B5 DVD purchase - does the vendor matter?
WRWhite963
> > You know, John - just because people think there's a reason to
> > question the
> > issue doesn't mean they're nutcases.
>
>Some of them, indeed, are the nutcases' innocent dupes.
I reviewed your site, and none of those bits of "wisdom" had I ever encountered
before. And I'm an avid student of the JFK assassination - never heard the
Onassis angle.
>I deal with anti-Stratfordians (on the 'Net) on a daily basis. I know
>the facts, I know their theories, and I know them.
It seems, from your posts, you deem anyone who has decided against Stratford is
one of these nutcases, period. It also seems that anyone who questions
Stratford is being forced under some delusion. This prejudging doesn't seem
fitting to the intellectual quality of your posts on other subjects, leading me
to wonder why even consideration of the issue leads to such a knee-jerk
emotional reaction.
>Oh, they have all sorts of arguments. The argument that great writers
>never come from the middle class, for example. (In the long run, to
>tell the truth, that is the sum and substance of all their ravings.)
>
The only argument I've ever found compelling in any way (although inconclusive)
were similarities between the Earl of Oxford's life and events in Shakespeare's
plays. The argument I usually hear from Stratfordians is that the only reason
it's being questioned is because people have some kind of bias against a
middle-class person having written them - yet they never offer any factual
counters. It's always that emotional response. It reminds me greatly of the
emotional response I get from those who believe in evolution so ardently that
it's a fact, period, unquestionable.
Everything's questionable.
However, thanks for the link (I've already taken a gander.)
Personally, to me it's neither here nor there - I'm more interested in the
plays themselves. As for on/off topic, I'm unaware of any restriction in the
moderation of this group - you're interested, I'm interested, so making motions
about the fitness of the thread when there have only been a couple of messages
seems rather premature, don't you think?
The play's the thing, after all;-)
WRW
John W. Kennedy
> The only argument I've ever found compelling in any way (although inconclusive)
> were similarities between the Earl of Oxford's life and events in Shakespeare's
> plays.
Then you are definitely the victim of lies. The Oxford of the
Oxfordians is a fantasy figure invented so as to resemble Hamlet,
bearing little resemblance to the murdering, child-molesting, stuck-up,
cowardly, spoiled wastrel and all-round upper-class twit that history
records. (He also died many years before Shakespeare wrote his last
plays.)
> The argument I usually hear from Stratfordians is that the only reason
> it's being questioned is because people have some kind of bias against a
> middle-class person having written them - yet they never offer any factual
> counters.
Of course there are factual counters. To wit: every blessed person who
was alive at the time says Shakespeare was Shakespeare. All the records
say Shakespeare was Shakespeare. All the monuments say Shakespeare was
Shakespeare. No-one even raised the so-called "authorship question"
until Delia Bacon (no relation) in the 19th century, and she died in a
madhouse.
> It's always that emotional response.
It's not an "emotional response", it's the truth. Time and time again,
it's the same old story -- Shakespeare, being Shakespeare, couldn't
possibly have been the World's Greatest Writer. And, just as they
make up positive lies about their favorite candidates, they make up
negative lies about Shakespeare. He was a "peasant" (fact: his
father was an alderman, and had a term as High Bailiff -- more or less
Mayor -- of Stratford). He was uneducated (fact: Stratford had a free
school more or less equivalent to a prep school). His entire family
was illiterate (fact: we know for certain that one of his daughters
wasn't, and there is no solid evidence that any of his other relations
were, either).
So then they go and look for someone who is more like their idea of
what Shakespeare "must have been like". (A futile endeavor to begin
with; C. S. Lewis remarks somewhere that whenever people tried to
analyze him based on his writings, they were 100% wrong -- more wrong
than they ought to have been even by blind luck; you may recall, too,
the unfortunately who deduced from the relationship between David
(Sr.) and John Sheridan that Joe Straczynski had a close and loving
relationship with _his_ father.)
> It reminds me greatly of the
> emotional response I get from those who believe in evolution so ardently that
> it's a fact, period, unquestionable.
And it is a fact, too. As a Christian, myself, I feel soiled by the
liars who would undermine science in the name of a superstitious
veneration of the Bible. But the spirit of Caiaphas is always with
us....
> Everything's questionable.
Not without the aid of evidence or logic.
> Personally, to me it's neither here nor there - I'm more interested in the
> plays themselves. As for on/off topic, I'm unaware of any restriction in the
> moderation of this group - you're interested, I'm interested, so making motions
> about the fitness of the thread when there have only been a couple of messages
> seems rather premature, don't you think?
The matter cannot be sanely debated without voluminous discussion of
detail.
--
John W. Kennedy
Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!
http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/Double%20Falshood.html
Peter Zenner
>Then you are definitely the victim of lies. The Oxford of the
>Oxfordians is a fantasy figure invented so as to resemble Hamlet,
>bearing little resemblance to the murdering, child-molesting, stuck-up,
>cowardly, spoiled wastrel and all-round upper-class twit that history
>records. (He also died many years before Shakespeare wrote his last
>plays.)
I agree with Hellfire! Hamlet was Essex. Marlowe wrote the
first version after the death of Leicester (Claudius) in 1588
and then updated it after the death of Essex in 1601.
>Of course there are factual counters. To wit: every blessed person who
>was alive at the time says Shakespeare was Shakespeare. All the records
>say Shakespeare was Shakespeare.
That was what they wanted people to believe. But 'Shakespeare'
wasn't SHAKSPERE. That's why clues were planted in the
inscription on his monument. 'Wit' died when Shakspere died
and 'Wit' was a nick-name for MARLOWE. 'The Shakespeare
Invention' died when Shakspere died -- but Marlowe lived on.
OUR EVER LIVING POET was still alive. The Phoenix died and
then resurrected -- MANY TIMES. "I die; I fly"
>All the monuments say Shakespeare was
>Shakespeare.
The one in Stratford hides a message that says it was Marlowe
and the one in Westminster Abbey hides a message that says
it was Bacon. Alexander Pope obviously didn't know that 'Bacon'
was an alias as well. His real resting place has an anonymous
inscription. No names, no pack drill. Have I missed any?
>No-one even raised the so-called "authorship question"
>until Delia Bacon (no relation) in the 19th century, and she died in a
>madhouse.
To quote you, Hellfire -- YOU ARE A LIAR !!!!!
As I thought, and Bob G confirmed, the first doubter ON RECORD
to name an alternative was Reverend James Wilmot. He converted
James Corton Cowell of Ipswich in 1785. In 1769, however, the
author of a book called 'The Life and Adventures of Common Sense'
said that Shakespeare had stolen the plays from a character called
'Wisdom'. Delia Bacon didn't join the fray until 1856.
>It's not an "emotional response", it's the truth. Time and time again,
>it's the same old story -- Shakespeare, being Shakespeare, couldn't
>possibly have been the World's Greatest Writer.
'Shakespeare' was the world's greatest writer. Shakspere
couldn't spell 'Shakespeare'.
>And, just as they
>make up positive lies about their favorite candidates, they make up
>negative lies about Shakespeare. He was a "peasant" (fact: his
>father was an alderman, and had a term as High Bailiff -- more or less
>Mayor -- of Stratford).
Whatever Shakspere's father was has no bearing on what
he did or did not do. My Dad was a commercial artist; I'm not.
>He was uneducated (fact: Stratford had a free
>school more or less equivalent to a prep school).
Chesterfield has a technical college -- but I have never set
foot inside of it. Whatever the merits of Stratford Grammar
School, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT SHAKSPERE
WENT THERE. I thought that you wanted facts, Kennedy?
>His entire family
>was illiterate (fact: we know for certain that one of his daughters
>wasn't, and there is no solid evidence that any of his other relations
>were, either).
But Shakspere spelt Shakspere 'Shakspere', Kennedy.
Whatever the rest of his family could or could not do, he
knew his own name was SHAKSPERE. This "genius"
who is still rated as the world's greatest author never
spelt his name the same way as that name which appeared
on all of those title-pages. I guess that he can't have ever
seen one....
>So then they go and look for someone who is more like their idea of
>what Shakespeare "must have been like". (A futile endeavor to begin
>with; C. S. Lewis remarks somewhere that whenever people tried to
>analyze him based on his writings, they were 100% wrong -- more wrong
>than they ought to have been even by blind luck; you may recall, too,
>the unfortunately who deduced from the relationship between David
>(Sr.) and John Sheridan that Joe Straczynski had a close and loving
>relationship with _his_ father.)
Obfuscation. Enquiring minds need to know.
>And it is a fact, too. As a Christian, myself, I feel soiled by the
>liars
HA-HA -- I knew it!! A bible bashing fundamentalist!! What chance
has truth got when belief will do?
>who would undermine science in the name of a superstitious
>veneration of the Bible. But the spirit of Caiaphas is always with
>us....
Belief in the bible is belief in what MAN has said. Men make
mistakes and they do make up stories (apart from the Pope
and Messrs Kathman & Ross, according to their disciples).
Belief in the Strat-man is much the same. Somebody wanted
you to believe that a tipsy grain merchant wrote the world's
greatest plays -- so you do. But he left deliberate clues....
.>> Everything's questionable.
>Not without the aid of evidence or logic.
But those who worship at the clay feet of Shakspere are much
like those who wave their bible and shout "God says this". God
never said anything -- men have related what God has said and
there lies the rub. You can speak to God nowadays but if you
claim to hear him answering you back then you are sent for
treatment. God told Peter Sutcliffe to kill Yorkshire prostitutes.
Oh yeah?
>> Personally, to me it's neither here nor there - I'm more interested in the
>> plays themselves. As for on/off topic, I'm unaware of any restriction in the
>> moderation of this group - you're interested, I'm interested, so making
motions
>> about the fitness of the thread when there have only been a couple of
messages
>> seems rather premature, don't you think?
>The matter cannot be sanely debated without voluminous discussion of
>detail.
Or, in your case, buckets full of what we politely call 'obfuscation'.
Peter Zenner
Visit my web site 'Zenigmas' at
http://www.pzenner.freeserve.co.uk
Tom Reedy
almost sane.
And will you ever learn to stop posting in HTML?
TR
"Richard Kennedy" <stai...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3D3EF9D7...@charter.net...
When speaking of John Kennedy, please give his first name
and I'll pay you for the favor, name your price, I don't want
his office, orifice, or offensive language to be confused with
my sweet-smelling prose.