Was Elizabethan England More like Stalinist Russia and Iran than Texas?
john_baker
Was Elizabethan England More like Stalinist Russia and Iran than
Texas?
In a current posting, David Kathman has again demonstrated the
deflectiveness and out right rudeness of Stratfordian tactics.
The case in point was Chistian Lanciai's suggestion that personal
freedoms and freedom of the press were, in Elizabethan England, worse
than the conditions of Stalinist Russia. Lanciai produced a quote
from John Michelll's "Who Wrote Shakespeare?", page 109.
>>"It was far easier to enforce silence on a forbidden topic in
>>Elizabethan London than it has ever been since, even in Stalin's
>>Russia."
To which Kathman replied:
>John Michell is not an "Elizabethan expert". He is a
>borderline crackpot who has written books on Atlantis,
>as well as one very unscholarly book on the Shakespeare
>authorship question.
>
>Dave Kathman
>dj...@ix.netcom.com
Now notice that Kathman has not even addressed the issue.
All he has done is attacked John Michell. And unfairly so, since the
attack isn't directed to Michell's book on the authorship question,
but is mustered by addressing another issue entirely, i.e., his book
on Atlantis.
While I haven't read it, I would suspect Michell is merely curious
about those who are curious about Atlantis, as he was equally curious
about those who were curious about the authorship question. Big deal.
So what?
I've read Michell's book, "Who Wrote Shakespeare". It is informative
and well written and by any standard Michell would pass as an
Elizabethan authority on this subject, as evidenced by the book.
But let us consider the questions.
Did Elizabethan and Jacobean writers enjoy the personal freedoms that
we enjoy? Did the press have a right to print whatever it pleased?
We should know that neither group enjoyed these "modern" freedoms.
These were freedoms men and women had to fight and die for. Freedoms
that were obtained only by kiling kings and founding republics.
In that age and place men lost their limbs and their lives for their
opinions. Presses were destroyed and books were burnt.
Sir Dr. John Hayward, a Cambridge scholar and jurist, was tossed in
prison for life for his history book on Henry IV and Part Two, which
had been published, was burnt in the entire printing before any copies
were sold, with no known copy surviving. It was not published until
the 1990s, when it was reconstructed from manuscript.
Now if John Michell is not an Elizabethan expert, I would direct our
attentions to Professor Leon Harold Craig who has recently written a
marvelous book on Shakespeare and Plato entitled *Of Philosophers and
Kings.*
Now Craig is a Professor of Political Philosophy and Science at the
University of Alberta and has specialized in Elizabethan politics and
philosophy for many long years.
So what does Professor Craig say about this:
"One can get some immediate sense of what I have in mind by trying to
imagine how carefully, how prudently, how discretely, one would write
about almost anything in Iran these days. Here we might recall how
many of the great works of our philosophical tradition were written
under conditions closer to those of contemporary Iran than to those of
contemporary liberal democracies. Indeed the founder of political
philosophy was put to death, ostensibly for religious crimes (for not
believing in the gods they rest of the city allegedly believed in, and
for corrupting the youth likewise). Therefore, in polishing the
artefacts of one's philosophizing about politics, special care may be
called for–and seems to have been bestowed, I should add, by all the
major political philosophers of our tradition, among whom I count
Shakespeare." (13)
I should add Craig counts Shakespeare as the primary example of a
political philosopher who has published the "artifacts of his
philosophizing."
Craig and I know that Elizabethan England was like Stalinist Russia or
modern Iran as far as personal liberties went.
It was a small arena and the Crown's control over it was absolute.
Consequently Shakespeare, whoever he was, had to write in a careful
and prudent way. Indeed Craig says this just above this quote, when
he is defining political philosophy and philosophizing:
"But it could also mean—and this, in my view, is both a broader and
deeper conception—philosophizing (about anything) in a "politic" way,
in a prudent or "polite" way, with due regard for the possible
political consequences of one's philosophizing, either for oneself or
others."
Craig and I understand that the works of Shakespeare are the epitome
of political philosophizing.
They are superior, in this regard, to the dialogues of Plato.
For one their focus is more on political philosophy than
"metaphysical" philosophy. Or epistemology and logic, as were many of
the Platonic works.
Like Plato's works, they were written during a time when their author
could have been killed legally as easily as was Socrates.
As easily as was Marlowe, who had he not been "killed," while he was
overdue on bail for capital crimes, would have been hanged along with
John Penry, after he was tortured, as was his roommate Thomas Kyd.
So Kathman goes down the tube again.
Qualified historians and political scientists, i.e., "Elizabethan
experts," know that Elizabethan and Jacobean England were more
controlling than Stalinist Russia.
The proper models are Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan under the Tilaban.
Proper because the level of control was greater in London and in these
countries than in Stalinist Russia.
This political control mandated that the writer of these great plays
use a method for presenting the "artifacts" of his philosophizing in
such a format that they would pass inspection.
He had before him the model of Plato's works. All 35 of them. Which
allowed, because of their format, Plato to thrive, even though he said
much the same thing as Socrates, but said it ironically.
Craig and I know Shakespeare choose to follow Plato's example closely.
So he presented us with works that are radically ironic.
So ironic that the likes of David Kathman still have not taken the
point.
My advice to Kathman is to read Craig's book. Line for line. It may
help, but then again it may not, since some types simply never
understand these matters.
Good luck Kathman, all you have to loose is your ignorance.
John Baker
Below is the full exchange:
See:
On Mon, 11 Feb 2002 19:23:26 -0600, "David Kathman"
<dj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In article <7e67b43b.02021...@posting.google.com>,
>clan...@hotmail.com (Christian Lanciai) wrote:
>
>>"> As some Elizabethan expert wrote, even in such a comparatively
>>liberal
>>> country as England in the 16th century, conditions and censure were
>>> more severe than in the Russia of Stalin.
>>
>><Which Elizabethan 'expert' was that?"
>>
>>
>>A source agreeing with the debated issue has been found:
>>
>>"It was far easier to enforce silence on a forbidden topic in
>>Elizabethan London than it has ever been since, even in Stalin's
>>Russia."
>>
>>John Michell, "Who Wrote Shakespeare?", page 109.
>
>John Michell is not an "Elizabethan expert". He is a
>borderline crackpot who has written books on Atlantis,
>as well as one very unscholarly book on the Shakespeare
>authorship question.
>
>Dave Kathman
>dj...@ix.netcom.com
John Baker
Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe
or e-mail me at: Mar...@localaccess.com
"The ultimate truth is penultimately always a falsehood.
He who will be proved right in the end appears to be
wrong and harmful before it."
_Darkness at Noon_, Arthur Koestler
Bob Grumman
< freedoms and freedom of the press were, in Elizabethan England, worse
< than the conditions of Stalinist Russia. Lanciai produced a quote
< from John Michelll's "Who Wrote Shakespeare?", page 109.
<
< "It was far easier to enforce silence on a forbidden topic in
< Elizabethan London than it has ever been since, even in Stalin's
< Russia."
<
< To which Kathman replied:
<
<
< <John Michell is not an "Elizabethan expert". He is a
< <borderline crackpot who has written books on Atlantis,
< <as well as one very unscholarly book on the Shakespeare
< <authorship question.
< <
Another lie from our faked phd. If you had correctly quoted
the post you are abusing, one would see that Dave was
rsponding the Christian's statement that the imbecile, Michell,
was an expert.
--Bob G.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
bodo
John Baker wrote in message <3c728e80....@News.localaccess.com>...
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Censorship was ended in England
_before_ the execution of Charles I, an event which led to a republican
tyranny in some ways worse than his. Similarly, the French Revolution didn't
exactly lead to a golden age of freedom of speech.
I'm afraid that you're well off the mark here. Elizabeth and her government
tried their hardest to suppress the printing of pamphlets and books they
disapproved of, and they often mutilated and threw people into jail for
writing or printing such materials, which was indeed terrible. However, the
notion that the Elizabethan state was 'absolute', as you put it above, is
utter hogwash. The governmental apparatus which developed in the late 15th
Century in the wake of the Wars of the Roses and was further developed under
the Tudors was the closest that England ever had to a true absolutist state.
Henry probably could have set up such a state, with the revenues from the
suppressed monastaries enabling him to rule without parliament, but he
frittered much of the money away on futile foreign wars. The real capacity
of the crown was further undermined by the massive inflation that occurred
in Europe during the mid 16th Century, with the result that while the
titular value of rents accruing from crown lands stayed the same, the actual
value declined dramatically. This is one of the reasons why Elizabeth
travelled around so much - so she could live off her subjects' hospitality,
her own income being tiny compared with that of the King of France or Spain.
This also meant that for Elizabeth to do anything expensive, such as raise
an army, she had to call a Parliament, since only parliament could vote
taxes. She never tried to raise a real peace time standing army, which would
have been the first step to creating an absolutist state. Compared with her
European contemporaries, Elizabeth's power was very circumscribed.
>
>Consequently Shakespeare, whoever he was, had to write in a careful
>and prudent way. Indeed Craig says this just above this quote, when
>he is defining political philosophy and philosophizing:
>
>"But it could also mean—and this, in my view, is both a broader and
>deeper conception—philosophizing (about anything) in a "politic" way,
>in a prudent or "polite" way, with due regard for the possible
>political consequences of one's philosophizing, either for oneself or
>others."
>
>Craig and I understand that the works of Shakespeare are the epitome
>of political philosophizing.
>
>They are superior, in this regard, to the dialogues of Plato.
>
>For one their focus is more on political philosophy than
>"metaphysical" philosophy. Or epistemology and logic, as were many of
>the Platonic works.
>
>Like Plato's works, they were written during a time when their author
>could have been killed legally as easily as was Socrates.
>
>As easily as was Marlowe, who had he not been "killed," while he was
>overdue on bail for capital crimes, would have been hanged along with
>John Penry, after he was tortured, as was his roommate Thomas Kyd.
>
>So Kathman goes down the tube again.
>
>Qualified historians and political scientists, i.e., "Elizabethan
>experts," know that Elizabethan and Jacobean England were more
>controlling than Stalinist Russia.
If they really 'know' that, they're idiots. Alot of contemporary Shakespeare
scholars write the most incredible balderdash about Elizabethan England.
Unfortunately, cultural studies, new historicism etc. etc. etc. seem to
destroy some minds they come in contact with.
>
>The proper models are Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan under the Tilaban.
>
>Proper because the level of control was greater in London and in these
>countries than in Stalinist Russia.
I think you need to read a bit more about Stalinist Russia. Elizabeth's
government may have been oppressive at times and to some people, but it
could not do anything really unpopular and alienate a large section of the
population, because it simply did not have the wherewithal to put down a
large-scale uprising. Thus comparing it with these other regimes and
countries, particularly Stalinist Russia, is an insult to the intelligence.
All of them relied immediately as well as ultimately on FORCE to get their
way and stay in power, while this was not the case in the same way in
Elizabeth's England, however distasteful many aspects of her rule are to us
today.
In any case, the idea that the 'real' author of Shakespeare's works had to
conceal his identity for safety is ludicrous. The works were published
during the reigns of Elizabeth and James I and passed by the censor.
Neil Brennen
> The case in point was Chistian Lanciai's suggestion that personal
> freedoms and freedom of the press were, in Elizabethan England, worse
> than the conditions of Stalinist Russia. Lanciai produced a quote
> from John Michelll's "Who Wrote Shakespeare?", page 109.
>
> >>"It was far easier to enforce silence on a forbidden topic in
> >>Elizabethan London than it has ever been since, even in Stalin's
> >>Russia."
>
> To which Kathman replied:
> >John Michell is not an "Elizabethan expert". He is a
> >borderline crackpot who has written books on Atlantis,
> >as well as one very unscholarly book on the Shakespeare
> >authorship question.
> >Dave Kathman
> >dj...@ix.netcom.com
>
> Now notice that Kathman has not even addressed the issue.
Actually, he did, which was to dismiss the source of the quotation as
dubious. You must not have seen it. No doubt your Phd was blocking
your view.
Neil Brennen
john_baker
You are nothing but a jerk Bob G. I quoted the entire post!!!
Do you need me to read it for you?
>
> --Bob G.
>
>
>--
>Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
John Baker
john_baker
What's your source for the ending of censorship in England prior to
Charles' execution? Heck Bertrand Russell was imprisioned and his
Principles of Mathematics censored daily by the Warden of the Tower...
But I will take your point that not all republics are good....just cut
me some slack about the nature of those times...
No it isn't. You seem to be mistaking the rights held by nobles with
the non rights of the general population.
They didn't have any rights. They could be arrested, tortured, and
mutilated.
At whim.
>Henry probably could have set up such a state, with the revenues from the
>suppressed monastaries enabling him to rule without parliament, but he
>frittered much of the money away on futile foreign wars. The real capacity
>of the crown was further undermined by the massive inflation that occurred
>in Europe during the mid 16th Century, with the result that while the
>titular value of rents accruing from crown lands stayed the same, the actual
>value declined dramatically. This is one of the reasons why Elizabeth
>travelled around so much - so she could live off her subjects' hospitality,
>her own income being tiny compared with that of the King of France or Spain.
>This also meant that for Elizabeth to do anything expensive, such as raise
>an army, she had to call a Parliament, since only parliament could vote
>taxes. She never tried to raise a real peace time standing army, which would
>have been the first step to creating an absolutist state.
Not so.
>Compared with her
>European contemporaries, Elizabeth's power was very circumscribed.
Her power and James' was total as far as individual rights and
freedoms went...as far as the right to a free press went. Sure there
were things she couldn't do...and they did work through Parilament as
you point out, but the focus here isn't on international affairs and
wars or even public works, it is limited to personal freedoms and the
freedoms of the press. What John Michell said was
>"It was far easier to enforce silence on a forbidden topic in
>Elizabethan London than it has ever been since, even in Stalin's
>Russia."
I think this to be a correct statement. Do you doubt it?
Again you are missing the point. The fact is Eliz did put down large
scale rebellions, check out what happened to Northumberland or Essex.
What were they doing in Ireland? So get real. And focus on what was
going on in London. Could she prevent the publication of a book?
>Thus comparing it with these other regimes and
>countries, particularly Stalinist Russia, is an insult to the intelligence.
No it is not. We aren't talking about how a modern state with
electronic communication is run, we're talking about the nature of the
state and where power lay. It lay with the Crown as it lay with
Stalin. Both could carry out their whims on helpless citizens.
This is the point. No more, no less.
>All of them relied immediately as well as ultimately on FORCE to get their
>way and stay in power, while this was not the case in the same way in
>Elizabeth's England, however distasteful many aspects of her rule are to us
>today.
So did Elizabeth. You need to read more about what Walsingham did.
> In any case, the idea that the 'real' author of Shakespeare's works had to
>conceal his identity for safety is ludicrous.
So we get at last to the point. You're wrong here. I've pointed out
that the Crown would have killed the author of Richard II during the
Essex rebellion...I've also pointed out that if William Herbert was
the poet's son, saying so would have taken away his lands and titles,
which gives us another good reason. Lastly if it was Marlowe, saying
so would have brought him back under charges for capital crimes...what
part of this don't you understand?
Don't you understand what Craig said? The works had to be written in
such a way as to get around the censor...did you miss that point?
> The works were published
>during the reigns of Elizabeth and James I and passed by the censor.
No they weren't. For example consider just the history of the
deposition scene in Richard II. Who passed it?
>
>
john baker
john_baker
wrote:
>Neil Brennen
Indeed I didn't.
Would you like to point out how Kathman addressed the issue in his
post?
What he did was attack the reputation of John Michell via an
argumentum ad hominem...
Where did you go to school, jerk?
john
Neil Brennen
> On 19 Feb 2002 17:14:38 -0800, ches...@mindspring.com (Neil Brennen)
> wrote:
> >> Now notice that Kathman has not even addressed the issue.
> >
> >Actually, he did, which was to dismiss the source of the quotation as
> >dubious. You must not have seen it.
> >Neil Brennen
>
>
> Indeed I didn't.
> Would you like to point out how Kathman addressed the issue in his
> post?
I did. Your Phd must have gotten in the way again.
> What he did was attack the reputation of John Michell via an
> argumentum ad hominem...
> Where did you go to school, jerk?
None of your business, Faker. I'm not playing "Anything you can do, I
can do better" with you.
Neil Brennen
Bob Grumman
the lead-in that indicated the subject was Elizabethan experts,
and then accused Dave Kathman of evading the subject:
<<Which Elizabethan 'expert' was that?"
<
<
<A source agreeing with the debated issue has been found:
<
<"It was far easier to enforce silence on a forbidden topic in
<Elizabethan London than it has ever been since, even in Stalin's
<Russia."
<
<John Michell, "Who Wrote Shakespeare?", page 109.
John Michell is not an "Elizabethan expert". He is a
borderline crackpot who has written books on Atlantis,
as well as one very unscholarly book on the Shakespeare
authorship question. --Dave K.
*** here ends the quoted post. Here's how Faker re-posted it:
< << The case in point was Chistian Lanciai's suggestion that personal
< << freedoms and freedom of the press were, in Elizabethan England,
worse
< << than the conditions of Stalinist Russia. Lanciai produced a quote
< << from John Michelll's "Who Wrote Shakespeare?", page 109.
< <<
< << "It was far easier to enforce silence on a forbidden topic in
< << Elizabethan London than it has ever been since, even in Stalin's
< << Russia."
< <<
< << To which Kathman replied:
< <<
< <<
< << <John Michell is not an "Elizabethan expert". He is a
< << <borderline crackpot who has written books on Atlantis,
< << <as well as one very unscholarly book on the Shakespeare
< << <authorship question.
< << <
< << Now notice that Kathman has not even addressed the issue.
< <
< <Another lie from our faked phd. If you had correctly quoted
< <the post you are abusing, one would see that Dave was
< <rsponding the Christian's statement that the imbecile, Michell,
< <was an expert.
<
<
< You are nothing but a jerk Bob G. I quoted the entire post!!!
Another lie, of course. But unconscious, probably--I DO now see
that you probably ARE too stupid to understand how you misrepresent
texts rather than consciously devious.
Christian Lanciai
> On 19 Feb 2002 17:14:38 -0800, ches...@mindspring.com (Neil Brennen)
> wrote:
>
> >John Baker wrote in message news:<3c728e80....@News.localaccess.com>...
> >> The case in point was Chistian Lanciai's suggestion that personal
> >> freedoms and freedom of the press were, in Elizabethan England, worse
> >> than the conditions of Stalinist Russia. Lanciai produced a quote
> >> from John Michelll's "Who Wrote Shakespeare?", page 109.
> >>
> >> >>"It was far easier to enforce silence on a forbidden topic in
> >> >>Elizabethan London than it has ever been since, even in Stalin's
> >> >>Russia."
> >>
> >> To which Kathman replied:
> >> >John Michell is not an "Elizabethan expert". He is a
> >> >borderline crackpot who has written books on Atlantis,
> >> >as well as one very unscholarly book on the Shakespeare
> >> >authorship question.
> >> >Dave Kathman
> >>
> >>
There is no harm in John Michell. His ambition with "Who Wrote
Shakespeare?" was merely to chart the authorship issue, in which he
has succeeded thoroughly with the most admirable objectivity and
lucidity. He takes no stand himself, and from all he has written in
that thick book with all its massive collections of interesting data
it's impossible to guess at his own views. Only Stratfordians have
objected against the book, since to them, like ostriches burying their
heads in the sand, there IS NO authorship issue. The sheer objectivity
of the work with its presentation of all the existing arguments pro
and contra all the candidates (63 altogether) is considered a threat
to the position of the Stratfordians, but the threat is not
constituted by John Michell but by the objectivity of his book, since
the Shakespeare case (in view of all the facts) can't be defended
except by subjectivity.
Chris
Andrew Ness
"bodo" <jbed...@ihug.com> wrote in message
news:a4useo$hqq$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>
> >
>
> I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Censorship was ended in England
> _before_ the execution of Charles I, an event which led to a republican
> tyranny in some ways worse than his. Similarly, the French Revolution
didn't
> exactly lead to a golden age of freedom of speech.
Censorship wasn't completely removed from the English stage until the 1960s!
NSY
Bob Grumman
> Shakespeare?" was merely to chart the authorship issue, in which he
> has succeeded thoroughly with the most admirable objectivity and
> lucidity. He takes no stand himself, and from all he has written in
> that thick book with all its massive collections of interesting data
> it's impossible to guess at his own views. Only Stratfordians have
> objected against the book, since to them, like ostriches burying their
> heads in the sand, there IS NO authorship issue. The sheer objectivity
> of the work with its presentation of all the existing arguments pro
> and contra all the candidates (63 altogether) is considered a threat
> to the position of the Stratfordians, but the threat is not
> constituted by John Michell but by the objectivity of his book, since
> the Shakespeare case (in view of all the facts) can't be defended
> except by subjectivity.
>
> Chris
Yeah, the subjectivity of say "all he hath writ" means something
like "all the he wrote." John Michell probably IS the most
objective of the wacks but his book is full of errors and
propaganda--and it omits much of the case for the actual
author of the Shakespearean works. See my review and
tell me where and why it's wrong before eulogizing it.
Michell bends over backwards to seem uncommitted, but is
a groupist.
Bob Grumman
> Shakespeare?" was merely to chart the authorship issue, in which he
> has succeeded thoroughly with the most admirable objectivity and
> lucidity. He takes no stand himself, and from all he has written in
> that thick book with all its massive collections of interesting data
> it's impossible to guess at his own views. Only Stratfordians have
> objected against the book, since to them, like ostriches burying their
> heads in the sand, there IS NO authorship issue. The sheer objectivity
> of the work with its presentation of all the existing arguments pro
> and contra all the candidates (63 altogether) is considered a threat
> to the position of the Stratfordians, but the threat is not
> constituted by John Michell but by the objectivity of his book, since
> the Shakespeare case (in view of all the facts) can't be defended
> except by subjectivity.
>
> Chris
Yeah, the subjectivity of saying "all he hath writ" means something
like "all the he wrote." John Michell probably IS the most
objective of the wacks but his book is full of errors and
propaganda--and it omits much of the case for the actual
author of the Shakespearean works. See my review and
tell me where and why it's wrong before eulogizing it.
Michell bends over backwards to seem uncommitted, but is
a groupist, if too cowardly to admit it forthrightly.
Bob Grumman
> Shakespeare?" was merely to chart the authorship issue, in which he
> has succeeded thoroughly with the most admirable objectivity and
> lucidity. He takes no stand himself, and from all he has written in
> that thick book with all its massive collections of interesting data
> it's impossible to guess at his own views. Only Stratfordians have
> objected against the book, since to them, like ostriches burying their
> heads in the sand, there IS NO authorship issue. The sheer objectivity
> of the work with its presentation of all the existing arguments pro
> and contra all the candidates (63 altogether) is considered a threat
> to the position of the Stratfordians, but the threat is not
> constituted by John Michell but by the objectivity of his book, since
> the Shakespeare case (in view of all the facts) can't be defended
> except by subjectivity.
>
> Chris
Yeah, the subjectivity of saying "all he hath writ" means something
Alan Jones
<John Baker> wrote in message news:3c731670...@News.localaccess.com...
> > The works were published
> >during the reigns of Elizabeth and James I and passed by the censor.
>
> No they weren't. For example consider just the history of the
> deposition scene in Richard II. Who passed it?
The scene was cut from the book until 1608 but apparently performed on
stage: two separate censorships with different policies. This doesn't seem
evidence of a coordinated effort to suppress seditious work.
Alan Jones
Bob Grumman
< English stage until the 1960s!
<
< NSY
Sorry to be picky, but censorship, so far as I know, hasn't been
completely removed from any stage yet.
Alan Jones
"Bob Grumman" <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message
news:1c82300d117ddf6f8c4...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> < Censorship wasn't completely removed from the
> < English stage until the 1960s!
> <
> < NSY
>
> Sorry to be picky, but censorship, so far as I know, hasn't been
> completely removed from any stage yet.
Perhpas this depends on how one defines "censorship". I take it to imply the
inspection by some person in authority of a text or film or whatever *before
it is available to the public*, and the right of that person to ban the work
or to require changes to it before it appears. This is, I think, what we
mean in terms of Elizabethan/Jacobean plays, and in this sense I think that
in Britain only films and videos are censored, though the former British
Board of Film Censorship has changed its title to "... of Film
Classification".
Banning or gutting of a work already "published" in any medium is another
matter, as is self-censorship within an organisation.
Alan Jones
Bob Grumman
< < completely removed from any stage yet.
<
< I take it to imply the
< inspection by some person in authority of a text or film or whatever
*before
< it is available to the public*, and the right of that person to ban
the work
< or to require changes to it before it appears. This is, I think, what
we
< mean in terms of Elizabethan/Jacobean plays, and in this sense I think
that
< in Britain only films and videos are censored, though the former
British
< Board of Film Censorship has changed its title to "... of Film
< Classification".
Right. I was just airing my hatred of censorship--by which I DO
mean state censorship. Any implication that the West has
something called freedom of speech gets me going--though we
do have a pretty good approximation of it. -Bob G.
< Banning or gutting of a work already "published" in any medium
< is another matter, as is self-censorship within an organisation.
<
< Alan Jones
--
David L. Webb
> On 19 Feb 2002 17:14:38 -0800, ches...@mindspring.com (Neil Brennen)
> wrote:
>
> >John Baker wrote in message news:<3c728e80....@News.localaccess.com>...
> >> The case in point was Chistian Lanciai's suggestion that personal
> >> freedoms and freedom of the press were, in Elizabethan England, worse
> >> than the conditions of Stalinist Russia. Lanciai produced a quote
> >> from John Michelll's "Who Wrote Shakespeare?", page 109.
> >>
> >> >>"It was far easier to enforce silence on a forbidden topic in
> >> >>Elizabethan London than it has ever been since, even in Stalin's
> >> >>Russia."
> >> To which Kathman replied:
No, Kathman was replying to the implied characterization of Michell
as an "Elizabethan expert"; the entire context can be found at
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a49qqu%24oc6%241%40slb6.atl.mindsp
ring.net&rnum=1>.
In that Kathman was quite correct, as I invite you to check for
yourself by consulting Michell's writings on dowsing, crop circles,
flying saucers, Atlantis, astro-archaeology, science and magic, etc. --
not that I would expect someone who believes that the lunar landing was
faked to be able to tell the difference between science and hogwash.
> >> >John Michell is not an "Elizabethan expert". He is a
> >> >borderline crackpot who has written books on Atlantis,
> >> >as well as one very unscholarly book on the Shakespeare
> >> >authorship question.
> >> >Dave Kathman
> >> >dj...@ix.netcom.com
> >>
> >> Now notice that Kathman has not even addressed the issue.
> >Actually, he did, which was to dismiss the source of the quotation as
> >dubious. You must not have seen it.
> >Neil Brennen
He certainly did address the question of Michell's reliability,
expertise, and skepticism, which was all he undertook to do in the
first place.
> Indeed I didn't.
I know that you have trouble reading, "Dr." Faker, but see the URL I
furnished above and check it yourself.
> Would you like to point out how Kathman addressed the issue in his
> post?
>
> What he did was attack the reputation of John Michell via an
> argumentum ad hominem...
No, Kathman countered the appeal to authority wherein Michell was
characterized as an "Elizabethan expert."
> Where did you go to school, jerk?
You're not going to start *that* again, are you, "Dr." Faker? It's
poor salesmanship. We've already seen quite clearly that your boasts
about your educational record, your nonexistent Ph.D., your supposed
contributions to science, etc. are empty.
David Webb
Andrew Ness
"Alan Jones" <a...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:eT4d8.229$766....@news-binary.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> "Bob Grumman" <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message
> news:1c82300d117ddf6f8c4...@mygate.mailgate.org...
> > < Censorship wasn't completely removed from the
> > < English stage until the 1960s!
> > <
> > < NSY
> >
> > Sorry to be picky, but censorship, so far as I know, hasn't been
> > completely removed from any stage yet.
>
> Perhpas this depends on how one defines "censorship". I take it to imply
the
> inspection by some person in authority of a text or film or whatever
*before
> it is available to the public*, and the right of that person to ban the
work
> or to require changes to it before it appears. This is, I think, what we
> mean in terms of Elizabethan/Jacobean plays, and in this sense I think
that
> in Britain only films and videos are censored, though the former British
> Board of Film Censorship has changed its title to "... of Film
> Classification".
Right. The BBFC don't censor films, they award them certificates (U, PG, 15,
18 etc). Films without certificates can't be distributed in the same way,
but they can be viewed. The BBFC will advise on cuts which would allow
problematic films to _get_ certificates or get better ones.
As far as I know, there is no such mechanism for the stage, and hasn't been
since the 60s.
> Banning or gutting of a work already "published" in any medium is another
> matter, as is self-censorship within an organisation.
This would usually come under the Obscene Publications Act, a particularly
nasty piece of legislation. Though whether a play can be defined as a
'publication' under the terms of that act, I'm not sure.
NSY
David L. Webb
> On Tue, 19 Feb 2002 18:39:34 +0000 (UTC), "Bob Grumman"
> <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
> >< The case in point was Chistian Lanciai's suggestion that personal
> >< freedoms and freedom of the press were, in Elizabethan England, worse
> >< than the conditions of Stalinist Russia. Lanciai produced a quote
> >< from John Michelll's "Who Wrote Shakespeare?", page 109.
> ><
> >< "It was far easier to enforce silence on a forbidden topic in
> >< Elizabethan London than it has ever been since, even in Stalin's
> >< Russia."
> ><
> >< To which Kathman replied:
> ><
> ><
> >< <John Michell is not an "Elizabethan expert". He is a
> >< <borderline crackpot who has written books on Atlantis,
> >< <as well as one very unscholarly book on the Shakespeare
> >< <authorship question.
> >< <
> >< Now notice that Kathman has not even addressed the issue.
> >Another lie from our faked phd. If you had correctly quoted
> >the post you are abusing, one would see that Dave was
> >rsponding the Christian's statement that the imbecile, Michell,
> >was an expert.
> You are nothing but a jerk Bob G. I quoted the entire post!!!
But you *didn't* quote the post to which Kathman was responding,
which contained the implied characterization of Michell (as an
"Elizabethan expert") to which Kathman objected. You thereby omitted
the context of Kathman's rejoinder. See
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a49qqu%24oc6%241%40slb6.atl.mindsp
ring.net>
> Do you need me to read it for you?
If Grumman (or for that matter, any sane person familiar with your
track record in reading accurately) needed someone to read to him, he
*certainly* wouldn't choose you, Faker.
David Webb
john_baker
<bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>< You are nothing but a jerk Bob G. I quoted the entire post!!!
>
>Another lie, of course. But unconscious, probably--
No Bob not a lie, of course. When I quote the entire post, I quote
the entire post.
I thought you killed yourself...writing from the otherside of the
gave?
john_baker
Anyone with a computer can see that link, Webb, I quoted Kathman's
post. All of it. Kathman dodged the point. Michell is an expert in
these matters, his book proves it.
>
>> Do you need me to read it for you?
>
I'll bet you lunch you've never read it.
> If Grumman (or for that matter, any sane person familiar with your
>track record in reading accurately) needed someone to read to him, he
>*certainly* wouldn't choose you, Faker.
That, Webb, was my point!!!
john
>
> David Webb
john_baker
wrote:
Alan,
We've been over this before. I may have missed your answer, but the
1608 edition does NOT have the deposition scene in it...only some
watered down version of it.
Right? Only the FF prints the scene.
We don't know when it was written or rewritten.
But what we do know is that no published edition of the scene was in
print prior to the Essex Rebellion and yet the Queen says it was
produced "40tie times in open streets and houses".
Now my point least we miss it, is that the production of it at the
Globe for the Essex Rebellion, with the banned deposition scene in it,
and we know it was in it because of the record, i.e., of Phillips and
Gelly Meyricke, would be grounds to go after the players, not to
mention the author.
Elizabeth knew she was Richard II "know ye not that?"
john
john_baker
wrote:
>> What he did was attack the reputation of John Michell via an
>> argumentum ad hominem...
>> Where did you go to school, jerk?
>
>None of your business, Faker. I'm not playing "Anything you can do, I
>can do better" with you.
>
>Neil Brennen
Fear of loosing is a big issue in many lives. Just suck it up
Neil...you can do it.
john_baker
Lanciai) wrote:
>John Baker wrote in message news:<3c731b9a...@News.localaccess.com>...
>> On 19 Feb 2002 17:14:38 -0800, ches...@mindspring.com (Neil Brennen)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >John Baker wrote in message news:<3c728e80....@News.localaccess.com>...
>> >> The case in point was Chistian Lanciai's suggestion that personal
>> >> freedoms and freedom of the press were, in Elizabethan England, worse
>> >> than the conditions of Stalinist Russia. Lanciai produced a quote
>> >> from John Michelll's "Who Wrote Shakespeare?", page 109.
>> >>
>> >> >>"It was far easier to enforce silence on a forbidden topic in
>> >> >>Elizabethan London than it has ever been since, even in Stalin's
>> >> >>Russia."
>> >>
>> >> To which Kathman replied:
>> >> >John Michell is not an "Elizabethan expert". He is a
>> >> >borderline crackpot who has written books on Atlantis,
>> >> >as well as one very unscholarly book on the Shakespeare
>> >> >authorship question.
>> >> >Dave Kathman
>> >>
>> >>
><snip of argument not directly related to John Michell>
>
>
>There is no harm in John Michell. His ambition with "Who Wrote
>Shakespeare?" was merely to chart the authorship issue, in which he
>has succeeded thoroughly with the most admirable objectivity and
>lucidity.
We agree on this. But for the likes of Webb and Neil who haven't read
the book we might as well be doing something else...
>He takes no stand himself, and from all he has written in
>that thick book with all its massive collections of interesting data
>it's impossible to guess at his own views.
He and I are both in the new Mike Rubbo film on Marlowe, so I know
what his library and living room looks like and what he looks like as
well...he is very clearly interested in why people would give their
lives to this question...and we have. Even Kathman and Strats are, if
only in defending the undenfendable...
He doesn't seem to understand or at least if he does I missed it,
that this is a mystery designed by the author as much as any of the
puns were....and thus the power of the mystery is in or a reflection
of the author....
> Only Stratfordians have
>objected against the book, since to them, like ostriches burying their
>heads in the sand, there IS NO authorship issue. The sheer objectivity
>of the work with its presentation of all the existing arguments pro
>and contra all the candidates (63 altogether) is considered a threat
>to the position of the Stratfordians, but the threat is not
>constituted by John Michell but by the objectivity of his book, since
>the Shakespeare case (in view of all the facts) can't be defended
>except by subjectivity.
Correct. All they can do is toss sand in his eyes. Poor guys. They
don't have a point to stand on.
>
>Chris
john_baker
<David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>In article <3c731b9a...@News.localaccess.com>, John Baker wrote:
>
>> On 19 Feb 2002 17:14:38 -0800, ches...@mindspring.com (Neil Brennen)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >John Baker wrote in message news:<3c728e80....@News.localaccess.com>...
>> >> The case in point was Chistian Lanciai's suggestion that personal
>> >> freedoms and freedom of the press were, in Elizabethan England, worse
>> >> than the conditions of Stalinist Russia. Lanciai produced a quote
>> >> from John Michelll's "Who Wrote Shakespeare?", page 109.
>> >>
>> >> >>"It was far easier to enforce silence on a forbidden topic in
>> >> >>Elizabethan London than it has ever been since, even in Stalin's
>> >> >>Russia."
>
>> >> To which Kathman replied:
>
> No, Kathman was replying to the implied characterization of Michell
>as an "Elizabethan expert"; the entire context can be found at
><http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=a49qqu%24oc6%241%40slb6.atl.mindsp
>ring.net&rnum=1>.
>In that Kathman was quite correct, as I invite you to check for
>yourself by consulting Michell's writings on dowsing, crop circles,
>flying saucers, Atlantis, astro-archaeology, science and magic, etc. --
>not that I would expect someone who believes that the lunar landing was
>faked to be able to tell the difference between science and hogwash.
You know Webb you really are a jerk. I tend to think math is the only
subject you might find freedom in. With all its order. In the real
word Webb a man's opinions on other topics have NOTHING to do
with his opinions on a given topic. You may disagree with John and I
about moonlandings and we may all three agree that 2 + 2 is 4.
>> >> >John Michell is not an "Elizabethan expert". He is a
>> >> >borderline crackpot who has written books on Atlantis,
>> >> >as well as one very unscholarly book on the Shakespeare
>> >> >authorship question.
>> >> >Dave Kathman
>> >> >dj...@ix.netcom.com
>> >>
>> >> Now notice that Kathman has not even addressed the issue.
>
>> >Actually, he did, which was to dismiss the source of the quotation as
>> >dubious. You must not have seen it.
>> >Neil Brennen
>
> He certainly did address the question of Michell's reliability,
>expertise, and skepticism, which was all he undertook to do in the
>first place.
No he didn't he didn't say aything at all about what Michell had to
say about Elizabethan subjects or even about the authorship debate.
He only did what you are doing tossing sand... And here you haven't
even read the book. I doubt that Kathman has read it.
>
>> Indeed I didn't.
>
> I know that you have trouble reading, "Dr." Faker, but see the URL I
>furnished above and check it yourself.
>
>> Would you like to point out how Kathman addressed the issue in his
>> post?
>>
>> What he did was attack the reputation of John Michell via an
>> argumentum ad hominem...
>
> No, Kathman countered the appeal to authority wherein Michell was
>characterized as an "Elizabethan expert."
false!! Kathman offered no proof that Michell wasn't an Elizabethan
expert. Nor have you. I've read the book and its solid. Now if
Kathman has factual issues with it or if you do...lets see them...
>
>> Where did you go to school, jerk?
>
> You're not going to start *that* again, are you, "Dr." Faker? It's
>poor salesmanship. We've already seen quite clearly that your boasts
>about your educational record, your nonexistent Ph.D., your supposed
>contributions to science, etc. are empty.
Really where have we seen that. Webb on hlas!!! You still haven't
established any more about my educational record than I've wanted you
to know. That record shows I took a Ph.D. at FSU back in the 70s, did
ok with it, wrote a dissertation, received 45 hours of credit for it,
passed my prelims, taught a bit and then didn't defend my
dissertation....big deal. I'm happy with that record. It has a lot
more to do with the subject at hand than Kathman's dissertation.
As for the rest of my degrees, I've said nothing at all.
I thought you were suppose to shoot Bob G. when we proved I had
more degrees than he had....what happened...got cold feet? Trigger
finger not working...
Let's have lunch...but since I'm miffed at you...you have to buy...
john
>
> David Webb
David L. Webb
Of course I've read the book, "Dr." Faker. Your suggestion that the
volume demonstrates that Michell is an "expert in these matters" merely
underscores at least one of two things: either you haven't read the
book yourself, or you know little of "these matters" yourself. The
second has been demonstrated on numerous occasions and can be taken as
well known; given your track record for reading accurately, I wouldn't
be at all surprised if the first were true as well.
[...]
> He and I are both in the new Mike Rubbo film on Marlowe, so I know
> what his library and living room looks like and what he looks like as
> well...he is very clearly interested in why people would give their
> lives to this question...
Because they're daft?
> and we have. Even Kathman and Strats are, if
> only in defending the undenfendable...
If you actually believe that Kathman spends very much time on the
likes of you, then you are seriously delusional.
David Webb
David L. Webb
You do?! When?!
> math is the only
> subject you might find freedom in. With all its order. In the real
> word Webb a man's opinions on other topics have NOTHING to do
> with his opinions on a given topic. You may disagree with John and I
> about moonlandings and we may all three agree that 2 + 2 is 4.
> >> >> >John Michell is not an "Elizabethan expert". He is a
> >> >> >borderline crackpot who has written books on Atlantis,
> >> >> >as well as one very unscholarly book on the Shakespeare
> >> >> >authorship question.
> >> >> >Dave Kathman
> >> >> >dj...@ix.netcom.com
> >> >>
> >> >> Now notice that Kathman has not even addressed the issue.
> >> >Actually, he did, which was to dismiss the source of the quotation as
> >> >dubious. You must not have seen it.
> >> >Neil Brennen
> > He certainly did address the question of Michell's reliability,
> >expertise, and skepticism, which was all he undertook to do in the
> >first place.
> No he didn't he didn't say aything at all about what Michell had to
> say about Elizabethan subjects or even about the authorship debate.
> He only did what you are doing tossing sand... And here you haven't
> even read the book. I doubt that Kathman has read it.
I don't know whether Dave Kathman wasted his time reading it, but I
certainly did; indeed, I've remarked upon the book in this forum long
ago. The book is farcically unreliable, but it is not nearly as
rewarding reading as are some anti-Stratfordian books -- since it is a
mere synthesis of the beliefs of cranks, it lacks the passionate
conviction of the genuine crank, so it does not afford the refreshing
belly laughs furnished by, say, _This Star of England_.
> >> Indeed I didn't.
[...]
> false!! Kathman offered no proof that Michell wasn't an Elizabethan
> expert.
I did not say that he had offered proof; I merely noted that he had
corrected the misconception the Michell is an "Elizabethan expert."
> Nor have you. I've read the book and its solid. Now if
> Kathman has factual issues with it or if you do...lets see them...
I've already mentioned a few of the book's more absurd aspects, and
others have dealt with it in far more detail in this very forum.
Either you're getting senile or you haven't been paying attention.
> >> Where did you go to school, jerk?
> > You're not going to start *that* again, are you, "Dr." Faker? It's
> >poor salesmanship. We've already seen quite clearly that your boasts
> >about your educational record, your nonexistent Ph.D., your supposed
> >contributions to science, etc. are empty.
> Really where have we seen that. Webb on hlas!!! You still haven't
> established any more about my educational record than I've wanted you
> to know.
I haven't even bothered to investigate your educational record; it
was Thomas Larque, Tom Reedy, Rob Zigler, and others who exposed you as
a liar and a fraud. I merely asked to know what that supposed record
was, as did Alan Jones, since you had been boasting of it and trying to
intimidate people by pulling academic rank on your interlocutors for
several years using academic credentials that you do not possess.
> That record shows I took a Ph.D. at FSU back in the 70s, did
> ok with it, wrote a dissertation, received 45 hours of credit for it,
> passed my prelims,
None of this has been substantiated *except* that you do not have a
Ph.D.
> taught a bit
Got fired...
> and then didn't defend my
> dissertation....big deal. I'm happy with that record.
If you're "happy with that record," then why did you try to mislead
people into thinking that you have credentials that you do not possess?
> It has a lot
> more to do with the subject at hand than Kathman's dissertation.
>
> As for the rest of my degrees, I've said nothing at all.
That's because there's nothing at all to discuss. Despite your
frequent boasts to the contrary and your pugnacious attempts at
intimidation, you do not have a Ph.D., you are not a professor, and
your contributions to the scientific literature are confined to a
Letter to the Editor of a popular scientific publication for a
nonspecialist readership.
I don't know why you keep bringing this up -- asking people where
they went to school, challenging them to match your (nonexistent)
advanced degrees or your (nonexistent) accomplishments in science, etc.
-- as I told you, it's very poor salesmanship.
[...]
David Webb
David Kathman
<David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
I bought Michell's book when it first came out in hardcover,
and read it at the time. I basically agree with the assessment
of it as "farcically unreliable"; at very best, Michell is
unduly credulous about all kinds of wacko antistratfordian
ideas. Like Ken Kaplan and most other antistratfordians, he
lacks any real sense of how to evaluate claims critically,
which is one of the first things a genuine scholar and/or scientist
learns to do. Michell accepts garbage alongside actual facts
without batting an eye. It always pains me to see people
say that his book is "objective", because such a characterization
reveals depressing ignorance about Elizabethan history and
literature, as well as a lack of critical sense.
We have a review of Michell's book on our site by Bob Grumman,
and it points at least some of the book's flaws (and it is
by no means exhaustive).
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Neil Brennen
> >> What he did was attack the reputation of John Michell via an
> >> argumentum ad hominem...
> >> Where did you go to school, jerk?
> >
> >None of your business, Faker. I'm not playing "Anything you can do, I
> >can do better" with you.
> >Neil Brennen
Baker the Faker now writes:
> Fear of loosing is a big issue in many lives. Just suck it up
> Neil...you can do it.
Is fear of losing why you claim credentials you do not own?
Neil Brennen
john_baker
wrote:
>John Baker wrote in message news:<3c7591df...@News.localaccess.com>...
>> On 20 Feb 2002 03:28:14 -0800, ches...@mindspring.com (Neil Brennen)
>> wrote:
>Baker the Faker wrote:
>> >> What he did was attack the reputation of John Michell via an
>> >> argumentum ad hominem...
>> >> Where did you go to school, jerk?
>> >
>> >None of your business, Faker. I'm not playing "Anything you can do, I
>> >can do better" with you.
>> >Neil Brennen
>
>Baker the Faker now writes:
>> Fear of loosing is a big issue in many lives. Just suck it up
>> Neil...you can do it.
>
>Is fear of losing why you claim credentials you do not own?
>
>Neil Brennen
Could be. But I've been over this line before. I don't claim
credentials that aren't my own.
I took a Ph.D. in philosophy. I completed my dissertation and received
full credit for it. I passed my prelims. It is true I didn't defend.
When it was pointed out to me that in at least one post I did claim
to have a Ph.D. in Philosophy, which was a mistake on my part. I
should have said something like "I have the bits and pieces of a
Ph.D. in Philosophy."
The claim or the boast was simply to supply the reader with the fact
that I do have an academic background in philosophy...classical
philosophy. I've taught it, read it and thought about it for what, 35
years.
This exchange took place in a public forum and I am infamous for
mistakes of this nature in this forum.
If you don't want to consider what I say, then don't read my posts,
Neil.
Its ok by me.
When you talk with me face to face you'll find out I'm a very informal
sort of guy who never pretends to know it all. I'm sorry if this
format makes it seem that I pull rank on your or any one else.
I'm just interested in these questions, deeply interested. I'd much
rather these exchanges be anonymous...since I'm not in it for
personal fame or gain.
I do think I have a right to a private life and any eduction I have
that doesn't relate to these exchanges my own business.
I'm just trying to keep myself spun up on this topic, a topic which
seems to spin us all up. Who wrote Shakespeare?
If you aren't interested in reading my headers and what I have
to say or if you think I'm a jerk or a fraud or a liar, then stay off
my threads.
john
john_baker
Webb!!! I'm proud of you. But alas, alas we have very different
opinions about these matters. Can you point us to something in the
book that shows Michell is factually mistaken. Or can you point us to
something in the book that shows us that Michell is even an
anti-Strat? If so which of the rivals does he side with? Is he an
Oxfordian? A Baconian?
With your formidable knowledge of language you must know that the
word "authority" comes from the word "author"...So Michell is clearly
an authority in these matters. I'd call him an expert on them myself,
having read the book. I noticed he didn't know as much about the
Marlowe case as I do, but he has a solid line on it.
"Expert" means "taught by experience, adriot, or proficient and used
as Dave must mean it in the second sense as "one who has special
skill or knowledge in a subject, i.e., a specialist."
I'd say that Michell can demonstrate that he is far more of an
authority and an expert in the subject matter of his book than Kathman
is.
If we limit the focus to just his statement about the control over the
press in Elizabethan times...I think not only was Michell correct, but
that he can easily prove it.
If Dr. Kathman doubts that Elizabethan and Jacobean men could be
tortured, mutilated and killed for their opinions and that their books
could be banned and burnt, I'd love to have him go on record about
that.
The sad fact is that those times were, as Professor Craig notes, more
like modern Iran than the London of today.
Which reminds me. With you knowledge of Russia, can you think of
an example under Stalin where a man was tortured for his opinions, had
his hand cut off, his tongue plucked out, had his books burnt to the
last copy and then was hanged, taken down alive, had his privates cut
off and handed to him and then his entrails?
I mean I know uncle Joe was murderous but was he really like that?
King James is known to have watched these events closely.
In my humble opinion these men were worse than the Russians.
On the other hand, perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps the Russians are
equally as bad. And worse yet, you and I as well:
"The line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human
being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?"
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn
>The
>second has been demonstrated on numerous occasions and can be taken as
>well known; given your track record for reading accurately, I wouldn't
>be at all surprised if the first were true as well.
>
>[...]
>> He and I are both in the new Mike Rubbo film on Marlowe, so I know
>> what his library and living room looks like and what he looks like as
>> well...he is very clearly interested in why people would give their
>> lives to this question...
>
> Because they're daft?
Perhaps. But I think Michell knows there is a real mystery here and
he is attracted to people who see it. Those that side with the
established take on this are just conventional sorts, like yourself,
that aren't intrinsically interesting to him.
>
>> and we have. Even Kathman and Strats are, if
>> only in defending the indefensible.
>
> If you actually believe that Kathman spends very much time on the
>likes of you, then you are seriously delusional.
Is this because you're Kathman?
>
> David Webb
john_baker
<David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
See my other reply on this same thread. But I'll answer a bit below.
All the time Webb, unlike you I'm a thinker not a harpie...
>
>> math is the only
>> subject you might find freedom in. With all its order. In the real
>> word Webb a man's opinions on other topics have NOTHING to do
>> with his opinions on a given topic. You may disagree with John and I
>> about moonlandings and we may all three agree that 2 + 2 is 4.
I take it we agree here?
>
>> >> >> >John Michell is not an "Elizabethan expert". He is a
>> >> >> >borderline crackpot who has written books on Atlantis,
>> >> >> >as well as one very unscholarly book on the Shakespeare
>> >> >> >authorship question.
>> >> >> >Dave Kathman
>> >> >> >dj...@ix.netcom.com
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Now notice that Kathman has not even addressed the issue.
>
>> >> >Actually, he did, which was to dismiss the source of the quotation as
>> >> >dubious. You must not have seen it.
>> >> >Neil Brennen
>
>> > He certainly did address the question of Michell's reliability,
>> >expertise, and skepticism, which was all he undertook to do in the
>> >first place.
>
>> No he didn't he didn't say aything at all about what Michell had to
>> say about Elizabethan subjects or even about the authorship debate.
>> He only did what you are doing tossing sand... And here you haven't
>> even read the book. I doubt that Kathman has read it.
>
> I don't know whether Dave Kathman wasted his time reading it, but I
>certainly did; indeed, I've remarked upon the book in this forum long
>ago.
I'm sorry I missed it. Maybe I was in my lab.
>The book is farcically unreliable, but it is not nearly as
>rewarding reading as are some anti-Stratfordian books -- since it is a
>mere synthesis of the beliefs of cranks, it lacks the passionate
>conviction of the genuine crank, so it does not afford the refreshing
>belly laughs furnished by, say, _This Star of England_.
Saying this doesn't make it so David, just give us a couple of good
examples. But I see you're right about it lacking conviction. I
don't think Michell has a point of view here. He is just reviewing
those who do....and I liked the review. Do you mean to suggest
that his quotes are wrong?
>
>> >> Indeed I didn't.
>
>[...]
>> false!! Kathman offered no proof that Michell wasn't an Elizabethan
>> expert.
>
> I did not say that he had offered proof; I merely noted that he had
>corrected the misconception the Michell is an "Elizabethan expert."
No he didn't and see my other post to help you understand why this
isn't so.
>
>> Nor have you. I've read the book and its solid. Now if
>> Kathman has factual issues with it or if you do...lets see them...
>
> I've already mentioned a few of the book's more absurd aspects, and
>others have dealt with it in far more detail in this very forum.
>Either you're getting senile or you haven't been paying attention.
Missed it entirely. I'll have to search for these headers. But you
still haven't offered any proof that Michell is mistaken about his
subject and thus not an expert in it.
>
>> >> Where did you go to school, jerk?
>
>> > You're not going to start *that* again, are you, "Dr." Faker? It's
>> >poor salesmanship. We've already seen quite clearly that your boasts
>> >about your educational record, your nonexistent Ph.D., your supposed
>> >contributions to science, etc. are empty.
We have?
>
>> Really where have we seen that. Webb on hlas!!! You still haven't
>> established any more about my educational record than I've wanted you
>> to know.
>
> I haven't even bothered to investigate your educational record; it
>was Thomas Larque, Tom Reedy, Rob Zigler, and others who exposed you as
>a liar and a fraud. I merely asked to know what that supposed record
>was, as did Alan Jones, since you had been boasting of it and trying to
>intimidate people by pulling academic rank on your interlocutors for
>several years using academic credentials that you do not possess.
I suppose you have a point here, Webb. But again it is this format.
In person I'm a funny guy who is very happy to be what I am. Its a
lot of trouble to explain that I'm abd...of a Ph.D. in Philosophy.
Whereas saying I took a Ph.D. in philosophy isn't and get the job
done. If it bothers you, I'm sorry. I'll work on being more explict
here from now on. I do have the bits and pieces of a Ph.D. in
Philosophy and did write a dissertation dealing with a subject
that impacts this one.
>
>> That record shows I took a Ph.D. at FSU back in the 70s, did
>> ok with it, wrote a dissertation, received 45 hours of credit for it,
>> passed my prelims,
>
> None of this has been substantiated *except* that you do not have a
>Ph.D.
Wrong on both accounts. All I've confessed up to is that I don't have
a Ph.D. in philosophy. Or at least that's all I think I've confessed
up to. And my formal status at FSU is substantiated.
>
>> taught a bit
>
> Got fired...
Never have I been fired. Never.
>
>> and then didn't defend my
>> dissertation....big deal. I'm happy with that record.
>
> If you're "happy with that record," then why did you try to mislead
>people into thinking that you have credentials that you do not possess?
Come on David, I've made this clear. I've never attempted to mislead
readers. When I say I took a Ph.D. in philosophy or that I wrote a
dissertation in the philosophy of science, I did.
If you don't like it. So be it.
>
>> It has a lot
>> more to do with the subject at hand than Kathman's dissertation.
>>
>> As for the rest of my degrees, I've said nothing at all.
>
> That's because there's nothing at all to discuss.
Wrong.
>Despite your
>frequent boasts to the contrary and your pugnacious attempts at
>intimidation,
Here is where I get lost. Why does having a Ph.D. intimidate someone?
When I point out that I took a Ph.D. in philosophy or that I wrote a
dissertation in the philosophy of science, I am not trying to
intimidate anyone...I'm just trying to let them know that I have some
background in this area...what does it intimidate you? And why
do you think I'm tyring to intimidate my readers? I'm not like you
David...I'm a nice guy.
> you do not have a Ph.D.,
about this we don't know, all we know is I don't have a Ph.D. in
philosophy from FSU;
>you are not a professor,
this is certainly true, I am not a professor; but this doesn't mean I
have taught college and it doesn't mean I don't have graduate students
in the system who I am actively helping....
and
>your contributions to the scientific literature are confined to a
>Letter to the Editor of a popular scientific publication for a
>nonspecialist readership.
and of course, this is just false, though I did have a letter to the
editor published in Scientific American about Socrates, Plato, Neils
Bohr and Robert Galleo...there I reminded readers that a good
professor or teacher is always looking for students to go beyond them.
Galleo seems to have enjoyed putting his students down.
A good teacher never looks for students he or she can put down, the
way you put down people here. A good teacher is in business to help
people learn...
In my humble opinion Webb you're a sick puppy. You should be helping
people but you get your kicks from laughing at their mistakes.
I feel sorry you, frankly.
Perhaps you can explain to us how pointing out the mistakes of others
makes you feel better?
I know and am thankful for your many corrections to my posts.
You caught "detract" for "distract" just the other day.
That's helpful.
But I'm sorry to say I detect a deeper problem here. You live for
these exchanges and you relish putting people down...not simply
helping them correct their mistakes and typos.
Maybe you're not like this in your classroom. I hope not. And maybe
not at lunch either.
Again I hope not.
But if your point is that I'm a bad salesman and that's all...I'll
take it. And I'll work it on it.
All I want to do here is exchange ideas.
I don't know all the answers or even all the questions.
When I point out I took a Ph.D. it is simply to point out that I have
all those hours and hours of university work in this area...I don't
point this out to intimidate people...
And I know you remember that I've said very clearly for the purpose of
this discussion I have no degrees of any kind and am just an errant
truant.
That's ok by me.
Socrates didn't have a Ph.D. and was never a Professor.
>
> I don't know why you keep bringing this up -- asking people where
>they went to school, challenging them to match your (nonexistent)
>advanced degrees or your (nonexistent) accomplishments in science, etc.
>-- as I told you, it's very poor salesmanship.
I keep bringing it up because now its a joke!!! And the joke is on
me....so I get to keep bringing it up, until we all get tired of
laughing...
You could see this if we were face to face. Its this damn format.
Face to face I might even be able to see that you aren't really
interested in putting people down but in having fun...its just that
here you come over as a bit perverse....
And that's bad salesmanship. A mind should be beautiful, not
perverse.
John Baker
>
>[...]
David L. Webb
> On 22 Feb 2002 03:49:57 -0800, ches...@mindspring.com (Neil Brennen)
> wrote:
>
> >John Baker wrote in message news:<3c7591df...@News.localaccess.com>...
> >> On 20 Feb 2002 03:28:14 -0800, ches...@mindspring.com (Neil Brennen)
> >> wrote:
> >Baker the Faker wrote:
> >> >> What he did was attack the reputation of John Michell via an
> >> >> argumentum ad hominem...
> >> >> Where did you go to school, jerk?
> >> >
> >> >None of your business, Faker. I'm not playing "Anything you can do, I
> >> >can do better" with you.
> >> >Neil Brennen
> >
> >Baker the Faker now writes:
> >> Fear of loosing is a big issue in many lives. Just suck it up
> >> Neil...you can do it.
> >
> >Is fear of losing why you claim credentials you do not own?
> >
> >Neil Brennen
> Could be. But I've been over this line before. I don't claim
> credentials that aren't my own.
You certainly have done so in the past.
> I took a Ph.D. in philosophy. I completed my dissertation and received
> full credit for it.
You received the routine course credit that *all* graduate students
normally receive for a thesis in progress, even in the outcome is
complete grabage or is never even written up at all. If you want to
boast about the "full credit" you received, then by all means do so --
but anyone with a nodding acquaintance with the workings of graduate
study will recognize that this claim is about on a par with a boast in
a National Lampoon parody of someone who sent in his subscription money
to the National Geographic Society, then had the local paper publish an
article about his "election" to the Society.
> I passed my prelims. It is true I didn't defend.
> When it was pointed out to me that in at least one post I did claim
> to have a Ph.D. in Philosophy, which was a mistake on my part.
A "mistake"?! You mean, you didn't *realize* that you didn't have a
Ph.D. in Philosophy until Tom Reedy's query at Florida State disclosed
that you didn't?!
> I
> should have said something like "I have the bits and pieces of a
> Ph.D. in Philosophy."
...which is not *at all* what you said.
> The claim or the boast was simply to supply the reader with the fact
> that I do have an academic background in philosophy...classical
> philosophy. I've taught it,
At a junior college?
> read it and thought about it for what, 35
> years.
>
> This exchange took place in a public forum and I am infamous for
> mistakes of this nature in this forum.
You are infamous for mistakes *period*.
> If you don't want to consider what I say, then don't read my posts,
> Neil.
>
> Its ok by me.
>
> When you talk with me face to face you'll find out I'm a very informal
> sort of guy who never pretends to know it all. I'm sorry if this
> format makes it seem that I pull rank on your or any one else.
It's not the format that does so; rather, it is your *own practice*
-- e.g., signing yourself "john baker, phd", permitting _Elizabethan
Review_ to assert that you have a Ph.D. from Florida State without
correction, actually claiming yourself that you had a Ph.D. in
Philosophy, boasting repeatedly of your (nonexistent) academic
credentials, belittling those of others, and challenging others to
match your (nonexistent) credentials -- that has left this impression
with Neil and many other paricipants.
> I'm just interested in these questions, deeply interested. I'd much
> rather these exchanges be anonymous...since I'm not in it for
> personal fame or gain.
>
> I do think I have a right to a private life and any eduction I have
> that doesn't relate to these exchanges my own business.
Your *grades* are your own business. Any *degrees* you may possess
(and the number of such degrees may be small indeed) are a matter of
public record. This is particularly so since *you* keep boasting of
your (nonexistent) qualifications *yourself* in a public forum.
> I'm just trying to keep myself spun up on this topic, a topic which
> seems to spin us all up. Who wrote Shakespeare?
>
> If you aren't interested in reading my headers and what I have
> to say or if you think I'm a jerk or a fraud or a liar,
Part of that at any rate is no longer a matter of Niel's opinion, as
Tom Reedy and others have demonstrated it pretty conclusively.
> then stay off
> my threads.
David Webb
john_baker
Heck the purpose of the book was to present what people have said
and thought about this issue....
I'd like to know what your background in science is Dave. Just give
us a list of course work in science which you have taken.
Did you read my post on T. C. Chamberlin's method?
What's your background in scientific methods? Do you
reject what Chamberlin and Kuhn say about the nature
of scientific thought?
What's your take on multiple working hypotheses and conflicting
paradigms?
Why do you think it's your way or the highway?
>It always pains me to see people
>say that his book is "objective", because such a characterization
>reveals depressing ignorance about Elizabethan history and
>literature, as well as a lack of critical sense.
>
>We have a review of Michell's book on our site by Bob Grumman,
>and it points at least some of the book's flaws (and it is
>by no means exhaustive).
>
>Dave Kathman
>dj...@ix.netcom.com
I'll look forward to reading it. Do I get to post a reply on your
site? After Webb/Kathman corrects it...of course.
john baker
Bob Grumman
news:3c758daf...@News.localaccess.com...
< On Wed, 20 Feb 2002 11:38:42 +0000 (UTC), "Bob Grumman"
< <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net< wrote:
<
< << You are nothing but a jerk Bob G. I quoted the entire post!!!
< <
< <Another lie, of course. But unconscious, probably--
<
<
< No Bob not a lie, of course. When I quote the entire post, I quote
< the entire post.
So says the lying moron after clipping most of what I posted, which
included the highly significant line Baker failed to quote
when he quoted "the entire post."
< I thought you killed yourself...writing from the otherside of the
< grave?
I did kill myself, Baker--the same way that you quote "entire posts."
--Bob G.
john_baker
Michell's book: *Who Wrote Shakespeare*?
I'll quote "their" take on it, below in full, but it summarizes as
being get this: "uncritical"!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Kathman/Webb writes:
>Like Ken Kaplan and most other antistratfordians, he [Michell]
>lacks any real sense of how to evaluate claims critically,
>which is one of the first things a genuine scholar and/or scientist
>learns to do.
As far as we know Kathman/Webb lacks any science background.
Kathman's degree is in Linguistics and Webb, if he's writing these
epistles for himself, has one, one presumes, in math, which isn't a
science.
Science can subject issues to tests and experimentations.
What we are doing here cannot be experimented on. Let alone
examined.
So history is not a science. Nor is biography.
But to give the Webb/Kathman duo (?) "their" full credit, it is quite
proper for scholars to learn to "evaluate claims critically."
However this is not done by asking who made the claim in the first
place.
That's a type violation that moves quickly into an argumentum ad
hominem.
Webb and Kathman is/are experts at this move. But in fact it is a
unscholarly move. If they want to evaluate the question, they need to
focus on it, not on the person who posed it.
So with this in mind let us turn to John Michell's chore in Who Wrote
Shakespeare?
I think John spoke for himself in his prefatory "acknowledgments"
when he wrote "to the many dedicated writers who have published books
at their own expense, and to all who have written on the Authorship
question all happiness and that eternity promised to whoever first
discovers the true author of Shake-Speare's sonnets etc. wishes this
well-willing adventurer in setting forth." (7)
Clearly this tell us that John Michell believes there is an authorship
question. Unlike Dave Kathman and Dave Webb...isn't it odd how they
have the same first names? Like two peas in a pod. )
Well in any case Kathman feels that Michell is not entitled to his
opinion. An opinion that Michell came to after spending many years of
his life looking into the authorship question. I'd say Michell has
been looking carefully at this question for longer than Kathman's been
alive.
I've read the book. Kathman is quite right that Michell does not take
side with the various working hypotheses and in some cases ruling
theories.
With one exception, of course. It is completely obvious that Michell
does not give much credence to the Stratfordian theory or hypothesis.
And it is this that Kathman/Webb hates and fears.
Speaking as Webb, the sentiment was that John's book lacked the
passion of a true believer.
Well Michell isn't a true believer like Kathman/Webb. He's just an
expert who took a life long interest in this subject and turned it
into a best selling book. And by doing it has gained, evidently,
world fame and that eternity promised by the Author.
Kathman too will owe any fame he gains from the authorship
controversy. As opposed to the syntax of Native American languages.
Or so I will predict.
Kathman/Webb continues:
>at very best, Michell is
>unduly credulous about all kinds of wacko antistratfordian
>ideas.
Now I ask the reader, as well as Dr. Kathman, how Michell could not
know that when he presents dozens of contradictory claims that they
cannot all be correct?
Its clear his job was to present the claims as objectively as
possible. And I think he did quite a superior job of this difficult
task.
It is quite obvious the book is in a popular format. It is not
footnoted in the style of Ogden Nash's the purist...who corrected
his porter on the kind of creature who had just carried off his wife:
How does it run?
I give you Professor Twist...
A conscientious scientist...
[his lovely wife eaten] by an alligator,
Professor Twist could not but smile,
You mean, she said, a crocodile.
I'll take that Michell's book isn't that of the conscientious scholar.
But he certainly knows his stuff.
You're only gripe with him is that he isn't a Stratfordian.
My gripe with him is that his conclusion is lame and trite.
I really don't think he had a clue after considering the issue who was
behind it. So he concocted a syntheses that attempted to include
several takes or camps. But not, of course, the Stratfordian rabble.
You Stratfordians have sense enough to understand the plays are
written by the same person. Or rather at least some of you do. They
are just too interrelated to be the result of a group of writers.
They are also too many verbal parallels between them to suggest two
writers.
That reversal I quoted in the sonnets on white and black that
parallels the one in *Othello* is a good case in point. It is
obviously the same writer.
So take a deep breath and tell us straight that if you didn't know the
author of any of these plays you'd have any problem in placing
Shakespeare's works with Marlowe's...just based on the verbal
parallels, similar plot lines, allusions and interrelated themes.
Marlowe remains as Michell calls him the only "professional
candidate."
On Thu, 21 Feb 2002 21:47:27 -0600, "David Kathman"
<dj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>> about moon landings and we may all three agree that 2 + 2 is 4.
John Baker
RavinDave
<John Baker> wrote in message news:3c76bb44...@News.localaccess.com...
> Unlike Dave Kathman and Dave Webb...isn't it odd how they
> have the same first names? Like two peas in a pod. )
Purely a coincidence.
Dave Furstenau
David L. Webb
<q...@pbeauhfxre.arg> wrote:
Faker has obviously forgotten Dave More. At least I have the
comfort that all three of my my fellow Daves -- Kathman, Furstenau, and
More -- are far wittier than the h.l.a.s. norm!
David Webb
David Kathman
>Ok. So we've made some headway on Kathman/Webb's opinion on John
>Michell's book: *Who Wrote Shakespeare*?
>
>I'll quote "their" take on it, below in full, but it summarizes as
>being get this: "uncritical"!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Uh, Baker, what's with this "Kathman/Webb" stuff? David Webb
and I are completely separate people, with our own separate
opinions. While I enjoy David Webb's posts, we have never met,
and have only exchanged a few e-mails over the years.
>Kathman/Webb writes:
>
>>Like Ken Kaplan and most other antistratfordians, he [Michell]
>>lacks any real sense of how to evaluate claims critically,
>>which is one of the first things a genuine scholar and/or scientist
>>learns to do.
Uh, Baker, I wrote this. David Webb had nothing to do with it.
>As far as we know Kathman/Webb lacks any science background.
>Kathman's degree is in Linguistics and Webb, if he's writing these
>epistles for himself, has one, one presumes, in math, which isn't a
>science.
>
>Science can subject issues to tests and experimentations.
>
>What we are doing here cannot be experimented on. Let alone
>examined.
>
>So history is not a science. Nor is biography.
Who ever said history is a science? Certainly not me.
Why are you putting bizarre words in my mouth? Have you
completely lost it? History is not a science in anything
like the sense that, say, chemistry is, but it is a discipline
with its own standards, which working historians are
expected to adhere to. You, like virtually all the
antistratfordians I've know, do not adhere to those standards.
>But to give the Webb/Kathman duo (?) "their" full credit, it is quite
>proper for scholars to learn to "evaluate claims critically."
>
>However this is not done by asking who made the claim in the first
>place.
>
>That's a type violation that moves quickly into an argumentum ad
>hominem.
Huh? Are you accusing me and/or David Webb of evaluating
claims by "asking who made the claim in the first place"? I have
never done such a thing, nor, to my knowledge, has David Webb.
Can you cite a specific instance of this?
>Webb and Kathman is/are experts at this move. But in fact it is a
>unscholarly move. If they want to evaluate the question, they need to
>focus on it, not on the person who posed it.
Baker, this has already been pointed out to you, numerous times,
but I was only responding to the claim that John Michell is
an "Elizabethan expert", which he is not in any rational sense
of the word. Have you got that? I was not responding to any
claims made by Mr. Michell; I was responding only to another
poster's characterization of him. Do you understand? (A rhetorical
question, I know.)
>So with this in mind let us turn to John Michell's chore in Who Wrote
>Shakespeare?
>
>I think John spoke for himself in his prefatory "acknowledgments"
>when he wrote "to the many dedicated writers who have published books
>at their own expense, and to all who have written on the Authorship
>question all happiness and that eternity promised to whoever first
>discovers the true author of Shake-Speare's sonnets etc. wishes this
>well-willing adventurer in setting forth." (7)
>
>Clearly this tell us that John Michell believes there is an authorship
>question. Unlike Dave Kathman and Dave Webb...isn't it odd how they
>have the same first names? Like two peas in a pod. )
>
>Well in any case Kathman feels that Michell is not entitled to his
>opinion.
When did I ever say such a thing? Will you please stop putting
words in my mouth that I never said, and which are, in many cases
(such as the present one) virtually the opposite of what I actually
believe? John Michell is certainly entitled to whatever opinions
he chooses to hold, and if anybody tries to censor him, I will
oppose such censorship. However, if he expresses those opinions
in print, he should expect them to be challenged if they are as
factually inaccurate and sloppily reasoned as those in his Shakespeare
book. You antistratfordians seem to think that "freedom of speech"
means "freedom to say whatever idiotic things one wants without
having them challenged".
>An opinion that Michell came to after spending many years of
>his life looking into the authorship question. I'd say Michell has
>been looking carefully at this question for longer than Kathman's been
>alive.
Even if that's true, what does it have to do with anything?
There are plenty of crackpots out there who have been riding
their hobbyhorses obsessively for decades; does that make them
all right?
>I've read the book. Kathman is quite right that Michell does not take
>side with the various working hypotheses and in some cases ruling
>theories.
>
>With one exception, of course. It is completely obvious that Michell
>does not give much credence to the Stratfordian theory or hypothesis.
>And it is this that Kathman/Webb hates and fears.
I can't speak for David Webb, but I neither hate nor fear
anything about Michell's book. I do, however, become annoyed
at the credulousness he displays therein, which seems to be a
general feature of his character. (Witness his other books on
Atlantis, ancient astronauts, and other psuedo-scientific and
pseudo-historical fringe belief systems.)
>Speaking as Webb, the sentiment was that John's book lacked the
>passion of a true believer.
Huh? What is this sentence supposed to mean?
>Well Michell isn't a true believer like Kathman/Webb. He's just an
>expert who took a life long interest in this subject and turned it
>into a best selling book. And by doing it has gained, evidently,
>world fame and that eternity promised by the Author.
Again, my main objection in the present context is to your
calling Michell an "expert", which he is demonstrably not,
at least not if we define "expert" as someone who knows a lot
about a specific subject, in this case Elizabethan literature
and history.
>Kathman too will owe any fame he gains from the authorship
>controversy. As opposed to the syntax of Native American languages.
>Or so I will predict.
Uh, as I've said numerous times before, Baker, this authorship stuff
takes up only a small fraction of the time I devote to my
scholarly work on Shakespeare and theater history, and it's
not nearly as rewarding as my real scholarship. Within the world
of Shakespeare studies, quite a few people do know me for the
Shakespeare Authorship web page, but more probably know me for
my Biographical Index to Elizabethan Theater, my research on
boy actors, my other biographical research, and so forth -- at
least, that's been my experience at the SAA and similar conferences.
More will probably know me once a number of things are published
which are now in press (such as the DNB) or in progress (such as
several articles resulting from my research on apprentice actors).
And if you define "fame" by absolute numbers of people, I'm sure
more people have heard of me in my capacity as a stock analyst,
since I get quoted in the press all the time, several times a
week on average. But I don't really care about "fame", and I'm
not sure why you keep harping on it.
>Kathman/Webb continues:
>>at very best, Michell is
>>unduly credulous about all kinds of wacko antistratfordian
>>ideas.
Again, I wrote this. David Webb had nothing to do with it.
>Now I ask the reader, as well as Dr. Kathman, how Michell could not
>know that when he presents dozens of contradictory claims that they
>cannot all be correct?
>
>Its clear his job was to present the claims as objectively as
>possible. And I think he did quite a superior job of this difficult
>task.
I suppose if you take "objective" to mean "taking everything
seriously without questioning it", then one could make a case
that he was "objective" in presenting the cases for the various
alternative "Shakespeares". But he most certainly was not
objective in presenting the facts about William Shakespeare,
since he did so with an extremely heavy antistratfordian bias
which will be apparent to anyone familiar with the facts. He
took seriously antistratfordian "doubts" to which no Shakespeare
scholar gives the time of day, because they are based on
ignorance and distortions.
>It is quite obvious the book is in a popular format. It is not
>footnoted in the style of Ogden Nash's the purist...who corrected
>his porter on the kind of creature who had just carried off his wife:
>How does it run?
>
>I give you Professor Twist...
>A conscientious scientist...
>[his lovely wife eaten] by an alligator,
>Professor Twist could not but smile,
>You mean, she said, a crocodile.
Huh? What on earth does this have to do with Michell's book?
>I'll take that Michell's book isn't that of the conscientious scholar.
>But he certainly knows his stuff.
He knows about the various antistratfordian "theories", that's
true, but he hasn't the slightest clue how to evaluate those
"theories" critically.
> You're only gripe with him is that he isn't a Stratfordian.
No, my "gripe" with him is that his book is full of
inaccuracies and distortions.
>My gripe with him is that his conclusion is lame and trite.
>
>I really don't think he had a clue after considering the issue who was
>behind it. So he concocted a syntheses that attempted to include
>several takes or camps. But not, of course, the Stratfordian rabble.
>
>You Stratfordians have sense enough to understand the plays are
>written by the same person. Or rather at least some of you do. They
>are just too interrelated to be the result of a group of writers.
I certainly agree that Shakespeare wrote the great bulk of the
plays and poems attributed to him, but like most scholars, I also
believe that he had collaborators, at least in his later plays
and probably in some of the early ones, too.
>They are also too many verbal parallels between them to suggest two
>writers.
Oh, geez. Not this again.
>That reversal I quoted in the sonnets on white and black that
>parallels the one in *Othello* is a good case in point. It is
>obviously the same writer.
>
>So take a deep breath and tell us straight that if you didn't know the
>author of any of these plays you'd have any problem in placing
>Shakespeare's works with Marlowe's...just based on the verbal
>parallels, similar plot lines, allusions and interrelated themes.
If Shakespeare's and Marlowe's plays were somehow presented to
me anonymously, I would certainly say they were different
writers. They obviously influenced each other, probably mutually
for a few years before Marlowe was killed, but the difference in
their verse is actually quite dramatic, as many people have pointed
out (both here and elsewhere). The types of superficial "verbal
parallels" you keep harping on are not evidence of common authorship,
and are not used as such by any responsible scholars I know of
working today.
>Marlowe remains as Michell calls him the only "professional
>candidate."
As I said on that NPR interview, in a certain sense Marlowe
is the most plausible of all the alternative "Shakespeares",
because at least he was a professional playwright, and a very
good one. But the whole thing is moot, because all the evidence
says Marlowe was killed in 1593 and that William Shakespeare wrote
the works of William Shakespeare.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
John W. Kennedy
>
> In article <3c7671ba...@News.localaccess.com>, John Baker wrote:
> > This exchange took place in a public forum and I am infamous for
> > mistakes of this nature in this forum.
>
> You are infamous for mistakes *period*.
He is infamous *period*.
--
John W. Kennedy
Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!
http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/Double%20Falshood.html
John W. Kennedy
> If you aren't interested in reading my headers and what I have
> to say or if you think I'm a jerk or a fraud or a liar, then stay off
> my threads.
Translation: "I want the world to give me a platform where I can tell
all the lies I want to and no-one will upset me by calling me on them."
Go to hell, Faker. You're a sick, lying son of a bitch without any
apparent redeeming feature, whose only delight is to drop great steaming
mounds of your own shit in public and then have the world tell you how
sweetly it smells.
David L. Webb
> Ok. So we've made some headway on Kathman/Webb's opinion on John
> Michell's book: *Who Wrote Shakespeare*?
>
> I'll quote "their" take on it, below in full, but it summarizes as
> being get this: "uncritical"!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Kathman/Webb writes:
> >Like Ken Kaplan and most other antistratfordians, he [Michell]
> >lacks any real sense of how to evaluate claims critically,
> >which is one of the first things a genuine scholar and/or scientist
> >learns to do.
Dave Kathman wrote that; I had nothing to do with it. While I'm
flattered that anyone, even an incompetent reader like yourself, could
possibly confuse my offhand, uninformed, amateur remarks with those of
a well-known scholar like Dave Kathman, there is such a thing as giving
credit where credit is due. In view of your preposterous
pontifications on attributions from four centuries ago, it's also
remarkable how much trouble you have keeping straight attributions from
last week, "Dr." Faker.
> As far as we know Kathman/Webb lacks any science background.
> Kathman's degree is in Linguistics and Webb, if he's writing these
> epistles for himself, has one, one presumes, in math, which isn't a
> science.
>
> Science can subject issues to tests and experimentations.
>
> What we are doing here cannot be experimented on. Let alone
> examined.
>
> So history is not a science. Nor is biography.
But you don't even adhere to the standards of those *nonscientific*
disciplines! And of course you don't even vaguely *understand*, let
alone adhere to, the standards of proof in mathematics.
> But to give the Webb/Kathman duo (?) "their" full credit, it is quite
> proper for scholars to learn to "evaluate claims critically."
>
> However this is not done by asking who made the claim in the first
> place.
Nobody has done anything of the kind. Dave Kathman merely noted
that Michell is not an "Elizabethan expert," as had been intimated
earlier in the thread. Dave did not "evaluate" *any* claim of
Michell's, critical or otherwise, since those claims were not the point
with which he took issue.
> That's a type violation that moves quickly into an argumentum ad
> hominem.
>
> Webb and Kathman is/are experts at this move. But in fact it is a
> unscholarly move. If they want to evaluate the question, they need to
> focus on it, not on the person who posed it.
As noted, Dave Kathman was *not* trying to "evaluate" any utterance
of Michell's, as you would know were you willing -- or able -- to read
the thread; rather, he was responding to the absurd mischaracterization
of Michell as an "Elizabethan expert."
> So with this in mind let us turn to John Michell's chore in Who Wrote
> Shakespeare?
>
> I think John spoke for himself in his prefatory "acknowledgments"
> when he wrote "to the many dedicated writers who have published books
> at their own expense, and to all who have written on the Authorship
> question all happiness and that eternity promised to whoever first
> discovers the true author of Shake-Speare's sonnets etc. wishes this
> well-willing adventurer in setting forth." (7)
>
> Clearly this tell us that John Michell believes there is an authorship
> question.
...which already casts some doubt upon the claim that he is an
"Elizabethan expert." Among experts there is virtual unanimity (a rare
state of affairs) in attributing the bulk of the works to the actor
William Shakespeare.
> Unlike Dave Kathman and Dave Webb...isn't it odd how they
> have the same first names? Like two peas in a pod. )
Dave Kathman is not responsible for my uninformed opinions.
> Well in any case Kathman feels that Michell is not entitled to his
> opinion.
Where does he say that? Are you having trouble reading again, Faker?
> An opinion that Michell came to after spending many years of
> his life looking into the authorship question. I'd say Michell has
> been looking carefully at this question for longer than Kathman's been
> alive.
Velikovsky certainly spent *far* longer looking into his crackpot
theories of planetary astronomy than some of my physicist friends have
been alive; does that mean that Velikovsky is right and they're wrong?
You have a very strange way of evaluating hypotheses, Faker.
> I've read the book. Kathman is quite right that Michell does not take
> side with the various working hypotheses and in some cases ruling
> theories.
>
> With one exception, of course. It is completely obvious that Michell
> does not give much credence to the Stratfordian theory or hypothesis.
> And it is this that Kathman/Webb hates and fears.
I neither hate nor fear Michell's negligible book; indeed, I've
recommended it (with warnings about its unreliability) to a few people
who were interested in a quick overview of the various crank authorship
theories.
> Speaking as Webb, the sentiment was that John's book lacked the
> passion of a true believer.
That is not a defect of the book, except insofar as the book doesn't
rise to the inspired heights of lunacy -- and hence of unintentional
comedy -- attained by, say, _This Star of England_.
> Well Michell isn't a true believer like Kathman/Webb. He's just an
> expert
He *certainly* is not an expert in Elizabethan literary history. If
he has accrued any real expertise in anything, it would appear to be in
the study of crank fringe beliefs -- dowsing, crop circles, Atlantis,
astro-archaeology, magic, etc. -- topics to which his numerous books
are devoted.
> who took a life long interest in this subject and turned it
> into a best selling book. And by doing it has gained, evidently,
> world fame and that eternity promised by the Author.
>
> Kathman too will owe any fame he gains from the authorship
> controversy. As opposed to the syntax of Native American languages.
> Or so I will predict.
No, your unawareness of Dave Kathman's *real* scholarly work just
shows how hopelessly far removed from the world of real Elizabethan
scholarship you are.
> Kathman/Webb continues:
> >at very best, Michell is
> >unduly credulous about all kinds of wacko antistratfordian
> >ideas.
Again, those are Dave Kathman's words, not mine; however, I agree
completely (not that my opinion matters).
> Now I ask the reader, as well as Dr. Kathman, how Michell could not
> know that when he presents dozens of contradictory claims that they
> cannot all be correct?
What? Nobody ever claimed that Michell believed that they were
*all* correct. In fact, I noted elsewhere that Michell doesn't play
favorites among the various crackpot scenarios he summarizes. Are you
having trouble reading again, Faker?
> Its clear his job was to present the claims as objectively as
> possible.
If you mean that he didn't actively take sides among the various
flavors of anti-Stratfordian folly, that's correct; however, he did
credulously reproduce all sorts of absurd anti-Stratfordian canards
without correcting them or even registering skepticism, so he can
scarcely be said to have been "objective."
> And I think he did quite a superior job of this difficult
> task.
Then you must be unaware of a good deal of the pertinent background
yourself.
> It is quite obvious the book is in a popular format. It is not
> footnoted
So? Even popular books can be accurate and critical, footnotes or
no. Steven Weinberg's _The First Three Minutes_ has comparatively few
footnotes, yet it is a masterpiece of popular exposition. But that's
in part because Weinberg is an expert in his subject -- Michell is not.
> in the style of Ogden Nash's the purist...who corrected
> his porter on the kind of creature who had just carried off his wife:
> How does it run?
>
> I give you Professor Twist...
> A conscientious scientist...
> [his lovely wife eaten] by an alligator,
> Professor Twist could not but smile,
> You mean, she said, a crocodile.
What are you gibbering about now?
> I'll take that Michell's book isn't that of the conscientious scholar.
> But he certainly knows his stuff.
He knows the colorful scenarios of various anti-Stratfordian cranks;
what he appears to lack is any critical facility that would permit him
to evaluate these scenarios meaningfully.
> You're only gripe with him is that he isn't a Stratfordian.
No, my gripe is that he is uninformed, gullible, and uncritical.
> My gripe with him is that his conclusion is lame and trite.
>
> I really don't think he had a clue after considering the issue who was
> behind it. So he concocted a syntheses [sic] that attempted to include
> several takes or camps. But not, of course, the Stratfordian rabble.
>
> You Stratfordians have sense enough to understand the plays are
> written by the same person. Or rather at least some of you do. They
> are just too interrelated to be the result of a group of writers.
That does not mean that some of Shakespeare's plays might not have
had collaborative input, nor does it mean that Shakespeare did not make
minor contributions to plays not attributed to him.
> They are also too many verbal parallels between them to suggest two
> writers.
>
> That reversal I quoted in the sonnets on white and black that
> parallels the one in *Othello* is a good case in point. It is
> obviously the same writer.
>
> So take a deep breath and tell us straight that if you didn't know the
> author of any of these plays you'd have any problem in placing
> Shakespeare's works with Marlowe's...
No, Marlowe's work, while fine in its own way, is very different
from Shakespeare's.
> just based on the verbal
> parallels, similar plot lines, allusions and interrelated themes.
>
> Marlowe remains as Michell calls him the only "professional
> candidate."
Marlowe is the only one of the alternative candidates who is known
to have been a fine playwright. However, he died too early to have
written most of Shakespeare's major works.
[...]
David Webb
john_baker
Its nice to see your true colors John.
john_baker
<jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>"David L. Webb" wrote:
>>
>> In article <3c7671ba...@News.localaccess.com>, John Baker wrote:
>> > This exchange took place in a public forum and I am infamous for
>> > mistakes of this nature in this forum.
>>
>> You are infamous for mistakes *period*.
>
>He is infamous *period*.
Driven to answer your own posts Kennedy becaue no one gives a rip
about what you have to say...
john
>
>--
>John W. Kennedy
>Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!
>http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/Double%20Falshood.html
>
>
John Baker
john_baker
<David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>In article <3c76bb44...@News.localaccess.com>, John Baker wrote:
>
>> Ok. So we've made some headway on Kathman/Webb's opinion on John
>> Michell's book: *Who Wrote Shakespeare*?
>>
>> I'll quote "their" take on it, below in full, but it summarizes as
>> being get this: "uncritical"!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>
>> Kathman/Webb writes:
>
>> >Like Ken Kaplan and most other antistratfordians, he [Michell]
>> >lacks any real sense of how to evaluate claims critically,
>> >which is one of the first things a genuine scholar and/or scientist
>> >learns to do.
>
> Dave Kathman wrote that; I had nothing to do with it. While I'm
>flattered that anyone, even an incompetent reader like yourself, could
>possibly confuse my offhand, uninformed, amateur remarks with those of
>a well-known scholar like Dave Kathman, there is such a thing as giving
>credit where credit is due. In view of your preposterous
>pontifications on attributions from four centuries ago, it's also
>remarkable how much trouble you have keeping straight attributions from
>last week, "Dr." Faker.
>
Wrong again Webb/Kathman. What I'm saying or implying is that you and
Kathman are one and the same...you know, like to pees in pod. I could
make that peas in pod, but it wouldn't quite be my point...
>> As far as we know Kathman/Webb lacks any science background.
>> Kathman's degree is in Linguistics and Webb, if he's writing these
>> epistles for himself, has one, one presumes, in math, which isn't a
>> science.
>>
>> Science can subject issues to tests and experimentations.
>>
>> What we are doing here cannot be experimented on. Let alone
>> examined.
>>
>> So history is not a science. Nor is biography.
>
> But you don't even adhere to the standards of those *nonscientific*
>disciplines! And of course you don't even vaguely *understand*, let
>alone adhere to, the standards of proof in mathematics.
Thank you for bringing this up again. Since I suppose you are talking
about Fermat. I've explained that I, unlike you, believe Fermat had a
simple solution to the problem. The first step towards it is stating
it. I've had fun doing that...and thinking about it...it beats
authorship studies on some cold, dark nights...
>
>> But to give the Webb/Kathman duo (?) "their" full credit, it is quite
>> proper for scholars to learn to "evaluate claims critically."
>>
>> However this is not done by asking who made the claim in the first
>> place.
>
> Nobody has done anything of the kind. Dave Kathman merely noted
>that Michell is not an "Elizabethan expert," as had been intimated
>earlier in the thread. Dave did not "evaluate" *any* claim of
>Michell's, critical or otherwise, since those claims were not the point
>with which he took issue.
But Michell is an Elizabethan expert!!! That's my whole point Webb.
His forays into other areas aren't important and are simply an a.h.
attack on him.
Michell is an expert on these matters based on the book itself.
End of story.
>
>> That's a type violation that moves quickly into an argumentum ad
>> hominem.
>>
>> Webb and Kathman is/are experts at this move. But in fact it is a
>> unscholarly move. If they want to evaluate the question, they need to
>> focus on it, not on the person who posed it.
>
> As noted, Dave Kathman was *not* trying to "evaluate" any utterance
>of Michell's, as you would know were you willing -- or able -- to read
>the thread; rather, he was responding to the absurd mischaracterization
>of Michell as an "Elizabethan expert."
HE is an Elizabethan Expert Webb, look up the meaning in a dictionary
for god's sake.
>
>> So with this in mind let us turn to John Michell's chore in Who Wrote
>> Shakespeare?
>>
>> I think John spoke for himself in his prefatory "acknowledgments"
>> when he wrote "to the many dedicated writers who have published books
>> at their own expense, and to all who have written on the Authorship
>> question all happiness and that eternity promised to whoever first
>> discovers the true author of Shake-Speare's sonnets etc. wishes this
>> well-willing adventurer in setting forth." (7)
>>
>> Clearly this tell us that John Michell believes there is an authorship
>> question.
>
> ...which already casts some doubt upon the claim that he is an
>"Elizabethan expert." Among experts there is virtual unanimity (a rare
>state of affairs) in attributing the bulk of the works to the actor
>William Shakespeare.
wrong, entirely worng and more proof you and Kathman are one and the
same person.
>
>> Unlike Dave Kathman and Dave Webb...isn't it odd how they
>> have the same first names? Like two peas in a pod. )
>
> Dave Kathman is not responsible for my uninformed opinions.
False. See my post on Kathman's lies on the Rubbo interview.
>
>> Well in any case Kathman feels that Michell is not entitled to his
>> opinion.
>
> Where does he say that? Are you having trouble reading again, Faker?
All over the place, Webb.
>
>> An opinion that Michell came to after spending many years of
>> his life looking into the authorship question. I'd say Michell has
>> been looking carefully at this question for longer than Kathman's been
>> alive.
>
> Velikovsky certainly spent *far* longer looking into his crackpot
>theories of planetary astronomy than some of my physicist friends have
>been alive; does that mean that Velikovsky is right and they're wrong?
A red herring. Velikovsky's opinions are about celestial mechanics
and astrophysical events which both fall more or less into the realm
of science. Michell's opinion about the authorship question is a
biographic and historical opinion that isn't subject to the sort of
scientific approach you and our other David believes it to be...get
the point?
>You have a very strange way of evaluating hypotheses, Faker.
Thank you.
>
>> I've read the book. Kathman is quite right that Michell does not take
>> side with the various working hypotheses and in some cases ruling
>> theories.
>>
>> With one exception, of course. It is completely obvious that Michell
>> does not give much credence to the Stratfordian theory or hypothesis.
>> And it is this that Kathman/Webb hates and fears.
>
> I neither hate nor fear Michell's negligible book; indeed, I've
>recommended it (with warnings about its unreliability) to a few people
>who were interested in a quick overview of the various crank authorship
>theories.
>
>> Speaking as Webb, the sentiment was that John's book lacked the
>> passion of a true believer.
>
> That is not a defect of the book, except insofar as the book doesn't
>rise to the inspired heights of lunacy -- and hence of unintentional
>comedy -- attained by, say, _This Star of England_.
>
>> Well Michell isn't a true believer like Kathman/Webb. He's just an
>> expert
>
> He *certainly* is not an expert in Elizabethan literary history. If
>he has accrued any real expertise in anything, it would appear to be in
>the study of crank fringe beliefs -- dowsing, crop circles, Atlantis,
>astro-archaeology, magic, etc. -- topics to which his numerous books
>are devoted.
I feel sorry for you Webb. You obviously haven't bothered to look up
the word "expert" or "authority" and applied it to this subject.
Michell is clearly an expert on these matters.
>
>> who took a life long interest in this subject and turned it
>> into a best selling book. And by doing it has gained, evidently,
>> world fame and that eternity promised by the Author.
>>
>> Kathman too will owe any fame he gains from the authorship
>> controversy. As opposed to the syntax of Native American languages.
>> Or so I will predict.
>
> No, your unawareness of Dave Kathman's *real* scholarly work just
>shows how hopelessly far removed from the world of real Elizabethan
>scholarship you are.
Happy me!
>
>> Kathman/Webb continues:
>> >at very best, Michell is
>> >unduly credulous about all kinds of wacko antistratfordian
>> >ideas.
>
> Again, those are Dave Kathman's words, not mine; however, I agree
>completely (not that my opinion matters).
>
>> Now I ask the reader, as well as Dr. Kathman, how Michell could not
>> know that when he presents dozens of contradictory claims that they
>> cannot all be correct?
>
> What? Nobody ever claimed that Michell believed that they were
>*all* correct. In fact, I noted elsewhere that Michell doesn't play
>favorites among the various crackpot scenarios he summarizes. Are you
>having trouble reading again, Faker?
No.
>
>> Its clear his job was to present the claims as objectively as
>> possible.
>
> If you mean that he didn't actively take sides among the various
>flavors of anti-Stratfordian folly, that's correct; however, he did
>credulously reproduce all sorts of absurd anti-Stratfordian canards
>without correcting them or even registering skepticism, so he can
>scarcely be said to have been "objective."
Wrong. Objective is what he can be said to be.
>
>> And I think he did quite a superior job of this difficult
>> task.
>
> Then you must be unaware of a good deal of the pertinent background
>yourself.
Also wrong.
>
>> It is quite obvious the book is in a popular format. It is not
>> footnoted
>
> So? Even popular books can be accurate and critical, footnotes or
>no. Steven Weinberg's _The First Three Minutes_ has comparatively few
>footnotes, yet it is a masterpiece of popular exposition. But that's
>in part because Weinberg is an expert in his subject -- Michell is not.
no its because his subject is scientific, Webb, not history or
biography.
>
>> in the style of Ogden Nash's the purist...who corrected
>> his porter on the kind of creature who had just carried off his wife:
>> How does it run?
>>
>> I give you Professor Twist...
>> A conscientious scientist...
>> [his lovely wife eaten] by an alligator,
>> Professor Twist could not but smile,
>> You mean, she said, a crocodile.
>
> What are you gibbering about now?
I didn't expect you to get the point Webb, it isn't mathematical.
>
>> I'll take that Michell's book isn't that of the conscientious scholar.
>> But he certainly knows his stuff.
>
> He knows the colorful scenarios of various anti-Stratfordian cranks;
>what he appears to lack is any critical facility that would permit him
>to evaluate these scenarios meaningfully.
>
>> You're only gripe with him is that he isn't a Stratfordian.
>
> No, my gripe is that he is uninformed, gullible, and uncritical.
Ok. So you've said. I disagree.
>
>> My gripe with him is that his conclusion is lame and trite.
>>
>> I really don't think he had a clue after considering the issue who was
>> behind it. So he concocted a syntheses [sic] that attempted to include
>> several takes or camps. But not, of course, the Stratfordian rabble.
>>
>> You Stratfordians have sense enough to understand the plays are
>> written by the same person. Or rather at least some of you do. They
>> are just too interrelated to be the result of a group of writers.
>
> That does not mean that some of Shakespeare's plays might not have
>had collaborative input, nor does it mean that Shakespeare did not make
>minor contributions to plays not attributed to him.
yes, but in my opinion they are 99% his. whoever his was.
>
>> They are also too many verbal parallels between them to suggest two
>> writers.
>>
>> That reversal I quoted in the sonnets on white and black that
>> parallels the one in *Othello* is a good case in point. It is
>> obviously the same writer.
>>
>> So take a deep breath and tell us straight that if you didn't know the
>> author of any of these plays you'd have any problem in placing
>> Shakespeare's works with Marlowe's...
>
> No, Marlowe's work, while fine in its own way, is very different
>from Shakespeare's.
No it isn't. Marlowe's work is the root of Sk's work. Just as the
root of a tree is quite different than the trunk or the crown...but
the root in the organic sense.
It is quite simple to see how Marlowe could have become Sk, but
nearly impossible to see how Willy could have.
>
>> just based on the verbal
>> parallels, similar plot lines, allusions and interrelated themes.
>>
>> Marlowe remains as Michell calls him the only "professional
>> candidate."
>
> Marlowe is the only one of the alternative candidates who is known
>to have been a fine playwright. However, he died too early to have
>written most of Shakespeare's major works.
Also false. We have no forensic proof of his death. No DNA or
fingerprint evidence. And we have good forensci evidence to doubt it.
We also have his reappearance in the post 1593 diplomatic records and
the continuation of his works until 1654...
john baker
>
>[...]
>
> David Webb
john_baker
>In article <3c76bb44...@News.localaccess.com>, John Baker wrote:
>
>>Ok. So we've made some headway on Kathman/Webb's opinion on John
>>Michell's book: *Who Wrote Shakespeare*?
>>
>>I'll quote "their" take on it, below in full, but it summarizes as
>>being get this: "uncritical"!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>Uh, Baker, what's with this "Kathman/Webb" stuff? David Webb
>and I are completely separate people, with our own separate
>opinions. While I enjoy David Webb's posts, we have never met,
>and have only exchanged a few e-mails over the years.
I believe you, I was just trolling...
>
>>Kathman/Webb writes:
>>
>>>Like Ken Kaplan and most other antistratfordians, he [Michell]
>>>lacks any real sense of how to evaluate claims critically,
>>>which is one of the first things a genuine scholar and/or scientist
>>>learns to do.
>
>Uh, Baker, I wrote this. David Webb had nothing to do with it.
>
>>As far as we know Kathman/Webb lacks any science background.
>>Kathman's degree is in Linguistics and Webb, if he's writing these
>>epistles for himself, has one, one presumes, in math, which isn't a
>>science.
>>
>>Science can subject issues to tests and experimentations.
>>
>>What we are doing here cannot be experimented on. Let alone
>>examined.
>>
>>So history is not a science. Nor is biography.
>
>Who ever said history is a science? Certainly not me.
>Why are you putting bizarre words in my mouth? Have you
>completely lost it? History is not a science in anything
>like the sense that, say, chemistry is, but it is a discipline
>with its own standards, which working historians are
>expected to adhere to. You, like virtually all the
>antistratfordians I've know, do not adhere to those standards.
Wrong, Dave, its you guys that don't adhere to these standards.
As objective minds have noted. You're group is connected only by the
ads to Willy and your group is the only one that doesn't acknowledge
an authorship question. What a riot!
>
>>But to give the Webb/Kathman duo (?) "their" full credit, it is quite
>>proper for scholars to learn to "evaluate claims critically."
>>
>>However this is not done by asking who made the claim in the first
>>place.
>>
>>That's a type violation that moves quickly into an argumentum ad
>>hominem.
>
>Huh? Are you accusing me and/or David Webb of evaluating
>claims by "asking who made the claim in the first place"? I have
>never done such a thing, nor, to my knowledge, has David Webb.
>Can you cite a specific instance of this?
This is such an example Dave. You're trying to ignore John's claim by
saying he isn't an "expert" or an "authority" in thise matters. He is
both.
>
>>Webb and Kathman is/are experts at this move. But in fact it is a
>>unscholarly move. If they want to evaluate the question, they need to
>>focus on it, not on the person who posed it.
>
>Baker, this has already been pointed out to you, numerous times,
>but I was only responding to the claim that John Michell is
>an "Elizabethan expert", which he is not in any rational sense
>of the word.
Wrong again Dave. Just look up the word in Webester's. Here's
what mine reads "an experienced person". If you think John isn't
"experienced" his this subject, or that that experience isn't evidence
prima facie in the book, look up the word experienced.
>Have you got that? I was not responding to any
>claims made by Mr. Michell; I was responding only to another
>poster's characterization of him. Do you understand? (A rhetorical
>question, I know.)
No you weren't. You were and are attacking his experience in this
subject. His book is evidence of that experience and knowledge and
yes, scholarship.
>
>>So with this in mind let us turn to John Michell's chore in Who Wrote
>>Shakespeare?
>>
>>I think John spoke for himself in his prefatory "acknowledgments"
>>when he wrote "to the many dedicated writers who have published books
>>at their own expense, and to all who have written on the Authorship
>>question all happiness and that eternity promised to whoever first
>>discovers the true author of Shake-Speare's sonnets etc. wishes this
>>well-willing adventurer in setting forth." (7)
>>
>>Clearly this tell us that John Michell believes there is an authorship
>>question. Unlike Dave Kathman and Dave Webb...isn't it odd how they
>>have the same first names? Like two peas in a pod. )
>>
>>Well in any case Kathman feels that Michell is not entitled to his
>>opinion.
>
>When did I ever say such a thing?
Come on Dave I know you can read better than this. Do you see me
saying you said this? I said you feel this...
> Will you please stop putting
>words in my mouth that I never said, and which are, in many cases
>(such as the present one) virtually the opposite of what I actually
>believe? John Michell is certainly entitled to whatever opinions
>he chooses to hold, and if anybody tries to censor him, I will
>oppose such censorship. However, if he expresses those opinions
>in print, he should expect them to be challenged if they are as
>factually inaccurate and sloppily reasoned as those in his Shakespeare
>book.
Stop!!! You're on two tracks at once here Dave.
First you are kicking his experience on a personal level and thus his
right to his personal and professional opinion, opinions that differ
from yours, and second you are here attacking his book....that attack
is ok and where you should go. Point out its mistakes, by all means.
But don't try to tell us it is a mistake just to present uncritically
the evidence!!!
> You antistratfordians seem to think that "freedom of speech"
>means "freedom to say whatever idiotic things one wants without
>having them challenged".
Not so, we welcome challenge. Just not personal attacks.
>
>>An opinion that Michell came to after spending many years of
>>his life looking into the authorship question. I'd say Michell has
>>been looking carefully at this question for longer than Kathman's been
>>alive.
>
>Even if that's true, what does it have to do with anything?
>There are plenty of crackpots out there who have been riding
>their hobbyhorses obsessively for decades; does that make them
>all right?
No, but it does suggest that his opinion is well grounded and well
informed.
>
>>I've read the book. Kathman is quite right that Michell does not take
>>side with the various working hypotheses and in some cases ruling
>>theories.
>>
>>With one exception, of course. It is completely obvious that Michell
>>does not give much credence to the Stratfordian theory or hypothesis.
>>And it is this that Kathman/Webb hates and fears.
>
>I can't speak for David Webb, but I neither hate nor fear
>anything about Michell's book. I do, however, become annoyed
>at the credulousness he displays therein, which seems to be a
>general feature of his character.
Yet another character attack!!!
> (Witness his other books on
>Atlantis, ancient astronauts, and other psuedo-scientific and
>pseudo-historical fringe belief systems.)
>
>>Speaking as Webb, the sentiment was that John's book lacked the
>>passion of a true believer.
>
>Huh? What is this sentence supposed to mean?
Just another joke...trolling to see if you're awake.
>
>>Well Michell isn't a true believer like Kathman/Webb. He's just an
>>expert who took a life long interest in this subject and turned it
>>into a best selling book. And by doing it has gained, evidently,
>>world fame and that eternity promised by the Author.
>
>Again, my main objection in the present context is to your
>calling Michell an "expert", which he is demonstrably not,
>at least not if we define "expert" as someone who knows a lot
>about a specific subject, in this case Elizabethan literature
>and history.
And again you're flat wrong. The book is proof he's an expert in
these matters, you're problem remains the fact his conclusions about
these matters aren't the same as yours.
>
>>Kathman too will owe any fame he gains from the authorship
>>controversy. As opposed to the syntax of Native American languages.
>>Or so I will predict.
>
>Uh, as I've said numerous times before, Baker, this authorship stuff
>takes up only a small fraction of the time I devote to my
>scholarly work on Shakespeare and theater history, and it's
>not nearly as rewarding as my real scholarship. Within the world
>of Shakespeare studies, quite a few people do know me for the
>Shakespeare Authorship web page, but more probably know me for
>my Biographical Index to Elizabethan Theater, my research on
>boy actors, my other biographical research, and so forth -- at
>least, that's been my experience at the SAA and similar conferences.
>More will probably know me once a number of things are published
>which are now in press (such as the DNB) or in progress (such as
>several articles resulting from my research on apprentice actors).
>And if you define "fame" by absolute numbers of people, I'm sure
>more people have heard of me in my capacity as a stock analyst,
>since I get quoted in the press all the time, several times a
>week on average.
A good point...I've followed some of your advice myself...
> But I don't really care about "fame", and I'm
>not sure why you keep harping on it.
I didn't know I was. But the point remains when our names become
entwined with his, fame goes with it. Its just a fact.
>
>>Kathman/Webb continues:
>>>at very best, Michell is
>>>unduly credulous about all kinds of wacko antistratfordian
>>>ideas.
>
>Again, I wrote this. David Webb had nothing to do with it.
Again I know it...
>
>>Now I ask the reader, as well as Dr. Kathman, how Michell could not
>>know that when he presents dozens of contradictory claims that they
>>cannot all be correct?
>>
>>Its clear his job was to present the claims as objectively as
>>possible. And I think he did quite a superior job of this difficult
>>task.
>
>I suppose if you take "objective" to mean "taking everything
>seriously without questioning it", then one could make a case
>that he was "objective" in presenting the cases for the various
>alternative "Shakespeares".
Good then we agree.
> But he most certainly was not
>objective in presenting the facts about William Shakespeare,
>since he did so with an extremely heavy antistratfordian bias
>which will be apparent to anyone familiar with the facts.
Wrong, only those familiar with Stratfordianism, which isn't to
be confused,as you do, with "the facts."
> He
>took seriously antistratfordian "doubts" to which no Shakespeare
>scholar gives the time of day, because they are based on
>ignorance and distortions.
Again you are either lying about this are so confused you don't
know the meaning of the word "scholar." But hold your water
until you see my essay on this same topic taking off on your
remarks with Rubbo...I'll post it soon.
>
>>It is quite obvious the book is in a popular format. It is not
>>footnoted in the style of Ogden Nash's the purist...who corrected
>>his porter on the kind of creature who had just carried off his wife:
>>How does it run?
>>
>>I give you Professor Twist...
>>A conscientious scientist...
>>[his lovely wife eaten] by an alligator,
>>Professor Twist could not but smile,
>>You mean, she said, a crocodile.
>
>Huh? What on earth does this have to do with Michell's book?
Come on Dave, you don't really want me to fill in the dots for you do
you?
Here's this poor over educated fool with a Ph.D. who even when he's
lost his wife has to get correct the messenger.
I mean whose to know...maybe it was an alligator?
Just like maybe John Ward knew what he was saying when
he wrote that Shakespeare lacked any art at all and simply supplied
the stage with 2 plays a year....????
>
>>I'll take that Michell's book isn't that of the conscientious scholar.
>>But he certainly knows his stuff.
>
>He knows about the various antistratfordian "theories", that's
>true, but he hasn't the slightest clue how to evaluate those
>"theories" critically.
Well, I'd agree with that, except for one thing. He does understand
that Marlowe's case, if he survived, is the best. And that shows
promise...
>
>> You're only gripe with him is that he isn't a Stratfordian.
>
>No, my "gripe" with him is that his book is full of
>inaccuracies and distortions.
Such as.
>
>>My gripe with him is that his conclusion is lame and trite.
>>
>>I really don't think he had a clue after considering the issue who was
>>behind it. So he concocted a syntheses that attempted to include
>>several takes or camps. But not, of course, the Stratfordian rabble.
>>
>>You Stratfordians have sense enough to understand the plays are
>>written by the same person. Or rather at least some of you do. They
>>are just too interrelated to be the result of a group of writers.
>
>I certainly agree that Shakespeare wrote the great bulk of the
>plays and poems attributed to him, but like most scholars, I also
>believe that he had collaborators, at least in his later plays
>and probably in some of the early ones, too.
Yes but that isn't what the vocabulary counts indicate. If you and I
collaborated on an essay or a play we'd both expect that there
would be some change in the raw number of Types in the play or to use
the jargon, the T/tr.
You might suppose that if we worked together the poverty of my kant
would pull down the richness of yours and I might expect the reverse.
In any case in the plays where collaboration is supposed the T/tr
seems steady.
So I don't suspect collaboration.
>
>>They are also too many verbal parallels between them to suggest two
>>writers.
>
>Oh, geez. Not this again.
Wait!!! You missed my point. These are parallels within the plays of
Sk, not between Marlowe and Sk...ok...
>
>>That reversal I quoted in the sonnets on white and black that
>>parallels the one in *Othello* is a good case in point. It is
>>obviously the same writer.
>>
>>So take a deep breath and tell us straight that if you didn't know the
>>author of any of these plays you'd have any problem in placing
>>Shakespeare's works with Marlowe's...just based on the verbal
>>parallels, similar plot lines, allusions and interrelated themes.
>
>If Shakespeare's and Marlowe's plays were somehow presented to
>me anonymously, I would certainly say they were different
>writers. They obviously influenced each other, probably mutually
>for a few years before Marlowe was killed, but the difference in
>their verse is actually quite dramatic, as many people have pointed
>out (both here and elsewhere).
I disagree and so do many other scholars. We don't even know, as
Rubbo pointed out, if several of Sk's plays aren't Marlowe's...
> The types of superficial "verbal
>parallels" you keep harping on are not evidence of common authorship,
again you're missing the point.
>and are not used as such by any responsible scholars I know of
>working today.
I agree with this point, but again it is directed to what I've just
said...got it?
>
>>Marlowe remains as Michell calls him the only "professional
>>candidate."
>
>As I said on that NPR interview, in a certain sense Marlowe
>is the most plausible of all the alternative "Shakespeares",
>because at least he was a professional playwright, and a very
>good one. But the whole thing is moot, because all the evidence
>says Marlowe was killed in 1593 and that William Shakespeare wrote
>the works of William Shakespeare.
Wrong. All the evidence is that the wound to Marlowe's head couldn't
have killed him "then and there" and there is lots of post 1593
evidence for his survival. So become conversant with it...
And stay tuned to my three part discussion or critique of your NPR
interview. Which by the way I didn't know was an NPR interview.
The link to to a particular show...a local NYC show...was it also
carried on NPR and when?
And do you have a transcript? I've made one of the points I want to
pick on you about, but I'd love to have a full copy. You didn't come
over too bad and Mike did a good job. I don't think the host is a
Stratfordian. Do you?
john
johncoot
Elizabethna England was the precursor to Texas.As such a model of
infamous conjugation derives from Elizabethan England.
Just as Australia was the dumping ground of ne'er do wells of
Victorian England,and Texas the retirement home of cast offs from the
great society,incapable of maintaining the charade,so too was
Elizabethan England the bastard daughter of Modern Europe.
The empirical knowledge acquired at the Onset of Elizabeth was sadly
mis-diagnosed,and thus the age old addage of failure to see the forest
through the trees maintained.
Shakespeare ,for whatever dubious distinction may be his notable claim
to fame,was a Schizophrenic with delusions of Granduer.The "genius of
Shakespeare is really no ,ore than the tolerance of Elizabeth ,for
without her dereliction of duty and insistence to refute hypocrisy,our
dear boy from stratford on the green would most undoubtedly have been
beheaded.
The Manifestation of Edwardian Protocol ,which esteemed
plenipotentiaries to the 13 instance, refutes the earlier decree of
Pope Piuos VI,emphaticaly annulling Theological literalism as the
fulchrum of scholarly imperative.
This advance in the arts/led to a renaicense of liberal
interpretations,not seen since the Platitudes of socrates.
Suppression of expression,not coinciding with geo-politic,and
theocratic rancor were prohibitted under Fiat since Post Roman days
until the advent of Mary of Scots unfortunate emasculation by the
courts.
Hence forward from Henry the 8ths reign ,protestant dissensions of
Papal Bull has endowed the artist with ever increasing ,liberties, to
the point of absurdity.
But Heretical veiws,previous censored and punished by both church and
state,led to the age of enlightenmenty,.and was one of the chief
impetus in the flight from european enclaves by sophisticates of prior
days.In order to continue puritanical obsfuscations from public
entitlements, the dissenting potentiaries fled ,the vulgar modernism
of then Europe.
This allowed the re-birth of Platos dispensastions on Post
Modernity,and refutations of previous mores.
This is the only real "genius" of Shakespeare to any extent,is the
illuminations which he brings to hereditary genetic codifications.
For much of what he knew or portented was empirically oppressed.Yet by
genetic experience of his predecessors .he was entirely pre-disposed
towards the comprehensions of these events.
This is in laymen modern terms schizophrennia, whereby the empirical
data ,which is published as a heirarchy of fact is refuted.
These illuminating enlightenments led to the first mind monkeys human
ejaculations.Much as Mary was divinely imaculately conceived, so too
humanity had become innoculated with information far beyond their own
scope.
This principal act of conjugal intercourse, or mind fuck, led to the
first impregnations of the second immaculate conceptions.which were
mental in nature.
The final atlantean discovery of hyperbole ,being the literal mind
fucking by obsfucation,and the inherent schizophrenic rebellion of
empirical facts opposing genetic truths.These contradicting protocols
failure to insure security to those intent on obstructing truthful
historic facts from becoming public knowledge have led to an epidemic
of psychotic and nuerotic behaviors amongst the inhabitants of
ciivilized society.
Post Modernist such as Gerald Vizenor,are now in the process of
resurecting these previously unnoticed phenomenom under the auspecies
of Native studies,and the results are much similiar to an orgasmic
cacophony of mental impregnations.
enjoy your climax.
The seeds you have just digested will germinate and developped into
full grown embryos in 5 seconds, you will give birth in approximately
1 minute,and I am johnny appleseed ,so try as you might you will not
remove the seeds from your psyche,and they will do what I have
intended them to do which is my revenge ,how does it feel to be mind
fucked?It feels great, just ask yourself as you give birth to the
future thoughts that transpire as a result opf this discourse,
thus the light of understanding blinds the arrogant,but to know
avail,their discipline fails the final test, subordination.
so enjoy yourself,and have a nice orgasm.
what he just said was genetic experience of progenitors supercedes
empirical oppression of facts?
consider this your advanced thesis in Stratfordian Logic.
lol!:)
peace out.
the mind monkey fucks the heart.little babyy thoughts explode like
10,000 angels dancing on the head of a pin.
Plop!@ whoppee!he pops his finger out of the side of his mouth and the
Trickster retires.
Paybacks are a mother fucker.I guess that makes the brain
maternal.Could this mean the heart is a paternal organ,as I have long
suspected?
Peter Farey
>
> Marlowe is the only one of the alternative candidates who is known
> to have been a fine playwright. However, he died too early to have
> written most of Shakespeare's major works.
I was invited to give a short talk following the AGM of the Marlowe
Society (of which I am not in fact a member) at 'The George' in
Southwark on Saturday, and took as my theme the fact that the
Memorial Window planned for Marlowe in Poets' Corner is to have
a question mark after the date of his death.
Basing this upon my essay "Marlowe's Sudden and Fearful End" (to be
found at the address below), I showed that even if Marlowe survived
only very briefly, or never wrote another word in his life, that question
mark is fully warranted.
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Neil Brennen
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 16:20:03 GMT, "John W. Kennedy"
> <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >"David L. Webb" wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <3c7671ba...@News.localaccess.com>, John Baker wrote:
> >> > This exchange took place in a public forum and I am infamous for
> >> > mistakes of this nature in this forum.
> >>
> >> You are infamous for mistakes *period*.
> >
> >He is infamous *period*.
>
> Driven to answer your own posts Kennedy becaue no one gives a rip
> about what you have to say...
>
> john
I find Mr. Kennedy to be one of the more sensible posters here. You,
on the other hand....
Neil Brennen
John W. Kennedy
> As I said on that NPR interview, in a certain sense Marlowe
> is the most plausible of all the alternative "Shakespeares",
> because at least he was a professional playwright, and a very
> good one.
But in another sense, he is the least plausible, and for the very same
reason, inasmuch as we know his style, his stagecraft, and his
Weltanschaung, so that we can safely say that they are grossly unlike
Shakespeare's -- and that is more than we can say of the rest of the
pseudo-candidates.
John W. Kennedy
and coherently.
--
John W. Kennedy
>
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 16:20:03 GMT, "John W. Kennedy"
> <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> >"David L. Webb" wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <3c7671ba...@News.localaccess.com>, John Baker wrote:
> >> > This exchange took place in a public forum and I am infamous for
> >> > mistakes of this nature in this forum.
> >>
> >> You are infamous for mistakes *period*.
> >
> >He is infamous *period*.
>
> Driven to answer your own posts Kennedy becaue no one gives a rip
> about what you have to say...
So now you're claiming that I'm David Webb? What's the weather like in
Outer Woowooistan?
john_baker
I like the nom de plume...
Thinking of this "flight" Hoffer said if America is full of pigs,
Europe must have been the sty.
>In order to continue puritanical obsfuscations from public
>entitlements, the dissenting potentiaries fled ,the vulgar modernism
>of then Europe.
>This allowed the re-birth of Platos dispensastions on Post
>Modernity,and refutations of previous mores.
> This is the only real "genius" of Shakespeare to any extent,is the
>illuminations which he brings to hereditary genetic codifications.
>For much of what he knew or portented was empirically oppressed.Yet by
>genetic experience of his predecessors .he was entirely pre-disposed
>towards the comprehensions of these events.
????
>This is in laymen modern terms schizophrennia, whereby the empirical
>data ,which is published as a heirarchy of fact is refuted.
>These illuminating enlightenments led to the first mind monkeys human
>ejaculations.Much as Mary was divinely imaculately conceived, so too
>humanity had become innoculated with information far beyond their own
>scope.
I like it...
> This principal act of conjugal intercourse, or mind fuck, led to the
>first impregnations of the second immaculate conceptions.which were
>mental in nature.
That's where I came from...
>The final atlantean discovery of hyperbole ,being the literal mind
>fucking by obsfucation,and the inherent schizophrenic rebellion of
>empirical facts opposing genetic truths.These contradicting protocols
>failure to insure security to those intent on obstructing truthful
>historic facts from becoming public knowledge have led to an epidemic
>of psychotic and nuerotic behaviors amongst the inhabitants of
>ciivilized society.
Hear, hear...
> Post Modernist such as Gerald Vizenor,are now in the process of
>resurecting these previously unnoticed phenomenom under the auspecies
>of Native studies,and the results are much similiar to an orgasmic
>cacophony of mental impregnations.
well said..
>enjoy your climax.
>The seeds you have just digested will germinate and developped into
>full grown embryos in 5 seconds, you will give birth in approximately
>1 minute,and I am johnny appleseed ,so try as you might you will not
>remove the seeds from your psyche,and they will do what I have
>intended them to do which is my revenge ,how does it feel to be mind
>fucked?It feels great, just ask yourself as you give birth to the
>future thoughts that transpire as a result opf this discourse,
>thus the light of understanding blinds the arrogant,but to know
>avail,their discipline fails the final test, subordination.
>so enjoy yourself,and have a nice orgasm.
>what he just said was genetic experience of progenitors supercedes
>empirical oppression of facts?
>consider this your advanced thesis in Stratfordian Logic.
>lol!:)
>peace out.
>the mind monkey fucks the heart.little babyy thoughts explode like
>10,000 angels dancing on the head of a pin.
>Plop!@ whoppee!he pops his finger out of the side of his mouth and the
>Trickster retires.
>Paybacks are a mother fucker.I guess that makes the brain
>maternal.Could this mean the heart is a paternal organ,as I have long
>suspected?
See Clerks, Mall Rats, Chasing Amy and Jim and Silent Bob...you'll
love them...
john_baker
This is great news Peter!!!
I'm sending a donation now!
And you better join the society. You have to take
Dolly's place...
john
john_baker
wrote:
>John Baker wrote in message news:<3c79b83d...@News.localaccess.com>...
That's ok by me Neil. You're the fool that believes I've used a false
credential and who doesn't even understand that to lie about having
a Ph.D. one must say "from such and such an institution."
I have _never_ lied about my credentials.
Anyone can have a Ph.D., even in Philosophy, so long as they don't
claim it from an institution they haven't been presented with one
from. Got that? "Ph.D." just means "doctor of philosophy" and
"doctor" according to Webster's means "a teacher; a learned person."
I qualify for that one, buster.
Rev. Dr. John Baker, Bishop, A.A., B.A., B.S., M.A., M.S.S., Ph.D.
(a.b.d.), D.D, etc.
john_baker
<jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
No Kennedy I'm saying that you posted three answers to your
own header.
Having trouble reading?
john_baker
<jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>David Kathman wrote:
>> As I said on that NPR interview, in a certain sense Marlowe
>> is the most plausible of all the alternative "Shakespeares",
>> because at least he was a professional playwright, and a very
>> good one.
>
>But in another sense, he is the least plausible, and for the very same
>reason, inasmuch as we know his style, his stagecraft, and his
>Weltanschaung, so that we can safely say that they are grossly unlike
>Shakespeare's -- and that is more than we can say of the rest of the
>pseudo-candidates.
More bs from Kennedy. The turd who thinks Yorkshire Tragedy isn't by
Shakespeare!!
Marlowe is the only person who could have matured into Shakespeare.
The only person and you're too dumb to know it. I'll pray for you.
The Rev. Dr. John Baker, Bishop, etc.
baker
>
>--
>John W. Kennedy
>Read the remains of Shakespeare's lost play, now annotated!
>http://pws.prserv.net/jwkennedy/Double%20Falshood.html
>
>
John Baker
David L. Webb
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 22:07:38 -0500, "David L. Webb"
> <David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> >In article <3c76bb44...@News.localaccess.com>, John Baker wrote:
[...]
> >> Science can subject issues to tests and experimentations.
> >>
> >> What we are doing here cannot be experimented on. Let alone
> >> examined.
> >>
> >> So history is not a science. Nor is biography.
> > But you don't even adhere to the standards of those *nonscientific*
> >disciplines! And of course you don't even vaguely *understand*, let
> >alone adhere to, the standards of proof in mathematics.
> Thank you for bringing this up again. Since I suppose you are talking
> about Fermat. I've explained that I, unlike you, believe Fermat had a
> simple solution to the problem.
Whether Fermat's supposed proof was two lines or two hundred pages
has nothing to do with the fact that you don't even *understand*, let
alone adhere to, the methodology of mathematics.
> The first step towards it is stating
> it.
Fermat stated the problem unambiguously centuries ago. I don't know
what it is that you think you've added to that.
> I've had fun doing that...and thinking about it...it beats
> authorship studies on some cold, dark nights...
> >> But to give the Webb/Kathman duo (?) "their" full credit, it is quite
> >> proper for scholars to learn to "evaluate claims critically."
> >>
> >> However this is not done by asking who made the claim in the first
> >> place.
> > Nobody has done anything of the kind. Dave Kathman merely noted
> >that Michell is not an "Elizabethan expert," as had been intimated
> >earlier in the thread. Dave did not "evaluate" *any* claim of
> >Michell's, critical or otherwise, since those claims were not the point
> >with which he took issue.
> But Michell is an Elizabethan expert!!! That's my whole point Webb.
> His forays into other areas aren't important and are simply an a.h.
> attack on him.
>
> Michell is an expert on these matters based on the book itself.
No, his failure to evaluate critically the claims he presents makes
it abundantly evident that, whatever may be his other accomplishments,
he is certainly no expert on Elizabethan literary history.
> End of story.
> >> That's a type violation that moves quickly into an argumentum ad
> >> hominem.
> >>
> >> Webb and Kathman is/are experts at this move. But in fact it is a
> >> unscholarly move. If they want to evaluate the question, they need to
> >> focus on it, not on the person who posed it.
> > As noted, Dave Kathman was *not* trying to "evaluate" any utterance
> >of Michell's, as you would know were you willing -- or able -- to read
> >the thread; rather, he was responding to the absurd mischaracterization
> >of Michell as an "Elizabethan expert."
> HE is an Elizabethan Expert Webb, look up the meaning in a dictionary
> for god's sake.
I know the meaning, Faker; I question whether you even have the
remotest idea what the word means.
> >> So with this in mind let us turn to John Michell's chore in Who Wrote
> >> Shakespeare?
> >>
> >> I think John spoke for himself in his prefatory "acknowledgments"
> >> when he wrote "to the many dedicated writers who have published books
> >> at their own expense, and to all who have written on the Authorship
> >> question all happiness and that eternity promised to whoever first
> >> discovers the true author of Shake-Speare's sonnets etc. wishes this
> >> well-willing adventurer in setting forth." (7)
> >>
> >> Clearly this tell us that John Michell believes there is an authorship
> >> question.
> > ...which already casts some doubt upon the claim that he is an
> >"Elizabethan expert." Among experts there is virtual unanimity (a rare
> >state of affairs) in attributing the bulk of the works to the actor
> >William Shakespeare.
> wrong, entirely worng [sic] and more proof you and Kathman are one and the
> same person.
> >> Unlike Dave Kathman and Dave Webb...isn't it odd how they
> >> have the same first names? Like two peas in a pod. )
> > Dave Kathman is not responsible for my uninformed opinions.
> False. See my post on Kathman's lies on the Rubbo interview.
What?! How does the Rubbo interview, regardless of what it
contains, make Kathman responsible for my uninformed opinions?! Does
he confess in the interview that I am one of his personae, or what?
These claims that Dave Kathman and I are "one and the same person"
are on a par with Elizabeth's weird, delusional obsession that I am
Whitt Brantley, or Richard Kennedy's inane suspicion that a multitude
of modern poets are merely Bob Grumman's pseudonyms!
> >> Well in any case Kathman feels that Michell is not entitled to his
> >> opinion.
> > Where does he say that? Are you having trouble reading again, Faker?
> All over the place, Webb.
Can you cite a specific instance of Dave's opining that Michell is
not entitled to his opinion, Faker? I didn't think so.
> >> An opinion that Michell came to after spending many years of
> >> his life looking into the authorship question. I'd say Michell has
> >> been looking carefully at this question for longer than Kathman's been
> >> alive.
> > Velikovsky certainly spent *far* longer looking into his crackpot
> >theories of planetary astronomy than some of my physicist friends have
> >been alive; does that mean that Velikovsky is right and they're wrong?
> A red herring. Velikovsky's opinions are about celestial mechanics
> and astrophysical events which both fall more or less into the realm
> of science. Michell's opinion about the authorship question is a
> biographic and historical opinion that isn't subject to the sort of
> scientific approach you and our other David believes it to be...get
> the point?
Yes, the point is that you cannot read. One hesitates to explain
the obvious, but when spelling things out to near illiterates, this
sort of pedantry is sometimes unavoidable. You wrote, and I quote:
"I'd say Michell has been looking carefully at this question for longer
than Kathman's been alive." The point of my rejoinder -- which you
evidently did not understand -- was that it does not *matter* how long
Michell has been thinking about it or how long Kathman has been alive,
just as it does not matter how long Velikovsky and other crackpots have
been thinking about their own pet delusions. The validity of a
hypothesis, whether scientific or historical, is *not* tested by
ascertaining how long someone has been thinking about it. I see now
that Dave Kathman pointed out the same thing, but you apparently
couldn't read his post any better than you did mine.
[...]
I know the meaning, Faker; I question whether you even have the
remotest idea what either word means.
> >> who took a life long interest in this subject and turned it
> >> into a best selling book. And by doing it has gained, evidently,
> >> world fame and that eternity promised by the Author.
> >>
> >> Kathman too will owe any fame he gains from the authorship
> >> controversy. As opposed to the syntax of Native American languages.
> >> Or so I will predict.
> > No, your unawareness of Dave Kathman's *real* scholarly work just
> >shows how hopelessly far removed from the world of real Elizabethan
> >scholarship you are.
> Happy me!
In some instances, ignorance is bliss.
> >> Kathman/Webb continues:
> >> >at very best, Michell is
> >> >unduly credulous about all kinds of wacko antistratfordian
> >> >ideas.
> > Again, those are Dave Kathman's words, not mine; however, I agree
> >completely (not that my opinion matters).
> >> Now I ask the reader, as well as Dr. Kathman, how Michell could not
> >> know that when he presents dozens of contradictory claims that they
> >> cannot all be correct?
> > What? Nobody ever claimed that Michell believed that they were
> >*all* correct. In fact, I noted elsewhere that Michell doesn't play
> >favorites among the various crackpot scenarios he summarizes. Are you
> >having trouble reading again, Faker?
> No.
Then why on earth did you raise the question above?
> >> Its clear his job was to present the claims as objectively as
> >> possible.
> > If you mean that he didn't actively take sides among the various
> >flavors of anti-Stratfordian folly, that's correct; however, he did
> >credulously reproduce all sorts of absurd anti-Stratfordian canards
> >without correcting them or even registering skepticism, so he can
> >scarcely be said to have been "objective."
> Wrong. Objective is what he can be said to be.
Why? Because you just defined objectivity that way?
> >> And I think he did quite a superior job of this difficult
> >> task.
> > Then you must be unaware of a good deal of the pertinent background
> >yourself.
> Also wrong.
Your unawareness of the pertinent background and the norms and
standards of historical inquiry has been demonstrated repeatedly and
conclusively. Indeed, I marveled that someone with a Ph.D. in *any*
field could be clueless enough concerning research methods to ascribe
to an occurrence of the word "moniment" from the early 1600s a meaning
that the word did not acquire until the nineteenth century without
having even checked. However, the subsequent revelation that your
educational claims were completely bogus explained that as well.
> >> It is quite obvious the book is in a popular format. It is not
> >> footnoted
> > So? Even popular books can be accurate and critical, footnotes or
> >no. Steven Weinberg's _The First Three Minutes_ has comparatively few
> >footnotes, yet it is a masterpiece of popular exposition. But that's
> >in part because Weinberg is an expert in his subject -- Michell is not.
> no its because his subject is scientific, Webb, not history or
> biography.
Popular books can strive for accuracy just as well as scientific
books, and accuracy is just as laudable a goal in any case, regardless
of the book's subject.
[...]
> >> I'll take that Michell's book isn't that of the conscientious scholar.
> >> But he certainly knows his stuff.
> > He knows the colorful scenarios of various anti-Stratfordian cranks;
> >what he appears to lack is any critical facility that would permit him
> >to evaluate these scenarios meaningfully.
> >> You're [sic] only gripe with him is that he isn't a Stratfordian.
> > No, my gripe is that he is uninformed, gullible, and uncritical.
> Ok. So you've said. I disagree.
> >> My gripe with him is that his conclusion is lame and trite.
> >>
> >> I really don't think he had a clue after considering the issue who was
> >> behind it. So he concocted a syntheses [sic] that attempted to include
> >> several takes or camps. But not, of course, the Stratfordian rabble.
> >>
> >> You Stratfordians have sense enough to understand the plays are
> >> written by the same person. Or rather at least some of you do. They
> >> are just too interrelated to be the result of a group of writers.
> > That does not mean that some of Shakespeare's plays might not have
> >had collaborative input, nor does it mean that Shakespeare did not make
> >minor contributions to plays not attributed to him.
> yes, but in my opinion they are 99% his. whoever his was.
Your opinion has little bearing upon the question.
[...]
> > No, Marlowe's work, while fine in its own way, is very different
> >from Shakespeare's.
> No it isn't. Marlowe's work is the root of Sk's work. Just as the
> root of a tree is quite different than the trunk or the crown...but
> the root in the organic sense.
>
> It is quite simple to see how Marlowe could have become Sk, but
> nearly impossible to see how Willy could have.
That's because you are sadly uninformed and even misinformed.
> >> just based on the verbal
> >> parallels, similar plot lines, allusions and interrelated themes.
> >>
> >> Marlowe remains as Michell calls him the only "professional
> >> candidate."
> > Marlowe is the only one of the alternative candidates who is known
> >to have been a fine playwright. However, he died too early to have
> >written most of Shakespeare's major works.
> Also false. We have no forensic proof of his death. No DNA or
> fingerprint evidence. And we have good forensci evidence to doubt it.
> We also have his reappearance in the post 1593 diplomatic records and
> the continuation of his works until 1654...
Pure speculation, Faker.
David Webb
John W. Kennedy
> More bs from Kennedy. The turd who thinks Yorkshire Tragedy isn't by
> Shakespeare!!
I see your mind has now almost reached the point of total
disintegration.
> Marlowe is the only person who could have matured into Shakespeare.
> The only person and you're too dumb to know it.
That's like saying that only Gabriele Dannunzio could have matured into
W. H. Auden. In any case, that statement, with its absurd "only", would
be flat ridiculous even without knowing who Marlowe and Shakespeare
were.
> I'll pray for you.
Thanks for warning me; I'll make an appointment with an exorcist right
away.
John W. Kennedy
> No Kennedy I'm saying that you posted three answers to your
> own header.
Assuming that that is supposed to make any sense at all, you're saying
there's something reprehensible in making more than one post on the same
thread?
> Having trouble reading?
Why, as the years go by, the old eyes get a little worn. But I'm afraid
I can't see your hallucinations yet.
Have to run. I've got to write the entire score for a musical by next
Saturday.
David L. Webb
> On 25 Feb 2002 03:25:20 -0800, ches...@mindspring.com (Neil Brennen)
> wrote:
>
> >John Baker wrote in message news:<3c79b83d...@News.localaccess.com>...
> >> On Sun, 24 Feb 2002 16:20:03 GMT, "John W. Kennedy"
> >> <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >"David L. Webb" wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> In article <3c7671ba...@News.localaccess.com>, John Baker wrote:
> >> >> > This exchange took place in a public forum and I am infamous for
> >> >> > mistakes of this nature in this forum.
> >> >> You are infamous for mistakes *period*.
> >> >He is infamous *period*.
> >> Driven to answer your own posts Kennedy becaue no one gives a rip
> >> about what you have to say...
> >>
> >> john
> >I find Mr. Kennedy to be one of the more sensible posters here. You,
> >on the other hand....
> >
> >Neil Brennen
> That's ok by me Neil. You're the fool that believes I've used a false
> credential and who doesn't even understand that to lie about having
> a Ph.D. one must say "from such and such an institution."
No, someone who has *no* Ph.D., like you, lies if he or she claims
to have one, regardless of what institution never granted the purely
imaginary Ph.D. In your case, you *explicitly* said that you had a
Ph.D. in Philosophy. You do not.
> I have _never_ lied about my credentials.
Yes, you have, and on several occasions: you claimed that you had a
Ph.D. in Philosophy, and you signed yourself "john baker, phd". Both
were lies. By your pathetic evasions and denials you merely make an
even greater ass of yourself then before, a feat one would scarcely
have believed possible.
> Anyone can have a Ph.D., even in Philosophy, so long as they don't
> claim it from an institution they haven't been presented with one
> from.
But you haven't been presented with a Ph.D. by *any* institution.
> Got that? "Ph.D." just means "doctor of philosophy" and
> "doctor" according to Webster's means "a teacher; a learned person."
>
> I qualify for that one, buster.
>
> Rev. Dr. John Baker, Bishop, A.A., B.A., B.S.,
From what institution did you receive a B.S. degree, Faker, and in
what year? Or does "B.S." merely refer to the excrement of the male
bovine?
> M.A., M.S.S., Ph.D.
> (a.b.d.), D.D, etc.
David Webb
David L. Webb
[...]
> >>But to give the Webb/Kathman duo (?) "their" full credit, it is quite
> >>proper for scholars to learn to "evaluate claims critically."
> >>
> >>However this is not done by asking who made the claim in the first
> >>place.
> >>
> >>That's a type violation that moves quickly into an argumentum ad
> >>hominem.
> >Huh? Are you accusing me and/or David Webb of evaluating
> >claims by "asking who made the claim in the first place"? I have
> >never done such a thing, nor, to my knowledge, has David Webb.
> >Can you cite a specific instance of this?
> This is such an example Dave. You're trying to ignore John's claim by
> saying he isn't an "expert" or an "authority" in thise matters. He is
> both.
*What* "claim" of "John's" do you think that Dave Kathman is trying
to ignore, Faker? Dave didn't say *anything* in his post about *any*
specific claim Michell made.
> >>Webb and Kathman is/are experts at this move. But in fact it is a
> >>unscholarly move. If they want to evaluate the question, they need to
> >>focus on it, not on the person who posed it.
> >Baker, this has already been pointed out to you, numerous times,
> >but I was only responding to the claim that John Michell is
> >an "Elizabethan expert", which he is not in any rational sense
> >of the word.
> Wrong again Dave. Just look up the word in Webester's. Here's
> what mine reads "an experienced person". If you think John isn't
> "experienced" his this subject, or that that experience isn't evidence
> prima facie in the book, look up the word experienced.
> >Have you got that? I was not responding to any
> >claims made by Mr. Michell; I was responding only to another
> >poster's characterization of him. Do you understand? (A rhetorical
> >question, I know.)
Dave was right -- it was *certainly* a rhetorical question, as
events have shown.
[...]
> >>Well in any case Kathman feels that Michell is not entitled to his
> >>opinion.
> >When did I ever say such a thing?
> Come on Dave I know you can read better than this. Do you see me
> saying you said this? I said you feel this...
You acknowledge that Dave didn't *say* it, but you assert with the
confidence of the ignorant that he "feels" it?!! What makes you privy
to what Dave "feels," Faker? ESP? Telepathy? I wouldn't advise you
to try to make a career of it, Faker -- Miss Cleo seems to be having
some legal problems at present, and your feeble attempts to impersonate
a Ph.D. have been nowhere near as convincing.
> > Will you please stop putting
> >words in my mouth that I never said, and which are, in many cases
> >(such as the present one) virtually the opposite of what I actually
> >believe? John Michell is certainly entitled to whatever opinions
> >he chooses to hold, and if anybody tries to censor him, I will
> >oppose such censorship. However, if he expresses those opinions
> >in print, he should expect them to be challenged if they are as
> >factually inaccurate and sloppily reasoned as those in his Shakespeare
> >book.
> Stop!!! You're on two tracks at once here Dave.
>
> First you are kicking his experience on a personal level and thus his
> right to his personal and professional opinion, opinions that differ
> from yours, and second you are here attacking his book....that attack
> is ok and where you should go. Point out its mistakes, by all means.
Dave's and Terry's web site contains an essay pointing out numerous
of the book's faults, although I doubt that the list is exhaustive.
That you cannot read it is not Dave's problem.
[...]
> >>An opinion that Michell came to after spending many years of
> >>his life looking into the authorship question. I'd say Michell has
> >>been looking carefully at this question for longer than Kathman's been
> >>alive.
> >Even if that's true, what does it have to do with anything?
> >There are plenty of crackpots out there who have been riding
> >their hobbyhorses obsessively for decades; does that make them
> >all right?
> No, but it does suggest that his opinion is well grounded and well
> informed.
It does nothing of the kind. Velikovsky's many years of thinking
about planetary science and Biblical miracles did not make him at all
"well informed" or "well grounded" in either physics or Egyptology.
[...]
> >I can't speak for David Webb, but I neither hate nor fear
> >anything about Michell's book. I do, however, become annoyed
> >at the credulousness he displays therein, which seems to be a
> >general feature of his character.
> Yet another character attack!!!
No, I invite you to gauge Michell's credulousness yourself simply by
reading his books, almost all of which are about dowsing, crop circles,
magic, earth spirits, astro-archaeology, etc.; Michell's credulousness
is all too evident throughout his published work. But as someone who
believes that the lunar landing was faked, I wouldn't expect you to
recognize credulousness if it bit you.
> > (Witness his other books on
> >Atlantis, ancient astronauts, and other psuedo-scientific and
> >pseudo-historical fringe belief systems.)
[...]
> >>Well Michell isn't a true believer like Kathman/Webb. He's just an
> >>expert who took a life long interest in this subject and turned it
> >>into a best selling book. And by doing it has gained, evidently,
> >>world fame and that eternity promised by the Author.
> >Again, my main objection in the present context is to your
> >calling Michell an "expert", which he is demonstrably not,
> >at least not if we define "expert" as someone who knows a lot
> >about a specific subject, in this case Elizabethan literature
> >and history.
> And again you're flat wrong. The book is proof he's an expert in
> these matters,
If by "these matters" you mean the fantasies of the delusional, then
Michell does seem to have some familiarity with these matters, although
he is by no means an "expert"; indeed, Martin Gardner knows *far* more
about lunatic fringe beliefs than Michell, and he has written far more
about them as well.
> you're [sic] problem remains the fact his conclusions about
> these matters aren't the same as yours.
Huh? You agreed that Michell doesn't reach any firm conclusions.
How could the conclusions that he does not reach "differ" from Dave's
or mine? You're making about as much sense as usual, Faker.
[...]
> >Uh, as I've said numerous times before, Baker, this authorship stuff
> >takes up only a small fraction of the time I devote to my
> >scholarly work on Shakespeare and theater history, and it's
> >not nearly as rewarding as my real scholarship. Within the world
> >of Shakespeare studies, quite a few people do know me for the
> >Shakespeare Authorship web page, but more probably know me for
> >my Biographical Index to Elizabethan Theater, my research on
> >boy actors, my other biographical research, and so forth -- at
> >least, that's been my experience at the SAA and similar conferences.
> >More will probably know me once a number of things are published
> >which are now in press (such as the DNB) or in progress (such as
> >several articles resulting from my research on apprentice actors).
> >And if you define "fame" by absolute numbers of people, I'm sure
> >more people have heard of me in my capacity as a stock analyst,
> >since I get quoted in the press all the time, several times a
> >week on average.
> A good point...I've followed some of your advice myself...
> > But I don't really care about "fame", and I'm
> >not sure why you keep harping on it.
> I didn't know I was.
Huh? You've harped on it numerous times. Are you getting senile?
> But the point remains when our names become
> entwined with his, fame goes with it. Its just a fact.
> >>Kathman/Webb continues:
> >>>at very best, Michell is
> >>>unduly credulous about all kinds of wacko antistratfordian
> >>>ideas.
> >
> >Again, I wrote this. David Webb had nothing to do with it.
> Again I know it...
I'm beginning to wonder whether you do.
[...]
> > He [Michell]
> >took seriously antistratfordian "doubts" to which no Shakespeare
> >scholar gives the time of day, because they are based on
> >ignorance and distortions.
> Again you are either lying about this are so confused you don't
> know the meaning of the word "scholar." But hold your water
> until you see my essay on this same topic taking off on your
> remarks with Rubbo...I'll post it soon.
> >>It is quite obvious the book is in a popular format. It is not
> >>footnoted in the style of Ogden Nash's the purist...who corrected
> >>his porter on the kind of creature who had just carried off his wife:
> >>How does it run?
> >>
> >>I give you Professor Twist...
> >>A conscientious scientist...
> >>[his lovely wife eaten] by an alligator,
> >>Professor Twist could not but smile,
> >>You mean, she said, a crocodile.
> >Huh? What on earth does this have to do with Michell's book?
> Come on Dave, you don't really want me to fill in the dots for you do
> you?
>
> Here's this poor over educated fool with a Ph.D. who even when he's
> lost his wife has to get correct [sic] the messenger.
>
> I mean whose [sic] to know...maybe it was an alligator?
Your attempts at wit fall even flatter than your attempts at
scholarship and at fraud, Faker.
[...]
> >> You're [sic] only gripe with him is that he isn't a Stratfordian.
> >No, my "gripe" with him is that his book is full of
> >inaccuracies and distortions.
> Such as.
For Pete's sake, *read the essay*, Faker!
[...]
> >I certainly agree that Shakespeare wrote the great bulk of the
> >plays and poems attributed to him, but like most scholars, I also
> >believe that he had collaborators, at least in his later plays
> >and probably in some of the early ones, too.
>
> Yes but that isn't what the vocabulary counts indicate. If you and I
> collaborated on an essay or a play we'd both expect that there
> would be some change in the raw number of Types in the play or to use
> the jargon, the T/tr.
>
> You might suppose that if we worked together the poverty of my kant [sic]
> would pull down the richness of yours and I might expect the reverse.
It depends upon what you mean by "richness." Some of your farcical
linguistic lapses -- e.g., "armature" for "amateur" -- are rich indeed!
[...]
> >>So take a deep breath and tell us straight that if you didn't know the
> >>author of any of these plays you'd have any problem in placing
> >>Shakespeare's works with Marlowe's...just based on the verbal
> >>parallels, similar plot lines, allusions and interrelated themes.
> >If Shakespeare's and Marlowe's plays were somehow presented to
> >me anonymously, I would certainly say they were different
> >writers. They obviously influenced each other, probably mutually
> >for a few years before Marlowe was killed, but the difference in
> >their verse is actually quite dramatic, as many people have pointed
> >out (both here and elsewhere).
> I disagree and so do many other scholars.
The word "other" is completely inappropriate in this context.
[...]
> >As I said on that NPR interview, in a certain sense Marlowe
> >is the most plausible of all the alternative "Shakespeares",
> >because at least he was a professional playwright, and a very
> >good one. But the whole thing is moot, because all the evidence
> >says Marlowe was killed in 1593 and that William Shakespeare wrote
> >the works of William Shakespeare.
> Wrong. All the evidence is that the wound to Marlowe's head couldn't
> have killed him "then and there" and there is lots of post 1593
> evidence for his survival. So become conversant with it...
>
> And stay tuned to my three part discussion or critique of your NPR
> interview. Which by the way I didn't know was an NPR interview.
> The link to to a particular show...a local NYC show...was it also
> carried on NPR and when?
>
> And do you have a transcript? I've made one of the points I want to
> pick on you about, but I'd love to have a full copy. You didn't come
> over too bad and Mike did a good job. I don't think the host is a
> Stratfordian. Do you?
You see anti-Stratfordians everywhere you look, Faker.
David Webb
Neil Brennen
> On 25 Feb 2002 03:25:20 -0800, ches...@mindspring.com (Neil Brennen)
> wrote:
> >I find Mr. Kennedy to be one of the more sensible posters here. You,
> >on the other hand....
> >Neil Brennen
>
> That's ok by me Neil. You're the fool that believes I've used a false
> credential and who doesn't even understand that to lie about having
> a Ph.D. one must say "from such and such an institution."
Once again a falsehood.
> I have _never_ lied about my credentials.
And again a lie.
> Anyone can have a Ph.D., even in Philosophy, so long as they don't
> claim it from an institution they haven't been presented with one
> from.
And a third. Kennedy will have to write a play about you, the "Triple
Falsehood".
Got that? "Ph.D." just means "doctor of philosophy" and
> "doctor" according to Webster's means "a teacher; a learned person."
It also means the degree was granted by an educational institution,
not that it came from a Crackerjack box - or a crackpot Marlovian.
> I qualify for that one, buster.
(Snipped string of suspicious degrees)
Neil Brennen
john_baker
OK, Webb I rolled on this the first time through, but I know that
you're wrong. A Ph.D. simply means is the abbreviation of a
"philosophy doctor". Look up those two words. Doctor means
a learned person, philosophy means something like the a lover of
knowledge. So it is not a lie to say one is a Ph.D. or a Doctor of
Philosophy if one does not say "from CalTech or some other institution
where one has not been given a Ph.D. in Philosophy."
I have never boasted I had a Ph.D. in Philosophy from FSU...or for
that matter from any other institution.
So technically speaking I have not lied or committed fraud. And I
would invite you to sue me or try to have me arrested if you think I
have.
On the other hand I did indeed once sign my name here as John Baker
phd, which is, as I have pointed out not the same thing as Ph.D., at
least according to Webster's.
I asked you to check your copy and gave you the page number of my
copy, as I remember. But you may have missed that post.
I also once said "I have a Ph.D. in Philosophy" something I rigiously
try not to say and I defended it by noting that I must have left out
the phrase "I have _the bits and pieces_ of a Ph.D. in Philosophy."
This is a perfectly valid defense.
I was a Ph.D. candidate at FSU, in philosophy, I passed my prelims, I
completed my dissertation, I merely did not defend. I can return to
that university at anytime and do so, since I was not under any sort
of academic suspension at the time I left. I've check the rules, they
can issue the Ph.D. and back date it to 1975 so I wouldn't even have
to meet the residency requirements or the recency of work
stipuations...
> In your case, you *explicitly* said that you had a
>Ph.D. in Philosophy. You do not.
Wrong. Having checked Webster's I know I am a doctor of philosophy,
and that Ph.D. is the abbreviation for it. So it is entirely correct
to say that I am a Ph.D.
I think it would be incorrect to say "I have a Ph.D." but not that "I
am a Ph.D." And I freely confess to having made a mistake when I said
"I have a Ph.D. in Philosophy"
I should have said "I am a Ph. D. in philosophy." That would have
been correct and legal according to Webster's.
>
>> I have _never_ lied about my credentials.
>
> Yes, you have, and on several occasions: you claimed that you had a
>Ph.D. in Philosophy, and you signed yourself "john baker, phd". Both
>were lies.
Well you're entitled to your opinions as am I, but I've given a
reasonable explanation that does not involve me lying about this.
Lying, Webb, would involve a motive.
I've no motive to offer anyone false credentials.
I'm not trying to get a job where credentials are required.
So pardon me while I chuckle about all this...
Which reminds me I checked Webster's as to what the word "professor"
means and you are going to be surprised to learn that according to
Webster's I am a professor, though I said I wasn't, taking it to mean
a person who teaches at the highest levels at a college or university.
In fact it just means one who professes....
I profess, right? I've read my professions right?
>By your pathetic evasions and denials you merely make an
>even greater ass of yourself then before, a feat one would scarcely
>have believed possible.
Too bad for me, I'm so sad, I may worry so much about it that I may
not get to go skiing in the morning with my chief squeeze. She's 21
and a senior in, get his math and physics!!!
I'm what...nearly 40 years her senior? So I've got to get in the
sack early tonight or I might not be able to climb any trees with her
in the morning. Keep your ears open, we may be talking about you.
I've told her we're pen pals.
>
>> Anyone can have a Ph.D., even in Philosophy, so long as they don't
>> claim it from an institution they haven't been presented with one
>> from.
>
> But you haven't been presented with a Ph.D. by *any* institution.
And how would you know this Professor Webb? All I've owned up to is
not defending my dissertation at FSU...
>
>> Got that? "Ph.D." just means "doctor of philosophy" and
>> "doctor" according to Webster's means "a teacher; a learned person."
>>
>> I qualify for that one, buster.
>>
>> Rev. Dr. John Baker, Bishop, A.A., B.A., B.S.,
>
> From what institution did you receive a B.S. degree, Faker, and in
>what year? Or does "B.S." merely refer to the excrement of the male
>bovine?
I like it. Why not? Sounds good to me. But I generally think of it
as Bovine Sewage...as you'll see if you check my posts more closely.
And while we're on this subject, you said in an earlier post that you
hadn't investigated me but it was you that first asked if I had a
Masters in International Affairs from, what was it, Florida
Atlantic...so you must have LIED about not investigating me. Right?
I remember giving you a hint, my middle name is more like Christopher
or Charles than whatever that other John Baker's name was. Remember
that hint? John C. C. Baker Have you searched through he Ph.D. rolls
for that name?
So lets review. According to Webster's a Doctor of Philosophy is a
learned person in philosophy.
The letters Ph.D. after a name would or could thus mean "a doctor of
philosophy" so according to Webster's any person learned in philosophy
could put the letters Ph.D. after his name.
Right or wrong?
Ph.D. could also mean Phytogenic Dipshit.
With this in mind I think one can even put the letters M.D. after your
name if it means "mighty dumb" or "Might Devious" and not get into
any kind of legal hassle over it.
I remember a guy once who put C.P.A. after his name and got chastized
for it until he told them it stood for "check prostrates and
assholes." Then it was legal.
I wouldn't advocate trying to practice medicine or law or accounting
or even attempting to teach at a university with just those letters
after you name, but there would be, indeed, there can be no law
against having them there in a nation like ours.
Particularly on hlas.
So get the fuck off my back Webb and if you don't like my posts don't
read them.
Meanwhile save me a day for lunch....
John Baker, Ph.D.
john_baker
wrote:
>Baker the Faker wrote in message news:<3c7a6663...@News.localaccess.com>...
>> On 25 Feb 2002 03:25:20 -0800, ches...@mindspring.com (Neil Brennen)
>> wrote:
>> >I find Mr. Kennedy to be one of the more sensible posters here. You,
>> >on the other hand....
>> >Neil Brennen
>>
>> That's ok by me Neil. You're the fool that believes I've used a false
>> credential and who doesn't even understand that to lie about having
>> a Ph.D. one must say "from such and such an institution."
>
>Once again a falsehood.
>
>> I have _never_ lied about my credentials.
>
>And again a lie.
>
>> Anyone can have a Ph.D., even in Philosophy, so long as they don't
>> claim it from an institution they haven't been presented with one
>> from.
>
>And a third. Kennedy will have to write a play about you, the "Triple
>Falsehood".
>
> Got that? "Ph.D." just means "doctor of philosophy" and
>> "doctor" according to Webster's means "a teacher; a learned person."
>
>It also means the degree was granted by an educational institution,
>not that it came from a Crackerjack box - or a crackpot Marlovian.
Wrong and that was the point of my post. Can't you read? Don't you
have a copy of Webster's Second or Third? Need mine?
>
>> I qualify for that one, buster.
>
>(Snipped string of suspicious degrees)
>Neil Brennen, B.S. A. and P.L.
john_baker
But lets do lunch anyhow.
john_baker
<David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
BS. Go check the dictionary on these terms David. Or stay tuned for
my next post, which will bring them to you without having to check the
for yourself...
>
>> End of story.
>
>> >> That's a type violation that moves quickly into an argumentum ad
>> >> hominem.
>> >>
>> >> Webb and Kathman is/are experts at this move. But in fact it is a
>> >> unscholarly move. If they want to evaluate the question, they need to
>> >> focus on it, not on the person who posed it.
>
>> > As noted, Dave Kathman was *not* trying to "evaluate" any utterance
>> >of Michell's, as you would know were you willing -- or able -- to read
>> >the thread; rather, he was responding to the absurd mischaracterization
>> >of Michell as an "Elizabethan expert."
>
>> HE is an Elizabethan Expert Webb, look up the meaning in a dictionary
>> for god's sake.
>
> I know the meaning, Faker; I question whether you even have the
>remotest idea what the word means.
I do and you don't.
>
>> >> So with this in mind let us turn to John Michell's chore in Who Wrote
>> >> Shakespeare?
>> >>
>> >> I think John spoke for himself in his prefatory "acknowledgments"
>> >> when he wrote "to the many dedicated writers who have published books
>> >> at their own expense, and to all who have written on the Authorship
>> >> question all happiness and that eternity promised to whoever first
>> >> discovers the true author of Shake-Speare's sonnets etc. wishes this
>> >> well-willing adventurer in setting forth." (7)
>> >>
>> >> Clearly this tell us that John Michell believes there is an authorship
>> >> question.
>
>> > ...which already casts some doubt upon the claim that he is an
>> >"Elizabethan expert." Among experts there is virtual unanimity (a rare
>> >state of affairs) in attributing the bulk of the works to the actor
>> >William Shakespeare.
>
>> wrong, entirely worng [sic] and more proof you and Kathman are one and the
>> same person.
>
>> >> Unlike Dave Kathman and Dave Webb...isn't it odd how they
>> >> have the same first names? Like two peas in a pod. )
>
>> > Dave Kathman is not responsible for my uninformed opinions.
>
>> False. See my post on Kathman's lies on the Rubbo interview.
>
> What?! How does the Rubbo interview, regardless of what it
>contains, make Kathman responsible for my uninformed opinions?! Does
>he confess in the interview that I am one of his personae, or what?
Two questions. Listen to the interview, read my forthcoming essay on
it and get back in touch with me over lunch...
>
> These claims that Dave Kathman and I are "one and the same person"
>are on a par with Elizabeth's weird, delusional obsession that I am
>Whitt Brantley, or Richard Kennedy's inane suspicion that a multitude
>of modern poets are merely Bob Grumman's pseudonyms!
Well welcome to the club David, that guy Night has a list of nom de
plumes that claims I'm Elizabeth!!
Your post has several meanings Webb one of them is just this last
line:
>alive; does that mean that Velikovsky is right and they're wrong?
>
do you notice the semicolon? That's the question I answered. If
you'd put a comma there, I'd have answer the entire thing.
then look it up, buster brown...
>
>> >> who took a life long interest in this subject and turned it
>> >> into a best selling book. And by doing it has gained, evidently,
>> >> world fame and that eternity promised by the Author.
>> >>
>> >> Kathman too will owe any fame he gains from the authorship
>> >> controversy. As opposed to the syntax of Native American languages.
>> >> Or so I will predict.
>
>> > No, your unawareness of Dave Kathman's *real* scholarly work just
>> >shows how hopelessly far removed from the world of real Elizabethan
>> >scholarship you are.
>
>> Happy me!
>
> In some instances, ignorance is bliss.
Well we agree about something!!
>
>> >> Kathman/Webb continues:
>> >> >at very best, Michell is
>> >> >unduly credulous about all kinds of wacko antistratfordian
>> >> >ideas.
>
>> > Again, those are Dave Kathman's words, not mine; however, I agree
>> >completely (not that my opinion matters).
>
>> >> Now I ask the reader, as well as Dr. Kathman, how Michell could not
>> >> know that when he presents dozens of contradictory claims that they
>> >> cannot all be correct?
>
>> > What? Nobody ever claimed that Michell believed that they were
>> >*all* correct. In fact, I noted elsewhere that Michell doesn't play
>> >favorites among the various crackpot scenarios he summarizes. Are you
>> >having trouble reading again, Faker?
>
>> No.
>
> Then why on earth did you raise the question above?
Which question?
>
>> >> Its clear his job was to present the claims as objectively as
>> >> possible.
>
>> > If you mean that he didn't actively take sides among the various
>> >flavors of anti-Stratfordian folly, that's correct; however, he did
>> >credulously reproduce all sorts of absurd anti-Stratfordian canards
>> >without correcting them or even registering skepticism, so he can
>> >scarcely be said to have been "objective."
>
>> Wrong. Objective is what he can be said to be.
>
> Why? Because you just defined objectivity that way?
No because Webster's does..
>
>> >> And I think he did quite a superior job of this difficult
>> >> task.
>
>> > Then you must be unaware of a good deal of the pertinent background
>> >yourself.
>
>> Also wrong.
>
> Your unawareness of the pertinent background and the norms and
>standards of historical inquiry has been demonstrated repeatedly and
>conclusively. Indeed, I marveled that someone with a Ph.D. in *any*
>field could be clueless enough concerning research methods to ascribe
>to an occurrence of the word "moniment" from the early 1600s a meaning
>that the word did not acquire until the nineteenth century without
>having even checked. However, the subsequent revelation that your
>educational claims were completely bogus explained that as well.
Wrong again.
As your does yours.
>
>[...]
>> > No, Marlowe's work, while fine in its own way, is very different
>> >from Shakespeare's.
>
>> No it isn't. Marlowe's work is the root of Sk's work. Just as the
>> root of a tree is quite different than the trunk or the crown...but
>> the root in the organic sense.
>>
>> It is quite simple to see how Marlowe could have become Sk, but
>> nearly impossible to see how Willy could have.
>
> That's because you are sadly uninformed and even misinformed.
Wrong again.
>
>> >> just based on the verbal
>> >> parallels, similar plot lines, allusions and interrelated themes.
>> >>
>> >> Marlowe remains as Michell calls him the only "professional
>> >> candidate."
>
>> > Marlowe is the only one of the alternative candidates who is known
>> >to have been a fine playwright. However, he died too early to have
>> >written most of Shakespeare's major works.
>
>> Also false. We have no forensic proof of his death. No DNA or
>> fingerprint evidence. And we have good forensci evidence to doubt it.
>> We also have his reappearance in the post 1593 diplomatic records and
>> the continuation of his works until 1654...
>
> Pure speculation, Faker.
Also false, Professor. But lets do lunch sometime.
David Kathman
[snip most of Baker's babblings, which David Webb has already
responded to in this thread]
>And stay tuned to my three part discussion or critique of your NPR
>interview. Which by the way I didn't know was an NPR interview.
>The link to to a particular show...a local NYC show...was it also
>carried on NPR and when?
It was on WNYC, the local NPR affiliate in New York City.
I don't know whether other NPR stations carry this particular
show, which is called "New York and Company", hosted by
Leonard Lopate.
>And do you have a transcript? I've made one of the points I want to
>pick on you about, but I'd love to have a full copy.
No, I do not have a transcript. I have not had any contact
with anybody from the station since doing the interview.
>You didn't come
>over too bad and Mike did a good job.
Thanks, I think. I'm always hesitant to accept any
praise from you, given your tenuous connection with reality.
But I'll take it.
>I don't think the host is a
>Stratfordian. Do you?
Well, he did refer to my "wonderful" web site, or something
to that effect. I think he was being polite to the guest (Rubbo)
who was sitting in the studio with him. I actually have
no idea what Leonard Lopate's personal opinions are.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
KQKnave
not only here but in publications like the Elizabethan Review.
His views are insane. He believes that
King Lear is a comedy, that the moon landings were faked, that
Shakespeare was a "hempen homespun" despite proof of his
father's wealth, and god knows what else. His editorials
on his web page espouse such views as, for example, in
a piece he had intended to title "On Ridding ourselves of Wasps"
but which instead reads "On Riding ourselves of Waps", he
says:
"Our trump card is that because this is a Holly [sic] War
and a racial war, we can hold both Allah and their kin hostage."
He also posts voluminously
on newsgroups using many pseudonyms, some of which are:
John Bede
Yogi Buchon
Arbella Stuart (Arbella...@my-deja.com)
Bacon (ba...@my-deja.com)
John Padden (john_pa...@hotmail.com)
Telemachos <son_of_...@hotmail.com)
elizabe...@mail.com (google)
elizabe...@boldplanet.com
(Signed his name "Liz" but forgot to change the header in
this post:
From: John Baker (mar...@localaccess.com)
Subject: Interview Questions for Shakespeare Scholars
Newsgroups: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
View: Complete Thread (2 articles) | Original Format
Date: 1999/02/15 )
Alcibiades <son_of_...@hotmail.com
john_the-baker <john_th...@my-deja.com>
Prospero <pros...@my-deja.com>
Ophelia <Oph...@my-deja.com>
Shimur Taniyama <Shimur_...@my-deja.com>
Shylock <shy...@my-deja.com>
Skylock <Sky...@my-deja.com>
Socrates/Falstaff <Socrates/Fals...@my-deja.com>
Alkibiades <Alkib...@my-deja.com>
John_...@my-deja.com
Alcibiades...@my-deja.com
Alckibiades <>
Ebenezer (Eben...@my-deja.com)
Alcibiades [no email at all]
baker_ne...@my-deja.com
Alcibiades@
Alcib...@my-deja.com
Alkibiades (brot...@aol.com),
alkibia...@my-deja.com,
ba...@my-deja.com,
John Baker (mar...@localaccess.com),
Alcibiades(kot...@hotmail.com)
jo...@my-deja.com (signed his email "John Baker" on Feb 9 2001)
john_...@my-deja.com
See for yourself that the Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Agent Jim
Neil Brennen
> On 25 Feb 2002 16:36:41 -0800, ches...@mindspring.com (Neil Brennen)
> wrote:
> > Got that? "Ph.D." just means "doctor of philosophy" and
> >> "doctor" according to Webster's means "a teacher; a learned person."
> >
> >It also means the degree was granted by an educational institution,
> >not that it came from a Crackerjack box - or a crackpot Marlovian.
>
> Wrong and that was the point of my post. Can't you read? Don't you
> have a copy of Webster's Second or Third? Need mine?
> >
> >> I qualify for that one, buster.
> >
> >(Snipped string of suspicious degrees)
>
>
> >Neil Brennen, B.S. A. and P.L.
Let me point out "Dr." Faker added the titles to my name above. Not
only does he give himself degrees he didn't earn, he now does it for
other people as well.
Neil Brennen
Hyperopic
>I also once said "I have a Ph.D. in Philosophy" something I rigiously
>try not to say and I defended it by noting that I must have left out
>the phrase "I have _the bits and pieces_ of a Ph.D. in Philosophy."
>
>This is a perfectly valid defense.
I recently said "I am a Demigod, you must all bow down before me!" I
rigorously try not to say this; I defend it by pointing out that I
meant to say "I am *not at this time* a Demigod, you must all *not,
until further notice,* bow down before me." This is a perfectly valid
defense. Alternatively, Webster's only defines "demigod" without the
capital D, so Demigod may mean something entirely different.
>> In your case, you *explicitly* said that you had a
>>Ph.D. in Philosophy. You do not.
>
>Wrong. Having checked Webster's I know I am a doctor of philosophy,
>and that Ph.D. is the abbreviation for it. So it is entirely correct
>to say that I am a Ph.D.
>
>I think it would be incorrect to say "I have a Ph.D." but not that "I
>am a Ph.D." And I freely confess to having made a mistake when I said
>"I have a Ph.D. in Philosophy"
>
> I should have said "I am a Ph. D. in philosophy." That would have
>been correct and legal according to Webster's.
For Demigod's sake. Webster's defines Ph.D. as "Doctor of
Philosophy". Note the capital letters. Hmm, could they be referring
to another entry? Let's look: "Doctor of Philosophy: the highest
doctorate awarded by a university for original research in any
discipline." (Webster's New World, 3rd College Edition, 1988).
Please stop pretending that Webster's backs you up.
>Which reminds me I checked Webster's as to what the word "professor"
>means and you are going to be surprised to learn that according to
>Webster's I am a professor, though I said I wasn't, taking it to mean
>a person who teaches at the highest levels at a college or university.
>
>In fact it just means one who professes....
If it "just" meant that, Webster's wouldn't give three distinct
definitions.
>I profess, right?
"profess 2: to claim to have (some feeling, an interest, knowledge,
etc.); often connoting INSINCERITY OR PRETENSE." Why yes, it fits the
bill exactly!
>So lets review. According to Webster's a Doctor of Philosophy is a
>learned person in philosophy.
Wrong. Stee-rike 1.
>The letters Ph.D. after a name would or could thus mean "a doctor of
>philosophy" so according to Webster's any person learned in philosophy
>could put the letters Ph.D. after his name.
>
>Right or wrong?
Wrong. Stee-rike 2.
>Ph.D. could also mean Phytogenic Dipshit.
Not according to Webster, our umpire. Stee-rike 3. Yer out!
>John Baker, Ph.D.
For someone who claims to find Plato so inspiring, your love of
sophistry is remarkable.
Peter Groves
Faker, I used to take you for a good-natured idiot, but you've become a
tedious moron, and your credibility (if you ever had any) is completely
exhausted: my most grossly incompetent first-year students wouldn't write
embarrassing gibberish like "A Ph.D. simply means is [means is?] the
abbreviation of a 'philosophy doctor'". To confuse the derivation of a
word with its current meaning (the etymological fallacy) is a cretinous
howler that makes nonsense of your absurd intellectual pretensions: if
"Doctor means a learned person" [sic] and "philosophy means something like
the a [the a?] lover of knowledge" [sic] then 'person' itself means 'mask'
(Latin <persona>). Ph.Ds are awarded by universities; falsely to claim to
have been awarded one is a contemptible fraud. Of course, if you want to
add "Ph.D (failed)" to your name, no one will object.
Peter G.
Thomas Larque
>> you're wrong. A Ph.D. simply means is the abbreviation of a
>> "philosophy doctor". Look up those two words. Doctor means
>> a learned person, philosophy means something like the a lover of
>> knowledge. So it is not a lie to say one is a Ph.D. or a Doctor of
>> Philosophy if one does not say "from CalTech or some other institution
>> where one has not been given a Ph.D. in Philosophy."
>>
>
>Faker, I used to take you for a good-natured idiot, but you've become a
>tedious moron, and your credibility (if you ever had any) is completely
>exhausted: my most grossly incompetent first-year students wouldn't write
>embarrassing gibberish like "A Ph.D. simply means is [means is?] the
>abbreviation of a 'philosophy doctor'". To confuse the derivation of a
>word with its current meaning (the etymological fallacy) is a cretinous
>howler that makes nonsense of your absurd intellectual pretensions: if
>"Doctor means a learned person" [sic] and "philosophy means something like
>the a [the a?] lover of knowledge" [sic] then 'person' itself means 'mask'
>(Latin <persona>). Ph.Ds are awarded by universities; falsely to claim to
>have been awarded one is a contemptible fraud. Of course, if you want to
>add "Ph.D (failed)" to your name, no one will object.
>
>Peter G.
And using the same wonderful logic Baker can claim to be a qualified
Doctor (of the medical variety) on the grounds that he is "a learned
person" and can presumably feel perfectly justified in carrying out
operations without one day in medical school on this basis, but -
unless his long list of marriages and divorces have ended in divorce -
this proves that Baker is lying when he claims to have Bachelors
degrees in Arts and Science since to have these he would have to be a
Bachelor and I am sure that his Webster's dictionary will point out
that a Bachelor is an unmarried man.
So Baker is either lying about having a Ph.D (as he obviously is by
any sane interpretation of his claims) or - if we take Baker at his
word and look up all his claimed qualifications in a dictionary - he
is lying about having Bachelors Degrees since he is not a Bachelor.
Somehow I imagine the Baker defence about having a Ph.D because he
looked up the words "Doctor" and "Philosophy" in a dictionary and
thought they applied to him wouldn't stand up in court. Does anybody
know if Baker has broken any laws by making these claims? We really
should get him arrested if he has, and then he can try out his
dishonest defence in front of a judge.
I suppose, however, that he might get off on the grounds of mental
incapacity.
Thomas Larque.
"Shakespeare and His Critics"
http://shakespearean.org.uk
Bob Grumman
serious. But his refusal to accept that he lied when he put "phd" after
his name and did other things to indicate he had earned a Ph. D. has
made me change my mind. Not to worry, John--Richard Kennedy's
return will keep you from being considered the most contemptible moron
at HLAS for a month or two.
--Bob G.
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
David L. Webb
<thomas...@lineone.net> wrote:
"Dr." Faker also claims to be a bishop. Perhaps he meant the fourth
sense in the OED: "Applied ludicrously to the chief of the company in
the ŚFestival of Fools.ą"
> Somehow I imagine the Baker defence about having a Ph.D because he
> looked up the words "Doctor" and "Philosophy" in a dictionary and
> thought they applied to him wouldn't stand up in court. Does anybody
> know if Baker has broken any laws by making these claims? We really
> should get him arrested if he has, and then he can try out his
> dishonest defence in front of a judge.
>
> I suppose, however, that he might get off on the grounds of mental
> incapacity.
He need only bring up his conspiracy theory about the lunar landing.
David Webb
David L. Webb
[...]
> >> That's ok by me Neil. You're the fool that believes I've used a false
> >> credential and who doesn't even understand that to lie about having
> >> a Ph.D. one must say "from such and such an institution."
> > No, someone who has *no* Ph.D., like you, lies if he or she claims
> >to have one, regardless of what institution never granted the purely
> >imaginary Ph.D.
> OK, Webb I rolled on this the first time through, but I know that
> you're wrong. A Ph.D. simply means is [sic] the abbreviation of a
> "philosophy doctor".
No, you evidently do not even know what it means is. The OED
glosses "Ph.D." as an abbreviation of "Doctor of Philosophy" or
"Doctorate of Philosophy" -- note the capitalization, which removes all
doubt that a specific academic degree is meant.
> Look up those two words. Doctor means
> a learned person, philosophy means something like the a lover of
> knowledge. So it is not a lie to say one is a Ph.D. or a Doctor of
> Philosophy if one does not say "from CalTech or some other institution
> where one has not been given a Ph.D. in Philosophy."
Peter Groves has already answered this trenchantly and appropriately:
"Faker, I used to take you for a good-natured idiot, but you've
become a tedious moron, and your credibility (if you ever had any)
is completely exhausted: my most grossly incompetent first-year
students wouldn't write embarrassing gibberish like "A Ph.D. simply
means is [means is?] the abbreviation of a 'philosophy doctor'".
To confuse the derivation of a word with its current meaning (the
etymological fallacy) is a cretinous howler that makes nonsense of
your absurd intellectual pretensions: if "Doctor means a learned
person" [sic] and "philosophy means something like the a [the a?]
lover of knowledge" [sic] then 'person' itself means 'mask'
(Latin <persona>). Ph.Ds are awarded by universities; falsely to
claim to have been awarded one is a contemptible fraud."
> I have never boasted I had a Ph.D. in Philosophy from FSU...or for
> that matter from any other institution.
Yes, you have, and Rob Zigler produced the precise quotation in
which you did so.
> So technically speaking I have not lied or committed fraud.
You seem to be the *only* one who thinks that your "defense" is
exculpatory. Although many people couldn't care less whether you lied,
there seems to be pretty universal agreement that you did so, since
everyone (except perhaps you) can simply read the record.
> And I
> would invite you to sue me or try to have me arrested if you think I
> have.
I have no interest in getting you arrested.
> On the other hand I did indeed once sign my name here as John Baker
> phd,
No, you didn't capitalize anything: you wrote "john baker, phd",
which vitiates your absurd suggestion that because you did not
capitalize "phd" the reader was automatically supposed to infer that
you meant "piled higher and deeper."
Perhaps your funniest excuse, though, is your attempt at exculpating
yourself by insisting that your interlocutor is supposed to infer that
you don't have a Ph.D. because of the twinkle in your eye:
"And just for the record, no one has _ever_ challenged me and
said, 'gee John you ought not to say you've taken a Ph.D. when
you haven't been given one...' In fact I don't think anyone has
ever even thought to challenge me on this until now!
Frankly I think its the format here. I'm full of myrth [sic] when I
say this and my eye twinkle [sic]...so they understand fully."
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3c530c7a.77156011%40News.localacce
ss.com&rnum=1>
> which is, as I have pointed out not the same thing as Ph.D., at
> least according to Webster's.
>
> I asked you to check your copy and gave you the page number of my
> copy, as I remember. But you may have missed that post.
>
> I also once said "I have a Ph.D. in Philosophy" something I rigiously [sic]
"Rigiously"?
> try not to say and I defended it by noting that I must have left out
> the phrase "I have _the bits and pieces_ of a Ph.D. in Philosophy."
[...]
> > In your case, you *explicitly* said that you had a
> >Ph.D. in Philosophy. You do not.
> Wrong. Having checked Webster's I know I am a doctor of philosophy,
> and that Ph.D. is the abbreviation for it. So it is entirely correct
> to say that I am a Ph.D.
>
> I think it would be incorrect to say "I have a Ph.D."
But Faker -- you *did* use the verb "to have," *not* the verb "to
be":
"...though I *have* a classical education (or at least a PH.D. in
Philosophy)..." [emphasis added]
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=36ca0289.21894952%40News.localacce
ss.com&rnum=1>
> but not that "I
> am a Ph.D."
"...though I *have* a classical education (or at least a PH.D. in
Philosophy)..." [emphasis added]
> And I freely confess to having made a mistake when I said
> "I have a Ph.D. in Philosophy"
A *mistake*?! You mean, you didn't *realize* that you didn't have a
Ph.D.?!
> I should have said "I am a Ph. D. in philosophy." That would have
> been correct and legal according to Webster's.
No, it would have been just as farcical, and your excuse would have
been just as feeble.
> >> I have _never_ lied about my credentials.
> > Yes, you have, and on several occasions: you claimed that you had a
> >Ph.D. in Philosophy, and you signed yourself "john baker, phd". Both
> >were lies.
> Well you're entitled to your opinions as am I, but I've given a
> reasonable explanation that does not involve me lying about this.
>
> Lying, Webb, would involve a motive.
I don't care what your motive was; you lied.
> I've no motive to offer anyone false credentials.
I don't care whether you had a rational motive; you lied. In any
case, although I don't presume to know what your motive was, a very
plausible motive in the context of some of your charades has evidently
been to browbeat or intimidate your interlocutors.
> I'm not trying to get a job where credentials are required.
That's quite fortunate for you, because you do not have them.
[...]
> >> Anyone can have a Ph.D., even in Philosophy, so long as they don't
> >> claim it from an institution they haven't been presented with one
> >> from.
> > But you haven't been presented with a Ph.D. by *any* institution.
> And how would you know this Professor Webb? All I've owned up to is
> not defending my dissertation at FSU...
There is *no* Doctoral (or even Masters) thesis by you in the
archive of abstracts, Faker. If you claim to have a Ph.D., then what
institution granted it, in what field, and in what year?
If you claim that you *have* a Ph.D. -- not that you "took" one or that
you "are" one, or that everyone should be able to tell by the twinkle
in your eye that you are not one -- this is your chance to set the
record straight:
*What institution granted your supposed Ph.D., in what field, and in
what year?*
[...]
> And while we're on this subject, you said in an earlier post that you
> hadn't investigated me but it was you that first asked if I had a
> Masters in International Affairs from, what was it, Florida
> Atlantic...so you must have LIED about not investigating me. Right?
No, I certainly have't investigated your educational background and
your absurd claims. Ages ago, long before your proposed bet with Bob
Grumman, I looked out of curiosity for the thesis you claimed to have
written. To have investigated whether you actually have the *degrees*
you have claimed would have taken more effort than I cared to expend;
Tom Reedy was the one who investigated the question of the supposed
Florida State Ph.D. that you do not possess.
[...]
> So lets review. According to Webster's a Doctor of Philosophy is a
> learned person in philosophy.
No, "Doctor of Philosophy" -- uppercase -- refers to a specific
advanced academic degree. But I haven't seen any evidence that you
would qualify even by own idiosyncratic notion of what the phrase
means.
> The letters Ph.D. after a name would or could thus mean "a doctor of
> philosophy" so according to Webster's any person learned in philosophy
> could put the letters Ph.D. after his name.
>
> Right or wrong?
>
> Ph.D. could also mean Phytogenic Dipshit.
>
> With this in mind I think one can even put the letters M.D. after your
> name if it means "mighty dumb" or "Might Devious" and not get into
> any kind of legal hassle over it.
Why don't you try treating patients on that basis and see whether
you get into trouble, Faker?
> I remember a guy once who put C.P.A. after his name and got chastized
> for it until he told them it stood for "check prostrates and
> assholes." Then it was legal.
Why don't you try that too, Faker?
[...]
David Webb
Peter Farey
>
> And you better join the society. You have to take
> Dolly's place...
John, the last thing the Marlowe Society needs is somebody
to take Dolly's place. It has been trying valiantly for the
past year to move away from the direction in which she had
(in my opinion, very wrongly) taken it.
What the Society really needs is to encourage more genuine
scholars to join. For example, J.A.Downie, Darryl Grantley,
Michael Hattaway, J.T.Parnell, Peter Roberts, Robert Sales
and Richard Wilson have all published material on Marlowe
fairly recently. Where are they?
The Marlowe Society should, in my view, be primarily about
Marlowe and those works generally accepted as being by him.
It will be far better for the Society if, at least for the
time being, those of us on the lunatic fringe allow them to
set about becoming recognized for being just that. For many
reasons, Marlowe is far more 'in the news' right now, and
it would be a good time for them to work on increasing the
relevant scholarship of its membership.
Analysing what may or may not have happened on 30 May
1593 is, in my view, within that framework; speculating
about whether he then went on to write the works of Shake-
speare is not.
Christian Lanciai
Basically I agree with you, Peter. Dolly Wraight was unique and can
have no one to take her place. Her research results remain to be
followed or studied forever, but she herself was the first and the
last of her kind. Even she couldn't always be right, and criticism
should always be applied to whatever you study. All the same, I think
she was mainly right, and above all, she set no limits to her studies
or research efforts, which also should be a paragon to follow for us
all.
Chris