8000
Art Neuendorffer
6530 p...@erols.com
4427 bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net
3175 vol...@erols.com
3132 elizabeth_w...@mail.com
2932 jwke...@attglobal.net
2923 kqkn...@aol.comspamslam
2792 BobGrum...@Nut-N-But.Net
2717 even...@megsinet.net
2542 david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu
Greg Reynolds
I demand a recount.
Please repost your own 8,000 and Volker's 3,175 for verification.
Art Neuendorffer
> > 8000 aneuendorffer114...@comcast.net
> > 6530 p...@erols.com
> > 4427 bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net
> > 3175 vol...@erols.com
> > 3132 elizabeth_w...@mail.com
> > 2932 jwke...@attglobal.net
> > 2923 kqkn...@aol.comspamslam
> > 2792 BobGrum...@Nut-N-But.Net
> > 2717 even...@megsinet.net
> > 2542 david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu
Greg Reynolds wrote:
> I demand a recount.
> Please repost your own 8,000 and Volker's 3,175 for verification.
I clearly won; I'm master of the HLAS domain!
Art N.
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
But Art -- practically all you do is bait all and sundry. If you
wish to claim the title that denotes mastery of that pursuit, by all
means go ahead.
Is there any chance of ph...@errors.comedy eVER oVERtaking
aneuendor...@comicass.nut?
> Art N.
Gary Kosinsky
<aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote:
I think we better wait for the results of the urine test.
There's no way someone makes 8000 posts unaided by something or other!
- Gary Kosinsky
Art Neuendorffer
> >
> > > > 8000 aneuendorffer114...@comcast.net
> > > > 6530 p...@erols.com
> > > > 4427 bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net
> > > > 3175 vol...@erols.com
> > > > 3132 elizabeth_w...@mail.com
> > > > 2932 jwke...@attglobal.net
> > > > 2923 kqkn...@aol.comspamslam
> > > > 2792 BobGrum...@Nut-N-But.Net
> > > > 2717 even...@megsinet.net
> > > > 2542 david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu
>
> > Greg Reynolds wrote:
> >
> > > I demand a recount.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > I clearly won; I'm master of the HLAS domain!
David L. Webb wrote:
> But Art -- practically all you do is BAIT all and SUNDRY.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark Act 2, Scene 1
LORD POLONIUS
Your [BAIT] of falsehood takes this carp of *TRUTH*
And thus do we of wisdom and of reach,
With windlasses and with assays of bias,
By indirections find directions out:
-------------------------------------------------
SUNDRY : VERSCHIEDENE (German)
SUNDRY : DIVERSE UDGIFTER (Danish)
SUNDRY : DIVERSE (Danish)
SUNDRY : DIVERSI (Italian)
SUNDRY : DIVERS (French)
Hebrews 1:1 God, who at *SUNDRY* times & in DIVERS MANNERS
spake in *TIME PAST* unto the fathers by the prophets,
-------------------------------------------------
_________ *TIME is PAST*
-------------------------------------------------
<http://www.magicdragon.com/UltimateSF/timeline16.html>
<<Robert Greene's "Friar Bacon & Friar Bungay" (1594) was a play
believed to be derived from the prose pamphlet "The Famous History of
Friar Bacon", and probably inspired by Marlowe's play "Faust" which hit
the stage a year earlier (1593). It tells the science-fictional story
of how Friar Bacon, and his adept-sidekick Bungay, constructed by
magical means a BRASS head.
Bacon summons the Devil, who says that the head will speak within a
month. Bacon is exhausted from waiting and watching for three weeks, so
he leaves his servant Mickey Mouse -- whoops, no, that's "Fantasia" --
I mean Miles to watch for him. The head finally speaks two words: "Time
is." Miles doesn't think it's worth waking Friar Bacon. The head speaks
again: "Time was." Then it concludes " Time is [PAST]," falls, and
breaks. Bacon awakes too late, and berates Miles. >>
----------------------------------------------
[SAND] : [TRUE] (O.H.G./Danish)
----------------------------------------------
Sonnet 75
So are you to my thoughts as food to life,
Or as sweet season'd shewers are to the ground;
And for the peace of you I hold such strife,
[AS] twixt a miser and his wealth is found.
[N]ow proud as an inioyer,and anon
[D]oubting the filching age will steale his treasure,
Now counting best to be with you alone,
[T]hen betterd that the world may see my pleasure,
[S]ome-time all ful with feasting on your sight,
[A]nd by and by cleane starued for a looke,
[P]ossessing or pursuing no delight
Saue what is had,or must from you be tooke.
Thus do I pine and surfet day by day,
Or gluttoning on all,or all away,
-----------------------------------------------------------
"with *SUNDRY* others"
-----------------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW 27:18 . . . for *ENVY* they had DEliVEREd him.
PEACHam: <<*Edward, Earl of Oxford* , the Lord Buckhurst,
Henry Lord Paget; our Phoenix, the noble Sir Philip Sidney,
M. Edward Dyer, M. Edmund *Spencer* , M. Samuel Daniel,
with *SUNDRY* others; whom, not out of *ENVY* >>
----------------------------------------------------------
To draw no *ENVY* (Shakespeare) on thy name,
Am I thus ample to thy Booke, and Fame;
While I confesse thy writings to be such,
As neither Man, nor Muse, can praise too much.
'Tis TRUE, and all men's suffrage. But these wayes
Were not the paths I meant unto thy praise;
For seeliest Ignorance on these may light,
Which, when it sounds at best, but ECCHO's [E.C.O.'s] right;
Or blinde Affection, which doth ne're advance
The *TRUTH*, but gropes, and urgeth all by chance;
Or crafty Malice, might pretend this praise,
And thine to ruine, where it seem'd to raise.
These are, as some infamous Baud, or Whore,
Should praise a Matron. What could hurt her more?
[B]ut thou art proofe against them, and indeed
[A]bove th' ill fortune of them, or the need.
[I], therefore will begin. Soule of the Age !
[T]he applause ! delight ! the wonder of our Stage !
[M]y Shakespeare, rise; I will not lodge thee by
[C]haucer, or Spenser, or bid Beaumont lye
---------------------------------------------------------------
a n(EVER) writer to an EVER reader NEWES:
--------------------------------------------------------------
[King Richard the Second (Quarto) 5.6]`
North. First to thy sacred state WISH I ALL HAPPINESSE,
The next NEWES is, I haue to London sent
The heades of OXFORD, Salisbury, Blunt and Kent,
------------------------------------------------------------
[9th Earl of] OXFORD's head was replaced
by SPENCER's head in the Richard II Folio:
------------------------------------------------------------
[King Richard the Second (Folio) 5.6]
Nor. First to thy Sacred State, WISH I ALL HAPPINESSE:
The next NEWES is, I haue to London sent
The heads of Salsbury, SPENCER, Blunt, and Kent:
[King Richard the Second (Folio) 4.1]
KING RICHARD II: MARK'D WITH A BLOT, damn'd in the Booke of Heauen.
Nay, all of you, that stand and looke vpon me,
Whil'st that my wretchednesse doth [BAIT] my selfe,
Though some of you, with PILATE, WASH your hands,
Shewing an outward pittie: yet you PILATES
Haue here DEliUER'd me to my sowre Crosse,
And Water cannot wash away your sinne.
North. My Lord dispatch, reade o're these Articles.
Rich. Mine Eyes are full of Teares, I cannot see:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
*BAIT*, v. t. [OE. BAITen, beit?n, to feed, harass, fr. Icel.
beita, orig. to cause to bite, fr. b[=i]ta.] 1. To provoke
and harass; esp., to harass or torment for sport; as,
to BAIT a bear with dogs; to BAIT a bull.
2. To give a portion of food and drink to, upon the road;
as, to BAIT horses. --Holland.
3. To furnish or cover with BAIT, as a trap or hook.
A crooked pin . . . BAITed with a vile earthworm. --W. Irving.
BAIT, n. [Icel. beita food, beit pasture, akin to AS. b[=a]t food,
Sw. bete.] 1. Any substance, esp. food, used in catching fish, or
other animals, by alluring them to a hook, snare, inclosure, or net.
2. Anything which allures; a lure; enticement; temptation. --Fairfax.
3. A portion of food or drink, as a refreshment taken on a journey;
also, a stop for rest and refreshment.
4. A light or hasty luncheon.
BAIT, v. i. To stop to take a portion of food and drink
for refreshment of one's self or one's beasts, on a journey.
Evil news rides post, while good news BAITs. --Milton.
BAIT, v. i. [F. battre de l'aile (or des ailes), to flap or flutter.
See {Batter}] To flap the wings; to flutter as if to fly;
or to hover, as a hawk when she stoops to her prey
. ``Kites that BAIT and beat.'' --Shak.
----------------------------------------------------------
THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY. VOL. II.--AUGUST, 1858.--NO. X.
DAPHNAIDES: OR THE ENGLISH LAUREL, FROM CHAUCER TO TENNYSON.
<<William Davenant was in all likelihood the son of an innkeeper
at Oxford; he was certainly the son of the innkeeper's wife.
A rumor, which Davenant always countenanced, alleged that
William Shakspeare, a poet of some considerable repute in those times,
being in the habit of passing between Stratford-on-the-Avon and
London, was wont to [BAIT] and often lodge at this Oxford hostelry.
At one of these calls the landlady proved more than ordinarily frail
or the poet more than ordinarily seductive,--who can wonder at even
virtue stooping to folly when the wooer was the Swan of Avon, beside
whom the bird that captivated Leda was as a featherless gosling?--and
the consequence had been Will Davenant, born in the year of our Lord
1605, Shakspeare standing as godfather at the baptism. A boy of lively
parts was Will, and good-fortune brought those parts to the notice of
the grave and philosophic Greville, Lord Brooke, whose dearest boast
was the friendship in early life of Sir Philip Sidney. The result of
this notice was a highly creditable education at school and
university, and an ultimate introduction into the foremost society of
the capital. Davenant, finding the drama supreme in fashionable
regard, devoted himself to the drama. He also devoted himself to the
cultivation of Ben Jonson, then at the summit of renown, assisting in
an amateur way in the preparation of the court pageants,
and otherwise mitigating the Laureate's labors.
-----------------------------------------------
Come, SLEEP: O SLEEP! the certain knot of peace,
The [BAIT]ING place of wit, the BALM of woe,
The poor man's wealth, the prisoner's release,
The indifferent judge between the high and low.
--Philip Sidney (1554-1586)
SLEEP that knits up the ravelled sleave of care,
The death of each day's life, sore labour's bath,
BALM of hurt minds, great Nature's second course,
Chief nourisher in life's feast. -- _Macbeth_
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wenceslaus Hollar (of PRAGUE)'s "Long View of London" shows
the south-bank playhouses but switches the labels on the Globe and
the 'beere bayting h[ouse]' (i.e., the Beargarden, previously the
Hope).
----------------------------------------------------------------
CLIFFORD: Are these thy bears? we'll [BAIT] thy bears to death.
And manacle the bear-ward in their chains,
If thou darest bring them to the [BAIT]ing place.
--------------------------------------------------------------
King Henry IV, Part ii Act 3, Scene 2
FALSTAFF if the young dace be a [BAIT] for the old pike,
I see no reason in the law of nature but I
may snap at him. Let time SHAPE, and there an end.
--------------------------------------------------------
Romeo and Juliet Act 2, Prologue
Chorus: Now Romeo is beloved and loves again,
Alike betwitched by the charm of looks,
But to his foe supposed he must complain,
And she steal love's sweet [BAIT] from fearful hooks:
-----------------------------------------------------------
King Henry VI, Part ii Act 5, Scene 1
CLIFFORD Are these thy bears? we'll [BAIT] thy bears to death.
And manacle the bear-ward in their chains,
If thou darest bring them to the [BAIT]ing place.
-----------------------------------------------------------
King Richard II Act 4, Scene 1
KING RICHARD II:
Nay, all of you that stand and look upon,
Whilst that my wretchedness doth [BAIT] myself,
Though some of you with Pilate wash your hands
Showing an outward pity; yet you Pilates
Have here deliver'd me to my sour cross,
And water cannot wash away your sin.
------------------------------------------------------------
King Henry IV, Part ii Act 3, Scene 2
FALSTAFF: if the young dace be a [BAIT] for the
old pike, I see no reason in the law of nature but I
may snap at him. Let time shape, and there an end.
------------------------------------------------------------
The Comedy of Errors Act 2, Scene 1
ADRIANA If voluble and sharp discourse be marr'd,
Unkindness blunts it more than marble hard:
Do their gay vestments his affections [BAIT]?
-----------------------------------------------------
A Midsummer Night's Dream Act 3, Scene 2
HELENA Injurious Hermia! most ungrateful maid!
Have you conspired, have you with these contrived
To [BAIT] me with this foul derision?
--------------------------------------------------------
The Merchant of Venice Act 1, Scene 1
GRATIANO: Let me play the fool:
With mirth and laughter let old wrinkles come,
And let my liver rather heat with wine
Than my heart cool with mortifying groans.
Why should a man, whose blood is warm within,
Sit like his grandsire cut in alabaster?
I'll tell thee more of this another time:
But fish not, with this melancholy [BAIT],
For this fool gudgeon, this opinion.
Act 3, Scene 1
SHYLOCK: To [BAIT] fish withal:
if it will feed nothing else, it will feed my revenge.
----------------------------------------------------------
Much Ado About Nothing Act 2, Scene 3
CLAUDIO: [BAIT] the hook well; this fish will bite.
Act 3, Scene 1
URSULA The pleasant'st angling is to see the fish
Cut with her golden oars the silver stream,
And greedily devour the treacherous [BAIT]:
So angle we for Beatrice; who even now
Is couched in the woodbine coverture.
Fear you not my part of the dialogue.
HERO Then go we near her, that her ear lose nothing
Of the false sweet [BAIT] that we lay for it.
----------------------------------------------------------
Troilus and Cressida Act 5, Scene 8
ACHILLES The dragon wing of night o'erspreads the earth,
And, stickler-like, the armies separates.
My half-supp'd sword, that frankly would have fed,
Pleased with this dainty [BAIT], thus goes to bed.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Measure for Measure Act 2, Scene 2
ANGELO What is't I dream on?
O cunning enemy, that, to catch a saint,
With saints dost [BAIT] thy hook!
---------------------------------------------------
Cymbeline Act 3, Scene 4
IMOGEN All good seeming,
By thy revolt, O husband, shall be thought
Put on for villany; not born where't grows,
But worn a [BAIT] for ladies.
------------------------------------------------------
Titus Andronicus Act 4, Scene 4
TAMORA: I will enchant the old Andronicus
With words more sweet, and yet more dangerous,
Than [BAIT]s to fish, or honey-stalks to sheep,
When as the one is wounded with the [BAIT],
The other rotted with delicious feed.
--------------------------------------------------------
Sonnet 129
Enjoy'd no sooner but despised straight,
Past reason hunted, and no sooner had
Past reason hated, as a swallow'd [BAIT]
On purpose laid to make the taker mad;
------------------------------------------------------
The Passionate Pilgrim Sonnet 4
But whether unripe years did want conceit,
Or he refused to take her figured proffer,
The tender nibbler would not touch the [BAIT],
But smile and jest at every gentle offer:
----------------------------------------------------
David L. Webb wrote:
> If you wish to claim the title that
> denotes mastery of that pursuit, by all
> means go ahead.
>
> Is there any chance of ph...@errors.comedy eVER
> oVERtaking aneuendor...@comicass.nut?
No!!! That loser thinks that Sonnet 20 is addressed to Dupy.
Art Neuendorffer
Mousie
For the longest time, before I met him, I thought Art must be a firm.
And please don't ask: "A firm what?"
L.
>
>
> - Gary Kosinsky
Art Neuendorffer
> For the longest time, before I met him, I thought Art must be a firm.
> And please don't ask: "A firm what?"
------------------------------------------------
Measure for Measure Act 5, Scene 1
ANGELO: her wits, I fear me, are not FIRM:
------------------------------------------------
King Lear Act 1, Scene 1
KING LEAR: I am FIRM.
------------------------------------------------
King Henry V Act 4, Scene 3
EXETER: For thou Art framed of the FIRM TRUTH...
------------------------------------------------
King Henry IV, Part ii Act 4, Scene 5
KING HENRY IV: Thou Art not FIRM enough,
since griefs are GREEN;
----------------------------------------------
Thou Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
> > > > Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> > >
> > > > > 8000 aneuendorffer114...@comcast.net
> > > > > 6530 p...@erols.com
> > > > > 4427 bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net
> > > > > 3175 vol...@erols.com
> > > > > 3132 elizabeth_w...@mail.com
> > > > > 2932 jwke...@attglobal.net
> > > > > 2923 kqkn...@aol.comspamslam
> > > > > 2792 BobGrum...@Nut-N-But.Net
> > > > > 2717 even...@megsinet.net
> > > > > 2542 david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu
> > > Greg Reynolds wrote:
> > >
> > > > I demand a recount.
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > > I clearly won; I'm master of the HLAS domain!
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > But Art -- practically all you do is BAIT all and SUNDRY.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Hamlet, Prince of Denmark Act 2, Scene 1
>
> LORD POLONIUS
> Your [BAIT] of falsehood takes this carp of *TRUTH*
[...]
> [B]ut thou art proofe against them, and indeed
> [A]bove th' ill fortune of them, or the need.
> [I], therefore will begin. Soule of the Age !
> [T]he applause ! delight ! the wonder of our Stage !
Excellent, Art!
[...]
> KING RICHARD II: MARK'D WITH A BLOT, damn'd in the Booke of Heauen.
> Nay, all of you, that stand and looke vpon me,
> Whil'st that my wretchednesse doth [BAIT] my selfe,
[...]
[...]
> Come, SLEEP: O SLEEP! the certain knot of peace,
> The [BAIT]ING place of wit, the BALM of woe,
> The poor man's wealth, the prisoner's release,
> The indifferent judge between the high and low.
> --Philip Sidney (1554-1586)
[...]
[...]
I give up, Art -- in light of the avalanche of material above, I
concede that you are indeed the peerless Master Baiter of h.l.a.s.
> > Is there any chance of ph...@errors.comedy eVER
> > oVERtaking aneuendor...@comicass.nut?
> No!!! That loser thinks that Sonnet 20 is addressed to Dupy.
Evidently you still have not figured out what "dupy" means in Polish,
Art.
> Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
> > > >
>>>> > > 8000 aneuendorffer114...@comcast.net
>>>> > > 6530 p...@erols.com
>>>> > > 4427 bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net
>>>> > > 3175 vol...@erols.com
>>>> > > 3132 elizabeth_w...@mail.com
>>>> > > 2932 jwke...@attglobal.net
>>>> > > 2923 kqkn...@aol.comspamslam
>>>> > > 2792 BobGrum...@Nut-N-But.Net
>>>> > > 2717 even...@megsinet.net
>>>> > > 2542 david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu
>
> > > > Greg Reynolds wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I demand a recount.
>
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
> > > > I clearly won; I'm master of the HLAS domain!
>
> > David L. Webb wrote:
> >
> > > But Art -- practically all you do is BAIT all and SUNDRY.
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > Hamlet, Prince of Denmark Act 2, Scene 1
> >
> > LORD POLONIUS
> > Your [BAIT] of falsehood takes this carp of *TRUTH*
> > [B]ut thou art proofe against them, and indeed
> > [A]bove th' ill fortune of them, or the need.
> > [I], therefore will begin. Soule of the Age !
> > [T]he applause ! delight ! the wonder of our Stage !
David L. Webb wrote:
> Excellent, Art!
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > ---------------------------------------------------
> > The Passionate Pilgrim Sonnet 4
> >
> > The tender nibbler would not touch the [BAIT],
> > But smile and jest at EVERy gentle offer:
David L. Webb wrote:
> I give up, Art -- in light of the avalanche of material above, I
> concede that you are indeed the peerless Master Baiter of h.l.a.s.
But I won a contest!
>>> Is there any chance of ph...@errors.comedy eVER
>>> oVERtaking aneuendor...@comicass.nut?
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > No!!! That loser thinks that Sonnet 20 is addressed to Dupy.
David L. Webb wrote:
> Evidently you still have not figured out what "dupy" means in Polish,
I wouldn't click on those sites with a 10 foot mouse.
(Nothing personal...Lynne barely comes to my pupik.)
Art
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
[...'
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > > ---------------------------------------------------
> > > The Passionate Pilgrim Sonnet 4
> > >
> > > The tender nibbler would not touch the [BAIT],
> > > But smile and jest at EVERy gentle offer:
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > I give up, Art -- in light of the avalanche of material above, I
> > concede that you are indeed the peerless Master Baiter of h.l.a.s.
> But I won a contest!
You mean, you outdid ph...@errors.comedy? That's not much of a
distinction.
> >>> Is there any chance of ph...@errors.comedy eVER
> >>> oVERtaking aneuendor...@comicass.nut?
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > > No!!! That loser thinks that Sonnet 20 is addressed to Dupy.
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > Evidently you still have not figured out what "dupy" means in Polish,
> I wouldn't click on those sites with a 10 foot mouse.
> (Nothing personal...Lynne barely comes to my pupik.)
Try a Polish dictionary -- you do know what a dictionary is, don't
you, Art? (Hint: The nominative case is "dupa.")
Incidentally, Art, this is off-topic, but it will interest you:
<http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/misc/newsid_4344000/4344324.stm>.
> Art
Art Neuendorffer
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > But I won a contest!
David L. Webb wrote:
> You mean, you outdid ph...@errors.comedy?
Get Greg to explain it to you.
> > >>> Is there any chance of ph...@errors.comedy eVER
> > >>> oVERtaking aneuendor...@comicass.nut?
>
>>> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
>>>> No!!! That loser thinks that Sonnet 20 is addressed to Dupy.
>
>> David L. Webb wrote:
>>
>>> Evidently you still have not figured out what "dupy" means in Polish,
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > I wouldn't click on those sites with a 10 foot mouse.
> > (Nothing personal...Lynne barely comes to my pupik.)
David L. Webb wrote:
> Try a Polish dictionary -- you do
> know what a dictionary is, don't you, Art?
Doesn't it have something to do with WEBSTER:
------------------------------------------------
The Duchess of Malfi. Act V Scene II
John WEBSTER (1580?-1634).
[Enter] PESCARA and DOCTOR 1
PES. Pray thee, what 's his disease?
DOC. A VERy pestilent disease, my lord,
They call lycanthropia.
PES. What 's that?
I need a dictionary to 't.
DOC. I 'll tell you.
In those that are possess'd with 't there O'ERFLOWS
Such melancholy humour they imagine
Themselves to be transformed into wolves;
Steal FORTH to church-yards in the dead of night,
And dig dead bodies up: as two nights since
One met the duke 'bout midnight in a lane
Behind Saint Mark's church, with the leg of a man
Upon his shoulder; and he howl'd fearfully;
Said he was a wolf, only the difference
Was, a wolf's skin was hairy on the outside,
His on the inside; bade them take their swords,
Rip up his flesh, and try. Straight I was sent for,
And, having minister'd to him, found his grace
VERy well REcoVER'D.
------------------------------------------------
_ David Copperfield_
..................................................
Somebody Turns Up
This veneration Mr. Dick extended to the Doctor, whom he thought the
most subtle and accomplished philosopher of any age. It was long before
Mr. Dick EVER spoke to him otherwise than bareheaded; and even when he
and the Doctor had struck up quite a friendship, and would walk
together by the hour, on that side of the courtyard which was known
among us as The Doctor's Walk, Mr. Dick would pull off his hat at
intervals to show his respect for wisdom and knowledge. How it EVER
came about, that the Doctor began to read out scraps of the famous
Dictionary, in these walks, I never knew; perhaps he felt it all the
same, at first, as reading to himself. However, it passed into a custom
too; and Mr. Dick, listening with a face shining with pride and
pleasure, in his heart of hearts believed the Dictionary to be the most
delightful book in the world.
As I think of them going up and down before those schoolroom
windows-the Doctor reading with his complacent smile, an occasional
flourish of the manuscript, or grave motion of his head; and Mr. Dick
listening, enchained by interest, with his poor wits calmly wandering
God knows where, upon the wings of hard words-I think of it as one of
the pleasantest things, in a quiet way, that I have EVER seen.
------------------------------------------------
"I looked up fubar in the German dictionary
and there's no fubar in here" - _Saving Private Ryan_
------------------------------------------------
"You could've learned it. You learned the entire
Klingon dictionary in two and a half weeks"
- _Buffy the Vampire Slayer_
------------------------------------------------
David L. Webb wrote:
> (Hint: The nominative case is "dupa.")
Bugger!
------------------------------------------------
_ David Copperfield_
.................................................
Mr. Dick Fulfils My Aunt's Predictions
"Take your Dictionary, for example. What a useful work a Dictionary
is! What a necessary work! The meanings of words! Without Doctor
Johnson, or somebody of that sort, we might have been at this present
moment calling an Italianiron a bedstead. But we can't expect a
Dictionary-especially when it's making-to interest Annie, can
we?"
..................................................
A Last Retrospect
And LO, the Doctor, always our good friend, labouring at his
Dictionary (somewhere about the letter D), and happy in his home and
wife. Also the Old Soldier, on a considererably reduced footing, and by
no means so influential as in days of yore!
Working at his chambers in the Temple, with a busy aspect, and his
hair (where he is not bald) made more rebellious than ever by the
constant friction of his lawyer's wig, I come, in a later time, upon
my dear old Traddles. His table is coVERED with thick piles of papers;
and I say, as I look around me:
"If Sophy were your clerk, now, Traddles, she would have enough to
do!"
------------------------------------------------
_The History of Tom Jones_
"If I was not as great a philosopher as Socrates himself,"
returned Mrs. Western, "you would overcome my patience. What
objection can you have to the young gentleman?"
"A VERy solid objection, in my opinion," says Sophia-"I hate
him."
"Will you never learn a proper use of words?" answered the aunt.
"Indeed, child, you should consult Bailey's Dictionary. It is
impossible you should hate a man from whom you have received no injury.
By hatred, therefore, you mean no more than dislike, which is no
sufficient objection against your marrying of him. I have known many
couples, who have entirely disliked each other, lead very comfortable
genteel lives. Believe me, child, I know these things better than you.
You will allow me, I think, to have seen the world, in which I have not
an acquaintance who would not rather be thought to dislike her husband
than to like him. The contrary is such out-of-fashion romantic
nonsense, that the VERy imagination of it is shocking."
------------------------------------------------
> Incidentally, Art, this is off-topic, but it will interest you:
>
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/misc/newsid_4344000/4344324.stm>.
Planning a trip soon, Dave?
Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
> Incidentally, Art, this is off-topic, but it will interest you:
>
> <http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/misc/newsid_4344000/4344324.stm>.
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/collection/news/newsitems/leonardo.htm
The National Gallery discovers a new Leonardo
Recent examination of one of the National Gallery's
most popular paintings has unearthed a remarkable discovery.
<<The Gallery's team of experts have used infrared reflectography to
find two distinct underdrawings beneath the surface of Leonardo da
Vinci's 'Virgin of the Rocks'. Though one drawing corresponds with the
final version of the painting, another shows a completely different
picture of a kneeling figure. Her downcast gaze and pious gestures
suggest that Leonardo's initial idea was to depict the Virgin in
Adoration of the Christ Child. There is no sign of the baby Jesus, but
this could be because Leonardo abandoned this idea before he came to
include him.
..................................................
'It was an extraordinary moment when we pointed the camera on the
Madonna's face - just to get the settings right because the paint was
thin there - and instantly we saw a hand which had no place there. We
all had to go away and sit quietly for a bit, just to get our thoughts
in order.' - Rachel Billinge, Conservator
..................................................
In order to obtain the clearest possible image of the hidden design,
the Gallery contacted an expert team in Florence through the European
Union EU-ARTECH project. The team from INOA (Istituto Nazionale di
Ottica Applicata) and the OPD (Opificio delle Pietre Dure) brought to
London a high-resolution digital infrared scanner which forms part of
the EU-ARTECH project's mobile laboratory. Intensive collaborative
study yielded spectacular images of Leonardo's concealed drawing
beneath the paint layers.
'The Virgin of the Rocks' was painted for the Confraternity of the
Immaculate Conception in Milan. Leonardo made two versions of the
painting: the first (now in the Louvre in Paris) was probably sold in
the 1490s to a private client after a financial wrangle with the
Confraternity; and a replacement - the painting now hanging in the
National Gallery - that was installed in 1508. Generations of art
historians have wrestled with conflicting explanations of these
pictures' histories and their mutual relationship. Now this new
discovery by the National Gallery is set to re-ignite the debate,
challenging the view that the London painting is merely a copy of the
Louvre version.
So why did Leonardo abandon his first underdrawing to revert to 'The
Virgin of the Rocks' as he had already painted it? Perhaps he simply
found his new idea unsatisfactory, or it may have been a simple matter
of time; with so many other commissions pending, was it just easier to
copy an earlier work? Or perhaps the members of the Confraternity
insisted upon a copy of his first 'Virgin of the Rocks', rather than an
original composition? We will probably never know the answer, but the
question will perplex art lovers and historians for many years to come.
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.danbrown.com/secrets/bizarre_facts/davinci_code.html
Da Vinci's slap on the wrist.
Da Vinci's original commission for his famous Madonna of the Rocks came
from an organization known as the Confraternity of the Immaculate
Conception, which needed a painting for the centerpiece of an altar
triptych in their church of San Francesco Grand in Milan. The nuns gave
Leonardo specific dimensions and a desired theme-the Virgin Mary,
baby John The Baptist, Uriel, and Baby Jesus sheltering in a cave.
Although Da Vinci did as they requested, when he delivered the work,
the group reacted with horror. The painting contained several
disturbing "un-Christian" anomalies, which seemed to convey a hidden
message and alternative meaning. Da Vinci eventually mollified the
confraternity by painting them a second version of Madonna of the
Rocks, which now hangs in London's National Gallery under the name
Virgin of the Rocks. Da Vinci's original hangs at the Louvre in Paris.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.lairweb.org.nz/leonardo/rocks.html
On the 25th April 1483, Leonardo was contracted to deliver an
altarpiece which would decorate the chapel of the Immacolata at the
church of San Francesco Grande in Milan. At the same time Evangelista
De Predis was assigned the task of carrying out the gilding, colouring
and retouching with his brother Ambrogio to do side panels. Giacomo del
Maino was commissioned to carve the framework and once finished the
pieces would resemble a miniature temple. Leonardo's contract had a
very short deadline which required the painting be delivered before
December 8th, the feast of the Immaculate Conception, (this strongly
suggests that the artists already had a cartoon prepared), but as was
typical of him he failed to comply; this piece then became the source
of two lengthy lawsuits which lasted for the many, many years.
Two versions of this painting exist, one at the Louvre in Paris and the
second held by the National Gallery in London. Experts have studied
both closely and consider the Louvre version to be entirely by
Leonardo, while the National Gallery version is still the source of
some debate. The favoured suggestion is that de Predis and Leonardo
collaborated on this painting after he failed to meet his contractual
obligations. Others think Leonardo was less involved in the second
version and apart from a few touches, he simply oversaw de Predis. The
Louvre painting may have been given by Leonardo to King Louis XII of
France in gratitude for settling the law suit between those who
commissioned the works and the painters; this would have created the
need for a second artwork.
Critics continue to take issue with which is the earlier version of
Virgin of the Rocks and there is no proof either way. It appears that
the style of the Louvre version belongs more to the 1480s and this
painting was probably completed early in 1490. The London painting is a
more mature work and assuming it is the later version, dates to around
1506.
The contract was very complicated and carefully designed to ensure the
monks received precisely the picture they wanted:
Item, Our Lady is the centre: her mantle shall be of gold brocade and
ultramarine blue. Item, her skirt shall be of gold brocade over
crimson, in oil, varnished with a fine lacquer...Item, God the Father:
his gown shall be of gold brocade and ultramarine blue. Item, the
angels shall be gilded and their pleated skirts outlined in oil, in the
Greek manner. Item, the mountains and rocks shall be worked in oil, in
a colourful manner....
Some changes were made to this description, St. John was introduced
while an angel was removed. The side panels required four angels on
each, singing and playing harps. Documents recently found show
Leonardo's painting was eventually set in place on 18th August 1508,
with the final payment for it being made in October of the same year.
The Virgin or Madonna of the Rocks is the first work that Leonardo
executed in Milan. It addresses the theme of the Immaculate Conception;
this being the belief that the Christ child was conceived without
original sin on Mary's part. This was a hotly debated topic in
Leonardo's day and he was required to convey the purity radiating from
the Virgin. In both paintings she was depicted as flat-chested and
sitting in a cavern surrounded by phallic rocks and womb images. The
setting was perfect for the chapel as it was built over catacombs.
The paintings illustrate a popular story of the time. It is that of
Jesus meeting an infant John the Baptist, who is in the care of the
angel Uriel. Both are on the run to evade Herod's massacre of
innocents. As John pays homage to Jesus he is blessed and the Baptism
prophesied; this explains the pool in the foreground of the Louvre
version.
The plants in Leonardo's works are interesting as they were painted
directly from nature during a time when most artists simply copied from
the books of herbalists. Leonardo would carefully choose plants for
their symbolic value. In the Louvre version of the Virgin of the Rocks,
Aquilega, or columbine (dove plants) are beside the Virgin's face;
these symbolise the Holy Spirit. Stains on the St. John's wort suggest
a martyr's blood, the creeper Cymbalaria symbolises constancy and
virtue. Heart-shaped leaves represent love and virtue; sword-shaped
leaves, the sword of sorrow which was to pierce Mary's heart and the
palm leaves are a symbol of victory.
The Louvre version, considered to be wholly by Leonardo, is set in the
autumn. The original sketches showed the angel as very feminine; this
was changed in the final painting where the angel can be seen as either
male or female. It was first mentioned as being in the royal collection
at Fontainebleau in 1625.
While the overall compositions of the two versions of the Madonna are
virtually the same, there are numerous discrepancies that lead scholars
to believe that the second painting was not wholly the work of
Leonardo. Most historians began studying this topic by looking for
written clues in the historical documents relating to the paintings.
The second painting, now in London, can be traced from its origins in
Milan to the present day. The Louvre version, however, is not as well
documented. It was in April of the year 1483 that Leonardo was
commissioned. The painting was to be the centerpiece of a three-panel
piece. The de Predis brothers were commissioned to complete the altar
and the two side panels. There was action taken at court, requests for
more money - but the details of the monetary transactions remain a
topic of debate.
But documents withstanding, other scholars have also considered the
paintings and have come to similar conclusions. Geologist Ann
Pizzorusso studied the two works extensively, and concentrated her work
on the natural settings in the backgrounds of the paintings. It is well
known among scholars that Leonardo was a tireless student of nature. He
spent countless hours studying and documenting the natural world, and
his paintings reflected his incredible attention to detail. Most of
Leonardo's paintings include some aspect of nature, whether it is the
simple incorporation of a plant motif within the lining of a gown, or
the nearly overwhelming setting in the wilderness of the Madonna of the
Rocks works. Pizzorusso studied the geology within the two versions of
the Madonna, and came to the conclusion that the Louvre painting is a
Leonardo original, and that the National Gallery version was not
completed by him. She states "he (Leonardo) had too much respect for
the nuances of natural beauty to ignore them," (198) and that the
Louvre version not only accurately depicts the way real rock formations
occur in nature, but also the appropriate rock types and weathering
patterns. Even the plant life that is shown in the Louvre version is
representative of the kinds of plants that would grow in such an
environment. The London version, on the other hand, has rock formations
that are, according to Pizzorusso, "synthetic, stilted, grotesque
characterizations" (198). The plant life depicted is not
characteristic of the kinds of plants that would be found growing in
such a dark and damp grotto, and the rocks in the distant background
are not shrouded in the mysterious mists that are hallmark in
Leonardo's works.
----------------------------------------------------------
Virgin of the Rocks
National Gallery, London
<<Virgin of the Rocks in London's National Gallery displays a number of
changes from the Louvre piece. It brings the viewer closer to the
figures, is much bluer and has an air of flowing waters. Other new or
changed elements include St. John's cross of reeds; the hand of the
angel which no longer points at St. John; the halos and the lighter
drapery. Both the halos and the cross were a later addition done by an
unknown artist.
Portions of the painting are slightly unfinished, the left-hand of the
angel being one area. It is also likely that the foreground was
intended to be contain a pool similar to that of the Louvre version.
The 'plastic' look of this painting almost immediately led scholars to
consider it a collaboration. Areas to compare are the rocks which seem
badly lit, and the flesh of the children which is flat looking.
This version remained in the chapel until 1781; it was then taken to
the hospital of Santa Caterina in Milan. Collectors went to great
lengths to obtain Leonardo's works, no matter how small. In 1875 this
panel was purchased by the Scottish painter, Gavin Hamilton, who took
it from Italy to London, then sold it to the Marquis of Landsdown. It
passed into the hands of the Earl of Suffolk, finally entering the
National Gallery in 1880. The two side panels of the de Predis brothers
joined it in 1898; these depict the musician angels. All three
paintings are now displayed together and appear as they would have in
the chapel.
The dispute over fees and the legal battles with the monks is thought
to have been regarding the London copy only. Leonardo and Ambrogio --
Evangelista having died in 1490 -- had sent an appeal for extra
funding, pointing out that not only had the project required in the
contract been completed, but that the frame alone had absorbed almost
all of the entire eight hundred lire fee which had initially been
agreed on. In terms of payment they had actually only received one
hundred of the twelve hundred lire that were asking. As a result they
requested that the "oil painting of Our Lady" be withdrawn, so they
could consider selling tit to other interested buyers. This request was
refused and in 1503 Ambrogio tried once again, this time petitioning
Louis XII of France, but Leonardo was no longer in Milan and the case
was deferred.
Things were finally settled on 27th April, 1506. It was determined that
the work was, in fact, unfinished with the result that Leonardo was not
paid for the first painting, it then being forfeited to the artist. He
agreed to do a second work -- or to have another artist do one on his
behalf -- and to deliver it on time. The deadline was be two years and
for this he would receive half of the additional payment he had asked
for the first painting, the sum of two hundred lire.
The subject of the Immaculate Conception was a popular one of the day
and was taken up again and again by pupils of the Leonardo school.
-------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
<< The Virgin of the Rocks and Madonna of the Rocks are terms used to
describe both of two different paintings with almost identical
compositions. There are separate accounts of which of the two paintings
are verifiably Leonardo da Vinci's, with claims of authenticity for
both.
In the National Gallery, London (painted 1508) This is a painting
generally accredited to Leonardo da Vinci c. 1508. It was stolen from
Florence during the Napoleonic wars and recovered in a small town in
Austria some 50 years afterwards. Since then, it has been bought by a
French merchant before being sold to the National Gallery in London in
the 19th century.
In June 2005, infra-red imaging seemingly revealed a previous painting
beneath the visible one. This is believed to portray a woman kneeling
down with her hands outstretched.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4639945.stm
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Louvre (painted 1483-86)
An almost identical painting is to be found in the Louvre. French
authorities claim predominantly that the work is authentic, due to the
fine brush work and use of chiaroscuro, or contrast between light and
dark, characteristic of many of Leonardo's works. Most art historians
take the view that the Louvre version is indeed largely by Leonardo,
and is the earlier of the two works.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
History of the paintings
In 1480 Leonardo was commissioned by the Milanese Confraternity of the
Immaculate Conception to paint a work celebrating the Immaculate
conception. In 1483 the contract was extended to include collaboration
with the brothers Ambrogio and Evangelista de Predis, who would produce
side-panels depicting angels, so that the painting became a triptych.
The completed work was finally installed in 1508. It seems as though
the original work was sold to a private client after a lengthy
financial dispute with the confraternity. A second version was
eventually produced by Leonardo and his assistants, which was installed
with the de Predises's side-panels.
The paintings seem to draw on a legend of the meeting between the baby
Jesus and John the Baptist on the flight into Egypt. According to the
standard interpretation of the paintings, they depict the Madonna in
the centre ushering John towards Jesus, who is seated with the angel
Uriel. Jesus is blessing John, who holds out his hands in a gesture of
prayer. In the Louvre version, Uriel points towards John while looking
out at the viewer. This gesture is missing in the London version. The
London version also contains attributes missing from the Louvre
version, notably haloes and John's traditional cruciform stick. These
clarify the identification of the babies Jesus and John, and were added
by another artist, probably after Leonardo's death.
It is generally believed that the Louvre version is the earlier work,
because it is stylistically close to Leonardo's other work of the
1480s. The London painting suggests Leonardo's maturer style, but it is
thought likely to have been painted with the assistance of other
artists, perhaps the de Predises.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Use in The Da Vinci Code
In the popular novel The Da Vinci Code it is claimed that the earlier
Louvre version contained hidden symbolism which contradicted orthodox
Christian belief, notably the fact that Jesus is shown praying to John
rather than the other way round (the novel implies that the baby at the
left must be Jesus rather than John, because he is with the Madonna).
It is also claimed that the Virgin appears to be holding an invisible
head and that Uriel appears to be "slicing the neck" with his finger.
Allegedly, for this reason the painting was rejected by the Church, and
a second, more orthodox, version was painted.
There is no historical evidence to support any of these contentions.
The only significant compositional difference between the two versions
(excluding the later addition of attributes) is the fact that Uriel no
longer points. However this difference may well be explained by the
possibility that the distinction between Jesus and John was thought to
be insufficiently clear in the earlier picture because John is with the
Madonna, and that the pointing gesture directed too much attention to
John.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
Drawing discovered under his painting of 'Virgin on the Rocks'
http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/ap/lon81507011248.widec.jpg
<<This picture provided by Britain's National Gallery shows Leonardo Da
Vinci's "The Virgin on the Rocks," as it is seen using infrared
reflectography, which reveals an underdrawing beneath the surface of
the painting. For centuries, art lovers have admired Leonardo Da
Vinci's "The Virgin on the Rocks," a powerful study of Christ's mother
in a rather gloomy cavern. Now experts at London's National Gallery,
where the painting is on display, say the delicate brushstrokes hide
another picture by the Italian master.>>
----------------------------------------------
Updated: 1:10 p.m. ET July 1, 2005
LONDON - National Gallery experts using infrared techniques have
discovered a Leonardo da Vinci sketch hidden underneath a painting by
the Italian master, conservationists said Friday.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8433482/
<<The sketch - the first unknown Leonardo image to be found in
decades - is beneath the delicate brushstrokes of the artist's
"Virgin on the Rocks," a powerful scene of Christ's mother in a dusky
cavern, which hangs in the London museum. The concealed image shows a
woman with one hand clutched to her breast, the other outstretched,
kneeling before what experts said was planned to be an infant Jesus.
Leonardo apparently was planning a picture of the adoration of the
Christ child, a scene popular with Renaissance artists, but changed his
mind.
"It came as a complete surprise to finding the sketch," said Rachel
Billinge, research associate in the conservation department of the
National Gallery. "We had no idea until we studied the painting that
there was anything under there."
The National Gallery's "Virgin on the Rocks" is a copy of the painting
of the same name that now hangs in the Louvre in Paris. National
Gallery experts were using infrared techniques to find out how the copy
had been made when they found the sketch. The Roman Catholic church had
commissioned Leonardo to paint "The Virgin on the Rocks" for a Milan
chapel altarpiece in 1483. "When (Leonardo) completed the first
painting, he was so pleased with it that he asked for more money, and
when this was refused, he sold it privately," Billinge said. The artist
later agreed to paint another picture - and probably started with the
newly found sketch - but was persuaded to make a copy of the original
"Virgin On The Rocks," she said. The copy was placed in the chapel in
1508.
Critics argue over the meaning of the scene in "The Virgin On The
Rocks." Some claim it depicts the Immaculate Conception, while others
say it shows the first time Jesus met John the Baptist. The last time
any new Leonardo works were discovered was the 1930s, when the portrait
"Ginevra de'Benci" and "The Madonna of the Carnation" were attributed
to him.
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press.
----------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Paradise Lost BOOK 4 THE ARGUMENT
<<Satan now in prospect of Eden, and nigh the place where he must now
attempt the bold enterprize which he undertook alone against God and
Man, falls into many doubts with himself, and many passions, fear,
envy, and despare; but at length confirms himself in evil, journeys on
to Paradise, whose outward prospect and scituation is discribed,
overleaps the bounds, sits in the shape of a Cormorant on the Tree of
life, as highest in the Garden to look about him. The Garden describ'd;
Satans first sight of Adam and Eve; his wonder at thir excellent form
and happy state, but with resolution to work thir fall; overhears thir
discourse, thence gathers that the Tree of knowledge was forbidden them
to eat of, under penalty of death; and thereon intends to found his
Temptation, by seducing them to transgress: then leaves them a while,
to know further of thir state by some other means. Mean while Uriel
descending on a Sun-beam warns Gabriel, who had in charge the Gate of
Paradise, that some evil spirit had escap'd the Deep, and past at Noon
by his Sphere in the shape of a good Angel down to Paradise, discovered
after by his furious gestures in the Mount. Gabriel promises to find
him ere morning. Night coming on, Adam and Eve discourse of going to
thir rest: thir Bower describ'd; thir Evening worship. Gabriel drawing
forth his Bands of Night-watch to walk the round of Paradise, appoints
two strong Angels to Adams Bower, least the evill spirit should be
there doing some harm to Adam or Eve sleeping; there they find him at
the ear of Eve, tempting her in a dream, and bring him, though
unwilling, to Gabriel; by whom question'd, he scornfully answers,
prepares resistance, but hinder'd by a Sign from Heaven, flies out of
Paradise.>>
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
[VERborrea del borracho borrado]
> > > >>> Is there any chance of ph...@errors.comedy eVER
> > > >>> oVERtaking aneuendor...@comicass.nut?
> >>> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > >
> >>>> No!!! That loser thinks that Sonnet 20 is addressed to Dupy.
> >> David L. Webb wrote:
> >>
> >>> Evidently you still have not figured out what "dupy" means in Polish,
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > > I wouldn't click on those sites with a 10 foot mouse.
> > > (Nothing personal...Lynne barely comes to my pupik.)
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > Try a Polish dictionary -- you do
> > know what a dictionary is, don't you, Art?
> Doesn't it have something to do with WEBSTER:
> ------------------------------------------------
> The Duchess of Malfi. Act V Scene II
> John WEBSTER (1580?-1634).
Wrong Webster, Art -- but that's pretty close for somebody who thinks
that Virgil predated Herodotus.
PerseVERE, Art. I've already given you one useful hint -- try the
nominative case of the word.
> "You could've learned it. You learned the entire
> Klingon dictionary in two and a half weeks"
> - _Buffy the Vampire Slayer_
> ------------------------------------------------
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > (Hint: The nominative case is "dupa.")
> Bugger!
Try again, Art.
> ------------------------------------------------
> _ David Copperfield_
> .................................................
> Mr. Dick Fulfils My Aunt's Predictions
>
> "Take your Dictionary, for example. What a useful work a Dictionary
> is! What a necessary work! The meanings of words! Without Doctor
> Johnson, or somebody of that sort, we might have been at this present
> moment calling an Italianiron a bedstead. But we can't expect a
> Dictionary-especially when it's making-to interest Annie, can
> we?"
No doubt you'll tell us that "Annie" is Anne Hathaway, Shakespeare's
mother!
That hasn't been decided yet, Art; howeVER, if the Grand Master
needs my sERVices, then I will be bound to go by the Templar vow of
obedience.
> Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
>>>>
>>>>> Evidently you still have not figured out what "dupy" means in Polish,
>
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
> > > > I wouldn't click on those sites with a 10 foot mouse.
> > > > (Nothing personal...Lynne barely comes to my pupik.)
>
> > David L. Webb wrote:
> >
> > > Try a Polish dictionary -- you do
> > > know what a dictionary is, don't you, Art?
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > Doesn't it have something to do with WEBSTER:
> > ------------------------------------------------
> > The Duchess of Malfi. Act V Scene II
> > John WEBSTER (1580?-1634).
David L. Webbster wrote:
> Wrong Webster, Art
The guy with the devil?
David L. Webb wrote:
> PerseVERE, Art. I've already given you one useful hint
> -- try the nominative case of the word.
> > David L. Webb wrote:
> >
> > > (Hint: The nominative case is "dupa.")
>
> > Bugger!
David L. Webb wrote:
> Try again, Art.
You mean it's just a form of ass?
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > ------------------------------------------------
> > _ David Copperfield_
> > .................................................
> > Mr. Dick Fulfils My Aunt's Predictions
> >
> > "Take your Dictionary, for example. What a useful work a Dictionary
> > is! What a necessary work! The meanings of words! Without Doctor
> > Johnson, or somebody of that sort, we might have been at this present
> > moment calling an Italianiron a bedstead. But we can't expect a
> > Dictionary-especially when it's making-to interest Annie, can
> > we?"
David L. Webb wrote:
> No doubt you'll tell us that "Annie" is Anne Hathaway,
> Shakespeare's mother!
Woody Allen's "mother", perhaps.
>> David L. Webb wrote:
> > > Incidentally, Art, this is off-topic, but it will interest you:
> > >
> > > <http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/spanish/misc/newsid_4344000/4344324.stm>.
It was... see my post: "Albertus Laski [POLISH DUPE of Krakow]"
> > Planning a trip soon, Dave?
David L. Webb wrote:
> That hasn't been decided yet, Art; howeVER, if the
> Grand Master needs my sERVices, then I will be bound
> to go by the Templar vow of obedience.
Is that like "The Cone of Silence"?
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
> >>>> David L. Webb wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Evidently you still have not figured out what "dupy" means in Polish,
> > > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > >
> > > > > I wouldn't click on those sites with a 10 foot mouse.
> > > > > (Nothing personal...Lynne barely comes to my pupik.)
> > > David L. Webb wrote:
> > >
> > > > Try a Polish dictionary -- you do
> > > > know what a dictionary is, don't you, Art?
> > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
>
> > > Doesn't it have something to do with WEBSTER:
> > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > The Duchess of Malfi. Act V Scene II
> > > John WEBSTER (1580?-1634).
> David L. Webbster wrote:
>
> > Wrong Webster, Art
> The guy with the devil?
You mean, the eminent Dartmouth alumnus? You're at least a little
closer, Art.
[...]
> > > "I looked up fubar in the German dictionary
> > > and there's no fubar in here" - _Saving Private Ryan_
Try looking up "snafu," Art; you might have more success.
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > PerseVERE, Art. I've already given you one useful hint
> > -- try the nominative case of the word.
> > > David L. Webb wrote:
> > >
> > > > (Hint: The nominative case is "dupa.")
> > > Bugger!
> David L. Webb wrote:
>
> > Try again, Art.
> You mean it's just a form of ass?
Correct, Art. Not the comic form, mind you -- it would not do to
infringe upon an aneuendor...@comicass.nut monopoly.
[...]
Art Neuendorffer
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Evidently you still have not figured out what "dupy" means in Polish,
>
> > > > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > > >
> > > > > > I wouldn't click on those sites with a 10 foot mouse.
> > > > > > (Nothing personal...Lynne barely comes to my pupik.)
>
> > > > David L. Webb wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Try a Polish dictionary -- you do
> > > > > know what a dictionary is, don't you, Art?
>
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> >
> > > > Doesn't it have something to do with WEBSTER:
> > > > ------------------------------------------------
> > > > The Duchess of Malfi. Act V Scene II
> > > > John WEBSTER (1580?-1634).
>
> > David L. Webbster wrote:
> >
> > > Wrong Webster, Art
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
> > The guy with the devil?
David L. Webb wrote:
> You mean, the eminent Dartmouth alumnus?
> You're at least a little closer, Art.
Hmmmm...
Da Vinci, David, Dwebb, Devil, Daniel, Dartmouth, Dupy...
------------------------------------------------
<<And LO, the Doctor, always our good friend, labouring
at his Dictionary (somewhere about the letter D), ....
-- _ David Copperfield_ A Last Retrospect
-----------------------------------------------
>>>> "I looked up fubar in the German dictionary
>>>> and there's no fubar in here" - _Saving Private Ryan_
David L. Webb wrote:
> Try looking up "snafu," Art; you might have more success.
I told you I was normal.
Art NeuenDorffer