What Oxfordians? Kathman
paul streitz
few extreme militants) that the original portrait was of Hugh
Hamersley and had nothing to do with the Earl of Oxford." so says
David Kathman.
What Oxfordians believe this Dave? Or more pointedly, how do you know
more than half of the Oxfordians think this?
Or is this just a spontaneous fabrication?
Paul Streitz
David L. Webb
oxins...@aol.com (paul streitz) wrote:
> "It is now universally accepted, even by most Oxfordians (except for a
> few extreme militants) that the original portrait was of Hugh
> Hamersley and had nothing to do with the Earl of Oxford." so says
> David Kathman.
Mr. Streitz quotes Dave Kathman out of context and provides no
source, so it is not even clear to which portrait he alludes; from the
fact that his quotation is lifted from Dave's essay at
<http://shakespeareauthorship.com/ashbourne.html>,
one presumes that Mr. Streitz has in mind the Ashbourne Portrait, the
subject of one of the most riotously funny chapters of his book.
> What Oxfordians believe this Dave? Or more pointedly, how do you know
> more than half of the Oxfordians think this?
>
> Or is this just a spontaneous fabrication?
>
>
> Paul Streitz
Mr. Streitz has evidently been consorting with the lunatic fringe so
long that he has forgotten about the existence of sane (relatively
speaking) Oxfordians. Many Oxfordians evidently regard Mr. Streitz's
hilarious "Super D.T. theory" as an acute embarrassment, and some of
them -- even some of the less sane ones -- have said so in this forum.
I don't presume to know whom Dave Kathman had in mind, but I would be
rather surprised if one could find more than a handful of Oxfordians,
mostly on the extreme lunatic fringe, who still think that the Ashbourne
portrait depicts Oxford. Then again, I may be charitably overestimating
the saneness of "mainstream" Oxfordians, a lapse of judgment of which I
freely admit to having been guilty in the past.
However, it would be interesting to shed some light on Mr. Streitz's
question by taking an informal poll:
Of the Oxfordians reading this newsgroup,
(1) How many believe that the Ashbourne Portrait depicts Edward de Vere,
Earl of Oxford?
(2) How many believe that it depicts Hugh Hamersley?
(3) How many believe that it depicts someone else?
(4) How many are undecided?
One knows, of course, that Oxfordians participating in this newsgroup
tend toward the lunatic fringe; if nothing else, this inference is
suggested by their versatility in embracing crankery in many domains --
aquatic apes, the notion that AIDS is "a hoax," rejection of the
Bernoulli Principle, the belief that John Edwards really does talk to
dead people, advocacy of the "Gemstone" conspiracy theory, etc. -- so an
h.l.a.s. sample would scarcely be representative, but it might be
interesting in any case.
paul streitz
question and engage in slander.
It is Kathman who says "even by most Oxfordians." So who are the most
Oxfordians that believe this?
Or does Webb want to write another 500 words and still not answer the
question?
Paul Streitz
David L. Webb
> When you don't have an answer throw up a lot of bilge, avoid the
> question and engage in slander.
Why should you expect me to "have an answer" for something Dave
Kathman wrote? I am not privy to his thought, so I do not know whom he
has in mind, but since he is in close touch with a good many Oxfordians
(the saner ones, at least), I suspect that he is quite right.
> It is Kathman who says "even by most Oxfordians."
Congratulations -- I perceive that, despite your farcical track
record in that pursuit, you are not completely incapable of ascertaining
attributions of texts clearly signed by their authors. If it is indeed
Kathman who says it, then why on earth do you expect an answer from me?
I merely suggested a potentially interesting informal poll, and one that
ought to be to your advantage at that, skewed as the anti-Stratfordian
contingent in this newsgroup is toward the lunatic fringe -- aquatic ape
theories, AIDS as a putative "hoax," lurid "Gemstone" conspiracies,
supposed moon landing hoaxes, Bernoulli Principle denial, Fermat cranks,
relativity denial, psychics talking with the dead, etc. If you don't
like the idea of such an informal poll, nothing compels you to
participate.
> So who are the most
> Oxfordians that believe this?
If you really wish to know, why don't you write e-mail Dave Kathman
and ask him politely whom he meant? That's how serious inquiries of
this nature are normally conducted, at least by those blessed with a
shred of competence.
> Or does Webb want to write another 500 words and still not answer the
> question?
Your expectation that I "answer" a question prompted by an opinion
expressed by Dave Kathman is flattering, as you seem to endow me with
unusual paranornmal powers, as well as with Dave's formidable factual
knowledge. I regret to inform you that I do not possess the gift of
telepathy, nor am I anywhere near as familiar with the Shakespearean
avatars of abnormal psychology as he is. I realize that this disclosure
may be a disillusioning disappointment, as various Oxfordians seem to
repose charmingly naïve confidence in paranormal abilities of various
sorts.
Elizabeth Weir
Look up the real Hugh Hammersley's portrait on the
Hammersley family genealogy site. Hammersley was a hirusite
beast with dark hair, eyes and swarthy skin.
I doubt the Hammersley portrait is Oxford. It
doesn't look like his other paintings. It looks the most
like the French fop portrait but that has never been
identified as Oxford--Oxfordians just started claiming it.
It looks nothing like the wicked painting of Oxford in
grey silk which I believe has been identified as Oxford's.
lyra
>I would be
> rather surprised if one could find more than a handful of Oxfordians,
> mostly on the extreme lunatic fringe, who still think that the Ashbourne
> portrait depicts Oxford. Then again, I may be charitably overestimating
> the saneness of "mainstream" Oxfordians, a lapse of judgment of which I
> freely admit to having been guilty in the past.
>
> However, it would be interesting to shed some light on Mr. Streitz's
> question by taking an informal poll:
>
> Of the Oxfordians reading this newsgroup,
>
> (1) How many believe that the Ashbourne Portrait depicts Edward de Vere,
> Earl of Oxford?
>
> (2) How many believe that it depicts Hugh Hamersley?
>
> (3) How many believe that it depicts someone else?
>
> (4) How many are undecided?
>
(5) think it is perfectly horrid??
I do, but then, I am not really an Oxfordian...
lyra
lyra
> Hammersley family genealogy site. Hammersley was a hirusite
> beast with dark hair, eyes and swarthy skin.
>
> I doubt the Hammersley portrait is Oxford. It
> doesn't look like his other paintings. It looks the most
> like the French fop portrait but that has never been
> identified as Oxford--Oxfordians just started claiming it.
> It looks nothing like the wicked painting of Oxford in
> grey silk which I believe has been identified as Oxford's.
Which are the french fop and grey silk portraits?
Can anyone tell us their names or link to copies?
And is a hirusite beast to be found in Lewis Carroll's
writings?
<g>
Thanks, Elizabeth, for the posting...I hope to find out more...
paul streitz
>
> Look up the real Hugh Hammersley's portrait on the
> Hammersley family genealogy site. Hammersley was a hirusite
> beast with dark hair, eyes and swarthy skin.
>
> I doubt the Hammersley portrait is Oxford. It
> doesn't look like his other paintings. It looks the most
> like the French fop portrait but that has never been
> identified as Oxford--Oxfordians just started claiming it.
> It looks nothing like the wicked painting of Oxford in
> grey silk which I believe has been identified as Oxford's.
Thanks.
I have a picture of the real Hugh Hammersley's portrait from the Guild
in London. Read my book and see a comparison of Hamersley, Oxford and
the Ashbourne.
Paul Streiz
paul streitz
vs 8 a statistical difference at the 90% confidence level?
paul streitz
David L. Webb
elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
> oxins...@aol.com (paul streitz) wrote in message
> news:<5daf239d.03021...@posting.google.com>...
> > "It is now universally accepted, even by most Oxfordians (except for a
> > few extreme militants) that the original portrait was of Hugh
> > Hamersley and had nothing to do with the Earl of Oxford." so says
> > David Kathman.
> >
> > What Oxfordians believe this Dave? Or more pointedly, how do you know
> > more than half of the Oxfordians think this?
> >
> > Or is this just a spontaneous fabrication?
> >
> >
> > Paul Streitz
>
> Look up the real Hugh Hammersley's portrait on the
> Hammersley family genealogy site. Hammersley was a hirusite [sic]
Another memorable Elizabeth Weird neologism!
Elizabeth Weir
You're welcome, Paul, and of course I meant "her suit"
as in Hammersley the cross-dressing beast.
David L. Webb
oxins...@aol.com (paul streitz) wrote:
That question as stated is utterly meaningless. To formulate a
question that is even meaningful, you must specify what statistical test
you are using.
If you intend to use statistics to reject the null hypothesis at a
given confidence level, you must specify what your model of a random
process is. This entails specifying a probability measure on the state
space, then computing the probability of occurrence of the statistic
observed. Without this information, your question is as meaningless as
asking, in the absence of any other information, whether x equals 5, or
what the word "frpxpr" means. (Incidentally, in much statistical
practice, rejecting the null hypothesis at the 90% confidence level
would be regarded as pretty unimpressive anyway, so I have no idea why
you want to do so.)
As I have suggested to you before, if you intend to use statistics or
any other branch of specialized knowledge, it would be to your advantage
to learn at least a LITTLE about the subject first, at least enough to
formulate a meaningful question. By doing so, you might even avoid
making a complete ass of yourself. Indeed, if you had actually READ
Shakespeare, for instance, you would scarcely have made an ass of
yourself by asserting that only one of his plays is set in a foreign
country other than Italy (see
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=8hj8ab%246nt%241%40nnrp1.deja.com&o
utput=gplain>); if you actually knew what a will WAS, you would scarcely
have made an ass of yourself by announcing that Oxford made one in 1575
(see
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=180720011052383216%25David.L.Webb%4
0Dartmouth.edu&output=gplain> -- as far as is known, Oxford died
intestate); if you had actually READ Meres, you would scarcely have made
an ass of yourself by writing that his "sugared sonnets" encomium
referred to Oxford; if you actually knew any physics, you would surely
not have made an ass of yourself by including the hilarious footnote in
your book denying the validity of one of the best understood principles
of fluid mechanics; etc., etc. While it may be quite true that a little
knowledge is a dangerous thing, it is generally preferable to no
knowledge at all, as you continually remind us by your example.
John W. Kennedy
> As I have suggested to you before, if you intend to use statistics or
> any other branch of specialized knowledge, it would be to your advantage
> to learn at least a LITTLE about the subject first, at least enough to
> formulate a meaningful question.
I recommend "The Cartoon Guide to Statistics" by Larry Gonick (with
Woollcott Smith).
--
John W. Kennedy
"The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly;
the rich have always objected to being governed at all."
-- G. K. Chesterton, "The Man Who Was Thursday"
paul streitz
"Depends what the meaning of "is" is."
pfs
Lynne
> In article <5daf239d.03021...@posting.google.com>,
> oxins...@aol.com (paul streitz) wrote:
>
> > >
> However, it would be interesting to shed some light on Mr. Streitz's
> question by taking an informal poll:
>
> Of the Oxfordians reading this newsgroup,
>
> (1) How many believe that the Ashbourne Portrait depicts Edward de Vere,
> Earl of Oxford?
>
> (2) How many believe that it depicts Hugh Hamersley?
>
> (3) How many believe that it depicts someone else?
>
> (4) How many are undecided?
I may well tend towards the lunatic fringe, not because I'm an
Oxfordian, but because I can't resist polls.
1) I believe the Ashbourne portrait may well be of Edward de Vere, but
I'm not 100% certain.
2) I don't believe it depicts Hugh Hamersley. I too have seen the
hirsute portrait of him. He looks entirely different from the man in
the Ashbourne.
3) If the portrait is not of the Earl of Oxford, then clearly it
depicts someone else.
4) This seems redundant.
My guess is that the majority of Oxfordians, lunatic fringe or not,
now believe that the Ashbourne definitely does not depict Hugh
Hamersley. Most likely the detailed series of articles that Barbara
Burris wrote for Shakespeare Matters accounts for this. Gordon Cyr has
also retracted his original identification of the portrait as a
likeness of Hugh Hamersley in Shakespeare Matters (Spring 2002).
I think Dave's essay concerning the Ashbourne is an old one. Although
he may still believe that the portrait depicts Hamersley (I'm sure he
does), I'm certain he's also aware that the majority of Oxfordians no
longer hold this belief, even if they once did.
> One knows, of course, that Oxfordians participating in this newsgroup
> tend toward the lunatic fringe; if nothing else, this inference is
> suggested by their versatility in embracing crankery in many domains --
> aquatic apes, the notion that AIDS is "a hoax," rejection of the
> Bernoulli Principle, the belief that John Edwards really does talk to
> dead people, advocacy of the "Gemstone" conspiracy theory, etc. -- so an
> h.l.a.s. sample would scarcely be representative, but it might be
> interesting in any case.
I know nothing of aquatic apes (do tell), do not believe AIDS is a
hoax, don't reject Bernoulli's principle because I have to have
something to believe in when I fly in airplanes, don't for a moment
believe that John Edwards talks to dead people, though it seems most
Americans do, have no idea what the "Gemstone" conspiracy theory is,
and before you ask, no, I'm not a Holocaust denier either, though you
were polite enough not to add that particular "crankery" to your list.
It is a great pity that Oxfordians have been tarred with this
particular brush. The Shakespeare Fellowship abhors anti-semitism or
racism in any guise. Anyone who embraces such attitudes is not
welcome, either at our conferences or on any of the pages of our
newsletter. And by the way, dealing with us *as a group* as if we're
all cranks or lunatics is the kind of broth in which racism is cooked.
I (and I'm sure most Oxfordians) would prefer a civil dialogue.
Best wishes,
Lynne
www.shakespearefellowship.org
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
>racism in any guise. Anyone who embraces such attitudes is not
>welcome, either at our conferences or on any of the pages of our
>newsletter.
Sound like intolerance to me.
>And by the way, dealing with us *as a group* as if we're
>all cranks or lunatics is the kind of broth in which racism is cooked.
>I (and I'm sure most Oxfordians) would prefer a civil dialogue.
>
>Best wishes,
>Lynne
>www.shakespearefellowship.org
You are dealt with as a group ALL of whose members believe in something
that is insane. Therefore, it is reasonable to treat you as cranks. It is
symptomatic of your defective mentality that you suggest that those
characterizing your group as a collection of wacks have something of
significance in common with racists because both base their views on
generalities. It's an effective comment to begin a civil dialogue with,
however. Not that you really would prefer a civil dialogue. If you could not
attack us as ill-mannered, you would have no ammunition against us, at all.
--Bob G.
Lynne
Lynne wrote:
> >The Shakespeare Fellowship abhors anti-semitism or
> >racism in any guise. Anyone who embraces such attitudes is not
> >welcome, either at our conferences or on any of the pages of our
> >newsletter.
>
> Sound like intolerance to me.
Yes, if you'd like to say we're intolerant when it comes to
ant-semites and racists and, for the record, homophobes, you'd be
quite right and I'd welcome your comments in that regard, as often as
you care to make them, on this list.
>
> >And by the way, dealing with us *as a group* as if we're
> >all cranks or lunatics is the kind of broth in which racism is cooked.
> >I (and I'm sure most Oxfordians) would prefer a civil dialogue.
> >
>>
> You are dealt with as a group ALL of whose members believe in something
> that is insane. Therefore, it is reasonable to treat you as cranks. It is
> symptomatic of your defective mentality that you suggest that those
> characterizing your group as a collection of wacks have something of
> significance in common with racists because both base their views on
> generalities. It's an effective comment to begin a civil dialogue with,
> however. Not that you really would prefer a civil dialogue. If you could not
> attack us as ill-mannered, you would have no ammunition against us, at all.
>
Excuse me, Bob, we're not insane (most of us, anyway)and doctors have
assured me I don't have a defective mentality. :) We just happen to
hold an alternative view. And I don't wish to have ammunition against
you, even though you quite rightly assert you've been ill-mannered.
It's not my mindset at all. I've been striving towards civil dialogue
since we began the Fellowship because I believe we can all learn
something from one another. Terry Ross (who likely deserves a medal
for bravery) belongs to the Fellowship and I can honestly say I've
learnt a tremendous amount from him. He might even have learned a tiny
bit from us. Dave Kathman has been exceptionally helpful in offering
resources for my novels. There are many areas in which Oxfordians,
Marlovians, Baconians, and yes, even Stratfordians, share
commonalities and can help each other. Listening to one another with
respect and an open mind is the first step, and can be much more
exciting than hurling brickbats at every opportunity. But maybe it's
too late to turn things around on HLAS. That's why I don't visit too
often, and though you're no doubt profoundly grateful for my absence,
I think it's a shame.
Best wishes,
Lynne
www.shakespearefellowship.org
David L. Webb
kosi...@ican.net (Lynne) wrote:
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
> news:<david.l.webb-1E93...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu>...
> > In article <5daf239d.03021...@posting.google.com>,
> > oxins...@aol.com (paul streitz) wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > However, it would be interesting to shed some light on Mr. Streitz's
> > question by taking an informal poll:
> >
> > Of the Oxfordians reading this newsgroup,
> >
> > (1) How many believe that the Ashbourne Portrait depicts Edward de Vere,
> > Earl of Oxford?
> >
> > (2) How many believe that it depicts Hugh Hamersley?
> >
> > (3) How many believe that it depicts someone else?
> >
> > (4) How many are undecided?
> I may well tend towards the lunatic fringe, not because I'm an
> Oxfordian, but because I can't resist polls.
That sounds sane enough -- so far.
> 1) I believe the Ashbourne portrait may well be of Edward de Vere, but
> I'm not 100% certain.
>
> 2) I don't believe it depicts Hugh Hamersley. I too have seen the
> hirsute portrait of him. He looks entirely different from the man in
> the Ashbourne.
>
> 3) If the portrait is not of the Earl of Oxford, then clearly it
> depicts someone else.
Question three is meant to inquire whether you believe the portrait's
sitter to be someone other than those persons already named in questions
1 and 2, so it is not superfluous. I would not rule out the possibility
that some amusing eccentric might opine that the portrait depicts
Southampton or Anne Vavasour or Queen Elizabeth.
> 4) This seems redundant.
>
> My guess is that the majority of Oxfordians, lunatic fringe or not,
> now believe that the Ashbourne definitely does not depict Hugh
> Hamersley.
The majority of the Shakespeare Fellowship Oxfordians, perhaps;
however, the Shakespeare Fellowship is not exactly representative of
"mainstream" Oxfordians, to the extent that that locution makes sense.
> Most likely the detailed series of articles that Barbara
> Burris wrote for Shakespeare Matters accounts for this. Gordon Cyr has
> also retracted his original identification of the portrait as a
> likeness of Hugh Hamersley in Shakespeare Matters (Spring 2002).
>
> I think Dave's essay concerning the Ashbourne is an old one. Although
> he may still believe that the portrait depicts Hamersley (I'm sure he
> does), I'm certain he's also aware that the majority of Oxfordians no
> longer hold this belief, even if they once did.
You're certain that Dave is aware of this? Has he said so?
> > One knows, of course, that Oxfordians participating in this newsgroup
> > tend toward the lunatic fringe; if nothing else, this inference is
> > suggested by their versatility in embracing crankery in many domains --
> > aquatic apes, the notion that AIDS is "a hoax," rejection of the
> > Bernoulli Principle, the belief that John Edwards really does talk to
> > dead people, advocacy of the "Gemstone" conspiracy theory, etc. -- so an
> > h.l.a.s. sample would scarcely be representative, but it might be
> > interesting in any case.
> I know nothing of aquatic apes (do tell),
Do a Google groups search of posts authored by Mr. Crowley. The
"aquatic ape theory" is almost as eccentric (to put it charitably) as
Mr. Crowley's insistence that the sonnets celebrate royal defecation.
> do not believe AIDS is a
> hoax,
Good -- do a Google groups search of posts authored by Mr. Streitz.
Were it not that this particular form of crankery is potentially fraught
with peril, it would be almost as amusing as Mr. Streitz's rejection of
the Bernoulli principle, Elizabeth Weird's bizarre rejection of special
relativity, and "Dr." Faker's belief that the Apollo lunar landing was
an elaborate but clumsily executed hoax.
> don't reject Bernoulli's principle because I have to have
> something to believe in when I fly in airplanes,
See the footnote on page 23 of your fellow Fellowshipper Mr.
Streitz's riotously funny book.
> don't for a moment
> believe that John Edwards talks to dead people,
Your fellow Fellowshipper Ken Kaplan does. I am not making this up.
See
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=81b80d38.0202151347.2a49c852%40post
ing.google.com&output=gplain>.
> though it seems most
> Americans do,
"Most"?
> have no idea what the "Gemstone" conspiracy theory is,
By all means see <http://gemstone-file.com/> -- savor especially the
Albanian frogmen. Former h.l.a.s. Queen of Error Stephanie Caruana has
done "research" on this matter that rivals her Oxfordian "research" in
both its accuracy and its plausibility.
> and before you ask, no, I'm not a Holocaust denier either, though you
> were polite enough not to add that particular "crankery" to your list.
> It is a great pity that Oxfordians have been tarred with this
> particular brush.
I certainly was not about to "add that particular 'crankery'" to the
list; the crackpot beliefs I enumerated are among those that have been
expressed by Oxfordians who have participated *in this newsgroup*, and
holocaust denial emphatically is not among them.
In fact, I have rarely seen Oxfordians "tarred with this particular
brush," although it is certainly regrettable that a few prominent
Oxfordians do express various unsavory beliefs scarcely distinguishable
from racism. You are no doubt familiar with the writings of Joseph
Sobran, one of the more temperate of which, in a thread entitled "Truth
encapsulated," was enthusiastically praised by Ken Kaplan in the
Shakespeare Fellowship discussion group and also in this forum -- until
several of us told Ken, who has a great deal of difficulty with literary
attributions, who its author was. You may also be familiar with some of
the political beliefs of Lord Burford concerning the European Union, the
Lost Tribes of Israel, etc., beliefs which it is overly charitable to
characterize as "eccentric." You may have visited the web page of Raeto
West, which (until it apparently went offine fairly recently) contained
a long section on holocaust denial, on David Irving's lawsuit against
Deborah Lipstadt, etc. You are probably also aware of Enoch Powell and
his notorious "Rivers of Blood" speech.
This is emphatically not to say that Oxfordians are right-wing bigots
-- on the contrary, I have opined before in this newsgroup that the
political center of mass of Oxfordians probably falls somewhere near the
center. However, the paranoia exhibited by many Oxfordians, exacerbated
by misinformation and inability to reason rationally, probably insures
that, while the Oxfordian political mean may be unexceptional, the
standard deviation is probably much larger among Oxfordians than in the
general population. This overabundance of outspoken Oxfordian political
outliers is indeed conspicuous.
I have never seen any Oxfordian publication, with the possible
exception of Raeto West's now defunct web page, that openly expressed
sympathy for holocaust denial. However, I suspect that the reason the
topic of holocaust denial arises at all in discussions of Shakespeare
authorship (apart from the aforementioned visibility and outspokenness
of several right-wing Oxfordians) is that an inability to reason from
historical evidence using the methods and standards employed by
competent professional historians can lead to all sorts of bizarre
pseudohistorical scenarios, ranging from Oxfordian Price Tudor fantasies
(which are innocuous) to holocaust revisionism or outright denial (which
emphatically is not). It is the wanton abandonment of evidentiary
standards and rigorous methodology, not the political beliefs of a few
anomalous "loose cannon" Oxfordians, that occasions comparisons with
holocaust denial.
> The Shakespeare Fellowship abhors anti-semitism or
> racism in any guise.
I'm glad to hear it. However, I didn't raise the issue of racism;
you did.
> Anyone who embraces such attitudes is not
> welcome,
When Ken Kaplan posted the unattributed Sobran essay whinging about
how he, Sobran, had been "ostracized," ostensibly because he did not
adhere to the "party line" on Israel, a participant whose screen name is
Bassanio replied: "Fascinating post. Are you in touch with this guy?
Can we interest him in the Fellowship?" The essay, which several of us
at h.l.a.s. immediately identifed as Sobran's and located on the web,
evidently did not set off any alarm bells in "Bassanio," who appears to
be an especially prominent member of the Fellowship eager to welcome the
author to the Fellowship. (Incidentally, "Bassanio" shares a few verbal
quirks with Dr. Stritmatter. Mind you, I'm not claiming that Bassanio
*is* Dr. Stritmatter -- I have seen too small a sample of his writing to
judge, and I am far more cautious about attributions in any case.
Nevertheless, the stylistic similarities are striking.)
> either at our conferences or on any of the pages of our
> newsletter. And by the way, dealing with us *as a group* as if we're
> all cranks or lunatics is the kind of broth in which racism is cooked.
I have *not* dealt with Oxfordians "as a group"; rather, I have
identified *specific* forms of comic crankery embraced by *specific*
individual Oxfordians who participate in this forum, in support of my
hypothesis that this group is an unrepresentative sample of Oxfordian
"thought," tending more toward the lunatic fringe than toward the more
cautious "mainstream" Oxfordian movement. I maintain that the copious
instances of crankery I enumerated, together with specific references
for your delectation in case you savor such lunacy, amply support that
hypothesis. Indeed, I didn't even mention the most comic avatar of
Oxfordian crankery of them all, Art Neuendorffer's hilariously funny
Templar/Rosicrucian/Masonic conspiracy theory, because I'm fairly sure
that Art is engaging in a monstrous, parodic leg-pull.
> I (and I'm sure most Oxfordians) would prefer a civil dialogue.
I see nothing above incompatible with civil dialogue. Indeed, civil
dialogue is perfectly consonant with a sense of humor. As Bertrand
Russell concluded his essay "An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish,"
"A wise man will enjoy the goods of which there is a plentiful
supply, and of intellectual rubbish he will find an abundant diet,
in our own age as in every other."
It's a pity that Russell never had the occasion to read the Shakespeare
Fellowship material!
> Best wishes,
> Lynne
> www.shakespearefellowship.org
Thanks for responding to the poll. I hope that other h.l.a.s.
Oxfordians will follow suit.
David L. Webb
Mr. Streitz's posts are so incoherent and generally so strewn with
stillborn sentence fragments and unintelligible gibberish that when he
also snips the context, his readers must scratch their heads in
perplexed bewilderment about what his point, if any, might be. In the
present case, I assume that he is referring to the following exchange:
Mr. Streitz wrote:
> Well then, let's ask you a question you might be able to answer. Is 54
> vs 8 a statistical difference at the 90% confidence level?
>
> paul streitz
I replied:
--------------------
That question as stated is utterly meaningless. To formulate a
question that is even meaningful, you must specify what statistical test
you are using.
If you intend to use statistics to reject the null hypothesis at a
given confidence level, you must specify what your model of a random
process is. This entails specifying a probability measure on the state
space, then computing the probability of occurrence of the statistic
observed. Without this information, your question is as meaningless as
asking, in the absence of any other information, whether x equals 5, or
what the word "frpxpr" means.
--------------------
I enjoin Mr. Streitz to seek out a local high school or community
college and enroll in a rudimentary statistics course to find out for
himself just how meaningless his question above is. (What test is he
using? What statistic? What is his model for the occurrence he is
presumably trying to argue is not a random process? Is he discussing
Bernoulli trials, or what?) The last time I taught statistics, not even
my least prepared students were as clueless as Mr. Streitz evidently is
regarding the subject. True, these students were on average juniors at
a highly selective university, but one still marvels at Mr. Streitz's
invincibly ignorant, comically clumsy, bull-in-a-china-shop intellectual
pretensions. His ignorance is his own loss.
I began by pitying Mr. Streitz's ignorance and ineptness, and even
made tactful suggestions of ways he might remediate these shortcomings.
However, when Mr. Streitz began haplessly hurling accusations of
intellectual dishonesty and cowardice in all directions -- at Dave
Kathman, at the Folger Library, at the entire community of professional
Shakespeare scholars, etc. -- my pity for his breathtaking ignorance and
incompetence evaporated.
I leave it to others who know statistics to break the news tactfully
to Mr. Streitz that his misunderstanding of the subject is farcical, and
that he continues to make an ass of himself thereby. If anyone can
persuade him to learn something about his subject before humiliating
himself by undertaking self-publication of his hilarious howlers
("Elizabeth Petrify," etc.), so much the better.
Bob Grumman
>Lynne wrote:
>> >The Shakespeare Fellowship abhors anti-semitism or
>> >racism in any guise. Anyone who embraces such attitudes is not
>> >welcome, either at our conferences or on any of the pages of our
>> >newsletter.
>>
>> Sound like intolerance to me.
>
>Yes, if you'd like to say we're intolerant when it comes to
>quite right and I'd welcome your comments in that regard, as often as
>you care to make them, on this list.
My simple point is that you should be interested in the search for truth,
not in the political correctness of the participants in it.
>> >And by the way, dealing with us *as a group* as if we're
>> >all cranks or lunatics is the kind of broth in which racism is cooked.
>> >I (and I'm sure most Oxfordians) would prefer a civil dialogue.
>> >
>>>
>> You are dealt with as a group ALL of whose members believe in something
>> that is insane. Therefore, it is reasonable to treat you as cranks. It is
>> symptomatic of your defective mentality that you suggest that those
>> characterizing your group as a collection of wacks have something of
>> significance in common with racists because both base their views on
>> generalities. It's an effective comment to begin a civil dialogue with,
>>however. Not that you really would prefer a civil dialogue. If you could not
>> attack us as ill-mannered, you would have no ammunition against us, at all.
>>
> Excuse me, Bob, we're not insane (most of us, anyway) and doctors have
>assured me I don't have a defective mentality. :)
Sorry, but they're wrong--as indicated by your assumption that I accused you of
insanity rather than of believing in something that is insane.
>We just happen to
>hold an alternative view. And I don't wish to have ammunition against
>you, even though you quite rightly assert you've been ill-mannered.
>It's not my mindset at all. I've been striving towards civil dialogue
>since we began the Fellowship because I believe we can all learn
>something from one another. Terry Ross (who likely deserves a medal
>for bravery) belongs to the Fellowship and I can honestly say I've
>learnt a tremendous amount from him. He might even have learned a tiny
>bit from us. Dave Kathman has been exceptionally helpful in offering
>resources for my novels. There are many areas in which Oxfordians,
>Marlovians, Baconians, and yes, even Stratfordians, share
>commonalities and can help each other. Listening to one another with
>respect and an open mind is the first step, and can be much more
>exciting than hurling brickbats at every opportunity.
Like you do at racists. Oops, it no doubt isn't open-mindedness to hear out
racists.
>But maybe it's too late to turn things around on HLAS. That's why I don't
>visit too often,
I rather suspect that the real reason you don't visit too often is because
the idiocy of your position will be too quickly and impolitely exposed.
>and though you're no doubt profoundly grateful for my absence,
>I think it's a shame.
>
>Best wishes,
>Lynne
I think we already have more than enough repeaters of Ogburnian rot.
--Bob G.
Paul Crowley
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
news:<david.l.webb-1E93...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu>...
> > Of the Oxfordians reading this newsgroup,
> >
> > (1) How many believe that the Ashbourne Portrait depicts Edward de Vere,
> > Earl of Oxford?
> >
> > (2) How many believe that it depicts Hugh Hamersley?
I have done a 'flashing' overlay of the Hamersley
on to the Ashbourne proving, to my satisfaction
at least, that they both show the same person.
I'll make a parallel post attaching it. Those on
Micro$oft's Outlook Express and possibly some
other newsreaders will see it. I'll put it on to a
website if pushed.
> 2) I don't believe it depicts Hugh Hamersley. I too have seen the
> hirsute portrait of him. He looks entirely different from the man in
> the Ashbourne.
The Hamersley is much darker. The
Ashbourne has IMO been altered to make
it look like Shake-speare. There is nothing
unusual about that, there being a very large
and highly credulous market for 'portraits of
Shakespeare'.
Paul.
Lynne
Well, the Shakespeare Fellowship has many members who also belong
to the SOS or are participants in the de Vere Studies Conference. The
newsletter which contained the second Barb Burris article was sent out
to over a thousand Oxfordians, and I can tell you that everyone who
has
contacted me on the topic has rejected the Hamersley attribution.
That's
not definitive, of course.
> Most likely the detailed series of articles that Barbara
> Burris wrote for Shakespeare Matters accounts for this. Gordon Cyr has
> also retracted his original identification of the portrait as a
> likeness of Hugh Hamersley in Shakespeare Matters (Spring 2002).
>
> I think Dave's essay concerning the Ashbourne is an old one. Although
> he may still believe that the portrait depicts Hamersley (I'm sure he
> does), I'm certain he's also aware that the majority of Oxfordians no
> longer hold this belief, even if they once did.
You're certain that Dave is aware of this? Has he said so?
Nope, but Dave's not a stupid man, and he knows which way the wind
blows.
He could only have written that essay before the Burris articles, and
before
the Sanders Symposium, to have written the sentence which Streitz
"accuses"
him of if he was writing in good faith, and I believe that Dave always
writes
in good faith.
> > One knows, of course, that Oxfordians participating in this newsgroup
> > tend toward the lunatic fringe; if nothing else, this inference is
> > suggested by their versatility in embracing crankery in many domains --
> > aquatic apes, the notion that AIDS is "a hoax," rejection of the
> > Bernoulli Principle, the belief that John Edwards really does talk to
> > dead people, advocacy of the "Gemstone" conspiracy theory, etc. -- so an
> > h.l.a.s. sample would scarcely be representative, but it might be
> > interesting in any case.
> I know nothing of aquatic apes (do tell),
Do a Google groups search of posts authored by Mr. Crowley. The
"aquatic ape theory" is almost as eccentric (to put it charitably) as
Mr. Crowley's insistence that the sonnets celebrate royal defecation.
Thanks. Actually not sure now that I want to spend time on chasing
up the posts.
> do not believe AIDS is a
> hoax,
Good -- do a Google groups search of posts authored by Mr. Streitz.
Were it not that this particular form of crankery is potentially
fraught
with peril, it would be almost as amusing as Mr. Streitz's rejection
of
the Bernoulli principle, Elizabeth Weird's bizarre rejection of
special
relativity, and "Dr." Faker's belief that the Apollo lunar landing was
an elaborate but clumsily executed hoax.
Yes, but we all have our individual "crankeries", Stratfordians
included.
> don't reject Bernoulli's principle because I have to have
> something to believe in when I fly in airplanes,
See the footnote on page 23 of your fellow Fellowshipper Mr.
Streitz's riotously funny book.
I have not read Mr. Streitz's book. As I've been unwell, and am also
in the midst of
preparing four young adult novels for publication, I'm careful about
how I spend
my time.
> don't for a moment
> believe that John Edwards talks to dead people,
Your fellow Fellowshipper Ken Kaplan does. I am not making this
up.
See
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=81b80d38.0202151347.2a49c852%40post
ing.google.com&output=gplain>.
> though it seems most
> Americans do,
"Most"?
Well, it just appears that so many watch him that Ken, if he believes
in the man's
veracity, is certainly not in the minority. If many, many Americans
didn't believe
that John Edwards speaks to dead people, the ratings would be awful
and the
program would be pulled. Instead it seems to be proliferating, like a
weed,
all over my tv, so whenever I turn it on I get a seance.
> have no idea what the "Gemstone" conspiracy theory is,
By all means see <http://gemstone-file.com/> -- savor especially
the
Albanian frogmen. Former h.l.a.s. Queen of Error Stephanie Caruana
has
done "research" on this matter that rivals her Oxfordian "research" in
both its accuracy and its plausibility.
Thank you.
Ken, I can attest, did not realise that particular post was from
Sobran, although I had my
suspicions from the moment I saw it. Sobran is not welcome at the
Fellowship, and we don't
post links to his site. Lord Burford, to my knowledge (I'm English) is
a laughing stock in
England. Enoch Powell was hated by many. My mother would turn off the
tv as soon as
she saw him.
This is emphatically not to say that Oxfordians are right-wing
bigots
-- on the contrary, I have opined before in this newsgroup that the
political center of mass of Oxfordians probably falls somewhere near
the
center. However, the paranoia exhibited by many Oxfordians,
exacerbated
by misinformation and inability to reason rationally, probably insures
that, while the Oxfordian political mean may be unexceptional, the
standard deviation is probably much larger among Oxfordians than in
the
general population. This overabundance of outspoken Oxfordian
political
outliers is indeed conspicuous.
It's interesting you say that. I would say that the majority of
members of the
Shakespeare Fellowship are left of centre politically although we
haven't
taken a poll. But I agree, if you want to take West, Powell, Burford,
and Sobran
into account, it would tip the balance somewhat. E. g. One Rae West=
ten regular Oxfordians, at least in terms of damage done. However,
with the exception
of Sobran, these are not the scholars of the movement.
I have never seen any Oxfordian publication, with the possible
exception of Raeto West's now defunct web page, that openly expressed
sympathy for holocaust denial. However, I suspect that the reason the
topic of holocaust denial arises at all in discussions of Shakespeare
authorship (apart from the aforementioned visibility and outspokenness
of several right-wing Oxfordians) is that an inability to reason from
historical evidence using the methods and standards employed by
competent professional historians can lead to all sorts of bizarre
pseudohistorical scenarios, ranging from Oxfordian Price Tudor
fantasies
(which are innocuous) to holocaust revisionism or outright denial
(which
emphatically is not). It is the wanton abandonment of evidentiary
standards and rigorous methodology, not the political beliefs of a few
anomalous "loose cannon" Oxfordians, that occasions comparisons with
holocaust denial.
The Shakespeare Fellowship, together with Oxfordians in other
organizations, asked
for Rae West's site to be removed as a link from the British Oxfordian
organization. To
do them justice, I don't think the Brits realised West was a Holocaust
denier. Whatever the
reason, I get physically sick when I see myself (as part of a group)
connected in any way with
Holocaust denial--and it's been done a lot. Actually, I write young
adult novels about the
Holocaust (together with novels about other groups who have been
mistreated such as the
black Loyalists and the Acadians) and my newest novel on the subject
will be coming out
spring of 2004. It's an interesting novel because the characters are
complex and
it doesn't say all the Jews were good and all the Germans
bad--a hard sell, my publisher thinks. But that's the way I think of
things. Similarly,
I don't believe all Oxfordians good and all Stratfordians bad. That's
simplistic, but it's
what I see on HLAS time after time--roles reversed, of course.
I don't agree with you, obviously, that Oxfordians in the main have an
inability to reason from
historical evidence using the usual methods and standards. I think we
reason better. ;)
> The Shakespeare Fellowship abhors anti-semitism or
> racism in any guise.
I'm glad to hear it. However, I didn't raise the issue of racism;
you did.
Only because you said "etc." when referring to our various crankeries.
:)
> Anyone who embraces such attitudes is not
> welcome,
When Ken Kaplan posted the unattributed Sobran essay whinging about
how he, Sobran, had been "ostracized," ostensibly because he did not
adhere to the "party line" on Israel, a participant whose screen name
is
Bassanio replied: "Fascinating post. Are you in touch with this guy?
Can we interest him in the Fellowship?" The essay, which several of
us
at h.l.a.s. immediately identifed as Sobran's and located on the web,
evidently did not set off any alarm bells in "Bassanio," who appears
to
be an especially prominent member of the Fellowship eager to welcome
the
author to the Fellowship. (Incidentally, "Bassanio" shares a few
verbal
quirks with Dr. Stritmatter. Mind you, I'm not claiming that Bassanio
*is* Dr. Stritmatter -- I have seen too small a sample of his writing
to
judge, and I am far more cautious about attributions in any case.
Nevertheless, the stylistic similarities are striking.)
Bassanio also didn't realise immediately it was Sobran. Bassanio was
one of the
people instrumental in having a link to Sobran removed from our site
and a link
to West removed from the English site. That does not mean, however,
that one
cannot express criticism of the current regime in Israel, which I
believe the letter did.
I'm Jewish and I am often critical of Israel too.
> either at our conferences or on any of the pages of our
> newsletter. And by the way, dealing with us *as a group* as if we're
> all cranks or lunatics is the kind of broth in which racism is cooked.
I have *not* dealt with Oxfordians "as a group"; rather, I have
identified *specific* forms of comic crankery embraced by *specific*
individual Oxfordians who participate in this forum, in support of my
hypothesis that this group is an unrepresentative sample of Oxfordian
"thought," tending more toward the lunatic fringe than toward the more
cautious "mainstream" Oxfordian movement. I maintain that the copious
instances of crankery I enumerated, together with specific references
for your delectation in case you savor such lunacy, amply support that
hypothesis. Indeed, I didn't even mention the most comic avatar of
Oxfordian crankery of them all, Art Neuendorffer's hilariously funny
Templar/Rosicrucian/Masonic conspiracy theory, because I'm fairly sure
that Art is engaging in a monstrous, parodic leg-pull.
Don't think so. At least I hope not. I find it rather intriguing. Will
be writing about
John Dee etc in my next novel. I'd say it's an adult novel, but that
might give the wrong
impression, so I'll just say it will be a novel for adults.
> I (and I'm sure most Oxfordians) would prefer a civil dialogue.
I see nothing above incompatible with civil dialogue. Indeed,
civil
dialogue is perfectly consonant with a sense of humor. As Bertrand
Russell concluded his essay "An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish,"
"A wise man will enjoy the goods of which there is a plentiful
supply, and of intellectual rubbish he will find an abundant diet,
in our own age as in every other."
It's a pity that Russell never had the occasion to read the
Shakespeare
Fellowship material!
But see, there's humour and humour. You've just called us a bunch of
idiots again.
One can be very funny without belittling others, I think.
> Best wishes,
> Lynne
> www.shakespearefellowship.org
Thanks for responding to the poll. I hope that other h.l.a.s.
Oxfordians will follow suit.
You're very welcome. I'm VP in charge of correspondence,
so I thought I it incumbent on me to reply. Thanks for the
opportunity.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
>attached. May not work for some.
Thanks for posting this, Paul. It worked for me, which surprised me, because my
computer usually isn't too good with graphics. But why couldn't you show
the two pictures side by side. That'd work better for me. As it is, the two
men look pretty similar to me. Similar enough so that if the other evidence is
valid, I'd say the portrait was of Hammersley. The problems with this sort of
thing is that faces change, and artistic treatments can vary a great deal. So
it'd be nice to see sets of portraits known to be of the same person. I've seen
quite a few of Elizabeth that vary considerably from one another--and
sometimes seem as "monstrous" to me as the engraving of Shakespeare does to you.
--Bob G.
John W. Kennedy
> Always the artful dodger. Not such wonderful tap dancing since,
> "Depends what the meaning of "is" is."
Liar!
Art Neuendorffer
> I have never seen any Oxfordian publication, with the possible
> exception of Raeto West's now defunct web page, that openly expressed
> sympathy for holocaust denial. However, I suspect that the reason the
> topic of holocaust denial arises at all in discussions of Shakespeare
> authorship (apart from the aforementioned visibility and outspokenness
> of several right-wing Oxfordians) is that an inability to reason from
> historical evidence using the methods and standards employed by
> competent professional historians can lead to all sorts of bizarre
> pseudohistorical scenarios.
The overwhelming evidence for the Holocaust (or for Andersonville) is
not so much easily manipulated "historical evidence" but rather the
discovery of mass graves along with thousands of emaciated human beings
living in deplorable conditions (and with horendous stories to tell).
Careful documentation of artifacts, pictures, film & eyewitness stories will
assure that the holocaust can never be denied.
The Nazis, Stalinist & Stratfordians have all clearly demonstrated how
easy it was to manipulate "historical evidence" for their own purposes.
The risible artifacts, signatures, representations & "eyewitness stories"
of the illiterate Stratford boob are worthy of the respect that we all
should hold for him.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> ranging from Oxfordian Price Tudor fantasies
> (which are innocuous) to holocaust revisionism or outright denial (which
> emphatically is not). It is the wanton abandonment of evidentiary
> standards and rigorous methodology,
I believe Godel had something to say about rigorous methodology.
> kosi...@ican.net (Lynne) wrote:
> > either at our conferences or on any of the pages of our
> > newsletter. And by the way, dealing with us *as a group* as if we're
> > all cranks or lunatics is the kind of broth in which racism is cooked.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> I have *not* dealt with Oxfordians "as a group"; rather, I have
> identified *specific* forms of comic crankery embraced by *specific*
> individual Oxfordians who participate in this forum, in support of my
> hypothesis that this group is an unrepresentative sample of Oxfordian
> "thought," tending more toward the lunatic fringe than toward the more
> cautious "mainstream" Oxfordian movement. I maintain that the copious
> instances of crankery I enumerated, together with specific references
> for your delectation in case you savor such lunacy, amply support that
> hypothesis. Indeed, I didn't even mention the most comic avatar of
> Oxfordian crankery of them all, Art Neuendorffer's hilariously funny
> Templar/Rosicrucian/Masonic conspiracy theory, because I'm fairly
> sure that Art is engaging in a monstrous, parodic leg-pull.
You base your opinion on rigorous methodology, Dave?
> kosi...@ican.net (Lynne) wrote:
> > I (and I'm sure most Oxfordians) would prefer a civil dialogue.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> I see nothing above incompatible with civil dialogue. Indeed, civil
> dialogue is perfectly consonant with a sense of humor. As Bertrand
> Russell concluded his essay "An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish,"
>
> "A wise man will enjoy the goods of which there is a plentiful
> supply, and of intellectual rubbish he will find an abundant diet,
> in our own age as in every other."
>
> It's a pity that Russell never had the occasion to read
> the Shakespeare Fellowship material!
-----------------------------------------------
Which do you think Russell approved of more:
1) Free Thought or
2) Official Propaganda
Russell, Bertrand: _Free Thought and Official Propaganda_ New York: B. W.
Huebsch, 1922.
-----------------------------------------------
Stratfordians always write with a view to boring school-children.
If making fun of the illiterate Stratford boob does not give you delight,
you had better ignore him.
Bertrand Russell: "Shakespeare did not write with a view to boring
school-children; he wrote to with a view to delighting his audiences. If he
does not give you delight, you had better ignore him."
-----------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
paul streitz
> Hammersley family genealogy site. Hammersley was a hirusite
> beast with dark hair, eyes and swarthy skin.
What is the web address for this? I will take a look for it.
Second, according to Betty Sears when the Folger first presented the
idea that Hammersley was the subject of the portrait, they put a
picture of a known portrait of Hammersley along side the Ashbourne
portrait. This is her personal recollection, having been there to see
the Hammersley that was used as a comparison to Ashbourne. The
difference was startling, that they soon took this portrait down and
simply put up a notice that the Ashbourne had been identified as Sir
Hugh. According to Sears this was not the same as the portrait that
hangs in the Haberdasher's guild in London.
The Ashbourne portrait is a good example of the Folger's duplicity.
The Folger was willing to identify the Ashbourne as Shakespeare for
two decades because it gave a noble portrait of the Bard. They did
this despite the knowledge that an art critic had said that it was
very doubtful that the Ashbourne portrait was the man from Stratford,
and also noted the alterations in the painting to make it more similar
to the Droeshout engraving. In other words, they purposefully
misidentified the painting because it suited their purposes of
strengthening the Stratford case.
When the painting was identified as Oxford, the Folger could not
continue the contention that it was the man from Stratford and
therefore had to seek a new sitter for the portrait, that is
Hammersley. Despite the obvious differences in faces between the
Ashbourne and Hammersley they continued this line. When Pressley did
his article on the Hammersley, he uses a full length, full page
illustration of the Hammersley portrait that is in the Haberdashers
guild. The face is thus less than the size of a dime. This makes a
facial comparison between Hammersley and the Ashbourne impossible.
(He does not compare it to the Paris Portrait of Oxford.)
The Folger dismissed the lack of any historical connection between the
Hammersley and the Ashbourne portrait, and brushed off the notion that
Ketel painted by simply saying that stylistic differences made it
impossible.
If the Folger had sold the painting as either a portrait of Shakspere,
or a portrait of Hammersley, there is no doubt the buyer could
commence an action of fraud against the Folger. They withheld relevant
information and made claims that were not valid for their
identification of the portrait either as Hammersley or a Shakspere.
Also, the Folger never showed the Asbourne against the Paris Portrait
of Oxford done earlier in his life. The comparisons are striking. (The
portrait of Oxford in a silver jacket, holding a boar pendant, is
believed by many to be of the 16th Earl, not of Oxford. The facial
similarities to Oxford are not great.)
There is a three section article by Barbara Burris on the Folger's
handling of the Ashbourne portrait. Her article concurs that the
Folger misrepresented the painting and may even have engaged in
altering the painting to suit their ideological needs. She also gives
a long section on the overpaintings to cover up the aristocratic
dress, the dates of that style, etc. Given this article, there are
few, if any, Oxfordians who doubt that Ashbourne portrait is of the
Earl of Oxford.
paul streitz
The portrait is identified by the Folger as Shakespeare 1. At least
they got that correct. They also refused an offer of $60,000 for an
ex-mayor of London, who they don't believe to be Shakespeare. Seems to
me they might want to get rid of it, unless of course, it is
Shakespeare. They seem to be ideologically saying one thing, but
hedging their bets financially.
Paul Crowley
> In article <A1c6a.11419$V6.1...@news.indigo.ie>, "Paul says...
> >
> >"Lynne" <kosi...@ican.net> wrote in message
> >news:8e6ba82f.03022...@posting.google.com...
> >
> >
> >Hamersley / Ashbourne flashing overlay
> >attached. May not work for some.
>
> Thanks for posting this, Paul. It worked for me, which surprised me, because my
> computer usually isn't too good with graphics.
Actually it didn't work for me -- Outlook Express
must have tightened up.
> But why couldn't you show
> the two pictures side by side. That'd work better for me. As it is, the two
> men look pretty similar to me.
You can't see how the features marry when
side by side. You have to look at each part
of the face, breaking it down to the smallest
reasonable unit --
eyes: their size, distance apart, colour,
expression, distance from side of face,
eyebrows, eyelids,
nose: size, general shape, straightness,
kind of tip, exposure of nostrils, and so on.
The overall size and shape of the face are
also important. You also have to try to look
at the underlying bone structure.
Human features are remarkably distinctive.
For example, hardly anyone has nose like
Clinton's, let alone like Nixon's (which was
weird). You try to allot probabilities to
similarities, so when you add them all up
you get a fair measure.
Hammersley's nose is different from the
Grafton -- but only, IMO, as a kind of
exaggeration or caricature of its distinctive
features (or, alternatively a diminution of
them). The remainder of the features
match nearly perfectly. So IMHO the
portraits almost certainly show the same
person.
The enthusiasm of some Oxfordians in
claiming that the Ashbourne (while being
Shakespeare) is also Oxford, is just
another instance of excessive
credulousness in a field wide open to
wishful imagination. We've seen plenty
of it within orthodoxy.
> Similar enough so that if the other evidence is
> valid, I'd say the portrait was of Hammersley. The problems with this sort of
> thing is that faces change
They don't change that much. Bones
change little, nor do noses. You can
overlay Elizabeth as an old woman on
her young face, and see the close
similarities.
> , and artistic treatments can vary a great deal.
Not really true.
> So
> it'd be nice to see sets of portraits known to be of the same person. I've seen
> quite a few of Elizabeth that vary considerably from one another--
She was particularly vain, and some of
her portraits were much more 'contrived'
than most.
Paul.
David L. Webb
"Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > I have never seen any Oxfordian publication, with the possible
> > exception of Raeto West's now defunct web page, that openly expressed
> > sympathy for holocaust denial. However, I suspect that the reason the
> > topic of holocaust denial arises at all in discussions of Shakespeare
> > authorship (apart from the aforementioned visibility and outspokenness
> > of several right-wing Oxfordians) is that an inability to reason from
> > historical evidence using the methods and standards employed by
> > competent professional historians can lead to all sorts of bizarre
> > pseudohistorical scenarios.
[Idiocy snipped]
> > ranging from Oxfordian Price Tudor fantasies
> > (which are innocuous) to holocaust revisionism or outright denial (which
> > emphatically is not). It is the wanton abandonment of evidentiary
> > standards and rigorous methodology,
> I believe Godel had something to say about rigorous methodology.
If you think that Gödel's work has anything whateVER to do with
literary historians' methodology, or indeed with ANY rigorous
methodology leading to an erroneous conclusion, then you don't know
Gödel from Yertle the Turtle, Art. Your understanding of Gödel's
theorem is evidently on a par with Elizabeth Weird's understanding of
special relativity, with Mr. Streitz's command of fluid mechanics, and
with "Dr." Faker's understanding of number theory.
> > kosi...@ican.net (Lynne) wrote:
>
> > > either at our conferences or on any of the pages of our
> > > newsletter. And by the way, dealing with us *as a group* as if we're
> > > all cranks or lunatics is the kind of broth in which racism is cooked.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > I have *not* dealt with Oxfordians "as a group"; rather, I have
> > identified *specific* forms of comic crankery embraced by *specific*
> > individual Oxfordians who participate in this forum, in support of my
> > hypothesis that this group is an unrepresentative sample of Oxfordian
> > "thought," tending more toward the lunatic fringe than toward the more
> > cautious "mainstream" Oxfordian movement. I maintain that the copious
> > instances of crankery I enumerated, together with specific references
> > for your delectation in case you savor such lunacy, amply support that
> > hypothesis. Indeed, I didn't even mention the most comic avatar of
> > Oxfordian crankery of them all, Art Neuendorffer's hilariously funny
> > Templar/Rosicrucian/Masonic conspiracy theory, because I'm fairly
> > sure that Art is engaging in a monstrous, parodic leg-pull.
> You base your opinion on rigorous methodology, Dave?
I base my opinion upon informed conjecture and informal estimation of
likelihood. For example, I note that Oxfordians are routinely befuddled
by comic, often cretinous confusions: Stephanie Caruana confused the
magisterial prose stylist Anthony Powell with Enoch "RiVERs of blood"
Powell; in her "monograph" with E. Sears, Stephanie also confused the
Elizabethan scholar Frederick Boas with the celebrated anthropologist
Franz Boas. In his thesis, Dr. Stritmatter managed to confuse Mary
Tudor with Mary Queen of Scots(!!); in the same document he confused
Mary Vere with Katherine Vere, and h.l.a.s. readers are all familiar
with his inability to distinguish Terry Ross from Tom Reedy. Richard
Kenendy confuses John Chamberlain and John Manningham -- the funniest
part is that he does so in referring to an earlier thread in which,
within the confines of a *single* brief post, Kennedy triumphantly
confuses Sir John Hayward with the playwright Thomas Heywood, the
dramatist Francis Beaumont with his father and namesake, the poet Sir
John Suckling with his father the courtier, and seVERal others. The
list could be extended almost indefinitely, and it limns starkly just
how farcically unfamiliar Oxfordians are with the material. HoweVER,
the most cretinously moronic of these copious confusions (because it was
utterly trivial to check) is the confusion of the distinguished emeritus
Yale historian Peter Gay with a middle-aged industrial manager of the
same name. As I wrote earlier:
---------------------------------
For example, when a middle-aged Raytheon plant
manager named Peter Gay perished in the 9/11 attacks, Art IMMEDIATELY
concluded that the victim must be the distinguished Yale historian
Peter Gay, despite the fact that the latter is some two decades older
than the former. Art rationalized this tasteless blunder as follows:
he recalled that the historian Peter Gay was supported by the Mellon
Foundation; he knew that there was a Mellon Bank in Manhattan.
Therefore, by Art's "reasoning," the historian must presumably have
been flying to New York to collect his monthly grant check -- IN PERSON
-- at the Manhattan branch of the Mellon Bank! I am not making this
up. Art wrote:
"Gay is not a common name (nor even the Professor's actual name:
Frohlich) so when I discovered that P.G. worked in Manhattan
(& was funded by the Mellon Bank) I thought it was a reasonable
chance that the Stratfordian had died. [I was certainly quite
curious if it was and figured that this would be the quickest way
to resolve the issue without clogging up the 'victim internet
search network'.]
(See the entire thread, particularly
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=+%22victim+internet+search%22+group:h
umanities.lit.authors.*+author:neuendorffer&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=3BA3
C28D.1D8DA873%40erols.com&rnum=1>.)
Note the sheer number of moronic missteps in this very short selection.
First, Art apparently believes that Gay is "not a common name" -- this
despite the fact that I have encountered at least three Peter Gays (and
numerous Fröhlichs) *in academics alone*. Second, note that Art refers
to the historian Peter Gay as "the Stratfordian" -- how he infers that
the Peter Gay who worked for Raytheon is not a "Stratfordian" Art does
not disclose. Third, note that Art, who was "quite curious" whether
"the Stratfordian had died," could have answered his own question in
under ten seconds via an ordinary Google search -- but Art evidently
believes that Google actually pores through the entire world-wide web
*IN REAL TIME(!)* looking for occurrences of "Peter Gay" -- hence his
concern about "clogging up the 'victim internet search network'"!
Fourth, that Art's origination and dissemination of a completely bogus
rumor concerning the tragic death of a scholar of international renown
would surely clog up the "victim internet search network" -- if such a
thing existed outside Art's febrile imagination -- does not appear to
have occurred to Art AT ALL! Fifth, note Art's apparent belief that
the best way to resolve the question was to announce, in an open forum
read worldwide, the suppposed "death" of a prominent scholar! Finally,
when asked whether he still believed the victim to have been the
celebrated historian, Art tastelessly replied, "Sadly, no." Art
infers, using the same "reasoning," that just as there could not
possibly be more than one Peter Gay on the entire planet, so there
could not possibly be more than one Anne Hathaway on the entire planet.
------------------------------
Which is more likely:
(1) that an intelligent, witty, MIT-educated scientist (at least, that's
how aneuendor...@comicass.nut has characterized himself in the
past) with an entertaining sense of humor is such a complete idiot that
he thinks that there is only Peter Gay on earth, and incidentally that
Mellon Foundation grant recipients customarily collect their grant
checks -- IN PERSON(!) -- at the Mellon Bank in Manhattan, presumably
because there is only one branch of the Mellon Bank on the entire
planet(!), or
(2) his trolling persona aneuendor...@comicass.nut is deftly
burlesquing the cretinous confusions of Oxfordians?
It seems oVERwhelmingly more probable that
aneuendor...@comicass.nut is engaging in a monstrous, parodic
practical joke worthy of Hugh Troy, the undisputed master of the genre.
[...]
Art Neuendorffer
> >
> > > I have never seen any Oxfordian publication, with the possible
> > > exception of Raeto West's now defunct web page, that openly expressed
> > > sympathy for holocaust denial. However, I suspect that the reason the
> > > topic of holocaust denial arises at all in discussions of Shakespeare
> > > authorship (apart from the aforementioned visibility and outspokenness
> > > of several right-wing Oxfordians) is that an inability to reason from
> > > historical evidence using the methods and standards employed by
> > > competent professional historians can lead to all sorts of bizarre
> > > pseudohistorical scenarios.
> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
<< The overwhelming evidence for the Holocaust (or for Andersonville) is
not so much easily manipulated "historical evidence" but rather the
discovery of mass graves along with thousands of emaciated human beings
living in deplorable conditions (and with horendous stories to tell).
Careful documentation of artifacts, pictures, film & eyewitness stories will
assure that the holocaust can never be denied.
The Nazis, Stalinist & Stratfordians have all clearly demonstrated how
easy it was to manipulate "historical evidence" for their own purposes.
The risible artifacts, signatures, representations & "eyewitness stories"
of the illiterate Stratford boob are worthy of the respect that we all
should hold for him.>>
> > > ranging from Oxfordian Price Tudor fantasies
> > > (which are innocuous) to holocaust revisionism or outright denial
(which
> > > emphatically is not). It is the wanton abandonment of evidentiary
> > > standards and rigorous methodology,
> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> > I believe Godel had something to say about rigorous methodology.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> If you think that Gödel's work has anything whateVER to do with
> literary historians' methodology, or indeed with ANY rigorous
> methodology leading to an erroneous conclusion, then you don't
> know Gödel from Yertle the Turtle, Art.
Do you deny that Gödel tortoise anything about rigorous methodology?
> > > kosi...@ican.net (Lynne) wrote:
> >
> > > > either at our conferences or on any of the pages of our
> > > > newsletter. And by the way, dealing with us *as a group* as if we're
> > > > all cranks or lunatics is the kind of broth in which racism is
cooked.
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > I have *not* dealt with Oxfordians "as a group"; rather, I have
> > > identified *specific* forms of comic crankery embraced by *specific*
> > > individual Oxfordians who participate in this forum, in support of my
> > > hypothesis that this group is an unrepresentative sample of Oxfordian
> > > "thought," tending more toward the lunatic fringe than toward the more
> > > cautious "mainstream" Oxfordian movement. I maintain that the copious
> > > instances of crankery I enumerated, together with specific references
> > > for your delectation in case you savor such lunacy, amply support that
> > > hypothesis. Indeed, I didn't even mention the most comic avatar of
> > > Oxfordian crankery of them all, Art Neuendorffer's hilariously funny
> > > Templar/Rosicrucian/Masonic conspiracy theory, because I'm fairly
> > > sure that Art is engaging in a monstrous, parodic leg-pull.
>
> > You base your opinion on rigorous methodology, Dave?
>
> I base my opinion upon informed conjecture
> and informal estimation of likelihood.
Hey! That's what I use to determine Oxford wrote Shake-speare.
> For example, I note that Oxfordians are routinely befuddled
> In his thesis, Dr. Stritmatter managed to confuse Mary Tudor
> with Mary Queen of Scots(!!); in the same document he confused
> Mary Vere with Katherine Vere, h.l.a.s. readers are all familiar
> with his inability to distinguish Terry Ross from Tom Reedy.
Terry Ross associates with pirates & dragon ladies
while Tom Reedy is the Phantom.
I, myself, am still laughing over the "farcical howler" of Webb & Gardner:
------------------------------------------------------------------
| > | Art Neuendorffer wrote:
| > | > --------------------------------------------------------
| > | > JAMES I: 46th REX DEUS/PRIORY of SION generation
| > | > http://www.hials.no/~hy/_gen/j/index.htm#s46b
| > | > -------------------------------------------------------
| > | > (The King James & only the King James version):
| > | > Psalm 46
| > | > "SHAKE" is the 46th word from the beginning,
| > | > and "SPEAR" is the 46th word from the end.
---------------------------------------------------------------
David L. Webb <David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
| > | I've already pointed out to you that this is false, Art,
| > | as Martin Gardner, has pointed out; as I already said,
| > | "In Richard TaVERner's 1539 VERsion of Psalm 46,
| > | 'shake' & 'spear' are in *precisely* the same positions.
| > | HoweVER, one would scarcely expect
| > | aneuendor...@comicass.nut
| > | to have VERified his idiotic claims about matters of fact."
| > | Are you completely senile, Art?
| > | Or are you just oblivious to facts?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> | When someone accurately posts Taverner's Psalm 46
> | with "SHAKE" the 46th word from the beginning,
> | and "SPEAR" the 46th word from the end
> | I'll be happy to acknowledge an error.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Groves wrote:
> I've just had a look at the text on EEBO
> (Early English Books Online) and while "spere" is 47 words from
> the end (not counting "Selah"), Taverner has "shooke" rather
> than "shake" and it's actually 57 words from the beginning.
> Also, for some reason, he numbers the psalm 45.
-------------------------------------------------------------
(Richard TaVERner's 1539 VERsion):
Psalm *45*
"*SHOOKE*" is the *57*th word from the beginning,
and "SPERE" is the *47*th word from the end.
---------------------------------------------------------------
(The King James & only the King James version):
Psalm *46*
"SHAKE" is the *46*th word from the beginning,
and "SPEAR" is the *46*th word from the end.
------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES I: *46*th
REX DEUS/PRIORY of SION generation
[counting Jesus as #0]
-----------------------------------------------------------
> Which is more likely:
>
> (1) that an intelligent, witty, MIT-educated scientist (at least, that's
> how aneuendor...@comicass.nut has characterized himself in the
> past) with an entertaining sense of humor is such a complete idiot that
> he thinks that there is only Peter Gay on earth, and incidentally that
> Mellon Foundation grant recipients customarily collect their grant
> checks -- IN PERSON(!) -- at the Mellon Bank in Manhattan, presumably
> because there is only one branch of the Mellon Bank on the entire
> planet(!), or
>
> (2) his trolling persona aneuendor...@comicass.nut is deftly
> burlesquing the cretinous confusions of Oxfordians?
or
(3) that the brilliant & witty, MIT-educated scientist was curious if the
911 victim Peter Gay was any relation to the Goon Squad conspirator who was
assigned the task of denigrating Freud and his Oxfordian revelations and
figured that this was the quickest & easiest way to find out. (And it was.)
> It seems oVERwhelmingly more probable that
> aneuendor...@comicass.nut is engaging in a monstrous, parodic
> practical joke worthy of Hugh Troy, the undisputed master of the genre.
Neuendorffer is proud to join the ranks of Anti-Strats like Twain who so
intimidate the Strats that they are reduced to the pathetic claim that we
are just kidding.
Art N.
David L. Webb
> > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > >
> > > > I have never seen any Oxfordian publication, with the possible
> > > > exception of Raeto West's now defunct web page, that openly expressed
> > > > sympathy for holocaust denial. However, I suspect that the reason the
> > > > topic of holocaust denial arises at all in discussions of Shakespeare
> > > > authorship (apart from the aforementioned visibility and outspokenness
> > > > of several right-wing Oxfordians) is that an inability to reason from
> > > > historical evidence using the methods and standards employed by
> > > > competent professional historians can lead to all sorts of bizarre
> > > > pseudohistorical scenarios.
> > "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
>
> << The overwhelming evidence for the Holocaust (or for Andersonville) is
> not so much easily manipulated "historical evidence" but rather the
> discovery of mass graves along with thousands of emaciated human beings
> living in deplorable conditions (and with horendous stories to tell).
> Careful documentation of artifacts, pictures, film & eyewitness stories will
> assure that the holocaust can never be denied.
> The Nazis, Stalinist & Stratfordians have all clearly demonstrated how
> easy it was to manipulate "historical evidence" for their own purposes.
What an idiotic comparison, even for a moron like
aneuendor...@comicass.nut! The Nazi party and Stalin both had
evident motivations for their attempts -- both ultimately unsuccessful
-- to rewrite history. What comparable motivation could "Stratfordians"
possibly have? In any case, Stalin's crude attempts at constructing
pseudohistory met with scarcely any better success than Lysenko's crude
attempts at doing pseudoscience.
[...]
> > > > ranging from Oxfordian Price Tudor fantasies
> > > > (which are innocuous) to holocaust revisionism or outright denial
> (which
> > > > emphatically is not). It is the wanton abandonment of evidentiary
> > > > standards and rigorous methodology,
> > "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
>
> > > I believe Godel had something to say about rigorous methodology.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
>
> > If you think that Gödel's work has anything whateVER to do with
> > literary historians' methodology, or indeed with ANY rigorous
> > methodology leading to an erroneous conclusion, then you don't
> > know Gödel from Yertle the Turtle, Art.
> Do you deny that Gödel tortoise anything about rigorous methodology?
Excellent, Art! You still show no signs of knowing Gödel from Gouda,
but at least you haven't completely lost your wit, despite all the
indications to the contrary.
> > > > kosi...@ican.net (Lynne) wrote:
> > >
> > > > > either at our conferences or on any of the pages of our
> > > > > newsletter. And by the way, dealing with us *as a group* as if we're
> > > > > all cranks or lunatics is the kind of broth in which racism is
> cooked.
> > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > >
> > > > I have *not* dealt with Oxfordians "as a group"; rather, I have
> > > > identified *specific* forms of comic crankery embraced by *specific*
> > > > individual Oxfordians who participate in this forum, in support of my
> > > > hypothesis that this group is an unrepresentative sample of Oxfordian
> > > > "thought," tending more toward the lunatic fringe than toward the more
> > > > cautious "mainstream" Oxfordian movement. I maintain that the copious
> > > > instances of crankery I enumerated, together with specific references
> > > > for your delectation in case you savor such lunacy, amply support that
> > > > hypothesis. Indeed, I didn't even mention the most comic avatar of
> > > > Oxfordian crankery of them all, Art Neuendorffer's hilariously funny
> > > > Templar/Rosicrucian/Masonic conspiracy theory, because I'm fairly
> > > > sure that Art is engaging in a monstrous, parodic leg-pull.
> > > You base your opinion on rigorous methodology, Dave?
> > I base my opinion upon informed conjecture
> > and informal estimation of likelihood.
> Hey! That's what I use to determine Oxford wrote Shake-speare.
> > For example, I note that Oxfordians are routinely befuddled
You seem to have snipped in mid-sentence, Art. The continuation
reads:
by comic, often cretinous confusions: Stephanie Caruana confused the
magisterial prose stylist Anthony Powell with Enoch "RiVERs of blood"
Powell; in her "monograph" with E. Sears, Stephanie also confused the
Elizabethan scholar Frederick Boas with the celebrated anthropologist
Franz Boas.
> > In his thesis, Dr. Stritmatter managed to confuse Mary Tudor
> > with Mary Queen of Scots(!!); in the same document he confused
> > Mary Vere with Katherine Vere, h.l.a.s. readers are all familiar
> > with his inability to distinguish Terry Ross from Tom Reedy.
[...]
> > Which is more likely:
> >
> > (1) that an intelligent, witty, MIT-educated scientist (at least, that's
> > how aneuendor...@comicass.nut has characterized himself in the
> > past) with an entertaining sense of humor is such a complete idiot that
> > he thinks that there is only Peter Gay on earth, and incidentally that
> > Mellon Foundation grant recipients customarily collect their grant
> > checks -- IN PERSON(!) -- at the Mellon Bank in Manhattan, presumably
> > because there is only one branch of the Mellon Bank on the entire
> > planet(!), or
> >
> > (2) his trolling persona aneuendor...@comicass.nut is deftly
> > burlesquing the cretinous confusions of Oxfordians?
> or
>
> (3) that the brilliant & witty, MIT-educated scientist was curious if the
> 911 victim Peter Gay was any relation to the Goon Squad conspirator who was
> assigned the task of denigrating Freud and his Oxfordian revelations and
> figured that this was the quickest & easiest way to find out. (And it was.)
Oh, sure, Art. Even if one granted such a lame excuse, the above
feeble attempt at rationalization does not explain how an intelligent,
witty, MIT-educated scientist could be such a cretinous moron as to
suppose that Mellon Foundation grant recipients customarily collect
their grant checks -- IN PERSON(!) -- at the Mellon Bank in Manhattan,
because the complete idiot believes that there is only one branch of the
Mellon Bank on the entire planet. That ancillary howler had nothing
whateVER to do with ascertaining the identity of the deceased. I quote
the clueless cretin VERbatim:
"Gay is not a common name (nor even the Professor's actual name:
Frohlich)
[What kind of a moron believes that the name Fröhlich is uncommon?!]
so when I discovered that P.G. worked in Manhattan (& was
funded by the Mellon Bank) I thought it was a reasonable chance
that the Stratfordian had died."
[What kind of a moron believes that Mellon grant recipients pick up
their grant checks in person at the Mellon Bank in Manhattan?!]
> > It seems oVERwhelmingly more probable that
> > aneuendor...@comicass.nut is engaging in a monstrous, parodic
> > practical joke worthy of Hugh Troy, the undisputed master of the genre.
> Neuendorffer is proud to join the ranks of Anti-Strats like Twain who so
> intimidate the Strats that they are reduced to the pathetic claim that we
> are just kidding.
I don't think that Twain was kidding; howeVER, the embarrassing
follies from the dotage of a great man are best oVERlooked. (If you're
in your dotage I'll gladly oVERlook yours too, Art, without even
invoking the unmet precondition of greatness.) But don't worry, Art --
even if you're not admitted to the ranks of deluded doubters like Twain,
you're definitely a candidate for the ranks of jokers like Hugh Troy.
Art Neuendorffer
> > > >
> > > > > I have never seen any Oxfordian publication, with the possible
> > > > > exception of Raeto West's now defunct web page, that openly
expressed
> > > > > sympathy for holocaust denial. However, I suspect that the reason
the
> > > > > topic of holocaust denial arises at all in discussions of
Shakespeare
> > > > > authorship (apart from the aforementioned visibility and
outspokenness
> > > > > of several right-wing Oxfordians) is that an inability to reason
from
> > > > > historical evidence using the methods and standards employed by
> > > > > competent professional historians can lead to all sorts of bizarre
> > > > > pseudohistorical scenarios.
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> >
> > << The overwhelming evidence for the Holocaust (or for Andersonville)
> > is not so much easily manipulated "historical evidence" but rather the
> > discovery of mass graves along with thousands of emaciated human beings
> > living in deplorable conditions (and with horendous stories to tell).
> > Careful documentation of artifacts, pictures, film & eyewitness stories
will
> > assure that the holocaust can never be denied.
> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
>
> > The Nazis, Stalinist & Stratfordians have all clearly demonstrated
how
> > easy it was to manipulate "historical evidence" for their own purposes.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> What an idiotic comparison, even for a moron like
> aneuendor...@comicass.nut! The Nazi party and Stalin both had
> evident motivations for their attempts -- both ultimately unsuccessful
> -- to rewrite history. What comparable motivation could "Stratfordians"
> possibly have?
--------------------------------------------------------------
<<All these years of academic dedication lavished on the wrong man
must be defended, at all costs it seems. Reputations tremble,
an industry turns pale, and the weapons of ridicule & abuse
are leveled and fired.>> - Sir Derek Jacobi
--------------------------------------------------------------
1) Stratford-upon-Avon tourist trade
2) Stratfordian books & paraphenalia
(I own a Shakespeare herb garden myself but my daughter
has kindly retouched that Droeshout portrait on the side)
3) Tom Reedy would have to return his Phantom skull ring
After hundreds of years of unparalleled success (Xmas Carol, Uncle
Tom's Cabin, etc.) for Freemasonry propoganda the Shakespeare revelation
would pose a major embarrassment that might initiate a snowball effect
that would make deconstruction look tame in comparison.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> In any case, Stalin's crude attempts at constructing
> pseudohistory met with scarcely any better success
> than Lysenko's crude attempts at doing pseudoscience.
They were amateurs; you guys are professionals.
> > > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > > >
> > > > > ranging from Oxfordian Price Tudor fantasies
> > > > > (which are innocuous) to holocaust revisionism or outright denial
(which
> > > > > emphatically is not). It is the wanton abandonment of evidentiary
> > > > > standards and rigorous methodology,
>
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
>
> > > > I believe Godel had something to say about rigorous methodology.
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> >
> > > If you think that Gödel's work has anything whateVER to do with
> > > literary historians' methodology, or indeed with ANY rigorous
> > > methodology leading to an erroneous conclusion, then you don't
> > > know Gödel from Yertle the Turtle, Art.
>
> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
>
> > Do you deny that Gödel tortoise anything about rigorous methodology?
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> Excellent, Art! You still show no signs of knowing Gödel from Gouda,
> but at least you haven't completely lost your wit, despite all the
> indications to the contrary.
I'm not taking this Vlacq! "Gouda" was Henry Briggs:
---------------------------------------------------------------
http://www-history.mcs.st-and.ac.uk/history/Mathematicians/Briggs.html
Born: Feb 1561 in Warleywood, Yorkshire, England
Died: 26 Jan 1630 in Oxford, England
Henry Briggs was the man most responsible for scientists' acceptance
of logarithms. Briggs suggested that the logs might be computed by a
team of people and he even offered to supply specially designed paper
for the purpose. The completed tables were printed at Gouda,
in the Netherlands, in 1628 in an edition by Vlacq
in which Vlacq had added the logarithms of the
natural numbers from 20,000 to 90,000. The tables were also published in
London in 1633 under the title of Trigonometria Britannica. The printing
of the London edition took place after Briggs had died but he had asked
his friend Henry Gellibrand to look after the project on his behalf.
---------------------------------------------------------------
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> >
> > > I base my opinion upon informed conjecture
> > > and informal estimation of likelihood.
>
> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
>
> > Hey! That's what I use to determine Oxford wrote Shake-speare.
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> >
> > > For example, I note that Oxfordians are routinely befuddled
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> You seem to have snipped in mid-sente[snip]
> > > In his thesis, Dr. Stritmatter managed to confuse Mary Tudor
> > > with Mary Queen of Scots(!!); in the same document he confused
> > > Mary Vere with Katherine Vere, h.l.a.s. readers are all familiar
> > > with his inability to distinguish Terry Ross from Tom Reedy.
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> >
> > > Which is more likely:
> > >
> > > (1) that an intelligent, witty, MIT-educated scientist (at least,
that's
> > > how aneuendor...@comicass.nut has characterized himself in the
> > > past) with an entertaining sense of humor is such a complete idiot
that
> > > he thinks that there is only Peter Gay on earth, and incidentally that
> > > Mellon Foundation grant recipients customarily collect their grant
> > > checks -- IN PERSON(!) -- at the Mellon Bank in Manhattan, presumably
> > > because there is only one branch of the Mellon Bank on the entire
> > > planet(!), or
> > >
> > > (2) his trolling persona aneuendor...@comicass.nut is deftly
> > > burlesquing the cretinous confusions of Oxfordians?
> > or
> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
>
> > (3) that the brilliant & witty, MIT-educated scientist was curious if
the
> > 911 victim Peter Gay was any relation to the Goon Squad conspirator who
was
> > assigned the task of denigrating Freud and his Oxfordian revelations and
> > figured that this was the quickest & easiest way to find out. (And it
was.)
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> Oh, sure, Art. Even if one granted such a lame excuse, the above
> feeble attempt at rationalization does not explain how an intelligent,
> witty, MIT-educated scientist could be such a cretinous moron as to
> suppose that Mellon Foundation grant recipients customarily collect
> their grant checks -- IN PERSON(!) -- at the Mellon Bank in Manhattan,
> because the complete idiot believes that there is only one branch of the
> Mellon Bank on the entire planet. That ancillary howler had nothing
> whateVER to do with ascertaining the identity of the deceased. I quote
> the clueless cretin VERbatim: "Gay is not a common name
> (nor even the Professor's actual name: Frohlich)
>
> [What kind of a moron believes that the name Fröhlich is uncommon?!]
I suppose if one was Gay he'd probably Fröhlich.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> so when I discovered that P.G. worked in Manhattan (& was
> funded by the Mellon Bank) I thought it was a reasonable chance
> that the Stratfordian had died."
>
> [What kind of a moron believes that Mellon grant recipients pick up
> their grant checks in person at the Mellon Bank in Manhattan?!]
If I had thought it worth contemplating I would have realised that
early death reports could only pertain to airline passengers anyway; but
I have more important things to think about and a wanted a quick
definitive answer to convince myself that it was a only minor
coincidence (similar names) and not a major coincidence (the
anti-Oxfordian whose book my N.Y. sister sent me was a 911 casualty)
> > > It seems oVERwhelmingly more probable that
> > > aneuendor...@comicass.nut is engaging in a monstrous, parodic
> > > practical joke worthy of Hugh Troy, the undisputed master of the
genre.
> > Neuendorffer is proud to join the ranks of Anti-Strats like Twain who
so
> > intimidate the Strats that they are reduced to the pathetic claim that
we
> > are just kidding.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> I don't think that Twain was kidding;
So you changed your mind or were you lying before?
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> howeVER, the embarrassing follies from the dotage
> of a great man are best oVERlooked.(If you're in your dotage
> I'll gladly oVERlook yours too, Art, without even
> invoking the unmet precondition of greatness.)
I have my DOTES from time to time:
----------------------------------------------
DOTE/ doat, v. i. [OE. doten; akin to OD. doten, D. dutten, to doze,
Icel. dotta to nod from sleep, MHG. t?zen to keep still: cf. F. doter,
OF. radoter (to dote, rave, talk idly or senselessly), which are from
the same source.] 1. To act foolishly. [Obs.]
He wol make him doten anon right. --Chaucer.
2. To be weak-minded, silly, or idiotic; to have the intellect impaired,
especially by age, so that the mind wanders or wavers; to drivel.
Time has made you dote, and vainly tell Of arms imagined in your
lonely cell. --Dryden.
3. To be excessively or foolishly fond; to love to excess; to be weakly
affectionate.
---------------------------------------------------------
Othello, The Moor of Venice Act 3, Scene 3
IAGO Who DOTES, yet doubts, suspects, yet strongly loves!
A Midsummer Night's Dream Act 1, Scene 1
LYSANDER DOTES, Devoutly DOTES, DOTES in idolatry,
Upon this spotted and inconstant man.
Love's Labour's Lost Act 5, Scene 2
MARIA Folly in fools bears not so strong a note
As foolery in the wise, when wit doth DOTE;
Since all the power thereof it doth apply
To prove, by wit, worth in simplicity.
The Rape of Lucrece Stanza 30
To cipher me how fondly I did DOTE;
That my posterity, shamed with the note
Shall curse my bones, and hold it for no sin
To wish that I their father had not bin.
----------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
> > > > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > > > >
> > > > > > I have never seen any Oxfordian publication, with the possible
> > > > > > exception of Raeto West's now defunct web page, that openly
> expressed
> > > > > > sympathy for holocaust denial. However, I suspect that the reason
> the
> > > > > > topic of holocaust denial arises at all in discussions of
> Shakespeare
> > > > > > authorship (apart from the aforementioned visibility and
> outspokenness
> > > > > > of several right-wing Oxfordians) is that an inability to reason
> from
> > > > > > historical evidence using the methods and standards employed by
> > > > > > competent professional historians can lead to all sorts of bizarre
> > > > > > pseudohistorical scenarios.
> > > > "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> > >
> > > << The overwhelming evidence for the Holocaust (or for Andersonville)
> > > is not so much easily manipulated "historical evidence" but rather the
> > > discovery of mass graves along with thousands of emaciated human beings
> > > living in deplorable conditions (and with horendous stories to tell).
> > > Careful documentation of artifacts, pictures, film & eyewitness stories
> will
> > > assure that the holocaust can never be denied.
...except by clueless idiots who wantonly abandon rigorous methods of
historical inquiry and rely instead upon paranoid conspiracy theories
and other counterfactual inventions. If you are really unaware that the
Shoah has been strenuously denied by many such cretins, then there must
not be much reading material available in your padded cell, Art.
> > "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> >
> > > The Nazis, Stalinist & Stratfordians have all clearly demonstrated
> how
> > > easy it was to manipulate "historical evidence" for their own purposes.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > What an idiotic comparison, even for a moron like
> > aneuendor...@comicass.nut! The Nazi party and Stalin both had
> > evident motivations for their attempts -- both ultimately unsuccessful
> > -- to rewrite history. What comparable motivation could "Stratfordians"
> > possibly have?
> <<All these years of academic dedication lavished on the wrong man
> must be defended, at all costs it seems. Reputations tremble,
> an industry turns pale, and the weapons of ridicule & abuse
> are leveled and fired.>> - Sir Derek Jacobi
Numbr007 <numb...@aol.com> wrote:
"While Mr. Webb has continually provided solid facts to back his
intellectual and well-thought out position, Mr. Neuendorffer has
done little more than 'rebut' these arguments with a variety of
random quotes ('A man with a new idea is a crank until he succeeds.'
--Mark Twain)....
"Mr. Neuendorffer, have you not yet realized that this type of
dialog is not only unconvincing..., but it also makes your position
look very, very shaky to the objective observer? One cannot simply
utilize quotes from famous individuals to 'prove' his or her point.
It is well-recognized that such 'random quoting' is generally used
as a cover when no substantive underlying argument exists. Even
children in elementary school can realize that an individual can
use 'famous quotes' to prove just about anything he or she chooses
to believe in."
While Sir Derek Jacobi is an actor of distinction, he has no expertise
whateVER in literary history. You might just as convincingly quote Mr.
Streitz's PUBLISHED(!) opinions on fluid mechanics, Art!
> 1) Stratford-upon-Avon tourist trade
What an idiotic suggestion, even from a complete moron like
aneuendor...@comicass.nut! Are you seriously suggesting that a
conspiracy of global scope, numbering among its adherents virtually
eVERy distinguished writer in the English language, all Freemasons and
Rosicrucians, and many h.l.a.s. participants, has been in existence for
oVER FOUR CENTURIES, with no plausible _raison d'être_ other than the
promotion of the Stratford tourist trade(!), a trade that did not even
exist at the time of the conspiracy's putative inception??! Such a
suggestion is, if possible, even MORE IDIOTIC than your inference that
the 9/11 victim Peter Gay must have been the distinguished emeritus Yale
historian Peter Gay -- because the latter was supported by the Mellon
Foundation, therefore he must have been picking up his Mellon grant
check IN PERSON(!) at the Mellon Bank in Manhattan, according to the
risible "reasoning" of aneuendor...@comicass.nut!
> 2) Stratfordian books & paraphenalia [sic]
Apart from their undeniable effectiveness in creating an impression
of ineptness in the use of English, your misspellings usually conceal
some witless wordplay, Art. I am unsure what anagram you intended by
"paraphenalia [sic]," unless you had in mind "A.N., pale pariah."
Indeed, the subject's pallor can be gauged at
<http://www.groundling.com/hlas/profiles/aneuendorffer.php>. Of course,
anyone reduced to trying to persuade a sculptural simulacrum of a man
long dead (presumably, George Mason is about the only one who hasn't
entered aneuendor...@comicass.nut in his filter file) can indeed
be characterized as a pariah. In any event, the same objection as above
applies here as well: how could a conspiracy hoping to benefit from
commerce in "Stratfordian books & paraphenalia [sic]" have arisen at a
time when there was no market whateVER for such items?!
> (I own a Shakespeare herb garden myself but my daughter
> has kindly retouched that Droeshout portrait on the side)
>
> 3) Tom Reedy would have to return his Phantom skull ring
>
> After hundreds of years of unparalleled success (Xmas Carol, Uncle
> Tom's Cabin, etc.) for Freemasonry propoganda the Shakespeare revelation
> would pose a major embarrassment that might initiate a snowball effect
> that would make deconstruction look tame in comparison.
Huh???
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > In any case, Stalin's crude attempts at constructing
> > pseudohistory met with scarcely any better success
> > than Lysenko's crude attempts at doing pseudoscience.
> They were amateurs; you guys are professionals.
> > > > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > > > >
> > > > > > ranging from Oxfordian Price Tudor fantasies
> > > > > > (which are innocuous) to holocaust revisionism or outright denial
> (which
> > > > > > emphatically is not). It is the wanton abandonment of evidentiary
> > > > > > standards and rigorous methodology,
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
[...]
I perceive that you have no answer to the question "What kind of a
moron believes that the name Fröhlich is uncommon?" except the obvious:
only a moron like aneuendor...@comicass.nut.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
>
> > so when I discovered that P.G. worked in Manhattan (& was
> > funded by the Mellon Bank) I thought it was a reasonable chance
> > that the Stratfordian had died."
> >
> > [What kind of a moron believes that Mellon grant recipients pick up
> > their grant checks in person at the Mellon Bank in Manhattan?!]
> If I had thought it worth contemplating I would have realised that
> early death reports could only pertain to airline passengers anyway; but
> I have more important things to think about
With so many important things to think ABOUT, it's a pity that you've
neVER learned to think, Art.
> and a wanted a quick
> definitive answer
Oh, SURE, Art! You know, you could have posted a query regarding the
identity of the victim rather than announcing as fact, in a public forum
with worldwide distribution, the death of a distinguished scholar. When
you need a theatre usher, do you summon one by setting your program on
fire?
> to convince myself that it was a only minor
> coincidence (similar names)
But you don't believe that similar names can possibly be mere
coincidence -- remember?
> and not a major coincidence (the
> anti-Oxfordian whose book my N.Y. sister sent me was a 911 casualty)
> > > > It seems oVERwhelmingly more probable that
> > > > aneuendor...@comicass.nut is engaging in a monstrous, parodic
> > > > practical joke worthy of Hugh Troy, the undisputed master of the
> genre.
> > > Neuendorffer is proud to join the ranks of Anti-Strats like Twain who
> so
> > > intimidate the Strats that they are reduced to the pathetic claim that
> we
> > > are just kidding.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
>
> > I don't think that Twain was kidding;
[...]
> > howeVER, the embarrassing follies from the dotage
> > of a great man are best oVERlooked.(If you're in your dotage
> > I'll gladly oVERlook yours too, Art, without even
> > invoking the unmet precondition of greatness.)
> I have my DOTES from time to time:
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
I stand corrected, Art -- you're not in your dotage, but rather in
your doltage.
Art Neuendorffer
> > > >
> > >> << The overwhelming evidence for the Holocaust (or for Andersonville)
> > >> is not so much easily manipulated "historical evidence" but rather
the
> > >> discovery of mass graves along with thousands of emaciated human
beings
> > >> living in deplorable conditions (and with horendous stories to tell).
> > >> Careful documentation of artifacts, pictures, film & eyewitness
stories
> > >> will assure that the holocaust can never be denied.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> ...except by clueless idiots who wantonly abandon rigorous methods of
> historical inquiry and rely instead upon paranoid conspiracy theories
> and other counterfactual inventions. If you are really unaware that the
> Shoah has been strenuously denied by many such cretins, then there must
> not be much reading material available in your padded cell, Art.
Why not accuse me of making out in the balcony
during _Schindler's List_ while you're at it?
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Nazis, Stalinist & Stratfordians have all clearly demonstrated how
> > > > easy it was to manipulate "historical evidence" for their own
purposes.
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > What an idiotic comparison, even for a moron like
> > > aneuendor...@comicass.nut! The Nazi party & Stalin both had
> > > evident motivations for their attempts -- both ultimately unsuccessful
> > > -- to rewrite history. What comparable motivation could
> > > "Stratfordians" possibly have?
> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> > <<All these years of academic dedication lavished on the wrong man
> > must be defended, at all costs it seems. Reputations tremble,
> > an industry turns pale, and the weapons of ridicule & abuse
> > are leveled and fired.>> - Sir Derek Jacobi
>
> Numbr007 <numb...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> "While Mr. Webb has continually provided solid facts to back his
> intellectual and well-thought out position, Mr. Neuendorffer has
> done little more than 'rebut' these arguments with a variety of
> random quotes ('A man with a new idea is a crank until he succeeds.'
> --Mark Twain)....
>
> "Mr. Neuendorffer, have you not yet realized that this type of
> dialog is not only unconvincing..., but it also makes your position
> look very, very shaky to the objective observer? One cannot simply
> utilize quotes from famous individuals to 'prove' his or her point.
> It is well-recognized that such 'random quoting' is generally used
> as a cover when no substantive underlying argument exists. Even
> children in elementary school can realize that an individual can
> use 'famous quotes' to prove just about anything he or she chooses
> to believe in."
[ Apparently Webb has just quoted 007 (Bond? Dee?) ]
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> While Sir Derek Jacobi is an actor of distinction,
> he has no expertise whateVER in literary history.
<<[Archbishop James] Ussher worked within a substantial tradition of
research, a large community of intellectuals striving toward a common goal
under an accepted methodology. Today we rightly reject a cardinal premise of
that methodology - belierf in biblical inerrancy. But what intellectual
phenomenon can be older, or more oft repeated, that the story of a large
research program that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
accepted by all practitioners?>> - Stephen Jay Gould
Sir Derek Jacobi is an actor of distinction who refuses to impale itself
upon the false central assumption accepted by all Stratfordians.
> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> > 1) Stratford-upon-Avon tourist trade
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> What an idiotic suggestion, even from a complete moron like
> aneuendor...@comicass.nut! Are you seriously suggesting that a
> conspiracy of global scope, numbering among its adherents virtually
> eVERy distinguished writer in the English language, all Freemasons and
> Rosicrucians, and many h.l.a.s. participants, has been in existence for
> oVER FOUR CENTURIES, with no plausible _raison d'être_ other than the
> promotion of the Stratford tourist trade(!), a trade that did not even
> exist at the time of the conspiracy's putative inception??!
Without the funding of the Stratford-upon-Avon tourist trade the
illiterate Stratford boob would never have survived into the 20th century.
> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> > 2) Stratfordian books & paraphenalia [sic]
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> Apart from their undeniable effectiveness in creating an impression
> of ineptness in the use of English, your misspellings usually conceal
> some witless wordplay, Art. I am unsure what anagram you intended by
> "paraphenalia [sic]," unless you had in mind "A.N., pale pariah."
> Indeed, the subject's pallor can be gauged at
> <http://www.groundling.com/hlas/profiles/aneuendorffer.php>. Of course,
> anyone reduced to trying to persuade a sculptural simulacrum of a man
> long dead (presumably, George Mason is about the only one who hasn't
> entered aneuendor...@comicass.nut in his filter file) can indeed
> be characterized as a pariah. In any event, the same objection as above
> applies here as well: how could a conspiracy hoping to benefit from
> commerce in "Stratfordian books & paraphenalia [sic]" have arisen at a
> time when there was no market whateVER for such items?!
OK, I'll look it up:
Paraphernalia, n. pl. [LL. paraphernalia bona, fr. L. parapherna, pl.,
parapherna, Gr. ?; ? beside + ? a bride's dowry, fr. fe`rein to bring.] 1.
(Law) Something reserved to a wife, over and above her dower, being chiefly
apparel and ornaments suited to her degree. 2. Second best beds
> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> > (I own a Shakespeare herb garden myself but my daughter
> > has kindly retouched that Droeshout portrait on the side)
> >
> > 3) Tom Reedy would have to return his Phantom skull ring
> >
> > After hundreds of years of unparalleled success (Xmas Carol, Uncle
> > Tom's Cabin, etc.) for Freemasonry propaganda the Shakespeare
revelation
> > would pose a major embarrassment that might initiate a snowball effect
> > that would make deconstruction look tame in comparison.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> Huh???
After hundreds of years of unparalleled success (Xmas Carol, Uncle
Tom's Cabin, etc.) for Freemasonry propaganda the Shakespeare revelation
would pose a major embarrassment that might initiate a snowball effect
that would make deconstruction look tame in comparison.
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > In any case, Stalin's crude attempts at constructing
> > > pseudohistory met with scarcely any better success
> > > than Lysenko's crude attempts at doing pseudoscience.
>
> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> > They were amateurs; you guys are professionals.
> > > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> >
> > > Oh, sure, Art. Even if one granted such a lame excuse, the above
> > > feeble attempt at rationalization does not explain how an intelligent,
> > > witty, MIT-educated scientist could be such a cretinous moron as to
> > > suppose that Mellon Foundation grant recipients customarily collect
> > > their grant checks -- IN PERSON(!) -- at the Mellon Bank in Manhattan,
> > > because the complete idiot believes that there is only one branch of
the
> > > Mellon Bank on the entire planet. That ancillary howler had nothing
> > > whateVER to do with ascertaining the identity of the deceased. I
quote
> > > the clueless cretin VERbatim: "Gay is not a common name
> > > (nor even the Professor's actual name: Frohlich)
> > >
> > > [What kind of a moron believes that the name Fröhlich is uncommon?!]
>
> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> > I suppose if one was Gay he'd probably Fröhlich.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> I perceive that you have no answer to the question "What kind of a
> moron believes that the name Fröhlich is uncommon?" except the obvious:
> only a moron like aneuendor...@comicass.nut.
"Mr. Neuendorffer has done little more than 'rebut'
these arguments with a variety of random quotes."
--- Numbr007 <numb...@aol.com>
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> >
> > > so when I discovered that P.G. worked in Manhattan (& was
> > > funded by the Mellon Bank) I thought it was a reasonable chance
> > > that the Stratfordian had died."
> > >
> > > [What kind of a moron believes that Mellon grant recipients pick up
> > > their grant checks in person at the Mellon Bank in Manhattan?!]
>
> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> > If I had thought it worth contemplating I would have realised that
> > early death reports could only pertain to airline passengers anyway;
but
> > I have more important things to think about
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> With so many important things to think ABOUT,
> it's a pity that you've neVER learned to think, Art.
Did someone forget to wind me?
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| |
| SMITH & TINKER'S |
| Patent Double-Action, Extra-Responsive, |
| Thought-Creating, Perfect-Talking |
| MECHANICAL MAN |
| Fitted with our Special Clock-Work Attachment. |
| Thinks, Speaks, Acts, and Does Everything but Live. |
| Manufactured only at our Works at Evna, Land of Ev. |
| All infringements will be promptly Prosecuted according to Law.|
| |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> > and a wanted a quick definitive answer
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> Oh, SURE, Art! You know, you could have posted a query regarding the
> identity of the victim rather than announcing as fact, in a public forum
> with worldwide distribution, the death of a distinguished scholar.
What good would that do? I'm on everyone's killfile except for Mason.
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> When you need a theatre usher, do you summon one
> by setting your program on fire?
<<[Archbishop James] Ussher worked within a substantial tradition of
research, a large community of intellectuals striving toward a common goal
under an accepted methodology. Today we rightly reject a cardinal premise of
that methodology - belierf in biblical inerrancy. But what intellectual
phenomenon can be older, or more oft repeated, that the story of a large
research program that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
accepted by all practitioners?>> - Stephen Jay Gould
> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> > to convince myself that it was a only minor coincidence (similar names)
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> But you don't believe that similar names can possibly be mere
> coincidence -- remember?
Whenever did I say that?
> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> > and not a major coincidence (the
> > anti-Oxfordian whose book my N.Y. sister sent me was a 911 casualty)
>>> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> > > > Neuendorffer is proud to join the ranks of Anti-Strats like Twain
who
> > > > so intimidate the Strats that they are reduced to the pathetic claim
that
> > > > we are just kidding.
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> >
> > > I don't think that Twain was kidding;
So you changed your mind or were you lying before?
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > > howeVER, the embarrassing follies from the dotage
> > > of a great man are best oVERlooked.(If you're in your dotage
> > > I'll gladly oVERlook yours too, Art, without even
> > > invoking the unmet precondition of greatness.)
> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> > I have my DOTES from time to time:
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> I stand corrected, Art -- you're not in your dotage,
> but rather in your doltage.
Watt?
Art N.
David L. Webb
> > > > "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >> << The overwhelming evidence for the Holocaust (or for Andersonville)
> > > >> is not so much easily manipulated "historical evidence" but rather
> the
> > > >> discovery of mass graves along with thousands of emaciated human
> beings
> > > >> living in deplorable conditions (and with horendous stories to tell).
> > > >> Careful documentation of artifacts, pictures, film & eyewitness
> stories
> > > >> will assure that the holocaust can never be denied.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > ...except by clueless idiots who wantonly abandon rigorous methods of
> > historical inquiry and rely instead upon paranoid conspiracy theories
> > and other counterfactual inventions. If you are really unaware that the
> > Shoah has been strenuously denied by many such cretins, then there must
> > not be much reading material available in your padded cell, Art.
> Why not accuse me of making out in the balcony
> during _Schindler's List_ while you're at it?
Because you're too old for that sort of thing, Art.
[...]
> > "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
>
> > > 1) Stratford-upon-Avon tourist trade
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
>
> > What an idiotic suggestion, even from a complete moron like
> > aneuendor...@comicass.nut! Are you seriously suggesting that a
> > conspiracy of global scope, numbering among its adherents virtually
> > eVERy distinguished writer in the English language, all Freemasons and
> > Rosicrucians, and many h.l.a.s. participants, has been in existence for
> > oVER FOUR CENTURIES, with no plausible _raison d'être_ other than the
> > promotion of the Stratford tourist trade(!), a trade that did not even
> > exist at the time of the conspiracy's putative inception??!
> Without the funding of the Stratford-upon-Avon tourist trade the
> illiterate Stratford boob would never have survived into the 20th century.
As usual, you dodge the question, Art; why am I not surprised?
> > "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
>
> > > 2) Stratfordian books & paraphenalia [sic]
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
>
> > Apart from their undeniable effectiveness in creating an impression
> > of ineptness in the use of English, your misspellings usually conceal
> > some witless wordplay, Art. I am unsure what anagram you intended by
> > "paraphenalia [sic]," unless you had in mind "A.N., pale pariah."
> > Indeed, the subject's pallor can be gauged at
> > <http://www.groundling.com/hlas/profiles/aneuendorffer.php>. Of course,
> > anyone reduced to trying to persuade a sculptural simulacrum of a man
> > long dead (presumably, George Mason is about the only one who hasn't
> > entered aneuendor...@comicass.nut in his filter file) can indeed
> > be characterized as a pariah. In any event, the same objection as above
> > applies here as well: how could a conspiracy hoping to benefit from
> > commerce in "Stratfordian books & paraphenalia [sic]" have arisen at a
> > time when there was no market whateVER for such items?!
> OK, I'll look it up:
>
> Paraphernalia, n. pl. [LL. paraphernalia bona, fr. L. parapherna, pl.,
> parapherna, Gr. ?; ? beside + ? a bride's dowry, fr. fe`rein to bring.] 1.
> (Law) Something reserved to a wife, over and above her dower, being chiefly
> apparel and ornaments suited to her degree. 2. Second best beds
What's your source for sense 2, Art?
[...]
> > > After hundreds of years of unparalleled success (Xmas Carol, Uncle
> > > Tom's Cabin, etc.) for Freemasonry propaganda the Shakespeare
> revelation
> > > would pose a major embarrassment that might initiate a snowball effect
> > > that would make deconstruction look tame in comparison.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
>
> > Huh???
> After hundreds of years of unparalleled success (Xmas Carol, Uncle
> Tom's Cabin, etc.) for Freemasonry propaganda the Shakespeare revelation
> would pose a major embarrassment that might initiate a snowball effect
> that would make deconstruction look tame in comparison.
What in creation are you talking about, Art?
[...]
[...]
> > > > so when I discovered that P.G. worked in Manhattan (& was
> > > > funded by the Mellon Bank) I thought it was a reasonable chance
> > > > that the Stratfordian had died."
> > > >
> > > > [What kind of a moron believes that Mellon grant recipients pick up
> > > > their grant checks in person at the Mellon Bank in Manhattan?!]
> > "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
>
> > > If I had thought it worth contemplating I would have realised that
> > > early death reports could only pertain to airline passengers anyway;
> but
> > > I have more important things to think about
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
>
> > With so many important things to think ABOUT,
> > it's a pity that you've neVER learned to think, Art.
[...]
> > > and a wanted a quick definitive answer
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
>
> > Oh, SURE, Art! You know, you could have posted a query regarding the
> > identity of the victim rather than announcing as fact, in a public forum
> > with worldwide distribution, the death of a distinguished scholar.
> What good would that do? I'm on everyone's killfile except for Mason.
This is the sort of choice aneuendor...@comicass.nut
"reasoning" that evokes from the reader the involuntary exclamation
"What a complete moron!". If anyone did *not* have you in their filter
file and hence could read your idiotic, tasteless announcement of the
supposed death of a prominent scholar, that same reader could just as
easily have read a simple query rather than your abysmally cretinous,
tasteless jest announcing the death of the historian Peter Gay.
[...]
Art Neuendorffer
> > Why not accuse me of making out in the balcony
> > during _Schindler's List_ while you're at it?
"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> Because you're too old for that sort of thing, Art.
George Mason was older.
>>> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
>>> > > What comparable motivation could "Stratfordians" possibly have?
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
>>> > <<All these years of academic dedication lavished on the wrong man
>>> > must be defended, at all costs it seems. Reputations tremble,
>>> > an industry turns pale, and the weapons of ridicule & abuse
>>> > are leveled and fired.>> - Sir Derek Jacobi
> > > > 1) Stratford-upon-Avon tourist trade
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> >
> > > What an idiotic suggestion, even from a complete moron like
> > > aneuendor...@comicass.nut! Are you seriously suggesting that a
> > > conspiracy of global scope, numbering among its adherents virtually
> > > eVERy distinguished writer in the English language, all Freemasons and
> > > Rosicrucians, and many h.l.a.s. participants, has been in existence
for
> > > oVER FOUR CENTURIES, with no plausible _raison d'être_ other than the
> > > promotion of the Stratford tourist trade(!), a trade that did not even
> > > exist at the time of the conspiracy's putative inception??!
>
> > Without the funding of the Stratford-upon-Avon tourist trade the
> > illiterate Stratford boob would never have survived into the 20th
century.
> As usual, you dodge the question, Art; why am I not surprised?
I thought it was a retorical question. . .The answer is no;
tourist dollars was an afterthought in 1623.
Interlineations in the Stratford will.
> > > > After hundreds of years of unparalleled success (Xmas Carol,
Uncle
> > > > Tom's Cabin, etc.) for Freemasonry propaganda the Shakespeare
> > revelation
> > > > would pose a major embarrassment that might initiate a snowball
effect
> > > > that would make deconstruction look tame in comparison.
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> >
> > > Huh???
>
> > After hundreds of years of unparalleled success (Xmas Carol, Uncle
> > Tom's Cabin, etc.) for Freemasonry propaganda the Shakespeare
revelation
> > would pose a major embarrassment that might initiate a snowball effect
> > that would make deconstruction look tame in comparison.
>
> What in creation are you talking about, Art?
After hundreds of years of unparalleled success (Xmas Carol, Uncle
Tom's Cabin, etc.) for Freemasonry propaganda the Shakespeare revelation
would pose a major embarrassment that might initiate a snowball effect
that would make deconstruction look tame in comparison.
[Please don't ask me again.]
> > > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> > > > > [What kind of a moron believes that Mellon grant recipients pick
up
> > > > > their grant checks in person at the Mellon Bank in Manhattan?!]
>
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> >
> > > > If I had thought it worth contemplating I would have realised
that
> > > > early death reports could only pertain to airline passengers
anyway;
> > > > but I have more important things to think about
> > > > and a wanted a quick definitive answer
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> >
> > > Oh, SURE, Art! You know, you could have posted a query regarding
the
> > > identity of the victim rather than announcing as fact, in a public
forum
> > > with worldwide distribution, the death of a distinguished scholar.
>
> > What good would that do? I'm on everyone's killfile except for
Mason.
>
> This is the sort of choice aneuendor...@comicass.nut
> "reasoning" that evokes from the reader the involuntary exclamation
> "What a complete moron!".
The reader?? You mean George?
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
example, there are lines with no quotation character that were
(obviously) written by Lynne, but there are words of mine quoted by
Lynne in her followup that also appear with no quotation character.
Accordingly, I'm reformatting my response to clarify the situation.
In article <8e6ba82f.0302...@posting.google.com>,
kosi...@ican.net (Lynne) wrote:
Me:
> > > However, it would be interesting to shed some light on Mr. Streitz's
> > > question by taking an informal poll:
> > >
> > > Of the Oxfordians reading this newsgroup,
> > >
> > > (1) How many believe that the Ashbourne Portrait depicts Edward de Vere,
> > > Earl of Oxford?
> > >
> > > (2) How many believe that it depicts Hugh Hamersley?
> > >
> > > (3) How many believe that it depicts someone else?
> > >
> > > (4) How many are undecided?
Lynne:
> > I may well tend towards the lunatic fringe, not because I'm an
> > Oxfordian, but because I can't resist polls.
Me:
> That sounds sane enough -- so far.
Lynne:
> > 1) I believe the Ashbourne portrait may well be of Edward de Vere, but
> > I'm not 100% certain.
> >
> > 2) I don't believe it depicts Hugh Hamersley. I too have seen the
> > hirsute portrait of him. He looks entirely different from the man in
> > the Ashbourne.
> >
> > 3) If the portrait is not of the Earl of Oxford, then clearly it
> > depicts someone else.
[...]
> > 4) This seems redundant.
> >
> > My guess is that the majority of Oxfordians, lunatic fringe or not,
> > now believe that the Ashbourne definitely does not depict Hugh
> > Hamersley.
Me:
> The majority of the Shakespeare Fellowship Oxfordians, perhaps;
> however, the Shakespeare Fellowship is not exactly representative of
> "mainstream" Oxfordians, to the extent that that locution makes sense.
Lynne:
> Well, the Shakespeare Fellowship has many members who also belong
> to the SOS or are participants in the de Vere Studies Conference. The
> newsletter which contained the second Barb Burris article was sent out
> to over a thousand Oxfordians, and I can tell you that everyone who
> has
> contacted me on the topic has rejected the Hamersley attribution.
> That's
> not definitive, of course.
Of course.
[...]
Me:
> > > One knows, of course, that Oxfordians participating in this newsgroup
> > > tend toward the lunatic fringe; if nothing else, this inference is
> > > suggested by their versatility in embracing crankery in many domains --
> > > aquatic apes, the notion that AIDS is "a hoax," rejection of the
> > > Bernoulli Principle, the belief that John Edwards really does talk to
> > > dead people, advocacy of the "Gemstone" conspiracy theory, etc. -- so an
> > > h.l.a.s. sample would scarcely be representative, but it might be
> > > interesting in any case.
Lynne:
> > I know nothing of aquatic apes (do tell),
Me:
> Do a Google groups search of posts authored by Mr. Crowley. The
> "aquatic ape theory" is almost as eccentric (to put it charitably) as
> Mr. Crowley's insistence that the sonnets celebrate royal defecation.
Lynne:
> Thanks. Actually not sure now that I want to spend time on chasing
> up the posts.
That's wise (although you're passing up some choice humor).
Lynne:
> > do not believe AIDS is a
> > hoax,
Me:
> Good -- do a Google groups search of posts authored by Mr. Streitz.
> Were it not that this particular form of crankery is potentially
> fraught
> with peril, it would be almost as amusing as Mr. Streitz's rejection
> of
> the Bernoulli principle, Elizabeth Weird's bizarre rejection of
> special
> relativity, and "Dr." Faker's belief that the Apollo lunar landing was
> an elaborate but clumsily executed hoax.
Lynne:
> Yes, but we all have our individual "crankeries", Stratfordians
> included.
Can you point out some "individual 'crankeries'" among h.l.a.s.
"Stratfordians" that rival the ones I listed among anti-Stratfordians:
aquatic apes, the notion that AIDS is "a hoax," rejection of the
Bernoulli Principle, the belief that John Edwards really does talk to
dead people, advocacy of the "Gemstone" conspiracy theory, rejection of
special relativity (on aesthetic grounds), the belief that the Apollo
lunar landing was a crudely executed hoax, etc.? I sincerely doubt it.
(Extra credit if you can find a Stratfordian whose idea of banquet
entertainment involves pelting Blooom imitators with inflated pig
bladders.)
Lynne:
> > don't reject Bernoulli's principle because I have to have
> > something to believe in when I fly in airplanes,
Me:
> See the footnote on page 23 of your fellow Fellowshipper Mr.
> Streitz's riotously funny book.
Lynne:
> I have not read Mr. Streitz's book. As I've been unwell,
I'm sorry to hear that you've been unwell. In that case, let me
exhort you even MORE enthusiastically to read Mr. Streitz's book: if
laughter is the best medicine, then this book is a VERitable
pharmacopoeia!
Lynne:
> and am also
> in the midst of
> preparing four young adult novels for publication, I'm careful about
> how I spend
> my time.
Believe me, you won't regret time spent reading Mr. Streitz's book!
Lynne:
> > don't for a moment
> > believe that John Edwards talks to dead people,
Me:
> Your fellow Fellowshipper Ken Kaplan does. I am not making this
> up.
> See
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=81b80d38.0202151347.2a49c852%40post
> ing.google.com&output=gplain>.
Lynne:
> > though it seems most
> > Americans do,
Me:
> "Most"?
Lynne:
> Well, it just appears that so many watch him that Ken, if he believes
> in the man's
> veracity, is certainly not in the minority. If many, many Americans
> didn't believe
> that John Edwards speaks to dead people, the ratings would be awful
> and the
> program would be pulled. Instead it seems to be proliferating, like a
> weed,
> all over my tv, so whenever I turn it on I get a seance.
I would not conclude from that observation that "most" Americans
believe it. Even if most Americans did believe it, that argument would
be unpersuasive.
Lynne:
> > have no idea what the "Gemstone" conspiracy theory is,
Me:
> By all means see <http://gemstone-file.com/> -- savor especially
> the
> Albanian frogmen. Former h.l.a.s. Queen of Error Stephanie Caruana
> has
> done "research" on this matter that rivals her Oxfordian "research" in
> both its accuracy and its plausibility.
Lynne:
> Thank you.
While I would not go so far as to suggest spending time and money on
the whole CD Stephanie is peddling, the free online "skeleton key" is
most entertaining, as are the earlier articles Stephanie has written
about it.
Lynne:
> > and before you ask, no, I'm not a Holocaust denier either, though you
> > were polite enough not to add that particular "crankery" to your list.
> > It is a great pity that Oxfordians have been tarred with this
> > particular brush.
Me:
Lynne:
> Ken, I can attest, did not realise that particular post was from
> Sobran,
Yes, I know; however, his eagerness to bestow the encomium "truth
encapsulated" upon bilge that was obviously Sobran's (and the eagerness
of "Bassanio" to interest the then-unknown author in the Fellowhip) was
telling.
Lynne:
> although I had my
> suspicions from the moment I saw it. Sobran is not welcome at the
> Fellowship, and we don't
> post links to his site.
I'm glad to hear it.
Lynne:
> Lord Burford, to my knowledge (I'm English) is
> a laughing stock in
> England. Enoch Powell was hated by many. My mother would turn off the
> tv as soon as
> she saw him.
Agreed -- however, he, along with West, Sobran, Powell, etc., does
much to contribute to the impression (which I believe to be mistaken)
that Oxfordians incline toward right-wing politics.
Me:
> This is emphatically not to say that Oxfordians are right-wing
> bigots
> -- on the contrary, I have opined before in this newsgroup that the
> political center of mass of Oxfordians probably falls somewhere near
> the
> center. However, the paranoia exhibited by many Oxfordians,
> exacerbated
> by misinformation and inability to reason rationally, probably insures
> that, while the Oxfordian political mean may be unexceptional, the
> standard deviation is probably much larger among Oxfordians than in
> the
> general population. This overabundance of outspoken Oxfordian
> political
> outliers is indeed conspicuous.
Lynne:
> It's interesting you say that. I would say that the majority of
> members of the
> Shakespeare Fellowship are left of centre politically although we
> haven't
> taken a poll. But I agree, if you want to take West, Powell, Burford,
> and Sobran
> into account, it would tip the balance somewhat.
In two Gaussian distributions with the same mean, the one with the
larger standard deviation will have more conspicuous outliers and hence
is apt to appear "biased" (based upon a small sample) to an uninformed
observer.
Lynne:
> E. g. One Rae West=
> ten regular Oxfordians, at least in terms of damage done. However,
> with the exception
> of Sobran, these are not the scholars of the movement.
What?! Sobran is among the "scholars of the movement"?! That's
about the most damning admission I've ever heard from any Oxfordian.
Incidentally, whom do most Oxfordians (assuming that a consensus
exists) consider the "scholars of the movement"? Ogburn? Sobran? Dr.
Stritmatter? I'm genuinely curious. And on what works of supposed
scholarship is this assessment based?
Me:
> I have never seen any Oxfordian publication, with the possible
> exception of Raeto West's now defunct web page, that openly expressed
> sympathy for holocaust denial. However, I suspect that the reason the
> topic of holocaust denial arises at all in discussions of Shakespeare
> authorship (apart from the aforementioned visibility and outspokenness
> of several right-wing Oxfordians) is that an inability to reason from
> historical evidence using the methods and standards employed by
> competent professional historians can lead to all sorts of bizarre
> pseudohistorical scenarios, ranging from Oxfordian Price Tudor
> fantasies
> (which are innocuous) to holocaust revisionism or outright denial
> (which
> emphatically is not). It is the wanton abandonment of evidentiary
> standards and rigorous methodology, not the political beliefs of a few
> anomalous "loose cannon" Oxfordians, that occasions comparisons with
> holocaust denial.
Lynne:
> The Shakespeare Fellowship, together with Oxfordians in other
> organizations, asked
> for Rae West's site to be removed as a link from the British Oxfordian
> organization. To
> do them justice, I don't think the Brits realised West was a Holocaust
> denier.
It was pretty hard to miss, even upon the most cursory examination of
West's web site. Like Ken Kaplan's enthusiastic "Truth encapsulated"
post, that unawareness seems -- regrettably -- entirely typical of
blithe Oxfordian unconcern about and disregard of source reliability.
Lynne:
> Whatever the
> reason, I get physically sick when I see myself (as part of a group)
> connected in any way with
> Holocaust denial--and it's been done a lot. Actually, I write young
> adult novels about the
> Holocaust (together with novels about other groups who have been
> mistreated such as the
> black Loyalists and the Acadians) and my newest novel on the subject
> will be coming out
> spring of 2004. It's an interesting novel because the characters are
> complex and
> it doesn't say all the Jews were good and all the Germans
> bad--a hard sell, my publisher thinks. But that's the way I think of
> things. Similarly,
> I don't believe all Oxfordians good and all Stratfordians bad.
Nor do I.
Lynne:
> That's
> simplistic, but it's
> what I see on HLAS time after time--roles reversed, of course.
>
> I don't agree with you, obviously, that Oxfordians in the main have an
> inability to reason from
> historical evidence using the usual methods and standards. I think we
> reason better. ;)
Well, that was exactly my point -- many holocaust revisionists think
exactly the same thing. They wantonly abandon the cautious, painstaking
methodology of historians, believing in their ignorance that they can
improve upon the methods and standards of historical inquiry. That's
why I wrote:
"However, I suspect that the reason the topic of holocaust denial
arises at all in discussions of Shakespeare authorship (apart from
the aforementioned visibility and outspokenness of several
right-wing Oxfordians) is that an inability to reason from
historical evidence using the methods and standards employed by
competent professional historians can lead to all sorts of bizarre
pseudohistorical scenarios, ranging from Oxfordian Price Tudor
fantasies (which are innocuous) to holocaust revisionism or
outright denial (which emphatically is not). It is the wanton
abandonment of evidentiary standards and rigorous methodology,
not the political beliefs of a few anomalous 'loose cannon'
Oxfordians, that occasions comparisons with holocaust denial."
Lynne:
> > The Shakespeare Fellowship abhors anti-semitism or
> > racism in any guise.
Me:
> I'm glad to hear it. However, I didn't raise the issue of racism;
> you did.
Lynne:
> Only because you said "etc." when referring to our various crankeries.
> :)
As I already noted, most of the bizarre crankery exhibited in this
newsgroup is innocuous.
Lynne:
> > Anyone who embraces such attitudes is not
> > welcome,
Me:
> When Ken Kaplan posted the unattributed Sobran essay whinging about
> how he, Sobran, had been "ostracized," ostensibly because he did not
> adhere to the "party line" on Israel, a participant whose screen name
> is
> Bassanio replied: "Fascinating post. Are you in touch with this guy?
> Can we interest him in the Fellowship?" The essay, which several of
> us
> at h.l.a.s. immediately identifed as Sobran's and located on the web,
> evidently did not set off any alarm bells in "Bassanio," who appears
> to
> be an especially prominent member of the Fellowship eager to welcome
> the
> author to the Fellowship. (Incidentally, "Bassanio" shares a few
> verbal
> quirks with Dr. Stritmatter. Mind you, I'm not claiming that Bassanio
> *is* Dr. Stritmatter -- I have seen too small a sample of his writing
> to
> judge, and I am far more cautious about attributions in any case.
> Nevertheless, the stylistic similarities are striking.)
Lynne:
> Bassanio also didn't realise immediately it was Sobran.
I don't doubt it -- but if so, what on earth is the matter with
"Bassanio"? Is such an obvious attribution -- indeed, one that can be
verified by the simple expedient of a ten-second Google search -- THAT
difficult for prominent Fellowship members?! I realize that many
Oxfordians have a good deal of difficulty with literary attributions,
but this is about as straightforward as such matters ever get!
Lynne:
> Bassanio was
> one of the
> people instrumental in having a link to Sobran removed from our site
> and a link
> to West removed from the English site.
Well, since you seem to have some knowledge of his/her activities,
don't keep us in suspense -- is "Bassanio" actually Dr. Stritmatter, as
the idiosyncratic verbal quirks (in the admittedly small sample of
his/her prose that I saw) suggest?
Lynne:
> That does not mean, however,
> that one
> cannot express criticism of the current regime in Israel, which I
> believe the letter did.
> I'm Jewish and I am often critical of Israel too.
As am I -- but as you must be aware if you have actually read his
essays, Sobran goes FAR beyond mere criticism of Israel in his opinions,
and his pronouncements concerning Israel therefore have very little to
do with the probable reasons for his ostensible ostracism by fellow
conservatives. I can provide samples if you wish.
Lynne:
> > either at our conferences or on any of the pages of our
> > newsletter. And by the way, dealing with us *as a group* as if we're
> > all cranks or lunatics is the kind of broth in which racism is cooked.
Me:
> I have *not* dealt with Oxfordians "as a group"; rather, I have
> identified *specific* forms of comic crankery embraced by *specific*
> individual Oxfordians who participate in this forum, in support of my
> hypothesis that this group is an unrepresentative sample of Oxfordian
> "thought," tending more toward the lunatic fringe than toward the more
> cautious "mainstream" Oxfordian movement. I maintain that the copious
> instances of crankery I enumerated, together with specific references
> for your delectation in case you savor such lunacy, amply support that
> hypothesis. Indeed, I didn't even mention the most comic avatar of
> Oxfordian crankery of them all, Art Neuendorffer's hilariously funny
> Templar/Rosicrucian/Masonic conspiracy theory, because I'm fairly sure
> that Art is engaging in a monstrous, parodic leg-pull.
Lynne:
> Don't think so. At least I hope not.
Well, I won't seriously dispute the point.
Lynne:
> I find it rather intriguing. Will
> be writing about
> John Dee etc in my next novel. I'd say it's an adult novel, but that
> might give the wrong
> impression,
...and possibly reduce its readership?
> so I'll just say it will be a novel for adults.
It sounds interesting.
Lynne:
> > I (and I'm sure most Oxfordians) would prefer a civil dialogue.
Apart from you, I've seen very scant indication in this newsgroup
that "most Oxfordians" would prefer a civil dialog. On the contrary,
numerous h.l.a.s. Oxfordians, among them Mr. Streitz, Richard Kennedy,
Okay Fine, and others, have groundlessly accused Dave Kathman, Terry
Ross, and others of intellectual dishonesty, lying, deception, etc. If
it is indeed true that "most Oxfordians" would prefer a civil dialog,
then my observation that h.l.a.s. Oxfordians do not constitute a
representative sample of Oxfordians seems resoundingly confirmed.
Me:
> I see nothing above incompatible with civil dialogue. Indeed,
> civil
> dialogue is perfectly consonant with a sense of humor. As Bertrand
> Russell concluded his essay "An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish,"
>
> "A wise man will enjoy the goods of which there is a plentiful
> supply, and of intellectual rubbish he will find an abundant diet,
> in our own age as in every other."
>
> It's a pity that Russell never had the occasion to read the
> Shakespeare
> Fellowship material!
Lynne:
> But see, there's humour and humour. You've just called us a bunch of
> idiots again.
On the contrary, as I have opined often in this forum, it appears to
me that some Oxfordians are clearly very intelligent. Art Neuendorffer,
Stephanie Caruana, and Volker Multhopp are the most obvious examples
from this newsgroup, at least among those whose posts I've read enough
of to have an opinion. You may well be another. However, even very
intelligent people can believe and do some really stupid things. On the
other hand, a very few Oxfordians -- those who have demonstrated an
utter incapacity to read, to write, to count, etc. -- have demonstrated
a level of intelligence about which the less said, the better.
Lynne:
> One can be very funny without belittling others, I think.
I agree. On the other hand, the wounds of most anti-Stratfordians
are entirely self-inflicted.
> > Best wishes,
> > Lynne
> > www.shakespearefellowship.org
Me:
> Thanks for responding to the poll. I hope that other h.l.a.s.
> Oxfordians will follow suit.
Lynne:
> You're very welcome. I'm VP in charge of correspondence,
> so I thought I it incumbent on me to reply. Thanks for the
> opportunity.
I repeat the appeal to Oxfordians to express an opinion concerning
the portrait in question.
Lynne
> Lynne's response seems somehow to have garbled the quotations -- for
> example, there are lines with no quotation character that were
> (obviously) written by Lynne, but there are words of mine quoted by
> Lynne in her followup that also appear with no quotation character.
> Accordingly, I'm reformatting my response to clarify the situation.
Sorry, that was my fault. I answered you privately and then, when I
saw the message on the list, just pasted in my reply. It came out
garbled.
>
>
>
> >
> Lynne:
> > Yes, but we all have our individual "crankeries", Stratfordians
> > included.
>
> Can you point out some "individual 'crankeries'" among h.l.a.s.
> "Stratfordians" that rival the ones I listed among anti-Stratfordians:
> aquatic apes, the notion that AIDS is "a hoax," rejection of the
> Bernoulli Principle, the belief that John Edwards really does talk to
> dead people, advocacy of the "Gemstone" conspiracy theory, rejection of
> special relativity (on aesthetic grounds), the belief that the Apollo
> lunar landing was a crudely executed hoax, etc.? I sincerely doubt it.
> (Extra credit if you can find a Stratfordian whose idea of banquet
> entertainment involves pelting Blooom imitators with inflated pig
> bladders.)
No, I'm not on this list enough to comment. The Stratfordians I know
personally have individual crankeries, but I fear it would be rude to
talk about them. A.L Rowse is dead though, I believe, so I'm sure we
can agree he was one of the crankiest guys around.
>
> > I'm sorry to hear that you've been unwell. In that case, let me
> exhort you even MORE enthusiastically to read Mr. Streitz's book: if
> laughter is the best medicine, then this book is a VERitable
> pharmacopoeia!
>
> Lynne:
> > and am also
> > in the midst of
> > preparing four young adult novels for publication, I'm careful about
> > how I spend
> > my time.
>
> Believe me, you won't regret time spent reading Mr. Streitz's book!
I'll be sure to read it when I get my concentration back and can beg,
borrow or steal a copy.
>
> >
> >
> Lynne:
> > E. g. One Rae West=
> > ten regular Oxfordians, at least in terms of damage done. However,
> > with the exception
> > of Sobran, these are not the scholars of the movement.
>
> What?! Sobran is among the "scholars of the movement"?! That's
> about the most damning admission I've ever heard from any Oxfordian.
>
> Incidentally, whom do most Oxfordians (assuming that a consensus
> exists) consider the "scholars of the movement"? Ogburn? Sobran? Dr.
> Stritmatter? I'm genuinely curious. And on what works of supposed
> scholarship is this assessment based?
Well, he wrote a trade book that was very well received, so I'd have
to say he did his scholarly research, at least he did to a point, even
though I find his other material distasteful. We have more and more
scholars in the movement. I'd put Dan Wright, Roger Stritmatter,
Ogburn, and many others among them. They've all written books or
dissertations. That you don't happen to agree with them doesn't make
them non-scholarly. But I'm probably not the one to ask about this,
not being a scholar myself, but a lowly children's author and adult
poet. David Kathman was kind enough to tell me though, after having
read my book *A Question of Will*, that it was great fun and I seemed
to have almost everything correct but the premise!
>
> > Lynne:
> > > >
> > I don't agree with you, obviously, that Oxfordians in the main have an
> > inability to reason from
> > historical evidence using the usual methods and standards. I think we
> > reason better. ;)
>
> Well, that was exactly my point -- many holocaust revisionists think
> exactly the same thing. They wantonly abandon the cautious, painstaking
> methodology of historians, believing in their ignorance that they can
> improve upon the methods and standards of historical inquiry. That's
> why I wrote:
>
> "However, I suspect that the reason the topic of holocaust denial
> arises at all in discussions of Shakespeare authorship (apart from
> the aforementioned visibility and outspokenness of several
> right-wing Oxfordians) is that an inability to reason from
> historical evidence using the methods and standards employed by
> competent professional historians can lead to all sorts of bizarre
> pseudohistorical scenarios, ranging from Oxfordian Price Tudor
> fantasies (which are innocuous) to holocaust revisionism or
> outright denial (which emphatically is not). It is the wanton
> abandonment of evidentiary standards and rigorous methodology,
> not the political beliefs of a few anomalous 'loose cannon'
> Oxfordians, that occasions comparisons with holocaust denial."
I really believe one thing has nothing to do with the other, however
cleverly you phrase it. If you think PT is weird (I'm neutral on it by
the way) try reading some of the guff that leading Stratfordians have
written to try to prove that Shakspere wrote, well, Shakespeare.
Here's my favourite. Jonathan Bate quoting, in all seriousness, Robert
Nye:
"If you stand on the eighteenth arch of Clopton Bridge (the one
nearest the point where the road goes to London), and if you watch the
River Avon below, when it is in flood, you will see a curious thing
that Shakespeare saw.
"The force of the current under the adjoining arches, coupled with the
curve there is at that strait in the river bank, produces a very queer
and swirling eddy. What happens is that the bounding water is forced
back through the arch in an exactly contrary direction.
"I have seen sticks and straws, which I have just watched swirling
downstream through the arch, brought back again as swiftly against the
flood.
"The boy Will saw this too. Here's how he describes it: 'As through an
arch the violent roaring tide/Outruns the eye that doth behold his
haste,/Yet in the eddy boundeth in his pride/Back to the strait that
forc'd him on so fast,/In rage sent out, recall'd in rage, being
passed:/Even so his sighs, his sorrows, make a saw,/To push grief on
and back the same grief draw.'
(Bates:) "That's from the Rape of Lucrece, lines 1667-73. How many
times must he have watched it, perhaps with tears in his bright eyes."
From Shakespeare's Face, by Stephanie Nolen, page 122-123.
I hope you find it as amusing as the Steitz.
>
> Me:
> >
>
> Well, since you seem to have some knowledge of his/her activities,
> don't keep us in suspense -- is "Bassanio" actually Dr. Stritmatter, as
> the idiosyncratic verbal quirks (in the admittedly small sample of
> his/her prose that I saw) suggest?
Well, I'm not really at liberty to say. Many on the Fellowship Forums
use pseudonyms. Why not go to the public board and ask? We get all
sorts of unusual questions.
>
> Lynne:
> > That does not mean, however,
> > that one
> > cannot express criticism of the current regime in Israel, which I
> > believe the letter did.
> > I'm Jewish and I am often critical of Israel too.
>
> As am I -- but as you must be aware if you have actually read his
> essays, Sobran goes FAR beyond mere criticism of Israel in his opinions,
> and his pronouncements concerning Israel therefore have very little to
> do with the probable reasons for his ostensible ostracism by fellow
> conservatives. I can provide samples if you wish.
No, I really don't need samples. I already posted them on our site
when we were discussing what our policy would be with Mr. Sobran. I
was merely stating that one could criticise Israel without being
antisemitic. Unfortunately Mr. Sobran manages both to criticise Israel
and be virulently anti-semitic. He also hates homosexuals and
left-wingers.
>
>
> Me:
>
> Apart from you, I've seen very scant indication in this newsgroup
> that "most Oxfordians" would prefer a civil dialog. On the contrary,
> numerous h.l.a.s. Oxfordians, among them Mr. Streitz, Richard Kennedy,
> Okay Fine, and others, have groundlessly accused Dave Kathman, Terry
> Ross, and others of intellectual dishonesty, lying, deception, etc. If
> it is indeed true that "most Oxfordians" would prefer a civil dialog,
> then my observation that h.l.a.s. Oxfordians do not constitute a
> representative sample of Oxfordians seems resoundingly confirmed.
I think it goes both ways.
Peter Groves
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
news:<david.l.webb-DCB7...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu>...
> >
> > What?! Sobran is among the "scholars of the movement"?! That's
> > about the most damning admission I've ever heard from any Oxfordian.
> >
> > Incidentally, whom do most Oxfordians (assuming that a consensus
> > exists) consider the "scholars of the movement"? Ogburn? Sobran? Dr.
> > Stritmatter? I'm genuinely curious. And on what works of supposed
> > scholarship is this assessment based?
>
> Well, he wrote a trade book that was very well received, so I'd have
> to say he did his scholarly research, at least he did to a point, even
> though I find his other material distasteful. We have more and more
> scholars in the movement. I'd put Dan Wright, Roger Stritmatter,
> Ogburn, and many others among them. They've all written books or
> dissertations. That you don't happen to agree with them doesn't make
> them non-scholarly.
No, but grotesque howlers (such as Stritmatter's confusion of Mary Tudor and
Mary Queen of Scots) certainly do. I'm afraid there's no such thing as
"Oxfordian scholarship": the term is an oxymoron (a bit like "flat-earth
geology" or "scientific creationism").
> But I'm probably not the one to ask about this,
> not being a scholar myself,
Indeed.
John W. Kennedy
> Well, he wrote a trade book that was very well received, so I'd have
> to say he did his scholarly research,
Are you actually arguing that, because someone put something in print,
it has the least pretensions to scholarship? Have you never been in a
supermarket checkout line?
> at least he did to a point, even
> though I find his other material distasteful. We have more and more
> scholars in the movement. I'd put Dan Wright, Roger Stritmatter,
> Ogburn, and many others among them.
Stritmatter? Stritmatter hasn't even figured out yet that Mary Queen of
Scots and Mary I were two different women, and Ogburn is a "scholar"
only insofar as he is somewhat less ridiculous than his parents.
> They've all written books or
> dissertations. That you don't happen to agree with them doesn't make
> them non-scholarly.
No, but their irrational arguments and inaccurate "facts" do.
> "If you stand on the eighteenth arch of Clopton Bridge (the one
> nearest the point where the road goes to London), and if you watch the
> River Avon below, when it is in flood, you will see a curious thing
> that Shakespeare saw.
> "The force of the current under the adjoining arches, coupled with the
> curve there is at that strait in the river bank, produces a very queer
> and swirling eddy. What happens is that the bounding water is forced
> back through the arch in an exactly contrary direction.
> "I have seen sticks and straws, which I have just watched swirling
> downstream through the arch, brought back again as swiftly against the
> flood.
> "The boy Will saw this too. Here's how he describes it: 'As through an
> arch the violent roaring tide/Outruns the eye that doth behold his
> haste,/Yet in the eddy boundeth in his pride/Back to the strait that
> forc'd him on so fast,/In rage sent out, recall'd in rage, being
> passed:/Even so his sighs, his sorrows, make a saw,/To push grief on
> and back the same grief draw.'
> (Bates:) "That's from the Rape of Lucrece, lines 1667-73. How many
> times must he have watched it, perhaps with tears in his bright eyes."
> From Shakespeare's Face, by Stephanie Nolen, page 122-123.
> I hope you find it as amusing as the Steitz.
I'm sorry -- I just can't find the place where it says that Shakespeare
got a bastard on his own mother, which is what you need to be in
Streitz's league.
But indeed, there is nothing in the above that is trying to prove that
Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. That Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare is an
established fact, testified to by every single witness, and which there
is no reason, and has never been any reason whatsoever, to doubt. When
so-called "Stratfordians" say that Shakespeare was Shakespeare, that
doesn't mean that they're arguing with anti-Strats, except for a tiny
number of us who try to keep up the fight because we're offended by lies
and nonsense; the rest are no more "arguing" than a mathematician is
"arguing" when he says 2+2=4.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts. Only
the heir to the throne of the kingdom of idiots
would fight a war on twelve fronts"
-- "Babylon 5"
Lorenzo4344
>Incidentally, whom do most Oxfordians (assuming that a consensus
>> > exists) consider the "scholars of the movement"? Ogburn? Sobran? Dr.
>> > Stritmatter? I'm genuinely curious. And on what works of supposed
>> > scholarship is this assessment based?
I like Ruth Loyd Miller. In the realm of conjecture, she seems more circumspect
than most. Granted, she is not a scholar, but shee, how many Oxies are? I think
it most ironic that the non-scholars are championing the known-to-be-learned
Earl whereas the academe supports the alledged illiterate. The elder Ogburns
are far too (often ridiculously) assumptive to be dare I say, credible, but are
pretty astute overall. I love Jrs soulfulness. He FEELS he's on the right
track, and explains why very well. Hillbilly Willie's case looks pretty good on
paper, but folks like me, suffering from the jaundice, just do not buy it.
There is something rotten in the state of Denmark.
Lorenzo
"Mark the music."
bobgrumman
I certainly do not, but I think your inability to recognize the difference
between Strietz's completely insane theory and a very minor, very plausible
suggestion that the author Shakespeare remembered a feature of his hometown
river when he wrote one of his poems is.
Your belief that a reference to Shakespeare's familiarity with his hometown
river is an example of "the guff that leading Stratfordians have written to try
to prove that Shakspere (sic) wrote Shakespeare," however, also is amusing.
Some reasoning. Or did Bate say that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare because he
mentions a feature of the Avon in Venus and Adonis? And if he did that, did he
neglect to offer the REAL arguments on Shakespeare's behalf?
--Bob G.
Bob Grumman
>than most. Granted, she is not a scholar, but shee, how many Oxies are? I think
>it most ironic that the non-scholars are championing the known-to-be-learned
>Earl whereas the academe supports the alledged illiterate.
SNIP
>
>Lorenzo
>"Mark the music."
The wacks back Oxford because they are more anti-establishment than logical.
Academics back Shakespeare because they're more pro-establishment than logical.
There are other reasons, of course. The wacks are motivated by fear that a
Great Genius could have made it without special help, which would prove that
THEIR inability to make it is their own fault, and not due to lack of special
help. That academics are saner, AS A RULE, than non-academics also is a factor.
It might be added that many Shakespeare-affirmers are not academics whereas
almost no Shakespeare-rejecters are.
--Bob G.
Lynne
I've answered this in another post, I think, with regard to Dr.
Stritmatter, and returned you some of the howlers of your own. I think
you will find that most Oxfordians find Stratfordian scholarship a bit
of an oxymoron. What a pity we can't just get together and work out
what is best and worst in our various "scholarships", instead of
sitting around shouting the odds. I find it very refreshing, for
example, to discuss such matters with Terry Ross on our website. He's
taught me a lot and I can also see in a much clearer way the direction
he's taking. I hope I may have taught him some little thing in return.
>
> > But I'm probably not the one to ask about this,
> > not being a scholar myself,
>
> Indeed.
Well, perhaps I was just being a bit modest, something maybe unknown
to some of you on this list.. I have a bachelor's degree in
psychology, a master's degree in English, and a bachelor's degree in
teaching with honours specialties in English and drama. I taught
Shakespeare at the high school and university levels for going on 25
years, and am a multi-award winning poet and children's and young
adult author, with one book coming out this fall and three next year.
So I do know a little of what I'm talking about, I hope, though I
doubt you'd agree.
Best wishes,
Lynne Kositsky
Author of *A Question of Will*
Look for it on Amazon.ca or Amazon.com
and visit us at www.shakespearefellowship.org
KQKnave
writes:
>Academics back Shakespeare because they're more pro-establishment than
>logical.
>There are other reasons, of course.
I hope so, for example, all of the historical evidence says that William
Shakespeare of Stratford wrote the works.
See my demolition of Monsarrat's RES paper!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/monsarr1.html
The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Agent Jim
CRITICALNOW
GRRRRRRRRRRR!!!
THE PSYCHIC IS JOHN "EDWARD"!!! No "s"!!! John Edward!!!
The POLITICIAN is John "EDWARDS" with the "s"!
Can anyone get that right????
John Edward and John Edwards are not the same person.
EdwarD without the "s" is the psychic.
EdwardS with the "s" is running for President.
Stop screwing it up people.
John W. Kennedy
> I've answered this in another post, I think, with regard to Dr.
> Stritmatter,
No, you haven't. It is a plain fact that Stritmatter says in his
so-called dissertation that Mary Queen of Scots was Elizabeth's sister,
or else half-sister (the "dissertation" has two versions). That alone
is enough to identify him as historically illiterate. It is also an
established fact that the mathematics in his "dissertation" are
incompetent. It is a further fact that his "parallels" are subjective,
and that a great many of them, in any reasonable judgment, are risible.
(This also means that those who awarded him his PhD are incompetent.)
> and returned you some of the howlers of your own.
No, you haven't.
> I think
> you will find that most Oxfordians find Stratfordian scholarship a bit
> of an oxymoron.
That is because most Oxfordians are incapable of scholarly thought.
> Well, perhaps I was just being a bit modest, something maybe unknown
> to some of you on this list.. I have a bachelor's degree in
> psychology, a master's degree in English, and a bachelor's degree in
> teaching with honours specialties in English and drama. I taught
> Shakespeare at the high school and university levels for going on 25
> years, and am a multi-award winning poet and children's and young
> adult author, with one book coming out this fall and three next year.
> So I do know a little of what I'm talking about, I hope, though I
> doubt you'd agree.
In other words, you are not an historian.
But you _ought_ to know something about literature. So I ask you, why
do you persist in believing popular superstitions about the profession
of writing that every professional writer decries? Why do you demand
that Shakespeare be of noble birth when the number of important
noble-born writers in European history can be counted on one's fingers,
and when the values and preconceptions of Shakespeare's works are
clearly bourgeois? And why on Earth settle on the odious De Vere, a man
held in such contempt by his peers that, when he deserted in wartime,
his commanding officer, instead of hanging him, simply thanked God to be
rid of a rogue?
Lynne
> Lynne wrote:
> > Well, he wrote a trade book that was very well received, so I'd have
> > to say he did his scholarly research,
>
> Are you actually arguing that, because someone put something in print,
> it has the least pretensions to scholarship? Have you never been in a
> supermarket checkout line?
Of course I have, but in this case I believe Sobran did his homework.
His book is a serviceable introduction to Oxfordiana for the
uninitiated. Unfortunately that doesn't make any of his other writings
more palatable.
>
> > at least he did to a point, even
> > though I find his other material distasteful. We have more and more
> > scholars in the movement. I'd put Dan Wright, Roger Stritmatter,
> > Ogburn, and many others among them.
>
> Stritmatter? Stritmatter hasn't even figured out yet that Mary Queen of
> Scots and Mary I were two different women, and Ogburn is a "scholar"
> only insofar as he is somewhat less ridiculous than his parents.
Of course Dr. Stritmatter has. It was a typo. He corrected it, I
corrected it, but somehow it found its way back into the diss. It
seemed to like being there. I publish with Penguin, Kids Can, and
McLelland and Stuart, the top children's publishers in Canada, but if
you think mistakes don't get into the final book, even with editors
galore and checkers and more checkers, you're very much mistaken. Dr.
Stritmatter didn't even have that luxury. Every time we saw that same
mistake come up, we winced. I hope maybe we've got it licked in the
latest reprint. I'm sorry you think it fit to throw the baby out with
the bathwater. I'd hate it if someone argued a typo invalidated a
whole book I'd written, but I find most reviewers quite accommodating
as they know the business. I'm even sorrier that you think it fit to
ridicule Ogburn. Surely we can discuss these things without meanness.
It's not discussing whether we should go to war, after all, it's just
an intellectual pursuit, best conducted in a spirit of willingness to
learn and exchange ideas.
>
> > They've all written books or
> > dissertations. That you don't happen to agree with them doesn't make
> > them non-scholarly.
>
> No, but their irrational arguments and inaccurate "facts" do.
Of course, what is rational or irrational is a matter of opinion. Most
of the current books on Shakspere I've read tend to say: He must have
done this, it looks like he did that, perhaps he also...That's better
scholarship?
>
> > "If you stand on the eighteenth arch of Clopton Bridge (the one
> > nearest the point where the road goes to London), and if you watch the
> > River Avon below, when it is in flood, you will see a curious thing
> > that Shakespeare saw.
>
> > "The force of the current under the adjoining arches, coupled with the
> > curve there is at that strait in the river bank, produces a very queer
> > and swirling eddy. What happens is that the bounding water is forced
> > back through the arch in an exactly contrary direction.
>
> > "I have seen sticks and straws, which I have just watched swirling
> > downstream through the arch, brought back again as swiftly against the
> > flood.
>
> > "The boy Will saw this too. Here's how he describes it: 'As through an
> > arch the violent roaring tide/Outruns the eye that doth behold his
> > haste,/Yet in the eddy boundeth in his pride/Back to the strait that
> > forc'd him on so fast,/In rage sent out, recall'd in rage, being
> > passed:/Even so his sighs, his sorrows, make a saw,/To push grief on
> > and back the same grief draw.'
>
> > (Bates:) "That's from the Rape of Lucrece, lines 1667-73. How many
> > times must he have watched it, perhaps with tears in his bright eyes."
>
> > From Shakespeare's Face, by Stephanie Nolen, page 122-123.
>
> > I hope you find it as amusing as the Steitz.
>
> I'm sorry -- I just can't find the place where it says that Shakespeare
> got a bastard on his own mother, which is what you need to be in
> Streitz's league.
That excerpt was directed at David Webb, to whom I was responding with
good humour to match his own. Nevertheless, the quote has a certain
idiocy to it, don't you think? Bacon, Marlowe or Oxford could just as
well have stood on Clopton Bridge. Shakspere might well have stood on
it too, and watched the ducks go by. This is clearly an argument that
Shakspere wrote Lucrece, and I think if you want to say what is or is
not scholarship, you'll have to admit this falls into the second
category. Mr. Streitz's book, by the way, received a poor review in
Shakespeare Matters, the newsletter of the Shakespeare Fellowship.
>
> But indeed, there is nothing in the above that is trying to prove that
> Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. That Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare is an
> established fact, testified to by every single witness, and which there
> is no reason, and has never been any reason whatsoever, to doubt. When
> so-called "Stratfordians" say that Shakespeare was Shakespeare, that
> doesn't mean that they're arguing with anti-Strats, except for a tiny
> number of us who try to keep up the fight because we're offended by lies
> and nonsense; the rest are no more "arguing" than a mathematician is
> "arguing" when he says 2+2=4.
Thank you for your opinion. I'm sure it has some value, but I don't
happen to agree with it. I taught Shakespeare in schools and
universities for 25 years, a Stratfordian like yourself, and never
found a single fact that married the man to the works. Nor did I find
a single credible witness to say that he had written them. Others have
spent lifetimes looking, and haven't found anything either--or at
least, anything that directly ties him to authorship. It was only
while researching a novel on him, and reading alternative texts, that
I found an answer that somehow satisfied me. That is not to say you're
wrong and I'm right, just that I'm more comfortable with myself now
that I've made the choices I have. I hope you can understand that, and
that we can have more amenable dialogues in the future.
Best wishes,
Lynne Kositsky
Author of the Rachel Books (Our Canadian Girl Series)
Two published, two to come.
Winner of The International White Raven Award 2002
Nominated for a Hackmatack (Atlantic Provinces) Readers Choice Award
2003
Best books in Canada list (Resource Links)
4/4 star review in Canadian Materials Magazine
Rated Excellent, (Resource Links)
One of the best books in Ontario (Ontario Library Association)
Best books list (Canadian Library Association)
Visit us at www.ourcanadiangirl.ca
richard kennedy
can deny, and which no Stratfordian has even TRIED to deny, which is
...
http://www.sarahsmith.com/chasingshakespeares/shakesweirds/shamsterdance.htm
John W. Kennedy
> As usual, Bob Grumman fails to notice one important fact, which no one
> can deny, and which no Stratfordian has even TRIED to deny, which is
>
> http://www.sarahsmith.com/chasingshakespeares/shakesweirds/shamsterdance.htm
Another example of anti-Strats forging evidence, I see.
Gary Kosinsky
SNIP
>Thank you for your opinion. I'm sure it has some value, but I don't
>happen to agree with it. I taught Shakespeare in schools and
>universities for 25 years, a Stratfordian like yourself, and never
>found a single fact that married the man to the works. Nor did I find
>a single credible witness to say that he had written them. Others have
>spent lifetimes looking, and haven't found anything either--or at
>least, anything that directly ties him to authorship. It was only
>while researching a novel on him, and reading alternative texts, that
>I found an answer that somehow satisfied me. That is not to say you're
>wrong and I'm right, just that I'm more comfortable with myself now
>that I've made the choices I have. I hope you can understand that, and
>that we can have more amenable dialogues in the future.
Lynne, by any chance have you read the essay called "How We
Know That Shakespeare Wrote Shakespeare: The Historical Facts" by Tom
Reedy and Dave Kathman? It's located at the Kathman/Ross website:
http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com/howdowe.html
It presents a good summary of the evidence and logic that
indicates that the Stratford guy wrote the works. I think it is quite
persuasive. But I may be overlooking some errors. So far I've asked
two prominent anti-Stratfordians in this newsgroup, Richard Kennedy
and Elizabeth Weir, to point out any logical or factual errors in the
essay and thus far I've heard nothing substantive. Perhaps you can
point out the essay's errors?
- Gary Kosinsky
John W. Kennedy
> Of course I have, but in this case I believe Sobran did his homework.
> His book is a serviceable introduction to Oxfordiana for the
> uninitiated. Unfortunately that doesn't make any of his other writings
> more palatable.
Indeed, he seems to have made all the chief Oxfordian errors. Ignoring
all post-Victorian scholarship. Pretending that reliable biographical
information on the author can -- nay, _must_ -- be extracted from
fiction. Copying Ogburn, Jr, who copied from Ogburns, Sr., who copied
from Looney, never taking the time to check facts. Pretending that
great artists never arise from the middle classes.
>>>at least he did to a point, even
>>>though I find his other material distasteful. We have more and more
>>>scholars in the movement. I'd put Dan Wright, Roger Stritmatter,
>>>Ogburn, and many others among them.
>>
>>Stritmatter? Stritmatter hasn't even figured out yet that Mary Queen of
>>Scots and Mary I were two different women, and Ogburn is a "scholar"
>>only insofar as he is somewhat less ridiculous than his parents.
>
>
> Of course Dr. Stritmatter has. It was a typo. He corrected it, I
> corrected it, but somehow it found its way back into the diss. It
> seemed to like being there.
A _typo_?
This, madam, is what he says:
In reaction, counter-reformationist plots swirled thickly
about Mary Queen of Scots, Elizabeth I's Spanish half-sister
and Catholic heir to Henry VIII. As Elizabeth fretted over and
deferred the execution of her sister,....
That is not a typo, it is an egregious error by the author. He
conflated the two Mary's because he's an ignoramus, got caught, and is
now trying to wriggle out of it with an impudent lie.
> Of course, what is rational or irrational is a matter of opinion.
NO IT IS NOT. And if you are capable of saying that, you have obviously
passed beyond hope of human aid, another soul swallowed up by the
Oxfordian cult. Maybe a higher Power can help you; I can't.
Lynne
> >
> I certainly do not, but I think your inability to recognize the difference
> between Strietz's completely insane theory and a very minor, very plausible
> suggestion that the author Shakespeare remembered a feature of his hometown
> river when he wrote one of his poems is.
It wasn't a suggestion. It was a fait accompli, according to the
writer. Shakspere looked into the river from Clopton Bridge--how would
anyone know that?--and wrote the poem. I don't agree with Streitz's
theory either, but it's certainly not "completely insane" to believe
that incest takes place now or or did take place at any given period
in history.
>
> Your belief that a reference to Shakespeare's familiarity with his hometown
> river is an example of "the guff that leading Stratfordians have written to try
> to prove that Shakspere (sic) wrote Shakespeare," however, also is amusing.
>
You think I spelled Shakspere wrong. I believe you spelled Streitz
wrong. Enough said on this subject, I think, for me.
Thank you for your comments.
Best wishes,
Lynne
www.shakespearefellowship.org
>
>
> --Bob G.
lyra
> John W. Kennedy wrote in message news:<FYV9a.35525$gf7.7...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
<snips, here and elsewhere>
> as they know the business. I'm even sorrier that you think it fit to
> ridicule Ogburn. Surely we can discuss these things without meanness.
> It's not discussing whether we should go to war, after all, it's just
> an intellectual pursuit, best conducted in a spirit of willingness to
> learn and exchange ideas.
> >
>
> Of course, what is rational or irrational is a matter of opinion. Most
> of the current books on Shakspere I've read tend to say: He must have
> done this, it looks like he did that, perhaps he also...That's better
> scholarship?
> >
> > > "If you stand on the eighteenth arch of Clopton Bridge (the one
> > > nearest the point where the road goes to London), and if you watch the
> > > River Avon below, when it is in flood, you will see a curious thing
> > > that Shakespeare saw.
<snip>
> That excerpt was directed at David Webb, to whom I was responding with
> good humour to match his own. Nevertheless, the quote has a certain
> idiocy to it, don't you think? Bacon, Marlowe or Oxford could just as
> well have stood on Clopton Bridge. Shakspere might well have stood on
> it too, and watched the ducks go by.
> Thank you for your opinion. I'm sure it has some value, but I don't
> Visit us at www.ourcanadiangirl.ca
I've enjoyed visiting!...thanks...
lyra
Peter Groves
news:b4a3q...@drn.newsguy.com...
> Academics back Shakespeare because they're more pro-establishment than
logical.
Simple-minded bollocks, Bob, your "other reasons" notwithstanding. In any
case, most arts academics tend to be anti-establishment, at least in their
thinking.
Peter G. (academic)
Peter Groves
You've called it a typo, which is, I'm afraid, what the English call a
"porky".
> and returned you some of the howlers of your own.
Really? Like what?
> I think
> you will find that most Oxfordians find Stratfordian scholarship a bit
> of an oxymoron. What a pity we can't just get together and work out
> what is best and worst in our various "scholarships", instead of
> sitting around shouting the odds. I find it very refreshing, for
> example, to discuss such matters with Terry Ross on our website. He's
> taught me a lot and I can also see in a much clearer way the direction
> he's taking. I hope I may have taught him some little thing in return.
Like avoiding nutters, for example.
>
> >
> > > But I'm probably not the one to ask about this,
> > > not being a scholar myself,
> >
> > Indeed.
>
>
> Well, perhaps I was just being a bit modest, something maybe unknown
> to some of you on this list.. I have a bachelor's degree in
> psychology, a master's degree in English, and a bachelor's degree in
> teaching with honours specialties in English and drama. I taught
> Shakespeare at the high school and university levels for going on 25
> years, and am a multi-award winning poet and children's and young
> adult author, with one book coming out this fall and three next year.
> So I do know a little of what I'm talking about, I hope, though I
> doubt you'd agree.
>
No, you were right the first time. None of this makes your envious
calumniation of Shakespeare one whit more probable. A scholar (to save your
looking it up) publishes peer-reviewed research (and "peer" here doesn't
mean "fellow-Looney"). You might want to stick to childrens' fanstasy
literature: it would seem to be more your bent.
Peter G.
Tom Veal
> As usual, Bob Grumman fails to notice one important fact, which no one
> can deny, and which no Stratfordian has even TRIED to deny, which is
> ...
>
> http://www.sarahsmith.com/chasingshakespeares/shakesweirds/shamsterdance.htm
>
"Once, yes, once is a lark.
"Twice, though, loses the spark."
And 20-umpteen times doesn't so much as flicker.
Elizabeth Weir
> >than most. Granted, she is not a scholar, but shee, how many Oxies are? I think
> >it most ironic that the non-scholars are championing the known-to-be-learned
> >Earl whereas the academe supports the alledged illiterate.
>
> SNIP
> >
> >Lorenzo
> >"Mark the music."
>
> The wacks back Oxford because they are more anti-establishment than logical.
> Academics back Shakespeare because they're more pro-establishment than logical.
> There are other reasons, of course. The wacks are motivated by fear that a
> Great Genius could have made it without special help,
Nowhere has the principle "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary
proof" been more apt.
The problem for Strats is they have an extraordinary *absence* of
proof.
History's greatest genius--a polymath philosopher versed in every
Renaissance discipline [except math]--produces the world's greatest
body of literature yet leaves no paper trail, not a single letter
to a literary associate, friend, or patron but worse, there is
a huge amount of negative evidence in the fact that this extraordinary
genius retires to a village to
BEGIN A CAREER BARTERING MALT AND HIDES.
The only extraordinary proof Strats can produce is evidence that
Strats
are extraordinarily gullible.
> which would prove that
> THEIR inability to make it is their own fault,
The myth of an uneducated literary genius is just that, a myth. There
may be geniuses that can handle symbolic logic or mathematics that
don't have intense early childhood education in those areas but
literary genius requires a language-rich early environment, the
earlier the better. The idea that a genius with a 20,000 plus word
vocabulary
came out of the illiterate Shakespeare house hold is unsupportable.
> and not due to lack of special
> help. That academics are saner, AS A RULE, than non-academics also is a factor.
Where are you coming up with this stuff, Grumman?
> It might be added that many Shakespeare-affirmers are not academics whereas
> almost no Shakespeare-rejecters are.
You're such a fundamentalist.
Elizabeth Weir
So, Lynne, can you produce one piece of empirical evidence that
connects Oxford to the Shakespeare works?
Greg Reynolds
Yeah, Lynne. Something tangible such as an eyewitness account
from a contemporary stating who wrote Julius Caesar.
John W. Kennedy
> The problem for Strats is they have an extraordinary *absence* of
> proof.
Liar!
> History's greatest genius--a polymath philosopher versed in every
> Renaissance discipline
Liar!
> [except math]--produces the world's greatest
> body of literature yet leaves no paper trail,
Liar!
> not a single letter
> to a literary associate, friend, or patron but worse, there is
> a huge amount of negative evidence in the fact that this extraordinary
> genius retires to a village to
>
> BEGIN A CAREER BARTERING MALT AND HIDES.
Liar!
> The myth of an uneducated literary genius is just that, a myth.
Liar!
> There
> may be geniuses that can handle symbolic logic or mathematics that
> don't have intense early childhood education in those areas but
> literary genius requires a language-rich early environment, the
> earlier the better. The idea that a genius with a 20,000 plus word
> vocabulary
> came out of the illiterate Shakespeare house hold
Liar!
> is unsupportable.
David L. Webb
kosi...@ican.net (Lynne) wrote:
[...]
> > Lynne:
> > > Yes, but we all have our individual "crankeries", Stratfordians
> > > included.
> > Can you point out some "individual 'crankeries'" among h.l.a.s.
> > "Stratfordians" that rival the ones I listed among anti-Stratfordians:
> > aquatic apes, the notion that AIDS is "a hoax," rejection of the
> > Bernoulli Principle, the belief that John Edwards really does talk to
> > dead people, advocacy of the "Gemstone" conspiracy theory, rejection of
> > special relativity (on aesthetic grounds), the belief that the Apollo
> > lunar landing was a crudely executed hoax, etc.? I sincerely doubt it.
> > (Extra credit if you can find a Stratfordian whose idea of banquet
> > entertainment involves pelting Blooom imitators with inflated pig
> > bladders.)
> No, I'm not on this list enough to comment. The Stratfordians I know
> personally have individual crankeries,
You make it sound as though you know few "Stratfordians." Unless you
lead a very sheltered life socially (which I sincerely doubt), surely
the majority of those with whom you come in contact are Stratfordians.
Although your Fellowship participation no doubt puts you in contact with
many Oxfordians, the movement is still a fringe phenomenon, and accounts
for a vanishingly small percentage of the population.
> but I fear it would be rude to
> talk about them. A.L Rowse is dead though, I believe, so I'm sure we
> can agree he was one of the crankiest guys around.
I was referring to participants in this newsgroup, but I am unaware
in any case that Rowse exhibited any crankery comparable to, say, "Dr."
Faker's belief that the Apollo lunar landing was a crude fake, Mr.
Streitz's belief that AIDS is "a hoax," the "aquatic ape" theory,
Stephanie's "Gemstone" conspiracy theory, or Art's hilarious Masonic
conspiracy theory.
> > > I'm sorry to hear that you've been unwell. In that case, let me
> > exhort you even MORE enthusiastically to read Mr. Streitz's book: if
> > laughter is the best medicine, then this book is a VERitable
> > pharmacopoeia!
> > Lynne:
> > > and am also
> > > in the midst of
> > > preparing four young adult novels for publication, I'm careful about
> > > how I spend
> > > my time.
> > Believe me, you won't regret time spent reading Mr. Streitz's book!
> I'll be sure to read it when I get my concentration back and can beg,
> borrow or steal a copy.
You won't regret it! Try to get a copy of the first printing --
although I have little doubt that the subsequent printings will be
almost as funny (indeed, Mr. Streitz has already divulged a little of
the comedy to be found in the second), it would be a shame to miss out
on the hilarious howlers in the first printing.
> > Lynne:
> > > E. g. One Rae West=
> > > ten regular Oxfordians, at least in terms of damage done. However,
> > > with the exception
> > > of Sobran, these are not the scholars of the movement.
> > What?! Sobran is among the "scholars of the movement"?! That's
> > about the most damning admission I've ever heard from any Oxfordian.
> >
> > Incidentally, whom do most Oxfordians (assuming that a consensus
> > exists) consider the "scholars of the movement"? Ogburn? Sobran? Dr.
> > Stritmatter? I'm genuinely curious. And on what works of supposed
> > scholarship is this assessment based?
> Well, he wrote a trade book that was very well received,
First, trade books are generally not even READ, let alone carefully
scrutinzied or peer reviewed, by scholars in the discipline. Sobran's
bumbling book was full of regurgitated Oxfordian myths and other errors,
beginning with the old canard about Nabokov within the first few pages.
There was nothing whatever "scholarly" about the book (nor did Sobran
himself make such claims -- indeed, in the Introduction Sobran
emphatically distances himself from scholars), and the very few reviews
I've seen by actual Elizabethan experts dismissed the book for the
obvious reasons -- it is full of farcical factual errors, and the
reasoning does not even begin to meet normal standards of historical
inquiry. About the only feature the book shares with (some) genuine
scholarship is the presence of some felicitous phrases, as Sobran is a
skilled writer. While this commendable virtue seems regrettably rare
among Oxfordians, it does not suffice to elevate Sobran's book to the
distinction of real scholarship any more than stylistic felicities in
Sobran's fulminations elevate his syndicated columns to the level of
thoughtful, nuanced political discourse. Scholarship is gauged on the
basis of content, not of style.
> so I'd have
> to say he did his scholarly research,
One need not do ANY scholarly research to publish a popular book like
Sobran's.
> at least he did to a point, even
> though I find his other material distasteful. We have more and more
> scholars in the movement. I'd put Dan Wright,
I haven't seen enough of Dr. Wright's work to comment; however, his
occasional appearances in this forum have been anything but scholarly.
Although I have little contact with real Shakespeare scholars, in my
very limited experience those who are aware of him at all know him as a
figure of fun.
> Roger Stritmatter,
I haven't read all of Dr. Stritmatter's publications, but anyone of
even modest expertise in the area who has read Dr. Stritmatter's Ph.D.
thesis and has also been told that its author is a scholar is apt to
conclude that the thesis presents an authorship problem far more serious
than the Shakespeare authorship "question." The thesis in question
confuses Mary Tudor with Mary Queen of Scots! It also confuses Oxford's
sister Mary Vere, with Oxford's half-sister, Katherine Vere. There are
countless other howlers, many of them outlandish, and obvious even to an
untrained ignoramus like myself; those few Elizabethan scholars who have
read the thesis have unearthed many more. However, these lapses,
ludicrous though they may be, are not the heart of the problem with the
work's "scholarship." As I said earlier,
"Of course, this error, the rather comic arithmetic error Terry
noted, and the farcical Bloody Mary/Mary Queen of Scots blunder, etc.
are all irrelevant to Dr. Stritmatter's main argument (to the extent
that it is an argument); indeed, any document of that length, no
matter how carefully its author proofreads it, is apt to contain a
few such gaffes (although the last one is still rather astonishing).
Far more serious are the deficiencies in Dr. Stritmatter's
statistics, without which there is no objective reason I can see to
surmise that Oxford's Geneva Bible had anything more to do with
Shakespeare than any other annotated Bible of the period might.
Still, these peripheral but glaring errors do raise unsettling
questions -- not so much about the scholarship of Dr. Stritmatter,
who after all is just beginning his career, but about the committee
of presumed experts in the field who approved -- and therefore
presumably read -- Dr. Stritmatter's thesis."
One of Dr. Stritmatter's committee members characterized him as a
"sensitive reader" of the sonnets -- but even if true, that attribute
does not make his thesis scholarly. Dr. Stritmatter's thesis attempts
to make a case that the annotator of the Geneva Bible in question has
some connection with the author of the Shakespeare canon. This is a
HISTORICAL claim, not a purely literary one. The only objective
evidence furnished for such a connection, the statistical work that Dr.
Stritmatter evidently farmed out to someone else, with regrettable
results, is an acute embarrassment. Worthwhile or amusing though Dr.
Stritmatter's thesis may be for other reasons, the characterization of
that work as a work of historical scholarship is not merely untenable
-- it constitutes a tacit admission that "Oxfordian scholarship" is a
vacuous notion.
> Ogburn,
If you mean Ogburn _fils_, then while he appears refreshingly sane
compared to the elder Ogburns, that apparent sanity is only relative.
> and many others among them. They've all written books or
> dissertations.
ANYONE who wants to badly enough can write a book. Mr. Streitz is
living proof.
> That you don't happen to agree with them doesn't make
> them non-scholarly.
Certainly not. Rather, it is their grotesque gaffes, some of which
make even novices gape in stunned disbelief, that make their work
unscholarly.
> But I'm probably not the one to ask about this,
> not being a scholar myself, but a lowly children's author and adult
> poet. David Kathman was kind enough to tell me though, after having
> read my book *A Question of Will*, that it was great fun and I seemed
> to have almost everything correct but the premise!
I don't doubt it; you seem to write well, a refreshing trait absent
in so many Oxfordian authors. However, imaginative fiction has very
little to do with scholarship -- although many Oxfordians evidently
confuse the two, with predictably risible results.
It's pretty amusing, but not nearly so much so as Mr. Streitz's
"Super DT theory."
> try reading some of the guff that leading Stratfordians have
> written to try to prove that Shakspere wrote, well, Shakespeare.
> Here's my favourite. Jonathan Bate quoting, in all seriousness, Robert
> Nye:
>
> "If you stand on the eighteenth arch of Clopton Bridge (the one
> nearest the point where the road goes to London), and if you watch the
> River Avon below, when it is in flood, you will see a curious thing
> that Shakespeare saw.
>
> "The force of the current under the adjoining arches, coupled with the
> curve there is at that strait in the river bank, produces a very queer
> and swirling eddy. What happens is that the bounding water is forced
> back through the arch in an exactly contrary direction.
>
> "I have seen sticks and straws, which I have just watched swirling
> downstream through the arch, brought back again as swiftly against the
> flood.
>
> "The boy Will saw this too. Here's how he describes it: 'As through an
> arch the violent roaring tide/Outruns the eye that doth behold his
> haste,/Yet in the eddy boundeth in his pride/Back to the strait that
> forc'd him on so fast,/In rage sent out, recall'd in rage, being
> passed:/Even so his sighs, his sorrows, make a saw,/To push grief on
> and back the same grief draw.'
>
> (Bates:) "That's from the Rape of Lucrece, lines 1667-73. How many
> times must he have watched it, perhaps with tears in his bright eyes."
>
> From Shakespeare's Face, by Stephanie Nolen, page 122-123.
You seem to be in the grip of a very serious misunderstanding of the
methodology of attribution studies. Such imaginative suggestions are
NOT the basis of the attribution of _Lucrece_ to Shakespeare. Rather,
the attribution is firmly established (at least, as firmly as any
comparable attribution of the period) on other grounds entirely.
Rather, observations like the one you quoted are intriguing to anyone
interested in the psychology of creativity, and this one is particularly
interesting -- although certainly EXTREMELY speculative -- in that it
provides conjectural insight into the creative alchemy whereby quotidian
raw material (in this case, a curious anomaly culled from close
observation of the natural world) is transformed into the fabric of
Shakespeare's poetry. The attribution of the Shakespeare canon to
William Shakespeare of Stratford was secure LONG before this curiosity
was ever noticed, and it would remain just as secure even if this
particular speculative observation were conclusively shown to be
complete codswallop. To summarize, THIS IS NOT THE SORT OF EVIDENCE
UPON WHICH THE ATTRIBUTION IS BASED.
> I hope you find it as amusing as the Steitz.
It is intriguing rather than amusing (it would indeed be amusing if
it were regarded as important evidence for attribution). However, it
does not begin to attain the Olympian comedic heights scaled with such
magisterial ease by Mr. Streitz. You really should read his book before
you attempt such comparisons.
Indeed.
> > Me:
> >
> > Apart from you, I've seen very scant indication in this newsgroup
> > that "most Oxfordians" would prefer a civil dialog. On the contrary,
> > numerous h.l.a.s. Oxfordians, among them Mr. Streitz, Richard Kennedy,
> > Okay Fine, and others, have groundlessly accused Dave Kathman, Terry
> > Ross, and others of intellectual dishonesty, lying, deception, etc. If
> > it is indeed true that "most Oxfordians" would prefer a civil dialog,
> > then my observation that h.l.a.s. Oxfordians do not constitute a
> > representative sample of Oxfordians seems resoundingly confirmed.
Lynne:
> I think it goes both ways.
That what goes both ways? That Stratfordians in h.l.a.s. do not
constitute a representative sample of the Statfordian population? Or
that Stratfordians would not prefer a civil dialogue?
> > Lynne:
> > > One can be very funny without belittling others, I think.
> > I agree. On the other hand, the wounds of most anti-Stratfordians
> > are entirely self-inflicted.
[...]
Elizabeth Weir
You old medieval silly, you.
John W. Kennedy
>>Liar!
>>Liar!
>>Liar!
>>Liar!
>>Liar!
>>Liar!
If it be medieval to despise liars, then I thank the gods I am medieval.
Elizabeth Weir
> Elizabeth Weir wrote:
>
> > kosi...@ican.net (Lynne) wrote in message news:<8e6ba82f.03030...@posting.google.com>...
> > >
> > >
> > > to some of you on this list.. I have a bachelor's degree in
> > > psychology, a master's degree in English, and a bachelor's degree in
> > > teaching with honours specialties in English and drama. I taught
> > > Shakespeare at the high school and university levels for going on 25
> > > years, and am a multi-award winning poet and children's and young
> > > adult author, with one book coming out this fall and three next year.
> > > So I do know a little of what I'm talking about, I hope, though I
> > > doubt you'd agree.
> > >
> > > Best wishes,
> > > Lynne Kositsky
> > > Author of *A Question of Will*
> > > Look for it on Amazon.ca or Amazon.com
> > >
> > > and visit us at www.shakespearefellowship.org
> >
> > So, Lynne, can you produce one piece of empirical evidence that
> > connects Oxford to the Shakespeare works?
>
> Yeah, Lynne. Something tangible such as an eyewitness account
> from a contemporary stating who wrote Julius Caesar.
I'm not asking for anything that tough.
Any empirical evidence that supercedes that of Oxford's
cousin the Renaissance genius Francis Bacon's empricial
evidence of Shakespeare authorship will do--something to show
that the Oxfordians aren't just caught up in a monumental
case of mistaken identity.
I sometimes wonder if Oxfordians even know that Oxford and
the younger Bacon were raised and tutored together in
the household of Bacon's uncle Lord Burghley. Both had
Arthur Golding, Thomas Smith and Lawrence Nowell as tutors--
both loved Bacon's first cousin Anne Cecil--or at least Bacon
did--and in fact their lives are so uncannily aligned--at least
until the point when Oxford withdraws to Hackney after the
Armada debacle--that it could explain why Oxfordians are so
confused about Oxford's authorship of the Shakespeare works.
Elizabeth Weir
My point, Kennedy, is that medievals didn't know the difference
between lies and truth. Nobody did until the Renaissance genius
Francis Bacon overturned Aristotelian logic. Aristotelian logic
couldn't differentiate between truth and lies making the medieval
era into a virtual Liar's Culture. Not the first Liar's Culture,
of course and sadly not the last. But thanks for illustrating my
point.
Peter Groves
news:efbc3534.0303...@posting.google.com...
> "John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:<aSuaa.69624$gf7.13...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
>>>>>>The idea that a genius with a 20,000 plus word
> > >>>vocabulary
> > >>>came out of the illiterate Shakespeare house hold
> >
> > >>Liar!
> >
> > > You old medieval silly, you.
> >
> > If it be medieval to despise liars, then I thank the gods I am medieval.
>
> My point, Kennedy, is that medievals didn't know the difference
> between lies and truth.
You learn something new from Elizabeth every day.
David L. Webb
> "John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:<FYV9a.35525$gf7.7...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>...
> > Lynne wrote:
> > > Well, he wrote a trade book that was very well received, so I'd have
> > > to say he did his scholarly research,
> > Are you actually arguing that, because someone put something in print,
> > it has the least pretensions to scholarship? Have you never been in a
> > supermarket checkout line?
> Of course I have, but in this case I believe Sobran did his homework.
Unfortunately, that belief reveals more about you than about Sobran.
> His book is a serviceable introduction to Oxfordiana for the
> uninitiated.
It is that -- it contains a sample of the old, discredited Oxfordian
canards. Presumably Sobran just copied many of them out of Ogburn and
other unreliable sources without ever checking them.
> Unfortunately that doesn't make any of his other writings
> more palatable.
Indeed.
> > > at least he did to a point, even
> > > though I find his other material distasteful. We have more and more
> > > scholars in the movement. I'd put Dan Wright, Roger Stritmatter,
> > > Ogburn, and many others among them.
> > Stritmatter? Stritmatter hasn't even figured out yet that Mary Queen of
> > Scots and Mary I were two different women, and Ogburn is a "scholar"
> > only insofar as he is somewhat less ridiculous than his parents.
> Of course Dr. Stritmatter has. It was a typo. He corrected it, I
> corrected it, but somehow it found its way back into the diss.
A *TYPO*?! It's pretty hard to imagine the original error having
been a typo -- the character string "Tudor" has very little overlap with
the string "Queen of Scots." Mind you, I can readily sympathize with
you and Dr. Stritmatter over the frequent recurrence of the original
error -- I often propagate some silly error all over the place by my
indolent preference for cutting and pasting text rather than retyping,
and it is also easy to revert mistakenly to an older version of the
document predating the one in which a particular error was corrected.
However, the question here concerns the original error -- how on earth
could it have been a typo?!
More unsettling still, how could this howler (and MANY others) have
been blithely overlooked by Dr. Stritmatter's ENTIRE thesis committee?!
Did any of them even read the document? I'm not sure which alternative
is worse -- that nobody read it, or that they DID read it but were too
incompetent to excise such hilarious howlers. One might excuse the
Comparative Literature faculty on the committee, as the subject matter
falls largely outside their areas of expertise -- but how could a
supposed scholar like Dr. Wright have overlooked so many glaring gaffes?!
> It
> seemed to like being there.
No wonder -- it was in good company! I recall reading the first
sixty pages or so of Dr. Stritmatter's thesis and keeping a running
tally as I went along of the errors, omissions, outlandish _non
sequiturs_, etc. -- but there were so many of them that I soon just gave
up and read on for amusement, not even bothering any longer to keep up
the list.
> I publish with Penguin, Kids Can, and
> McLelland and Stuart, the top children's publishers in Canada, but if
> you think mistakes don't get into the final book, even with editors
> galore and checkers and more checkers, you're very much mistaken.
One expects works of historical scholarship to have been read more
carefully for errors than one expects of publications of Kids Can. Most
of the blunders I recall in Dr. Stritmatter's thesis were not those that
an editor (who generally checks for style rather than content) would
have noticed anyway.
On the other hand, Mr. Streitz would DEFINITELY have benefitted from
the services of a competent editor with a command of the tongue
exceeding that obtained in a remedial middle school English class.
Here's a sample of his magisterial prose style for your delectation:
"The English Literature departments of the elite institutions of
Harvard University and Yale University have been those who have
been [sic!] craven in their responsibilities to simply [sic] honesty
and truth. This is despite the fact that their professors are
instituted [sic!] from the competitive pressures of the job market
by the practice of tenure, which is suppose [sic] to give their
academics intellectual freedom to explore what they will."
Evidently Mr. Streitz has been he who has been misled by software whose
command of the tongue is nearly as deficient as his, and he has been
instituted from awareness of the simply perils of accepting his
spellchecker's officious suggestions by ignorance or carelessness or
both.
> Dr.
> Stritmatter didn't even have that luxury.
Errors in a Ph.D. thesis are the responsibility of the author --
although in most cases the candidate's thesis committee is both
sufficiently competent and sufficiently diligent to subject the document
to careful scrutiny and thereby perhaps to save the candidate the acute
embarrassment occasioned by blunders of the magnitude that appear in Dr.
Stritmatter's thesis.
> Every time we saw that same
> mistake come up, we winced.
I don't doubt it. What about the confusion of Oxford's sister with
his half-sister? Did you wince every time that one came up as well?
One would think that a thesis on Oxford, of all people, would manage to
keep things like that straight. And what about the sorry statistical
analysis at the end? That's enough to make a saint wince.
> I hope maybe we've got it licked in the
> latest reprint. I'm sorry you think it fit to throw the baby out with
> the bathwater. I'd hate it if someone argued a typo invalidated a
> whole book I'd written, but I find most reviewers quite accommodating
> as they know the business.
We're not talking about a SINGLE blunder, typo or otherwise; rather,
the "Mary" muddle is merely the funniest in a long succession of errors,
many of them apparent even to the uninitiated such as myself; far more
were found by people like Terry Ross. The statistics alone would be
enough to cast very serious doubt upon the entire undertaking, as that
data furnished the only objective "evidence" that the annotations in the
Bible in question had anything to do with Shakespeare in the first
place. In view of that deficiency and all the other howlers, the thesis
is a profound disappointment -- I was actually hoping that it would
demonstrate by example that such a thing as "Oxfordian scholarship"
existed. And this is the work that cost its author some TEN YEARS of
toil?! One wonders why on earth Dr. Stritmatter embarked upon such a
project without having at least taken a few undergraduate statistics
courses along the way to familiarize himself with the quantitative
methods he intended to employ. However, the amusing "scrapbook" section
at the end is unlike anything I have ever seen in ANY Ph.D. thesis in
any subject -- it alone was well worth the price of admission.
> I'm even sorrier that you think it fit to
> ridicule Ogburn.
I agree that it's _de trop_ to ridicule Ogburn _fils_ when the elder
Ogburns' tome is a far more inviting target for creative ridicule.
> Surely we can discuss these things without meanness.
> It's not discussing whether we should go to war, after all, it's just
> an intellectual pursuit, best conducted in a spirit of willingness to
> learn and exchange ideas.
When Oxfordians actually produce arguments that meet normal standards
for such inquiry, then such an exchange of ideas can occur. Meanwhile,
the "exchange" remains a trifle one-sided.
> > > They've all written books or
> > > dissertations. That you don't happen to agree with them doesn't make
> > > them non-scholarly.
> > No, but their irrational arguments and inaccurate "facts" do.
> Of course, what is rational or irrational is a matter of opinion.
Many Oxfordian arguments in the standard sources ARE irrational by
virtually any reasonable standard. In any event, inaccurate "facts" are
emphatically NOT matters of opinion.
> Most
> of the current books on Shakspere I've read tend to say: He must have
> done this, it looks like he did that, perhaps he also...That's better
> scholarship?
Once again, attributions are NOT based upon the speculative
reconstructions of biographers, but upon evidence of a very different
sort of which you appear to be unaware. Nor do biographers generally
bother to enumerate the data upon which the attribution is based, as
there is no significant doubt about the matter. Rather, most of the
authors of "the current books on Shakspere" incline toward biography
(often perforce conjectural) and historical background of interest to a
general reader, not upon the bêtes noires of a small band of eccentrics.
That is, those books' authors don't even attempt to justify the
conventional attribution (because comparatively few of the sane doubt it
in any case), so it is silly to complain that their books do not prove
something that they never set out to prove in the first place.
Only if taken as proof of authorship. If read as intended, as a
purely conjectural insight into the gestation of an arresting image in
Shakespeare's verse, it is not idiotic at all, but mildly intriguing --
although of course it is obviously HIGHLY speculative.
> Bacon, Marlowe or Oxford could just as
> well have stood on Clopton Bridge. Shakspere might well have stood on
> it too, and watched the ducks go by. This is clearly an argument that
> Shakspere wrote Lucrece,
No, the attribution of _Lucrece_ to Shakespeare is based upon
different grounds entirely, was firmly established long before this
"discovery" concerning retrograde motion of water, and would be just as
secure if this speculation had never seen the light of day. Again, this
quotation is interesting for the possible light it may shed upon the
psychology of creativity, but the very circumstances you note above --
that nearly anyone could have observed the phenomenon, or could have
learned of it by hearsay -- makes it virtually worthless in establishing
an attribution. That you have apparently misread the intent of this
curious observation as "an argument that Shakspere wrote Lucrece" makes
it fairly clear that your awareness of the methodology of attribution
studies is rather rudimentary.
> and I think if you want to say what is or is
> not scholarship,
It may well contain worthwhile scholarship without containing any
scholarship PERTINENT TO ATTRIBUTION STUDIES.
> you'll have to admit this falls into the second
> category. Mr. Streitz's book, by the way, received a poor review in
> Shakespeare Matters, the newsletter of the Shakespeare Fellowship.
I'm relieved to hear that the Fellowship has at least SOME standards.
> > But indeed, there is nothing in the above that is trying to prove that
> > Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. That Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare is an
> > established fact, testified to by every single witness, and which there
> > is no reason, and has never been any reason whatsoever, to doubt. When
> > so-called "Stratfordians" say that Shakespeare was Shakespeare, that
> > doesn't mean that they're arguing with anti-Strats, except for a tiny
> > number of us who try to keep up the fight because we're offended by lies
> > and nonsense; the rest are no more "arguing" than a mathematician is
> > "arguing" when he says 2+2=4.
> Thank you for your opinion. I'm sure it has some value, but I don't
> happen to agree with it. I taught Shakespeare in schools and
> universities for 25 years, a Stratfordian like yourself, and never
> found a single fact that married the man to the works.
Since the same could be said of most of the middle-class playwrights
who were Shakespeare's contemporaries, that is scarcely surprising.
> Nor did I find
> a single credible witness to say that he had written them. Others have
> spent lifetimes looking, and haven't found anything either--or at
> least, anything that directly ties him to authorship. It was only
> while researching a novel on him, and reading alternative texts, that
> I found an answer that somehow satisfied me. That is not to say you're
> wrong and I'm right, just that I'm more comfortable with myself now
> that I've made the choices I have. I hope you can understand that, and
> that we can have more amenable dialogues in the future.
If you're saying that you find the fiction that Oxford wrote
Shakespeare's works more comforting than the reality, I can understand
that, and I doubt that anyone, myself certainly included, would take
serious issue with it. Personally, I would find an alternative universe
in which the sublime music of Richard Wagner celebrating the redemptive
power of love was written by a generous, self-deprecating, avuncular
genius -- rather than by a manipulative megalomaniac and egotist who
penned some of the most repellent antisemitic vitriol extant -- far more
comforting than the actual universe I find myself inhabiting. However,
I don't confuse a fantasy that makes me feel more comfortable with
actual history, however inviting it may be to do so. I have no wish to
criticize anyone's alternative history fantasies; it's only when people
confuse such invented scenarios with HISTORY that I take issue.
> Best wishes,
> Lynne Kositsky
> Author of the Rachel Books (Our Canadian Girl Series)
> Two published, two to come.
> Winner of The International White Raven Award 2002
> Nominated for a Hackmatack (Atlantic Provinces) Readers Choice Award
> 2003
> Best books in Canada list (Resource Links)
> 4/4 star review in Canadian Materials Magazine
> Rated Excellent, (Resource Links)
> One of the best books in Ontario (Ontario Library Association)
> Best books list (Canadian Library Association)
> Visit us at www.ourcanadiangirl.ca
Well, I could follow suit and list my own "multi-award winning"
attainments, but I will not do so, since they are just as irrelevant to
Elizabethan literary history, an area in which I have no expertise at
all, as children's fiction is. In any case, the erudition at the
fingertips of professional Elizabethan scholars effortlessly trumps both
your expertise and mine, amateurs that we are -- and professional
scholars are virtually unanimous in their confidence in the conventional
attribution. I gravely doubt that you would airily dismiss what I say
concerning mathematics because you read in some potboiler popular
publication about some crank's putative trisection of the angle, nor
would I expect you to declare the crank's opinion equal to mine in value
-- yet you are just as airily dismissing a robust consensus of experts
in another field in which you are just as much an amateur. Why?
Best wishes,
David Webb
John W. Kennedy
> My point, Kennedy, is that medievals didn't know the difference
> between lies and truth. Nobody did until the Renaissance genius
> Francis Bacon overturned Aristotelian logic. Aristotelian logic
> couldn't differentiate between truth and lies making the medieval
> era into a virtual Liar's Culture. Not the first Liar's Culture,
> of course and sadly not the last. But thanks for illustrating my
> point.
Your bigotry and ignorance continue to be absolutely stunning.
Aristotelian logic has never been "overturned". The 24 valid syllogisms
remain as they were (some of them not clearly systematized until the
middle ages, in fact). There has been a considerable reformulation of
logic since medieval days, and Aristotle's entanglements with grammar
and epistemology have been rightly pointed out and cleared away. But
that came in the 19th century; even Lewis Carroll could assume casual
knowledge of the old system on the part of his readers when he wrote
"The New Belfry of Christ Church, Oxford" in 1872.
Greg Reynolds
> > > > "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >> << The overwhelming evidence for the Holocaust (or for Andersonville)
> > > >> is not so much easily manipulated "historical evidence" but rather
> the
> > > >> discovery of mass graves along with thousands of emaciated human
> beings
> > > >> living in deplorable conditions (and with horendous stories to tell).
> > > >> Careful documentation of artifacts, pictures, film & eyewitness
> stories
> > > >> will assure that the holocaust can never be denied.
>
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > ...except by clueless idiots who wantonly abandon rigorous methods of
> > historical inquiry and rely instead upon paranoid conspiracy theories
> > and other counterfactual inventions. If you are really unaware that the
> > Shoah has been strenuously denied by many such cretins, then there must
> > not be much reading material available in your padded cell, Art.
>
> Why not accuse me of making out in the balcony
> during _Schindler's List_ while you're at it?
You made out during Schindler's List?
> > > > "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Nazis, Stalinist & Stratfordians have all clearly demonstrated how
> > > > > easy it was to manipulate "historical evidence" for their own
> purposes.
> >
> > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > >
> > > > What an idiotic comparison, even for a moron like
> > > > aneuendor...@comicass.nut! The Nazi party & Stalin both had
> > > > evident motivations for their attempts -- both ultimately unsuccessful
> > > > -- to rewrite history. What comparable motivation could
> > > > "Stratfordians" possibly have?
>
> > "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
>
> > > <<All these years of academic dedication lavished on the wrong man
> > > must be defended, at all costs it seems. Reputations tremble,
> > > an industry turns pale, and the weapons of ridicule & abuse
> > > are leveled and fired.>> - Sir Derek Jacobi
> >
> > Numbr007 <numb...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > "While Mr. Webb has continually provided solid facts to back his
> > intellectual and well-thought out position, Mr. Neuendorffer has
> > done little more than 'rebut' these arguments with a variety of
> > random quotes ('A man with a new idea is a crank until he succeeds.'
> > --Mark Twain)....
Twain faked his death (Marloviastic behaviour) and was
himself a Baconiastic so I can't see what (nautical) mileage you get
out of him. The reports of his significance were greatly exaggerated.
> > "Mr. Neuendorffer, have you not yet realized that this type of
> > dialog is not only unconvincing..., but it also makes your position
> > look very, very shaky to the objective observer? One cannot simply
> > utilize quotes from famous individuals to 'prove' his or her point.
> > It is well-recognized that such 'random quoting' is generally used
> > as a cover when no substantive underlying argument exists. Even
> > children in elementary school can realize that an individual can
> > use 'famous quotes' to prove just about anything he or she chooses
> > to believe in."
>
> [ Apparently Webb has just quoted 007 (Bond? Dee?) ]
>
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > While Sir Derek Jacobi is an actor of distinction,
> > he has no expertise whateVER in literary history.
Even his hunch was fake!
> <<[Archbishop James] Ussher worked within a substantial tradition of
> research, a large community of intellectuals striving toward a common goal
> under an accepted methodology. Today we rightly reject a cardinal premise of
> that methodology - belierf in biblical inerrancy. But what intellectual
> phenomenon can be older, or more oft repeated, that the story of a large
> research program that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
> accepted by all practitioners?>> - Stephen Jay Gould
>
> Sir Derek Jacobi is an actor of distinction who refuses to impale itself
> upon the false central assumption accepted by all Stratfordians.
You said it; I didn't.
> > "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
>
> > > 1) Stratford-upon-Avon tourist trade
>
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
>
> > What an idiotic suggestion, even from a complete moron like
> > aneuendor...@comicass.nut! Are you seriously suggesting that a
> > conspiracy of global scope, numbering among its adherents virtually
> > eVERy distinguished writer in the English language, all Freemasons and
> > Rosicrucians, and many h.l.a.s. participants, has been in existence for
> > oVER FOUR CENTURIES, with no plausible _raison d'être_ other than the
> > promotion of the Stratford tourist trade(!), a trade that did not even
> > exist at the time of the conspiracy's putative inception??!
>
> Without the funding of the Stratford-upon-Avon tourist trade the
> illiterate Stratford boob would never have survived into the 20th century.
Was Oxford invited to his daughters' weddings or not?
> > "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
>
> > > 2) Stratfordian books & paraphenalia [sic]
>
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
>
> > Apart from their undeniable effectiveness in creating an impression
> > of ineptness in the use of English, your misspellings usually conceal
> > some witless wordplay, Art. I am unsure what anagram you intended by
> > "paraphenalia [sic]," unless you had in mind "A.N., pale pariah."
> > Indeed, the subject's pallor can be gauged at
> > <http://www.groundling.com/hlas/profiles/aneuendorffer.php>. Of course,
> > anyone reduced to trying to persuade a sculptural simulacrum of a man
> > long dead (presumably, George Mason is about the only one who hasn't
> > entered aneuendor...@comicass.nut in his filter file) can indeed
> > be characterized as a pariah. In any event, the same objection as above
> > applies here as well: how could a conspiracy hoping to benefit from
> > commerce in "Stratfordian books & paraphenalia [sic]" have arisen at a
> > time when there was no market whateVER for such items?!
>
> OK, I'll look it up:
>
> Paraphernalia, n. pl. [LL. paraphernalia bona, fr. L. parapherna, pl.,
> parapherna, Gr. ?; ? beside + ? a bride's dowry, fr. fe`rein to bring.] 1.
> (Law) Something reserved to a wife, over and above her dower, being chiefly
> apparel and ornaments suited to her degree. 2. Second best beds
Peer of Vere: Nail ya
--Agent 99
> > "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
>
> > > (I own a Shakespeare herb garden myself but my daughter
> > > has kindly retouched that Droeshout portrait on the side)
> > >
> > > 3) Tom Reedy would have to return his Phantom skull ring
> > >
> > > After hundreds of years of unparalleled success (Xmas Carol, Uncle
> > > Tom's Cabin, etc.) for Freemasonry propaganda the Shakespeare
> revelation
> > > would pose a major embarrassment that might initiate a snowball effect
> > > that would make deconstruction look tame in comparison.
>
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
>
> > Huh???
>
> After hundreds of years of unparalleled success (Xmas Carol, Uncle
> Tom's Cabin, etc.) for Freemasonry propaganda the Shakespeare revelation
> would pose a major embarrassment that might initiate a snowball effect
> that would make deconstruction look tame in comparison.
Dick Cheney before he dicks you.
> > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > >
> > > > In any case, Stalin's crude attempts at constructing
> > > > pseudohistory met with scarcely any better success
> > > > than Lysenko's crude attempts at doing pseudoscience.
> >
> > "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
>
> > > They were amateurs; you guys are professionals.
>
> > > > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> > > > >
> > > > > > Which is more likely:
> > > > > >
> > > > >> (1) that an intelligent, witty, MIT-educated scientist (at least,
> that's
> > > > >> how aneuendor...@comicass.nut has characterized himself in
> the
> > > > >> past) with an entertaining sense of humor is such a complete idiot
> that
> > > > > > he thinks that there is only Peter Gay on earth, and incidentally
> that
> > > > > > Mellon Foundation grant recipients customarily collect their grant
> > > > > > checks -- IN PERSON(!) -- at the Mellon Bank in Manhattan,
> presumably
> > > > > > because there is only one branch of the Mellon Bank on the entire
> > > > > > planet(!), or
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (2) his trolling persona aneuendor...@comicass.nut is
> deftly
> > > > > > burlesquing the cretinous confusions of Oxfordians?
> > > > > or
> >
> > > > "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> (3) that the brilliant & witty, MIT-educated scientist was curious
> if the
> > > >> 911 victim Peter Gay was any relation to the Goon Squad conspirator
> who
> > > > > was assigned the task of denigrating Freud and his Oxfordian
> revelations
> > > > > and figured that this was the quickest & easiest way to find out.
> >
> > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> > >
> > > > Oh, sure, Art. Even if one granted such a lame excuse, the above
> > > > feeble attempt at rationalization does not explain how an intelligent,
> > > > witty, MIT-educated scientist could be such a cretinous moron as to
> > > > suppose that Mellon Foundation grant recipients customarily collect
> > > > their grant checks -- IN PERSON(!) -- at the Mellon Bank in Manhattan,
> > > > because the complete idiot believes that there is only one branch of
> the
> > > > Mellon Bank on the entire planet. That ancillary howler had nothing
> > > > whateVER to do with ascertaining the identity of the deceased. I
> quote
> > > > the clueless cretin VERbatim: "Gay is not a common name
> > > > (nor even the Professor's actual name: Frohlich)
> > > >
> > > > [What kind of a moron believes that the name Fröhlich is uncommon?!]
> >
> > "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
>
> > > I suppose if one was Gay he'd probably Fröhlich.
>
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
>
> > I perceive that you have no answer to the question "What kind of a
> > moron believes that the name Fröhlich is uncommon?" except the obvious:
> > only a moron like aneuendor...@comicass.nut.
>
> "Mr. Neuendorffer has done little more than 'rebut'
> these arguments with a variety of random quotes."
> --- Numbr007 <numb...@aol.com>
"I could have done more."
--Oskar Schindler
> > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> > >
> > > > so when I discovered that P.G. worked in Manhattan (& was
> > > > funded by the Mellon Bank) I thought it was a reasonable chance
> > > > that the Stratfordian had died."
> > > >
> > > > [What kind of a moron believes that Mellon grant recipients pick up
> > > > their grant checks in person at the Mellon Bank in Manhattan?!]
> >
> > "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
>
> > > If I had thought it worth contemplating I would have realised that
> > > early death reports could only pertain to airline passengers anyway;
> but
> > > I have more important things to think about
>
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
>
> > With so many important things to think ABOUT,
> > it's a pity that you've neVER learned to think, Art.
>
> Did someone forget to wind me?
"We had forgotte."
--Elizabeth Regina
> +----------------------------------------------------------------+
> | |
> | SMITH & TINKER'S |
> | Patent Double-Action, Extra-Responsive, |
> | Thought-Creating, Perfect-Talking |
> | MECHANICAL MAN |
> | Fitted with our Special Clock-Work Attachment. |
> | Thinks, Speaks, Acts, and Does Everything but Live. |
> | Manufactured only at our Works at Evna, Land of Ev. |
> | All infringements will be promptly Prosecuted according to Law.|
> | |
> +----------------------------------------------------------------+
>
See how wicked your stuff looks anymore?
Gates did it.
> > "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
>
> > > and a wanted a quick definitive answer
>
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
>
> > Oh, SURE, Art! You know, you could have posted a query regarding the
> > identity of the victim rather than announcing as fact, in a public forum
> > with worldwide distribution, the death of a distinguished scholar.
>
> What good would that do? I'm on everyone's killfile except for Mason.
Everyone killfiles Mason. Hate the Mason.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
>
> > When you need a theatre usher, do you summon one
> > by setting your program on fire?
>
> <<[Archbishop James] Ussher worked within a substantial tradition of
> research, a large community of intellectuals striving toward a common goal
> under an accepted methodology. Today we rightly reject a cardinal premise of
> that methodology - belierf in biblical inerrancy. But what intellectual
> phenomenon can be older, or more oft repeated, that the story of a large
> research program that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
> accepted by all practitioners?>> - Stephen Jay Gould
>
> > "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
>
> > > to convince myself that it was a only minor coincidence (similar names)
>
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
>
> > But you don't believe that similar names can possibly be mere
> > coincidence -- remember?
>
> Whenever did I say that?
That 19 is a sum of two successive numbers and the
difference between them both squared is really raking
it in on bar bets, thanks for that one.
> > "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
>
> > > and not a major coincidence (the
> > > anti-Oxfordian whose book my N.Y. sister sent me was a 911 casualty)
>
> >>> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
>
> > > > > Neuendorffer is proud to join the ranks of Anti-Strats like Twain
> who
> > > > > so intimidate the Strats that they are reduced to the pathetic claim
> that
> > > > > we are just kidding.
>
> > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> > >
> > > > I don't think that Twain was kidding;
>
> So you changed your mind or were you lying before?
"It's not lying if you believe it yourself"
--Geo. Costanza
> > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > > > howeVER, the embarrassing follies from the dotage
> > > > of a great man are best oVERlooked.(If you're in your dotage
> > > > I'll gladly oVERlook yours too, Art, without even
> > > > invoking the unmet precondition of greatness.)
>
> > "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
>
> > > I have my DOTES from time to time:
>
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
>
> > I stand corrected, Art -- you're not in your dotage,
> > but rather in your doltage.
>
> Watt?
>
> Art N.
Ohm
Serenity Now
SERENITY NOW
Bob Grumman
>> > dissertations. That you don't happen to agree with them doesn't make
>> > them non-scholarly.
>>
>> No, but their irrational arguments and inaccurate "facts" do.
>
>Of course, what is rational or irrational is a matter of opinion.
Not, really.
>Most of the current books on Shakspere I've read tend to say: He must have
>done this, it looks like he did that, perhaps he also...That's better
>scholarship?
Yes. Because described as inferential, and because PLAUSIBLE. Here's a
challenge for you, Lynn: tell me ONE inference about Oxford as Shakespeare that
is one tenth as plausible as the inference that Shakespeare of Stratford, an
ACTOR who left behind specimens of his signatures and who is described on his
funerary monument as having written, and whose brother also left behind a
signature, went to the Stratford Grammar School.
--Bob G.
Bob Grumman
>
>richard kennedy wrote:
>> As usual, Bob Grumman fails to notice one important fact, which no one
>> can deny, and which no Stratfordian has even TRIED to deny, which is
>> ....
>>
>> http://www.sarahsmith.com/chasingshakespeares/shakesweirds/shamsterdance.htm
>
>Another example of anti-Strats forging evidence, I see.
>
I'm more than a little worried.
--Bob G.
bobgrumman
>> between Strietz's completely insane theory and a very minor, very plausible
>> suggestion that the author Shakespeare remembered a feature of his hometown
>> river when he wrote one of his poems is.
>
>It wasn't a suggestion. It was a fait accompli, according to the
>writer.
Bullshit. It was a statement in a biography that, I'm sure, more than once
distinguishes its inferences from its facts.
>Shakspere looked into the river from Clopton Bridge--how would
>anyone know that?
No one could know it absolutely, but how could any sane person doubt that a
person with normal eyesight who was born and lived until his late teens in
Stratford upon Avon would NOT have "looked into the river from Clopton Bridge?"
>--and wrote the poem.
You're being propagandistic: you make it seem the writer wrote the lines in
Lucrece JUST after he stood on the bridge, or even as he was standing on it.
Surely the writer suggested no such thing.
>I don't agree with Streitz's
>theory either, but it's certainly not "completely insane" to believe
>that incest takes place now or or did take place at any given period
>in history.
Are you telling me that Streitz's theory is simply that incest takes place now,
and has taken place in the past! I thought it had something to do with who
wrote Shakespeare. I thought Streitz believed that Oxford was the son of
Elizabeth (without any sane evidence for that) AND that Oxford fathered
Southampton on her (without any sane evidence for that) and that all this had
something to do with Oxford's motivation for writing the works of Shakespeare
and others under different names than his. How strange that I got it so wrong.
>> Your belief that a reference to Shakespeare's familiarity with his hometown
>>river is an example of "the guff that leading Stratfordians have written to try
>> to prove that Shakspere (sic) wrote Shakespeare," however, also is amusing.
>>
>
>You think I spelled Shakspere wrong.
No, the "(sic)" means that you spelled it unconventionally. I put it there also
out of irritation with your obvious intent to insult him by making him seem
illiterate and other than the writer "Shakespeare," whose name was also spelled
"Shakspere." Lucky for you I did, because it gave you an opportunity to snip at
something very minor while snipping matter you couldn't make a sane stand
against (and pronouncing yourself unable to continue discussing something with a
person inconsiderate enough to sic you).
--Bob G.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Not most of the ones I've known of (though the many in my specialized group of
poets are). Most of the academics I know of through reading their work or about
them think they're anti-establishment, but teach and write about established
subjects (though I guess there is a difference between the ones who teach and
write about the more recently established subjects like The NY School of Poetry
and those who teach and write about very old established subjects like
Shakespeare). I stand by what I said as a half-truth. The real situation is
complex but I don't have time to get into it.
--Bob G.
Bob Grumman
>> to some of you on this list.. I have a bachelor's degree in
>> psychology, a master's degree in English, and a bachelor's degree in
>> teaching with honours specialties in English and drama. I taught
>> Shakespeare at the high school and university levels for going on 25
>> years, and am a multi-award winning poet and children's and young
>> adult author, with one book coming out this fall and three next year.
>> So I do know a little of what I'm talking about, I hope, though I
>> doubt you'd agree.
>>
>
>No, you were right the first time. None of this makes your envious
>calumniation of Shakespeare one whit more probable. A scholar (to save your
>looking it up) publishes peer-reviewed research (and "peer" here doesn't
>mean "fellow-Looney"). You might want to stick to childrens' fanstasy
>literature: it would seem to be more your bent.
>
>Peter G.
Gee Whiz, Peter, we were getting along so well, and now I'm arguing with you for
the second time today! And, worse, defending Lynn. But I would claim
that one could be a scholar and not publish peer-reviewed research, just as one
can be a non-scholar and publish peer-reviewed research. I think a scholar is
one who follows scholarly procedures. What those are I'm not all that clear on.
Is there a good book or essay around that most scholars agree sums up what they
do? My own loose definition is a person who identifies the sources he uses--and
uses primary rather than secondary sources whenever possible, accurately
represents the majority of arguments for and against his position, writes
coherently, reasons sanely, clearly knows his subject (i.e., indicates
familiarity with the books and other materials those in his field would expect
him to be). One can do all that and more and not be able to be
peer-reviewed--as far as I can tell from personal experience, you need
credentials to even be qualified to have your work go to any peers to be
reviewed.
--Bob G.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
>> Great Genius could have made it without special help,
>
>Nowhere has the principle "extraordinary claims demand extraordinary
>proof" been more apt.
>
>The problem for Strats is they have an extraordinary *absence* of
>proof.
>
>History's greatest genius--a polymath philosopher versed in every
>Renaissance discipline [except math]
What?!! Elizabeth, if you'll check Shakespeare's sonnets, you'll find that
almost every line has ten syllables. This proves that their author must have
been a mathematical genius.
>--produces the world's greatest
>body of literature yet leaves no paper trail, not a single letter
>to a literary associate, friend, or patron but worse,
when there are AT LEAST five such letters extant from the period from other
dramatists
> there is
>a huge amount of negative evidence in the fact that this extraordinary
>genius retires to a village to
>
> BEGIN A CAREER BARTERING MALT AND HIDES.
He also did some tap-dancing.
>The only extraordinary proof Strats can produce is evidence that
>Strats are extraordinarily gullible.
>
>> which would prove that
>> THEIR inability to make it is their own fault,
>
>The myth of an uneducated literary genius is just that, a myth.
Not quite, wack. We have some books with names on them, and a monument, and the
testimony of contemporaries who knew him--and NO HARD EVIDENCE AGAINST.
There
>may be geniuses that can handle symbolic logic or mathematics that
>don't have intense early childhood education in those areas but
>literary genius requires a language-rich early environment, the
>earlier the better. The idea that a genius with a 20,000 plus word
>vocabulary
>came out of the illiterate Shakespeare house hold is unsupportable.
True. No matter what kind of genes he had, such a person would not be able to
learn more than 6,544 words.
>> and not due to lack of special
>>help. That academics are saner, AS A RULE, than non-academics also is a factor.
>Where are you coming up with this stuff, Grumman?
Personal experience, wack. I should add that I'm speaking about academics
sanity in their field of expertise against the sanity of non-academics in the
same field.
>
>> It might be added that many Shakespeare-affirmers are not academics whereas
>> almost no Shakespeare-rejecters are.
>
>You're such a fundamentalist.
?
--Bob G.
Peter Farey
>
> A scholar (to save your
> looking it up) publishes peer-reviewed research (and "peer"
> here doesn't mean "fellow-Looney").
Interesting. I recently submitted an article for publication in
a peer-reviewed journal. It was rejected. (A pity, I think,
since it contains indisputably accurate information relevant
to Marlowe's biography which has not as yet been
published in any peer-reviewed publication, and which
orthodox biographers therefore still get wrong).
Does this mean that its rejection proves I am still no scholar
(which I happily accepted), but that an acceptance would
have meant that I suddenly became one? Damn!
I was not angry ... Until this instant!
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Bob Grumman
>the younger Bacon were raised and tutored together in
>the household of Bacon's uncle Lord Burghley. Both had
>Arthur Golding, Thomas Smith and Lawrence Nowell as tutors--
>both loved Bacon's first cousin Anne Cecil--or at least Bacon
>did--and in fact their lives are so uncannily aligned--at least
>until the point when Oxford withdraws to Hackney after the
>Armada debacle--that it could explain why Oxfordians are so
>confused about Oxford's authorship of the Shakespeare works.
The Oxfordians came about, it seems to me, because of the bad name all
the insane cryptographers gave Baconianism, and--I suspect--because they'd
become bored with Bacon after sixty years or so. The same thing is happening
to Oxfordianism--which is why Christopher Marlowe is coming to the fore (and
Bacon is making a slight comeback).
--Bob G. (who would most like Kit to be the author if Will couldn't be)
Bob Grumman
>between lies and truth. Nobody did until the Renaissance genius
>Francis Bacon overturned Aristotelian logic.
She's right, John. And nobody realized that it was Bacon who discovered
the difference between lies and truth till now, with the advent of
Post-Renaissance Super-Genius, Elizabeth Weir!
> Aristotelian logic
>couldn't differentiate between truth and lies making the medieval
>era into a virtual Liar's Culture. Not the first Liar's Culture,
>of course and sadly not the last. But thanks for illustrating my point.
--Bob G.
David L. Webb
> bobgrumman <bobgrumm...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> news:<b4a1k...@drn.newsguy.com>...
> > >
> > I certainly do not, but I think your inability to recognize the difference
> > between Strietz's completely insane theory and a very minor, very plausible
> > suggestion that the author Shakespeare remembered a feature of his hometown
> > river when he wrote one of his poems is.
> It wasn't a suggestion. It was a fait accompli, according to the
> writer. Shakspere looked into the river from Clopton Bridge--how would
> anyone know that?--and wrote the poem. I don't agree with Streitz's
> theory either, but it's certainly not "completely insane" to believe
> that incest takes place now or or did take place at any given period
> in history.
I fear that you may be insufficiently aware of just how utterly
farcical Mr. Streitz's reconstruction of events is, or how thoroughly
Mr. Streitz's obsession with incest pervades his book. In Mr. Streitz's
scenario, the young Elizabeth Tudor is molested by her stepfather,
Thomas Seymour; Elizabeth somehow contrives to keep her pregnancy
secret, and her son is passed off as Edward de Vere.
Of course, mere chronology renders this fantasy untenable -- Thomas
Seymour was inconveniently executed for treason well before he could
have gotten around to fathering the lad (no pun intended), so either
Oxford was sired posthumously, a possibility that should not faze Mr.
Streitz in the least (in view of his infatuation with incest, why not
add a little necrophilia to the mix?), or else Elizabeth endured the
longest human pregnancy on record, rivaling the gestation period of an
elephant. However, Mr. Streitz is by no means finished with incest --
later, we learn that Oxford was the Queen's lover, and Southampton their
clandestine son (evidently Elizabeth once again managed to keep her
pregnancy secret).
But Mr. Streitz STILL hasn't begun to exhaust incest's abundant
possibilities! Mr. Streitz describes the attack by pirates on
Oxford's vessel, and opines that the attack might have been a
calculated attempt on Oxford's life. He writes:
"On the other [hand], could it be that this was an event set up
by the one man capable of having information on when and how
Oxford would cross the channel and also capable of orchestrating
a cooperating band of pirates to stage the attack to kill Oxford?
William Cecil was the only man in England with the extensive spy
network and foreign operatives to carry out such a plot. He was
also the only one who would have a motive to kill Oxford. The
newborn heir, Oxford's child and William Cecil's grandchild, would
inherit Oxford's estates and would be heir to the throne."
It does not appear to have occurred to Mr. Streitz that it would have
been imprudent and decidedly premature for Cecil to have acted so
decisively and so irreversibly before ascertaining that the child would
even survive infancy. Indeed, in the event that the child did not reach
adulthood, Oxford's chances of begetting Cecil another grandchild and
heir the to throne -- after Oxford's own death -- would have been rather
slim. However, since Mr. Streitz believes that Oxford himself was sired
by a man who died long before the date of Oxford's own birth, perhaps
Mr. Streitz surmises that Burghley reasoned that posthumous conception
ran in the family, so perhaps Burghley would not have been unduly
troubled by an early demise of the goose that laid the golden egg for
the Cecil family.
After a paragraph recording Oxford's refusal to meet with his wife
and child upon his return, Mr. Streitz continues:
"The unresolved question is 'Who fathered the child?' Here there
is a division of opinion among those knowledgeable about Oxford. One
group believes that the father was Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester,
who, to spite Oxford, raped Anne Cecil. However, the probability of
this scenario has the drawback that to get to Anne Cecil, Robert
Dudley would either have had to have the consent of William Cecil or
reach Anne without his knowledge. Both seem to be unlikely
scenarios."
"The other candidate for fatherhood is unspeakable, Anne Cecil's
father, William Cecil."
Mr. Streitz's evident infatuation with the idea of incest makes its
presence felt throughout the book. Mr. Streitz continues:
"He had the most to lose if Oxford died abroad without an heir.
[Why doesn't Mr. Streitz fall back upon his reliance upon posthumous
conception? Or, failing that, why doesn't he take the point that it
would be folly for Cecil to sever his ties to the putative Crown
Prince before Cecil's grandchild made it past infancy?] If Oxford
died on his European tour without an heir, his properties and titles
would revert to others in the Vere family. Conversely, Cecil had the
most to gain if Anne Cecil had a child. The child would be the
legitimate heir of Oxford, and no one would be the wiser. As to some
other father for the child, if anyone else was to impregnate Anne,
there would be the possibility that the information could leak out
and the paternity of the child would be legally questioned. This is
what makes the attack on Oxford in the channel that much more
suspicious. It may have been a gamble to eliminate Oxford, but
William Cecil was a ruthless man who had resorted to murder before
(John de Vere) to advance the Cecil family."
After the first few pages, I rapidly lost count of the errors in Mr.
Streitz's risible tome; however, after the above, I began even to lose
count of the instances of incest!
Of couse, Mr. Streitz's "evidence" for his imaginative, if lurid,
fantasies rarely advances beyond the formulation of paranoid rhetorical
questions:
"What does it mean when it is said [by whom?] that Thomas Seymour
'woke the fifteen year old Elizabeth each morning?' A hard look,
a skeptical eye, and a strong stomach are required to understand
the nasty, brutal world of the Elizabethans."
Elsewhere:
"Claudius in _Hamlet_ may represent a combination of Thomas Seymour
and Robert Dudley, murderer of Oxford's foster father [sic], John
de Vere, most likely through poisoning. Was it a historical
reality that poison in the ear caused the death of John de Vere?
More importantly, Dudley usurped Thomas Seymour's place in
Elizabeth's bed."
Of course, by the time he is finished, Mr. Streitz has endowed the
fecund Virgin Queen with no fewer than five illegitimate progeny. Some
of his evidence for the identification of Southampton is particularly
amusing:
"If a child was born to Elizabeth in this year [1574], this [May]
may have been the period for it to happen. In the sonnets, we find
these references to the months of April-May:
[Here Mr. Streitz quotes an innocuous line from each of four sonnets]
"And there are forty-one uses of the word 'may.'"
I am not making this up -- Mr. Streitz apparently regards instances of
the word "may" as pointers to the date of Southampton's birth! I wonder
what he makes of the surname of Steven May? He continues:
"Oxford had the largest vocabulary in the history of the English
language. Yet, in the sonnets he uses a few words repeatedly.
This appears to be an indication that he means these words to
convey a message outside the poetry, that message would be that
Southampton was born in the period [sic]."
One of the great marvels of Mr. Streitz's book is that one can open
it virtually at random and hit upon gems like this!
[...]
David Webb
Art Neuendorffer
>>>>>> << The overwhelming evidence for the Holocaust (or for Andersonville)
>>>>>> is not so much easily manipulated "historical evidence" but rather
the
>>>>>> discovery of mass graves along with thousands of emaciated human
beings
>>>>>> living in deplorable conditions (and with horendous stories to tell).
>>>>>> Careful documentation of artifacts, pictures, film & eyewitness
stories
>>>>>> will assure that the holocaust can never be denied.
> >
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > ...except by clueless idiots who wantonly abandon rigorous methods
of
> > > historical inquiry and rely instead upon paranoid conspiracy theories
> > > and other counterfactual inventions. If you are really unaware that
the
> > > Shoah has been strenuously denied by many such cretins, then there
> > > must not be much reading material available in your padded cell, Art.
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> > Why not accuse me of making out in the balcony
> > during _Schindler's List_ while you're at it?
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote:
> You made out during Schindler's List?
NEWMAN!!
> > > > > "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> > > > >
>>>>>> Nazis, Stalinist & Stratfordians have all clearly demonstrated how
>>>>>> easy it was to manipulate "historical evidence" for their own
purposes.
> > >
> > > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > > >
> > > > > What an idiotic comparison, even for a moron like
> > > > > aneuendor...@comicass.nut! The Nazi party & Stalin both
had
> > > > > evident motivations for their attempts -- both ultimately
unsuccessful
> > > > > -- to rewrite history. What comparable motivation could
> > > > > "Stratfordians" possibly have?
> >
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> >
> > > > <<All these years of academic dedication lavished on the wrong man
> > > > must be defended, at all costs it seems. Reputations tremble,
> > > > an industry turns pale, and the weapons of ridicule & abuse
> > > > are leveled and fired.>> - Sir Derek Jacobi
> > >
> > > Numbr007 <numb...@aol.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > "While Mr. Webb has continually provided solid facts to back his
> > > intellectual and well-thought out position, Mr. Neuendorffer has
> > > done little more than 'rebut' these arguments with a variety of
> > > random quotes ('A man with a new idea is a crank until he
succeeds.'
> > > --Mark Twain)....
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote:
> Twain faked his death (Marloviastic behaviour) and was
> himself a Baconiastic
Surely you're exaggerating.
> so I can't see what (nautical) mileage you get out of him.
Don't get me steamed, Greg!
> The reports of his significance were greatly exaggerated.
"With this brain I must work, in order to give significancy and value to the
few facts which I possess." --De Quincey.
> > > "Mr. Neuendorffer, have you not yet realized that this type of
> > > dialog is not only unconvincing..., but it also makes your position
> > > look very, very shaky to the objective observer? One cannot simply
> > > utilize quotes from famous individuals to 'prove' his or her point.
> > > It is well-recognized that such 'random quoting' is generally used
> > > as a cover when no substantive underlying argument exists. Even
> > > children in elementary school can realize that an individual can
> > > use 'famous quotes' to prove just about anything he or she chooses
> > > to believe in."
> >
> > [ Apparently Webb has just quoted 007 (Bond? Dee?) ]
> >
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > While Sir Derek Jacobi is an actor of distinction,
> > > he has no expertise whateVER in literary history.
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote:
> Even his hunch was fake!
If you have a problem with Derek, Greg,
you'll have to take it up with the Praetorian Guard.
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> > <<[Archbishop James] Ussher worked within a substantial tradition of
> > research, a large community of intellectuals striving toward a common
goal
> > under an accepted methodology. Today we rightly reject a cardinal
premise
> > of that methodology - belierf in biblical inerrancy. But what
intellectual
> > phenomenon can be older, or more oft repeated, that the story of a large
> > research program that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
> > accepted by all practitioners?>> - Stephen Jay Gould
> >
> > Sir Derek Jacobi is an actor of distinction who refuses to impale
> > itself upon the false central assumption accepted by all Stratfordians.
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote:
> You said it; I didn't.
You impaled yourself; I didn't.
(And I'm not Vlad about it, either.)
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> >
> > > > 1) Stratford-upon-Avon tourist trade
> >
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> >
> > > What an idiotic suggestion, even from a complete moron like
> > > aneuendor...@comicass.nut! Are you seriously suggesting that a
> > > conspiracy of global scope, numbering among its adherents virtually
> > > eVERy distinguished writer in the English language, all Freemasons and
> > > Rosicrucians, and many h.l.a.s. participants, has been in existence
for
> > > oVER FOUR CENTURIES, with no plausible _raison d'être_ other than the
> > > promotion of the Stratford tourist trade(!), a trade that did not even
> > > exist at the time of the conspiracy's putative inception??!
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> > Without the funding of the Stratford-upon-Avon tourist trade the
> > illiterate Stratford boob would never have survived into the 20th
century.
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote:
> Was Oxford invited to his daughters' weddings or not?
--------------------------------------------------
When thou dost aske me blessing, ile kneele downe
And aske of thee forgiuenes, so weele liue
And pray, and sing, and tell old tales and laugh
At guilded butterflies, and heare poore rogues
Talke of Court newes, and weele talke with them to,
Who looses, and who wins, whose in, whose out,
And take vpon's the mistery of things
As if we were Gods spies, and weele weare out
In a wal'd prison, packs and sects of great ones
That ebbe and flow bith' Moone.
----------------------------------------
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> >
> > > > 2) Stratfordian books & paraphenalia [sic]
> >
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> >
> > > Apart from their undeniable effectiveness in creating an impression
> > > of ineptness in the use of English, your misspellings usually conceal
> > > some witless wordplay, Art. I am unsure what anagram you intended by
> > > "paraphenalia [sic]," unless you had in mind "A.N., pale pariah."
> > > Indeed, the subject's pallor can be gauged at
> > > <http://www.groundling.com/hlas/profiles/aneuendorffer.php>. Of
course,
> > > anyone reduced to trying to persuade a sculptural simulacrum of a man
> > > long dead (presumably, George Mason is about the only one who hasn't
> > > entered aneuendor...@comicass.nut in his filter file) can
indeed
> > > be characterized as a pariah. In any event, the same objection as
above
> > > applies here as well: how could a conspiracy hoping to benefit from
> > > commerce in "Stratfordian books & paraphenalia [sic]" have arisen at a
> > > time when there was no market whateVER for such items?!
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> > OK, I'll look it up:
> >
> > Paraphernalia, n. pl. [LL. paraphernalia bona, fr. L. parapherna, pl.,
> > parapherna, Gr. ?; ? beside + ? a bride's dowry, fr. fe`rein to bring.]
1.
> > (Law) Something reserved to a wife, over and above her dower, being
chiefly
> > apparel and ornaments suited to her degree. 2. Second best beds
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote:
> Peer of Vere: Nail ya
> --Agent 99
"Something rEsERVED to a wife oVER and above"
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> >
> > > > (I own a Shakespeare herb garden myself but my daughter
> > > > has kindly retouched that Droeshout portrait on the side)
> > > >
> > > > 3) Tom Reedy would have to return his Phantom skull ring
> > > >
>>>> After hundreds of years of unparalleled success (Xmas Carol, Uncle
>>>> Tom's Cabin, etc.) for Freemasonry propaganda the Shakespeare
revelation
>>>> would pose a major embarrassment that might initiate a snowball effect
>>>> that would make deconstruction look tame in comparison.
> >
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> >
> > > Huh???
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> > After hundreds of years of unparalleled success (Xmas Carol, Uncle
> > Tom's Cabin, etc.) for Freemasonry propaganda the Shakespeare
revelation
> > would pose a major embarrassment that might initiate a snowball effect
> > that would make deconstruction look tame in comparison.
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote:
> Dick Cheney before he dicks you.
Lon Cheney in his lawn chair.
> > > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> > > > > [What kind of a moron believes that the name Fröhlich is
uncommon?!]
> > >
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> >
> > > > I suppose if one was Gay he'd probably Fröhlich.
> >
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> >
> > > I perceive that you have no answer to the question "What kind of a
> > > moron believes that the name Fröhlich is uncommon?" except the
obvious:
> > > only a moron like aneuendor...@comicass.nut.
> >
> > "Mr. Neuendorffer has done little more than 'rebut'
> > these arguments with a variety of random quotes."
> > --- Numbr007 <numb...@aol.com>
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote:
> "I could have done more."
> --Oskar Schindler
'I Wish I Were an Oscar-Meyer Wiener'
'Ich bin ein Berliner' - J.F.K.
> > > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> > > >
> > > > > so when I discovered that P.G. worked in Manhattan (& was
> > > > > funded by the Mellon Bank) I thought it was a reasonable
> > > > > chance that the Stratfordian had died."
> > > > >
> > > > > [What kind of a moron believes that Mellon grant recipients pick
up
> > > > > their grant checks in person at the Mellon Bank in Manhattan?!]
> > >
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> >
> > > > If I had thought it worth contemplating I would have realised
that
> > > > early death reports could only pertain to airline passengers
anyway;
> > > > but I have more important things to think about
> >
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> >
> > > With so many important things to think ABOUT,
> > > it's a pity that you've neVER learned to think, Art.
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> > Did someone forget to wind me?
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote:
> "We had forgotte."
> --Elizabeth Regina
And now I must stop talk-ing and be-gin think-ing a-gain
of a way to es-cape from Iraq.
> > +----------------------------------------------------------------+
> > | |
> > | SMITH & TINKER'S |
> > | Patent Double-Action, Extra-Responsive, |
> > | Thought-Creating, Perfect-Talking |
> > | MECHANICAL MAN |
> > | Fitted with our Special Clock-Work Attachment. |
> > | Thinks, Speaks, Acts, and Does Everything but Live. |
> > | Manufactured only at our Works at Evna, Land of Ev. |
> > | All infringements will be promptly Prosecuted according to Law.|
> > | |
> > +----------------------------------------------------------------+
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote:
> See how wicked your stuff looks anymore?
> Gates did it.
HeaVEn's Gates?
EV: A fairyland located across the Deadly Desert to the west of the Winkie
Country. Evna is the capital of this fairyland.
-----------------------------------------------
"You seem very durable," said Dorothy. "Who made you?"
"The firm of Smith & Tin-ker, in the town of Evna, where the roy-al pal-ace
stands," answered Tiktok.
"Did they make many of you?" asked the child.
"No; I am the on-ly au-to-mat-ic me-chan-i-cal man they ev-er com-plet-ed,"
he replied. "They were ver-y won-der-ful in-ven-tors, were my mak-ers, and
quite ar-tis-tic in all they did."
"I am sure of that," said Dorothy. "Do they live in the town of Evna now?"
"They are both gone," replied the machine. "Mr. Smith was an art-ist, as
well as an in-vent-or, and he paint-ed a pic-ture of a riv-er which was so
nat-ur-al that, as he was reach-ing a-cross it to paint some flow-ers on the
op-po-site bank, he fell in-to the wa-ter and was drowned."
"Oh, I'm sorry for that!" exclaimed the little girl.
"Mis-ter Tin-ker," continued Tiktok, "made a lad-der so tall that he could
rest the end of it a-gainst the moon, while he stood on the high-est rung
and picked the lit-tle stars to set in the points of the king's crown. But
when he got to the moon Mis-ter Tin-ker found it such a love-ly place that
he de-cid-ed to live there, so he pulled up the lad-der af-ter him and we
have nev-er seen him since."
-----------------------------------------------
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> >
> > > > and a wanted a quick definitive answer
> >
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> >
> > > Oh, SURE, Art! You know, you could have posted a query regarding
the
> > > identity of the victim rather than announcing as fact, in a public
forum
> > > with worldwide distribution, the death of a distinguished scholar.
> >
> > What good would that do? I'm on everyone's killfile except for
Mason.
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote:
> Everyone killfiles Mason. Hate the Mason.
You're forfitted your Right to Safety then?
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> >
> > > When you need a theatre usher, do you summon one
> > > by setting your program on fire?
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> > <<[Archbishop James] Ussher worked within a substantial tradition of
> > research, a large community of intellectuals striving toward a common
goal
> > under an accepted methodology. Today we rightly reject a cardinal
premise of
> > that methodology - belierf in biblical inerrancy. But what intellectual
> > phenomenon can be older, or more oft repeated, that the story of a large
> > research program that impaled itself upon a false central assumption
> > accepted by all practitioners?>> - Stephen Jay Gould
> >
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> >
> > > > to convince myself that it was a only minor coincidence (similar
names)
> >
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> >
> > > But you don't believe that similar names can possibly be mere
> > > coincidence -- remember?
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> > Whenever did I say that?
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote:
> That 19 is a sum of two successive numbers and the
> difference between them both squared is really raking
> it in on bar bets, thanks for that one.
Thank yourselves. Thank Itzhak Stern & Martin Gardner.
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> >
> > > > and not a major coincidence (the
> > > > anti-Oxfordian whose book my N.Y. sister sent me was a 911
casualty)
> >
> > >>> "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> >
> > > > > > Neuendorffer is proud to join the ranks of Anti-Strats like
Twain
> > who
> > > > > > so intimidate the Strats that they are reduced to the pathetic
claim
> > that
> > > > > > we are just kidding.
> >
> > > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> > > >
> > > > > I don't think that Twain was kidding;
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> > So you changed your mind or were you lying before?
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote:
> "It's not lying if you believe it yourself"
> --Geo. Costanza
And you want to be my latex salesman!
> > > > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> >
> > > > > howeVER, the embarrassing follies from the dotage
> > > > > of a great man are best oVERlooked.(If you're in your dotage
> > > > > I'll gladly oVERlook yours too, Art, without even
> > > > > invoking the unmet precondition of greatness.)
> >
> > > "Art Neuendorffer" wrote:
> >
> > > > I have my DOTES from time to time:
> >
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote :
> >
> > > I stand corrected, Art -- you're not in your dotage,
> > > but rather in your doltage.
> Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> > Watt?
"Greg Reynolds" <eve...@core.com> wrote:
> Ohm
Ampthill?
> Serenity Now
> SERENITY NOW
Indeed:
Serenity is given as a title to the members of
certain princely families in Europe; as, Your Serenity.
Art Neuendorffer [SERENITY NOW!]
Elizabeth Weir
> >My point, Kennedy, is that medievals didn't know the difference
> >between lies and truth. Nobody did until the Renaissance genius
> >Francis Bacon overturned Aristotelian logic.
>
> She's right, John. And nobody realized that it was Bacon who discovered
> the difference between lies and truth till now, with the advent of
> Post-Renaissance Super-Genius, Elizabeth Weir!
I stubbornly resist the Post-Renaissance, Grumman. That's why
I oppose the rhetoric of Stratfordianism.
John W. Kennedy
> I stubbornly resist the Post-Renaissance....
Indeed, at least one aspect of the Renaissance seems to be your watchword.
But it is necessary ... to be a great pretender and
dissembler; and men are so simple, and so subject to
present necessities, that he who seeks to deceive will
always find someone who will allow himself to be deceived.
-- Machiavelli
Bob Grumman
>> >between lies and truth. Nobody did until the Renaissance genius
>> >Francis Bacon overturned Aristotelian logic.
>>
>> She's right, John. And nobody realized that it was Bacon who discovered
>> the difference between lies and truth till now, with the advent of
>> Post-Renaissance Super-Genius, Elizabeth Weir!
>
>I stubbornly resist the Post-Renaissance, Grumman. That's why
>I oppose the rhetoric of Stratfordianism.
See, John: she doesn't deny the "Super-Genius" part of my description. I guess
the adjective should be "Neo-Renaissance."
--Bob G.
Peter Groves
As before, I suppose, it's a question of semantics, but essentially you're
right. You offer a fine definition of what it means to be scholarly (and
one that automatically excludes all the Oxfordians I know of, but would, I
think, admit Peter Farey), and what is it to be a scholar but to be
scholarly? I was just attacking Lynne's notion that publishing any old
"stuff" turned one into an instant authority on any other published stuff
(which is what she seemed to be claiming with her jabber about "trade books"
and children's stories).
Peter G.
Bob Grumman
>
>Elizabeth Weir wrote:
>> I stubbornly resist the Post-Renaissance....
>
>Indeed, at least one aspect of the Renaissance seems to be your watchword.
>
> But it is necessary ... to be a great pretender and
> dissembler; and men are so simple, and so subject to
> present necessities, that he who seeks to deceive will
> always find someone who will allow himself to be deceived.
> -- Machiavelli
>
>
>--
>John W. Kennedy
But, John: don't you have to be coherent to be a liar, pretender or dissembler?
I accept Richard Kennedy as an outright liar (though just barely) but it doesn't
seem to mwe that elizabeth is sane enough to be a true liar.
--Bob G.
Peter Groves
news:b4fkfa$dqd$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
Peter, see my response to Bob's post on this matter, which I wrote and
despatched before I came to yours. Peer-review is a necessary but (as I
know well, since my own research is somewhat unorthodox) a deeply flawed
procedure for filtering research that unavoidably tends to bolster and
defend existing approaches and paradigms. I'm heartily sick of being told
by an editor that retired Professor X or Y, who was locked into a
traditionalist model as an undergraduate, is now an "expert" in the field
and doesn't have a clue what I'm trying to do -- though I've also found that
with persistence I can argue my way past such gatekeepers by exposing to the
editors the flaws in their reasoning. Good luck with your article.
Peter G.
Bob Grumman
>right. You offer a fine definition of what it means to be scholarly (and
>one that automatically excludes all the Oxfordians I know of, but would, I
>think, admit Peter Farey), and what is it to be a scholar but to be
>scholarly? I was just attacking Lynne's notion that publishing any old
>"stuff" turned one into an instant authority on any other published stuff
>(which is what she seemed to be claiming with her jabber about "trade books"
>and children's stories).
>
>Peter G.
Good, Peter, it looks like we're on the same page again, where we HLAS males
need to be if we can expect to do well against Elizabeth and, now, Lynne.
Unless Rita finds the time to join us between the incredible drubbings she's
giving ol' Paul Crowley--without, of course, the least effect.
--Bob G.
John W. Kennedy
> In article <GlOaa.78601$gf7.17...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, "John says...
>>Elizabeth Weir wrote:
>>>I stubbornly resist the Post-Renaissance....
>>Indeed, at least one aspect of the Renaissance seems to be your watchword.
>> But it is necessary ... to be a great pretender and
>> dissembler; and men are so simple, and so subject to
>> present necessities, that he who seeks to deceive will
>> always find someone who will allow himself to be deceived.
>> -- Machiavelli
> But, John: don't you have to be coherent to be a liar, pretender or dissembler?
> I accept Richard Kennedy as an outright liar (though just barely) but it doesn't
> seem to mwe that elizabeth is sane enough to be a true liar.
Ah, but one needs to be coherent only to be a _successful_ liar.
Paul Crowley
> "Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote in message
> > My point, Kennedy, is that medievals didn't know the difference
> > between lies and truth.
>
> You learn something new from Elizabeth every day.
This is standard Strat stuff. They didn't know nor
care whether or not the Mediterranean had tides,
the Romans had clocks, ancient Egyptians had
billiards, Bohemia had a sea-coast and so on
and on. So Elizabeth is right (in Strat terms).
They could not tell the difference between truth
and falsity.
There is nothing new for Strats here. You share
your bed with Elizabeth.
Isn't that cosy?
Paul.
David Kathman
<Bob_m...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>> Well, perhaps I was just being a bit modest, something maybe unknown
>>> to some of you on this list.. I have a bachelor's degree in
>>> psychology, a master's degree in English, and a bachelor's degree in
>>> teaching with honours specialties in English and drama. I taught
>>> Shakespeare at the high school and university levels for going on 25
>>> years, and am a multi-award winning poet and children's and young
>>> adult author, with one book coming out this fall and three next year.
>>> So I do know a little of what I'm talking about, I hope, though I
>>> doubt you'd agree.
>>>
>>
>>No, you were right the first time. None of this makes your envious
>>calumniation of Shakespeare one whit more probable. A scholar (to save your
>>looking it up) publishes peer-reviewed research (and "peer" here doesn't
>>mean "fellow-Looney"). You might want to stick to childrens' fanstasy
>>literature: it would seem to be more your bent.
>>
>>Peter G.
>
>Gee Whiz, Peter, we were getting along so well, and now I'm arguing with you for
>the second time today! And, worse, defending Lynn. But I would claim
>that one could be a scholar and not publish peer-reviewed research, just as one
>can be a non-scholar and publish peer-reviewed research. I think a scholar is
>one who follows scholarly procedures. What those are I'm not all that clear on.
>Is there a good book or essay around that most scholars agree sums up what they
>do? My own loose definition is a person who identifies the sources he uses
Well, Charlton Ogburn Jr. identified the sources he used, but he
was about as far from scholarly as you can get. Lots of Oxfordians
seem to equate the existence of footnotes with scholarship, but
that's a very naive notion. Plenty of absolute claptrap has
been scrupulously footnoted.
>--and
>uses primary rather than secondary sources whenever possible,
That's a decent criterion, though not infallible. Most
antistrats do rely on secondary sources (usually ones at
least 50 years old), but it's possible to use primary
sources to construct fallacious and unscholarly arguments.
>accurately
>represents the majority of arguments for and against his position,
I don't think it's absolutely necessary to represent the
arguments against your position in order to do good
scholarly work. I guess it depends on what kind of
argument you're making.
>writes
>coherently,
Actually, I don't think clear or coherent writing is
either a necessary or sufficient element of good
scholarship, although it's nice to see. Some antistrats
are actually very good writers, which is how they're able
to make claptrap seem so persuasive to nonspecialists.
>reasons sanely,
This criterion, I agree with.
>clearly knows his subject (i.e., indicates
>familiarity with the books and other materials those in his field would expect
>him to be).
I also agree with this one.
>One can do all that and more and not be able to be
>peer-reviewed--as far as I can tell from personal experience, you need
>credentials to even be qualified to have your work go to any peers to be
>reviewed.
No, I think you're wrong on this, Bob. The vast majority of
people who submit papers to peer-reviewed journals are
academics, but it's not necessary to have academic credentials
in order to do so. Anyone can submit an article, and if it's
good enough, it will be accepted. Even if it's not accepted,
it will still be peer-reviewed and held to the same standards
as any other submission. I don't have "credentials" in the
sense of an academic position, but I've had papers accepted
by two peer-reviewed journals in the past few months, including
one of the leading journals in the field. I do have a Ph.D.,
but I'm pretty sure that had no bearing on the decision to
accept my papers.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Peter Farey
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > Peter Groves wrote:
> > >
> > > A scholar (to save your
> > > "peer" here doesn't mean "fellow-Looney").
> >
> > ation in a peer-reviewed journal. It was rejected. (A
> > pity, I think, since it contains indisputably accurate
> > information relevant to Marlowe's biography which has
> > ation, and which orthodox biographers therefore still
> > get wrong).
> >
> > Does this mean that its rejection proves I am still no
> > ance would have meant that I suddenly became one? Damn!
> > I was not angry ... Until this instant!
>
> I wrote and despatched before I came to yours.
Yes, I did see it. Thanks for making an exception of me!
I liked Bob's summary of the scholarly approach too.
> Peer-review is a necessary but (as I know well, since my
> own research is somewhat unorthodox) a deeply flawed
> procedure for filtering research that unavoidably tends
> to bolster and defend existing approaches and paradigms.
> I'm heartily sick of being told by an editor that retired
> Professor X or Y, who was locked into a traditionalist
> model as an undergraduate, is now an "expert" in the field
> and doesn't have a clue what I'm trying to do
Equally bad, in my experience, are those who know only too
well what you are trying to do, and don't like it! A good
example of this is an article I wrote a few years ago,
proposing a new framework for looking at leadership and
management, which (naturally) had to point out why I thought
that the current ones were no longer adequate. One of the
referees they chose was the author of a model of which I was
particularly critical, and whose book on the subject and
workshops based on it were still a nice little earner for
him. He really saw no need whatsoever for 'yet another model'
on the subject!
> -- though I've also found that with persistence I can
> argue my way past such gatekeepers by exposing to the
> editors the flaws in their reasoning.
That's what happened that time. The article was published
(and, incidentally, went down very well in Oz). It's still
on-line there, in fact -
http://www.360facilitated.com/pdfs/LeaderMgr.PDF
> Good luck with your article.
Thanks.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
>your bed with Elizabeth.
>
>Isn't that cosy?
>
>
>
>Paul.
90% of her thinking is identical to yours in style and conclusions, Paul; NONE
of it is identical to mine or any other Shakespeare-affirmer's. The idea that
the people of Shakespeare's time may have been ignorant of a few trivial points
of geography, just as I myself am, or might not have cared about trivial
geographical and like mistakes in plays is nothing nearly as idiotic, even if
wrong, as the idea that those people could not tell the difference between lies
and truth. You might note, also, Paul Streitz's opinion of academics. It seems
99.88% the same as yours. Why might that be, I wonder.
--Bob G.
Bob Grumman
>>the second time today! And, worse, defending Lynn. But I would claim
>>that one could be a scholar and not publish peer-reviewed research, just as one
>>can be a non-scholar and publish peer-reviewed research. I think a scholar is
>>one who follows scholarly procedures. What those are I'm not all that clear on.
>>Is there a good book or essay around that most scholars agree sums up what they
>>do? My own loose definition is a person who identifies the sources he uses
>
>Well, Charlton Ogburn Jr. identified the sources he used, but he
>was about as far from scholarly as you can get. Lots of Oxfordians
>seem to equate the existence of footnotes with scholarship, but
>that's a very naive notion. Plenty of absolute claptrap has
>been scrupulously footnoted.
Right, but accurate citation (which I'm lousy at) should be an aim of any
scholar, yes?
>>--and
>>uses primary rather than secondary sources whenever possible,
>
>That's a decent criterion, though not infallible. Most
>antistrats do rely on secondary sources (usually ones at
>least 50 years old), but it's possible to use primary
>sources to construct fallacious and unscholarly arguments.
Sure.
>>accurately
>>represents the majority of arguments for and against his position,
>
>I don't think it's absolutely necessary to represent the
>arguments against your position in order to do good
>scholarly work. I guess it depends on what kind of
>argument you're making.
Okay, how about represents, as much as possible, the significant arguments
against his position (if an argument is being presented)?
>>writes
>>coherently,
>
>Actually, I don't think clear or coherent writing is
>either a necessary or sufficient element of good
>scholarship, although it's nice to see.
But a scholar should aim for coherence.
>Some antistrats
>are actually very good writers, which is how they're able
>to make claptrap seem so persuasive to nonspecialists.
Maybe. I don't think Sobran, for instance, is much of a writer, though coherent
enough a sentence-maker. Ogburn was a terrible writer.
>>reasons sanely,
>
>This criterion, I agree with.
>
>>clearly knows his subject (i.e., indicates
>>familiarity with the books and other materials those in his field would expect
>>him to be).
>
>I also agree with this one.
Although, like all the other criteria, is isn't mandatory.
>>One can do all that and more and not be able to be
>>peer-reviewed--as far as I can tell from personal experience, you need
>>credentials to even be qualified to have your work go to any peers to be
>>reviewed.
>
>No, I think you're wrong on this, Bob. The vast majority of
>people who submit papers to peer-reviewed journals are
>academics, but it's not necessary to have academic credentials
>in order to do so. Anyone can submit an article, and if it's
>good enough, it will be accepted. Even if it's not accepted,
>it will still be peer-reviewed and held to the same standards
>as any other submission. I don't have "credentials" in the
>sense of an academic position, but I've had papers accepted
>by two peer-reviewed journals in the past few months, including
>one of the leading journals in the field. I do have a Ph.D.,
>but I'm pretty sure that had no bearing on the decision to
>accept my papers.
>
>Dave Kathman
Well, as I said, I'm basing my impression on my own (limited) experience--with,
yes, a really bigtime periodical, NATURE. When I queried them about submitting
a paper I wrote a long time ago on the neurophysiology of dreaming, I was told I
needed four or more recommendations from experts in the field before my paper
would be peer-reviewed. So I need something--whether "credentials" or something
else, I don't know--that would enable me to get four or more strangers to
recommend me to NATURE. If I were an academic, it'd be easy enough, I imagine.
If I had gone to grad school, I would also probably have networked sufficiently
to be able to get the recommendations, too. If I still lived in California
where I got my BA, it's possible a professor I had for a course in psychology
would help me, if he's still there. Maybe this is only the policy of NATURE
and/or similarly prestigious scholarly publications--and/or not true in the
humanities.
Anyway, my over-all point is that one can be a scholar (as I am not) and not
be able to get material into peer-reviewed publications.
--Bob G.
David L. Webb
"David Kathman" <dj...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
Some of them, at any rate...
> but he
> was about as far from scholarly as you can get. Lots of Oxfordians
> seem to equate the existence of footnotes with scholarship, but
> that's a very naive notion.
Indeed! In fact, some of the footnotes and side notes in some
Oxfordian books I have read rank among the funniest material in the
entire work. A footnote on page 6 of Mr. Streitz's book reads in part:
Hints in reading Elizabethan English: "I's" and "J's"
are interchangeable. "Iohn" would be "John." The Roman
numeral "viij" would be "viii." In addition, "y" can be
an "i" as in "Wyfe" or "yt." This book changes the
Elizabethan "f" as an "s" to the modern "s."
So much for paleography. Fearing that his recondite point may still
have eluded his readers, Mr. Streitz remarks on page 95:
"Note: 'i'='j' in these Roman numerals, so xvij is 27 [sic]."
Evidently Mr. Streitz's difficulties with Roman numerals transcend the
mere substitution of "j" for "i." (One marvels that Mr. Streitz did not
pursue this helpful explanation further and gloss "27" in a footnote as
"twenty-seven.") Another very helpful footnote reads in part:
"The feminine of a duke is a duchess, of a baron, a baroness,
and of a count, a countess. However, applying these French
feminine endings to an earl would produce an 'earl-ess', or
pronounced another way, an 'ear-less'. To avoid this
pronunciation problem, the wife of an earl is a countess,
despite the absence of actual counts."
There is also a very entertaining footnote concerning Oak Island, that
favorite of crackpots of all sorts, especially those obsessed with
Templar conspiracies and other Hermetic horse manure; in the text
itself, Mr. Streitz asks rhetorically whether Shakespeare's manuscripts
might be "buried in the tunnel on Oak Island, Nova Scotia." Of course,
Mr. Streitz's footnote concerning the putative inapplicability of the
Bernoulli Principle to aviation also affords a memorable comedic moment.
> Plenty of absolute claptrap has
> been scrupulously footnoted.
> >--and
> >uses primary rather than secondary sources whenever possible,
> That's a decent criterion, though not infallible. Most
> antistrats do rely on secondary sources (usually ones at
> least 50 years old), but it's possible to use primary
> sources to construct fallacious and unscholarly arguments.
Reckless disregard for source reliability seems to be a hallmark of
Oxfordian writing, but it's certainly possible also to base complete
nonsense upon unimpeachably reliable primary sources.
> >accurately
> >represents the majority of arguments for and against his position,
> I don't think it's absolutely necessary to represent the
> arguments against your position in order to do good
> scholarly work.
I agree. Of course, the strongest arguments will often be strongest
because they effectively refute all reasonable opposition, but this
doesn't strike me as a necessary condition for scholarship.
> I guess it depends on what kind of
> argument you're making.
> >writes
> >coherently,
> Actually, I don't think clear or coherent writing is
> either a necessary or sufficient element of good
> scholarship, although it's nice to see. Some antistrats
> are actually very good writers, which is how they're able
> to make claptrap seem so persuasive to nonspecialists.
Sobran is a case in point. At the other extreme, one finds Mr.
Streitz, about whose writing the less said the better.
> >reasons sanely,
> This criterion, I agree with.
> >clearly knows his subject (i.e., indicates
> >familiarity with the books and other materials those in his field would
> >expect
> >him to be).
> I also agree with this one.
This is perhaps one of the most conspicuous shortcomings of much
antistratfordian fare I have read. The inability to reason is another.
> >One can do all that and more and not be able to be
> >peer-reviewed--as far as I can tell from personal experience, you need
> >credentials to even be qualified to have your work go to any peers to be
> >reviewed.
> No, I think you're wrong on this, Bob. The vast majority of
> people who submit papers to peer-reviewed journals are
> academics, but it's not necessary to have academic credentials
> in order to do so. Anyone can submit an article, and if it's
> good enough, it will be accepted.
I agree. Bob may have in mind the publication of work like fiction
or poetry rather than scholarly research. Mathematics and science
journals routinely receive submissions from people with no institutional
affiliation and no scholarly credentials at all. Not surprisingly, many
of these submissions are incorrect crank papers that make no sense
whatever authored by people with no understanding of mathematics or
science, and so are speedily rejected; there are also papers that prove
results that, although the author is unaware of it, have been known for
a century or more, and these generally are not publishable unless the
proofs are new or innovative. However, there are also some correct and
interesting submissions from authors with no formal credentials, and
these do get published.
> Even if it's not accepted,
> it will still be peer-reviewed and held to the same standards
> as any other submission. I don't have "credentials" in the
> sense of an academic position, but I've had papers accepted
> by two peer-reviewed journals in the past few months, including
> one of the leading journals in the field. I do have a Ph.D.,
> but I'm pretty sure that had no bearing on the decision to
> accept my papers.
And there are certainly plenty of properly credentialed Ph.D.s with
soild academic affiliations who have trouble getting some of their work
published.
Most authors don't use titles in any case, and academic affiliation,
if any, is used purely for purposes of correspondence. When a journal
editor recieves a paper from an unknown author who lists an
institutional affiliation, generally the editor has no way of knowing
whether the author is a faculty member, a graduate student, an
undergraduate student, or someone on the staff of that institution, and
the editor or referee would not normally take the trouble to find out.
David L. Webb
Bob Grumman <Bob_m...@newsguy.com> wrote:
[...]
> >>One can do all that and more and not be able to be
> >>peer-reviewed--as far as I can tell from personal experience, you need
> >>credentials to even be qualified to have your work go to any peers to be
> >>reviewed.
> >No, I think you're wrong on this, Bob. The vast majority of
> >people who submit papers to peer-reviewed journals are
> >academics, but it's not necessary to have academic credentials
> >in order to do so. Anyone can submit an article, and if it's
> >good enough, it will be accepted. Even if it's not accepted,
> >it will still be peer-reviewed and held to the same standards
> >as any other submission. I don't have "credentials" in the
> >sense of an academic position, but I've had papers accepted
> >by two peer-reviewed journals in the past few months, including
> >one of the leading journals in the field. I do have a Ph.D.,
> >but I'm pretty sure that had no bearing on the decision to
> >accept my papers.
> >
> >Dave Kathman
> Well, as I said, I'm basing my impression on my own (limited)
> experience--with,
> yes, a really bigtime periodical, NATURE.
_Nature_?! Good grief! I think that you should consider the
possibility that you aimed too high in your choice of journal, Bob!
_Nature_ is not just any science journal. It normally publishes only
work regarded as especially timely and important. There are also huge
fields in science that one rarely if ever sees covered in _Nature_, so
you might want to see whether _Nature_ has ever published anything
camparable to your paper before submitting it there. The journal's
editorial policies are also nonstandard.
> When I queried them about
> submitting
> a paper I wrote a long time ago on the neurophysiology of dreaming, I was
> told I
> needed four or more recommendations from experts in the field before my paper
> would be peer-reviewed. So I need something--whether "credentials" or
> something
> else, I don't know--that would enable me to get four or more strangers to
> recommend me to NATURE.
No, you just need to photocopy a hundred copies or so of your paper
and send it out to professionals apt to take an interest in it. If
enough of them think it sufficiently important and interesting, they
could recommend it.
> If I were an academic, it'd be easy enough, I
> imagine.
No, it wouldn't, unless the paper were REALLY ground-breaking. It
isn't just a matter of sending your paper to a few friends and asking
them to recommend it to _Nature_.
> If I had gone to grad school, I would also probably have networked
> sufficiently
> to be able to get the recommendations, too.
It isn't a matter of "networking" either. In my experience,
virtually none of the people apt to referee your papers, grant
proposals, etc. are likely to be people you knew in graduate school.
Nor are the people whose papers, grant proposals, etc. you are asked to
referee likely to be graduate school acquaintances either.
> If I still lived in California
> where I got my BA, it's possible a professor I had for a course in psychology
> would help me, if he's still there.
You could always mail him a copy; if he's an expert in the specialty,
he could recommend it if he found it sufficiently interesting, and in
that case he might suggest other experts who would be interested as
well. Of course, he might also tell you flatly that it simply isn't
publishable -- but even in that case he might have suggestions for its
improvement. You can't expect just to send a manuscript to _Nature_ and
have it published automatically -- it takes judgment and persistence
(and of course the work must be original and worthwhile in the first
place).
> Maybe this is only the policy of NATURE
> and/or similarly prestigious scholarly publications--and/or not true in the
> humanities.
It's certainly not true of most journals in mathematics and the
physical sciences (in fact, I can't think of any). Of course, if one
sends a paper to one of the journals enjoying the highest prestige in
mathematics, one is apt to get a speedy rejection before the paper is
even carefully checked if an initial cursory reading by a reviewer
(someone of international stature in the pertinent specialty) doesn't
deem it interesting enough for the journal, regardless of whether or not
it is correct. Only if the results are REALLY interesting does someone
referee the paper carefully for correctness.
> Anyway, my over-all point is that one can be a scholar (as I am not) and not
> be able to get material into peer-reviewed publications.
I agree emphatically with Dave Kathman. If the material is genuinely
interesting, original, and correct, it is normally publishable. It may
not be publishable in _Nature_, but it should be publishable in a
peer-reviewed publication, provided its author uses reasonable judgment
in journal selection and takes seriously any recommendations that the
editor or referees may suggest. If it is rejected by one journal but
the referee doesn't pan it outright as incorrect or derivative, its
author should simply consider sending it to a less selective journal,
and should probably seek advice from someone with more experience in
choosing the appropriate venue for publication. For example, some
mathematics journals don't normally publish papers in, say, probability,
so if your paper is in that area, you would be wise to choose a
different journal; thus one must be familiar with the sort of work the
journal usually publishes. Also, one should consider the lag time
between date received and publication date -- some journals raise their
standards abruptly and reject papers that they would normally accept if
they have a huge backlog of papers accepted but not yet published.
Sometimes even really good, solid scientific papers by people of real
distinction get rejected two or three times before finally being
accepted for publication. Indeed, those beginning a career often get
the advice that if all their papers are routinely accepted the first
time, they are probably setting their sights too low; of course, if
their papers are getting rejected repeatedly (but with decent referee's
reports), then they are aiming too high.
KQKnave
L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> writes:
>
> No, you just need to photocopy a hundred copies or so of your paper
>and send it out to professionals apt to take an interest in it. If
>enough of them think it sufficiently important and interesting, they
>could recommend it.
>
Ah, I see. Send a few hundred copies out of your groundbreaking paper
so that they can steal your idea and publish something ahead of you.
Most people who publish send their papers to editors they know and
have worked with before. If Bob has something truly groundbreaking,
I suggest he buy his own publishing house.
See my demolition of Monsarrat's RES paper!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/monsarr1.html
The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Agent Jim
Greg Reynolds
> In article <david.l.webb-0119...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu>, "David
> L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> writes:
>
> >
> > No, you just need to photocopy a hundred copies or so of your paper
> >and send it out to professionals apt to take an interest in it. If
> >enough of them think it sufficiently important and interesting, they
> >could recommend it.
> >
>
> Ah, I see. Send a few hundred copies out of your groundbreaking paper
> so that they can steal your idea and publish something ahead of you.
> Most people who publish send their papers to editors they know and
> have worked with before. If Bob has something truly groundbreaking,
> I suggest he buy his own publishing house.
Isn't *The Runaway Spoon* already Bob's small press? I think he
was already in publishing before he went into wackherding.
David L. Webb
"John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> Bob Grumman wrote:
> > In article <GlOaa.78601$gf7.17...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net>, "John
> > says...
> >>Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> >>>I stubbornly resist the Post-Renaissance....
> >>Indeed, at least one aspect of the Renaissance seems to be your watchword.
>
> >> But it is necessary ... to be a great pretender and
> >> dissembler; and men are so simple, and so subject to
> >> present necessities, that he who seeks to deceive will
> >> always find someone who will allow himself to be deceived.
> >> -- Machiavelli
> > But, John: don't you have to be coherent to be a liar, pretender or
> > dissembler?
> > I accept Richard Kennedy as an outright liar (though just barely) but it
> > doesn't
> > seem to mwe that elizabeth is sane enough to be a true liar.
> Ah, but one needs to be coherent only to be a _successful_ liar.
True -- and Elizabeth gets caught every time she proclaims another of
her inventions as a fact, which is to say nearly every time she opens
her mouth. One would think that she would eventually LEARN something
from these humiliating contretemps, but perhaps I am overly naive, being
accustomed to interacting with those intelligent enough to be educable.
David L. Webb
kqk...@aol.comcrashed (KQKnave) wrote:
> In article <david.l.webb-0119...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu>,
> "David
> L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> writes:
>
> >
> > No, you just need to photocopy a hundred copies or so of your paper
> >and send it out to professionals apt to take an interest in it. If
> >enough of them think it sufficiently important and interesting, they
> >could recommend it.
> Ah, I see. Send a few hundred copies out of your groundbreaking paper
> so that they can steal your idea and publish something ahead of you.
No, because if you really DO send out 100 copies, then it will be
pretty hard for someone to steal your idea because so many others will
have seen your manuscript -- unless ALL 100 recipients are in on the
conspiracy.
> Most people who publish send their papers to editors they know and
> have worked with before.
I've rarely sent my papers to editors I really knew, esepcially at
first (indeed, that's rather natural at first, because then one doesn't
know anybody yet!), but rather to people whom I knew by reputation and
only later met. Most mathematicians I know have a fairly lengthy
mailing list of people to whom they pretty routinely send their papers,
depending upon the topic. If Bob has something worth publishing, he is
most likely to succeed in doing so by making his work known among people
whom it would interest.
> If Bob has something truly groundbreaking,
> I suggest he buy his own publishing house.
If Bob has something truly ground-breaking, he should be able, with
only modest effort, to interest appropriate experts in it, provided his
paper is sufficiently clearly written that they're actually inclined to
try to read it and think about it. Ground-breaking work that is slow to
get published is usually delayed because, as in the case of the work of
Galois, nobody can figure out what the author is saying initially.