Authorship course at Brunel University
Gary
a course on the authorship of Shakespeare's plays. A press release
about the course may be found at:
http://www.brunel.ac.uk/news/cdata/9047/Shakespeare+MA
I'd like to get a bit more information about this course and
am thinking of emailing the contact person mentioned in the article.
The questions I would ask are:
- How many students are anticipated to enroll in the course?
- What texts or sources will be used in that portion of the course
investigating the alternatives to Shakespeare as author? What texts
or sources will be used to critique the alternative author theory and
which support the idea that William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the
plays.
- Will there by any way of learning the students' conclusions about
the authorship question at the end of the course?
Can anyone think of any other questions I should be asking?
- Gary
Elizabeth
Have you read this guy's vitae? No student enrolled in this program is
going to be allowed to escape without proclaiming Oxford Shakespeare?
> Can anyone think of any other questions I should be asking?
Yes, ask him why he thinks lit majors think they have the tools to
solve the Shakespeare authorship question.
It's only because lit majors have controlled
this question for centuries that it hasn't been resolved.
It needs to be removed from the English
departments because it isn't a problem in
English literature, it's a problem in forensics.
Whoever said in the thread below that it should be studied in the
history departments was on the right track.
HIstory has a scientific method, historiography.' Properly applied it
prevents the historian from 'finding Oxford's mind in the works' and
other errors of subjectivity.
Shakespeare Authorship has to be an interdisciplinary program
combining the disciplines mastered by the author: rhetoric, the
classics, philosophy, science,
early modern politics, renaissance literature,
etc.
The guy who's in charge of the program
looks rather like Oxford.
<http://www.whowroteshakespeare.com/images/Leahy.jpg>
<http://www.deverestudies.org/images/devereportrait.jpg>
spinoza1111
> On May 13, 4:20 pm, g...@vcn.bc.ca (Gary) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > As Peter Farey has informed us, Brunel University is offering
> > a course on the authorship of Shakespeare's plays. A press release
> > about the course may be found at:
>
> >http://www.brunel.ac.uk/news/cdata/9047/Shakespeare+MA
>
> > I'd like to get a bit more information about this course and
> > am thinking of emailing the contact person mentioned in the article.
>
> > The questions I would ask are:
>
> > - How many students are anticipated to enroll in the course?
>
> > - What texts or sources will be used in that portion of the course
> > investigating the alternatives to Shakespeare as author? What texts
> > or sources will be used to critique the alternative author theory and
> > which support the idea that William Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the
> > plays.
>
> > - Will there by any way of learning the students' conclusions about
> > the authorship question at the end of the course?
>
> Have you read this guy's vitae? No student enrolled in this program is
> going to be allowed to escape without proclaiming Oxford Shakespeare?
>
> > Can anyone think of any other questions I should be asking?
>
> Yes, ask him why he thinks lit majors think they have the tools to
> solve the Shakespeare authorship question.
>
> It's only because lit majors have controlled
> this question for centuries that it hasn't been resolved.
No, the question IS resolved. Shakespeare of Stratford on Avon was the
author of the plays, and during the first phase of Shakespeare
revival, critics including Samuel Johnson explained parts they did not
like as Augustan age classicists, Shakespeare's "quibbles", as a blot
on his greatness due to deficiencies in his education.
But with the post 1789 rise of the middle classes, the Romantic era
authors saw new value in these "quibbles" and scenes like the
Gravediggers and the Porter as adding to Shakespeare's genius by going
against a coldly classical grain.
At no time until Looney (save for an autodidact who contacted Samuel
Johnson) was the authorship "questioned", and it's been (until this
farce at Brunel and Concordia) exclusively a hobby-horse of lunatics,
autodidacts, and pretentious twits who, like Hitler in Vienna, are
discontent, work-shy rogues of the petite bourgeoisie who can't get
along with their mates at work, and want to be recognized as having an
"aristocratic" attitude towards life that they know only from
chocolate box tops.
Like amateurs who bother mathematicians with invalid "proofs" of
Goldbach's conjecture, these clowns are motivated by a pathetic desire
for recognition.
>
> It needs to be removed from the English
> departments because it isn't a problem in
> English literature, it's a problem in forensics.
>
> Whoever said in the thread below that it should be studied in the
> history departments was on the right track.
>
> HIstory has a scientific method, historiography.' Properly applied it
History has an historical method, the writing of history, to which the
name, "historiography" refers: nobunny with any sensitivity to word
roots, or who has studied an applied or pure hard science, would refer
to "historioGRAPHY" as a "scientific method", because *qua* historian,
the historian must by necessity have a default trust in original
sources, in texts, that the hard scientist does not have.
It is in my view no accident that in all probability, posters to this
thread who manifest these elementary confusions are computer
programmers, because it is a common programming error to reason
historically and be MISLED by artifacts that seem like texts but are
not.
There is nothing wrong with a default trust in texts, because history
is constituted by the text. It starts when people began to leave
written records behind.
> prevents the historian from 'finding Oxford's mind in the works' and
> other errors of subjectivity.
>
> Shakespeare Authorship has to be an interdisciplinary program
> combining the disciplines mastered by the author: rhetoric, the
> classics, philosophy, science,
> early modern politics, renaissance literature,
> etc.
Missing in this program would be another theme that differentiates
literature and history from hard science and that is hedonia, pleasure
in the text.
>
> The guy who's in charge of the program
> looks rather like Oxford.
>
> <http://www.whowroteshakespeare.com/images/Leahy.jpg>
>
> <http://www.deverestudies.org/images/devereportrait.jpg>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
book...@yahoo.com
We could ask ourselves whether the HLAS Tavern should offer such a
course as an Internet institution with an international faculty and
widespread, if unknown audience.
I would like to see the curricula managed with mysteries of authorship
attribution approached by both faculty and students in disguise. Humor
and imagination seem to be the requisites required, completely on the
honor system.
Courses offered might include:
Food Fighting 51
Missing Years of Shakespeare, Marlowe, Oxford, and Bacon 53
Lying, Dissembling, Posturing, Ranting, Fooling 101
Internecine Bickering 102
Sturm und Drang Flaming and Trolling 214
Wit, Sex, and Scatology 253
Shakespeare's Cat--seminar format
Too bad we don't seem to be managing The Weekly Sonnet anymore or we
could offer that, too. bookburn
As a tavern, HLAS might supplement
Tom Reedy
<snip>
> At no time until Looney (save for an autodidact who contacted Samuel
> Johnson) was the authorship "questioned",
Here is an example of why it is a valid subject for study. Apparently
you are ignorant of the history of the authorship topic.
I feel it should be studied for the same reasons we should study the
Dutch Tulip Craze or racial prejudice or most any other historical
topic: as an example of human folly and for what it can teach us about
human beings.
> and it's been (until this
> farce at Brunel and Concordia) exclusively a hobby-horse of lunatics,
> autodidacts, and pretentious twits who, like Hitler in Vienna, are
> discontent, work-shy rogues of the petite bourgeoisie who can't get
> along with their mates at work, and want to be recognized as having an
> "aristocratic" attitude towards life that they know only from
> chocolate box tops.
Apparently you are ignorant of more than the history of the authorship
topic.
TR
JPW
[snip]
> Yes, ask him why he thinks lit majors think they have the tools to
> solve the Shakespeare authorship question.
Although I would not defend the Brunel course (it rather smacks of yet
another attempt at recruiting students, increasing the department's
visibility, and a multitude of other reprehensible tactics now used by
British universities in a financial scramble, inter alia), I don't
think you've any real idea of what English studies encompass. There's
much more involved than just mere literary interpretation--at least by
genuine English scholars. Currently I'm trying to unravel exactly when
and who changed the title of Shaw's play from "Alps and Balkans" to
"Arms and the Man." It actually makes quite a bit of difference as to
how the play is viewed, especially to those whose interpretation
hinges on the title itself.
JPW
http://www.jpwearing.com
lackpurity
> On May 13, 9:34 pm, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > At no time until Looney (save for an autodidact who contacted Samuel
> > Johnson) was the authorship "questioned",
>
> Here is an example of why it is a valid subject for study. Apparently
> you are ignorant of the history of the authorship topic.
MM:
He is in past tense, while you're in present tense. I believe his
point is the same one, that I often mention, that the Anti-Strat
fantasies came much later, after all the witnesses and friends of
witnesses had died.
Of course, we can study all sorts of hypotheses, if we want. We can
decide how much credibility to put in them.
> I feel it should be studied for the same reasons we should study the
> Dutch Tulip Craze or racial prejudice or most any other historical
> topic: as an example of human folly and for what it can teach us about
> human beings.
MM:
The Shakespeare Rip-Off by Anti-Strats is definitely an example of
human folly. If people like to study follies, then they can study
it. LOL
> > and it's been (until this
> > farce at Brunel and Concordia) exclusively a hobby-horse of lunatics,
> > autodidacts, and pretentious twits who, like Hitler in Vienna, are
> > discontent, work-shy rogues of the petite bourgeoisie who can't get
> > along with their mates at work, and want to be recognized as having an
> > "aristocratic" attitude towards life that they know only from
> > chocolate box tops.
>
> Apparently you are ignorant of more than the history of the authorship
> topic.
>
> TR
MM:
Spinoza seems to think that he has the Anti-Strats pegged. Who
knows? Of course, there are reasons for believing in follies. I
can't discuss all the reasons. It could be like snowflakes; rarely
can we match two of them, so it is very individual.
Michael Martin
spinoza1111
> On May 13, 9:34 pm, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > At no time until Looney (save for an autodidact who contacted Samuel
> > Johnson) was the authorship "questioned",
>
> Here is an example of why it is a valid subject for study. Apparently
> you are ignorant of the history of the authorship topic.
>
> I feel it should be studied for the same reasons we should study the
> Dutch Tulip Craze or racial prejudice or most any other historical
> topic: as an example of human folly and for what it can teach us about
> human beings.
The Brunel course is NOT a critical study of lower middle class folly:
quite the opposite.
>
> > and it's been (until this
> > farce at Brunel and Concordia) exclusively a hobby-horse of lunatics,
> > autodidacts, and pretentious twits who, like Hitler in Vienna, are
> > discontent, work-shy rogues of the petite bourgeoisie who can't get
> > along with their mates at work, and want to be recognized as having an
> > "aristocratic" attitude towards life that they know only from
> > chocolate box tops.
>
> Apparently you are ignorant of more than the history of the authorship
> topic.
Oh? Is that so. So you have documents proving that Hitler wasn't a bum
and was a class act?
YOUR reaction is a typical Fascist argumentative turn. It is to
"debunk" to a documented fact by the smirk which refers only to the
"ignorance" of the fact's author as if the smirker has inside
information, but this inside information is either never presented, or
posits an unverifiable and unfalsifiable conspiracy theory, usually a
parody of Marxism, which isn't a conspiracy theory.
Accusing its interlocutor of a pretentiousness, a pretense, a
pretending which it projects, the typical response expresses nothing
more than a male resentment at being exposed as ignorant and hence
defrauded of the wealth of the *haute* bourgeois.
>
> TR
Tom Reedy
What makes you think I was commenting on your Hitler reference?
> YOUR reaction is a typical Fascist argumentative turn. It is to
> "debunk" to a documented fact
Please provide documentation for your statement that "it's been (until
this farce at Brunel and Concordia) exclusively a hobby-horse of
lunatics, autodidacts, and pretentious twits who ... are discontent,
work-shy rogues of the petite bourgeoisie who can't get along with
their mates at work, and want to be recognized as having an
"aristocratic" attitude towards life that they know only from
chocolate box tops."
> by the smirk which refers only to the
> "ignorance" of the fact's author as if the smirker has inside
> information, but this inside information is either never presented,
Oh, have you provided documentation for your statement that "it's been
(until this farce at Brunel and Concordia) exclusively a hobby-horse
of lunatics, autodidacts, and pretentious twits who ... are
discontent, work-shy rogues of the petite bourgeoisie who can't get
along with their mates at work, and want to be recognized as having an
"aristocratic" attitude towards life that they know only from
chocolate box tops?"
I (and everybody else who has read your ceaseless drivel) must have
missed it.
> or
> posits an unverifiable and unfalsifiable conspiracy theory, usually a
> parody of Marxism, which isn't a conspiracy theory.
>
> Accusing its interlocutor of a pretentiousness, a pretense, a
> pretending which it projects, the typical response expresses nothing
> more than a male resentment at being exposed as ignorant and hence
> defrauded of the wealth of the *haute* bourgeois.
I've never seen a clearer case of projection; I would say that 's a
pretty apt summation of almost everything you've ever posted to this
newsgroup.
You need to lay off the mind-altering substances, old boy. You're no
spring chicken, you know, and it's not the 60's anymore.
TR
lackpurity
> > > topic.
>
> I (and everybody else who has read your ceaseless drivel) must have
> missed it.
>
> > or
> > posits an unverifiable and unfalsifiable conspiracy theory, usually a
> > parody of Marxism, which isn't a conspiracy theory.
>
> > Accusing its interlocutor of a pretentiousness, a pretense, a
> > pretending which it projects, the typical response expresses nothing
> > more than a male resentment at being exposed as ignorant and hence
> > defrauded of the wealth of the *haute* bourgeois.
>
> I've never seen a clearer case of projection; I would say that 's a
> pretty apt summation of almost everything you've ever posted to this
> newsgroup.
>
> You need to lay off the mind-altering substances, old boy. You're no
> spring chicken, you know, and it's not the 60's anymore.
>
> TR
MM:
He is a staunch Stratfordian, so he gets credit for that. Do you call
Pro-Stratfordian propaganda drivel? What do you think of Anti-
Stratfordian propaganda? Is that drivel to you? He has pigeonholed
me, also, but let's give him credit for his alignment with
Stratfordianism.
You ask him for documentation, then indulge in flaming him without any
documentation. I can see why he calls certain posters Fascists. It's
easy to see that.
This NG doesn't have to be played according to your liking. He can
post his opinions, if he wants.
Spinoza, don't let him run you out of Dodge.
Michael Martin
spinoza1111
It's an interpretation of the record and as such original research and
opinion. The "documentation" was in fact provided, both in the form of
numerous references of actual Shakespeare scholars, from Nicholas Rowe
(who, as I mentioned, published the first post-folio edition of
Shakespeare in 1708), Samuel Johnson (who never seems to have doubted
Shakespeare's identity, and , in our own era, the editors of the
definitive Oxford edition of Shakespeare's complete works, whose
research now indicates that Shakespeare authored parts of Edward III
but who give Shakespeare denial short shrift.
This is the testament of the written record as a whole, and that you
credit "authorship denial" means that your sources are space-filling
articles in the popular press printed as an alternative to speaking
truth to power and the monadic ravings of lunatics, the sort of people
who pester mathematics professors with "proofs" of Goldbach's
conjecture.
I've in fact given far more references than most people here, and
you're engaging in psychological transference. Furthermore,
Shakespeare denial accuses Shakespeare scholars since Nicholas Rowe of
ignorance and conspiracy which means that you're playing games and
jerking yourself off, since any reference, in the thought-system that
is Shakespeare denial, can be immediately "debunked" by the default,
petty bourgeois MISTRUST of writing itself that you share with Jack
Cade.
>
> > by the smirk which refers only to the
> > "ignorance" of the fact's author as if the smirker has inside
> > information, but this inside information is either never presented,
>
> Oh, have you provided documentation for your statement that "it's been
> (until this farce at Brunel and Concordia) exclusively a hobby-horse
> of lunatics, autodidacts, and pretentious twits who ... are
> discontent, work-shy rogues of the petite bourgeoisie who can't get
> along with their mates at work, and want to be recognized as having an
> "aristocratic" attitude towards life that they know only from
> chocolate box tops?"
>
Your harassment is one data point, pard.
> I (and everybody else who has read your ceaseless drivel) must have
> missed it.
>
> > or
> > posits an unverifiable and unfalsifiable conspiracy theory, usually a
> > parody of Marxism, which isn't a conspiracy theory.
>
> > Accusing its interlocutor of a pretentiousness, a pretense, a
> > pretending which it projects, the typical response expresses nothing
> > more than a male resentment at being exposed as ignorant and hence
> > defrauded of the wealth of the *haute* bourgeois.
>
> I've never seen a clearer case of projection; I would say that 's a
> pretty apt summation of almost everything you've ever posted to this
> newsgroup.
>
> You need to lay off the mind-altering substances, old boy. You're no
> spring chicken, you know, and it's not the 60's anymore.
There you go again. You hate and envy the Sixties because it was the
last gasp of humanity, we got laid, and today, you don't.
>
> TR- Hide quoted text -
spinoza1111
No chance. Thanks.
>
> Michael Martin- Hide quoted text -
Tom Reedy
About the only conclusion I have after reading your "response" is that
you're not very bright. You apparently can't read English and arrive
at even a close approximation of what was asked.
I did not ask you for documentation that Shakespeare was Shakespeare;
I asked you for documentation that antiStratfordism has "been (until
this farce at Brunel and Concordia) exclusively a hobby-horse of
lunatics, autodidacts, and pretentious twits who ... are discontent,
work-shy rogues of the petite bourgeoisie who can't get along with
their mates at work, and want to be recognized as having an
"aristocratic" attitude towards life that they know only from
chocolate box tops."
So pay attention. If you can't understand, get someone smarter than
you (just ask any passer-by on the street, if need be) to explain it
to you.
> > > by the smirk which refers only to the
> > > "ignorance" of the fact's author as if the smirker has inside
> > > information, but this inside information is either never presented,
>
> > Oh, have you provided documentation for your statement that "it's been
> > (until this farce at Brunel and Concordia) exclusively a hobby-horse
> > of lunatics, autodidacts, and pretentious twits who ... are
> > discontent, work-shy rogues of the petite bourgeoisie who can't get
> > along with their mates at work, and want to be recognized as having an
> > "aristocratic" attitude towards life that they know only from
> > chocolate box tops?"
>
> Your harassment is one data point, pard.
"Harrassment?" My inquiry as to your evidence for a statement such as
yours is "harassment?' And not only that, but it counts as evidence
for your ignorant generalization that antiStratforidam has "been
(until this farce at Brunel and Concordia) exclusively a hobby-horse
of lunatics, autodidacts, and pretentious twits who ... are
discontent, work-shy rogues of the petite bourgeoisie who can't get
along with their mates at work, and want to be recognized as having an
"aristocratic" attitude towards life that they know only from
chocolate box tops?"
To the contrary, your responses are yet more "data points" that you
really aren't very bright.
> > I (and everybody else who has read your ceaseless drivel) must have
> > missed it.
>
> > > or
> > > posits an unverifiable and unfalsifiable conspiracy theory, usually a
> > > parody of Marxism, which isn't a conspiracy theory.
>
> > > Accusing its interlocutor of a pretentiousness, a pretense, a
> > > pretending which it projects, the typical response expresses nothing
> > > more than a male resentment at being exposed as ignorant and hence
> > > defrauded of the wealth of the *haute* bourgeois.
>
> > I've never seen a clearer case of projection; I would say that 's a
> > pretty apt summation of almost everything you've ever posted to this
> > newsgroup.
>
> > You need to lay off the mind-altering substances, old boy. You're no
> > spring chicken, you know, and it's not the 60's anymore.
>
> There you go again. You hate and envy the Sixties because it was the
> last gasp of humanity, we got laid, and today, you don't.
Bwwwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!! You really don't know
anything at all about me.
But of course, this is the type of "response" we'd expect from some
one who makes reckless, unsupported generalizations about matters of
which he is completely ignorant.
You spend too much time on the Internet, old boy. You should take a
break and maybe enjoy a rest cure somewhere. After all, as I said,
you're no spring chicken anymore. The gaping maw of the grave is just
in front of you and time's winged chariot is hurrying near. All the
Marxist anger in the world won't save you from that, you know, so why
not let go of it a little, loosen up and enjoy life a bit before
you're called away?
TR
T.M. Sommers
>
> Like amateurs who bother mathematicians with invalid "proofs" of
> Goldbach's conjecture,
A lousy analogy; since Goldbach's Conjecture is probably true, at
least those submitting the invalid proofs are on the sensible
side of the argument.
--
Thomas M. Sommers -- t...@nj.net -- AB2SB
spinoza1111
Hey, fuck you buddy. You demand citations because you're unread.
Anyone who's read Shakespeare and the critical legacy would understand
that this is a successful man of the rising middle class who writes,
because he clearly holds the aristocracy to the standards of his
religion and his views on human interdependence and solidarity.
You're Hitler Youth. They, and the punks of the Chinese Cultural
Revolution, made it their specialty to hold professors and authorities
(recognizable to them, dimly, as people who could write a complex
sentence) to standards they did not themselves meet in any fucking
way.
>
> I did not ask you for documentation that Shakespeare was Shakespeare;
> I asked you for documentation that antiStratfordism has "been (until
> this farce at Brunel and Concordia) exclusively a hobby-horse of
> lunatics, autodidacts, and pretentious twits who ... are discontent,
> work-shy rogues of the petite bourgeoisie who can't get along with
> their mates at work, and want to be recognized as having an
> "aristocratic" attitude towards life that they know only from
> chocolate box tops."
>
This is my working hypothesis based on the record. Are you aware that
one major Shakespeare denier is a stock tout and another a journalist,
and that neither have any credentials? I've already provided this
evidence and these informal citations, and if you were asleep and
didn't do you're homework, I have no sympathy, whatsoever, for you.
> So pay attention. If you can't understand, get someone smarter than
> you (just ask any passer-by on the street, if need be) to explain it
> to you.
HitlerJugend.
>
> > > > by the smirk which refers only to the
> > > > "ignorance" of the fact's author as if the smirker has inside
> > > > information, but this inside information is either never presented,
>
> > > Oh, have you provided documentation for your statement that "it's been
> > > (until this farce at Brunel and Concordia) exclusively a hobby-horse
> > > of lunatics, autodidacts, and pretentious twits who ... are
> > > discontent, work-shy rogues of the petite bourgeoisie who can't get
> > > along with their mates at work, and want to be recognized as having an
> > > "aristocratic" attitude towards life that they know only from
> > > chocolate box tops?"
>
> > Your harassment is one data point, pard.
>
> "Harrassment?" My inquiry as to your evidence for a statement such as
> yours is "harassment?' And not only that, but it counts as evidence
> for your ignorant generalization that antiStratforidam has "been
> (until this farce at Brunel and Concordia) exclusively a hobby-horse
> of lunatics, autodidacts, and pretentious twits who ... are
> discontent, work-shy rogues of the petite bourgeoisie who can't get
> along with their mates at work, and want to be recognized as having an
> "aristocratic" attitude towards life that they know only from
> chocolate box tops?"
For such a stone hater, you take perverted and homoerotic pleasure in
using and reusing my own words, because you know I can WRITE, punk
byotch, and you cannot.
Shakespeare denial has been until this farce at two fourth-rate quasi-
universities, which constitute frauds on the lower middle and working
class, a matter for lunatics, autodidacts and pretentious and
turbulent twits who, discontent with their deserved station in life as
nasty little clerks like you and the shock troops, in times of stress,
of Fascism, are work shy rogues of the petite bourgeoisie who are a
joke in their communities and their workplaces.
>
> To the contrary, your responses are yet more "data points" that you
> really aren't very bright.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > I (and everybody else who has read your ceaseless drivel) must have
> > > missed it.
>
> > > > or
> > > > posits an unverifiable and unfalsifiable conspiracy theory, usually a
> > > > parody of Marxism, which isn't a conspiracy theory.
>
> > > > Accusing its interlocutor of a pretentiousness, a pretense, a
> > > > pretending which it projects, the typical response expresses nothing
> > > > more than a male resentment at being exposed as ignorant and hence
> > > > defrauded of the wealth of the *haute* bourgeois.
>
> > > I've never seen a clearer case of projection; I would say that 's a
> > > pretty apt summation of almost everything you've ever posted to this
> > > newsgroup.
>
> > > You need to lay off the mind-altering substances, old boy. You're no
> > > spring chicken, you know, and it's not the 60's anymore.
>
> > There you go again. You hate and envy the Sixties because it was the
> > last gasp of humanity, we got laid, and today, you don't.
>
> Bwwwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!! You really don't know
> anything at all about me.
Nor do I plan on informing myself of your biography. So, how's your
hate filled life? Gettin' in? And into what? No, never mind, I really
don't want to know.
>
> But of course, this is the type of "response" we'd expect from some
> one who makes reckless, unsupported generalizations about matters of
> which he is completely ignorant.
>
> You spend too much time on the Internet, old boy. You should take a
> break and maybe enjoy a rest cure somewhere. After all, as I said,
> you're no spring chicken anymore. The gaping maw of the grave is just
> in front of you and time's winged chariot is hurrying near. All the
> Marxist anger in the world won't save you from that, you know, so why
> not let go of it a little, loosen up and enjoy life a bit before
> you're called away?
I have a better idea. Why don't I tell the truth about the lower
middle class that has taken over culture and ruined it, soiling it
with its apelike hands on grubby little computer keyboards?
>
> TR- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Art Neuendorffer
>
> The "documentation" was in fact provided, both in the form of
> numerous references of actual Shakespeare scholars, from Nicholas Rowe
> (who, as I mentioned, published the first post-folio edition of
> Shakespeare in 1708), Samuel Johnson (who never seems to have doubted
> Shakespeare's identity, and , in our own era, the editors of the
> definitive Oxford edition of Shakespeare's complete works, whose
> research now indicates that Shakespeare authored parts of
> Edward III but who give Shakespeare denial short shrift.
>
Shakespeare denial accuses Shakespeare scholars
since Nicholas Rowe of ignorance OR conspiracy...
It is hard to see how they can engage in a
successful conspiracy if they are, in fact, ignorant.
(There are isolated exceptions (e.g., you) however.)
-------------------------------
Art
spinoza1111
> spinoza1111 wrote:
>
> > Like amateurs who bother mathematicians with invalid "proofs" of
> > Goldbach's conjecture,
>
> A lousy analogy; since Goldbach's Conjecture is probably true, at
> least those submitting the invalid proofs are on the sensible
> side of the argument.
No, they are not. Sure, the probability of a counterexample diminishes
with larger and larger numbers, but a formal and certain proof won't
be proved by statistics...not ever, in my layman's understanding.
Furthermore, being on the "sensible" side of an argument is a
prescription for mathematical failure because so much surprises us in
mathematics.
I'd rather stumble upon a provably counter-example using brute-force
multiple precision calculations (I helped Nash on some of his pre-
Mathematica code for extra precision, briefly and in an 'umble
capacity) and have the counterexample named after me than be some
boring guy who proves it once and for all, not least because the
methods of proof (if Weil on the Fermat conjecture, or the University
of Illinois proof of four colors, are any indication) are simply not
accessible except to trained mathematicians INCLUDING genuinely
qualified autodidacts on the model not of Looney, but of Ramanujan.
Shakespeare deniers, take note. Not a single Denier seems to have
actually read Shakespeare and they stand in relation to that which
they would "prove" roughly as do people who bother working
mathematicians with "proofs": unqualified autodidacts, more interested
in a self-image as mathematicians or scholars as opposed to dogs
bodies than any passion for the truth and music of Shakespeare.
The truth and music of Shakespeare simply doesn't occur to them, or
factor in their texts. It is passed over with homophobic embarassment
by most, who are closet case Iagos, whose central concern is
establishing, not an alternate truth, but a destructive doubt, which
casts a shadow of suspicion over Shakespeare's committment to that
certainty in which love includes reason.
Shakespeare's doubters are mostly flawed. There are no sour skeptics
in Shakespeare unable to believe who are also heroes. But to make the
"real" author a necessary participant in a conspiracy means not only
that only aristocrats can write, it also means we need not believe in
Shakespeare's values to be high clawss people. We can be in fact thugs
who spread doubt and in so doing ape our leaders, who have used doubt
(better safe than sorry about WMDs) to waste the lives of American and
British soldiers in Iraq.
Ms. Mouse
No, he demands citations so he can check out where you got your claims
about anti-Stratfordians.
>
> Anyone who's read Shakespeare and the critical legacy would understand
> that this is a successful man of the rising middle class who writes,
> because he clearly holds the aristocracy to the standards of his
> religion and his views on human interdependence and solidarity.
Tom is a Stratfordian, and he has read mountains of source books as
well as the plays themselves. He is always demanding sources of me, so
don't flatter yourself that you're receiving special attention.
>
> You're Hitler Youth. They, and the punks of the Chinese Cultural
> Revolution, made it their specialty to hold professors and authorities
> (recognizable to them, dimly, as people who could write a complex
> sentence) to standards they did not themselves meet in any fucking
> way.
I'm sorry, I didn't know you were a professor. Where do you lecture?
Apart from here, of course.
>
>
>
> > I did not ask you for documentation that Shakespeare was Shakespeare;
> > I asked you for documentation that antiStratfordism has "been (until
> > this farce at Brunel and Concordia) exclusively a hobby-horse of
> > lunatics, autodidacts, and pretentious twits who ... are discontent,
> > work-shy rogues of the petite bourgeoisie who can't get along with
> > their mates at work, and want to be recognized as having an
> > "aristocratic" attitude towards life that they know only from
> > chocolate box tops."
>
> This is my working hypothesis based on the record. Are you aware that
> one major Shakespeare denier is a stock tout
David Kathman is a stockbroker, I believe, and has a PhD. But to whom
are you referring?
>and another a journalist,
> and that neither have any credentials?
Whom are you talking of now? Not Mark Anderson, I hope, who has a
master's degree. And even if your point above were correct, how does
this confirm your take on non-Strats:
"Shakespeare denial has been until this farce at two fourth-rate
quasi-
universities, which constitute frauds on the lower middle and working
class, a matter for lunatics, autodidacts and pretentious and
turbulent twits who, discontent with their deserved station in life
as
nasty little clerks like you and the shock troops, in times of
stress,
of Fascism, are work shy rogues of the petite bourgeoisie who are a
joke in their communities and their workplaces."
I can confirm that Tom is neither a "nasty little clerk" nor a non-
Strat. Where does this leave your thesis? It seems to me that
inadvertently you're saying that Strats and non-Strats are very much
alike.
> I've already provided this
> evidence and these informal citations, and if you were asleep and
> didn't do you're homework, I have no sympathy, whatsoever, for you.
What evidence? So far you haven't given any.
>
> > So pay attention. If you can't understand, get someone smarter than
> > you (just ask any passer-by on the street, if need be) to explain it
> > to you.
>
> HitlerJugend.
Referring to yourself again?
Ms. Mouse
Tom Reedy
Ah, such sparkling wit! A truly educated mind on display! No wonder
those yearning for enlightenment gather round you and hang on to every
syllable expressed from those cultured lips! I bet you're literally
swamped every time you leave your door.
> Anyone who's read Shakespeare and the critical legacy would understand
> that this is a successful man of the rising middle class who writes,
> because he clearly holds the aristocracy to the standards of his
> religion and his views on human interdependence and solidarity.
And anyone capable of reading and comprehending written English would
know that you aren't capable of reading and comprehending English.
> You're Hitler Youth. They, and the punks of the Chinese Cultural
> Revolution, made it their specialty to hold professors and authorities
> (recognizable to them, dimly, as people who could write a complex
> sentence) to standards they did not themselves meet in any fucking
> way.
I don't see any professors and authorities here; certainly not you.
You don't seem even capable of composing a comprehensible sentence,
much less a complex one.
> > I did not ask you for documentation that Shakespeare was Shakespeare;
> > I asked you for documentation that antiStratfordism has "been (until
> > this farce at Brunel and Concordia) exclusively a hobby-horse of
> > lunatics, autodidacts, and pretentious twits who ... are discontent,
> > work-shy rogues of the petite bourgeoisie who can't get along with
> > their mates at work, and want to be recognized as having an
> > "aristocratic" attitude towards life that they know only from
> > chocolate box tops."
>
> This is my working hypothesis based on the record.
Oh, it's YOUR working hypothesis? To what end, I wonder? You've
already demonstrated the complete lack of power in your life (by
adopting a misunderstanding of Marxism as an excuse for your failed
academic career and endlessly posting drivel to a newsgroup, for God's
sake!). I wonder what your intensions are once you publish your
results to the world? Where will you be publishing, bu the way? RES?
MLA? Or, more probably, alt.humanities.wankers?
> Are you aware that
> one major Shakespeare denier is a stock tout and another a journalist,
> and that neither have any credentials? I've already provided this
> evidence and these informal citations, and if you were asleep and
> didn't do you're homework, I have no sympathy, whatsoever, for you.
>
> > So pay attention. If you can't understand, get someone smarter than
> > you (just ask any passer-by on the street, if need be) to explain it
> > to you.
>
> HitlerJugend.
Such witty riposte! Really, you're too subtle.
> > > > > by the smirk which refers only to the
> > > > > "ignorance" of the fact's author as if the smirker has inside
> > > > > information, but this inside information is either never presented,
>
> > > > Oh, have you provided documentation for your statement that "it's been
> > > > (until this farce at Brunel and Concordia) exclusively a hobby-horse
> > > > of lunatics, autodidacts, and pretentious twits who ... are
> > > > discontent, work-shy rogues of the petite bourgeoisie who can't get
> > > > along with their mates at work, and want to be recognized as having an
> > > > "aristocratic" attitude towards life that they know only from
> > > > chocolate box tops?"
>
> > > Your harassment is one data point, pard.
>
> > "Harrassment?" My inquiry as to your evidence for a statement such as
> > yours is "harassment?' And not only that, but it counts as evidence
> > for your ignorant generalization that antiStratforidam has "been
> > (until this farce at Brunel and Concordia) exclusively a hobby-horse
> > of lunatics, autodidacts, and pretentious twits who ... are
> > discontent, work-shy rogues of the petite bourgeoisie who can't get
> > along with their mates at work, and want to be recognized as having an
> > "aristocratic" attitude towards life that they know only from
> > chocolate box tops?"
>
> For such a stone hater,
Why am I a hater because I ask you to support your "working thesis?"
> you take perverted and homoerotic pleasure in
> using and reusing my own words, because you know I can WRITE, punk
> byotch, and you cannot.
Ohhh! "Punk byotch!" Your wit is much admired, I'm sure, in what
evercircle you choose to spill such bon mots. Let's see, what circle
would that be? "Punk Byotch." Could that be from Harvard? Princeton,
maybe?
Whoever told you you could write was probably just trying to rid
himself of your presence. And it's really my business what type of
pleasure I take from baiting you.
> Shakespeare denial has been until this farce at two fourth-rate quasi-
> universities, which constitute frauds on the lower middle and working
> class, a matter for lunatics, autodidacts and pretentious and
> turbulent twits who, discontent with their deserved station in life as
> nasty little clerks like you and the shock troops, in times of stress,
> of Fascism, are work shy rogues of the petite bourgeoisie who are a
> joke in their communities and their workplaces.
"Joke?" Are you projecting again?
> > To the contrary, your responses are yet more "data points" that you
> > really aren't very bright.
>
> > > > I (and everybody else who has read your ceaseless drivel) must have
> > > > missed it.
>
> > > > > or
> > > > > posits an unverifiable and unfalsifiable conspiracy theory, usually a
> > > > > parody of Marxism, which isn't a conspiracy theory.
>
> > > > > Accusing its interlocutor of a pretentiousness, a pretense, a
> > > > > pretending which it projects, the typical response expresses nothing
> > > > > more than a male resentment at being exposed as ignorant and hence
> > > > > defrauded of the wealth of the *haute* bourgeois.
>
> > > > I've never seen a clearer case of projection; I would say that 's a
> > > > pretty apt summation of almost everything you've ever posted to this
> > > > newsgroup.
>
> > > > You need to lay off the mind-altering substances, old boy. You're no
> > > > spring chicken, you know, and it's not the 60's anymore.
>
> > > There you go again. You hate and envy the Sixties because it was the
> > > last gasp of humanity, we got laid, and today, you don't.
>
> > Bwwwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!! You really don't know
> > anything at all about me.
>
> Nor do I plan on informing myself of your biography. So, how's your
> hate filled life? Gettin' in? And into what? No, never mind, I really
> don't want to know.
I'm not the one seething in hate here. I find rattling a stick in your
cage amusing, but hardly to the point of the emotional investment of
hate.
> > But of course, this is the type of "response" we'd expect from some
> > one who makes reckless, unsupported generalizations about matters of
> > which he is completely ignorant.
>
> > You spend too much time on the Internet, old boy. You should take a
> > break and maybe enjoy a rest cure somewhere. After all, as I said,
> > you're no spring chicken anymore. The gaping maw of the grave is just
> > in front of you and time's winged chariot is hurrying near. All the
> > Marxist anger in the world won't save you from that, you know, so why
> > not let go of it a little, loosen up and enjoy life a bit before
> > you're called away?
>
> I have a better idea. Why don't I tell the truth about the lower
> middle class that has taken over culture and ruined it, soiling it
> with its apelike hands on grubby little computer keyboards?
As if you could. I know you want to be recognized as having an
"aristocratic" attitude towards life that you know only from chocolate
box tops, but you don't really have the panache to pull it off. You
have only your pathetic, cut-rate "expatriate" life in imitation of
your betters. Be content with that and your masturbatory self-
publishing on newsgroups. That's all you're ever going to get with
your attitude.
TR
T.M. Sommers
> On May 15, 9:15 pm, "T.M. Sommers" <t...@nj.net> wrote:
>>spinoza1111 wrote:
>>
>>>Like amateurs who bother mathematicians with invalid "proofs" of
>>>Goldbach's conjecture,
>>
>>A lousy analogy; since Goldbach's Conjecture is probably true, at
>>least those submitting the invalid proofs are on the sensible
>>side of the argument.
>
> No, they are not. Sure, the probability of a counterexample diminishes
> with larger and larger numbers, but a formal and certain proof won't
> be proved by statistics...not ever, in my layman's understanding.
Who said that statistics of the sort mentioned here could provide
an abolute proof? I said the conjecture is probably true, as no
one has for 250 years come up with a proof of its falsehood or a
counter-example, despite lots of looking.
> Furthermore, being on the "sensible" side of an argument is a
> prescription for mathematical failure because so much surprises us in
> mathematics.
Piffle. Are you claiming that the GC is likely to be false?
'Sensible' does not mean 'absolutely certain'.
If you want some pseudo-science to compare with, try the loonies
who try to prove relativity false.
> I'd rather stumble upon a provably counter-example using brute-force
> multiple precision calculations
All you have to do is test every odd number between 1e10 and
2e1346 (for the weak GC).
lackpurity
MM:
He doesn't have to dance to your tune. Your hypocrisy is becoming
increasingly obnoxious, as you have pigeonholed me without any
documentation.
> I did not ask you for documentation that Shakespeare was Shakespeare;
> I asked you for documentation that antiStratfordism has "been (until
> this farce at Brunel and Concordia) exclusively a hobby-horse of
> lunatics, autodidacts, and pretentious twits who ... are discontent,
> work-shy rogues of the petite bourgeoisie who can't get along with
> their mates at work, and want to be recognized as having an
> "aristocratic" attitude towards life that they know only from
> chocolate box tops."
>
> So pay attention. If you can't understand, get someone smarter than
> you (just ask any passer-by on the street, if need be) to explain it
> to you.
MM:
Pay attention? Are you Generalissimo Francisco Franco? I think
you're just a member of this group. Maybe you should reveal your true
identity? LOL Your attitude seems to be fascist in nature.
> > > > by the smirk which refers only to the
> > > > "ignorance" of the fact's author as if the smirker has inside
> > > > information, but this inside information is either never presented,
>
> > > Oh, have you provided documentation for your statement that "it's been
> > > (until this farce at Brunel and Concordia) exclusively a hobby-horse
> > > of lunatics, autodidacts, and pretentious twits who ... are
> > > discontent, work-shy rogues of the petite bourgeoisie who can't get
> > > along with their mates at work, and want to be recognized as having an
> > > "aristocratic" attitude towards life that they know only from
> > > chocolate box tops?"
>
> > Your harassment is one data point, pard.
>
> "Harrassment?" My inquiry as to your evidence for a statement such as
> yours is "harassment?' And not only that, but it counts as evidence
> for your ignorant generalization that antiStratforidam has "been
> (until this farce at Brunel and Concordia) exclusively a hobby-horse
> of lunatics, autodidacts, and pretentious twits who ... are
> discontent, work-shy rogues of the petite bourgeoisie who can't get
> along with their mates at work, and want to be recognized as having an
> "aristocratic" attitude towards life that they know only from
> chocolate box tops?"
MM:
Hey, Generalissimo. If you're going to demand documentation, then to
be fair, you need to demand it from everyone. Since you're obviously
picking on him, then his charge of "harassment," is right on.
> To the contrary, your responses are yet more "data points" that you
> really aren't very bright.
MM:
He was bright, when he called it harassment.
> > > I (and everybody else who has read your ceaseless drivel) must have
> > > missed it.
>
> > > > or
> > > > posits an unverifiable and unfalsifiable conspiracy theory, usually a
> > > > parody of Marxism, which isn't a conspiracy theory.
>
> > > > Accusing its interlocutor of a pretentiousness, a pretense, a
> > > > pretending which it projects, the typical response expresses nothing
> > > > more than a male resentment at being exposed as ignorant and hence
> > > > defrauded of the wealth of the *haute* bourgeois.
>
> > > I've never seen a clearer case of projection; I would say that 's a
> > > pretty apt summation of almost everything you've ever posted to this
> > > newsgroup.
>
> > > You need to lay off the mind-altering substances, old boy. You're no
> > > spring chicken, you know, and it's not the 60's anymore.
>
> > There you go again. You hate and envy the Sixties because it was the
> > last gasp of humanity, we got laid, and today, you don't.
>
> Bwwwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!! You really don't know
> anything at all about me.
MM:
Well, what do you know about him? Seems to be more hypocrisy.
> But of course, this is the type of "response" we'd expect from some
> one who makes reckless, unsupported generalizations about matters of
> which he is completely ignorant.
MM:
Like I wrote, you've pigeonholed me without documentation. That is
hypocrisy.
> You spend too much time on the Internet, old boy.
MM:
His time is well-spent. He is one of the prominent Strats here. I
thought you were a Strat, too? What is your problem anyway? Maybe
it's a personal problem?
> You should take a
> break and maybe enjoy a rest cure somewhere. After all, as I said,
> you're no spring chicken anymore. The gaping maw of the grave is just
> in front of you and time's winged chariot is hurrying near. All the
> Marxist anger in the world won't save you from that, you know, so why
> not let go of it a little, loosen up and enjoy life a bit before
> you're called away?
>
> TR
MM:
You could take your own advice. Your indulgence in prejudicial
hypocrisy is quite apparent. I doubt if you're a spring chicken,
either. What do you call that? Making an issue of his age? Low Heat
Flaming? Give me a break.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
MM:
Many conspirators have been ignorant. Happens all the time. Look at
the Anti-Strats, for example. They're obviously conspiring to rip-off
the Honorable Poet from Stratford, William Shakespeare.
Michael Martin
book...@yahoo.com
>>
>> > > > Please provide documentation for your statement that "it's been (until
>> > > > this farce at Brunel and Concordia) exclusively a hobby-horse of
>> > > > lunatics, autodidacts, and pretentious twits who ... are discontent,
>> > > > work-shy rogues of the petite bourgeoisie who can't get along with
>> > > > their mates at work, and want to be recognized as having an
>> > > > "aristocratic" attitude towards life that they know only from
>> > > > chocolate box tops."
I'm sure a lot of band width could be saved by cutting to the chase,
what I would like to know: What is on the top of the chocolate box
that appeals to work-shy, petite bourgeoisie rogues who want to be
recognized as having an "aristocratic" attitude towards life? Is this
something from Dali's "Persistence of Memory" or Proust's "Remembrance
of Things Past"? Couldn't be Nabokov fixated on being a child in
Russia because he already was an aristocrat.
All I can visualize beside a decidedly middle-class picture of an
Italian gentleman who manufactures chocolates, name beginning with a
"G", is Cracker Jack, Captain Crunch, and Sir Walter Raleigh on a
pipe tobacco can. But my American tastes are educated by Stuckey's,
Whitman Sampler, Hershey's, Russell Stover, and Godiva. I do find a
Shakespeare's Gourmet Chocolates, however.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> actually read Shakespeare
Damn, Crowley really does have competition for HLAS Wack of the Year
this time. Ah, I get it--you have a special definition of "read." It
doesn't mean pass one's eyes over text and hear words in one's brain,
it means see and understand texts exactly as you do. And I think of
Crowley's refusal to recognize as an argument any attempt at such with
which he disagrees. Or do you really think these anti-Strafordians
who constantly quote passages of Shakespeare at you have literally
never read him?
--Bob G.
spinoza1111
...without providing any of his own. It's a stupid game.
My sense of what Shakespeare deniers are like is based on my
experience as an adjunct and employee at a range of universities, and
my insider knowledge of just how Roosevelt University in Chicago was
destroyed. It's original research based on reading and life
experience, and no little snot nose is going to demand "citations"
where people actually say, hey hey hey, we're little snot noses.
>
>
>
> > Anyone who's read Shakespeare and the critical legacy would understand
> > that this is a successful man of the rising middle class who writes,
> > because he clearly holds the aristocracy to the standards of his
> > religion and his views on human interdependence and solidarity.
>
> Tom is a Stratfordian, and he has read mountains of source books as
> well as the plays themselves. He is always demanding sources of me, so
> don't flatter yourself that you're receiving special attention.
There is no evidence of that claim itself.
>
>
>
> > You're Hitler Youth. They, and the punks of the Chinese Cultural
> > Revolution, made it their specialty to hold professors and authorities
> > (recognizable to them, dimly, as people who could write a complex
> > sentence) to standards they did not themselves meet in any fucking
> > way.
>
> I'm sorry, I didn't know you were a professor. Where do you lecture?
> Apart from here, of course.
I worked as an adjunct at two universities and I'm in private
education at this time. I've published one book, several articles, but
not on this topic. I am interested in this topic because it's so
clearly an instance of the way in which working-class universities are
diverted from addressing social problems into absurd and foolish
causes, that make their degree holders laughing stocks.
>
>
>
> > > I did not ask you for documentation that Shakespeare was Shakespeare;
> > > I asked you for documentation that antiStratfordism has "been (until
> > > this farce at Brunel and Concordia) exclusively a hobby-horse of
> > > lunatics, autodidacts, and pretentious twits who ... are discontent,
> > > work-shy rogues of the petite bourgeoisie who can't get along with
> > > their mates at work, and want to be recognized as having an
> > > "aristocratic" attitude towards life that they know only from
> > > chocolate box tops."
>
> > This is my working hypothesis based on the record. Are you aware that
> > one major Shakespeare denier is a stock tout
>
> David Kathman is a stockbroker, I believe, and has a PhD. But to whom
> are you referring?
NO Shakespeare Denier is a Shakespeare specialist, it appears to me.
Instead, Shakespeare deniers are an amalgam of two personality types:
successful thugs (stockbrokers) and failed clerks.
>
> >and another a journalist,
> > and that neither have any credentials?
>
> Whom are you talking of now? Not Mark Anderson, I hope, who has a
> master's degree. And even if your point above were correct, how does
> this confirm your take on non-Strats:
>
> "Shakespeare denial has been until this farce at two fourth-rate
> quasi-
> universities, which constitute frauds on the lower middle and working
> class, a matter for lunatics, autodidacts and pretentious and
> turbulent twits who, discontent with their deserved station in life
> as
> nasty little clerks like you and the shock troops, in times of
> stress,
> of Fascism, are work shy rogues of the petite bourgeoisie who are a
> joke in their communities and their workplaces."
>
> I can confirm that Tom is neither a "nasty little clerk" nor a non-
> Strat. Where does this leave your thesis? It seems to me that
> inadvertently you're saying that Strats and non-Strats are very much
> alike.
>
By their own words they will be exposed. Since Shakespeare denial has
to posit a conspiracy, it entails rejection of Shakespeare's proto-
democratic values as seen, for example, in the defense of Gloucester
by a servant because the aristocrats were just kidding. The real
programme is to destroy Shakespeare.
> > I've already provided this
> > evidence and these informal citations, and if you were asleep and
> > didn't do you're homework, I have no sympathy, whatsoever, for you.
>
> What evidence? So far you haven't given any.
Far from that, I appear to be the only poster even capable of casually
mentioning scenes without a major research project.
>
>
>
> > > So pay attention. If you can't understand, get someone smarter than
> > > you (just ask any passer-by on the street, if need be) to explain it
> > > to you.
>
> > HitlerJugend.
>
> Referring to yourself again?
No, I am referring to the book burners here, who include people who
style themselves "Stratfordians" but are more interested in jerking
themselves off than in Shakespeare.
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
spinoza1111
Yeah, I am. Eat your heart out.
>
> > Anyone who's read Shakespeare and the critical legacy would understand
> > that this is a successful man of the rising middle class who writes,
> > because he clearly holds the aristocracy to the standards of his
> > religion and his views on human interdependence and solidarity.
>
> And anyone capable of reading and comprehending written English would
> know that you aren't capable of reading and comprehending English.
Literally, I can't understand how you can claim this, because it's
such a terribly weak argument, just a claim typical of Hitler Youth,
and typically brayed in a classroom in order to silence. Pity it falls
so flat here.
>
> > You're Hitler Youth. They, and the punks of the Chinese Cultural
> > Revolution, made it their specialty to hold professors and authorities
> > (recognizable to them, dimly, as people who could write a complex
> > sentence) to standards they did not themselves meet in any fucking
> > way.
>
> I don't see any professors and authorities here; certainly not you.
> You don't seem even capable of composing a comprehensible sentence,
> much less a complex one.
The above sentence ("they, and the punks...") has in fact a sentence
diagram and a parse. Therefore, your use of "comprehensible" means "I
don't understand it".
>
> > > I did not ask you for documentation that Shakespeare was Shakespeare;
> > > I asked you for documentation that antiStratfordism has "been (until
> > > this farce at Brunel and Concordia) exclusively a hobby-horse of
> > > lunatics, autodidacts, and pretentious twits who ... are discontent,
> > > work-shy rogues of the petite bourgeoisie who can't get along with
> > > their mates at work, and want to be recognized as having an
> > > "aristocratic" attitude towards life that they know only from
> > > chocolate box tops."
>
> > This is my working hypothesis based on the record.
>
> Oh, it's YOUR working hypothesis? To what end, I wonder? You've
> already demonstrated the complete lack of power in your life (by
> adopting a misunderstanding of Marxism as an excuse for your failed
> academic career and endlessly posting drivel to a newsgroup, for God's
> sake!). I wonder what your intensions are once you publish your
> results to the world? Where will you be publishing, bu the way? RES?
> MLA? Or, more probably, alt.humanities.wankers?
I've already published, most recently in Philosophy Now, so unlike
many of the people here, my ability to do so is not in question, and I
have none of that anxiety that fuels these Fascistic attacks.
I worked at Princeton and was not impressed by many of the people I
encountered there, while I was impressed by a minority of the people I
met. The fact is that during the time I was there, conservative
students pioneered in the use of the language above in a desparate
struggle for careers and position.
>
> Whoever told you you could write was probably just trying to rid
> himself of your presence. And it's really my business what type of
> pleasure I take from baiting you.
>
> > Shakespeare denial has been until this farce at two fourth-rate quasi-
> > universities, which constitute frauds on the lower middle and working
> > class, a matter for lunatics, autodidacts and pretentious and
> > turbulent twits who, discontent with their deserved station in life as
> > nasty little clerks like you and the shock troops, in times of stress,
> > of Fascism, are work shy rogues of the petite bourgeoisie who are a
> > joke in their communities and their workplaces.
>
> "Joke?" Are you projecting again?
In a way I am. That is: I resent a society which has destroyed the
life-chances of many people, forcing them to become lower-middle class
adjuncts who then downsize their capacity for hoping and makes them
follow causes including Shakespeare denial.
They do so because they are cowards. Norman Finkelstein of DePaul,
instead, decided to study Zionism, but Alan Dershowitz wants Zionism
to be so globally accepted that it has no name, there being no ability
to construct even a Jewish alternative to Zionism. Therefore
Finkelstein is in the process of being destroyed using the same
language people use here. How much easier it is to follow a safe road
that won't attract the attention of power, and to smash things up
quietly.
I'd prefer to bypass the whole lower middle class and be homeless but
fortunately I escaped the whole deal.
But, my biography is my own business. What I see here, and elsewhere,
are chronological adults without any real interest in or love for the
ng topic, unable to reference it extempore, who are more interested in
homophobically jerking each other off, and turning upon any poster who
cheerfully represents their fears of life in an increasingly dismal
world.
Who cannot even recognize the *feuilleton* form, in which I need not
provide dim little "citations" for a summary characterization of
Shakespeare deniers as a bunch of losers. The only dignified response
to the *feuilleton* is a summary characterization of Shakespeare
scholarship since Rowe which by identifying common features, gives the
reader a sense of a large and gaseous truth.
But this cannot be provided, because bonafide Shakespeare scholarship
is so clearly diverse, and disinterested.
That is, I smell a rat in Shakespeare denial in the very fact that it
pretends to smell a rat for no good reason.
It is a mob, powered by the Internet, like the Roman mob in Julius
Caesar that murders "Cinna the poet" for his bad verses, and its
typical behavior is that of the mob.
If I call a person to his face a fucking asshole as a way of summing
up, he's the one who looks absurd when he asks for a citation.
I've long ago deconstructed Shakespeare denial by means of an argument
based on Kant, which no-one has seriously addressed: it has to posit a
conspiracy but then use further conspiracies to avoid falsification.
Therefore it affirms an historical methodology which, any time it's
endangered, can posit Yet Another conspiracy. But this makes futile
the whole historical enterprise, because the source materials of the
historian have to be trusted by default, while the historian is of
course aware that some documents may be phony and therefore cross-
checks, as Shakespeare historians have since 1708.
In other words, I reject conspiracy theory as a method for the same
reason Chomsky rejected JFK conspiracy theories: they are unscientific
in being unfalsifiable in Popper's sense.
This is my "citation" (Nilges 2006). Given the strength of this
argument (which hasn't been answered here), the problem is to explain
Shakespeare denier using informal sociology in the essay form, because
that's all it deserves.
>
>
>
> > > To the contrary, your responses are yet more "data points" that you
> > > really aren't very bright.
>
> > > > > I (and everybody else who has read your ceaseless drivel) must have
> > > > > missed it.
>
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > posits an unverifiable and unfalsifiable conspiracy theory, usually a
> > > > > > parody of Marxism, which isn't a conspiracy theory.
>
> > > > > > Accusing its interlocutor of a pretentiousness, a pretense, a
> > > > > > pretending which it projects, the typical response expresses nothing
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
Ms. Mouse
Roosevelt University was destroyed by non-Strats? I didn't realise we
were so influential.
>
>
>
> > > Anyone who's read Shakespeare and the critical legacy would understand
> > > that this is a successful man of the rising middle class who writes,
> > > because he clearly holds the aristocracy to the standards of his
> > > religion and his views on human interdependence and solidarity.
>
> > Tom is a Stratfordian, and he has read mountains of source books as
> > well as the plays themselves. He is always demanding sources of me, so
> > don't flatter yourself that you're receiving special attention.
>
> There is no evidence of that claim itself.
The evidence is here on hlas.
Let's do this again:
1. You said that one "Shakespeare denier" is a stock tout and has no
credentials
2. I asked you who it was
3. You changed the subject to "Shakespeare deniers are an amalgam
of...successful thugs (stockbrokers) and failed clerks."
Could you please tell me which "Shakespeare denier" is a stock tout
without any credentials? You were an adjunct, so I expect you
understand the question.
>
>
>
> > >and another a journalist,
> > > and that neither have any credentials?
>
> > Whom are you talking of now? Not Mark Anderson, I hope, who has a
> > master's degree. And even if your point above were correct, how does
> > this confirm your take on non-Strats:
>
> > "Shakespeare denial has been until this farce at two fourth-rate
> > quasi-
> > universities, which constitute frauds on the lower middle and working
> > class, a matter for lunatics, autodidacts and pretentious and
> > turbulent twits who, discontent with their deserved station in life
> > as
> > nasty little clerks like you and the shock troops, in times of
> > stress,
> > of Fascism, are work shy rogues of the petite bourgeoisie who are a
> > joke in their communities and their workplaces."
Um. Could you please name the "Shakespeare Denier" who is a journalist
without any credentials? You've made the accusation. You should be
able to back it up.
>
> > I can confirm that Tom is neither a "nasty little clerk" nor a non-
> > Strat. Where does this leave your thesis? It seems to me that
> > inadvertently you're saying that Strats and non-Strats are very much
> > alike.
>
> By their own words they will be exposed. Since Shakespeare denial has
> to posit a conspiracy, it entails rejection of Shakespeare's proto-
> democratic values as seen, for example, in the defense of Gloucester
> by a servant because the aristocrats were just kidding. The real
> programme is to destroy Shakespeare.
You haven't been to see that psychopharmocologist yet, have you?
Ms. Mouse
Gary
wrote:
Mucho snippage to get to a good point:
>I've long ago deconstructed Shakespeare denial by means of an argument
>based on Kant, which no-one has seriously addressed: it has to posit a
>conspiracy but then use further conspiracies to avoid falsification.
>Therefore it affirms an historical methodology which, any time it's
>endangered, can posit Yet Another conspiracy. But this makes futile
>the whole historical enterprise, because the source materials of the
>historian have to be trusted by default, while the historian is of
>course aware that some documents may be phony and therefore cross-
>checks, as Shakespeare historians have since 1708.
>
>In other words, I reject conspiracy theory as a method for the same
>reason Chomsky rejected JFK conspiracy theories: they are unscientific
>in being unfalsifiable in Popper's sense.
That's a good point, Spinoza. If you promote a historical
view wherein all historical documents are suspect, you have no
history.
- Gary
spinoza1111
> On 15 May 2007 19:28:10 -0700,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com>
Well, the Kantian argument accounts for why I feel disturbed by an
academic divide between Shakespeare as taught in first rate schools,
where it's a given that Shakespeare wrote the canon (while
collaborating at the beginning and the end of his life such that early
and late plays bear the marks of other hands), and this rage at ninth
rate schools, which were chartered to create an equal playing field
with posh schools for the working class, to make such a "radical"
break. It's suspect, and I used some concepts I learned in a class I
basically jawboned my way into at Princeton, Philosophy of the
Behavioral Sciences as taught by Gilbert Harman.
Harman conducts in his book CHANGE IN VIEW a thought-experiment.
Suppose Rosie, on her way to work, reads the true account of an
assassination. But a coup d'etat occurs after she reads the story and
the newspaper is removed from the stands. Her work mates learn a
different story. Does Rosie "know" the truth?
IS "truth" is less like an iPod, where we hear all this wonderful
music but don't share it, and more a symphony, where part of our
enjoyment is the experience of the poet Edna St. Vincent Millay:
Sweet sounds, oh, beautiful music, do not cease!
Reject me not into the world again.
With you alone is excellence and peace,
Mankind made plausible, his purpose plain.
Enchanted in your air benign and shrewd,
With limbs a-sprawl and empty faces pale,
The spiteful and the stingy and the rude
Sleep like the scullions in the fairy-tale.
This moment is the best the world can give:
The tranquil blossom on the tortured stem.
Reject me not, sweet sounds; oh, let me live,
Till Doom espy my towers and scatter them,
A city spell-bound under the aging sun.
Music my rampart, and my only one.
Millay's enjoyment is constructed by the fact that OTHER MINDS are
hearing the music, and, for a change, the wealthy bastards at the
symphony seem capable of redemption and solidarity, at least insofar
as they are not literally asleep, or, perhaps, she literally means
that the people in the audience so insensate as not to be able to
understand Beethoven, and who are only there because they are not
being taxed enough and so have money to burn, are asleep.
Millay's City, spellbound under the aging sun, is one where we ALL
have access to truth and beauty and there are absolutely no
conspiracies.
Millay's experience of beauty is necessarily social. People on the
other hand listening to an iPod never seem to enjoy what they hear:
they don't go dancing down the street because that's not "cool" in a
world where truth and falsity, beauty and ugliness, are replaced by an
ironic necessity by cool and unkewl.
Perhaps, truth is like that, which means that conspiracy theory can
never prosper, like treason, because if we did learn from a suicide or
revelation, an incident in other words that today has been stage-
managed out of possibility, that an assassination was a conspiracy, it
would no longer be a conspiracy theory or fashionable cool suspicion,
it would be the truth...and heads would roll.
In this connection, Vincent Bugliosi, the Manson prosecutor, has
published a massive, almost reference sized book on the JFK
assassination that he claims proves that Oswald acted alone. I plan on
reading it. Even if Oswald acted alone, I could see in the 1960s that
a society that could produce an Oswald, and then a Richard Speck, and
then the assasination season of 1968 was fucked up.
Perhaps a book could settle, once and for all, the question of
Shakespeare authorship by a Bugliosi investigative approach. But it
would not be doable at Brunel or Concordia, nor credible.
If all historical documents are suspect, then we all have only truth-
iPods which whisper in our ear a truth customized for us, and for us
alone. But the Matrix is unlivable for the simple reason that the
technology that maintains the individually tailored fictions is
completely emergent from and dependent on non-renewable resources. We
can therefore look forward to the end of oil as perhaps a return to
community by necessity, where we cannot "tune out" because "tuning
out" takes electricity.
Shakespeare lived in a world lit only by fire and the sun, yet saw
more than we do.
Tom Reedy
Well but of course! Who could not fail to be impressed by such a
master of the language?
> > > Anyone who's read Shakespeare and the critical legacy would understand
> > > that this is a successful man of the rising middle class who writes,
> > > because he clearly holds the aristocracy to the standards of his
> > > religion and his views on human interdependence and solidarity.
>
> > And anyone capable of reading and comprehending written English would
> > know that you aren't capable of reading and comprehending English.
>
> Literally, I can't understand how you can claim this, because it's
> such a terribly weak argument, just a claim typical of Hitler Youth,
> and typically brayed in a classroom in order to silence. Pity it falls
> so flat here.
Of course you can't understand. Nobody expects you to understand.
You're not capable of understanding anything more than "fuck you,"
"Hitler youth" and "punk bitch."
> > > You're Hitler Youth. They, and the punks of the Chinese Cultural
> > > Revolution, made it their specialty to hold professors and authorities
> > > (recognizable to them, dimly, as people who could write a complex
> > > sentence) to standards they did not themselves meet in any fucking
> > > way.
>
> > I don't see any professors and authorities here; certainly not you.
> > You don't seem even capable of composing a comprehensible sentence,
> > much less a complex one.
>
> The above sentence ("they, and the punks...") has in fact a sentence
> diagram and a parse. Therefore, your use of "comprehensible" means "I
> don't understand it".
No, it means YOU don't understand it. By "comprehensible" I mean
"makes sense." Your hate-filled diatribes (which obviously originate
in a deep, and probably justified, self-loathing) don't make sense.
Comprende now, pard?
> > > > I did not ask you for documentation that Shakespeare was Shakespeare;
> > > > I asked you for documentation that antiStratfordism has "been (until
> > > > this farce at Brunel and Concordia) exclusively a hobby-horse of
> > > > lunatics, autodidacts, and pretentious twits who ... are discontent,
> > > > work-shy rogues of the petite bourgeoisie who can't get along with
> > > > their mates at work, and want to be recognized as having an
> > > > "aristocratic" attitude towards life that they know only from
> > > > chocolate box tops."
>
> > > This is my working hypothesis based on the record.
>
> > Oh, it's YOUR working hypothesis? To what end, I wonder? You've
> > already demonstrated the complete lack of power in your life (by
> > adopting a misunderstanding of Marxism as an excuse for your failed
> > academic career and endlessly posting drivel to a newsgroup, for God's
> > sake!). I wonder what your intensions are once you publish your
> > results to the world? Where will you be publishing, bu the way? RES?
> > MLA? Or, more probably, alt.humanities.wankers?
>
> I've already published, most recently in Philosophy Now,
No, you didn't. Philosophy Now bills itself as a magazine of ideas.
You obviously have no ideas. All you can do is parrot outworn Marxist
idealogy in defense of your miserable failure of a life.
You published a book review in Philosophy Today, a newsletter that
ceased publication with the issue in which your review appears. And
your book review was nothing more than a cut-and-paste from your
Amazon books "customer review," in which you made the startling
dicovery that different words have different meanings in different
contexts. Anybody who wants to read your literary onanism can go to
http://tinyurl.com/25fa3p and judge for themselves just how much of a
jargon-larded wankere you are.
> so unlike
> many of the people here, my ability to do so is not in question,
You're right about that. Your ability is certainly not in question.
> and I
> have none of that anxiety that fuels these Fascistic attacks.
You are full of anxiety that fuels your fascistic attacks, and with
good reason. Because deep down inside your ego-encrusted soul, you
know what you are. You can only waste your time and life on the
internet screaming "fuck you" and calling people nazis to reassure
yourself that your life hasn't been a complete and total waste.
Nobody was impressed with you either, were they? Otherwise you'd still
be there, scrubbing those toilets.
> while I was impressed by a minority of the people I
> met. The fact is that during the time I was there, conservative
> students pioneered in the use of the language above in a desparate
> struggle for careers and position.
The fact is, while you were there, had to leave for other reasons than
the activities of conservative students. Would you care to tell us the
real reasons? Or would you prefer it be done by another?
If I had a biography like yours, I'd want to keep it to myself too.
You've worked yourself up into a froth again with your ego-encrusted
impotent rage against the Man who constantly steps on you and keeps
you from assuming your rightful place.
Poor baby. But you're so heroic in the face of all that persecution!
You heroically ignore all those who point out your defective
reasoning. After all, what do they know? Don't they know who you are
and how important you are? Why, you're Edward G. Nilges, book customer
reviewer extraordinaire and author of the cult classic *Build Your
Own .Net Language and Compiler* who debugged a computer in 1972 ...
umm, that was how many years ago?
Goddamn it! They don't know the rage you feel inside when you know you
have so much to give, so much to contribute, and yet you see your life
dripping out of your hands drop by drop, while all around you morons
who don't even deserve to shine your shoes are advancing and getting
recognition that YOU should be getting, by God! It's just so Goddamn
unfair, and your not going to stand for it! You're going to keep
shouting "FUCK YOU" to the mindless nitwits who hound your life, those
MORONS, those HITLER YOUTH who have driven you to the extremes of
teaching English to the fucking Chinese, for Christ's sake, just to
put bread on the table! A job that is usually taken by mediocre
English lit grads from cow colleges -- COW COLLEGES! -- and yet you're
reduced to those circumstances by a society that has runined the lives
of so many other geniuses! GODDAMN IT! YOU'RE NOT GOING TO STAND FOR
IT! You're going to show them, by God! YOU'LL POST TO THE INTERNET AND
EXPOSE THE LYING HYPOCRISY OF THOSE MORONIC NAZI BASTARDS WHO REFUSE
TO RECOGNIZE YOUR SUPERIORITY!!!!!!!!!!!! THOSE FUCKING NAZI
MOTHERFGTHTUISOPWX!!!!! GRRPRLXGSMTHKLX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just keep writing those Amazon customer reviews and spending lots of
time posting to newsgroups. I'm sure those compensations will satisfy
the needs of your tiny soul. They had better, because that's all
you're going to get.
TR
lackpurity
MM:
Let's face it. The Universities are businesses, not only regarding
academics, but regarding sports, etc... It has to do with supply and
demand. Anti-Strats are a minority, yet they constitute somewhat of a
demand. So, these Universities will supply courses, if you've got the
money to pay them. It's more about business than about ethics, I
think.
> Harman conducts in his book CHANGE IN VIEW a thought-experiment.
> Suppose Rosie, on her way to work, reads the true account of an
> assassination. But a coup d'etat occurs after she reads the story and
> the newspaper is removed from the stands. Her work mates learn a
> different story. Does Rosie "know" the truth?
MM:
I'd say yes, if she read the true account. Am I right? LOL
> IS "truth" is less like an iPod, where we hear all this wonderful
> music but don't share it, and more a symphony, where part of our
> enjoyment is the experience of the poet Edna St. Vincent Millay:
>
> Sweet sounds, oh, beautiful music, do not cease!
> Reject me not into the world again.
> With you alone is excellence and peace,
> Mankind made plausible, his purpose plain.
> Enchanted in your air benign and shrewd,
> With limbs a-sprawl and empty faces pale,
> The spiteful and the stingy and the rude
> Sleep like the scullions in the fairy-tale.
> This moment is the best the world can give:
> The tranquil blossom on the tortured stem.
> Reject me not, sweet sounds; oh, let me live,
> Till Doom espy my towers and scatter them,
> A city spell-bound under the aging sun.
> Music my rampart, and my only one.
>
> Millay's enjoyment is constructed by the fact that OTHER MINDS are
> hearing the music, and, for a change, the wealthy bastards at the
> symphony seem capable of redemption and solidarity, at least insofar
> as they are not literally asleep, or, perhaps, she literally means
> that the people in the audience so insensate as not to be able to
> understand Beethoven, and who are only there because they are not
> being taxed enough and so have money to burn, are asleep.
MM:
Edna St. Vincent Millay might be referring to the inner MUSIQUE, which
Marlowe and Shakespeare mentioned. It is also known as Shabd, Nam,
Holy Spirit, Holy Ghost, Kalma, Isme-i-Azam, Tao, etc., etc.... It
appears to be metaphysical, as she askes the MUSIQUE not to reject her
to the world again.
> Millay's City, spellbound under the aging sun, is one where we ALL
> have access to truth and beauty and there are absolutely no
> conspiracies.
>
> Millay's experience of beauty is necessarily social. People on the
> other hand listening to an iPod never seem to enjoy what they hear:
> they don't go dancing down the street because that's not "cool" in a
> world where truth and falsity, beauty and ugliness, are replaced by an
> ironic necessity by cool and unkewl.
MM:
I wouldn't call her experience social, Spinoza. It appears to be
quite private, and a result of her MUSES. The city spellbound under
the aging sun means that we are dancing to the tune of Satan, to his
spells. That is why she seeks refuge in the inner musique. She says
her towers will be destroyed. Everything in this world will be
destroyed, save the Shabd. That is her meaning.
> Perhaps, truth is like that, which means that conspiracy theory can
> never prosper, like treason, because if we did learn from a suicide or
> revelation, an incident in other words that today has been stage-
> managed out of possibility, that an assassination was a conspiracy, it
> would no longer be a conspiracy theory or fashionable cool suspicion,
> it would be the truth...and heads would roll.
MM:
Good point.
> In this connection, Vincent Bugliosi, the Manson prosecutor, has
> published a massive, almost reference sized book on the JFK
> assassination that he claims proves that Oswald acted alone. I plan on
> reading it. Even if Oswald acted alone, I could see in the 1960s that
> a society that could produce an Oswald, and then a Richard Speck, and
> then the assasination season of 1968 was fucked up.
> Perhaps a book could settle, once and for all, the question of
> Shakespeare authorship by a Bugliosi investigative approach. But it
> would not be doable at Brunel or Concordia, nor credible.
> If all historical documents are suspect, then we all have only truth-
> iPods which whisper in our ear a truth customized for us, and for us
> alone. But the Matrix is unlivable for the simple reason that the
> technology that maintains the individually tailored fictions is
> completely emergent from and dependent on non-renewable resources. We
> can therefore look forward to the end of oil as perhaps a return to
> community by necessity, where we cannot "tune out" because "tuning
> out" takes electricity.
>
> Shakespeare lived in a world lit only by fire and the sun, yet saw
> more than we do.
MM:
He heard more, too, just as Edna St. Vincent Millay.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
MM:
You flamed him without any documentation, which was your own
argument. Now, you're whining about his replies to you. You started
the flame war, and he has a right to respond in self-defense. I don't
know why you're picking on him? He's a Strat. He's not ripping off
William Shakespeare, as the Anti-Strats try to do. Can you see the
difference?
There has been a verbal conflict, here, for some time, many years in
fact. Taking a much broader viewpoint, than your personal ad
hominems, I'd think to be fair you should criticize the Anti-Strats,
also. Why do you ignore them, but concentrate on Spinoza, who is on
the right side?
> > > > You're Hitler Youth. They, and the punks of the Chinese Cultural
> > > > Revolution, made it their specialty to hold professors and authorities
> > > > (recognizable to them, dimly, as people who could write a complex
> > > > sentence) to standards they did not themselves meet in any fucking
> > > > way.
>
> > > I don't see any professors and authorities here; certainly not you.
> > > You don't seem even capable of composing a comprehensible sentence,
> > > much less a complex one.
>
> > The above sentence ("they, and the punks...") has in fact a sentence
> > diagram and a parse. Therefore, your use of "comprehensible" means "I
> > don't understand it".
>
> No, it means YOU don't understand it. By "comprehensible" I mean
> "makes sense." Your hate-filled diatribes (which obviously originate
> in a deep, and probably justified, self-loathing) don't make sense.
> Comprende now, pard?
MM:
IMO, they make some sense, but I'd hesitate to pigeonhole every single
Anti-Strat in particular ways. Anti-Stratfordianism is a sin, IMO,
but there could be various reasons for it. Your comment regarding his
hate-filled diatribes is a distortion of the truth. Even Shakespeare,
himself, wrote that the Master might show SCORN to us, at times. So,
why don't you stop whining? Do you think Anti-Strats are full of
love, for trying to rip-off the Honorable William Shakespeare? Are
you still a Strat?
> > > > > I did not ask you for documentation that Shakespeare was Shakespeare;
> > > > > I asked you for documentation that antiStratfordism has "been (until
> > > > > this farce at Brunel and Concordia) exclusively a hobby-horse of
> > > > > lunatics, autodidacts, and pretentious twits who ... are discontent,
> > > > > work-shy rogues of the petite bourgeoisie who can't get along with
> > > > > their mates at work, and want to be recognized as having an
> > > > > "aristocratic" attitude towards life that they know only from
> > > > > chocolate box tops."
>
> > > > This is my working hypothesis based on the record.
>
> > > Oh, it's YOUR working hypothesis? To what end, I wonder? You've
> > > already demonstrated the complete lack of power in your life (by
> > > adopting a misunderstanding of Marxism as an excuse for your failed
> > > academic career and endlessly posting drivel to a newsgroup, for God's
> > > sake!). I wonder what your intensions are once you publish your
> > > results to the world? Where will you be publishing, bu the way? RES?
> > > MLA? Or, more probably, alt.humanities.wankers?
>
> > I've already published, most recently in Philosophy Now,
>
> No, you didn't. Philosophy Now bills itself as a magazine of ideas.
> You obviously have no ideas. All you can do is parrot outworn Marxist
> idealogy in defense of your miserable failure of a life.
MM:
Reedy persists on pursuing Spinoza with his very limited viewpoint.
The verbal conflict between Strats and Anti-Strats has been going on
for years. He's not fair to criticize only one side of the discord.
> You published a book review in Philosophy Today, a newsletter that
> ceased publication with the issue in which your review appears. And
> your book review was nothing more than a cut-and-paste from your
> Amazon books "customer review," in which you made the startling
> dicovery that different words have different meanings in different
> contexts. Anybody who wants to read your literary onanism can go tohttp://tinyurl.com/25fa3pand judge for themselves just how much of a
> jargon-larded wankere you are.
>
> > so unlike
> > many of the people here, my ability to do so is not in question,
>
> You're right about that. Your ability is certainly not in question.
>
> > and I
> > have none of that anxiety that fuels these Fascistic attacks.
>
> You are full of anxiety that fuels your fascistic attacks, and with
> good reason. Because deep down inside your ego-encrusted soul, you
> know what you are. You can only waste your time and life on the
> internet screaming "fuck you" and calling people nazis to reassure
> yourself that your life hasn't been a complete and total waste.
MM:
Such a ridiculous analysis. Spinoza has been an avid reader of
Shakespeare for years. He has mentioned the attempted rip-off of
William Shakespeare on many occasions. Reedy's allegation regarding
Spinoza's life is repugnant and distasteful. We are all products of
our lives, Strats and Anti-Strats alike. Spinoza tends to stay on
topic, regardless of silly allegations such as this one by Reedy.
Spinoza uses the words Nazi, Fascist, Hitler, etc., to make his
points. He's making points based on his own perceptions of Anti-
Strats and this group. Anti-Strats also allege many things. Let's
don't forget that. The verbal conflict has been going on for years.
Does anybody want to extend an olive branch?
Michael Martin
> > > > Are you aware that
> > > > one major Shakespeare denier is a stock tout and another a journalist,
> > > > and that neither have any credentials? I've already provided this
> > > > evidence and these informal citations, and if you were asleep and
> > > > didn't do you're homework, I have no sympathy, whatsoever, for you.
>
> > > > > So pay attention. If you can't understand, get someone smarter than
> > > > > you (just ask any passer-by on the street, if need be) to explain it
> > > > > to you.
>
> > > > HitlerJugend.
>
> > > Such witty riposte! Really, you're too subtle.
>
> > > > > > > > by the smirk which refers only to the
> > > > > > > > "ignorance" of the fact's author as if the smirker has inside
> > > > > > > > information, but this
>
John W. Kennedy
> On May 15, 9:55 pm, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> My sense of what Shakespeare deniers are like is based on my
>> experience as an adjunct and employee at a range of universities, and
>> my insider knowledge of just how Roosevelt University in Chicago was
>> destroyed. It's original research based on reading and life
>> experience, and no little snot nose is going to demand "citations"
>> where people actually say, hey hey hey, we're little snot noses.
> Roosevelt University was destroyed by non-Strats? I didn't realise we
> were so influential.
I cannot for the life of me find that it has ever been "destroyed" at all.
--
John W. Kennedy
Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!
http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/Double%20Falshood/index.html
* TagZilla 0.066 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
book...@yahoo.com
possible. The following thread is a wonder for marching along without
breaking ranks or files. See how the squad of some ten posts use the
same width and indent perfectly. Must be spinoza is doing something
right.
bookburn
How On 16 May 2007 07:53:29 -0700, Tom Reedy
David Kathman
> On May 15, 11:39 am, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > This is my working hypothesis based on the record. Are you aware that
> > one major Shakespeare denier is a stock tout
>
> David Kathman is a stockbroker, I believe, and has a PhD. But to whom
> are you referring?
No, I am not a stockbroker. I am a mutual fund analyst, which is
utterly and completely different. Stockbrokers buy and sell stocks on
behalf of clients. I talk to mutual fund managers about how they
manage their funds, then write analyses for public consumption in
which I analyze the fund and give my opinion of it. I also do
research on investing and mutual funds and write articles about it,
for both print and online publications. I don't think I could ever be
a stockbroker, which involves a lot of salesmanship. In my current
job, I do a lot of writing and thinking and research and analyzing.
And I do have a Ph.D., in linguistics from the University of Chicago
(1994).
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
spinoza1111
spinoza1111
> > On May 15, 9:55 pm,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> My sense of what Shakespeare deniers are like is based on my
> >> experience as an adjunct and employee at a range of universities, and
> >> my insider knowledge of just how Roosevelt University in Chicago was
> >> destroyed. It's original research based on reading and life
> >> experience, and no little snot nose is going to demand "citations"
> >> where people actually say, hey hey hey, we're little snot noses.
> > Roosevelt University was destroyed by non-Strats? I didn't realise we
> > were so influential.
>
> I cannot for the life of me find that it has ever been "destroyed" at all.
In the early 1970s, the late E. D. Klemke, the chair of the philosophy
department at Roosevelt University, taught classes in the Philosophy
of Logic including a close reading of Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico
Philosophicus: D. Temple taught a class based on Quine's Set Theory
and Its Logic: and Farhang Zabeeh taught classes on contemporary
Continental philosophy and Husserl.
Fast forward to 2007. The philosophy department at Roosevelt
University is now a part of a portmanteau department of "Philosophy,
History and Art History". It is chaired by an individual whose
qualifications on her Web site included, last time I checked, a PhD in
art history, qualified by "abd", which usually means "all but
dissertation".
This individual fired an adjunct who in a class in "world
religion" (where about the only philosophy classes taught are these
surveys that Roosevelt must offer so as not to lose accreditation)
allowed a discussion of Zionism. The professor grieved the firing with
the Roosevelt adjunct faculty organization, a collective bargaining
union, and the American Philosophical Association, which rebuked
Roosevelt.
Yes, Roosevelt was destroyed in such a manner as to retroactively
destroy the credentials of the hard working students of Roosevelt who
in the 1960s had access to "the poor man's University of Chicago", and
it was destroyed by the same spirit that installs departments of
Shakespeare Denial at Brunel and Concordia.
Upon invading Poland in 1939, the Nazis gathered Polish academics into
university-wide meetings to announce that there was no such thing as a
Polish culture, and that the churches and monuments of Poland had been
designed and built by Germans. Back-talk at these meetings was
carefully noted and shortly thereafter, the dissidents were placed in
concentration camps.
Likewise, and because those to whom evil is done so often do evil in
return, President Rolf Weil, himself a refugee from Hitler, gathered
the Roosevelt professoriate together to announce, in so many words,
that working class students had no right to be able to drop
Wittgenstein's name and possibly embarass the sons and daughters of
corporation executives in Hyde Park, and that henceforth, their
culture was to be one of subordinate data processing and accountancy.
The working class of Chicago had no culture worth mentioning and no
ability to connect this culture with that of Europe except in approved
ways and only on Sunday festivals.
As a direct result, Arthur Anderson, a leading accounting firm
headquartered in Chicago, was destroyed because its midlevel people,
many of them graduates of Roosevelt, had been made into latter-day
helots and slaves without culture, and without the ability, that comes
from general culture and self-knowledge, to speak truth to power when
Arthur Anderson signed off on Enron's lies.
Oh, gee, how did I get from Husserl to Enron? What right do I have to
connect the dots? Take that man's name.
Any questions?
>
> --
> John W. Kennedy
spinoza1111
> On May 15, 9:28 pm,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 16, 12:55 am, Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On May 15, 8:37 pm, Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On May 15, 11:15 am, Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On May 14, 8:05 pm, Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote:
You mistake the precis and the seasoning for the sauce. You seem to
need me to sum it all up for you.
>
> > > > You're Hitler Youth. They, and the punks of the Chinese Cultural
> > > > Revolution, made it their specialty to hold professors and authorities
> > > > (recognizable to them, dimly, as people who could write a complex
> > > > sentence) to standards they did not themselves meet in any fucking
> > > > way.
>
> > > I don't see any professors and authorities here; certainly not you.
> > > You don't seem even capable of composing a comprehensible sentence,
> > > much less a complex one.
>
> > The above sentence ("they, and the punks...") has in fact a sentence
> > diagram and a parse. Therefore, your use of "comprehensible" means "I
> > don't understand it".
>
> No, it means YOU don't understand it. By "comprehensible" I mean
> "makes sense." Your hate-filled diatribes (which obviously originate
> in a deep, and probably justified, self-loathing) don't make sense.
> Comprende now, pard?
"They, and the punks of the Chinese Cultural Revolution, made it their
specialty to hold professors and authorities (recognizable to them,
dimly, as people who could write a complex sentence) to standards they
did not themselves meet in any fucking way."
No, my hate-filled diatribes originate in a deep, and justified,
loathing for you.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > > I did not ask you for documentation that Shakespeare was Shakespeare;
> > > > > I asked you for documentation that antiStratfordism has "been (until
> > > > > this farce at Brunel and Concordia) exclusively a hobby-horse of
> > > > > lunatics, autodidacts, and pretentious twits who ... are discontent,
> > > > > work-shy rogues of the petite bourgeoisie who can't get along with
> > > > > their mates at work, and want to be recognized as having an
> > > > > "aristocratic" attitude towards life that they know only from
> > > > > chocolate box tops."
>
> > > > This is my working hypothesis based on the record.
>
> > > Oh, it's YOUR working hypothesis? To what end, I wonder? You've
> > > already demonstrated the complete lack of power in your life (by
> > > adopting a misunderstanding of Marxism as an excuse for your failed
> > > academic career and endlessly posting drivel to a newsgroup, for God's
> > > sake!). I wonder what your intensions are once you publish your
> > > results to the world? Where will you be publishing, bu the way? RES?
> > > MLA? Or, more probably, alt.humanities.wankers?
>
> > I've already published, most recently in Philosophy Now,
>
> No, you didn't. Philosophy Now bills itself as a magazine of ideas.
> You obviously have no ideas. All you can do is parrot outworn Marxist
> idealogy in defense of your miserable failure of a life.
The article hardly mentioned Marx. It did ask for a deeper and indeed
more analytic treatment of emotions than Nussbaum is able to give.
>
> You published a book review in Philosophy Today, a newsletter that
> ceased publication with the issue in which your review appears. And
> your book review was nothing more than a cut-and-paste from your
> Amazon books "customer review," in which you made the startling
> dicovery that different words have different meanings in different
> contexts. Anybody who wants to read your literary onanism can go tohttp://tinyurl.com/25fa3pand judge for themselves just how much of a
> jargon-larded wankere you are.
Oh, gee, fuck me. I stole from...myself.
>
> > so unlike
> > many of the people here, my ability to do so is not in question,
>
> You're right about that. Your ability is certainly not in question.
>
> > and I
> > have none of that anxiety that fuels these Fascistic attacks.
>
> You are full of anxiety that fuels your fascistic attacks, and with
> good reason. Because deep down inside your ego-encrusted soul, you
> know what you are. You can only waste your time and life on the
> internet screaming "fuck you" and calling people nazis to reassure
> yourself that your life hasn't been a complete and total waste.
I'd suggest you're out of your depth.
>
>
>
> > > > Are you aware that
> > > > one major Shakespeare denier is a stock tout and another a journalist,
> > > > and that neither have any credentials? I've already provided this
> > > > evidence and these informal citations, and if you were asleep and
> > > > didn't do you're homework, I have no sympathy, whatsoever, for you.
>
> > > > > So pay attention. If you can't understand, get someone smarter than
> > > > > you (just ask any passer-by on the street, if need be) to explain it
> > > > > to you.
>
> > > > HitlerJugend.
>
> > > Such witty riposte! Really, you're too subtle.
>
> > > > > > > > by the smirk which refers only to the
> > > > > > > > "ignorance" of the fact's author as if the smirker has inside
> > > > > > > > information, but this
>
Ms. Mouse
> Ms. Mouse wrote:
> > On May 15, 9:55 pm, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> My sense of what Shakespeare deniers are like is based on my
> >> experience as an adjunct and employee at a range of universities, and
> >> my insider knowledge of just how Roosevelt University in Chicago was
> >> destroyed. It's original research based on reading and life
> >> experience, and no little snot nose is going to demand "citations"
> >> where people actually say, hey hey hey, we're little snot noses.
> > Roosevelt University was destroyed by non-Strats? I didn't realise we
> > were so influential.
>
> I cannot for the life of me find that it has ever been "destroyed" at all.
No, well, there is that too, of course.
I'm sitting listening to Mozart's Sinfonia Concertante for violin and
viola, the slow movement. Incredible. Perhaps we could get Nilges to
listen to some good music and calm down.
>
> --
> John W. Kennedy
David Kathman
> Ms. Mouse wrote:
> > On May 15, 9:55 pm, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> My sense of what Shakespeare deniers are like is based on my
> >> experience as an adjunct and employee at a range of universities, and
> >> my insider knowledge of just how Roosevelt University in Chicago was
> >> destroyed. It's original research based on reading and life
> >> experience, and no little snot nose is going to demand "citations"
> >> where people actually say, hey hey hey, we're little snot noses.
> > Roosevelt University was destroyed by non-Strats? I didn't realise we
> > were so influential.
>
> I cannot for the life of me find that it has ever been "destroyed" at all.
I often pass by Roosevelt University in downtown Chicago. Last time I
noticed, it was still there.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
spinoza1111
> Ms. Mouse wrote:
> > On May 15, 9:55 pm, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> My sense of what Shakespeare deniers are like is based on my
> >> experience as an adjunct and employee at a range of universities, and
> >> my insider knowledge of just how Roosevelt University in Chicago was
> >> destroyed. It's original research based on reading and life
> >> experience, and no little snot nose is going to demand "citations"
> >> where people actually say, hey hey hey, we're little snot noses.
> > Roosevelt University was destroyed by non-Strats? I didn't realise we
> > were so influential.
>
> I cannot for the life of me find that it has ever been "destroyed" at all.
In 1970, E. D. Klemke, the chair of the Philosophy department, was
delivering classes in Philosophy of Logic that included the close-
reading of Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, then a
relatively unknown text. D. Temple offered a complete class in Quine's
Set Theory and Its Logic up to and including a class assignment: using
Quine's system, prove the validity of mathematical induction (my
solution was on five pages). Farhang Zabeeh was teaching classes in
Continental philosophy including Husserl and phenomenology.
In 2007, the philosophy department had been merged into a portmanteau
department of "Philosophy, History and Art History". This department
was chaired by an art history PhD whose Web site annotated her degree
"abd" which apparently means "all but dissertation".
About the only class being offered in "philosophy" was a class in
World Religion. This was taught by adjuncts in such poor conditions
that some years prior the adjuncts had unionized under Illinois law,
forming a collective bargaining unit called the Roosevelt Adjunct
Faculty Association.
However, and because American unions are restricted by the Taft-
Hartley union busting act of 1948 to restrict negotiations to pay and
benefits, Roosevelt was hiring adjuncts sight unseen with phone
interviews and at the last minute when enrollments meant that the
class could not be cancelled.
One such adjunct allowed a discussion of Zionism in his class on World
Religion and was fired for this reason by the chair, who told him
during the termination that "the Palestinians are animals". Instead of
going gentle, Douglas Giles grieved the firing with RAFO and also was
able to involve the American Philosophical Association which passed a
resolution critical of Roosevelt for not allowing on-topic discussion
of Zionism in a class on World Religions.
However, the situation is unabated at Roosevelt University.
This was a deliberate plan in which "the poor man's University of
Chicago" was intellectually downsized to a racist joke amongst Chicago
employers, retroactively destroying the value of a Roosevelt degree
for all Roosevelt alumni, many of them black, brown and from poor
families who found themselves saddled with a degree from a university
that, in part because it wasn't teaching the humanities or cultural
literacy, was a byword and a joke, and described in a 1987 article in
the Wall Street Journal as a diploma mill, although at that point,
while not offering decent classes, Roosevelt WAS forcing its students
to learn.
Although the Roosevelt president who initiated the anti-intellectual
downsizing of Roosevelt in the early 1970s, Rolf Weil, was himself a
refugee from Hitler, the process over time resembled the takeover of
Polish universities after the 1939 invasion of Poland by the Nazis, in
which professors were gathered together to be told by their new
overlords that the Polish people had no culture worth respecting and
were to be hewers of wood and drawers of water.
In like manner, as professor Klemke told me before his death, Rolf
Weil had told him that poor, minority, and lower middle class students
were beyond any kind of redemption, with no culture worth celebrating
of their own, undeserving of accessing high culture, and to be tracked
into jobs as computer programmers and accountants with a low glass
ceiling...while humanities programmes continued to flourish at private
universities of the rich.
As a direct result, Arthur Anderson, the Chicago-based accountancy
firm and Enron auditor, was by 2000 staffed by yes men with low
culture who'd had no exposure to Chicago's own literary tradition,
including its Socialist questioning of management prerogatives, and
Anderson therefore certified completely bogus financial reports, which
destroyed the livelihood of thousands of Enron and Arthur Anderson
employees.
People, of low or no culture, who'd never been permitted to discuss or
reflect on ethical issues, accepted in offices that "they know what
they are doing", with its implication that "we are dumb bastards
without a culture of our own or the right to access high culture"
until shown the door after the collapse of Arthur Anderson, staffed as
it was at low levels with yes-men and dogs bodies churned out by
Roosevelt and DePaul.
So indeed Roosevelt was destroyed.
>
> --
> John W. Kennedy
spinoza1111
> > On May 15, 9:55 pm, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> My sense of what Shakespeare deniers are like is based on my
> >> experience as an adjunct and employee at a range of universities, and
> >> my insider knowledge of just how Roosevelt University in Chicago was
> >> destroyed. It's original research based on reading and life
> >> experience, and no little snot nose is going to demand "citations"
> >> where people actually say, hey hey hey, we're little snot noses.
> > Roosevelt University was destroyed by non-Strats? I didn't realise we
> > were so influential.
>
> I cannot for the life of me find that it has ever been "destroyed" at all.
>
> --
> John W. Kennedy
spinoza1111
> > On May 15, 9:55 pm, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> My sense of what Shakespeare deniers are like is based on my
> >> experience as an adjunct and employee at a range of universities, and
> >> my insider knowledge of just how Roosevelt University in Chicago was
> >> destroyed. It's original research based on reading and life
> >> experience, and no little snot nose is going to demand "citations"
> >> where people actually say, hey hey hey, we're little snot noses.
> > Roosevelt University was destroyed by non-Strats? I didn't realise we
> > were so influential.
This is idiotic. It consists in the deliberate, or possibly ignorant,
disregard of mere grammar and squashes names together.
The people who here style themselves "Strats" are for the most part
equally ignorant and equally culpable of creating a DUHbate, where a
DUHbate is a fabricated DUHbate, fabricated to distract losers from
the miserable conditions of their lives by raising a question in bad
faith, a question that is settled if historical methodology is even
possible.
This Bob Grumman character, for example, takes us recently on a *tour
d'horizon* of his remarkably ignorant, and racist view of the world.
He's a "strat".
>
> I cannot for the life of me find that it has ever been "destroyed" at all.
>
> --
> John W. Kennedy
spinoza1111
Mutual fund analysis isn't "utterly and completely different" from
flogging stocks. Both are activities engaged in for profit and salary,
and the stock tout if honest also does analysis.
A PhD in linguistics from the University of Chicago is an admirable
accomplishment but not a qualification for rejecting Shakespeare's
authorship, especially if you went off on a career tangent, with all
due respect.
Ms. Mouse
> On May 15, 11:22 am, "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 15, 11:39 am, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > This is my working hypothesis based on the record. Are you aware that
> > > one major Shakespeare denier is a stock tout
>
> > David Kathman is a stockbroker, I believe, and has a PhD. But to whom
> > are you referring?
>
> No, I am not a stockbroker. I am a mutual fund analyst, which is
> utterly and completely different. Stockbrokers buy and sell stocks on
> behalf of clients. I talk to mutual fund managers about how they
> manage their funds, then write analyses for public consumption in
> which I analyze the fund and give my opinion of it. I also do
> research on investing and mutual funds and write articles about it,
> for both print and online publications. I don't think I could ever be
> a stockbroker, which involves a lot of salesmanship. In my current
> job, I do a lot of writing and thinking and research and analyzing.
Thanks for setting the record straight, Dave, though I don't think
it'll make that much difference to Spinoza.
>
> And I do have a Ph.D., in linguistics from the University of Chicago
> (1994).
Yes, I mentioned your PhD. I'm still waiting for Spinoza to name the
"Shakespeare Denier" stock tout (whatever that might be) who has no
qualifications.
L.
>
> Dave Kathman
> d...@ix.netcom.com
Ms. Mouse
Yes, according to your logic, if logic it might be called, the Chair
with the abd, Susan Weininger, who fired the adjunct, must have been a
non-Stratfordian. Could you please give some evidence for this, as I
see none?
Thanks much,
Mouse
>
>
>
>
>
> > --
> > John W. Kennedy
> > Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/Double%20Falshood/index.html
> > * TagZilla 0.066 *http://tagzilla.mozdev.org- Hide quoted text -
Tom Reedy
Well, that's progress. At least you've admitted who the hater is here.
Now if you could only rightly determine the target of that hate, maybe
your life would not be so pathetic. Frankly, I'm not optimistic about
your chances. It's hard for an old washed-up never-was to learn new
tricks.
> > http://tinyurl.com/25fa3pandjudge for themselves just how much of a
> > jargon-larded wankere you are.
>
> Oh, gee, fuck me. I stole from...myself.
Yes, you passed off an Amazon "reader review" to a newsletter (which
is, or should be, indicative of the quality of that venue) and then
tried to pass it off here as an academic qualification, conveniently
altering the name to try to pass it off as having more value than it
does.
That's three deceptions, and now you're trying to change the subject.
You're a serial liar.
Your entire life has been a matter of deception, of passing off
falsity as truth, and not the least of it the deception you practice
upon yourself.
> > > so unlike
> > > many of the people here, my ability to do so is not in question,
>
> > You're right about that. Your ability is certainly not in question.
>
> > > and I
> > > have none of that anxiety that fuels these Fascistic attacks.
>
> > You are full of anxiety that fuels your fascistic attacks, and with
> > good reason. Because deep down inside your ego-encrusted soul, you
> > know what you are. You can only waste your time and life on the
> > internet screaming "fuck you" and calling people nazis to reassure
> > yourself that your life hasn't been a complete and total waste.
>
> I'd suggest you're out of your depth.
What? Is that all I get? No "fuck you," no "Hitler youth," no "Nazi
thug?" I'm disappointed that you're depriving us of your witty
ripostes.
But as you say, I'm probably out of my depth. I'm not accustomed to
living chin-deep in shit the way you are.
Ms. Mouse
> On May 17, 3:42 am, "John W. Kennedy" <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > Ms. Mouse wrote:
> > > On May 15, 9:55 pm, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> My sense of what Shakespeare deniers are like is based on my
> > >> experience as an adjunct and employee at a range of universities, and
> > >> my insider knowledge of just how Roosevelt University in Chicago was
> > >> destroyed. It's original research based on reading and life
> > >> experience, and no little snot nose is going to demand "citations"
> > >> where people actually say, hey hey hey, we're little snot noses.
> > > Roosevelt University was destroyed by non-Strats? I didn't realise we
> > > were so influential.
>
> This is idiotic. It consists in the deliberate, or possibly ignorant,
> disregard of mere grammar and squashes names together.
It is you who conflate everything, not I. You said quite clearly that
you "sensed" what non-Strats were like because of the destruction of
Roosevelt U (!) by a chairperson without a PhD. I have no idea why you
said that, the whole paragraph looked ludicrous to me, but say it you
did.
>
> The people who here style themselves "Strats" are for the most part
> equally ignorant and equally culpable of creating a DUHbate, where a
> DUHbate is a fabricated DUHbate, fabricated to distract losers from
> the miserable conditions of their lives by raising a question in bad
> faith, a question that is settled if historical methodology is even
> possible.
>
> This Bob Grumman character, for example, takes us recently on a *tour
> d'horizon* of his remarkably ignorant, and racist view of the world.
> He's a "strat".
Yes, Bob is a good friend of mine. I know him quite well both on and
off hlas. How well did you get to know him before calling him an
ignorant racist?
Mouse
>
>
>
>
>
> > I cannot for the life of me find that it has ever been "destroyed" at all.
>
> > --
> > John W. Kennedy
> > Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/Double%20Falshood/index.html
> > * TagZilla 0.066 *http://tagzilla.mozdev.org- Hide quoted text -
Ms. Mouse
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dave runs a pro-Stratford website with Terry Ross. Shows how much you
know about the authorship debate.
L.
David Kathman
> On May 17, 6:41 am, David Kathman <d...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 15, 11:22 am, "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 15, 11:39 am, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > This is my working hypothesis based on the record. Are you aware that
> > > > one major Shakespeare denier is a stock tout
>
> > > David Kathman is a stockbroker, I believe, and has a PhD. But to whom
> > > are you referring?
>
> > No, I am not a stockbroker. I am a mutual fund analyst, which is
> > utterly and completely different. Stockbrokers buy and sell stocks on
> > behalf of clients. I talk to mutual fund managers about how they
> > manage their funds, then write analyses for public consumption in
> > which I analyze the fund and give my opinion of it. I also do
> > research on investing and mutual funds and write articles about it,
> > for both print and online publications. I don't think I could ever be
> > a stockbroker, which involves a lot of salesmanship. In my current
> > job, I do a lot of writing and thinking and research and analyzing.
>
> > And I do have a Ph.D., in linguistics from the University of Chicago
> > (1994).
>
> > Dave Kathman
> > d...@ix.netcom.com
>
> Mutual fund analysis isn't "utterly and completely different" from
> flogging stocks. Both are activities engaged in for profit and salary,
> and the stock tout if honest also does analysis.
Well, anybody who works for a living engages in "activities... for
profit and salary", so I'm not sure what your point is there. Both
mutual fund analysis and "flogging stocks" require knowledge of the
financial markets, so in that sense they're broadly similar, but
they're really quite different things. I work for a company
(Morningstar) that provides independent analysis for anybody who wants
access to it (through a subscription), and we don't buy or sell, or
promote the purchase or sale of, specific mutual funds or stocks. (We
also have about 100 stock analysts in addition to the 25 mutual fund
analysts, of which I am one.) This is very different from analysts
who work for brokerage houses that do buy and sell stocks, which
caused all kinds of conflicts of interest during the stock-market
bubble.
> A PhD in linguistics from the University of Chicago is an admirable
> accomplishment but not a qualification for rejecting Shakespeare's
> authorship, especially if you went off on a career tangent, with all
> due respect.
Um, I don't reject Shakespeare's authorship -- I *defend* it against
people who try to reject it. Go to http://shakespeareauthorship.com
and check it out. Although I do not currently make my living in
academia, I regularly publish in peer-reviewed professional journals
such as Shakespeare Quarterly, Shakespeare Survey, and Early Theatre,
and I contribute to such reference works as the Oxford Dictionary of
National Biography (for which I wrote 37 articles) and the upcoming
Shakespeare Encyclopedia (for which I'm writing several dozen
articles). I do all that parallel to my "day job", which is very
interesting and fulfilling in itself, and not a "career tangent".
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
David Kathman
> On May 16, 6:41 pm, David Kathman <d...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 15, 11:22 am, "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 15, 11:39 am, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > This is my working hypothesis based on the record. Are you aware that
> > > > one major Shakespeare denier is a stock tout
>
> > > David Kathman is a stockbroker, I believe, and has a PhD. But to whom
> > > are you referring?
>
> > No, I am not a stockbroker. I am a mutual fund analyst, which is
> > utterly and completely different. Stockbrokers buy and sell stocks on
> > behalf of clients. I talk to mutual fund managers about how they
> > manage their funds, then write analyses for public consumption in
> > which I analyze the fund and give my opinion of it. I also do
> > research on investing and mutual funds and write articles about it,
> > for both print and online publications. I don't think I could ever be
> > a stockbroker, which involves a lot of salesmanship. In my current
> > job, I do a lot of writing and thinking and research and analyzing.
>
> Thanks for setting the record straight, Dave, though I don't think
> it'll make that much difference to Spinoza.
It apparently didn't, judging from his reply above.
> > And I do have a Ph.D., in linguistics from the University of Chicago
> > (1994).
>
> Yes, I mentioned your PhD. I'm still waiting for Spinoza to name the
> "Shakespeare Denier" stock tout (whatever that might be) who has no
> qualifications.
He seems to be under the mistaken impression that I am a Shakespeare
denier, so I'm pretty sure he was thinking of me.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Tom Reedy
That's indictment enough to his mind. He himself is now forced to
suffer the indignity of laboring for his bread instead of being
recognized for the genius he is. In his perfect Marxist world, he
would need not sully his hands with labor, but instead be taken care
of by the fruits of the labor of others, therefore being freed to
exercise his intellect on the higher pursuits not capable of being
understood by the mere ordinary masses. The masses, of course, would
be grateful to make the sacrifice.
TR
> Both
> mutual fund analysis and "flogging stocks" require knowledge of the
> financial markets, so in that sense they're broadly similar, but
> they're really quite different things. I work for a company
> (Morningstar) that provides independent analysis for anybody who wants
> access to it (through a subscription), and we don't buy or sell, or
> promote the purchase or sale of, specific mutual funds or stocks. (We
> also have about 100 stock analysts in addition to the 25 mutual fund
> analysts, of which I am one.) This is very different from analysts
> who work for brokerage houses that do buy and sell stocks, which
> caused all kinds of conflicts of interest during the stock-market
> bubble.
>
> > A PhD in linguistics from the University of Chicago is an admirable
> > accomplishment but not a qualification for rejecting Shakespeare's
> > authorship, especially if you went off on a career tangent, with all
> > due respect.
>
> Um, I don't reject Shakespeare's authorship -- I *defend* it against
> people who try to reject it. Go tohttp://shakespeareauthorship.com
> and check it out. Although I do not currently make my living in
> academia, I regularly publish in peer-reviewed professional journals
> such as Shakespeare Quarterly, Shakespeare Survey, and Early Theatre,
> and I contribute to such reference works as the Oxford Dictionary of
> National Biography (for which I wrote 37 articles) and the upcoming
> Shakespeare Encyclopedia (for which I'm writing several dozen
> articles). I do all that parallel to my "day job", which is very
> interesting and fulfilling in itself, and not a "career tangent".
>
> Dave Kathman
> d...@ix.netcom.com- Hide quoted text -
John W. Kennedy
> On May 17, 1:53 am, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On May 17, 3:42 am, "John W. Kennedy" <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Ms. Mouse wrote:
>>>> On May 15, 9:55 pm, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> My sense of what Shakespeare deniers are like is based on my
>>>>> experience as an adjunct and employee at a range of universities, and
>>>>> my insider knowledge of just how Roosevelt University in Chicago was
>>>>> destroyed. It's original research based on reading and life
>>>>> experience, and no little snot nose is going to demand "citations"
>>>>> where people actually say, hey hey hey, we're little snot noses.
>>>> Roosevelt University was destroyed by non-Strats? I didn't realise we
>>>> were so influential.
>> This is idiotic. It consists in the deliberate, or possibly ignorant,
>> disregard of mere grammar and squashes names together.
>
> It is you who conflate everything, not I. You said quite clearly that
> you "sensed" what non-Strats were like because of the destruction of
> Roosevelt U (!) by a chairperson without a PhD. I have no idea why you
> said that, the whole paragraph looked ludicrous to me, but say it you
> did.
He also neglects to mention that the matter was resolved to the
satisfaction of the RAFO and the man in question was offered his job
back, which he declined. (I confess, however, that I find the story
/very/ disturbing.)
--
John W. Kennedy
"Never try to take over the international economy based on a radical
feminist agenda if you're not sure your leader isn't a transvestite."
-- David Misch: "She-Spies", "While You Were Out"
Ms. Mouse
Yes, me too. I was horrified. But even so, it had nothing to do with
non-Stratfordians. Spin just takes anything negative, and ties it to
non-Strats. And over the last day or two, to some traditionalists
also.
L.
>
> --
> John W. Kennedy
> "Never try to take over the international economy based on a radical
> feminist agenda if you're not sure your leader isn't a transvestite."
> -- David Misch: "She-Spies", "While You Were Out"
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Thanks for the support, Mouse. I isn't at all ignorant.
--Bob
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> it'll make that much difference to Spinoza.
Ha, it already has: did you notice how he quieted into respect after
hearing Dave had a . . . Ph.D.--from a bigtime University!
--Bob G.
book...@yahoo.com
That's good. "Serial liar" is good.
Ms. Mouse
>
> - Show quoted text -
Not much of the time, you ain't.
Mowse
spinoza1111
The illogic is yours. I'm not interested in the Shakespeare authorship
duh-bate per se because it was created to create duh-doubt about the
ability of subalterned people to know in order to disempower them. I
am VERY concerned with what's being done to subaltern education,
because it's being systematically made different in kind from elite
education by the creation of what I've called duh-doubt in duh-bate in
pseudo causes including Shakespeare denial, Holocaust denial, global
warming denial and Creationism.
Like SOME forms of mutual fund floggage, it makes a scarcity of a
common treasury.
You're responsible here for presenting your misunderstanding, whether
willed or unwilled, of the graph of relationships I have presented. It
was clear that Shakespeare Denial is presented, by me, as a token of a
type.
The fundamental ABSURDITY is that the central question about an author
about whom so much could be said, and whose political/Roman plays are
still so relevant, could be whether he wrote the plays.
You are being intellectually dishonest to the point of fraud in
misrepresentation, Ms. "Mouse", and I'll ask you to cease and desist.
>
> Thanks much,
> Mouse
>
>
>
>
>
> > > --
> > > John W. Kennedy
> > > Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/Double%20Falshood/index.html
> > > * TagZilla 0.066 *http://tagzilla.mozdev.org-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
spinoza1111
but.net> wrote:
> On May 17, 11:13 am, "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 17, 1:53 am,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 17, 3:42 am, "John W. Kennedy" <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Ms. Mouse wrote:
Yes you is. You took us on a *tour d'horizon* and when we arrived in
Africa you dared me to call you a racist, because you dismissed a
continent which is arising in SPITE of what's been done to it, from
King Leopold to the CIA. And, I did. I called you a "racist son of a
bitch".
I then documented my charge with the facts about Africa today as
always, which makes Ms. Mouse absurd when she cheeps, and asks for
"cites".
Shakespeare's identity needs no defense from your ilk. Instead, we
need a discussion as to why he WASN'T a racist son of a bitch, because
he had a premodern consciousness in which Asia and Africa were (cf.
Clive Ponting, WORLD HISTORY) more developed than Europe...there were
kingdoms in Africa about which we know little since they didn't
preserve records, and Europeans, starting in the 14th century, were
struggling to get to Asia to buy stuff that Europeans couldn't
produce.
Why does Pistol speak of "Africa, and golden joys?"
Marlowe's Barabbas is a cardboard villain. A comparision with Shylock
and Othello means that to be a Marlovian, you have to believe that Kit
Marlowe got whacked over the head in Deptford and turned into a
different person.
On stylistic grounds alone, in part measurable by concordances and
automated tools, Shakespeare is *sui generis* with respect to any
other known author, therefore the candidate has to be an author ONLY
of the Shakespearean canon starting with the First Folio and then
enriched by plays and parts of plays like Edward III which can be
shown by modern tools stylistically parallel.
But, this unknown author has to be a person who was educated at the
grammar school level to put words together in such a way that he
could, in the Shakespearean register, carry a metaphor over several
lines; this level of skill was prerequisite for admission to the
Elizabethan university and only enriched there.
At the same time, he had to be a person who saw plebeian scenes
without contempt (greasy Joan doth keel the pot). He would have to be
a person who listened to the likes of gravediggers as they worked, not
as they paused to tug their forelocks as the Quality passed by.
Shakespeare Deniers simply have no understanding of the class system's
brutal divides! Charles I on the dock struck the lawyer who read his
charge, John Cooke, with a silver cane that Charles used to discipline
servitors so hard that the tip fell off, then expected Cooke to pick
it up, which Cooke refused to do.
Charles I or Oxford or Rutland simply wouldn't have HEARD a porter
reflect on the gates of Hell, or gravediggers debate canon law!
They see right through the lower clawsses but a cat may look upon a
king.
When Brunel university sends me an invitation to speak on the
"Stratfordian" side, sending me first-class tickets for my favorite
airline (Emirates), I shall return the tickets unused. This is because
I, like Charles I, do not recognize their authority. Brunel is an
engineering school, which means that it has no academic right to open
a question like this.
>
> --Bob- Hide quoted text -
Peter Farey
Bob Grumman wrote:
>
> Ha, it already has: did you notice how he quieted into
> respect after hearing Dave had a . . . Ph.D.--from a
> bigtime University!
Unlike "Brunel University in the UK, whose very name
celebrates a minor Victorian engineer who built an ugly
ship and an ugly bridge"
...and who in a BBC survey last year was voted (ahead
of Darwin, Shakespeare and Newton, among others)
the second greatest Briton of all time, beaten only by
Winston Churchill.
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
spinoza1111
> >> On May 17, 3:42 am, "John W. Kennedy" <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >>> Ms. Mouse wrote:
> >>>>> My sense of what Shakespeare deniers are like is based on my
> >>>>> experience as an adjunct and employee at a range of universities, and
> >>>>> my insider knowledge of just how Roosevelt University in Chicago was
> >>>>> destroyed. It's original research based on reading and life
> >>>>> experience, and no little snot nose is going to demand "citations"
> >>>>> where people actually say, hey hey hey, we're little snot noses.
> >>>> Roosevelt University was destroyed by non-Strats? I didn't realise we
> >>>> were so influential.
> >> This is idiotic. It consists in the deliberate, or possibly ignorant,
> >> disregard of mere grammar and squashes names together.
>
> > It is you who conflate everything, not I. You said quite clearly that
> > you "sensed" what non-Strats were like because of the destruction of
> > Roosevelt U (!) by a chairperson without a PhD. I have no idea why you
> > said that, the whole paragraph looked ludicrous to me, but say it you
> > did.
>
> He also neglects to mention that the matter was resolved to the
> satisfaction of the RAFO and the man in question was offered his job
> back, which he declined. (I confess, however, that I find the story
> /very/ disturbing.)
That's right.
Why do you find the story disturbing? There have been many indications
that at universities accessible to working people, educational quality
has been declining, NOT because of "tenured radicalism" (an urban
legend) but because increasingly, theory and politics have become no-
fly zones.
In the 1990s, a computer science instructor at New York University was
sued by students for assigning the calculation of Avogadro's number
because the students, egged on by the likes of the Wall Street
Journal, didn't "think" that this was relevant to "business"
programming. Worldwide, hardworking computer science professors are
perennially battling the anti-intellectualism of students who can't
debug a simple program and want a magic bullet.
I had to teach data base remedially at one school because the
introductory professor, while he ran his classes with military
precision, hadn't taught relational data base at all, because he
regarded it as a passing fad.
Alan Dershowitz is persecuting an adjunct trying to get tenure at
DePaul because the adjunct's field happens to be a neutral study of
Zionism as an historical and a religious movement. Over the past ten
years, to merely use the word "Zionism" indicates that one has a
political ontology that negates the most extreme form of Zionism
("greater Israel"): the takeover of as much land as possible in
Palestine and environs by a wealthy and well-funded colonial elite
which puts Jewish settlers and their children at terrible risk for
Israeli and United States strategic goals.
To channel student anger, a form of energy, duh-bate is fostered to
create duh-doubt, a duh-doubt which claims the right to be selectively
"skeptical" while refusing (for example) to even use words like
"Zionism" or "capitalism" because duh-doubt always exists with
absolute, Fundamentalist belief. It's only "skeptical" about
professors and causes that have attracted the anger of powerful
elites, or safe causes such as Shakespeare's authorship, where duh-
doubt about Shakespeare performs, elegantly, the ideological work of
telling the working class, oh and by the way, fuckhead, your kind
can't write worth sheeit and they never could, so you might as well
major in computer science, fuckhead...practical, applied, business
computer science.
>
> --
> John W. Kennedy
> "Never try to take over the international economy based on a radical
> feminist agenda if you're not sure your leader isn't a transvestite."
> -- David Misch: "She-Spies", "While You Were Out"
spinoza1111
> >> On May 17, 3:42 am, "John W. Kennedy" <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >>> Ms. Mouse wrote:
> >>>>> My sense of what Shakespeare deniers are like is based on my
> >>>>> experience as an adjunct and employee at a range of universities, and
> >>>>> my insider knowledge of just how Roosevelt University in Chicago was
> >>>>> destroyed. It's original research based on reading and life
> >>>>> experience, and no little snot nose is going to demand "citations"
> >>>>> where people actually say, hey hey hey, we're little snot noses.
> >>>> Roosevelt University was destroyed by non-Strats? I didn't realise we
> >>>> were so influential.
> >> This is idiotic. It consists in the deliberate, or possibly ignorant,
> >> disregard of mere grammar and squashes names together.
>
> > It is you who conflate everything, not I. You said quite clearly that
> > you "sensed" what non-Strats were like because of the destruction of
> > Roosevelt U (!) by a chairperson without a PhD. I have no idea why you
> > said that, the whole paragraph looked ludicrous to me, but say it you
> > did.
>
> He also neglects to mention that the matter was resolved to the
Who's "he"? If you want to address my points, buddy, speak to ME.
> satisfaction of the RAFO and the man in question was offered his job
> back, which he declined. (I confess, however, that I find the story
> /very/ disturbing.)
>
> --
> John W. Kennedy
> "Never try to take over the international economy based on a radical
> feminist agenda if you're not sure your leader isn't a transvestite."
> -- David Misch: "She-Spies", "While You Were Out"
lackpurity
MM:
Hi Ms. Mouse. It might be a case of misuderstanding. Thomas Carlyle,
the successor of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, and predecessor of Alfred
Lord Tennyson, Robert Browning, Elizabeth Barrett Browning, and Ralph
Waldo Emerson, wrote a book, "Heroes, Hero Worship, and the Heroic."
Shakespeare is mentioned as one of the HEROES (Hero as Poet.) Of
course, Carlyle meant Mystics. It is clear that he mentioned that a
HERO could be WORSHIPPED.
Anti-Strats do not consider the Honorable William Shakespeare to be a
HERO, nor a MASTER, nor even the writer of the canon. This tends to
irritate the Strats, I think.
Now, Spinoza has compared this to what happened at Roosevelt
University. I don't know, but maybe he thinks it used to be good, but
is not anymore? Maybe he thinks Anti-Strats would like to destroy the
Shakespeare Tradition?
I think we Strats tend to take the Shakespeare Rip-Off much more
seriously than Anti-Strats. It's kind of like the situation, which
resulted in Christ's crucifixion. Remember, the people chose Barabbas
over Christ? They didn't take Christ too seriously, obviously.
Michael Martin
>
>
>
>
>
> > --
> > John W. Kennedy
> > "Never try to take over the international economy based on a radical
> > feminist agenda if you're not sure your leader isn't a transvestite."
> > -- David Misch: "She-Spies", "While You Were Out"
> > * TagZilla 0.066 *http://tagzilla.mozdev.org-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
spinoza1111
> On May 17, 11:43 am, David Kathman <d...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 17, 4:52 am,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On May 17, 6:41 am, David Kathman <d...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > > On May 15, 11:22 am, "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sounds good to me. And you are happy in your work? Does your arbeit
macht you free?
Actually, I worked in mainland China, and one thing I enjoyed was the
way my Chinese mates and I would install a network as a team without
the backstabbing and soldiering I saw in the USA. I DIDN'T like the
control of the Internet and the press.
I think we all have the right to work and take our leisure, but in
America, people are increasingly forced to work longer and longer
hours for the basics of a civilized existence, basics which far poorer
countries, such as Cuba and Venezuela, seem to provide. And, while
America provides formal "free speech", I saw what happened to Dan
Rather when he tried to actually exercise it, and name the men and
women who were dying in Iraq: he lost his job.
Actual experience can generate theory, actually, that's the only
useful theory, isn't it. So if a man experiences things that suck, is
he supposed to offer it all up to Jesus? Or is he supposed to become a
raging and silenced nihilist in a bar?
Increasingly aged Baby Boomer men are becoming sad and in some cases
horrific cases except insofar as they disappear within a family,
giving everything to their increasingly alienated teenagers and
getting nothing but amused tolerance at best from their wives and
children while they slave to provide those families with the basics of
a civilized existence: a home and health care. This is because they've
been told, in countless ways, that ANY critique is "whining" and that
a "real man" sucks it up.
But what do I see in mainland China? If a man's land is taken by
capitalists, he gets rowdy in a police state and takes a terrible
risk. What do I see in France? People take to the streets and they get
rowdy.
While back in America it's The Silence of the Lambs. All these aging
tough guys like lambs to the slaughter.
Any questions?
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ms. Mouse
I think you should be careful about calling people frauds. And cease
and desist what? Being a non-Stratfordian? No sir, I won't.
And you sir, by equating non-Stratfordianism with Holocaust Denial,
Nazism, fascism, Global warming denial, creationism, Cho, and--haha--a
chairman at Roosevelt university, and by ludicrously labelling some
Stratfordians non-Strats to make your entirely delusional points, have
demonstrated that you are a fool, and what is more, a fool without
peer on hlas.
Mouse
>
>
>
>
>
> > Thanks much,
> > Mouse
>
> > > > --
> > > > John W. Kennedy
> > > > Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/Double%20Falshood/index.html
> > > > * TagZilla 0.066 *http://tagzilla.mozdev.org-Hidequoted text -
conra...@gmail.com
>
> It is hard to see how they can engage in a
> successful conspiracy if they are, in fact, ignorant.
> (There are isolated exceptions (e.g., you) however.)
Good LORD!
Art! You *wrote* something!
Conrad.
conra...@gmail.com
> On May 15, 9:15 pm, "T.M. Sommers" <t...@nj.net> wrote:
>
> > spinoza1111 wrote:
>
> > > Like amateurs who bother mathematicians with invalid "proofs" of
> > > Goldbach's conjecture,
>
> > A lousy analogy; since Goldbach's Conjecture is probably true, at
> > least those submitting the invalid proofs are on the sensible
> > side of the argument.
>
> No, they are not. Sure, the probability of a counterexample diminishes
> with larger and larger numbers, but a formal and certain proof won't
> be proved by statistics...not ever, in my layman's understanding.
>
> Furthermore, being on the "sensible" side of an argument is a
> prescription for mathematical failure because so much surprises us in
> mathematics.
Absolutely right -- in mathematics, as well as other fields.
Conrd.
Art Neuendorffer
>
> > It is hard to see how they can engage in a
> > successful conspiracy if they are, in fact, ignorant.
> > (There are isolated exceptions (e.g., you) however.)
I feel that it is important to distinguish myself
from Oxfordians who blithely accuse
Shakespeare scholars of ignorance
.
Art Neuendorffer
spinoza1111
The foolish Mouse be ye, milady, and someone has moved your cheese.
"Equating" is your word and
a==b==c==d==e==fuck all
is your representation of what I have said, a risible failure to
interpret.
My claim is that the phenomena are effects of a cause, which is the
downsizing of education for the lower orders to duh-bate (debate
conducted in bad faith) conducive to duh-doubt (a doubt based on a
skeptical privilege which it denies a self-reflecting skepticism and
which mates with a complementary gullibility as to the sources of duh-
doubt).
It's a=>(b,c,d,e,fuckAll)
Wow, that hurt, didn't it. A complex thought! A star shell illumines
no man's land. The mice look up and are not fed, somebody has moved
their cheese.
The hungry Sheep look up, and are not fed,
But swoln with wind, and the rank mist they draw,
Rot inwardly, and foul contagion spread
(Milton, Lycidas)
>
> Mouse
>
>
>
>
>
> > > Thanks much,
> > > Mouse
>
> > > > > --
> > > > > John W. Kennedy
> > > > > Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/Double%20Falshood/index.html
> > > > > * TagZilla 0.066 *http://tagzilla.mozdev.org-Hidequotedtext -
conra...@gmail.com
wrote:
> I feel that it is important to distinguish myself
> from Oxfordians who blithely accuse
> Shakespeare scholars of ignorance
However your motivation, I prefer the clear, declarative style to the
data-dump technique.
Conrad.
spinoza1111
> > >> My sense of what Shakespeare deniers are like is based on my
> > >> experience as an adjunct and employee at a range of universities, and
> > >> my insider knowledge of just how Roosevelt University in Chicago was
> > >> destroyed. It's original research based on reading and life
> > >> experience, and no little snot nose is going to demand "citations"
> > >> where people actually say, hey hey hey, we're little snot noses.
> > > Roosevelt University was destroyed by non-Strats? I didn't realise we
> > > were so influential.
>
> > I cannot for the life of me find that it has ever been "destroyed" at all.
>
>
> I'm sitting listening to Mozart's Sinfonia Concertante for violin and
> viola, the slow movement. Incredible. Perhaps we could getNilgesto
> listen to some good music and calm down.
I'd remark that whenever we try to "explain" art (as in the case when
we buy one of those crap *pastiche* CDs containing fragments of
movements of classical works to "control our stress") we're both
avoiding addressing the causes of stress and misusing art.
Your comment in other words, Philistine as it is, raises an
interesting question as to what the hell art is "for", or indeed
whether it is "for" anything at all.
Shakespeare isn't "for", he's about the truth of human relations in
excess of sociology. Prior to the 1960s it was uncritically accepted
that a gentleman, going to boys' schools like Princeton, from which
women were excluded, would become more of a gentleman and less of a
yob by exposing himself to Shakespeare rather than to local girls.
The 1960s replaced this form of western Confucianism without replacing
it, since any attempt to upgrade and generalize the name of right
conduct was forestalled as "politically correct" by conservative
thugs.
As well get me to "calm down" and stop thinking by having me to listen
to whatever the goddamn hell you think is "good" music as to chill out
Alex in Anthony Burgess' A Clockwork Orange, oh my cheloveks, oh my
friends, oh my enemies, oh my droogs, by having Alex listen to the
Grosse Fuge.
For what you call calm is the absence of thought.
>
>
>
>
>
> > --
> > John W. Kennedy
> > Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/Double%20Falshood/index.html
> > * TagZilla 0.066 *http://tagzilla.mozdev.org- Hide quoted text -
spinoza1111
> On May 16, 3:42 pm, "John W. Kennedy" <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > Ms. Mouse wrote:
> > > On May 15, 9:55 pm, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> My sense of what Shakespeare deniers are like is based on my
> > >> experience as an adjunct and employee at a range of universities, and
> > >> my insider knowledge of just how Roosevelt University in Chicago was
> > >> destroyed. It's original research based on reading and life
> > >> experience, and no little snot nose is going to demand "citations"
> > >> where people actually say, hey hey hey, we're little snot noses.
> > > Roosevelt University was destroyed by non-Strats? I didn't realise we
> > > were so influential.
>
> > I cannot for the life of me find that it has ever been "destroyed" at all.
>
> No, well, there is that too, of course.
>
> I'm sitting listening to Mozart's Sinfonia Concertante for violin and
> viola, the slow movement. Incredible. Perhaps we could getNilgesto
> listen to some good music and calm down.
I'm sitting listening to the Clash.
Number Three: you have the right to free speech! Unless of course
you're dumb enough to actually try it!
...
...and I was gripped...by that deadly Phantom. I followed him through
hard jungles and nights fulla rain...
Clearly we'll have to eliminate the allegro and have me listen to slow
movements exclusively, and none of that rock and roll. Ms Mouse shall
switch me to decaf on the sly, moving silently on mouse feet.
Largo sostenuto, adagio ma non troppo, molto adagio, exclusively.
News fa lash. Focusing on movements is Philistine and the nonmusician
should not speak of movements. Glenn Gould, may he live in Elysium
refuses to wait between variations at
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6984208089899995423&q=glenn+gould+goldberg+variations,
because he knew that the tears of the Philistine are the nectar of the
Gods, and that underneath the paving stones lie the beach.
Give me an ounce of Valium with a Viagra chaser, good apothecary, and
Nicorette on the side. I gotta go out for a very long run. Very long.
Ten miles. Not to "control my stress" but because human beings must
Create something from nothing, or they die. As did Shakespeare, the
man from Stratford on Avon, husband of Anne Hathaway and father of
Hamnet and Judith.
spinoza1111
Very laudable. And yet, and yet, the equities market remains a place
where the small investor can't catch a break. At best it provides a
nest egg as long as the little guy allows the fund to manage, and this
is only the case during decades-long periods in which the market is
growing.
I'd say that people shouldn't have to speculate to avoid poverty in
their old age, which many do, and that a government-provided pension
scheme would relegate the equities market to a position of relative
unimportance.
As it is, a false need is created for intelligence which is then
sold.
Dave, I too worked in Chicago, and accepted the equation of business
intelligence with intelligence. However, I now believe that it is a
venture conducted in bad faith and that humanity would be better
engaged in a more direct service to human needs in an economy in which
gambling played no part except as a recreation for low fellows.
But you need not lose any sleep over me, since I've et up all my
Hayek. The guy was a GENIUS and almost as smart as Marx! People
damaged by feudal or capitalist relations cannot it seem cross de
river into an economy based on share and share alike because they take
their highly developed *penchant* for grab-ass across de river into
Zion, and make a Hell in Heaven's despite.
>
> > A PhD in linguistics from the University of Chicago is an admirable
> > accomplishment but not a qualification for rejecting Shakespeare's
> > authorship, especially if you went off on a career tangent, with all
> > due respect.
>
> Um, I don't reject Shakespeare's authorship -- I *defend* it against
> people who try to reject it. Go tohttp://shakespeareauthorship.com
I'm afraid you dignify a duh-bate because the issue of authorship
appears to be closed amongst people who swot Shakespeare for a living.
To make an *amateur* effort out of defending "Stratfordianism" is to
take up a cudgel in defense of an illegitimate attack on the bona
fides of academics.
Attacking the good faith of academics is of course an indoor sport of
readers of the Wall Street Journal, and one thing that sickened me
about working in Chicago was the way in which tenure not getters from
the U of C would, in the vilest terms, attack THEORY in my own trade,
computer programming, terminating programmers for using a linked list
as late as 1979 because linked lists were "academic" and the
maintenance programmers they planned on recruiting from the dregs of
society "wouldn't understand" the code.
I therefore invite you to abandon your overly narrow efforts and join
my more broad-based attack on a more general phenomenon, which is the
moronization of culture by commodification!
Watch The Little Red Email at Canned Revolution for my definitive
article on this subject next week (just Google the phrases).
> and check it out. Although I do not currently make my living in
> academia, I regularly publish in peer-reviewed professional journals
> such as Shakespeare Quarterly, Shakespeare Survey, and Early Theatre,
> and I contribute to such reference works as the Oxford Dictionary of
> National Biography (for which I wrote 37 articles) and the upcoming
> Shakespeare Encyclopedia (for which I'm writing several dozen
> articles). I do all that parallel to my "day job", which is very
> interesting and fulfilling in itself, and not a "career tangent".
Every man needs an hobby, and if your hobby was a more philosophical
questioning of why this revival of Shakespeare denial I'd bid you cry,
Havoc, and let slip the dogs of war.
>
> Dave Kathman
> d...@ix.netcom.com- Hide quoted text -
spinoza1111
wrote:
> Bob Grumman wrote:
>
> > Ha, it already has: did you notice how he quieted into
> > respect after hearing Dave had a . . . Ph.D.--from a
> > bigtime University!
>
> Unlike "Brunel University in the UK, whose very name
> celebrates a minor Victorian engineer who built an ugly
> ship and an ugly bridge"
>
> ...and who in a BBC survey last year was voted (ahead
> of Darwin, Shakespeare and Newton, among others)
> the second greatest Briton of all time, beaten only by
> Winston Churchill.
Just proves that there are too many polls and not enough elections in
Western society.
I mean, Isambard? That's absurd! His creations were stunningly ugly.
Contrast our Golden Gate Bridge. Of course, we had the benefit of his
work but the designers, relatively nameless men, made something
beautiful. They fought the very idea of putting a railroad on it,
which the Victorians would have done because they liked trains,
because Leland Stanford had permanently made Californians hate greedy
railroad men, and, perhaps, they sensed that the delicate ecosystem of
Marin county could survive traffic volumes of the 1930s but not train
yards.
Brunel was technically ahead of his time but his heirs created an ugly
Britain of dark satanic mills. The Battersea Power Station gave
Stalin's cities a run for their money, and Brunel's spirit continues
to infect the soulless office towers of the newly eponymous Isle of
[Yuppie Scum] Dogs.
But perhaps my Yank prejudice shows. What I do know is that it's quite
unusual for a school so focused on engineering and educating boffins
to set up a cutting edge humanities programme, and it smacks of utter
pretense.
Sure, it's cocking a snook at Oxbridge and mooning Oxbridge with its
arse, and I'd support that were it not for the truth.
I'd suggest Brunel is AFRAID to set up an MA in the Continuing
Degradation of the Working Sod and Soddette Through Mass Media
Manipulation and diverts this anger into an MA that, I predict, will
be a byword and a laughing stock as High Table and in the better sort
of knocking shops of Belgravia.
We take you now to Sir Ralph Richardson and Sir John Gielgud, at
Oxbridge:
Oh, I SAY, chap has a Master's degree. In what, old fellow? In
Shakespeare Authorship. Chap spent three years determining who wrote
Shakespeare. You don't say! I would have thought he would have cleared
that up in public or grammar school. Chap went to grammar school, I
wonder which, to have such a damned curious elision. Oh well, duty
calls, old fellow, on to the next candidate. Ah, fabulous knockers on
her. I DO hope she studied something sensible at Stanford. Oh,
capital, she studied modern literature of Asia, and will fit in quite
nicely. Well, no rest for the weary. Fancy a spot of tea, old fellow?
It appears to me as a Yank that it's in the tradition of providing an
*ersatz* qualification that will reinforce the British class system,
and Prince William's abominable treatment of his ex girlfriend already
shows that a new aristocracy is settling in for yet another miserable
run. It appears her Mum was a flight attendant. Place in other words
your tray tables in the upright locked position.
Why did the Angry Young Men succeed in getting into the sack with high-
born ladies in the 1950s? Because despite all their faults, they acted
in their own interests. They refused the work of domination. But
Shakespeare Denial is an indirect attempt to prove that the lower
clawsses produce nothing except as directed by the upper clawsses, and
this is a lie. Even blasted Hegel knew that: cf. his chapter on
Lordship and Bondage from the Phenomenology of Mind.
>
> Peter F.
> pete...@rey.prestel.co.ukhttp://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
rigidniks, what do you consider the function of music--music, that is,
by itself, without words dealing "with human relations in excess of
sociology?" The mouse woman was not suggesting, by the way, that the
function of music was to reduce stress. She believes, I'm sure, that
one of the by-products of music is a reduction of stress. But
listening to music as nothing but a cure of stress is no worse than
watching or reading Shakespeare for an education in human behavior.
--Bob G.
spinoza1111
No, it's not. But the truth-question is whether IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS
we do and dig art "for" something else or as an end in itself, and
based on other things Ms Mouse has said (notably her deliberately
simple-minded reduction of a topological cause and effect analysis of
related phenomena to an idiotic equivalence which was either vicious
or stupid) convinces me that she is a Philistine who uses art
instrumentally and I'm not.
Commodity relations force us, without our noticing it, to say this is
like that all the time; commodity relations force us, without our
noticing it, to always explain any act by reference to a worthy goal.
Dave Kathman, as part of his job, might for example say that this
stock is like this older IPO, which made several people stinking rich.
Ms Mouse may explain listening to Mozart as stress reduction.
This makes it hard for us to appeciate a work of art with anything
like the appreciation we give unforced to loved ones. People should,
but do not, approach the Shakespeare canon reverently, not of course
with "equal" reverence they'd accord a person or the G-d of their
understanding, but with a reverence appropriate to art. They do not do
so when, for no good reason, they claim the corpus to be part of a
fraud. It's the sin, in the register of art, of being a vulgar
Philistine. I realize that we all have been given permission to be
vulgar Philistines for some time now, and to paw with apelike hands
anything not sanctified by family or religion. But from a strict
standpoint of a negative ontology of loss, in which something was
there which ain't there no more, I retain the right to say this sucks.
Sure, I historicised the older tradition of male literature study as
chilling the homes and making them presentable. But my point was that
this function has disappeared and has been replaced by a sour
conservatism coexisting uneasily with political correctness. Perhaps I
should have said that what has disappeared hasn't been replaced as was
promised by Utopian visions of the 19th century, but left open as
wasteland, from which people are excluded all the same way in somewhat
the same way the *latifund* of Latin America holds unimproved land
while peasants starve.
Perhaps what I mean was that Jim Morrison was onto something, but
because he had to produce a predefined commodity he blew his mind out
in a car. The conditions of production locked him into creating
commodities when he might have done better traveling around the world
like the Dead.
Whereas Shakespeare got lucky, and his genius matched up with a
productive theater that didn't exist before 1550 and was closed by the
Puritans a hundred years later only to be re-opened as more of a
spectacle and less of a text in the Restoration.
Any way: I do not have to equate my mention of an older use of
Shakespeare "to create the gentleman" with Ms Mouse's Mozart because
I'm no gentleman and the time of the gentleman has passed. I factored
Ms Mouse's Mozart with her previous misrepresentation of my essay form
as a series of equations together with her apparent suggestion that
merely thinking and making a case can be, in this case, medicalized as
stress.
>
> --Bob G.
Ms. Mouse
For do but note a wild and wanton herd,
Or race of youthful and unhandled colts,
Fetching mad bounds, bellowing and neighing loud,
Which is the hot condition of their blood;
If they but hear perchance a trumpet sound,
Or any air of music touch their ears,
You shall perceive them make a mutual stand,
Their savage eyes turn'd to a modest gaze
By the sweet power of music: therefore the poet
Did feign that Orpheus drew trees, stones and floods;
Since nought so stockish, hard and full of rage,
But music for the time doth change his nature.
The man that hath no music in himself,
Nor is not moved with concord of sweet sounds,
Is fit for treasons, stratagems and spoils;
The motions of his spirit are dull as night
And his affections dark as Erebus:
Let no such man be trusted. Mark the music.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > --
> > > John W. Kennedy
> > > Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/Double%20Falshood/index.html
> > > * TagZilla 0.066 *http://tagzilla.mozdev.org-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Ms. Mouse
> On May 17, 10:39 am, "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
been a terrible problem on Google for the past three days, and I've
had trouble reading and posting.
>
>
> > On May 16, 3:42 pm, "John W. Kennedy" <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > Ms. Mouse wrote:
> > > > On May 15, 9:55 pm, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >> My sense of what Shakespeare deniers are like is based on my
> > > >> experience as an adjunct and employee at a range of universities, and
> > > >> my insider knowledge of just how Roosevelt University in Chicago was
> > > >> destroyed. It's original research based on reading and life
> > > >> experience, and no little snot nose is going to demand "citations"
> > > >> where people actually say, hey hey hey, we're little snot noses.
> > > > Roosevelt University was destroyed by non-Strats? I didn't realise we
> > > > were so influential.
>
> > > I cannot for the life of me find that it has ever been "destroyed" at all.
>
> > No, well, there is that too, of course.
>
> > I'm sitting listening to Mozart's Sinfonia Concertante for violin and
> > viola, the slow movement. Incredible. Perhaps we could getNilgesto
> > listen to some good music and calm down.
>
> I'm sitting listening to the Clash.
Good. I am now listening to Glenn Gould playing Bach. Glorious. Thanks
much. I had no idea that video was available online. Have you ever
seen _Thirty Two Short Films About Glenn Gould_ starring Colm Feore as
Gould?
>
> Number Three: you have the right to free speech! Unless of course
> you're dumb enough to actually try it!
>
> ...
>
> ...and I was gripped...by that deadly Phantom. I followed him through
> hard jungles and nights fulla rain...
>
> Clearly we'll have to eliminate the allegro and have me listen to slow
> movements exclusively, and none of that rock and roll. Ms Mouse shall
> switch me to decaf on the sly, moving silently on mouse feet.
>
> Largo sostenuto, adagio ma non troppo, molto adagio, exclusively.
You don't know anything about me, and certainly you don't know my
tastes in music. But it might be a good idea for you sometimes to move
silently on mouse feet.
>
> News fa lash. Focusing on movements is Philistine and the nonmusician
> should not speak of movements.
1. That movement from Sinfonia Concertante is for me one of the most
gorgeous pieces ever written, especially when played by Perlman. It
doesn't mean I don't listen to the rest of the concertante, because I
do, and know the whole thing almost off by heart as I'm so fond of it.
But calling my love of a particular bit of it Philistine is risible.
2. How do you know I'm a non-Musician? Or that I don't live in a
family home absolutely saturated with music of one or many types? You
make the most extraordinary comments about people you don't know.
3. Music is often my rest and my salvation. I experience it more than
speak of it. I simply mentioned it to see if it struck a chord (haha)
with anyone else.
>Glenn Gould, may he live in Elysium
> refuses to wait between variations athttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6984208089899995423&q=glenn+...,
> because he knew that the tears of the Philistine are the nectar of the
> Gods, and that underneath the paving stones lie the beach.
That he left no real pause between variations means little with regard
to his listening habits during specific movements of Mozart. In any
case, I was talking about a particular slow movement, not pauses
between Goldberg variations.
>
> Give me an ounce of Valium with a Viagra chaser,
Yes, Gould too kept a cornucopia of drugs.
>good apothecary, and
> Nicorette on the side. I gotta go out for a very long run. Very long.
> Ten miles. Not to "control my stress" but because human beings must
> Create something from nothing, or they die.
>As did Shakespeare, the
> man from Stratford on Avon, husband of Anne Hathaway and father of
> Hamnet and Judith.
Oh, and by the way, while we're at it, Gielgud, who you mentioned in
your other post, was "extremely sympathetic to the Oxfordian cause..."
according to London's Daily Mail. You'd better cross him off your list
also.
Ms. Mouse
>
>
>
>
>
> > > --
> > > John W. Kennedy
> > > Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now
annotated!http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/Double%20Falshood/index.html
> > > * TagZilla 0.066 *http://tagzilla.mozdev.org-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
conra...@gmail.com
On May 20, 4:47 am, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Prior to the 1960s it was uncritically accepted
> that a gentleman, going to boys' schools like Princeton, from which
> women were excluded, would become more of a gentleman and less of a
> yob by exposing himself to Shakespeare rather than to local girls.
Eh. Undoubtedly depends on the local girl to whom he would expose
himself.
Conrad.
Ms. Mouse
You are a professional musician, then?
>Glenn Gould, may he live in Elysium
> refuses to wait between variations
I spoke to my husband on this point. He said Gould always came to a
stop between variations, although sometimes he chose to go on very
quickly. But we looked at the video again. if you go back to it,
you'll notice that usually there is a complete stop, followed by some
kind of edit so it *appears* he is continuing immediately or almost
immediately, though very often the next shot is from a completely
different angle so it seems unlikely he would be able to do so. In
fact, the "gap" between variations could be as short as several
seconds or as long as several minutes or even hours, as the piece was
recorded in a studio, not during a live performance. All that said,
there are places where he comes to dead stop, and there is a short
pause. He appears to see the variations in short groupings, as with
the sonnets.
athttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6984208089899995423&q=glenn+...,
> because he knew that the tears of the Philistine are the nectar of the
> Gods, and that underneath the paving stones lie the beach.
>
> Give me an ounce of Valium with a Viagra chaser, good apothecary, and
> Nicorette on the side. I gotta go out for a very long run. Very long.
> Ten miles. Not to "control my stress" but because human beings must
> Create something from nothing, or they die. As did Shakespeare, the
> man from Stratford on Avon, husband of Anne Hathaway and father of
> Hamnet and Judith.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > --
> > > John W. Kennedy
> > > Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/Double%20Falshood/index.html
> > > * TagZilla 0.066 *http://tagzilla.mozdev.org-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
spinoza1111
> On May 20, 5:00 am,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 17, 10:39 am, "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On May 16, 3:42 pm, "John W. Kennedy" <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Ms. Mouse wrote:
No, and I make an effort not to speak of movements outside of the loo.
One aesthetic theory, which I reject, is that the audience is in
control and should be pandered-to, if necessary by the *pastiche*, the
"piece" (Ah'm gonna play you a piece by Beethoven).
To me, this violates the intent of the artist who clearly intended you
to listen to the Sinfonia Concertante as a unit. Of course, Mozart
insisted upon this less than Beethoven.
I believe that inside aesthetics considered as a (deadly serious)
Wittgensteinian language game, we can adopt an ethical language
relativized to Art, giving Art and Artists *qua* Art and Artists
certain "rights" unusable outside of aesthetic discourse, usable
inside.
One right is to define the piece, but it also in the case allows
interpretation.
For example, consider Woody Allen's protest when Ted Turner tried to
colorize old movies.
>
> >Glenn Gould, may he live in Elysium
> > refuses to wait between variations
>
> I spoke to my husband on this point. He said Gould always came to a
> stop between variations, although sometimes he chose to go on very
> quickly. But we looked at the video again. if you go back to it,
> you'll notice that usually there is a complete stop, followed by some
> kind of edit so it *appears* he is continuing immediately or almost
> immediately, though very often the next shot is from a completely
> different angle so it seems unlikely he would be able to do so. In
> fact, the "gap" between variations could be as short as several
> seconds or as long as several minutes or even hours, as the piece was
> recorded in a studio, not during a live performance. All that said,
> there are places where he comes to dead stop, and there is a short
> pause. He appears to see the variations in short groupings, as with
> the sonnets.
Interesting, but we know that Gould would monkey around with the
techies to modify his final recorded product, therefore I conclude,
tentatively, that Gould changed the tape to make the variations
proceed without breaks. The effect is beautiful, because it
simultaneously announces the independence and interdependence of each
variation.
What I mean as a non-musician and appreciator is that there are all
sorts of integuements between the variations, and the effect of
stopping is to destroy them, which were intended by Bach.
Your husband and you may have noticed the most barbaric feature of the
YouTube reproduction, which was that the da capo repetition of the
theme was omitted. I suggest you guys listen to it and then rewind
quickly to the beginning in order to listen to the homecoming. This
feature was probably not Gould's doing, but the decision of the person
who made the reproduction.
Commodity relations destroy the 19th century relation of artist to
audience in which the artist was within art an authority, for post-
Elvis, everything on iPod has to be a song. This butchers structure
above the level of the moronic, since you have to take care when using
the (idiotic) Windows upload interface to keep symphonies together.
Then, the music is formatted so as to be only listenable to on the
iPod.
>
> athttp://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6984208089899995423&q=glenn+...,
>
>
>
> > because he knew that the tears of the Philistine are the nectar of the
> > Gods, and that underneath the paving stones lie the beach.
>
> > Give me an ounce of Valium with a Viagra chaser, good apothecary, and
> > Nicorette on the side. I gotta go out for a very long run. Very long.
> > Ten miles. Not to "control my stress" but because human beings must
> > Create something from nothing, or they die. As did Shakespeare, the
> > man from Stratford on Avon, husband of Anne Hathaway and father of
> > Hamnet and Judith.
>
> > > > --
> > > > John W. Kennedy
> > > > Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/Double%20Falshood/index.html
> > > > * TagZilla 0.066 *http://tagzilla.mozdev.org-Hidequoted text -
spinoza1111
> On May 20, 5:00 am,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On May 17, 10:39 am, "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> If this comes through ten or more times, I'll deal with it. There's
> been a terrible problem on Google for the past three days, and I've
> had trouble reading and posting.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > On May 16, 3:42 pm, "John W. Kennedy" <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Ms. Mouse wrote:
(Sigh). I had Gielgud re-enact the probable reaction of an Oxbridge
don to the very idea of an MA in which you don't read and understand
the plays so much as defend or attack a proposition which has been
settled by Shakespeare swotters. Gielgud was an actor who played the
upper clawss: was he upper clawss?
David Kathman
> On May 18, 12:43 am, David Kathman <d...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > > Mutual fund analysis isn't "utterly and completely different" from
> > > flogging stocks. Both are activities engaged in for profit and salary,
> > > and the stock tout if honest also does analysis.
>
> > Well, anybody who works for a living engages in "activities... for
> > profit and salary", so I'm not sure what your point is there. Both
> > mutual fund analysis and "flogging stocks" require knowledge of the
> > financial markets, so in that sense they're broadly similar, but
> > they're really quite different things. I work for a company
> > (Morningstar) that provides independent analysis for anybody who wants
> > access to it (through a subscription), and we don't buy or sell, or
> > promote the purchase or sale of, specific mutual funds or stocks. (We
> > also have about 100 stock analysts in addition to the 25 mutual fund
> > analysts, of which I am one.) This is very different from analysts
> > who work for brokerage houses that do buy and sell stocks, which
> > caused all kinds of conflicts of interest during the stock-market
> > bubble.
>
> Very laudable. And yet, and yet, the equities market remains a place
> where the small investor can't catch a break. At best it provides a
> nest egg as long as the little guy allows the fund to manage, and this
> is only the case during decades-long periods in which the market is
> growing.
Huh? I'm afraid I can't understand what you're trying to say here --
the last sentence above is not coherent English. You seem to be
saying that the "small investor" can't catch a break in the stock
market, but that depends on how you define "small investor". It's
true that you need a certain amount of money to invest in the market,
and that a substantial fraction of the U.S. population doesn't have
that money to spare. But the percentage of the population who does
invest in the stock market (either directly or indirectly through
things like 401(k) accounts) has grown steadily, especially over the
past few decades, and is now at an all-time high. Any of those
investors can do pretty much as well as anybody else by putting their
money into low-cost index funds, which are generally the best equity
investments you can make over the long term.
> I'd say that people shouldn't have to speculate to avoid poverty in
> their old age, which many do, and that a government-provided pension
> scheme would relegate the equities market to a position of relative
> unimportance.
Well, nobody has to speculate to avoid poverty in their old age.
Investing in the stock market is "speculating" only in the very
broadest sense, but it's really not very risky as long as your
portfolio is diversified enough. If you don't want to put your
retirement money into the stock market, that's fine, but you'll get a
significantly lower long-term return on your money if you put it in an
essentially risk-free investment like government bonds. I'm not sure
how your government-provided pension scheme would work -- an expansion
of Social Security? -- but the only way to "relegate the equities
market to a position of relative unimportance" would be to get rid of
capitalism, which it appears may be your goal.
> As it is, a false need is created for intelligence which is then
> sold.
>
> Dave, I too worked in Chicago, and accepted the equation of business
> intelligence with intelligence.
Huh? When did I ever say that I "accept the equation of business
intelligence with intelligence"? That doesn't sound remotely like
something I've ever said or would say. The qualities needed to do
well in business are not very highly correlated with other types of
intelligence, as far as I can tell.
> However, I now believe that it is a
> venture conducted in bad faith and that humanity would be better
> engaged in a more direct service to human needs in an economy in which
> gambling played no part except as a recreation for low fellows.
So are you proposing a socialist-type economy? It's hard to tell. I
have a certain amount of sympathy for socialist ideals, but I think
it's pretty undeniable that purely socialist economies are less
efficient than capitalist ones, and generate less overall wealth,
though they distribute the wealth they do generate more evenly. But
nearly all economies today are some combination, and the practical
question becomes how you want to combine the two.
> But you need not lose any sleep over me, since I've et up all my
> Hayek. The guy was a GENIUS and almost as smart as Marx! People
> damaged by feudal or capitalist relations cannot it seem cross de
> river into an economy based on share and share alike because they take
> their highly developed *penchant* for grab-ass across de river into
> Zion, and make a Hell in Heaven's despite.
Again, your writing is very opaque, but as near as I can tell, you
seem to be saying here that a capitalist economy cannot become
socialist once the people have had a taste of a free-market economy.
I would dispute that, given how many Western European economies moved
from relatively pure capitalism to capitalist-socialist hybrids after
W.W. II, but I'm probably misunderstanding you. Are you saying that
the only way to move from a capitalist to a "true" socialist economy
is through revolution, a la Lenin?
> > > A PhD in linguistics from the University of Chicago is an admirable
> > > accomplishment but not a qualification for rejecting Shakespeare's
> > > authorship, especially if you went off on a career tangent, with all
> > > due respect.
>
> > Um, I don't reject Shakespeare's authorship -- I *defend* it against
> > people who try to reject it. Go tohttp://shakespeareauthorship.com
>
> I'm afraid you dignify a duh-bate because the issue of authorship
> appears to be closed amongst people who swot Shakespeare for a living.
That's true, but the question has not gone away, and if professional
Shakespeareans ignore it, they're accused of ducking the issue.
Plenty of Shakespeareans have thanked me for addressing the Oxfordians
and their ilk head-on.
> To make an *amateur* effort out of defending "Stratfordianism" is to
> take up a cudgel in defense of an illegitimate attack on the bona
> fides of academics.
I have only a very vague and general idea what you might be trying to
say here. I have often criticized antistratfordians for their attacks
on the bona fides of academics, and on the methods of history in
general.
> Attacking the good faith of academics is of course an indoor sport of
> readers of the Wall Street Journal, and one thing that sickened me
> about working in Chicago was the way in which tenure not getters from
> the U of C would, in the vilest terms, attack THEORY in my own trade,
> computer programming, terminating programmers for using a linked list
> as late as 1979 because linked lists were "academic" and the
> maintenance programmers they planned on recruiting from the dregs of
> society "wouldn't understand" the code.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Sorry.
> I therefore invite you to abandon your overly narrow efforts and join
> my more broad-based attack on a more general phenomenon, which is the
> moronization of culture by commodification!
>
> Watch The Little Red Email at Canned Revolution for my definitive
> article on this subject next week (just Google the phrases).
Uh... I can hardly wait?
> > and check it out. Although I do not currently make my living in
> > academia, I regularly publish in peer-reviewed professional journals
> > such as Shakespeare Quarterly, Shakespeare Survey, and Early Theatre,
> > and I contribute to such reference works as the Oxford Dictionary of
> > National Biography (for which I wrote 37 articles) and the upcoming
> > Shakespeare Encyclopedia (for which I'm writing several dozen
> > articles). I do all that parallel to my "day job", which is very
> > interesting and fulfilling in itself, and not a "career tangent".
>
> Every man needs an hobby, and if your hobby was a more philosophical
> questioning of why this revival of Shakespeare denial I'd bid you cry,
> Havoc, and let slip the dogs of war.
I have often addressed bigger-picture issues, for example in the
following piece on the Shakespeare Authorship website, originally
posted on this newsgroup:
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/ox12.html
However, I spend almost no time these days addressing Oxfordians or
the authorship question in general, because all my scholarly energies
are going toward my theater history research and other much more
fulfilling things. I'm going to London in two weeks for some more
time in the archives.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
T.M. Sommers
>
> In the 1990s, a computer science instructor at New York University was
> sued by students for assigning the calculation of Avogadro's number
Let's see.
double avogadros_number(double M, double a, double rho) {
return 4.0 * M / ( a * a * a * rho );
}
Yup, I'd definitely sue anybody who gave me such an assignment.
You clearly don't know what Avogadro's number is. It is not
something that can be calculated from first principles; its value
is derived from experiment (M, a, and rho above are all measured
values).
Outside of a numerical analysis class, it is higly unlikely that
a CS teacher would ever consider assigning such a calculation.
Even if such an assignment were given, it is ludicrous to think
that anyone would sue over such a triviality. So your story is
almost certainly a fabrication.
[Yes, I am aware that the function above is inadequate in the
real world, since it ignores error propagation.]
--
Thomas M. Sommers -- t...@nj.net -- AB2SB
Ms. Mouse
Good for you. But that makes communication difficult as it is the term
used by amateurs and professionals alike. Not to mention composers.
>
> One aesthetic theory, which I reject, is that the audience is in
> control and should be pandered-to, if necessary by the *pastiche*, the
> "piece" (Ah'm gonna play you a piece by Beethoven).
I happened to be listening to the slow movement of the concertante. No
one said anything about a "pastiche" CD but you. I actually have the
SC on a couple of different CDs. My husband is a classical musician.
We don't for the most part listen to "Mozart's greatest hits,"
although sometimes one of his students will give him this kind of CD
as a Christmas gift. I get very frustrated if I try to listen, because
often I'm waiting for the next movement but the music switches to
something else.
>
> To me, this violates the intent of the artist who clearly intended you
> to listen to the Sinfonia Concertante as a unit. Of course, Mozart
> insisted upon this less than Beethoven.
Spin, it is impossible to listen to all three movements
simultaneously. When I wrote the post, the piece had reached the
second movement, and so I commented on it, especially as it's my
favourite part. Is there a need to argue with everything, including
your own suppositions of what I do which for the most part aren't
correct?
This is very possible. But as my husband noted, every variation came
to a stop; some stops were infinitesimal, some longer, with Gould
supplying one of his interesting visual flourishes before continuing--
one doesn't see that on a CD!
>The effect is beautiful, because it
> simultaneously announces the independence and interdependence of each
> variation.
>
> What I mean as a non-musician and appreciator is that there are all
> sorts of integuements between the variations, and the effect of
> stopping is to destroy them, which were intended by Bach.
I'm not going to respond to this, as I'm not sure what Bach's
intentions were.
>
> Your husband and you may have noticed the most barbaric feature of the
> YouTube reproduction, which was that the da capo repetition of the
> theme was omitted.
Yes, we noticed the theme/Aria was not repeated. A great shame. It
felt unfinished.
>I suggest you guys listen to it and then rewind
> quickly to the beginning in order to listen to the homecoming. This
> feature was probably not Gould's doing, but the decision of the person
> who made the reproduction.
Yes, it looked to me as if it had been cut. iirc, Gould always played
it with the Aria da capo following variatio 30. We have it on two
separate CDs, although they might both have come from the same initial
recording as they sound virtually identical. Rather ironically, I
think some of the "stops" are slightly longer on one CD than the
other.
>
> Commodity relations destroy the 19th century relation of artist to
> audience in which the artist was within art an authority, for post-
> Elvis, everything on iPod has to be a song. This butchers structure
> above the level of the moronic, since you have to take care when using
> the (idiotic) Windows upload interface to keep symphonies together.
> Then, the music is formatted so as to be only listenable to on the
> iPod.
iPods are a problem for us, so we use portable CD players when we're
walking.
L.
[snip]
spinoza1111
> spinoza1111 wrote:
>
> > In the 1990s, a computer science instructor at New York University was
> > sued by students for assigning the calculation of Avogadro's number
>
> Let's see.
>
> double avogadros_number(double M, double a, double rho) {
> return 4.0 * M / ( a * a * a * rho );
>
> }
>
> Yup, I'd definitely sue anybody who gave me such an assignment.
And I'd flunk you. You see, you forgot an elementary step, only to
remember it too late.
You didn't check a or rho, at a minimum, for zero. Your "solution" is
bad code because it will abnormally terminate when a or rho are zero.
You admit this below in preference to writing the code, because you
wanted to rhetorically hide the fact that the simple assignment
teaches a valuable lesson.
In addition, you have no check for overflow. In C# the MINIMAL
ACCEPTABLE solution is
double avogadros_number(double M, double a, double rho)
{
if (a==0 || rho==0)
{
System.Windows.Forms.MessageBox.Show("Argument is
zero, for fuck's sake");
return 0;
}
try
{ return 4.0 * M / (a * a * a * rho); }
catch (Exception except)
{
System.Windows.Forms.MessageBox.Show(except.ToString());
return 0;
}
}
The check for 0 is needed in addition to try/catch because passing
Infinity to calling code will break it.
I'd hasard the programming instructor was trying like a man to teach
error checking, something business programmers in Amerikkka haven't
learned, because in many cases, the errors benefit the business, as in
the case of overbilling. You presented an anti-intellectual solution
which concealed the Labour of programming because of the necessary
invisibility of the clerisy, a necessary invisibility of Shakespeare
in Shakespeare denial is part of this negative constellation.
The programming instructor may have been trying in fact to teach a
subversive distinction between speech (handwaving and "a simple matter
of programming") and writing-as-labor. However, in a world in which
Labour, like Carthage, must be destroyed, the media-saturated apes in
his class would prefer a quick ticket to riches by developing
unmaintainable and error-tolerant code for the next mutual fund scam.
Furthermore, you used a lazy, unprofessional and inexplicit form of
cast to force 4 to be double precision.
Next time do your homework properly before calling people liars and
starting a fight.
>
> You clearly don't know what Avogadro's number is. It is not
> something that can be calculated from first principles; its value
> is derived from experiment (M, a, and rho above are all measured
> values).
>
> Outside of a numerical analysis class, it is higly unlikely that
> a CS teacher would ever consider assigning such a calculation.
> Even if such an assignment were given, it is ludicrous to think
> that anyone would sue over such a triviality. So your story is
> almost certainly a fabrication.
The story is in the morgue of the Wall Street Journal. Go and look it
up, and next time do your homework before you call a person a liar.
>
> [Yes, I am aware that the function above is inadequate in the
> real world, since it ignores error propagation.]
Then why did you post it? Your failure to do your homework proves that
the assignment has meaning.
spinoza1111
I understand you treated the Sinfonia Concertante as an organic unity
and I apologize for any misunderstanding in this regard.
>
>
>
> > To me, this violates the intent of the artist who clearly intended you
> > to listen to the Sinfonia Concertante as a unit. Of course, Mozart
> > insisted upon this less than Beethoven.
>
> Spin, it is impossible to listen to all three movements
> simultaneously. When I wrote the post, the piece had reached the
> second movement, and so I commented on it, especially as it's my
> favourite part. Is there a need to argue with everything, including
> your own suppositions of what I do which for the most part aren't
> correct?
We're discussing the consequences and the antecedents of your
Shakespeare denial, which I am trying to understand, psychoanalyze (in
the *amateur* register) and, in the spirit of reversing what
Horkheimer calls psychoanalysis in reverse, changing it.
I have seen very intelligent people in Chicago moronized by
psychoanalysis in reverse as the intellectual demands of their jobs in
business and technology cause them to accept a reified world, in which
we can't listen to or make music without explaining it as stress
control.
But, he waits a shorter amount of time than in his 1962 recording or
any other recording, such as that of Wanda Landowska, that I know. I
think he wanted to demonstrate complete unity in profound difference.
Gould was forever seeing things that were invisible to schoolmen and
piano teachers. A grave and wise child, that oxymoron (and figure of
fairy tales: the gnome) would say, that is like that but different; a
grave and wise child (the young Mozart, perhaps) would immediately
recognize the partial inversion of a figure for what it was. In this
connection, cf. Huxley's short story Young Archimedes.
Art tells us, you can't put it into words but it means something nyaa
ha ha.
[I realize that the lack of pauses MAY be something done to the tape
by the friend of man who put it on YouTube, in which case I need only
to substitute almost any other praxis unique to Gould, except for the
humming, which he disavowed as meaning anything: the tempo of the aria
in the final Goldberg variation, for example. I do know that the guy's
repertoire contains any number of deliberate violations of the rules,
and if the clown who made the YouTube video ELIMINATED pauses to
scrunch it down, which I don't think he did, it really, really works.]
Wow, that hurt.
What does it mean?
What it means is that a nonmusician doesn't have any intellectual
apprehension of the ways in which a Diabelli or Goldberg variation
relate and must rely on informed intuition to realize with something
more than culinary satisfaction that of course, that leads to that.
Sure as hell don't know why and a part of me doesn't want to know.
The simultaneous, phoenix and turtle independence and interdependence
of the individual Diabelli and Goldberg variations is, I believe, an
artistic promise of reconciliation.
Ow.
What I mean is that independent of what we know in ordinary life and
science, art has something completely different to tell us, and these
two variations on a trivial theme get their power through a negative
process. They are in fact a PROTEST against what sucks (if life was
beautiful there would be no need for art, and Hegel prophesied the end
of art in the perfect state, which he, stupid man, thought to be a
refined Prussia).
There is nature, society, and art, and nothing else. Perhaps we can
assay all experience into this triad. The frogs on Lamma Island speak
to me as pure Nature. Society tells me I gotta go to work. Art says
something different in kind.
A pure nature experience would be me diving butt naked into the ocean.
A pure Society experience is looking for work. A pure Art experience
is striving to listen without any judgement but with knowledge.
Let's see, the pure Nature experience teaches me that the frogs want
the world back. A pure Society experience teaches me that the rich get
richer and the poor poorer. Art teaches what, reconciliation of
opposites as in a successful marriage, integration, identity in
difference?
Search me.
Even in Bach's day, art consisted in informed rule-breaking at the
point where Bach knew all the rules, better than the codifiers and
systematizers of musicology.
Peter Shaffer makes this point himself (as Phil Innes tells us
correctly, the best writers on art are practitioners like Ted Hughes).
Mozart is almost childishly entranced by the way in which he can
reconcile different egos in the Marriage of Figaro by violating the
rules while Salieri just chugs along.
>
> >The effect is beautiful, because it
> > simultaneously announces the independence and interdependence of each
> > variation.
>
> > What I mean as a non-musician and appreciator is that there are all
> > sorts of integuements between the variations, and the effect of
> > stopping is to destroy them, which were intended by Bach.
>
> I'm not going to respond to this, as I'm not sure what Bach's
> intentions were.
Neither do I, but I can compare Gould to Landowska and notice that
Gould teaches me more.
>
>
>
> > Your husband and you may have noticed the most barbaric feature of the
> > YouTube reproduction, which was that the da capo repetition of the
> > theme was omitted.
>
> Yes, we noticed the theme/Aria was not repeated. A great shame. It
> felt unfinished.
"Everything's different and we shall travel far only to return from
the place where we started"
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> > rigidniks, what do you consider the function of music--music, that is,
> > by itself, without words dealing "with human relations in excess of
> > sociology?"
No surprise--you didn't answer my question.
The mouse woman was not suggesting, by the way, that the
> > function of music was to reduce stress. She believes, I'm sure, that
> > one of the by-products of music is a reduction of stress. But
> > listening to music as nothing but a cure of stress is no worse than
> > watching or reading Shakespeare for an education in human behavior.
>
> No, it's not. But the truth-question is whether IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS
> we do and dig art "for" something else or as an end in itself, and
> based on other things Ms Mouse has said (notably her deliberately
> simple-minded reduction of a topological cause and effect analysis of
> related phenomena to an idiotic equivalence which was either vicious
> or stupid) convinces me that she is a Philistine who uses art
> instrumentally and I'm not.
If you were a truth-seeker, you would go by what her words say, not do
as the anti-Stratfordians do, and decide what she really meant. Her
words advised you to listen to Mozart to reduce your stress. Nothing
in them indicated that was all Mozart was good for.
--Bob G.
Gary
wrote:
>On May 20, 4:15 am, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
SNIP
>> I'm afraid you dignify a duh-bate because the issue of authorship
>> appears to be closed amongst people who swot Shakespeare for a living.
>
>That's true, but the question has not gone away, and if professional
>Shakespeareans ignore it, they're accused of ducking the issue.
>Plenty of Shakespeareans have thanked me for addressing the Oxfordians
>and their ilk head-on.
SNIP
Speaking of which: given the advances that
anti-Stratfordianism seems to be making, have you and Terry ever
thought of writing a book based on your website?
- Gary
Ms. Mouse
Thanks. Apology accepted.
>
>
>
> > > To me, this violates the intent of the artist who clearly intended you
> > > to listen to the Sinfonia Concertante as a unit. Of course, Mozart
> > > insisted upon this less than Beethoven.
>
> > Spin, it is impossible to listen to all three movements
> > simultaneously. When I wrote the post, the piece had reached the
> > second movement, and so I commented on it, especially as it's my
> > favourite part. Is there a need to argue with everything, including
> > your own suppositions of what I do which for the most part aren't
> > correct?
>
> We're discussing the consequences and the antecedents of your
> Shakespeare denial,
I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing Mozart and Bach in our last
few posts. I'm not a Shakespeare-Denier, by the way, I'm a Shakespeare
affirmer. I don't believe Shakespeare of Stratford was Shakespeare the
Bard, but I adore Shakespeare the Bard, whoever he was, and surely I
should be allowed to believe what I wish to? I certainly don't force
my beliefs--as you try to force yours--on anyone here, and actually
prefer not to discuss authorship. While I'm on hlas I usually talk
about the plays and the sonnets themselves, not who wrote them.
> which I am trying to understand, psychoanalyze (in
> the *amateur* register) and, in the spirit of reversing what
> Horkheimer calls psychoanalysis in reverse, changing it.
I prefer not to be psychoanalysed by anyone, and certainly not by an
amateur.
>
> I have seen very intelligent people in Chicago moronized by
> psychoanalysis in reverse as the intellectual demands of their jobs in
> business and technology cause them to accept a reified world, in which
> we can't listen to or make music without explaining it as stress
> control.
I think you should read back over my post. I never used the word
stress. I suggested some good music might be calming, but I didn't say
what that "good" music might be, as I'm sure it's different for
different people; however, I certainly don't think music is good only
to calm. Music moves one, it excites, it enlightens--all of that and
much more. My consciousness changes when I listen to music I love.
You're trying to fit me, simplistically, into a box where I supposedly
feel music is only for "stress control" is yet another of your straw
man arguments.
Have to dash.
Mouse
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
T.M. Sommers
> On May 21, 5:53 pm, "T.M. Sommers" <t...@nj.net> wrote:
>>spinoza1111 wrote:
>>
>>>In the 1990s, a computer science instructor at New York University was
>>>sued by students for assigning the calculation of Avogadro's number
>>
>>Let's see.
>>
>>double avogadros_number(double M, double a, double rho) {
>> return 4.0 * M / ( a * a * a * rho );
>>}
>>
>>Yup, I'd definitely sue anybody who gave me such an assignment.
>
> And I'd flunk you. You see, you forgot an elementary step,
You didn't read the spec. The calling function is responsible
for guaranteeing there are no domain errors.
> only to
> remember it too late.
Huh?
> You didn't check a or rho, at a minimum, for zero. Your "solution" is
> bad code because it will abnormally terminate when a or rho are zero.
> You admit this below in preference to writing the code,
What? I never mention checking for domain errors.
> because you
> wanted to rhetorically hide the fact that the simple assignment
> teaches a valuable lesson.
No. Your mind reading is off today.
> In addition, you have no check for overflow. In C# the MINIMAL
> ACCEPTABLE solution is
Who said anything abourt C#? I was using C. The lack of
camelCase identifiers should have clued you in.
> double avogadros_number(double M, double a, double rho)
> {
> if (a==0 || rho==0)
Sorry, but you flunk. One never tests floats or doubles for
equality with zero, especially an integer 0. The proper way is
to test the difference between the number and zero is less than
some threshold.
> {
> System.Windows.Forms.MessageBox.Show("Argument is
> zero, for fuck's sake");
Lousy design. Let the calling function handle the error; it will
know how. Not every program is interactive. Additionally, the
message you print is not terribly helpful. Which argument?
> return 0;
Another bad design. There is no reason for multiple returns in
such a small function. Also, the function returns a double, not
an int.
> }
> try
> { return 4.0 * M / (a * a * a * rho); }
> catch (Exception except)
> {
>
> System.Windows.Forms.MessageBox.Show(except.ToString());
> return 0;
> }
More bad design. Again, the calling function should handle the
error. That's the whole point of exceptions: to allow the error
to be handled at an appropriate place.
> }
>
> The check for 0 is needed in addition to try/catch because passing
> Infinity to calling code will break it.
>
> I'd hasard the programming instructor was trying like a man to teach
> error checking,
I'd hazard the teacher never gave the assignment.
> something business programmers in Amerikkka haven't
> learned, because in many cases, the errors benefit the business, as in
> the case of overbilling.
You're joking, right? What makes you think that all programming
errors result in overbilling, instead of underbilling, or instead
of crashing the entire system.
> You presented an anti-intellectual solution
> which concealed the Labour of programming because of the necessary
> invisibility of the clerisy, a necessary invisibility of Shakespeare
> in Shakespeare denial is part of this negative constellation.
>
> The programming instructor may have been trying in fact to teach a
> subversive distinction between speech (handwaving and "a simple matter
> of programming") and writing-as-labor. However, in a world in which
> Labour, like Carthage, must be destroyed, the media-saturated apes in
> his class would prefer a quick ticket to riches by developing
> unmaintainable and error-tolerant code for the next mutual fund scam.
What in the world are you babbling about?
> Furthermore, you used a lazy, unprofessional and inexplicit form of
> cast to force 4 to be double precision.
What are you talking about? The expression "4.0" is a double
constant. No cast implied or required.
> Next time do your homework properly before calling people liars and
> starting a fight.
I didn't call you a liar. For all I know, you truly beleive what
appears to me to be an untruth. But now that you mention it, try
providing a citation, if your story is real.
As for the fight, you started that long before I entered the
discussion.
>>You clearly don't know what Avogadro's number is. It is not
>>something that can be calculated from first principles; its value
>>is derived from experiment (M, a, and rho above are all measured
>>values).
>>
>>Outside of a numerical analysis class, it is higly unlikely that
>>a CS teacher would ever consider assigning such a calculation.
>>Even if such an assignment were given, it is ludicrous to think
>>that anyone would sue over such a triviality. So your story is
>>almost certainly a fabrication.
>
> The story is in the morgue of the Wall Street Journal. Go and look it
> up, and next time do your homework before you call a person a liar.
You provide the citation. Don't expect other people to do your
work for you.
>>[Yes, I am aware that the function above is inadequate in the
>>real world, since it ignores error propagation.]
>
> Then why did you post it?
To make a point. I notice that you didn't deal with error
propagation, either. Do you even know how?
> Your failure to do your homework proves that
> the assignment has meaning.
Sorry, but it was not my homework.
Your failure to back up your claim just proves that it is
probably as fatuous as it appears.
spinoza1111
Kindly don't pull an old Chicago trick that Alderman Edward Vrdolyak
used to pull. When one of the boys from the Sun Times ast Fast Eddie
if he could seriously equate anti-white "racism" with anti-black
racism, given, he sez, the vastly superior economic power of the
predominantly WHITE extablichment of Chicagah, Fast Eddie's response
was "yer talkin' Martian".
Leo Strauss musta taught that stunt, since it seems to me a staple of
U of C graduates.
"At best it provides a nest egg as long as the little guy allows the
fund to manage, and this is only the case during decades-long periods
in which the market is growing." is a complete and grammatical, and
therefore coherent, sentence that means that the market, at best, is a
way to fund a pension in the barbaric absence of a safety net, but
only insofar as equites appreciate.
The stunt you pull is in fact a pathetic bit of pure demagoguery,
since *ad libitum*, *ad voluntas*, and at-will, it returns to the
incomprehension of the mob. It joins the mob temporarily to evade the
issue.
> saying that the "small investor" can't catch a break in the stock
> market, but that depends on how you define "small investor". It's
> true that you need a certain amount of money to invest in the market,
Most Americans, as you admit below, don't have a pot to piss in,
therefore the market doesn't in any way serve their interests.
> and that a substantial fraction of the U.S. population doesn't have
> that money to spare. But the percentage of the population who does
> invest in the stock market (either directly or indirectly through
> things like 401(k) accounts) has grown steadily, especially over the
> past few decades, and is now at an all-time high. Any of those
I wish I was at an all-time high. So what's the percentage? I'm
talking about Roosevelt's Forgotten Man who today is blamed for his
problems and is sent as a soldier or a contractor to Iraq.
> investors can do pretty much as well as anybody else by putting their
> money into low-cost index funds, which are generally the best equity
> investments you can make over the long term.
There's a possibility, according to recent speculation (intellectual,
not financial) in The Economist and elsewhere, that the hedge funds
that underly these schemes may at any time seize up, since they are
uncontrolled by the SEC.
Samuel Insull told the little guy in Chicago that his investment in
interurban street car development would assure his old age, and then,
after the 1929 crash, it was found that Insull was conducting a Ponzi
scheme.
Enron investors and employees thought they were in the catbird seat.
>
> > I'd say that people shouldn't have to speculate to avoid poverty in
> > their old age, which many do, and that a government-provided pension
> > scheme would relegate the equities market to a position of relative
> > unimportance.
>
> Well, nobody has to speculate to avoid poverty in their old age.
Actually, that's precisely what they have to do. Social Security was
never intended to be a total nest egg, and passbook savings are, in an
America with BARBARIC provisions for health coverage, forever under
threat by doctor's bills and Doctor's Plots. This is why corporate
pension funds are based on fund management (speculation by a third
party, arguably more risky than Daddy throwing the dice).
> Investing in the stock market is "speculating" only in the very
> broadest sense, but it's really not very risky as long as your
> portfolio is diversified enough. If you don't want to put your
People who work for a living are neither qualified to, nor have the
time, to manage a diversified portfolio.
> retirement money into the stock market, that's fine, but you'll get a
> significantly lower long-term return on your money if you put it in an
> essentially risk-free investment like government bonds. I'm not sure
Any White Russian waiter in Paris in the 1930s would chortle to hear
you speak of risk freedom in this context. My point is that fund
managers live in an endogenous world which consistently normalizes and
factors out exogenous events from the October Revolution to Sep 11
while the Little Guy has to live in the exogenous world, over which he
is deprived of meaningful control insofar as it is run by an elite
with plebiscites called elections, and NO workplace democracy.
> how your government-provided pension scheme would work -- an expansion
> of Social Security? -- but the only way to "relegate the equities
> market to a position of relative unimportance" would be to get rid of
> capitalism, which it appears may be your goal.
It is to change it.
>
> > As it is, a false need is created for intelligence which is then
> > sold.
>
> > Dave, I too worked in Chicago, and accepted the equation of business
> > intelligence with intelligence.
>
> Huh? When did I ever say that I "accept the equation of business
> intelligence with intelligence"? That doesn't sound remotely like
> something I've ever said or would say. The qualities needed to do
> well in business are not very highly correlated with other types of
> intelligence, as far as I can tell.
As far as I can tell from long experience in American business, the
qualities needed to succeed consist mostly in a shrewd willingness to
subordinate ordinary human intelligence to willed and brutal fantasy
and *schlamperei* at key moments. A rich Daddy helps as well. There
are self-made men even today: Larry Ellison parlayed that fearful
Fortran class at U of I Circle Jerk into a fortune, but not by hard
work: he caught a lucky break from the spooks, because, as it turned
out, groups within the CIA needed the relational model to analyze how
to deter democracy in the 1970s. But most of the big shots, from the
founder of Federal Express Fred Smith to Donald Trump to Bill G, had
family money and family backing.
These qualities to which you refer are almost never defined, but
Keynes did a pretty good job when he said that the ability to succeed
bigtime in finance is the ability to guess what other people will
choose a microsecond before they choose, as in Keynes' example of the
beauty contest judge who picks the girl the other judges pick, first.
But this involves the sacrifice of a sacred human capacity, what Kant
called judgement. As Adorno noticed, the capitalist goes to the Opera,
which he attended standing up in his penurious youth before 1848, and
finds he is distracted and looking to others, such as that blonde in
the box.
It's better to work hard, save money, don't use credit cards unless
you have a permanent job you like with a future, work for social
change, and expect nothing, because you won't be disappointed.
>
> > However, I now believe that it is a
> > venture conducted in bad faith and that humanity would be better
> > engaged in a more direct service to human needs in an economy in which
> > gambling played no part except as a recreation for low fellows.
>
> So are you proposing a socialist-type economy? It's hard to tell. I
> have a certain amount of sympathy for socialist ideals, but I think
Yeah, don't we all.
> it's pretty undeniable that purely socialist economies are less
> efficient than capitalist ones, and generate less overall wealth,
Wealth W is NOT the only variable. What about E for equality? I would
have rather NOT lived the years I lived in the USA
"Twenty years largely wasted, years of *l'entre deux guerres*" - T. S.
Eliot
in a society where people without a pot to piss in didn't rave on the
El, blaming themselves in Biblical terms for their problems, reciting
a Kaddish backward, meat for the Synagogue cast on the pavement.
I got to Hong Kong, which as you know is a capitalist fun fair
designed according to the principles of Hayek and John Stuart Mill,
but with an admixture of Confucianism, and I discovered that while my
adult kid was billed 4000.00 for an emergency room visit, I was billed
13.00, because it's basically a lie that the US is a free market
society. It's a society which since the election of the rat bastard
son of a bitch Reagan the index of equality has gone negative.
> though they distribute the wealth they do generate more evenly. But
> nearly all economies today are some combination, and the practical
> question becomes how you want to combine the two.
The US fails to even measure and publish inequality, nor does it in
any way account for the large standard deviation in averages when you
take neighborhoods and districts into account, where it resembles not
China or Hong Kong, but Gaza and Eretz Israel.
>
> > But you need not lose any sleep over me, since I've et up all my
> > Hayek. The guy was a GENIUS and almost as smart as Marx! People
> > damaged by feudal or capitalist relations cannot it seem cross de
> > river into an economy based on share and share alike because they take
> > their highly developed *penchant* for grab-ass across de river into
> > Zion, and make a Hell in Heaven's despite.
>
> Again, your writing is very opaque, but as near as I can tell, you
Again. You're a smart guy, unlike Fast Eddie Vrdolyak, so don't pull
that stunt anymore.
> seem to be saying here that a capitalist economy cannot become
> socialist once the people have had a taste of a free-market economy.
No, I am saying that the mass media stunts and distorts people.
> I would dispute that, given how many Western European economies moved
> from relatively pure capitalism to capitalist-socialist hybrids after
> W.W. II, but I'm probably misunderstanding you. Are you saying that
> the only way to move from a capitalist to a "true" socialist economy
> is through revolution, a la Lenin?
No, because Leninist "democratic centralism" is easily taken over by
people who would succeed in a corporate-capitalist register, and the
problem is with people who succeed in this register, because they
learn "business intelligence" as did Stalin, which is the capacity, at
least at key moments, to use the worst in themselves and other people.
To declare bankruptcy (for example) in the real estate bust of 1991
and then blandly deny the facts as reported in Crain's business in
1996, as a childhood friend did.
>
> > > > A PhD in linguistics from the University of Chicago is an admirable
> > > > accomplishment but not a qualification for rejecting Shakespeare's
> > > > authorship, especially if you went off on a career tangent, with all
> > > > due respect.
>
> > > Um, I don't reject Shakespeare's authorship -- I *defend* it against
> > > people who try to reject it. Go tohttp://shakespeareauthorship.com
>
> > I'm afraid you dignify a duh-bate because the issue of authorship
> > appears to be closed amongst people who swot Shakespeare for a living.
>
> That's true, but the question has not gone away, and if professional
> Shakespeareans ignore it, they're accused of ducking the issue.
> Plenty of Shakespeareans have thanked me for addressing the Oxfordians
> and their ilk head-on.
It's unwinnable by the people with the correct view insofar as they
pretend it's a real debate and not a duh-bate.
>
> > To make an *amateur* effort out of defending "Stratfordianism" is to
> > take up a cudgel in defense of an illegitimate attack on the bona
> > fides of academics.
>
> I have only a very vague and general idea what you might be trying to
> say here. I have often criticized antistratfordians for their attacks
> on the bona fides of academics, and on the methods of history in
> general.
>
> > Attacking the good faith of academics is of course an indoor sport of
> > readers of the Wall Street Journal, and one thing that sickened me
> > about working in Chicago was the way in which tenure not getters from
> > the U of C would, in the vilest terms, attack THEORY in my own trade,
> > computer programming, terminating programmers for using a linked list
> > as late as 1979 because linked lists were "academic" and the
> > maintenance programmers they planned on recruiting from the dregs of
> > society "wouldn't understand" the code.
>
> I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Sorry.
The story is one of an everyday occurence, but told not in workplace
argot but in standard English. You see, the workplace generates a
language of disconnected nouns and my polished syntax is therefore
strange to you. But as Clownus Primus advised Clownus Secondus whilst
they dug luckless Ophelia's grave, cudgel thy brains no further: let
me clarify what is already clear in this Platonic sunlight outside the
cave.
Symbolic workers below a certain glass ceiling are ill-advised to exit
the Wittgensteinian language game that their station in life that the
globalized class system places them in. For example, they have no
language for even seeing how learning to write a function with error
checking to calculate a physical quantity might transfer to their
assigned tasks. This is because the modern class system imposes a
sumptuary law on discourse, and it's why people, who work for the most
part in symbolic tasks at a lowish level, cannot understand how a cat
might look upon a king, and believe Oxford wrote "Shakespeare".
>
> > I therefore invite you to abandon your overly narrow efforts and join
> > my more broad-based attack on a more general phenomenon, which is the
> > moronization of culture by commodification!
>
> > Watch The Little Red Email at Canned Revolution for my definitive
> > article on this subject next week (just Google the phrases).
>
> Uh... I can hardly wait?
Good answer. Smart guy.
>
> > > and check it out. Although I do not currently make my living in
> > > academia, I regularly publish in peer-reviewed professional journals
> > > such as Shakespeare Quarterly, Shakespeare Survey, and Early Theatre,
> > > and I contribute to such reference works as the Oxford Dictionary of
> > > National Biography (for which I wrote 37 articles) and the upcoming
> > > Shakespeare Encyclopedia (for which I'm writing several dozen
> > > articles). I do all that parallel to my "day job", which is very
> > > interesting and fulfilling in itself, and not a "career tangent".
>
> > Every man needs an hobby, and if your hobby was a more philosophical
> > questioning of why this revival of Shakespeare denial I'd bid you cry,
> > Havoc, and let slip the dogs of war.
>
> I have often addressed bigger-picture issues, for example in the
> following piece on the Shakespeare Authorship website, originally
> posted on this newsgroup:
>
> http://shakespeareauthorship.com/ox12.html
This is terrific, and I will bookmark it.
But you fail to name and narrate what your interlocutor is doing.
He forever stays on the level of abstraction, and gets you to admit
too many times that as in the case Lincoln, the annals of
Shakespeare's life are short, and eventually you're confessing this
one too many times.
He's defeating you with Rhetoric while you use Logic, because we have
forgotten that for Aristotle and the ancient rhetor, logic and
rhetoric had to work together because otherwise the ancient rhetor
would be torn to pieces.
He uses the Philistine language of "great author" without seeming to
be able to define this abstraction, or to see how greatness in
Shakespeare's case is itself an organic awareness that grew as people
began to understand more and more of Shakespeare's "relevance" to
history. Just recently, for example, a Shakespeare scholar linked
Gloucester's torture with the strange and atavistic language of a
return to a "permissible" torture.
Friend Michael, our very own Scholastic Aptitude Test guru, actually
has it right, as does Cornel West. We can have a semi-deterministic
theory of history (mistakenly conflated by free market ideologues with
vulgar determinism) while admitting the possibility of "prophecy".
If we were totally determined in a misreading of Marx by commodity
relations then indeed we would be Troglodytes without a liberating
thought such as "fuck this shit". But we READ prophesies, from Amos in
Torah to Shakespeare to Allen Ginsberg, and we say a better world is
possible.
Your interlocutor makes the absurd claim that Shakespeare's life
experiences had to be isomorphic to an upper class person's life
experiences which neatly cancels out the possibility of art. Titian
could paint goddesses, but never saw one. Sure, Titian STARTED with
some naked gal but then raised her to the level of the Goddess in all
of us through "svelatura, trenta o quaranta".
This reduces ART to reportage, and to John Grisham.
You don't get rowdy although as part of a global movement against the
productive classes of humanity, your interlocutor is rowdy with you,
not adhering to any real scholarly ethics. You don't tell him, as I
would, that he's measuring Shakespeare based on John Grisham, the
ability to connect (transform Alexander into a bunghole as does
Hamlet) having been destroyed by inequality of wealth.
>
> However, I spend almost no time these days addressing Oxfordians or
> the authorship question in general, because all my scholarly energies
> are going toward my theater history research and other much more
> fulfilling things. I'm going to London in two weeks for some more
> time in the archives.
>
> Dave Kathman
laraine
> Yes, it looked to me as if it had been cut. iirc,Gould always played
> it with the Aria da capo following variatio 30.
At the end of the video, he placed his hands on
the piano as if to play more, and then the cut occurred.
Maybe that has something to do with copyright(?)
C.
>We have it on two
> separate CDs, although they might both have come from the same initial
> recording as they sound virtually identical. Rather ironically, I
> think some of the "stops" are slightly longer on one CD than the
> other.
>
>
>
> [snip]
Elizabeth
> On May 13, 8:02 pm, Elizabeth <elizabethpo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Yes, ask him why he thinks lit majors think they have the tools to
> > solve the Shakespeare authorship question.
>
> Although I would not defend the Brunel course (it rather smacks of yet
> another attempt at recruiting students, increasing the department's
> visibility, and a multitude of other reprehensible tactics now used by
> British universities in a financial scramble, inter alia), I don't
> think you've any real idea of what English studies encompass.
I did an interdisciplinary program in lit, philosophy and
history so I have one third of an idea.
> There's
> much more involved than just mere literary interpretation--at least by
> genuine English scholars. Currently I'm trying to unravel exactly when
> and who changed the title of Shaw's play from "Alps and Balkans" to
> "Arms and the Man."
I actually do know the difference between lit crit and
forensics. The Shakespeare authorship question is a
problem in forensics.
> It actually makes quite a bit of difference as to
> how the play is viewed, especially to those whose interpretation
> hinges on the title itself.
One of the great titles of all time was first Alps and
Balkans? And it must have been a close call with Arms
and the Men.
> JPWhttp://www.jpwearing.com
Elizabeth
> On May 20, 4:15 am, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> However, I spend almost no time these days addressing Oxfordians or
> the authorship question in general, . . .
You won't be missed, Kathman, because there's no Strat
action going on in HLAS. Every Strat who once took part
in the blood on the floor Strat resistance to Oxfordianism
has since become a member of Lynne's salon.
> because all my scholarly energies
> are going toward my theater history research and other much more
> fulfilling things. I'm going to London in two weeks for some more
> time in the archives.
I thought that you would at least respond to the ritual
human sacrifice of Strachey in Review of English Studies.
Have you read the abstract?
Abstract
A two-century critical tradition that the 1609 Bermuda shipwreck
literature (Jourdain 1610, 'True Declaration' 1610, Strachey 1625)
establishes a terminus a quo for The Tempest is incorrect. Strachey's
True Reportory, the only Bermuda pamphlet now thought to have
significantly influenced The Tempest, was put into its only extant
form too late to be used as the play's source and probably after the
play had already been produced in 1611. STRACHEY, A NOTORIOUS
PLAGIARIST EVEN BY EARLY MODERN STANDARDS, borrowed much that his
narrative shares with The Tempest from earlier sources also accessible
to Shakespeare. (italics mine).
That's a ridiculous argument in light of the way that
17th century promotional literature was compiled.
Furthermore, whether Strachey did or did not write,
co-write, plagiarize or pull A True Repertory out of his
ass has no bearing whatever on the TEXT of Dating
The Tempest.
There is no such thing as Original Sin in literary texts.
It's not passed down from generation to generation.
Ms. Mouse
> On May 20, 10:03 pm, David Kathman <d...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 20, 4:15 am, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > However, I spend almost no time these days addressing Oxfordians or
> > the authorship question in general, . . .
>
> You won't be missed, Kathman, because there's no Strat
> action going on in HLAS. Every Strat who once took part
> in the blood on the floor Strat resistance to Oxfordianism
> has since become a member of Lynne's salon.
Yes, Dave. I hold it in my basement, every Wed afternoon at 2.30 pm.
You are most welcome if you can make it up from Chicago.
>
> > because all my scholarly energies
> > are going toward my theater history research and other much more
> > fulfilling things. I'm going to London in two weeks for some more
> > time in the archives.
>
> I thought that you would at least respond to the ritual
> human sacrifice of Strachey in Review of English Studies.
>
> Have you read the abstract?
>
> Abstract
>
> A two-century critical tradition that the 1609 Bermuda shipwreck
> literature (Jourdain 1610, 'True Declaration' 1610, Strachey 1625)
> establishes a terminus a quo for The Tempest is incorrect. Strachey's
> True Reportory, the only Bermuda pamphlet now thought to have
> significantly influenced The Tempest, was put into its only extant
> form too late to be used as the play's source and probably after the
> play had already been produced in 1611. STRACHEY, A NOTORIOUS
> PLAGIARIST EVEN BY EARLY MODERN STANDARDS, borrowed much that his
> narrative shares with The Tempest from earlier sources also accessible
> to Shakespeare. (italics mine).
You don't have any italics.
>
> That's a ridiculous argument in light of the way that
> 17th century promotional literature was compiled.
>
> Furthermore, whether Strachey did or did not write,
> co-write, plagiarize or pull A True Repertory out of his
> ass has no bearing whatever on the TEXT of Dating
> The Tempest.
Of course it does. If Strachey copied from a couple of earlier texts,
it should be obvious to most people that Shakespeare was able to use
those earlier texts also. Some of the "parallels" that "Dating the
Tempest" states come from Strachey are verbatim or almost so from
Eden, for example.
This essay is just our first piece of the puzzle--and I've already
noticed two typos in it. :( The argument that Strachey (and many
others) took from Erasmus will be examined in a new journal, Verite,
out of Concordia University. And a third paper, on Tempest as a
Shrovetide play, will be out shortly in an orthodox journal. Two other
essays, one on Eden, the second on dating, are still under review.
Best wishes,
Lynne
Tom Reedy
news:1180008332.8...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On May 24, 12:23 am, Elizabeth <elizabethpo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 20, 10:03 pm, David Kathman <d...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On May 20, 4:15 am, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > However, I spend almost no time these days addressing Oxfordians or
>> > the authorship question in general, . . .
>>
>> You won't be missed, Kathman, because there's no Strat
>> action going on in HLAS. Every Strat who once took part
>> in the blood on the floor Strat resistance to Oxfordianism
>> has since become a member of Lynne's salon.
>
> Yes, Dave. I hold it in my basement, every Wed afternoon at 2.30 pm.
> You are most welcome if you can make it up from Chicago.
Sorry I missed yesterday. Is it my turn to bring the crumpets next week?
TR
Ms. Mouse
> "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1180008332.8...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On May 24, 12:23 am, Elizabeth <elizabethpo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On May 20, 10:03 pm, David Kathman <d...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On May 20, 4:15 am, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > However, I spend almost no time these days addressing Oxfordians or
> >> > the authorship question in general, . . .
>
> >> You won't be missed, Kathman, because there's no Strat
> >> action going on in HLAS. Every Strat who once took part
> >> in the blood on the floor Strat resistance to Oxfordianism
> >> has since become a member of Lynne's salon.
>
> > Yes, Dave. I hold it in my basement, every Wed afternoon at 2.30 pm.
> > You are most welcome if you can make it up from Chicago.
>
> Sorry I missed yesterday. Is it my turn to bring the crumpets next week?
No. Knave is bringing tarts. ;)
L.
> >> It's not passed down from generation to generation.- Hide quoted text -
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1180008332.8...@q66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On May 24, 12:23 am, Elizabeth <elizabethpo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On May 20, 10:03 pm, David Kathman <d...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On May 20, 4:15 am, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > However, I spend almost no time these days addressing Oxfordians or
> >> > the authorship question in general, . . .
>
> >> You won't be missed, Kathman, because there's no Strat
> >> action going on in HLAS. Every Strat who once took part
> >> in the blood on the floor Strat resistance to Oxfordianism
> >> has since become a member of Lynne's salon.
>
> > Yes, Dave. I hold it in my basement, every Wed afternoon at 2.30 pm.
> > You are most welcome if you can make it up from Chicago.
>
> Sorry I missed yesterday. Is it my turn to bring the crumpets next week?
>
> TR
I must say I'm disgusted with all of you, living it up while I have to
deal with Crowley.
--Bob G.