Notes On Vandalism Of Wikipedia Shakespeare Authorship Page.
elizabeth
I have no problem with the writing style of the pages vandalized by a
hacker or hackers on Wikipedia, I would award it a "B" but the pages
themselves are riddled with factual errors not
to speak of a kind of odor of presumptiveness.
I would never presume to know what the Strats,
Derbyites, Baconians, Oxfordians or especially the Marlovians would
want the world to know about their authorship candidate, especially
the Marlovians since Farey terrifies me.
I'm only glad Farey lives in England.
In fact I think the vandals took the same cowardly
position as I would take, screw with the pages of factions you know
won't hurt you, but leave nothing amiss on the Marlovian page for
fear
of a verbal bruising from Farey.
While I don't think for an instant that Shaksper of
Stratford wrote Shakespeare, the record itself shows that this guy was
"too busy to write," he was engaged in multiple businesses, apparently
all very successful because this guy may have
arrived in London with a shilling in his pocket but he
died RICH
but in terms of deference to the Strats as well as
in terms of deference to how proofs are reeely made, it's my sense
that
Shaksper --- IS --- Shakespeare
until some faction brings forth probative evidence
to overturn the Strat claim.
That hasn't happened in this era, anyway.
Peter Farey
"elizabeth" wrote:
>
> I have no problem with the writing style of the pages
> vandalized by a hacker or hackers on Wikipedia, I would
> award it a "B" but the pages themselves are riddled with
> factual errors not to speak of a kind of odor of
> presumptiveness.
>
> I would never presume to know what the Strats, Derbyites,
> Baconians, Oxfordians or especially the Marlovians would
> want the world to know about their authorship candidate,
> especially the Marlovians since Farey terrifies me.
>
> I'm only glad Farey lives in England.
>
> In fact I think the vandals took the same cowardly
> position as I would take, screw with the pages of factions
> you know won't hurt you, but leave nothing amiss on the
> Marlovian page for fear of a verbal bruising from Farey.
Nah, I'm just a teddy bear once you know me. Obviously they
are just trying to make it look that I did it (but of course give
themselves away with only a 'B' for style).
Peter F.
<pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk>
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> Stratford wrote Shakespeare, the record itself shows that this guy was
> "too busy to write," he was engaged in multiple businesses, apparently
> all very successful because this guy may have
> arrived in London with a shilling in his pocket but he
> died RICH
What is more insane: the proposition that William
Shakespeare of Stratford was not an author OR
the proposition that he was a businessman?
Was the clergyman whose household sold grain in Stratford
not a clergyman but a businessman? Were all the people who
bought property in Shakespeare's time full-time businessmen?
I loaning someone money or granting him credit two or
three times in a lifetime and indication that a man was a
full-time businessman?
--Bob
art
>> wrote Shakespeare, the record itself shows that this guy was
>> "too busy to write," he was engaged in multiple businesses,
>> but he died RICH
"bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
> What is more insane: the proposition that William
> Shakespeare of Stratford was not an author OR
> the proposition that he was a businessman?
The most insane anti-Strat idea is that anyone would
have trusted or paid this fictitious bozo to act
as a front man.
"bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
> Was the clergyman whose household sold grain in Stratford
> not a clergyman but a businessman?
Yes.
"bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
> Were all the people who bought property
> in Shakespeare's time full-time businessmen?
Almost all of them were.
"bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
> I loaning someone money or granting him credit two or
> three times in a lifetime and indication that
> a man was a full-time businessman?
You are a full-time Goon Squad member, Bob.
--------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
art
>
>> I have no problem with the writing style of the pages
>> vandalized by a hacker or hackers on Wikipedia, I would
>> award it a "B" but the pages themselves are riddled
>> with factual errors not to speak of a kind of odor of
Do you mean *PRESUMPTUOUSNESS* ?
.....................................................
*PRESUMPTUOUSNESS* , n. The quality or state of being
*PRESUMPTUOUS* .
.....................................................
. All's Well That Ends Well > Act I, scene III
HELENA: I follow him not
. By any token of *PRESUMPTUOUS* suit;
-------------------------------------------------------
*PRESUMPTUOUS*, a. [L. praesumptuosus: OF. also *PRESUMPTUOUS* .]
. 1. Bold and confident to excess; adventuring without reasonable
ground of success; hazarding safety on too slight grounds; rash;
applied to persons; as a *PRESUMPTUOUS* commander.
. There is a class of *PRESUMPTUOUS* men whom age has not made
cautious, nor adversity wise.
------------------------------------------------------------
*PRESUMPTIVE* , a. Grounded on probable evidence.
. *PRESUMPTIVE* evidence, in law, is that which is derived from
circumstances which necessarily or usually attend a fact, as distinct
from direct evidence or positive proof.
. *PRESUMPTIVE* evidence of felony should be cautiously admitted.
. *PRESUMPTIVE* heir, one who would inherit an estate if the ancestor
should die with things in their present state, but whose right of
inheritance may be defeated by the birth of a nearer heir before the
death of the ancestor. Thus the presumptive succession of a brother or
nephew may be destroyed by the birth of a child. Presumptive heir is
distinguished from heir apparent, whose right of inheritance is
indefeasible, provided he outlives the ancestor.
-------------------------------------------------------
*PRESUMPTUOUS*, a. [L. praesumptuosus: OF. also *PRESUMPTUOUS* .]
. 2. Founded on *PRESUMPTION* ; proceeding from excess of confidence;
applied to things; as *PRESUMPTUOUS* hope.
. 3. Arrogant; insolent; as a *PRESUMPTUOUS* priest.
. *PRESUMPTUOUS* pride.
. 4. Unduly confident; irreverent with respect to sacred things.
. 5. Willful; done with bold design, rash confidence or in violation
of known duty; as a *PRESUMPTUOUS* sin.
.....................................................
. All's Well That Ends Well > Act II, scene I
HELENA: It is not so with Him that all things knows
. As 'tis with us that square our guess by shows;
. But most it is *PRESUMPTION* in us when
. The help of heaven we count the act of men.
-------------------------------------------------------
*PRESUMPTION* , n. [L. proesumption.]
. 1. Supposition of the truth or real existence of something without
direct or positive proof of the fact, but grounded on circumstantial
or probable evidence which entitles it to belief. *PRESUMPTION* in law
is of three sorts, violent or strong, probable, and light.
. Next to positive proof, circumstantial evidence or the doctrine of
*PRESUMPTIONS* must take place; for when the fact cannot be
demonstratively evinced, that which comes nearest to the proof of the
fact is the proof of such circumstances as either necessarily or
usually attend such facts. These are called *PRESUMPTIONS*. Violent
*PRESUMPTION* is many times equal to full proof.
. 2. Strong probability; as in the common phrase, the *PRESUMPTION* is
that an event has taken place, or will take place.
. 3. Blind or headstrong confidence; unreasonable adventurousness; a
venturing to undertake something without reasonable prospect of
success, or against the usual probabilities of safety;
*PRESUMPTUOUS*ness.
. Let my *PRESUMPTION* not provoke thy wrath.
. I had the *PRESUMPTION* to dedicate to you a very unfinished price.
. 4. Arrogance. He had the *PRESUMPTION* to attempt to dictate to the
council.
. 5. Unreasonable confidence in divine favor.
. The awe of his majesty will keep us from *PRESUMPTION*.
-------------------------------------------------------
*PRESUME* , v.t. s as z. [L. proesumo; proe, before,and sumo, to
take.] To take or suppose to be true or entitled to belief, without
examination or positive proof, or on the strength of probability. We
*PRESUME* that a man is honest, who has not been known to cheat or
deceive; but in this we are sometimes mistaken. In many cases, the law
*PRESUMES* full payment where positive evidence of it cannot be
produced.
. We not only *PRESUME* it may be so, but we actually find it so.
. In cases of implied contracts, the law *PRESUMES* that a man has
covenanted or contracted to do what reason and justice dictate.
.....................................................
*PRESUME* , v.i. To venture without positive permission; as, we may
*PRESUME* too far.
. 1. To form confident or arrogant opinions; with on or upon, before
the cause of confidence.
. This man *PRESUMES* upon his parts.
. I will not *PRESUME* so far upon myself.
. 2. To make confident or arrogant attempts.
. In that we *PRESUME* to see what is meet and convenient, better than
God himself.
. 3. It has on or upon sometimes before the thing supposed.
. Luther *PRESUMES* upon the gift of continency.
. It is sometimes followed by of, but improperly.
-------------------------------------------------
> "elizabeth" wrote:
>
>> I would never presume to know what the Strats, Derbyites,
>> Baconians, Oxfordians or especially the Marlovians would
>> want the world to know about their authorship candidate,
>> especially the Marlovians since Farey terrifies me.
>
>> I'm only glad Farey lives in England.
>
>> In fact I think the vandals took the same cowardly
>> position as I would take, screw with the pages of factions
>> you know won't hurt you, but leave nothing amiss on the
>> Marlovian page for fear of a verbal bruising from Farey.
"Peter Farey" <pete...@rey.prestel.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Nah, I'm just a teddy bear once you know me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7i_d95KsJI
"Peter Farey" <pete...@rey.prestel.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Obviously they are just trying to make it look
> that I did it (but of course give themselves
> away with only a 'B' for style).
The 'B' stands for 'Bear'
-------------------------------------------------
. Sonnet 22
.
For all that beauty that doth cover thee
Is but the seemly raiment of my heart,
[W]hich in thy breast doth live, as thine in me:
[H]ow can I then be elder than thou art?
[O], therefore, love, be of thyself so wary
.As I, not for myself, but for thee will;
*BEARING THY HEART* , which I will keep so chary
.As tender nurse her babe from faring ill.
*PRESUME* not on thy heart when mine is slain;
Thou gavest me thine, not to give back again.
--------------------------
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXITIFAZA00&feature=related
Art Neuendorffer
nordicskiv2
<95c8799c-0f7d-414d...@m35g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
elizabeth <message...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> ________________________________________
>
> I have no problem with the writing style of the pages vandalized by a
> hacker or hackers on Wikipedia, I would award it a "B" but the pages
> themselves are riddled with factual errors
...says h.l.a.s.'s reigning Queen of factual errors, whose Reign of
Error has surpassed even Stephanie's...
> not
> to speak of a kind of odor of presumptiveness [sic].
> I would never presume to know what the Strats,
> Derbyites, Baconians, Oxfordians or especially the Marlovians would
> want the world to know about their authorship candidate, especially
> the Marlovians since Farey terrifies me.
Huh?! Peter is a very mild-mannered, erudite, and rational chap.
> I'm only glad Farey lives in England.
>
> In fact I think the vandals took the same cowardly
> position as I would take, screw with the pages of factions you know
> won't hurt you, but leave nothing amiss on the Marlovian page for
> fear
> of a verbal bruising from Farey.
Huh? Peter could, if he chose, administer a "verbal bruising" as
easily from England as he could from the U.S. -- perhaps Elizabeth is
unaware of the existence of transatlantic fibre optic cables. Why
Elizabeth imagines that Peter's place of residence is at all relevant
she does not disclose, unless perhaps she fears some actual physical
violence, in which case her paranoia is worsening markedly. Even
Peter's "verbal bruising[s]" are far milder than they often have cause
to be, particularly as Elizabeth has proven to be a very slow learner:
-----------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Weir wrote:
<snip>
> Farey and Baker made a translation of the secretary hand in
> the second manuscript but there were no explicit lines, just a general
> sketch of the tavern scene
It's a scene set in *a* tavern . That's all. There is *nothing* to
link
it to *Henry IV* in any way other than the phrase "send him packing"
which occurs (in a quite different context) in that play.
> with the gulling of one of the customers by a character named 'Mr.
> George' thought to be George Peele. a rascal who is thought to be
> one of the models for Falstaff.
> That's as much as we know.
We do *not* know that it has anything to do with George Peele.
Your phrase "thought to be" is a semantic trick which gets right
up my nose. *You* think this. Nobody else does. It arises solely
from your insistence that the word "Weele" (We'll) is in fact
"Peele". But it *isn't*!
Peter F.
-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------
[...]Spelling 'the' to mean 'thee' (as this does) is no
more of a mistake than the words 'doo', 'returne' or
'agayne' are mistakes. It is just that since those
days we have decided to standardize spelling, and have
arrived at different ones to those used here.
My point, however, had nothing to do with this. I was
commenting upon Elizabeth Weir's claim that the first
word of the line is 'Peele'. It isn't. It says "We
will", abbreviated, as we would, to "We'll" but spelt
(I think, the end is not very clear) "Weele". I
wondered what Elizabeth imagined the line "Peele pay
thee when we do return again", followed by the line
"As you please, Mr. George" could possibly mean.
I see that she has just repeated this claim, btw,
although she now says that it occurs in line 11,
rather than line 6, where the word actually occurs.
Peter F.
pete...@rey.prestel.co.uk
----------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> Peter Farey wrote:
> > Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> > > After discovering "George Peele" in the Henry IV
> > > fragment
> > As I have already pointed out twice, the fragment you
> > are talking about (which appears to have nothing
> > whatever to do with *Henry IV* either) does NOT,
> > repeat NOT, mention George Peele.
> You and Baker were trying to decipher the dark and blurry
> copier facimile Baker has on his website.
> After you and Baker posted your transcription I discovered
> the original Schoyen Henry IV page online and brought
> it up in a picture editor magnified at high resolution.
> The image of the original is quite crisp.
Splendid. I note that you do not give us the benefit
of knowing just where we may find this excellent copy
to which you alone have access. All I will say is that
the copy I *do* have in front of me is perfectly
legible and that, having ploughed through all of the
Bacon Papers, I think I am in a pretty good position
to claim that I know what something in Secretary hand
actually says.
> The word "Peele" is close to the margin in line 6.
> I was also able to read more words of the lines
> above and below the cracked fold. I've already
> posted on this. You've forgotten.
You are becoming even more sad, Elizabeth.
The words either say (as we claim):
"We'll pay thee when we do return again."
"As you please, Mr. George."
or (as you claim)
"Peele pay thee when we do return again."
"As you please, Mr. George."
Now, if you are able to explain to us all exactly
what "Peele pay thee when we do return again."
actually means, I will of course examine what you
have to say with some interest. Failing that, I fear
that at least one anti-Stratfordian will have to
join the serried ranks of those who regard most
of what you have to say as worthless.
Peter F.
pete...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
---------------------------------------------------------
> While I don't think for an instant that Shaksper of
> Stratford wrote Shakespeare, the record itself shows that this guy was
> "too busy to write," he was engaged in multiple businesses,
Huh? He was an actor and shareholder in the company that performed
his plays. In any case, he would be far from the only artist to have
engaged in business dealings as a means of earning a reliable living.
> apparently
> all very successful because this guy may have
> arrived in London with a shilling in his pocket but he
> died RICH
>
> but in terms of deference to the Strats as well as
> in terms of deference to how proofs are reeely made, it's my sense
> that
>
> Shaksper --- IS --- Shakespeare
>
> until some faction brings forth probative evidence
> to overturn the Strat claim.
>
> That hasn't happened in this era, anyway.
It certainly has not.
lackpurity
> ________________________________________
>
> I have no problem with the writing style of the pages vandalized by a
> hacker or hackers on Wikipedia, I would award it a "B" but the pages
> themselves are riddled with factual errors not
> to speak of a kind of odor of presumptiveness.
>
> I would never presume to know what the Strats,
> Derbyites, Baconians, Oxfordians or especially the Marlovians would
> want the world to know about their authorship candidate, especially
> the Marlovians since Farey terrifies me.
>
> I'm only glad Farey lives in England.
>
> In fact I think the vandals took the same cowardly
> position as I would take, screw with the pages of factions you know
> won't hurt you, but leave nothing amiss on the Marlovian page for
> fear
> of a verbal bruising from Farey.
>
> While I don't think for an instant that Shaksper of
> Stratford wrote Shakespeare, the record itself shows that this guy was
> "too busy to write," he was engaged in multiple businesses, apparently
> all very successful because this guy may have
> arrived in London with a shilling in his pocket but he
> died RICH
He was not too busy to write. When Marlowed died, he became very
busy, no doubt, but not too busy to write. Some of us die rich, some
die poor, but it doesn't necessarily correlate with spare time.
Shakespeare was also associated with the Wilton Cult. Even while
Marlowe was still alive, he (Marlowe) thanked Countess Mary Sidney for
her help in Latin. Shakespeare's successors included the incomparable
Herbert Bros. So, what went around came around again.
> but in terms of deference to the Strats as well as
> in terms of deference to how proofs are reeely made, it's my sense
> that
>
> Shaksper --- IS --- Shakespeare
I agree. LOL
> until some faction brings forth probative evidence
> to overturn the Strat claim.
>
> That hasn't happened in this era, anyway.
Doesn't look likely.
Michael Martin
nordicskiv2
<5d2aa1a8-cf1a-462e...@g10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
art <acne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> While I don't think for an instant that Shaksper of Stratford
> >> wrote Shakespeare, the record itself shows that this guy was
> >> "too busy to write," he was engaged in multiple businesses,
> >> all very successful because this guy may have
> >> apparently arrived in London with a shilling in his pocket
> >> but he died RICH
> "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
> >
> > What is more insane: the proposition that William
> > Shakespeare of Stratford was not an author OR
> > the proposition that he was a businessman?
> The most insane anti-Strat idea is that anyone would
> have trusted or paid this fictitious bozo to act
> as a front man.
By no means, Art! If you really think that that is the most insane
anti-Stratfordian idea, then you cannot have read Mr. Streitz's book
-- nor for that matter can you have read very many of Elizabeth's
posts.
> "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
> >
> > Was the clergyman whose household sold grain in Stratford
> > not a clergyman but a businessman?
> Yes.
> "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
> >
> > Were all the people who bought property
> > in Shakespeare's time full-time businessmen?
> Almost all of them were.
Evidence, Art?
> "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
> >
> > I loaning someone money or granting him credit two or
> > three times in a lifetime and indication that
> > a man was a full-time businessman?
> You are a full-time Goon Squad member, Bob.
Just out of curiosity, Art, exactly who *are* the members of this
mythical "Goon Squad" of yours? (Or is the "n" a typographical error
for a "d"?) And who pays them?
> --------------------------
> Art Neuendorffer
art
>
>>> What is more insane: the proposition that William
>>> Shakespeare of Stratford was not an author OR
>>> the proposition that he was a businessman?
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The most insane anti-Strat idea is that anyone
>> would have trusted or paid this fictitious bozo
>> to act as a front man.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> By no means, Art! If you really think that that is the most
> insane anti-Stratfordian idea, then you cannot have read
> Mr. Streitz's book -- nor for that matter can you have read
> very many of Elizabeth's posts.
I stand by my statement.
>> "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
>>> Was the clergyman whose household sold grain in Stratford
>>> not a clergyman but a businessman?
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yes.
>> "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
>>> Were all the people who bought property
>>> in Shakespeare's time full-time businessmen?
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Almost all of them were.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Evidence, Art?
Who do you think bought property in Stratford-upon-Avon?
Aristocrats? Sports stars? Movie stars? Paupers?
>> "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
>>> I loaning someone money or granting him credit two or
>>> three times in a lifetime and indication that
>>> a man was a full-time businessman?
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> You are a full-time Goon Squad member, Bob.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Just out of curiosity, Art, exactly who *are* the members
> of this mythical "Goon Squad" of yours?
Larque, Grumman, KQKnave, Webb, John Kennedy, Reynolds,
Reedy, Stonehouse, Symposium1, Kathman, Ross, bookburn,
BCD, Kosinsky, Veal, Ignoto, Brennen, Groves,
and Melanie Sands.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> And who pays them?
The Trust?
Art Neuendorffer
elizabeth
> In article
> <95c8799c-0f7d-414d-9724-c63f6b0c5...@m35g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
At least I didn't snag my article on Hephaestus from
a past lives therapists website, then claim it was
something you got from the Loeb Classical Library.
Shall I repost the proof, Webb?
You have never taken me in a debate, Webb,
because you really aren't interested in facts of
proofs -- the beating you took in the Eliyahu Rips
so-called Bible Code debate proves that -- you
merely . . .
IN HLAS TO HUMILIATE OTHER POSTERS.
which only shows how stupid you are because THIS
time I think you have pushed Art so far. Art posted
something that really alarmed me, I don't know if it's
still there.
Let me remind you, Webb, that in 2002, shortly after
I arrived in HLAS, I asked you to stop tormenting Art.
You are have no empathy for anyone but yourself
and under the current federal law on cyber-bullying,
you come perilously close to breaking every statute.
I'll post it separately.
And finally, Stay out of my posts, leave me alone,
leave Art alone.
And again, you'd better take a look at what Art wrote.
I do believe that you've pushed Art over the line and
if anything happened you could be prosecuted.
elizabeth
> <http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>
Thanks, Peter, you made me laugh.
art
>
> And again, you'd better take a look at what Art wrote.
> I do believe that you've pushed Art over the line and
> if anything happened you could be prosecuted.
elizabeth
> > "elizabeth" wrote:
>
> >> I have no problem with the writing style of the pages
> >> vandalized by a hacker or hackers on Wikipedia, I would
> >> award it a "B" but the pages themselves are riddled
> >> with factual errors not to speak of a kind of odor of
> >> presumptiveness [sic]
>
> Do you mean *PRESUMPTUOUSNESS* ?
Yes! That's exactly what I meant.
The definitions of presumptuousness fit
perfectly:
> . 1. Bold and confident to excess; adventuring without reasonable
> ground of success; hazarding safety on too slight grounds; rash;
> applied to persons; as a *PRESUMPTUOUS* vandal, [edit].
>
> . There is a class of *PRESUMPTUOUS* men whom age has not made
> cautious, nor adversity wise.
Thank you, Art.
elizabeth
Yeh, that was filmed where I grew up.
Gary
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, Art, exactly who *are* the members
>> of this mythical "Goon Squad" of yours?
>
> Larque, Grumman, KQKnave, Webb, John Kennedy, Reynolds,
> Reedy, Stonehouse, Symposium1, Kathman, Ross, bookburn,
> BCD, Kosinsky, Veal, Ignoto, Brennen, Groves,
> and Melanie Sands.
>
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>>
>> And who pays them?
>
> The Trust?
So where's my cheque?
- Gary
Ignoto
> On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 17:32:24 -0800 (PST), art wrote:
>
>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>>> Just out of curiosity, Art, exactly who *are* the members
>>> of this mythical "Goon Squad" of yours?
>> Larque, Grumman, KQKnave, Webb, John Kennedy, Reynolds,
>> Reedy, Stonehouse, Symposium1, Kathman, Ross, bookburn,
>> BCD, Kosinsky, Veal, Ignoto, Brennen, Groves,
>> and Melanie Sands.
You forgot the 'manchurian candidate'.
Ign.
Peter Farey
"Gary" wrote:
>
> "art" wrote:
> >
> > "nordicskiv2" wrote:
> > >
> > > Just out of curiosity, Art, exactly who *are* the members
> > > of this mythical "Goon Squad" of yours?
> >
> > Larque, Grumman, KQKnave, Webb, John Kennedy, Reynolds,
> > Reedy, Stonehouse, Symposium1, Kathman, Ross, bookburn,
> > BCD, Kosinsky, Veal, Ignoto, Brennen, Groves,
> > and Melanie Sands.
> >
> >
> > The Trust?
>
> So where's my cheque?
>
> - Gary
Since when was your name Kosinsky?
Peter F.
<pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk>
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/index.htm>
nordicskiv2
<abdb6c46-20e0-4d9c...@e1g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
art <acne...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
[...]
> >> The most insane anti-Strat idea is that anyone
> >> would have trusted or paid this fictitious bozo
> >> to act as a front man.
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > By no means, Art! If you really think that that is the most
> > insane anti-Stratfordian idea, then you cannot have read
> > Mr. Streitz's book -- nor for that matter can you have read
> > very many of Elizabeth's posts.
> I stand by my statement.
Don't be absurd, Art -- hundreds (if not thousands) of misguided
anti-Stratfordians believe that. On the contrary, the most insane
anti-Stratfordian idea (to use that last word loosely) is that the
custodians of the secret of the authorship of the Shakespeare canon
are members of a four hundred year-old Hermetic conspiracy, among them
Freemasons, Knights Templar, Rosicrucians, Rex Deus, Priory of Sion
initiates, Knights of Malta, Odd Fellows, Elks, etc., a conspiracy
that involves practically eVERy writer of note in eVERy language as
well as most sane h.l.a.s. habitués -- this is a bizarre belief that,
far from claiming hundreds of adherents, numbers among its followers
only a single solitary illiterate District Heights boob.
> >> "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
> >
> >>> Was the clergyman whose household sold grain in Stratford
> >>> not a clergyman but a businessman?
> > art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Yes.
> >> "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
> >
> >>> Were all the people who bought property
> >>> in Shakespeare's time full-time businessmen?
> > art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Almost all of them were.
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Evidence, Art?
> Who do you think bought property in Stratford-upon-Avon?
>
> Aristocrats? Sports stars? Movie stars? Paupers?
That is not evidence, Art -- not that I have eVER seen any VERy
convincing indication that you know the meaning of the word.
> >> "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
> >
> >>> I loaning someone money or granting him credit two or
> >>> three times in a lifetime and indication that
> >>> a man was a full-time businessman?
> > art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> You are a full-time Goon Squad member, Bob.
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Just out of curiosity, Art, exactly who *are* the members
> > of this mythical "Goon Squad" of yours?
> Larque, Grumman, KQKnave, Webb, John Kennedy, Reynolds,
> Reedy, Stonehouse, Symposium1, Kathman, Ross, bookburn,
> BCD, Kosinsky, Veal, Ignoto, Brennen, Groves,
> and Melanie Sands.
Thank you, Art. Like those fortunate enough to have been on
Nixon's "enemies list," one is honored indeed to be named in the
company of those on your "Goon Squad" roster above -- indeed, it reads
like an honor roll of h.l.a.s.'s sane, intelligent, rational, and best
informed participants, but with some inexplicable omissions. For
example, in this post
you yourself wrote,
"Welcome to the hlas Goon Squad, Nicholas Whyte,
Sint-Genesius-Rode/Rhode-St-Génèse.",
yet Nicholas Whyte does not appear on your list above, Art; why not?
Has he been demoted? If so, what must he do to return to the Goon
Squad as a member in good (or goon) standing? And what about Tom
Foster? Surely he is deserving of full-fledged goon status. And what
about Alan Jones? Rita? Mark Steese? Geralyn Horton? Caius
Marcius? Dave Furstenau? There any many others as well who desERVE
consideration!
And what about those whom Mr. Crowley denominates "quasi-
Strats" (and often "Yanks" as well, despite and in blissful ignorance
of their actual nationalities), that is, the relatively sane,
reasonable, and better informed anti-Stratfordians like Peter Farey,
Lynne Kositsky, and Dave More, with some of whom you have at times
been at odds, Art? Might they aspire to goondom as well?
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > And who pays them?
> The Trust?
Then where's my paycheck, Art? For that matter, where's that ten
dollars you owe me? And those Landau volumes?
> Art Neuendorffer
BCD
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> > Just out of curiosity, Art, exactly who *are* the members
> > of this mythical "Goon Squad" of yours?
>
> Larque, Grumman, KQKnave, Webb, John Kennedy, Reynolds,
> Reedy, Stonehouse, Symposium1, Kathman, Ross, bookburn,
> BCD, Kosinsky, Veal, Ignoto, Brennen, Groves,
> and Melanie Sands.
***[sniffles; dabs at eyes] I'm deeply touched. Not as deeply
"touched" as some, but deeply touched nonetheless.
Best Wishes,
--BCD
art
>
>>> Just out of curiosity, Art, exactly who *are* the members
>>> of this mythical "Goon Squad" of yours?
art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Larque, Grumman, KQKnave, Webb, John Kennedy, Reynolds,
>> Reedy, Stonehouse, Symposium1, Kathman, Ross, bookburn,
>> BCD, Kosinsky, Veal, Ignoto, Brennen, Groves,
>> and Melanie Sands.
BCD <odint...@csulb.edu> wrote:
>
> ***[sniffles; dabs at eyes] I'm deeply touched. Not as
> deeply "touched" as some, but deeply touched nonetheless.
MASSA: Now, they're saying I groped a male staffer. Yes, I did. Not
only did I grope him, I tickled him until he couldn't breathe and four
guys jumped on top of me.
BCD <odint...@csulb.edu> wrote:
>
> Best Wishes, --BCD
------------------------------------
My goodness, Brent!
You haven't posted here since: May 6 2009.
(If I ever needed proof....)
Art Neuendorffer
art
>>>>
>>>> Just out of curiosity, Art, exactly who *are* the members
>>>> of this mythical "Goon Squad" of yours?
>>art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Larque, Grumman, KQKnave, Webb, John Kennedy, Reynolds,
>>> Reedy, Stonehouse, Symposium1, Kathman, Ross, bookburn,
>>> BCD, Kosinsky, Veal, Ignoto, Brennen, Groves,
>>> and Melanie Sands.
>>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> And who pays them?
>>art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> The Trust?
> "Gary" wrote:
>>
>> So where's my cheque? - Gary
<<Body check: Using the body to knock an opponent against the boards
or to the ice. This is often referred to as simply checking or hitting
and is only permitted on an opponent with possession of the puck. Body
checking can be penalized when performed recklessly. Charging, hitting
from behind and boarding are examples of illegal hits, due to their
dangerous nature and increased likelihood of causing serious injury.>>
--------------------------------------------------
"Peter Farey" <pete...@rey.prestel.co.uk> wrote:
>
> Since when was your name Kosinsky?
Oops...looks like the check may bounce this month.
Art Neuendorffer
art
>>>>
>>>> The most insane anti-Strat idea is that anyone
>>>> would have trusted or paid this fictitious bozo
>>>> to act as a front man.
>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>> By no means, Art! If you really think that that is the most
>>> insane anti-Stratfordian idea, then you cannot have read
>>> Mr. Streitz's book -- nor for that matter can you have read
>>> very many of Elizabeth's posts.
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>
>> I stand by my statement.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Don't be absurd, Art -- hundreds (if not thousands)
> of misguided anti-Stratfordians believe that.
Indeed, ... *misguided* anti-Stratfordians all.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> On the contrary, the
> custodians of the secret of the authorship of the Shakespeare canon
> are members of a four hundred year-old Hermetic conspiracy, among them
> Freemasons, Knights Templar, Rosicrucians, Rex Deus, Priory of Sion
> initiates, Knights of Malta, Odd Fellows, Elks, etc., a conspiracy
> that involves practically eVERy writer of note in eVERy language as
> well as most h.l.a.s. habitués --
That's brilliant, Dave! May I quote you?
>>>> "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
>>>>> Was the clergyman whose household sold grain in Stratford
>>>>> not a clergyman but a businessman?
>>> art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote: Yes.
>>>> "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
>>>>> Were all the people who bought property
>>>>> in Shakespeare's time full-time businessmen?
>>> art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Almost all of them were.
>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>> Evidence, Art?
>> Who do you think bought property in Stratford-upon-Avon?
>
>> Aristocrats? Sports stars? Movie stars? Paupers?
>
> That is not evidence, Art
I subscribed the *EVIDENCE* and sealed it. -Jer.32.
*I DEliVERED the EVIDENCE* ... to Baruch. -Jer.32.
> -- not that I have eVER seen any VERy convincing
> indication that you know the meaning of the word.
----------------------------------------------
http://www.philological.bham.ac.uk/anagrams/text.html
____ *EDOUARUS VEIERUS*
_____ per anagramma
____ *AURE SURDUS VIDEO*
__ [ *DEAF IN MY EAR, I SEE* ]
------------------------------------------------------
*EVIDENCE*, n. [L. evidentia, from *VIDEO: TO SEE* ]
1. That which elucidates and enables the mind *TO SEE TRUTH* ; proof
arising from our own perceptions by the senses, or from the testimony
of others,
*or from inductions of reason* . Reasoning, or the deductions of the
mind from facts or arguments, furnish *EVIDENCE of TRUTH* or
falsehood.
2. Any instrument or writing which contains proof.
-------------------------------------------------------
>>>> "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
>>>>> I loaning someone money or granting him credit two or
>>>>> three times in a lifetime and indication that
>>>>> a man was a full-time businessman?
>>> art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> You are a full-time Goon Squad member, Bob.
>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>> Just out of curiosity, Art, exactly who *are* the members
>>> of this mythical "Goon Squad" of yours?
>> Larque, Grumman, KQKnave, Webb, John Kennedy, Reynolds,
>> Reedy, Stonehouse, Symposium1, Kathman, Ross, bookburn,
>> BCD, Kosinsky, Veal, Ignoto, Brennen, Groves,
>> and Melanie Sands.
> Thank you, Art. Like those fortunate enough to have been on
> Nixon's "enemies list," one is honored indeed to be named in the
> company of those on your "Goon Squad" roster above -- indeed, it reads
> like an honor roll of h.l.a.s.'s sane, intelligent, rational, and best
> informed participants, but with some inexplicable omissions.
My hand was starting to cramp up.
> For example, in this post
>
> <http://tinyurl.com/yz4yrn9>
>
> you yourself wrote,
>
> "Welcome to the hlas Goon Squad, Nicholas Whyte,
> Sint-Genesius-Rode/Rhode-St-Génèse.",
>
> yet Nicholas Whyte does not appear on your list above, Art; why not?
> Has he been demoted? If so, what must he do to return to the Goon
> Squad as a member in good (or goon) standing? And what about Tom
> Foster? Surely he is deserving of full-fledged goon status. And
> what about Alan Jones? Rita? Mark Steese? Geralyn Horton?
> Caius Marcius? Dave Furstenau? There any many others as well
> who desERVE consideration!
Duly noted.
> And what about those whom Mr. Crowley denominates "quasi-
> Strats" (and often "Yanks" as well, despite and in blissful ignorance
> of their actual nationalities), that is, the relatively sane,
> reasonable, and better informed anti-Stratfordians like Peter Farey,
> Lynne Kositsky, and Dave More, with some of whom you have at times
> been at odds, Art? Might they aspire to goondom as well?
That's a whole different matter.
>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>> And who pays them?
>> The Trust?
>
> Then where's my paycheck, Art?
I'm not The Trust.
Art Neuendorffer
nordicskiv2
<942d4cdc-7b43-4996...@f8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
art <acne...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> The most insane anti-Strat idea is that anyone
> >>>> would have trusted or paid this fictitious bozo
> >>>> to act as a front man.
> >> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>> By no means, Art! If you really think that that is the most
> >>> insane anti-Stratfordian idea, then you cannot have read
> >>> Mr. Streitz's book -- nor for that matter can you have read
> >>> very many of Elizabeth's posts.
> > art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>
> >> I stand by my statement.
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Don't be absurd, Art -- hundreds (if not thousands)
> > of misguided anti-Stratfordians believe that.
> Indeed, ... *misguided* anti-Stratfordians all.
That's right, Art -- all anti-Stratfordians are misguided, but you
above all.
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > On the contrary, the
> > custodians of the secret of the authorship of the Shakespeare canon
> > are members of a four hundred year-old Hermetic conspiracy, among them
> > Freemasons, Knights Templar, Rosicrucians, Rex Deus, Priory of Sion
> > initiates, Knights of Malta, Odd Fellows, Elks, etc., a conspiracy
> > that involves practically eVERy writer of note in eVERy language as
> > well as most h.l.a.s. habitués --
> That's brilliant, Dave! May I quote you?
No, Art; you couldn't even if you tried. How do I know? Because
you just *did* try -- and failed. I wrote:
"On the contrary, the most insane anti-Stratfordian idea (to use
that last word loosely) is that the custodians of the secret of
the authorship of the Shakespeare canon are members of a four
hundred year-old Hermetic conspiracy, among them Freemasons,
Knights Templar, Rosicrucians, Rex Deus, Priory of Sion
initiates, Knights of Malta, Odd Fellows, Elks, etc., a
conspiracy that involves practically eVERy writer of note in
eVERy language as well as most sane h.l.a.s. habitués -- [...]",
yet you tried without success to quote it -- you omitted some of my
text without the obligatory ellipses that honest scholars used to
indicate omissions; moreoVER your omission changed the meaning
completely.
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
> Duly noted.
Excellent, Art. And what about Rob Zigler (xrob)? And Richard
Nathan? Mark Cipra? Jo Lonergan? Nigel Davies? Harry Hill? Don't
they qualify for goonship, Art? Don't tell me that you've forgotten
them?!
Out of curiosity, Art, is there anyone (apart from your fellow anti-
Stratfordians) who is NOT a member of the Goon Squad?
> > And what about those whom Mr. Crowley denominates "quasi-
> > Strats" (and often "Yanks" as well, despite and in blissful ignorance
> > of their actual nationalities), that is, the relatively sane,
> > reasonable, and better informed anti-Stratfordians like Peter Farey,
> > Lynne Kositsky, and Dave More, with some of whom you have at times
> > been at odds, Art? Might they aspire to goondom as well?
> That's a whole different matter.
But you did not answer the question, Art: may virtuous anti-
Stratfordians, like the virtuous pagans in Dante, aspire to join the
Goon Squad? After all, some anti-Stratfordians, for example, Dr.
Stritmatter, have been MUCH harder on you in earnest than any of the
above-mentioned Stratfordian "Goon Squad" members has been in jest!
Must deserving anti-Stratfordians languish in limbo, Art? If not,
what must they do to join the illustrious Goon Squad?
> >> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>> And who pays them?
> >> The Trust?
> > Then where's my paycheck, Art?
> I'm not The Trust.
You're not Trustworthy, Art -- you lose a bet and don't pay up,
then you promise to send me your unused Landau volumes, but neVER do
it! You can still redeem yourself, though -- when may I expect
DEliVERy? (One might be inclined to charge interest on the $10, but
in view of the economic downturn, I'll accept the original amount.)
> Art Neuendorffer
BCD
***Yes, well--I've been lurking quite a lot; but I've been busy with
L.A. History things--mainly, building a database of all the names in
the censuses and *padrones* for L.A. from 1781 to 1870, then (at
present) going over it a second time to smooth out all the wrinkles.
Oh, the Joses! Oh, the Marias! Oh, the Saturninos! And all I have
to say is, "Whee." Well, that's not *all* I have to say; but the rest
is comprised of inARTiculate sounds.
***But one always comes back to the hlas tavern . . .
Best Wishes,
--BCD
elizabeth
I wish you didn't literally believe that.
Dominic Hughes
> In article
My absence from Art's list appears to indicate that I am not a member
of the Goon Squad. Do I need to fill out an application?
Dom
Gary
> ***But one always comes back to the hlas tavern . . .
>
> Best Wishes,
>
> --BCD
Welcome to the Hotel hlas
You can check out any time you like
But you can never leave.
- Gary
Gary
>>>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Just out of curiosity, Art, exactly who *are* the members
>>>>> of this mythical "Goon Squad" of yours?
>
>>>art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Larque, Grumman, KQKnave, Webb, John Kennedy, Reynolds,
>>>> Reedy, Stonehouse, Symposium1, Kathman, Ross, bookburn,
>>>> BCD, Kosinsky, Veal, Ignoto, Brennen, Groves,
>>>> and Melanie Sands.
>
>>>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> And who pays them?
>
>>>art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The Trust?
>
>> "Gary" wrote:
>>>
>>> So where's my cheque? - Gary
>
> <<Body check: Using the body to knock an opponent against the boards
> or to the ice. This is often referred to as simply checking or hitting
> and is only permitted on an opponent with possession of the puck. Body
> checking can be penalized when performed recklessly. Charging, hitting
> from behind and boarding are examples of illegal hits, due to their
> dangerous nature and increased likelihood of causing serious injury.>>
> --------------------------------------------------
"Olympic men's hockey: Canada takes gold medal against USA
with Sidney Crosby overtime winner."
CA-NA-DA! CA-NA-DA! CA-NA-DA!
- Gary
nordicskiv2
<95cc1f16-b5d9-4a58...@g8g2000pri.googlegroups.com>,
BCD <odin...@csulb.edu> wrote:
> On Mar 12, 11:36 am, art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > >>> Just out of curiosity, Art, exactly who *are* the members
> > >>> of this mythical "Goon Squad" of yours?
> > art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >> Larque, Grumman, KQKnave, Webb, John Kennedy, Reynolds,
> > >> Reedy, Stonehouse, Symposium1, Kathman, Ross, bookburn,
> > >> BCD, Kosinsky, Veal, Ignoto, Brennen, Groves,
> > >> and Melanie Sands.
> > BCD <odint...@csulb.edu> wrote:
> >
> > > ***[sniffles; dabs at eyes] I'm deeply touched. Not as
> > > deeply "touched" as some, but deeply touched nonetheless.
Welcome back, Brent! It's very satisfying to have been honored by
membership in the Goon Squad, isn't it?
[...]
> > You haven't posted here since: May 6 2009.
Well, you know how it is, Art -- h.l.a.s. has been oVERrun by a
spamming moron who posts the same crackpot cryptography oVER and oVER
and oVER, so many of us have retreated to the Forest of Arden, from
which the most egregious offenders are banned.
> > (If I ever needed proof....)
You have a most amusing notion of "proof," Art!
> > Art Neuendorffer
>
> ***Yes, well--I've been lurking quite a lot; but I've been busy with
> L.A. History things--mainly, building a database of all the names in
> the censuses
You should by all means consult Art -- he'll tell you that most of
those names are bogus Masonic fakes.
> and *padrones* for L.A. from 1781 to 1870, then (at
> present) going over it a second time to smooth out all the wrinkles.
> Oh, the Joses! Oh, the Marias! Oh, the Saturninos!
And since you have no doubt been delving into Spanish-language
archives, one should point out, in the time-honored Neuendorffer
tradition, that "Saturninos" admits the Spanish anagram
Art N.: sin uso.
Not that I agree -- Art is always useful as a source (albeit an
idiosyncratic one) of entertainment.
> And all I have
> to say is, "Whee." Well, that's not *all* I have to say; but the rest
> is comprised of inARTiculate sounds.
>
> ***But one always comes back to the hlas tavern . . .
Absolutely!
> Best Wishes,
And best wishes to you.
> --BCD
nordicskiv2
<a6ce56b5-c495-4da3...@y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Dominic Hughes <mah...@aol.com> wrote:
[...]
You should certainly be honored by inclusion in the Goon Squad;
indeed, your absence was among the many inexplicable omissions.
> Do I need to fill out an application?
Since the Goon Squad is the creation of Art's "Petulant Paranoid"
trolling persona, you'll have to ask Art about the proper procedure.
But it would be a grave injustice if Art didn't admit you.
> Dom
art
>
>>> Out of curiosity, Art, is there anyone (apart from your fellow
> Dominic *HUGHES*
>>
>> My absence from Art's list appears to indicate
>> that I am not a member of the Goon Squad.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> You should certainly be honored by inclusion in the Goon Squad;
> indeed, your absence was among the many inexplicable omissions.
> Dominic *HUGHES*
>>
>> Do I need to fill out an application?
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Since the Goon Squad is the creation of Art's "Petulant Paranoid"
> trolling persona, you'll have to ask Art about the proper procedure.
> But it would be a grave injustice if Art didn't admit you.
All Dominic *HUGHES* in his trolling.
Goon Squad members should really be committed not admitted.
............................................................
<<[Shaksper] himself had married young, and the result had been
unhappiness, and it was not likely that he would have asked
Willie *HUGHES* to commit the same error.
"'The truth of the theory!' I exclaimed; 'the less we talk
about that the better. You never even believed in it yourself.
If you had, you would not have committed a forgery to prove it.'">>
-------------------------------------------------
. Coriolanus > Act I, scene I
.
MARCIUS: And *HEWS* down oaks with rushes.
. Hang ye! Trust Ye?
----------------------------------------------
<<Critics have mined SONNET 20 for clues to the youth's identity,
and much attention has been given to the use of hew & *HEWS* in
line 7. HV points out that Shakespeare appears to have attempted
the task of ensuring that the letters of the word *HEWS* occur
in EVERy line, as though he were playing some sort of word game.
With the exception of line 11 whch contains only an h and an e,
(the absence being made up as it were by two hews in line 7),
each line has its actual or equivalent *HEWS* .
Supporters of Southampton or Pembroke could well see in this an
effort to wreathe together the letters HE and WS, for Henry, or
Herbert and William Shakespeare. It is perfectly possible that
some such trick was intended, but very probable that we shall
not ever be able to verify whether it was or no.>>
----------------------------------------------------
. [H]enry
. (E)arl of
. [W]riothesley
. (S)outhampton
.....................................................
. (T) his Figure, that thou here seest put,
. . It was for gentle Shakespeare cut,
. [W]herein the Graver had a strife
. . with Nature, to out-doo the life :
. (O), could he but have drawne his wit
. . As well in brasse, as he hath hit
. [H] is face ; the Print would then surpasse
. . All, that was ever writ in brasse.
. (B) ut, since he cannot, Reader, looke
. . Not on his Picture, but his Booke.
.......................................................
. . H.W. (Henry Wriothesley)
. . B.O.T. (Baron of Titchfield)
http://emc.english.ucsb.edu/images/shakespeare-frontispiece_L.jpg
------------------------------------------------------------
. The Tempest Act 1, Scene 1
.
GONZALO I have great comfort from this fellow: methinks he
. hath no drowning mark upon him; his complexion is
. perfect *GALLOWS* . Stand fast, *good FATE* , to his
. HANGING: *make the {rope} of his DESTINY our CABLE* ,
. for our own doth little advantage. If he be not
. born to be HANGED, our case is miserable.
. . Enter *BOTESW-aine*
.........................................................
. . B.O.T.E.S.W. ( aine : harmony [Scottish] )
(B)aron (O)f (T)itchfield/(E)arl (S)outhampton/(W)riothesley
---------------------------------------------------------------------
______ *SONNET 20*
http://www.shakespeares-sonnets.com/xxcomm.htm
[W] omans face with natures owne hande painted,
[H] aste thou, the Master Mistris of my passion,
A womans gentle hart but not acquainted
With shifting change as is false womens fashion,
An eye more bright then theirs,lesse false in rowling:
Gilding the obiect where-vpon it gazeth,
A man in hew all *HEWS* in his controwling,
Which steales mens eyes and womens soules amaseth,
And for a woman wert thou first created,
Till nature as she wrought thee fell a dotinge,
And by addition me of thee defeated,
By adding one thing to my purpose nothing.
But since she prickt thee out for womens pleasure,
Mine be thy loue and thy loues vse their treasure.
----------------------------------------------
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/array2.html
1306d: OOGLN *I VOW* VT
.............................................
Probability of *E VERE - DE* pair ~ 1/4700
..............................................
Dave Roper: "So Test Him, *I VOW* He Is Edward De Vere"
STA__ -Y- _PASSENG___ *E* RWHYGO ____ *E* ST_ *T*
EAD__ -I- _F- *T* HOVCAN__- *S* TWHOM- *E*___- *N* _V *I*
PLA__ *S* _T *W* ITH__- *I* NTH *I* SMON__ *V* __M_ *E* *N*
IT__*H W H* _ *O* MEQ *V* ICK- N *A* TVR__ *ED* -__I__*D*
THD *E* _CKYST __ *O* M *B* EFA *R* MO_ *RE* _T _H_*E*
LYT *H* _EHATH __ *W* R *I* TTLE_- *A*_V_- *E* _SLIVI __
GET -O- _SERVEHI_ __ *S* WITT
__________ <= *34 Words* =>
......................................................
6 Words: IVDICIO PYLIUM, GENIO SOCRATEM, ARTE MARONEM,
6 Words: TERRA TEGIT, POPULUS MAERET, OLYMPUS HABET
............
8 Words: STAY PASSENGER, WHY GOEST THOV BY SO FAST?
9 Words: READ IF THOV CANST, WHOM ENVIOVS DEATH HATH PLAST
5 Words: WITH IN THIS MONVMENT SHAKSPEARE:
-----------------------------------------
_The Portrait Of Mr W H_ by Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)
http://www.shakespeares-sonnets.com/Wilde.htm
( First published in 1889, in Blackwood's magazine, and later
expanded.)
<<"It is of course evident that there must have been in Shakespeare's
company some wonderful boy-actor of great beauty, to whom he intrusted
the presentation of his noble heroines; for Shakespeare was a
practical theatrical manager as well as an imaginative poet, and Cyril
Graham had actually discovered the boy-actor's name. He was Will, or,
as he preferred to call him, Willie *HUGHES*. The Christian name he
found of course in the punning sonnets, CXXXV and CXLIII; the surname
was, according to him, hidden in the eighth line of the 20th Sonnet,
where Mr W H is described as -
A man in hew, all Hews in his controwling.
"In the original edition of the Sonnets 'Hews' is printed with a
capital letter and in italics, and this, he claimed, showed clearly
that a play on words was intended, his view receiving a good deal of
corroboration from those sonnets in which curious puns are made on the
words 'use' and 'usury'. Of course I was converted at once, and Willie
*HUGHES* became to me as real a person as Shakespeare. The only
objection I made to the theory was that the name of Willie *HUGHES*
does not occur in the list of the actors of Shakespeare's company as
it is printed in the first folio. Cyril, however, pointed out that the
absence of Willie *HUGHES's* name from this list really corroborated
the theory, as it was evident from Sonnet LXXXVI that Willie *HUGHES*
had abandoned Shakespeare's company to play at a rival theatre,
probably in some of Chapman's plays. It is in reference to this that
in the great sonnet on Chapman Shakespeare said to Willie *HUGHES* -
. But when your countenance filed up his line,
. Then lacked I matter; that enfeebled mine
the expression 'when your countenance filled up his line' referring
obviously to the beauty of the young actor giving life and reality and
added charm to Chapman's verse, the same idea being also put forward
in the 79th Sonnet -
. Whilst I alone did call upon thy aid,
. My verse alone had all thy gentle grace,
. But now my gracious numbers are decayed,
. And my sick Muse does give another place;
and in the immediately preceding sonnet, where Shakespeare says,
. Every alien pen has got my use
. And under thee their poesy disperse,
the play upon words (use = *HUGHES*) being of course obvious,
and the phrase 'under thee their poesy disperse', meaning 'by
your assistance as an actor bring their plays before the people'.
"It was a wonderful evening, and we sat up almost till dawn reading
and re-reading the Sonnets. After some time, however, I began to see
that before the theory could be placed before the world in a really
perfected form, it was necessary to get some independent evidence
about the existence of this young actor, Willie *HUGHES*. If this
could be once established, there could be no possible doubt about his
identity with Mr W H; but otherwise the theory would fall to the
ground. I put this forward very strongly to Cyril, who was a good deal
annoyed at what he called my Philistine tone of mind, and indeed was
rather bitter upon the subject. However, I made him promise that in
his own interest he would not publish his discovery till he had put
the whole matter beyond the reach of doubt; and for weeks and weeks we
searched the registers of City churches, the Alleyn MSS at Dulwich,
the Record Office, the papers of the Lord Chamberlain - everything, in
fact, that we thought might contain some allusion to Willie *HUGHES*.
We discovered nothing, of course, and every day the existence of
Willie *HUGHES* seemed to me to become more problematical. Cyril was
in a dreadful state, and used to go over the whole question day after
day, entreating me to believe; but I saw the one flaw in the theory,
and I refused to be convinced till the actual existence of Willie
*HUGHES*, a boy-actor of Elizabethan days, had been placed
beyond the reach of doubt or cavil.
"One day Cyril left town to stay with his grandfather, I thought at
the time, but I afterwards heard from Lord Crediton that this was not
the case; and about a fortnight afterwards I received a telegram from
him, handed in at Warwick, asking me to be sure to come and dine with
him that evening at eight o'clock. When I arrived, he said to me, 'The
only apostle who did not deserve proof was S Thomas, and S Thomas was
the only apostle who got it.' I asked him what he meant. He answered
that he had not merely been able to establish the existence in the
sixteenth century of a boy-actor of the name of Willie *HUGHES*, but
to prove by the most conclusive evidence that he was the Mr W H of the
Sonnets. He would not tell me anything more at the time; but after
dinner he solemnly produced the picture I showed you, and told me that
he had discovered it by the merest chance nailed to the side of an old
chest that he had bought at a farmhouse in Warwickshire. The chest
itself, which was a very fine example of Elizabethan work, he had, of
course, brought with him, and in the centre of the front panel the
initials W H were undoubtedly carved. It was this monogram that had
attracted his attention, and he told me that it was not till he had
had the chest in his possession for several days that he had thought
of making any careful examination of the inside. One morning, however,
he saw that one of the sides of the chest was much thicker than the
other, and looking more closely, he discovered that a framed panel
picture was clamped against it. On taking it out, he found it was the
picture that is now lying on the sofa. It was very dirty, and covered
with mould; but he managed to clean it, and, to his great joy, saw
that he had fallen by mere chance on the one thing for which he had
been looking. Here was an authentic portrait of Mr W H, with his hand
resting on the dedicatory page of the Sonnets, and on the frame itself
could be faintly seen the name of the young man written in black
uncial letters on a faded gold ground, 'Master Will. Hews'.
"Well, what was I to say? It never occurred to me for a moment
that Cyril Graham was playing a trick on me, or that he was trying
to prove his theory by means of a forgery."
"But is it a forgery?" I asked.
"Of course it is," said Erskine. "It is a very good forgery; but it is
a forgery none the less. I thought at the time that Cyril was rather
calm about the whole matter; but I remember he more than once told me
that he himself required no proof of the kind, and that he thought the
theory complete without it. I laughed at him, and told him that
without it the theory would fall to the ground, and I warmly
congratulated him on the marvellous discovery. We then arranged that
the picture should be etched or facsimiled, and placed as the
frontispiece to Cyril's edition of the Sonnets; and for three months
we did nothing but go over each poem line by line, till we had settled
every difficulty of text or meaning. One unlucky day I was in a print-
shop in Holborn, when I saw upon the counter some extremely beautiful
drawings in silver-point. I was so attracted by them that I bought
them; and the proprietor of the place, a man called Rawlings, told me
that they were done by a young painter of the name of Edward Merton,
who was very clever, but as poor as a church mouse. I went to see
Merton some days afterwards, having got his address from the
printseller, and found a pale, interesting young man, with a rather
common-looking wife - his model, as I subsequently learned. I told him
how much I admired his drawings, at which he seemed very pleased, and
I asked him if he would show me some of his other work. As we were
looking over a portfolio, full of really lovely things, - for Merton
had a most delicate and delightful touch, - I suddenly caught sight of
a drawing of the picture of Mr W H. There was no doubt whatever about
it. It was almost a facsimile - the only difference being that the two
masks of Tragedy and Comedy were not suspended from the marble table
as they are in the picture, but were lying on the floor at the young
man's feet. 'Where on earth did you get that?' I said. He grew rather
confused, and said 'Oh, that is nothing. I did not know it was
in this portfolio. It is not a thing of any value.'
"'It is what you did for Mr Cyril Graham,' exclaimed his wife;
'and if this gentleman wishes to buy it, let him have it.'
"'For Mr Cyril Graham?' I repeated.
'Did you paint the picture of Mr W H?'
"'I don't understand what you mean,' he answered, growing very red.
Well, the whole thing was quite dreadful. The wife let it all out. I
gave her five pounds when I was going away. I can't bear to think of
it now; but of course I was furious. I went off at once to Cyril's
chambers, waited there for three hours before he came in, with that
horrid lie staring me in the face, and told him I had discovered his
forgery. He grew very pale and said - 'I did it purely for your sake.
You would not be convinced in any other way. It does not affect the
truth of the theory.'
"'The truth of the theory!' I exclaimed; 'the less we talk about that
the better. You never even believed in it yourself. If you had, you
would not have committed a forgery to prove it.' High words passed
between us; we had a fearful quarrel. I daresay I was unjust.
The next morning he was dead."
"Dead!" I cried.
"Yes; he shot himself with a revolver. Some of the blood splashed upon
the frame of the picture, just where the name had been painted. By the
time I arrived - his servant lad sent for me at once - the police were
already there. He had left a letter for me, evidently written in the
greatest agitation and distress of mind."
"What was in it?" I asked.
"Oh, that he believed absolutely in Willie *HUGHES*; that the forgery
of the picture had been done simply as a concession to me, and did not
in the slightest degree invalidate the truth of the theory; and that
in order to show me how firm and flawless his faith in the whole thing
was, he was going to offer his life as a sacrifice to the secret of
the Sonnets. It was a foolish, mad letter. I remember he ended by
saying that he intrusted to me the Willie *HUGHES* theory, and that
it was for me to present it to the world, and to unlock
the secret of Shakespeare's heart."
"It is a most tragic story," I cried;
"but why have you not carried out his wishes?"
Erskine shrugged his shoulders. "Because it is a perfectly
unsound theory from beginning to end," he answered.
"My dear Erskine," I said, getting up from my seat, "you are entirely
wrong about the whole matter. It is the only perfect key to
Shakespeare's Sonnets that has ever been made. It is complete in every
detail. I believe in Willie *HUGHES*."
"Don't say that," said Erskine gravely; "I believe there is something
fatal about the idea, and intellectually there its nothing to be said
for it. I have gone into the whole matter, and I assure you the theory
is entirely fallacious. It is plausible up to a certain point. Then it
stops. For heaven's sake, my dear boy, don't take up the subject of
Willie *HUGHES*. You will break your heart over it."
"Erskine," I answered, "it is your duty to give this theory to the
world. If you will not do it, I will. By keeping it back you wrong the
memory of Cyril Graham, the youngest and the most splendid of all the
martyrs of literature. I entreat you to do him justice. He died for
this thing, don't let his death be in vain."
Erskine looked at me in amazement. "You are carried away by the
sentiment of the whole story," he said. "You forget that a thing is
not necessarily true because a man dies for it. I was devoted to Cyril
Graham. His death was a horrible blow to me. I did not recover it for
years. I don't think I have ever recovered it. But Willie *HUGHES*?
There is nothing in the idea of Willie *HUGHES*. No such person ever
existed. As for bringing the whole thing before the world - the world
thinks that Cyril Graham shot himself by accident. The only proof of
his suicide was contained in the letter to me, and of this letter the
public never heard anything. To the present day Lord Crediton thinks
that the whole thing was accidental."
"Cyril Graham sacrificed his life to a great idea," I answered "and
if you will not tell of his martyrdom, tell at least of his faith."
"His faith," said Erskine, "was fixed in a thing that was false, in a
thing that was unsound, in a thing that no Shakespearian scholar would
accept for a moment. The theory would be laughed at. Don't make a fool
of yourself, and don't follow a trail that leads nowhere. You start by
assuming the existence of the very person whose existence is the thing
to be proved. Besides, everybody knows that the Sonnets were addressed
to Lord Pembroke. The matter is settled once for all."
"The matter is not settled!" I exclaimed. "I will take up the theory
where Cyril Graham left it, and I will prove to the world that he was
right."
"Silly boy!" said Erskine. "Go home: it is after two, and don't think
about Willie *HUGHES* any more. I am sorry I told you anything about
it, and very sorry indeed that I should have converted you to a thing
in which I don't believe."
"You have given me the key to the greatest mystery of modern
literature," I answered; "and I shall not rest till I have made you
recognise, till I have made everybody recognise, that Cyril Graham was
the most subtle Shakespearian critic of our day."
As I walked home through St James's Park the dawn was just breaking
over London. The white swans were lying asleep on the polished lake,
and the gaunt Palace looked purple against the pale-green sky. I
thought of Cyril Graham, and my eyes filled with tears.
II
It was past twelve o'clock when I awoke, and the sun was streaming in
through the curtains of my room in long slanting beams of dusty gold.
I told my servant that I would be at home to no one; and after I had
had a cup of chocolate and a petit-pain, I took down from the book-
shelf my copy of Shakespeare's Sonnets, and began to go carefully
through them. Every poem seemed to me to corroborate Cyril Graham's
theory. I felt as if I had my hand upon Shakespeare's heart, and was
counting each separate throb and pulse of passion. I thought of the
wonderful boy-actor, and saw his face sit every line.
Two sonnets, I remember, struck me particularly: they were the 53rd
and the 67th. In the first of these, Shakespeare, complimenting Willie
*HUGHES* on the versatility of his acting, on his wide range of parts,
a range extending from Rosalind to Juliet, and from Beatrice to
Ophelia, says to him -
. What is your substance, whereof are you made,
. That millions of strange shadows on you tend?
. Since every one hath, every one, one shade,
. And you, but one, can every shadow lend lines that
would be unintelligible if they were not addressed to an
actor, for the word 'shadow' had in Shakespeare's day a technical
meaning connected with the stage. 'The best in this kind are but
shadows', says Theseus of the actors in the Midsummer Night's Dream,
and there are many similar allusions in the literature of the day.
These sonnets evidently belonged to the series in which Shakespeare
discusses the nature of the actor's art, and of the strange and rare
temperament that is essential to the perfect stage-player. 'How is
it,' says Shakespeare to Willie *HUGHES*, 'that you have so many
personalities?' and then he goes on to point out that his beauty is
such that it seems to realise every form and phase of fancy, to embody
each dream of the creative imagination - an idea that is still further
expanded in the sonnet that immediately follows, where, beginning
with the fine thought,
. O, how much more doth beauty beauteous seem
. By that sweet ornament which truth doth give!
Shakespeare invites us to notice how the truth of acting, the truth of
visible presentation on the stage, adds to the wonder of poetry,
giving life to its loveliness, and actual reality to its ideal form.
And yet, in the 67th Sonnet, Shakespeare calls upon Willie *HUGHES* to
abandon the stage with its artificiality, its false mimic life of
painted face and unreal costume, its immoral influences and
suggestions, its remoteness from the true world of noble action and
sincere utterance.
. Ah! wherefore with infection should he live,
. And with his presence grace impiety,
. That sin by him advantage should achieve,
. And lace itself with his society?
. Why should false painting imitate his cheek
. And steal dead seeming of his living hue?
. Why should poor beauty indirectly seek
. Roses of shadow, since his rose is true?
It may seem strange that so great a dramatist as Shakespeare, who
realised his own perfection as an artist and his humanity as a man on
the ideal plane of stage-writing and stage-playing, should have
written in these terms about the theatre; but we must remember that in
Sonnets CX and CXI Shakespeare shows us that he too was wearied of the
world of puppets, and full of shame at having made himself 'a motley
to the view'. The 111th Sonnet is especially bitter: -
. O, for my sake do you with Fortune chide
. The guilty goddess of my harmful deeds,
. That did not better for my life provide
. Than public means which public manners breeds.
. Thence comes it that my name receives a brand,
. And almost thence my nature is subdued
. To what it works in, like the dyer's hand:
. Pity me, then, and wish I were renewed
and there are many signs elsewhere of the same feeling, signs familiar
to all real students of Shakespeare.
One point puzzled me immensely as I read the Sonnets, and it was days
before I struck on the true interpretation, which indeed Cyril Graham
himself seems to have missed. I could not understand how it was that
Shakespeare set so high a value on his young friend marrying. He
himself had married young, and the result had been unhappiness, and it
was not likely that he would have asked Willie *HUGHES* to commit the
same error. The boy-player of Rosalind had nothing to gain from
marriage, or from the passions of real life. The early sonnets, with
their strange entreaties to have children, seemed to me a jarring
note. The explanation of the mystery came on me quite suddenly,
and I found it in the curious dedication. It will be remembered
that the dedication runs as follows:
TO THE ONLIE BEGETTER OF
THESE INSUING SONNETS
MR. W. H. ALL HAPPINESSE
AND THAT ETERNITIE
PROMISED
BY
OUR EVER-LIVING POET
WISHETH
THE WELL-WISHING
ADVENTURER IN
SETTING
FORTH.
----T. T.
Some scholars have supposed that the word 'begetter' in this
dedication means simply the procurer of the Sonnets for Thomas Thorpe
the publisher; but this view is now generally abandoned, and the
highest authorities are quite agreed that it is to be taken in the
sense of inspirer, the metaphor being drawn from the analogy of
physical life. Now I saw that the same metaphor was used by
Shakespeare himself all through the poems, and this set me on the
right track. Finally I made my great discovery. The marriage that
Shakespeare proposes for Willie *HUGHES* is the 'marriage with his
Muse', an expression which is definitely put forward in the 82nd
Sonnet, where, in the bitterness of his heart at the defection of the
boy-actor for whom he had written his greatest parts, and whose beauty
had indeed suggested them, he opens his complaint by saying -
. I'll grant thou wert not married to my Muse.
The children he begs him to beget are no children of flesh and blood,
but more immortal children of undying fame. The whole cycle of the
early sonnets is simply Shakespeare's invitation to Willie *HUGHES* to
go upon the stage and become a player. How barren and profitless a
thing, he says, is this beauty of yours if it be not used:
. When forty winters shall besiege thy brow,
. And dig deep trenches in thy beauty's field.
. Thy youth's proud livery, so gazed on now,
. Will be a tattered weed, of small worth held:
. Then being asked where all thy beauty lies.
. Where all the treasure of thy lusty days,
. To say, within thine own deep-sunken eyes.
. Were an all-eating shame and thriftless praise.
You must create something in art: my verse 'is thine, and born of
thee; only listen to me, and I will bring forth eternal numbers to
outlive long date', and you shall people with forms of your own image
the imaginary world of the stage. These children that you beget he
continues, will not wither away, as mortal children do, but you shall
live in them and in my plays: do but
. Make thee another self, for love of me.
. That beauty still may live in thine or thee!
I collected all the passages that seemed to me to corroborate this
view, and they produced a strong impression on me, and showed me how
complete Cyril Graham's theory really was. I also saw that it was
quite easy to separate those lines in which he speaks of the Sonnets
themselves from those in which he speaks of his great dramatic work.
This was a point that had been entirely overlooked by all critics up
to Cyril Graham's day. And yet it was one of the most important points
in the whole series of poems. To the Sonnets Shakespeare was more or
less indifferent. He did not wish to rest his fame on them. They were
to him his 'slight Muse', as he calls them, and intended, as Meres
tells us, for private circulation only among a few, a very few,
friends. Upon the other hand he was extremely conscious of the high
artistic value of his plays and shows a noble self-reliance upon his
dramatic genius. When he says to Willie *HUGHES*:
. But thy eternal summer shall not fade,
. Nor lose possession of that fair thou owest;
. Nor shall Death brag thou wander'st in his shade,
. When in eternal lines to time thou growest;
. . So long as men can breathe or eyes can see,
. . So long lives this and this gives life to thee;
the expression 'eternal lines' clearly alludes to one of his plays
that he was sending him at the time, just as the concluding couplet
points to his confidence in the probability of his plays being always
acted. In his address to the Dramatic Muse (Sonnets C and CI), we find
the same feeling.
. Where art thou, Muse, that thou forget'st so long
. To speak of that which gives thee all thy might?
. Spends thou thy fury on some worthless song,
. Darkening thy power to lend base subjects light?
he cries, and he then proceeds to reproach the mistress of Tragedy and
Comedy for her 'neglect of Truth in Beauty dyed', and says -
. Because he needs no praise, wilt thou be dumb?
. Excuse not silence so; for 't lies in thee
. To make him much outlive a gilded tomb,
. And to be praised of ages yet to be.
. . Then do thy office, Muse; I teach thee how
. . To make him seem long hence as he shows now.
It is, however, perhaps in the 55th Sonnet that Shakespeare gives to
this idea its fullest expression. To imagine that the 'powerful rhyme'
of the second line refers to the sonnet itself, is to entirely mistake
Shakespeare's meaning. It seemed to me that it was extremely likely,
from the general character of the sonnet, that a particular play was
meant, and that the play was none other but Romeo and Juliet.
. Not marble, nor the gilded monuments
. Of princes, shall outlive this powerful rhyme;
. But you shall shine more bright in these contents
. That unswept stone besmeared with sluttish time.
. When wasteful wars shall statues overturn,
. And broils root out the work of masonry,
. Not Mars his sword nor wars quick fire shall burn
. The living record of your memory.
. 'Gainst death and all-oblivious enmity
. Shall you pace forth; your praise shall still find room
. Even in the eyes of all posterity
. That wear this world out to the ending doom.
. . So, till the judgment that yourself arise,
. . You live in this, and dwell in lovers' eyes.
It was also extremely suggestive to note how here as elsewhere
Shakespeare promised Willie *HUGHES* immortality in a form that
appealed to men's eyes - that is to say, in a spectacular form, in a
play that is to be looked at.
For two weeks I worked hard at the Sonnets, hardly ever going out, and
refusing all invitations. Every day I seemed to be discovering
something new, and Willie *HUGHES* became to me a kind of spiritual
presence, an ever-dominant personality. I could almost fancy that I
saw him standing in the shadow of my room, so well had Shakespeare
drawn him, with his golden hair, his tender flower-like grace, his
dreamy deep-sunken eyes, his delicate mobile limbs, and his white lily
hands. His very name fascinated me. Willie *HUGHES*! Willie *HUGHES*!
How musically it sounded! Yes; who else but he could have been the
master-mistress of Shakespeare's passion (20.2), the lord of his love
to whom he was bound in vassalage (26.1), the delicate minion of
pleasure (126.9), the rose of the whole world (104.14), the herald of
the spring (1.10) decked in the proud livery of youth (2.3), the
lovely boy whom it was sweet music to hear (8.1), and whose beauty was
the very raiment of Shakespeare's heart (22.6) as it was the keystone
of his dramatic power? How bitter now seemed the whole tragedy of his
desertion and his shame! - shame that he made sweet and lovely (95.1)
by the mere magic of his personality, but that was none the less
shame. Yet as Shakespeare forgave him, should not we forgive him also?
I did not care to pry into the mystery of his sin.
His abandonment of Shakespeare's theatre was a different matter, and I
investigated it at great length. Finally I came to the conclusion that
Cyril Graham had been wrong in regarding the rival dramatist of the
80th Sonnet as Chapman. It was obviously Marlowe who was alluded to.
At the time the Sonnets were written, such an expression as 'the proud
full sail of his great verse' could not have been used of Chapman's
work, however applicable it might have been to the style of his later
Jacobean plays. No: Marlowe was clearly the rival dramatist of whom
Shakespeare spoke in such laudatory terms; and that
. . --Affable familiar ghost
. Which nightly gulls him with intelligence,
was the Mephistopheles of his Doctor Faustus. No doubt, Marlowe was
fascinated by the beauty and grace of the boy-actor, and lured him
away from the Blackfriars Theatre, that he might play the Gaveston of
his Edward II. That Shakespeare had the legal right to retain Willie
*HUGHES* in his own company is evident from Sonnet LXXXVII, where he
says: -
. Farewell! thou art too dear for my possessing,
. And like enough thou know'st thy estimate:
. The charter of thy worth gives thee releasing;
. My bonds in thee are all determinate.
. For how do I hold thee but by thy granting?
. And for that riches where is my deserving?
. The cause of this fair gift in me is wanting,
. And so my patent back again is swerving.
. Thyself thou gavest, thy own work then not knowing,
. Or me, to whom thou gavest it, else mistaking;
. So thy great gift, upon misprision growing,
. Comes home again, on better judgment making.
. . Thus have I had thee, as a dream doth flatter,
. . In sleep a king, but waking no such matter.
But him whom he could not hold by love, he would not hold by force.
Willie *HUGHES* became a member of Lord Pembroke's company, and,
perhaps in the open yard of the Red Bull Tavern, played the part of
King Edward's delicate minion. On Marlowe's death, he seems to have
returned to Shakespeare, who, whatever his fellow-partners may have
thought of the matter, was not slow to forgive the wilfulness and
treachery of the young actor.
How well, too, had Shakespeare drawn the temperament of the stage-
player! Willie *HUGHES* was one of those
. That do not do the thing they most do show,
. Who, moving others, are themselves as stone.
He could act love, but could not feel it, could mimic passion without
realising it:
. In many's looks the false heart's history
. Is writ it moods and frowns and wrinkles strange,
but with Willie *HUGHES* it was not so. 'Heaven', says Shakespeare, in
a sonnet of mad idolatry -
. Heaven in thy creation did decree
. That in thy face sweet love should ever dwell;
. Whate'er thy thoughts or thy heart's workings be,
. Thy looks should nothing thence but sweetness tell.
In his 'inconstant mind' and his 'false heart', it was easy to
recognise the insincerity and treachery that somehow seem inseparable
from the artistic nature, as in his love of praise, that desire for
immediate recognition that characterises all actors. And yet, more
fortunate in this than other actors, Willie *HUGHES* was to know
something of immortality. Inseparably connected with Shakespeare's
plays, he was to live in them:
. Your name from hence immortal life shall have,
. Though I, once gone, to all the world must die:
. The earth can yield me but a common grave,
. When you entombed in men's eyes shall lie.
. Your monument shall he my gentle verse,
. Which eyes not yet created shall o'er-read,
. And tongues to be your being shall rehearse
. When all the breathers of this world are dead.
There were endless allusions, also, to Willie *HUGHES's* power over
his audience, - the 'gazers', as Shakespeare calls them; hut perhaps
the most perfect description of his wonderful mastery over dramatic
art was in The Lover's Complaint, where Shakespeare says of him: -
. In him a plentitude of subtle matter,
. Applied to cautels, all strange forms receives,
. Of burning blushes, or of weeping water,
. Or swooning paleness; and he takes and leaves,
. In either's aptness, as it best deceives,
. . To blush at speeches rank, to weep at woes,
. . Or to turn white and swoon at tragic shows.
.
. So on the tip of his subduing tongue,
. All kind of arguments and questions deep,
. All replication prompt and reason strong,
. For his advantage still did wake and sleep,
. To make the weeper laugh, the laugher weep.
. . He had the dialect and the different skill,
. . Catching all passions in his craft of will.
.
Once I thought that I had really found Willie *HUGHES* in Elizabethan
literature. In a wonderfully graphic account of the last days of the
great Earl of Essex, his chaplain, Thomas Knell, tells us that the
night before the Earl died, 'he called William Hewes, which was his
musician, to play upon the virginals and to sing. "Play," said he, "my
song, Will Hewes, and I will sing it to myself." So he did it most
joyfully, not as the howling swan, which, still looking down, waileth
her end, but as a sweet lark, lifting up his hands and casting up his
eyes to his God, with this mounted the crystal skies, and reached with
his unwearied tongue the top of highest heavens.' Surely the boy who
played on the virginals to the dying father of Sidney's Stella was
none other but the Will Hews to whom Shakespeare dedicated the
Sonnets, and whom he tells us was himself sweet 'music to hear'. Yet
Lord Essex died in 1576, when Shakespeare himself was but twelve years
of age. It was impossible that his musician could have been the Mr W H
of the Sonnets. Perhaps Shakespeare's young friend was the son of the
player upon the virginals? It was at least something to have
discovered that Will Hews was an Elizabethan name. Indeed the name
Hews seemed to have been closely connected with music and the stage.
The first English actress was the lovely Margaret Hews, whom Prince
Rupert so madly loved. What more probable than that between her and
Lord Essex's musician had come the boy-actor of Shakespeare's plays?
But the proofs, the links - where were they? Alas! I could not find
them. It seemed to me that I was always on the brink of absolute
verification, but that I could never really attain to it.
From Willie *HUGHES's* life I soon passed to thoughts of his death. I
used to wonder what had been his end.
Perhaps he had been one of those English actors who in 1604 went
across sea to Germany and played before the great Duke Henry Julius of
Brunswick, himself a dramatist of no mean order, and at the Court of
that strange Elector of Brandenburg, who was so enamoured of beauty
that he was said to have bought for his weight in amber the young son
of a travelling Greek merchant, and to have given pageants in honour
of his slave all through that dreadful famine year of 1606-7, when the
people died of hunger in the very streets of the town, and for the
space of seven months there was no rain. We know at any rate that
Romeo and Juliet was brought out at Dresden in 1613, along with Hamlet
and King Lear, and it was surely to none other than Willie *HUGHES*
that in 1615 the death-mask of Shakespeare was brought by the hand of
one of the suite of the English ambassador, pale token of the passing
away of the great poet who had so dearly loved him. Indeed there would
have been something peculiarly fitting in the idea that the boy-actor,
whose beauty had been so vital an element in the realism and romance
of Shakespeare's art, should have been the first to have brought to
Germany the seed of the new culture, and was in his way the precursor
of that Aufklarung or Illumination of the eighteenth century, that
splendid movement which, though begun by Lessing and Herder, and
brought to its full and perfect issue by Goethe, was in no small part
helped on by another actor Friedrich Schroeder - who awoke the popular
consciousness, and by means of the feigned passions and mimetic
methods of the stage showed the intimate, the vital, connection
between life and literature. If this was so - and there was certainly
no evidence against it - it was not improbable that Willie *HUGHES*
was one of those English comedians (mimæ quidam ex Britannia, as the
old chronicle calls them), who were slain at Nuremberg in a sudden
uprising of the people, and were secretly buried in a little vineyard
outside the city by some young men 'who had found pleasure in their
performances, and of whom some had sought to be instructed in the
mysteries of the new art.' Certainly no more fitting place could there
be for him to whom Shakespeare said, 'thou art all my art', than this
little vineyard outside the city walls. For was it not from the
sorrows of Dionysos that Tragedy sprang? Was not the light laughter of
Comedy, with its careless merriment and quick replies, first heard on
the lips of the Sicilian vine-dressers? Nay, did not the purple and
red stain of the wine-froth on face and limbs give the first
suggestion of the charm and fascination of disguise the desire for
self-concealment, the sense of the value of objectivity thus showing
itself in the rude beginnings of the art? At any rate, wherever he lay
whether in the little vineyard at the gate of the Gothic town, or in
some dim London churchyard amidst the roar and bustle of our great
city - No gorgeous monument marked his resting-place. His true tomb,
as Shakespeare saw, was the poet's verse, his true monument the
permanence of the drama. So had it been with others whose beauty had
given a new creative impulse to their age. The ivory body of the
Bithynian slave rots in the green ooze of the Nile, and on the yellow
hills of the Cerameicus is strewn the dust of the young Athenian; but
Antinous lives in sculpture, and Charmides in philosophy.
.
III
After three weeks had elapsed, I determined to make a strong appeal to
Erskine to do justice to the memory of Cyril Graham, and to give to
the world his marvellous interpretation of the Sonnets - the only
interpretation that thoroughly explained the problem. I have not any
copy of my letter, I regret to say, nor have I been able to lay my
hand upon the original; but I remember that I went over the whole
ground, and covered sheets of paper with passionate re-iteration of
the arguments and proofs that my study had suggested to me. It seemed
to me that I was not merely restoring Cyril Graham to his proper place
in literary history, but rescuing the honour of Shakespeare himself
front the tedious memory of a commonplace intrigue. I put into the
letter all my enthusiasm. I put into the letter all my faith.
No sooner, in fact, had I sent it off than a curious reaction came
over me. It seemed to me that I had given away my capacity for belief
in the Willie *HUGHES* theory of the Sonnets, that something had gone
out of me, as it were, and that I was perfectly indifferent to the
whole subject. What was it that had happened? It is difficult to say,
perhaps, by finding perfect expression for a passion I had exhausted
the passion itself. Emotional forces, like the forces of physical
life, have their positive limitations. Perhaps the mere effort to
convert any one to a theory involves some form of renunciation of the
power of credence. Perhaps I was simply tired of the whole thing, and,
my enthusiasm having burnt out, my reason was left to its own
unimpassioned judgement. However it came about, and I cannot pretend
to explain it, there was no doubt that Willie *HUGHES* suddenly became
to me a mere myth, an idle dream, the boyish fancy of a young man who,
like most ardent spirits, was more anxious to convince others than to
be himself convinced.
As I had said some very unjust and bitter things to Erskine in my
latter, I determined to go and see him at once, and to make my
apologies to him for my behaviour. Accordingly, the next morning I
drove down to Birdcage Walk, and found Erskine sitting in his library,
with the forged picture of Willie *HUGHES* in front of him.
"My dear Erskine!" I cried, "I have come to apologise to you."
"To apologise to me?" he said. "What for?"
"For my letter," I answered.
"You have nothing to regret in your letter," he said. "On the
contrary, you have done me the greatest service in your power. You
have shown me that Cyril Graham's theory is perfectly sound."
"You don't mean to say that you believe in Willie *HUGHES*?"
I exclaimed.
"Why not?" he rejoined. "You have proved the thing to me.
Do you think I cannot estimate the value of evidence."
"But there is no evidence at all," I groaned, sinking into a chair.
"When I wrote to you I was under the influence of a perfectly silly
enthusiasm. I had been touched by the story of Cyril Graham's death,
fascinated by his romantic theory, enthralled by the wonder and
novelty of the whole idea. I see now that the theory is based on a
delusion. The only evidence for the existence of Willie *HUGHES* is
that picture in front of you, and the picture is a forgery. Don't be
carried away by mere sentiment in this matter. Whatever romance may
have to say about the Willie *HUGHES* theory, reason is dead against
it."
"I don't understand you," said Erskine, looking at me in amazement.
"Why, you yourself have convinced me by your letter that Willie
*HUGHES* is an absolute reality. Why have you changed your mind? Or is
all that you have been saying to me merely a joke?"
"I cannot explain it to you," I rejoined, "but I see now that there is
really nothing to be said in favour of Cyril Graham's interpretation.
The Sonnets are addressed to Lord Pembroke. For heaven's sake don't
waste your time in a foolish attempt to discover a young Elizabethan
actor who never existed, and to make a phantom puppet the centre of
the great cycle of Shakespeare's Sonnets."
"I see that you don't understand the theory," he replied.
"My dear Erskine," I cried, "not understand it! Why, I feel as if I
had invented it. Surely my letter shows you that I not merely went
into the whole matter, but that I contributed proofs of every kind.
The one flaw in the theory is that it presupposes the existence of the
person whose existence is the subject of dispute. If we grant that
there was in Shakespeare's company a young actor of the name of Willie
*HUGHES* it is not difficult to make him the object of the Sonnets.
But as we know that there was no actor of this name in the company of
the Globe Theatre, it is idle to pursue the investigation further."
"But that is exactly what we don't know," said Erskine. "It is quite
true that his name does not occur in the list given in the first
folio; but, as Cyril pointed out, that is rather a proof in favour of
the existence of Willie *HUGHES* than against it, if we remember his
treacherous desertion of Shakespeare for a rival dramatist."
We argued the matter over for hours, but nothing that I could say
could make Erskine surrender his faith in Cyril Graham's
interpretation. He told me that he intended to devote his life to
proving the theory, and that he was determined to do justice to Cyril
Graham's memory. I entreated him, laughed at him, begged of him, but
it was of no use. Finally we parted, not exactly in anger, but
certainly with a shadow between us. He thought me shallow, I thought
him foolish. When I called on him again his servant told me that he
had gone to Germany.
Two years afterwards, as I was going into my club, the hall-porter
handed me a letter with a foreign postmark. It was from Erskine, and
written at the Hotel d'Angleterre, Cannes. When I had read it I was
filled with horror, though I did not quite believe that he would be so
mad as to carry his resolve into execution. The gist of the letter was
that he had tried in every way to verify the Willie *HUGHES* theory,
and had failed, and that as Cyril. Graham had given his life for this
theory, he himself had determined to give his own life also to the
same cause. The concluding words of the letter were these: "I still
believe in Willie *HUGHES*; and by the time you receive this, I shall
have died by my own hand for Willie *HUGHES's* sake: for his sake, and
for the sake of Cyril Graham, whom I drove to his death by my shallow
scepticism and ignorant lack of faith. The truth was once revealed to
you, and you rejected it. It comes to you now stained with the blood
of two lives - do not turn away from it."
It was a horrible moment. I felt sick with misery, and yet I could not
believe it. To die for one's theological beliefs is the worst use a
man can make of his life, but to die for a literary theory!
It seemed impossible.
I looked at the date. The letter was a week old. Some unfortunate
chance had prevented my going to the club for several days, or I might
have got it in time to save him. Perhaps it was not too late. I drove
off to my rooms, packed up my things, and started by the night-mail
from Charing Cross. The journey was intolerable. I thought I would
never arrive.
As soon as I did I drove to the Hotel d'Angleterre. They told me that
Erskine had been buried two days before, in the English cemetery.
There was something horribly grotesque about the whole tragedy. I said
all kinds of wild things, and the people in the hall looked curiously
at me.
Suddenly Lady Erskine, in deep mourning, passed across the vestibule.
When she saw me she came up to me, murmured something about her poor
son, and burst into tears. I led her into her sitting-room. An elderly
gentleman was there waiting for her. It was the English doctor.
We talked a great deal about Erskine, but I said nothing about his
motive for committing suicide. It was evident that he had not told his
mother anything about the reason that had driven him to so fatal, so
mad an act. Finally Lady Erskine rose and said, "George left you
something as a memento. It was a thing he prized very much.
I will get it for you."
As soon as she had left the room I turned to the doctor and said,
"What a dreadful shock it must have been to Lady Erskine!
I wonder that she bears it as well as she does."
"Oh, she knew for months past that it was coming," he answered.
"Knew it for months past!" I cried. "But why didn't she stop him?
Why didn't she have him watched? He must have been mad."
The doctor stared at me. "I don't know what you mean," he said.
"Well," I cried,
"if a mother knows that her son is going to commit suicide -"
"Suicide!" he answered. "Poor Erskine did not commit suicide. He died
of consumption. He came here to die. The moment I saw him I knew that
there was no hope. One lung was almost gone, and the other was very
much affected. Three days before he died he asked me was there any
hope. I told him frankly that there was none, and that he had only
a few days to live. He wrote some letters, and was quite resigned,
retaining his senses to the last."
At that moment Lady Erskine entered the room with the fatal picture
of Willie *HUGHES* in her hand. "When George was dying he begged me
to give you this," she said. As I took it from her,
her tears fell on my hand.
The picture hangs now in my library, where it is very much admired
by my artistic friends. They have decided that it is not a Clouet,
but an Ouvry. I have never cared to tell them its true history. But
sometimes, when I look at it, I think that there is really a great
deal to be said for the Willie *HUGHES* theory of Shakespeare's
Sonnets.
-------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
art
>
>>>>>> Just out of curiosity, Art, exactly who *are* the
>>>>>> members of this mythical "Goon Squad" of yours?
>>> art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> Larque, Grumman, KQKnave, Webb, John Kennedy, Reynolds,
>>>>> Reedy, Stonehouse, Symposium1, Kathman, Ross, bookburn,
>>>>> BCD, Kosinsky, Veal, Ignoto, Brennen, Groves,
>>>>> and Melanie Sands.
>>> BCD <odint...@csulb.edu> wrote:
>
>>>> ***[sniffles; dabs at eyes] I'm deeply touched. Not as
>>>> deeply "touched" as some, but deeply touched nonetheless.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Welcome back, Brent! It's very satisfying to have been
> honored by membership in the Goon Squad, isn't it?
In abstentia membership, perhaps.
>> art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> You haven't posted here since: May 6 2009.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Well, you know how it is, Art -- h.l.a.s. has been oVERrun by a
> spamming moron who posts the same crackpot cryptography oVER and
> oVER and oVER, so many of us have retreated to the Forest of Arden,
> from which the most egregious offenders are banned.
I don't think that one can really obtain
*FULL* Birthplace Trust brownie points
executing such a cowardly retreat.
>> art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> (If I ever needed proof....)
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> You have a most amusing notion of "proof," Art!
Well... "evidence" then.
> BCD <odint...@csulb.edu> wrote:
>>
>> ***Yes, well--I've been lurking quite a lot; but I've been busy with
>> L.A. History things--mainly, building a database of all the names in
>> the censuses
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> You should by all means consult Art -- he'll tell you
> that most of those names are bogus Masonic fakes.
Most of those names are bogus Masonic fakes.
> BCD <odint...@csulb.edu> wrote:
>>
>> and *padrones* for L.A. from 1781 to 1870, then (at present)
>> going over it a second time to smooth out all the wrinkles.
>> Oh, the Joses! Oh, the Marias! Oh, the Saturninos!
..........................................
padrone n. (pl. padrones or padroni)
[Italian, from Latin patrnus, patron.]
1. An owner or manager, especially of an inn; a proprietor.
2. A man who exploitatively employs
or finds work for Italian immigrants in America.
..........................................
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> And since you have no doubt been delving into Spanish-language
> archives, one should point out, in the time-honored Neuendorffer
> tradition, that "Saturninos" admits the Spanish anagram
>
> Art N.: sin uso.
Too many words: *Art N.: SUSino*
*SUSino* : *plum-tree* (Italian)
-------------------------------------------------------
Hamlet, Prince of Denmark Act 2, Scene 2
HAMLET Slanders, sir: for the satirical rogue says here
. that old men have grey beards, that their faces
. are wrinkled, their eyes purging thick amber and
. *plum-tree gum* and that they have a plentiful lack
. of wit, together with most weak hams: all which, sir,
. though I most powerfully and potently believe, yet
. I hold it not honesty to have it thus set down, for
. yourself, sir, should be old as I am, if like a crab
. you could go backward.
........................................................
`Come, fetch out the plum-CAKE, old man!' the Unicorn went on,
------------------------------------------------------
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Not that I agree -- Art is always useful as a source
> (albeit an idiosyncratic one) of entertainment.
Both source and sinc.
> BCD <odint...@csulb.edu> wrote:
>>
>> And all I have to say is, "Whee."
>> Well, that's not *all* I have to say; but
>> the rest is comprised of inARTiculate sounds.
>
>> ***But one always comes back to the hlas tavern . . .
------------------------------
_______ Cymbeline: V, iv
.
First Gaoler: A heavy reckoning for you, sir. But the comfort is,
. you shall be called to no more payments, fear no
. more *taVERn-BILLS* ; which are often the sadness
. of parting, as the procuring of mirth
........................................
Bare-headed, sweating, knocking at the *taVERns* ,
- King Henry IV, part II: II, iv
........................................
Make it more like a *taVERn* or a brothel
- King Lear: I, iv
........................................
And given to fornications, and to *taVERns*
- Merry Wives of Windsor: V, v
------------------------------
*taVERn* , n. [L. taberna; tab, the root of table, a board.]
A house licensed to see liquors in small quantities, to be drank on
the spot. In some of the United States, tavern is synonymous with inn
or hotel, and denotes a house for the entertainment of travelers, as
well as for the sale of liquors, licensed for that purpose.
------------------------------
O, I could wish this *taVERn* were my drum!
- King Henry IV, part I: III, iii
........................................
http://www.awm-math.org/articles/200101/JMM2001/Image23.jpg
MAA Chauvenet Prize Winners
David L. Webb and Carolyn S. Gordon
(Dartmouth College)
........................................
And I will see what physic the *taVERn* affords.
- King Henry VI, part I: III, i
------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
TomFoster
> > are members of a four hundred year-old Hermetic conspiracy, among them
> > Freemasons, Knights Templar, Rosicrucians, Rex Deus, Priory of Sion
> > initiates, Knights of Malta, Odd Fellows, Elks, etc., a conspiracy
> > that involves practically eVERy writer of note in eVERy language as
> > well as most h.l.a.s. habitués --
>
> That's brilliant, Dave! May I quote you?
>
not, sadly, a Freemason, an Odd Fellow (well, as far as I know) or an
Elk. I'd love to be a member of the Goon Squad though. how do I join?
Tom
lackpurity
> > > custodians of the secret of the authorship of the Shakespeare canon
> > > are members of a four hundred year-old Hermetic conspiracy, among them
> > > Freemasons, Knights Templar, Rosicrucians, Rex Deus, Priory of Sion
> > > initiates, Knights of Malta, Odd Fellows, Elks, etc., a conspiracy
> > > that involves practically eVERy writer of note in eVERy language as
>
> > That's brilliant, Dave! May I quote you?
>
> I'm a Rosicrucian, Priory of Sion initiate and Knight of Malta, but
> not, sadly, a Freemason, an Odd Fellow (well, as far as I know) or an
> Elk. I'd love to be a member of the Goon Squad though. how do I join?
>
> Tom
What is your opinion of Edward de Vere's writing talent? Maybe that
would be a starting point?
Michael Martin
lackpurity
> In article
>
>
>
>
>
> �BCD <odint...@csulb.edu> wrote:
> > On Mar 12, 11:36�am, art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> > > >>> Just out of curiosity, Art, exactly who *are* the members
> > > >>> of this mythical "Goon Squad" of yours?
> > > art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > >> Larque, Grumman, KQKnave, Webb, John Kennedy, Reynolds,
> > > >> Reedy, Stonehouse, Symposium1, Kathman, Ross, bookburn,
> > > >> BCD, Kosinsky, Veal, Ignoto, Brennen, Groves,
> > > >> and Melanie Sands.
> > > BCD <odint...@csulb.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > ***[sniffles; dabs at eyes] I'm deeply touched. Not as
> > > > �deeply "touched" as some, but deeply touched nonetheless.
>
> � �Welcome back, Brent! �It's very satisfying to have been honored by
> membership in the Goon Squad, isn't it?
>
> [...]
>
> > > You haven't posted here since: May 6 2009.
>
> � �Well, you know how it is, Art -- h.l.a.s. has been oVERrun by a
> spamming moron who posts the same crackpot cryptography oVER and oVER
> and oVER, so many of us have retreated to the Forest of Arden, from
> which the most egregious offenders are banned.
This is a vast oversimplification, and doesn't do HLAS justice. This
is just one man's opinion. Elizabeth knows something about his
opinions I'd say. Art has posted the posting activity. He has his
opinion, also. If FOA is such a haven, then could you post more
evidence of that?
Michael Martin
> > > (If I ever needed proof....)
>
> � �You have a most amusing notion of "proof," Art!
>
> > > Art Neuendorffer
>
> > ***Yes, well--I've been lurking quite a lot; but I've been busy with
> > L.A. History things--mainly, building a database of all the names in
> > the censuses
>
> � �You should by all means consult Art -- he'll tell you that most of
> those names are bogus Masonic fakes.
>
> > and *padrones* for L.A. from 1781 to 1870, then (at
> > present) going over it a second time to smooth out all the wrinkles.
> > Oh, the Joses! �Oh, the Marias! �Oh, the Saturninos!
>
> � �And since you have no doubt been delving into Spanish-language
> archives, one should point out, in the time-honored Neuendorffer
> tradition, that "Saturninos" admits the Spanish anagram
>
> � � � � � � � � � � � � Art N.: sin uso.
>
> � �Not that I agree -- Art is always useful as a source (albeit an
> idiosyncratic one) of entertainment.
>
> > And all I have
> > to say is, "Whee." �Well, that's not *all* I have to say; but the rest
> > is comprised of inARTiculate sounds.
>
> > ***But one always comes back to the hlas tavern . . .
>
> � �Absolutely!
>
> > Best Wishes,
>
> � �And best wishes to you.
>
>
>
> > --BCD- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
nordicskiv2
<e3d4e6ce-b456-4634...@r1g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
art <acne...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>>>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>>>>> Just out of curiosity, Art, exactly who *are* the
> >>>>>> members of this mythical "Goon Squad" of yours?
> >>> art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>>> Larque, Grumman, KQKnave, Webb, John Kennedy, Reynolds,
> >>>>> Reedy, Stonehouse, Symposium1, Kathman, Ross, bookburn,
> >>>>> BCD, Kosinsky, Veal, Ignoto, Brennen, Groves,
> >>>>> and Melanie Sands.
> >>> BCD <odint...@csulb.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>>> ***[sniffles; dabs at eyes] I'm deeply touched. Not as
> >>>> deeply "touched" as some, but deeply touched nonetheless.
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Welcome back, Brent! It's very satisfying to have been
> > honored by membership in the Goon Squad, isn't it?
> In abstentia [sic]
Is English your native tongue, Art? I'll grant you that the
expression comes from Latin, but still...
> membership, perhaps.
Once a goon, always a goon, Art.
> >> art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> You haven't posted here since: May 6 2009.
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Well, you know how it is, Art -- h.l.a.s. has been oVERrun by a
> > spamming moron who posts the same crackpot cryptography oVER and
> > oVER and oVER, so many of us have retreated to the Forest of Arden,
> > from which the most egregious offenders are banned.
> I don't think that one can really obtain
> *FULL* Birthplace Trust brownie points
> executing such a cowardly retreat.
Are you calling the Forest of Arden members cowardly, Art? Many of
us still post to h.l.a.s., you know.
> >> art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> (If I ever needed proof....)
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > You have a most amusing notion of "proof," Art!
> Well... "evidence" then.
You did well to enclose the word in quotation marks, Art -- you
have a most amusing notion of "evidence" as well!
> > BCD <odint...@csulb.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> ***Yes, well--I've been lurking quite a lot; but I've been busy with
> >> L.A. History things--mainly, building a database of all the names in
> >> the censuses
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > You should by all means consult Art -- he'll tell you
> > that most of those names are bogus Masonic fakes.
> Most of those names are bogus Masonic fakes.
See that I mean, Brent?
> > BCD <odint...@csulb.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> and *padrones* for L.A. from 1781 to 1870, then (at present)
> >> going over it a second time to smooth out all the wrinkles.
> >> Oh, the Joses! Oh, the Marias! Oh, the Saturninos!
> ..........................................
> padrone n. (pl. padrones or padroni)
> [Italian, from Latin patrnus, patron.]
>
> 1. An owner or manager, especially of an inn; a proprietor.
> 2. A man who exploitatively employs
> or finds work for Italian immigrants in America.
What makes you think that Brent meant the Italian "padrone" rather
the Spanish "padrón," Art?
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > And since you have no doubt been delving into Spanish-language
> > archives, one should point out, in the time-honored Neuendorffer
> > tradition, that "Saturninos" admits the Spanish anagram
> > Art N.: sin uso.
> Too many words:
Absolutely, Art -- that's why you're practically _sin uso_ these
days: you are guilty of too many words, and the SAME words oVER and
oVER and oVER, at that! If you prefer, a Spanish anagram of
"Saturnino" is
"A.N.: intruso."
[...]
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Not that I agree -- Art is always useful as a source
> > (albeit an idiosyncratic one) of entertainment.
> Both source and sinc.
> > BCD <odint...@csulb.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> And all I have to say is, "Whee."
> >> Well, that's not *all* I have to say; but
> >> the rest is comprised of inARTiculate sounds.
> >
> >> ***But one always comes back to the hlas tavern . . .
elizabeth
Thanks to my family connections,
I couldn't lose.
U-S-A CA-NA-DA! etc.
art
>
>>>>>>>> Just out of curiosity, Art, exactly who *are* the
>>>>>>>> members of this mythical "Goon Squad" of yours?
>>>>> art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Larque, Grumman, KQKnave, Webb, John Kennedy, Reynolds,
>>>>>>> Reedy, Stonehouse, Symposium1, Kathman, Ross, bookburn,
>>>>>>> BCD, Kosinsky, Veal, Ignoto, Brennen, Groves,
>>>>>>> and Melanie Sands.
>>>>> BCD <odint...@csulb.edu> wrote:
>
>>>>>> ***[sniffles; dabs at eyes] I'm deeply touched. Not as
>>>>>> deeply "touched" as some, but deeply touched nonetheless.
>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>> Welcome back, Brent! It's very satisfying to have been
>>> honored by membership in the Goon Squad, isn't it?
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>
>> In abstentia membership, perhaps.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Once a goon, always a goon, Art.
True enough.
>>>> art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> You haven't posted here since: May 6 2009.
>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>> Well, you know how it is, Art -- h.l.a.s. has been oVERrun by a
>>> spamming moron who posts the same crackpot cryptography oVER and
>>> oVER and oVER, so many of us have retreated to the Forest of Arden,
>>> from which the most egregious offenders are banned.
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>
>> I don't think that one can really obtain
>> *FULL* Birthplace Trust brownie points
>> executing such a cowardly retreat.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Are you calling the Forest of Arden members cowardly, Art?
--------------------------------
Tom (the ghost who walks) Reedy:
If I were King of the Forest, Not queen, not duke, not prince.
My regal robes of the forest, would be satin, not cotton, not chintz.
I'd command each thing, be it fish or fowl.
With a woof and a woof and a royal growl - woof.
As I'd click my heel, all the trees would kneel.
And the mountains bow and the bulls kowtow.
And the sparrow would take wing - If I - If I - were King!
Each rabbit would show respect to me.
The chipmunks genuflect to me.
Though my tail would lash, I would show compash
For every underling!
If I - If I - were King!
Just King!
--------------------------------
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Many of us still post to h.l.a.s., you know.
Oh, I don't mean that you personally ever go of to a moderated
group, Dave. You haven't the stomach for faining politeness.
>>>> art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>> (If I ever needed proof....)
>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>> You have a most amusing notion of "proof," Art!
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>
>> Well... "evidence" then.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> You did well to enclose the word in quotation marks, Art
> -- you have a most amusing notion of "evidence" as well!
So do Stratfordians.
>>> BCD <odint...@csulb.edu> wrote:
>
>>>> ***Yes, well--I've been lurking quite a lot; but I've been busy with
>>>> L.A. History things--mainly, building a database of all the names in
>>>> the censuses
>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>> You should by all means consult Art -- he'll tell you
>>> that most of those names are bogus Masonic fakes.
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>
>> Most of those names are bogus Masonic fakes.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> See that I mean, Brent?
>>> BCD <odint...@csulb.edu> wrote:
>
>>>> and *padrones* for L.A. from 1781 to 1870, then (at present)
>>>> going over it a second time to smooth out all the wrinkles.
>>>> Oh, the Joses! Oh, the Marias! Oh, the Saturninos!
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>> ..........................................
>> padrone n. (pl. padrones or padroni)
>> [Italian, from Latin patrnus, patron.]
>
>> 1. An owner or manager, especially of an inn; a proprietor.
>> 2. A man who exploitatively employs
>> or finds work for Italian immigrants in America.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> What makes you think that Brent meant the Italian "padrone" rather
> the Spanish "padrón," Art?
>
>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>> And since you have no doubt been delving into Spanish-language
>>> archives, one should point out, in the time-honored Neuendorffer
>>> tradition, that "Saturninos" admits the Spanish anagram
>>>
>>> Art N.: sin uso.
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>
>> Too many words: *Art N.: SUSino*
*SUSino* : *plum-tree* (Italian)
-------------------------------------------------------
. Hamlet, Prince of Denmark Act 2, Scene 2
.
HAMLET Slanders, sir: for the satirical rogue says here
. that old men have grey beards, that their faces
. are wrinkled, their eyes purging thick amber and
. *plum-tree gum* and that they have a plentiful lack
. of wit, together with most weak hams: all which, sir,
. though I most powerfully and potently believe, yet
. I hold it not honesty to have it thus set down, for
. yourself, sir, should be old as I am, if like a crab
. you could go backward.
........................................................
`Come, fetch out the plum-CAKE, old man!' the Unicorn went on,
------------------------------------------------------
> Absolutely, Art -- that's why you're practically _sin uso_ these
> days: you are guilty of too many words, and the SAME words oVER and
> oVER and oVER, at that! If you prefer, a Spanish anagram of
> "Saturnino" is
>
> "A.N.: intruso."
That's close to the truth: *Art N.: INSTRUO*
>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>> Not that I agree -- Art is always useful as a source
>>> (albeit an idiosyncratic one) of entertainment.
>> Both source and sinc.
>>> BCD <odint...@csulb.edu> wrote:
>
>>>> And all I have to say is, "Whee."
>>>> Well, that's not *all* I have to say; but
>>>> the rest is comprised of inARTiculate sounds.
>
>>>> ***But one always comes back to the hlas tavern . . .
elizabeth
> In article
Webb. Don't force me to post the Federal Statutes
on cyber-bullying.
I really don't want to escalate this thing, but can
you even perceive the effects your years of relentless
verbal bullying and verbal abuse have had on Art?
Verbal bullying has exactly the same effect as
physical threats.
#
Effects of bullying and stress: symptoms, injury to physical ...
The traumatising effect of bullying results in the target being unable
to .... At the weekend and days off, the weakened immune system cannot
fight off ...
www.bullyonline.org/stress/health.htm
#
side_effects_of_bullying
... immune system suppression, IBS, aches, pains, numbness and panic
attacks ... The effects of bullying can last for many, many years
after the attacks ...
www.livingwithbullies.com/.../side_effects_of_bullying.html
I have to say, Webb, that you are playing around
with Art's state of health and in fact Art probably
has grounds for a harassment suit. God knows
there are many linear miles of evidence of your
verbal abuse in the HLAS archives.
Can you even appreciate that Art has never
been cruel to you? He's always kept his wit
within the range of civility while you always
push it too far.
I've been asking you to stop bullying Art for
what, eight years, since 2002? I found the first
post in the HLAS archives.
Since 2002, I've repeatedly implored you
to stop.
So I'm asking you again, Webb, for your own
sake as well as Art's, stop the verbal bullying.
Everyone has a breaking point and honest to
God, I wouldn't want to see it breaking your
way.
And for that matter, leave me alone.
art
He hath disgraced me, and hindered me half a vaudevillian, laughed at
my losses, mocked at my gains, scorned my city (District Heights),
thwarted my bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine enemies; and
what's his reason? I am a Oxfordian. Hath not a Oxfordian eyes? hath
not a Oxfordian hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections,
passions? fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject
to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by
the same winter and summer, as a Stratfordian is? If you prick us, do
we not bleed? if you grope & tickle us, do we not stop breathing? if
you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not
revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that.
If a Oxfordian wrong a Stratfordian, what is his humility? Revenge. If
a Stratfordian wrong a Oxfordian, what should his sufferance be by
Stratfordian example? Why, revenge. The villany you teach me, I will
execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.
--------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
BCD
> In article
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>
> > >>>>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> > >>>>>> Just out of curiosity, Art, exactly who *are* the
> > >>>>>> members of this mythical "Goon Squad" of yours?
> > >>> art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>>>> Larque, Grumman, KQKnave, Webb, John Kennedy, Reynolds,
> > >>>>> Reedy, Stonehouse, Symposium1, Kathman, Ross, bookburn,
> > >>>>> BCD, Kosinsky, Veal, Ignoto, Brennen, Groves,
> > >>>>> and Melanie Sands.
> > >>> BCD <odint...@csulb.edu> wrote:
>
> > >>>> ***[sniffles; dabs at eyes] I'm deeply touched. Not as
> > >>>> deeply "touched" as some, but deeply touched nonetheless.
> > nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> > > Welcome back, Brent! It's very satisfying to have been
> > > honored by membership in the Goon Squad, isn't it?
***Darn right. I still have to practice the secret handshake,
though. *Now* I know what made Shakespeare's writing so wobbly.
> > In abstentia [sic]
>
> Is English your native tongue, Art? I'll grant you that the
> expression comes from Latin, but still...
>
> > membership, perhaps.
>
> Once a goon, always a goon, Art.
***Goon Squad vs. the Loon Squad. 'Twas eVER thus.
***Better not tell him about the Masonic Lodge on my site at
http://www.csulb.edu/~odinthor/socal1.html
(about three-quarters of the way down).
> > > BCD <odint...@csulb.edu> wrote:
>
> > >> and *padrones* for L.A. from 1781 to 1870, then (at present)
> > >> going over it a second time to smooth out all the wrinkles.
> > >> Oh, the Joses! Oh, the Marias! Oh, the Saturninos!
> > ..........................................
> > padrone n. (pl. padrones or padroni)
> > [Italian, from Latin patrnus, patron.]
>
> > 1. An owner or manager, especially of an inn; a proprietor.
> > 2. A man who exploitatively employs
> > or finds work for Italian immigrants in America.
>
> What makes you think that Brent meant the Italian "padrone" rather
> the Spanish "padrón," Art?
> [...]
***Perhaps Art, in studying the Angeleno census lists, made the same
mistake many census-takers did and mistook the name "Ramon" for
"Roman." At any rate, I'm sure he has crossed the Rubric-Con.
Best Wishes,
--BCD
nordicskiv2
<bc26abfb-b6d3-4bdc...@a18g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
art <acne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>>> Just out of curiosity, Art, exactly who *are* the
> >>>>>>>> members of this mythical "Goon Squad" of yours?
> >>>>> art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>> Larque, Grumman, KQKnave, Webb, John Kennedy, Reynolds,
> >>>>>>> Reedy, Stonehouse, Symposium1, Kathman, Ross, bookburn,
> >>>>>>> BCD, Kosinsky, Veal, Ignoto, Brennen, Groves,
> >>>>>>> and Melanie Sands.
> >>>>> BCD <odint...@csulb.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>>>>> ***[sniffles; dabs at eyes] I'm deeply touched. Not as
> >>>>>> deeply "touched" as some, but deeply touched nonetheless.
> >> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>> Welcome back, Brent! It's very satisfying to have been
> >>> honored by membership in the Goon Squad, isn't it?
> > art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>
> >> In abstentia [sic] membership, perhaps.
Is English your native tongue, Art?
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Once a goon, always a goon, Art.
> True enough.
...and nothing is truer than truth.
> >>>> art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>>> You haven't posted here since: May 6 2009.
> >> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>> Well, you know how it is, Art -- h.l.a.s. has been oVERrun by a
> >>> spamming moron who posts the same crackpot cryptography oVER and
> >>> oVER and oVER, so many of us have retreated to the Forest of Arden,
> >>> from which the most egregious offenders are banned.
> > art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>
> >> I don't think that one can really obtain
> >> *FULL* Birthplace Trust brownie points
> >> executing such a cowardly retreat.
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Are you calling the Forest of Arden members cowardly, Art?
[...]
> > Many of us still post to h.l.a.s., you know.
> Oh, I don't mean that you personally ever go of [sic]
"...go of..."?
> to a moderated
> group, Dave. You haven't the stomach for faining [sic] politeness.
Is English your native tongue, Art?
I do participate in moderated groups, and politeness has neVER been
an issue.
> >>>> art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>>> (If I ever needed proof....)
> >> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>> You have a most amusing notion of "proof," Art!
> > art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>
> >> Well... "evidence" then.
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > You did well to enclose the word in quotation marks, Art
> > -- you have a most amusing notion of "evidence" as well!
> So do Stratfordians.
How so, Art?
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
> > Absolutely, Art -- that's why you're practically _sin uso_ these
> > days: you are guilty of too many words, and the SAME words oVER and
> > oVER and oVER, at that! If you prefer, a Spanish anagram of
> > "Saturnino" is
> >
> > "A.N.: intruso."
> That's close to the truth: *Art N.: INSTRUO*
Huh?
> >> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>> Not that I agree -- Art is always useful as a source
> >>> (albeit an idiosyncratic one) of entertainment.
> >> Both source and sinc.
More like sinh than sinc, Art -- after all, sinh is an odd
function, whereas sinc is not.
[...]
art
>
>>>>>>>>>> Just out of curiosity, Art, exactly who *are* the
>>>>>>>>>> members of this mythical "Goon Squad" of yours?
>>>>>>> art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>> Larque, Grumman, KQKnave, Webb, John Kennedy, Reynolds,
>>>>>>>>> Reedy, Stonehouse, Symposium1, Kathman, Ross, bookburn,
>>>>>>>>> BCD, Kosinsky, Veal, Ignoto, Brennen, Groves,
>>>>>>>>> and Melanie Sands.
>>>>>>> BCD <odint...@csulb.edu> wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> ***[sniffles; dabs at eyes] I'm deeply touched. Not as
>>>>>>>> deeply "touched" as some, but deeply touched nonetheless.
>>>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>>>> Welcome back, Brent! It's very satisfying to have been
>>>>> honored by membership in the Goon Squad, isn't it?
>>> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>
>>>> In abstentia [sic] membership, perhaps.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Is English your native tongue, Art?
<<"In absentia" is Latin for "in the absence". In legal use it usually
pertains to a defendant's right to be present in court proceedings in
a criminal trial.>>
>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>> Once a goon, always a goon, Art.
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> True enough.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> ...and nothing is truer than truth.
I seem to recall something quite like that somewhere.
>>>>>> art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> You haven't posted here since: May 6 2009.
>>>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>>>> Well, you know how it is, Art -- h.l.a.s. has been oVERrun by a
>>>>> spamming moron who posts the same crackpot cryptography oVER and
>>>>> oVER and oVER, so many of us have retreated to the Forest of Arden,
>>>>> from which the most egregious offenders are banned.
>>> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>
>>>> I don't think that one can really obtain
>>>> *FULL* Birthplace Trust brownie points
>>>> executing such a cowardly retreat.
>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>> Are you calling the Forest of Arden members cowardly, Art?
> [...]
>>> Many of us still post to h.l.a.s., you know.
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Oh, I don't mean that you personally ever go off to a moderated
>> group, Dave. You haven't the stomach for faining [sic] politeness.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Is English your native tongue, Art?
*FAIN* , v. t. & i. To be glad ; to wish or desire.
Oh...that's right I ment to give you the *FINGO* :
*FEIGN* , v.t. fane. [L. *FINGO* . The Latin forms fictum, fictus,
whence figura, figure, also *FUCUS* ]
1. To invent or imagine; to form an idea or conception of something
not real.
2. To make a show of; to pretend; to assume a false appearance; to
counterfeit.
3. To represent falsely; to pretend; to form and relate a fictitious
tale.
4. To dissemble; to conceal. Obs
-------------------------------------
*FANE* , n. [L. fanum.] a temple; used in poetry.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> I do participate in moderated groups, and
> politeness has neVER been an issue.
Of course...you don't know the meaning of the term.
>
>>>>>> art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> (If I ever needed proof....)
>>>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>>>> You have a most amusing notion of "proof," Art!
>>> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>
>>>> Well... "evidence" then.
>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>> You did well to enclose the word in quotation marks, Art
>>> -- you have a most amusing notion of "evidence" as well!
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> So do Stratfordians.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> How so, Art?
I just posted Twain's _Is Shakespeare Dead?_
(And I wouldn't want to repeat myself.)
>>> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>>> Too many words: *Art N.: SUSino*
. *SUSino* : *plum-tree* (Italian)
-------------------------------------------------------
. Hamlet, Prince of Denmark Act 2, Scene 2
.
HAMLET Slanders, sir: for the satirical rogue says here
. that old men have grey beards, that their faces
. are wrinkled, their eyes purging thick amber and
. *plum-tree gum* and that they have a plentiful lack
. of wit, together with most weak hams: all which, sir,
. though I most powerfully and potently believe, yet
. I hold it not honesty to have it thus set down, for
. yourself, sir, should be old as I am, if like a crab
. you could go backward.
........................................................
`Come, fetch out the plum-CAKE, old man!' the Unicorn went on,
------------------------------------------------------
>>> Absolutely, Art -- that's why you're practically _sin uso_ these
>>> days: you are guilty of too many words, and the SAME words oVER and
>>> oVER and oVER, at that! If you prefer, a Spanish anagram of
>>> "Saturnino" is
>
>>> "A.N.: intruso."
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> That's close to the truth: *Art N.: INSTRUO*
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Huh?
*INSTRUO* (Latin) : construct, furnish, prepare, provide, set up,
train.
>>>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>>>> Not that I agree -- Art is always useful as a source
>>>>> (albeit an idiosyncratic one) of entertainment.
>>>> Both source and sinc.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> More like sinh than sinc, Art -- after all,
> sinh is an odd function, whereas sinc is not.
He who is without sinh....
Art Neuendorffer
Dominic Hughes
> >> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> >>> Out of curiosity, Art, is there anyone (apart from your fellow
> >>> anti-Stratfordians) who is NOT a member of the Goon Squad?
> > Dominic *HUGHES*
>
> >> My absence from Art's list appears to indicate
> >> that I am not a member of the Goon Squad.
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> > You should certainly be honored by inclusion in the Goon Squad;
> > indeed, your absence was among the many inexplicable omissions.
> > Dominic *HUGHES*
>
> >> Do I need to fill out an application?
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> > Since the Goon Squad is the creation of Art's "Petulant Paranoid"
> > trolling persona, you'll have to ask Art about the proper procedure.
> > But it would be a grave injustice if Art didn't admit you.
>
> All Dominic *HUGHES* in his trolling.
If I ever did go trolling it wouldn't be with you, chum.
> Goon Squad members should really be committed not admitted.
As I understand it, members of the Goon Squad are committed to showing
the irrationality and lack of evidence behind your ridiculous
speculations.
Dom
nordicskiv2
<90d3f03b-f164-4846...@19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com>,
art <acne...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
[...]
> --------------------------------------------
> He hath disgraced me,
You have done that all by yourself, Art; your nonsense about the
number 19 may make MIT wish to REVoke your BS -- not that there isn't
plenty more where that came from.
> and hindered me half a vaudevillian,
By no means, Art! You are a full-fledged vaudevillian; I only hope
that I have contributed in some small way to the honing of your comedy
routine.
> laughed at my losses,
No, Art; I have laughed at your *glosses* -- especially "vier" as
Spanish for "four." Of course, "has de Cervantes" was also VERy
funny, as were your gloss of "moniment" as "laughingstock" and your
attempted translation from "Old Slovak."
> mocked at my gains, scorned my city (District Heights),
That's not true, Art -- I've said nothing about District Heights,
other than that at least one illiterate boob resides there. The same
thing could have been said about many towns: Crawford, Texas; Darien,
Connecticut; Centralia, Washington; Wasilla, Alaska; etc.
> thwarted my bargains,
By winning our bet, you mean? When are you going to pay up, Art?
> cooled my friends,
Of course not, Art -- you have done that entirely on your own. The
insinuation of plagiarism -- or to you, "plagerism" -- leveled at
Lynne and Dr. Stritmatter was entirely your doing; it was particularly
funny since you had not (and probably still have not) read their
paper. And I have had no contact of any kind with Marty Hyatt or with
those who confined you to "the corner" at the Fellowship.
> heated mine enemies; and
> what's his reason? I am a [sic] Oxfordian.
Is English your native tongue, Art?
> Hath not a [sic] Oxfordian eyes?
A good question.
> hath
> not a [sic] Oxfordian hands,
One would think so. HoweVER, wheneVER I'm engaged in a jocular
duel of wits with you, Art, I realize that I am fencing with an
unarmed man -- with an unarmed under-kook at that!
> organs, dimensions,
Do Oxfordians have dementias? Definitely!
> senses,
Not VERy much sense. And that too is odd -- one would expect you
to, of course, but then one reflects that when looking for horse
sense, the horse's hindquarters may be the wrong end of the creature.
> affections,
> passions? fed with the same food,
I'm not so sure, Art; I'm not sure what you're ingesting, but I'm
pretty sure that it can't be legal -- at least in District Heights:
> hurt with the same weapons,
Perhaps -- but Oxfordians' wounds are invariably self-inflicted.
> subject
> to the same diseases,
That isn't clear by any means. Oxfordians appear to suffer from
some strange auditory dysfunction -- those who think that the VERse of
Oxford sounds anything like that of Shakespeare, at any rate.
> healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by
> the same winter and summer, as a Stratfordian is? If you prick us, do
> we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh?
You are one of the few Oxfordians whom I've encountered who has an
excellent sense of humor, Art.
In any case, I don't recommend that you pursue this line of
thought, Art -- a pound of fly-ash entails the release of greenhouse
gasses, and I know that you're concerned about climate change.
[...]
> --------------------------------------------
> Art Neuendorffer
elizabeth
What puts me off is the erotic element.
Dominic Hughes
>
> - Show quoted text -
What in the world are you talking about?
Dom
elizabeth
The erotic element in cyber-bullying, I'm not
talking about you.
neonprose @ gmail.com
> ________________________________________
>
> I have no problem with the writing style of the pages vandalized by a
> hacker or hackers on Wikipedia, I would award it a "B" but the page
> themselves are riddled with factual errors not to speak of a kind of odor
> of arrogance.
>
> I would never presume to know what the Strats,
> Derbyites, Baconians, Oxfordians or especially the Marlovians would
> want the world to know about their authorship candidate, especially
> the Marlovians since Farey terrifies me.
>
> I'm only glad Farey lives in England.
>
> In fact I think the vandals took the same cowardly
> position as I would take, screw with the pages of factions you know
> won't hurt you, but leave nothing amiss on the Marlovian page for
> fear of a verbal bruising from Farey.
>
> While I don't think for an instant that Shaksper of
> Stratford wrote Shakespeare, the record itself shows that this guy was
> "too busy to write," he was engaged in multiple businesses, apparently
> all very successful because this guy may have
> arrived in London with a shilling in his pocket but he
> died RICH
>
> but in terms of deference to the Strats as well as
> in terms of deference to how proofs are reeely made, it's my sense
> that
>
> Shaksper --- IS --- Shakespeare
>
> until some faction brings forth probative evidence
> to overturn the Strat claim.
>
> That hasn't happened in this era, anyway.
neonprose @ gmail.com
> > In article
> >
> > > ________________________________________
> >
> > > I have no problem with the writing style of the pages vandalized by a
> >
> > Error has surpassed even Stephanie's...
> >
> > So Webb, why are you hanging out in HLAS night and day,
>
> > have you resigned from your job as Class Clown at
>
> > Dartmouth? Or have you been fired? Have your classes
>
> > been reduced? I have to say, Webb, that you are the
>
> > biggest fool I've ever met in my life, keep perfecting
>
> > your Class Clown persona and get back to us after
>
> > you've relocated in Tennasssee.
> >
> > > not
> > > to speak of a kind of odor of presumptiveness [sic].
> > > Derbyites, Baconians, Oxfordians or especially the Marlovians would
> > > want the world to know about their authorship candidate, especially
> > > the Marlovians since Farey terrifies me.
> >
> > > I'm only glad Farey lives in England.
> >
> > > In fact I think the vandals took the same cowardly
> > > position as I would take, screw with the pages of factions you know
> > > won't hurt you, but leave nothing amiss on the Marlovian page for
> > > fear
> > > of a verbal bruising from Farey.
> >
> > easily from England as he could from the U.S. -- perhaps Elizabeth is
> > unaware of the existence of transatlantic fibre optic cables. Why
> > Elizabeth imagines that Peter's place of residence is at all relevant
> > she does not disclose, unless perhaps she fears some actual physical
> > violence, in which case her paranoia is worsening markedly. Even
> > Peter's "verbal bruising[s]" are far milder than they often have cause
> > to be, particularly as Elizabeth has proven to be a very slow learner:
>
> At least I didn't snag my article on Hephaestus from
> a past lives therapists website, then claim it was
> something you got from the Loeb Classical Library.
>
> Shall I repost the proof, Webb?
>
> You have never taken me in a debate, Webb,
> because you really aren't interested in facts or
> proofs -- the beating you took in the Eliyahu Rips
> so-called Bible Code debate proves that -- you
> merely . . . slither into HLAS to
>
> HUMILIATE OTHER POSTERS.
>
> which only shows how stupid you are because THIS
> time I think you have pushed Art so far. Art posted
> something that really alarmed me, I don't know if it's
> still there.
>
> Let me remind you, Webb, that in 2002, shortly after
> I arrived in HLAS, I asked you to stop tormenting Art.
>
>
> You are have no empathy for anyone but yourself
> and under the current federal law on cyber-bullying,
> you come perilously close to breaking every statute.
>
> I'll post it separately.
>
> And finally, Stay out of my posts, leave me alone,
>
>
> And again, you'd better take a look at what Art wrote.
> I do believe that you've pushed Art over the line and
> if anything happened you could be prosecuted.
neonprose @ gmail.com
> ________________________________________
>
> I have no problem with the writing style of the pages vandalized by a
> hacker or hackers on Wikipedia, I would award it a "B" but the pages
> odor of presumptuous hauteur.
> I would never presume to know what the Strats,
> Derbyites, Baconians, Oxfordians or especially the Marlovians would
> want the world to know about their authorship candidate, especially
> the Marlovians since Farey terrifies me.
>
>
> In fact I think the vandals took the same cowardly
> position as I would take, screw with the pages of factions you know
> won't hurt you, but leave nothing amiss on the Marlovian page for
> fear of a verbal bruising from Farey.
>
neonprose @ gmail.com
neon...@gmail.com
> On Thursday, March 11, 2010 5:39:53 PM UTC-8, elizabeth wrote:
>
> > On 11 Mar, 10:01, nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> > > In article
>
>
> > > YOU JUST MOVE BACK TO TENNESEE, YOU'LL FIT RIGHT IN.
> > > elizabeth <messageform...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > ________________________________________
>
> > >
>
> > > > I have no problem with the writing style of the pages vandalized by a
>
> > > > hacker or hackers on Wikipedia, I would award it a "B" but the pages
>
> > > > themselves are riddled with factual errors
>
> > >
>
> > > ...says h.l.a.s.'s reigning Queen of factual errors, whose Reign of
>
> > > Error has surpassed even Stephanie's...
>
marco
Art
neon...@gmail.com
marco
Art N
neonp...@gmail.com
> > While I don't think for an instant that Shaksper of
> > Stratford wrote Shakespeare, the record itself shows that this guy was
> > "too busy to write," he was engaged in multiple businesses, apparently
> > all very successful because this guy may have
> > arrived in London with a shilling in his pocket but he
> > died RICH
>
> Shakespeare of Stratford was not an author OR
> the proposition that he was a businessman?
>
> Was the clergyman whose household sold grain in Stratford
> not a clergyman but a businessman? Were all the people who
> bought property in Shakespeare's time full-time businessmen?
> I loaning someone money or granting him credit two or
> three times in a lifetime and indication that a man was a
> full-time businessman?
>
> --Bob
Well, I hate to raise this point again because it's so damned icky
>
> but Lenz and Shapiro PROVED that this guy was rich, and of
>
> course he was a high interest lender, I deconstructed his
>
> "second will," he had 40 acre tracts of rich grazing land all
>
> around the village of Stratford but on the other hand, land
>
> was almost equivalent to money, some rich person had borrowed
>
> a great deal of money from Bacon, in the hundred thousands
>
> but paid it off by deeding the land in full to Bacon. You can
>
> find this 16th century business deal in Bacon's Book of Bequests,
>
> in which Bacon lists hundreds of bequests, large and small for
>
> the long term care of Bacon's mother (Lady Anne Bacon, she was
>
> out of her mind nearing the end of her life, Bacon took extremely
>
> good care of his mother, he would hire musicians, bring them to
>
> Gorhambury and have them play after dinner because it eased
>
> Lady Anne's fevered mind. Bacon had a good soul, but we worship the
>
> Panderer whose greed killed many a young girl and boy, only to
>
> make himself richer, he obviously died of venereal diseases for which
>
> there were no cures. A few centuries later Pasteur would praise Bacon
>
> for making the basic scientific breakthrough for the later discovery of
>
> penicillin, Bacon took note of a white "rust" on the skin of the grapes,
>
> and Pasteur took it from there. If Bacon's breakthrough had not happened,
>
> the toll of casualties in the two World Wars would have been much greater.
>
>
> Thanks for allowing me to post, Elizabeth
>
neonp...@gmail.com
> ________________________________________
>
> I have no problem with the writing style of the pages vandalized by a
> hacker or hackers on Wikipedia, I would award it a "B" but the pages
> of presumptiveness.
> I would never presume to know what the Strats,
> Derbyites, Baconians, Oxfordians or especially the Marlovians would
> want the world to know about their authorship candidate, especially
> the Marlovians since Farey terrifies me.
>
>
> In fact I think the vandals took the same cowardly
> position as I would take, screw with the pages of factions you know
> won't hurt you, but leave nothing amiss on the Marlovian page for
> fear of a verbal bruising from Farey.
>
> Stratford wrote Shakespeare, the record itself shows that this guy was
> "too busy to write," he was engaged in multiple businesses, apparently
> all very successful because this guy may have arrived in London with a
> shilling in his pocket but he died RICH
>
> revealed that he had the temperament of a panderer, he made a great
> deal of money killing kids. He then moved back to Stratford and
> died a terribly painful death, good riddance. If you want more detail,
> two scholars have delved deeply into this question, Joseph Lenz, who
>
> went into the Blackfriar's Records Office, still serving scholars after
> all these passing centuries, Lenz found intact 16th century records
> that simply indicted the Stratford Broker as a heartless panderer.
> James Shapiro then contributed a book on this subject, I say, why
> does Western Culture apotheosize this killer, I certainly cannot
> explain all this passion for a dispassionate panderer who put money
> before the lives of young kids.
>
> Bacon, on the other hand was a scientist, he kept laboratory notes,
> he may or may not have ordered his servants to get out of the
> carriage and catch a hen and stuff it with snow but I'm not buying
> this one either having lived on several farms, HENS DON'T GO OUT
> OF THE HENHOUSE WHEN IT'S FRIGGIN' COLD. THEY HAVE ROOSTS,
> THEY SNUGGLE UP NEXT TO EACH OTHER AND CLUCK UNTIL THEY
> GO BACK TO SLEEP, but anything to make Bacon look like a fool,
> so far no one has made Bacon look like a indifferent killer of young
> boys and girls, that would be SHAKESPEARE.
>
> Elizabeth
>
>
neonp...@gmail.com
> ________________________________________
>
> I have no problem with the writing style of the pages vandalized by a
> hacker or hackers on Wikipedia, I would award it a "B" but the pages
> themselves are riddled with factual errors not
> to speak of a kind of odor of presumptiveness.
>
> I would never presume to know what the Strats,
> Derbyites, Baconians, Oxfordians or especially the Marlovians would
> want the world to know about their authorship candidate, especially
> the Marlovians since Farey terrifies me.
>
> In fact I think the vandals took the same cowardly
> position as I would take, screw with the pages of factions you know
> won't hurt you, but leave nothing amiss on the Marlovian page for
> fear of a verbal bruising from Farey.
>
> While I don't think for an instant that Shaksper of
> Stratford wrote Shakespeare, the record itself shows that this guy was
> "too busy to write," he was engaged in multiple businesses, apparently
> all very successful because this guy may have
> arrived in London with a shilling in his pocket but he
> died RICH
>
neonp...@gmail.com
> ________________________________________
>
> I have no problem with the writing style of the pages vandalized by a
> hacker or hackers on Wikipedia, I would award it a "B" but the pages
> themselves are riddled with factual errors not to speak of a kind of
> odor of presumptiveness.
>
> I would never presume to know what the Strats,
> Derbyites, Baconians, Oxfordians or especially the Marlovians would
> want the world to know about their authorship candidate, especially
> the Marlovians since Farey terrifies me.
>
>
> take, screw with the pages of factions you know won't hurt you,
> but leave nothing amiss on the Marlovian page for fear of a verbal
> bruising from Farey.
>
> While I don't think for an instant that Shaksper of Stratford wrote
>
> Shakespeare, the record itself shows that this guy was "too busy
> to write," he was engaged in multiple businesses, apparently
> all very successful because this guy may have arrived in London
>
> Farey has been successful in proving that Marlowe wrote Marlowe
>
> but so far the Strats haven't been able to prove that the Stratford
>
> Broker wrote the First Folio works, those were written in seven
>
> years by Bacon with Jonson working beside him as his scribe.
>
> I've previously noted that in this era a 1623 First Folio in good
>
> condition will go at auction at Sotheby's for 90 thousand pounds.
>
> Oh well, when James I of Scotland settled in he forgave Bacon
>
> a debt of one hundred and twenty-five thousand pounds, boy,
>
> was Coke uh . . .peturbed.
>
neonp...@gmail.com
> Shakespeare, the record itself shows that this guy was "too busy to write,"
> he was engaged in multiple businesses, apparently all very successful
> because this guy may have arrived in London with a shilling in his pocket
> but he
>
> What is more insane: the proposition that William
> Shakespeare of Stratford was not an author OR
> the proposition that he was a businessman?
>
>
> know that Joseph Lenz ventured down into the
>
> Blackfriar's Records Office in the Blackfriar's district
>
> only to find that Shakespeare was engaged in pandering.
>
> Pandering was then a horrible but profitable business.
>
> Shapiro's book is on the same subject but Shapiro
>
> tends to pull his punches, prolly didn't want heat
>
> from the Grand Possessors (the Herbert Brothers).
>
> Well, in any event, the Stratford Broker got rich on the
>
> proceeds of prostitution, went back to Stratford to
>
> die in his own bed, probably not an easy death.
>
> THE END
>
>
> Was the clergyman whose household sold grain in Stratford
> not a clergyman but a businessman?
>
> Susannah Shakespeare the loan of one pound when her
> children were going hungry? Were all the people who
>
> night deconstructing the Broker's so-called Second Will.
>
> It was darned hard to decipher since he had inserted his
> illiterate and barbaric scrawl betwixt and between the lines
> of the clerk who had made out Shappere's will. However
>
> Shappere's bequests were interesting, he had accumulated
> over time, enough forty acre tracts to surround the town
> of Stratford.
>
> Fast forward, I'm reading Bacon's Book of Bequests (it's online)
> in which a friend who had been given a mortgage by Bacon
> on similar forty acre tracts surrounding his estate at Old Gorhambury,
> was included in Bacon's will, which will Bacon had printed and published
> in the form of a book, then writing the names of the beneficiaries
> in the form of notes on the margins. Some of the sums were
> really significant but everyone, even his servants, received a bequest.
>
> Oops, I got off topic, sorry.
> I loaning someone money or granting him credit two or
> three times in a lifetime and indication that a man was a
> full-time businessman?
>
> --Bob
>
>
> have to answer, I just don't know.
>
> Thanks for the post,
>
> Elizabeth
neonp...@gmail.com
> ________________________________________
>
> I have no problem with the writing style of the pages vandalized by a
> hacker or hackers on Wikipedia, I would award it a "B" but the pages
> themselves are riddled with factual errors not
> to speak of a kind of odor of presumptiveness.
>
> I would never presume to know what the Strats,
> Derbyites, Baconians, Oxfordians or especially the Marlovians would
> want the world to know about their authorship candidate, especially
> the Marlovians since Farey terrifies me.
>
> I'm only glad Farey lives in England.
>
> In fact I think the vandals took the same cowardly
> position as I would take, screw with the pages of factions you know
> won't hurt you, but leave nothing amiss on the Marlovian page for
> fear
> of a verbal bruising from Farey.
>
> Stratford wrote Shakespeare, the record itself shows that this guy was
> "too busy to write," he was engaged in multiple businesses, apparently
> all very successful because this guy may have
> arrived in London with a shilling in his pocket but he
> died RICH
>
neonp...@gmail.com
> ________________________________________
>
> I have no problem with the writing style of the pages vandalized by a
> hacker or hackers on Wikipedia, I would award it a "B" but the pages
> themselves are riddled with factual errors not
> to speak of a kind of odor of presumptiveness.
>
> I would never presume to know what the Strats,
> Derbyites, Baconians, Oxfordians or especially the Marlovians would
> want the world to know about their authorship candidate, especially
> the Marlovians since Farey terrifies me.
>
> I'm only glad Farey lives in England.
>
> In fact I think the vandals took the same cowardly
> position as I would take, screw with the pages of factions you know
> won't hurt you, but leave nothing amiss on the Marlovian page for
> fear of a verbal bruising from Farey.
>
> While I don't think for an instant that Shaksper of
> Stratford wrote Shakespeare, the record itself shows that this guy was
> "too busy to write," he was engaged in multiple businesses, apparently
> all very successful because this guy may have arrived in London with
neonp...@gmail.com
> >
> > I have no problem with the writing style of the pages
> > vandalized by a hacker or hackers on Wikipedia, I would
> > award it a "B" but the pages themselves are riddled with
> > factual errors not to speak of a kind of odor of
> > presumptiveness.
> >
> > I would never presume to know what the Strats, Derbyites,
> > Baconians, Oxfordians or especially the Marlovians would
> > want the world to know about their authorship candidate,
> > especially the Marlovians since Farey terrifies me.
> >
> > I'm only glad Farey lives in England.
> >
> > In fact I think the vandals took the same cowardly
> > position as I would take, screw with the pages of factions
> > you know won't hurt you, but leave nothing amiss on the
> > Marlovian page for fear of a verbal bruising from Farey.
>
> are just trying to make it look that I did it (but of course give
> themselves away with only a 'B' for style).
>
>
> Peter F.
> <pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk>
> <http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>
>
> Thanks Peter, you're a good sport, now my next question
> is . . .what's it gonna be, a boy or a girl?
neonp...@gmail.com
> ________________________________________
>
> hacker or hackers on Wikipedia, I would award it a "B" but the pages
> themselves are riddled with factual errors not
> to speak of a kind of odor of presumptiveness.
>
> I would never presume to know what the Strats,
> Derbyites, Baconians, Oxfordians or especially the Marlovians would
> want the world to know about their authorship candidate, especially
> the Marlovians since Farey terrifies me.
>
> I'm only glad Farey lives in England.
>
> In fact I think the vandals took the same cowardly
> position as I would take, screw with the pages of factions you know
> won't hurt you, but leave nothing amiss on the Marlovian page for
> fear of a verbal bruising from Farey.
>
> Stratford wrote Shakespeare, the record itself shows that this guy was
> "too busy to write," he was engaged in multiple businesses, apparently
> all very successful because this guy may have
> arrived in London with a shilling in his pocket but he
>
> but in terms of deference to the Strats as well as
> in terms of deference to how proofs are reeely made, it's my sense
> that
>
> Shaksper --- IS --- Shakespeare
>
> until some faction brings forth probative evidence
> to overturn the Strat claim.
>
> That hasn't happened in this era, anyway.
neonp...@gmail.com
> >
> >> I have no problem with the writing style of the pages
> >> vandalized by a hacker or hackers on Wikipedia, I would
> >> award it a "B" but the pages themselves are riddled
> >> with factual errors not to speak of a kind of odor of
> >> sneaked in to leave his characteristic [sic].
> >>
> >> Hee hee!! Webb has managed to insert himself into
> >> the debate.
>
> Do you mean *PRESUMPTUOUSNESS* ?
> .....................................................
> *PRESUMPTUOUSNESS* , n. The quality or state of being
> *PRESUMPTUOUS* .
>
> Yes, that one!
> .....................................................
> . All's Well That Ends Well > Act I, scene III
>
> HELENA: I follow him not
> . By any token of *PRESUMPTUOUS* suit;
>
> So, All's Well That Ends Well is one of the plays in Bacon (and Jonson')
>
> 1623 First Folio, so I assume that Bacon could spell presumptuous,
>
> if Bacon could not spell it, Jonson was the editor, he would catch it.
> -------------------------------------------------------
> *PRESUMPTUOUS*, a. [L. praesumptuosus: OF. also *PRESUMPTUOUS* .]
>
> . 1. Bold and confident to excess; adventuring without reasonable
> ground of success; hazarding safety on too slight grounds; rash;
> applied to persons; as a *PRESUMPTUOUS* commander.
>
> . There is a class of *PRESUMPTUOUS* men whom age has not made
> cautious, nor adversity wise.
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> *PRESUMPTIVE* , a. Grounded on probable evidence.
>
> . *PRESUMPTIVE* evidence, in law, is that which is derived from
> circumstances which necessarily or usually attend a fact, as distinct
> from direct evidence or positive proof.
>
> . *PRESUMPTIVE* evidence of felony should be cautiously admitted.
>
> . *PRESUMPTIVE* heir, one who would inherit an estate if the ancestor
> should die with things in their present state, but whose right of
> inheritance may be defeated by the birth of a nearer heir before the
> death of the ancestor. Thus the presumptive succession of a brother or
> nephew may be destroyed by the birth of a child. Presumptive heir is
> distinguished from heir apparent, whose right of inheritance is
> indefeasible, provided he outlives the ancestor.
> -------------------------------------------------------
> *PRESUMPTUOUS*, a. [L. praesumptuosus: OF. also *PRESUMPTUOUS* .]
>
> . 2. Founded on *PRESUMPTION* ; proceeding from excess of confidence;
> applied to things; as *PRESUMPTUOUS* hope.
>
> . 3. Arrogant; insolent; as a *PRESUMPTUOUS* priest.
>
> . *PRESUMPTUOUS* pride.
>
> . 4. Unduly confident; irreverent with respect to sacred things.
>
> . 5. Willful; done with bold design, rash confidence or in violation
> of known duty; as a *PRESUMPTUOUS* sin.
> .....................................................
> . All's Well That Ends Well > Act II, scene I
>
> HELENA: It is not so with Him that all things knows
> . As 'tis with us that square our guess by shows;
> . But most it is *PRESUMPTION* in us when
> . The help of heaven we count the act of men.
> -------------------------------------------------------
> *PRESUMPTION* , n. [L. proesumption.]
>
> . 1. Supposition of the truth or real existence of something without
> direct or positive proof of the fact, but grounded on circumstantial
> or probable evidence which entitles it to belief. *PRESUMPTION* in law
> is of three sorts, violent or strong, probable, and light.
>
> . Next to positive proof, circumstantial evidence or the doctrine of
> *PRESUMPTIONS* must take place; for when the fact cannot be
> demonstratively evinced, that which comes nearest to the proof of the
> fact is the proof of such circumstances as either necessarily or
> usually attend such facts. These are called *PRESUMPTIONS*. Violent
> *PRESUMPTION* is many times equal to full proof.
>
> . 2. Strong probability; as in the common phrase, the *PRESUMPTION* is
> that an event has taken place, or will take place.
>
> . 3. Blind or headstrong confidence; unreasonable adventurousness; a
> venturing to undertake something without reasonable prospect of
> success, or against the usual probabilities of safety;
> *PRESUMPTUOUS*ness.
>
> . Let my *PRESUMPTION* not provoke thy wrath.
>
> . I had the *PRESUMPTION* to dedicate to you a very unfinished price.
>
> . 4. Arrogance. He had the *PRESUMPTION* to attempt to dictate to the
> council.
>
> . 5. Unreasonable confidence in divine favor.
>
> . The awe of his majesty will keep us from *PRESUMPTION*.
> -------------------------------------------------------
> *PRESUME* , v.t. s as z. [L. proesumo; proe, before,and sumo, to
> take.] To take or suppose to be true or entitled to belief, without
> examination or positive proof, or on the strength of probability. We
> *PRESUME* that a man is honest, who has not been known to cheat or
> deceive; but in this we are sometimes mistaken. In many cases, the law
> *PRESUMES* full payment where positive evidence of it cannot be
> produced.
>
> . We not only *PRESUME* it may be so, but we actually find it so.
>
> . In cases of implied contracts, the law *PRESUMES* that a man has
> covenanted or contracted to do what reason and justice dictate.
> .....................................................
> *PRESUME* , v.i. To venture without positive permission; as, we may
> *PRESUME* too far.
>
> . 1. To form confident or arrogant opinions; with on or upon, before
> the cause of confidence.
>
> . This man *PRESUMES* upon his parts.
>
> . I will not *PRESUME* so far upon myself.
>
> . 2. To make confident or arrogant attempts.
>
> . In that we *PRESUME* to see what is meet and convenient, better than
> God himself.
>
> . 3. It has on or upon sometimes before the thing supposed.
>
> . Luther *PRESUMES* upon the gift of continency.
>
> . It is sometimes followed by of, but improperly.
> -------------------------------------------------
> >
> >> I would never presume to know what the Strats, Derbyites,
> >> Baconians, Oxfordians or especially the Marlovians would
> >> want the world to know about their authorship candidate,
> >> especially the Marlovians since Farey terrifies me.
> >
> >> I'm only glad Farey lives in England.
> >
> >> In fact I think the vandals took the same cowardly
> >> position as I would take, screw with the pages of factions
> >> you know won't hurt you, but leave nothing amiss on the
> >> Marlovian page for fear of a verbal bruising from Farey.
>
> >
> > Nah, I'm just a teddy bear once you know me.
>
> "Peter Farey" <pete...@rey.prestel.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > Obviously they are just trying to make it look
> > that I did it (but of course give themselves
> > away with only a 'B' for style).
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> . Sonnet 22
> .
> For all that beauty that doth cover thee
> Is but the seemly raiment of my heart,
> [W]hich in thy breast doth live, as thine in me:
> [H]ow can I then be elder than thou art?
> [O], therefore, love, be of thyself so wary
> .As I, not for myself, but for thee will;
> *BEARING THY HEART* , which I will keep so chary
> .As tender nurse her babe from faring ill.
> *PRESUME* not on thy heart when mine is slain;
> Thou gavest me thine, not to give back again.
> --------------------------
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXITIFAZA00&feature=related
> Art Neuendorffer
neonp...@gmail.com
> ________________________________________
>
> hacker or hackers on Wikipedia, I would award it a "B" but the pages
> themselves are riddled with factual errors not
> I would never presume to know what the Strats,
> Derbyites, Baconians, Oxfordians or especially the Marlovians would
> want the world to know about their authorship candidate, especially
> the Marlovians since Farey terrifies me.
>
> I'm only glad Farey lives in England.
>
> In fact I think the vandals took the same cowardly
> position as I would take, screw with the pages of factions you know
> won't hurt you, but leave nothing amiss on the Marlovian page for
> fear
> of a verbal bruising from Farey.
>