Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
"Shakespeare Beyond Doubt"
107 views
Skip to first unread message
Peter F.
Apr 21, 2013, 12:15:42 PM4/21/13
to
So, the long awaited book is now out, and I received my paper-
back copy yesterday.
My interest predictably centring upon Charles Nicholl's chapter
"The Case for Marlowe", I have given a tad more attention to
that, and particularly those bits where he actually mentions
me. Hot off the press, therefore, are my comments upon those
mentions. I'll use the old chevrons format (as if he had posted
it here) to make them.
The first concerns the ancient stylometric work of Thomas
Corwin Mendenhall. Nicholl says:
> The obvious fallacy in Mendenhall's method when applied to
> early modern texts is the fluidity of spelling in that period
> and the extent to which printed copy has been prey to the
> vicissitudes of transmission. Spellings may be the author's,
> but are at least as likely to be those of copyists and
> compositors. In the case of compositors, their spelling
> choices are governed by extraneous factors such as lineation
> and availability of type. Thus these computations for Marlowe
> and Shakespeare are partly based on an ungovernable sample of
> anonymous orthographers.
This isn't a problem. Although Mendenhall didn't tell us which
texts he made use of, it is fairly clear from the method
employed that they would have been printed editions with moder-
nized spelling, as both Daryl Pinksen and I used. (Although in
their recent book *Shakespeare, Computers and the Mystery of
Authorship* Craig and Kinney used original texts, they also
standardized the words they counted to the modern spelling and
usage.)
> It has also been shown that word-length distributions vary
> according to genre; an analysis of the works of Sir Philip
> Sidney by C. B. Williams (1975) gives very different readings
> for his prose and his poetry.
Mendenhall was "convinced that 100,000 words will be necessary
and sufficient to furnish the characteristic curve of a writer."
C. B. Williams's analysis used only 1,552 of Sidney's verse
(i.e. poems) and 1,553 words of his prose. Yet such minimal
data from one author is used to deduce a conclusion applicable
to *all* English renaissance writers!
> This would also affect a comparison of Shakespeare's plays
> with those of Marlowe, which feature much less prose.
This is Nicholl's own addition to Williams's work. Our most
interesting comparison is between Marlowe's later works
(9,452 words) and Shakespeare excluding the comedies (66,402).
The former has about 86% verse (blank verse, not poems) and
the latter about 81%. Hardly enough of a difference to cause
concern, even if Williams had been right.
> Despite these caveats, current Marlovians such as Daryl
> Pinksen and Peter Farey have continued to elaborate on Menden-
> hall's stylometry.
Taking full account of such caveats, and using statistical and
technological methods unknown to Mendenhall, we greatly extended
and improved his work.
It might be worth quoting what I actually said in the piece he
presumably read:
"What [Hoffman] did not realize, however, was that authors may
vary over time and between genres. It is true nevertheless that
the pattern for Marlowe's later plays correlates (at an astonish-
ing r = .9998, where r = 1 is perfect correlation) more closely
with Shakespeare's histories, tragedies and 'Roman' plays than
Shakespeare's own comedies do with them (.9986), or than
Marlowe's earlier plays do with his later ones (.9943)".
Secondly, he refers to what I have said about the legality of
Marlowe's inquest:
> Peter Farey, one of [p.38] the more industrious and level-
> headed of current Marlovians,
How kind!
> has sought to prove that on 30 May 1593 the royal court was at
> Nonsuch Palace rather than Greenwich,
I have "sought to" do no such thing. In fact it's a mystery to
me why biographers such as Urry, Kuriyama, Riggs and Nicholl all
thought it was at Greenwich in the first place. In the Declared
Accounts of the Treasurer of the Chamber there is the record of
a payment to "Romano Cavaliere: upon a warrant signed by the
Lord Treasurer dated at the Court the 18th day of May 1593, for
bringing of letters in post [...] to the Court at Nonsuch" and,
according to The Acts of the Privy Council, they met "at the
Courte at Nonsuch, the last of May, 1593". It was actually the
Marlovian William Honey who first pointed this out as early as
1983, and I think it was only because Park Honan had read my
essay *Marlowe's Sudden and Fearful End* that the correct
location eventually appeared in a biography – his 2005 book
*Christopher Marlowe: Poet & Spy* (p.354).
> that the Deptford killing did not therefore fall *infra virgam*
> ('within the verge', defined as a twelve-mile radius around the
> body of the Queen),
On the contrary, I show why – even though Nonsuch Palace and
Deptford Strand were about twelve and three quarter miles apart
as the crow flies – it would at that time have still have been
assumed to have been within twelve miles. The relevant fact is
that the standard mile was not made law in England until that
very year, 1593. The mile in use before that was some twenty to
thirty percent longer and continued to be used for some time after
the standard mile was officially adopted, so most maps would have
still shown Deptford Strand as being well within twelve miles of
Nonsuch, and thus within the verge.
> and that the involvement of the Royal Coroner in the case was a
> suspicious intervention rather than a routine requirement.
> (Note 21: Peter Farey, 'Marlowe's Sudden and Fearful End,'
> Appendix I, and 'Was Marlowe's Inquest Void?' Parts 1 and 2.)
This is the complete opposite of what I say in the articles he
cites. Danby was certainly supposed to be there. My argument is
concerned solely with the law as it affected inquests within the
verge, a law going back to the time of Edward II but which was
still being rigorously applied in the late sixteenth century.
This required such inquests to be held jointly by a local coroner
and the Coroner of the Queen's Household, which was clearly not
the case here. The only circumstances in which Danby could have
legally done it on his own is if he himself had occupied both
roles. Although no records survive to support this, it is
certainly quite likely, given that his predecessor as Queen's
Coroner, Richard Vale, had also been a coroner for Middlesex (and
even today's Coroner of the Queen's Household is a coroner for
Surrey too) and Danby is thought to have lived in Woolwich in Kent.
On the other hand, to make this legal, the dual responsibility
would have had to be clearly stated in the report of the inquest
(the 'inquisition'), and this is something he obviously failed to
do. This means that if the findings of the inquest had been
challenged for any reason it should have been found to be null and
void. That Nicholl correctly cites where I say all of this yet so
woefully misrepresents it is unacceptable, especially in what is
supposed to be a scholarly publication.
Peter F.
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/>
back copy yesterday.
My interest predictably centring upon Charles Nicholl's chapter
"The Case for Marlowe", I have given a tad more attention to
that, and particularly those bits where he actually mentions
me. Hot off the press, therefore, are my comments upon those
mentions. I'll use the old chevrons format (as if he had posted
it here) to make them.
The first concerns the ancient stylometric work of Thomas
Corwin Mendenhall. Nicholl says:
> The obvious fallacy in Mendenhall's method when applied to
> early modern texts is the fluidity of spelling in that period
> and the extent to which printed copy has been prey to the
> vicissitudes of transmission. Spellings may be the author's,
> but are at least as likely to be those of copyists and
> compositors. In the case of compositors, their spelling
> choices are governed by extraneous factors such as lineation
> and availability of type. Thus these computations for Marlowe
> and Shakespeare are partly based on an ungovernable sample of
> anonymous orthographers.
This isn't a problem. Although Mendenhall didn't tell us which
texts he made use of, it is fairly clear from the method
employed that they would have been printed editions with moder-
nized spelling, as both Daryl Pinksen and I used. (Although in
their recent book *Shakespeare, Computers and the Mystery of
Authorship* Craig and Kinney used original texts, they also
standardized the words they counted to the modern spelling and
usage.)
> It has also been shown that word-length distributions vary
> according to genre; an analysis of the works of Sir Philip
> Sidney by C. B. Williams (1975) gives very different readings
> for his prose and his poetry.
Mendenhall was "convinced that 100,000 words will be necessary
and sufficient to furnish the characteristic curve of a writer."
C. B. Williams's analysis used only 1,552 of Sidney's verse
(i.e. poems) and 1,553 words of his prose. Yet such minimal
data from one author is used to deduce a conclusion applicable
to *all* English renaissance writers!
> This would also affect a comparison of Shakespeare's plays
> with those of Marlowe, which feature much less prose.
This is Nicholl's own addition to Williams's work. Our most
interesting comparison is between Marlowe's later works
(9,452 words) and Shakespeare excluding the comedies (66,402).
The former has about 86% verse (blank verse, not poems) and
the latter about 81%. Hardly enough of a difference to cause
concern, even if Williams had been right.
> Despite these caveats, current Marlovians such as Daryl
> Pinksen and Peter Farey have continued to elaborate on Menden-
> hall's stylometry.
Taking full account of such caveats, and using statistical and
technological methods unknown to Mendenhall, we greatly extended
and improved his work.
It might be worth quoting what I actually said in the piece he
presumably read:
"What [Hoffman] did not realize, however, was that authors may
vary over time and between genres. It is true nevertheless that
the pattern for Marlowe's later plays correlates (at an astonish-
ing r = .9998, where r = 1 is perfect correlation) more closely
with Shakespeare's histories, tragedies and 'Roman' plays than
Shakespeare's own comedies do with them (.9986), or than
Marlowe's earlier plays do with his later ones (.9943)".
Secondly, he refers to what I have said about the legality of
Marlowe's inquest:
> Peter Farey, one of [p.38] the more industrious and level-
> headed of current Marlovians,
How kind!
> has sought to prove that on 30 May 1593 the royal court was at
> Nonsuch Palace rather than Greenwich,
I have "sought to" do no such thing. In fact it's a mystery to
me why biographers such as Urry, Kuriyama, Riggs and Nicholl all
thought it was at Greenwich in the first place. In the Declared
Accounts of the Treasurer of the Chamber there is the record of
a payment to "Romano Cavaliere: upon a warrant signed by the
Lord Treasurer dated at the Court the 18th day of May 1593, for
bringing of letters in post [...] to the Court at Nonsuch" and,
according to The Acts of the Privy Council, they met "at the
Courte at Nonsuch, the last of May, 1593". It was actually the
Marlovian William Honey who first pointed this out as early as
1983, and I think it was only because Park Honan had read my
essay *Marlowe's Sudden and Fearful End* that the correct
location eventually appeared in a biography – his 2005 book
*Christopher Marlowe: Poet & Spy* (p.354).
> that the Deptford killing did not therefore fall *infra virgam*
> ('within the verge', defined as a twelve-mile radius around the
> body of the Queen),
On the contrary, I show why – even though Nonsuch Palace and
Deptford Strand were about twelve and three quarter miles apart
as the crow flies – it would at that time have still have been
assumed to have been within twelve miles. The relevant fact is
that the standard mile was not made law in England until that
very year, 1593. The mile in use before that was some twenty to
thirty percent longer and continued to be used for some time after
the standard mile was officially adopted, so most maps would have
still shown Deptford Strand as being well within twelve miles of
Nonsuch, and thus within the verge.
> and that the involvement of the Royal Coroner in the case was a
> suspicious intervention rather than a routine requirement.
> (Note 21: Peter Farey, 'Marlowe's Sudden and Fearful End,'
> Appendix I, and 'Was Marlowe's Inquest Void?' Parts 1 and 2.)
This is the complete opposite of what I say in the articles he
cites. Danby was certainly supposed to be there. My argument is
concerned solely with the law as it affected inquests within the
verge, a law going back to the time of Edward II but which was
still being rigorously applied in the late sixteenth century.
This required such inquests to be held jointly by a local coroner
and the Coroner of the Queen's Household, which was clearly not
the case here. The only circumstances in which Danby could have
legally done it on his own is if he himself had occupied both
roles. Although no records survive to support this, it is
certainly quite likely, given that his predecessor as Queen's
Coroner, Richard Vale, had also been a coroner for Middlesex (and
even today's Coroner of the Queen's Household is a coroner for
Surrey too) and Danby is thought to have lived in Woolwich in Kent.
On the other hand, to make this legal, the dual responsibility
would have had to be clearly stated in the report of the inquest
(the 'inquisition'), and this is something he obviously failed to
do. This means that if the findings of the inquest had been
challenged for any reason it should have been found to be null and
void. That Nicholl correctly cites where I say all of this yet so
woefully misrepresents it is unacceptable, especially in what is
supposed to be a scholarly publication.
Peter F.
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/>
marco
Apr 21, 2013, 1:50:59 PM4/21/13
to
I want to see a modern
stylometric comparison of Paul & Elizabeth's writing...
I swear they're related, and Art N is a close cousin
marc
stylometric comparison of Paul & Elizabeth's writing...
I swear they're related, and Art N is a close cousin
marc
T.M. Sommers
Apr 21, 2013, 10:52:43 PM4/21/13
to
On 4/21/2013 12:15 PM, Peter F. wrote:
>
> It might be worth quoting what I actually said in the piece he
> presumably read:
>
> "What [Hoffman] did not realize, however, was that authors may
> vary over time and between genres. It is true nevertheless that
> the pattern for Marlowe's later plays correlates (at an astonish-
> ing r = .9998, where r = 1 is perfect correlation) more closely
> with Shakespeare's histories, tragedies and 'Roman' plays than
> Shakespeare's own comedies do with them (.9986), or than
> Marlowe's earlier plays do with his later ones (.9943)".
What was the chi-squared for each? Were any other statistical tests
>
> It might be worth quoting what I actually said in the piece he
> presumably read:
>
> "What [Hoffman] did not realize, however, was that authors may
> vary over time and between genres. It is true nevertheless that
> the pattern for Marlowe's later plays correlates (at an astonish-
> ing r = .9998, where r = 1 is perfect correlation) more closely
> with Shakespeare's histories, tragedies and 'Roman' plays than
> Shakespeare's own comedies do with them (.9986), or than
> Marlowe's earlier plays do with his later ones (.9943)".
done? Correlation by itself doesn't really tell you much.
--
T.M. Sommers -- ab2sb
Peter F.
Apr 22, 2013, 1:37:23 AM4/22/13
to
tms wrote:
>
> What was the chi-squared for each? Were any other statistical
> tests done? Correlation by itself doesn't really tell you much.
Correlation by itself tells you a whole lot more than than
>
> What was the chi-squared for each? Were any other statistical
> tests done? Correlation by itself doesn't really tell you much.
Mendenhall was able to manage by inspection alone, having
done his work before Pearson provided a tool allowing such
quantitative comparisons. My main point, however, was that
Nicholl seems to be unaware that my approach was designed
to deal with the problem of genre which Mendenhall, given the
limited resources at his disposal, simply hadn't noticed.
I'm afraid I don't see how chi-squared would be applicable to
this problem. What categories would you have on the axes?
Peter F.
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/>
T.M. Sommers
Apr 22, 2013, 4:08:50 AM4/22/13
to
On 4/22/2013 1:37 AM, Peter F. wrote:
> tms wrote:
>>
>> What was the chi-squared for each? Were any other statistical
>> tests done? Correlation by itself doesn't really tell you much.
>
> Correlation by itself tells you a whole lot more than than
> Mendenhall was able to manage by inspection alone, having
> done his work before Pearson provided a tool allowing such
> quantitative comparisons.
The problem is that r alone says nothing about the significance of the
> tms wrote:
>>
>> What was the chi-squared for each? Were any other statistical
>> tests done? Correlation by itself doesn't really tell you much.
>
> Correlation by itself tells you a whole lot more than than
> Mendenhall was able to manage by inspection alone, having
> done his work before Pearson provided a tool allowing such
> quantitative comparisons.
correlation. It is possible to have a high correlation that is not
significant.
If you calculate erfc(abs(r) * sqrt(N/2)) you will get a measure of the
significance of r. You want a small number. erfc() is the
complementary error function, and N is the number of data.
> My main point, however, was that
> Nicholl seems to be unaware that my approach was designed
> to deal with the problem of genre which Mendenhall, given the
> limited resources at his disposal, simply hadn't noticed.
comment on the rest of your post. However, I will make these
unasked-for comments about the calculations:
*) I am suspicious about lumping the enjambments and the feminine
endings together. Why do that? Why not treat them separately?
*) Why 'most' and 'then' instead of other words? What are the results
with other pairs of words?
*) For both, what do the results for other contemporary playwrights look
like? Perhaps all playwrights had the same kind of increases for the
same years. Or perhaps all had results like Marlowe's, and only
Shakespeare had an increase.
*) In doing the calculations, the large uncertainties in the dates of
the plays must be taken into account somehow.
*) What happens when you look at M and S separately?
> I'm afraid I don't see how chi-squared would be applicable to
> this problem. What categories would you have on the axes?
(which is done by minimizing chi-square), since that is the only way I
have ever encountered it personally.
I assume that you correlated your y-axis with the year.
Paul Crowley
Apr 22, 2013, 4:51:49 AM4/22/13
to
On 22/04/2013 03:52, T.M. Sommers wrote:
> On 4/21/2013 12:15 PM, Peter F. wrote:
>>
>> It might be worth quoting what I actually said in the piece he
>> presumably read:
>>
>> "What [Hoffman] did not realize, however, was that authors may
>> vary over time and between genres. It is true nevertheless that
>> the pattern for Marlowe's later plays correlates (at an astonish-
>> ing r = .9998, where r = 1 is perfect correlation) more closely
>> with Shakespeare's histories, tragedies and 'Roman' plays than
>> Shakespeare's own comedies do with them (.9986), or than
>> Marlowe's earlier plays do with his later ones (.9943)".
Anyone seeing the name "Peter Farey" associated
> On 4/21/2013 12:15 PM, Peter F. wrote:
>>
>> It might be worth quoting what I actually said in the piece he
>> presumably read:
>>
>> "What [Hoffman] did not realize, however, was that authors may
>> vary over time and between genres. It is true nevertheless that
>> the pattern for Marlowe's later plays correlates (at an astonish-
>> ing r = .9998, where r = 1 is perfect correlation) more closely
>> with Shakespeare's histories, tragedies and 'Roman' plays than
>> Shakespeare's own comedies do with them (.9986), or than
>> Marlowe's earlier plays do with his later ones (.9943)".
with a report of mathematical results should know
it's time to switch off. My cat has a better
understanding of maths.
The paragraph above will, on its own, tell you that.
When you see a reported correlation of "r = 0.9998"
you know one thing -- and one thing only -- the
figures have been 'fixed' (i.e. 'cooked').
The similarity of Marlowe's works to those of Shake-
speare is too great for there to have been two
different authors, or even for one to have had an
overwhelming effect on the other. My explanation
for this diverges from Farey's -- the true author (and
his political master/mistress) wanted to publish some
of his plays. Marlowe was conveniently dead, so
he attached Marlowe's name to a few of his works,
selecting some that he expected to be seen as
controversial. (Btw, every record indicating an
interest by Marlowe in the theatre or in writing is
posthumous,)
So it would be nice (for me) if Farey's "maths"
worked. But they don't. They are pure nonsense.
Paul.
Peter F.
Apr 22, 2013, 5:53:37 AM4/22/13
to
tms wrote:
>
> Peter F. wrote:
> >
> > tms wrote:
> > >
> > > What was the chi-squared for each? Were any other statistical
> > > tests done? Correlation by itself doesn't really tell you much.
> >
> > Correlation by itself tells you a whole lot more than than
> > Mendenhall was able to manage by inspection alone, having
> > done his work before Pearson provided a tool allowing such
> > quantitative comparisons.
>
> The problem is that r alone says nothing about the significance of the
> correlation. It is possible to have a high correlation that is not
> significant.
>
> If you calculate erfc(abs(r) * sqrt(N/2)) you will get a measure of
> the significance of r. You want a small number. erfc() is the
> complementary error function, and N is the number of data.
But it is perfectly obvious that *all* of the correlations
>
> Peter F. wrote:
> >
> > tms wrote:
> > >
> > > What was the chi-squared for each? Were any other statistical
> > > tests done? Correlation by itself doesn't really tell you much.
> >
> > Correlation by itself tells you a whole lot more than than
> > Mendenhall was able to manage by inspection alone, having
> > done his work before Pearson provided a tool allowing such
> > quantitative comparisons.
>
> The problem is that r alone says nothing about the significance of the
> correlation. It is possible to have a high correlation that is not
> significant.
>
> If you calculate erfc(abs(r) * sqrt(N/2)) you will get a measure of
> the significance of r. You want a small number. erfc() is the
> complementary error function, and N is the number of data.
calculated were highly significant, because all of the authors
I compared were writing in English. My only interest in each case
was in how well two "word length profiles" matched, and (although
it might not be the way Pearson's correlation is usually used) it
offers a very good way of doing just that.
> > My main point, however, was that
> > Nicholl seems to be unaware that my approach was designed
> > to deal with the problem of genre which Mendenhall, given the
> > limited resources at his disposal, simply hadn't noticed.
>
> I was just asking about the statistical results; I did not mean
> to comment on the rest of your post. However, I will make these
> unasked-for comments about the calculations:
>
> *) I am suspicious about lumping the enjambments and the
> feminine endings together. Why do that? Why not treat them
> separately?
>
> *) Why 'most' and 'then' instead of other words? What are the
> results with other pairs of words?
>
> wrights look like? Perhaps all playwrights had the same kind
> of increases for the same years. Or perhaps all had results
> like Marlowe's, and only Shakespeare had an increase.
>
> *) In doing the calculations, the large uncertainties in the
> dates of the plays must be taken into account somehow.
>
> *) What happens when you look at M and S separately?
>
> > I'm afraid I don't see how chi-squared would be applicable to
> > this problem. What categories would you have on the axes?
>
> I just assumed that you got your r as a result of a least-squares
> fit (which is done by minimizing chi-square), since that is the
> only way I have ever encountered it personally.
>
> I assume that you correlated your y-axis with the year.
I'm sorry, but you have completely lost me. The only statistical
> of increases for the same years. Or perhaps all had results
> like Marlowe's, and only Shakespeare had an increase.
>
> *) In doing the calculations, the large uncertainties in the
> dates of the plays must be taken into account somehow.
>
> *) What happens when you look at M and S separately?
>
> > I'm afraid I don't see how chi-squared would be applicable to
> > this problem. What categories would you have on the axes?
>
> I just assumed that you got your r as a result of a least-squares
> fit (which is done by minimizing chi-square), since that is the
> only way I have ever encountered it personally.
>
> I assume that you correlated your y-axis with the year.
stuff I was talking about was what Charles Nicholl mentioned in
the book "Shakespeare Beyond Doubt", and which he said that I
had "elaborated on".
<quote>
Further support for the Marlovian claim came a few years later
from Dr Thomas Corwin Mendenhall (1841–1924). A distinguished
physicist, a President of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science and a meteorologist who had a valley
and glacier in Alaska named after him, Mendenhall was also an
early exponent of 'stylometry'. Applying the statistical
principle of frequency distribution, he believed that the
occurrence of different word-lengths in a writer's work formed
a unique pattern, which could be used to identify that writer's
authorship of other texts. His initial sampling of these 'word
spectra' in Bacon and Shakespeare proved negative, but when he
turned his attention to Marlowe and Shakespeare he [p.33]
discovered a similarity of distribution which he described as
a 'sensation`. He published his findings in *Popular Science
Monthly* in 1901, with graphs showing what appeared to be an
almost exact correspondence. For instance, both writers used
an average of 240 four-letter words per thousand, 130 five-
letter words and 60 six-letter words, with other word-lengths
close if not exact.
<unquote>
I recognize your questions as relating to other statistical
work I have done in the past, but have no idea exactly which
essays you are referring to, and would frankly prefer not to
let this thread get diverted into discussing things which
are really nothing to do with it!
Start another thread pointing out just which writings of mine
you are talking about, however, and I'll be happy to address
your various comments about the calculations.
Peter F.
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/>
John W Kennedy
Apr 22, 2013, 8:01:25 AM4/22/13
to
On 2013-04-22 09:53:37 +0000, Peter F. said:
> tms wrote:
>>
>> Peter F. wrote:
>>>
>>> tms wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What was the chi-squared for each? Were any other statistical
>>>> tests done? Correlation by itself doesn't really tell you much.
>>>
>>> Correlation by itself tells you a whole lot more than than
>>> Mendenhall was able to manage by inspection alone, having
>>> done his work before Pearson provided a tool allowing such
>>> quantitative comparisons.
>>
>> The problem is that r alone says nothing about the significance of the>
>> correlation. It is possible to have a high correlation that is not>
>> significant.
>>
>> If you calculate erfc(abs(r) * sqrt(N/2)) you will get a measure of>
>> the significance of r. You want a small number. erfc() is the>
>> complementary error function, and N is the number of data.
>
> But it is perfectly obvious that *all* of the correlationscalculated
> were highly significant, because all of the authorsI compared were
> tms wrote:
>>
>> Peter F. wrote:
>>>
>>> tms wrote:
>>>>
>>>> What was the chi-squared for each? Were any other statistical
>>>> tests done? Correlation by itself doesn't really tell you much.
>>>
>>> Correlation by itself tells you a whole lot more than than
>>> Mendenhall was able to manage by inspection alone, having
>>> done his work before Pearson provided a tool allowing such
>>> quantitative comparisons.
>>
>> The problem is that r alone says nothing about the significance of the>
>> correlation. It is possible to have a high correlation that is not>
>> significant.
>>
>> If you calculate erfc(abs(r) * sqrt(N/2)) you will get a measure of>
>> the significance of r. You want a small number. erfc() is the>
>> complementary error function, and N is the number of data.
>
> But it is perfectly obvious that *all* of the correlationscalculated
> writing in English.
It is clear at this point that you are using and interpreting the word
"significance" only in the journalist's sense. This debate will go
nowhere until you learn more about statistics.
--
John W Kennedy
Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!
http://www.SKenSoftware.com/Double%20Falshood
Peter F.
Apr 22, 2013, 8:27:49 AM4/22/13
to
John W Kennedy wrote:
statistics, I assure you that my use of the phrase "highly
significant" was statistical rather than journalistic.
In the circumstances which apply here, I believe that anything
above about r = 0.44 would be rated as significant, and not a
single one of the 666 paired comparisons I made were anything
like being as low as that.
Peter F.
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/>
>
> Peter F. said:
> >
> > But it is perfectly obvious that *all* of the correlations
> > calculated were highly significant, because all of the
> > authors I compared were writing in English.
> Peter F. said:
> >
> > But it is perfectly obvious that *all* of the correlations
> > calculated were highly significant, because all of the
>
> It is clear at this point that you are using and interpreting
> the word "significance" only in the journalist's sense. This
> debate will go nowhere until you learn more about statistics.
Whilst I could certainly benefit from a better knowledge of
> It is clear at this point that you are using and interpreting
> the word "significance" only in the journalist's sense. This
> debate will go nowhere until you learn more about statistics.
statistics, I assure you that my use of the phrase "highly
significant" was statistical rather than journalistic.
In the circumstances which apply here, I believe that anything
above about r = 0.44 would be rated as significant, and not a
single one of the 666 paired comparisons I made were anything
like being as low as that.
Peter F.
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/>
Tom Reedy
Apr 22, 2013, 8:55:23 AM4/22/13
to
TR
Arthur Neuendorffer
Apr 22, 2013, 10:34:02 AM4/22/13
to
>> Peter F. wrote:
>
>>> It might be worth quoting what I actually said
>>> in the piece he presumably read:
>
>>> "What [Hoffman] did not realize, however, was that authors may
>>> vary over time and between genres. It is true nevertheless that
>>> the pattern for Marlowe's later plays correlates (at an astonish-
>>> ing r = .9998, where r = 1 is perfect correlation) more closely
>>> with Shakespeare's histories, tragedies and 'Roman' plays than
>>> Shakespeare's own comedies do with them (.9986), or than
>>> Marlowe's earlier plays do with his later ones (.9943)".
>
>
>>> It might be worth quoting what I actually said
>>> in the piece he presumably read:
>
>>> "What [Hoffman] did not realize, however, was that authors may
>>> vary over time and between genres. It is true nevertheless that
>>> the pattern for Marlowe's later plays correlates (at an astonish-
>>> ing r = .9998, where r = 1 is perfect correlation) more closely
>>> with Shakespeare's histories, tragedies and 'Roman' plays than
>>> Shakespeare's own comedies do with them (.9986), or than
>>> Marlowe's earlier plays do with his later ones (.9943)".
>
>>> But it is perfectly obvious that *all* of the correlations
>>> calculated were highly significant, because all of the
>>> authors I compared were writing in English.
>>> calculated were highly significant, because all of the
>>> authors I compared were writing in English.
T.M. Sommers wrote:
>>
>> It is clear at this point that you are using and interpreting
>> the word "significance" only in the journalist's sense. This
>> debate will go nowhere until you learn more about statistics.
>>
>> It is clear at this point that you are using and interpreting
>> the word "significance" only in the journalist's sense. This
>> debate will go nowhere until you learn more about statistics.
Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> Anyone seeing the name "Peter Farey" associated
> with a report of mathematical results should know
> it's time to switch off. My cat has a better
> understanding of maths.
>
> The paragraph above will, on its own, tell you that.
> When you see a reported correlation of "r = 0.9998"
> you know one thing -- and one thing only -- the
> figures have been 'fixed' (i.e. 'cooked').
>
> The similarity of Marlowe's works to those of Shake-
> speare is too great for there to have been two
> different authors, or even for one to have had an
> overwhelming effect on the other. My explanation
> for this diverges from Farey's -- the true author (and
> his political master/mistress) wanted to publish some
> of his plays. Marlowe was conveniently dead, so
> he attached Marlowe's name to a few of his works,
> selecting some that he expected to be seen as
> controversial. (Btw, every record indicating an
> interest by Marlowe in the theatre or in writing
> is posthumous,)
>
> So it would be nice (for me) if Farey's "maths"
> worked. But they don't. They are pure nonsense.
They are not nonsense...but they are certainly no proof
> Anyone seeing the name "Peter Farey" associated
> with a report of mathematical results should know
> it's time to switch off. My cat has a better
> understanding of maths.
>
> The paragraph above will, on its own, tell you that.
> When you see a reported correlation of "r = 0.9998"
> you know one thing -- and one thing only -- the
> figures have been 'fixed' (i.e. 'cooked').
>
> The similarity of Marlowe's works to those of Shake-
> speare is too great for there to have been two
> different authors, or even for one to have had an
> overwhelming effect on the other. My explanation
> for this diverges from Farey's -- the true author (and
> his political master/mistress) wanted to publish some
> of his plays. Marlowe was conveniently dead, so
> he attached Marlowe's name to a few of his works,
> selecting some that he expected to be seen as
> controversial. (Btw, every record indicating an
> interest by Marlowe in the theatre or in writing
> is posthumous,)
>
> So it would be nice (for me) if Farey's "maths"
> worked. But they don't. They are pure nonsense.
that a shoemakers son name Marley wrote the works of Marlowe
in any more reasonable assumption than the assumption that
a glovemakers son name Shakspere wrote the works of Shakespeare.
Peter F. said:
>
> Whilst I could certainly benefit from a better knowledge of
> statistics, I assure you that my use of the phrase "highly
> significant" was statistical rather than journalistic.
>
> In the circumstances which apply here, I believe that anything
> above about r = 0.44 would be rated as significant, and not a
> single one of the 666 paired comparisons I made were anything
> like being as low as that.
>
> Peter F. <http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/>
In the circumstances which apply here, I believe that
anything above about r = 0.44 would be rated as significant,
Absolute values of statistics mean very little;
it is rather the relative values that are important:
i.e., (r = .9998) > (r = .9986) > (r = .9943).
Art Neuendorffer
Peter F.
Apr 22, 2013, 11:02:54 AM4/22/13
to
Arthur Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> In the circumstances which apply here, I believe that
> anything above about r = 0.44 would be rated as sign-
>
> In the circumstances which apply here, I believe that
> ificant, vis a vis whether or not monkeys on typewriters
> were involved.
>
> Absolute values of statistics mean very little;
>
> it is rather the relative values that are important:
>
> i.e., (r = .9998) > (r = .9986) > (r = .9943).
Thank you Art. After fifteen years you have finally said
> were involved.
>
> Absolute values of statistics mean very little;
>
> it is rather the relative values that are important:
>
> i.e., (r = .9998) > (r = .9986) > (r = .9943).
something which, for me, not only makes sense, but which
is even a useful contribution!
Peter F.
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/>
Arthur Neuendorffer
Apr 22, 2013, 2:58:52 PM4/22/13
to
>> Peter F. said:
>>>
>>> In the circumstances which apply here, I believe that anything
>>>
>>> In the circumstances which apply here, I believe that anything
>>> above about r = 0.44 would be rated as significant, and not a
>>> single one of the 666 paired comparisons I made were anything
>>> like being as low as that.
>>> single one of the 666 paired comparisons I made were anything
>>> like being as low as that.
> Arthur Neuendorffer wrote:
>>
>> In the circumstances which apply here, I believe
>> that anything above about r = 0.44 would be
>> rated as significant, vis a vis whether or not
>>
>> In the circumstances which apply here, I believe
>> that anything above about r = 0.44 would be
>> monkeys on typewriters were involved.
>>
>> Absolute values of statistics mean very little;
>
>> it is rather the relative values that are important:
>
>> i.e., (r = .9998) > (r = .9986) > (r = .9943).
>>
>> Absolute values of statistics mean very little;
>
>> it is rather the relative values that are important:
>
>> i.e., (r = .9998) > (r = .9986) > (r = .9943).
"Peter F." <pete...@rey.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Thank you Art. After fifteen years you have finally
> said something which, for me, not only makes sense,
> but which is even a useful contribution!
---------------------------------------------------------
>
> Thank you Art. After fifteen years you have finally
> said something which, for me, not only makes sense,
> but which is even a useful contribution!
"Onesimus's name" means "useful"
---------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_Philemon
<<Paul's Epistle (or Letter) to Philemon, usually referred to simply
as Philemon, is a prison letter to Philemon from Paul of Tarsus. It is
the shortest of Paul's extant letters, consisting of only 335 words in
the original Greek text. Philemon was a wealthy Christian in Colosse.
Paul writes on behalf of Onesimus, Philemon's slave. Beyond that, it
is not self-evident as to what has transpired. Onesimus is described
as having been "separated" from Philemon, once having been "useless"
to him (a pun on Onesimus's name, which means "useful"), and having
done him wrong.
Paul's letter is a personal one and can appear cryptic to outsiders.>>
............................................
Philemon 1:4-6 : <= 25 =>
.
. I t h a n k m y G o d,m a [K] i n g m e n t i o n o
. f t h e e a l w a y s i n [M] y p r a y e r s,H e a
. r i n g o f t h y l o v e [A] n d f a i t h,w h i c
. h t h o u h a s t t o w a [R] d t h e L o r d J e s
. u s,a n d t o w a r d a l [L] s a i n t s;T h a t t
. h e c o m m u n i c a t i [O] n o f t h y f a i t h
. m a y b e c o m e e f f e c t u a l
-----------------------------------------------------
___ Hero and *LEANDER* by [K.MARLO]
......................................
Her vaile was artificiall flowers and leaves,
Whose workmanship both man and *BEAST* deceaves.
-----------------------------------------------------
___ Hero and *LEANDER* by G.Chapman
......................................
And thereof springs the painted *BEAST*,
That EVER since taints EVERy breast.
----------------------------------------------------
http://hollowaypages.com/jonson1692epigrams.htm
Ben Jonson: EPIGRAM XXVI. (26)
On the same *BEAST* .
TAn his Chast Wife, though *BEAST* now [K]now no [M]ore,
He '[A]dulte[R]s stil[L]: his th[O]ught*S LYE* with a Whore.
.......................................
_____ <= 6 =>
. t h o u g h
. *B E A S T* n
. o w [K] n o w
. n o [M] o r e,
. H e'[A] d u l
. t e [R] s s t
. i l [L]:h i s
. t h [O] u g h
. t *S L Y E* w
. i t h a W h
. o r e.
........................................................
[K.MARLO] 6 : Prob. for # XXVI any skip ~ 1 in 124,000
Prob. for all of Jonson's EPIGRAMS ~ 1 in 1,240
............................................
Christopher *S L Y E* = Christopher Mar*LEY* ?
-------------------------------------------------------
http://tinyurl.com/blkdgvv
Start of last 13 couplets of Chapman's _Hero and Leander_
Burst, d{Y}e, bleede,
And leave poor{E} plaints to us that sha(L|L} succeede.
She fell on h(E|R} loves bosome, hugg'd it (F|A}st,
And with *LEANDERS NA{M}E* she breath'd her last.
.......................................
_____ <= 20 =>
.
. B u r s t, d {Y} e, b l e e d e,A n
. d l e a v e p o o r {E} p l a i n t s t o
. u s t h a t s h a (L){L} s u c c e e d e.S
. h e f e l l o n h (E){R} l o v e s b o s o
. m e,h u g g'd i t (F){A} s t,A n d w i t h
.*L E A N D E R S N A {M} E* s h e b r e a t
. h'd h e r l a s t.
.......................................
{MARLEY} -20 : Prob. ~1 in 10,000
. [Skip < 21 near end of either part]
............................................
*L E A N D E R* = Christopher Mar*LEY* ?
-------------------------------------------------------
Shortest "bible code" skips in ("modern") KJV
(Presumed to be random):
............................................
Philemon 1:4-14 : <= 25 =>
.
. I t h a n k m y G o d,m a [K] i n g m e n t i o n o
. f t h e e a l w a y s i n [M] y p r a y e r s,H e a
. r i n g o f t h y l o v e [A] n d f a i t h,w h i c
. h t h o u h a s t t o w a [R] d t h e L o r d J e s
. u s,a n d t o w a r d a l [L] s a i n t s;T h a t t
. h e c o m m u n i c a t i [O] n o f t h y f a i t h
. m a y b e c o m e e f f e c t u a l
.........................................................
1 Kings 18:18-19 : <= 27 =>
.
. y e h a v e f o r s a k e n t h e c o {M} m a n d m e n
. t s o f t h e L o r d,a n d t h o u h {A} s t f o l l o
. w e d B a a l i m.N o w t h e r e f o {R} e s e n d,a n
. d g a t h e r t o m e a l l I s r a e {L} u n t o m o u
. n t C a r m e l,a n d t h e p r o p h {E} t s o f B a a
. l f o u r h u n d r e d a n d f i f t {Y},a n d t h e p
. r o p h e t s o f t h e g r o v e s f o u r h u n d r
. e d,w h i c h e a t a t J e z e b e l' s t a b l e.
-------------------------------------------------------
http://tinyurl.com/blkdgvv
Burst, d{Y}e, bleede,
And leave poor{E} plaints to us that sha(L|L} succeede.
She fell on h(E|R} loves bosome, hugg'd it (F|A}st,
And with *LEANDERS NA{M}E* she breath'd her last.
Neptune for pittie in his armes did take them,
Flung them into the ayre, and did awake them
Like two sweet birds surnam'd th'Acanthides,
Which we call Thistle-warps, that neere no Seas
Dare *EVER* come, but still in couples flie,
And feede on Thistle tops, to testifie
The hardnes of their first life in their last:
The first in thornes of love, and sorrowes past.
And so most beautifull their colours show,
As none (so little) like them: her sad brow
A sable velvet feather covers quite,
Even like the forehead cloths that in the night,
Or when they sorrow, Ladies use to weare:
Their wings blew, red and yellow mixt appeare,
Colours, that as we construe colours paint
Their states to life; the yellow shewes their saint,
The devill Venus, left them; blew their truth,
The red and black, ensignes of death and ruth.
And this *TRUE* honor from their love-deaths sprung,
They were the first that *EVER Poet* sung.
-------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Tom Reedy
Apr 22, 2013, 9:23:10 PM4/22/13
to
On Apr 22, 1:58 pm, Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Peter F. said:
>
> >>> In the circumstances which apply here, I believe that anything
> >>> above about r = 0.44 would be rated as significant, and not a
> >>> single one of the 666 paired comparisons I made were anything
> >>> like being as low as that.
> > Arthur Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> >> In the circumstances which apply here, I believe
> >> that anything above about r = 0.44 would be
> >> rated as significant, vis a vis whether or not
> >> monkeys on typewriters were involved.
>
> >> Absolute values of statistics mean very little;
>
> >> it is rather the relative values that are important:
>
> >> i.e., (r = .9998) > (r = .9986) > (r = .9943).
> "Peter F." <pete...@rey.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Thank you Art. After fifteen years you have finally
> > said something which, for me, not only makes sense,
> > but which is even a useful contribution!
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> "Onesimus's name" means "useful"
> ---------------------------------------------------------http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_to_Philemon
> >> Peter F. said:
>
> >>> In the circumstances which apply here, I believe that anything
> >>> above about r = 0.44 would be rated as significant, and not a
> >>> single one of the 666 paired comparisons I made were anything
> >>> like being as low as that.
> > Arthur Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> >> In the circumstances which apply here, I believe
> >> that anything above about r = 0.44 would be
> >> rated as significant, vis a vis whether or not
> >> monkeys on typewriters were involved.
>
> >> Absolute values of statistics mean very little;
>
> >> it is rather the relative values that are important:
>
> >> i.e., (r = .9998) > (r = .9986) > (r = .9943).
> "Peter F." <pete...@rey.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Thank you Art. After fifteen years you have finally
> > said something which, for me, not only makes sense,
> > but which is even a useful contribution!
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> "Onesimus's name" means "useful"
>
> Ben Jonson: EPIGRAM XXVI. (26)
>
> On the same *BEAST* .
>
> TAn his Chast Wife, though *BEAST* now [K]now no [M]ore,
> He '[A]dulte[R]s stil[L]: his th[O]ught*S LYE* with a Whore.
> .......................................
> _____ <= 6 =>
>
> . t h o u g h
> . *B E A S T* n
> . o w [K] n o w
> . n o [M] o r e,
> . H e'[A] d u l
> . t e [R] s s t
> . i l [L]:h i s
> . t h [O] u g h
> . t *S L Y E* w
> . i t h a W h
> . o r e.
> ........................................................
> [K.MARLO] 6 : Prob. for # XXVI any skip ~ 1 in 124,000
> Prob. for all of Jonson's EPIGRAMS ~ 1 in 1,240
> ............................................
> Christopher *S L Y E* = Christopher Mar*LEY* ?
> -------------------------------------------------------http://tinyurl.com/blkdgvv
> Ben Jonson: EPIGRAM XXVI. (26)
>
> On the same *BEAST* .
>
> TAn his Chast Wife, though *BEAST* now [K]now no [M]ore,
> He '[A]dulte[R]s stil[L]: his th[O]ught*S LYE* with a Whore.
> .......................................
> _____ <= 6 =>
>
> . t h o u g h
> . *B E A S T* n
> . o w [K] n o w
> . n o [M] o r e,
> . H e'[A] d u l
> . t e [R] s s t
> . i l [L]:h i s
> . t h [O] u g h
> . t *S L Y E* w
> . i t h a W h
> . o r e.
> ........................................................
> [K.MARLO] 6 : Prob. for # XXVI any skip ~ 1 in 124,000
> Prob. for all of Jonson's EPIGRAMS ~ 1 in 1,240
> ............................................
> Christopher *S L Y E* = Christopher Mar*LEY* ?
TR
Arthur Neuendorffer
Apr 22, 2013, 9:47:05 PM4/22/13
to
All Peter has to do is to state that either he believes
in the [K.MARLO]/{MARLEY} equidistant letter sequences
or he doesn't (or he is undecided at this time).
That doesn't seem too difficult.
Art Neuendorffer
in the [K.MARLO]/{MARLEY} equidistant letter sequences
or he doesn't (or he is undecided at this time).
That doesn't seem too difficult.
Art Neuendorffer
Peter F.
Apr 23, 2013, 1:19:46 AM4/23/13
to
Arthur Neuendorffer wrote:
Peter F.
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/>
>
> Tom Reedy wrote:
> >
> > I knew that was coming as soon as I read Peter's post.
>
> All Peter has to do is to state that either he believes
> in the [K.MARLO]/{MARLEY} equidistant letter sequences
> or he doesn't (or he is undecided at this time).
No, of course I don't.
> Tom Reedy wrote:
> >
> > I knew that was coming as soon as I read Peter's post.
>
> All Peter has to do is to state that either he believes
> in the [K.MARLO]/{MARLEY} equidistant letter sequences
> or he doesn't (or he is undecided at this time).
Peter F.
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/>
Arthur Neuendorffer
Apr 23, 2013, 7:20:19 AM4/23/13
to
>> Tom Reedy wrote:
>
>>> I knew that was coming as soon as I read Peter's post.
>
>>> I knew that was coming as soon as I read Peter's post.
> Arthur Neuendorffer wrote:
>>
>> All Peter has to do is to state that either he believes
>> in the [K.MARLO]/{MARLEY} equidistant letter sequences
>> or he doesn't (or he is undecided at this time).
Pity...for it was the *ONLY* evidence I've come
>>
>> All Peter has to do is to state that either he believes
>> in the [K.MARLO]/{MARLEY} equidistant letter sequences
>> or he doesn't (or he is undecided at this time).
across that [K.MARLO]/{MARLEY} might have been
an *actual* flesh & blood person.
It is *no* use proving that the Shakespeare canon &
the Marlowe canon share a common author (or authors)
unless you have some evidence that one or the t'other was
*anything* more than a pseudonym with a phony back-story.
(Shaksper, at least, has two images with some provenance.)
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
Apr 23, 2013, 8:07:34 AM4/23/13
to
In article <367db4eb-5c18-45c6...@googlegroups.com>,
Setting aside the issue of usefulness, for Art to make sense is an
occurrence of such rarity that one might almost sooner expect to see
Birnam Wood advancing upon Dunsinane.
> Peter F.
> <http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/>
occurrence of such rarity that one might almost sooner expect to see
Birnam Wood advancing upon Dunsinane.
> Peter F.
> <http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/>
Arthur Neuendorffer
Apr 23, 2013, 11:22:37 AM4/23/13
to
"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Setting aside the issue of usefulness, for Art to make sense is
> an occurrence of such rarity that one might almost sooner expect
> to see Birnam Wood advancing upon Dunsinane.
To quote the Phantom:
>
> Setting aside the issue of usefulness, for Art to make sense is
> an occurrence of such rarity that one might almost sooner expect
> to see Birnam Wood advancing upon Dunsinane.
"I knew that was coming as soon as I read Peter's post."
anyone whom the Goon Squad considers sane. The Goon Squad alarm
system goes off and they descend like Harpies.
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
Apr 23, 2013, 2:46:54 PM4/23/13
to
In article
<5067d066-37bd-4cc4...@b2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> Pity...for it was the *ONLY* evidence I've come
> across that [K.MARLO]/{MARLEY} might have been
> an *actual* flesh & blood person.
The fact that you think (usual disclaimer) that such crackpot
cryptography constitutes "evidence" of Marlowe's existence -- as
opposed, say, to historical documents such as records of baptism, his
enrollment and the payment of his scholarship as a scholar of King's
School, Canterbury, his Cambridge University records, Kyd's reference to
him, records of his arrest, the coroner's inquest following the affair
at Deptford, etc. -- is one of the mainstays of your comedic charm, Art.
Of course, it is *much* more likely that an entire constellation of
historical records is merely a collection of Masonic forgeries, while
crackpot cryptography -- a single short, chance character string in an
equidistant letter sequence, which in an era of inconsistent orthography
only an idiot would use to conceal something -- is evidence that Marlowe
existed!
> It is *no* use proving that the Shakespeare canon &
> the Marlowe canon share a common author (or authors)
> unless you have some evidence that one or the t'other was
> *anything* more than a pseudonym with a phony back-story.
Of course it would be of considerable interest if it were shown that
the Shakespeare canon and the Marlowe works were written by the same
person, even if that person's identity were uncertain, Art. HoweVER,
although both literary canons are works of genius, they strike me as
worlds apart.
<5067d066-37bd-4cc4...@b2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Arthur Neuendorffer <acne...@gmail.com> (aka Noonedafter) wrote:
> >> Tom Reedy wrote:
> >
> >>> I knew that was coming as soon as I read Peter's post.
> > Arthur Neuendorffer wrote:
> >>
> >> All Peter has to do is to state that either he believes
> >> in the [K.MARLO]/{MARLEY} equidistant letter sequences
> >> or he doesn't (or he is undecided at this time).
> "Peter F." <pete...@rey.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > No, of course I don't.
Of course not -- Peter is sane and (mostly) reasonable.
> >> Tom Reedy wrote:
> >
> >>> I knew that was coming as soon as I read Peter's post.
> > Arthur Neuendorffer wrote:
> >>
> >> All Peter has to do is to state that either he believes
> >> in the [K.MARLO]/{MARLEY} equidistant letter sequences
> >> or he doesn't (or he is undecided at this time).
> "Peter F." <pete...@rey.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > No, of course I don't.
> Pity...for it was the *ONLY* evidence I've come
> across that [K.MARLO]/{MARLEY} might have been
> an *actual* flesh & blood person.
cryptography constitutes "evidence" of Marlowe's existence -- as
opposed, say, to historical documents such as records of baptism, his
enrollment and the payment of his scholarship as a scholar of King's
School, Canterbury, his Cambridge University records, Kyd's reference to
him, records of his arrest, the coroner's inquest following the affair
at Deptford, etc. -- is one of the mainstays of your comedic charm, Art.
Of course, it is *much* more likely that an entire constellation of
historical records is merely a collection of Masonic forgeries, while
crackpot cryptography -- a single short, chance character string in an
equidistant letter sequence, which in an era of inconsistent orthography
only an idiot would use to conceal something -- is evidence that Marlowe
existed!
> It is *no* use proving that the Shakespeare canon &
> the Marlowe canon share a common author (or authors)
> unless you have some evidence that one or the t'other was
> *anything* more than a pseudonym with a phony back-story.
the Shakespeare canon and the Marlowe works were written by the same
person, even if that person's identity were uncertain, Art. HoweVER,
although both literary canons are works of genius, they strike me as
worlds apart.
Arthur Neuendorffer
Apr 23, 2013, 5:36:21 PM4/23/13
to
>>>> Tom Reedy wrote:
>
>>>>> I knew that was coming as soon as I read Peter's post.
>>> Arthur Neuendorffer wrote:
>
>>>> All Peter has to do is to state that either he believes
>>>> in the [K.MARLO]/{MARLEY} equidistant letter sequences
>>>> or he doesn't (or he is undecided at this time).
>> "Peter F." <pete...@rey.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> No, of course I don't.
>
>>>>> I knew that was coming as soon as I read Peter's post.
>>> Arthur Neuendorffer wrote:
>
>>>> All Peter has to do is to state that either he believes
>>>> in the [K.MARLO]/{MARLEY} equidistant letter sequences
>>>> or he doesn't (or he is undecided at this time).
>> "Peter F." <pete...@rey.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>> No, of course I don't.
> Of course not -- Peter is sane and (mostly) reasonable.
Of course -- Peter is sane and (mostly) biased.
> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Pity...for it was the *ONLY* evidence I've come
>> across that [K.MARLO]/{MARLEY} might have been
-----------------------------------------------------
___ Hero and *LEANDER* by [K.MARLO]
......................................
Her vaile was artificiall flowers and leaves,
Whose workmanship both man and *BEAST* deceaves.
----------------------------------------------------
___ Hero and *LEANDER* by [K.MARLO]
......................................
Her vaile was artificiall flowers and leaves,
Whose workmanship both man and *BEAST* deceaves.
http://hollowaypages.com/jonson1692epigrams.htm
Ben Jonson: EPIGRAMS (published in the 1616 folio)
"I had nothing in my Conscience,
. to expressing of which I did need a Cypher."
"PRay thee, take care, that tak'st my Book in hand,
To read it well: that is, to understand."
...................................................................
EPIGRAM XXVI. (26) On the same *BEAST* .
TAn his Chast Wife, though *BEAST* now [K]now no [M]ore,
He '[A]dulte[R]s stil[L]: his th[O]ught*S LYE* with a Whore.
.......................................
_____ <= 6 =>
. t h o u g h
. *B E A S T* n
. o w [K] n o w
. n o [M] o r e,
. H e'[A] d u l
. t e [R] s s t
. i l [L]:h i s
. t h [O] u g h
. t *S L Y E* w
. i t h a W h
. o r e.
........................................................
[K.MARLO] 6 : Prob. for # XXVI any skip ~ 1 in 124,000
Prob. for all of Jonson's EPIGRAMS ~ 1 in 1,240
......................................................
TAn his Chast Wife, though *BEAST* now [K]now no [M]ore,
He '[A]dulte[R]s stil[L]: his th[O]ught*S LYE* with a Whore.
.......................................
_____ <= 6 =>
. t h o u g h
. *B E A S T* n
. o w [K] n o w
. n o [M] o r e,
. H e'[A] d u l
. t e [R] s s t
. i l [L]:h i s
. t h [O] u g h
. t *S L Y E* w
. i t h a W h
. o r e.
........................................................
[K.MARLO] 6 : Prob. for # XXVI any skip ~ 1 in 124,000
Prob. for all of Jonson's EPIGRAMS ~ 1 in 1,240
Lord.:
. Oh monstrous *BEAST* , how like a swine he *LYES*.
. Grim death, how foule and loathsome is thine image:
. Sirs, I will practise on this drunken man.
. What thinke you, if he were conuey'd to bed,
. Wrap'd in sweet cloathes: Rings put vpon his fingers:
. A most delicious banquet by his bed,
. And braue attendants neere him when he wakes,
. Would not the begger then forget himselfe?
......................................................
(C)hristopher *SLYE* = (C)hristopher Mar*LEY* ?
-----------------------------------------------------
___ Hero and *LEANDER* by G. Chapman
......................................
And thereof springs the painted *BEAST*,
That EVER since taints EVERy breast.
-------------------------------------------------------
And thereof springs the painted *BEAST*,
That EVER since taints EVERy breast.
http://tinyurl.com/blkdgvv
Start of last 13 couplets of Chapman's _Hero and Leander_
Burst, d{Y}e, bleede,
And leave poor{E} plaints to us that sha(L|L} succeede.
She fell on h(E|R} loves bosome, hugg'd it (F|A}st,
And with *LEANDERS NA{M}E* she breath'd her last.
.......................................
_____ <= 20 =>
.
. B u r s t, d {Y} e, b l e e d e,A n
. d l e a v e p o o r {E} p l a i n t s t o
. u s t h a t s h a (L){L} s u c c e e d e.S
. h e f e l l o n h (E){R} l o v e s b o s o
. m e,h u g g'd i t (F){A} s t,A n d w i t h
.*L E A N D E R S N A {M} E* s h e b r e a t
. h'd h e r l a s t.
.......................................
{MARLEY} -20 : Prob. ~1 in 10,000
. [Skip < 21 near end of either part]
............................................
*L E A N D E R* = Christopher Mar*LEY* ?
-------------------------------------------------------
> The fact that you think that such crackpot
Start of last 13 couplets of Chapman's _Hero and Leander_
Burst, d{Y}e, bleede,
And leave poor{E} plaints to us that sha(L|L} succeede.
She fell on h(E|R} loves bosome, hugg'd it (F|A}st,
And with *LEANDERS NA{M}E* she breath'd her last.
.......................................
_____ <= 20 =>
.
. B u r s t, d {Y} e, b l e e d e,A n
. d l e a v e p o o r {E} p l a i n t s t o
. u s t h a t s h a (L){L} s u c c e e d e.S
. h e f e l l o n h (E){R} l o v e s b o s o
. m e,h u g g'd i t (F){A} s t,A n d w i t h
.*L E A N D E R S N A {M} E* s h e b r e a t
. h'd h e r l a s t.
.......................................
{MARLEY} -20 : Prob. ~1 in 10,000
. [Skip < 21 near end of either part]
............................................
*L E A N D E R* = Christopher Mar*LEY* ?
-------------------------------------------------------
> cryptography constitutes "evidence" of Marlowe's existence -- as
> opposed, say, to historical documents such as records of baptism, his
> enrollment and the payment of his scholarship as a scholar of King's
> School, Canterbury, his Cambridge University records, Kyd's reference to
> him, records of his arrest, the coroner's inquest following the affair
> at Deptford, etc. -- is one of the mainstays of your comedic charm, Art.
I have many charm.
> opposed, say, to historical documents such as records of baptism, his
> enrollment and the payment of his scholarship as a scholar of King's
> School, Canterbury, his Cambridge University records, Kyd's reference to
> him, records of his arrest, the coroner's inquest following the affair
> at Deptford, etc. -- is one of the mainstays of your comedic charm, Art.
> Of course, it is *much* more likely that an entire constellation of
> historical records is merely a collection of Masonic forgeries, while
> crackpot cryptography -- a single short, chance character string in an
> equidistant letter sequence, which in an era of inconsistent orthography
> only an idiot would use to conceal something
------------------------------------------------
> historical records is merely a collection of Masonic forgeries, while
> crackpot cryptography -- a single short, chance character string in an
> equidistant letter sequence, which in an era of inconsistent orthography
> only an idiot would use to conceal something
______ <= 15 =>
__Q V I C K N {A} T V R E D I D E
W H O S E N {A} M E D O T H D E
_-C K Y S T O [M] B E F A R M O R
_ E T H E N C [O] S T S I E H A L
_-L Y T H E H- [A] T H W R I T T L
__E A V E S L_ [I] V I N G A R T B
_ V T P A G E T O S E R V E H I
_ S W I T T
http://mh.cla.umn.edu/ShakTrin.html
--------------------------------------------------
The Secret Word of the Freemasons:
http://www.in5d.com/thoth-viii.html
<<Not to be confused with the password. The Word (always capitalized)
is so secret that initiates are taught it one letter at a time.
First they learn A, then O, then M, and finally I. The Word is
*IAOM* You never get a straight story as to what it means.>>
-------------------------------------------------
___ Twelfe Night, or, What you will.
___ (Folio 1, 1623) Act II, scene V
Maluolio : I may command where I adore,
. but silence like a Lucresse knife:
. With bloodlesse stroke my heart doth gore,
. M.O.A.I. doth sway my life.
Fabian : A fustian riddle.
Sir Toby : Excellent Wench, say I.
Maluolio : M.O.A.I. doth sway my life. Nay
. but first let me see, let me see, let me see.
Fabian : What dish a poyson has she drest him?
Sir Toby : And with what wing the stallion checkes at it?
Maluolio : I may command, where I adore: Why shee may
. command me: I serue her, she is my Ladie. Why this
. is euident to any formall capacitie. There is no
. obstruction in this, and the end: What should that
. Alphabeticall position portend, if I could make
. that resemble something in me? Softly, M.O.A.I.
-----------------------------------------------------
A never writer, to an ever reader. Newes.
Eternal! reader, you have heere a new play, never stal'd with the
stage, never clapper-claw'd with the palmes of the vulger, and yet
passing full of the palme comicall; for it is a birth of your braine,
that never under-tooke any thing commicall, vainely : and were
but the va[I]ne n[A]mes [O]f co[M]medies changde
for the titles of commodities,
or of playes for pleas; you should see all those grand censors, that
now stile them such vanities, flock to them for the maine grace of
their gravities: especially this authors commedies, that are so fram'd
to the life, that they serve for the most common commentaries of all
the actions of our lives, shewing such a dexteritie and power of
witte, that the most displeased with playes, are pleasd with his
commedies. And all such dull and heavywitted worldlings, as were
never capable of the witte of a
com[M]edie, comming by report [O]f them to his
represent[A]tions, have found that w[I]tte there,
that they never found in them-selves, and have parted better-wittied
then they came : feeling an edge of witte set upon them, more then
ever they dreamd they had braine to grind it on.
-----------------------------------------------------
> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> It is *no* use proving that the Shakespeare canon &
>> the Marlowe canon share a common author (or authors)
>> unless you have some evidence that one or the t'other was
>> *anything* more than a pseudonym with a phony back-story.
>>
>> It is *no* use proving that the Shakespeare canon &
>> the Marlowe canon share a common author (or authors)
>> unless you have some evidence that one or the t'other was
>> *anything* more than a pseudonym with a phony back-story.
> Of course it would be of considerable interest if it were shown that
> the Shakespeare canon and the Marlowe works were written by the same
> person, even if that person's identity were uncertain, Art.
> HoweVER, although both literary canons are works of genius,
> they strike me as worlds apart.
Understanding: it strikes a Strat more dead
> the Shakespeare canon and the Marlowe works were written by the same
> person, even if that person's identity were uncertain, Art.
> HoweVER, although both literary canons are works of genius,
> they strike me as worlds apart.
than a great reckoning in a little room.
------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
Apr 24, 2013, 8:58:58 AM4/24/13
to
In article
<81b4f2cc-d6fa-4e24...@t5g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
be denominated Dunce-inane in honor of its most entertaining resident.
> To quote the Phantom:
>
> "I knew that was coming as soon as I read Peter's post."
>
> Heaven forbid that I might get into an actual conversation with
> anyone whom the Goon Squad considers sane. The Goon Squad alarm
> system goes off and they descend like Harpies.
By no means, Art -- the Goon Squad considers me sane, yet you have
held long conVERsations with me without any Goon Squad participation.
Your Petulant Paranoid persona is always amusing.
Incidentally, Art, what makes you think (usual disclaimer) that the
Goon Squad considers Peter sane? While I have opined that he is, you
don't imagine that I speak for the entire Goon Squad, do you, Art?
> Art Neuendorffer
<81b4f2cc-d6fa-4e24...@t5g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Setting aside the issue of usefulness, for Art to make sense is
> > an occurrence of such rarity that one might almost sooner expect
> > to see Birnam Wood advancing upon Dunsinane.
...or upon the latter's District Heights equivalent, which might well
> >
> > Setting aside the issue of usefulness, for Art to make sense is
> > an occurrence of such rarity that one might almost sooner expect
> > to see Birnam Wood advancing upon Dunsinane.
be denominated Dunce-inane in honor of its most entertaining resident.
> To quote the Phantom:
>
> "I knew that was coming as soon as I read Peter's post."
>
> Heaven forbid that I might get into an actual conversation with
> anyone whom the Goon Squad considers sane. The Goon Squad alarm
> system goes off and they descend like Harpies.
held long conVERsations with me without any Goon Squad participation.
Your Petulant Paranoid persona is always amusing.
Incidentally, Art, what makes you think (usual disclaimer) that the
Goon Squad considers Peter sane? While I have opined that he is, you
don't imagine that I speak for the entire Goon Squad, do you, Art?
> Art Neuendorffer
Arthur Neuendorffer
Apr 24, 2013, 11:38:06 AM4/24/13
to
>> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>> Setting aside the issue of usefulness, for Art to make sense is
>>> an occurrence of such rarity that one might almost sooner expect
>>> to see Birnam Wood advancing upon Dunsinane.
>
> ...or upon the latter's District Heights equivalent, which might well
> be denominated Dunce-inane in honor of its most entertaining resident.
Birnam Wood = Walker Mill Regional Park
>
>>> Setting aside the issue of usefulness, for Art to make sense is
>>> an occurrence of such rarity that one might almost sooner expect
>>> to see Birnam Wood advancing upon Dunsinane.
>
> ...or upon the latter's District Heights equivalent, which might well
> be denominated Dunce-inane in honor of its most entertaining resident.
http://www.pgparks.com/Things_To_Do/Nature/Walker_Mill_Regional_Park.htm
<<On September 28, 2008, around 12:00am, Trooper 2 (Eurocopter AS
365N1 Dauphin, N92MD) disappeared from radar and crashed with five
people aboard in Walker Mill Regional Park in Prince George's County.
Out of the five aboard, there were four confirmed fatalities.>>
> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> To quote the Phantom:
>
>> "I knew that was coming as soon as I read Peter's post."
>
>> Heaven forbid that I might get into an actual conversation with
>> anyone whom the Goon Squad considers sane. The Goon Squad alarm
>> system goes off and they descend like Harpies.
"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> By no means, Art -- the Goon Squad considers me sane, yet you have
> held long conVERsations with me without any Goon Squad participation.
You ARE Goon Squad Leader AFAIK.
>
> By no means, Art -- the Goon Squad considers me sane, yet you have
> held long conVERsations with me without any Goon Squad participation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fearless_Leader
"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Incidentally, Art, what makes you think (usual disclaimer) that the
> Goon Squad considers Peter sane? While I have opined that he is, you
> don't imagine that I speak for the entire Goon Squad, do you, Art?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fearless_Leader
Art Neuendorffer
Peter F.
Apr 24, 2013, 12:22:02 PM4/24/13
to
nordicskiv2 wrote:
>
> Incidentally, Art, what makes you think (usual disclaimer)
> that the Goon Squad considers Peter sane? While I have
> opined that he is, you don't imagine that I speak for the
> entire Goon Squad, do you, Art?
Absolutely not! Goon Squad thinking (usual disclaimer) is:
>
> Incidentally, Art, what makes you think (usual disclaimer)
> that the Goon Squad considers Peter sane? While I have
> opined that he is, you don't imagine that I speak for the
> entire Goon Squad, do you, Art?
1) All anti-Stratfordians are insane.
2) Peter Farey is an anti-Stratfordian.
Therefore
3) Peter Farey is insane.
Peter F.
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/>
David L. Webb
Apr 24, 2013, 9:09:14 PM4/24/13
to
In article <09439d06-316f-44dc...@googlegroups.com>,
reason noted below.
is nothing logically wrong with inference, as there is in the case of
much anti-Stratfordian "logic" (see some of Elizabeth's "reasoning", for
instance). However, the truth of the two premises may be justifiably
questioned in this instance.
> Peter F.
> <http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/>
"Peter F." <pet...@rey.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> nordicskiv2 wrote:
> >
> > Incidentally, Art, what makes you think (usual disclaimer)
> > that the Goon Squad considers Peter sane? While I have
> > opined that he is, you don't imagine that I speak for the
> > entire Goon Squad, do you, Art?
>
> Absolutely not! Goon Squad thinking (usual disclaimer) is:
The usual disclaimer isn't really appropriate here, Peter, for a
> nordicskiv2 wrote:
> >
> > Incidentally, Art, what makes you think (usual disclaimer)
> > that the Goon Squad considers Peter sane? While I have
> > opined that he is, you don't imagine that I speak for the
> > entire Goon Squad, do you, Art?
>
> Absolutely not! Goon Squad thinking (usual disclaimer) is:
reason noted below.
>
> 1) All anti-Stratfordians are insane.
> 2) Peter Farey is an anti-Stratfordian.
> Therefore
> 3) Peter Farey is insane.
That's a valid syllogism -- assuming the truth of the premises, there
> 1) All anti-Stratfordians are insane.
> 2) Peter Farey is an anti-Stratfordian.
> Therefore
> 3) Peter Farey is insane.
is nothing logically wrong with inference, as there is in the case of
much anti-Stratfordian "logic" (see some of Elizabeth's "reasoning", for
instance). However, the truth of the two premises may be justifiably
questioned in this instance.
> Peter F.
> <http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/>
David L. Webb
Apr 24, 2013, 9:18:51 PM4/24/13
to
In article
<c8569fa7-519d-48e5...@b2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> > Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> To quote the Phantom:
> >
> >> "I knew that was coming as soon as I read Peter's post."
> >
> >> Heaven forbid that I might get into an actual conversation with
> >> anyone whom the Goon Squad considers sane. The Goon Squad alarm
> >> system goes off and they descend like Harpies.
> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > By no means, Art -- the Goon Squad considers me sane, yet you have
> > held long conVERsations with me without any Goon Squad participation.
> You ARE Goon Squad Leader AFAIK.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fearless_Leader
By no means, Art -- there are many people in h.l.a.s. who know far
more about the subject than I do, and who have refuted anti-Stratfordian
nonsense far more vigorously and effectively than I have. Dave Kathman
and Terry Ross, for example, have done so not only in this newsgroup,
but also in the essays on their excellent web site. Peter Groves is a
professional scholar and knows far about the subject of this newsgroup
than I do, as do many others, including Tom Foster, Dominic Hughes, John
Kennedy, Tom Reedy, Sneaky O. Possum, and others whom I can't think of
offhand. Thus I could not possibly be the leader of the "Goon Squad"
whose existence your Petulant Paranoid persona imagines. HoweVER, it is
remarkable that someone who thinks that _vier_ is Spanish for four, that
Ann Hathaway was Shakespeare's mother, etc. thinks (usual disclaimer)
that it actually takes a "Goon Squad" to refute such utter rubbish.
<c8569fa7-519d-48e5...@b2g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
> >> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>> Setting aside the issue of usefulness, for Art to make sense is
> >>> an occurrence of such rarity that one might almost sooner expect
> >>> to see Birnam Wood advancing upon Dunsinane.
> > ...or upon the latter's District Heights equivalent, which might well
> > be denominated Dunce-inane in honor of its most entertaining resident.
> Birnam Wood = Walker Mill Regional Park
>
> http://www.pgparks.com/Things_To_Do/Nature/Walker_Mill_Regional_Park.htm
>
> <<On September 28, 2008, around 12:00am, Trooper 2 (Eurocopter AS
> 365N1 Dauphin, N92MD) disappeared from radar and crashed with five
> people aboard in Walker Mill Regional Park in Prince George's County.
> Out of the five aboard, there were four confirmed fatalities.>>
Huh?
> >
> >>> Setting aside the issue of usefulness, for Art to make sense is
> >>> an occurrence of such rarity that one might almost sooner expect
> >>> to see Birnam Wood advancing upon Dunsinane.
> > ...or upon the latter's District Heights equivalent, which might well
> > be denominated Dunce-inane in honor of its most entertaining resident.
> Birnam Wood = Walker Mill Regional Park
>
> http://www.pgparks.com/Things_To_Do/Nature/Walker_Mill_Regional_Park.htm
>
> <<On September 28, 2008, around 12:00am, Trooper 2 (Eurocopter AS
> 365N1 Dauphin, N92MD) disappeared from radar and crashed with five
> people aboard in Walker Mill Regional Park in Prince George's County.
> Out of the five aboard, there were four confirmed fatalities.>>
> > Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> To quote the Phantom:
> >
> >> "I knew that was coming as soon as I read Peter's post."
> >
> >> Heaven forbid that I might get into an actual conversation with
> >> anyone whom the Goon Squad considers sane. The Goon Squad alarm
> >> system goes off and they descend like Harpies.
> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > By no means, Art -- the Goon Squad considers me sane, yet you have
> > held long conVERsations with me without any Goon Squad participation.
> You ARE Goon Squad Leader AFAIK.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fearless_Leader
more about the subject than I do, and who have refuted anti-Stratfordian
nonsense far more vigorously and effectively than I have. Dave Kathman
and Terry Ross, for example, have done so not only in this newsgroup,
but also in the essays on their excellent web site. Peter Groves is a
professional scholar and knows far about the subject of this newsgroup
than I do, as do many others, including Tom Foster, Dominic Hughes, John
Kennedy, Tom Reedy, Sneaky O. Possum, and others whom I can't think of
offhand. Thus I could not possibly be the leader of the "Goon Squad"
whose existence your Petulant Paranoid persona imagines. HoweVER, it is
remarkable that someone who thinks that _vier_ is Spanish for four, that
Ann Hathaway was Shakespeare's mother, etc. thinks (usual disclaimer)
that it actually takes a "Goon Squad" to refute such utter rubbish.
Arthur Neuendorffer
Apr 24, 2013, 10:47:55 PM4/24/13
to
>>> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> To quote the Phantom:
>
>>>> "I knew that was coming as soon as I read Peter's post."
>
>>>> Heaven forbid that I might get into an actual conversation with
>>>> anyone whom the Goon Squad considers sane. The Goon Squad alarm
>>>> system goes off and they descend like Harpies.
>> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>> By no means, Art -- the Goon Squad considers me sane, yet you have
>>> held long conVERsations with me without any Goon Squad participation.
>
>>>> To quote the Phantom:
>
>>>> "I knew that was coming as soon as I read Peter's post."
>
>>>> Heaven forbid that I might get into an actual conversation with
>>>> anyone whom the Goon Squad considers sane. The Goon Squad alarm
>>>> system goes off and they descend like Harpies.
>> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>> By no means, Art -- the Goon Squad considers me sane, yet you have
>>> held long conVERsations with me without any Goon Squad participation.
> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> You ARE Goon Squad Leader AFAIK.
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fearless_Leader
>>
>> You ARE Goon Squad Leader AFAIK.
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fearless_Leader
"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> By no means, Art -- there are many people in h.l.a.s.
> who know far more about the subject than I do,
Of course we do;
>
> By no means, Art -- there are many people in h.l.a.s.
> who know far more about the subject than I do,
but this is about the abuse of ad hominems.
"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Dave Kathman and Terry Ross,
> for example, have done so not only in this newsgroup,
> but also in the essays on their excellent web site.
"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Peter Groves is a professional scholar
> and knows far about the subject of this
> newsgroup than I do, as do many others,
but this is about the abuse of ad hominems.
"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Thus I could not possibly be the leader of the "Goon Squad"
------------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fearless_Leader
Fearless Leader is the dictator of {POTTS}ylvania.
------------------------------------------------------------
* {P}assions of Juliet, and her Romeo ;
* {O}r till I heare a Scene more nobly take,
* {T}hen when thy half-Sword parlying Romans spake.
* {T}ill these, till any of thy Volumes rest
* {S}hall with more fire, more feeling be exprest,
Shall with more fire, more feeling be exprest,
Be sure, our Shake-speare, thou canst never dye,
But crown'd with Lawrell, live eternally.
-- L. Digges. (1623)
--------------------------------------------------
http://www.sirbacon.org/links/pott.html
................................................
Constance [POTT]: b. January 22, 1862, Wednesday - d. 1957
-- Francis Bacon: b. January 22, 1561, Wednesday
*************** January 22, 1607*********
"Love Labour's Lost" & "Romeo & Juliet" registered.
--------------------------------------------------------
Francis Bacon and his secret society.
By Mrs. Henry [POTT]
.
It was Bacon who designed the exquisite machinery or
" engine " which still exists for the reception, arrangement,
digestion, and wide-spread distribution of knowledge. It was
he who, finding the new truth in vain trying to struggle up in a
thankless soil, and the learning of the ancients smothered and
buried in the dust of oblivion, set himself the task of raking
and digging up and setting it forth again, polished and glorified
with all the lustre of his radiant mind. The organisation or
" method of transmission " which he established was such as to
ensure that never again, so long as the world endured, should
the lamp of tradition, the light of truth, be darkened or extin-
guished ; but that, continually trimmed and replenished with
the oil of learning, it should be kept alight, a little candle
in a dark place, or a *BEACON* set on a hill, burning with
undimmed and perpetual brightness.
--------------------------------------------------
Jonson's Epigram's 107 : To Captain Hungry.
DO what you come for, Ca{P}tain, with y{O}ur Ne[W]s;
Tha{T}'s, sit, [A]nd ea{T} : do no[T] my Ears abu[S]e.
I oft look [O]n false Coi[N], to know't from true:
Not that I it, more, than I will you.
................................................
___ <= 10 =>
. D O w h a t y o u c
. o m e f o r,C a {P} t
. a i n, w i t h y {O} u
. r N e [W] s;T h a {T} s,
. s i t,[A] n d e a {T} d
. o n o [T] m y E a r s
. a b u [S] e.I o f t l
. o o k [O] n f a l s e
. C o i [N],t o k n o w
. t f r o m t r u e:
[WATSON] 10 : Prob. ~ 1 in 4800
[POTT] 10
................................................
Tell the gross Dutch tho(S)e grosser Tales (O)f yours,
How grea(T) you were with th(E)ir two Emperour(S);
And yet are with (T)heir Princes: Fill them full
Of your Moravian Horse, Venetian Bull.
................................................
___ <= 14 =>
. T e l l t h e g r o s s D u
. t c h t h o (S) e g r o s s e
. r T a l e s (O) f y o u r s,H
. o w g r e a (T) y o u w e r e
. w i t h t h (E) i r t w o E m
. p e r o u r (S);A n d y e t a
. r e w i t h (T) h e i r P r i
. n c e s:F i l l t h e m f u l l
Tell them, what parts you've tane, whence run away,
What States you've gull'd, and which yet keeps yo'in pay.
Give them your Services, and Embassies
In Ireland, Holland, Sweden; pompous lies
In Hungary, and Poland, Turky too;
What at Ligorn, Rome, Florence you did do:
And, in some Year, all these together heap'd,
For which there must more Sea, and Land be leap'd,
If but to be believ'd you have the hap,
Then can a Flea at twice skip i'th' Map.
Give your young States-men, (that first make you drunk,
And then lye with you, closer, than a Punk,
For news) your Ville-royes, and Silleries,
Ianin's, your Nuncio's, and your Tuilleries,
Your Arch-Dukes Agents, and your Beringhams,
That are your words of credit. Keep your Names
Of Hannow, Shieter-huissen, Popenheim,
Hans-spiegle, Rotteinberg, and Boutersheim,
For your next Meal; this you are sure of. Why
Will you part with them, here, unthriftily?
Nay, now you puff, tusk, and draw up your Chin,
Twirl the poor *Chain* you run a feasting in.
Come, be not angry, you are Hungry; eat;
Do what you come for, Captain, There's your Meat.
-----------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
Apr 25, 2013, 9:03:02 AM4/25/13
to
In article
<c6fb166a-ab66-4004...@j20g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
thinks (usual disclaimer) that Ann Hathaway was Shakespeare's mother,
that Virgil predated Herodotus, that _vier_ is Spanish for "four", that
_doi_ as Polish for "two" (you have a VERy odd problem with small
cardinal numbers in foreign tongues, Art), that the phrase "De Vere
nimbus it [sic]" (or "Mente videbori [sic]", for that matter) makes any
sense in Latin, that "moniment" meant "laughingstock" in the early
1600s, that Aleksandr Nevskii was tsar, that _turk_ is "Celtic [sic]"
for "ox" (or indeed that there *is* a such a language as "Celtic", for
that matter), that _omspit_ is Danish for "to dig up" (or that a word
ending in "-it" could even be a Danish infinitive *at all*), that there
can be only one person named Peter Gay, that _t�rin_ is Russian for
"youth" (or indeed that it is a Russian word *at all*), that
Wordsworth's "The Idiot Boy" was written by Coleridge (h.l.a.s.'s own
Idiot Boy had to be corrected multiple times on that point before it
finally sank in -- if indeed it eVER did), that Shakespeare was
illiterate, and countless other gaffes betraying abysmal ignorance of
the material being discussed.
I haven't given up on his education, of course.
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
> Art Neuendorffer
<c6fb166a-ab66-4004...@j20g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
> >>> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>> To quote the Phantom:
> >
> >>>> "I knew that was coming as soon as I read Peter's post."
> >
> >>>> Heaven forbid that I might get into an actual conversation with
> >>>> anyone whom the Goon Squad considers sane. The Goon Squad alarm
> >>>> system goes off and they descend like Harpies.
> >> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>> By no means, Art -- the Goon Squad considers me sane, yet you have
> >>> held long conVERsations with me without any Goon Squad participation.
> > Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> You ARE Goon Squad Leader AFAIK.
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fearless_Leader
> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > By no means, Art -- there are many people in h.l.a.s.
> > who know far more about the subject than I do,
> Of course we do;
I regret that it is impossible to include in that number someone who
> >
> >>>> To quote the Phantom:
> >
> >>>> "I knew that was coming as soon as I read Peter's post."
> >
> >>>> Heaven forbid that I might get into an actual conversation with
> >>>> anyone whom the Goon Squad considers sane. The Goon Squad alarm
> >>>> system goes off and they descend like Harpies.
> >> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>> By no means, Art -- the Goon Squad considers me sane, yet you have
> >>> held long conVERsations with me without any Goon Squad participation.
> > Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> You ARE Goon Squad Leader AFAIK.
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fearless_Leader
> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > By no means, Art -- there are many people in h.l.a.s.
> > who know far more about the subject than I do,
> Of course we do;
thinks (usual disclaimer) that Ann Hathaway was Shakespeare's mother,
that Virgil predated Herodotus, that _vier_ is Spanish for "four", that
_doi_ as Polish for "two" (you have a VERy odd problem with small
cardinal numbers in foreign tongues, Art), that the phrase "De Vere
nimbus it [sic]" (or "Mente videbori [sic]", for that matter) makes any
sense in Latin, that "moniment" meant "laughingstock" in the early
1600s, that Aleksandr Nevskii was tsar, that _turk_ is "Celtic [sic]"
for "ox" (or indeed that there *is* a such a language as "Celtic", for
that matter), that _omspit_ is Danish for "to dig up" (or that a word
ending in "-it" could even be a Danish infinitive *at all*), that there
can be only one person named Peter Gay, that _t�rin_ is Russian for
"youth" (or indeed that it is a Russian word *at all*), that
Wordsworth's "The Idiot Boy" was written by Coleridge (h.l.a.s.'s own
Idiot Boy had to be corrected multiple times on that point before it
finally sank in -- if indeed it eVER did), that Shakespeare was
illiterate, and countless other gaffes betraying abysmal ignorance of
the material being discussed.
I haven't given up on his education, of course.
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
> Art Neuendorffer
0 new messages