Is Any Authorship Theory a Religion?

[Bob Grumman]

Both sides accuse the other of being adherents of a religion. I say
neither side is. To discuss this intelligently, we first need to say
what we mean by "religion." Here's my attempt at a definition:

A religion is a system of beliefs which includes ALL of the following:

(1) a dependence on the undeniable suspension of some law or laws of
nature as agreed to by scientists;

(2) the absence of direct material evidence or direct eye-witness
testimony by identifiable witnesses that is corroborated by
identifiable witnesses supporting it;

(3) a belief in unprecedented events.

That's a first attempt. It is intended to be neutral inasmuch as it
doesn't claim that something can not be true even though contradicting
some law of nature, etc., only that such a truth is significantly
different from a scientific truth.

No authorship theory, traditional or revisionist, requires the
undeniable suspension of natural laws (not even Stratfordianism, when
it hypothesizes that a man with handwriting Paul Crowley considers bad
could write masterful poems). It seems to me that anti-
Stratfordianism includes both 2 & 3 beyond reasonable doubt, while
Stratfordianism includes 3, but not beyond reasonable doubt, but
solely in the minds of its opponents (with their nonsense about having
to have been an aristocrat to have been able to write the plays, and
the like).

My intention for this post is to rid authorship discussion of stupid
accusations by both sides that the other side is a religion and
therefore impervious to reason. I'm also hoping for feedback that
will improve my definition of religion.

--Bob

[neufer]

-------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion

<<Religious knowledge, according to religious practitioners, may be
gained from religious leaders (i.e., Shakespearean scholars), sacred
texts (the First Folio), and/or personal REVElation. Some religions
view such knowledge as unlimited in scope and suitable to answer any
question. The scientific method gains knowledge by testing hypotheses
to develop theories through elucidation of facts or evaluation by
experiments and thus only answers cosmological questions about the
physical universe. It develops theories of the world which best fit
physically observed evidence. All scientific knowledge is subject to
later refinement in the face of additional evidence. Scientific
theories that have an overwhelming preponderance of favorable evidence
are often treated as facts.>>
-------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer

[marc hanson]

Obsession comes to mind; or at least
it seems to have turned into that, for some.
Religion doesn't seem fit, in my mind.

How did this so-called debate actually start?
It didn't start with any
evidence, document, fact, etc, of any kind.
It was a hunch, day dream, imagination, etc.

To me, it's silly, based on nothing tangible.

marc

[book...@yahoo.com]

On Wed, 1 Feb 2012 11:45:43 -0800 (PST), Bob Grumman
<bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:

>Both sides accuse the other of being adherents of a religion. I say
>neither side is. To discuss this intelligently, we first need to say
>what we mean by "religion." Here's my attempt at a definition:
>
>A religion is a system of beliefs which includes ALL of the following:
>
>(1) a dependence on the undeniable suspension of some law or laws of
>nature as agreed to by scientists;

>(2) the absence of direct material evidence or direct eye-witness
>testimony by identifiable witnesses that is corroborated by
>identifiable witnesses supporting it;

>(3) a belief in unprecedented events.

>That's a first attempt. It is intended to be neutral inasmuch as it
>doesn't claim that something can not be true even though contradicting
>some law of nature, etc., only that such a truth is significantly
>different from a scientific truth.

I think you can go quite a bit further in comparing an authorship
theory to a religion. Flaw here in assuming an authorship attribution
theory is held the same by all, but this is offset by possible
communal worship practices in which all become a singing, dancing
throng.

>No authorship theory, traditional or revisionist, requires the
>undeniable suspension of natural laws (not even Stratfordianism, when
>it hypothesizes that a man with handwriting Paul Crowley considers bad
>could write masterful poems). It seems to me that anti-
>Stratfordianism includes both 2 & 3 beyond reasonable doubt, while
>Stratfordianism includes 3, but not beyond reasonable doubt, but
>solely in the minds of its opponents (with their nonsense about having
>to have been an aristocrat to have been able to write the plays, and
>the like).

I understand your intention of describing alternative authorship
attribution theories as anti-Strats, but I think you have to play fair
and at least not admit that.

Seems like an "anti-" anything can't be much of a religion or theory,
except in reaction to something else. One could refer to
1) the "establishment", Shakespeare establishment that rules;
2) the "establishmentarians", who advocate the concept of
establishment;
3) the "disestablishmentarians", who advocate removal of the
establishment;
4) the "anti-disestablishmentarians", who advocate opposition to any
moves to disestablish the establishment.

Wikipedia, at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antidisestablishmentarianism
reports on the actual 19th century controversy over Church of England
as the "established" church for all of Britain, which was
"disestablished" in Wales, Ireland, and parts of Scotland. And it
says, "The question of disestablishment of the Church of England is
still current, often tied with the position of the English monarch as
"Supreme Governor" of the Church . . . ."

So you see, labeling these heretics as "anti-" in some dialectic may
be playing into their "disestablishmentarian" hands. bookburn

[Tom Reedy]

On Feb 1, 1:45 pm, Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:

<snip>

> My intention for this post is to rid authorship discussion of stupid
> accusations

Why would you want to do that, and--probably more to the point--
whatever gave you the idea that it is possible?

TR

[Paul Crowley]

On 01/02/2012 19:45, Bob Grumman wrote:

> Both sides accuse the other of being adherents of a
> religion. I say neither side is.

That accusation asserts that the other side is
incapable of changing their belief-system in the
manner expected of a rational person -- from an
examination of the evidence, and a consideration
of its logical implications. It is making the
statement that the other side is committed to
a set of an irrational propositions, in defiance of
the evidence.

> To discuss this intelligently, we first need to say what
> we mean by "religion."

Not really. Humans do irrationally believe (and
have irrationally believed) in all manner of things
which we would not want to call 'religion' --
e.g. superstitions, poor science, bad history,
fantasies of all sorts, conspiracy theories . . .
etc., etc. I'd be quite happy to call
Stratfordianism a superstition, or a set of
superstitions.

Of the two broad groups (Strats and Anti-Strats)
Stratfordianism is closer to a religion because
it is taught in schools and universities by a
kind of priesthood, and it is approved by social
(or state) authorities, and the great bulk of the
population believe in it without ever questioning
any part of it.

When made against anti-Strats, the accusation
is less applicable, because anti-Strats nearly
always start off as Strats and have radically
changed their opinions at some point in their
lives. But, since their stance is non-orthodox,
and they operate without a priesthood or other
social approval, they are subject to a quite
different range of accusations -- e.g. of being
insane or freakish (and, given the great variety
of anti-Strat beliefs, some necessarily are).

Many people have irrational beliefs that are in
defiance of the evidence, which no one would
ever want to call 'religious'. Most Strats would
(I think) categorise most anti-Strat beliefs as
such. Whereas, most anti-Strats would class
Stratfordian beliefs as deriving from a quasi-
religious origin (i.e. unquestioned irrational
beliefs drummed into them in childhood).

Most Strats are utterly dull, unthinking, and
incapable of any kind of thought --- i.e. like
cows or David Webb.

Most anti-Strats are wild-eyed fantasists,
who would believe in almost anything (e.g.
Hank Whittemore or any of the PT brigade).

> Here's my attempt at a definition:
>
> A religion is a system of beliefs which includes ALL of
> the following:

Not a good start. Most natural or social
phenomena possess broad sets of
characteristics, not all of which are
essential. (Wittgenstein's phrase was
'family resemblance'.)

> (1) a dependence on the undeniable suspension of
> some law or laws of nature as agreed to by scientists;

Stratfordianism routinely defies the
laws of probability.

For this it provides two 'justifications':
(a) Isn't that great? and
(b) What the heck is probability?

Paul.

[Bob Grumman]

I was talking about just one stupid accusation.

--Bob

[Bob Grumman]

On Feb 2, 6:13 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> On 01/02/2012 19:45, Bob Grumman wrote:
>
> > Both sides accuse the other of being adherents of a
> > religion.  I say neither side is.
>
> That accusation asserts that the other side is
> incapable of changing their belief-system in the
> manner expected of a rational person -- from an
> examination of the evidence, and a consideration
> of its logical implications.  It is making the
> statement that the other side is committed to
> a set of an irrational propositions, in defiance of
> the evidence.

That accusation asserts that the side accused is a religion, that is
all.

> > To discuss this intelligently, we first need to say what
> > we mean by "religion."
>
> Not really. Humans do irrationally believe (and
> have irrationally believed) in all manner of things
> which we would not want to call 'religion' --
> e.g. superstitions, poor science, bad history,
> fantasies of all sorts, conspiracy theories . . .
> etc., etc.   I'd be quite happy to call
> Stratfordianism a superstition, or a set of
> superstitions.

The verosopher begins with a definition of terms. The propagandist
begins by carefully avoiding any definition of terms.

> Of the two broad groups (Strats and Anti-Strats)
> Stratfordianism is closer to a religion because
> it is taught in schools and universities by a
> kind of priesthood, and it is approved by social
> (or state) authorities, and the great bulk of the
> population believe in it without ever questioning
> any part of it.

There are religions that are not taught in schools nor approved by the
majority of people in a culture. Your "definition" is worthless.

> When made against anti-Strats, the accusation
> is less applicable, because anti-Strats nearly
> always start off as Strats and have radically
> changed their opinions at some point in their
> lives.  But, since their stance is non-orthodox,
> and they operate without a priesthood or other
> social approval, they are subject to a quite
> different range of accusations -- e.g. of being
> insane or freakish (and, given the great variety
> of anti-Strat beliefs, some necessarily are).

The fact that atheists have been known to convert to Christianity does
not make Christianity a non-religion.

Anti-Strats almost never start off as Strats. They start off with
little or no interest in who wrote the plays, then find out someone
self-taught did, and are horrified.

> Many people have irrational beliefs that are in
> defiance of the evidence, which no one would
> ever want to call 'religious'.  Most Strats would
> (I think) categorise most anti-Strat beliefs as
> such.  Whereas, most anti-Strats would class
> Stratfordian beliefs as deriving from a quasi-
> religious origin (i.e. unquestioned irrational
> beliefs drummed into them in childhood).

That's why a definition of religion must specify what belief systems
in defiance of material evidence are religion and what are not.

> Most Strats are utterly dull, unthinking, and
> incapable of any kind of thought --- i.e. like
> cows or David Webb.

Idiotically untrue but irrelevant.

> Most anti-Strats are wild-eyed fantasists,
> who would believe in almost anything (e.g.
> Hank Whittemore or any of the PT brigade).

Irrelevant. Every belief system has crazies for and against.

> Here's my attempt at a definition:
>
> > A religion is a system of beliefs which includes ALL of
> > the following:
>
> Not a good start. Most natural or social
> phenomena possess broad sets of
> characteristics, not all of which are
> essential. (Wittgenstein's phrase was
> 'family resemblance'.)

I claim religion has all three characteristics I list. You must
present arguments against my claim if you want to refute it.

> > (1) a dependence on the undeniable suspension of
> > some law or laws of nature as agreed to by scientists;
>
> Stratfordianism routinely defies the
> laws of probability.

Stratfordianism does not require the undeniable suspension of some law
or laws the way a religion does--e.g., the Christian belief in
reincarnation.

> For this it provides two 'justifications':
> (a) Isn't that great? and
> (b) What the heck is probability?
>
> Paul.

We know what probability is for you, Paul: insanity allowing you to
ignore direct material evidence. But making up probabilities is not
religion.

--Bob

[Bob Grumman]

Well, that is a waste of time. Apparently few here know how to
define anything. To define religion, you have to show what it has
that nothing else does. Seems to me it's, first of all, belief in
the
supernatural.

--Bob

[Paul Crowley]

On 02/02/2012 12:03, Bob Grumman wrote:

>>> Both sides accuse the other of being adherents of a
>>> religion. I say neither side is.
>>
>> That accusation asserts that the other side is
>> incapable of changing their belief-system in the
>> manner expected of a rational person -- from an
>> examination of the evidence, and a consideration
>> of its logical implications. It is making the
>> statement that the other side is committed to
>> a set of an irrational propositions, in defiance of
>> the evidence.
>
> That accusation asserts that the side accused is a religion,
> that is all.

It is far from 'all'. Religions are highly variable and
each is complex.

> The verosopher begins with a definition of terms. The
> propagandist begins by carefully avoiding any definition of
> terms.

Only an idiot would think he could define what a
religion was. Can you define 'horse'? That's a
much simpler concept.

>> Of the two broad groups (Strats and Anti-Strats)
>> Stratfordianism is closer to a religion because
>> it is taught in schools and universities by a
>> kind of priesthood, and it is approved by social
>> (or state) authorities, and the great bulk of the
>> population believe in it without ever questioning
>> any part of it.
>
> There are religions that are not taught in schools nor approved
> by the majority of people in a culture.

Agreed. But the great bulk of people in the world
learn about their religion in own school (or during
their school years), and likewise, the great bulk
of people adopt the religion most approved by their
immediate culture.

> Your "definition" is worthless.

Wrong. (a) I was not seeking to define anything;
(b) my account of religion and religious belief was
accurate (while not seeking to be all-inclusive or
definitive) -- which is as much as anyone can
expect.

[..]

> Anti-Strats almost never start off as Strats.

Utter nonsense.

> They start off with little or no interest in who wrote the plays,

They are no different in this respect from most Strats,
merely assuming that what they are told is correct.

> then find out someone self-taught did, and are horrified.

They find out that the facts about man do not begin
to match what should be his life and career.

>> Many people have irrational beliefs that are in
>> defiance of the evidence, which no one would
>> ever want to call 'religious'. Most Strats would
>> (I think) categorise most anti-Strat beliefs as
>> such. Whereas, most anti-Strats would class
>> Stratfordian beliefs as deriving from a quasi-
>> religious origin (i.e. unquestioned irrational
>> beliefs drummed into them in childhood).
>
> That's why a definition of religion must specify what belief
> systems in defiance of material evidence are religion and what
> are not.

Most religious people have always been ignorant
and prepared to declare that some crazy things
are true as a matter of fact. A tiny proportion are
educated and intelligent and would accept that
much of their official religion is mythical, but
declare that their core beliefs are non-rational --
as against being irrational.

You are never going to get a definition that covers
every aspect. The idea that you might is foolish.
[..]


Paul.

[Bob Grumman]

On Feb 2, 8:22 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> On 02/02/2012 12:03, Bob Grumman wrote:
>
> >>> Both sides accuse the other of being adherents of a
> >>> religion.  I say neither side is.
>
> >> That accusation asserts that the other side is
> >> incapable of changing their belief-system in the
> >> manner expected of a rational person -- from an
> >> examination of the evidence, and a consideration
> >> of its logical implications.  It is making the
> >> statement that the other side is committed to
> >> a set of an irrational propositions, in defiance of
> >> the evidence.
>
> > That accusation asserts that the side accused is a religion,
> > that is all.
>
> It is far from 'all'.  Religions are highly variable and
> each is complex.

I'm talking about a set of beliefs that is defined as a religion. It
is what all genuine religions have in common. To the three features I
listed, I think I should add "belief in a supernatural being who is in
charge of the universe."

>
> > The verosopher begins with a definition of terms.  The
> > propagandist begins by carefully avoiding any definition of
> > terms.
>
> Only an idiot would think he could define what a
> religion was.  Can you define 'horse'?  That's a
> much simpler concept.

Biologists have defined horse, moron. As I said, verosophers--seekers
of significant truths--define things; propagandists refuse to.

> >> Of the two broad groups (Strats and Anti-Strats)
> >> Stratfordianism is closer to a religion because
> >> it is taught in schools and universities by a
> >> kind of priesthood, and it is approved by social
> >> (or state) authorities, and the great bulk of the
> >> population believe in it without ever questioning
> >> any part of it.
>
> > There are religions that are not taught in schools nor approved
> > by the majority of people in a culture.
>
> Agreed.  But the great bulk of people in the world
> learn about their religion in own school (or during
> their school years), and likewise,  the great bulk
> of people adopt the religion most approved by their
> immediate culture.

The point is that none of the above has anything more to do with the
definition of religion than the color brown has to do with the
definition of horses.

> > Your "definition" is worthless.
>
> Wrong.  (a) I was not seeking to define anything;
> (b) my account of religion and religious belief was
> accurate (while not seeking to be all-inclusive or
> definitive) -- which is as much as anyone can
> expect.

If that is so, you should be able to say why my attempt at a
definition is faulty, and inferior to your account (which is just
about entirely unhelpful.

> [..]
>
> > Anti-Strats almost never start off as Strats.
>
> Utter nonsense.
>
> > They start off with little or no interest in who wrote the plays,
>
> They are no different in this respect from most Strats,
> merely assuming that what they are told is correct.

Right.

> > then find out someone self-taught did, and are horrified.
>
> They find out that the facts about man do not begin
> to match what should be his life and career.

According to their warped understanding of culture, psychology,
epistemology, the creative process, and indifference to how historical
studies are carried out. But mainly due to their belief that because
they are incapable of learning on their own, nobody else can.

> >> Many people have irrational beliefs that are in
> >> defiance of the evidence, which no one would
> >> ever want to call 'religious'.  Most Strats would
> >> (I think) categorise most anti-Strat beliefs as
> >> such.  Whereas, most anti-Strats would class
> >> Stratfordian beliefs as deriving from a quasi-
> >> religious origin (i.e. unquestioned irrational
> >> beliefs drummed into them in childhood).
>
> > That's why a definition of religion must specify what belief
> > systems in defiance of material evidence are religion and what
> > are not.
>
> Most religious people have always been ignorant
> and prepared to declare that some crazy things
> are true as a matter of fact.  A tiny proportion are
> educated and intelligent and would accept that
> much of their official religion is mythical, but
> declare that their core beliefs are non-rational --
> as against being irrational.
>
> You are never going to get a definition that covers
> every aspect.  The idea that you might is foolish.
> [..]
>
> Paul.

Generalization is possible. Do you not agree that every religion
includes a belief in something that contradicts undeniable natural
laws? (Note, your insane belief that a man whose parents are
illiterate cannot become a great writer is not such an undeniable law
of nature.)

--Bob

[Paul Crowley]

On 02/02/2012 17:58, Bob Grumman wrote:

>> It is far from 'all'. Religions are highly variable and
>> each is complex.
>
> I'm talking about a set of beliefs that is defined as a
> religion. It is what all genuine religions have in common.
> To the three features I listed, I think I should add "belief
> in a supernatural being who is in charge of the universe."

There are numerous religions (that most accept
are religions) that don't have any such belief, nor
anything close to such a belief.

>> Only an idiot would think he could define what a
>> religion was. Can you define 'horse'? That's a
>> much simpler concept.
>
> Biologists have defined horse, moron.

I doubt if you could find one that did.

> As I said, verosophers--seekers of significant truths--
> define things; propagandists refuse to.

Only fools seek to define things in philosophy --
as though that was some infallible way to truth.

You seek to be accurate, yet (on account of
your rignikry) cannot afford to be less than
precise. So you must forever fail.
[..]

> Generalization is possible.

Generalisations ALWAYS have exceptions.
Read above. I make generalisations. You rule
them out by pointing to exceptions -- as though
that means they are necessarily worthless.

> Do you not agree that every
> religion includes a belief in something that contradicts
> undeniable natural laws?

No. I'm sure that there are many which are
so vague, or flexible, that they don't deny any
natural law.

> (Note, your insane belief that a man whose parents are
> illiterate cannot become a great writer is not such an
> undeniable law of nature.)

I merely point to issues of probability. Find
ONE other great (or even good) writer who
was brought up in an illiterate household.

You can't. No Strat can.

End of the Stratford case.


Paul.

[Bob Grumman]

On Feb 2, 2:05 pm, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> On 02/02/2012 17:58, Bob Grumman wrote:
>
> >> It is far from 'all'.  Religions are highly variable and
> >> each is complex.
>
> > I'm talking about a set of beliefs that is defined as a
> > religion.  It is what all genuine religions have in common.
> > To the three features I listed, I think I should add "belief
> > in a supernatural being who is in charge of the universe."
>
> There are numerous religions (that most accept
> are religions) that don't have any such belief, nor
> anything close to such a belief.

Make it, "belief in a supernatural being or the equivalent thereof."
As for "numerous religions (that most accept as religions)," I think
some may not be religions. I don't care who accepts or rejects a
definition, only whether it effectively, objectively distinguishes
some X from all that is not X. This can be done with anything--
satisfactorilly if never perfectly--however sometimes didfficult.

>
> >> Only an idiot would think he could define what a
> >> religion was.  Can you define 'horse'?  That's a
> >> much simpler concept.
>
> > Biologists have defined horse, moron.
>
> I doubt if you could find one that did.

Right, biologists don't know what horses are.

> > As I said, verosophers--seekers of significant truths--
> > define things; propagandists refuse to.
>
> Only fools seek to define things in philosophy --
> as though that was some infallible way to truth.

It's all they do, and other verosophers (i.e, scientists, historians,
economists, etc.) do. Propagandistic cranks like you generally refuse
to, in order to confuse their critics.

No, I don't. I just need to be sufficiently precise to distinguish
what it is I'm defining from 99.9999% of the rest of the universe to
the staisfaction of the sane.

So you must forever fail.

But you can't say why my definition fails, only that it does.

> [..]
>
> > Generalization is possible.
>
> Generalisations ALWAYS have exceptions.

The effective ones have no SIGNIFICANT exceptions. We know what
living organisms are even though there are things biologists cannot
agree are or are not living organisms.

> Read above.  I make generalisations.  You rule
> them out by pointing to exceptions -- as though
> that means they are necessarily worthless.

I'm not sure what you're referring to. I need a specific example. I
do know that your generalizations are almost always incredibly inept.

> > Do you not agree that every
> > religion includes a belief in something that contradicts
> > undeniable natural laws?
>
> No.  I'm sure that there are many which are
> so vague, or flexible, that they don't deny any
> natural law.

An example, please. I believe you're just rejecting my definition by
making up "religions" it doesn't fit.

> > (Note, your insane belief that a man whose parents are
> > illiterate cannot become a great writer is not such an
> > undeniable law of nature.)
>
> I merely point to issues of probability. Find
> ONE other great (or even good) writer who
> was brought up in an illiterate household.

I'm not arguing this again. Except to say that endocrinology,
neurophysiology, linguistics and epistemology demonstrate to my
satisfaction that learning to read and write and going on to become a
great writer has nothing to do with one's parents (assuming they don't
lock one in a closet until he's 35).

> You can't.   No Strat can.

David Webb did. You simply deny it.

>
> End of the Stratford case.
>

Sure, but what we're discussing is whether belief in any authorship
theory is religious. You should agree that none is since what a
religion is cannot be defined.

--Bob

[Paul Crowley]

On Feb 2 2012 4:25 pm Bob Grumman wrote:
(in a post that did not reach my server):

>> There are numerous religions (that most accept
>> are religions) that don't have any such belief, nor
>> anything close to such a belief.
>

> Make it, "belief in a supernatural being or the equivalent thereof."
> As for "numerous religions (that most accept as religions)," I think
> some may not be religions. I don't care who accepts or rejects a
> definition, only whether it effectively, objectively distinguishes
> some X from all that is not X. This can be done with anything--
> satisfactorilly if never perfectly--however sometimes didfficult.
>

>>>> Only an idiot would think he could define what a
>>>> religion was. Can you define 'horse'? That's a
>>>> much simpler concept.
>
>>> Biologists have defined horse, moron.
>
>> I doubt if you could find one that did.
>

> Right, biologists don't know what horses are.

Nonsense. We all know what horses are -- and
we don't need no definitions. Let's switch to
'houses' ('HOUSES'). Can you define 'house'?
Or will you say that we should go to architects,
who really know what houses are -- unlike us
pig-ignorant plain ordinary folks ?

>>> As I said, verosophers--seekers of significant truths--
>>> define things; propagandists refuse to.
>
>> Only fools seek to define things in philosophy --
>> as though that was some infallible way to truth.
>

> It's all they do, and other verosophers (i.e, scientists, historians,
> economists, etc.) do. Propagandistic cranks like you generally refuse
> to, in order to confuse their critics.

Proper philosophers know that to seek 'correct
definitions' is a mug's game. You started all this
with 'religion' -- a truly hopeless concept.

> No, I don't. I just need to be sufficiently precise to distinguish
> what it is I'm defining from 99.9999% of the rest of the universe to
> the staisfaction of the sane.
>

> So you must forever fail.
>

> But you can't say why my definition fails, only that it does.

>> Read above. I make generalisations. You rule
>> them out by pointing to exceptions -- as though
>> that means they are necessarily worthless.
>

> I'm not sure what you're referring to.

Read above. I wrote:
>>>>>> Stratfordianism is closer to a religion because
>>>>>> it is taught in schools and universities by a
>>>>>> kind of priesthood, and it is approved by social
>>>>>> (or state) authorities, and the great bulk of the
>>>>>> population believe in it without ever questioning
>>>>>> any part of it.

You pointed out exceptions to 'being taught in
schools and approved by social authorities'

> I need a specific example. I
> do know that your generalizations are almost always incredibly inept.

My account of religion applies to 99.99% of people, all
over the world, who adopt the religion of their parents
since they learn it in school and it's the one approved
in their society.

And they never question it -- pretty much the same as
Strats with their ignorant Strat superstition.

[..]

> Sure, but what we're discussing is whether belief in any authorship
> theory is religious. You should agree that none is since what a
> religion is cannot be defined.

'Religion' cannot be defined any more than 'horse' or
'house' can be defined. But we all know what each
is. We are not going to live in a horse, or believe in
a house, or ride a religion.

It's you rigidnikal need for definitions that, in this case,
get in the way of any sensible thought or any progress
in the discussion. Nothing new there.


Paul.

[Bob Grumman]

On Feb 3, 4:03 pm, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> On Feb 2 2012 4:25 pm Bob Grumman wrote:
> (in a post that did not reach my server):
>
>
>
>
>
> >> There are numerous religions (that most accept
> >> are religions) that don't have any such belief, nor
> >> anything close to such a belief.
>
> > Make it, "belief in a supernatural being or the equivalent thereof."
> > As for "numerous religions (that most accept as religions)," I think
> > some may not be religions. I don't care who accepts or rejects a
> > definition, only whether it effectively, objectively distinguishes
> > some X from all that is not X. This can be done with anything--
> > satisfactorilly if never perfectly--however sometimes didfficult.
>
> >>>> Only an idiot would think he could define what a
> >>>> religion was. Can you define 'horse'? That's a
> >>>> much simpler concept.
>
> >>> Biologists have defined horse, moron.
>
> >> I doubt if you could find one that did.
>
> > Right, biologists don't know what horses are.
>
> Nonsense. We all know what horses are -- and
> we don't need no definitions. Let's switch to
> 'houses' ('HOUSES'). Can you define 'house'?

Of course.

> Or will you say that we should go to architects,
> who really know what houses are -- unlike us
> pig-ignorant plain ordinary folks ?
>
> >>> As I said, verosophers--seekers of significant truths--
> >>> define things; propagandists refuse to.
>
> >> Only fools seek to define things in philosophy --
> >> as though that was some infallible way to truth.
>
> > It's all they do, and other verosophers (i.e, scientists, historians,
> > economists, etc.) do. Propagandistic cranks like you generally refuse
> > to, in order to confuse their critics.
>
> Proper philosophers know that to seek 'correct
> definitions' is a mug's game. You started all this
> with 'religion' -- a truly hopeless concept.
>

Yet I defined it.

> > the satisfaction of the sane.

>
> > So you must forever fail.
>
> > But you can't say why my definition fails, only that it does.
> >> Read above. I make generalisations. You rule
> >> them out by pointing to exceptions -- as though
> >> that means they are necessarily worthless.
>
> > I'm not sure what you're referring to.
>
> Read above. I wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Stratfordianism is closer to a religion because
> >>>>>> it is taught in schools and universities by a
> >>>>>> kind of priesthood, and it is approved by social
> >>>>>> (or state) authorities, and the great bulk of the
> >>>>>> population believe in it without ever questioning
> >>>>>> any part of it.
>
> You pointed out exceptions to 'being taught in
> schools and approved by social authorities'

All you did was show that religion has characteristics in common with
non-religions, which is irrelevant.

Water is a collection of h2o molecules. You can't render that
definition invlide by showing that water is a transparent under normal
conditions, like glass.

> > I need a specific example. I
> > do know that your generalizations are almost always incredibly inept.
>
> My account of religion applies to 99.99% of people, all
> over the world, who adopt the religion of their parents
> since they learn it in school and it's the one approved
> in their society.
>
> And they never question it -- pretty much the same as
> Strats with their ignorant Strat superstition.

Which is irrelevant.

> [..]
>
> > Sure, but what we're discussing is whether belief in any authorship
> > theory is religious. You should agree that none is since what a
> > religion is cannot be defined.
>
> 'Religion' cannot be defined any more than 'horse' or
> 'house' can be defined. But we all know what each
> is. We are not going to live in a horse, or believe in
> a house, or ride a religion.

We all have rough unexpressed definitions of these things which get us
through ordinary conversations but break down in serious debates.

> It's your rigidnikal need for definitions that, in this case,

> get in the way of any sensible thought or any progress
> in the discussion. Nothing new there.

No, Paul, it's your hyper-rigidnikal need to be able to assert
anything whatever without fear of refutation that makes definition of
terms, the starting point of any responsible discussion, repugnant to
you.


--Bob

[Bob Grumman]

On Feb 3, 4:03 pm, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:

> On Feb 2 2012 4:25 pm  Bob Grumman wrote:
> (in a post that did not reach my server):
>
>
>
>
>
> >> There are numerous religions (that most accept
> >> are religions) that don't have any such belief, nor
> >> anything close to such a belief.
>
> > Make it, "belief in a supernatural being or the equivalent thereof."
> > As for "numerous religions (that most accept as religions)," I think
> > some may not be religions.  I don't care who accepts or rejects a
> > definition, only whether it effectively, objectively distinguishes
> > some X from all that is not X.  This can be done with anything--
> > satisfactorilly if never perfectly--however sometimes didfficult.
>
> >>>> Only an idiot would think he could define what a
> >>>> religion was.  Can you define 'horse'?  That's a
> >>>> much simpler concept.
>
> >>> Biologists have defined horse, moron.
>
> >> I doubt if you could find one that did.
>
> > Right, biologists don't know what horses are.
>
> Nonsense.  We all know what horses are -- and
> we don't need no definitions.  Let's switch to
> 'houses' ('HOUSES').  Can you define 'house'?

Of course.

> Or will you say that we should go to architects,
> who really know what houses are -- unlike us
> pig-ignorant plain ordinary folks ?
>
> >>> As I said, verosophers--seekers of significant truths--
> >>> define things; propagandists refuse to.
>
> >> Only fools seek to define things in philosophy --
> >> as though that was some infallible way to truth.
>
> > It's all they do, and other verosophers (i.e, scientists, historians,
> > economists, etc.) do.  Propagandistic cranks like you generally refuse
> > to, in order to confuse their critics.
>
> Proper philosophers know that to seek 'correct
> definitions' is a mug's game.  You started all this
> with 'religion' -- a truly hopeless concept.
>

Yet I defined it.

> > the satisfaction of the sane.

>
> > So you must forever fail.
>
> > But you can't say why my definition fails, only that it does.
> >> Read above.  I make generalisations.  You rule
> >> them out by pointing to exceptions -- as though
> >> that means they are necessarily worthless.
>
> > I'm not sure what you're referring to.
>
> Read above.  I wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Stratfordianism is closer to a religion because
> >>>>>> it is taught in schools and universities by a
> >>>>>> kind of priesthood, and it is approved by social
> >>>>>> (or state) authorities, and the great bulk of the
> >>>>>> population believe in it without ever questioning
> >>>>>> any part of it.
>
> You pointed out exceptions to 'being taught in
> schools and approved by social authorities'

All you did was show that religion has characteristics in common with
non-religions, which is irrelevant.

Water is a collection of h2o molecules. You can't render that
definition invlide by showing that water is a transparent under normal
conditions, like glass.

> > I need a specific example.  I
> > do know that your generalizations are almost always incredibly inept.
>
> My account of religion applies to 99.99% of people, all
> over the world, who adopt the religion of their parents
> since they learn it in school and it's the one approved
> in their society.
>
> And they never question it -- pretty much the same as
> Strats with their ignorant Strat superstition.

Which is irrelevant.

> [..]
>
> > Sure, but what we're discussing is whether belief in any authorship
> > theory is religious.  You should agree that none is since what a
> > religion is cannot be defined.
>
> 'Religion' cannot be defined any more than 'horse' or
> 'house' can be defined.  But we all know what each
> is.  We are not going to live in a horse, or believe in
> a house, or ride a religion.

We all have rough unexpressed definitions of these things which get us
through ordinary conversations but break down in serious debates.

> It's your rigidnikal need for definitions that, in this case,

> get in the way of any sensible thought or any progress
> in the discussion.  Nothing new there.

No, Paul, it's your hyper-rigidnikal need to be able to assert
anything whatever without fear of refutation that makes definition of
terms, the starting point of any responsible discussion, repugnant to
you.


--Bob
>

> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[Tom Reedy]

Open up thread.
See nothing but Crowley and Bob.
Immediately close thread.


Who else does this?

TR

[Peter Groves]

Those who do won't get to see your question, Tom.

Peter G.

[Bob Grumman]

> TR- Hide quoted text -

[Bob Grumman]

I knew that had to be the case based on your Crowley-level comments on
the motivation, thinking and style of argument of anti-Stratfordians,
and references to airheaded articles about cranks and the like by
certified scholars like Shapiro. And what else of interest is being
discussed here? And how did the absence of Crowley and I at the
Forest pay off?

--Bob

[Peter Groves]

"of ... I"??

Peter g.

[Paulc]

On Feb 3, 10:18 pm, Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
(in a post that did not reach my server):

>> My account of religion applies to 99.99% of people, all
>> over the world, who adopt the religion of their parents
>> since they learn it in school and it's the one approved
>> in their society.
>
>> And they never question it -- pretty much the same as
>> Strats with their ignorant Strat superstition.
>
> Which is irrelevant.

It is exactly pertinent. It is why anti-Strats accuse
Strats of quasi-religious 'thinking' -- more exactly,
of dumb mindless acceptance of what they were
taught in school.

>> [..]
>
>>> Sure, but what we're discussing is whether belief in any authorship
>>> theory is religious. You should agree that none is since what a
>>> religion is cannot be defined.
>
>> 'Religion' cannot be defined any more than 'horse' or
>> 'house' can be defined. But we all know what each
>> is. We are not going to live in a horse, or believe in
>> a house, or ride a religion.
>
> We all have rough unexpressed definitions of these things
> which get us through ordinary conversations

NO, we don't. You are a victim of the 'picture
theory of language' -- as I have often told you
before. We don't learn the meanings of words
from definitions, but by practise. As children
we often apply words like 'house' or 'horse'
incorrectly, and are then put right. That does
not mean we learn any definition -- NOR that
one would be any use to us.

> but break down in serious debates.

The 'serious debates', that go down any road you
think appropriate, have already lost their way.
They can only end in confusion and a waste of
time for all concerned.


Paul.

[Bob Grumman]

Ooops, and that's a mistake I'm always getting on others for.

--Bob

[Bob Grumman]

On Feb 4, 8:55 am, Paulc <crowl...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote:
> On Feb 3, 10:18 pm, Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
> (in a post that did not reach my server):
>
> >> My account of religion applies to 99.99% of people, all
> >> over the world, who adopt the religion of their parents
> >> since they learn it in school and it's the one approved
> >> in their society.
>
> >> And they never question it -- pretty much the same as
> >> Strats with their ignorant Strat superstition.
>
> > Which is irrelevant.
>
> It is exactly pertinent.  It is why anti-Strats accuse
> Strats of quasi-religious 'thinking' -- more exactly,
> of dumb mindless acceptance of what they were
> taught in school.

One's mindless acceptance of what one has been taught somewhere does
not make one religious, Paul--because what one accepts mindlessly
could be many things that have nothing to do with religion.

> >> [..]
>
> >>> Sure, but what we're discussing is whether belief in any authorship
> >>> theory is religious.  You should agree that none is since what a
> >>> religion is cannot be defined.
>
> >> 'Religion' cannot be defined any more than 'horse' or
> >> 'house' can be defined.  But we all know what each
> >> is.  We are not going to live in a horse, or believe in
> >> a house, or ride a religion.
>
> > We all have rough unexpressed definitions of these things
> > which get us through ordinary conversations
>
> NO, we don't.  You are a victim of the 'picture
> theory of language' -- as I have often told you
> before.  We don't learn the meanings of words
> from definitions, but by practise.  As children
> we often apply words like 'house' or 'horse'
> incorrectly, and are then put right.  That does
> not mean we learn any definition -- NOR that
> one would be any use to us.

What we learn informally is the definition of words, or the MEANING of
words. Do you really think that a child asked what a horse is would
not define it? The definition would not be scientific but it would
probably be clear enough.

> > but break down in serious debates.
>
> The 'serious debates', that go down any road you
> think appropriate, have already lost their way.
> They can only end in confusion and a waste of
> time for all concerned.

So a discussion about how to cure a disease will end in confusion if
anyone tries to define the disease? Or any potential cure? What
about the effect on the disease of some drug? Should no one attempt
to define it?

I find it hard to believe that even you could be so ignorant of how
people with functioning brains seek understanding how the world works.

--Bob

[Paulc]

On Feb 4, 5:54 pm, Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:

>>>> My account of religion applies to 99.99% of people, all
>>>> over the world, who adopt the religion of their parents
>>>> since they learn it in school and it's the one approved
>>>> in their society.
>
>>>> And they never question it -- pretty much the same as
>>>> Strats with their ignorant Strat superstition.
>
>>> Which is irrelevant.
>
>> It is exactly pertinent. It is why anti-Strats accuse
>> Strats of quasi-religious 'thinking' -- more exactly,
>> of dumb mindless acceptance of what they were
>> taught in school.
>
> One's mindless acceptance of what one has been taught
> somewhere does not make one religious, Paul--because
> what one accepts mindlessly could be many things that have
> nothing to do with religion.

The phrase is 'quasi-religious'. It's becomes a kind
of heresy to express any doubt about the belief.

>>> We all have rough unexpressed definitions of these things
>>> which get us through ordinary conversations
>
>> NO, we don't. You are a victim of the 'picture
>> theory of language' -- as I have often told you
>> before. We don't learn the meanings of words
>> from definitions, but by practise. As children
>> we often apply words like 'house' or 'horse'
>> incorrectly, and are then put right. That does
>> not mean we learn any definition -- NOR that
>> one would be any use to us.
>
> What we learn informally is the definition of words, or the
> MEANING of words.

There is a world of a difference. Most people know
the meaning of most ordinary words in their native
language, but could rarely (if ever) define them.

> Do you really think that a child asked what a horse is would
> not define it? The definition would not be scientific but it
> would probably be clear enough.

Any attempt at definition is irrelevant. Most four-year-
olds can use many words correctly, but would have
no idea how to define them, and most attempts would
be hopeless.

>>> but break down in serious debates.
>
>> The 'serious debates', that go down any road you
>> think appropriate, have already lost their way.
>> They can only end in confusion and a waste of
>> time for all concerned.
>
> So a discussion about how to cure a disease will end in
> confusion if anyone tries to define the disease?

Definitions are irrelevant. Let's say I define 'HIV' as
an American conspiracy, or syphillis as a punishment
for concupisence sent by God. . Identifications are
what matter in seeking a cure (does the test paper
turn blue?).

> I find it hard to believe that even you could be so ignorant of
> how people with functioning brains seek understanding how
> the world works.

It is simply a mistake (if going since about 1850) to
think that definitions determine meaning or enable
language. Wittgenstein realised it was wrong in the
1930s when an Italian friend made a gesture with
his hand -- one that all Italians understand -- and
asked him how he would define that.

Precise definitions are important in some fields,
especially for new or technical concepts: force,
mass, gravity, ohms, volts, watts . . and such
things. But they have only a minor role (or none
at all) when we are employing well-established
concepts like 'religion' or 'Stratforidianism'.


Paul.

[Bob Grumman]

> concepts like 'religion' or 'Stratfordianism'.
>
> Paul.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

I guess your thinking process is simply too alien for me to deal with,
Paul. I don't feel I truly know anything until I've properly defined
it. That's because I want correct understanding of things. You
don't; you just want your view to be accepted, and it can't be unless
words can mean anything you want them to, as they will if you deny the
necessity to define them.

--Bob

[Robin G.]

On Feb 5, 8:16 am, Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
> On Feb 4, 5:05 pm, Paulc <crowl...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote
>
> > On Feb 4, 5:54 pm, Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:

Bob and Paul -

Compared to your endless postings, watching paint dry is more
intellectually more stimulating.
Talking with six year olds is more interesting.

Will Shakespeare, the actor/playwright from Stratford-upon-Avon, wrote
Shakespeare. Believing this is not a theory or a religion.

[Bob Grumman]

On Feb 6, 4:04 am, "Robin G." <doc...@proaxis.com> wrote:
> On Feb 5, 8:16 am, Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 4, 5:05 pm, Paulc <crowl...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote
>
> > > On Feb 4, 5:54 pm, Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
> Bob and Paul -
>
> Compared to your endless postings, watching paint dry is more
> intellectually more stimulating.
> Talking with six year olds is more interesting.
>

Congratulations on that clever "paint drying" comparison, Robin. You
must have put in a lot of hours studying how to be creatively witty to
come up with that one. Nice solid Crowleyan assertion, too--because
you are bored by something, it has to be universally uninteresting.

Of course, your assertion would not be true for a person with any
interest in things like epistemology, linguistics, and abnormal
psychology. Where else could you be exposed to the thinking of
someone who doesn't believe defining one's terms are a sine qua non of
serious debate?

--Bob

[Paulc]

On Feb 6, 9:04 am, "Robin G." <doc...@proaxis.com> wrote:

> Will Shakespeare, the actor/playwright from Stratford-upon-
> Avon, wrote Shakespeare. Believing this is not a theory or a
> religion.

The phrase is "quasi-religion" -- in that Stratfordianism
does not posit a Deity or a Supreme Creator, or some
all-encompassing system of belief -- BUT it does, in
many of its aspects, emulate religious belief-systems.

This is an account (or definition) from Wikipedia:

" . . .Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief
systems, and worldviews that establishes symbols that relate
humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.[1]
Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred
histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain
the origin of life or the universe. They tend to derive morality,
ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas
about the cosmos and human nature.

"The word religion is sometimes used interchangeably with
faith or belief system, but religion differs from private belief in
that it has a public aspect[citation needed]. Most religions
have organized behaviors, including clerical hierarchies, a
definition of what constitutes adherence or membership,
congregations of laity, regular meetings or services for the
purposes of veneration of a deity or for prayer, holy places
(either natural or architectural), and/or scriptures. The practice
of a religion may also include sermons, commemoration of the
activities of a god or gods, sacrifices, festivals, feasts, trance,
initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, meditation,
music, art, dance, public service, or other aspects of human
culture . . ."

Stratfordianism is a faith or belief-system,
packed with myth, with little or no basis in fact.
Its adherents will deny the latter, of course,
but so would the faithful of all other religions.
It relies on the indoctrination of its adherents
in their early years, and does its best to
persecute those who reject its doctrines.
It has a body of respected (and even 'sacred')
'priests' or 'scholars' who castigate disbelievers
without any consideration or examination of
their words or opinions, declaring them 'heretics'.
(Indeed, the 'scholars' would feel that any close
or marginally respectful examination of such
heretical theories would only contaminate their
hands and eyes. Agreed, this attitude often has
some justification, given the sick nature of some
of the heretics -- i.e. the PT brigade. But )

I could go on, but so could anyone . . .

The parallels are manifest.


Paul.

[Bob Grumman]

Lots of parallels, but as many or more differences. If you consider a
list of all the traits anything ever called a religion has a
definition of religion, then of course it will a cinch to call
anything you want a religion. Hey, religions have schisms, and
divide; Oxfordianism has a big schism between the Tudor Prince Faction
and your faction. That's proof that Oxfordianism is a religion,
right?

You won't accept that because what you believe in is automatically not
a religion, but I don't accept it for an objective reason, the fact
that there's nothing supernatural about a belief in Oxford as
Elizabeth's child. And I even have good motives for wanting to call
Oxfordianism of any kind a religion.

--Bob

[John W Kennedy]

No, but denying it is a functional religion, complete with saints,
creeds, and a sense of inevitable triumph as sure as Harold Camping's.

--
John W Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"

[David L. Webb]

In article <4f316718$0$28386$607e...@cv.net>,

John W Kennedy <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:

> On 2012-02-06 09:04:10 +0000, Robin G. said:
>
> > On Feb 5, 8:16 am, Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
> >> On Feb 4, 5:05 pm, Paulc <crowl...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote
> >>
> >>> On Feb 4, 5:54 pm, Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:

> > Bob and Paul -
> >
> > Compared to your endless postings, watching paint dry is more
> > intellectually more stimulating.
> > Talking with six year olds is more interesting.
> >
> > Will Shakespeare, the actor/playwright from Stratford-upon-Avon, wrote
> > Shakespeare. Believing this is not a theory or a religion.

> No, but denying it is a functional religion, complete with saints,
> creeds, and a sense of inevitable triumph as sure as Harold Camping's.

...not to mention some rancorous and often rather amusing schisms.

[Bob Grumman]

On Feb 7, 1:02 pm, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> On 2012-02-06 09:04:10 +0000, Robin G. said:
>
> > On Feb 5, 8:16 am, Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
> >> On Feb 4, 5:05 pm, Paulc <crowl...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote
>
> >>> On Feb 4, 5:54 pm, Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
> > Bob and Paul -
>
> > Compared to your endless postings, watching paint dry is more
> > intellectually more stimulating.
> > Talking with six year olds is more interesting.
>
> > Will Shakespeare, the actor/playwright from Stratford-upon-Avon, wrote
> > Shakespeare. Believing this is not a theory or a religion.
>
> No, but denying it is a functional religion, complete with saints,
> creeds, and a sense of inevitable triumph as sure as Harold Camping's.

Nope. A religion has to be based at least in part on a belief in
things that don't obey the laws of nature as science conceives them--
at least by my definition of the term. Your implied definition makes
almost anything a religion, including bardolatry and Darwinianism.

[Mark Steese]

Bob Grumman <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in
news:2b766599-88f9-4449...@c21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:

> On Feb 7, 1:02 pm, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> On 2012-02-06 09:04:10 +0000, Robin G. said:
>>
>> > On Feb 5, 8:16 am, Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>> >> On Feb 4, 5:05 pm, Paulc <crowl...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote
>>
>> >>> On Feb 4, 5:54 pm, Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Bob and Paul -
>>
>> > Compared to your endless postings, watching paint dry is more
>> > intellectually more stimulating.
>> > Talking with six year olds is more interesting.
>>
>> > Will Shakespeare, the actor/playwright from Stratford-upon-Avon,
>> > wrote Shakespeare. Believing this is not a theory or a religion.
>>
>> No, but denying it is a functional religion, complete with saints,
>> creeds, and a sense of inevitable triumph as sure as Harold
>> Camping's.
>
> Nope. A religion has to be based at least in part on a belief in
> things that don't obey the laws of nature as science conceives them--
> at least by my definition of the term. Your implied definition makes
> almost anything a religion, including bardolatry and Darwinianism.

John said it was a *functional* religion, i.e., a belief system that
functions in the same ways as a religion for all practical purposes. In
my opinion Bardolatry is a functional religion in both its pro- and
anti-Shakespearian modes: its principal creed, which may be summarized
as "The Bard's works are the greatest achievement in literature," is
accepted on faith by its adherents, which does save them a great deal of
effort that might otherwise be spent on developing an ability to
appreciate the aesthetics of poetry, learning how to analyze the
technical aspects of various verse forms, and understanding
Shakespeare's historical and cultural contexts. Bardolators have more
important business to hand: Pope Jim, for example, is busy
anathematizing such heretics as Brian Vickers, while the Protestants
like Crowley and Art metaphorically nail their theses to the doors of
the Folger Library. (The sadly absent Dennis McCarthy is the Joseph
Smith of Bardolators.)
--
Opposing phalanxes of automobiles stream and stop, stream and stop,their
motors agitated by complex refinements of the same subtance that
preserved, in the La Brea Pits, those petrified relics of vanished forms
of life. -David Lavender

[Peter Groves]

On Feb 8, 9:01 am, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Brilliant analogy.

Peter G.

[David L. Webb]

In article <Xns9FF28EBF...@88.198.244.100>,

In Art's case, did you perhaps misspell "feces"? After all, "Martin"
is an anagram of "I'm Art N." Otherwise, very well put.

> to the doors of
> the Folger Library. (The sadly absent Dennis McCarthy is the Joseph
> Smith of Bardolators.)

Again, well put. But to which religious figure would you liken
Elizabeth Weir?

[Bob Grumman]

On Feb 7, 5:01 pm, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Jim is not at all a bardolator. He merely believes that certain works
attributed to Shakespeare were indeed written by him.

> Opposing phalanxes of automobiles stream and stop, stream and stop,their
> motors agitated by complex refinements of the same subtance that
> preserved, in the La Brea Pits, those petrified relics of vanished forms

> of life.                -David Lavender- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, to me something that functions as a religion must, among other
things, ignore the laws of nature. If you can call something that
doesn't do that a religion of any kind, you can call just about
anything a "functional religion." All of science, for instance, since
some worship it without knowing anything about it except what experts
tell them, and dream of the day when science will bring us Utopia,
etc. If "functional religion" is different from "religion," then it's
a null term, applicable to just about anything. Stamp collecting,
say. The problem with the word, "religion," is that it's so useful a
metaphor for "all-consuming life-interest" that people forget that it
has a non-metaphorical, objective meaning--although I can't say I've
figured out exactly what it is. Belief in a supreme being, belief in
the possibility of the abrogation of the laws of nature, belief in the
non-material. Things like rites, temples, intolerance of non-
believers, priests, and the like are not part of it. It's worth
getting a good definition of, I think, but I'm finding more and more
here and elsewhere that just about no one any longer believes in
defining things.

--Bob

[Bob Grumman]

Oh? What angel visited Dennis?

--Bob

[John W Kennedy]

On 2012-02-08 01:17:06 +0000, David L. Webb said:
> Again, well put. But to which religious figure would you liken
> Elizabeth Weir?

Michele Bachmann?

[David L. Webb]

In article
<c6729224-ae47-462b...@1g2000yqv.googlegroups.com>,
Bob Grumman <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:

[...]

The angel Moroni is said to have visited Joseph Smith. Perhaps the
the angel who visited Dennis styled himself similarly, but dropped the
last letter of his name?

> --Bob

[Mark Steese]

"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote in
news:david.l.webb-A1A9...@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com:

> In article <Xns9FF28EBF...@88.198.244.100>,
> Mark Steese <mark_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Bob Grumman <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in

>> news:2b766599-88f9-4449-a662-d184561ae6c9
@c21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com

Joanna Southcott.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanna_Southcott
--
It can be hard, sometimes, to come home to Van Nuys. -Sandra Tsing Loh

[David L. Webb]

In article <4f31e5ea$0$13526$607e...@cv.net>,

John W Kennedy <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:

> On 2012-02-08 01:17:06 +0000, David L. Webb said:
> > Again, well put. But to which religious figure would you liken
> > Elizabeth Weir?

> Michele Bachmann?

An excellent suggestion! Michelle Bachmann was factually wrong far
more often than the others in the early stages of the contest. She also
cannot tell Concord, NH from Concord, MA, thereby sharing Elizabeth's
celebrated geographical cluelessness. And her history is on a par with
Elizabeth's (e.g., her assertion that the founding fathers ended
slavery). Perhaps Elizabeth should have gone into politics.

However, I still suspect that Elizabeth could effortlessly outstrip
Bachmann in historical, geographical, scientific, or linguistic gaffes.
And, while Bachmann may cavalierly disregard scientific consensus on
matters like climate change, I have never seen her question special
relativity, or fret that the atmosphere was on the verge of ignition.
It seems to me that Elizabeth remains in a class by herself. Perhaps if
one could combine the pratfalls of Michelle Bachmann, Dan Quayle, and
George W. Bush, one might begin to approach the high comedic standard
that Elizabeth has set.

[Mark Steese]

Bob Grumman <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in

news:91e81ebf-15b4-484b...@c21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:

> On Feb 7, 5:01 pm, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote

>> innews:2b766599-88f9-4449-a6
> 62-d184...@c21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:
[snip]

>> John said it was a *functional* religion, i.e., a belief system that
>> functions in the same ways as a religion for all practical purposes.
>> In my opinion Bardolatry is a functional religion in both its pro-
>> and anti-Shakespearian modes: its principal creed, which may be
>> summarized as "The Bard's works are the greatest achievement in
>> literature," is accepted on faith by its adherents, which does save
>> them a great deal of effort that might otherwise be spent on
>> developing an ability to appreciate the aesthetics of poetry,
>> learning how to analyze the technical aspects of various verse forms,
>> and understanding Shakespeare's historical and cultural contexts.
>> Bardolators have more important business to hand: Pope Jim, for
>> example, is busy anathematizing such heretics as Brian Vickers, while
>> the Protestants like Crowley and Art metaphorically nail their theses
>> to the doors of the Folger Library. (The sadly absent Dennis McCarthy
>> is the Joseph Smith of Bardolators.)
>

> Jim is not at all a bardolator. He merely believes that certain works
> attributed to Shakespeare were indeed written by him.

Back in 2003 Jim wrote that "I think they [Lynne Kositsky and Richard
Kennedy] have feelings of inferiority about their own work because it's
not taken seriously as literature, so they develop a socially elitist
approach to the greatest writer of all time in compensation."

I fail to see how describing Shakey as "the greatest writer of all time"
is compatible with being "not at all a bardolator." Nor was that the
only time he expressed such a belief: in January 2008 he posted his
usual boilerplate ("Despite the many candidates," etc.) under the
subject line "Shakespeare, the Greatest Writer of All Time, Was Just
Shakespeare."

> Well, to me something that functions as a religion must, among other
> things, ignore the laws of nature.

All right. Why should anyone else accept that, though?

> If you can call something that doesn't do that a religion of any kind,
> you can call just about anything a "functional religion."

It seems to me that there are other significant and important aspects to
religion besides ignoring the laws of nature, and there are beliefs that
ignore the laws of nature but do not rise to the level of religion -
astrology, for example.

> All of science, for instance, since some worship it without knowing
> anything about it except what experts tell them, and dream of the day
> when science will bring us Utopia, etc.

Scientism is a functionally religion; science is not.

> If "functional religion" is different from "religion," then it's
> a null term, applicable to just about anything. Stamp collecting,
> say.

If that's the case, then you should have no problem applying the term
functional religion to stamp collecting. Have at it.

> The problem with the word, "religion," is that it's so useful a
> metaphor for "all-consuming life-interest" that people forget that it
> has a non-metaphorical, objective meaning--although I can't say I've
> figured out exactly what it is.

I don't think people forget that the word 'religion' has an objective
meaning, but then I don't think the word 'religion' has an objective
meaning in the first place: taking 'objective' to mean 'A thing or class
of things external to or independent of the mind,' it seems to me that
meaning itself is necessarily unobjective.

> Belief in a supreme being, belief in the possibility of the abrogation
> of the laws of nature, belief in the non-material.

Such as objective meaning?

> Things like rites, temples, intolerance of non- believers, priests,
> and the like are not part of it.

In your subjective opinion, no.

> It's worth getting a good definition of, I think, but I'm
> finding more and more here and elsewhere that just about no one any
> longer believes in defining things.

It seems rather more likely to me that just about no one wants to bother
trying to explain to you why it's illegitimate for any given individual
to redefine an established word such as 'religion' to exclude attributes
that many other people include in its meaning. That ain't how language
works, Bob.
--
The proud flag went up, hoisted on a staff in the center of the old
Sonoma Plaza. The crowds of Mexicans greeted it with laughter and
derision, taking the rather corpulent bear for a pig. -Lambert Florin

[Bob Grumman]

> > On Feb 7, 5:01 pm, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote
> >> innews:2b766599-88f9-4449-a6

> > 62-d184561ae...@c21g2000yqi.googlegroups.com:

> [snip]
> >> John said it was a *functional* religion, i.e., a belief system that
> >> functions in the same ways as a religion for all practical purposes.
> >> In my opinion Bardolatry is a functional religion in both its pro-
> >> and anti-Shakespearian modes: its principal creed, which may be
> >> summarized as "The Bard's works are the greatest achievement in
> >> literature," is accepted on faith by its adherents, which does save
> >> them a great deal of effort that might otherwise be spent on
> >> developing an ability to appreciate the aesthetics of poetry,
> >> learning how to analyze the technical aspects of various verse forms,
> >> and understanding Shakespeare's historical and cultural contexts.
> >> Bardolators have more important business to hand: Pope Jim, for
> >> example, is busy anathematizing such heretics as Brian Vickers, while
> >> the Protestants like Crowley and Art metaphorically nail their theses
> >> to the doors of the Folger Library. (The sadly absent Dennis McCarthy
> >> is the Joseph Smith of Bardolators.)
>
> > Jim is not at all a bardolator.  He merely believes that certain works
> > attributed to Shakespeare were indeed written by him.
>
> Back in 2003 Jim wrote that "I think they [Lynne Kositsky and Richard
> Kennedy] have feelings of inferiority about their own work because it's
> not taken seriously as literature, so they develop a socially elitist
> approach to the greatest writer of all time in compensation."

You're a good cherry-picker, but not much of a reader. Knowing how
Jim thinks of WS (from having seen many posts of his saying
unbardolatrous things about him), I'm confident that he was saying

they "develop a socially elitist

approach to the PERSON THEY VIEW AS greatest writer of all time in
compensation." But you can consider WS the greatest writer in the
world without being a bardolator. Bardolators (Crowley, for instance)
view him not only as the world's greatest writer, but orders of
magnitude superior to all others.

> I fail to see how describing Shakey as "the greatest writer of all time"
> is compatible with being "not at all a bardolator." Nor was that the
> only time he expressed such a belief: in January 2008 he posted his
> usual boilerplate ("Despite the many candidates," etc.) under the
> subject line "Shakespeare, the Greatest Writer of All Time, Was Just
> Shakespeare."
>
> > Well, to me something that functions as a religion must, among other
> > things, ignore the laws of nature.
>
> All right. Why should anyone else accept that, though?

Because it makes sense, and it's a way of distinguishing what it
defines from other things with which it has characteristics in common.

>
> > If you can call something that doesn't do that a religion of any kind,
> > you can call just about anything a "functional religion."
>
> It seems to me that there are other significant and important aspects to
> religion besides ignoring the laws of nature, and there are beliefs that
> ignore the laws of nature but do not rise to the level of religion -
> astrology, for example.

Yes. Maybe that's why I said, "among other things." Which I did
because I know how you are, not because it's necessary. To say a
thing called a boat has to move around in water is not to say anything
that moves around in water is a boat.

>
> > All of science, for instance, since some worship it without knowing
> > anything about it except what experts tell them, and dream of the day
> > when science will bring us Utopia, etc.
>
> Scientism is a functionally religion; science is not.

Not by a rational definition of science.

>
> > If "functional religion" is different from "religion," then it's
> > a null term, applicable to just about anything.  Stamp collecting,
> > say.
>
> If that's the case, then you should have no problem applying the term
> functional religion to stamp collecting. Have at it.

> > The problem with the word, "religion," is that it's so useful a
> > metaphor for "all-consuming life-interest" that people forget that it
> > has a non-metaphorical, objective meaning--although I can't say I've
> > figured out exactly what it is.
>
> I don't think people forget that the word 'religion' has an objective
> meaning, but then I don't think the word 'religion' has an objective
> meaning in the first place: taking 'objective' to mean 'A thing or class
> of things external to or independent of the mind,' it seems to me that
> meaning itself is necessarily unobjective.

Sophistry is easy. Even with my long practice arguing with Paul, I
have trouble with it. In this case, I'm too tired to bother.

> > Belief in a supreme being, belief in the possibility of the abrogation
> > of the laws of nature, belief in the non-material.
>
> Such as objective meaning?

Sure. Although it may be that words are objects--neurophysiological
objects that brain-scans will someday be able to objectively
recognize.

> > Things like rites, temples, intolerance of non-believers, priests,

> > and the like are not part of it.
>
> In your subjective opinion, no.

According to the rational objective definition of the term I propose--
because there are things with rites, temples, etc. that objectively
lack the three characteristics of religion as I tentatively define it.

> > It's worth getting a good definition of, I think, but I'm
> > finding more and more here and elsewhere that just about no one any
> > longer believes in defining things.
>
> It seems rather more likely to me that just about no one wants to bother
> trying to explain to you why it's illegitimate for any given individual
> to redefine an established word such as 'religion' to exclude attributes
> that many other people include in its meaning. That ain't how language
> works, Bob.

Nullinguists are always saying that to me. My position is that there
are the quasi-definitions that morons use because they don't need to
think clearly, and what I call the verosophical definitions for the
few seriously trying to understand the universe. I don't much care
what people like you and Crowley think a religion is--even though more
people share your subjective view that subjective meanings are valid
than share my subjective view that only objective meanings are valid--
for serious thinking.


--Bob

[Mark Steese]

Bob Grumman <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in

news:658132d4-1261-4a31...@do4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:

I quoted posts that Jim actually made, Bob. I'm confident that if Jim
made many posts of his that said "unbardolatrous things" about
Shakespeare, it would be trivially easy for you to produce examples
instead of bullshitting about what you think Jim was really saying.

>> > If you can call something that doesn't do that a religion of any
>> > kind, you can call just about anything a "functional religion."
>>
>> It seems to me that there are other significant and important aspects
>> to religion besides ignoring the laws of nature, and there are
>> beliefs that ignore the laws of nature but do not rise to the level
>> of religion - astrology, for example.
>
> Yes. Maybe that's why I said, "among other things." Which I did
> because I know how you are

You don't have a *clue* how I am, Bob.
--
Usually annihilating a culture and romanticizing it are done separately,
but Bunnell neatly compresses two stages of historical change into one
conversation. -Rebecca Solnit

[Bob Grumman]

On Feb 9, 2:19 am, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> conversation.   -Rebecca Solnit- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

You really don't think after the exposure I've had to you, I don't
even have a clue how you are, Mark? Or that I could have predicted
you'd say something like that? Oddly, I think you have a pretty good
idea of how I am--you just aren't bright enough to appreciate the full
package.

[Mark Steese]

Bob Grumman <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in

news:56e4464a-e11a-4871...@s13g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:

> On Feb 9, 2:19 am, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote

>> innews:658132d4-1261-4a31-bb
> e7-1e6e...@do4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:

> You really don't think after the exposure I've had to you, I don't
> even have a clue how you are, Mark?

Maybe!
--
The main house contained a carefully tuned piano at which Harris,
without any previous musical training, could play and thereby invoke his
Lily Queen into "electro-vital form." -Robert Hine

[sabrinama...@gmail.com]

I'd like to cycle back to Bob's original post, in which Bob proposed to define a religion as a system of beliefs which includes ALL of the following:

(1) a dependence on the undeniable suspension of some law or laws of
nature as agreed to by scientists;

(2) the absence of direct material evidence or direct eye-witness
testimony by identifiable witnesses that is corroborated by
identifiable witnesses supporting it;

(3) a belief in unprecedented events.

Setting aside (1), which is basically irrelevant to the authorship debate, let's focus on (2) and (3). Bob wants to accuse authorship skeptics of ignoring/dismissing/denying direct evidence (2), and believing in unprecedented events (3). However, traditional Shakespeare scholars routinely ignore/dismiss/deny the direct evidence that William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote or co-authored many apocryphal plays and bad quartos (2), and believe that a host of Elizabethan/Jacobean actors, publishers, and stationers sought in an unprecedented fashion to publicly credit William Shakespeare with writing more than a dozen bad plays he didn't really write (3).

Bob, you cannot draw a clear distinction between traditional Shakespeare scholars and authorship skeptics based on this line of argument anymore, post Dennis McCarthy's North of Shakespeare and my own The Apocryphal William Shakespeare. It is an outdated twentieth-century argument. Get with the times!

Sabrina

[Peter Groves]

On Feb 11, 2:35 pm, sabrinamariefeld...@gmail.com wrote:
> I'd like to cycle back to Bob's original post, in which Bob proposed to define a religion as a system of beliefs which includes ALL of the following:
>
> (1) a dependence on the undeniable suspension of some law or laws of
> nature as agreed to by scientists;
>
> (2) the absence of direct material evidence or direct eye-witness
> testimony by identifiable witnesses that is corroborated by
> identifiable witnesses supporting it;
>
> (3) a belief in unprecedented events.
>
> Setting aside (1), which is basically irrelevant to the authorship debate, let's focus on (2) and (3). Bob wants to accuse authorship skeptics of ignoring/dismissing/denying direct evidence (2), and believing in unprecedented events (3). However, traditional Shakespeare scholars routinely ignore/dismiss/deny the direct evidence that William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote or co-authored many apocryphal plays and bad quartos (2),

Half-wit, try to find out the difference between 'evidence' and
'proof' before you post again.

>and believe that a host of Elizabethan/Jacobean actors, publishers, and stationers sought in an unprecedented fashion to publicly credit William Shakespeare with writing more than a dozen bad plays he didn't really write (3).
>
> Bob, you cannot draw a clear distinction between traditional Shakespeare scholars and authorship skeptics based on this line of argument anymore, post Dennis McCarthy's North of Shakespeare

I see: the fact that all evidence is not equally weighty means we can
discard all evidence whatsoever and build castles in the air. I take
it you're writing from a padded room.

Peter G.

[Bob Grumman]

Hi, Sabrina. Haven't heard from you for a while. I hope your book is
doing better than mine, which I can't seem to finish.

As to the above, you seem to have come in late. I've been arguing
that neither side is a religion. You're right that you and Dennis
have direct evidence on your side. I even credit Oxfordians with
having weak direct evidence--the fact that Oxford was recorded as a
playwright. ButI would not say that traditional scholars "ignore/
dismiss/deny" yours and Dennis's so much as they simply take other
evidence as stronger than it. As for your "host of Elizabethan/
Jacobean actors," etc., I think you['ve been reading Dennis toomuch.
One or two printers put Will's name or initials on a title-page and
were copied by a few others, that's all. There was certainly
precedent for misattribution of literary works. Which does it for my
response--because we hit the saturation point on the subject a few
months ago with Dennis.

--Bob

[Paul Crowley]

On 11/02/2012 11:59, Bob Grumman wrote:

[..]

> I've been arguing that neither side is a religion.

No one claims that either side is a religion.
The phrase is 'quasi-religious'. Stratfordianism
demonstrates many of the characteristics of
the traditional religions -- especially a dumb
unquestioning attitude to a few doctrines,
surrounded by ancient myths, learned at school,
and regarded as a norm in the society, a 'priest-
hood' of pretend-'scholars' or authorities, whose
words on core matters cannot be disputed.

> But I would not say that traditional scholars "ignore/

> dismiss/deny" yours and Dennis's so much as they
> simply take other evidence as stronger than it.

It's absurd to suggest that 'evidence' is relevant
to Stratfordian belief.

[..]

> One or two printers put Will's name or initials on a title-
> page and were copied by a few others, that's all.

With what other author has this happened?
If you take such a casual attitude to the kind
of evidence you normally claim to be absolutely
authoritative and impeccable, you might as
well chuck in the towel before you start -- if
you were capable of thinking rationally on this
subject. But you aren't -- since your belief is
quasi-religious and nothing can undermine it.

> You're right that you and Dennis have direct evidence on
> your side. I even credit Oxfordians with having weak
> direct evidence--the fact that Oxford was recorded as a
> playwright.

You'd be much better off trying to define what you
mean by 'direct evidence' (as, presumably, against
'indirect evidence' or some other categories).

There's now apparently not much direct about
names or initials on title pages, and the record
that one or two contemporary writers claim to
have heard (or 'to know') that Oxford was a
playwright is hardly 'direct' -- in any definition.


Paul.

[Bob Grumman]

On Feb 11, 8:59 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> On 11/02/2012 11:59, Bob Grumman wrote:
>
> [..]
>
> > I've been arguing that neither side is a religion.
>
> No one claims that either side is a religion.

All I can say, Paul, is that I was under the distinct impression that
I've argued against that very claim more than once.

> The phrase is 'quasi-religious'.

Right: a term applicable to just about anything, so ideal for
propagandists.

> Stratfordianism demonstrates many of the characteristics of
> the traditional religions -- especially a dumb
> unquestioning attitude to a few doctrines,
> surrounded by ancient myths, learned at school,
> and regarded as a norm in the society, a 'priest-
> hood' of pretend-'scholars' or authorities, whose
> words on core matters cannot be disputed.

Ditto Darwinianism according to its opponents.

>
> > But I would not say that traditional scholars "ignore/
> > dismiss/deny" yours and Dennis's so much as they
> > simply take other evidence as stronger than it.
>
> It's absurd to suggest that 'evidence' is relevant
> to Stratfordian belief.

Even many Oxfordians accept that names on title pages are evidence.
The refusal of a psychotic to accept anything that contradicts his
insane belief systems does not mean there is no evidence against it.

> [..]
>
> > One or two printers put Will's name or initials on a title-
> > page and were copied by a few others, that's all.
>
> With what other author has this happened?

With what other author should it have happened? It has happened many
times with painters. And rug-makers. I might ask, too, what other
author ever had an illiterate front?

> If you take such a casual attitude to the kind
> of evidence you normally claim to be absolutely
> authoritative and impeccable,

Here you go lying again, Paul. Or can you quote anything of mine
stating that I consider names on title-pages "absolutely authoritative
and impeccable?" As for my attitude, it is the result of a
consideration of many factors

> you might as
> well chuck in the towel before you start -- if
> you were capable of thinking rationally on this
> subject.  But you aren't -- since your belief is
> quasi-religious and nothing can undermine it.

My authorship beliefs are based on records I call evidence and you
call forgeries; you authorship beliefs aren't evenr based on records
anyone can call evidence much less challenge as forgeries. Ergo, my
beliefs are less quasi-religious than yours.

> > You're right that you and Dennis have direct evidence on
> > your side.  I even credit Oxfordians with having weak
> > direct evidence--the fact that Oxford was recorded as a
> > playwright.
>
> You'd be much better off trying to define what you
> mean by 'direct evidence' (as, presumably, against
> 'indirect evidence' or some other categories).
> There's now apparently not much direct about
> names or initials on title pages,

The name, Shakespeare," on a title-page leads directly to a man named
"Shakespeare" on other documents. That our author was called, "Mr.
Shakespeare," leads directly to the ONLY man then known to be "Mr.
Shakespeare."

> and the record
> that one or two contemporary writers claim to
> have heard (or 'to know') that Oxford was a
> playwright is hardly 'direct' -- in any definition.
>
> Paul.

I agree. I wasn't thinking when I called it direct evidence. It's
only weak indirect evidence. The only evidence of any kind we have
for Oxford, I believe.

--Bob

[Mark Steese]

Bob Grumman <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in

news:2399f1eb-05ae-4632...@s13g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:

> On Feb 11, 8:59 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
>> On 11/02/2012 11:59, Bob Grumman wrote:
>>
>> [..]
>>
>> > I've been arguing that neither side is a religion.
>>
>> No one claims that either side is a religion.
>
> All I can say, Paul, is that I was under the distinct impression that
> I've argued against that very claim more than once.

Indeed, the comparison has been made here in hlas many times over the
years. As far back as July 2000, Peter Zenner (remember him) was flatly
stating that "Stratfordianism is a religion." This position was also
endorsed by Okay Fine (remember him?), who wrote in October 2001 that
"Stratfordianism clearely [sic] has elements of religious belief.
Despite the lack of evidence, they believe that Shakspere and
Shakespeare were one and the same. It's a faith-based epistemology."

Jim KQKnave argued in response that the antis are basically following a
religion:

"I would say that it has many of the attributes of religion.
One important quality is that the true believer must believe
in things that he cannot see. This is true of antistratfordians
of every stripe. In the case of religion, say Christianity, there
are at least *some* stories about Christ, his life, raising the
dead, etc. But antistratfordians have absolutely nothing on
which to base their faith, as there are *no* stories whatsoever
about any of their candidates being the author."

Many other examples could be adduced.

>> The phrase is 'quasi-religious'.
>
> Right: a term applicable to just about anything, so ideal for
> propagandists.

In fact, the phrase "quasi-religious" has only rarely been applied to
the authorship debate here in hlas: Ken Kaplan is the only poster who
seems to have used it more than once.

And how do you define "propagandists," Bob?

>> Stratfordianism demonstrates many of the characteristics of
>> the traditional religions -- especially a dumb
>> unquestioning attitude to a few doctrines,
>> surrounded by ancient myths, learned at school,
>> and regarded as a norm in the society, a 'priest-
>> hood' of pretend-'scholars' or authorities, whose
>> words on core matters cannot be disputed.
>
> Ditto Darwinianism according to its opponents.

"Darwinianism" only exists in the minds of its opponents: although most
evolutionary biologists have great respect for Darwin, none of them
accepts everything he wrote at face value, nor would he have expected
them to. He was well aware of the fact that he was only making the first
steps towards a new science: he knew what he didn't know.
--
Year after year you wrote up these stories, and they'd wind up archived
in a pile of cardboard boxes in the warehouse, flattening and drying
like pressed flowers under the weight of all the stories above them -
the unknown stratigraphy of your career. -Jordan Fisher Smith

[Bob Grumman]

On Feb 11, 2:10 pm, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Off the top of my head: One who who wants to convince others that he's
right through the use of lies, ambiguity and emotion rather than
demonstrate with facts and logic that he's right.

> >> Stratfordianism demonstrates many of the characteristics of
> >> the traditional religions -- especially a dumb
> >> unquestioning attitude to a few doctrines,
> >> surrounded by ancient myths, learned at school,
> >> and regarded as a norm in the society, a 'priest-
> >> hood' of pretend-'scholars' or authorities, whose
> >> words on core matters cannot be disputed.
>
> > Ditto Darwinianism according to its opponents.
>
> "Darwinianism" only exists in the minds of its opponents: although most
> evolutionary biologists have great respect for Darwin, none of them
> accepts everything he wrote at face value, nor would he have expected
> them to. He was well aware of the fact that he was only making the first
> steps towards a new science: he knew what he didn't know.

Nonetheless my dictionary lists it, with a definition. It's Darwin's
theory as developed by others following him--and of course not
infallable.

--Bob

[Paul Crowley]

On 11/02/2012 18:14, Bob Grumman wrote:

>> The phrase is 'quasi-religious'.
>
> Right: a term applicable to just about anything, so ideal for
> propagandists.

It's certainly not a term that can be applied to
anything. _Relatively_ few beliefs possess the
characteristics I list here:

>> Stratfordianism demonstrates many of the characteristics of
>> the traditional religions -- especially a dumb
>> unquestioning attitude to a few doctrines,
>> surrounded by ancient myths, learned at school,
>> and regarded as a norm in the society, a 'priest-
>> hood' of pretend-'scholars' or authorities, whose
>> words on core matters cannot be disputed.
>
> Ditto Darwinianism according to its opponents.

The differences lie in (a) the huge amount of
evidence, and (b) the plausibility of Darwinian
ideas (as against those of the opposition) --
i.e. in their simplicity, elegance and parsimony.

>>> But I would not say that traditional scholars "ignore/
>>> dismiss/deny" yours and Dennis's so much as they
>>> simply take other evidence as stronger than it.
>>
>> It's absurd to suggest that 'evidence' is relevant
>> to Stratfordian belief.
>
> Even many Oxfordians accept that names on title pages are
> evidence. The refusal of a psychotic to accept anything that
> contradicts his insane belief systems does not mean there
> is no evidence against it.

Who is saying "no evidence" ?

The names on the title pages ARE good evidence.
They (almost invariably) have "Shake-speare" (with
or without the hyphen) even though printed by many
different printers, and published by many different
publishers, in an era when the spelling of surnames
was extremely variable. The name of the Stratman
(and all others with a roughly similar surname) was
routinely spelled in hundreds of different ways, even
within the same sentence.

>> [..]
>>
>>> One or two printers put Will's name or initials on a title-
>>> page and were copied by a few others, that's all.
>>
>> With what other author has this happened?
>
> With what other author should it have happened?

Jonson, Spenser, Sidney, Foxe, Holinshed, etc., etc.

> It has happened many times with painters.

Around 1600? I doubt it. In any case, a very different
market.

> And rug-makers.

Eh? When and where?

> I might ask, too, what other author ever had an illiterate
> front?

Logical thought is impossible when you can't
distinguish the general from the particular.
What other person called Bob Grumman lives
in Florida and had an interest in poetry and
Shakespeare? None? Therefore you can't
exist.
[..]

> My authorship beliefs are based on records I call evidence
> and you call forgeries; you authorship beliefs aren't evenr
> based on records anyone can call evidence much less
> challenge as forgeries. Ergo, my beliefs are less quasi-
> religious than yours.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Every aspect of the Stratfordian theory is extraordinary.
But the evidence for any of it is thin to non-existent --
with no reasonable account why that should be so.

Whereas no one disputes the existence of court
poets/ playwrights in most European courts of the
day. The reasons why they often kept their
identities and activities hidden are also well-known.

>> You'd be much better off trying to define what you
>> mean by 'direct evidence' (as, presumably, against
>> 'indirect evidence' or some other categories).
>> There's now apparently not much direct about
>> names or initials on title pages,
>
> The name, Shakespeare," on a title-page leads directly to a
> man named "Shakespeare" on other documents.

A tiny number (such as the application for the coat-
of-arms) -- and all readily explicable as part of a
cover-up. (Not that I would accept he is referred
to as "Shakespeare" on those documents without
seeing them.)

> That our author was called, "Mr. Shakespeare," leads
> directly to the ONLY man then known to be "Mr.
> Shakespeare."

What evidence is there that the Stratman "was
known as Mr Shakespeare" -- beyond that strictly
necessary for being a stooge? (This is, discounting
the coat-of-arms and the monument. What person
who knew him in Stratford-upon-Avon ever called
him "Mister Shakespeare" ?)

>> and the record
>> that one or two contemporary writers claim to
>> have heard (or 'to know') that Oxford was a
>> playwright is hardly 'direct' -- in any definition.
>

> I agree. I wasn't thinking when I called it direct evidence.
> It's only weak indirect evidence. The only evidence of any
> kind we have for Oxford, I believe.

What the heck is 'direct evidence' as against 'indirect
evidence' -- in the context in which you use them?
You fling these terms around without any definition.


Paul.

[Bob Grumman]

On Feb 12, 9:12 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> On 11/02/2012 18:14, Bob Grumman wrote:
>
> >> The phrase is 'quasi-religious'.
>
> > Right: a term applicable to just about anything, so ideal for
> > propagandists.
>
> It's certainly not a term that can be applied to
> anything. _Relatively_ few beliefs possess the
> characteristics I list here:
>
> >> Stratfordianism demonstrates many of the characteristics of
> >> the traditional religions -- especially a dumb
> >> unquestioning attitude to a few doctrines,
> >> surrounded by ancient myths, learned at school,
> >> and regarded as a norm in the society, a 'priest-
> >> hood' of pretend-'scholars' or authorities, whose
> >> words on core matters cannot be disputed.

That's arguable considering all the conspiracy theories out there that
there are, BUT it doesn't really matter because I was talking about
the term "quasi-religious," which--as I said--can be applied to almost
anything, including pseudo-sciences which were not learned at school,
etc. I might add that your understanding of Stratfordianism as a
quasi-religion is completely ridiculous. As I've told you before,
very little time is spent on Shakespeare the author. Certainly no
ancient myths are involved.

> > Ditto Darwinianism according to its opponents.
>
> The differences lie in (a) the huge amount of
> evidence, and (b) the plausibility of Darwinian
> ideas (as against those of the opposition) --
> i.e. in their simplicity, elegance and parsimony.

Which the opponents of Darwinianism deny, just as you deny what seems
to me and others a large if not huge amojnt of real evidence for
Shakespeare.

> >>> But I would not say that traditional scholars "ignore/
> >>> dismiss/deny" yours and Dennis's so much as they
> >>> simply take other evidence as stronger than it.
>
> >> It's absurd to suggest that 'evidence' is relevant
> >> to Stratfordian belief.
>
> > Even many Oxfordians accept that names on title pages are
> > evidence. The refusal of a psychotic to accept anything that
> > contradicts his insane belief systems does not mean there
> > is no evidence against it.
>
> Who is saying "no evidence" ?

How can you say that it's absurd to suggest evidence is relevant to
Stratfordian belief without denying it exists for Stratfordians and is
thus relevant to their belief?

> The names on the title pages ARE good evidence.
> They (almost invariably) have "Shake-speare" (with
> or without the hyphen) even though printed by many
> different printers, and published by many different
> publishers, in an era when the spelling of surnames
> was extremely variable.  The name of the Stratman
> (and all others with a roughly similar surname) was
> routinely spelled in hundreds of different ways, even
> within the same sentence.

Right, Paul, but as I say in [..], that name on the title-page is also
strong direct evidence that it referred to a man in Stratford whose
name was not infrequently spelled as it is, especially when
accompanied by "Mr," or "gent.," this Stratford Shakespeare being the
only man in England named Shakespeare on any records who was also a
gentleman.

>
> >>> One or two printers put Will's name or initials on a title-
> >>> page and were copied by a few others, that's all.
>
> >> With what other author has this happened?
>
> > With what other author should it have happened?
>
> Jonson, Spenser, Sidney, Foxe, Holinshed, etc., etc.

Not so. Non-playwrights had more say in the matter, and few were as
commercially popular as Shakespeare. Most cared more about the matter
than Shakespeare, who made his money as a sharer in the profits from
performances, not on the sale of scripts to printers. I think it may
have gotten harder to get away with after 1600 or so. There were many
other factors that a much better literary historian of the times could
point out that I'm only vaguely aware of or completely unaware of.

> > It has happened many times with painters.
>
> Around 1600?  I doubt it. In any case, a very different
> market.
>
> > And rug-makers.
>
> Eh?  When and where?

Everywhere once persian rugs became high-priced. They and antiques
have always inspired fakes.

>
> > I might ask, too, what other author ever had an illiterate
> > front?
>
> Logical thought is impossible when you can't
> distinguish the general from the particular.
> What other person called Bob Grumman lives
> in Florida and had an interest in poetry and
> Shakespeare?   None?  Therefore you can't
> exist.

Right. Just as Shakespeare who was the only writer who had his name
on several plays that weren't his could not exist, and Oxford, the
only playwright who had an illiterate front could not exist.

> [..]
>
> > My authorship beliefs are based on records I call evidence
> > and you call forgeries; you authorship beliefs aren't even

> > based on records anyone can call evidence much less
> > challenge as forgeries.  Ergo, my beliefs are less quasi-
> > religious than yours.
>
> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
> Every aspect of the Stratfordian theory is extraordinary.
> But the evidence for any of it is thin to non-existent --
> with no reasonable account why that should be so.

> Whereas no one disputes the existence of court
> poets/ playwrights in most European courts of the
> day.  The reasons why they often kept their
> identities and activities hidden are also well-known.

Please please please write your book showing that a claim that a man
born in a small town to what we nowadays would call middle-class
parents, who almost certainly went to a school in that town, and
became an actor, could have become a great writer is an extraordinary
claim. If you can, while you're at it, explain just how all of us who
have no trouble accepting the claim go wrong, and why. Why have none
of us ended up clinically insane like Delia Bacon and G. Cantor? I'd
be interested, too, in your theory of creativity, and exactly how one
learns to read and write, and how, according to you, the level one
reaches as a reader depends on his parents' litracy.

> >> You'd be much better off trying to define what you
> >> mean by 'direct evidence' (as, presumably, against
> >> 'indirect evidence' or some other categories).
> >> There's now apparently not much direct about
> >> names or initials on title pages,
>
> > The name, Shakespeare," on a title-page leads directly to a
> > man named "Shakespeare" on other documents.
>
> A tiny number (such as the application for the coat-
> of-arms) -- and all readily explicable as part of a
> cover-up.  (Not that I would accept he is referred
> to as "Shakespeare" on those documents without
> seeing them.)
>
> > That our author was called, "Mr. Shakespeare," leads
> > directly to the ONLY man then known to be "Mr.
> > Shakespeare."
>
> What evidence is there that the Stratman "was
> known as Mr Shakespeare" -- beyond that strictly
> necessary for being a stooge?  (This is, discounting
> the coat-of-arms and the monument.  What person
> who knew him in Stratford-upon-Avon ever called
> him "Mister Shakespeare" ?)

1598 letter fromAdrian Quiney to Richard Quiney "Mr. Sha." We know
this is WS because it refers to business written about in another
letter which was addressed to WS.

1598 letter from Abraham Sturley to Richard Quiney "Mr. Wm. Shak."
About the same business.

1601 Will of Thomas Wittington "Mr. Willyuam Shaxspere"

1603-1616 endorsement on lease of prop. in Stratford "Mr. William
Shaxpere

1612 Bellot v. Mountjoy documents--10 instances of "Mr. Shakespeare"
or "Mr. William Shakespeare." His deposition states he was from
Stratford.

All forgeries, right?

> >> and the record
> >> that one or two contemporary writers claim to
> >> have heard (or 'to know') that Oxford was a
> >> playwright is hardly 'direct' -- in any definition.
>
> > I agree.  I wasn't thinking when I called it direct evidence.
> > It's only weak indirect evidence.  The only evidence of any
> > kind we have for Oxford, I believe.
>
> What the heck is 'direct evidence' as against 'indirect
> evidence' -- in the context in which you use them?
> You fling these terms around without any definition.

I told you--direct is a direct link from the evidence to what it is
evidence of; a name directly links to a person by that name. Indirect
evidence links not to what it's evidence of but to other evidence that
does link to what it is evidence of. Good example: WS's name on a
list of actors getting cloth is direct evidence that WS was an actor
but not that he was a writer. Another record that the poet WS was an
actor makes the evidence that WS was an actor indirect evidence that
he was a poet. Two-step evidence. I do define, or try to define such
things, but not in every post I shoot out to you. I've spend long
posts discussing and defining various kinds of evidence. See my
writings about Price's book.

--Bob


> Paul.

[Paul Crowley]

On 12/02/2012 18:58, Bob Grumman wrote

>>>> Stratfordianism demonstrates many of the characteristics of
>>>> the traditional religions -- especially a dumb
>>>> unquestioning attitude to a few doctrines,
>>>> surrounded by ancient myths, learned at school,
>>>> and regarded as a norm in the society, a 'priest-
>>>> hood' of pretend-'scholars' or authorities, whose
>>>> words on core matters cannot be disputed.
>
> That's arguable considering all the conspiracy theories out
> there that there are,

Name one or two of these theories that might
fit the pattern.

> BUT it doesn't really matter because I was
> talking about the term "quasi-religious," which--as I said--can
> be applied to almost anything, including pseudo-sciences
> which were not learned at school, etc.

Except that, as ever, you can give no examples.

> I might add that your understanding of Stratfordianism as a
> quasi-religion is completely ridiculous. As I've told you before,
> very little time is spent on Shakespeare the author.

A very silly point. How much time do Muslim
clerics, or the Pope, or Ian Paisley, spend
thinking and talking about Evolution?

> Certainly no ancient myths are involved.

Stratfordianism is almost entirely myth.

>> Who is saying "no evidence" ?
>
> How can you say that it's absurd to suggest evidence is
> relevant to Stratfordian belief without denying it exists for
> Stratfordians and is thus relevant to their belief?

Eh? Many people believe in fairies, or strange
creatures that inhabit bogs. They have some
'evidence' -- they see visions at night, and hear
noises when there is a full moon. It's a lot more
evidence than Stratfordians possess.

>> The names on the title pages ARE good evidence.
>> They (almost invariably) have "Shake-speare" (with
>> or without the hyphen) even though printed by many
>> different printers, and published by many different
>> publishers, in an era when the spelling of surnames
>> was extremely variable. The name of the Stratman
>> (and all others with a roughly similar surname) was
>> routinely spelled in hundreds of different ways, even
>> within the same sentence.
>
> Right, Paul, but as I say in [..], that name on the title-page is
> also strong direct evidence that it referred to a man in Stratford
> whose name was not infrequently spelled as it is,

His name was never (or scarcely ever) spelled
indicating either 'shaking' or 'spears' before the
poet's use of the pseudonym became well-
known. That was essentially in 1598 -- although
from 1593 (and the printing of V&A) that version
of the name was being publicised.

> especially when accompanied by "Mr," or "gent.," this Stratford
> Shakespeare being the only man in England named
> Shakespeare on any records who was also a gentleman.

Agreed. His becoming a 'gent.' was essential for
the cover-up. That's why William Camden got
the job, and became Clarenceux King at Arms,
after one day's 'training'.

>>>>> One or two printers put Will's name or initials on a title-
>>>>> page and were copied by a few others, that's all.
>>>>
>>>> With what other author has this happened?
>>>
>>> With what other author should it have happened?
>>
>> Jonson, Spenser, Sidney, Foxe, Holinshed, etc., etc.
>
> Not so. Non-playwrights had more say in the matter, and few
> were as commercially popular as Shakespeare. Most cared
> more about the matter than Shakespeare, who made his
> money as a sharer in the profits from performances, not on the
> sale of scripts to printers.

So what? Why did he let them do it? Are the
rich less willing (or less able) to prosecute
robbers than the poor?

> I think it may have gotten harder to get away with after 1600 or
> so. There were many other factors that a much better literary
> historian of the times could point out that I'm only vaguely
> aware of or completely unaware of.

All silly 'just so explanations' for which you have
not a scrap of evidence, and which goes against
known facts -- such as the Stratman's hunting
down any who owed him a penny in Stratford.

>>> I might ask, too, what other author ever had an illiterate
>>> front?
>>
>> Logical thought is impossible when you can't
>> distinguish the general from the particular.
>> What other person called Bob Grumman lives
>> in Florida and had an interest in poetry and
>> Shakespeare? None? Therefore you can't
>> exist.
>
> Right. Just as Shakespeare who was the only writer who had
> his name on several plays that weren't his could not exist, and
> Oxford, the only playwright who had an illiterate front could not
> exist.

As I said, logical thought is impossible when you

can't distinguish the general from the particular.

> Please please please write your book showing that a claim that
> a man born in a small town to what we nowadays would call
> middle-class parents,

This is deep historical ignorance, right down to
John Kennedy standards. If we could resurrect
an Elizabethan, he would want to know how
we distinguished between the 'yeomen' and
the 'gentlemen' in modern western society.
Or between the 'peasants' and the 'yeomen'.
What would you tell him?

Yeomen (the Stratman's class) were hard-
working and 'respectable' but, almost invariably,
quite illiterate. A distinguishing mark of the
modern middle classes is literacy. There is
a world of a difference.

> who almost certainly went to a school in that town,

Unlikely. But, if he did, he would have left even
earlier than the usual age of 13. (His father
was broke by the time he was 10, and would
have needed him working at home.)

> and became an actor,

How do you become an actor in Stratford-upon-
Avon? Join the local rep?

> could have become a great writer is an extraordinary claim.

Name one other person, brought up in an illiterate
household who became a writer -- let alone a good
one, and forget entirely being a great one.

> If you can, while you're at it, explain just how all of us who have
> no trouble accepting the claim go wrong, and why.

Take any traditional religion, examine their beliefs,
and ask the same question. You are about to
elect a new President who believes in prophet,
Joseph Smith, and his Golden Tablets. He and
his co-religionists have no trouble accepting
total (and transparently absurd) nonsense.
Why should you?

> Why have none of us ended up clinically insane like Delia
> Bacon and G. Cantor?

The asylums are full of insane people -- virtually
all of them Strats. What better proof could you
want that Stratfordianism makes you mad?

> I'd be interested, too, in your theory of
> creativity, and exactly how one learns to read and write, and
> how, according to you, the level one reaches as a reader
> depends on his parents' litracy.

I don't deny simple obvious facts. Most professors
in modern universities had well-educated parents.
Fact of life. Professional writers (especially those
of any quality) nearly all had the same kind of
upbringing. Fact of life. To become very good at
almost anything you have to start young. You
won't start writing young unless you come from a
literate family. Fact of life.

>> What evidence is there that the Stratman "was
>> known as Mr Shakespeare" -- beyond that strictly
>> necessary for being a stooge? (This is, discounting
>> the coat-of-arms and the monument. What person
>> who knew him in Stratford-upon-Avon ever called
>> him "Mister Shakespeare" ?)
>
> 1598 letter fromAdrian Quiney to Richard Quiney "Mr. Sha."
> We know this is WS because it refers to business written
> about in another letter which was addressed to WS.
>
> 1598 letter from Abraham Sturley to Richard Quiney "Mr. Wm.
> Shak." About the same business.
>
> 1601 Will of Thomas Wittington "Mr. Willyuam Shaxspere"
>
> 1603-1616 endorsement on lease of prop. in Stratford "Mr.
> William Shaxpere
>
> 1612 Bellot v. Mountjoy documents--10 instances of "Mr.
> Shakespeare" or "Mr. William Shakespeare." His deposition
> states he was from Stratford.

Only the 1612 record claims the use of 'Shakespeare'.
(And I'd need to see copies of the original documents
before I'd accept it.) In any case, that was in London,
long after the surname had acquired a standard model.

>>>> and the record
>>>> that one or two contemporary writers claim to
>>>> have heard (or 'to know') that Oxford was a
>>>> playwright is hardly 'direct' -- in any definition.
>>>
>>> I agree. I wasn't thinking when I called it direct evidence.
>>> It's only weak indirect evidence. The only evidence of any
>>> kind we have for Oxford, I believe.
>>
>> What the heck is 'direct evidence' as against 'indirect
>> evidence' -- in the context in which you use them?
>> You fling these terms around without any definition.
>
> I told you--direct is a direct link from the evidence to what it is
> evidence of; a name directly links to a person by that name.
> Indirect evidence links not to what it's evidence of but to other
> evidence that does link to what it is evidence of. Good
> example: WS's name on a list of actors getting cloth is direct
> evidence that WS was an actor

You just agreed with me that (according to standard
legal definitions of 'direct evidence') a statement in
print by one or more contemporaries that he was
a playwright is NOT direct. But you have different
rules for the Stratman's supposed role. Would the
name 'John Smilth' on a list of actors mean that
every John Smith in the country was an actor?
As you well know, we claim that 'Will Shake-speare'
was a pseudonym, so its use in this context could
have been a pointer to the person behind it. Although,
I believe the story here is more complicated.

> Another record that the poet WS was an actor makes the
> evidence that WS was an actor indirect evidence that he was a
> poet. Two-step evidence.

That is ridiculous. Presumably, in the middle you claim
to have a plausible theory. I wonder what it could be --
to justify the son of illiterates, father to illiterates,
husband of an illiterate, being a great writer.

How absurd.

> I do define, or try to define such
> things, but not in every post I shoot out to you. I've spend long
> posts discussing and defining various kinds of evidence. See
> my writings about Price's book.

Yeah, yeah. Look on the internet. If you have
something, you should be able to find it easily
yourself, and then quote it.


Paul.

[Tom Reedy]

On Feb 12, 8:12 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:

<snip>

> Who is saying "no evidence" ?
>
> The names on the title pages ARE good evidence.
> They (almost invariably) have "Shake-speare" (with
> or without the hyphen) even though printed by many
> different printers, and published by many different
> publishers, in an era when the spelling of surnames
> was extremely variable.  The name of the Stratman
> (and all others with a roughly similar surname) was
> routinely spelled in hundreds of different ways, even
> within the same sentence.

<snip>

You're so full of shit. Either that, or a flat-out liar. Of course, to
be an anti-Start you have to be a liar, so both apply to you.

I know it won't do anything to change your mind, but for the benefit
of those who care about accuracy:

Shakespeare's surname was hyphenated as "Shake-speare" or "Shak-spear"
on the title pages of 15 of the 48 individual quarto (or Q) editions
of Shakespeare's plays (16 were published with the author unnamed) and
in two of the five editions of poetry, published before the First
Folio. Of those 15 title pages with Shakespeare's name hyphenated, 13
are on the title pages of just three plays, Richard II (Q2 1598, Q3
1598, Q4 1608, and Q5 1615), Richard III (Q2 1598, Q3 1602, Q4 1605,
Q5 1612, and Q6 1622), and Henry IV, Part 1 (Q2 1599, Q3 1604, Q4
1608, and Q5 1613). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Shakespeare_authorship_question#Name_as_a_pseudonym)

You can look up how "many" different printers and publishers yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Shakespeare_plays_in_quarto

TR

[Paul Crowley]

On 13/02/2012 20:45, Tom Reedy wrote:

>> The names on the title pages ARE good evidence.
>> They (almost invariably) have "Shake-speare" (with
>> or without the hyphen) even though printed by many
>> different printers, and published by many different
>> publishers, in an era when the spelling of surnames
>> was extremely variable. The name of the Stratman
>> (and all others with a roughly similar surname) was
>> routinely spelled in hundreds of different ways, even
>> within the same sentence.
> <snip>
>
> You're so full of shit. Either that, or a flat-out liar. Of course, to
> be an anti-Start you have to be a liar, so both apply to you.

As an anti-Start I am confused as to what your
problem is with anything I say here. Let me
amplify:

(A) The surname we now know as 'Shakespeare'
was spelled in hundreds of different ways before
it became standardised, with all holders of that
name (and all with some similarity) adopting
the form set by the poet. Before that time, the
surname rarely indicated either 'shaking' or
'spears'.

(B) The poet himself (or his agents) established
a standardisation emphasising both shaking and
spears -- by using one form only for all his
printed works. Often that was further
emphasised by the presence of a hyphen.

In respect of (A)
" . . . There can be little doubt that the poet was
generally called Shaxpere or Shaxper in the
provinces, but certainly not always. In the earliest
known document respecting any member of the poet's
family, one which refers to property at Snitterfield near
/ p.14 / Stratford-on-Avon, the name of his grandfather
is given as Shakespere, showing the first syllable to
be long, and in the local manuscripts in which his
father is continually mentioned, the name of the latter
is variously written, Shakspeyr, Shaxspere,
Shacksper, Shakspere, Shakyspere, Shakespere,
Shaxpeare, Shakspeir, Shakysper, Shaxpere,
Shakspeare, Shackespere, Schackspere,
Shakspeyre, Shaksper, and Shakespeare, without the
slightest notion of uniformity. . . ."
http://www.presscom.co.uk/halliwell/newlamps.html

> I know it won't do anything to change your mind, but for the benefit
> of those who care about accuracy:

I appreciate your support for both legs of my
proposition:

> Shakespeare's surname was hyphenated as "Shake-speare" or "Shak-spear"
> on the title pages of 15 of the 48 individual quarto (or Q) editions
> of Shakespeare's plays (16 were published with the author unnamed) and
> in two of the five editions of poetry, published before the First
> Folio. Of those 15 title pages with Shakespeare's name hyphenated, 13
> are on the title pages of just three plays, Richard II (Q2 1598, Q3
> 1598, Q4 1608, and Q5 1615), Richard III (Q2 1598, Q3 1602, Q4 1605,
> Q5 1612, and Q6 1622), and Henry IV, Part 1 (Q2 1599, Q3 1604, Q4
> 1608, and Q5 1613). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
> Shakespeare_authorship_question#Name_as_a_pseudonym)
>
> You can look up how "many" different printers and publishers yourself:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Shakespeare_plays_in_quarto

This is a simplified form of that list:

PRINTERS (of editions of
the canonical works before 1623):
Richard Field
Thomas Creede
William White
Valentine Simmes
Peter Short
Simon Staffort
Richard Bradocke
Thomas Judson
James Roberts
John Harrison II
I. R.
Nicholas Okes
Robert Raworth
Humphrey Lownes
G. Eld
William Stansby
William Jaggard
Thomas Snodham
William Stansby
Felix Kingston
Thomas Purfoot
Aug. Mathewes

PUBLISHERS (of editions of
the canonical works before 1623):
John Harrison
Andrew Wise
Cuthbert Burby
William Leake
William Jaggard
Thomas Fisher
Thomas Hayes
William Aspley
John Flasket
Edward Blount
Arthur Johnson
Nicholas Ling
John Trundell
Matthew Law
Nathaniel Butter
R. Bonian
H. Walley
Henry Gosson
Thomas Thorpe
Matthew Lownes
John Smethwick
Richard More
Roger Jackson
William Barrett
Thomas Pavier
John Parker
Thomas Dewe
Thomas Walkley

Clearly, each of the above printers and each of
the above publishers were operating (with some
rigour) a policy set for them by others -- no
doubt, the 'grand possessors'.

Paul.

[Tom Reedy]

I apologise for my outburst and hasty judgment. I mistakenly read your
statement as claiming that the quarto attributions were almost
invariably spelled with a hyphen.

TR

[Algernon H. Nuttsakk]

On Feb 14, 12:28 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:

> In respect of (A)
> " . . . There can be little doubt that the poet was
> generally called Shaxpere or Shaxper in the
> provinces, but certainly not always. In the earliest
> known document respecting any member of the poet's
> family, one which refers to property at Snitterfield near
> / p.14 / Stratford-on-Avon, the name of his grandfather
> is given as Shakespere, showing the first syllable to
> be long, and in the local manuscripts in which his
> father is continually mentioned, the name of the latter
> is variously written, Shakspeyr, Shaxspere,
> Shacksper, Shakspere, Shakyspere, Shakespere,
> Shaxpeare, Shakspeir, Shakysper, Shaxpere,
> Shakspeare, Shackespere, Schackspere,
> Shakspeyre, Shaksper, and Shakespeare, without the
> slightest notion of uniformity. . . ."http://www.presscom.co.uk/halliwell/newlamps.html

Indeed, the very multitudinous, multivarious nature of the monikers
applied to the tedious Stratford rat-bag point
to the fundamentally criminal nature of his personality and life. Who
else but a criminal would require so many
pseudonyms? It is easy to visualize him trundling like an ape across
the Warwickshire landscape, a bundle of faggots
strung across his back, his clothes hopelessly ragged and streaked
with mud and filth, a hood covering his head like
so many modern day inner-city dwellers to ensure that the details of
his face cannot be seen clearly from any angle.
Is it possible that this Medieval dingleberry was the author of the
delicate filigree of our beloved "A Midsummer Night's
Dream"? Could this shitbag card-shark possibly have penned the mighty
lines of "Henry V"? Only a powerful and erudite man
like the Earl of Oxford, a man who could bestride a boy or a world
like a colossus, could have done so!

AHN

[Bob Grumman]

On Feb 6, 7:48 am, Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:

> On Feb 6, 4:04 am, "Robin G." <doc...@proaxis.com> wrote:> On Feb 5, 8:16 am, Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 4, 5:05 pm, Paulc <crowl...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote
>
> > > > On Feb 4, 5:54 pm, Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
> > Bob and Paul -
>
> > Compared to your endless postings, watching paint dry is more
> > intellectually more stimulating.
> > Talking with six year olds is more interesting.
>

> Congratulations on that clever "paint drying" comparison, Robin.  You
> must have put in a lot of hours studying how to be creatively witty to
> come up with that one.  Nice solid Crowleyan assertion, too--because
> you are bored by something, it has to be universally uninteresting.
>
> Of course, your assertion would not be true for a person with any
> interest in things like epistemology, linguistics, and abnormal
> psychology.  Where else could you be exposed to the thinking of
> someone who doesn't believe defining one's terms are a sine qua non of
> serious debate?
>
> --Bob

IS a sine qua non

[Bob Grumman]

On Feb 13, 12:58 pm, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> On 12/02/2012 18:58, Bob Grumman wrote
>
> >>>> Stratfordianism demonstrates many of the characteristics of
> >>>> the traditional religions -- especially a dumb
> >>>> unquestioning attitude to a few doctrines,
> >>>> surrounded by ancient myths, learned at school,
> >>>> and regarded as a norm in the society, a 'priest-
> >>>> hood' of pretend-'scholars' or authorities, whose
> >>>> words on core matters cannot be disputed.
>
> > That's arguable considering all the conspiracy theories out
> > there that there are,
>
> Name one or two of these theories that might
> fit the pattern.

I was just arguing against the priesthood part, which all conspiracy
theories have--Looney and Ogburn being your conspiracy theories
priests. But that was inept of me, so point to you.

>
> > BUT it doesn't really matter because I was
> > talking about the term "quasi-religious," which--as I said--can
> > be applied to almost anything, including pseudo-sciences
> > which were not learned at school, etc.
>
> Except that, as ever, you can give no examples.

Right. There aren't any.

> > I might add that your understanding of Stratfordianism as a
> > quasi-religion is completely ridiculous.  As I've told you before,
> > very little time is spent on Shakespeare the author.
>
> A very silly point.  How much time do Muslim
> clerics, or the Pope, or Ian Paisley, spend
> thinking and talking about Evolution?

My point is that schools spend almost no time "indoctrinating" pupils
about Shakespeare the author. A paragraph in most texts, mentioned in
passing in the classroom lecture.

> > Certainly no ancient myths are involved.
>
> Stratfordianism is almost entirely myth.

There's no mythology in it at all. Nor is anything ancient involved.

> >> Who is saying "no evidence" ?
>
> > How can you say that it's absurd to suggest evidence is
> > relevant to Stratfordian belief without denying it exists for
> > Stratfordians and is thus relevant to their belief?
>
> Eh?  Many people believe in fairies, or strange
> creatures that inhabit bogs.  They have some
> 'evidence' -- they see visions at night, and hear
> noises when there is a full moon.  It's a lot more
> evidence than Stratfordians possess.

You're missing my point--which I'm not up to trying to re-phrase.
What you just wrote has nothing to do with it. Aside from that, we're
talking about objective evidence, not the fact that someone saw what
he thinks are fairies.

> >> The names on the title pages ARE good evidence.
> >> They (almost invariably) have "Shake-speare" (with
> >> or without the hyphen) even though printed by many
> >> different printers, and published by many different
> >> publishers, in an era when the spelling of surnames
> >> was extremely variable.  The name of the Stratman
> >> (and all others with a roughly similar surname) was
> >> routinely spelled in hundreds of different ways, even
> >> within the same sentence.
>
> > Right, Paul, but as I say in [..], that name on the title-page is
> > also strong direct evidence that it referred to a man in Stratford
> > whose name was not infrequently spelled as it is,
>
> His name was never (or scarcely ever) spelled
> indicating either 'shaking' or 'spears' before the
> poet's use of the pseudonym became well-
> known.  That was essentially in 1598 -- although
> from 1593 (and the printing of V&A) that version
> of the name was being publicised.

It always indicated shakiing a spear because that's a common military
action, as shaking a shack is not, assuming shacks were called shacks
then. All of which is irrelevant. The FACT is that WS was called
"William Shakespeare" numerous times on the documents concerning New
Place. Therefore, one of the names he was known by was the same as
one of the names the author was known by. Direct evidence.

> > especially when accompanied by "Mr," or "gent.," this Stratford
> > Shakespeare being the only man in England named
> > Shakespeare on any records who was also a gentleman.
>
> Agreed.  His becoming a 'gent.' was essential for
> the cover-up.  That's why William Camden got
> the job, and became Clarenceux King at Arms,
> after one day's 'training'.

It remains direct evidence of the first order--i.e., eividence that
links directly to what it is specifically evidence of and to nothing
else, however unpersuasive you find it.

> >>>>> One or two printers put Will's name or initials on a title-
> >>>>> page and were copied by a few others, that's all.
>
> >>>> With what other author has this happened?
>
> >>> With what other author should it have happened?
>
> >> Jonson, Spenser, Sidney, Foxe, Holinshed, etc., etc.
>
> > Not so.  Non-playwrights had more say in the matter, and few
> > were as commercially popular as Shakespeare.  Most cared
> > more about the matter than Shakespeare, who made his
> > money as a sharer in the profits from performances, not on the
> > sale of scripts to printers.
>
> So what?  Why did he let them do it? Are the
> rich less willing (or less able) to prosecute
> robbers than the poor?

He didn't give a damn. Or he did do something about it behind the
scenes. Or there wasn't anything he could do about it.

> > I think it may have gotten harder to get away with after 1600 or
> > so.  There were many other factors that a much better literary
> > historian of the times could point out that I'm only vaguely
> > aware of or completely unaware of.
>
> All silly 'just so explanations' for which you have
> not a scrap of evidence, and which goes against
> known facts -- such as the Stratman's hunting
> down any who owed him a penny in Stratford.

I will merely say you don't know what you're talking about rather than
go through all the arguments again. Notice how far we're getting from
direct/indirect evidence.

> >>> I might ask, too, what other author ever had an illiterate
> >>> front?
>
> >> Logical thought is impossible when you can't
> >> distinguish the general from the particular.
> >> What other person called Bob Grumman lives
> >> in Florida and had an interest in poetry and
> >> Shakespeare?   None?  Therefore you can't
> >> exist.
>
> > Right.  Just as Shakespeare who was the only writer who had
> > his name on several plays that weren't his could not exist, and
> > Oxford, the only playwright who had an illiterate front could not
> > exist.
>
> As I said, logical thought is impossible when you
> can't distinguish the general from the particular.

Elucidate.

> > Please please please write your book showing that a claim that
> > a man born in a small town to what we nowadays would call
> > middle-class parents,
>
> This is deep historical ignorance, right down to
> John Kennedy standards. If we could resurrect
> an Elizabethan, he would want to know how
> we distinguished between the 'yeomen' and
> the 'gentlemen' in modern western society.
> Or between the 'peasants' and the 'yeomen'.
> What would you tell him?

If I thought it worth doing, I'd spend a fair amount of time defining
what we now mean by "middle-class" and let him decide who in his time
would have belonged to it. The point I'm making, though, is that John
and Mary Shakespeare owned a home, had money--at least for a time,
participated in the commerce and politics of their town, had friends
like themselves, some of whom had college degrees, and seem to have
had a social position and life style similar to people we'd now call
middle-class.

> Yeomen (the Stratman's class)

Perhaps but his father and he entered the gentry.

> were hard-working and 'respectable' but, almost invariably,

> quite illiterate.  A distinguishing mark of the
> modern middle classes is literacy.  There is
> a world of a difference.

The lower classes nowadays are literate.

> > who almost certainly went to a school in that town,
>
> Unlikely.  But, if he did, he would have left even
> earlier than the usual age of 13.  (His father
> was broke by the time he was 10, and would
> have needed him working at home.)

We have insufficent date to reach certainty on this--if we ignore all
the evidence that WS was an actor and poet.

> > and became an actor,
>
> How do you become an actor in Stratford-upon-
> Avon?  Join the local rep?

Become friends with Bottom.

> > could have become a great writer is an extraordinary claim.
>
> Name one other person, brought up in an illiterate
> household who became a writer -- let alone a good
> one, and forget entirely being a great one.

Name one other person, brought up in an illiterate household who

became know for four hundred years as a writer--let alone a great one.

> > If you can, while you're at it, explain just how all of us who
have
> > no trouble accepting the claim go wrong, and why.
>
> Take any traditional religion, examine their beliefs,
> and ask the same question.  You are about to
> elect a new President who believes in prophet,
> Joseph Smith, and his Golden Tablets.  He and
> his co-religionists have no trouble accepting
> total (and transparently absurd) nonsense.
> Why should you?

Sorry, you haven't explained why I, for one, accept Stratfordianism
although it's ridiculous.

> > Why have none of us ended up clinically insane like Delia
> > Bacon and G. Cantor?
>
> The asylums are full of insane people -- virtually
> all of them Strats.  What better proof could you
> want that Stratfordianism makes you mad?

Ah, you've intereviewed them. But no genuine advocate of
Stratfordianism that I know of has ended in an insane asylum.

> > I'd be interested, too, in your theory of
> > creativity, and exactly how one learns to read and write, and
> > how, according to you, the level one reaches as a reader
> > depends on his parents' litracy.
>
> I don't deny simple obvious facts.  Most professors
> in modern universities had well-educated parents.
> Fact of life.  Professional writers (especially those
> of any quality) nearly all had the same kind of
> upbringing.  Fact of life. To become very good at
> almost anything you have to start young.  You
> won't start writing young unless you come from a
> literate family. Fact of life.

Yeah, yeah, but how does it work? For instance, does your literate
parent shove a given book in your face and force you to read it, then
find another slightly harde3r book for you, etc.? If he stops at
detective novels, will that mean you never read anything of higher
cultural value?

> >> What evidence is there that the Stratman "was
> >> known as Mr Shakespeare" -- beyond that strictly
> >> necessary for being a stooge?  (This is, discounting
> >> the coat-of-arms and the monument.  What person
> >> who knew him in Stratford-upon-Avon ever called
> >> him "Mister Shakespeare" ?)
>
> > 1598 letter fromAdrian Quiney to Richard Quiney "Mr. Sha."
> > We know this is WS because it refers to business written
> > about in another letter which was addressed to WS.
>
> > 1598 letter from Abraham Sturley to Richard Quiney "Mr. Wm.
> > Shak." About the same business.
>
> > 1601 Will of Thomas Wittington "Mr. Willyuam Shaxspere"
>
> > 1603-1616 endorsement on lease of prop. in Stratford  "Mr.
> > William Shaxpere
>
> > 1612 Bellot v. Mountjoy documents--10 instances of "Mr.
> > Shakespeare" or "Mr. William Shakespeare."  His deposition
> > states he was from Stratford.
>
> Only the 1612 record claims the use of 'Shakespeare'.
> (And I'd need to see copies of the original documents
> before I'd accept it.) In any case, that was in London,
> long after the surname had acquired a standard model.

The point is that while he was alive he was "Mr. William Shakespeare,"
the only such person in England. The author was also known as "Mr.
William Shakespeare." Making this even better evidence is the fact
that the author was not called "Mr. William Shakespeare' until after
the Stratford man became eligible for the "Mr." tag.

> >>>> and the record
> >>>> that one or two contemporary writers claim to
> >>>> have heard (or 'to know') that Oxford was a
> >>>> playwright is hardly 'direct' -- in any definition.
>
> >>> I agree.  I wasn't thinking when I called it direct evidence.
> >>> It's only weak indirect evidence.  The only evidence of any
> >>> kind we have for Oxford, I believe.
>
> >> What the heck is 'direct evidence' as against 'indirect
> >> evidence' -- in the context in which you use them?
> >> You fling these terms around without any definition.
>
> > I told you--direct is a direct link from the evidence to what it is
> > evidence of; a name directly links to a person by that name.
> > Indirect evidence links not to what it's evidence of but to other
> > evidence that does link to what it is evidence of.  Good
> > example: WS's name on a list of actors getting cloth is direct
> > evidence that WS was an actor
>
> You just agreed with me that (according to standard
> legal definitions of 'direct evidence') a statement in
> print by one or more contemporaries that he was
> a playwright is NOT direct.

Right. But his name on a particular title-page IS direct evidence
that he wrote THAT play.

>  But you have different
> rules for the Stratman's supposed role.  Would the

> name 'John Smith' on a list of actors mean that

> every John Smith in the country was an actor?

Nope. It would lead DIRECTLY to each of them. I would call it direct
evidence of the second order. If only one of them were Mr. John Smith,
then the name "Mr. John Smith" would be direct evidence of the first
order. Mere's statement that Oxford wrote plays is direct evidence of
the first order that he was a playwright because he was the only Lord
Oxford; it is indirect evidence that he was the playwright responsible
for Shakespeare's plays.

> As you well know, we claim that 'Will Shake-speare'
> was a pseudonym, so its use in this context could
> have been a pointer to the person behind it.  Although,
> I believe the story here is more complicated.

We're talking about evidence. It doesn't matter that it could be
explained away.

> > Another record that the poet WS was an actor makes the

> > evidence that WS was an actor indirect evidence that he was THE

> > poet.  Two-step evidence.
>
> That is ridiculous. Presumably, in the middle you claim
> to have a plausible theory.  I wonder what it could be --
> to justify the son of illiterates, father to illiterates,
> husband of an illiterate, being a great writer.
>
> How absurd.

Right. A = B, B = C. but it's absurd to claim A = C.

>
> > I do define, or try to define such
> > things, but not in every post I shoot out to you.  I've spend long
> > posts discussing and defining various kinds of evidence.  See
> > my writings about Price's book.
>
> Yeah, yeah.  Look on the internet.  If you have
> something, you should be able to find it easily
> yourself, and then quote it.
>

Sorry, I'm lying again. I've never made any reference to Price's book
anywhere on the Internet or elsewhere until just now.

--Bob

[ignoto]

On 2/6/2012 8:04 PM, Robin G. wrote:
> On Feb 5, 8:16 am, Bob Grumman<bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>> On Feb 4, 5:05 pm, Paulc<crowl...@gofree.indigo.ie> wrote
>>
>>> On Feb 4, 5:54 pm, Bob Grumman<bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
> Bob and Paul -
>
> Compared to your endless postings, watching paint dry is more
> intellectually more stimulating.

You're bored, so you decide to add your own strip of white paint to the
wall. Good one.

> Talking with six year olds is more interesting.

The poster of pathetic hackneyed cliches, rails against 'boring' posts.
How ironic!

>
> Will Shakespeare, the actor/playwright from Stratford-upon-Avon, wrote
> Shakespeare. Believing this is not a theory or a religion.

Actually, for people like you (who cannot rationally adjudicate between
good and bad arguments), it probably is close to a religion.

Ign.

>
>
>
>
>

[Robin G.]

Ign. - Oh, dear. Sorry that my snide little posting didn't meet your
rigorous standards. Please forgive me, but I don't see good or bad
arguments in the endless postings of Bob and Paul. Instead, I see
them posting the same thing over and over and over, year after year
after year. They continue posting what they posted years ago. They
talk past one another. I find no evidence of communication.

On the other hand, perhaps you will favor us with one of your rants
about Climate Change. They remind me of the usual posting made by
those who believe Oxford, Bacon, or ..... wrote Shakespeare.

[Bob Grumman]

> those who believe Oxford, Bacon, or ..... wrote Shakespeare.- Hide quoted text -

>
> - Show quoted text -

Paul and I do constantly bring up old arguments, but almost always
expressed in new ways with new supporting data. BUT we also get into
new territory quite frequently, such as here, discussing the formal
definition of religion, a new topic for HLAS, I believe, and with Paul
opposing the idea that a definition of terms was mandatory before one
could argue a point rationally. A new idea to me. Also a new
characteristic of Paul's psychosis, although you are too
intellectually uncurious to care about psychological states, or modes
of irrationality. I note that you make no defense of the fact that
you are incapable of expressing any idea of any freshness whatever,
nor ability to come up with with words and phrases more exciting than
"painting drying."

--Bob

[Paul Crowley]

On 15/02/2012 11:09, Bob Grumman wrote:

> On Feb 15, 2:50 am, "Robin G." <doc...@proaxis.com> wrote:

>>>> Bob and Paul -
>>>> Compared to your endless postings, watching
>>>> paint dry is more intellectually more stimulating.

>>>> Talking with six year olds is more interesting.

> Paul and I do constantly bring up old arguments, but
> almost always expressed in new ways with new supporting
> data.

Speaking only for myself, I find it necessary to
go over the same ground (or what would appear
to others as the same ground) again and again
and again, in order to get clear about the detail.
For example, it is only within the last two years
or so that I realised that Meres must have been
part of the cover-up. Now, I find it hard to imagine
that I ever thought otherwise.

Others will rarely, if ever, notice the changes,
but there is progress, even if it might seem
excruciatingly slow.

> BUT we also get into new territory quite frequently, such as
> here, discussing the formal definition of religion, a new
> topic for HLAS, I believe, and with Paul opposing the idea
> that a definition of terms was mandatory before one could
> argue a point rationally. A new idea to me.

There is nothing new in this. There are many terms
in ordinary language which can't be precisely defined
-- or where the effort would almost certainly be
misdirected or highly likely to lead to confusion.
'Religion' is one of them. Of course, you can
pretend to have your own private definition of the
concept, but what happens is that those who do
this fail to rigorously exclude the standard sense
(effectively an impossible task) and jump in and
out it, confusing themselves before all others.
It's the sort of thing that is rife in all the so-called
'social sciences' and in the pseudo-discipline of
Psychology,


Paul.

[Paul Crowley]

On 14/02/2012 18:05, Bob Grumman wrote:

> My point is that schools spend almost no time "indoctrinating"
> pupils about Shakespeare the author. A paragraph in most
> texts, mentioned in passing in the classroom lecture.

That is nonsense. Strats have a belief system
in which the nature and identity of their author
is fundamental (or, more exactly, a belief system
that requires the author to be an empty space --
a blankness, a nothing and a nobody).

They communicate their conception of "Shake-
speare the author" with almost every phrase and
intonation. Your problem here is that you cannot
conceive of it being any other way -- and any other
possible author would be just another mindless
nonentity, who had no personality, nor any other
role in history.
[..]

>> His name was never (or scarcely ever) spelled
>> indicating either 'shaking' or 'spears' before the
>> poet's use of the pseudonym became well-
>> known. That was essentially in 1598 -- although
>> from 1593 (and the printing of V&A) that version
>> of the name was being publicised.
>
> It always indicated shakiing a spear because that's a common
> military action, as shaking a shack is not, assuming shacks
> were called shacks then. All of which is irrelevant.

Spears had ceased to be military weapons long
before the 13th century, when the common people
were required to adopt surnames. In any case,
there was never a special occupation of 'spear-
shaking'. All soldiers did the same. The use of
such a name when they were weapons would be
like referring to a WW2 soldier as "John the
Rifleman" -- i.e. useless, since almost all Johns in
the army were riflemen.

That is why I go along with Freud in accepting
that "Jacques-Pierre" was probably the origin.
Many (or most) surnames are patronymics
and the Norman-French ruling class often had
houses in France and brought servants from
there.

> The FACT is that WS was called "William Shakespeare"
> numerous times on the documents concerning New Place.

The purchase of New Place effectively marked
the beginning of the cover-up. Money was
handed over, and the name appeared in Meres
and began on published plays from 1598. The
use of the 'official name' is to be expected at this
point -- especially in documents prepared by a
lawyer. (Thomas Greene, then in his early or mid-
20s and still at the Inns of Court, was probably
involved in all this.)

> Therefore, one of the names he was known by was the same
> as one of the names the author was known by. Direct
> evidence.

Direct evidence of a cover-up.

>>> especially when accompanied by "Mr," or "gent.," this Stratford
>>> Shakespeare being the only man in England named
>>> Shakespeare on any records who was also a gentleman.
>>
>> Agreed. His becoming a 'gent.' was essential for
>> the cover-up. That's why William Camden got
>> the job, and became Clarenceux King at Arms,
>> after one day's 'training'.
>
> It remains direct evidence of the first order--i.e., eividence that
> links directly to what it is specifically evidence of and to
> nothing else, however unpersuasive you find it.

Your 'formulaic' use of the phrase 'direct evidence'
is infantile. The questions are which authorship
scenario it better fits, and which of them make
the most sense.

You can't explain why the official name makes a
sudden appearance in 1597 -- and then becomes
standard in London for the poet (in an era when
there little or no standardisation), and common
on official documents in Stratford -- when it was
rare to non-existent before that date, and rare
to non-existent after that date when applied
locally in Stratford (or elsewhere) to other
Shagspers, Shaxbers, Schacksperes, etc., etc.

Nor can you explain the hyphen. Nor can you
explain the highly convenient (and exceedingly
irregular) appointment of William Camden to
Clarenceux King at Arms.

> He didn't give a damn. Or he did do something about it behind
> the scenes. Or there wasn't anything he could do about it.
>
>>> I think it may have gotten harder to get away with after 1600 or
>>> so. There were many other factors that a much better literary
>>> historian of the times could point out that I'm only vaguely
>>> aware of or completely unaware of.

>> All silly 'just so explanations' for which you have
>> not a scrap of evidence, and which goes against
>> known facts -- such as the Stratman's hunting
>> down any who owed him a penny in Stratford.
>
> I will merely say you don't know what you're talking about
> rather than go through all the arguments again. Notice how far
> we're getting from direct/indirect evidence.

Your real definition of 'direct evidence' is 'evidence
which indicates (to your mind and within your
scenario) that the Stratman was the author'.

>>> Please please please write your book showing that a claim that
>>> a man born in a small town to what we nowadays would call
>>> middle-class parents,
>>
>> This is deep historical ignorance, right down to
>> John Kennedy standards. If we could resurrect
>> an Elizabethan, he would want to know how
>> we distinguished between the 'yeomen' and
>> the 'gentlemen' in modern western society.
>> Or between the 'peasants' and the 'yeomen'.
>> What would you tell him?
>
> If I thought it worth doing, I'd spend a fair amount of time
> defining what we now mean by "middle-class" and let him
> decide who in his time would have belonged to it.

NOT the question. He would understand 'gentleman'
and 'yeoman' and 'peasant', and would want (or need)
to fit modern people into those categories. He would
NOT understand 'middle-class'. Likewise, you do NOT
understand 'yeoman' or 'gentleman', but pathetically
(and like John Kennedy et al.) want and need to fit
Elizabethans into the modern categories of 'middle-'
and 'lower-' classes. You might as well ask a modern
Indian to tell you which people in western societies
are the Brahmin and which are the untouchables.

> The point I'm making, though, is that John and Mary
> Shakespeare owned a home,

John (but not Mary) undoubtedly had SOME rights
in the house in which they lived -- but it was certainly
remote from any modern conception of ownership.

> had money--at least for a time,
> participated in the commerce and politics of their town, had
> friends like themselves, some of whom had college degrees,

'College degrees' . . .? What the heck are you on
about?

> and seem to have had a social position and life style similar to
> people we'd now call middle-class.

Pure nonsense. It's hard to think of anything they
would have done in their working or leisure time
that a modern middle-class couple would do --
beyond necessary bodily functions, performed
by every adult human being in every class.

>> Yeomen (the Stratman's class)
>
> Perhaps but his father and he entered the gentry.

His father described himself as a yeoman (in
a legal document) shortly before he died. The
Stratman's 'signature' and the illiteracy of his
daughters tell all we need to know about his
own educational achievements. All that, with
his father's self-declared status, makes
nonsense of the Stratman's claim to be a 'gent.'

>> were hard-working and 'respectable' but, almost invariably,
>> quite illiterate. A distinguishing mark of the
>> modern middle classes is literacy. There is
>> a world of a difference.
>
> The lower classes nowadays are literate.

Literacy is STILL a distinguishing mark of the
modern middle classes. Lower classes may
(or may not) be literate. Look at the world
outside the USA (if you are wiling to accept
that such places could exist).

>>> and became an actor,
>>
>> How do you become an actor in Stratford-upon-
>> Avon? Join the local rep?
>
> Become friends with Bottom.

Nick Bottom is Walter Raleigh. The Stratman
did not mix in court circles, and Raleigh was
mostly in disgrace when the Stratman visited
London.

>>> could have become a great writer is an extraordinary claim.
>>
>> Name one other person, brought up in an illiterate
>> household who became a writer -- let alone a good
>> one, and forget entirely being a great one.
>
> Name one other person, brought up in an illiterate household
> who became know for four hundred years as a writer--let alone
> a great one.

Note the dodge. It shows that Stratfordianism is a
quasi-religious belief, and impervious to any kind
of argument or evidence.

Had people 400 years ago (or 300 or 200 years ago)
known (or believed) that the Stratman was brought
up in a household of illiterates, they'd never have
accepted his claim to the authorship. But today,
that's not a problem. It shows how Stratfordianism
makes its adherents stupider and stupider, generation
by generation.

>>> If you can, while you're at it, explain just how all of us who
>>> have no trouble accepting the claim go wrong, and why.
>>
>> Take any traditional religion, examine their beliefs,
>> and ask the same question. You are about to
>> elect a new President who believes in prophet,
>> Joseph Smith, and his Golden Tablets. He and
>> his co-religionists have no trouble accepting
>> total (and transparently absurd) nonsense.
>> Why should you?
>
> Sorry, you haven't explained why I, for one, accept
> Stratfordianism although it's ridiculous.

It is a commonly observed fact of life that human
beings readily believe in transparent nonsense
-- especially when they are part of a group of a
quasi-religious nature. I don't have to explain
such a thing, neither in general nor in particular
instances.

[..]

>> As you well know, we claim that 'Will Shake-speare'
>> was a pseudonym, so its use in this context could
>> have been a pointer to the person behind it. Although,
>> I believe the story here is more complicated.
>
> We're talking about evidence. It doesn't matter that it could be
> explained away.

Of course it matters. The word 'evidence' has no
purchase outside of the context of the theory which
the (claimed) factual item is supposed to be proving
or disproving. Exhibit X-001 is only 'evidence' if it is
in some way relevant to Theory Y. Take any item,
such as the Piltdown skull. If Theory Z (that it was
a fraud) explains its existence and meaning better --
and is generally more plausible than Theory Y (that
ancestral humans were like big-brained gorillas and
lived in Kent), then Exhibit X-001 (the Piltdown skull)
it ceases to have any significance within Theory Y.
[..]

Paul.

[Bob Grumman]

Why do you say I PRETEND to have one? I have one, period. You may
dislike it but you have said anything sane against it, but merely
definitions of terms you don't want defined are impossible.

but what happens is that those who do
> this fail to rigorously exclude the standard sense
> (effectively an impossible task) and jump in and
> out it, confusing themselves before all others.
> It's the sort of thing that is rife in all the so-called
> 'social sciences' and in the pseudo-discipline of
> Psychology,
>
> Paul.

Psychology is a discipline practiced by many incompetents but it is
still a discipline. Indeed, it's the study of how the human nervous
system works, which has to be considered a discipline, regardless of
how it's carried out. What you mean but propagandistically want to
exaggerate is that it['s not a science. But, of course, it is--or do
you deny the validity of all of neuropharmacology? As for the
definition of religion, you yourself have proffered descriptions of it
that you refuse to call definitions so you don't have to be rigorous.
What you've done, in fact, is decide what characteristics most things
called religion have in common with what you think Stratfordianism is,
and ignore all the other any characteristics those things have, with
no desire whatever to pin down what religion actual is because you
only want to persuade people stupid enough, if there are any, that
your assertion that Stratfordianism is a religion is valid.

Meanwhile, I've made the same kind of progress toward defining
religion, as far as I'm concerned, that you say you've made in areas
like Meres's function in literary history.

--Bob

[Bob Grumman]

On Feb 15, 9:17 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> On 14/02/2012 18:05, Bob Grumman wrote:
>
> > My point is that schools spend almost no time "indoctrinating"
> > pupils about Shakespeare the author.  A paragraph in most
> > texts, mentioned in passing in the classroom lecture.
>
> That is nonsense. Strats have a belief system
> in which the nature and identity of their author
> is fundamental (or, more exactly, a belief system
> that requires the author to be an empty space --
> a blankness, a nothing and a nobody).
>
> They communicate their conception of "Shake-
> speare the author" with almost every phrase and
> intonation.  Your problem here is that you cannot
> conceive of it being any other way -- and any other
> possible author would be just another mindless
> nonentity, who had no personality, nor any other
> role in history.

I know, like Homer. But it's not true. Everyone has a personality.
And even if we ignore the evidence of his literary career, he carried
out, for you, an important service for his government.

> [..]
>
> >> His name was never (or scarcely ever) spelled
> >> indicating either 'shaking' or 'spears' before the
> >> poet's use of the pseudonym became well-
> >> known.  That was essentially in 1598 -- although
> >> from 1593 (and the printing of V&A) that version
> >> of the name was being publicised.
>
> > It always indicated shakiing a spear because that's a common
> > military action, as shaking a shack is not, assuming shacks
> > were called shacks then.  All of which is irrelevant.
>
> Spears had ceased to be military weapons long
> before the 13th century, when the common people
> were required to adopt surnames. In any case,
> there was never a special occupation of 'spear-
> shaking'.  All soldiers did the same. The use of
> such a name when they were weapons would be
> like referring to a WW2 soldier as "John the
> Rifleman" -- i.e. useless, since almost all Johns in
> the army were riflemen.

This is too made-up and ridiculous to argue with.

> That is why I go along with Freud in accepting
> that "Jacques-Pierre" was probably the origin.
> Many (or most) surnames are patronymics
> and the Norman-French ruling class often had
> houses in France and brought servants from
> there.

But no one said Camden was wrong to say the name came from a military
occupation, which makes a hundred times more sense.

> > The FACT is that WS was called "William Shakespeare"
> > numerous times on the documents concerning New Place.
>
> The purchase of New Place effectively marked
> the beginning of the cover-up.  Money was
> handed over, and the name appeared in Meres
> and began on published plays from 1598. The
> use of the 'official name' is to be expected at this
> point -- especially in documents prepared by a
> lawyer.  (Thomas Greene, then in his early or mid-
> 20s and still at the Inns of Court, was probably
> involved in all this.)

The name in the New Place records is evidence that the Stratford man
was known as "William Shakespeare."

>
> > Therefore, one of the names he was known by was the same
> > as one of the names the author was known by.  Direct
> > evidence.
>
> Direct evidence of a cover-up.

Direct evidence thathe was known as William Shakespeare. In no way
direct evidence of a cover up. Direct evidence of that would have to
be a letter by a conspirator saying that WS had been given an official
name--which is completely idiotic.

> >>> especially when accompanied by "Mr," or "gent.," this Stratford
> >>> Shakespeare being the only man in England named
> >>> Shakespeare on any records who was also a gentleman.
>
> >> Agreed.  His becoming a 'gent.' was essential for
> >> the cover-up.  That's why William Camden got
> >> the job, and became Clarenceux King at Arms,
> >> after one day's 'training'.
>

> > It remains direct evidence of the first order--i.e., evidence that

> > links directly to what it is specifically evidence of and to
> > nothing else, however unpersuasive you find it.
>
> Your 'formulaic' use of the phrase 'direct evidence'
> is infantile.  The questions are which authorship
> scenario it better fits, and which of them make
> the most sense.

Right, the questions that count are the one's you insanely believe you
can find answers to that validate your insane conspiracy theory; no
other ones can be permitted to count.

> You can't explain why the official name makes a
> sudden appearance in 1597 -- and then becomes
> standard in London for the poet (in an era when
> there little or no standardisation), and common
> on official documents in Stratford -- when it was
> rare to non-existent before that date, and rare
> to non-existent after that date when applied
> locally in Stratford (or elsewhere) to other
> Shagspers, Shaxbers, Schacksperes, etc., etc.

It doesn't make a sudden appearance, and our side has explain
everything about in detail too many times for me to do so again. Even
though you will claim I'm lying and that no one on my side has ever
taken up the question.

> Nor can you explain the hyphen.  Nor can you
> explain the highly convenient (and exceedingly
> irregular) appointment of William Camden to
> Clarenceux King at Arms.

Read my book and you'll find you're wrong, even though you won't allow
that I and others have taken care of the hyphen numerous times here.

> > He didn't give a damn.  Or he did do something about it behind
> > the scenes.  Or there wasn't anything he could do about it.
>
> >>> I think it may have gotten harder to get away with after 1600 or
> >>> so.  There were many other factors that a much better literary
> >>> historian of the times could point out that I'm only vaguely
> >>> aware of or completely unaware of.
> >> All silly 'just so explanations' for which you have
> >> not a scrap of evidence, and which goes against
> >> known facts -- such as the Stratman's hunting
> >> down any who owed him a penny in Stratford.
>
> > I will merely say you don't know what you're talking about
> > rather than go through all the arguments again. Notice how far
> > we're getting from direct/indirect evidence.
>
> Your real definition of 'direct evidence' is 'evidence
> which indicates (to your mind and within your
> scenario) that the Stratman was the author'.

My real definition is the definition I've given. Your impression of
it is insane. Or perhaps you're just too stupid to understand it.

> >>> Please please please write your book showing that a claim that
> >>> a man born in a small town to what we nowadays would call
> >>> middle-class parents,
>
> >> This is deep historical ignorance, right down to
> >> John Kennedy standards. If we could resurrect
> >> an Elizabethan, he would want to know how
> >> we distinguished between the 'yeomen' and
> >> the 'gentlemen' in modern western society.
> >> Or between the 'peasants' and the 'yeomen'.
> >> What would you tell him?
>
> > If I thought it worth doing, I'd spend a fair amount of time
> > defining what we now mean by "middle-class" and let him
> > decide who in his time would have belonged to it.
>
> NOT the question.  He would understand 'gentleman'
> and 'yeoman' and 'peasant', and would want (or need)
> to fit modern people into those categories.  He would
> NOT understand 'middle-class'.  Likewise, you do NOT
> understand 'yeoman' or 'gentleman', but pathetically
> (and like John Kennedy et al.) want and need to fit
> Elizabethans into the modern categories of 'middle-'
> and 'lower-' classes.  You might as well ask a modern
> Indian to tell you which people in western societies
> are the Brahmin and which are the untouchables.

Too insane to waste time on.

> > The point I'm making, though, is that John and Mary
> > Shakespeare owned a home,
>
> John (but not Mary) undoubtedly had SOME rights
> in the house in which they lived -- but it was certainly
> remote from any modern conception of ownership.

That's certainly news to me. But I'm sure they were able to tell the
servants that lived in it with them what to do.

> > had money--at least for a time,
> > participated in the commerce and politics of their town, had
> > friends like themselves, some of whom had college degrees,
>
> 'College degrees' . . .?  What the heck are you on
> about?

Some people in Stratford had degrees from Oxford or Cambridge, unless
they were called something else. And/or law degrees. The Shakespeares
knew some--Greene, for instance.

> > and seem to have had a social position and life style similar to
> > people we'd now call middle-class.
>
> Pure nonsense. It's hard to think of anything they
> would have done in their working or leisure time
> that a modern middle-class couple would do --
> beyond necessary bodily functions, performed
> by every adult human being in every class.

Not for me. Or any sane person.

> >> Yeomen (the Stratman's class)
>
> > Perhaps but his father and he entered the gentry.
>
> His father described himself as a yeoman (in
> a legal document) shortly before he died. The
> Stratman's 'signature' and the illiteracy of his
> daughters tell all we need to know about his
> own educational achievements.  All that, with
> his father's self-declared status, makes
> nonsense of the Stratman's claim to be a 'gent.'

Yes, we can ignore the actual records.

> >> were hard-working and 'respectable' but, almost invariably,
> >> quite illiterate.  A distinguishing mark of the
> >> modern middle classes is literacy.  There is
> >> a world of a difference.
>
> > The lower classes nowadays are literate.
>
> Literacy is STILL a distinguishing mark of the
> modern middle classes. Lower classes may
> (or may not) be literate. Look at the world
> outside the USA (if you are wiling to accept
> that such places could exist).

We're speaking of England.

> >>> and became an actor,
>
> >> How do you become an actor in Stratford-upon-
> >> Avon?  Join the local rep?
>
> > Become friends with Bottom.
>
> Nick Bottom is Walter Raleigh.  The Stratman
> did not mix in court circles, and Raleigh was
> mostly in disgrace when the Stratman visited
> London.

And Oberon is the Martian who was still living thirty years ago and
advised Ogburn on what really happened. The point is that theatre
existed everywhere, and so did actors.

> >>> could have become a great writer is an extraordinary claim.
>
> >> Name one other person, brought up in an illiterate
> >> household who became a writer -- let alone a good
> >> one, and forget entirely being a great one.
>
> > Name one other person, brought up in an illiterate household

> > who became known for four hundred years as a writer--let alone

> > a great one.
>
> Note the dodge. It shows that Stratfordianism is a
> quasi-religious belief, and impervious to any kind
> of argument or evidence.

If the fact that no person like the one you described became a great
writer shows that Shakespeare could not have been a writer, then the
fact that no person like the one I described (and you can't name one)
could have become known as a writer. This shows that your question is
meaningless.

> Had people 400 years ago (or 300 or 200 years ago)
> known (or believed) that the Stratman was brought
> up in a household of illiterates, they'd never have
> accepted his claim to the authorship.  But today,
> that's not a problem.  It shows how Stratfordianism
> makes its adherents stupider and stupider, generation
> by generation.
>
> >>> If you can, while you're at it, explain just how all of us who
> >>> have no trouble accepting the claim go wrong, and why.
>
> >> Take any traditional religion, examine their beliefs,
> >> and ask the same question.  You are about to
> >> elect a new President who believes in prophet,
> >> Joseph Smith, and his Golden Tablets.  He and
> >> his co-religionists have no trouble accepting
> >> total (and transparently absurd) nonsense.
> >> Why should you?
>
> > Sorry, you haven't explained why I, for one, accept
> > Stratfordianism although it's ridiculous.
>
> It is a commonly observed fact of life that human
> beings readily believe in transparent nonsense
> -- especially when they are part of a group of a
> quasi-religious nature.  I don't have to explain
> such a thing, neither in general nor in particular
> instances.

How lucky for you.

> [..]
>
> >> As you well know, we claim that 'Will Shake-speare'
> >> was a pseudonym, so its use in this context could
> >> have been a pointer to the person behind it.  Although,
> >> I believe the story here is more complicated.
>
> > We're talking about evidence.  It doesn't matter that it could be
> > explained away.
>
> Of course it matters.  The word 'evidence' has no
> purchase outside of the context of the theory which
> the (claimed) factual item is supposed to be proving
> or disproving.  Exhibit X-001 is only 'evidence' if it is
> in some way relevant to Theory Y.   Take any item,
> such as the Piltdown skull.  If Theory Z (that it was
> a fraud) explains its existence and meaning better --
> and is generally more plausible than Theory Y (that
> ancestral humans were like big-brained gorillas and
> lived in Kent), then Exhibit X-001 (the Piltdown skull)
> it ceases to have any significance within Theory Y.
> [..]

It remains evidence even though it has become too weak to any longer
be convincing evidence. But more than mere assertion weakened it.

--Bob

[Paul Crowley]

On 15/02/2012 16:34, Bob Grumman wrote:

>> There is nothing new in this. There are many terms
>> in ordinary language which can't be precisely defined
>> -- or where the effort would almost certainly be
>> misdirected or highly likely to lead to confusion.
>> 'Religion' is one of them. Of course, you can
>> pretend to have your own private definition of the
>> concept,
>
> Why do you say I PRETEND to have one? I have one,
> period.

I bet that you can't remember it. Certainly no
one else can. As you have so often been told,
language simply does not work this way. We
all know -- more or less -- what 'religion' means,
and we use the word in ways quite different from
any 'definition' that you are likely to devise.

> You may dislike it but you have said anything
> sane against it, but merely definitions of terms you don't
> want defined are impossible.

It's perfectly possible for you to define ordinary
words. But your 'definition' can only be a
waste of time.

>> this fail to rigorously exclude the standard sense
>> (effectively an impossible task) and jump in and
>> out it, confusing themselves before all others.
>> It's the sort of thing that is rife in all the so-called
>> 'social sciences' and in the pseudo-discipline of
>> Psychology,

> Psychology is a discipline practiced by many
> incompetents but it is still a discipline.

To about the same degree as is Astrology or
any other fake 'science'.

> Indeed, it's the study of how the human nervous system
> works, which has to be considered a discipline,
> regardless of how it's carried out.

That's physiology (or something similar).

> What you mean but propagandistically want to
> exaggerate is that it['s not a science. But, of course, it
> is--or do you deny the validity of all of
> neuropharmacology?

I have no idea what it is. It's fashionable these
days to stick a 'neuro-' in front of fake studies.
That does not make them any more scientific.
[..]

Paul.

[Paul Crowley]

On 15/02/2012 17:13, Bob Grumman wrote:

>> They communicate their conception of "Shake-
>> speare the author" with almost every phrase and
>> intonation. Your problem here is that you cannot
>> conceive of it being any other way -- and any other
>> possible author would be just another mindless
>> nonentity, who had no personality, nor any other
>> role in history.
>
> I know, like Homer.

Pretty much like Homer.

> But it's not true. Everyone has a personality.

And when you misread it, you cannot make
sense of what they write. But making sense
of any part of the canon is such a remote
prospect for a Strat, that they don't begin to
conceive it as a possibility.

> And even if we ignore the evidence of his
> literary career, he carried out, for you, an important service
> for his government.

Eh? While it's true that he 'served the Queen'
he was hardly performing an important service
for his government. IMHO she would not have
permitted him such freedom if she had cared
much about the safety or security of the
monarchs who would follow her.

>> Spears had ceased to be military weapons long
>> before the 13th century, when the common people
>> were required to adopt surnames. In any case,
>> there was never a special occupation of 'spear-
>> shaking'. All soldiers did the same. The use of
>> such a name when they were weapons would be
>> like referring to a WW2 soldier as "John the
>> Rifleman" -- i.e. useless, since almost all Johns in
>> the army were riflemen.
>
> This is too made-up and ridiculous to argue with.

Translation: Too realistic, too obvious, and
too incontrovertible, to argue with.

> > That is why I go along with Freud in accepting
>> that "Jacques-Pierre" was probably the origin.
>> Many (or most) surnames are patronymics
>> and the Norman-French ruling class often had
>> houses in France and brought servants from
>> there.
>
> But no one said Camden was wrong to say the name
> came from a military occupation,

Correction: No one published anything -- but
then they'd probably not have been allowed to.

> which makes a hundred times more sense.

Except that you can't say how.

>> Direct evidence of a cover-up.
>
> Direct evidence thathe was known as William
> Shakespeare. In no way direct evidence of a cover up.
> Direct evidence of that would have to be a letter by a
> conspirator saying that WS had been given an official
> name--which is completely idiotic.

How else do you explain the sudden and
radical change in name, and the utter
consistence of its use (in the new form) by
(a) the poet, and (b) the stooge -- but only
for legal purposes, and strictly applied for
them? This was at a time when the spelling
of surnames was extremely variable, and
where those of the all other Schacksburs,
Shagspers, Shaxperes, etc., etc., continued
to be extremely variable.

>> Your 'formulaic' use of the phrase 'direct evidence'
>> is infantile. The questions are which authorship
>> scenario it better fits, and which of them make
>> the most sense.
>
> Right, the questions that count are the one's you insanely
> believe you can find answers to that validate your insane
> conspiracy theory; no other ones can be permitted to
> count.

You do not attempt to show where my arguments
are wrong -- because you can't. Your 'arguments'
are just childish -- we must take the name of the
person as being his established name because
that's how it appeared on the records -- and we
can ignore changes, practices, and habits before
and after those records.

>> You can't explain why the official name makes a
>> sudden appearance in 1597 -- and then becomes
>> standard in London for the poet (in an era when
>> there little or no standardisation), and common
>> on official documents in Stratford -- when it was
>> rare to non-existent before that date, and rare
>> to non-existent after that date when applied
>> locally in Stratford (or elsewhere) to other
>> Shagspers, Shaxbers, Schacksperes, etc., etc.
>
> It doesn't make a sudden appearance, and our side has
> explain everything about in detail too many times for me to
> do so again.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Strange how you forget when
and where.

>> Nor can you explain the hyphen. Nor can you
>> explain the highly convenient (and exceedingly
>> irregular) appointment of William Camden to
>> Clarenceux King at Arms.
>
> Read my book and you'll find you're wrong, even though
> you won't allow that I and others have taken care of the
> hyphen numerous times here.

But certainly not here. Kathman (and Reedy?)
pretend to 'explain' the hyphen with a set of
'arguments' so weak that they must get
embarrassed. 'Arguments by distraction' is
their method. They will never say why the
surname 'Shakespeare' (or any variant) is
never hyphenated for any others who had
the name.

>> NOT the question. He would understand 'gentleman'
>> and 'yeoman' and 'peasant', and would want (or need)
>> to fit modern people into those categories. He would
>> NOT understand 'middle-class'. Likewise, you do NOT
>> understand 'yeoman' or 'gentleman', but pathetically
>> (and like John Kennedy et al.) want and need to fit
>> Elizabethans into the modern categories of 'middle-'
>> and 'lower-' classes. You might as well ask a modern
>> Indian to tell you which people in western societies
>> are the Brahmin and which are the untouchables.
>
> Too insane to waste time on.

You mean you can't answer.

>> 'College degrees' . . .? What the heck are you on
>> about?
>
> Some people in Stratford had degrees from Oxford or
> Cambridge, unless they were called something else.

Only the teacher, and maybe the priest.
But most vicars appointed under Elizabeth
had no qualifications, there being a great
shortage suitably Protestant clerics.

> And/or law degrees. The Shakespeares knew some--
> Greene, for instance.

The Inns of Court did not provide degrees.
The time a student spent there was more
akin to an apprenticeship.

>>> and seem to have had a social position and life style similar to
>>> people we'd now call middle-class.
>>
>> Pure nonsense. It's hard to think of anything they
>> would have done in their working or leisure time
>> that a modern middle-class couple would do --
>> beyond necessary bodily functions, performed
>> by every adult human being in every class.
>
> Not for me. Or any sane person.

You just don't get it, do you? If you weren't
gentry, you spent your days working with
your hands. There was no 'social gap' in
between the tiny number of the gentry and
the rest, marked by distinct sets of activities
or interests.

[..]

> The point is that theatre
> existed everywhere, and so did actors.

Crazy. I might as well ask Elizabeth Weird
for evidence.

>>>> Name one other person, brought up in an illiterate
>>>> household who became a writer -- let alone a good
>>>> one, and forget entirely being a great one.
>>>
>>> Name one other person, brought up in an illiterate household
>>> who became known for four hundred years as a writer--let alone
>>> a great one.
>>
>> Note the dodge. It shows that Stratfordianism is a
>> quasi-religious belief, and impervious to any kind
>> of argument or evidence.
>
> If the fact that no person like the one you described
> became a great writer shows that Shakespeare could not
> have been a writer, then the fact that no person like the
> one I described (and you can't name one) could have
> become known as a writer. This shows that your question
> is meaningless.

My question was far from meaningless.
If Stratfordianism was sound, then great
writers would routinely emerge from the
ignorant masses. Your dodge shows that
you can't begin to attempt to defend it.


Paul.

[Bob Grumman]

On Feb 17, 1:50 pm, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> On 15/02/2012 16:34, Bob Grumman wrote:
>
> >> There is nothing new in this. There are many terms
> >> in ordinary language which can't be precisely defined
> >> -- or where the effort would almost certainly be
> >> misdirected or highly likely to lead to confusion.
> >> 'Religion' is one of them.  Of course, you can
> >> pretend to have your own private definition of the
> >> concept,
>
> > Why do you say I PRETEND to have one?  I have one,
> > period.
>
> I bet that you can't remember it.

That wouold not mean I pretended to have one.

> Certainly no one else can.  As you have so often been told,
> language simply does not work this way.  We
> all know -- more or less -- what 'religion' means,
> and we use the word in ways quite different from
> any 'definition' that you are likely to devise.

Right, we use any way we want to, and most dictionaries don't have a
definition for "definition," because definitions are useless. No
philosopher would think of defining his terms.

Well, not as much slop as usual. Thanks.

--Bob

[Bob Grumman]

On Feb 17, 1:51 pm, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> On 15/02/2012 17:13, Bob Grumman wrote:
>
> >> They communicate their conception of "Shake-
> >> speare the author" with almost every phrase and
> >> intonation.  Your problem here is that you cannot
> >> conceive of it being any other way -- and any other
> >> possible author would be just another mindless
> >> nonentity, who had no personality, nor any other
> >> role in history.
>
> > I know, like Homer.
>
> Pretty much like Homer.
>
> > But it's not true.  Everyone has a personality.
>
> And when you misread it, you cannot make
> sense of what they write.  But making sense
> of any part of the canon is such a remote
> prospect for a Strat, that they don't begin to
> conceive it as a possibility.

You read biographies of authors before you read their works? How
strange.

> > And even if we ignore the evidence of his
> > literary career, he carried out, for you, an important service
> > for his government.
>
> Eh?  While it's true that he 'served the Queen'
> he was hardly performing an important service
> for his government.  IMHO she would not have
> permitted him such freedom if she had cared
> much about the safety or security of the
> monarchs who would follow her.
>
> >> Spears had ceased to be military weapons long
> >> before the 13th century, when the common people
> >> were required to adopt surnames. In any case,
> >> there was never a special occupation of 'spear-
> >> shaking'.  All soldiers did the same. The use of
> >> such a name when they were weapons would be
> >> like referring to a WW2 soldier as "John the
> >> Rifleman" -- i.e. useless, since almost all Johns in
> >> the army were riflemen.
>
> > This is too made-up and ridiculous to argue with.
>
> Translation:  Too realistic, too obvious, and
> too incontrovertible, to argue with.

Right. The number of people who agree with you about it strongly
suggests that.

> >  > That is why I go along with Freud in accepting
> >> that "Jacques-Pierre" was probably the origin.
> >> Many (or most) surnames are patronymics
> >> and the Norman-French ruling class often had
> >> houses in France and brought servants from
> >> there.
>
> > But no one said Camden was wrong to say the name
> > came from a military occupation,
>
> Correction: No one published anything -- but
> then they'd probably not have been allowed to.

That made me laugh out loud. The idea of Camden, a scholar, being
told to lie about the name Shakespeare in order to make who? the
educated people who read his book and according to you would have been
too smart to acdept the Stratford man as a writer? Meanwhile, they
take no pains to get the illiterate rube to learn to scrawl a pretty
rendering of his name even though the way he wrote was unimpeachable
evidence that he was illiterate. And after Damcen's work is
published, the authorities keep an eye on everything published,
including private letters and journals to make sure no one contradicts
Camden's clever deception--which NO ONE SINCE UNTIL YOU CONTRADICTED
IN PRINT. You really are insane, Paul.

> > which makes a hundred times more sense.
>
> Except that you can't say how.

I don't have to. It's like definitions, Paul. Just as you don't need
definitions to know what a word means, you don't need explanations of
how a thing makes sense for it to makes sense.

> >> Direct evidence of a cover-up.
>

> > Direct evidence that he was known as William

> > Shakespeare.  In no way direct evidence of a cover up.
> > Direct evidence of that would have to be a letter by a
> > conspirator saying that WS had been given an official
> > name--which is completely idiotic.
>
> How else do you explain the sudden and
> radical change in name, and the utter
> consistence of its use (in the new form) by
> (a) the poet, and (b) the stooge -- but only
> for legal purposes, and strictly applied for
> them?  This was at a time when the spelling
> of surnames was extremely variable, and
> where those of the all other Schacksburs,
> Shagspers, Shaxperes, etc., etc., continued
> to be extremely variable.

Actually, Paul, nothing of consequence can possibly be explained, but
it doesn't have to be to be true. Here, though, that is irrelevant.
Your "evidence" does not lead directly to what you think it does.

> >> Your 'formulaic' use of the phrase 'direct evidence'
> >> is infantile.  The questions are which authorship
> >> scenario it better fits, and which of them make
> >> the most sense.
>

> > Right, the questions that count are the ones you insanely

> > believe you can find answers to that validate your insane
> > conspiracy theory; no other ones can be permitted to
> > count.
>
> You do not attempt to show where my arguments
> are wrong -- because you can't.  Your 'arguments'
> are just childish -- we must take the name of the
> person as being his established name because
> that's how it appeared on the records -- and we
> can ignore changes, practices, and habits before
> and after those records.

So you assert.

> >> You can't explain why the official name makes a
> >> sudden appearance in 1597 -- and then becomes
> >> standard in London for the poet (in an era when
> >> there little or no standardisation), and common
> >> on official documents in Stratford -- when it was
> >> rare to non-existent before that date, and rare
> >> to non-existent after that date when applied
> >> locally in Stratford (or elsewhere) to other
> >> Shagspers, Shaxbers, Schacksperes, etc., etc.
>
> > It doesn't make a sudden appearance, and our side has

> > explained everything about in detail too many times for me to

I mean, as I've said hundreds of times, I can provide a complete
psychotic like you with an answer you will accept as valid, or even as
an attempt at an answer.

> >> 'College degrees' . . .?  What the heck are you on
> >> about?
>
> > Some people in Stratford had degrees from Oxford or
> > Cambridge, unless they were called something else.
>
> Only the teacher, and maybe the priest.
> But most vicars appointed under Elizabeth
> had no qualifications, there being a great
> shortage suitably Protestant clerics.
>
> > And/or law degrees. The Shakespeares knew some--
> > Greene, for instance.
>
> The Inns of Court did not provide degrees.
> The time a student spent there was more
> akin to an apprenticeship.

What they provided was close enough. I'll bet certified lawyers were
considered gentlemen.

> >>> and seem to have had a social position and life style similar to
> >>> people we'd now call middle-class.
>
> >> Pure nonsense. It's hard to think of anything they
> >> would have done in their working or leisure time
> >> that a modern middle-class couple would do --
> >> beyond necessary bodily functions, performed
> >> by every adult human being in every class.
>
> > Not for me.  Or any sane person.
>
> You just don't get it, do you?  If you weren't
> gentry, you spent your days working with
> your hands.  There was no 'social gap' in
> between the tiny number of the gentry and
> the rest, marked by distinct sets of activities
> or interests.

You don't understand that just about any society learge enough can be
broken down into three or more easily recognized groups based on
things like social status. The one in the middle can reasonably be
called "middle-class." The Shakespeares were not nobles or serfs,
therefore, they are often referred to by the sane as middle-class.

> [..]
>
> > The point is that theatre
> > existed everywhere, and so did actors.
>
> Crazy.  I might as well ask Elizabeth Weird
> for evidence.
>

No, just read a few books on the drama. And about religious rites.
Plays and the equivalent have probably been universal since before
speech.

>
>
> >>>> Name one other person, brought up in an illiterate
> >>>> household who became a writer -- let alone a good
> >>>> one, and forget entirely being a great one.
>
> >>> Name one other person, brought up in an illiterate household
> >>> who became known for four hundred years as a writer--let alone
> >>> a great one.
>
> >> Note the dodge. It shows that Stratfordianism is a
> >> quasi-religious belief, and impervious to any kind
> >> of argument or evidence.
>
> > If the fact that no person like the one you described
> > became a great writer shows that Shakespeare could not
> > have been a writer, then the fact that no person like the
> > one I described (and you can't name one) could have
> > become known as a writer.  This shows that your question
> > is meaningless.
>
> My question was far from meaningless.
> If Stratfordianism was sound, then great
> writers would routinely emerge from the
> ignorant masses.  Your dodge shows that
> you can't begin to attempt to defend it.
>

> Paul.- Hide quoted text -

Yes, but if Oxfordianism were sound, then great writers would
routinely have fronts who were illiterate. You can't name one who did,
though, except Oxford.

--Bob

[Paul Crowley]

On 17/02/2012 22:43, Bob Grumman wrote:

>>> But it's not true. Everyone has a personality.
>>
>> And when you misread it, you cannot make
>> sense of what they write. But making sense
>> of any part of the canon is such a remote
>> prospect for a Strat, that they don't begin to
>> conceive it as a possibility.
>
> You read biographies of authors before you read their
> works? How strange.

Like everyone else, I don't read biographies of
the authors of 'airport books' nor of any Mills
and Boon novels that I might come across. But
if I take a serious interest in the works of any
artist or thinker, including the literary, I know
that it is essential (in the appreciation of his
works) to find out more about him. Also,
literary works are often biographical or quasi-
biographical.

>>>> The use of
>>>> such a name when they were weapons would be
>>>> like referring to a WW2 soldier as "John the
>>>> Rifleman" -- i.e. useless, since almost all Johns in
>>>> the army were riflemen.
>>>
>>> This is too made-up and ridiculous to argue with.
>>
>> Translation: Too realistic, too obvious, and
>> too incontrovertible, to argue with.
>
> Right. The number of people who agree with you
> about it strongly suggests that.

You possess (a) a curious respect for authority
and (b) an incapacity to think for yourself --
e.g. you have yet to present any arguments
against my point here. (No doubt the attitude
and the incapacity go together.) But for me,
the opinions of Stratfordian sheep count for
less than those of real sheep.

>>> But no one said Camden was wrong to say the name
>>> came from a military occupation,
>>
>> Correction: No one published anything -- but
>> then they'd probably not have been allowed to.
>
> That made me laugh out loud. The idea of Camden, a
> scholar, being told to lie about the name Shakespeare

Camden was not told to lie. He was clearly an
important figure in the cover-up, and paid well
for his appointment as Clarenceaux King at
Arms in the Herald's office, and for the job he
did there in respect of the Stratman. His
remarks on the name were certainly tongue-
in-cheek. He would have known that "Shake-
speare" (especially with a hyphen) was a
contrived name, and that most Shagsbers,
Shackspers, etc., etc., had never imagined their
names alluded to either shaking or to spears.

> in order to make who? the educated people who read
> his book

It's a very quick joke that most readers
would not have even seen.

> Meanwhile, they take no pains to get the illiterate rube
> to learn to scrawl a pretty rendering of his name

It's not easy for ANY adult to become competent
in the use of a pen, when he has barely ever held
one.

> even though the way he wrote was unimpeachable
> evidence that he was illiterate.

Who -- in the literary world -- was going to
see his signature? Who outside of it would
pay attention to its quality?

> And after Damcen's work is published,

Who is 'Damceri'?

> the authorities keep an eye on everything published,
> including private letters and journals to make sure no
> one contradicts Camden's clever deception

You have not the first clue about the publishing
industry or the history of those times. Firstly,
everything in print required a _prior_ licence --
approval by the Bishop of London, the Stationers
Company or the Master of the Revels. Secondly,
Camden's appointment was extremely unpopular
and lead to fierce rows. Anything seriously
critical about him was, in effect, an attack on
the monarch, and needed to be watched.

> --which NO ONE SINCE UNTIL YOU CONTRADICTED
> IN PRINT. You really are insane, Paul.

I'm sure plenty of others have made the same
(or similar) point. The only remarkable thing
here is that you remark upon it -- clearly feeling
that any comment which is not strictly sheep-
like deserves full capitalization.

Are you really claiming (a) that Camden did not
know that 'Shake-speare' (with a hyphen . . as
he has it) was a most peculiar and contrived
form of the surname Shaxber, Shagsper,
Shappere, etc. ? And (b) that he took his
'etymology' seriously?

>> My question was far from meaningless.
>> If Stratfordianism was sound, then great
>> writers would routinely emerge from the
>> ignorant masses. Your dodge shows that
>> you can't begin to attempt to defend it.
>

> Yes, but if Oxfordianism were sound, then great
> writers would routinely have fronts who were illiterate.
> You can't name one who did, though, except Oxford.

That makes no sense (as you well know).
Great writers are rare. Even more rarely
do they occur in societies where the need
for obscurity is essential. Even more rarely
do they occur in societies where the it is
relatively easy to provide such obscurity.
Even more rarely do they arise in societies
where the in-group loves puns and punning,
and the rest lack the mentality to spot it.
Even more rarely does the author have the
full backing of an all-powerful monarch.
Even more rarely does that monarch wish
to see such material published. Even more
rarely does that monarch have such a
strong sense of humour . . . . and so on
and on.


Paul.

[Bob Grumman]

Right, Paul. I devoted a good portion of my life to a completely
uncertified theory of psychology, I compose long division poems like
no other works of art in the world that I know of, I constantly attack
the American poetry establishment for its refusal to acknowledgement
the presence of any kind of poetry making significant use of
techniques that were not in wide use fifty or more years ago, I am
neutral about the big bang theory despite what the experts say about
it, I remain unconvinced of the theory of relativity although I admit
to not knowing enough to reject it, I am contemptuous of both national
parties in this country, but I have "a curious respect for authority"
and "an incapacity to think for myself"--because I consider anyone
with whom NO ONE agrees to be more like wrong than right, especially
if I can find good arguments against him, and ESPECIALLY ESPECIALLY if
he will not even acknowledge that I've presented arguments against all
his central arguments (although perhaps none against his one small
point here--but I have pointed out that "Shakespeare" strongly
suggests the act of shaking a spear, goes back centuries, and spears
have been common for millennia, and names are, as Camden pointed out,
based on occupations; and Camden's mention of "Shakespeare" should
count more than

You ought to write out a list of the things I don't have the first
clue about, Paul. It may be a world record. Do you think I have the
first clue about how to feed myself?

> > --which NO ONE SINCE UNTIL YOU CONTRADICTED
> > IN PRINT. You really are insane, Paul.
>
> I'm sure plenty of others have made the same
> (or similar) point. The only remarkable thing
> here is that you remark upon it -- clearly feeling
> that any comment which is not strictly sheep-
> like deserves full capitalization.

You can't cite anyone who questions the validity of Camden.

> Are you really claiming (a) that Camden did not
> know that 'Shake-speare' (with a hyphen . .  as
> he has it) was a most peculiar and contrived
> form of the surname Shaxber, Shagsper,
> Shappere, etc. ?

How about Shakesper, Shakspear, Shakespere, etc,, which were much more
common and went back many years? In any case, I'm sure Camden was
aware of the many spellings that most names had.

>  And (b) that he took his 'etymology' seriously?

What other jokes did he make, by the way?

> >> My question was far from meaningless.
> >> If Stratfordianism was sound, then great
> >> writers would routinely emerge from the
> >> ignorant masses.  Your dodge shows that
> >> you can't begin to attempt to defend it.
>
> > Yes, but if Oxfordianism were sound, then great
> > writers would routinely have fronts who were illiterate.
> > You can't name one who did, though, except Oxford.
>
> That makes no sense (as you well know).

Right, I'm lying again. A rigidnik is never satisfied to show that an
opponent is wrong; he must also show that he is morally
reprehensible.

> Great writers are rare.  Even more rarely
> do they occur in societies where the need
> for obscurity is essential.  Even more rarely
> do they occur in societies where the it is
> relatively easy to provide such obscurity.
> Even more rarely do they arise in societies
> where the in-group loves puns and punning,
> and the rest lack the mentality to spot it.
> Even more rarely does the author have the
> full backing of an all-powerful monarch.
> Even more rarely does that monarch wish
> to see such material published.  Even more
> rarely does that monarch have such a
> strong sense of humour . . . . and so on
> and on.

Same idiotic reasoning can be used to support a great writer's coming
from an illiterate household (although we do not know how literate or
illiterate a household Shakespeare came from). You're arguing that a
great writer's coming from an illiterate household was too rare an
event to have happened, then arguing that the equally rare
circumstances of Oxford's career didn't matter.

--Bob

[marc hanson]

I wonder if
the whole thing about Shakespeare's name[s]
was a tendency to shorten it,
make is easier to write?

we do it with speaking, don't we?
Bob vs Robert
Sam vs Samuel
Tom vs Thomas
etc

marc

[John W Kennedy]

That sort of thing was done all the time in the pre-printing era, and
did not automatically cease just because of Gutenberg. As has been
pointed out here hundreds of times, standardized spelling is a notion
that did not exist until after Shakespeare's time.

--
John W Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"

[Paul Crowley]

On 19/02/2012 11:56, Bob Grumman wrote:

>>>>>> The use of
>>>>>> such a name when they were weapons would be
>>>>>> like referring to a WW2 soldier as "John the
>>>>>> Rifleman" -- i.e. useless, since almost all Johns in
>>>>>> the army were riflemen.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is too made-up and ridiculous to argue with.
>>>>
>>>> Translation: Too realistic, too obvious, and
>>>> too incontrovertible, to argue with.
>>>
>>> Right. The number of people who agree with you
>>> about it strongly suggests that.
>>
>> You possess (a) a curious respect for authority
>> and (b) an incapacity to think for yourself --
>> e.g. you have yet to present any arguments
>> against my point here. (No doubt the attitude
>> and the incapacity go together.) But for me,
>> the opinions of Stratfordian sheep count for
>> less than those of real sheep.
>
> Right, Paul. I devoted a good portion of my life to a completely

> uncertified theory of psychology, [...]

The fact that you subscribe to a few odd-ball
theories does not undermine my claim nor
the evidence on which it is based.

> --because I consider anyone with
> whom NO ONE agrees to be more like wrong than right,

Sure -- I can dismiss all that you say (on your
odd-ball notions) without a thought. I don't
need to exercise my brain. You are obviously
wrong.

But surely you don't think anyone today would
accept more than a fraction of Camden's musings/
speculations on the origins of various surnames?
As one example, he assumes that names beginning
with "God-" (Godfrey, Godwin, Goddard) had
something to do with 'God'.

> that I've presented arguments against all his central
> arguments (although perhaps none against his one small
> point here--

It's the invariable " . . perhaps none against his
one small point here-- . . " that I am complaining
about.

> but I have pointed out that "Shakespeare"
> strongly suggests the act of shaking a spear, goes back
> centuries, and spears have been common for millennia,
> and names are, as Camden pointed out, based on
> occupations;

What the heck is the occupation of 'spear-shaking'?
How much do you get for it each day? And how is
it distinctive? And different from (say) the rifle-
bearing that most soldiers do, and nearly all have
done for the past 150 years? Why would "Fred
the spear-shaker" be a good identifier, when
"John, the rifleman" would not?

> You can't cite anyone who questions the validity of Camden.

This is idiotic. How many historians today would
endorse his sentiments on the glories of the reign
of King Arthur and the like? It's not an issue of
finding someone who questions Camden as finding
any (apart from your goodself, of course) who might
think that he is an authority on such matters.

>> Are you really claiming (a) that Camden did not
>> know that 'Shake-speare' (with a hyphen . . as
>> he has it) was a most peculiar and contrived
>> form of the surname Shaxber, Shagsper,
>> Shappere, etc. ?
>
> How about Shakesper, Shakspear, Shakespere, etc,,
> which were much more common and went back many
> years?

Wrong. Only rarely could the spelling of the surname
be held to indicated 'shaking' (as all your examples
allow). Even more rarely could it be thought to
indicate 'spears'.

> In any case, I'm sure Camden was aware of the
> many spellings that most names had.

His aim seems to have been to simplify and
sell something vaguely plausible to the ignorant.

>>>> My question was far from meaningless.
>>>> If Stratfordianism was sound, then great
>>>> writers would routinely emerge from the
>>>> ignorant masses. Your dodge shows that
>>>> you can't begin to attempt to defend it.
>>>
>>> Yes, but if Oxfordianism were sound, then great
>>> writers would routinely have fronts who were illiterate.
>>> You can't name one who did, though, except Oxford.
>>
>> That makes no sense (as you well know).
>
> Right, I'm lying again. A rigidnik is never satisfied to show
> that an opponent is wrong; he must also show that he is
> morally reprehensible.

I apologise. I should have allowed for massive
stupidity on your part.

>> Great writers are rare. Even more rarely
>> do they occur in societies where the need
>> for obscurity is essential. Even more rarely
>> do they occur in societies where the it is
>> relatively easy to provide such obscurity.
>> Even more rarely do they arise in societies
>> where the in-group loves puns and punning,
>> and the rest lack the mentality to spot it.
>> Even more rarely does the author have the
>> full backing of an all-powerful monarch.
>> Even more rarely does that monarch wish
>> to see such material published. Even more
>> rarely does that monarch have such a
>> strong sense of humour . . . . and so on
>> and on.
>
> Same idiotic reasoning can be used to support a great
> writer's coming from an illiterate household (although we
> do not know how literate or illiterate a household
> Shakespeare came from). You're arguing that a great
> writer's coming from an illiterate household was too rare
> an event to have happened, then arguing that the equally
> rare circumstances of Oxford's career didn't matter.

You confuse the general with the particular. The
Strat claim is that there was nothing special about
Shake--speare . . . except for his genes. He was
(according to Strats) exactly as declared on the tin,
and all tins (containing literary geniuses) come off
the shelf in much the same way. Whereas other
literary critics (including Strats when in non-Strat
mode) will talk about the peculiarities of the literary
and personal backgrounds that brought about
literary geniuses, such as Tolstoy, or Joyce, or Mark
Twain, or Hemingway, that kind of discussion is
necessarily ruled out for the Stratman.

Strats (when in Strat mode) try to put it all down to
genes. So, for every one billion births (or whatever
number you posit) there is one genius of Shake-
speare's standing. And his (or her) genius is so
great, that no obstacle can get in its way. The
'genius will out' even if the child has a premature
birth, attacks of meningitis, polio and smallpox,
and dies before it reaches its second birthday.

It's all a matter of throwing the dice. (Why it should
be one in a billion, or one in a million, or whatever,
is NEVER discussed among Strats -- yet it should
be, since that number is a crucial part of their
'thinking'. In fact, it's a dodge or a mental conjuring
trick, and at some level in their consciousness, they
are aware of that fact. And THAT is why they never
discuss it.)

Whereas for Oxfordians (and for Strats when in
non-Strat mode), while genes do matter, they are
relatively insignificant. Rightly, "genes" rarely get
a mention in discussions of Milton, or Swift, or
Byron or Keats, or anyone else.

If Edward de Vere had died when young, there
would still have been an Elizabethan literary revival,
but it would have been much lesser, probably akin
to that taking place in France under the Pleiades
a decade or so earlier. However -- as with all other
artistic and literary greats -- it was necessary for
such an environment to exist, if Oxford was to
achieve greatness. He needed to be surrounded by
relatively 'ordinary' poets and scholars to be able to
measure himself against them. He needed patronage
-- both in terms of finance, and in political, moral and
aesthetic support, in his case above all from the
Queen.

Oxford needed the very best kind of education in
order to become the Bard -- a theatre in his own
house when growing up, and being surrounded by
the best actors and comics of his day, including
Tarleton. He needed the best scholars and translators.
He needed freedom from the standard prejudices and
taboos of the common herd -- as regards sex (and
other bodily functions), religion, cosmology, and
science. So he could not have been less than
nobility. He also needed the assistance of secretaries
once he got going,


Paul

[Bob Grumman]

> > Right, Paul.  I devoted a good portion of my life to a completely
> > uncertified theory of psychology, [...]
>
> The fact that you subscribe to a few odd-ball
> theories does not undermine my claim nor
> the evidence on which it is based.

Ah, the two main things in my life, my poetry, and my theory of
psychology, are as unconventional as can be, but it doesn't undermine
your claim that I "possess (a) a curious respect for authority and (b)
an incapacity to think for (my)self." I also refused to go to college
until, in my middle thirties, I could make money from the GI Bill by
going to college in California, where it was free at the time. Rather
odd way of showing respect for authority, I'd say. And what evidence
is your claim based on? The fact that I believe a theory NO respected
authority in the field involved in agrees with, and many consider
insane?

> > --because I consider anyone with

> > whom NO ONE agrees to be more likeLY wrong than right,

> Sure -- I can dismiss all that you say (on your
> odd-ball notions) without a thought.  I don't
> need to exercise my brain.  You are obviously
> wrong.

No, Paul, I am only more likely to be wrong than right.

> But surely you don't think anyone today would
> accept more than a fraction of Camden's musings/
> speculations on the origins of various surnames?

Paul, I don't care. They would accept that many names were based on
occupations, the only relevant point here.

> As one example, he assumes that names beginning
> with "God-" (Godfrey, Godwin, Goddard) had
> something to do with 'God'.

Makes sense to me, but it has nothing to do with his use of the name
"Shakespeare" as an example of a vocation-based name, something I
don't believe anyone in the field has presented any argument against.

>
> > that I've presented arguments against all his central
> > arguments (although perhaps none against his one small
> > point here--
>
> It's the invariable " . .  perhaps none against his
> one small point here-- . . "  that I am complaining
> about.

Right. The problem is that the many large points I've refuted makes
your one small point ridiculously unimportant. Like pointing out
while arguing that Einstein was a dunce that he make a simple mistake
in arithmetic once and not being refuted.

> > but I have pointed out that "Shakespeare"
> > strongly suggests the act of shaking a spear, goes back
> > centuries, and spears have been common for millennia,
> > and names are, as Camden pointed out, based on
> > occupations;
>
> What the heck is the occupation of 'spear-shaking'?

Same occupation as Wagstaffe, Breakespeare, Broad-spere--three other
names I suppose Camden made up to support his claim.

> How much do you get for it each day?  And how is
> it distinctive?  And different from (say) the rifle-
> bearing that most soldiers do, and nearly all have
> done for the past 150 years?  Why would "Fred
> the spear-shaker" be a good identifier, when
> "John, the rifleman" would not?

Grab the closest argument at hand, Paul. Don't bother to think.
(Hint: most names were established before rifles--consider that
Wheelwright is a common name, but Airplanewright is not.)

> > You can't cite anyone who questions the validity of Camden. THAT SHAKE-SPEARE CAME FROM SOLIDIERING.

>
> This is idiotic.  How many historians today would
> endorse his sentiments on the glories of the reign
> of King Arthur and the like?   It's not an issue of
> finding someone who questions Camden as finding
> any (apart from your goodself, of course) who might
> think that he is an authority on such matters.

> >> Are you really claiming (a) that Camden did not
> >> know that 'Shake-speare' (with a hyphen . .  as
> >> he has it) was a most peculiar and contrived
> >> form of the surname Shaxber, Shagsper,
> >> Shappere, etc. ?
>
> > How about Shakesper, Shakspear, Shakespere, etc,,
> > which were much more common and went back many
> > years?

> Wrong. Only rarely could the spelling of the surname
> be held to indicated 'shaking' (as all your examples
> allow).  Even more rarely could it be thought to
> indicate 'spears'.

Wrong. It often clearly did, and probably did in all other cases
except the extreme variations you've found or made up. Some of the
worst were references to the playwright.

> > In any case, I'm sure Camden was aware of the
> > many spellings that most names had.
>
> His aim seems to have been to simplify and
> sell something vaguely plausible to the ignorant.

Baloney. He was a scholar who presented his findings in the hope that
they would prove illuminating to his readers.

I'm not going to waste time AGAIN correcting you.

> Whereas other
> literary critics (including Strats when in non-Strat
> mode) will talk about the peculiarities of the literary
> and personal backgrounds that brought about
> literary geniuses, such as Tolstoy, or Joyce, or Mark
> Twain, or Hemingway,

They don't say they brought about geniuses, but contributed to how the
genius of various geniuses, including Shakespeare's, manifested
itself.

> that kind of discussion is
> necessarily ruled out for the Stratman.

It is not ruled out, but it's value is less, as it was for almost all
writers living before 1600 because of insufficient data.

> Strats (when in Strat mode) try to put it all down to
> genes.

No, they don't. I believe I am the only one who does that.

> So, for every one billion births (or whatever
> number you posit)

a million or so

> there is one genius of Shake-
> speare's standing. And his (or her) genius is so
> great, that no obstacle can get in its way. The
> 'genius will out' even if the child has a premature
> birth, attacks of meningitis, polio and smallpox,
> and dies before it reaches its second birthday.

Why do you . . . it seems to me always . . . ruin even your half-
sensible arguments by making your opponent a straw horse? I say
genius will always out in NORMAL ciscumstances, and that it will stand
a chance even against unusually difficult circumstances, as in the
case of the Russian David Webb has told you about numerous times
(whose name I forget because my interest in narrowly in Anglophonic
oliterature, and I'm forgetful.)

>
> It's all a matter of throwing the dice. (Why it should
> be one in a billion, or one in a million, or whatever,
> is NEVER discussed among Strats -- yet it should
> be, since that number is a crucial part of their
> 'thinking'.

The answer has been mentioned, but not very often because so obvious.
Read up on the bell-shaped curve. Consider how often some man is
eight-feet-tall, or close to it (or taller?)

> In fact, it's a dodge or a mental conjuring
> trick, and at some level in their consciousness, they
> are aware of that fact. And THAT is why they never
> discuss it.)

Well, I've written at length what I think intelligence is, and why I
consider it almost entirely the result of genes. Become my patron by
putting up what a hundred copies of it would cost to publish, and I'll
put together a few hundred pages of it for you, dedicated to you.

> Whereas for Oxfordians (and for Strats when in
> non-Strat mode), while genes do matter, they are
> relatively insignificant. Rightly, "genes" rarely get
> a mention in discussions of Milton, or Swift, or
> Byron or Keats, or anyone else.

Of course not. The interest in them is literary, not
neurophysiological.

> If Edward de Vere had died when young, there
> would still have been an Elizabethan literary revival,
> but it would have been much lesser, probably akin
> to that taking place in France under the Pleiades
> a decade or so earlier. However -- as with all other
> artistic and literary greats -- it was necessary for
> such an environment to exist, if Oxford was to
> achieve greatness. He needed to be surrounded by
> relatively 'ordinary' poets and scholars to be able to
> measure himself against them.  He needed patronage
> -- both in terms of finance, and in political, moral and
> aesthetic support, in his case above all from the
> Queen.
>
> Oxford needed the very best kind of education in
> order to become the Bard -- a theatre in his own
> house when growing up, and being surrounded by
> the best actors and comics of his day, including
> Tarleton.  He needed the best scholars and translators.
> He needed freedom from the standard prejudices and
> taboos of the common herd -- as regards sex (and
> other bodily functions), religion, cosmology, and
> science. So he could not have been less than
> nobility. He also needed the assistance of secretaries
> once he got going,
>

Sorry, there is no best education for a great poet--the huge variety
of educational backgrounds for the hundred best poets in the English
language makes that clear.

--Bob

[Paul Crowley]

On 20/02/2012 19:05, Bob Grumman wrote:

>> But surely you don't think anyone today would
>> accept more than a fraction of Camden's musings/
>> speculations on the origins of various surnames?
>
> Paul, I don't care. They would accept that many
> names were based on occupations, the only
> relevant point here.

That is certainly not the relevant point here.
The question is whether or not 'Speare-shaker'
is an occupation, and one that would be useful
as an identifier.

> Makes sense to me, but it has nothing to do
> with his use of the name "Shakespeare" as an
> example of a vocation-based name, something I
> don't believe anyone in the field has presented
> any argument against.

You may be right. The world is full of Stratfordian
half-wits, incapable of asking questions.

>> What the heck is the occupation of 'spear-shaking'?
>
> Same occupation as Wagstaffe,

Look up 'Wagstaffe' -- a nickname for an officious
beadle.

> Breakespeare,

A warrior who had broken opponent's spears.

> Broad-spere

Probably invented.

> names I suppose Camden made up to support his claim.

His 'derivations' are usually wrong, whenever he
provides them.

>> How much do you get for it each day? And how is
>> it distinctive? And different from (say) the rifle-
>> bearing that most soldiers do, and nearly all have
>> done for the past 150 years? Why would "Fred
>> the spear-shaker" be a good identifier, when
>> "John, the rifleman" would not?
>
> Grab the closest argument at hand, Paul. Don't
> bother to think. (Hint: most names were established
> before rifles--consider that Wheelwright is a common
> name, but Airplanewright is not.)

You are thick. My point is that 'spear-shaker'
was as useless an identifier (when spears were
the standard weapon) as 'rifleman' would have
been since about 1850. No one would ever
have used either.

>> that kind of discussion is
>> necessarily ruled out for the Stratman.
>
> It is not ruled out, but it's value is less, as it was for
> almost all writers living before 1600 because of
> insufficient data.

Firstly, the Stratman was (supposedly) a highly
successful playwright before 1600 and remained
one for another 13 or more years.

There should be a mass of data.

>> Strats (when in Strat mode) try to put it all down to
>> genes.
>
> No, they don't. I believe I am the only one who does
> that.

At least you are open about it. The rest keep their
mouths tight shut -- but that's what they imply.

>> So, for every one billion births (or whatever
>> number you posit)
>
> a million or so

Where are the 300 Shake-speares now alive
in the USA? And the 7,000 in the rest of
the world?
[..]

Paul.

[Bob Grumman]

On Feb 20, 6:01 pm, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> On 20/02/2012 19:05, Bob Grumman wrote:
>
> >> But surely you don't think anyone today would
> >> accept more than a fraction of Camden's musings/
> >> speculations on the origins of various surnames?
>
> > Paul, I don't care.  They would accept that many
> > names were based on occupations, the only
> > relevant point here.
>
> That is certainly not the relevant point here.
> The question is whether or not 'Speare-shaker'
> is an occupation, and one that would be useful
> as an identifier.

Of course it would be useful as an identifier, but that's only part of
it. It's what would be associated with a particular man but a
reasonable number of neighbors, remembering him in one battle. Or who
knows what else.

> > Makes sense to me, but it has nothing to do
> > with his use of the name "Shakespeare" as an
> > example of a vocation-based name, something I
> > don't believe anyone in the field has presented
> > any argument against.
>
> You may be right.  The world is full of Stratfordian
> half-wits, incapable of asking questions.

Not when all the direct evidence makes it unnecessary to look for
moronic and trivial pseudo-anomalies to wonder about.

> >> What the heck is the occupation of 'spear-shaking'?
>
> > Same occupation as Wagstaffe,
>
> Look up 'Wagstaffe' -- a nickname for an officious
> beadle.

I won't bother. I suspect it was originally from shaking a staff.

> > Breakespeare,
>
> A warrior who had broken opponent's spears.

Exactly. With precisely the logic of Shakespeare having to do with a
warrier shaking a spear at the enemy, undoubtedly courageously
challenging them to advance.

> > Broad-spere
>
> Probably invented.

Right. Couldn't have had anything to do with a spearman known for his
ability with a particular kind of spear. Or maybe a maker of spears.
Keep away from commonsense if it threatens your conspiracy theory.

> > names I suppose Camden made up to support his claim.
>
> His 'derivations' are usually wrong, whenever he
> provides them.

Ah, but your monograph on the subject has only been cited by seventeen
scholars in the past five years, Paul. So it must not be very
persuasive/

> >> How much do you get for it each day?  And how is
> >> it distinctive?  And different from (say) the rifle-
> >> bearing that most soldiers do, and nearly all have
> >> done for the past 150 years?  Why would "Fred
> >> the spear-shaker" be a good identifier, when
> >> "John, the rifleman" would not?
>
> > Grab the closest argument at hand, Paul.  Don't
> > bother to think. (Hint: most names were established
> > before rifles--consider that Wheelwright is a common
> > name, but Airplanewright is not.)
>
> You are thick.  My point is that 'spear-shaker'
> was as useless an identifier (when spears were
> the standard weapon) as 'rifleman' would have
> been since about 1850.  No one would ever
> have used either.

Right. Forget Bowman. Ignore the names I just gave you. How about
Farmer? Hey, everybody just about was a farmer at one time--why would
anyone identify anybody as a farmer? Shermans--men who sheared sheep-
would have been pretty common, too--which I mention because my mother
was a Sherman. Which reminds me of "Shepherd." Why name anyone that
when so many people were shepherds. Well, if you think, you'll realize
that probably after two or three in a community got that name, then
people would look for other names--like Johnson, which were so much
more identifying that Shakespeare.

> >> that kind of discussion is
> >> necessarily ruled out for the Stratman.
>

> > It is not ruled out, but its value is less, as it was for

> > almost all writers living before 1600 because of
> > insufficient data.
>
> Firstly, the Stratman was (supposedly) a highly
> successful playwright before 1600 and remained
> one for another 13 or more years.
>
> There should be a mass of data.

Name the biographers of commoners of the time. Tell us about the
diaries that writers kept then. Drummond, and Jonson had a journal.
Heywood was going to write a journal but never did, that we know.
Tell us about all the literary materials from dramatists we have.
You're simply being ridiculous with no excuse for it since we've
refuted you dozens of times.

> >> Strats (when in Strat mode) try to put it all down to
> >> genes.
>
> > No, they don't.  I believe I am the only one who does
> > that.
>
> At least you are open about it.  The rest keep their
> mouths tight shut -- but that's what they imply.
>
> >> So, for every one billion births (or whatever
> >> number you posit)
>
> > a million or so
>
> Where are the 300 Shake-speares now alive
> in the USA?  And the 7,000 in the rest of
> the world?

1. How should I know? I personally know probably only five poets at
his level. And I don't know the best people in other fields.
2. There are probably more than 300 in the US because of--yes, Paul--
our superior genes. Because there are many, they tend not to stand
out.
3. They are in many different fields, most of them not fields many
people would know much about.
4. It's harder to gain recognition nowadays because of competition
from ancients no brighter than today's best culturateurs (yeah, I had
to use one of my words) but who are extremely over-rated, like
Shakespeare, because their works have been around so long.
5. Maybe no one is equal to Shakespeare, or Beethoven (whom I admire
much more than I admire Shakespeare) or Newton, but whenI speak of the
number of Shakespeares around, I'm speaking of culturateurs at or
close to his level, like Marlowe and Jonson were, although I'm aware
that you lack the perception to see that. There's your god--and, hey,
your brand of authorship attribution I now see IS a religion--your god
IS to other mortals as Zeus and Jesus were! Several orders or
magnitude superior to his closest rivals. Responsible for just about
every important work of literature of his time. I forget--did he
write Lyly's Euphues, or whatever its name is?


--Bob

[Paul Crowley]

On 20/02/2012 23:58, Bob Grumman wrote:

>>> Paul, I don't care. They would accept that many
>>> names were based on occupations, the only
>>> relevant point here.
>>
>> That is certainly not the relevant point here.
>> The question is whether or not 'Speare-shaker'
>> is an occupation, and one that would be useful
>> as an identifier.
>
> Of course it would be useful as an identifier, but that's
> only part of it. It's what would be associated with a
> particular man but a reasonable number of neighbors,
> remembering him in one battle. Or who knows what
> else.

In order to be remembered from a battle, you
have to do something -- and something a lot
more notable than the shaking of a spear.

>>> Breakespeare,
>>
>> A warrior who had broken opponent's spears.
>
> Exactly. With precisely the logic of Shakespeare
> having to do with a warrier shaking a spear at the
> enemy, undoubtedly courageously challenging them to
> advance.

ALL foot soldiers beat their weapons against
their shields ahead of a battle. Not one stood
out for doing such a thing. No one would get
a name for it.

>>> Broad-spere
>>
>> Probably invented.
>
> Right. Couldn't have had anything to do with a
> spearman known for his ability with a particular kind of
> spear.

Spear-men used the spears that were the
standard for their day. Don't you know anything
about armies? Do you think each Roman soldier
made his own weaponry?

> Or maybe a maker of spears.

See above.

> Keep away from commonsense if it threatens your
> conspiracy theory.

Your conception of common-sense is like an
eight-year-old's one of fighting wars.

>> My point is that 'spear-shaker'
>> was as useless an identifier (when spears were
>> the standard weapon) as 'rifleman' would have
>> been since about 1850. No one would ever
>> have used either.
>
> Right. Forget Bowman.

'Bowman' had something to do with the
preparing of wool for weaving. Look it up.
It was a specialised job.

> Ignore the names I just gave you. How about Farmer?
> Hey, everybody just about was a farmer at one time--
> why would anyone identify anybody as a farmer?

You are so ignorant. Lavoisier, the great
scientist, was a 'farmer' and that's why he
went to the guillotine. The word had nothing
to do with tilling land. See
http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Farmer

> Shermans--men who sheared sheep-would have been

> pretty common, too--which I mention because my
> mother was a Sherman.

Sheering sheep was a specialised activity
-- much as it is today.

> Which reminds me of
> "Shepherd." Why name anyone that when so many
> people were shepherds.

Because they weren't -- in many communities.
Shepherds are, almost by definition, rare --
with flocks that needed many square miles
to graze.

> Well, if you think, you'll realize that probably after two
> or three in a community got that name, then people
> would look for other names--like Johnson, which were
> so much more identifying that Shakespeare.

Patronymics are common in most societies,
and are often extended back to earlier generations
when necessary ("Paddy John Joe Johnson" as
against "Paddy John Peter Johnson") or other-
wise refined.

>>>> So, for every one billion births (or whatever
>>>> number you posit)
>>>
>>> a million or so
>>
>> Where are the 300 Shake-speares now alive
>> in the USA? And the 7,000 in the rest of
>> the world?
>
> 1. How should I know? I personally know probably
> only five poets at his level.

What a joke ! You have not come within a
million miles of any Shake-speare. If you
don't know why he is so rare (a) you don't
understand him, (b) you know little about
history, and (c) you know less about
literature. But, hey, you're a Strat -- and
there's no way any Strat could begin to ask
such questions, let alone answer them. It
would be like expecting a Stone age man to
grasp the concept of the Big Bang.


Paul.

[Bob Grumman]

On Feb 21, 5:56 pm, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> On 20/02/2012 23:58, Bob Grumman wrote:
>
> >>> Paul, I don't care.  They would accept that many
> >>> names were based on occupations, the only
> >>> relevant point here.
>
> >> That is certainly not the relevant point here.
> >> The question is whether or not 'Speare-shaker'
> >> is an occupation, and one that would be useful
> >> as an identifier.
>
> > Of course it would be useful as an identifier, but that's
> > only part of it.  It's what would be associated with a
> > particular man but a reasonable number of neighbors,
> > remembering him in one battle.  Or who knows what
> > else.
>
> In order to be remembered from a battle, you
> have to do something -- and something a lot
> more notable than the shaking of a spear.

He may only have seemed particularly fiercesome to a few enemy
soldiers in a small battle who ran from him and kept a few of his
neighbors from getting killed (because they were wounded), and those
few called him Shakespeare and it stuck. Read up on how people get
nicknames. It won't help you, though. When someone presents an
argument to you, you just grab the first possible retort, however
worthless, then close your mind, such as it is, never reflecting on
the problem, and getting any sense of everything involved. That's
what rigidnikry is, and you epitomize it.

> >>> Breakespeare,
>
> >> A warrior who had broken opponent's spears.
>
> > Exactly.  With precisely the logic of Shakespeare
> > having to do with a warrier shaking a spear at the
> > enemy, undoubtedly courageously challenging them to
> > advance.
>
> ALL foot soldiers beat their weapons against
> their shields ahead of a battle.  Not one stood
> out for doing such a thing.  No one would get
> a name for it.

You always seem to know what ALL men in any occupation or other
grouping do. Amazing. Actually, however, all men in an occupation do
not behave the same way. Some do what others do much better than
others do it. Not that I know beating a weapon against a shield has
to do with breakine spears--which one special soldier might be
renowned for, or spear shaking, which one soldier may have been
especially noted for--as above, or perhaps he was the one who was
always first to advance and shake his spear at the foe. But one may
have done it amazingly loudly. Or the one who led in the doing of
it. Or even have been the first ever one to do it.

> >>> Broad-spere
>
> >> Probably invented.
>
> > Right.  Couldn't have had anything to do with a
> > spearman known for his ability with a particular kind of
> > spear.
>
> Spear-men used the spears that were the
> standard for their day. Don't you know anything
> about armies?  Do you think each Roman soldier
> made his own weaponry?

No, I don't. I do know that some may have. I know human nature, so I
know that one soldier could easily have had a much broader spear than
anyone else, perhaps custom-made--because he was six feet eight, say.
I do know that you are incredibly rigidnikal for thinking every spear-
man used a spear exactly like every other one's.

> > Or maybe a maker of spears.
>
> See above.

Not applicable. I'm talking not about a soldier, although a oldier
could certainly have made his own, and others', spears, I'm talking
about a metal-worker who was known for making broad spears.

Another thought--a broad spearman may have been called a broad spear.

> > Keep away from commonsense if it threatens your
> > conspiracy theory.
>
> Your conception of common-sense is like an
> eight-year-old's one of fighting wars.
>
> >> My point is that 'spear-shaker'
> >> was as useless an identifier (when spears were
> >> the standard weapon) as 'rifleman' would have
> >> been since about 1850.  No one would ever
> >> have used either.
>
> > Right.  Forget Bowman.
>
> 'Bowman' had something to do with the
> preparing of wool for weaving.  Look it up.
> It was a specialised job.

I flat out deny it had nothing to do, ever, with bowmen. I do know
that Arrowsmith had to have come from maker of arrows.

> > Ignore the names I just gave you.  How about Farmer?
> > Hey, everybody just about was a farmer at one time--
> > why would anyone identify anybody as a farmer?
>
> You are so ignorant. Lavoisier, the great
> scientist, was a 'farmer' and that's why he
> went to the guillotine.  The word had nothing
> to do with tilling land.  See
http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Farmer

Ah, and he was not descended from Farmers? This site actually claims
the surname, Farmer, has nothing to do with farming?

> > Shermans--men who sheared sheep-would have been
> > pretty common, too--which I mention because my
> > mother was a Sherman.
>
> Sheering sheep was a specialised activity
> -- much as it is today.

There were still a lot of them. Much more then.

> > Which reminds me of
> > "Shepherd."  Why name anyone that when so many
> > people were shepherds.
>
> Because they weren't -- in many communities.
> Shepherds are, almost by definition, rare --
> with flocks that needed many square miles
> to graze.

Many people owned sheep and each flock would have required a
shepherd. And you're ignoring the long-ago when people strarted
getting occupation-based names, and there would have been many more
shepherds than later.

> > Well, if you'd think, you'll realize that probably after two

> > or three in a community got that name, then people
> > would look for other names--like Johnson, which were
> > so much more identifying that Shakespeare.
>
> Patronymics are common in most societies,
> and are often extended back to earlier generations
> when necessary ("Paddy John Joe Johnson" as
> against "Paddy John Peter Johnson") or other-
> wise refined.

So what? You're arguing that a surname had to indicate something very
special about a person. Johnson would not have. So your argument
fails.

> >>>> So, for every one billion births (or whatever
> >>>> number you posit)
>
> >>> a million or so
>
> >> Where are the 300 Shake-speares now alive
> >> in the USA?  And the 7,000 in the rest of
> >> the world?
>
> > 1. How should I know?  I personally know probably
> > only five poets at his level.
>
> What a joke !  You have not come within a
> million miles of any Shake-speare.   If you
> don't know why he is so rare (a) you don't
> understand him, (b) you know little about
> history, and (c) you know less about
> literature.  But, hey, you're a Strat -- and
> there's no way any Strat could begin to ask
> such questions, let alone answer them.  It
> would be like expecting a Stone age man to
> grasp the concept of the Big Bang.

You consider Shakespeare a god because you know nothing about (a) the
creative process; (b) intelligence; (c) epistemology; (d) the history
of literature; (e) the history of culture--or, in short, because you
are rigidnikal to a near-psychotic extent. I simply can't imagine how
you've made it through life. Apparently you found some occupation so
cut&dry even you could succeed at it.

I note that you snip my other arguments for why there are lots of
unrecognized Shakespeares now--not that you'd be able to recognize one
since you, so wonderfully proud of not listening to the authorities,
only recognize the first Shakespeare because authorities have been
claiming his godhood for three hundred years.

--Bob

[Bob Grumman]

According to the site you sent me to, Paul, "Farmer" did not
originally indicate a farmer, but was still vocationally related.
However, I refuse to believe that no farmer in olden times ever got
the surname "Farmer." There are so many surnames that seem related to
occupations, like Carpenter, the fact that a few aren't, apparently,
related to the occupation one would think it would be, makes it hard
to believe that most names like Butler, are not.

--Bob

[Paul Crowley]

On 22/02/2012 13:56, Bob Grumman wrote:

>> In order to be remembered from a battle, you
>> have to do something -- and something a lot
>> more notable than the shaking of a spear.
>
> He may only have seemed particularly fiercesome
> to a few enemy soldiers in a small battle who ran
> from him and kept a few of his neighbors from
> getting killed (because they were wounded), and
> those few called him Shakespeare and it stuck.

All things are possible. We are (or ought
to be) discussing things that are reasonably
likely.

[..]

>> ALL foot soldiers beat their weapons against
>> their shields ahead of a battle. Not one stood
>> out for doing such a thing. No one would get
>> a name for it.
>
> You always seem to know what ALL men in any
> occupation or other grouping do. Amazing.
> Actually, however, all men in an occupation do not
> behave the same way.

All I am saying is that the notion that
someone got a name for 'spear-shaking' is
far-fetched. There are much better theories
around for the origin of 'Shappere', 'Shaxber'
'Shagsper' . . . etc., etc.

>> Lavoisier, the great
>> scientist, was a 'farmer' and that's why he
>> went to the guillotine. The word had nothing
>> to do with tilling land. See
> http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Farmer

>>> Which reminds me of
>>> "Shepherd." Why name anyone that when so many
>>> people were shepherds.
>> Because they weren't -- in many communities.
>> Shepherds are, almost by definition, rare --
>> with flocks that needed many square miles
>> to graze.
>
> Many people owned sheep and each flock would
> have required a shepherd.

Not true. Modern Wales is full of sheep.
No one calls their owners (or managers)
'shepherds'.

>> when necessary ("Paddy John Joe Johnson" as
>> against "Paddy John Peter Johnson") or other-
>> wise refined.
>
> So what? You're arguing that a surname had to
> indicate something very special about a person.

Nonsense. I'm saying that usually the name
would be have some obvious significance, or
follow a standard pattern. The father's (or
ancestor's) name is common enough -- all
the Jones, Thomsons, Johnsons, Robinsons.
So are occupations, and place names (-hills,
-fields, -tons (or towns) -hams, and so on).
Many families took surnames because they
were compelled to -- by the Poll Tax laws --
and adopted 'Brown' or 'Green' or something
common and unremarkable. 'Spear-shaker'
fits none of the standard categories.

> Johnson would not have. So your argument fails.

Never my argument.

[..]

In another post, you write:

> According to the site you sent me to, Paul,
> "Farmer" did not originally indicate a farmer, but
> was still vocationally related. However, I refuse to
> believe that no farmer in olden times ever got the
> surname "Farmer." There are so many surnames
> that seem related to occupations, like Carpenter,
> the fact that a few aren't,

There are a lot more non-occupational names
than ' . . a few . . '. I can't find percentages
anywhere, but I doubt if occupational names
were more than 50% of the total.


Paul.

[Bob Grumman]

On Feb 18, 9:42 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> On 17/02/2012 22:43, Bob Grumman wrote:
>
> >>> But it's not true.  Everyone has a personality.
>
> >> And when you misread it, you cannot make
> >> sense of what they write.  But making sense
> >> of any part of the canon is such a remote
> >> prospect for a Strat, that they don't begin to
> >> conceive it as a possibility.
>
> > You read biographies of authors before you read their
> > works?  How strange.
>
> Like everyone else, I don't read biographies of
> the authors of 'airport books' nor of any Mills
> and Boon novels that I might come across.  But
> if I take a serious interest in the works of any
> artist or thinker, including the literary, I know
> that it is essential (in the appreciation of his
> works) to find out more about him.  Also,
> literary works are often biographical or quasi-
> biographical.

Tell me how it is essential to know anything about Keats's biography
to gain more than a 99% appreciation of his works? Tell me what you
need to know about Coleridge's personality to understand IThe Ancient
Mariner?" What autombiographical elements are necessary for an
appreciation of the works of Lewis Carroll? How about Oscar Wilde's?
Hey, he wrote the "Ballad of Reaing Gaol" while in jail! So what?
How does knowing what little there is to know about Jonson's life help
us appreciate "Volpone" or "The Alchemist?" How did "The Illiad" and
"The Odyssesy" become lastingly-acclaimed and read world-wide inspite
of our knowing nothing more than its author's name and a few stray
anecdotal descriptions of him?

> >>>> The use of
> >>>> such a name when they were weapons would be
> >>>> like referring to a WW2 soldier as "John the
> >>>> Rifleman" -- i.e. useless, since almost all Johns in
> >>>> the army were riflemen.
>
> >>> This is too made-up and ridiculous to argue with.
>
> >> Translation:  Too realistic, too obvious, and
> >> too incontrovertible, to argue with.
>
> > Right.  The number of people who agree with you
> > about it strongly suggests that.
>
> You possess (a) a curious respect for authority
> and (b) an incapacity to think for yourself --

A proposition proven beyond doubt insane in passages deleted.

> e.g. you have yet to present any arguments
> against my point here.

Since taken care of, although you won't agree, being congenitally
incapabe of recognizing anything as an argument except certain
ludicrous assertions of your own.

Ooops, I see I'm replying to something I already replied to.

--Bob

[Bob Grumman]

When are you going to show that my having devoted much of my life to
my completely uncertified theory of psychology and to poetry as
different from what established poets are doing (I am the only regular
composer of long division poems for adults in the world, as far as I
know) does not contradict your description of me as someone incapable
of going against authorized opinions?

> >> In order to be remembered from a battle, you
> >> have to do something -- and something a lot
> >> more notable than the shaking of a spear.
>
> > He may only have seemed particularly fiercesome
> > to a few enemy soldiers in a small battle who ran
> > from him and kept a few of his neighbors from
> > getting killed (because they were wounded), and
> > those few called him Shakespeare and it stuck.
>
> All things are possible.  We are (or ought
> to be) discussing things that are reasonably
> likely.

Right. Outstanding individual acts of heroism in battles are not

reasonably likely.

> [..]
>
> >> ALL foot soldiers beat their weapons against
> >> their shields ahead of a battle.  Not one stood
> >> out for doing such a thing.  No one would get
> >> a name for it.
>
> > You always seem to know what ALL men in any
> > occupation or other grouping do.  Amazing.
> > Actually, however, all men in an occupation do not
> > behave the same way.
>
> All I am saying is that the notion that
> someone got a name for 'spear-shaking' is
> far-fetched.  There are much better theories
> around for the origin of 'Shappere', 'Shaxber'
> 'Shagsper' . . . etc., etc.

How about for "Shakespeare," which is what almost all them of them
were, in one spelling or another? And why do you ignore what your
authority for "Farmer" and other surnames has to say, to wit: "This
famous name is of early medieval English origin, and has been the
subject of much dispute as to its meaning. The most reasonable and
likely interpretation is the simplest, that the surname derives from a
nickname for a spearman or a belligerent person. The derivation is
from the Middle English "schak(k)en", to brandish, shake, with
"speer", spear, a development of the Old English pre 7th Century
"sc(e)acan" and "spere". A number of similarly formed surnames support
the straightforward interpretation of the name: Shacklock or
Shakelock, a lock-shaker, gaoler, Shakelance, a spearman, and
Shakeshaft, also for a spearman. The development of the name includes
Simon Shakespere (1324, Staffordshire), and Robert Schaksper, (1379,
Yorkshire), while the modern surname can be found as Shakespeare,
Shakespear and Shakspeare."

"Sereman" is the first known spelling of "Sherman"--as another
instance of first spelling seeming distant from later.

> >> Lavoisier, the great
> >> scientist, was a 'farmer' and that's why he
> >> went to the guillotine.  The word had nothing
> >> to do with tilling land.  See
> >http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Farmer
> >>> Which reminds me of
> >>> "Shepherd."  Why name anyone that when so many
> >>> people were shepherds.
> >> Because they weren't -- in many communities.
> >> Shepherds are, almost by definition, rare --
> >> with flocks that needed many square miles
> >> to graze.
>
> > Many people owned sheep and each flock would
> > have required a shepherd.
>
> Not true.  Modern Wales is full of sheep.
> No one calls their owners (or managers)
> 'shepherds'.

We're talking about old England, not that I believe no Welshman has
the Welsh equivalent of "Shepherd" as a name.

> >> when necessary ("Paddy John Joe Johnson" as
> >> against "Paddy John Peter Johnson") or other-
> >> wise refined.
>
> > So what?  You're arguing that a surname had to
> > indicate something very special about a person.
>
> Nonsense.  I'm saying that usually the name
> would be have some obvious significance, or
> follow a standard pattern.  The father's (or
> ancestor's) name is common enough -- all
> the Jones, Thomsons, Johnsons, Robinsons.
> So are occupations, and place names (-hills,
> -fields, -tons (or towns) -hams, and so on).
> Many families took surnames because they
> were compelled to -- by the Poll Tax laws --
> and adopted 'Brown' or 'Green' or something
> common and unremarkable.  'Spear-shaker'
> fits none of the standard categories.

See above about Shakespeare--standard category, having to do with a
trade.

> > Johnson would not have.  So your argument fails.
>
> Never my argument.

Yes, it was. Glad you now disown it.

> [..]
> In another post, you write:
>
> > According to the site you sent me to, Paul,
> > "Farmer" did not originally indicate a farmer, but
> > was still vocationally related. However, I refuse to
> > believe that no farmer in olden times ever got the
> > surname "Farmer."  There are so many surnames
> > that seem related to occupations, like Carpenter,
> > the fact that a few aren't,
>
> There are a lot more non-occupational names
> than ' . .  a few . . '.  I can't find percentages
> anywhere, but I doubt if occupational names
> were more than 50% of the total.
>

I'm arguing that occupational names were standard. I suspect "son of
so-and-so" predominated.

--Bob

[Paul Crowley]

On 23/02/2012 16:24, Bob Grumman wrote:

> When are you going to show that my having devoted
> much of my life to my completely uncertified theory
> of psychology and to poetry as different from what
> established poets are doing (I am the only regular
> composer of long division poems for adults in the
> world, as far as I know) does not contradict your
> description of me as someone incapable of going
> against authorized opinions?

Given the chaotic state of both modern poetry
and the 'discipline' of psychology, it would
be a contradiction in terms to expect anyone
to follow some 'authorised opinions'. Are there
any? It's like expecting a professed Anarchist
to be a member of the Republican Party. The
guy's opinions will be hopelessly incoherent,
but if they have any consistency they won't
express loyalty to a set of authority figures.

>> All things are possible. We are (or ought
>> to be) discussing things that are reasonably
>> likely.
>
> Right. Outstanding individual acts of heroism in
> battles are not reasonably likely.

Individual acts of heroism involving spear-
shaking are not reasonably likely. Can you
quote ONE heroic act (real or fictional)
involving spear-shaking described or depicted
in any account? Or ONE heroic act (real or
fictional) involving rifle-waving from the last
200 years and all the Hollywood war films
you've seen?

You can't? That's the end of your stupid
'argument'.

>> All I am saying is that the notion that
>> someone got a name for 'spear-shaking' is
>> far-fetched. There are much better theories
>> around for the origin of 'Shappere', 'Shaxber'
>> 'Shagsper' . . . etc., etc.

> How about for "Shakespeare," which is what almost
> all them of them were, in one spelling or another?

Simply false.

> And why do you ignore what your authority for
> "Farmer" and other surnames has to say, to wit:

I did not even think to look. (And thanks for
the URL, btw.)

http://www.surnamedb.com/Surname/Shakespeare

It is, of course, standard unthinking Stratfordian
garbage -- assuming that the historical surname
bore a resemblance (in terms of both 'shaking'
and 'spears') to the hyphenated form we know
so well.

>>> Many people owned sheep and each flock would
>>> have required a shepherd.
>>
>> Not true. Modern Wales is full of sheep.
>> No one calls their owners (or managers)
>> 'shepherds'.
>
> We're talking about old England, not that I believe
> no Welshman has the Welsh equivalent of
> "Shepherd" as a name.

My point was that you only needed (and
need) shepherds when the sheep are not
fenced in -- when they are allowed (or
required by the quality of the grazing) to
roam over a large unfenced area -- of semi-
desert or moorland -- and are liable to be
lost, stolen, or become prey.


Paul.`

[Bob Grumman]

On Feb 23, 4:27 pm, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> On 23/02/2012 16:24, Bob Grumman wrote:
>
> > When are you going to show that my having devoted
> > much of my life to my completely uncertified theory
> > of psychology and to poetry as different from what
> > established poets are doing (I am the only regular
> > composer of long division poems for adults in the
> > world, as far as I know) does not contradict your
> > description of me as someone incapable of going
> > against authorized opinions?
>
> Given the chaotic state of both modern poetry
> and the 'discipline' of psychology, it would
> be a contradiction in terms to expect anyone
> to follow some 'authorised opinions'. Are there
> any?

Of course there are. But if there were not, then I--requiring the
view of authorities to follow, according to you--would be unable to
have an outlook in either field.

> It's like expecting a professed Anarchist
> to be a member of the Republican Party.  The
> guy's opinions will be hopelessly incoherent,
> but if they have any consistency they won't
> express loyalty to a set of authority figures.

I'm more anarchist politically than anything else. How can that be,
Paul?

> >> All things are possible.  We are (or ought
> >> to be) discussing things that are reasonably
> >> likely.
>
> > Right.  Outstanding individual acts of heroism in
> > battles are not reasonably likely.
>
> Individual acts of heroism involving spear-
> shaking are not reasonably likely.  Can you
> quote ONE heroic act (real or fictional)
> involving spear-shaking described or depicted
> in any account?  Or ONE heroic act (real or
> fictional) involving rifle-waving from the last
> 200 years and all the Hollywood war films
> you've seen?

Try to be flexible enough to imagine a larger picture of what I'm
talking about. Maybe some kind of pill could help you. You might
perceive that some spearman rose up when an enemy force that
outnumbered his side attacked, and shook his spear at them, then
rushed out to meet them, inspiring his fellow spearmen to join him and
win the battle, then later reminisce about the picture he made,
shaking his spear. Meanwhile, stop telling me to do aimless, time-
consuming research to do things like find some example of a heroic
spear-shaking. Unless you can find an example of a great writer with
an illiterate front.

So you are arguing, as you claimed not to be, that Shepherds were not
numerous, so a man who was a shepherd could reasonably get named
"Shepherd" to identify him.

--Bob

[Paul Crowley]

On 23/02/2012 22:30, Bob Grumman wrote:

>> Given the chaotic state of both modern poetry
>> and the 'discipline' of psychology, it would
>> be a contradiction in terms to expect anyone
>> to follow some 'authorised opinions'. Are there
>> any?
>
> Of course there are.

Who?

> But if there were not, then I--requiring the view of
> authorities to follow, according to you--would be
> unable to have an outlook in either field.

Does not follow. In such fields, the possession
of kooky theories is close to 'de rigeur' -- for those
who believe that the 'disciplines' (in their modern
form) have some value or validity.

>>> Right. Outstanding individual acts of heroism in
>>> battles are not reasonably likely.
>>
>> Individual acts of heroism involving spear-
>> shaking are not reasonably likely. Can you
>> quote ONE heroic act (real or fictional)
>> involving spear-shaking described or depicted
>> in any account? Or ONE heroic act (real or
>> fictional) involving rifle-waving from the last
>> 200 years and all the Hollywood war films
>> you've seen?
>
> Try to be flexible enough to imagine a larger picture of
> what I'm talking about. Maybe some kind of pill could
> help you. You might perceive that some spearman
> rose up when an enemy force that outnumbered his
> side attacked, and shook his spear at them, then
> rushed out to meet them, inspiring his fellow
> spearmen to join him and win the battle, then later
> reminisce about the picture he made, shaking his
> spear.

That never happens. If it did, you'd find roughly
parallel accounts in Beowulf or Captain Marvel,
or Batman or Superman or Rambo or Henry V
or Pirates of the Caribbean or Hornblower or
Homer or Virgil or the Bible or . . . . any of the
near-infinite number of tales of dering-do.

> Meanwhile, stop telling me to do aimless,

> time-consuming research to do things like find some

> example of a heroic spear-shaking.

You can't because none exist. The possibility
was only created in your mind as a silly attempt
at a justification of the Stratman's name -- as
adopted and twisted (in something of a mocking
and self-mocking tone) by our poet.

> Unless you can find an example of a great writer with
> an illiterate front.

Confusing the general with the particular again.

>> My point was that you only needed (and
>> need) shepherds when the sheep are not
>> fenced in -- when they are allowed (or
>> required by the quality of the grazing) to
>> roam over a large unfenced area -- of semi-
>> desert or moorland -- and are liable to be
>> lost, stolen, or become prey.
>
> So you are arguing, as you claimed not to be

It was YOU who claimed that shepherds were
numerous, not me.

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

>> Which reminds me of
>> "Shepherd." Why name anyone that when so many
>> people were shepherds.
>
> Because they weren't -- in many communities.
> Shepherds are, almost by definition, rare --
> with flocks that needed many square miles
> to graze.

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

> that Shepherds were not numerous, so a man who
> was a shepherd could reasonably get named
> "Shepherd" to identify him.

That's right. Eventually you do sometimes
get some minor points -- but only when
you forget which side of the argument you
thought you were on.


Paul.

[Bob Grumman]

To go back to where this thread began, an attempt to define of
religion, ignored by everyone except Paul, who simply claim that
nothing important could be defined, but then went on to use various
ridiculous definitions of religion to propagandistically show that
Stratfordianism is a religion, here's my first attempt, modified:

A religion is a system of beliefs which includes ALL of the
following:


(1) a dependence on the undeniable suspension of some law or laws of
nature as agreed to by scientists;


(2) the absence of direct material evidence or direct eye-witness
testimony by identifiable witnesses that is corroborated by
identifiable witnesses supporting it;


(3) some sort of narrative tying things together in an atttempt to
make sense of it which includes unprecedented events.


To this I would add:

(4) a supernatural being of some sort beyond human understanding and
vastlymore powerful than human beings who is basically in charge of
existence

(5) rites honoring the supernatural being and other other aspects of
the belief system

Paul: what is missing? What is wrong with it aside from your silly
claims about how it is inculcated in those adhering to it, and how
resistant they may be to arguments against it, and the like?

> >> Given the chaotic state of both modern poetry
> >> and the 'discipline' of psychology, it would
> >> be a contradiction in terms to expect anyone
> >> to follow some 'authorised opinions'. Are there
> >> any?
>
> > Of course there are.
>
> Who?

The authorized opinions in contemporary American poetry are
complicated to untangle but include the notions that poetry must be
all words, that haiku are trivial, that no poems should make use of a
poetic technique not widely used fifty or more years ago. My poetry
significantly opposes all three of these opinions. The authorities,
basically, are the members of the Academy of American Poetry, the
editors of a few influential magazines that publish poetry and
teachers or retired teachers at a few "distinguished" universities.
In psychology there seem to be more authorized opinions, but they are
ALL those of professors, hence opposed to my theory.

> > But if there were not, then I--requiring the view of
> > authorities to follow, according to you--would be
> > unable to have an outlook in either field.
>
> Does not follow.  In such fields, the possession
> of kooky theories is close to 'de rigeur' -- for those
> who believe that the 'disciplines' (in their modern
> form) have some value or validity.

You are a genius for making your views unfalsifiable. You're saying
that I if I act like a sheep, I'm a sheep because a sheep acts like a
sheep; if I don't act like a sheep, then I'm a sheep because a sheep
makes sure not to act like a sheep for the sake of prestige. How,
pray tell, does one indicate that one is not a follower of authorized
opinions if one authorized opinion is that one should not follow
authorized opinions?

Among your most imbecilic problems is your need that your opinion be
wrong or inferior in ALL possible ways. You can't allow me to be a
free-thinker who is nonetheless wrong about Oxford--I have to be a
dull sheep wrong about everything important. And a liar and morally
unfit in other ways.

Read up on Audie Murphy, you idiot. There are no such things as
heroes? Or is it just inspirational heroes? But simple awareness of
what happens in real life HAS to show you how stupid that is.
Consider team sports in which one player plays much better than any
other and inspires his team to win. Sometimes it's a player not
hitherto known as especially good. It happens all the time in sports
I follow.

> > Meanwhile, stop telling me to do aimless,
> > time-consuming research to do things like find some
> > example of a heroic spear-shaking.
>
> You can't because none exist. The possibility
> was only created in your mind as a silly attempt
> at a justification of the Stratman's name -- as
> adopted and twisted (in something of a mocking
> and self-mocking tone) by our poet.
>
> > Unless you can find an example of a great writer with
> > an illiterate front.
>
> Confusing the general with the particular again.

Please identify the particular and the general here. You say I can't
find an example of a heroic spear-shaker except my proposed one,
therefore your proposed one can't have existed; I say you can't find a
great writer who had an illiterate front except your proposed one,
therefore your proposed one can't have existed. There's no general/
particular there, only idiotic illogic on your part.

No, Paul, your pepper me with so many idiocies, I get confused as to
what you were arguing. I generally know what I am.

When, by the way, are you going to:

Tell me how it is essential to know anything about Keats's biography
to gain more than a 99% appreciation of his works? Tell me what you

need to know about Coleridge's personality to understand The Ancient
Mariner?" What autobiographical elements are necessary for an
appreciation of the works of Lewis Carroll, or Hans Christian
Anderson?
How about Oscar Wilde's? Hey, he wrote the "Ballad of Reading Gaol"

while in jail! So what? How does knowing what little there is to
know
about Jonson's life help us appreciate "Volpone" or "The Alchemist?"

How did "The Iliad" and "The Odyssey" become lastingly-acclaimed
and read world-wide in spite of our knowing nothing more than its
author's name and a few stray anecdotal descriptions of him? How
was Shakespeare able to us e it as a source for some of his
writings even though he could not have known much of anything
about his life?

--Bob

[Paul Crowley]

On 25/02/2012 16:18, Bob Grumman wrote:

> To go back to where this thread began, an attempt to define of
> religion, ignored by everyone except Paul, who simply claim that
> nothing important could be defined

There are many important concepts in science where
precise definitions are crucial. But neither you nor
anyone else is in a position to define terms used in
ordinary language -- except vaguely, and only as a
rough guide.

> but then went on to use various ridiculous definitions of religion

I call 'Stratfordianism' a quasi-religion.

> A religion is a system of beliefs which includes ALL of the
> following:
>
> (1) a dependence on the undeniable suspension of
> some law or laws of nature as agreed to by scientists;

What exactly do you think you are trying to do here?
Are you saying that this is how you use the word?
Or how you think everyone should use the word?

>>>> Given the chaotic state of both modern poetry
>>>> and the 'discipline' of psychology, it would
>>>> be a contradiction in terms to expect anyone
>>>> to follow some 'authorised opinions'. Are there
>>>> any?
>>>
>>> Of course there are.
>>
>> Who?
>
> The authorized opinions in contemporary American
> poetry are complicated to untangle but include the
> notions that poetry must be all words, that haiku are
> trivial, that no poems should make use of a poetic
> technique not widely used fifty or more years ago.

I'm sure that many (everyone else?) in the field
would disagree with you on what constitutes
'authorised opinions'.

> In psychology there seem to be more
> authorized opinions, but they are ALL those of
> professors, hence opposed to my theory.

Psychology gave up all pretence of having
ANY theories around 50 years ago. The
Psychology professors realised that having
arguments was not good for their image, and
that they were on to a good thing, in that the
great bulk of society thought that there was
a real subject, and that the professors had
real expertise, and it paid them well for
expressing their opinions on various matters
(e.g. whether little Johnny needed one-to-
one tuition or whether Fred was fit to stand
trial). So they dropped ALL theory . . and
now we have a 'science' quite devoid of any
theory. It's pure nonsense, of course, but
that suits almost everyone.

>>> But if there were not, then I--requiring the view of
>>> authorities to follow, according to you--would be
>>> unable to have an outlook in either field.
>>
>> Does not follow. In such fields, the possession
>> of kooky theories is close to 'de rigeur' -- for those
>> who believe that the 'disciplines' (in their modern
>> form) have some value or validity.
>
> You are a genius for making your views unfalsifiable.
> You're saying that I if I act like a sheep, I'm a sheep
> because a sheep acts like a sheep; if I don't act like a
> sheep, then I'm a sheep because a sheep makes sure
> not to act like a sheep for the sake of prestige. How,
> pray tell, does one indicate that one is not a follower of
> authorized opinions if one authorized opinion is that
> one should not follow authorized opinions?

Sorry, but that's life. If you enter a tower of Babel
you cannot expect to understand anyone or have
anyone understand you. You become even less
than a sheep. They get themselves organised
into flocks. You (and the rest of the pseudos
who pretend to have ideas in psychology) can't
even manage that.

>>>> Individual acts of heroism involving spear-
>>>> shaking are not reasonably likely. Can you
>>>> quote ONE heroic act (real or fictional)
>>>> involving spear-shaking described or depicted
>>>> in any account? Or ONE heroic act (real or
>>>> fictional) involving rifle-waving from the last
>>>> 200 years and all the Hollywood war films
>>>> you've seen?

>> That never happens. If it did, you'd find roughly
>> parallel accounts in Beowulf or Captain Marvel,
>> or Batman or Superman or Rambo or Henry V
>> or Pirates of the Caribbean or Hornblower or
>> Homer or Virgil or the Bible or . . . . any of the
>> near-infinite number of tales of dering-do.
>
> Read up on Audie Murphy, you idiot.

Was Audie Murphy famous for rifle-waving?
Could he have reasonably been named
Audie Rifle-Waver (including the hyphen) . .?

>>> Unless you can find an example of a great writer with
>>> an illiterate front.
>>
>> Confusing the general with the particular again.
>
> Please identify the particular and the general here.

You claim that there is a GENERAL rule:
Spear-shaking (and presumably rifle-waving)
can be heroic activities for which people can
get reputations, and sometimes get their
surnames. Yet, strangely, you can give no
instance of this general rule -- not ONE.

The particular is that there is a Bob Grumman
who lives in Florida, and has an interest in
Shake-speare and poetry, and we should not
deny that fact merely because we cannot find
a whole genre of Bob Grummans who live in
Florida and have an interest in Shake-speare
and poetry.

> You say I can't find an example of a heroic spear-
> shaker except my proposed one, therefore your
> proposed one can't have existed; I say you can't find a
> great writer who had an illiterate front except your
> proposed one, therefore your proposed one can't have

> existed. There's no general/particular there, only

> idiotic illogic on your part.

[..]

> Tell me how it is essential to know anything about
> Keats's biography to gain more than a 99%
> appreciation of his works? Tell me what you need to
> know about Coleridge's personality to understand The
> Ancient Mariner?" What autobiographical elements
> are necessary for an appreciation of the works of
> Lewis Carroll, or Hans Christian Anderson? How about
> Oscar Wilde's?

I merely have to point out the nonsensical state
in which you finish up when you deny the
relevance of authorship. Does a student who
believes that Keats wrote the "Ballad of Reading
Gaol" and that Lewis Carroll wrote 'Ode to a
Nightingale' and that Hans Christian Anderson
wrote 'The Rime of the Ancient Mariner' . . . .
know anything about the works or the poets?
Will he have a sound appreciation of the literary
value of such works? Or let's say he declares
(as you do) that no such ascriptions matter.
Would you give him a pass in any examination
you marked? Would you say "Well done, son . .
you should go to Harvard . . "


Paul.

[Bob Grumman]

On Feb 26, 3:07 pm, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> On 25/02/2012 16:18, Bob Grumman wrote:
>
> > To go back to where this thread began, an attempt to define of
> > religion, ignored by everyone except Paul, who simply claim that
> > nothing important could be defined
>
> There are many important concepts in science where
> precise definitions are crucial.  But neither you nor
> anyone else is in a position to define terms used in
> ordinary language -- except vaguely, and only as a
> rough guide.
>
> > but then went on to use various ridiculous definitions of religion
>
> I call 'Stratfordianism' a quasi-religion.

What's the definition of a "quasi-religion?" How can you define it
without defining "religion?" (My impression is that for you a
"quasi'religion" is simply a belief system that you believe has one or
more attributes sometimes associated with belief systems called
"religion." So it is worthless, since almost every belief system has
attributes sometimes associated with belief systems called religions.)

> > A religion is a system of beliefs which includes ALL of the
> > following:
>
> > (1) a dependence on the undeniable suspension of
> > some law or laws of nature as agreed to by scientists;
>
> What exactly do you think you are trying to do here?
> Are you saying that this is how you use the word?
> Or how you think everyone should use the word?

I am attempting to present a sane definition of "religion" for the use
of intelligent people engaged in a discussion like this one, in which
whether some X = "religion." Like all defintions, it will be ignorned
by imbeciles, and misused by people like you. I hope my definition
will be discussed by others, and its flaws pointed out so that
eventually a definition that a reasonable number of intelligent people
agree to use evolves, like the definition of science I believe most
people at all knowledgeable about what science covers agree on.

I see that you refuse to point out the flaws in my definition, simply
deleting most of it.

> >>>> Given the chaotic state of both modern poetry
> >>>> and the 'discipline' of psychology, it would
> >>>> be a contradiction in terms to expect anyone
> >>>> to follow some 'authorised opinions'. Are there
> >>>> any?
>
> >>> Of course there are.
>
> >> Who?
>
> > The authorized opinions in contemporary American
> > poetry are complicated to untangle but include the
> > notions that poetry must be all words, that haiku are
> > trivial, that no poems should make use of a poetic
> > technique not widely used fifty or more years ago.
>
> I'm sure that many (everyone else?) in the field
> would disagree with you on what constitutes
> 'authorised opinions'.

So what? Obviously mediocrities will not want to accept that all
their opinions are "authorized." But none will be able to show that
any of the individuals and institutions I name as authoritative say or
do anything to contradict that they believe "the notions that poetry

must be all words, that haiku are trivial, that no poems should make
use of a poetic technique not widely used fifty or more years ago."

Can you? But there are certainly many who believe, with me, that
there is an established sort of poetry that those in what is called
the mainstream follow the same way you say Stratfordians follow what
you consider the authorzed opinions in their field.

> > In psychology there seem to be more
> > authorized opinions, but they are ALL those of
> > professors, hence opposed to my theory.
>
> Psychology gave up all pretence of having
> ANY theories around 50 years ago. The
> Psychology professors realised that having
> arguments was not good for their image, and
> that they were on to a good thing, in that the
> great bulk of society thought that there was
> a real subject, and that the professors had
> real expertise, and it paid them well for
> expressing their opinions on various matters
> (e.g. whether little Johnny needed one-to-
> one tuition or whether Fred was fit to stand
> trial).   So they dropped ALL theory . .  and
> now we have a 'science' quite devoid of any
> theory.  It's pure nonsense, of course, but
> that suits almost everyone.

Ah, but I definitely believe in having a theory of psychology and have
made what I doubt any could claim is not a theory, however flawed. So
that puts me opposed to what you believe is the authorities' view that
there can be no theories of psychology.

> >>> But if there were not, then I--requiring the view of
> >>> authorities to follow, according to you--would be
> >>> unable to have an outlook in either field.
>
> >> Does not follow.  In such fields, the possession
> >> of kooky theories is close to 'de rigeur' -- for those
> >> who believe that the 'disciplines' (in their modern
> >> form) have some value or validity.

You've just said no one is supposed to have theories. So if I don't
have a kooky, theory I am a sheep; if I do, I'm again only doing what
is "de riguer." How, then can anyone not be a sheep in the field of
psychology?

> > You are a genius for making your views unfalsifiable.
> > You're saying that I if I act like a sheep, I'm a sheep
> > because a sheep acts like a sheep; if I don't act like a
> > sheep, then I'm a sheep because a sheep makes sure
> > not to act like a sheep for the sake of prestige.  How,
> > pray tell, does one indicate that one is not a follower of
> > authorized opinions if one authorized opinion is that
> > one should not follow authorized opinions?
>
> Sorry, but that's life. If you enter a tower of Babel
> you cannot expect to understand anyone or have
> anyone understand you.  You become even less
> than a sheep.  They get themselves organised
> into flocks. You (and the rest of the pseudos
> who pretend to have ideas in psychology) can't
> even manage that.

What is a non-sheep? You can't say. You can only say that those who
find you insane are sheep.

> >>>> Individual acts of heroism involving spear-
> >>>> shaking are not reasonably likely.  Can you
> >>>> quote ONE heroic act (real or fictional)
> >>>> involving spear-shaking described or depicted
> >>>> in any account?  Or ONE heroic act (real or
> >>>> fictional) involving rifle-waving from the last
> >>>> 200 years and all the Hollywood war films
> >>>> you've seen?
> >> That never happens.  If it did, you'd find roughly
> >> parallel accounts in Beowulf or Captain Marvel,
> >> or Batman or Superman or Rambo or Henry V
> >> or Pirates of the Caribbean or Hornblower or
> >> Homer or Virgil or the Bible or  . . . . any of the
> >> near-infinite number of tales of dering-do.
>
> > Read up on Audie Murphy, you idiot.
>
> Was Audie Murphy famous for rifle-waving?

He was a hero. It therefore follows that some spearman was once a
hero. I seem to recall someone named Odysseus using a spear valiantly
and effectively, by the way. Ah, but he never shook it, that we know
of!

> Could he have reasonably been named
> Audie Rifle-Waver (including the hyphen) . .?

You win: you're too obutse to be defeated in any argument.

> >>> Unless you can find an example of a great writer with
> >>> an illiterate front.
>
> >> Confusing the general with the particular again.
>
> > Please identify the particular and the general here.
>
> You claim that there is a GENERAL rule:
> Spear-shaking (and presumably rifle-waving)
> can be heroic activities for which people can
> get reputations, and sometimes get their
> surnames.  Yet, strangely, you can give no
> instance of this general rule -- not ONE.

I give the one particular: an ancestor of the Shakespeares in England
who came to be identified as a spear-shaker because, perhaps, of an
exploit in a battle using a spear--and at some point shaking it. You
say that no general rule exists to validate this (i.e., nowhere can it
be shown that a warrior came to be identified as a spear-shaker
because of some battlefield exploit, so the ancestor I propose could
not have existed. You, in parallel with me, give the one
particluar: a great writer with an illiterate front, but I, in
parallel with you, say that no general rule exists to validate this
(i.e., nowhere can it be shown that a great writer had an illiterate
front), so the great writer you propose could not have existed.

> The particular is that there is a Bob Grumman
> who lives in Florida, and has an interest in
> Shake-speare and poetry, and we should not
> deny that fact merely because we cannot find
> a whole genre of Bob Grummans who live in
> Florida and have an interest in Shake-speare
> and poetry.

This would be another particular like mine that we should not deny an
ancestor of Shakespeare's who was a hero because we have no record of
one, and like yours that we should not deny the existence of a great
writer with an illiterate front because we can find no record of one.
Actually, of course, we accept the Bob Grumman described because there
are hundreds of people like him, and reject the Oxford you believe
because there is NO ONE like him nor does the description of him (as
having an illiterate front) seem sane. As for the ancestor of
Shakespeare, I would say he's like the Bob Grumman since there have
been hundreds like him who got names the way I and Camden--and others,
I'm sure (but it's not worth taking the time to verify).

> > You say I can't find an example of a heroic spear-
> > shaker except my proposed one, therefore your
> > proposed one can't have existed; I say you can't find a
> > great writer who had an illiterate front except your
> > proposed one, therefore your proposed one can't have
> > existed.  There's no general/particular there, only
> > idiotic illogic on your part.
>
> [..]

Good refutation.

> > Tell me how it is essential to know anything about
> > Keats's biography to gain more than a 99%
> > appreciation of his works?  Tell me what you need to
> > know about Coleridge's personality to understand The
> > Ancient Mariner?"  What autobiographical elements
> > are necessary for an appreciation of the works of
> > Lewis Carroll, or Hans Christian Anderson? How about
> > Oscar Wilde's?
>
> I merely have to point out the nonsensical state
> in which you finish up when you deny the
> relevance of authorship.

Actually, if you wanted to be a responsible aprticipant in this
discussion, you would answer my questions. You would, for example,
tell me exactly what I needed to know about Keats's life to appreciate
his works--as you have told us what we need to know about Oxford's to
appreciate his works.

> Does a student who
> believes that Keats wrote the "Ballad of Reading
> Gaol" and that Lewis Carroll wrote 'Ode to a
> Nightingale' and that Hans Christian Anderson
> wrote 'The Rime of the Ancient Mariner'  . . . .
> know anything about the works or the poets?

Probably not. but he certainly could! Tell me what someone told Lewis
Carroll wrote an ode by Keats would read the ode. If he didn't know
who Carroll was, what difference would it make? What would he miss
because he had the author's name wrong? If he did know who Carroll
was, why would it be meaningful--except that he might be awed by the
range of the poet?

> Will he have a sound appreciation of the literary
> value of such works?

That depends on how intelligently he was able to read them. What I'm
saying is that he does not have to have any knowledge of who wrote
them. I think most of the books I've read, I've appreciated about as
much as I was capable of appreciating them without knowing anything
about their author. I thing biographies of authors can increase
appreciation of their works, but not very much, and certainly will in
extremely few cases make the difference between understanding and lack
thereof.

You're so idiotic on this, it's hard to do more in response than
fume. When I was young, I read a great number of Hardy Boys books,
and loved them. They were all written by "Franklin Dixon." (He may
have had a middle initial, I can't remember. Later I read that all
the stories were sketched by a publisher whose name I don't recall,
and that the first one or two dozen were written using the sketches by
a Canadian whose biography I eventually read. It was fun to know the
truth, but made no difference in my appreciation of the stories,
several of which I have read as an adult. I consider them classics,
the ones written by the first of their actual authors. Yes, you will
sneer. The Hardy Boys are not . . . Shakespeare. True, although they
have virtues Shakespeare's works lack. It doesn't matter. The rule
is clear: it's what's in works that counts, not what's in the lives of
their authors. And people with an ability to enjoy literature will
not need journalistic connections between what's in literary works and
important people's lives to enjoy them vastly further than you've
shown any signs of enjoying them.

I also thought Walt Disney wrote stories in comic books I later
learned Carl Banks had--works of genius, in my opinion. Interesting
to find out but it didn't change my view of the stories. I don't
think anything comparable happened reagrding the "superior" works I
read, but that's because none were written by anyone whose correct
name I didn't know--so far as I recall. I just can't imagine suddenly
changing my opinion of the works of Cummings, which I admire, if I
found out Eleanor Roosevelt (not a heroine of mine) wrote them, say.

> Or let's say he declares
> (as you do) that no such ascriptions matter.

So far as his appreciation of them is concerned. Such ascriptions
matter greatly for literary history, the study of the creative
process, and much else.

> Would you give him a pass in any examination
> you marked?  Would you say "Well done, son . .
> you should go to Harvard . . "

If he wrote about what he'd read intelligently, I would say, "Well
done, son. Skip Harvard--you're too bright to waste time there." I
certainly wouldn't require him to tell me anything about the author's
background. It might help the color of his text, which--in small does
might be good, but I would mainly grade him on what he says about
what's in the text or texts he writing about. If he's writing about a
creative writer. If he's writing about a journalist, it would be
different. Of course, there would be exceptions--if he were writing
about a drug addict, it might be helpful for him to state that fact
and show how it influenced the writer--what it did to his style, for
instance. Still, theimportant thing is what a creative writer says,
not what he is.

Simple example:

the old fisherman
unalterably intent . . .
autumn nightfall.

A haiku by the Japanese master, Buson (1716 -- 1783). In my book,
From Haiku to Lyriku, I write a paragraph in appreciation of this--
without knowing much about Buson, and without having to know ANYTHING
about him. Tell me what you need to know about him to appreciate it.
(I know: nothing, because it's a trivial poem. But when I read what
I'd written about it just now, I thought of how much more I could have
written in appreciation of it.)

--Bob

[Paul Crowley]

On 27/02/2012 02:08, Bob Grumman wrote:

>> I call 'Stratfordianism' a quasi-religion.
>
> What's the definition of a "quasi-religion?"

A body of belief and opinion, to which a significant
number of people adhere, which has similarities to
those of a religion -- managed by a kind of priesthood,
who have the power to exclude non-believers --
imposing financial and other sanctions against them,
and then maintain that they are the only people
'qualified' to have opinions . . . and so on and on.

> How can you define it without defining "religion?"

I don't need to define 'religion' (any more than I
need to define 'horse' or 'house') We all know
what a religion is. If you are uncertain, grab the
nearest dictionary.

> (My impression is that for you a "quasi'religion" is simply a
> belief system that you believe has one or more attributes
> sometimes associated with belief systems called
> "religion."

A quasi-religion has many important or significant
attributes of a standard religion. You could say that
supporting a football team is a religion, but it lacks
any body of theory or belief. Marlitism is closer to
football-club-following, since it has no real (and
certainly no supportable) body of belief and is
little more than a shadow of the Stratfordianism
it purports to oppose.

>>> A religion is a system of beliefs which includes ALL of the
>>> following:
>>> (1) a dependence on the undeniable suspension of
>>> some law or laws of nature as agreed to by scientists;
>>
>> What exactly do you think you are trying to do here?
>> Are you saying that this is how you use the word?
>> Or how you think everyone should use the word?
>
> I am attempting to present a sane definition of "religion" for the use
> of intelligent people engaged in a discussion like this one, in which
> whether some X = "religion."

Please answer my questions. You skipped over
them, probably because you have no idea what
you are trying to do -- and not the faintest
realisation that you ought to have one.

[..]

> I see that you refuse to point out the flaws in my definition,
> simply deleting most of it.

I am not going to deal with the detail, until I know
what you are trying to do.


[..]

>> So they dropped ALL theory . . and
>> now we have a 'science' quite devoid of any
>> theory. It's pure nonsense, of course, but
>> that suits almost everyone.
>
> Ah, but I definitely believe in having a theory of psychology
> and have made what I doubt any could claim is not a
> theory, however flawed. So that puts me opposed to what
> you believe is the authorities' view that there can be no
> theories of psychology.

Not what I said. Professors of psychology
don't have views -- any more than do Mafia-
style gangsters. They merely identify where
the money comes from and work out how to
maximise it.

>>>>> But if there were not, then I--requiring the view of
>>>>> authorities to follow, according to you--would be
>>>>> unable to have an outlook in either field.
>>>> Does not follow. In such fields, the possession
>>>> of kooky theories is close to 'de rigeur' -- for those
>>>> who believe that the 'disciplines' (in their modern
>>>> form) have some value or validity.
>
> You've just said no one is supposed to have theories.

I said that there are no 'official' theories.
Obviously the world is full of kooks, each
with their kooky theories. I was referring
to what was 'de rigeur' amongst them.

> So if I don't have a kooky, theory I am a sheep; if I do, I'm
> again only doing what is "de riguer." How, then can anyone
> not be a sheep in the field of psychology?

Sorry, but the world is complicated. That's
what you find when you try to set out clear
'definitions'.

>> Could he have reasonably been named
>> Audie Rifle-Waver (including the hyphen) . .?
>
> You win: you're too obutse to be defeated in any argument.

There is one obvious way around your problem
here -- although it would never occur to a Yank.
The use of 'Spear-shaker' could have been ironic,
following roughly the pattern of 'Wagstaffe' --
thought to have been a nickname given to an
over-officious beadle. I'm not saying that it
works for 'spear-shaker'. The scenario is too
unlikely, but it's more plausible than a name
given to an heroic figure.

[..]
No more time for (and not much interest in)
remaining points.


Paul.

[ignoto]

You haven't quite delved Crowley to the root here, Bob. Crowley's
favorite kind of evidence is psychobiography, and psychobiography was
invented by Freud (see Leonardo da Vinci: A Memory of his Childhood).

Ign.

[Bob Grumman]

> You haven't quite delved Crowley to the root here, Bob. Crowley's
> favorite kind of evidence is psychobiography, and psychobiography was
> invented by Freud (see Leonardo da Vinci: A Memory of his Childhood).

Ha, that biography contains what I consider the stupidest idea I've
ever come across, but maybe that's only because the pursuit of truth
is sacred to me (which for Crowley makes me quasi-religious): that
Leonardo wanted to know where babies came from but his mother wouldn't
tell him, so for the rest of his life he unendingly asked questions,
all of them substitutes for the only one really important to him, the
one his mother wouldn't answer.

--Bob

[Bob Grumman]

> >> I call 'Stratfordianism' a quasi-religion.
>
> > What's the definition of a "quasi-religion?"
>
> A body of belief and opinion, to which a significant
> number of people adhere, which has similarities to
> those of a religion -- managed by a kind of priesthood,
> who have the power to exclude non-believers --
> imposing financial and other sanctions against them,
> and then maintain that they are the only people
> 'qualified' to have opinions . . . and so on and on.

But this is true of ALL established belief systems. Biologists act
toward creationists just as you claim Stratfordians act against
Oxfordians. Is biology a quasi-religion? How do you reconcile the
fact that colleges now let wacks teach Oxfordianism, and their books
have never been censored, just ridiculed (and, in my view) thoroughly
refuted). And Oxfordians behave the same way toward people like me--
and you! We both have been banned from the Fellowship for espousing
the wrong views.

> > How can you define it without defining "religion?"
>
> I don't need to define 'religion' (any more than I
> need to define 'horse' or 'house')  We all know
> what a religion is.  If you are uncertain, grab the
> nearest dictionary.

But above you DO partially define religion--as having a priesthood
that is mean to non-believers. You merely stop when it becomes
obvious even to you that you will soon be listing attributes that
religions have but quasi-religions don't have, like a rejection of
supernaturalism.

> > (My impression is that for you a "quasi-religion" is simply a

> > belief system that you believe has one or more attributes
> > sometimes associated with belief systems called
> > "religion."
>
> A quasi-religion has many important or significant
> attributes of a standard religion. You could say that
> supporting a football team is a religion, but it lacks
> any body of theory or belief.

Oh, Believing one's team is the best around, or the only one worth
worshipping, with saints opposing devils, is not a body of belief? I
agree that it is not a religion, but it is certainly a quasi-religion
as you define--something with attributes shared by some belief system
some call a religion.

>  Marlitism is closer to
> football-club-following, since it has no real (and
> certainly no supportable) body of belief and is
> little more than a shadow of the Stratfordianism
> it purports to oppose.

Ah, so a quasi-religion is a belief system you don't go along with.
Nice.

> >>> A religion is a system of beliefs which includes ALL of the
> >>> following:
> >>> (1) a dependence on the undeniable suspension of
> >>> some law or laws of nature as agreed to by scientists;
>
> >> What exactly do you think you are trying to do here?
> >> Are you saying that this is how you use the word?
> >> Or how you think everyone should use the word?
>
> > I am attempting to present a sane definition of "religion" for the use
> > of intelligent people engaged in a discussion like this one, in which
> > whether some X = "religion."
>
> Please answer my questions.  You skipped over
> them, probably because you have no idea what
> you are trying to do -- and not the faintest
> realisation that you ought to have one.

I answered your irrelevant questions. What I exactly am trying to do
here: attempting to present a sane definition of "religion" for the

use
of intelligent people engaged in a discussion like this one, in which
whether some X = "religion."

Am I saying that this is how I use the word? No, Paul. As is obvious
from my answer. I'm saying that this is an attempt of mine to define
the word when engaged in a discussion like this, so that when I use
it, others in the discussion will know what I mean and be able to
agree or disagree with what I go on to say.

Do I think everyone should use the word this way? I think everyone
who fails to find a better definition of it, should use it.

> > I see that you refuse to point out the flaws in my definition,
> > simply deleting most of it.
>
> I am not going to deal with the detail, until I know
> what you are trying to do.

I told you what I'm trying to do. Define the word! That means,
distinguish what it stands for from everything else in the universe,
so everyone will know exactly what those using it mean by it (within
reason--since there will always be the red/orange problem, or deciding
just where red ends and orange begins, but that it hugely trivial).

> [..]
>
> >> So they dropped ALL theory . .  and
> >> now we have a 'science' quite devoid of any
> >> theory.  It's pure nonsense, of course, but
> >> that suits almost everyone.
>
> > Ah, but I definitely believe in having a theory of psychology
> > and have made what I doubt any could claim is not a
> > theory, however flawed.  So that puts me opposed to what
> > you believe is the authorities' view that there can be no
> > theories of psychology.
>
> Not what I said.  Professors of psychology
> don't have views -- any more than do Mafia-
> style gangsters.  They merely identify where
> the money comes from and work out how to
> maximise it.

So, there are no authorities in psychology, so I can't be opposed to
any. But for the sane, there are people how grade psychology papers
and award degrees that allow those getting them to make money treating
psychological ills, however ineptly. They would not allow me to do
that, or publish in a peer-reviewed journal. Surely they are
different from me in some way.

> >>>>> But if there were not, then I--requiring the view of
> >>>>> authorities to follow, according to you--would be
> >>>>> unable to have an outlook in either field.
> >>>> Does not follow.  In such fields, the possession
> >>>> of kooky theories is close to 'de rigeur' -- for those
> >>>> who believe that the 'disciplines' (in their modern
> >>>> form) have some value or validity.
>
> > You've just said no one is supposed to have theories.
>
> I said that there are no 'official' theories.
> Obviously the world is full of kooks, each
> with their kooky theories.  I was referring
> to what was 'de rigeur' amongst them.
>

> > So if I don't have a kooky theory I am a sheep; if I do, I'm

> > again only doing what is "de riguer."  How, then can anyone
> > not be a sheep in the field of psychology?

> Sorry, but the world is complicated. That's
> what you find when you try to set out clear
> 'definitions'.

That made me laugh. You come up with the most amzaing attempts to get
out of arguments you've thoroughly lost. Reductio ad absurdum? The
thesis remains unrefuted because the world is complicated.

> >> Could he have reasonably been named
> >> Audie Rifle-Waver (including the hyphen) . .?
>
> > You win: you're too obutse to be defeated in any argument.
>
> There is one obvious way around your problem
> here -- although it would never occur to a Yank.
> The use of 'Spear-shaker' could have been ironic,
> following roughly the pattern of 'Wagstaffe' --
> thought to have been a nickname given to an
> over-officious beadle.  I'm not saying that it
> works for 'spear-shaker'.  The scenario is too
> unlikely, but it's more plausible than a name
> given to an heroic figure.
>

I think our your American Civilization has not achieved all that much
culturally, Paul, but I find it hard to believe you don't think an
American, SOME American, might do something intelligent (in your
view). Especially considering your whole central belief system is 90%
a copy of the American Ogburn's.

> [..]
> No more time for (and not much interest in)
> remaining points.
>
> Paul.

There were quite a few arguments I won this time, weren't there.

--Bob