Elizabeth

[John W Kennedy]

Look, at this point it is clear that Elizabeth has nothing even
semi-rational to say. I don't know whether it's syphilis or crack or a
brain tumor, but I do know that she is no longer capable even of
imitating a rational creature. Her only purpose in life has become the
destruction of any kind of intelligent discussion on what little
remains of this newsgroup, and the only way to stop her from doing that
is to shut her out. If your software allows it, simply delete all her
posts, or, if you prefer, mark them as already having been read. And
whatever you do, don't reply to anything she says.

--
John W Kennedy
"Those in the seat of power oft forget their failings and seek only the
obeisance of others! Thus is bad government born! Hold in your heart
that you and the people are one, human beings all, and good government
shall arise of its own accord! Such is the path of virtue!"
-- Kazuo Koike. "Lone Wolf and Cub: Thirteen Strings" (tr. Dana Lewis)

[book...@yahoo.com]

On Sun, 19 May 2013 11:56:03 -0400, John W Kennedy
<jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:

>Look, at this point it is clear that Elizabeth has nothing even
>semi-rational to say. I don't know whether it's syphilis or crack or a
>brain tumor, but I do know that she is no longer capable even of
>imitating a rational creature. Her only purpose in life has become the
>destruction of any kind of intelligent discussion on what little
>remains of this newsgroup, and the only way to stop her from doing that
>is to shut her out. If your software allows it, simply delete all her
>posts, or, if you prefer, mark them as already having been read. And
>whatever you do, don't reply to anything she says.

If it's to be a vote of island survivors to decide who must leave,
there should be some criteria for making judgments.

On the basis of
1) originality and variety,
2) interest,
3) willingness to communicate,
4) contribution to discussions,
5) integrity of point of view,
6) maintaining h.l.a.s. authorship attribution discussion themes,
7) tolerance of others' argument,
8) scholarly manners and objectivity,
9) identity with h.l.a.s. community,
10) avoidance of common Usenet violations of protocol,

to name a few; then be prepared to rate yourself as well.

I think it was Einstein who said that a proof of being crazy is to
continually repeat the same experiment without expecting any variation
of results; and it is you, Peter G., and Webb who have for years
repeated the same ad hominem remarks in Elizabeth's threads. I
understand children think repeating the same joke is funny; what's
your excuse?

A main objection I have is that you worthies seem to have little to
contribute in the way of initiating threads about Shakespeare,
Elizabethan literature, specific works, authorship, etc.. Surely you
could simply delete, mark read, kill file Elizabeth as you are
recommending others do?, and you would have been nicer to her and the
rest of us for not commenting about her as if she isn't there.

It's as if flaming Elizabeth is your way of complaining about having
too little to say. Why don't you invite others to make a statement so
you could comment on it?

Regards, bookburn

(Rounding up my ship to fire cannon in another broadside.)

[John W Kennedy]

On 2013-05-20 03:20:06 +0000, book...@yahoo.com said:
a load of bullshit.

Congratulations! You're now on my list, too. Your persistent
anti-intellectualism has been giving me heartburn for a long time.

--
John W Kennedy
"...if you had to fall in love with someone who was evil, I can see why
it was her."
-- "Alias"

[Sneaky O. Possum]

John W Kennedy <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in news:519a34ff$0$19556
$607e...@cv.net:

> On 2013-05-20 03:20:06 +0000, book...@yahoo.com said:
> a load of bullshit.
>
> Congratulations! You're now on my list, too. Your persistent
> anti-intellectualism has been giving me heartburn for a long time.

Annoying though bookburn can be, one of the points you deleted was by no
means bullshit: your exhorting others to ignore Ms Weir rings more than
a little hollow in light of your past record of posting insults in
response to her - you are the same John W. Kennedy who changed the
subject line of the thread "Debate Challenge to Kathman" to "Weird
Lizzie can't think and she's damn proud of it" back in June 2003, are
you not? Here's the entire content of the post in which you made that
change:

"[Since she has actually announced herself, in effect, to be one of the
lower animals, I shall attempt to respond to her in language she can
understand.]

"Woof! Woof!woof!woof! Arf-arf!

"Bark!

"Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrwoof!"

That was ten years ago, Mr Kennedy. That you have only just now come to
believe that responding to Ms Weir is unproductive does not speak well
of your perspicacity.

If you have a genuine desire to see any kind of intelligent discussion
here at hlas, perhaps you should try initiating some.
--
S.O.P.

[John W Kennedy]

On 2013-05-20 16:52:36 +0000, Sneaky O. Possum said:

> John W Kennedy <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in news:519a34ff$0$19556
> $607e...@cv.net:
>
>> On 2013-05-20 03:20:06 +0000, book...@yahoo.com said:
>> a load of bullshit.
>>
>> Congratulations! You're now on my list, too. Your persistent
>> anti-intellectualism has been giving me heartburn for a long time.
>
> Annoying though bookburn can be, one of the points you deleted was by no
> means bullshit: your exhorting others to ignore Ms Weir rings more than
> a little hollow in light of your past record of posting insults in
> response to her - you are the same John W. Kennedy who changed the
> subject line of the thread "Debate Challenge to Kathman" to "Weird
> Lizzie can't think and she's damn proud of it" back in June 2003, are
> you not? Here's the entire content of the post in which you made that
> change:
>
> "[Since she has actually announced herself, in effect, to be one of the
> lower animals, I shall attempt to respond to her in language she can
> understand.]
>
> "Woof! Woof!woof!woof! Arf-arf!
>
> "Bark!
>
> "Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrwoof!"

Of course, what you’re leaving out is that, in the post that I was
replying to, Lizzie had just explicitly denounced Reason.

> That was ten years ago, Mr Kennedy. That you have only just now come to
> believe that responding to Ms Weir is unproductive does not speak well
> of your perspicacity.

So you're condemning me because, for ten years, I still clung to the
faint hope that she could be raised from the subhuman level?

> If you have a genuine desire to see any kind of intelligent discussion
> here at hlas, perhaps you should try initiating some.

Irrelevant.

--
John W Kennedy
"Sweet, was Christ crucified to create this chat?"
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"

[Sneaky O. Possum]

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

news:519aba3d$0$19536$607e...@cv.net:

[snip]

> Of course, what you're leaving out is that, in the post that I was
> replying to, Lizzie had just explicitly denounced Reason.

Actually, Ms Weir had merely made a snide comment about Aristotelian
syllogisms in response to your equally snide mockery of her reasoning
("'Logic' according to weird Lizzie," etc.). She had then gone on to try
to clarify her original point. Your response was to cut out everything
she wrote and pretend that a crack about Aristotle amounted to a
renunciation of capital-R Reason, which is as fatuous as dismissing
everything Bookburn wrote as "a load of bullshit."

>> That was ten years ago, Mr Kennedy. That you have only just now come
>> to believe that responding to Ms Weir is unproductive does not speak
>> well of your perspicacity.
>
> So you're condemning me because, for ten years, I still clung to the
> faint hope that she could be raised from the subhuman level?

If you actually had any such hope for Ms Weir, it never came through in
your posts - not in 2002, when you told Bob Grumman "You're arguing with
Lizzie Weird. Therefore you're participating in an idiotic argument.
Q. E. D."; not in 2006, when you wrote that "Lizzie has now achieved
complete apokolokyntosis"; not in 2010, when you sneered at "the
detritus floating in Weird Lizzie's brain."

Now, perhaps you didn't realise how your comments looked to someone who
wasn't privileged to know the inmost workings of your heart - but I'm
afraid that's a burden we all have to bear, Mr Kennedy.

>> If you have a genuine desire to see any kind of intelligent
>> discussion here at hlas, perhaps you should try initiating some.
>
> Irrelevant.

Is it?
--
S.O.P.

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 8:56:03 AM UTC-7, John W Kennedy wrote:
> Look, at this point it is clear that Elizabeth has nothing even
>
> semi-rational to say. I don't know whether it's syphilis or crack or a
>
> brain tumor, but I do know that she is no longer capable even of
>
> imitating a rational creature.
>

> Elizabeth writes:
>
> Run along and kiss the ass or the Broker that you worship, oh
>
> that's right, he's been dead all these four hundred years.
>
> You don't have the brains, Kennedy, to see that it was Bacon
>
> who published the First Folio, thankfully none of it infected
>
> with the diseases that came from Shappere's prostituting
>
> young girls out of the upstairs room at the Blackfriars. You
>
> are stuck with a loser, an illiterate, a broker of human flesh.
>
> There is zero evidence that this schmuck ever wrote a
>
> single play, but he did make a fortune off pandering,

>
> Kennedy writes:
>
> Her only purpose in life has become the
>
> destruction of any kind of intelligent discussion on what little
>
> remains of this newsgroup, and the only way to stop her from
>
> doing that is to shut her out. If your software allows it, simply
>
> delete all her posts, or, if you prefer, mark them as already
>
>having been read. And whatever you do, don't reply to anything
>
> she says.
>

> You're boring, Kennedy, are things going badly at home?

[John W Kennedy]

On 2013-05-21 01:59:26 +0000, Sneaky O. Possum said:

> John W Kennedy <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in
> news:519aba3d$0$19536$607e...@cv.net:
>
> [snip]
>> Of course, what you're leaving out is that, in the post that I was
>> replying to, Lizzie had just explicitly denounced Reason.
>
> Actually, Ms Weir had merely made a snide comment about Aristotelian
> syllogisms in response to your equally snide mockery of her reasoning
> ("'Logic' according to weird Lizzie," etc.).

Translation: I pointed out that she was talking nonsense.

> She had then gone on to try
> to clarify her original point.

By expressly abandoning all pretense of Reason. Now you've abandoned
Reason, too. Well, I've got a new rule. I only attempt to communicate
with human beings.

--
John W Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."

[Robin G.]

On May 20, 7:45 pm, "neonprose @ gmail.com" <neonpr...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Sunday, May 19, 2013 8:56:03 AM UTC-7, John W Kennedy wrote:
> > Look, at this point it is clear that Elizabeth has nothing even

> > Elizabeth writes:
>
> > Run along and kiss the ass or the Broker that you worship, oh
>
> > that's right, he's been dead all these four hundred years.
>
> > You don't have the brains, Kennedy, to see that it was Bacon
>
> > who published the First Folio, thankfully none of it infected
>
> > with the diseases that came from Shappere's prostituting
>
> > young girls out of the upstairs room at the Blackfriars. You
>
> > are stuck with a loser, an illiterate, a broker of human flesh.
>
> > There is zero evidence that this schmuck ever wrote a
>
> > single play, but he did make a fortune off pandering,

ELIZABETH, YOU ARE A NUTCASE. THE ONLY SOURCE FOR YOUR
ENDLESS NONSENSE ABOUT SHAKESPEARE IS YOUR HALF WIT MIND!

>
> >  You're boring, Kennedy, are things going badly at home?

ELIZABETH, NO YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS BORING! WHAT DOES KENNEDY'S HOME
LIFE
HAVE TO DO WITH ANY OF THIS? DO YOU WANDER AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD AT
NIGHT
PEEKING IN PEOPLE'S WINDOWS? AREN'T YOU GETTIN' ANY AT HOME?

>

[Peter F.]

John W Kennedy's initial post under this heading, of which I
refuse to provide another copy, is one of the most despicable
personal attacks I have ever seen in this group, and that's
saying a lot.

Peter F.
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/>

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 8:56:03 AM UTC-7, John W Kennedy wrote:

> Look, at this point it is clear that Elizabeth has nothing even
>
> semi-rational to say. I don't know whether it's syphilis or crack or a
>
> brain tumor, but I do know that she is no longer capable even of
>
> imitating a rational creature. Her only purpose in life has become the
>
> destruction of any kind of intelligent discussion on what little
>
> remains of this newsgroup, and the only way to stop her from doing that
>
> is to shut her out. If your software allows it, simply delete all her
>
> posts, or, if you prefer, mark them as already having been read. And
>
> whatever you do, don't reply to anything she says.
>

> Gosh, Kennedy, I shut you out a long time ago, I think it was about
>
> 2009.
>
> Carry on if you're able . . .

[metri...@gmail.com]

Yes, but she's good for a laugh. Surely nobody (except the moronic Bookburn) imagines that this is a forum for "intelligent discussion" of anything at all.

Peter G,

[Sneaky O. Possum]

metri...@gmail.com wrote in
news:15e5891c-b509-4991...@googlegroups.com:

> On Monday, 20 May 2013 01:56:03 UTC+10, John W Kennedy wrote:

[snip]

>> the destruction of any kind of intelligent discussion on what little
>> remains of this newsgroup

[snip]

> Yes, but she's good for a laugh.

As are we all, Mr Groves.

> Surely nobody (except the moronic Bookburn) imagines that this is a
> forum for "intelligent discussion" of anything at all.

Why do you think Mr Kennedy used that phrase, then? I'm not asking
rhetorically; I'd like to know what you think.
--
S.O.P.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

"Peter F." <pet...@rey.myzen.co.uk> wrote in news:c1772880-09b2-4c22-b3a2-
6acc4f...@googlegroups.com:

> John W Kennedy's initial post under this heading, of which I
> refuse to provide another copy, is one of the most despicable
> personal attacks I have ever seen in this group, and that's
> saying a lot.

Having launched a variety of despicable personal attacks myself, I'm hardly
in a position to denounce Mr Kennedy on that basis, but I do find it
interesting that after a decade-plus of faithfully responding to her posts
with sneers and insults, he suddenly feels the need to exhort the rest of
us to stop talking to her.
--
S.O.P.

[Arthur Neuendorffer]

"Sneaky O. Possum" <sneakyopos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Having launched a variety of despicable personal attacks myself, I'm hardly
> in a position to denounce Mr Kennedy on that basis, but I do find it
> interesting that after a decade-plus of faithfully responding to her posts
> with sneers and insults, he suddenly feels the need to exhort the rest of
> us to stop talking to her.
> --

-------------------------------------
Well, I have an excellent reason:

Because all of her recent posts on Google look like this:
-------------------------------------
neonprose @ gmail.com

- Show quoted text -
-------------------------------------
Art N.

[marco]

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

On Monday, May 20, 2013 7:36:47 AM UTC-7, John W Kennedy wrote:
> On 2013-05-20 03:20:06 +0000, book...@yahoo.com said:
>
> a load of bullshit.
>

> Elizabeth writes:
>
> Kennedy, I don't pay the least attention to your posts,
>
> I just scroll on by. Maybe you need to see a therapist,
>
> you've become rather more agitated lately.
>
> Best of luck, Elizabeth

[laraine]

I wonder why extra < are added to the left
of what she writes. Also, it's double-spaced.

C.

[laraine]

Actually, >, or > > with a space in-between.

C.

[marco]

going by Tolstoy - who would even Want to write
the dirty, lousy, inept, crazy, erratic, stupid "canon" anyway...

certainly not an aristocrat, like the bacon or d vere

maybe a lower class wannabe actor though

marc

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

What's the problem, the spaces between my nick and gmail.com?

I didn't do that, it has to be a google glitch.

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:22:39 AM UTC-7, Arthur Neuendorffer wrote:

> "Sneaky O. Possum" <sneakyopos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > Art. before you go into the cranky old "git off my lawn" mode,
>
> > I only clicked on a tab to leave your post but noticed that Google
>
> > was loading a page with a blue meter, I guess, with my nick on it,
>
> > i.e., neonprose. I then clicked out of the page.

>
>
> >
>
> > Having launched a variety of despicable personal attacks myself, I'm hardly
>
> > in a position to denounce Mr Kennedy on that basis, but I do find it
>
> > interesting that after a decade-plus of faithfully responding to her posts
>
> > with sneers and insults, he suddenly feels the need to exhort the rest of
>
> > us to stop talking to her.
>
> > --
>
> -------------------------------------
>
> Well, I have an excellent reason:
>
>
>
> Because all of her recent posts on Google look like this:
>
> -------------------------------------
>
> neonprose @ gmail.com
>

> What, is that Art griping again? I have no control over
>
> what Google loads on the page, as I said, I clicked out
>
> of it as soon as I saw the thing loading, I don't know
>
> why it was loading or why my name was on the blank
>
> white page.

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

On Monday, May 20, 2013 7:36:47 AM UTC-7, John W Kennedy wrote:

> On 2013-05-20 03:20:06 +0000, book...@yahoo.com said:
>
> a load of bullshit.
>
>
>
> Congratulations! You're now on my list, too. Your persistent
>
> anti-intellectualism has been giving me heartburn for a long time.
>
>

> Elizabeth writes: At least I'm in good company . . .

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:22:39 AM UTC-7, Arthur Neuendorffer wrote:

> "Sneaky O. Possum" <sneakyopos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Having launched a variety of despicable personal attacks myself, I'm hardly
>
> > in a position to denounce Mr Kennedy on that basis, but I do find it
>
> > interesting that after a decade-plus of faithfully responding to her posts
>
> > with sneers and insults, he suddenly feels the need to exhort the rest of
>
> > us to stop talking to her.
>
> > --
>
> -------------------------------------
>
> Well, I have an excellent reason:
>
>
>
> Because all of her recent posts on Google look like this:
>
> -------------------------------------
>

> All right, Art, I've been browing around looking for your
>
> post in which I'm accused of WHAT? I didn't compose
>
> the line neonprose @ gmail.com with the two spaces
>
> on either side, that must either be coming from Google
>
> or it's a hiccup from my Mac.
>
> I'm terribly sorry that you're so distressed but into each
>
> life etc etc.

[Melanie Sands]

Dear Elizabeth,
Indeed, some odd thing happens to your posts,
they all have > or >> in front of each line,
so it looks like you're just repeating other
people's posts.

"Dear" HLAS members with the exception of Peter Farey
and Bookburn and presumably Bob Grumman,

Boy, you sure are a bunch of nasty, shitfaced
buggers, and I am SO glad I don't post here
much any more, let alone read your crap - and
that goes for both Strats and Anti-Strats.

You're a scandal, you unkind, foul-mouthed bores.

Melanie

[marco]

> Dear Elizabeth,
>
> Indeed, some odd thing happens to your posts,
>
> they all have > or >> in front of each line,
>
> so it looks like you're just repeating other
>
> people's posts.
>
> "Dear" HLAS members with the exception of Peter Farey
>
> and Bookburn and presumably Bob Grumman,
>
> Boy, you sure are a bunch of nasty, shitfaced
>
> buggers, and I am SO glad I don't post here
>
> much any more, let alone read your crap - and
>
> that goes for both Strats and Anti-Strats.
>
> You're a scandal, you unkind, foul-mouthed bores.
>
> Melanie

Shakespeare himself wrote some
nasty shitfaced scandalous unkind foul-mouthed crap,
didn't he?

just think of it as a little drama/entertainment

marc

[Arthur Neuendorffer]

marco <21blacks...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Shakespeare himself wrote some
> nasty shitfaced scandalous unkind foul-mouthed crap,
> didn't he?

And he got away with it with all his hands intact
and not a day in prison, didn't he?

How do you explain that?

Art Neuendorffer

[Tom Reedy]

Have you ever noticed that you can't tell where Shakespeare's
religious or political sympathies lie from reading his works?

TR

[David L. Webb]

In article
<63250f53-e3f1-4d36...@n11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

Come on, Tom; you know that Art hasn't read Shakespeare's works.
Rather, he has grepped them for anagrams, equidistant letter sequences,
nutcase numerology, etc. In fact (apart from a few comic scenes in
which a character speaks a word or two of French and that sort of
thing), the works are written entirely in English, a circumstance that
makes them unfortunately inaccessible to Art.

> TR

[laraine]

I think she's being a little bit mischievous.
That's fair though.

C.

[marco]

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Tom Reedy <tom....@gmail.com> wrote in news:63250f53-e3f1-4d36-98ce-
422b13...@n11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:

--
S.O.P.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Tom Reedy <tom....@gmail.com> wrote in news:63250f53-e3f1-4d36-98ce-
422b13...@n11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:

His religious sympathies, maybe. But if you can't tell where Shakey's
political sympathies lie, you're not paying attention.
--
S.O.P.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

marco <21bla...@gmail.com> wrote in news:848cf6f8-3d90-43be-b6f1-
34187a...@googlegroups.com:
[snip]

> Shakespeare himself wrote some
> nasty shitfaced scandalous unkind foul-mouthed crap,
> didn't he?

He was occasionally foul-mouthed, but nasty? Shakespeare? No. Ben Jonson,
now - he was nasty; Thomas Dekker was nasty; Robert Greene, Thomas Nashe,
and John Marston could be positively scurrilous. But you will search in
vain through Shakespeare's works for anything comparably offensive.
Shakespeare eschewed the pamphlet, the city comedy, the pasquinade, and the
epigram: it is impossible to imagine him presenting a lampoon of Anthony
Munday as 'Antonio Balladino', devoting an entire play to lambasting
Jonson, or making a lifelong enemy out of Gabriel Harvey through a series
of intemperate albeit hilarious insults.
--
S.O.P.

[marco]

> > Shakespeare himself wrote some
>
> > nasty shitfaced scandalous unkind foul-mouthed crap,
>
> > didn't he?
>
>
> He was occasionally foul-mouthed, but nasty? Shakespeare? No. Ben Jonson,
> now - he was nasty; Thomas Dekker was nasty; Robert Greene, Thomas Nashe,
> and John Marston could be positively scurrilous. But you will search in
> vain through Shakespeare's works for anything comparably offensive.
> Shakespeare eschewed the pamphlet, the city comedy, the pasquinade, and the
> epigram: it is impossible to imagine him presenting a lampoon of Anthony
> Munday as 'Antonio Balladino', devoting an entire play to lambasting
> Jonson, or making a lifelong enemy out of Gabriel Harvey through a series
> of intemperate albeit hilarious insults.
>

> S.O.P.

I meant "in character"

surely there were some of all of those, in character[s]

marc

[Tom Reedy]

On May 24, 5:43 pm, "Sneaky O. Possum" <sneakyopos...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote in news:63250f53-e3f1-4d36-98ce-
> 422b13f15...@n11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:

Not really. Supporting the status quo in plays doesn't really reveal
his personal political beliefs. Finding his political beliefs between
the lines is what Oxies and Baconists do, with much the same accuracy
as they find autobiographical incidents. He played it safe by
ostensibly supporting the established church and government both, and
may have been an atheist anarchist with a penchant for bondage for all
we know.

TR

[marco]

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Tom Reedy <tom....@gmail.com> wrote in

news:d5eae623-0c67-4aa8...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:

> On May 24, 5:43�pm, "Sneaky O. Possum" <sneakyopos...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Tom Reedy <tom.re...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:63250f53-e3f1-4d36-98ce-
>> 422b13f15...@n11g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:

>> > Have you ever noticed that you can't tell where Shakespeare's
>> > religious or political sympathies lie from reading his works?
>>
>> His religious sympathies, maybe. But if you can't tell where Shakey's
>> political sympathies lie, you're not paying attention.
>

> Not really. Supporting the status quo in plays doesn't really reveal
> his personal political beliefs. Finding his political beliefs between
> the lines is what Oxies and Baconists do, with much the same accuracy
> as they find autobiographical incidents. He played it safe by
> ostensibly supporting the established church and government both, and
> may have been an atheist anarchist with a penchant for bondage for all
> we know.

It requires more of a leap to conclude that Shakes "played it safe" by
concealing his personal political beliefs than it does to conclude that
his beliefs as evidenced in his plays (no between-the-lines readings
necessary) were consonant with his beliefs as evidenced in his life.

I'm not sure what you mean by "supporting the status quo" in this
context: it suggests that you think Shakespeare lived and worked during
a period in English history when there was a status quo to be supported.
The C of E is undeniably an established church nowadays, but it was a
mere 28 years old when Shakes was born, and it was under attack from
both Roman Catholics and Protestant separatists throughout Shakespeare's
lifetime and for some time afterwards. The year Shakes turned 24 was the
same year Philip II sent a fleet of warships to invade England and
return it to the bosom of the Church: had that succeeded, Elizabeth
would have overthrown and beheaded.

In addition to the real threat of invasion by a foreign power,
Elizabeth's reign was also characterised by a variety of internal
threats: she only became Queen because Wyatt's rebellion was
successfully put down (along with Wyatt himself), and when Shakes was
five years old she had to send troops to the north to put down the Earls
of Westmorland and Northumberland. who wanted to replace her with Mary
Queen of Scots. Throughout her reign there were influential nobles who
refused to accept her as their queen, and of course her own refusal to
marry raised the unsettling possibility that her death would lead to
another civil war over the succession.

Supporting the Queen (and later the King) and the Church of England
would have been playing it safe if Shakes had been born in 1864 and died
in 1916, but three centuries earlier there was nothing safe about it.
Nor would Shakes have necessarily endangered himself by criticising the
Queen and the Church: he was, after all, a mere playwright - he might
have spent a few days or weeks in prison, as Jonson did for /The Ile of
Dogs/ and again for /Eastward Hoe/, but Jonson soon found himself back
on the government's approved list, and it seems unlikely that Shakes
would have been considered a graver threat.

It's abundantly obvious from Shakespeare's works that his support for
monarchy went hand in hand with a deep-seated distrust of the masses:
you don't have to read between the lines to see that he rejected the
idea of democracy. A republic was a noble idea, but in practice it would
always be destroyed by the masses - only the strong hand of a unitary
ruler could keep the Jack Cades of the world at bay.

It is not only anti-Stratfordians who find imaginarily congenial
political positions between the lines of Shakespeare's works: many of
his admirers have tried to conjure up some evidence that he was not
/entirely/ opposed to popular sovereignty, just as they've tried to
mitigate the harrowing religious bigotry of /The Merchant of Venice/.
But determining Shakespeare's politics from his works is quite easy -
it's the reconciling of those politics with one's opinion of his
greatness that proves difficult. Better perhaps to pretend that one can
conclude nothing about his 'true' beliefs from his writings, and leave
open the possibility that maybe those 'true' beliefs were better than
the ones he put on public display.
--
S.O.P.

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

____________________________________________________________________________

Webb finds the time to write me a post!

>Just to let you know, I've never been suicidal, in fact
>
> I stopped a suicide just in time (my friend was sitting
>
> on the railing of the twelve-story University Hotel
>
> in Seattle in the University District, hanging her legs
>
> over the side, I've never gone up so fast in an elevator
>
> screaming Calll the police, I guess I've never emptied
>
> an elevator faster, the door open and everybody ran out.
>
> and there she was looking down over the edge, I say to her
>
> Hi, Barbara, what you looking at, long story short,
>
> I grabbed her and threw her down on the gravel roof.
>
> There was no struggle, she was a skinny little thing
>
> while I'm five foot six.
>
> The cops arrived, took her to the hospital.
>
> Happy ending, she married the Estonian chess master
>
> (chess is deadly serious in Estonia) and had two
>
> very cute kids. Happy ending, wot?
>
> So I think that happiness is really beyond Webb's reach.
>
> Exhibit A:

ANIMAL BEHAVIORAL DISORDERS IN H.L.A.S. . . . . DAVID WEBB . . . Inbox
elizabeth . <neon...@gmail.com> Fri, May 24, 2013 at 10:21 PM
To: neonprose <neon...@gmail.com>
Reply | Reply to all | Forward | Print | Delete | Show original
author"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> Elizabeth . . .

OBSESSIVE-COMPULSIVE DISORDERS

In veterinary medicine, the term STEREOTYPY has been used
traditionally to define behaviours that are REPETITIVE, CONSTANT, AND
APPEAR TO SERVE NO OBVIOUS PURPOSE.

Considerable discussion occurs when the question 'can animals OBSESS?'
is raised. It appears that animals perceive concern and anxiety, thus
it is possible that they can OBSESS.

Separate from the OBSESSION issue is the issue of relative intensity.

Is the behaviour SIMPLY EXCESSIVE or is it a manifestation of an
OBSESSIVE-COMPULSIVE DISORDER? It is also possible that an EXCESSIVE
BEHAVIOUR and an OBSESSIVE-COMPULSIVE behaviour are merely two points
on a blurry continuum.

> . . . has prefaced a good many hilarious assertions with her

> trademark locution "I assume" (indeed, many a salutary belly laugh can
> be had by the simple expedient of a Google Groups search with "Weir" in
> the Author field and "I assume" as the search text). One would think
> that she would actually open a dictionary rather than just assuming that
> she can guess the word's meaning.

OBSESSIVE-COMPULSIVE DISORDER is probably responsible for some unknown
proportion of companion animal behavioural conditions. OBSESSIVE-
COMPULSIVE behaviours iNTERFERE with the ANIMAL'S ABILITY TO FUNCTION
IN ITS SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT.

A competing stimulus may change or abort the behaviour but time spent
in the activity gradually increases. The ABNORMAL BEHAVIOUR GRADUALLY
DISPLACES NORMAL BEHAVIOUR and the actual behaviours change in
qualitative features (intensity profile).


> And her fantasies and imaginings can indeed be amusing. Sometimes
> she even fantasizes quotations and attributes them to people.

Some examples of OBSESSIVE-COMPULSIVE
disorders in cats listed in the literature include over-grooming,
barbering, feline hyperesthesia, self-mutilation, TAIL CHASING, pica,
wool and FABRIC CHEWING, and WOOL SUCKING.

FELINE HYPERESTHESIA, OVER-GROOMING, AND SELF-MUTILATION

Feline hyperesthesia syndrome has been variously called rolling skin
disease, neuritis, TWITCHY CAT DISEASE, and atypical neurodermatitis.
The behaviours demonstrated can include those mimicking estrus or
biting at the tail, flank, anal or lumbar areas (sometimes with
resultant barbering and self-mutilation); or skin rippling and muscle
spasms/twitching (usually dorsally), often accompanied by
VOCALISATION, RUNNING, JUMPING, HALLUCINATIONS AND
AGGRESSION.


> No. But one can always hope that eventually she will put up a web
> page, as Faker has done, or write a decidedly non-peer-reviewed book, as
> Mr. Streitz has done. Her many inventions, confusions, misattributions,
> misreadings, assumptions, etc. are so robustly comic that they deserve
> an archival format less ephemeral than a Usenet newsgroup.

FABRIC EATING, SUCKING, AND CHEWING

OBSESSive-compulsive disorder can manifest itself as an eating
disorder. Fabric eating, chewing, and sucking may not be associated
with any nutritive considerations relevant to eating disorders and may
represent OBSESSive-compulsive disorders associated with stereotypic
chewing or mouth movements.

Wool sucking may be a behaviour that is left overfrom the prolonged
6-month suckling period common in feral cats. Cats that are weaned
particularly early seem to be over-represented in that population.
Again, different authors do not agree on whether wool sucking and wool
chewing are distinct or related problems. Data compilation is lacking.

TREATMENT OF OBSESSIVE-COMPULSIVE DISORDERS

Treatment protocol for OBSESSIVE-COMPULSIVE DISORDERS should include
an increase in activities that compete with the repetitive behaviours.
Occasionally, some animals perform behaviours that attract attention.


> I'm betting that the answer is no again. Most serious scholarly
> publications insist that their submissions be written in one of several
> widely understood modern languages, not the "British language" favored
> by Mr. Innes. (The latter contains perplexing words like "campel" and
> "secuter," not to mention unconventional uses of conventional phrases --
> for instance, any language whose lexicon contains a few words of Saxon
> derivation counts as "Old English.") Mr. Innes's idiosyncratic "British
> language" is not apt to pass muster in any respectable peer-reviewed
> scholarly publication with which I am familiar.


UNWANTED BEHAVIOURS SHOULD NOT BE REWARDED WITH ATTENTION.

Medication to decrease anxiety is usually prescribed for at least 12
weeks before deciding whether full effects are beneficial. Some
patients require a higher dose. Others require more frequent
administration. In people treated for OBSESSIVE-compulsive disorders,
a given drug will be tried for at least six months before changing the
medication or adding another drug. CLOMIPRAMINE (ANAFRANIL®,
CLOMICALM®), A TRICYCLIC ANTIDEPRESSANT (TCA) HAS BEEN TRADITIONALLY
USED FOR TREATMENT OF OBSESSIVE DISORDERS IN HUMANS.



> I trust that the question is purely rhetorical.

> One is particularly tempted to needle someone who asserts or implies
> that his interlocutor is dishonest without grounds.


In the United
States, clomipramine (Clomicalm®) is labeled for use in dogs to treat
separation anxiety, whereas in Canada and Australia, it is also
labelled to treat OBSESSIVE-compulsive disorders of dogs. In the past
15 + years, selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (SSRIs) such as
paroxetine (PAXIL®), sertraline (ZOLOFT®), fluoxetine (PROZAC®),
citalopram (CELEXA®), fluvoxamine (LUVOX®) have been introduced and
evaluated for the treatment of OBSESSIVE-compulsive disorders in
people. Fluoxetine, sertraline, fluvoxamine and paroxetine have
demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of OBSESSIVE-compulsive
disorders. In contrast, clomipramine, though efficacious, is often
associated in people with substantial adverse events, particularly
anticholinergic effects. Clomipramine was effective in controlling the
signs of anxiety-related and OBSESSIVE-compulsive disorders in 10 of
11 cats and was well tolerated. The average maintenance dosage was 0.3
mg/kg once daily. Four cats became lethargic at higher doses.

> It is kind of Peter to reassure Mr. Innes on that score -- one can
> never tell what the phrase might mean in Mr. Innes's British language.
> [...]

Other drugs have been used to treat OBSESSIVE-compulsive disorders in
cats and some examples include amitriptyline (ELAVIL®), diazepam
(VALIUM®), clorazepate (TRANXENE®), and alprazolam (XANAX®). In
summary, each patient presented with a tentative OBSESSIVE-compulsive
disorder needs to be fully worked-up medically and behaviourally in
order to determine the best drug option for that given case as well as
address all other contributing factors.

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

> Well, Webb was late in turning in his paper, I'll have to give him a D.
>
> I also believe that Webb's paper is derivative, he may have to take
>
> an even lower grade. Read if you must:

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:22:39 AM UTC-7, Arthur Neuendorffer wrote:

> "Sneaky O. Possum" wrote:
>
> > Art. I did NOT wrote neonprose @ gmail.com And what difference
>
> > do a couple of millimeters make? I'm getting very tired of these absurdities.

>
> > Having launched a variety of despicable personal attacks myself, I'm hardly
>
> > in a position to denounce Mr Kennedy on that basis, but I do find it
>
> > interesting that after a decade-plus of faithfully responding to her posts
>
> > with sneers and insults, he suddenly feels the need to exhort the rest of
>
> > us to stop talking to her.
>
> > --
>
> -------------------------------------
>
> Well, I have an excellent reason:
>
>
>
> Because all of her recent posts on Google look like this:
>
> -------------------------------------
>
> neonprose @ gmail.com
>
>

> Oh my god. I'm afraid that we're getting the Old Art back,
>
>
> -------------------------------------
>
> Art N.

[neonprose @ gmail.com]

On Thursday, May 23, 2013 12:09:57 AM UTC-7, neonprose @ gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:22:39 AM UTC-7, Arthur Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> > "Sneaky O. Possum" <sneakyopos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Having launched a variety of despicable personal attacks myself, I'm hardly
>
> >
>
> > > in a position to denounce Mr Kennedy on that basis, but I do find it
>
> >
>
> > > interesting that after a decade-plus of faithfully responding to her posts
>
> >
>
> > > with sneers and insults, he suddenly feels the need to exhort the rest of
>
> >
>
> > > us to stop talking to her.
>
> >
>
> > > --
>
> >
>
> > -------------------------------------
>
> >
>
> > Well, I have an excellent reason:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Because all of her recent posts on Google look like this:
>
> >
>
> > -------------------------------------
>
> >
>
> > neonprose @ gmail.com
>
> >
>

> > I didn't write it that way, Art. Why don't you just delete it?

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

> > You used to be fun, Art, even witty, what happened?

[Tom Reedy]

On May 25, 2:30 pm, "Sneaky O. Possum" <sneakyopos...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Thanks for those interesting facts correcting somebody's--I'm not sure
whose--mistaken ideas about Shakespeare's true political beliefs. I
think it's great that we have someone with full knowledge (on a
newsgroup--who'd've thought?) to assist us when we need help to root
out and amend our inferior thinking.

TR

[book...@yahoo.com]

"pasquinade, n. A composition that imitates or misrepresents
somebody's style, usually in a humorous way."

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Tom Reedy <tom....@gmail.com> wrote in

news:dfa199da-03b4-485d...@w8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
[snip]

> Thanks for those interesting facts correcting somebody's--I'm not sure
> whose--mistaken ideas about Shakespeare's true political beliefs. I
> think it's great that we have someone with full knowledge (on a
> newsgroup--who'd've thought?) to assist us when we need help to root
> out and amend our inferior thinking.

Did you need to reprint the entire post in order to reply to it? If so, it
is a newsreader problem?
--
S.O.P.

[neon...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 8:56:03 AM UTC-7, John W Kennedy wrote:
> Look, at this point it is clear that Elizabeth has nothing even
>
> semi-rational to say. I don't know whether it's syphilis or crack or a
>
> brain tumor, but I do know that she is no longer capable even of
>
> imitating a rational creature. Her only purpose in life has become the
>
> destruction of any kind of intelligent discussion on what little
>
> remains of this newsgroup, and the only way to stop her from doing that
>
> is to shut her out. If your software allows it, simply delete all her
>
> posts, or, if you prefer, mark them as already having been read. And
>
> whatever you do, don't reply to anything she says.
>
>

> Look at it this way, Kennedy, I don't create tower after tower of
>
> rubbish in HLAS that we have to pass by page after page. My posts
>
> are composed in the posting box, confined, they are never out
>
> of control.

[neon...@gmail.com]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 2:41:21 AM UTC-7, neon...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:22:39 AM UTC-7, Arthur Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> > "Sneaky O. Possum" <sneakyopos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>

> > > OK, Art, I finally figured out what you're up to. If there are
>
> > > gaps in my name, for example neonp...@gmail.com
>
> > > you can't cram your crap into my posts. And stay out of
>
> > > my monitor, I saw your Google Glass i pad stuck in the
>
> lower left hand side of my monitor, it suddenly exploded into
>
> > the screen, and believe it or not, some of it fell out of the
>
> screen onto my desktop. My aunt was at the computer, she
>
> almost had a coronary, stay the hell out of my house or I will report
>
> > you to Google Inc.

> >
>
> > > Having launched a variety of despicable personal attacks myself, I'm hardly
>
> >
>
> > > in a position to denounce Mr Kennedy on that basis, but I do find it
>
> >
>
> > > interesting that after a decade-plus of faithfully responding to her posts
>
> >
>
> > > with sneers and insults, he suddenly feels the need to exhort the rest of
>
> >
>
> > > us to stop talking to her.
>
> >
>
> > > --
>
> >
>
> > -------------------------------------
>
> >
>
> > Well, I have an excellent reason:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Because all of her recent posts on Google look like this:
>
> >
>
> > -------------------------------------
>
> >
>
> > All right, Art, I've been browing around looking for your
>
> >
>
> > post in which I'm accused of WHAT? I didn't compose
>
> >
>
> > the line neonprose @ gmail.com with the two spaces
>
> >
>
> > on either side, that must either be coming from Google
>
> >
>
> > or it's a hiccup from my Mac.
>

> > NOTE: AS I WROTE ABOVE, I FINALLY FIGURED OUT WHAT
>
> > ART WAS UP TO. I SAW HIS GOOGLE GLASS I PAD ($1500.)
>
> > STUCK IN THE WINDOW ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE OF MY
>
> > DELL MONITOR. THEN THERE WAS SOME KIND OF EXPLOSION
>
> > AND STREAMING THREADS OF LIGHT WENT OVER THE EDGE
>
> > OF THE MONITOR AND FELL ONTO MY ANTIQUE OAK DESKTOP,
>
> > TERRIFYING THE CRAP OUT OF MY AUNT, SHE ALMOST
>
> > HAD A CORONARY. GOOGLE NEEDS TO GET A HANDLE ON THIS
>
> > PRODUCT OR THEY (AND ART) ARE GOING TO HAVE TO FACE
>
> > LIABILITIES.
>

[neon...@gmail.com]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 2:34:35 AM UTC-7, neon...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, May 20, 2013 7:36:47 AM UTC-7, John W Kennedy wrote:
>
> > On 2013-05-20 03:20:06 +0000, book...@yahoo.com said:
>
> >
>
> > a load of bullshit.
>
> >
>
> > ELIZ WRITES: I'M AN IDIOT, I TRUST EVERYBODY, I TRUSTED
>
> > ART. THAT'S HOW STUPID I AM.
>
> >
>
> > Congratulations! You're now on my list, too. Your persistent
>
> >
>
> > anti-intellectualism has been giving me heartburn for a long time.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Elizabeth writes: At least I'm in good company . . .
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > John W Kennedy
>
> >
>
> > "...if you had to fall in love with someone who was evil, I can see why
>
> >
>
> > it was her."
>
> >
>
> > -- "Alias"

[neon...@gmail.com]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 2:34:35 AM UTC-7, neon...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, May 20, 2013 7:36:47 AM UTC-7, John W Kennedy wrote:
>
> > On 2013-05-20 03:20:06 +0000, book...@yahoo.com said:
>
> >
>
> > a load of bullshit.
>

> > Elizabeth writes, oh, I've been bad, I don't wish you any harm,
>
> > Kennedy, I have never been inclined to talk to you so I will just
>
> > continue clicking on by.

[neon...@gmail.com]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 2:41:21 AM UTC-7, neon...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:22:39 AM UTC-7, Arthur Neuendorffer wrote:
>

> ART. where are you? We've been waiting around for you, I thought
>
> you were coming out to the Coast Range to hunt me down and kill
>
> me, aren't you the one who thought that some conspirators hired
>
> me for forty thousand dollars to do you in?

>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> > "Sneaky O. Possum" <sneakyopos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Having launched a variety of despicable personal attacks myself, I'm hardly
>
> >
>
> > > in a position to denounce Mr Kennedy on that basis, but I do find it
>
> >
>
> > > interesting that after a decade-plus of faithfully responding to her posts
>
> >
>
> > > with sneers and insults, he suddenly feels the need to exhort the rest of
>
> >
>
> > > us to stop talking to her.
>
> >
>
> > > --
>
> >
>
> > -------------------------------------
>
> >
>
> > Well, I have an excellent reason:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Because all of her recent posts on Google look like this:
>
> >
>
> > -------------------------------------
>
> >
>
> > All right, Art, I've been browing around looking for your
>
> >
>
> > post in which I'm accused of WHAT? I didn't compose
>
> >
>
> > the line neonprose @ gmail.com with the two spaces
>
> >
>
> > on either side, that must either be coming from Google
>
> >
>
> > or it's a hiccup from my Mac.
>
> >
>

> > I'm terribly sorry that you're so distressed but into each
>
> >
>
> > life etc etc.

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

> > -------------------------------------
>
> >
>
> > Art N.

[neon...@gmail.com]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 2:41:21 AM UTC-7, neon...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 21, 2013 8:22:39 AM UTC-7, Arthur Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> > "Sneaky O. Possum" <sneakyopos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Having launched a variety of despicable personal attacks myself, I'm hardly
>
> >
>
> > > in a position to denounce Mr Kennedy on that basis, but I do find it
>
> >
>
> > > interesting that after a decade-plus of faithfully responding to her posts
>
> >
>
> > > with sneers and insults, he suddenly feels the need to exhort the rest of
>
> >
>
> > > us to stop talking to her.
>
> >
>
> > > --
>
> >
>
> > -------------------------------------
>

> > Neuendorffer writes:
>
> > Well, I have an excellent reason:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Because all of her recent posts on Google look like this:
>
> >
>
> > -------------------------------------
>

> > Like what?
>
> > All right, Art, I've been browsing around looking for your

>
> >
>
> > post in which I'm accused of WHAT? I didn't compose
>
> >
>
> > the line neonprose @ gmail.com with the two spaces
>
> >
>
> > on either side, that must either be coming from Google
>
> >
>
> > or it's a hiccup from my Mac.
>
> >
>
> > I'm terribly sorry that you're so distressed but into each
>
> >
>
> > life etc etc.
>
> >
>

> > Update. Art is being disingenuous, he knows damn well
>
> > that he couldn't invade my monitor, bedroom, home with
>
> > a really risky product, the hitherto untested Google Glass
>
> > Ipod, some techies are questioning whether it causes
>
> > cancer, I wouldn't want to get within a hundred feet of this
>
> > thing but Art took it on himself to jam it in my face. Bright
>
> > blue lights, very tiny, spilled over the lower edge of my
>
> > monitor onto my antique desk. What is up with Art, he's
>
> > not the Art we used to know and love, well at least love his
>
> > sense of humor in his contretemps with Web.
>
> > That reminds me, I need to go to Google and see if they've
>
> > withdrawn this product with unknown consequences even
>
> > unknown consequences acknowledged by Google Inc.
>
> > And Art, don't post to me again. Sick of you.

[neon...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, May 19, 2013 8:56:03 AM UTC-7, John W Kennedy wrote:

>
> Oh blah blah blah. Kennedy, did you see the email in which I made
>
> your wishes come true? I found a website which specializes in
>
> searches for old urls in Google's old archives. I'm too tired to
>
> repost it tonight but if you post back about ten pages you'll find
>
> my post to you with all the details.
>
> No, I'm not going to complain about your crabby personality,
>
> I've lived with worse.
>
> Elizabeth

> Look, at this point it is clear that Elizabeth has nothing even
>
> semi-rational to say. I don't know whether it's syphilis or crack or a
>
> brain tumor, but I do know that she is no longer capable even of
>
> imitating a rational creature. Her only purpose in life has become the
>
> destruction of any kind of intelligent discussion on what little
>
> remains of this newsgroup, and the only way to stop her from doing that
>
> is to shut her out. If your software allows it, simply delete all her
>
> posts, or, if you prefer, mark them as already having been read. And
>
> whatever you do, don't reply to anything she says.
>

> Oh, that's very eloquent, Kennedy. I'm now going to delete the post
>
> in which I name the website that archives old Google urls.

[neon...@gmail.com]

On Monday, July 1, 2013 12:41:01 AM UTC-7, neon...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, May 24, 2013 2:34:35 AM UTC-7, neon...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Monday, May 20, 2013 7:36:47 AM UTC-7, John W Kennedy wrote:
>

> > Kennedy, I gave you the name of the website that has been archiving
>
> > Google for some time, did you get the urls to the old google posts
>
> that you wanted? If you lost the links, I don't know what to tell you, I
>
> certainly don't expect a "thank you" from you nor do I care.
>
> Elizabeth