No bigger than a man's hand?

[Peter F.]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/shakespeare-was-just-a-businessman-not-a-bard.19505866

Peter F.
<pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk>
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm

[John W Kennedy]

On 2012-11-27 17:19:41 +0000, Peter F. said:

> http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/shakespeare-was-just-a-businessman-not-a-bard.19505866
>

Business school? Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! And pray, how many
thousand hours has this pair of opposite-of-academics put into history
or literary criticism or theatre?

--
John W Kennedy
"The bright critics assembled in this volume will doubtless show, in
their sophisticated and ingenious new ways, that, just as /Pooh/ is
suffused with humanism, our humanism itself, at this late date, has
become full of /Pooh./"
-- Frederick Crews. "Postmodern Pooh", Preface

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 1:04:01 PM UTC-8, John W Kennedy wrote:
> On 2012-11-27 17:19:41 +0000, Peter F. said:
>
>
>
> > http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/shakespeare-was-just-a-businessman-not-a-bard.19505866
>
> >
>
>
>
> Business school? Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! And pray, how many
>
> thousand hours has this pair of opposite-of-academics put into history
>
> or literary criticism or theatre?
>

Kennedy. . .

We know from Elizabethan era anecdotal material that Bacon's
aunt lived on an estate in Blackfriars which adjoined the old
Blackfriar's monastery. Bacon's aunt would spot Shappere
coming into the yard with a gaggle of young girls he had
recruited for his whorehouse and immediately go off her head,
screaming epithets at this sick piece of scum.

And btw, Shappere had previously purchased the Blackfriar's
Gatehouse from Bacon (Elizabeth had given it to Bacon as
it had nice apartments in the upper stories and was conveniently
located next to the Blackfriar's playhouse where Bacon's
plays were staged, often staged by his scribe, Jonson).

At some point, when Bacon was running low on cash, Shappere
offered to purchase the Blackfriar's gatehouse. We find that
Shappere amended his will to bequeath the Blackfriar's
gatehouse to his granddaughter whose first name escapes me.

She is the granddaughter who made a string of marriages
with older men, most of whom toppled off leaving her an
increasingly richer widow.

Near the end of her life she was wealthier than her grandfather
had ever been. You can find many of the details of her life and
successive fortunes gotten from her deceased husbands on
Wikipedia.

Hey, like granddaughter, like grandfather. I haven't been able
to detect much in the way of ethics in this family, i.e. hoarding
malt when the hungry of Stratford were pounding on Shappere's
door. In fact the locals made up a ditty about Essex coming
down to Stratford to HANG Shappere in his doorway.

I can only be amused about how little the Shappereans know
about this slimy bastard.

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 2:50:37 PM UTC-8, neonprose @ gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 1:04:01 PM UTC-8, John W Kennedy wrote:
>
> > On 2012-11-27 17:19:41 +0000, Peter F. said:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/shakespeare-was-just-a-businessman-not-a-bard.19505866
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Business school? Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! And pray, how many
>
> >
>
> > thousand hours has this pair of opposite-of-academics put into history
>
> >
>
> > or literary criticism or theatre?
>
> >
>
> Kennedy. . .

Kennedy. I'm apparently the only one in HLAS who has read
Shapperes so-called Second Will. It's worth spending some
time trying to deconstruct his bequests to his friends and
family.

The First Will was obviously written out per Shappere's
instruction by a law clerk. Shappere was notoriously
stingy, he hoarded every pence, so it makes perfect
sense that Shappere would try to squeeze his Last
Will and Testament in between the interstices and
lines in his First Will.

By First Will and Last Will I'm referring to a single
sheet of paper, first written out per Shappere's
instructions by a clerk.

If I can read Shappere's mind, he must have been
in a quandry as to whether he should go back to
the clerk and pay him to add Shappere's revised
intent onto a fresh piece of paper or whether he
should just stay at home, at his desk, and try to
shove his own words in between the words copied
by the clerk.

I mean this guy was CHEAP.

Really, Reedy, picking on Pooh? Didn't you get Pooh
at bedtime when you were a little kid?

[marco]

that pretty much sums it up -
Shakespeare deniers are "mind readers"

marc

[David L. Webb]

In article <d425b45c-7d7d-43fa...@googlegroups.com>,

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

> On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 1:04:01 PM UTC-8, John W Kennedy wrote:

> > On 2012-11-27 17:19:41 +0000, Peter F. said:
> >
> > > http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/shakespeare-was-just-a-busine
> > > ssman-not-a-bard.19505866

> > Business school? Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! And pray, how many
> > thousand hours has this pair of opposite-of-academics put into history
> > or literary criticism or theatre?

> Kennedy. . .
>
> We know from Elizabethan era anecdotal material that Bacon's
> aunt lived on an estate in Blackfriars which adjoined the old
> Blackfriar's monastery. Bacon's aunt would spot Shappere
> coming into the yard with a gaggle of young girls he had
> recruited for his whorehouse and immediately go off her head,
> screaming epithets at this sick piece of scum.

Source?

> And btw, Shappere had previously purchased the Blackfriar's
> Gatehouse from Bacon

Source?

From _The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare_, p. 49:

"Blackfriars Gatehouse, a property in the Blackfriars district
of London, not far from the Blackfriars theatre, which Shakespeare
bought from Henry Walker, Œcitizen and minstrel of London¹, for £140
on 10 March 1613. It had belonged to Mathias Bacon from 1590 until
Walker bought it in 1604, and had frequently been suspected as a
centre of Catholic intrigue."

Thus the Blackfriars gatehouse had not been in the hands of the Bacon
family for nearly a decade when Shakespeare purchased it.

From Park Honan's _Shakespeare: a Life_, p. 379:

"On 10 March 1613, Shakespeare agreed to pay the [Blackfriars]
gatehouse's owner, Henry Walker, a citizen and minstrel of London,
£140--or perhaps more than the cost of his New Place."

What, then, is the source for Elizabeth's remarkable claim that
"...Shappere had previously purchased the Blackfriar's Gatehouse from
Bacon"?

> (Elizabeth had given it to Bacon as
> it had nice apartments in the upper stories and was conveniently
> located next to the Blackfriar's playhouse where Bacon's
> plays were staged, often staged by his scribe, Jonson).
>
> At some point, when Bacon was running low on cash, Shappere
> offered to purchase the Blackfriar's gatehouse. We find that

Who is "we"? Those of us who have actually read the will find
something very different.

> Shappere amended his will to bequeath the Blackfriar's
> gatehouse to his granddaughter

From _The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare_, p. 520, there the
bequests in Shakespeare's will are enumerated:

"13. To his daughter Susanna (Hall), New Place, two houses in Henley
Street, all his 'barnes stables Orchardes gardens landes tenementes
& hereditamentes' in the Stratford area along with the BLACKFRIARS
GATEHOUSE [emphasis mine], all in entail to Susanna and her heirs
male..."

Ian Wilson's _Shakespeare: the Evidence_, where the will is reproduced
on pp. 476-479, concurs. More to the point, Elizabeth could easily
check the document online for herself at

<http://www.bardweb.net/will.html>,

where she will find the following:

"Item I Gyve Will Bequeth and Devise unto my Daughter Susanna Hall
for better enabling of her to performe this my will and towardes
the performans thereof All that Capitall Messuage or tenemente with
thappertenaces in Stratford aforesaid called the newe plase wherein
I now Dwell and two messuags or tenementes with thappurtenances
scituat lyeing and being in Henley Streete within the borough of
Stratford aforesaied. And all my barnes, stables, Orchardes,
gardens, landes, tenementes and herediaments whatsoever scituat
lyeing and being or to be had receyved, perceyved or taken within
the townes and Hamletts, villages, ffieldes and groundes of
Stratford upon Avon, Oldstratford, Bushopton and Welcombe or in
anie of them in the saied countie of warr And alsoe All that
Messuage or tenemente with thappurtenances wherein one John Robinson
dwelleth, scituat, lyeing and being in the *BLACKFIERS* [emphasis
mine] in London nere the Wardrobe."

> whose first name escapes me.

No wonder the name escapes Elizabeth!

> She is the granddaughter who made a string of marriages
> with older men, most of whom toppled off leaving her an
> increasingly richer widow.

Source? Presumably, Elizabeth has in mind (such as it is)
Shakespeare's granddaughter Elizabeth Barnard (née Hall), the only
grandchild of Shakespeare's born during his lifetime -- yet the
Wikipedia article on Elizabeth Barnard does not bear out Elizabeth's
claim below.

> Near the end of her life she was wealthier than her grandfather
> had ever been. You can find many of the details of her life and
> successive fortunes gotten from her deceased husbands on
> Wikipedia.

Here is the Wikipedia article on Elizabeth Barnard in its entirety,
omitting only the references:
-------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth, Lady Barnard (formerly Elizabeth Nash, née Elizabeth Hall)
(baptised 21 February 1608 ­ 17 February 1670) was the granddaughter of
the famous English poet and playwright William Shakespeare, and was also
his last descendant.

Elizabeth Hall was born to Susanna Shakespeare and Doctor John Hall. She
was baptised in the Holy Trinity Church of Stratford-upon-Avon, England.
She was the only grandchild William Shakespeare ever knew, because her
three cousins were born after his death in 1616. In 1629, Elizabeth Hall
married Thomas Nash, who was a member of the Manor and Lordship of
Shottery. Thomas made his will on 25 August 1642, in which he left his
house in Chapel Street and two meadows to Elizabeth. However, he left
the bulk of his fortune to his cousin, Edward Nash, after Elizabeth¹s
death. On 4 April 1647, Thomas died, leaving Elizabeth a widow and
instructing his fortune to be passed on to his cousin's son. She then
married Sir John Barnard (1604­74), and could thus be called Lady
Barnard.

In February 1662, Judith Quiney died in Stratford-upon-Avon, making
Elizabeth Barnard the last descendant of William Shakespeare. She wrote
her will on 29 January 1669, which did not give much to her husband, Sir
John Barnard. Elizabeth died at Abington, Northamptonshire on 17
February 1670. There is a memorial plaque in the Church of Saint Peter &
Paul, Abington, where she is buried. The family home of Sir John and
Lady Barnard is now a museum, Abington Park Museum, and the grounds are
now a park in the town of Northampton. She is buried in a tomb with her
husband.[citation needed]
----------------------------------------------------

What could be the source of Elizabeth's allusion to "successive fortunes
gotten from her deceased husbands"? Certainly not the Wikipedia article.

> Hey, like granddaughter,

As noted above, Shakespeare did *not* bequeath the Blackfriars
property to his granddaughter, but rather to his *daughter* Susanna
Hall; his granddaughter was bequeathed most of the silver.

> like grandfather. I haven't been able
> to detect much in the way of ethics in this family,

That's probably in part because Elizabeth's "reading" has been rather
casual (Alan Jones's phrase) and erratic, as the above fruits of her
supposed "reading" amply demonstrate.

> i.e. hoarding
> malt when the hungry of Stratford were pounding on Shappere's
> door. In fact the locals made up a ditty about Essex coming
> down to Stratford to HANG Shappere in his doorway.

Source?

> I can only be amused about how little the Shappereans know
> about this slimy bastard.

One can only be amused at how little Elizabeth knows about him -- or
indeed about pretty much anything.

[...]

[David L. Webb]

In article <bd8dc29c-5a5a-4345...@googlegroups.com>,

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

> On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 2:50:37 PM UTC-8, neonprose @ gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 1:04:01 PM UTC-8, John W Kennedy wrote:
> >
> > > On 2012-11-27 17:19:41 +0000, Peter F. said:
> >
> > > > http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/shakespeare-was-just-a-busi
> > > > nessman-not-a-bard.19505866
> >
> > > Business school? Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! And pray, how many
> > > thousand hours has this pair of opposite-of-academics put into history
> > > or literary criticism or theatre?

> > Kennedy. . .

> Kennedy. I'm apparently the only one in HLAS who has read
> Shapperes so-called Second Will. It's worth spending some
> time trying to deconstruct his bequests to his friends and
> family.
>
> The First Will was obviously written out per Shappere's
> instruction by a law clerk. Shappere was notoriously
> stingy, he hoarded every pence, so it makes perfect
> sense that Shappere would try to squeeze his Last
> Will and Testament in between the interstices and
> lines in his First Will.
>
> By First Will and Last Will I'm referring to a single
> sheet of paper, first written out per Shappere's
> instructions by a clerk.
>
> If I can read Shappere's mind,

Elizabeth cannot do any such thing.

> he must have been
> in a quandry [sic] as to whether he should go back to

> the clerk and pay him to add Shappere's revised
> intent onto a fresh piece of paper or whether he
> should just stay at home, at his desk, and try to
> shove his own words in between the words copied
> by the clerk.

> I mean this guy was CHEAP.

> > We know from Elizabethan era anecdotal material that Bacon's
> > aunt lived on an estate in Blackfriars which adjoined the old
> > Blackfriar's monastery. Bacon's aunt would spot Shappere
> > coming into the yard with a gaggle of young girls he had
> > recruited for his whorehouse and immediately go off her head,
> > screaming epithets at this sick piece of scum.

Elizabeth *still* has furnished no source for this lurid fantasy.

> > And btw, Shappere had previously purchased the Blackfriar's
> > Gatehouse from Bacon

As I already noted, the Blackfriars Gatehouse had not been in the
Bacon family for nearly a decade when Shakespeare purchased it, from
Henry Walker; Walker purchased it from Mathias Bacon in 1604, and sold
it to Shakespeare in 1613, some *nine years* later.

[Fantasy snipped]

> > We find that
> > Shappere amended his will to bequeath the Blackfriar's
> > gatehouse to his granddaughter whose first name escapes me.

As I have already noted, Shakespeare bequeathed the Blackfriars
property not to his granddaughter but to his daughter Susanna Hall;
Elizabeth evidently has not even read the document in question.

> > She is the granddaughter who made a string of marriages
> > with older men, most of whom toppled off leaving her an
> > increasingly richer widow.
> >
> > Near the end of her life she was wealthier than her grandfather
> > had ever been. You can find many of the details of her life and
> > successive fortunes gotten from her deceased husbands on
> > Wikipedia.

If Elizabeth has in mind (such as it is) Elizabeth Barnard (née
Hall), the only grandchild born during Shakespeare's lifetime (Judith's
three children were born after Shakespeare's death, and none survived
their mother in any event), then the Wikipedia article makes no such
exorbitant claims, as I have already noted in this thread.

> > Hey, like granddaughter, like grandfather. I haven't been able
> > to detect much in the way of ethics in this family, i.e. hoarding
> > malt when the hungry of Stratford were pounding on Shappere's
> > door. In fact the locals made up a ditty about Essex coming
> > down to Stratford to HANG Shappere in his doorway.

Elizabeth *still* has furnished no source for this lurid fantasy.

> > I can only be amused about how little the Shappereans know
> > about this slimy bastard.

As Peter Groves would say, comment would be superfluous.

> > > John W Kennedy
> >
> > > "The bright critics assembled in this volume will doubtless show, in
> > > their sophisticated and ingenious new ways, that, just as /Pooh/ is
> > > suffused with humanism, our humanism itself, at this late date, has
> > > become full of /Pooh./"

> Really, Reedy, picking on Pooh? Didn't you get Pooh
> at bedtime when you were a little kid?

Elizabeth manifestly cannot distinguish Tom Reedy from John Kennedy;
it was the latter, not the former, who quoted Crews above.

Indeed, Elizabeth has demonstrated -- repeatedly -- that she cannot
ascertain who wrote what in this forum, even when the post is quite
recent, even when it is clearly signed, and even (in several cases) when
the writer was *herself*. Given such farcical ineptness in authorship
attribution, her fond notion that she possesses any insight into the
authorship of texts some four centuries old is charmingly naïve.

[metri...@gmail.com]

"the Shakespeare authorship question ... is the happy hunting ground of eccentrics"

Peter G.

[John W Kennedy]

> authorship of texts some four centuries old is charmingly na�ve.

>
>>>> -- Frederick Crews. "Postmodern Pooh", Preface

She has also, of course, completely missed the point of Crews' satire.

--
John W Kennedy
"The first effect of not believing in God is to believe in anything...."
-- Emile Cammaerts, "The Laughing Prophet"

[David L. Webb]

In article <50b7748f$0$9814$607e...@cv.net>,

Quite true -- but that is hardly surprising. Elizabeth has shown --
repeatedly, and often spectacularly -- that she cannot even process
straightforward text conveying factual information. A glaring instance
is her confusion (above) of you with Tom Reedy, who has not participated
in this thread at all; another recent example is her persistent and
apparently unshakeable belief that Art was an administrator at NOAA,
despite Art's own firm denial that he was ever any such thing:.

<http://tinyurl.com/d5avux4>.

More spectacular examples include her bizarre paraphrases (to use the
term unforgivably loosely) of the paper of Copp�lia Kahn,

<http://tinyurl.com/cxl5dxa>,

and of the preface to Clara Longworth de Chambrun's book,

<http://tinyurl.com/cjejblt>,

neither of which said anything remotely resembling Elizabeth's version.
Since parsing straightforward, purely factual English prose is so far
beyond Elizabeth's capabilities, it would be overly exacting to expect
her to be able to comprehend a text that required any measure of
judicious interpretation.

[marc hanson]

good observation

marc

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:43:21 AM UTC-8, nordicskiv2 wrote:
>
> "neonprose @ gmail.com" <neon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 2:50:37 PM UTC-8, neonprose @ gmail.com wrote:
>
> > > On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 1:04:01 PM UTC-8, John W Kennedy wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > > On 2012-11-27 17:19:41 +0000, Peter F. said:
>
> > >
>
> > > > > http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/shakespeare-was-just-a-busi
>
> > > > > nessman-not-a-bard.19505866

Shappere WAS, in fact, just a businessman and not a bard.
Eventually his shares in the Globe Theatre added up to
an impressive sum. It could have been as much as 1200 quid
when Shappere finally retired from the theatre. I saw the
figure online a couple of days ago. I'll see if I can find
it again. I don't know who conspired to set the Globe Theatre
on fire but Shappere apparently profited from it. The Elizabethans
must have had some inkling of fire insurance.

> authorship of texts some four centuries old is charmingly naīve.

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 8:11:20 PM UTC-8, marco wrote:
> that pretty much sums it up -
>
> Shakespeare deniers are "mind readers"
>

Better a mind reader than a Shappere acolyte.

I suspect what's driving this male obsession
with Shake-speare is deeply Freudian.

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 9:19:41 AM UTC-8, Peter F. wrote:
> http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/shakespeare-was-just-a-businessman-not-a-bard.19505866

Well, Kennedy may scoff but we have the anecdote
about young Shappere doing puppet shows with
severed calves heads. Shappere would put his
fists up the head of the calf and do all the puppet's
parts.

That was obviously Shappere's introduction to the
theatre, so he traveled to London to make a small
wage as the Opener of the Globe Theatre Door. As
the gentlemen arrived to take in the play, Shappere
had been instructed to say "Good evening Sire, would
you like to have a whore after the performance?'

By the way, the tickets to a Globe play were cheap
seats. When the Globe burned down some years
later, the investors --which included Shappere--got
a very impressive return. Hundreds of pounds.

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

On Thursday, November 29, 2012 9:23:03 AM UTC-8, nordicskiv2 wrote:
>
>
> John W Kennedy <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 2012-11-28 18:43:21 +0000, David L. Webb said:
>
> >
>
> > > "neonprose @ gmail.com" <neon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > >> On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 2:50:37 PM UTC-8, neonprose @ gmail.com
>
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >>> On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 1:04:01 PM UTC-8, John W Kennedy wrote:
>
> > >>>> John W Kennedy
>
> > >>>
>
> > >>>> "The bright critics assembled in this volume will doubtless show, in
>
> > >>>> their sophisticated and ingenious new ways, that, just as /Pooh/ is
>
> > >>>> suffused with humanism, our humanism itself, at this late date, has
>
> > >>>> become full of /Pooh./"
>
>
>
> > >> Really, Reedy, picking on Pooh? Didn't you get Pooh
>
> > >> at bedtime when you were a little kid?
>
>
>
> > > Elizabeth manifestly cannot distinguish Tom Reedy from John Kennedy;
>
> > > it was the latter, not the former, who quoted Crews above.

> > > Webb. It is my opinion that you are simply too high strung
to post in H.L.A.S.

> > > And you have only one schtick, which is trying to humiliate
women to impress the other men.

> > >You DROVE Stephanie out of HLAS, she seemed to like
you in the beginning but on the day she flew out of
here, her goodbye to you sounded very like a curse.

> > > Get some damn medication, Webb.
>
> > >
>
<snip of Webb's crap>

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

[Peter F.]

marc hanson wrote:

>
> Peter G. wrote:
>
> > Peter F. wrote:
> > >
> > > http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/shakespeare-was-just-a-businessman-not-a-bard.19505866
> >

> > "the Shakespeare authorship question ... is the happy
> > hunting ground of eccentrics"
>

> good observation

And is undoubtedly true. But I have been called far worse
things than that in my time!

What "Scotland's leading Shakespeare scholar" apparently also
said, however, was:

"Because the Shakespeare authorship question is the happy
hunting ground of eccentrics, lots of people put their
hand to their forehead when it is mentioned ...
To me this sounds like a fascinating angle on it."

[David L. Webb]

In article <3771aeee-7016-4d25...@googlegroups.com>,

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

> On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 9:19:41 AM UTC-8, Peter F. wrote:
> > http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/shakespeare-was-just-a-business
> > man-not-a-bard.19505866
>
> Well, Kennedy may scoff but we have the anecdote
> about young Shappere doing puppet shows with
> severed calves heads. Shappere would put his
> fists up the head of the calf and do all the puppet's
> parts.

And does Elizabeth know the *source* of this anecdote? Of course
not! It was John Aubrey's _Brief Lives_ -- the *very same source* that
says, among other things, that Bacon was a pederast! If Elizabeth
accepts at face value Aubrey's anecdote concerning Shakespeare, she is
obliged to accept at face value Aubrey's account of Bacon.

If Elizabeth actually has any interest in the subject (which I doubt;
she appears to be participating in h.l.a.s. solely to promulgate lurid
gossip, much of it invented by herself), she would do well to consult
the paper "Did the boy Shakespeare kill calves?" by the eminent scholar
Katherine Duncan-Jones, _The Review of English Studies_ volume 55
(2004), 183-195, published by Oxford University Press.

Elizabeth really should learn to cultivate *some* ability to assess
source reliability, so that she is not so frequently and farcically
misled by ridiculous accounts of North Korean submarine attacks on Gulf
oil platforms, the destruction of the universe by the Large Hadron
Collider, the imminent ignition of the atmosphere, and similar rubbish.

> That was obviously Shappere's introduction to the
> theatre, so he traveled to London to make a small
> wage as the Opener of the Globe Theatre Door. As
> the gentlemen arrived to take in the play, Shappere
> had been instructed to say "Good evening Sire, would
> you like to have a whore after the performance?'

Source? (Of course, it's exceedingly unlikely that Elizabeth has
even the remotest idea what the source of this canard might be, but one
can always hope.)

[David L. Webb]

In article <9cbccf73-0bba-4370...@googlegroups.com>,

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

[...]

> Shappere WAS, in fact, just a businessman and not a bard.

His shrewdness in business does not preclude his having been a poet
and playwright. Wallace Stevens worked in the insurance business.

> Eventually his shares in the Globe Theatre added up to
> an impressive sum. It could have been as much as 1200 quid
> when Shappere finally retired from the theatre. I saw the
> figure online a couple of days ago.

Source?

> I'll see if I can find
> it again.

In view of Elizabeth's track record in finding the supposed sources
of her "information" (I can't recall when she has ever successfully
produced a source when requested to do so), nobody is likely to hold his
or her breath until then.

> I don't know who conspired to set the Globe Theatre
> on fire but Shappere apparently profited from it. The Elizabethans
> must have had some inkling of fire insurance.

Source? Ie Elizabeth insinuating that Shakespeare burned the Globe
in order to collect insurance money?!?!

[...]

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 9:19:41 AM UTC-8, Peter F. wrote:

Shappere (family spelling on Court of Barons records) was
in the filthy business of the skin trade.

He got his start by being the keeper of the theatre door,
his job was to open the door for the gentlemen and
say "do you want a whore after the performance, Sir?"

No, I'm not kidding. After his success in pandering
he established a whore house in the old Blackfriar's
monastery just across from the estate of Bacon's aunt.

The monastery was said to be inhabited by the ghosts
of long-dead monks. I wonder how that went.

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 9:19:41 AM UTC-8, Peter F. wrote:

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

On Wednesday, November 28, 2012

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

Webb. After being away for what, a year? it took me three days
to get back into HLAS. "Jump through all the hoops" doesn't
cover it.

Google has a new policy which is essentially considering one a
criminal until one has passed all the tests. I know that Google
has a hacking problem but when you've had to type the name
of your cat in a little box fifty times, it begins to wear.

I'm warning you here and now that Google has a far different
policy toward harassment than it had in the past. Take this
to heart. I would be delighted if you were tossed out of
HLAS but I just want to give you fair warning that Google
has a completely different and much tougher policy than
it had even a year ago.

> > On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 1:04:01 PM UTC-8, John W Kennedy wrote:
>
>
>
> > > On 2012-11-27 17:19:41 +0000, Peter F. said:
>
> > >
>
> > > > http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/shakespeare-was-just-a-busine
>
> > > > ssman-not-a-bard.19505866
>
>
>
> > > Business school? Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! And pray, how many
>
> > > thousand hours has this pair of opposite-of-academics put into history
>
> > > or literary criticism or theatre?
>

> > Oops, I accidentally deleted a chunk of text.

>
> "Blackfriars Gatehouse, a property in the Blackfriars district
>
> of London, not far from the Blackfriars theatre, which Shakespeare
>

> bought from Henry Walker, �citizen and minstrel of London�, for �140

>
> on 10 March 1613. It had belonged to Mathias Bacon from 1590 until
>
> Walker bought it in 1604, and had frequently been suspected as a
>
> centre of Catholic intrigue."
>
>
>
> Thus the Blackfriars gatehouse had not been in the hands of the Bacon
>
> family for nearly a decade when Shakespeare purchased it.
>

> So why are you scoffing about the gatehouse being in the Bacon
> family. Iirc, that's what I wrote in an earlier post.

>
> From Park Honan's _Shakespeare: a Life_, p. 379:
>
>
>
> "On 10 March 1613, Shakespeare agreed to pay the [Blackfriars]
>
> gatehouse's owner, Henry Walker, a citizen and minstrel of London,
>
> �140--or perhaps more than the cost of his New Place."
>

> >> Well, PANDERING is a profitable business.

>
> What, then, is the source for Elizabeth's remarkable claim that
>
> "...Shappere had previously purchased the Blackfriar's Gatehouse from
>

> Bacon"? Well, Bacon may have wanted to run the deal through
> Henry Walker to conceal the fact that he was selling it to a
> filthy beast who exploited young flesh.
>
> I know that you are not interested in any of this, you just want
> to indulge in harassment. You are walking on thin ice, Webb
> because Google has really toughened up it's policy of tolerance
> toward abusers like yourself. And yes, you are abusive, you've
> abused Art for what, fifteen years? Twenty years? I don't know
> how Art tolerates you.

>
> > (Elizabeth had given it to Bacon as
>
> > it had nice apartments in the upper stories and was conveniently
>
> > located next to the Blackfriar's playhouse where Bacon's
>

> > plays were staged by his scribe, Jonson).

>
> >
>
> > At some point, when Bacon was running low on cash, Shappere
>
> > offered to purchase the Blackfriar's gatehouse.
>

> I can't remember the names of the two men who were in on
> the transaction. I read that the Queen had given Bacon the
> Gatehouse because it had apartments at the top. Bacon
> liked being close to the theatre, he lived in the Gatehouse
> for a time. Apparently Walker bought it from Bacon then
> sold it to the whoremonger, William Shappere.

>
> Who is "we"? Those of us who have actually read the will find
>
> something very different.
>

Stay out of my posts, Webb or I WILL report you to Google.

>
> > Shappere amended his will to bequeath the Blackfriar's
>
> > gatehouse to his granddaughter
>
>
>
> From _The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare_, p. 520, there the
>
> bequests in Shakespeare's will are enumerated:
>
>
>
> "13. To his daughter Susanna (Hall), New Place, two houses in Henley
>
> Street, all his 'barnes stables Orchardes gardens landes tenementes
>
> & hereditamentes' in the Stratford area along with the BLACKFRIARS
>
> GATEHOUSE [emphasis mine], all in entail to Susanna and her heirs
>
> male..."
>

> What, are you trying to assert?. I can't recall his grandaughter's
> name but she has a page of her own on Wikipedia. She made
> a string of calculated marriages, ending up, according to
> Wikipedia, a very wealthy widow.

>
> > Ian Wilson's _Shakespeare: the Evidence_, where the will is reproduced
>
> on pp. 476-479, concurs. More to the point, Elizabeth could easily
>
> check the document online for herself at
>

> Shappere left more than one will. There is a "second will" composed
>
>of Shappere's interpolations in his godawful handwriting. It's very
>
> hard to read but worth the effort because it shows how extremely rich

> this slimy purveyor of human flesh this bastard was.
>
> The wages of sinne doesn't cover it.
>
> I'd read that there was a "second will" so I was determined
>
> to look at it. It turned out to be a clerk's copy of a "first will,"
>
> composed of Shappere's interlineations. Very hard to read
>
> but I was able to see that Shappere had made huge investments
>
> of numerous 40-acre plots of land in the vicinity of Stratford.

>The will also included a list of bequests to his family, friends and
>
> relatives, i.e., gold coins, items from his wardrobe, gold chains
>
> silk doublets, etc.

<http://www.bardweb.net/will.html>,
>
>
>
> where she will find the following:
>

> THE will below is the First Will, much easier to read than when
>
> Shappere, either being cheap or facing death, interlineated the
>
> First Will with more bequests. He had the handwriting of an illiterate

> but he managed to cram his intentions and last bequests in the

> tight spaces between the lines.

>
> "Item I Gyve Will Bequeth and Devise unto my Daughter Susanna Hall
>
> for better enabling of her to performe this my will and towardes
>
> the performans thereof All that Capitall Messuage or tenemente with
>
> thappertenaces in Stratford aforesaid called the newe plase wherein
>
> I now Dwell and two messuags or tenementes with thappurtenances
>
> scituat lyeing and being in Henley Streete within the borough of
>
> Stratford aforesaied. And all my barnes, stables, Orchardes,
>
> gardens, landes, tenementes and herediaments whatsoever scituat
>
> lyeing and being or to be had receyved, perceyved or taken within
>
> the townes and Hamletts, villages, ffieldes and groundes of
>
> Stratford upon Avon, Oldstratford, Bushopton and Welcombe or in
>
> anie of them in the saied countie of warr And alsoe All that
>
> Messuage or tenemente with thappurtenances wherein one John Robinson
>
> dwelleth, scituat, lyeing and being in the *BLACKFIERS* [emphasis
>
> mine] in London nere the Wardrobe."
>
>
>

> > I appear to be the only one in HLAS who has read Shappere's
>
> so-called "Second Will." The section above is probably a draft
>
> of the second will since he wouldn't make a bequest to his
>
> granddaughter of the gatehouse until she came of age.

>
> > She is the granddaughter who made a string of marriages
>
> > with older men, most of whom toppled off leaving her an
>
> > increasingly richer widow.
>

> > The source, Webb, is Wikipedia. The article on Elizabeth's
>
>> serial marriages is on Wikipedia. It identifies her several
>
>> wealthy husbands.

> Source? Presumably, Elizabeth has in mind (such as it is)
>

> Shakespeare's granddaughter Elizabeth Barnard (nee Hall), the only

>
> grandchild of Shakespeare's born during his lifetime -- yet the
>
> Wikipedia article on Elizabeth Barnard does not bear out Elizabeth's
>
> claim below.
>

> This is your last chance, you are dogging me, harassing me,
> in this newsgroup. I am sick to death of you Webb. Abusive
> doesn't cover it.

>
>
> > Near the end of her life she was wealthier than her grandfather
>
> > had ever been. You can find many of the details of her life and
>
> > successive fortunes gotten from her deceased husbands on
>
> > Wikipedia.
>
>
>
> Here is the Wikipedia article on Elizabeth Barnard in its entirety,
>
> omitting only the references:
>
> -------------------------------------------------
>

> Elizabeth, Lady Barnard (formerly Elizabeth Nash, n�e Elizabeth Hall)

>
> (baptised 21 February 1608 � 17 February 1670) was the granddaughter of
>
> the famous English poet and playwright William Shakespeare, and was also
>
> his last descendant.
>
>
>
> Elizabeth Hall was born to Susanna Shakespeare and Doctor John Hall. She
>
> was baptised in the Holy Trinity Church of Stratford-upon-Avon, England.
>
> She was the only grandchild William Shakespeare ever knew, because her
>
> three cousins were born after his death in 1616. In 1629, Elizabeth Hall
>
> married Thomas Nash, who was a member of the Manor and Lordship of
>
> Shottery. Thomas made his will on 25 August 1642, in which he left his
>
> house in Chapel Street and two meadows to Elizabeth. However, he left
>
> the bulk of his fortune to his cousin, Edward Nash, after Elizabeth�s
>
> death. On 4 April 1647, Thomas died, leaving Elizabeth a widow and
>
> instructing his fortune to be passed on to his cousin's son. She then
>
> married Sir John Barnard (1604�74), and could thus be called Lady
>
> Barnard.
>

> So? Who cares. The STRATFORD BROKER did not write any part of the
>
>so-called Shakespeare Works. Ben Jonson and other Londoners were
>
> very aware of this braggart poseur. Jonson wrote the Shappere character
>
> into one of his later plays.

>
> In February 1662, Judith Quiney died in Stratford-upon-Avon, making
>
> Elizabeth Barnard the last descendant of William Shakespeare. She wrote
>
> her will on 29 January 1669, which did not give much to her husband, Sir
>
> John Barnard. Elizabeth died at Abington, Northamptonshire on 17
>
> February 1670. There is a memorial plaque in the Church of Saint Peter &
>
> Paul, Abington, where she is buried. The family home of Sir John and
>
> Lady Barnard is now a museum, Abington Park Museum, and the grounds are
>
> now a park in the town of Northampton. She is buried in a tomb with her
>
> husband.[citation needed]
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> What could be the source of Elizabeth's allusion to "successive fortunes
>
> gotten from her deceased husbands"? Certainly not the Wikipedia article.
>
>

> As noted above, Shakespeare did *not* bequeath the Blackfriars
>
> property to his granddaughter, but rather to his *daughter* Susanna
>
> Hall; his granddaughter was bequeathed most of the silver.
>

> That's probably in part because Elizabeth's "reading" has been rather
>
> casual (Alan Jones's phrase) and erratic, as the above fruits of her
>
> supposed "reading" amply demonstrate.
>

> I do not want you posting to me again. I can't enjoy this group
>
> if you are constantly harassing me.

[David L. Webb]

In article <e3a5019a-199f-45d9...@googlegroups.com>,

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

> On Wednesday, November 28, 2012
> > "neonprose @ gmail.com" <neon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Webb. After being away for what, a year? it took me three days
> to get back into HLAS. "Jump through all the hoops" doesn't
> cover it.
>
> Google has a new policy which is essentially considering one a
> criminal until one has passed all the tests. I know that Google
> has a hacking problem but when you've had to type the name
> of your cat in a little box fifty times, it begins to wear.

Huh? If you remembered your cat's name, this would not be a problem.
In any case, you can request your forgotten passwords, as I already
explained to you -- in detail -- how to do.

> I'm warning you here and now that Google has a far different
> policy toward harassment than it had in the past. Take this
> to heart. I would be delighted if you were tossed out of
> HLAS

As you have been told countless times by John Kennedy and others,
Google neither owns nor regulates h.l.a.s. Google cannot toss *anyone*
out of the forum. Google only furnishes *one* means of accessing the
group.

> but I just want to give you fair warning that Google
> has a completely different and much tougher policy than
> it had even a year ago.

> > > On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 1:04:01 PM UTC-8, John W Kennedy wrote:
> >
> > > > On 2012-11-27 17:19:41 +0000, Peter F. said:
> > > >
> > > > > http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/shakespeare-was-just-a-bu
> > > > > sinessman-not-a-bard.19505866

> > > > Business school? Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! And pray, how many
> > > > thousand hours has this pair of opposite-of-academics put into history
> > > > or literary criticism or theatre?

> > > Oops, I accidentally deleted a chunk of text.

Yes, you did.

> > "Blackfriars Gatehouse, a property in the Blackfriars district
> > of London, not far from the Blackfriars theatre, which Shakespeare

> > bought from Henry Walker, ?citizen and minstrel of London?, for ?140

> > on 10 March 1613. It had belonged to Mathias Bacon from 1590 until
> > Walker bought it in 1604, and had frequently been suspected as a
> > centre of Catholic intrigue."
> >
> > Thus the Blackfriars gatehouse had not been in the hands of the Bacon
> > family for nearly a decade when Shakespeare purchased it.

> So why are you scoffing about the gatehouse being in the Bacon
> family. Iirc, that's what I wrote in an earlier post.

No, you didn't; you claimed that *Bacon* sold the property to
Shakespeare, along with a lot of other demonstrable rubbish. He did
not. His family had not owned it for nearly a decade when Shakespeare
and his companions bought it. Here are your *exact words*, pasted
verbatim from your post, with only the misspellings and other errors
noted:

"We know from Elizabethan era anecdotal material that Bacon's
aunt lived on an estate in Blackfriars which adjoined the old

Blackfriar's [sic] monastery. Bacon's aunt would spot Shappere

coming into the yard with a gaggle of young girls he had
recruited for his whorehouse and immediately go off her head,
screaming epithets at this sick piece of scum.

"And btw, Shappere had previously purchased the Blackfriar's [sic]
Gatehouse from Bacon (Elizabeth had given it to Bacon as

it had nice apartments in the upper stories and was conveniently

located next to the Blackfriar's [sic] playhouse where Bacon's
plays were staged, often staged by his scribe, Jonson).

"At some point, when Bacon was running low on cash, Shappere

offered to purchase the Blackfriar's gatehouse. We find that

Shappere amended his will to bequeath the Blackfriar's

gatehouse to his granddaughter whose first name escapes me."

and here is a link to your original post:

<http://tinyurl.com/a78e73c>.

Your inability to remember even your *own posts* makes a mockery of your
pretensions to any knowledge of history. To summarize,

(1) Bacon did *not* sell Blackfriars to Shakespeare; indeed, the
property had *not* been in his family's hands for *nearly a decade* by
the time Shakespeare bought it;

(2) Shakespeare did *not* bequeath the property to his granddaughter, as
you claimed, but to his daughter Susanna;

(3) You have furnished *no* evidence that "Bacon's aunt would spot

Shappere coming into the yard with a gaggle of young girls he had
recruited for his whorehouse and immediately go off her head, screaming

epithets at this sick piece of scum". That is merely your own lurid
psychosexual fantasy, hallucination, or outright invention.

> > From Park Honan's _Shakespeare: a Life_, p. 379:
> >
> > "On 10 March 1613, Shakespeare agreed to pay the [Blackfriars]
> > gatehouse's owner, Henry Walker, a citizen and minstrel of London,

> > ?140--or perhaps more than the cost of his New Place."

> > >> Well, PANDERING is a profitable business.

> > What, then, is the source for Elizabeth's remarkable claim that
> >
> > "...Shappere had previously purchased the Blackfriar's Gatehouse from
> > Bacon"?

> Well, Bacon may have wanted to run the deal through
> Henry Walker to conceal the fact that he was selling it to a
> filthy beast who exploited young flesh.

Are you utterly unable to read the text from the _Oxford Companion_
above?! Mathias Bacon had sold it to Henry Walker *A DECADE EARLIER(!)*
than Shakespeare's purchase of the property! Bacon's family had not
owned the property *FOR NEARLY A DECADE*! You do know what "decade"
means, don't you?

> I know that you are not interested in any of this, you just want
> to indulge in harassment.

I am interested in *historical accuracy*, not in hysterical fantasy.

> You are walking on thin ice, Webb

> because Google has really toughened up it's [sic] policy of tolerance

> toward abusers like yourself. And yes, you are abusive, you've
> abused Art for what, fifteen years? Twenty years? I don't know
> how Art tolerates you.

Somehow, I rather doubt that Google views correcting your farcical
howlers as "abuse", particularly when you post your nonsense in a public
forum.

> > > (Elizabeth had given it to Bacon as
> > > it had nice apartments in the upper stories and was conveniently
> > > located next to the Blackfriar's playhouse where Bacon's
> > > plays were staged by his scribe, Jonson).
> > >
> > > At some point, when Bacon was running low on cash, Shappere
> > > offered to purchase the Blackfriar's gatehouse.

See? Here are your *own words*, which you could not recall above.

> I can't remember the names of the two men who were in on
> the transaction.

Obviously!

> I read that the Queen had given Bacon the
> Gatehouse because it had apartments at the top.

You "read" that *WHERE*? We have all seen countless examples of your
comic "casual reading", so citing a source will be necessary if you
expect anyone to credit your fantasies.

> Bacon
> liked being close to the theatre, he lived in the Gatehouse
> for a time. Apparently Walker bought it from Bacon then
> sold it to the whoremonger, William Shappere.

No, as the text from _The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare_ above
makes clear, *MATHIAS* Bacon, *not* Francis Bacon, sold the property to
Walker, who in turn sold it Shakespeare *NINE(!) YEARS(!) LATER(!)* Are
you unable to read plain English?

> > Who is "we"? Those of us who have actually read the will find
> > something very different.

> Stay out of my posts, Webb

They are not your posts. Once you post them in a public forum,
anyone can comment upon them. When they are as error-riddled as yours
invariably are, you can expect to be corrected -- frequently.

> or I WILL report you to Google.

Go right ahead. I expect that the members of the staff are bored and
could use a good laugh. The notion that correcting your defamatory
nonsense constitutes "abuse" will probably make them howl with laughter!

> > > Shappere amended his will to bequeath the Blackfriar's
> > > gatehouse to his granddaughter

Again, you cannot get *anything* right! He did *not* bequeath the
property to his granddaughter, but to his daughter Susanna, as the
quotations below demonstrate conclusively.

> > From _The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare_, p. 520, there the
> > bequests in Shakespeare's will are enumerated:
> >
> > "13. To his daughter Susanna (Hall), New Place, two houses in Henley
> > Street, all his 'barnes stables Orchardes gardens landes tenementes
> > & hereditamentes' in the Stratford area along with the BLACKFRIARS
> > GATEHOUSE [emphasis mine], all in entail to Susanna and her heirs
> > male..."

> What, are you trying to assert?.

That you are *wrong* -- again, and as usual. You evidently could not
case less about historical accuracy.

> I can't recall his grandaughter's
> name

I'm not surprised. Manifestly, you cannot remember *anything* -- not
even your *own posts* from a short time ago! His granddaughter's name
was Elizabeth Hall Barnard.

> but she has a page of her own on Wikipedia. She made
> a string of calculated marriages, ending up, according to
> Wikipedia, a very wealthy widow.

Then *QUOTE THE TEXT AND FURNISH THE LINK*! You do know what it
means to cite a source, don't you?!

Here is the Wikipedia page to which you allude, omitting only the
references:
----------------------------
"Elizabeth, Lady Barnard (formerly Elizabeth Nash, née Elizabeth

Hall) (baptised 21 February 1608 – 17 February 1670) was the
granddaughter of the famous English poet and playwright William
Shakespeare, and was also his last descendant.

"Elizabeth Hall was born to Susanna Shakespeare and Doctor John
Hall. She was baptised in the Holy Trinity Church of Stratford-
upon-Avon, England. She was the only grandchild William Shakespeare
ever knew, because her three cousins were born after his death in
1616. In 1629, Elizabeth Hall married Thomas Nash, who was a member
of the Manor and Lordship of Shottery. Thomas made his will on 25
August 1642, in which he left his house in Chapel Street and two
meadows to Elizabeth. However, he left the bulk of his fortune to
his cousin, Edward Nash, after Elizabeth’s death. On 4 April 1647,
Thomas died, leaving Elizabeth a widow and instructing his fortune
to be passed on to his cousin's son. She then married Sir John
Barnard (1604–74), and could thus be called Lady Barnard.

"In February 1662, Judith Quiney died in Stratford-upon-Avon, making
Elizabeth Barnard the last descendant of William Shakespeare. She
wrote her will on 29 January 1669, which did not give much to her
husband, Sir John Barnard. Elizabeth died at Abington,
Northamptonshire on 17 February 1670. There is a memorial plaque
in the Church of Saint Peter & Paul, Abington, where she is buried.
The family home of Sir John and Lady Barnard is now a museum,
Abington Park Museum, and the grounds are now a park in the town of
Northampton. She is buried in a tomb with her husband.[citation
needed]"
------------------------------

Now where in the above text does it say *anything* about "...a string of

calculated marriages, ending up, according to Wikipedia, a very wealthy

widow"? You do know how to read English, don't you?

Answer: There is nothing of the kind! You evidently just made it up,
as usual.

> > Ian Wilson's _Shakespeare: the Evidence_, where the will is reproduced
> > on pp. 476-479, concurs. More to the point, Elizabeth could easily
> > check the document online for herself at

> Shappere left more than one will. There is a "second will" composed
> of Shappere's interpolations in his godawful handwriting.

Source?

> It's very
> hard to read but worth the effort because it shows how extremely rich
> this slimy purveyor of human flesh this bastard was.

The will that I reproduced above shows that Shakespeare was wealthy;
no "second will" is needed to show that.

> The wages of sinne doesn't cover it.
> I'd read

Source? We've seen some very sorry examples of your "reading" above.

> that there was a "second will" so I was determined
> to look at it. It turned out to be a clerk's copy of a "first will,"
> composed of Shappere's interlineations.

Source? Produce a link.

> Very hard to read

No doubt! As we have seen above, you cannot even read the Modern
English of _The Oxford Companion to Shakespeare_, even when it is
printed in your favorite font.

> but I was able to see that Shappere had made huge investments
> of numerous 40-acre plots of land in the vicinity of Stratford.

That is already known from the will that I reproduced part of above;
no "second will" is needed to establish that.

> The will also included a list of bequests to his family, friends and
> relatives, i.e., gold coins, items from his wardrobe, gold chains
> silk doublets, etc.

But *NO* bequest of Blackfriars to his granddaughter, as you falsely
claimed! The property went to his daughter Susanna.

> <http://www.bardweb.net/will.html>,
> >
> > where she will find the following:

> THE will below is the First Will, much easier to read than when
> Shappere, either being cheap or facing death, interlineated the
> First Will with more bequests.

The interlineations were *included* in the document from which I
quoted!

> He had the handwriting of an illiterate

Illiterates don't *have* a handwriting!

> but he managed to cram his intentions and last bequests in the
> tight spaces between the lines.

> > "Item I Gyve Will Bequeth and Devise unto my Daughter Susanna Hall
> > for better enabling of her to performe this my will and towardes
> > the performans thereof All that Capitall Messuage or tenemente with
> > thappertenaces in Stratford aforesaid called the newe plase wherein
> > I now Dwell and two messuags or tenementes with thappurtenances
> > scituat lyeing and being in Henley Streete within the borough of
> > Stratford aforesaied. And all my barnes, stables, Orchardes,
> > gardens, landes, tenementes and herediaments whatsoever scituat
> > lyeing and being or to be had receyved, perceyved or taken within
> > the townes and Hamletts, villages, ffieldes and groundes of
> > Stratford upon Avon, Oldstratford, Bushopton and Welcombe or in
> > anie of them in the saied countie of warr And alsoe All that
> > Messuage or tenemente with thappurtenances wherein one John Robinson
> > dwelleth, scituat, lyeing and being in the *BLACKFIERS* [emphasis
> > mine] in London nere the Wardrobe."
> >
> > > I appear to be the only one in HLAS who has read Shappere's
> > > so-called "Second Will."

On the contrary -- you are likely the only person who has not read
Shakespeare's will *AT ALL*, since in *NO* version thereof does he
bequeath Blackfriars to his granddaughter! The interlineations and
alterations are thought to have been made after his other daughters
Judith Shakespeare's scandalous marriage.

> > > The section above is probably a draft
> > > of the second will since he wouldn't make a bequest to his
> > > granddaughter of the gatehouse until she came of age.

Then why in heaven's name did you claim that he did?!

> > > She is the granddaughter who made a string of marriages
> > > with older men, most of whom toppled off leaving her an
> > > increasingly richer widow.

> > > The source, Webb, is Wikipedia. The article on Elizabeth's
> > > serial marriages is on Wikipedia. It identifies her several

I quoted that article *IN ITS ENTIRETY* (omitting only the
references) above. *NOWHERE* does it mention any "...string of

calculated marriages, ending up, according to Wikipedia, a very

wealthy widow". Naturally, it lists her husbands, but it does *NOT*
characterize any of them as "wealthy". In fact, the word "wealthy" does
not appear at all. In fact, as the article notes, her first husband
Thomas Nash left the bulk of his fortune to his cousin, *not* to his
wife. After Nash's death, Elizabeth married Sir John Barnard. That's a
grand total of two marriages -- hardly "...a string of calculated
marriages".

Your desperate attempts to defame everyone in Shakespeare's family by
any means whatever would be contemptible were it not that your farcical
incompetence renders them merely ludicrous.

> >> wealthy husbands.

> > Source? Presumably, Elizabeth has in mind (such as it is)
> > Shakespeare's granddaughter Elizabeth Barnard (nee Hall), the only
> > grandchild of Shakespeare's born during his lifetime -- yet the
> > Wikipedia article on Elizabeth Barnard does not bear out Elizabeth's
> > claim below.

> This is your last chance, you are dogging me, harassing me,
> in this newsgroup.

Pointing out that your supposed "sources" don't say anything remotely
resembling what you claim that they say is "abusive"?! Only to someone
for whom the truth itself is "abusive".

> I am sick to death of you Webb. Abusive
> doesn't cover it.

No, it certainly doesn't!

> > > Near the end of her life she was wealthier than her grandfather
> > > had ever been. You can find many of the details of her life and
> > > successive fortunes gotten from her deceased husbands on
> > > Wikipedia.

> > Here is the Wikipedia article on Elizabeth Barnard in its entirety,
> > omitting only the references:
> > -------------------------------------------------

> > Elizabeth, Lady Barnard (formerly Elizabeth Nash, n?e Elizabeth Hall)
> > (baptised 21 February 1608 ? 17 February 1670) was the granddaughter of

> > the famous English poet and playwright William Shakespeare, and was also
> > his last descendant.
> >
> > Elizabeth Hall was born to Susanna Shakespeare and Doctor John Hall. She
> > was baptised in the Holy Trinity Church of Stratford-upon-Avon, England.
> > She was the only grandchild William Shakespeare ever knew, because her
> > three cousins were born after his death in 1616. In 1629, Elizabeth Hall
> > married Thomas Nash, who was a member of the Manor and Lordship of
> > Shottery. Thomas made his will on 25 August 1642, in which he left his
> > house in Chapel Street and two meadows to Elizabeth. However, he left

> > the bulk of his fortune to his cousin, Edward Nash, after Elizabeth?s

> > death. On 4 April 1647, Thomas died, leaving Elizabeth a widow and
> > instructing his fortune to be passed on to his cousin's son. She then

> > married Sir John Barnard (1604?74), and could thus be called Lady
> > Barnard.

> So? Who cares.

You don't care that the Wikipedia article, which you claimed was the
source for your "...string of calculated marriages..." actually says
nothing resembling what you claimed? I'm not surprised. As Dave
Kathman wrote long ago,

"Why do you lie so blatantly, Elizabeth? Do you assume
that nobody will bother to check this alleged quote,
and thus think that you'll be able to get away with it?
Do you believe that lying is appropriate if it's for
the furtherance of your Baconian cause? Do you simply
have no morals at all? I'm struggling to understand
why someone would be so abusive to the truth in a way
which can be so easily discovered, but I have to
admit I'm having trouble understanding this."

Unlike you, I can actually produce a link to my source:

<http://tinyurl.com/y93v959>.

It would be good practice for you to look something up -- for a change.

> The STRATFORD BROKER did not write any part of the
> so-called Shakespeare Works.

Merely *asserting* something doesn't make it true, although you
appear not to understand this simple point. You'll have to do better
than that.

> Ben Jonson and other Londoners were
> very aware of this braggart poseur. Jonson wrote the Shappere character
> into one of his later plays.

"One of his later plays"? That's what I love about your sources --
always so specific!

> > In February 1662, Judith Quiney died in Stratford-upon-Avon, making
> > Elizabeth Barnard the last descendant of William Shakespeare. She wrote
> > her will on 29 January 1669, which did not give much to her husband, Sir
> > John Barnard. Elizabeth died at Abington, Northamptonshire on 17
> > February 1670. There is a memorial plaque in the Church of Saint Peter &
> > Paul, Abington, where she is buried. The family home of Sir John and
> > Lady Barnard is now a museum, Abington Park Museum, and the grounds are
> > now a park in the town of Northampton. She is buried in a tomb with her
> > husband.[citation needed]
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> >
> > What could be the source of Elizabeth's allusion to "successive fortunes
> > gotten from her deceased husbands"? Certainly not the Wikipedia article.
> >
> > As noted above, Shakespeare did *not* bequeath the Blackfriars
> > property to his granddaughter, but rather to his *daughter* Susanna
> > Hall; his granddaughter was bequeathed most of the silver.
> >
> > That's probably in part because Elizabeth's "reading" has been rather
> > casual (Alan Jones's phrase) and erratic, as the above fruits of her
> > supposed "reading" amply demonstrate.

> I do not want you posting to me again.

I don't much care what you want, and I'm not posting "to you", but to
a public forum.

If you post blatant falsehoods that are easily demonstrated to be
false in a public forum, then you can expect them to be challenged. If
you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

> I can't enjoy this group
> if you are constantly harassing me.

Nobody is forcing you to participate. But if you elect to do so, and
if you persist in posting blatant, farcical falsehoods that are easily
demonstrated to be false in a public forum, then you can expect them to
be challenged.

> > > i.e. hoarding
> > > malt when the hungry of Stratford were pounding on Shappere's
> > > door. In fact the locals made up a ditty about Essex coming
> > > down to Stratford to HANG Shappere in his doorway.

Source? I know that it's probably pointless to ask, but I'm ever the
optimist. I keep hoping that eventually, you'll be able to support
*some* claim that you make, although after nearly ten years, perhaps I
should know better by now.

[David L. Webb]

In article <bfa53d26-6ceb-4692...@googlegroups.com>,

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

> On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 9:19:41 AM UTC-8, Peter F. wrote:
> > http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/shakespeare-was-just-a-business
> > man-not-a-bard.19505866
> >
> > Peter F.
> >
> > <pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk>
> >
> > <http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm

> Shappere (family spelling on Court of Barons records) was
> in the filthy business of the skin trade.
>
> He got his start by being the keeper of the theatre door,
> his job was to open the door for the gentlemen and
> say "do you want a whore after the performance, Sir?"

Source?

> No, I'm not kidding. After his success in pandering

> he established a whore house in the old Blackfriar's [sic]

> monastery just across from the estate of Bacon's aunt.

Source?

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 11:36:44 AM UTC-8, nordicskiv2 wrote:
> In article . . .

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

> YOU'VE BEEN HARASSING ART FOR WHAT, TWENTY OR MORE YEARS?
>
> I AM NOT GOING TO PUT UP BEING HARASSED BY YOU, WEBB,
>
> BUGGER OFF.

>
> > On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 9:19:41 AM UTC-8, Peter F. wrote:
>
> > > http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/shakespeare-was-just-a-business
>
> > > man-not-a-bard.19505866
>
> > >
>
> > > Peter F.
>
> > >
>
> > > <pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk>
>
> > >
>
> > > <http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
>
>
>
> > Shappere (family spelling on Court of Barons records) was
>
> > in the filthy business of the skin trade.
>
> >
>
> > He got his start by being the keeper of the theatre door,
>
> > his job was to open the door for the gentlemen and
>
> > say "do you want a whore after the performance, Sir?"
>
>
>

> > No, I'm not kidding. After his success in pandering
>

> > he established a whore house in the old Blackfriars

>
> > monastery just across from the estate of Bacon's aunt.
>
>
>
> Source?
>

> DO YOU STILL HAVE A JOB, WEBB? YOU SEEM TO HAVE A LOT
>
> OF TIME ON YOUR HANDS WHICH YOU SPEND HARASSING
>
> POSTERS IN H.L.A.S. WHO DO NOT WANT ANYTHING TO DO
>
> WITH YOU. YOU SPEND SO MUCH TIME IN HERE I CAN ONLY
>
> BELIEVE THAT DARTMOUTH IS DONE WITH YOU.

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 9:19:41 AM UTC-8, Peter F. wrote:
> http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/shakespeare-was-just-a-businessman-not-a-bard.19505866
>

> Well, if he couldn't scratch out his own name, how was he going to
>
> compose a poem? I hardly wait until European Culture gets enough
>
> of this Panderer, the sooner the better. There are so many incredible
>
> Elizabethans, i.e., Walsingham, Marlowe, Bacon, Jonson, Elizabeth,
>
> even Leicester,, that we really don't need to mess with the Broker.
>
> I say, let's move on.

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 1:04:01 PM UTC-8, John W Kennedy wrote:

> On 2012-11-27 17:19:41 +0000, Peter F. said:
>
>
>
> > http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/shakespeare-was-just-a-businessman-not-a-bard.19505866
>
> >
>

> Well, it's gotta end sometime, I say the sooner the better so we can
>
> get on with the REALLY fascinating figures of the Elizabethan Age.
>
> There are probably close to a hundred Elizabethans that are worth
>
> reading (I have a crush on Walsinham, Elizabeth's spymaster who
>
> sent young Bacon through Portugal into Spain, where Bacon
>
> got the idea for Don Quixote. That didn't mean he wasn't spying,
>
> Bacon, like some English who look much younger than their age
>
> can get by very well while spying. Kennedy continues. . .

>
> Business school? Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! And pray, how many
>
> thousand hours has this pair of opposite-of-academics put into history
>
> or literary criticism or theatre?
>

> P.S. I've never thought of Shappere as a bard, maybe a bore but
>
> never a bard.

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 8:11:20 PM UTC-8, marco wrote:

> that pretty much sums it up -
>
> Shakespeare deniers are "mind readers"
>

> You don't have to be a mind reader, I discovered that his
>
> second will was online. I cut and pasted it and stayed up all
>
> night, fascinated by his attempts to revise his will with out having
>
> to pay the clerks to write another. He was filthy rich but
>
> a cheapskate, he can't compose a coherent sentence but he
>
> did try to make his last bequests clear. The biggest bequests
>
> were these forty acre tracts of good farmland that he essentially
>
> bought to create a belt of tracts around Stratford. Don't know
>
> his intent other than the fact that Bacon seemed to do the same
>
> thing, an aristocratic friend had borrowed a sum of money
>
> from Bacon and paid him back by giving him great fields around
>
> Gorhambury in Hertz. Bacon sold the properties and left the
>
> money as bequests to his family, his servants, his friends. It
>
> was quite an extraordinary sum that Bacon had bound up as
>
> a Book of Bequests. It could still be online at google books.

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:43:21 AM UTC-8, nordicskiv2 wrote:
> In article
>

> I fear, Webb, that God is going to punish you, you'll have to
>
> endure many incarnations as a dumbass.

> authorship of texts some four centuries old is charmingly naīve.

[David L. Webb]

In article <4ed1b7a6-527e-466b...@googlegroups.com>,

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

The above would make it appear that Peter Farey wrote inarticulate
rubbish like "I hardly wait [sic] until European Culture gets enough of
this Panderer [sic], the sooner the better" -- yet Peter, as far as I
can ascertain, never wrote anything of the kind.

When is Elizabeth going to learn to post competently, without
wreaking havoc upon the hierarchy of quotations? It's bad enough that
she posts outright fabrications; it's still worse when she makes it
appear that others wrote her nonsense!

[Sneaky O. Possum]

"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote in
news:david.l.webb-FC75...@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com:

> In article <4ed1b7a6-527e-466b...@googlegroups.com>,
> "neonprose @ gmail.com" <neon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 9:19:41 AM UTC-8, Peter F. wrote:
>> > http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/shakespeare-was-just-a-
>> > business man-not-a-bard.19505866
>> >
>> > Well, if he couldn't scratch out his own name, how was he going to
>> > compose a poem? I hardly wait until European Culture gets enough
>> > of this Panderer, the sooner the better. There are so many
>> > incredible Elizabethans, i.e., Walsingham, Marlowe, Bacon, Jonson,
>> > Elizabeth, even Leicester,, that we really don't need to mess with
>> > the Broker. I say, let's move on.
>> >
>> > Peter F.
>> >
>> > <pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk>
>> >
>> > <http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
>
> The above would make it appear that Peter Farey wrote inarticulate
> rubbish like "I hardly wait [sic] until European Culture gets enough
> of this Panderer [sic], the sooner the better" -- yet Peter, as far as
> I can ascertain, never wrote anything of the kind.

It is trivially easy to determine that Mr Farey's original post (which
he made back on 27 November 2012) consisted solely of the link to the
/Herald/ article "Shakespeare was just a businessman, not a bard". The
actual article, which concerned a line of bullshit being peddled by two
business professors, was far more sceptical than the headline suggests,
e.g., "Scotland's leading Shakespeare scholar has shot down the claims
as 'the happy hunting ground of eccentrics' and said snobbery over
Shakespeare's humble roots underpinned such beliefs."

Unfortunately for Scotland's leading Shakespeare scholar, the business
professors were propounding the Marlovian 'hypothesis,' and Marlowe's
roots were as humble as Shakey's; Marlovians' pride is in their man's
Cambridge education, not in his social origins. After all, only a
Cambridge-educated man would have made a play out of Greene's /Pandosto/
and swopped Sicily with Bohemia.

> When is Elizabeth going to learn to post competently, without
> wreaking havoc upon the hierarchy of quotations?

About the same time that you 'learn8iiiiiiiiiiiistop addressing her in the the third person
in direct responses to her posts.

> It's bad enough that she posts outright fabrications; it's still worse
> when she makes it appear that others wrote her nonsense!

If anything Ms Weir posted here had any observable effect on the world
outside hlas, you might have a justifiable grievance. But now that John
W Kennedy has decided to avoid responding to her posts, the only person
who seems to be affected is you - and you clearly aren't misled by
either her 'fabrications' or her inability to separate responses from
quoted text. So how bad could it be, really?
--
S.O.P.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

"Sneaky O. Possum" <sneaky...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:XnsA1D66F9878774sn...@78.46.70.116:

[Edited to remove cat-induced typographical problems.]

About the same time that you learn to stop addressing her in the third

[David L. Webb]

In article <2ef24f39-0b91-4911...@googlegroups.com>,

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

[...]

> > > Shappere (family spelling on Court of Barons records) was
> > > in the filthy business of the skin trade.
> > >
> > > He got his start by being the keeper of the theatre door,
> > > his job was to open the door for the gentlemen and
> > > say "do you want a whore after the performance, Sir?"
> > > No, I'm not kidding. After his success in pandering
> > > he established a whore house in the old Blackfriars
> > > monastery just across from the estate of Bacon's aunt.

> > Source?

> DO YOU STILL HAVE A JOB, WEBB?

Yes -- not that that's any of your business.

> YOU SEEM TO HAVE A LOT OF TIME ON YOUR HANDS

Let's look at some actual data. My server shows 16 posts for you
today, but none for me (this is my first). Google groups shows 110
posts for "neonprose @ gmail.com" during the month of June thus far, but
only 10 posts by me. Similarly, it shows 142 posts from you during the
month of May, but 47 for me. Now *who* is it that has a lot of time on
her hands?

[...]

> YOU SPEND SO MUCH TIME IN HERE I CAN ONLY
> BELIEVE THAT DARTMOUTH IS DONE WITH YOU.

*I* spend so much time here? Your posts for the month of June exceed
mine by a factor of ten!

But you can believe what you like -- long experience shows that you
believe all sorts of utter rubbish that has no basis whatever in fact,
from North Korean submarine attacks on gulf oil platforms to bizarre
inventions concerning what you supposed to be my religion. You take an
unhealthy interest in my personal life, so it's not surprising that the
hallucinations and/or inventions that you recount in other spheres show
up there as well.

[neon...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, June 6, 2013 5:59:57 AM UTC-7, nordicskiv2 wrote:
> In article <2ef24f39-0b91-4911...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> "neonprose @ gmail.com" <neon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> I think you're mistaken, Webb, I've never written 110 posts.
>
> If you think you can prove otherwise, drop my posts in here.

>
> [...]
>
> > > > Shappere (family spelling on Court of Barons records) was
>
> > > > in the filthy business of the skin trade.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > He got his start by being the keeper of the theatre door,
>
> > > > his job was to open the door for the gentlemen and
>
> > > > say "do you want a whore after the performance, Sir?"
>
> > > > No, I'm not kidding. After his success in pandering
>
> > > > he established a whore house in the old Blackfriars
>
> > > > monastery just across from the estate of Bacon's aunt.
>
>
>
> > > Source?
>
>
>
> > DO YOU STILL HAVE A JOB, WEBB?
>
>
>
> Yes -- not that that's any of your business.
>
>
>
> > YOU SEEM TO HAVE A LOT OF TIME ON YOUR HANDS
>
>
>
> Let's look at some actual data. My server shows 16 posts for you
>
> today, but none for me (this is my first). Google groups shows 110
>
> posts for "neonprose @ gmail.com" during the month of June thus far, but
>

> hang on a minute, Webb, I don't know if the gaps in the line above
>
> have anything to do with it but Art is getting nervous about the gaps
>
> between neonprose the ampersand and gmail.com. Again, I did NOT write
>
> 110, for a mathematician you are certainly misconstruing the number.

>
> only 10 posts by me. Similarly, it shows 142 posts from you during the
>
> month of May, but 47 for me. Now *who* is it that has a lot of time on
>

> her hands? So what. I probably can type a lot faster than you can.

[neon...@gmail.com]

> When are you going to return to the Old Plantation in Tennassssee,
>
> Webb, if Art weren't so tolerant of your constant harassment, well,
>
> buy your ticket back to the Upper Appalachians the sooner the better.

[neon...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, June 5, 2013 10:54:03 AM UTC-7, Sneaky O. Possum wrote:
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote in
>
> news:david.l.webb-
>

> Wow, I'm reading the end of the post above, Kennedy has stopped
>
> responding to my posts? That's a big relief, I don't believe I've
>
> ever posted to Kennedy.
>
> And by the way, Webb, I have cited Joseph Lenz, now Dean of
>
> Drake University, on his facility on locating deeds and contracts
>
> made out by the scrofulous Strataford Broker, Lenz flew to London,
>
> went deeply into the Blackfriar's Archives, found a multitude of
>
> Shappere's papers, went back to Drake, wrote a book on these
>
> wonderful 16th century documents, all associated with Shappere's
>
> pandering in the Blackfriar's Bawdy Houses. I don't know if Lenz
>
> believed that Shappere died of sampling his own wares but that
>
> theory makes perfect medical sense.
>
>
> Elizabeth

[marco]

Art

[neon...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 9:19:41 AM UTC-8, Peter F. wrote:
> http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/shakespeare-was-just-a-businessman-not-a-bard.19505866
>
>
>

[neon...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, November 29, 2012 9:23:03 AM UTC-8, nordicskiv2 wrote:
> In article
>

> Well, that's probably what went wrong in your childhood,
>
> Webb, you were sent to bed without your Pooh Bear. That's
>
> grounds for a variety of psychological disorders in adulthood,
>
> although it's questionable whether you can attain adulthood,
>
> I thought you were going to return to Tennesee from whence
>
> you came or were you just hiding out when Art went into
>
> stalking mode, I suppose it's best that you stay away from
>
> Art, having abused him for what, thirty, forty years?

>
>
> John W Kennedy <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 2012-11-28 18:43:21 +0000, David L. Webb said:
>
> >
>

> > > In article

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

> > >> On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 2:50:37 PM UTC-8, neonprose @ gmail.com
>
> > >> wrote:
>
> > >>> On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 1:04:01 PM UTC-8, John W Kennedy wrote:
>
> > >>>> John W Kennedy
>
> > >>>
>
> > >>>> "The bright critics assembled in this volume will doubtless show, in
>
> > >>>> their sophisticated and ingenious new ways, that, just as /Pooh/ is
>
> > >>>> suffused with humanism, our humanism itself, at this late date, has
>
> > >>>> become full of /Pooh./"
>
>
>
> > >> Really, Reedy, picking on Pooh? Didn't you get Pooh
>
> > >> at bedtime when you were a little kid?
>
>
>
> > > Elizabeth manifestly cannot distinguish Tom Reedy from John Kennedy;
>
> > > it was the latter, not the former, who quoted Crews above.
>

> > > Webb, that's just a detail, settle down.

>
> > > Indeed, Elizabeth has demonstrated -- repeatedly -- that she cannot
>
> > > ascertain who wrote what in this forum, even when the post is quite
>
> > > recent, even when it is clearly signed, and even (in several cases) when
>
> > > the writer was *herself*. Given such farcical ineptness in authorship
>
> > > attribution, her fond notion that she possesses any insight into the
>

> > > authorship of texts some four centuries old is charmingly na�ve.
>
> > > I don't pay any attention to your criticism, Webb, criticize as you
>
> > > will.

>
> > >>>> -- Frederick Crews. "Postmodern Pooh", Preface
>
>
>

> > She has also, of course, completely missed the point of Crews' satire.
>
>
>
> Quite true -- but that is hardly surprising. Elizabeth has shown --
>
> repeatedly, and often spectacularly -- that she cannot even process
>
> straightforward text conveying factual information. A glaring instance
>
> is her confusion (above) of you with Tom Reedy, who has not participated
>
> in this thread at all; another recent example is her persistent and
>
> apparently unshakeable belief that Art was an administrator at NOAA,
>
> despite Art's own firm denial that he was ever any such thing:.
>
> And you have been sniffing Art's shorts lo all these decades,
>
> are you taking your DOG MEDICATION every night? Webb thought
>
> he would be funny, he clipped an add for canine medication
>
> off some magazine and would have introduced it into HLAS
>
> but he posted it into my gmail.account instead. The THRUST
>
> of Webb's humor, such as it is, was that everyone in HLAS
>
> was a dog and required Webb's dog medication. Huhhh, huhh,
>
> huhhhhh.
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/d5avux4>.
>
>
>
> More spectacular examples include her bizarre paraphrases (to use the
>
> term unforgivably loosely) of the paper of Copplia Kahn,
>
> Webb. You are irretrievably bizarre, go back to Tennesee and take
>
> a vacation, drive the back roads, enjoy the architecture of the ante-
>
> bellum colonial mansions. That's what I did when we would be
>
> dragged down below the Mason Dixon line by my Dad, a Southerner.
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/cxl5dxa>,
>
>
>
> and of the preface to Clara Longworth de Chambrun's book,
>
> You ARE OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVE, WEBB, I recall making
>
> the same diagnosis not long after I joined HLAS. Never
>
> could get you to stop mounting and humping Art, and
>
> then giggling like a hyena at your own jestes.
>
> Maybe you were his son in a prior incarnation, who knows.
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/cjejblt>,
>
> BLAH, BLAH, BLAH ALERT:
>
> neither of which said anything remotely resembling Elizabeth's version.
>
> Since parsing straightforward, purely factual English prose is so far
>
> beyond Elizabeth's capabilities, it would be overly exacting to expect
>
> her to be able to comprehend a text that required any measure of
>
> judicious interpretation.

[marco]

doesn't Lizzie ever sleep?

Art

[neon...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, June 6, 2013 5:59:57 AM UTC-7, nordicskiv2 wrote:
> In article
>

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

> Is there anything you can take, Webb, to stabilize your behavior?
>
> I was in my gmail account and I found a copy of that really
>
> stupid piece you wrote, insinuating that everyone who posts
>
> in HLAS is an ANIMAL. Honest to god, I think you're off your
>
> meds, for godsake get back on.

[marco]

is a Primate an Animal?

marc

[neon...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, June 2, 2013 11:13:12 PM UTC-7, neon...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:43:21 AM UTC-8, nordicskiv2 wrote:
>
> > In article
>
> >
>
> > I fear, Webb, that God is going to punish you, you'll have to
>
> >
>
> > endure many incarnations as a dumbass.
>

> > IN ADDITION, WEBB, STOP TRYING INITIATE YOUR INEPT
>
> > ATTEMPTS AT MALE BONDING AROUND ME. SICK OF IT,
>
> > IT MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE A LOON.

[neon...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, June 2, 2013 11:13:12 PM UTC-7, neon...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Wednesday, November 28, 2012 10:43:21 AM UTC-8, nordicskiv2 wrote:
>
> > In article
>
> >
>
> > I fear, Webb, that God is going to punish you, you'll have to
>
> >
>
> > endure many incarnations as a dumbass.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > "neonprose @ gmail.com" <neon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 2:50:37 PM UTC-8, neonprose @ gmail.com wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 1:04:01 PM UTC-8, John W Kennedy wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > On 2012-11-27 17:19:41 +0000, Peter F. said:
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > > > > > http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/shakespeare-was-just-a-busi
>
> >
>
> > > > > > nessman-not-a-bard.19505866
>
> >
>

> > > > WEBB, I'M NOT GOING TO SCROLL DOWN TO FIND YOUR
>
> > > > INEPT REMARKS, BUT HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU HAVE
>
> > > > TO BE REMINDED IN THIS FORUM THAT THE DEAN OF DRAKE
>
> > > > UNIVERSITY, JOSEPH LENZ, DESCENDED INTO THE 16TH C.
>
> > > > BLACKFRIAR'S RECORDS TO FIND A BUTT LOAD OF TESTIMONY
>
> > > > RE: THE STRATFORD BROKER'S RECORDS. LENZ THEN PRINTED
>
> > > > HIS FINDINGS IN A BOOK, I READ IT AS DID SOME OTHERS POSTING
>
> > > > IN HLAS, I BELIEVE LARAINE READ IT. LENZ' CONCLUSION IS THAT
>
> > > > THE STRATFORD BROKER MADE HIS FORTUNE IN THE ROUGH TRADES,
>
> > > > APPARENTLY HE CONTRACTED NO ONE BUT SEVERAL DISEASES,
>
> > > > HE STUMBLED BACK TO STRATFORD AND DIED IN HIS BED.
>
> > > > THE STUFF IN THE STRATFORD CHAPEL IS JUST FODDER FOR TOURISTS,
>
> > > > THIS ILLITERATE BOOB (I'LL CREDIT NEUENDORFFER) IS ONLY
>
> > > > FAMOUS FOR HIS SEXY, SEXY, NAME, HE WROTE NOTHING,
>
> > > > HE PUBLISHED NOTHING AND TO ADD TO THE HILARITY,
>
> > > > BACON HONORED PALLAS ATHENE BY HAVING MR. WILLIAM
>
> > > > SHAKESPEARE ON THE COVER OF HIS, BACON'S 1623 FIRST FOLIO.
>
> > > > BY THE WAY, THAT DECISION WAS MADE WHEN BACON WAS THIRTEEN,
>
> > > > AT THAT TENDER AGE BACON COMMITTED HIMSELF TO MAKE
>
> > > > THE ENGLISH PEOPLE LITERATE.
>
> > > > A BACONIAN, PAUL DUPUY, NOT ONLY IDENTIFIED BUT COLLECTED
>
> > > > THE VOLUMES WRITTEN BY BACON AT MORE THAN SIX HUNDRED.
>
> > > > LUMINARIUM ESTIMATES BACON'SOWN WRITINGS AT MORE THAN THREE
>
> > > > HUNDRED AND I'M NOT COUNTING BACON'S THIRTY-SIX HISTORIES,
>
> > > > COMEDIES AND TRAGEDIES.

> > SEE, WEEB, YOU'RE SO UNSCHOOLED IN THE SHAKESPEARE AUTHORSHIP
>
> > QUESTION THAT YOU CAN ONLY BARGE IN HERE AND MAKE A TOTAL
>
> > FOOL OF YOURSELF. IF I WERE AN ACADEMIC I WOULD FLUNK YOU
>
> > OUT OF THIS FORUM.