COMPARISON OF BACON & SHAKESPEARE'S HANDWRITING ON ONE PAGE . . .

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

________________________________________________________________________________________

COMPARISON OF BACON & SHAKESPEARE'S HANDWRITING ON ONE PAGE . . .

<http://www.sun-nation.org/Images/bacon-shakespeare-signature-comparison-lg.jpg>

(Scroll down to see St. Alban's signature.)

[Gary]

What was the point of this comparison?

- Gary

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

On Monday, April 8, 2013 2:53:21 PM UTC-7, neonprose @ gmail.com wrote:
> ________________________________________________________________________________________
>
>
>
> COMPARISON OF BACON & SHAKESPEARE'S HANDWRITING ON ONE PAGE . . .
>
>
>
> <http://www.sun-nation.org/Images/bacon-shakespeare-signature-comparison-lg.jpg>
>
>

> Someone, missed their name, asked what the point was in posting Bacon's
>
> signatures next to Shakespeare's. The object was to illustrate to the
>
> Strats that this fellow was so illiterate he could not write his own name.
>
> Now this could be taken back to the period in which Shakespeare was
>
> briefly enrolled in Petty School in Stratford. I don't blame Shakespeare
>
> for anything, i blame the Strat who have made TOO MUCH OF HIM.
>
> He was never a genius playwright, he took inferior roles in a number
>
> of plays, there's nothing special about him other than the fact that
>
> he was crooked in his business deal in both London and Stratford,
>
> some of them illegal or filthy.
>
> I'm now reading a wonderful book on Shakespeare, Mark Twain's
>
> "Is Shakespeare Dead?" Great reading, Twain interweaves his
>
> experiences on a Mississippi river boat with his reading of
>
> the Shakespeare works, primarily Shakespeare himself--didn't
>
> like him, Twain was a good judge of character. Sadly, one of
>
> Twain's young relatives died when the boiler on the river boat
>
> blew up, throwing passengers and crew into the Mississippi
>
> River. Many people died but apparently that was a common
>
> occurence with the old paddle wheel steam boats.
>
>

[marco]

they've been trying to defame Shakespeare for centuries,
without success...

it couldn't be simple jealousy, could it?
i see a little of that, and others

marc

[Paul Crowley]

The point is to demonstrate to you the absurdity of
your candidate.

You need to be close to insane to be able to believe
that the person responsible for the Stratman's scrawl
was literate, let alone the Great Bard.

Still, when has that ever been a problem for Strats?


Paul.

[Gary]

You know, Paul, I've never appreciated how talented you
really are - you have the ability to tell whether a person
is literate or not simply by looking at their signature.

You seem to treat this remarkable ability of yours very
matter-of-factly. That's probably due to your innate
humility.

But there is no doubt this amazing talent of yours spells
big trouble for Strats. If Shakespeare was illiterate, it
hardly seems likely that he wrote the plays. And, if your
obvious expertise in signature-reading says he was
illiterate, that would seem to be the end of the matter.

One detail, though. While I'm ready to accept your
pronouncement on this matter, there are others who won't.
You know - the Bob Grummans and Tom Reedys of the world.

So I tell you what's probably going to have to happen.
Someone or some group is going to have to put together a
selection of signatures - I don't know, maybe a hundred or
so - from literate and illiterate people. Then, you can
identify which are from literate people and which are from
illiterate people. Once you've aced this formality and
clearly established your ability to the Doubting Thomases,
you can demolish the Stratfordian case by using your uncanny
ability to pass your verdict on the Stratford Man.

I await your perfunctory passing of this test and I await
the passing of an era.

- Gary

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

----------------------------------------------------------------

> marc, I hate it when grown men cry. If you're not man enough to handle

> the fact that the Stratford broker was just that, a broker in malt, a broker
>
> in young female flesh and likely a broker in young boys. When boy actors
>
> began to lose their voices, they were kicked off the stage into the
>
> dark nights of the back alleys of London, it was a really sick business
>
> because the only way these young boys could survive was by themselves
>
> turning tricks in the dark alleys.
>
> My conclusion is that if Ben Jonson loathed, hated and despised this
>
> money grubbing freak, Ben's opinion of Shappere is good enough
>
> for me.

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

> So, Crowley, who is this troll?

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

>Elizabeth writes:
>
> What's to defame? I doubt that London playgoers in the
>
> 16th century knew that this rustic broker was dealing
>
> in malt, hoarding it illegally against the English
>
> government's price settings, the food situation was dire
>
> even in Warwickshire where hungry children were dying
>
> at the same time we find Shappere sitting on barrels of
>
> malt. Apparently he was fined but he was nevertheless
>
> so rich from his illegal and filthy London endeavors
>
> that it didn't put a dent in his income.
>
> There are many historical figures who are worthy of
>
> notice, Jonson, Bacon, the Sidney clan, even Oxford,
>
> but this nasty business from Stratford isn't one of them
>
> for example the townspeople gathered outside his
>
> door singing a ditty about Essex coming down to
>
> Stratford to hang Shappere in his doorway; Shappere
>
> being the ancient family name re: Court of Barons
>
> documents in the trial of Shappere's father John for
>
> cheating his customers (like father like son?) and the
>
> family name was never "Shakespeare."
>
>
> Elizabeth
>
>
>
>
> marc

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

[marco]

Elizabeth,

i've just realised you are trying to post
some replies to me,
but they are almost unreadable

do you realise how your posts appear to others?

marc

[Paul Crowley]

On 12/04/2013 02:49, Gary wrote:

> On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 22:39:06 +0100, Paul Crowley wrote:
>
>> On 08/04/2013 23:26, Gary wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 14:53:21 -0700 (PDT), neonprose @
>>> gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> ________________________________________________________________________________________
>>>>
>>>> COMPARISON OF BACON & SHAKESPEARE'S HANDWRITING ON ONE PAGE . . .
>>>>
>>>> <http://www.sun-nation.org/Images/bacon-shakespeare-signature-comparison-lg.jpg>
>>>>
>>>> (Scroll down to see St. Alban's signature.)
>>>
>>> What was the point of this comparison?
>>
>> The point is to demonstrate to you the absurdity of
>> your candidate.
>>
>> You need to be close to insane to be able to believe
>> that the person responsible for the Stratman's scrawl
>> was literate, let alone the Great Bard.
>>
>> Still, when has that ever been a problem for Strats?
>

> You know, Paul, I've never appreciated how talented you
> really are - you have the ability to tell whether a person
> is literate or not simply by looking at their signature.

As I have explained to you, dozens of times,
this is very easy to see for signatures made
before ~1850 (often up to ~1900). Up to that
time, the great bulk of the population was not
educated, most had to do manual labour and
had hard hands. Only a small proportion had
the time or opportunity to learn to write well.
Those few made a point of demonstrating that
capacity.

The Stratman (like virtually everyone in his
class) lacked that capacity.

IF this proposition was false, then you would
have no difficulty finding educated people who
produced ugly or inelegant signatures. I have
on dozens (and possibly hundreds) of occasions
here, asked for examples of handwriting _worse_
than that of the Stratman -- produced by an
educated person. NO Strat has yet found one.

> Someone or some group is going to have to put together a
> selection of signatures - I don't know, maybe a hundred or
> so - from literate and illiterate people.

The exercise is trivial. There are numerous collections
of signatures from literate people,such as
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Us_declaration_independence.jpg

Almost anyone doing genealogical research will
be able to show you signatures of illiterate (or
barely-literate) people from the 19th century.
Do a Google Image search.

> I await your perfunctory passing of this test and I await
> the passing of an era.

The era has passed. It's just that there are a
lot of walking dead (e.g. academics) who don't
yet know it.


Paul.

[John W Kennedy]

Singularly suited to those posts' content.

--
John W Kennedy
"When a man contemplates forcing his own convictions down another man's
throat, he is contemplating both an unchristian act and an act of
treason to the United States."
-- Joy Davidman, "Smoke on the Mountain"

[Gary]

On Fri, 12 Apr 2013 13:53:45 +0100, Paul Crowley wrote:

> On 12/04/2013 02:49, Gary wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 22:39:06 +0100, Paul Crowley wrote:
>>
>>> On 08/04/2013 23:26, Gary wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 14:53:21 -0700 (PDT), neonprose @
>>>> gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________________________________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>> COMPARISON OF BACON & SHAKESPEARE'S HANDWRITING ON ONE PAGE . . .
>>>>>
>>>>> <http://www.sun-nation.org/Images/bacon-shakespeare-signature-comparison-lg.jpg>
>>>>>
>>>>> (Scroll down to see St. Alban's signature.)
>>>>
>>>> What was the point of this comparison?
>>>
>>> The point is to demonstrate to you the absurdity of
>>> your candidate.
>>>
>>> You need to be close to insane to be able to believe
>>> that the person responsible for the Stratman's scrawl
>>> was literate, let alone the Great Bard.
>>>
>>> Still, when has that ever been a problem for Strats?
>>
>> You know, Paul, I've never appreciated how talented you
>> really are - you have the ability to tell whether a person
>> is literate or not simply by looking at their signature.
>
> As I have explained to you, dozens of times,
> this is very easy to see for signatures made
> before ~1850 (often up to ~1900).

You're being too modest, Paul. It may be easy for you, but
I don't know of anyone else who can consistently tell if a
person is literate or illiterate simply by looking at their
signature - whether that signature was made in 1850 or 1950.

> Up to that
> time, the great bulk of the population was not
> educated, most had to do manual labour and
> had hard hands. Only a small proportion had
> the time or opportunity to learn to write well.
> Those few made a point of demonstrating that
> capacity.

Based on your (no doubt) extensive research, what
proportion of the population, up to that time, was able to
write well?

> The Stratman (like virtually everyone in his
> class) lacked that capacity.

Again, Paul, while I, of course, am willing to accept your
verdict on this matter, there are going to be those Doubting
Thomases who are skeptical of your amazing ability of
signature-reading.

> IF this proposition was false, then you would
> have no difficulty finding educated people who
> produced ugly or inelegant signatures. I have
> on dozens (and possibly hundreds) of occasions
> here, asked for examples of handwriting _worse_
> than that of the Stratman -- produced by an
> educated person. NO Strat has yet found one.

Big problem, Paul, buddy. You see, since you're the one
claiming to be able to tell whether a person is literate or
illiterate by looking at their signature, the onus is on you
to prove your ability.

I know it's a nuisance, but it's just the way these bloody
things work.

>> Someone or some group is going to have to put together a
>> selection of signatures - I don't know, maybe a hundred or
>> so - from literate and illiterate people.
>
> The exercise is trivial.

For you, I'm sure it will be. So hopefully you can arrange
such a test, prove your ability, get this matter out of the
way, and put the Strat case out of its misery.

> There are numerous collections
> of signatures from literate people,such as
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Us_declaration_independence.jpg

Yeah, the thing is, for such a test to be effective, it
will have to include signatures from literate and illiterate
people.

> Almost anyone doing genealogical research will
> be able to show you signatures of illiterate (or
> barely-literate) people from the 19th century.
> Do a Google Image search.

Again, Paul, you don't have to convince me. As you know
your word is gold with me. It's everyone else I'm worried
about. It's a skeptical world out there, Paul.

Perhaps when your test is put together, these people doing
genealogical research will be able to provide the signatures
from illiterate people to include in the sample. Then,
bang, pow, you sort out the literate signatures from the
illiterate signatures, prove your ability, and then finish
off the Stratman.

>> I await your perfunctory passing of this test and I await
>> the passing of an era.
>
> The era has passed. It's just that there are a
> lot of walking dead (e.g. academics) who don't
> yet know it.

Well, they sure will when you pass the suggested test!

Better get to it, Paul, time's a-wastin'.

- Gary

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

On Thursday, April 11, 2013 7:17:28 AM UTC-7, marco wrote:

> No Baconian is jealous of Shappere (correct
>
> family spelling re: Court of Barons records)
>
> because the Stratford Broker was perfectly
>
> illiterate. Bacon was a genius, probably
>
> the greatest genius the 16th century English
>
> produced, while Shappere was busy "sending
>
> the men upstairs" (whatever that means) as
>
> the Opener of the Theatre Door. This rustic
>
> rube was trained to say "would you like a
>
> whore after the performance?" but he later
>
> grew so rich that he purchased half the
>
> renovation of the upper level of the
>
> Blackfriar's theatre, and from there his
>
> filthy business of pandering took off,
>
> making this illiterate creature rich.
>
> I went to Wikipedia to look up common
>
> Elizabethan venereal diseases, I'll be writing
>
> a post on those diseases, in fact one of
>
> the Elizabethan wits wrote a play on this
>
> theme, it was called "Sapho" which quickly
>
> became associated with the fatal microbe.
>
>
> The academics who are vowing to write a
>
> book about Shappere are not going to cover
>
> his filthy but profitable occupations, they'll
>
> just skate past it because the Conspiracy of
>
> Silence has operated for now what, five
>
> centuries or more in all?
>
>
>
>
> marc

[Paul Crowley]

On 12/04/2013 22:27, Gary wrote:

>>>>> What was the point of this comparison?
>>>>
>>>> The point is to demonstrate to you the absurdity of
>>>> your candidate.
>>>>
>>>> You need to be close to insane to be able to believe
>>>> that the person responsible for the Stratman's scrawl
>>>> was literate, let alone the Great Bard.

>> As I have explained to you, dozens of times,
>> this is very easy to see for signatures made
>> before ~1850 (often up to ~1900).
>
> You're being too modest, Paul. It may be easy for you,
> but I don't know of anyone else who can consistently tell if a
> person is literate or illiterate simply by looking at their signature
> - whether that signature was made in 1850 or 1950.

You have a remarkable ability to see things in
an upside-down manner. Your inability to grasp
ordinary plain facts about this world is most
peculiar. Were you born on this planet? Are
you a human being? While being a Strat, and
obliged to hold on to a Stratfordian perspective
must necessarily make you stupid, I doubt if
this is a sufficient explanation in your case.

We are rarely obliged to decide whether or not
some person in history is literate or illiterate from
an inspection of their signature. In the case of
most people of interest we know that they were
literate, because they wrote letters, or were
members of a profession, or members of Parliament
or they signed the Declaration of Independence, or
left a whole range of different records.

The question then is the NATURE of the signatures
they left us. Are ANY of them as badly drafted as
those of the Stratman?

I have asked and asked and asked again for
examples of badly-drawn signatures from people
who were known to be literate and lived between
~1100 and ~1850. No Strat has produced one.
[..]

Paul.

[Gary]

On Sat, 13 Apr 2013 11:03:41 +0100, Paul Crowley wrote:

> On 12/04/2013 22:27, Gary wrote:
>
>>>>>> What was the point of this comparison?
>>>>>
>>>>> The point is to demonstrate to you the absurdity of
>>>>> your candidate.
>>>>>
>>>>> You need to be close to insane to be able to believe
>>>>> that the person responsible for the Stratman's scrawl
>>>>> was literate, let alone the Great Bard.
>
>>> As I have explained to you, dozens of times,
>>> this is very easy to see for signatures made
>>> before ~1850 (often up to ~1900).
>>
>> You're being too modest, Paul. It may be easy for you,
>> but I don't know of anyone else who can consistently tell if a
>> person is literate or illiterate simply by looking at their signature
>> - whether that signature was made in 1850 or 1950.
>
> You have a remarkable ability to see things in
> an upside-down manner. Your inability to grasp
> ordinary plain facts about this world is most
> peculiar. Were you born on this planet? Are
> you a human being? While being a Strat, and
> obliged to hold on to a Stratfordian perspective
> must necessarily make you stupid, I doubt if
> this is a sufficient explanation in your case.

Your Irish charm is as pleasant as ever, Paul.

>
> We are rarely obliged to decide whether or not
> some person in history is literate or illiterate from
> an inspection of their signature.

Very true. In fact, I suspect most people would say the
very idea of trying to determine the literacy, or lack
thereof, of a person by examining their signature is
ludicrous.

> In the case of
> most people of interest we know that they were
> literate, because they wrote letters, or were
> members of a profession, or members of Parliament
> or they signed the Declaration of Independence, or
> left a whole range of different records.

Okay.

>
> The question then is the NATURE of the signatures
> they left us. Are ANY of them as badly drafted as
> those of the Stratman?

No, the question is: can *anyone* determine the literacy,
or lack thereof, of a person by examining that person's
signature?

Until such time as someone demonstrates the ability to
perform such a feat by successfully passing a test of the
type I suggested, the answer remains "No.".

Till then, this whole line of argument is a dead end.

>
> I have asked and asked and asked again for
> examples of badly-drawn signatures from people
> who were known to be literate and lived between
> ~1100 and ~1850. No Strat has produced one.
> [..]
>
> Paul.

Possibly because no Strat is interested in wasting time
flogging a dead horse.

And, once again, until such time that *you* can prove your
ability to determine a person's literacy, or lack thereof,
by examining that person's signature, this particular horse
is, indeed, deceased.

- Gary

[marco]

Gary, you make a valid argument

maybe you can
point out some of Paul's other pseudo claims...

marc

[Tom Reedy]

You're a fucking liar.

http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/browse_frm/thread/23ab9308595c311a/d2df3b352d29c7f3?lnk=gst&q=Bretchgirdle#d2df3b352d29c7f3


Here are the images again, liar.

http://i.imgur.com/NZp3p.jpg

TR

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

On Thursday, April 11, 2013 7:17:28 AM UTC-7, marco wrote:

> i see a little of that, and others.
>
> The Baconians didn't have to do anything as Shappere
>
> defamed himself by investing in a bawdy house, getting
>
> filthy rich selling young female flesh. This is the
>
> most over rated-and empty headed character in the
>
> history ignorant villains, I'm just wondering how the
>
> 21st Century Shakespeare scholars that are convened in
>
> Stratford (quote) "to prove once and for all that
>
> Shakespeare wrote the Shakespeare works."
>
> This is a farce since Bacon's image is clearly on
>
> the cover of Bacon's First Folio, it contains
>
> Bacon's 38 wonderful plays, but the Shakespeare
>
> scholars gathered at Stratford are going to ultimately
>
> find that Shakespeare never created a First Folio
>
> of his own.
>
> He did, however, operate a bawdy house in one
>
> of the rooms above the Blackfriar's theatre, got
>
> filthy rich and as he died earlier than most
>
> Elizabethans we can assume that he expired
>
> from sampling his own wares.
>
> My guess is that these academics are going to
>
> seize Bacon's First Folio, thinking that only
>
> Shappere could write such luminous plays,
>
> in fact the guy struggled mightily just to sign
>
> his own name (Shappere was anciently the
>
> family name, not Shakespeare, according to
>
> a 16th century document held in the archives
>
> of the Court of Barons).

> marc

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

On Thursday, April 11, 2013 10:17:41 PM UTC-7, marco wrote:
> Elizabeth,
>
>
>
> i've just realised you are trying to post
>
> some replies to me,
>
> but they are almost unreadable
>

> E. writes, On the contrary, I was posting to Crowley.
>
> Do you realise how your posts appear to others?
>
> I only care how they appear to Crowley, I'm not
>
> interested in posting to Strats.
>
> marc

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

On Thursday, April 11, 2013 7:17:28 AM UTC-7, marco wrote:

> You wish.
>
> marc

> And give me a break. The Baconians have not only the premiere
>
> authorship candidate, the First Folio is Bacon's not Shappere's,
>
> and you can confirm that by looking for Droeshout the Elder's
>
> comical rendering of the name "B A C O N" by engraving
>
> the letters of Bacon's name on the collar, the cuffs, the braid
>
> of his doublet. Bacon, of course, was famously a wit, he went
>
> along with Droeshout's gimmick.

>> In fact, I've been wondering how this recent gaggle of Shakespeare
'>
> scholars are going to seize Bacon's FIRST FOLIO, there's no elevating
>
> the Illiterate Boob (I can't think who gave Shappere that title, was
>
> it Art?).

[Robin G.]

On Apr 14, 11:15 pm, "neonprose @ gmail.com" <neonpr...@gmail.com>
wrote:

ELIZABETH - EVERYTHING YOU SAY ABOUT BACON BEING SHAKESPEARE IS A
LIE! YOU ARE A BOOB!

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

On Thursday, April 11, 2013 10:17:41 PM UTC-7, marco wrote:

> Elizabeth,
>
>
>
> i've just realised you are trying to post
>
> some replies to me,
>

> but they are almost unreadable.
>
> This has nothing to do with me, Google is having
>
> technical difficulties. I kind of miss the old
>
> format, it was far more straightforward.

>
>
>
> do you realise how your posts appear to others?
>

> Do I care? You're a much more sensitive creature
>
> than I am.
>
> marc

[David L. Webb]

In article <b1e6b2ed-8710-4aa7...@googlegroups.com>,
"neonprose @ gmail.com" <neon...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Rubbish deleted]

> The academics who are vowing to write a
> book about Shappere are not going to cover
> his filthy but profitable occupations, they'll
> just skate past it because the Conspiracy of
> Silence has operated for now what, five
> centuries or more in all?

Five centuries?! Shakespeare's earliest works appear around 1590.
Five centuries from 1590 would be 2090, which is over three quarters of
a century in the future. Elizabeth just cannot get *anything* right.

[...]

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

On Thursday, April 11, 2013 7:17:28 AM UTC-7, marco wrote:

> Jealousy? When you choose to study Bacon in the
>
> Shakespeare authorship dispute, you're far ahead
>
> the field. Shappere of Stratford was illiterate, he
>
> wrote nothing, and btw, Ben Johnson loathed him,
>
> I dunno, I feel pretty good about chosing Bacon to
>
> study, his genius was admired by any and all who
>
> knew him, I mean, a phenomenal poet/playwright
>
> who in addition, formulated the scientific method
>
> that would have such incredible consequences for
>
> centuries ahead of him, no wonder his admirerers
>
> called Bacon . . .
>
> "The Man Who Saw Through Time . . . "
>
> The only thing the Strats have is some illiterate
>
> rustic who made money off the backs of sad
>
> young kids in the dark alley ways around the
>
> Blackfriar's District and of course that's when
>
> he wasn't being dragged before the Magistrates
>
> for hoarding commodities during a famine.

[David L. Webb]

In article
<6fdac2c1-f8db-4f9d...@q6g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,

Tom Reedy <tom....@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Apr 13, 5:03�am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:

[...]

> > I have asked and asked and asked again for
> > examples of badly-drawn signatures from people
> > who were known to be literate and lived between
> > ~1100 and ~1850. �No Strat has produced one.
> > [..]
> >
> > Paul.

> You're a fucking liar.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/browse_frm/t
> hread/23ab9308595c311a/d2df3b352d29c7f3?lnk=gst&q=Bretchgirdle#d2df3b352d29c7f
> 3
>
>
> Here are the images again, liar.
>
> http://i.imgur.com/NZp3p.jpg

No reply from Crowley? I wonder why.

> TR

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

On Thursday, April 11, 2013 10:17:41 PM UTC-7, marco wrote:

> If you don't stay out of my posts, I will alert
>
> Google Groups to your attempts at harassment.
>
> Elizabeth
>
>

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

_____________________________________________________

John W. Kennedy wrote:

"Singularly suited to those posts content . . .
>
>
> You're wrong, Kennedy, I have never posted
>
> to marco because he does not conduct himself
>
> at a level consistent with the requirements of
>
> this forum, he's just pointlessly following me
>
> around in HLAS.

[John W Kennedy]

On 2013-04-22 08:29:40 +0000, neonprose @ gmail.com said:

> _____________________________________________________
>
> John W. Kennedy wrote:
>
> "Singularly suited to those posts content . . .
>>
>>
>> You're wrong, Kennedy, I have never posted
>>
>> to marco

Do not "Lizzie" and "liar" begin with a letter?

--
John W Kennedy
"Give up vows and dogmas, and fixed things, and you may grow like That.
...you may come to think a blow bad, because it hurts, and not because
it humiliates. You may come to think murder wrong, because it is
violent, and not because it is unjust."
-- G. K. Chesterton. "The Ball and the Cross"

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

On Saturday, April 20, 2013 5:05:17 PM UTC-7, nordicskiv2 wrote:
> In article

>
> "neonprose @ gmail.com" <neon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>

> On the contrary, Webb, I read the Vienna School for years,
>
> I'm only preparing to apply what I learned to your wounded psyche.
>
>
>
> ["Rubbish Deleted"deleted] :)

>
> > The academics who are vowing to write a
>
> > book about Shappere are not going to cover
>
> > his filthy but profitable occupations, they'll
>
> > just skate past it because the Conspiracy of
>
> > Silence has operated for now what, five
>
> > centuries or more in all?
>
>
>
> Five centuries?! Shakespeare's earliest works appear around 1590.
>
> Five centuries from 1590 would be 2090, which is over three quarters of
>
> a century in the future. Elizabeth just cannot get *anything* right.
[...]
>

> You cannot right yourself, Webb, it appears to be hopeless.
>
> [...]

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

On Thursday, April 11, 2013 10:17:41 PM UTC-7, marco wrote:

> Elizabeth,
>
>
>
> i've just realised you are trying to post
>
> some replies to me,
>
> but they are almost unreadable
>

> MARCO, I am not trying to post anything to you, I'm
>
> only trying to scroll past your posts as quickly as
>
> possible. If you encounter one of my posts, just
>
> ignore it, because I'm tired of being pestered by
>
> certain posters. HLAS has been turned into an
>
> electronic insane asylum, I'm sorry that posters
>
> like Webb have to climb upon their soapbox when
>
> they have essentially nothing to contribute. Webb
>
> may have recently contributed his first original
>
> HLAS post in what? forty years? I really feel that Art has
>
> accomplished something worthy of note in simply
>
> wearing Webb down.
>
>
>
>
> marc

[marco]

Art, aka Elizabeth

[neon...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, April 11, 2013 7:17:28 AM UTC-7, marco wrote:
> they've been trying to defame Shakespeare for centuries,
>
> without success...
>

> Elizabeth asks: How do you defame a panderer?
>
> Everyone in the Blackfriar's knew what this guy was up to,
>
> making a living off the backs of young whores, likely
>
> all of them dying unnecessarily of some disease that
>
> they contracted from their male "customers."
>
> Marco queries, Elizabeth writes:
>
> it couldn't be simple jealousy, could it? Baconians
>
> are not jealous, they have the author of the 1623
>
> First Folio, they have a lawyer who was more honored
>
> than Coke (their Court room battles can still be
>
> found online). They have the greatest playwright in
>
> English history, why should Baconians be "jealous?"
>
> They are NOT jealous. I stumbled onto a page at
>
> Sirbacon.org, it was filled with the names of academics
>
> who were congratulating Gerald Lawrence for giving
>
> them the facts about Francis Bacon. I'll see if I can
>
> relocate the link and you can read the whole page.

[neon...@gmail.com]

[neon...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, April 11, 2013 10:17:41 PM UTC-7, marco wrote:

> marc, you're starting to sound like your mother, all
>
> condemnitive to what other people do. If you can't
>
> tolerate my posts, the scroll at the top is still working,
>
> just move on to the next page.
>
> neon...@gmail.com

[neon...@gmail.com]

[neon...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, April 11, 2013 10:17:41 PM UTC-7, marco wrote:
> Elizabeth,
>
>
>
> i've just realised you are trying to post
>
> some replies to me,
>
> but they are almost unreadable
>
>
>
> do you realise how your posts appear to others?
>
>
>
> marc

> marc, I am not here to engage in quibbles with you,
>
> I'm here to study and enjoy the Elizabethan era in
>
> which Bacon played a significant role as a scientist
>
> a map maker, the author of the 1623 First Folio, his
>
> chess playing with Jonson (sadly the Van Mander
>
> has been altered, that ugly fellow (Thersities) is
>
> Shakespeare and Bacon has just mated him with
>
> his king. Jonson was far more handsome than
>
> the Stratford broker who, when he was painted
>
> playing chess with Bacon, was already looking very
>
> sick.

[neon...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, April 20, 2013 5:05:17 PM UTC-7, nordicskiv2 wrote:
> In article
>

> Who hired you to teach, Webb? They must have regretted it, and
>
> by the way, how's the weather in Tennessee? I bet it's sweaty,
>
> probably 102 or 103 degrees at night with bugs crawlin' all over
>
> the screens. Well, so long yaw'l. Oh, I almost forgot, you never
>
> got around to posting the animal medicine post you spent
>
> so much time on. Your post was literally as long as my arm,
>
> I'll take it down, it was good for a laugh. WOOF!
>
> Elizabeth
>
> [...]

[neon...@gmail.com]

On Monday, April 8, 2013 3:26:34 PM UTC-7, Gary wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 14:53:21 -0700 (PDT), neon...@gmail.com
> wrote: to Gary:
>
> Bacon authored all thirty-six plays in the 1623 First Folio,
>
> the Strats have been filching the plays for four centuries,
>
> reattributing Bacon's plays to the Stratford broker.

>
> > ________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> >
>
> > COMPARISON OF BACON & SHAKESPEARE'S HANDWRITING ON ONE PAGE . . .
>
> >
>
> > <http://www.sun-nation.org/Images/bacon-shakespeare-signature-comparison-lg.jpg>
>
> >
>
> > (Scroll down to see St. Alban's signature.)
>
>
>

> What was the point of this comparison?
>
>
>

> - Gary

[neon...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, April 11, 2013 7:17:28 AM UTC-7, marco wrote:
> they've been trying to defame Shakespeare for centuries,
>
> without success...
>
>
>

> it couldn't be simple jealousy, could it?
>

> i see a little of that, and others
>

> It's not jealousy, we have the playwright, Francis Bacon,
>
> it's outrage that the Strats have kept this lie going for
>
> centuries on end. Shakespeare did not write a single
>
> play, nothing has been discovered in his handwriting
>
> while Bacon created the 1923 First Folio filled with
>
> Comedies, Histories and Tragedies, a volume that the
>
> Broker had NOTHING TO DO WITH.
>
> marc

[neon...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, April 11, 2013 10:17:41 PM UTC-7, marco wrote:
> Elizabeth,
>
>
>
> i've just realised you are trying to post
>
> some replies to me,
>
> but they are almost unreadable
>

>Eliz writes:
> Would you mind not constantly seeking my attention?

[neon...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, April 11, 2013 7:17:28 AM UTC-7, marco wrote:
> they've been trying to defame Shakespeare for centuries,
>
> without success...
>

> OH, STOP SUCKING UP TO THE STRATS, I'M STARTING
>
> TO THINK THAT THE OXFORDIANS HAVE IT RIGHT,
>
> I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE THAT OXFORD AUTHORED
>
> SEVENTEEN PLAYS, SO FAR I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO
>
> LOCATE THE TITLES, BUT THERE'S SOMETHING MORE
>
> CONFIDENT IN THE OXFORDIAN MOVEMENT THAN
>
> IN THE STRATS, AT LEAST AT THIS POINT IN LITERARY
>
> HISTORY.

>
>
>
> it couldn't be simple jealousy, could it?
>
> i see a little of that, and others
>
>
>

> marc

[neon...@gmail.com]

On Monday, April 8, 2013 3:26:34 PM UTC-7, Gary wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 14:53:21 -0700 (PDT), neonprose @

>
> gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > ________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> >
>
> > COMPARISON OF BACON & SHAKESPEARE'S HANDWRITING ON ONE PAGE . . .
>
> >
>
> > <http://www.sun-nation.org/Images/bacon-shakespeare-signature-comparison-lg.jpg>
>
> >
>
> > (Scroll down to see St. Alban's signature.)
>
>
>
> What was the point of this comparison?
>

> Well, the Stratford Broker, i.e., Panderer, was sampling his own
>
> wares, as a result he was Shakey, he could hardly hold a quill,
>
> while Bacon's signature is firm, bold, Bacon didn't frequent
>
> the whorehouses, he was a scientist, he understood the theory
>
> of Soap and Water, apparently the Stratford Panderer did not,
>
> he got caught in a web of his own making.
>
> - Gary

[neon...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, April 11, 2013 2:39:06 PM UTC-7, Paul Crowley wrote:
> On 08/04/2013 23:26, Gary wrote:
>
> Elizabeth writes: I'm taking a poll Crowley, did you know that
>
> Oxford and Bacon were brothers?

>
> > On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 14:53:21 -0700 (PDT), neonprose @
>
> > gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> ________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> >>
>
> >> COMPARISON OF BACON & SHAKESPEARE'S HANDWRITING ON ONE PAGE . . .
>
> >>
>
> >> <http://www.sun-nation.org/Images/bacon-shakespeare-signature-comparison-lg.jpg>
>
> >>
>
> >> (Scroll down to see St. Alban's signature.)
>
> >
>
> > What was the point of this comparison?
>
>
>

> The point is to demonstrate to you the absurdity of
>
> your candidate.
>
>
>
> You need to be close to insane to be able to believe
>
> that the person responsible for the Stratman's scrawl
>
> was literate, let alone the Great Bard.
>
>
>
> Still, when has that ever been a problem for Strats?
>
>
>
>
>
> Paul.

[neon...@gmail.com]

On Monday, April 8, 2013 3:26:34 PM UTC-7, Gary wrote:

> On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 14:53:21 -0700 (PDT), neonprose @
>
> gmail.com wrote:
>

> to Gary, I dunno, I didn't create the page, a WSU professor,
>
> > Prof. Michael Delahoyde, put the exhibit of the illiterate
>
> > Bard's STABS at trying to write his own name online. I think
>
> > it's pretty obvious that this fellow was totally illiterate, I only
>
> > mourn the deaths of all the young kids who contracted fatal
>
> > diseases in this Panderer's Blackfriar's Bawdy houses (see Lenz).

>
> > ________________________________________________________________________________________
>
> >
>
> > COMPARISON OF BACON & SHAKESPEARE'S HANDWRITING ON ONE PAGE . . .
>
> >
>
> > <http://www.sun-nation.org/Images/bacon-shakespeare-signature-comparison-lg.jpg>
>
> >
>
> > (Scroll down to see St. Alban's signature.)
>
>
>
> What was the point of this comparison?
>

> Do you have a theory? It's probably to show viewers that the Broker
>
> couldn't spell or even write his own damn name. If that was the case
>
> (and Delahoyde proves it) then the Broker wrote NOTHING.
>
> - Gary