Re: Shakespeare deniers and Virginia Tech
lackpurity
> On Apr 24, 9:50 am, "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 23, 9:19 pm, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > In reading the garbage here which foregrounds, not the beauty of
> > > Shakespeare's plays nor his nobility as a man, but a LIE, I am haunted
> > > by the image of the German professor and Holocaust survivor who, at
> > > the age of 76, kept the door of his classroom closed long enough to
> > > save the lives of his students but was killed himself.
>
> > > You can take that as read. The destructive spirits who deny
> > > Shakespeare and defend their case using the nastiest and most pedantic
> > > language are the spiritual brothers and sisters of Cho, who represents
> > > their DESTRUCTIVE spirit and is their negative patron saint whether
> > > they like it or not.
>
> > That is the most disgusting thing I've ever read here.
>
> Oh? Is that so? Wow, I must be quite a guy. Seriously: amidst this
> vile and toxic waste, you think it's disgusting to argue for the
> reputation of a good man, Shakespeare, against your classist assault,
> and you just can't stand the very idea that particles of the evil that
> was in Cho might be in you. This when good if misguided people here,
> real people like Michael, are systematically assaulted. An IDEA, a
> proposition becomes something you can't accept while HARM TO PEOPLE
> just causes you, like the people in the poem by Yeats, to retreat to
> the empty house of the stare.
>
> But, isn't evil == evil? Isn't it one thing? Or are we to now
> understand that we are dainty little people and only some of us can be
> evil like Cho, whereas the daintiest among us may only be charged with
> faults that they are ready to confess themselves?
>
> Universities, especially mid-tier universities like VT, are entirely
> too dominated by sex madness, sex discrimination, half-concealed
> violence, anti-intellectualism and money, and Cho was precisely as
> much a victim as a perpetrator, who wasn't important enough, as an
> Asian male, to be given the help he needed when the poet Nikki
> Giovanni, one of his teachers, raised the alarm concerning the content
> of his writing, because even Giovanni didn't matter enough. The
> university and local police are APPLAUDED when they screwed the fuck
> up and didn't protect the students.
>
> You ENABLE campaigns against "trolls" including the persecution of
> Michael, a harmless person who unlike Cho only verbally defends
> himself, and this is the source of the destructive rage I see here and
> which was the social stew which ENABLED Cho's crimes, while (need I
> add? I guess I have to) not excusing them.
>
> Your dehumanization was, again, captured by Yeats, who writes of the
> destruction of the capacity to know in a war zone.
>
> We had fed the heart on fantasies,
> The heart's grown brutal from the fare,
> More substance in our enmities
> Than in our love; O honey-bees,
> Come build in the empty house of the stare.
>
> You're all potential Chos, because it begins in the empty house of the
> stare.
MM:
Regarding Shakespeare deniers, this has happened in so many
instances. It's nothing new. Even the members of a Saint's own
family have been known to be his enemies. If someone is confused,
just doesn't have enough faith, that is one thing. Spreading slander
about a Saint, or a canon is another matter. The former instance, God
could forgive (confusion), but the latter, involving slandering the
beautiful seva (service) to humanity of a Son of God, is another. He
might hold us accountable for that. Didn't Shakespeare write "cursed
be he who moves my bones?" This means, "don't mess with anything I'm
leaving behind, and that means the canon, too." That's my opinion.
Michael Martin
>
>
>
>
>
> > L.
>
> > > In fact, university professors and local police departments should use
> > > what I have called the "denial" theories as a marker for personalities
> > > who may need help. Shakespeare denial, Holocaust denial and Cho's
> > > theories as aired in his papers should all be considered as these
> > > sorts of markers.
>
> > > So should evidence of what Adorno called "psychoanalysis in reverse",
> > > constituted in the inability to use words such as "beauty" or
> > > "nobility": evidence that mass media has purged affect
Ms. Mouse
> On Apr 24, 9:50 am, "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 23, 9:19 pm, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > In reading the garbage here which foregrounds, not the beauty of
> > > Shakespeare's plays nor his nobility as a man, but a LIE, I am haunted
> > > by the image of the German professor and Holocaust survivor who, at
> > > the age of 76, kept the door of his classroom closed long enough to
> > > save the lives of his students but was killed himself.
>
> > > You can take that as read. The destructive spirits who deny
> > > Shakespeare and defend their case using the nastiest and most pedantic
> > > language are the spiritual brothers and sisters of Cho, who represents
> > > their DESTRUCTIVE spirit and is their negative patron saint whether
> > > they like it or not.
>
> > That is the most disgusting thing I've ever read here.
>
> Oh? Is that so? Wow, I must be quite a guy.
I sincerely doubt it.
>Seriously: amidst this
> vile and toxic waste, you think it's disgusting to argue for the
> reputation of a good man, Shakespeare,
I never think argument is disgusting. I'm all for full-blooded,
rambunctious argument. What I'm not for is your calling your
interlocutors evil, as well as the kind of appalling material and tone
you drag into your tirades, which often, by the way, have nothing to
do with Shakespeare.
>against your classist assault,
That's hysterically funny. I'm left wing and not well off at all. As
are many of my friends, non-Strat and Strat alike.
> and you just can't stand the very idea that particles of the evil that
> was in Cho might be in you.
The evil of Cho is not in me. I know that for sure. The entire story
of my life attests to that. Not only that, I burned a yartzheit
(memorial candle) for that professor, a French Canadian professor, and
everyone else who was killed. The events nearly broke my heart,
especially as a parent thinking of other parents who had to bear such
ghastly news. Do you think you've cornered the market on sadness?
>This when good if misguided people here,
> real people like Michael, are systematically assaulted.
Michael has never been assaulted, verbally or otherwise, by me, as I'm
sure he would tell you. I've said this several times before, but
nothing seems to make a dent in your rage. I might disagree with some
of his arguments, but I've always challenged him in a collegial and
polite way. In fact, your argument makes no sense if made against non-
Stratfordians, because in the main it has been Stratfordians who have
"assaulted' him, not that Michael can't take care of himself. Right,
Michael?
>An IDEA, a
> proposition becomes something you can't accept while HARM TO PEOPLE
> just causes you, like the people in the poem by Yeats, to retreat to
> the empty house of the stare.
I have never done so, and I am not doing so now. In fact, I have put
my own life in harm's way more than once with my writing, as I've
written about Holocaust Nazis who had settled in Canada and were not
being extradited or charged with any crime.
>
> But, isn't evil == evil? Isn't it one thing?
If you think that honestly believing that someone else wrote the canon
is evil, especially on the level of what Cho did, what the Nazis did,
what Holocaust Deniers say or do every day, then I think you must be
really unbalanced. Say we're mistaken. Argue for that as hard as you
like, but evil? I can't believe you spit your venom on us, and
especially on me, when every day in the world real atrocities are
occurring, people are tortured and dying. Can't you put your energy
there, as some of us try to do?
>Or are we to now
> understand that we are dainty little people and only some of us can be
> evil like Cho, whereas the daintiest among us may only be charged with
> faults that they are ready to confess themselves?
You're posting garbage. I can't even bring myself to kill a spider,
let alone do the kind of thing he did. The man was very sick indeed.
>
> Universities, especially mid-tier universities like VT, are entirely
> too dominated by sex madness, sex discrimination, half-concealed
> violence, anti-intellectualism and money, and Cho was precisely as
> much a victim as a perpetrator, who wasn't important enough, as an
> Asian male, to be given the help he needed when the poet Nikki
> Giovanni, one of his teachers, raised the alarm concerning the content
> of his writing, because even Giovanni didn't matter enough. The
> university and local police are APPLAUDED when they screwed the fuck
> up and didn't protect the students.
Well, at least I agree that the college, the police, and the health
services are to some degree culpable. But not because he was an Asian
male. This kind of laissez-faire practice goes on everywhere. We never
learn to lock the stable doors before the horse escapes.
>
> You ENABLE campaigns against "trolls" including the persecution of
> Michael, a harmless person
I have no idea why you have become Michael's defender against all
comers, but in any case, the fact of the matter is that I have always
been very polite to Michael and to everyone else here, with the
possible exception of you and Houlsby, who in my opinion have
destroyed this newsgroup by screaming insults across the threads.
>who unlike Cho only verbally defends
> himself, and this is the source of the destructive rage I see here and
> which was the social stew which ENABLED Cho's crimes, while (need I
>add? I guess I have to) not excusing them.
It is my opinion that it was YOUR destructive rage, coupled with
Houlsby's, that led to anger by our regular posters and the
disintegration of this newsgroup.
>
> Your dehumanization
What dehumanization? I have marched against guns and atom bombs, I
have marched against wars, I have adopted black children, I have
fostered homeless children, I have written books about the Holocaust,
about the dispersion of the Acadians from their homeland, about the
disgraceful treatment of the blacks in Canada in the 1780s, about the
terrible treatment of the Irish Catholics during the famine. I have
been a suicide counsellor for the Samaritans in England. I have taught
my children the same values. My son, for example, works in a food bank
though he could make much more money elsewhere. What exactly have you
done that makes you more human or humane than we? Your belief that
Shakespeare wrote the canon? Ludicrous.
>was, again, captured by Yeats, who writes of the
> destruction of the capacity to know in a war zone.
>
> We had fed the heart on fantasies,
> The heart's grown brutal from the fare,
> More substance in our enmities
> Than in our love; O honey-bees,
> Come build in the empty house of the stare.
>
> You're all potential Chos, because it begins in the empty house of the
> stare.
You are, imo, the closest person to Cho here. You are near strangled
with rage. I don't think there's anything further to say.
L.
>
>
Richard Kennedy
> On Apr 24, 9:50 am, "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Apr 23, 9:19 pm, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > In reading the garbage here which foregrounds, not the beauty of
> > > Shakespeare's plays nor his nobility as a man, but a LIE, I am haunted
> > > by the image of the German professor and Holocaust survivor who, at
> > > the age of 76, kept the door of his classroom closed long enough to
> > > save the lives of his students but was killed himself.
>
> > > You can take that as read. The destructive spirits who deny
> > > Shakespeare and defend their case using the nastiest and most pedantic
> > > language are the spiritual brothers and sisters of Cho, who represents
> > > their DESTRUCTIVE spirit and is their negative patron saint whether
> > > they like it or not.
>
> > That is the most disgusting thing I've ever read here.
>
> vile and toxic waste, you think it's disgusting to argue for the
> and you just can't stand the very idea that particles of the evil that
> real people like Michael, are systematically assaulted. An IDEA, a
> proposition becomes something you can't accept while HARM TO PEOPLE
> just causes you, like the people in the poem by Yeats, to retreat to
> the empty house of the stare.
>
> understand that we are dainty little people and only some of us can be
> evil like Cho, whereas the daintiest among us may only be charged with
> faults that they are ready to confess themselves?
>
> too dominated by sex madness, sex discrimination, half-concealed
> violence, anti-intellectualism and money, and Cho was precisely as
> much a victim as a perpetrator, who wasn't important enough, as an
> Asian male, to be given the help he needed when the poet Nikki
> Giovanni, one of his teachers, raised the alarm concerning the content
> of his writing, because even Giovanni didn't matter enough. The
> university and local police are APPLAUDED when they screwed the fuck
> up and didn't protect the students.
>
> himself, and this is the source of the destructive rage I see here and
> which was the social stew which ENABLED Cho's crimes, while (need I
> add? I guess I have to) not excusing them.
>
> destruction of the capacity to know in a war zone.
>
> We had fed the heart on fantasies,
> The heart's grown brutal from the fare,
> More substance in our enmities
> Than in our love; O honey-bees,
> Come build in the empty house of the stare.
>
> You're all potential Chos, because it begins in the empty house of the
> stare.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > In fact, university professors and local police departments should use
> > > what I have called the "denial" theories as a marker for personalities
> > > who may need help. Shakespeare denial, Holocaust denial and Cho's
> > > theories as aired in his papers should all be considered as these
> > > sorts of markers.
>
> > > So should evidence of what Adorno called "psychoanalysis in reverse",
> > > constituted in the inability to use words such as "beauty" or
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
It is disgusting, our Spinoza lover allowing himself such a bloody
ugly simile, passing it for a reasonably thought out essay. Yuk.
Elizabeth
> In reading the garbage here which foregrounds, not the beauty of
> Shakespeare's plays nor his nobility as a man, but a LIE,
I'm having technical difficulties in posting, but in the off
chance that this post goes, I can only say that I am shocked
that you would start this up again.
> I am haunted
> by the image of the German professor and Holocaust survivor who, at
> the age of 76, kept the door of his classroom closed long enough to
> save the lives of his students but was killed himself.
Then honor this man by not using his death to make a cheap point.
> You can take that as read.
If you have any sense of ethics at all you know events do
not have equal weight, some are more grave and
momentous than others and it is offensive in the
extreme to compare the Holocaust to what amounts
to a quibble.
> The destructive spirits who deny
> Shakespeare . . .
You don't have the facts, do you. I've
actually taken the trouble to find all the Stratford
documents, most of them in manuscript facimile
and I've actually read them. This character really
did plot to enclose the Welcombe commons -- enclosure
is a crime against humanity -- he did hoard malt during
a famine, he did use a legal ploy to deprive Hathaway
of her dower, he and Combes did file a law suit against
the Stratford Corporation -- a trust of old monastic lands --
in attempt to break that trust -- the case was thrown
out of court in 1619 -- he did attack William Wayte with intent to do
bodily harm and he did collude with two women who concealed priests in
the theatre district -- on this point I'm on the side of the women
because the Tudors had no right to persecute English Catholics. He
also made a secret deed of trust to conceal the fact that he had an
interest in a bawdy house next to the Blackfriars, he engaged in
usury, he was indirectly responsible for the death of Richard Quiney
who died in a hand to hand battle in the street of Stratford in
defense of the Stratford Corporation who had the care of 700 poor,
care which it would have to relinquish if the broker and Combes
succeeded in their lawsuit. That's the short list.
Your problem is that you haven't done the research so you really don't
know what you're talking about.
spinoza1111
> On Apr 24, 1:19 am,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 24, 9:50 am, "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > > In reading the garbage here which foregrounds, not the beauty of
> > > > Shakespeare's plays nor his nobility as a man, but a LIE, I am haunted
> > > > by the image of the German professor and Holocaust survivor who, at
> > > > the age of 76, kept the door of his classroom closed long enough to
> > > > save the lives of his students but was killed himself.
>
> > > > You can take that as read. The destructive spirits who deny
> > > > Shakespeare and defend their case using the nastiest and most pedantic
> > > > language are the spiritual brothers and sisters of Cho, who represents
> > > > their DESTRUCTIVE spirit and is their negative patron saint whether
> > > > they like it or not.
>
> > > That is the most disgusting thing I've ever read here.
>
> > Oh? Is that so? Wow, I must be quite a guy.
>
> I sincerely doubt it.
>
> >Seriously: amidst this
> > vile and toxic waste, you think it's disgusting to argue for the
> > reputation of a good man, Shakespeare,
>
> I never think argument is disgusting. I'm all for full-blooded,
> rambunctious argument. What I'm not for is your calling your
> interlocutors evil, as well as the kind of appalling material and tone
> you drag into your tirades, which often, by the way, have nothing to
> do with Shakespeare.
I made these topics have to do with Shakespeare, because my project is
to discredit Shakespeare denial to show that it is nothing more than
lower middle class bad faith. And causes like Shakespeare denial,
Holocaust denial, and Creationism ARE evil causes.
>
> >against your classist assault,
>
> That's hysterically funny. I'm left wing and not well off at all. As
> are many of my friends, non-Strat and Strat alike.
As I have said, what's pathetic about Shakespeare denial, Holocaust
denial, and Creationism is that their typical supporter is indeed "not
well off" and may even think of herself as "left wing" as Mussolini's
original followers and some of the Sturmbateilung Arbeiter thought
themselves "leftwing", and, like these characters, Shakespeare deniers
are the shock troops and cannon fodder of a broad assault on the
university championed by the corporation, by adding to a generalized
sense that the truth is indeterminate and open to a destructive and
dishonest "debate".
>
> > and you just can't stand the very idea that particles of the evil that
> > was in Cho might be in you.
>
> The evil of Cho is not in me. I know that for sure. The entire story
> of my life attests to that. Not only that, I burned a yartzheit
> (memorial candle) for that professor, a French Canadian professor, and
> everyone else who was killed. The events nearly broke my heart,
> especially as a parent thinking of other parents who had to bear such
> ghastly news. Do you think you've cornered the market on sadness?
These superstitious rituals started to occur even before the police
had resolved the shootings in full, and what's needed on the campus is
an INVESTIGATION of why the jagoff cops and administration got 30+
students killed AFTER Cho's first killings.
Why hundreds of policemen dressed in paramilitary style, including one
clown in uniform but with long hair and a beard, did less to SAVE
LIVES than a single unarmed professor.
They mean NOTHING until America withdraws from Iraq and stops killing
people in that country.
>
> >This when good if misguided people here,
> > real people like Michael, are systematically assaulted.
>
> Michael has never been assaulted, verbally or otherwise, by me, as I'm
> sure he would tell you. I've said this several times before, but
That's just a lie.
> nothing seems to make a dent in your rage. I might disagree with some
> of his arguments, but I've always challenged him in a collegial and
> polite way. In fact, your argument makes no sense if made against non-
> Stratfordians, because in the main it has been Stratfordians who have
> "assaulted' him, not that Michael can't take care of himself. Right,
> Michael?
>
> >An IDEA, a
> > proposition becomes something you can't accept while HARM TO PEOPLE
> > just causes you, like the people in the poem by Yeats, to retreat to
> > the empty house of the stare.
>
> I have never done so, and I am not doing so now. In fact, I have put
> my own life in harm's way more than once with my writing, as I've
> written about Holocaust Nazis who had settled in Canada and were not
> being extradited or charged with any crime.
>
> >
>
> > But, isn't evil == evil? Isn't it one thing?
>
> If you think that honestly believing that someone else wrote the canon
> is evil, especially on the level of what Cho did, what the Nazis did,
> what Holocaust Deniers say or do every day, then I think you must be
> really unbalanced. Say we're mistaken. Argue for that as hard as you
They have common features. The problem is you see reality as divided
into separate, atomic and incommensurable things because mass media
represents reality in this way and calls it "choice". What it is is
moronization.
> like, but evil? I can't believe you spit your venom on us, and
> especially on me, when every day in the world real atrocities are
> occurring, people are tortured and dying. Can't you put your energy
> there, as some of us try to do?
What do you do? Light candles? While normalizing the vile
interpersonal attacks here? While treating a comparision obviously
meant to be nuanced as a personal insult on your amour-propre?
>
> >Or are we to now
> > understand that we are dainty little people and only some of us can be
> > evil like Cho, whereas the daintiest among us may only be charged with
> > faults that they are ready to confess themselves?
>
> You're posting garbage. I can't even bring myself to kill a spider,
> let alone do the kind of thing he did. The man was very sick indeed.
But you don't draw the line against the direct and personal verbal
assault. But you ENABLE others in the direct and personal verbal
assault. While CHOOSING to take everything else personally, and using,
as your exclusive metric of truth, your self-image.
>
>
>
> > Universities, especially mid-tier universities like VT, are entirely
> > too dominated by sex madness, sex discrimination, half-concealed
> > violence, anti-intellectualism and money, and Cho was precisely as
> > much a victim as a perpetrator, who wasn't important enough, as an
> > Asian male, to be given the help he needed when the poet Nikki
> > Giovanni, one of his teachers, raised the alarm concerning the content
> > of his writing, because even Giovanni didn't matter enough. The
> > university and local police are APPLAUDED when they screwed the fuck
> > up and didn't protect the students.
>
> Well, at least I agree that the college, the police, and the health
> services are to some degree culpable. But not because he was an Asian
> male. This kind of laissez-faire practice goes on everywhere. We never
> learn to lock the stable doors before the horse escapes.
Speak for yourself. Actually, there are many societies who "learn to
lock the stable doors before the horse escapes". In particular, these
societies don't send the message from the top down, as do the USA and
Britain, that it's OK to verbally assault others in detail, or enable
that verbal assault, while taking analysis and complexity personally
as an assault on a shaky self-image.
>
>
>
> > You ENABLE campaigns against "trolls" including the persecution of
> > Michael, a harmless person
>
> I have no idea why you have become Michael's defender against all
...there's the homophobic implication, a specialty of the bully and
his enablers...
> comers, but in any case, the fact of the matter is that I have always
> been very polite to Michael and to everyone else here, with the
> possible exception of you and Houlsby, who in my opinion have
> destroyed this newsgroup by screaming insults across the threads.
>
> >who unlike Cho only verbally defends
> > himself, and this is the source of the destructive rage I see here and
> > which was the social stew which ENABLED Cho's crimes, while (need I
> >add? I guess I have to) not excusing them.
>
> It is my opinion that it was YOUR destructive rage, coupled with
> Houlsby's, that led to anger by our regular posters and the
> disintegration of this newsgroup.
That's untrue: a lie. My actions led to the construction of the
moderated group and its improvement because I didn't take getting
excluded lying down. I have started two constructive threads, one in
HLAS and one in HLASM, on the character of Fluellen to which you
haven't contributed, preferring here to make ridiculous claims,
because the history plays are not your "fortay". I have posted sourced
information which clarify, to newbies, the covered-up fact that NO
responsible Shakespeare scholar buys into Shakespeare denial.
You wanted to continue to air your uninteresting views and enable
people like Houlsby, and I RESTORED this group in some measure to its
original charter. This bothers you.
>
>
>
> > Your dehumanization
>
> What dehumanization? I have marched against guns and atom bombs, I
> have marched against wars, I have adopted black children, I have
> fostered homeless children, I have written books about the Holocaust,
> about the dispersion of the Acadians from their homeland, about the
> disgraceful treatment of the blacks in Canada in the 1780s, about the
> terrible treatment of the Irish Catholics during the famine. I have
> been a suicide counsellor for the Samaritans in England. I have taught
> my children the same values. My son, for example, works in a food bank
> though he could make much more money elsewhere. What exactly have you
> done that makes you more human or humane than we? Your belief that
> Shakespeare wrote the canon? Ludicrous.
Why is it that despite all these good actions, evil is produced in the
people around you almost as a dialectical response to your
eleemosynary efforts? Perhaps you like Mrs. Jellyby miss at the
critical point?
I do know that despite all the retail liberal efforts in liberal
communities, they seem to miss at the key point, where the rubber hits
the road. Specifically, when Nikki Giovanni tried to get Cho into
counseling, there were no "counseling resources" available to him,
with the very language of "resources" being a metaphor that mere human
contact in other than the police register is now a scarce "resource"
accessible only to deserving "nice" people who above all express the
right attitudes in the right way.
I do know that while I can go to the emergency room in Hong Kong for
13.00 USA, my kid wound up with a bill of 4000.00 after a visit to the
emergency room in a "nice" liberal community where people do so many
"nice" things on such a terribly retail basis, in the USA.
And I claim you enable evil because the enabling is built into a
language that (1) refuses knowledge if it is unpleasant and (2) speaks
consistently in terms of a discrete set of acts and never in terms of
relationships.
The bees build in the crevices
Of loosening masonry, and there
The mother birds bring grubs and flies.
My wall is loosening; honey-bees,
Come build in the empty house of the stare.
We are closed in, and the key is turned
On our uncertainty; somewhere
A man is killed, or a house burned.
Yet no clear fact to be discerned:
Come build in the empty house of the stare.
A barricade of stone or of wood;
Some fourteen days of civil war:
Last night they trundled down the road
That dead young soldier in his blood:
Come build in the empty house of the stare.
We had fed the heart on fantasies,
The heart's grown brutal from the fare,
More substance in our enmities
Than in our love; O honey-bees,
Come build in the empty house of the stare.
>
> >was, again, captured by Yeats, who writes of the
> > destruction of the capacity to know in a war zone.
>
> > We had fed the heart on fantasies,
> > The heart's grown brutal from the fare,
> > More substance in our enmities
> > Than in our love; O honey-bees,
> > Come build in the empty house of the stare.
>
> > You're all potential Chos, because it begins in the empty house of the
> > stare.
>
> You are, imo, the closest person to Cho here. You are near strangled
> with rage. I don't think there's anything further to say.
How convenient. ALL anger is "bad". Sure, evil is evil as I have said,
but here quality is quantity.
And there is some grain of truth in what you say. Sure, if I live in
an increasingly dysfunctional society in which people in "nice"
communities continue to enable thugs in police suits, I might at any
time "lose it". And if I do so myself on that retail basis in which
EVERYBODY is forced to act (in which Britain and the United States
have become less than Napoleon's "nations of shopkeepers", and have
become nations of minimum wage shop clerks) alone, then sure, I'm
nothing more than Cho, mon sembable, mon frere.
But, I'd point out that based on my own and genuine accomplishments in
life and love, I call it a surplus repression to encode all anger,
except cold and scientific anger, justifying itself by denying its
name, which works on behalf of dead and dying institutions.
I think it's basically bugging you that:
(1) Based on the fact that I've read the complete Shakespeare canon, I
am here able to discuss the ng topic without weaseling out by global
denials of the very possibility of knowledge
(2) I express unfamiliar and old fashioned emotions including
solidarity and manifest an unseemly deficiency of concern about the
opinions of others to me, out of proportion to the modal narcissism of
the rest of the group
>
> L.
spinoza1111
> On Apr 23, 10:19 pm,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 24, 9:50 am, "Ms. Mouse" <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
Eeeeewwww.
Well, it seems to have gotten your attention.
And I stand by my claim. Shakespeare denial is not a serious scholarly
alternative to canonical history and theory. Insistence on the "right"
to have it treated equally with canonical history and research is
conducted here in a way that reminds people who know history of
Fascist activism within German universities in the 1930s.
And why does it pass for white? That's because it IS a "reasonably
thought out essay" which demonstrates by example that the statistical
median and mode today can't even approach its quality, because most
writers in this ng are younger than about 35, or, if older, amnesiac.
Their mental worlds have been warped by hegemonic laissez faire and
for this reason they can't see topoi, and they treat one view not only
as good as another, but as completely reified and atomic, with no
possibility of common features with another. This becomes the denial
of particularate shit that Sontag defined as ... Fascism.
Ms Mouse reads scads of the most vile personal abuse and says that the
targets of that abuse, which is KNOWN in the context of government and
corporate surveillance to destroy careers and mere jobs, and concludes
that all of this is perfectly OK, but a conclusion which draws a line
between her pet "theory" and Cho or Fascism, an insult in my taxonomy
merely at level 3, the lowest level, which damages only her cathects,
is the "most disgusting thing" possible, and a Room 101, the worst
thing in the world.
That is: it's OK for people to take shit on a retail basis every
fucking day of their lives, but the affections and the cathects of
people who count, or who want to count, must never be blasphemed by
blasphemers.
This means that these affections (for example, the lares and penates
of Shakespeare denial) have become idols, in the technical sense,
where an idol is something inhuman that must be treated, in place of
humans, with the respect that we instinctively reserve for humans.
You admire racist revivals of racist plays which you know give offense
to African Americans in your community, but this INSENSITIVITY is
balanced, obscenely, by oversensitivity to connections between Cho and
Shakespeare denial.
Who counts? Who must not be offended? And why do we have to replace
our instincts by walking on eggs?
In my opinion, and with all due respect for your contributions to the
"debate", you have fed your heart on fantasies, your heart's grown
brutal from the fare, and in there's a shade more substance in your
enmities than in your love.
... O honey-bees,
Come build in the empty house of the stare.
>
lackpurity
MM:
I think there is negativity involved with believing Anti-Strat
theory. What we keep to ourself is not so bad, but repercussions can
spread out in all directions on the internet. It's very clear to me,
but Anti-Strats seem not to care, or else they are ignorant of the
repercussions. It's up to the Divine Judge how much he wants to hold
them accountable. He might forgive some ignorance, I suppose, but if
he thinks we should know better, or if he thinks we are intentionally
ignoring evidence Pro-Stratfordian, then he will hold us accountable.
That's my opinion.
Now, regarding Spinoza, I think he's going to extremes to make his
point. I think he might be defeating his own purpose, because the
repercussions might be worse than just not agreeing with his point.
I'm really surprised that he goes to such extremes. It must be due to
his past experience, i.e.sanskaras, from past lives.
> >against your classist assault,
>
> That's hysterically funny. I'm left wing and not well off at all. As
> are many of my friends, non-Strat and Strat alike.
>
> > and you just can't stand the very idea that particles of the evil that
> > was in Cho might be in you.
MM:
He mentions "particles of evil." Everybody has particles of evil in
them, but not many will carry out such a massacre on innocent people.
This is going to extremes.
> The evil of Cho is not in me. I know that for sure. The entire story
> of my life attests to that. Not only that, I burned a yartzheit
> (memorial candle) for that professor, a French Canadian professor, and
> everyone else who was killed. The events nearly broke my heart,
> especially as a parent thinking of other parents who had to bear such
> ghastly news. Do you think you've cornered the market on sadness?
>
> >This when good if misguided people here,
> > real people like Michael, are systematically assaulted.
>
> Michael has never been assaulted, verbally or otherwise, by me, as I'm
> sure he would tell you.
MM:
All I remember is having a discussion. You're right. He must have
been thinking of others. I hope.
> I've said this several times before, but
> nothing seems to make a dent in your rage. I might disagree with some
> of his arguments, but I've always challenged him in a collegial and
> polite way. In fact, your argument makes no sense if made against non-
> Stratfordians, because in the main it has been Stratfordians who have
> "assaulted' him, not that Michael can't take care of himself. Right,
> Michael?
MM:
You might be right on that. I never really took a count, but probably
more Strats have attacked me than Non-Strats. Trollsby was always
straddling the fence, although he seemed to be leaning more to Non-
Strat, to me.
> >An IDEA, a
> > proposition becomes something you can't accept while HARM TO PEOPLE
> > just causes you, like the people in the poem by Yeats, to retreat to
> > the empty house of the stare.
>
> I have never done so, and I am not doing so now. In fact, I have put
> my own life in harm's way more than once with my writing, as I've
> written about Holocaust Nazis who had settled in Canada and were not
> being extradited or charged with any crime.
> > But, isn't evil == evil? Isn't it one thing?
MM:
There are degrees of evil. Intentional evil. Evil out of ignorance.
A sin against a Saint carries a worse punishment than a sin against an
ordinary human being. Shakespeare was a Son of God. That is why Anti-
Stratfordianism is a sin. It is like an insult to God, himself.
> If you think that honestly believing that someone else wrote the canon
> is evil, especially on the level of what Cho did, what the Nazis did,
> what Holocaust Deniers say or do every day, then I think you must be
> really unbalanced. Say we're mistaken.
MM:
Mistaken would be "evil out of ignorance," as I wrote above. That
would carry less punishment, obviously.
> Argue for that as hard as you
> like, but evil? I can't believe you spit your venom on us, and
> especially on me, when every day in the world real atrocities are
> occurring, people are tortured and dying. Can't you put your energy
> there, as some of us try to do?
MM:
I wrote recently that stealing his canon and giving it to someone else
is evil. No doubt about it. If it is out of ignorance, then the
punishment wouldn't be so severe.
> >Or are we to now
> > understand that we are dainty little people and only some of us can be
> > evil like Cho, whereas the daintiest among us may only be charged with
> > faults that they are ready to confess themselves?
MM:
Spinoza makes a good point. We will be held accountable for the
repercussions. We have to reap what we sow. Even in this world, we
can't spin, skate, and dodge, if we are guilty. We might say, "I'm
sorry," or "I was ignorant," but the crime still stands. The
repercussion still stands, and for that we might be punished. We
might get a jail term, or execution, depending on what we've done.
> You're posting garbage. I can't even bring myself to kill a spider,
> let alone do the kind of thing he did. The man was very sick indeed.
MM:
Glad you respect life to that extent.
> > Universities, especially mid-tier universities like VT, are entirely
> > too dominated by sex madness, sex discrimination, half-concealed
> > violence, anti-intellectualism and money, and Cho was precisely as
> > much a victim as a perpetrator, who wasn't important enough, as an
> > Asian male, to be given the help he needed when the poet Nikki
> > Giovanni, one of his teachers, raised the alarm concerning the content
> > of his writing, because even Giovanni didn't matter enough. The
> > university and local police are APPLAUDED when they screwed the fuck
> > up and didn't protect the students.
MM:
I doubt he was a victim to the tune of 33 dead, how many wounded 27?
Think of all the friends and relatives of the victims. He might have
been hurt by others, but that doesn't justify the horrible crime that
he committed.
MM:
Good work, Mouse. Your son will be credited, also. Good deeds will
be reviewed on judgement day, too.
> >was, again, captured by Yeats, who writes of the
> > destruction of the capacity to know in a war zone.
>
> > We had fed the heart on fantasies,
> > The heart's grown brutal from the fare,
> > More substance in our enmities
> > Than in our love; O honey-bees,
> > Come build in the empty house of the stare.
>
> > You're all potential Chos, because it begins in the empty house of the
> > stare.
>
> You are, imo, the closest person to Cho here. You are near strangled
> with rage. I don't think there's anything further to say.
>
> L.
MM:
MIchael Martin
spinoza1111
> On Apr 23, 6:19 pm,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > In reading the garbage here which foregrounds, not the beauty of
> > Shakespeare's plays nor his nobility as a man, but a LIE,
>
> I'm having technical difficulties in posting, but in the off
> chance that this post goes, I can only say that I am shocked
> that you would start this up again.
This isn't HLASM. It's HLAS. And, I think the analogy is important.
>
> > I am haunted
> > by the image of the German professor and Holocaust survivor who, at
> > the age of 76, kept the door of his classroom closed long enough to
> > save the lives of his students but was killed himself.
>
> Then honor this man by not using his death to make a cheap point.
How would that "honor" him? The fact is that the Nazis who he escaped
DID make a specialty out of disrupting universities to "debate"
settled issues, and the fact is that the Nazis lionized the shooter of
the Logical Positivist philosopher Moritz Schlick. The fact is that
Hitler believed, in his Vienna years, a variety of utter falsehoods
including "the lost city of Atlantis" and the fact is that this is how
Hitler fed himself on fantasy and brutalized his heart thereby.
You mistake me. I'm not playing a fucking game, and I am not watching
the fucking scoreboard. I have been at various times in my life an
adjunct college professor, and my own university, Roosevelt University
of Chicago, descended from being when I attended "the University of
Chicago for the working class", through which I worked my way in part
on a union scholarship, to a complete joke precisely because its
spineless administration gave "equal time" to the nonsense of its
business faculty.
I have seen, repeatedly, people passive-aggressively target cultural
monuments, as did the Nazis, by insisting upon their rereading of the
meaning of those monuments, and I have realized that those rereadings
share a common element in that they are about the psychological
gratification of the woundedness of the rereader, and I see my country
grow ever more Fascist as a result.
I am honoring his memory right now by getting rowdy right here,
because nobody did this in Europe before the war enough to prevent the
rise of Hitler, nor the preparatory rise of clerical authoritarianism.
>
> > You can take that as read.
>
> If you have any sense of ethics at all you know events do
> not have equal weight, some are more grave and
> momentous than others and it is offensive in the
> extreme to compare the Holocaust to what amounts
> to a quibble.
I find this logic strange.
One of the salesmen in Glengarry Glen Ross calls his employers'
calling the police because of a break-in "Gestapo" tactics and one
reading IS that he is being absurd and even disrespectful (although
he's clearly a Jewish man himself) to the "real" victims who deserve,
in a sort of time management, our time of mourning, for which our time
is limited because where the fuck is lunch.
The problem I have with this reading, and David Mamet may or may not
share this with me, is that it's not as if 1938 Vienna or Berlin are
20 light years away like that new planet, and in fact, the Chicago
police department has been repeatedly found to use extra-legal, and
therefore small-g or even big-G gestapo tactics especially on black
and brown prisoners including torture and entrapment. For a real
estate office to call the cops on its own employees IS Gestapo
tactics, as was in my direct experience, Spirit Airlines (a low cost
carrier) calling the LAPD on its passengers when we complained after a
12 hour delay, because most of us were black and brown.
The problem I have with this reading is that to say "oh, compare
NOTHING to the Holocaust, Ed, it's not respectable to do so and it is
farting in church" shows the psychology of a mourner who imagines
himself safe and who's basically a watcher of TV, and never, not in
the slightest amount, subject herself to Gestapo tactics, in such a
way that she need not be on the look-out for a return of the evil
thing.
She has in the logic to unrelate her own life, no matter how she is
victimized, to the oh so very special and cordoned off history of the
Holocaust as if the Holocaust hadn't occured before to the Armenians,
or, in smaller ways, to the Acadians of the 18th century in a series
of dress rehearsals.
The problem with this is that when she's queued up for the gas
chamber, she's in the same state of powerless denial as were some of
the actual victims of the Holocaust.
Isn't it healthier to admit that Fascist tendencies are alive and
well, and found in trivia as well as in the grand plan of a madman?
>
> > The destructive spirits who deny
> > Shakespeare . . .
>
> You don't have the facts, do you. I've
> actually taken the trouble to find all the Stratford
> documents, most of them in manuscript facimile
> and I've actually read them. This character really
> did plot to enclose the Welcombe commons -- enclosure
> is a crime against humanity -- he did hoard malt during
> a famine, he did use a legal ploy to deprive Hathaway
> of her dower, he and Combes did file a law suit against
> the Stratford Corporation -- a trust of old monastic lands --
> in attempt to break that trust -- the case was thrown
> out of court in 1619 -- he did attack William Wayte with intent to do
> bodily harm and he did collude with two women who concealed priests in
> the theatre district -- on this point I'm on the side of the women
> because the Tudors had no right to persecute English Catholics. He
> also made a secret deed of trust to conceal the fact that he had an
> interest in a bawdy house next to the Blackfriars, he engaged in
> usury, he was indirectly responsible for the death of Richard Quiney
> who died in a hand to hand battle in the street of Stratford in
> defense of the Stratford Corporation who had the care of 700 poor,
> care which it would have to relinquish if the broker and Combes
> succeeded in their lawsuit. That's the short list.
...wow. Unfortunately, this list proves nothing except:
(1) You hate men and instead of addressing that fact prefer to write
tirades with no higher structure than a straight laundry list of lies
(2) You hate the very ennobling idea that an ordinary man might, in
Germaine Greer's words, have the ability to suffer and instead of
buying the Elizabethan equivalent of a Glock, actually create
something: the texts of the Folio.
(3) For this reason, you need Shakespeare to be a thug to justify your
enabling the transformation of the earth to a prison planet.
You may represent normality. If so, I am happy to drink the green
mantle of the standing pool, like Tom o' Bedlam.
>
> Your problem is that you haven't done the research so you really don't
> know what you're talking about.
Boilerplate. A careless insertion, because in fact I'm the only one
here, I believe, to have read the canon including dem Histree plays.
Your above laundry list is garbage and the sort of "research" that
appeared in the proto New Age books on which Hitler fed in prewar
Vienna.
spinoza1111
This newsgroup is either being technically disrupted or censored.
lackpurity
MM:
Enclosure didn't really happen until 1775, some 159 years after
Shakespeare's death. He must have known that the enclosure wouldn't
have been succesful during his lifetime. So, given his omniscience,
he was on both sides of the fence.
Elizabeth, this is looking at the tip of an iceberg. We should never
try to judge the actions of Saints. They always do what is best for
us.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
MM:
Elizabeth, I searched Google for Shakespeare hoarding malt during a
famine and got nothing, zilch. Could you give me some evidence that
your allegation existed? My aim is to take your charges one by one,
and comment on them. :-)
Michael Martin
lackpurity
> What was so hard about that? Here.
>
> wbrantley
>
> 1598-2-4: List of Hoarders. Shakspere is named as having illegally held 10
> quarters (80 bushels) of malt or corn during a shortage (Shakespeare
> Birthplace Trust Records Office, Misc. Doc. I, 106).
>
> http://home.hiwaay.net/~paul/shakspere/evidence1.html
MM:
Thanks for the link.
Michael Martin
> "lackpurity" <lackpur...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1177613104.0...@r35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> > know what you're talking about.- Hide quoted text -
lackpurity
MM:
Elizabeth, you're charging Shakespeare without a complete
understanding of the situation. WBrantley gave me a link, and I saw
that Shakspere was listed as illegally hoarding 80 bushels of corn or
malt. Shakspere was not an independant entity. He was the leader of
a large cult in 1598. He might have been thinking to use the 80
bushels of corn or malt to feed his congregation. After all, he bore
the canopy.
Today, in the USA, his cult would be a non-profit organization most
likely, and there wouldn't have been such a problem. In those days,
however, Shakespeare might have been trying to keep the cult at a low
profile. I hope you can see that Shakespeare was probably between a
rock and a hard place. He probably put the cult formost, IMO. In
such a hypothesis, he would be sacrificing himself for the cult, just
as Jesus Christ did. So, I think this argument is useless, if you
want to use it as evidence that Shakespeare didn't write the canon.
Michael Martin
Ignoto
> On Apr 25, 2:52?am, Elizabeth <elizabeth_w...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 23, 6:19 pm, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > In reading the garbage here which foregrounds, not the beauty of
> > > Shakespeare's plays nor his nobility as a man, but a LIE,
>
> > I'm having technical difficulties in posting, but in the off
> > chance that this post goes, I can only say that I am shocked
> > that you would start this up again.
>
> > > I am haunted
> > > by the image of the German professor and Holocaust survivor who, at
> > > the age of 76, kept the door of his classroom closed long enough to
> > > save the lives of his students but was killed himself.
>
> > Then honor this man by not using his death to make a cheap point.
>
> > > You can take that as read.
>
> > If you have any sense of ethics at all you know events do
> > not have equal weight, some are more grave and
> > momentous than others and it is offensive in the
> > extreme to compare the Holocaust to what amounts
> > to a quibble.
>
> > > The destructive spirits who deny
> > > Shakespeare . . .
>
> > actually taken the trouble to find all the Stratford
> > documents, most of them in manuscript facimile
> > and I've actually read them. This character really
> > did plot to enclose the Welcombe commons -- enclosure
> > is a crime against humanity -- he did hoard malt during
> > a famine,
>
> MM:
> Elizabeth, I searched Google for Shakespeare hoarding malt during a
> famine and got nothing, zilch. Could you give me some evidence that
> your allegation existed? My aim is to take your charges one by one,
> and comment on them. :-)
[snip]
Just to put things in perspective:
"Wet summers in 1594, 95, and 96 led to serious grain shortages
and directives were given to Justices to forbid either the
engrossing(hoarding), malting, or exporting of grain.
The document Richard is referring to is dated Feb 4, 1598 (which
has been a bit of a puzzlement to me as the last wet summer was
in 96) and shows that most households (including Shakespeare's)
were holding malt not grain.
Unless Shakespeare had taken early retirement, it seems unlikely
that he was spending much time in Stratford in 1598. The Lord
Chamberlain's Men performed at court on Dec 26(1597), Jan 1, Jan
6 and Feb 26 so it wasn't exactly a slow time when the citation
was made. So, perhaps Richard should direct his venom at
whoever Shakespeare had running the day-to-day operation for
him(perhaps his brother Gilbert?). People were undoubtedly
going hungry in Warwickshire, but I doubt there were any
starving citizens in Stratford asking to hang the absent William
Shakespeare from his door. (And whether or not the person minding
Shakespeare's shop was forced to give up the *treasured* malt
is not at all clear to me.)
The Stratfordians of course made their excuses. They asked for
relief because malting was the major *industry* in their town.
Their claim was that as they had made substantial investments in
buildings and malting equipment(and hired men whose only job was
malting), the prohibition of malting was too severe an economic
disruption. The Council disagreed and called again to the
Justices to enforce the ban on engrossing and malting.
For what its worth, the record shows 10 quarters of malt in
Shakespeare's custody. There were only twelve households which
held more(107 held less). The Stratfordian "maltsters" included
some fairly well known names. For example, malt(or grain) was
being held in some Stratford buildings for Sir Fulke Greville
and Sir Thomas Lucy. In fact, the 120 names on the *maltster*
list must have included just about everybody who was anybody in
Stratford(it wasn't that big of a town). Even the parish
priest(Alexander Aspinall) was cited as one of those holding
malt.
The Privy Council seems to have had mixed feelings about those
who were breaking the famine inspired rules; Some were "wyked
people in condicions more lyke to wolves or cormerants than to
natural men" and some were "men of good lyvelyhood and in
estymacion of worshipp". I'll bet Richard prefers to place
Shakespeare of Stratford in the former category. I, for my
own reasons, prefer to find him in the latter. "
spinoza1111
> All you have to do is prove that William Shakespeare is the author of the
> plays. It might help if you found an actual manuscript in his handwriting.
Who the FUCK died and put you in charge? You demand proof you know
doesn't exist, you ignore the documentary record which does indicate
the Shakespeare wrote the plays because it contains a lotta big words
and compound sentences, because you're addicted to fantasy.
As William Shatner said to Star Trekkies likewise addicted to fantasy
in a Saturday Night Live skit meant as a "serious" parody,
GET A LIFE
He was talking to manboys who were using Star Trek because life was
just too complex for them. You don't understand thing one about
literary history and how conclusions are made (hint: literary history
is not science, but this does not mean it cannot make truth claims).
You only pose as wanting to doubt. Instead, you want recognition as a
believer in something comforting to you precisely because YOU KNOW IT
TO BE FALSE.
Its falsity means you're in "control".
We are closed in, and the key is turned
On our uncertainty; somewhere
A man is killed, or a house burned.
Yet no clear fact to be discerned:
Come build in the empty house of the stare.
Yeats' Irishmen had lost the capacity to know constituted in the
ability to admit that the Six Counties weren't going to agree to live
under a Catholic theocracy and that Britain would require quid pro quo
for Irish independence, so they murdered Michael Collins in the name
of a fantasy.
But the falsity meant they were in "control".
Serbians "doubted" reports of atrocities and built in the empty house
of the stare.
Consider the empty stare with which you read these words, and consider
the resentment you doubtless feel at them, as they are for the most
part correctly spelled and grammatical, and don't express the sort of
nonsense you expressed when you said that "the seacoast of Bohemia"
proves that Shakespeare was a dumbass...who didn't write the
plays...because he WROTE about...the seacoast of Bohemia [that is what
you seemed to have been trying to say, but it had the incoherence of a
speech by Bush, the sort of incoherence that results from utter
intellectual dishonesty].
Your fantasy denies that a modern kid could parlay an inferior and
prematurely terminated education into a career as a screenwriter and
it says that a cat may not look upon a king, pretending to associate
itself with an aristocratic outlook that never existed. It tries to
build in the empty house of the stare.
You, like the Nazis, cannot read and cannot write yet you fucking DARE
to police this newsgroup and demand proof, because you're a Fascist
who can't stand the very idea of trust or transcendance, and what
REALLY bugs you is that as far as we know from the extant record, a
MAN, named SHAKESPEARE, got off his butt and accomplished something,
while you have, in all probability, accomplished NOTHING.
As in the case of Cho, the Virginia Tech shooter, nothing is real to
you except your resentments, your hatred and your enmity, and this is
because YOUR WHOLE CASE rests on a deliberate conspiracy to hide the
"real" authorship of the plays, one utterly without motive. This is to
live in a world where evil needs no excuse and is prior to the good,
and you are trying to discredit a man who believed the opposite.
Your claim implies that only aristocrats have the "right" to speak of
*alles schon undt gute*, and as a Fascist gesture, it WITHHOLDS this
right from the middle class and poor. It is an instance of self-
policing of the dominated which is a lever of power.
lackpurity
MM:
It was Elizabeth who raised the complaint about hoarding malt, as if
it had anything to do with the authorship debate. Thanks for the
info.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
MM:
This is another charge directed at Shakespeare from Elizabeth:
he did use a legal ploy to deprive Hathaway
of her dower,
MM:
Since he married her, and you admit that it was "legal," I'm not going
to be second guessing a Master. He knew what he was doing, and again,
it seems that Anti-Strat Elizabeth is grasping at straws, as this has
nothing to do with the authorship of the canon.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
MM:
Here's another of Elizabeth's complaints regarding the Honorable
William Shakespeare:
he and Combes did file a law suit against
the Stratford Corporation -- a trust of old monastic lands --
in attempt to break that trust -- the case was thrown
out of court in 1619 --
MM:
This is all above-board and legal. It's not worth a comment. It has
nothing to do with the authorship of the canon. The desperation of
Anti-Strats is apparent.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
MM:
Elizabeth's complaint against Honorable William Shakespeare:
he did attack William Wayte with intent to do
bodily harm
1596-Michaelmas: Court record. William Wayte "swore before the Judge
of Queen's Bench that he stood in danger of death, or bodily hurt,"
from "William Shakspere" and three others. "The magistrate then
commanded the sheriff of the appropriate county to produce the
accused ... who had to post bond to keep the peace, on pain of
forfeiting the security" (@ Schoenbaum 146).
The entry reads (translated from Latin): "England. Be it known
that William Shakspere, Francis Langley, Dorothy Soer wife of John
Soer, and Anne Lee, for fear of death [ob metum mortis] and so forth.
Writ of Attachment issued and directed to the Sheriff of Surrey,
returnable the eighteenth of St. Martin" (Public Record Office, Court
of King's Bench, Controlment Roll, Michaelmas Term 1496, K.B. 29/234).
MM:
This is ambiguous, and doesn't really prove anything, as far as I can
tell. All I can conclude is that there was a dispute with Wayte and
the others (including Shakespeare.)
I don't see that this is pertinent to the authorship issue, at all.
Do you see any connection to it, Elizabeth? Or, are you just
continuing your tiptoeing through the tulips? LOL
Michael Martin
lackpurity
MM:
Here's another of Elizabeth's complaints against the English Satguru
William Shakespeare:
he did collude with two women who concealed priests in
the theatre district -- on this point I'm on the side of the women
because the Tudors had no right to persecute English Catholics.
MM:
Am I understanding this charge correctly? If Shakespeare is on the
side of the women, and you're on the side of the women, then you're on
the same side as Shakespeare?? Give me a link to this one, if you
can.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
MM:
Elizabeth's complaint:
He
also made a secret deed of trust to conceal the fact that he had an
interest in a bawdy house next to the Blackfriars
MM:
Could you post a link? I haven't been able to find any information on
this allegation.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
MM:
I need a link to investigate your charge of usury. He wasn't forcing
people to take loans, was he? This seems ridiculous.
he was indirectly responsible for the death of Richard Quiney
> who died in a hand to hand battle in the street of Stratford in
> defense of the Stratford Corporation who had the care of 700 poor,
> care which it would have to relinquish if the broker and Combes
> succeeded in their lawsuit. That's the short list.
MM:
I think you've posted this one twice? The lawsuit, apparently, was
legal and above board. So, what's your problem? It is a legal
matter, and I don't know the outcome, but there seems to be nothing
sinister about it.
Regarding the death of Richard Quiney, I would have to know the
specifics. Did he attack someone? Did someone respond in self-
defense? I'm not going to be second-guessing the English Satguru,
William Shakespeare. He must have had a good reason for the lawsuit.
You say that WS was directly responsible for Richard Quiney's death,
but that is about as clear as mud. Sorry, but these sleazy tactics
don't disparage William Shakespeare, and furthermore, they seem to
have nothing to do with the authorship of the canon.
Michael Martin
spinoza1111
> You're so easy to ignore.
This is a phrase of someone here to show off and bully and spam and
not to learn.
>
> You know what you have to do. So do it. Stop beating around the bush and
> go get that manuscript, tiger!
This is a phrase that apes the corporate bully.
>
> I bet you never find it. And if you do, it's probably in Francis Bacon's
> handwriting.
>
> Oh, and you seem to be defending Shakespeare....like he has something to
> hide.
This is the destructive language of a Fascist who can't fucking stand
the idea that people may succeed despite not having the privileges of
the wealthy. Shakespeare made something out of his life by hard work
and also his ability to get along with and collaborate with difficult
people such as Marlowe, Fletcher, perhaps John Webster.
Fascists are on the other hand losers who can't hold down, much less
succeed at, simple jobs because they cannot control their anger and
insist on getting their own way and they are always on the alert to
discredit people. The Fascist spirit is today so normalized and so
generalized that here it is bad behavior to describe such normalized
and generalized conduct as Fascist, because people actually think it's
normal and acceptable to be a complete LOSER like you.
>
> "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1177683147.2...@r30g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> > policing of the dominated which is a lever of power.- Hide quoted text -
spinoza1111
by the image of the German professor and Holocaust survivor who, at
the age of 76, kept the door of his classroom closed long enough to
save the lives of his students but was killed himself.
You can take that as read. The destructive spirits who deny
Shakespeare and defend their case using the nastiest and most pedantic
language are the spiritual brothers and sisters of Cho, who represents
their DESTRUCTIVE spirit and is their negative patron saint whether
they like it or not.
In fact, university professors and local police departments should use
Ms. Mouse
> In reading the garbage here which foregrounds, not the beauty of
> Shakespeare's plays nor his nobility as a man, but a LIE, I am haunted
> by the image of the German professor and Holocaust survivor who, at
> the age of 76, kept the door of his classroom closed long enough to
> save the lives of his students but was killed himself.
>
> You can take that as read. The destructive spirits who deny
> Shakespeare and defend their case using the nastiest and most pedantic
> language are the spiritual brothers and sisters of Cho, who represents
> their DESTRUCTIVE spirit and is their negative patron saint whether
> they like it or not.
That is the most disgusting thing I've ever read here.
L.
spinoza1111
>
> > In reading the garbage here which foregrounds, not the beauty of
> > Shakespeare's plays nor his nobility as a man, but a LIE, I am haunted
> > by the image of the German professor and Holocaust survivor who, at
> > the age of 76, kept the door of his classroom closed long enough to
> > save the lives of his students but was killed himself.
>
> > You can take that as read. The destructive spirits who deny
> > Shakespeare and defend their case using the nastiest and most pedantic
> > language are the spiritual brothers and sisters of Cho, who represents
> > their DESTRUCTIVE spirit and is their negative patron saint whether
> > they like it or not.
>
> That is the most disgusting thing I've ever read here.
Oh? Is that so? Wow, I must be quite a guy. Seriously: amidst this
vile and toxic waste, you think it's disgusting to argue for the
reputation of a good man, Shakespeare, against your classist assault,
and you just can't stand the very idea that particles of the evil that
was in Cho might be in you. This when good if misguided people here,
real people like Michael, are systematically assaulted. An IDEA, a
proposition becomes something you can't accept while HARM TO PEOPLE
just causes you, like the people in the poem by Yeats, to retreat to
the empty house of the stare.
But, isn't evil == evil? Isn't it one thing? Or are we to now
understand that we are dainty little people and only some of us can be
evil like Cho, whereas the daintiest among us may only be charged with
faults that they are ready to confess themselves?
Universities, especially mid-tier universities like VT, are entirely
too dominated by sex madness, sex discrimination, half-concealed
violence, anti-intellectualism and money, and Cho was precisely as
much a victim as a perpetrator, who wasn't important enough, as an
Asian male, to be given the help he needed when the poet Nikki
Giovanni, one of his teachers, raised the alarm concerning the content
of his writing, because even Giovanni didn't matter enough. The
university and local police are APPLAUDED when they screwed the fuck
up and didn't protect the students.
You ENABLE campaigns against "trolls" including the persecution of
Michael, a harmless person who unlike Cho only verbally defends
himself, and this is the source of the destructive rage I see here and
which was the social stew which ENABLED Cho's crimes, while (need I
add? I guess I have to) not excusing them.
Your dehumanization was, again, captured by Yeats, who writes of the
destruction of the capacity to know in a war zone.
We had fed the heart on fantasies,
The heart's grown brutal from the fare,
More substance in our enmities
Than in our love; O honey-bees,
Come build in the empty house of the stare.
You're all potential Chos, because it begins in the empty house of the
stare.
>
> L.
>
>
>
>
>
> > In fact, university professors and local police departments should use
> > what I have called the "denial" theories as a marker for personalities
> > who may need help. Shakespeare denial, Holocaust denial and Cho's
> > theories as aired in his papers should all be considered as these
> > sorts of markers.
>
> > So should evidence of what Adorno called "psychoanalysis in reverse",
> > constituted in the inability to use words such as "beauty" or
> > "nobility": evidence that mass media has purged affect.- Hide quoted text -