth in this post have been scrupulously researched and
checked.
Tom
nordicskiv2
<71aa1cef-7e43-4f33...@p16g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
neonprose <neon...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> > > But Groves, I know who wrote the parody
> > > and who wrote the response to the parody.
> > > The author wrote it in defense of his niece,
> > > Lady Mary Wroth.
> > Source? Or even evidence?
> What right to you have to demand to see
> sources or even evidence
Huh? It's quite normal, when an unsupported assertion is made, to
ask what the supporting evidence is. Elizabeth is plainly not
familiar with scholarship, or with the scientific method and the
careful scrutiny of detail that it requires.
> when you have
> YET TO INITIATE YOUR FIRST ON-TOPIC
> POST IN THIS FORUM,
False:
Elizabeth cannot get *anything* right!
> WHAT HAS IT BEEN,
>
> TWENTY YEARS?
No; h.l.a.s. has not even been in existence for twenty years.
Indeed, the post announcing the results of the vote leading to the
establishment of the group appeared in August 1995:
Elizabeth just cannot get *anything* right!
> You've written literally thousands of yards
> of harassing even vicious posts but you have
>
> YET TO PRODUCE
>
> ONE
>
> that argues that Shackepeare [sic] wrote the
> Shakespeare works.
I have in fact written
MANY POSTS
in which I express a nuanced opinion on the matter, but what Alan
Jones called Elizabeth's
CASUAL READING
and her
IMPERFECT RECOLLECTION
(a tactful euphemism if ever there was one!) prevent her from
remembering what she has "read" for more than about five minutes.
> So when are you finally going to write a
> post in defense of Shackespeare, Webb?
Elizabeth cannot even spell Shakespeare's name the same way
consistently within a *single post* in 2011, long after the emergent
standardization of English spelling, yet she makes much ado about
variant spellings of Shakespeare's name during an era when spelling
was *not* yet standardized?!
> Let's see your evidence that Shacke-
> speare (spelling on his will) could even
> write?
As has been pointed out many times, several samples of his
signature survive. There are also some three dozen plays as well as
nondramatic poetry credibly attributed to him.
> Where are all the manucripts [sic] you imagine
> he left us?
Elizabeth is really appallingly unfamiliar with the background
material concerning survival of manuscripts, or even of "manucripts
[sic]". I quote from _Elizabethan Handwriting, 1500-1650: A Manual_
by Giles E. Dawson and Laetitia Kennedy-Skipton, which Elizabeth would
know about if she had so much as glanced at the Shakespeare authorship
site of Dave Kathman and Terry Ross:
"No manuscript of any play has survived in the autograph of
Kyd, Greene, Jonson, Chapman, Dekker, Heywood, Marston, Webster,
Beaumont, Fletcher, or Ford -- to name only the better known
dramatists. The facts can be summarized in this way: no play by
a professional playwright which was successful on the stage and
which was printed before 1642 is known to have come down to our
time or near it."
Where are all the manuscripts that Elizabeth imagines that Kyd,
Greene, Jonson, Chapman, Dekker, Heywood, Marston, Webster, Beaumont,
Fletcher, and Ford left us? Elizabeth really should read the book in
question, or at the very least the excerpt available online here:
<http://shakespeareauthorship.com/survival.html>.
[Pseudo-medical quackery snipped]
> I'll have to restart this post . . .
That would be a good idea -- the version that Elizabeth posted
*still* contains no sources, features false "facts", and offers
virtually nothing except frenzied frothing at the mouth.
neonprose @ gmail.com
> _________________________________
>
> Bacon's articulation of Confirmation
> Bias is all over the Internet. I googled
> "Francis Bacon" and "confirmation
> bias" and got over 23,000 results.
>
>
> The attacks on the Kathman-Ross
> site are particularly vitriolic. Ross
> wrote a vicious piece against Penn
> Leary, a lawyer from the midwest
> who served as a pilot in WWII.
>
> <http://bit.ly/g2uQg8>
>
> the literacy of their candidate they
> simply used the fact that they
> dominate university lit departments
> to seize the entire First Folio for
> Shackespeare (spelling on his will).
>
> It has not ceased to this day.
>
> Bacon also wrote that biased
> assessment of evidence drove "all
> superstitions, whether in astrology,
> dreams, omens, divine judgments or
> the like".
>
> At this point I would classify the Shake-
> speare authorship dispute under "superstition" because the evidence
> So this is an opportunity to face up to
> the evidence and eliminate those factions which substitute
> superstitions
> (or more likely seize evidence from some other authorship faction to
> apply to their own candidate, in lieu of real evidence), or who base
> scientific method.
>
> dead candidates.
>
neonprose @ gmail.com
> In article . . .
> neonprose <neon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 16, 7:03 pm, Gary <g...@nomorespam.com> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 16Apr2011 07:01:13 -0700 (PDT), nordicskiv2 wrote:
> > >
> > > SNIP
> > >
> > > > Do you recall the thread in which KQKnave compiled a sort of
> > > > "Benezet test" consisting of selections from Elizabeth's posts and
> > > > from Faker's posts, then challenged h.l.a.s. readers to identify the
> > > > authors of each selection? Most were readily identifiable on the
> > > > basis of orthography alone, and I recall this idiosyncrasy being
> > > > almost like a fingerprint.
>
> > > That's interesting because I can't shake the idea that
> > > Elizabeth and John Baker are the same person.
> > >
> > > - Gary
>
> > Baker is the one with the penis
>
> Huh? To my knowledge, *nobody* has so much as *mentioned* Baker's
> penis, except Elizabeth (with the possible exception of Faker himself,
> on the occasion when he disgorged his tasteless and needlessly graphic
> account of his sexual initiation, attained by copulating with a tree);
> have Baker's private parts become Elizabeth's latest preoccupation,
> now that North Korean submarine attacks on gulf oil platforms are
> passé?
>
> direct descendant of New England Puritans. I can't even do
> prissy, but then the New England Puritans were into the Puritan
> convention of the Lusty Marriage.
ignoto
is not however a major issue in relation to the attribution of works to
Shakespeare because those works are attributed predominantly on the
basis of objective historical documentation. The veracity of that
documentation is not reasonably open to dispute.
Anti-Stratfordian 'evidence' otoh consists solely of subjective (and so
afactual) interpretations of historical documents and literary works.
To confute this an anti-stratfordian would need to produce just ONE
piece of objective historical evidence in support of a particular
candidate - Bacon's name on the title page of Lear, Oxford's name on the
title page of Hamlet, etc.
The rest is silence.
Ign.
David L. Webb
> Conformation bias is certainly an issue in many areas of academia. It
> is not however a major issue in relation to the attribution of works to
> Shakespeare because those works are attributed predominantly on the
> basis of objective historical documentation. The veracity of that
> documentation is not reasonably open to dispute.
>
> Anti-Stratfordian 'evidence' otoh consists solely of subjective (and so
> afactual) interpretations of historical documents and literary works.
is perhaps the most conspicuous and the most deluded example, their
"evidence" consists largely of "facts" that are demonstrably *wrong*.
These "facts" are of course utterly unsourced; they are apparently
either hallucinated (the charitable explanation) or invented outright.
neonprose @ gmail.com
>
>
> Is there no limit to the nasty words used in this forum?
>
> As I've repeatedly stated, I descend from New England
>
> Puritans, my family never engaged in language that
>
> was an abomination to the Lord.
>
>
>
> Now, I've come to the conclusion that the figure
>
> on the left of the Van Mander portrait is not
>
> Jonson but Shappere of Stratford. The artist would
>
> have been wasting his time because Jonson was
>
> considerably younger than Bacon, and in fact Jonson's
>
> images are simply not that grotesque.
>
> The sitter on the left is old enough to be the Stratford
>
> Broker, and his features do fit the only verbal description
>
> we have of him: Face like Thersites, hair like a horses'
>
> mane.
>
neonprose @ gmail.com
>
> locate a play in Shakespeare's handwriting or with his name
>
> on it, I'd love to see it. As far as I know, he wrote nothing,
>
> but he did make a fortune in pandering in London, according
>
> to his timeline, he was rarely at home in Stratford.
>
> Peter G.
neonprose @ gmail.com
>
> Shakespeare made himself filthy rich off the backs
>
> of young whores. There was no rivalry between
>
> Shakespeare and Jonson because they were not
>
> on the same intellectual level (as Shappere could
>
> not spell his own name) see Delahoyde's examples
>
> online.
>
> Peter G.
neonprose @ gmail.com
> In article
>
>
> > > On Sat, 16Apr2011 07:01:13 -0700 (PDT), nordicskiv2 wrote:
> > >
> > > SNIP
> > >
> > > > Do you recall the thread in which KQKnave compiled a sort of
> > > > "Benezet test" consisting of selections from Elizabeth's posts and
> > > > from Faker's posts, then challenged h.l.a.s. readers to identify the
> > > > authors of each selection? Most were readily identifiable on the
> > > > basis of orthography alone, and I recall this idiosyncrasy being
> > > > almost like a fingerprint.
>
> > > That's interesting because I can't shake the idea that
> > > Elizabeth and John Baker are the same person.
> > >
> > > - Gary
>
> > Baker is the one with the penis
>
> Huh? To my knowledge, *nobody* has so much as *mentioned* Baker's
> penis, except Elizabeth (with the possible exception of Faker himself,
> on the occasion when he disgorged his tasteless and needlessly graphic
> account of his sexual initiation, attained by copulating with a tree);
> have Baker's private parts become Elizabeth's latest preoccupation,
> now that North Korean submarine attacks on gulf oil platforms are
> passé?
>
>
>
> old posts overe and overe. Take a break, take a trip, don't
>
> come back until you're thoroughly rested.
>
> > and the three beautiful
> > wives, each of whom gave Baker a very handsome
> > son. His kids are move-star handsome. Baker wasn't
> > that bad looking when he was young, I don't know
> > what jail has done to him.
> >
> > My god, he was imprisoned for taking a shotgun
> > and shooting up a sweater.
>
> No, the charges were much graver than that; see below.
>
> > A wool cardigan to be precise.
>
> Source? The press accounts that I've seen are unanimous in
> characterizing the garment as a sweatshirt.
>
>
> Baker jerked off the clothesline, threw it on the ground
>
> and shot it with a shotgun, unfortunately the local
>
> police happened to drive into his yard at that point
>
> and the rest is low comedy.
>
> really amazing that you can recall all the posts in HLAS I think
>
> you should get on some tv game show and make some money
>
> with your extraordinary gifts (the only problem is that Webb
>
> recites the same old crap over and over and over . . . ).
>
> Finally, to forestall more flights by Elizabeth into lurid
> fantasies, she can acquaint herself with the press reports of the
> investigation of Baker on 82 counts of fraud here:
>
>
> Webb, I'm happy that he's happy in his cemetery business
>
> just up the Interstate Highway in Chehalis or maybe it's
>
> Centralia, both towns are on I-5 probably a short drive
>
> apart. And Webb. just so yah know, I never think
>
> of Baker anymore, but it was hilarious while it lasted.
> before.
neonprose @ gmail.com
> In article
>
>
> > > in HLAS that gets me laughing out loud.
>
> > > To answer your concerns, Bacon is the one in red, he's
>
> > > leaning forward to checkmate Shakespeare, yes, the
>
> > > other chess player is Shakespeare. Why? Because he's
>
> > > the only one in Bloudy Old England whose got a head
> > > like Thersites and hair like a horses mane.
>
> > > Young Jonson, on the other hand, was good looking,
>
> > > women couldn't get enough of him and vice versa.
>
> > > There are several portraits of Jonson online, you can
>
> > > easily recognize Jonson.
>
> > > Now I believe that Van Mander made Shakespeare,
>
> > > NOT Jonson, Bacon's opponent in the Game of Chess.
>
> > > Why? Well, firstly, the Bacon-Shakespeare controversy
>
> > > was news even on the Continent.
>
> > > Secondly, Shakespeare was not pretty, not pretty at all,
>
> > > he was said to have a head like Thersities (the ugliest
>
> >> Greek in the Trojan War, he didn't have to kill his
>
> > > enemies, they just dropped dead when he looked at them.
>
> > > We know from other Elizabethan era reports that
>
> > > the Stratford Broker wasn't exactly handsome, I'm only
>
> > > glad that Bacon and Jonson got the Droeshout engraving
>
> > > ready when they did because that's Bacon allowing
>
> > > himself to look like a Dummy on the cover of Bacon's
>
> > > and to a large extent, Jonson's, First Folio. And yes,
>
> > > I'm keeping track of the number of legible First Folios
>
> > > in this era, they're still going for about 90 thousand
>
> > > pounds at Christies and other elite auction houses,
>
> > > most of them are purchased by institutions, that is,
>
> > > universities and colleges based on donations by
>
> > > rich alumni.
> > On Apr 16, 7:03 pm, Gary <g...@nomorespam.com> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 16Apr2011 07:01:13 -0700 (PDT), nordicskiv2 wrote:
> > >
> > > SNIP
> > >
> > > > Do you recall the thread in which KQKnave compiled a sort of
> > > > "Benezet test" consisting of selections from Elizabeth's posts and
> > > > from Faker's posts, then challenged h.l.a.s. readers to identify the
> > > > authors of each selection? Most were readily identifiable on the
> > > > basis of orthography alone, and I recall this idiosyncrasy being
> > > > almost like a fingerprint.
>
> > > That's interesting because I can't shake the idea that
> > > Elizabeth and John Baker are the same person.
> > >
> > > - Gary
>
>
> > > I pity you.
>
> > > And I don't want to hear anymore about penises, I was just
>
> > > responding to your sour remarks.
>
> > > Elizabeth
neonprose @ gmail.com
> _________________________________
>
> Bacon's articulation of Confirmation
> Bias is all over the Internet. I googled
> "Francis Bacon" and "confirmation
> bias" and got over 23,000 results.
>
> Here's a part of Bacon's several writings on confirmation bias.
>
> "It is the peculiar and perpetual error
> of the human understanding to be
> more moved and excited by affirm-
> atives than by negatives.
>
> and . . .
>
> The human understanding when it
> has once adopted an opinion . . .
> draws all things else to support and
> agree with it.
>
> And though there be a greater
> number and weight of instances to
> be found on the other side, yet these
> it either neglects or despises, or else
> by some distinction sets aside or
> rejects.
> Novum Organum.
>
> see through time," the paragraph
> above reflects the despicable 19th
> century Stratfordian attack on Bacon
> and the Baconians which has not
> ceased to this day.
>
> And that coming from a faction that
> has never proved that their candidate
> was even literate. He certainly could
> not spell his name.
>
>
>
>
> site are particularly vitriolic. Ross
> wrote a vicious piece against Penn
> Leary, a lawyer from the midwest
> who served as a pilot in WWII.
>
>
>
> the literacy of their candidate they
> simply used the fact that they
> dominate university lit departments
> to seize the entire First Folio for
> Shackespeare (spelling on his will).
>
> It has not ceased to this day.
>
>
> Shackespeare's first play. We know
>
> that the First Folio is full of works
>
> of Bacon, edited by Jonson, but the
>
> Strats have nothing to say about that.
neonprose @ gmail.com
> On Apr 14, 12:47 pm, neonprose <neonpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > _________________________________
> >
> > Groves, I determined long ago that I would not be a grammarian,
>
> > somehow I've been able to survive, I admire you for your
>
> > attention to grammar, any time you want to correct me, go ahead.
> >
> > Bacon's articulation of Confirmation
> > Bias is all over the Internet. I googled
> > "Francis Bacon" and "confirmation
> > bias" and got over 23,000 results.
> >
>
> that without a grammatical connection bewteen the two terms (e.g.
> "Francis Bacon knew nothing about confirmation bias") this is evidence
> of precisely nothing.
> virginal bloom of her ignorance despite years of posting to HLAS; here
> she reveals her amusing belief that there awas such a thing as
> "correct spelling" in Elizabethan England.
>
> >
> > <http://www.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/shakespeare/signatures.jpg>
> > The attacks on the Kathman-Ross
> > site are particularly vitriolic. Ross
> > wrote a vicious piece against Penn
> > Leary, a lawyer from the midwest
> > who served as a pilot in WWII.
> >
>
> Unfortunately she can't remember where, so no source (again), but I'm
> sure it was really vicious, Dave Kathman being the thuggish bruiser
> type.
>
> Peter G.
>
>
> >
> > And having not been able to prove
> > the literacy of their candidate they
> > simply used the fact that they
> > dominate university lit departments
> > to seize the entire First Folio for
> > Shackespeare (spelling on his will).
> >
> > It has not ceased to this day.
> >
neonprose @ gmail.com
> In article
>
> > On Apr 14, 12:47 pm, neonprose <neonpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > _________________________________
>
> > > let us have more.
neonprose @ gmail.com
> On Apr 14, 12:47 pm, neonprose <neonpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > _________________________________
> >
>
> Shappere, I'll celebrate with the rest of you. I've been
>
> diligently looking for one of Shappere's play scripts but
>
> so far nothing has turned up. Can it be that he never
>
> bothered to write a play?
>
> Re: my remarks on Kathman and Ross' boorish attacks
>
> > on Penn Leary, and that's what they were, attacks on
>
> > a war hero in his early eighties, the Baconians were
>
> > really angry as I recall. Penn Leary was in the midst
>
> > of the worst battles of the South Pacific so you can
>
> > sit down and muse on what that would be like.
>
>
> >
> > <http://www.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/shakespeare/signatures.jpg>
> >
> > The attacks on the Kathman-Ross
> > site are particularly vitriolic. Ross
> > wrote a vicious piece against Penn
> > Leary, a lawyer from the midwest
> > who served as a pilot in WWII.
> >
> > <http://bit.ly/g2uQg8>
>
> Unfortunately she can't remember where, so no source (again), but I'm
> sure it was really vicious, Dave Kathman being the thuggish bruiser
> type.
>
neonprose @ gmail.com
> _________________________________
>
>
> that you're happy, I'm sure you've found what you've
>
> been looking for all these years, male companionship,
>
> just stay out of my posts.
>
> Bacon's articulation of Confirmation
> Bias is all over the Internet. I googled
> "Francis Bacon" and "confirmation
> bias" and got over 23,000 results.
>
>
>
> The attacks on the Kathman-Ross
> site are particularly vitriolic. Ross
> wrote a vicious piece against Penn
> Leary, a lawyer from the midwest
> who served as a pilot in WWII.
>
> <http://bit.ly/g2uQg8>
>
neonprose @ gmail.com
> In article
>
> > On Apr 16, 7:03 pm, Gary <g...@nomorespam.com> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 16Apr2011 07:01:13 -0700 (PDT), nordicskiv2 wrote:
> > >
> > > SNIP
> > >
> > > > Do you recall the thread in which KQKnave compiled a sort of
> > > > "Benezet test" consisting of selections from Elizabeth's posts and
> > > > from Faker's posts, then challenged h.l.a.s. readers to identify the
> > > > authors of each selection? Most were readily identifiable on the
> > > > basis of orthography alone, and I recall this idiosyncrasy being
> > > > almost like a fingerprint.
>
> > > That's interesting because I can't shake the idea that
> > > Elizabeth and John Baker are the same person.
> > >
> > > - Gary
>
> > Baker is the one with the penis
>
> Huh? To my knowledge, *nobody* has so much as *mentioned* Baker's
> penis, except Elizabeth (with the possible exception of Faker himself,
> on the occasion when he disgorged his tasteless and needlessly graphic
> account of his sexual initiation, attained by copulating with a tree);
> have Baker's private parts become Elizabeth's latest preoccupation,
> now that North Korean submarine attacks on gulf oil platforms are
> passé?
>
>
> for godsake. Kick back, forget about the fact that your wife has
>
> received major awards for her distinctions in mathematics, then
>
> go soak your head.
>
> > and the three beautiful
> > wives, each of whom gave Baker a very handsome
> > son. His kids are move-star handsome. Baker wasn't
> > that bad looking when he was young, I don't know
> > what jail has done to him.
> >
> > My god, he was imprisoned for taking a shotgun
> > and shooting up a sweater.
>
> No, the charges were much graver than that; see below.
>
> > A wool cardigan to be precise.
>
> Source? The press accounts that I've seen are unanimous in
> characterizing the garment as a sweatshirt.
>
> > He pulled it off the clothes line, threw it on
> > the ground and filled it full of lead, I believe
> > it was buckshot.
> >
> > I mean it was noisy but it didn't hurt anyone.
> >
> > If I were the judge I would have fallen off the
> > bench laughing, not given Baker seven years.
> >
> Huh? Has Elizabeth been hallucinating again? The judge did *not*
> give Baker seven years. According to the Lewis County government's
> online news release, Baker was sentenced, after his guilty plea, to
> twelve months and one day in prison, followed by 18 months community
> service after his release; he was also ordered to have no contact with
> Pamela Hollinger (the woman whose domicile Baker, armed with a propane
> torch, allegedly threatened to burn down) or Deana Morris (whom Baker
> allegedly threatened with a shotgun). Elizabeth can find the Lewis
> Country Prosecutor's press release here, where she can acquaint
> herself with the actual facts of the case rather than merely making
> things up, as is her custom:
>
> <http://lewiscountywa.gov/news-releases-february-2010-12>
>
>
> care to read it since you have a tendency to repeat the same
>
> crap over and over. Ask a relative to put you over their knee
>
> and slap you on the back really hard, maybe you'll cough up
>
> that hair ball you swallowed last year. And P.S. do not post
>
> to my email inbox anymore, I don't want to see anymore
>
> remedies for hairballs, you'd be better off looking for remedies
>
> for growing hair. >
>
> Moreover, the charges were more serious than merely shooting up a
> sweatshirt; they included assault, domestic violence, possession of
> methamphetamine, and felony harassment, the latter stemming from a
> separate incident in which Baker allegedly threatened to kill a
> witness in the case. Elizabeth can read about the subsequent arrest
> for witness tampering here:
>
> <http://www.chronline.com/news/article_7e4bbd81-5d75-580a-97a5-
> break it to you but this is 2013, not the year 2011.
> Moreover, although Elizabeth envisions herself as the judge "fall[ing]
> off the bench laughing," I can assure her that matters such as witness
> tampering, death threats, and other aspects of the case are taken
> extremely seriously by both law enforcement and the judicial system,
> as indeed they should be.
>
>
> law in my next incarnation (please God, let me remain a woman).
>
>
>
>
> Finally, to forestall more flights by Elizabeth into lurid
> fantasies, she can acquaint herself with the press reports of the
> investigation of Baker on 82 counts of fraud here:
>
> <http://tdn.com/news/state-and-regional/washington/
> article_51d86d1e-30b0-11e0-931f-001cc4c002e0.html>
>
> or here:
>
> <http://www.theolympian.com/2011/02/06/1533459/claim-burial-fund-
> misused.html>.
>
> The investigation is said to be in progress, so there is no knowing
> how it will turn out; however, the pending nature of the case will
> probably fail to deter Elizabeth from fantasizing some lurid outcome
> and posting it as "fact."
>
> > Baker really attracted some stunning-looking
> > women but I think the marriages were brief.
> >
> > His personal photos used to be on line, I think
> > the Internet Archives has archived his old
> > website.
> >
> > I accessed his archived web pages to get
> > a link to the Van Mander painting Game of Chess
> > which shows Bacon in the act of checkmating
> > Jonson.
> >
>
> > Jonson but the fellow raising his arm looks nothing
>
> > like Jonson's contemprary portraits.
>
> > I'm going to argue that it only makes sense if Bacon
>
> > is checkmating the Stratford broker, and the guy
>
> > seated on the other side of the chess board does
>
> > not look like Thersities in any sense, Shakespeare
>
> > was the "ugliest man in Folio" with "a face like
>
> > Thersites and hair like a horses mane." It looks
>
> > like a wagon ran over his face. Jonson had a smooth
>
> > complexion, there was a silky look about him,
>
> > women could not get enough of Jonson.
>
> > The other question is what red robed figure is handing
>
> > the chess pieces to the playerd, it looks like the figure
>
> > is a metaphor for the Devil.
> Huh? What makes Elizabeth think (Neuendorffer disclaimer invoked)
> that Bacon is one of the chess players in the painting?
>
>
> was young, he had a lot of women (including Coke's wife, that
>
> move wasn't that bright) who gave Bacon daughters, no, Bacon
>
> was not gay. If you can find it online, read about Bacon's affair
>
> with Coke's wife and the beautiful daughter that followed.
> > So even in the 16th century the English knew
> > who was writing the great plays.
>
> Huh? Even if the chess player *were* Bacon, which has by no means
> been established, what conceivable connection would that
> identification have with the question of whether sixteenth-century
> Englishmen knew who was writing great plays?! Merely playing chess
> with a playwright doesn't make one a fellow playwright.
>
marco
neonprose @ gmail.com
> In article
>
>
> > On Apr 14, 12:47 pm, neonprose <neonpr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > _________________________________
> > >
> > > Bias is all over the Internet. I googled
> > > "Francis Bacon" and "confirmation
> > > bias" and got over 23,000 results.
>
>
> by means of counting Google hits, see
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/4xv977o>.
>
> I think your recollection is faulty, nordicskivvv , your constant
>
> dogging me through every thread is beyond tiresome. Again,
>
> I don't post to you, stay out of my posts.
>
> Elizabeth had claimed that support for Shakespeare as author of the
> canon was "soft" in academia, and that alternative authorship courses
> were cropping up in high school and college literature classes. When
> I asked Elizabeth for her "evidence" for this contention, it turned
> out that she had merely done a Google search for "de vere" and "earl
> of oxford" among .edu domain names! I repeated the search using
> exactly Elizabeth's search terms, and the results were hilarious!
>
> Again, Webb. your click meter on "rate your professor" is dropping
>
> as we speak, run along, push the button, give yourself props.
>
>