Dummies guide to Neuendorffer
Dan
Could someone spell out for me what Neuendorffer is up to? I'm amazed
at the volume of posts he does, and at utterly at a loss on how to
read them.
I'd ask Neuendorffer himself, but I'm afraid he will reply with a
cryptogram.
Dan
--
Art Neuendorffer
> Could someone spell out for me what Neuendorffer is up to? I'm amazed
> at the volume of posts he does, and at utterly at a loss on how to
> read them.
Dan wrote:
> I'd ask Neuendorffer himself, but I'm afraid he will reply with a
> cryptogram.
See:
http://www.groundling.com/hlas/profiles/aneuendorffer.php
Art Neuendorffer
Dan
:> I'd ask Neuendorffer himself, but I'm afraid he will reply with a
:> cryptogram.
: See:
: http://www.groundling.com/hlas/profiles/aneuendorffer.php
What did I say? I've seen that before - but no helpee mee ...
Dan
--
Gary Kosinsky
I recently asked Art about this myself. Here is his reply.
It may help as a starter.
***********************************************************************
Gary Kosinsky wrote:
> What I was actually hoping for, Art, was sort of an executive
> summary of your findings to this point, in your own words.
If you mean a summary of my primary hypothesis assumption:
------------------------------------------------------------------
1) The history of Western Civilization is marked by endless wars,
holocausts & enslavement. People were even burned at the stake
for having an incorrect conception of the Trinity (. . .
or, as one modern comedian quips,
"arguments over who has the better invisible friend").
2) Within this chaos of ignorance, greed, envy & cultural clash
there survived secret mystic/humanist societies (e.g., Freemasons
& Rosicrucians) who sincerely believed that man was capable
of something better than this.
3) These societies quickly (though quietly) latched on to the power
of the printing press for spreading their humanist 'propaganda.'
4) The primary result of this is the secular,
humanist Great Books of the Western World.
5) A secondary result is a peaceful modern world made up
primarily of cooperating democracies sharing a belief
in unalienable human rights.
------------------------------------------------------
HAMLET What is a man,
If his chief good and market of his time
Be but to sleep and feed? a beast, no more.
Sure, he that made us with such large discourse,
Looking before and after, gave us not
That capability and god-like reason
To fust in us unused. Now, whether it be
Bestial oBLIVION, OR SOME CRAVEN SCRUPLE
OF THINKing too precisely on the event,
A thought which, quarter'd, hath but one part wisdom
And ever three parts coward, I do not know
Why yet I live to say 'This thing's to do;'
Sith I have cause and will and strength and means
To do't. Examples gross as earth exhort me:
Witness this army of such mass and charge
Led by a delicate and tender prince,
Whose spirit with divine ambition puff'd
Makes mouths at the invisible event,
Exposing what is mortal and unsure
To all that fortune, death and danger dare,
Even for an egg-shell. Rightly to be great
Is not to stir without great argument,
But greatly to find quarrel in a straw
When honour's at the stake. How stand I then,
That have a father kill'd, a mother stain'd,
Excitements of my reason and my blood,
And let all sleep? while, to my shame, I see
The imminent death of twenty thousand men,
That, for a fantasy and trick of fame,
Go to their graves like beds, fight for a plot
Whereon the numbers cannot try the cause,
Which is not tomb enough and continent
To hide the slain? O, from this time forth,
My thoughts be bloody, or be nothing worth!
------------------------------------------------------
My statistical evidence:
----------------------------------------------------------
It is *extremely* difficult to find the 28 letters of
a "VERONILVERIUS/THOMAS BRINCKNELL" cross
V E R O N I L V E R I U S
L
E
N
K
C
N
I
R
B
S
A
M
O
H
T
in a string of less than 39 letters:
My 3 Million letter literary data base
included just one 38 letter string containing the
"VERONILVERIUS/THOMAS BRINCKNELL" cross:
1) "va lives that bluediorn and storridge can mak" (Finnegans Wake)
_Moby Dick_ requires a 39 letter string:
2) "ventually invested Moby Dick with new terrors"
----------------------------------------------------------------
However, a *single Act* of _Hamlet_ (Q2 Act 4) has not one
but TWO such strings with less than 36 letters!
"CLAMBRING TO HANG, AN ENVIOUS SLIVER BROKE" 35 letters
"BLIVION, OR SOME CRAVEN SCRUPLE OF THINK" 33 letters
----------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated probability of finding the
"VERONILVERIUS/THOMAS BRINCKNELL" cross
in a given string of:
35 letters {"CLAMBRING TO HANG, AN ENVIOUS SLIVER BROKE"}
~ 1 / 50,000,000
33 letters { "BLIVION, OR SOME CRAVEN SCRUPLE OF THINK" }
~ 1 / 1,000,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated probability of finding two such strings
IN A SINGLE ACT of Shakespeare :
~ 1 / 3,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
>> Could someone spell out for me what Neuendorffer is up to? I'm amazed
>> at the volume of posts he does, and at utterly at a loss on how to
>> read them.
Gary Kosinsky wrote:
> I recently asked Art about this myself. Here is his reply.
> It may help as a starter.
>
> *******************************************************************
>> What I was actually hoping for, Art, was sort of an executive
>> summary of your findings to this point, in your own words.
Neuendorffer wrote:
> If you mean a summary of my primary hypothesis assumption:
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 1) The history of Western Civilization is marked by endless wars,
> holocausts & enslavement. People were even burned at the stake
> for having an incorrect conception of the Trinity (. . .
> or, as one modern comedian quips,
> "arguments over who has the better invisible friend").
>
> 2) Within this chaos of ignorance, greed, envy & cultural clash
> there survived secret mystic/humanist societies (e.g., Freemasons
> & Rosicrucians) who sincerely believed that man was capable
> of something better than this.
>
> 3) These societies quickly (though quietly) latched on to the power
> of the printing press for spreading their humanist 'propaganda.'
>
> 4) The primary result of this is the secular,
> humanist Great Books of the Western World.
------------------------------------------------------------------
<<The (MAD) Hatter opened his eyes very wide on hearing this;
but all he said was,
'Why is a RAVEN like a WRITING-DESK?'>>
[A. Poe & Dante wrote on both.]
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.farvardyn.com/mithras1.htm
<<In the vaulted border of the cave behind Mithras there is often a
raven, sometimes perched but more usually flying towards the god. He
brings a message to which the god listens; in some representations
Mithras is clearly looking back towards the raven. In classical
literature the raven is the messanger of Apollo, and in the Mithraic
ritual he is evidently associated with the Apollo like Sun-god seen in
the top left-hand corner of the relief. During the course of the actual
mysteries the duties of those with the grade of Raven vividly recall the
bull-slaying scene; they wear raven's masks (Fig. 5) and perform as
heralds the same role as the raven performs for Mithras. The bird
conveys Sol's orders to Mithras to kill the bull, and the god carries
out the order, although with an expression of anguish on his face. It
grieves him to slay the magnificent beast, but like a true soldier he
obeys in the knowledge that in the end life will be renewed. On several
representations one ray of the seven-rayed halo round the head of Sol
shines out towards Mithras and so establishes contact with the god.
Nevertheless the scene is strange because there is no doubt from
the evidence that the Sun-god was considered to be inferior to Mithras.
Moreover, Mithras himself was also regarded as Sol invictus. One theory
has it that Sol was the mediator who, through the raven, conveyed
knowledge from Ahura-Mazda or Zeus-Jupiter. A second view is that Sol
was originally the superior of Mithras and both were later incorporated
into one mighty sun-figure, as When Mithras and Sol ascended to heaven
in their chariot.>>
------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Elizabeth Weir
It's a meta-Joycean exercise.
Art Neuendorffer
>>at the volume of posts he does, and at utterly at a loss on how to
>>read them.
>>
>> I'd ask Neuendorffer himself, but I'm afraid he will reply with a
>>cryptogram.
Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> It's a meta-Joycean exercise.
I never meta-Joycean I didn't like.
Art
Dan
Wonderful!
: The title you seek is not _The Complete Idiot's Guide to
: Neuendorffer_, but rather _Guide to the Complete Idiot Neuendorffer_.
: The latter has not yet been published, so I'll furnish a brief precis.
Ah, I like his posts. It's comforting to me to know that whatever
else is going on, Art is still out there hunched over his keyboard
: Jesting aside, there are indications that Art is very intelligent,
: and that his posts are all an enormous leg-pull. Indeed, many appear
: to be witty parodies of the lunacy of other readily identifiable
: anti-Stratfordians. Thus when I refer to "Art" below, I usually mean
: his trolling persona rather than Art himself.
Right, but it's a bit of a fixation. I mean, to spend that much time
on a continual joke, is it real?
: Read them as parodic trolling. Art's sometimes self-deprecating
: humor, his occasionally clever wordplay, and his claim that he studied
: physics at MIT make it seem very unlikely that he actually believes the
: lunatic logorrhea he posts. Moreover, he doesn't take himself as
: ponderously seriously as do Crowley, Streitz, Richard Kennedy, and
: other truly delusional anti-Stratfordians. I find the conclusion that
: Art is trolling nearly inescapable.
:
Thank you! One small corner of my universe is a little cleared up.
Dan
--
Art Neuendorffer
>> Could someone spell out for me what Neuendorffer is up to?
Dwebb wrote:
> Art professes to believe that the Shakespeare canon is the work of a
> monstrous conspiracy of Templars, Freemasons, Rosicrucians, and Priory
> of Sion adepts (for those not in the know concerning lunatic conspiracy
> theories, a hilarious paperback pulp-history by Baigent, Leigh, and
> Lincoln popularized the notion that Jesus and his consort Mary
> Magdalene had a child, whose descendants, settling in Provence,
> eventually became the Merovingian kings of France; the Priory is
> supposed to be a shadowy global conspiracy, in existence at least since
> the destruction of the Templars, actively engaging in machinations to
> restore this Sacred Bloodline to the French throne!). Art believes (or
> professes to believe) that I am an active member of the conspiracy in
> question, along with virtually every writer of note who ever lived,
> from A. Conan Doyle to Dr. Seuss, as well as many of the
> "Stratfordians" in this newsgroup. (For all I know, the Benevolent and
> Protective Order of Elks and the Order of Odd Fellows may be involved
> as well.)
This is essentually correct.
(And I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Dan isn't also a member.)
Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
> Thank you! One small corner of my universe is a little cleared up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"1500 years ago EVERybody knew the earth was the center of the UnIVERSe;
500 years ago EVERybody knew the earth was flat and
15 minutes ago you KNEW that people were alone on this planet.
Imagine what you will know tomorrow." -- "K" of MIB
--------------------------------------------------------------------
*NIL VERO VERIUS*
*REVERSION*
*UNIVERSE*
*OVERLIVE*
*LIVERIES*
*SURVIVOR*
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Logogriph, n. [Gr. ? word + ? a fishing net, a dark saying, a riddle:
F. logogriphe.] A sort of riddle in which it is required to discover a
chosen word from various combinations of its letters, or of some of its
letters, which form other words; -- thus, to discover the chosen word
chatter from cat, hat, rat, hate, rate, etc. --Ben Jonson
<<Or spunne out Riddles, or weav'd fifty Tomes
*Of Logogriphes*, or curious Palindromes;
Or pump'd for those hard trifles, Anagrams,
Or Ecrosticks, or your finer flames
Of Egges, and Halbards, Cradles, and a Herse,
A paire of Sizers, and a COMBE in verse;
Acrosticks, and Tellesticks, or jumpe names,>> -- B. Jonson
---------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Greg Reynolds
mentioned it as an insult to Neuendorffer, that
in his writing (whatsoever he grepped) he never
blotted out nonsense. My answer hath been, would
he had blotted a thousand. Which they thought
a malevolent speech. I had not told posterity
this, but for their ignorance, who choose that
circumstance to commend their friend by,
wherein he most faulted. And to justify mine
own candour (for I loved the man, and do honour
his Mason photo - on this side artdolatry - as
much as any). He was (indeed) hoaky, and of
an awkward, and free nature: had an excellent
keyboard; brave family, and gentle delusions:
wherein he flowed with that facility, that
sometime it was necessary he should be
stopped: sufflaminandus erat; as HLAS said
of Dooley. His wit was in his own dumper;
would the rule of it had been so too. Many
times he spoke of those Dakota Rings, could not
escape laughter: as when he said in the person of
Cadfael, one speaking to him; "Cadfael, thou
dost be Franciscan'. He replied: 'Cadfael did wear
a cloak, but with just cause': and such like;
which were ridiculous. But he redreamed his
vices, with his virtues. There was ever more in
him to be deleted, than to be downloaded."
Art Neuendorffer
"Many were the nitwit-combats betwixt Greg and myself; like a East
River garbage scow and an English man-of-war; Master Reynolds (like the
former) was built for trash; solid, but slow, in his performances.
Neuendorffer, like an English man-of-war, lesser in bulk, but lighter in
sailing, could turn with all tides, tack about, and take advantage of
all winds, by the quickness of his wit and invention."
--------------------------------------------------------
Greg Reynolds wrote:
> I remember, the posters have often
> mentioned it as an insult to Neuendorffer, that
> in his writing (whatsoever he grepped) he never
> blotted out nonsense. My answer hath been, would
> he had blotted a thousand. Which they thought
> a malevolent speech. I had not told posterity
> this, but for their ignorance, who choose that
> circumstance to commend their friend by,
> wherein he most faulted. And to justify mine
> own candour (for I loved the man,
Oh, sure; tell everybody, Greg!
> and do honour
> his Mason photo - on this side artdolatry - as
> much as any). He was (indeed) hoaky, and of
> an awkward, and free nature: had an excellent
> keyboard; brave family, and gentle delusions:
> wherein he flowed with that facility, that
> sometime it was necessary he should be
> stopped: sufflaminandus erat; as HLAS said
> of Dooley. His wit was in his own dumper;
> would the rule of it had been so too. Many
> times he spoke of those Dakota Rings, could not
> escape laughter: as when he said in the person of
> Cadfael, one speaking to him; "Cadfael, thou
> dost be Franciscan'. He replied: 'Cadfael did wear
> a cloak, but with just cause': and such like;
> which were ridiculous. But he redreamed his
> vices, with his virtues. There was ever more in
> him to be deleted, than to be downloaded."
Art
Art Neuendorffer
>>
>>> Art professes to believe that the Shakespeare canon is the work of a
>>>monstrous conspiracy of Templars, Freemasons, Rosicrucians, and Priory
>>>of Sion adepts (for those not in the know concerning lunatic conspiracy
>>>theories, a hilarious paperback pulp-history by Baigent, Leigh, and
>>>Lincoln popularized the notion that Jesus and his consort Mary
>>>Magdalene had a child, whose descendants, settling in Provence,
>>>eventually became the Merovingian kings of France; the Priory is
>>>supposed to be a shadowy global conspiracy, in existence at least since
>>>the destruction of the Templars, actively engaging in machinations to
>>>restore this Sacred Bloodline to the French throne!). Art believes (or
>>>professes to believe) that I am an active member of the conspiracy in
>>>question, along with virtually every writer of note who ever lived,
>>>from A. Conan Doyle to Dr. Seuss, as well as many of the
>>>"Stratfordians" in this newsgroup. (For all I know, the Benevolent and
>>>Protective Order of Elks and the Order of Odd Fellows may be involved
>>>as well.)
Art Neuendorffer
>> This is essentually [sic] correct.
The above is essentially correct.
David L. Webb wrote:
> Only "essentually" correct, Art? Which bits would you alter?
1) It is a major conspiracy (as conspiracies go)
but I would never describe it as "monstrous."
2) The most important humanist authors that I am familiar with
[from Dr. Seuss to Chaucer] are involved.
Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
>>>>> Art professes to believe that the Shakespeare canon is the work of a
>>>>>monstrous conspiracy of Templars, Freemasons, Rosicrucians, and Priory
>>>>>of Sion adepts (for those not in the know concerning lunatic conspiracy
>>>>>theories, a hilarious paperback pulp-history by Baigent, Leigh, and
>>>>>Lincoln popularized the notion that Jesus and his consort Mary
>>>>>Magdalene had a child, whose descendants, settling in Provence,
>>>>>eventually became the Merovingian kings of France; the Priory is
>>>>>supposed to be a shadowy global conspiracy, in existence at least since
>>>>>the destruction of the Templars, actively engaging in machinations to
>>>>>restore this Sacred Bloodline to the French throne!). Art believes (or
>>>>>professes to believe) that I am an active member of the conspiracy in
>>>>>question, along with virtually every writer of note who ever lived,
>>>>
>>>>>from A. Conan Doyle to Dr. Seuss, as well as many of the
>>>>
>>>>>"Stratfordians" in this newsgroup. (For all I know, the Benevolent and
>>>>>Protective Order of Elks and the Order of Odd Fellows may be involved
>>>>>as well.)
>>>> This is essentually [sic] correct.
>> The above is essentially correct.
>>David L. Webb wrote:
>>
>>> Only "essentually" correct, Art? Which bits would you alter?
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>>1) It is a major conspiracy (as conspiracies go)
>> but I would never describe it as "monstrous."
>>
>>2) The most important humanist authors that I am familiar with
>> [from Dr. Seuss to Chaucer] are involved.
David L. Webb wrote:
> I've asked you many times before, Art, but so far I still have not
> received a satisfactory answer: Can you enumerate some prominent
> English (or Russian) writers who were NOT involved in the conspiracy?
I can give you writers who were CLEARLY involved in the conspiracy:
1) Milton
2) Dickens
3) Puskin
I don't see how you can ask for more.
> Are there any h.l.a.s. "Stratfordians" who are not involved?
No regular h.l.a.s. "Stratfordian" seems dumb enough to seriously
believe in the Stratman. I think we can rule out Reedy's son as being
involved:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
<<My 14-year-old is giving me trouble--the usual ersatz teenage angst.
He doesn't want to accept his occupation being already chosen for him. I
told him it was like the Phantom--the ghost who walks--& that it was an
honor to be born into a family with a 400-year old mission, but he just
sulks off & gets on the computer. I'm sure he'll come around--we all
do, eventually.
Well, that's about it for now. Brenda says to tell the family
"hi" & that we'll see you all in Stratford in April. - Tom Reedy>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> A related question: What do you call a conspiracy in which eVERyone
> on the planet -- except you and a handful of fellow eccentrics --
> is involved? [Hint: Look up "delusion" in a good dictionary, Art.]
From THE DEVIL'S DICTIONARY
DELUSION, n. The father of a most respectable family, comprising
Enthusiasm, Affection, Self-denial, Faith, Hope, Charity
and many other goodly sons and daughters.
"All hail, Delusion! Were it not for thee The world turned topsy-turvy
we should see; For Vice, respectable with cleanly fancies,
Would fly abandoned Virtue's gross advances." -- Mumfrey Mappel
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
J. Karlin
> DELUSION, n. The father of a most respectable family
Maybe not everyone harbored there is legitimately a member
of that family of course.
I note that you have made frequent use of my website and
have quoted content from it here.
What point were you hoping to support or illustrate by
the use of my comments?
(jk)
**********************************************
Read jk's Tarot FAQ:
http://jktarot.com/faq.html
Read The most important Tarot essays ever written:
http://jktarot.com/jkbooks.html
**********************************************
Elizabeth Weir
Witty.
Elizabeth Weir
So how does the Catholic radical Oxford find himself in
the anti-Catholic masonic conspiracies?
Art Neuendorffer
> So how does the Catholic radical Oxford find himself
> in the anti-Catholic masonic conspiracies?
If you are spying on Catholics for Cecil then it doesn't hurt to send
rumors out that you have Catholic leanings.
Art
Art Neuendorffer
>
>>DELUSION, n. The father of a most respectable family
J. Karlin wrote:
> Maybe not everyone harbored there is legitimately a member
> of that family of course.
>
> I note that you have made frequent use of my website and
> have quoted content from it here.
>
> What point were you hoping to support or illustrate by
> the use of my comments?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Great Masonic interpretation of "HETH"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://jktarot.com/chariotser.html
<<Look at some of the symbolic elements in the Waite *CHARIOT* Card?
What about that canopy thing with the stars? Now, what's
actually being represented by this canopy is what the Freemasons
called the 'Covering of the LODGE', otherwise known as
the 'clouded' or 'celestial' canopy. The stone and the
8-pointed star on the CHARIOTeer's head refer to the same idea?
the cube is 2 'cubed' or 8 = and that is the number of C-HETH,
the kabbalistic number of this card but also refers to
the Masonic 'ashlar' or the 'perfect ashlar'.
In Speculative Masonry an 'ashlar' is freestone as it comes out of
the quarry. A 'rough ashlar' is a stone in its 'rude & unpolished'
condition => that is: ignorant, uncultivated and vicious man.
But after one is 'smoothed and polished' by education and one
learns to restrain (or 'temper') ones passions, he is represented
by the 'Perfect Ashlar', the smoothed & squared stone,
fitted into its place in the TEMPLE or in the CHARIOT.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
HETH n : the 8th letter of the Hebrew alphabet
http://www.fortunecity.com/roswell/leadbeater/0/heth.htm
<<HETH is an energy that issues from the Great Mother into the
abstract mental body of microcosmic man. HVH (Eve) exemplifies
one specific aspect of the full IHVH creative formula.>>
H H
probability of: E T given 6: * * in Rollett
T * E * * * arrays: 1/709
H E T H H E T H
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gregorian year ~ 365 + [Heth = 8] / [Sonnet 33]
--------------------------------------------------------------
<= SONNET 33 =>
/T/ O T /H\ EONLIEBEGE /T/ TEROFTHESEINSUINGS
/O/ N N /E T\ SMRWHALL /H/ APPINESSEANDTHATETE
/R/ N I /T(I)E\ PROMIS /E/ DBYOUREVERLIVINGPOET
/W/ I S /H_E_T_H\ THEW /E/ LLWISHINGADVENTURERIN
S E /T T I N G fo/rT/ HTT
T O T H/E/ O /N/LIEB/E/G E TTER *oF* THES/E/IN
\S\U I N/G/ S /O/NNET/ß/MRW\H\ ALLH *A* PPI/N/ESS
\E\A N/D/ T /H/ATET/E/RNITI\E\ PRO *M* IS/E/DBYO
\U\R/E/ V /E/RLIV/I/NGPOETW\I\ SH *E* T/H/THEWE
\L L/ W /I/SHIN/G/ADVENTURE\R\ IN /S/ETTING
\F/ O /R/THTT . . . . . . . TOTH
*E.O* NLIE BEGET[T]E ROFTHESEI
/N/*S* UING SONNE[T]S M RWHALLH
/A/p[P*I* NES [S]EAND[T]HA\T\ ETERN
/I/Ti[Ep *R* OM [I]SEDB{Y}OUR\E\ VER
/L/IVi[N]gp *O.E*[T]WISH{E}THTH\E\ W
/E/LLWi[S]hing [A]DVEN{T}URERI\N\
SETTIn G FORT HTT
*E.O* , *R I S E*!
I will not LODGE thee by *S P E N S*
http://www.sirbacon.org/gallery/pyramid.html
"Throned in celestial *SHEEN.* " --Milton.
"His shoulders, *FLEDGE* with wings." --Milton.
"Dear son of MEMORY, great *HEIR of FAME*,
Under a STAR-y-pointing *PYRAMID* " -- Milton (1630)
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shakespeares Sonnets begins with an unusual Dedication:
TO.THE.ONLIE.BEGETTER.OF.
THESE. INSUING. SONNETS.
Mr.W.H. ALL.HAPPINESSE.
AND.THAT.ETERNITIE.
PROMISED.
BY.
OUR.EVERLIVING.POET.
WISHETH.
THE.WELL-WISHING.
ADVENTURER.IN.
SETTING.
FORTH.
----------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
>>>Are there any h.l.a.s. "Stratfordians" who are not involved?
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>> No regular h.l.a.s. "Stratfordian" seems dumb enough to seriously
>>believe in the Stratman. I think we can rule out Reedy's son as being
>>involved:
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>><<My 14-year-old is giving me trouble--the usual ersatz teenage angst.
>>He doesn't want to accept his occupation being already chosen for him. I
>>told him it was like the Phantom--the ghost who walks--& that it was an
>>honor to be born into a family with a 400-year old mission, but he just
>>sulks off & gets on the computer. I'm sure he'll come around--we all
>>do, eventually.
>>
>> Well, that's about it for now. Brenda says to tell the family
>> "hi" & that we'll see you all in Stratford in April. - Tom Reedy>>
>Dwebb wrote:
> One hesitates to explain Tom's joke, particularly when
> you so obligingly exhibit the paranoia I've mentioned, Art.
I just hope that Tom O.K.'d it with Brenda first.
Art Neuendorffer
Elizabeth Weir
There's no evidence that Oxford was spying for Burghley.
The Jesuits would not fake Oxford's reconciliation
to Catholicism to please Burghley, Art.
Art Neuendorffer
>>
>>>So how does the Catholic radical Oxford find himself
>>> in the anti-Catholic masonic conspiracies?
> Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> If you are spying on Catholics for Cecil then it doesn't hurt
>> to send rumors out that you have Catholic leanings.
Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> There's no evidence that Oxford was spying for Burghley.
There's no evidence that Saddam Hussein didn't just
honestly win a unanimous re-election vote for Presidency.
> The Jesuits would not fake Oxford's reconciliation
> to Catholicism to please Burghley, Art.
The Jesuits would have overwhelmed England if Burghley
and friends hadn't outsmarted them.
Art
Art Neuendorffer
>>>>If you are spying on Catholics for Cecil then it doesn't hurt
>>>> to send rumors out that you have Catholic leanings.
>>>
>>Elizabeth Weir wrote:
>>
>>>There's no evidence that Oxford was spying for Burghley.
>>
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>> There's no evidence that Saddam Hussein didn't just
>>honestly win a unanimous re-election vote for Presidency.
David L. Webb wrote:
> There's plenty of evidence that the Iraqi election was not honest,
> Art; you must lead a sheltered life inside that padded cell, with only
> VERy limited access to the mass media.
What evidence is that, Dave?
>>Elizabeth Weir wrote:
>>>The Jesuits would not fake Oxford's reconciliation
>>> to Catholicism to please Burghley, Art.
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>> The Jesuits would have overwhelmed England if Burghley
>> and friends hadn't outsmarted them.
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> The Jesuits were ignominiously expelled from Argentina, a staunchly
> Catholic nation in which the Society of Jesus was far more active,
> enjoyed a FAR firmer foothold, and commanded far more extensive
> resources than in Tudor England. MoreoVER, this forced expulsion was
> effected by Carlos III of Spain, from the remoteness of a far distant
> continent in a different hemisphere, not by Elizabeth I of England from
> within her own comparatively small insular nation.
A very small insular nation.
>
> As usual, Art's "Clueless Cretin" persona has no idea what he is
> talking about. There is no earthly reason to conclude that, but for
> Burghley, the Jesuits would have "overwhelmed England"; such a
> conclusion is pure, idiotic speculation,
The same pure speculation that tells me that the illiterate
Stratford boob didn't write Shake-speare & that Saddam Hussein
didn't honestly win a unanimous re-election vote for Presidency.
Art Neuendorffer
Greg Reynolds
Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> Elizabeth Weir wrote:
>
> > There's no evidence that Oxford was spying for Burghley.
>
> There's no evidence that Saddam Hussein didn't just
> honestly win a unanimous re-election vote for Presidency.
They are crediting his highly effective campaign slogan:
"Are you better off now than you were four thousand years ago?"
Art Neuendorffer
>>>There's no evidence that Oxford was spying for Burghley.
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>
>> There's no evidence that Saddam Hussein didn't just
>> honestly win a unanimous re-election vote for Presidency.
Greg Reynolds wrote:
> They are crediting his highly effective campaign slogan:
> "Are you better off now than you were four thousand years ago?"
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
You mean way back when they had laws?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Babylonian kingdom flourished under King Hammurabi (1792-1750 BC)
Translated by L.W. King (1910)
http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM
When Anu the Sublime, King of the Anunaki, and Bel, the lord of
Heaven and earth, who decreed the fate of the land, assigned to Marduk,
the over-ruling son of Ea, God of righteousness, dominion over earthly
man, and made him great among the Igigi, they called Babylon by his
illustrious name, made it great on earth, and founded an everlasting
kingdom in it, whose foundations are laid so solidly as those of heaven
and earth; then Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted
prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the
land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong
should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed
people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being
of mankind. Hammurabi, the prince,. . ., the sun of Babylon, whose rays
shed light over the land of Sumer and Akkad; the king, obeyed by the
four quarters of the world; Beloved of Ninni, am I. When Marduk sent me
to rule over men, to give the protection of right to the land, I did
right and righteousness in . . . , and brought about the well-being of
the oppressed.
2
If any one bring an accusation against a man, and the accused go to
the river and leap into the river, if he sink in the river his accuser
shall take possession of his house. But if the river prove that the
accused is not guilty, and he escape unhurt, then he who had brought the
accusation shall be put to death, while he who leaped into the river
shall take possession of the house that had belonged to his accuser.
9
If any one lose an article, and find it in the possession of
another: if the person in whose possession the thing is found say "A
merchant sold it to me, I paid for it before witnesses," and if the
owner of the thing say, "I will bring witnesses who know my property,"
then shall the purchaser bring the merchant who sold it to him, and the
witnesses before whom he bought it, and the owner shall bring witnesses
who can identify his property. The judge shall examine their
testimony-both of the witnesses before whom the price was paid, and of
the witnesses who identify the lost article on oath. The merchant is
then proved to be a thief and shall be put to death. The owner of the
lost article receives his property, and he who bought it receives the
money he paid from the estate of the merchant.
10
If the purchaser does not bring the merchant and the witnesses
before whom he bought the article, but its owner bring witnesses who
identify it, then the buyer is the thief and shall be put to death, and
the owner receives the lost article.
11
If the owner do not bring witnesses to identify the lost article, he
is an evil-doer, he has traduced, and shall be put to death.
14
If any one steal the minor son of another, he shall be put to death.
21
If any one break a hole into a house (break in to steal), he shall
be put to death before that hole and be buried.
23
If the robber is not caught, then shall he who was robbed claim
under oath the amount of his loss; then shall the community, and . . .
on whose ground and territory and in whose domain it was compensate him
for the goods stolen.
25
If fire break out in a house, and some one who comes to put it out
cast his eye upon the property of the owner of the house, and take the
property of the master of the house, he shall be thrown into that
self-same fire.
108
If a tavern-keeper (feminine) does not accept corn according to
gross weight in payment of drink, but takes money, and the price of the
drink is less than that of the corn, she shall be convicted and thrown
into the water.
109
If conspirators meet in the house of a tavern-keeper, and these
conspirators are not captured and delivered to the court, the
tavern-keeper shall be put to death.
126
If any one who has not lost his goods state that they have been
lost, and make false claims: if he claim his goods and amount of injury
before God, even though he has not lost them, he shall be fully
compensated for all his loss claimed. (I.e., the oath is all that is
needed.)
127
If any one "point the finger" (slander) at a sister of a god or the
wife of any one, and can not prove it, this man shall be taken before
the judges and his brow shall be marked. (by cutting the skin, or
perhaps hair.)
129
If a man's wife be surprised (in flagrante delicto) with another
man, both shall be tied and thrown into the water, but the husband may
pardon his wife and the king his slaves.
132
If the "finger is pointed" at a man's wife about another man, but
she is not caught sleeping with the other man, she shall jump into the
river for her husband.
133
If a man is taken prisoner in war, and there is a sustenance in his
house, but his wife leave house and court, and go to another house:
because this wife did not keep her court, and went to another house, she
shall be judicially condemned and thrown into the water.
135
If a man be taken prisoner in war and there be no sustenance in his
house and his wife go to another house and bear children; and if later
her husband return and come to his home: then this wife shall return to
her husband, but the children follow their father.
142
If a woman quarrel with her husband, and say: "You are not congenial
to me," the reasons for her prejudice must be presented. If she is
guiltless, and there is no fault on her part, but he leaves and neglects
her, then no guilt attaches to this woman, she shall take her dowry and
go back to her father's house.
143
If she is not innocent, but leaves her husband, and ruins her house,
neglecting her husband, this woman shall be cast into the water.
153
If the wife of one man on account of another man has their mates
(her husband and the other man's wife) murdered, both of them shall be
impaled.
154
If a man be guilty of incest with his daughter, he shall be driven
from the place (exiled).
155
If a man betroth a girl to his son, and his son have intercourse
with her, but he (the father) afterward defile her, and be surprised,
then he shall be bound and cast into the water (drowned).
157
If any one be guilty of incest with his mother after his father,
both shall be burned.
192
If a son of a paramour or a prostitute say to his adoptive father or
mother: "You are not my father, or my mother," his tongue shall be cut
off.
193
If the son of a paramour or a prostitute desire his father's house,
and desert his adoptive father and adoptive mother, and goes to his
father's house, then shall his eye be put out.
194
If a man give his child to a nurse and the child die in her hands,
but the nurse unbeknown to the father and mother nurse another child,
then they shall convict her of having nursed another child without the
knowledge of the father and mother and her breasts shall be cut off.
195
If a son strike his father, his hands shall be hewn off.
196
If a man put out the eye of another man, his eye shall be put out. [
An eye for an eye ]
215
If a physician make a large incision with an operating knife and
cure it, or if he open a tumor (over the eye) with an operating knife,
and saves the eye, he shall receive ten shekels in money.
218
If a physician make a large incision with the operating knife, and
kill him, or open a tumor with the operating knife, and cut out the eye,
his hands shall be cut off.
226
If a barber, without the knowledge of his master, cut the sign of a
slave on a slave not to be sold, the hands of this barber shall be cut
off.
227
If any one deceive a barber, and have him mark a slave not for sale
with the sign of a slave, he shall be put to death, and buried in his
house. The barber shall swear: "I did not mark him wittingly," and shall
be guiltless.
229
If a builder build a house for some one, and does not construct it
properly, and the house which he built fall in and kill its owner, then
that builder shall be put to death.
244
If any one hire an ox or an ass, and a lion kill it in the field,
the loss is upon its owner.
If any one hire oxen, and kill them by bad treatment or blows, he
shall compensate the owner, oxen for oxen.
If a man hire an ox, and he break its leg or cut the ligament of its
neck, he shall compensate the owner with ox for ox.
If any one hire an ox, and put out its eye, he shall pay the owner
one-half of its value.
If any one hire an ox, and break off a horn, or cut off its tail, or
hurt its muzzle, he shall pay one-fourth of its value in money.
If any one hire an ox, and God strike it that it die, the man who
hired it shall swear by God and be considered guiltless.
If while an ox is passing on the street (market) some one push it,
and kill it, the owner can set up no claim in the suit (against the
hirer).
If an ox be a goring ox, and it shown that he is a gorer, and he do
not bind his horns, or fasten the ox up, and the ox gore a free-born man
and kill him, the owner shall pay one-half a mina in money.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about 2500 years ago
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://ce.eng.usf.edu/pharos/wonders/gardens.html
The approach to the Garden sloped like a hillside and the several parts
of the structure rose from one another tier on tier... On all this, the
earth had been piled... and was thickly planted with trees of every
kind that, by their great size and other charm, gave pleasure to the
beholder... The water machines [raised] the water in great
abundance from the river, although no one outside could see it.
-- Diodorus Siculus
Fruits and flowers... Waterfalls... Gardens hanging from the palace
terraces... Exotic animals... This is the picture of the Hanging Gardens
of Babylon in most people's minds. It may be surprising to know that
they might have never existed except in the minds of Greek poets and
historians!
Location: On the east bank of the River Euphrates,
about 50 km south of Baghdad, Iraq.
History
The Babylonian kingdom flourished under the rule of the famous King,
Hammurabi (1792-1750 BC). It was not until the reign of Naboplashar
(625-605 BC) of the Neo-Babylonian dynasty that the Mesopotamian
civilization reached its ultimate glory. His son, Nebuchadnezzar II
(604-562 BC) is credited for building the legendary Hanging Gardens. It
is said that the Gardens were built by Nebuchadnezzar to please his wife
or concubine who had been "brought up in Media and had a passion for
mountain surroundings".
While the most descriptive accounts of the Gardens come from Greek
historians such as Berossus and Diodorus Siculus, Babylonian records
stay silent on the matter. Tablets from the time of Nebuchadnezzar do
not have a single reference to the Hanging Gardens, although
descriptions of his palace, the city of Babylon, and the walls are
found. Even the historians who give detailed descriptions of the Hanging
Gardens never saw them. Modern historians argue that when Alexander's
soldiers reached the fertile land of Mesopotamia and saw Babylon, they
were impressed. When they later returned to their rugged homeland, they
had stories to tell about the amazing gardens and palm trees at
Mesopotamia.. About the palace of Nebuchadnezzar.. About the Tower of
Babel and the ziggurats. And it was the imagination of poets and ancient
historians that blended all these elements together to produce one of
the World Wonders.
It wasn't until the twentieth century that some of the mysteries
surrounding the Hanging Gardens were revealed. Archaeologists are still
struggling to gather enough evidence before reaching the final
conclusions about the location of the Gardens, their irrigation system,
and their true appearance. Some recent researchers even suggest that the
Hanging Gardens were built by Senaherib, not by Nebuchadnezzar II (ca.
100 years earlier).
Description
Detailed descriptions of the Gardens come from ancient Greek sources,
including the writings of Strabo and Philo of Byzantium. Here are some
excerpts from their accounts:
"The Garden is quadrangular, and each side is four plethra long. It
consists of arched vaults which are located on checkered cube-like
foundations.. The ascent of the uppermost terrace-roofs is made by a
stairway..."
"The Hanging Garden has plants cultivated above ground level, and
the roots of the trees are embedded in an upper terrace rather than in
the earth. The whole mass is supported on stone columns... Streams of
water emerging from elevated sources flow down sloping channels... These
waters irrigate the whole garden saturating the roots of plants and
keeping the whole area moist. Hence the grass is permanently green and
the leaves of trees grow firmly attached to supple branches... This is a
work of art of royal luxury and its most striking feature is that the
labor of cultivation is suspended above the heads of the spectators".
More recent archaeological excavations at the ancient city of Babylon
in Iraq uncovered the foundation of the palace. Other findings include
the Vaulted Building with thick walls and an irrigation well near the
southern palace. A group of archaeologists surveyed the area of the
southern palace and reconstructed the Vaulted Building as the Hanging
Gardens. However, the Greek historian Strabo had stated that the gardens
were situated by the River Euphrates. So others argue that the site is
too far from the Euphrates to support the theory since the Vaulted
Building is several hundreds of meters away. They reconstructed the site
of the palace and located the Gardens in the area stretching from the
River to the Palace. On the river banks, recently discovered massive
walls 25 m thick may have been stepped to form terraces... the ones
described in Greek references.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hanging Gardens of Babylon
http://www.unmuseum.org/hangg.htm
The ancient city of Babylon, under King Nebuchadnezzar II, must have
been a wonder to the traveler's eyes. "In addition to its size," wrote
Herodotus, a historian in 450 BC, "Babylon surpasses in splendor any
city in the known world."
Herodotus claimed the outer walls were 56 miles in length, 80 feet
thick and 320 feet high. Wide enough, he said, to allow a four-horse
chariot to turn. The inner walls were "not so thick as the first, but
hardly less strong." Inside the walls were fortresses and temples
containing immense statues of solid gold. Rising above the city was the
famous Tower of Babel, a temple to the god Marduk, that seemed to reach
to the heavens.
While archaeological examination has disputed some of Herodotus's
claims (the outer walls seem to be only 10 miles long and not nearly as
high) his narrative does give us a sense of how awesome the features of
the city appeared to those that visited it. Interestingly enough,
though, one of the city's most spectacular sites is not even mentioned
by Herodotus: The Hanging Gardens of Babylon, one of the Seven Wonders
of the Ancient World.
Accounts indicate that the garden was built by King Nebuchadnezzar,
who ruled the city for 43 years starting in 605 BC (There is a
less-reliable, alternative story that the gardens were built by the
Assyrian Queen Semiramis during her five year reign starting in 810 BC).
This was the height of the city's power and influence and King
Nebuchadnezzar constructed an astonishing array of temples, streets,
palaces and walls.
According to accounts, the gardens were built to cheer up
Nebuchadnezzar's homesick wife, Amyitis. Amyitis, daughter of the king
of the Medes, was married to Nebuchadnezzar to create an alliance
between the nations. The land she came from, though, was green, rugged
and mountainous, and she found the flat, sun-baked terrain of
Mesopotamia depressing. The king decided to recreate her homeland by
building an artificial mountain with rooftop gardens.
The Hanging Gardens probably did not really "hang" in the sense of
being suspended from cables or ropes. The name comes from an inexact
translation of the Greek word kremastos or the Latin word pensilis,
which mean not just "hanging", but "overhanging" as in the case of a
terrace or balcony.
The Greek geographer Strabo, who described the gardens in first century
BC, wrote, "It consists of vaulted terraces raised one above another,
and resting upon cube-shaped pillars. These are hollow and filled with
earth to allow trees of the largest size to be planted. The pillars, the
vaults, and terraces are constructed of baked brick and asphalt."
"The ascent to the highest story is by stairs, and at their side are
water engines, by means of which persons, appointed expressly for the
purpose, are continually employed in raising water from the Euphrates
into the garden."
Strabo touchs on what, to the ancients, was probably the most amazing
part of the garden. Babylon rarely received rain and for the garden to
survive it would have had to been irrigated by using water from the
nearby Euphrates River. That meant lifting the water far into the air so
it could flow down through the terraces, watering the plants at each
level. This was probably done by means of a "chain pump."
Construction of the garden wasn't only complicated by getting the water
up to the top, but also by having to avoid having the liquid ruin the
foundation once it was released. Since stone was difficult to get on the
Mesopotamian plain, most of the architecture in Babel utilized brick.
The bricks were composed of clay mixed with chopped straw and baked in
the sun. The bricks were then joined with bitumen, a slimy substance,
which acted as a mortar. These bricks quickly dissolved when soaked with
water. For most buildings in Babel this wasn't a problem because rain
was so rare. However, the gardens were continually exposed to irrigation
and the foundation had to be protected.
Diodorus Siculus, a Greek historian, stated that the platforms on which
the garden stood consisted of huge slabs of stone (otherwise unheard of
in Babel), covered with layers of reed, asphalt and tiles. Over this was
put "a covering with sheets of lead, that the wet which drenched through
the earth might not rot the foundation. Upon all these was laid earth of
a convenient depth, sufficient for the growth of the greatest trees.
When the soil was laid even and smooth, it was planted with all sorts of
trees, which both for greatness and beauty might delight the spectators."
How big were the gardens? Diodorus tells us it was about 400 feet wide
by 400 feet long and more than 80 feet high. Other accounts indicate the
height was equal to the outer city walls. Walls that Herodotus said were
320 feet high.
In any case the gardens were an amazing sight: A green, leafy,
artificial mountain rising off the plain. But did it actually exist?
After all, Herodotus never mentions it.
This was one of the questions that occurred to German archaeologist
Robert Koldewey in 1899. For centuries before that the ancient city of
Babelwas nothing but a mound of muddy debris. Though unlike many ancient
locations, the city's position was well-known, nothing visible remained
of its architecture. Koldewey dug on the Babel site for some fourteen
years and unearthed many of its features including the outer walls,
inner walls, foundation of the Tower of Babel, Nebuchadnezzar's palaces
and the wide processional roadway which passed through the heart of the
city.
While excavating the Southern Citadel, Koldewey discovered a basement
with fourteen large rooms with stone arch ceilings. Ancient records
indicated that only two locations in the city had made use of stone, the
north wall of the Northern Citadel, and the Hanging Gardens. The north
wall of the Northern Citadel had already been found and had, indeed,
contained stone. This made it seem likely that Koldewey had found the
cellar of the gardens.
He continued exploring the area and discovered many of the features
reported by Diodorus. Finally a room was unearthed with three large,
strange holes in the floor. Koldewey concluded this had been the
location of the chain pumps that raised the water to the garden's roof.
The foundations that Koldewey discovered measured some 100 by 150 feet.
Smaller than the measurements described by ancient historians, but
still impressive.
While Koldewey was convinced he'd found the gardens, some modern
archaeologists call his discovery into question arguing that this
location is too far from the river to have be irrigated with the amount
of water that would have been required. Also tablets recently found at
the site suggest that the location was used for administrative and/or
storage purposes, not as a pleasure garden.
Wherever the location of the gardens were, we can only wonder if Queen
Amyitis was happy with her fantastic present, or if she continued to
pine for the green mountains of her homeland.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
>>
>>>>>>If you are spying on Catholics for Cecil then it doesn't hurt
>>>>>> to send rumors out that you have Catholic leanings.
>>>>
>>>>Elizabeth Weir wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>There's no evidence that Oxford was spying for Burghley.
>>>>
>>>Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>>
>>>> There's no evidence that Saddam Hussein didn't just
>>>>honestly win a unanimous re-election vote for Presidency.
>>>
>> David L. Webb wrote:
>>
>>> There's plenty of evidence that the Iraqi election was not honest,
>>>Art; you must lead a sheltered life inside that padded cell, with only
>>>VERy limited access to the mass media.
>>
>> What evidence is that, Dave?
>
David L. Webb wrote:
>
> Numerous press personnel have reported that the polling stations
> afford no privacy, that voters are shown which box to check, that the
> intimidation of a one-party police state is omnipresent, that only one
> candidate appears on the ballot, and other irregularities inconsistent
> with honest elections.
Coincidental evidence.
Here is the official direct evidence:
<<According to Vice Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council Izzat
Ibrahim, there are 11,445,638 registered voters in Iraq. This morning he
said that every single one of them turned out to vote, and every single
one of them voted "Yes" for their president, Saddam Hussein.
A substantial number of voters didn't just tick a box, they pricked
the pads of their thumbs and gave Saddam their vote in blood!>>
>> >>Elizabeth Weir wrote:
>>
>>>>>The Jesuits would not fake Oxford's reconciliation
>>>>> to Catholicism to please Burghley, Art.
>>>>
>>>Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>>
>>>> The Jesuits would have overwhelmed England if Burghley
>>>> and friends hadn't outsmarted them.
>>>
>>Dwebb wrote:
>>
>>> The Jesuits were ignominiously expelled from Argentina, a staunchly
>>>Catholic nation in which the Society of Jesus was far more active,
>>>enjoyed a FAR firmer foothold, and commanded far more extensive
>>>resources than in Tudor England. MoreoVER, this forced expulsion was
>>>effected by Carlos III of Spain, from the remoteness of a far distant
>>>continent in a different hemisphere, not by Elizabeth I of England
>>> from within her own comparatively small insular nation.
>>
>
> The following line is the one written by Art Neuendorffer
> (aneuendor...@comicass.nut):
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>> A very small insular nation.
Ergo: one that had to protect itself by lying & confusion.
> Yes, and moreoVER a nation that had been nominally Protestant long
> before Elizabeth assumed the throne. Thus it should not have been
> particularly difficult to prevent the Jesuits from "overwhelm[ing]"
> England -- if Carlos III could expel an already entrenched and
> influential Jesuit presence in a sympathetic and staunchly Catholic
> country in another hemisphere, then Elizabeth should have had little
> difficulty. You're undermining your own "argument," Art!
>>Dwebb wrote:
>>> As usual, Art's "Clueless Cretin" persona has no idea what he is
>>>talking about. There is no earthly reason to conclude that, but for
>>>Burghley, the Jesuits would have "overwhelmed England"; such a
>>>conclusion is pure, idiotic speculation,
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>> The same pure speculation that tells me that the illiterate
>> Stratford boob didn't write Shake-speare & that Saddam Hussein
>> didn't honestly win a unanimous re-election vote for Presidency.
Dwebb wrote:
> There is EVIDENCE for your speculation concerning Hussein;
Plausible speculation. The official direct evidence is rather:
<<According to Vice Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council Izzat
Ibrahim, there are 11,445,638 registered voters in Iraq. This morning he
said that every single one of them turned out to vote, and every single
one of them voted "Yes" for their president, Saddam Hussein.
A substantial number of voters didn't just tick a box, they pricked
the pads of their thumbs and gave Saddam their vote in blood!>>
Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
>>>>>> There's no evidence that Saddam Hussein didn't just
>>>>>>honestly win a unanimous re-election vote for Presidency.
>>>>>
>
>>>>David L. Webb wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> There's plenty of evidence that the Iraqi election was not honest,
>>>>>Art; you must lead a sheltered life inside that padded cell,
>>>>> with only VERy limited access to the mass media.
>>>>
>>>Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>>
>>>> What evidence is that, Dave?
>>>
>>David L. Webb wrote:
>>
>>> Numerous press personnel have reported that the polling stations
>>>afford no privacy, that voters are shown which box to check, that the
>>>intimidation of a one-party police state is omnipresent, that only one
>>>candidate appears on the ballot, and other irregularities inconsistent
>>>with honest elections.
>>
>> Coincidental evidence.
>
> What do you mean by "coincidental evidence"?
------------------------------------------------------------------
1) polling stations afford no privacy, => a matter of opinion
2) voters are shown which box to check => if only the Florida primary
had provided such information!
3) intimidation of a one-party police state is omnipresent => security
4) that only one candidate appears on the ballot => only one candidate
decided to run.
5) and other irregularities inconsistent with honest elections.
=> a matter of opinion
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Here is the official direct evidence:
>>
>><<According to Vice Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council Izzat
>>Ibrahim, there are 11,445,638 registered voters in Iraq. This morning he
>>said that every single one of them turned out to vote, and every single
>>one of them voted "Yes" for their president, Saddam Hussein.
>>A substantial number of voters didn't just tick a box, they pricked
>> the pads of their thumbs and gave Saddam their vote in blood!>>
>
> As I said, there is copious direct evidence from western journalists
> in Baghdad and elsewhere who actually observed the polling in progress
> suggesting that the election was not fair.
Only *suggesting* that the election was not fair!
> The soi-disant "official"
> results are not the ONLY credible evidence, _pace_ the boundless
> ignorance and comic naďveté of aneuendor...@comicass.nut.
The soi-disant "official" opinion of the Stratford Trust
provides the ONLY credible evidence, _pace_ the boundless
ignorance and comic naďveté of DW...@Dart-mouth.emu
>>>>>Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>The Jesuits would have overwhelmed England if Burghley
>>>>>> and friends hadn't outsmarted them.
>>>>>
>>>>Dwebb wrote:
>>>>> The Jesuits were ignominiously expelled from Argentina, a staunchly
>>>>>Catholic nation in which the Society of Jesus was far more active,
>>>>>enjoyed a FAR firmer foothold, and commanded far more extensive
>>>>>resources than in Tudor England. MoreoVER, this forced expulsion was
>>>>>effected by Carlos III of Spain, from the remoteness of a far distant
>>>>>continent in a different hemisphere, not by Elizabeth I of England
>>>>> from within her own comparatively small insular nation.
>>>Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>>>> A very small insular nation.
>>>> Ergo: one that had to protect itself by lying & confusion.
> By no means -- England defended itself militarily, with stunning
> success. Evidently you haven't heard about the destruction of
> Spain's supposedly invincible armada by English naval forces, Art
Weather or not this constitutes a real military victory is a matter
of opinion.
>>>>Dwebb wrote:
>>>
>>>>> There is no earthly reason to conclude that, but for
>>>>>Burghley, the Jesuits would have "overwhelmed England"; such a
>>>>>conclusion is pure, idiotic speculation,
>>>>
>>>Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>>
>>>> The same pure speculation that tells me that the illiterate
>>>> Stratford boob didn't write Shake-speare & that Saddam Hussein
>>>> didn't honestly win a unanimous re-election vote for Presidency.
>>>
>>Dwebb wrote:
>>
>>> There is EVIDENCE for your speculation concerning Hussein;
>>
>> Plausible speculation.
>
> No, there is *direct evidence* from disinterested observers on the
> scene.
You mean the sort of "disinterested observers"
as those who create PBS specials:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shakespeare/debates/gtedebate.html
>>The official direct evidence is rather:
>>
>><<According to Vice Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council Izzat
>>Ibrahim, there are 11,445,638 registered voters in Iraq. This morning he
>>said that every single one of them turned out to vote, and every single
>>one of them voted "Yes" for their president, Saddam Hussein.
>>A substantial number of voters didn't just tick a box, they pricked
>> the pads of their thumbs and gave Saddam their vote in blood!>>
>
>
> Precisely what makes this evidence "direct" when the evidence of
> journalists actually present at polling places is just as direct?
Izzat is in a position to know and provides precise numbers.
Besides, why would important officials lie?
> What
> is it about the "official" account's official status that inspires such
> credulous reliance upon propaganda? You exhibit a VERy peculiar
> reVERence for "official" accounts, Art.
What is it about the Stratford Trust's official status that inspires
such credulous reliance upon propaganda? You exhibit a VERy peculiar
reVERence for "official" accounts, Dave.
> But if you are persuaded of the legitimacy of the Iraqi election by
> the "official" account, and if you are moreoVER ignorant of or prone to
> dismiss copious direct evidence to the contrary, then perhaps you're
> also persuaded of the legitimacy of the "offical" Genesis account of
> creation and ignorant of or prone to dismiss copious direct evidence to
> the contrary.
Biblical scholars almost unanimously accept the literal truth
of the Bible; why would important officials lie?
Art Neuendorffer
Lorenzo4344
>From: Art Neuendorffer aneuendor...@comcast.net
>Date: 10/18/2002
David Webb wrote:
>> What
>> is it about the "official" account's official status that inspires such
>> credulous reliance upon propaganda? You exhibit a VERy peculiar
>> reVERence for "official" accounts, Art.
>
> What is it about the Stratford Trust's official status that inspires
>such credulous reliance upon propaganda? You exhibit a VERy peculiar
>reVERence for "official" accounts, Dave.
>
>> But if you are persuaded of the legitimacy of the Iraqi election by
>> the "official" account, and if you are moreoVER ignorant of or prone to
>> dismiss copious direct evidence to the contrary, then perhaps you're
>> also persuaded of the legitimacy of the "offical" Genesis account of
>> creation and ignorant of or prone to dismiss copious direct evidence to
>> the contrary.
>
> Biblical scholars almost unanimously accept the literal truth
> of the Bible; why would important officials lie?
>
>Art Neuendorffer
Give it up, Art, this is over his sober-sided head. I agree with you though. If
Izzat Jonson says every last man cast an honest vote for Saddam - and he is in
a position to know and provide precise numbers - all the other input indicating
some sort of fancied fix means absolutely nothing. Too conspiratorial in nature
for me. Besides, why would important officials lie?
Lorenzo
"Mark the music."
Art Neuendorffer
>>Subject: Re: Dummies guide to Neuendorffer
>>From: Art Neuendorffer aneuendor...@comcast.net
>>Date: 10/18/2002
>
>
> David Webb wrote:
>
>>>What
>>>is it about the "official" account's official status that inspires such
>>>credulous reliance upon propaganda? You exhibit a VERy peculiar
>>>reVERence for "official" accounts, Art.
>>
>> What is it about the Stratford Trust's official status that inspires
>>such credulous reliance upon propaganda? You exhibit a VERy peculiar
>>reVERence for "official" accounts, Dave.
>>
>>
>>> But if you are persuaded of the legitimacy of the Iraqi election by
>>>the "official" account, and if you are moreoVER ignorant of or prone to
>>>dismiss copious direct evidence to the contrary, then perhaps you're
>>>also persuaded of the legitimacy of the "offical" Genesis account of
>>>creation and ignorant of or prone to dismiss copious direct evidence to
>>>the contrary.
>>
>> Biblical scholars almost unanimously accept the literal truth
>> of the Bible; why would important officials lie?
Lorenzo4344 wrote:
> Give it up, Art, this is over his sober-sided head. I agree with you though. If
> Izzat Jonson says every last man cast an honest vote for Saddam - and he is in
> a position to know and provide precise numbers - all the other input indicating
> some sort of fancied fix means absolutely nothing. Too conspiratorial in nature
> for me. Besides, why would important officials lie?
I doubt that one of those skeptical foreign reporters
has even read the Koran!!
Art