Shakespeare Denial/Holocaust Denial: What's the difference?
Abdul Quinsutt
and if it isn�t, we�re lost in all kinds of ways.
We�re lost in the fields of Holocaust denial. We�re
lost in being able to compare what is good and what
is bad because we can�t agree what actually happened.
We�re lost when it comes to guarding minorities against
populist agitation. Nobody�s going to die from saying
Shakespeare wasn�t Shakespeare, but in other areas,
when the truth suffers, our decision making suffers.
When there is no authority to the truth, prejudices thrive."
Gary
Interesting link, Abdul, and possibly an interesting book.
Thanks for bringing it to the group's attention.
- Gary
Singanas@Texasgulfcoast
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Abdul
There is no historical reality among the functionally illiterate.
This is why Islam has been overrun by history. Being taught there
is nothing valid but the Quran is the same as being taught there is
nothing
valid but National Socialism and MEIN KAMPF. Islam can excel only at
killing Muslims. National Socialism excelled only at killing Jews.
Cheers, David H
~~~~~
art
there are many thousands of eye witness affidavits.
The written evidence for Shaksper is ambiguous at best and may fill a
couple of post-it notes and there is no physical evidence nor any eye
witness affidavit.
-----------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
ignoto
Let's take a look at the evidence for Lard Oxenfraud:
[page left intentionally blank]
Ign.
> Art Neuendorffer
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
me? (Pages 52-54 in the first edition of Shakespeare and the
Rigidniks: "The Direct Evidence Against Shakespeare" followed by a two-
and-a-half blank pages.
Well, okay, you didn't directly quote me, but I gotta take every
oppotunity to plug my book.
--Bob
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
There is undeniable eye-witness testimony for Shakespeare:
from Jonson, Heminges and Condell. There is much more
such evidence but it is not undeniably eye-witness testimony.
I agree that the monument is ambiguous since it only has his
name, date of birth and death and says what he wrote leave
living art and that he had the art of Virgil. Could easily have
been about some builder of outhouses named Finwick Poop
as about a writer named William Shakespeare. And nothing
that refers to Shakespeare by name can be considered
unambiguous unless it states his address and date of birth.
--Bob
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
as a summary of what conspiracy theories are out there.
My own book is much better on why smart people believe
in idiotically stupid conspiracy theories, but there is a
conspiracy keeping it out of circulation.
--Bob
William Black
"art" <acne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:213395c8-d0eb-4adf...@n33g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> The written evidence for Shaksper is ambiguous at best and may fill a
> couple of post-it notes and there is no physical evidence nor any eye
> witness affidavit.
Well, yes there is.
His name appears in the accounts of a theatre he part owned/managed and also
in the roll of players in at least two companies. Plus there's absolutely
no doubt at all that Ben Jonson both knew him and wrote about him.
That's about as much as you're going to get from a minor public figure in
that period.
--
William Black
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.
art
>
>> The clear physical evidence for the Holocaust fills whole museums and
>> there are many thousands of eye witness affidavits.
>
>> The written evidence for Shaksper is ambiguous at best and may fill a
>> couple of post-it notes and there is no physical evidence nor any eye
>> witness affidavit.
>> -----------------------------------------------------
>
> There is undeniable eye-witness testimony for Shakespeare:
> from Jonson, Heminges and Condell. There is much more
> such evidence but it is not undeniably eye-witness testimony.
Not as regards a "Shaksper" from Stratford-upon-Avon.
-------------------------------------------------------
13 people were burned at the stake on June 27, 1556
at STRATFORD atte Bowe [in London]. One of them:
.
_ "John Routh said, that he was convented
_ before the [16th] earle of Oxford,
_ and by him sent to the Castle of Colchester:"
------------------------------------------------------
<bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
> I agree that the monument is ambiguous since it only has his
> name, date of birth and death and says what he wrote leave
> living art and that he had the art of Virgil.
----------------------------------------------------------
. UNO VERE-VIR(G)IL *G* = 33rd letter (Masonic)
. NIL VERO-VERIU(S) *S* = 19th letter
. OUR EVER-LIVIN(G) *G* = 33rd letter (Masonic)
----------------------------------------------------------
<bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
> Could easily have
> been about some builder of outhouses named Finwick Poop
> as about a writer named William Shakespeare. And nothing
> that refers to Shakespeare by name can be considered
> unambiguous unless it states his address and date of birth.
His home, age or occupation would do nicely.
(Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.)
Art Neuendorffer
William Black
"art" <acne...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:b5a07486-ac42-422f-9c66-
>>
>> There is undeniable eye-witness testimony for Shakespeare:
>> from Jonson, Heminges and Condell. There is much more
>> such evidence but it is not undeniably eye-witness testimony.
>
> Not as regards a "Shaksper" from Stratford-upon-Avon.
Eh?
You mean it was some other bloke with the same name and background?
art
wrote:
> "art" <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:b5a07486-ac42-422f-9c66-
>
> >> There is undeniable eye-witness testimony for Shakespeare:
> >> from Jonson, Heminges and Condell. There is much more
> >> such evidence but it is not undeniably eye-witness testimony.
>
> > Not as regards a "Shaksper" from Stratford-upon-Avon.
>
> Eh?
>
> You mean it was some other bloke with the same name and background?
Some aristocrat with a different name & background?
-------------------------------------------------------
_November Boughs [1888]_ by Walt Whitman:
"Conceived out of the fullest heat and pulse
of European feudalism — only one of the 'wolfish earls'
so plenteous in the plays themselves,
or some born descendant and knower,
might seem to be the true author of those amazing works".
................................................
http://wwWhitmanwhitmanarchive.org/criticism/disciples/traubel/WWWiC/...
Walt Whitman[1888]: "I am firm against Shaksper—I mean the Avon man,
the actor: but as to Bacon, well, I don't knoWhitman If the theory be
true as Donnelly puts it, it will not be one of the fortunate or
savory exposures in literature: it will rather injure Bacon—for here
it is shown—I mean here in Donnelly's book—that slanders, flings,
hatreds, jealousies, constitute the staple of his motive in making the
plays. I may be reading the story the wrong way about but that's the
way it looks to me. But after all Shakespeare, the author Shakespeare,
whoever he was, was a great man: much was summed up in him—much
—yes, a whole age and more: he gave reflection to a certain social
estate
quite important enough to be studied: he was a master artist, in a way
— not in all ways, for he often fell down in his own wreckage: but
taking him for all in all he is one of the fixed figures—will always
have to be reckoned with. It is remarkable how little is known of
Shaksper the actor as a person and how much less is known of the
person Shakespeare of the plays. The record is almost a blank—it has
no substance whatsoever: scarcely anything that is said of him is
authorized. Did you ever notice—how much the law is involved with the
plays? Long before I heard of any cryptogram I had myself been
conscious of the phrases, any characteristic turns, the sure touch,
the invisible potent hand, of the lawyer—of a lawyer, yes: not a mere
attorney-at-law but a mind capable of taking the law in its largest
scope, penetrating even its origins: not a pettifogger, perhaps even
technically in its detail defective—but a big intellect of great
grasp. Now, I have talked a good bit about a thing I know nothing
about. I go with you fellows when you say no to Shaksper: that's
about as far as I have got. As to Bacon—well, we'll see, we'll see."
................................................
http://wwWhitmanwhitmanarchive.org/criticism/disciples/traubel/WWWiC/...
Walt Whitman[1888]: "It is my final belief that the Shakespearean
plays were written by another hand than Shaksper's—I don't say whose
that other hand was—but I am confident it was another hand." Kennedy
asked: "Why is it necessary to infer the other hand?" To which Whitman
answered: "It is not necessary to infer it: I infer it: that's all
there is to it, to me. Donnelly's book has only served to confirm—to
bring to a head—certain ideas which have long lain there in my mind
nebulously—half formed—though the cipher argument, attaching the
authorship to Bacon, is by no means so convincing. You see, I am much
less sure for Bacon than I am sure against Shaksper." Whitman
discussed with Harned some legal features involved in the plays. "I
know it is said that that legal knowledge is very faulty, imperfect.
Suppose it is—grant it: still, it is there: the legal phrase: the
legal habit, atmosphere, what not. I am more and more amazed at the
little verity we can attach to the man, the player, the Stratford
Shaksper. There is much in the plays that is offensive to me, anyhow:
yes, in all the plays of that period: a grandiose sweep of expression:
forced, false, phrasing: much of it, much of it: indeed, I find myself
often laughing over its sophistications."
................................................
http://wwWhitmanwhitmanarchive.org/criticism/disciples/traubel/WWWiC/...
Walt Whitman[1888]: "While I am not yet ready to say Bacon I am
decidedly unwilling to say Shaksper. I do not seem to have any
patience with the Shaksper argument: it is all gone for me—all up
the spout. The Shaksper case is about closed. That's enough
for me—I'm too tired to go any further."
-------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
elizabeth
It's immoral to compare The Holocaust to the
Shakespeare authorship question.
And the claim that "when there is no authority to
the truth prejudices thrive" is itself authoritarian.
By the way, Abdul Quinsutt, your name reminds me
of the name of one of our irregular posters, Algernon
Nuttsack.
I'm sure Art will agree since the names Quinsutt,
Nuttsakk and Webb all possess double consonants.
art
>
>> "The search for the truth is an important search,
>> and if it isn’t, we’re lost in all kinds of ways.
>> We’re lost in the fields of Holocaust denial. We’re
>> lost in being able to compare what is good and what
>> is bad because we can’t agree what actually happened.
>> We’re lost when it comes to guarding minorities against
>> populist agitation. Nobody’s going to die from saying
>> Shakespeare wasn’t Shakespeare, but in other areas,
>> when the truth suffers, our decision making suffers.
>> When there is no authority to the truth, prejudices thrive."
>
>>http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2010/02/03/david_aaronovitch_consp...
elizabeth <messageform...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> It's immoral to compare The Holocaust to the
> Shakespeare authorship question.
>
> And the claim that "when there is no authority to
> the truth prejudices thrive" is itself authoritarian.
>
> By the way, Abdul Quinsutt, your name reminds me
> of the name of one of our irregular posters, Algernon
> Nuttsack.
>
> I'm sure Art will agree since the names Quinsutt,
> Nuttsakk and Webb all possess double consonants.
It's immoral to compare Webb to the Quinsutt & Nuttsakk;
the latter two have far higher moral standards than Webb.
Art Neuendorffer
Robin G.
> It's immoral to compare The Holocaust to the
> Shakespeare authorship question.
Well-known Oxfordian, JOSEPH SOBRAN is a Holocaust denier! Of course,
Oxfordians want to keep this fact a big fat secret!
Algernon H. Nuttsakk
elizabeth <messageform...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It's immoral to compare The Holocaust to the
> Shakespeare authorship question.
>
> And the claim that "when there is no authority to
> the truth prejudices thrive" is itself authoritarian.
>
> By the way, Abdul Quinsutt, your name reminds me
> of the name of one of our irregular posters, Algernon
> Nuttsack.
>
> I'm sure Art will agree since the names Quinsutt,
> Nuttsakk and Webb all possess double consonants.
I'm flattered, madame, that you believe only a
university professor could have the insight
necessary to pen my posts, but I can assure
you that I am merely me. My heartfelt sympathies
are with Mr. Baker, although I cannot help but
feel that his delusions concerning Marlowe
were part of his undoing. An uncouth, dice-playing,
atheistic ruffian such as Marlowe could not
possibly have written the works of Shakespeare,
and such thoughts certainly played a role in
the imbalance of the mind which led to Mr. Baker's
criminal trespass. Perhaps he went so far
that he began to identify himself with Marlowe,
and felt himself invincible. In any event,
the author was certainly neither Marlowe
nor that shit-licking fart collector Shakshat,
he could only have been the mighty Earl of
Oxford. I would elaborate, but I have little
time, as my mother-in-law (or, "the hair-brained
c---", as I like to call her) is visiting.
AHN
art
>
> Well-known Oxfordian, JOSEPH SOBRAN is a Holocaust denier!
> Of course, Oxfordians want to keep this fact a big fat secret!
I see no indication that Sobran is a Holocaust denier;
he is rather a denier of Israel as it currently exists.
Jimmy Carter is also a denier of Israel as it currently exists;
that doesn't make Carter a Holocaust denier.
-------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> It's immoral to compare The Holocaust
You mean "houlocaust denial," surely.
> to the Shakespeare authorship question.
Morality has nothing to do with the search for truth, Elizabeth.
Shakespeare-denial and Holocaust-denial have certain things
in common. Each has more in common with the other than
either has with Shakespeare-affirmation. These are facts.
Live with it.
> And the claim that "when there is no authority to
> the truth prejudices thrive" is itself authoritarian.
Not really. An "authority to the truth" could simply
be the widespread belief that rationality is valid or
the like. I would agree, though, that there is a lean
toward authoritarianism in the expression.
--Bob G.
William Black
On Feb 7, 12:30 pm, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk>
wrote:
> "art" <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:b5a07486-ac42-422f-9c66-
>
> >> There is undeniable eye-witness testimony for Shakespeare:
> >> from Jonson, Heminges and Condell. There is much more
> >> such evidence but it is not undeniably eye-witness testimony.
>
> > Not as regards a "Shaksper" from Stratford-upon-Avon.
>
> Eh?
>
> You mean it was some other bloke with the same name and background?
Some aristocrat with a different name & background?
-----------------------
Your denial of the ability of a common man to write the text says more
about you and your source than about the man who wrote the text.
Paul J Gans
>"art" <acne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:ca5f96d7-96a1-4a92...@p6g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>On Feb 7, 12:30 pm, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk>
>wrote:
>> "art" <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:b5a07486-ac42-422f-9c66-
>>
>> >> There is undeniable eye-witness testimony for Shakespeare:
>> >> from Jonson, Heminges and Condell. There is much more
>> >> such evidence but it is not undeniably eye-witness testimony.
>>
>> > Not as regards a "Shaksper" from Stratford-upon-Avon.
>>
>> Eh?
>>
>> You mean it was some other bloke with the same name and background?
>Some aristocrat with a different name & background?
>-----------------------
>Your denial of the ability of a common man to write the text says more
>about you and your source than about the man who wrote the text.
Yup.
Furthermore, we know that Shakespeare attended school (I forget
which one) in Stratford-on-Avon and we know what their curriculum
included. He would have had some latin and a bit of greek and
read books that included the themes for several of his plays.
Shakespeare's father was a person of some importance in Statford,
holding a number of responsible positions in the town.
There is the silly feeling that there was no education of townsmen
in Shakespeare's day. In fact, it was basically impossible to
conduct any sort of business in the later middle ages without
some education. Can one seriously imaging a merchant who could
not read, write, or do sums?
--
--- Paul J. Gans
lackpurity
MM:
Do you want history to apologize to you? There is even less evidence
for the absurd Anti-Stratfordian fantasies. History fades out or gets
blurred with the passage of time. That is not William Shakespeare's
fault. They didn't even understand him, when he was alive. Despite
all that, he is second to Jesus Christ in popularity, I believe.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
>
> - Show quoted text -
MM:
Yes, the hypocrisy is amazing, Ignoto.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
wrote:
> In article <6491be64-f65e-4f04-af37-ff6e8fab4...@k2g2000pro.googlegroups.com>
MM:
Great Mystics are loving, tender-hearted, and compassionate. Your
description of Marlowe is absurd. Shakespeare's sonnets and the canon
indicate his love, for human beings, and for Gods and Goddesses. If
we don't understand the teachings of the Great Mystics, it is our
fault, IMO, and not theirs.
Michael Martin
La Mouse
No, actually we don't, Robin. I've been very open about it when asked.
Most of us will have nothing whatsoever to do with him. The
Shakespeare Fellowship has never invited him to speak, and I can't see
us ever doing so. Although he has never professed that the Holocaust
never happened, it is easy to see where his sympathies lie. His
articles show him to be both a Jew hater and Gay hater. I find his
opinions execrable.
But of course, there are many more non-Oxfordians than Oxfordians who
are Holocaust Deniers. So it's rather silly to tie Holocaust Deniers
to Oxfordians, some of whom are Jewish.
Mouse the Jewish Oxfordian
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> > art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> The clear physical evidence for the Holocaust fills whole museums and
> >> there are many thousands of eye witness affidavits.
>
> >> The written evidence for Shaksper is ambiguous at best and may fill a
> >> couple of post-it notes and there is no physical evidence nor any eye
> >> witness affidavit.
> >> -----------------------------------------------------
> <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
> > There is undeniable eye-witness testimony for Shakespeare:
> > from Jonson, Heminges and Condell. There is much more
> > such evidence but it is not undeniably eye-witness testimony.
>
> Not as regards a "Shaksper" from Stratford-upon-Avon.
Yes, because Heminges and Condell are recorded as knowing Will
Shakespeare, and Will Shakespeare of Stratford is recorded as leaving
those two money in his will for rings. The Herald's Office has a
record in which someone there described a "Shakespeare" whose coat of
arms was the same as Will Shakespeare of Stratford's as an actor; no
other actor is known to have had that name. Heminges signed something
concerning a property Shakespeare of Stratford bought (the Blackfriars
Gatehouse). It is insane to doubt that Heminges and Condell did not
personally know Shakespeare of Stratford as their fellow actor. Hence
their testimony is undeniably eye-witness testimony.
Jonson referred to Shakespeare's address, Stratford, and spoke of him
as an actor, and friend of Heminges and Condell (when he spoke of the
actors who said SHakespeare never blotted a line, as H&C did in one of
their Folio prefaces). He therefore also clearly knew him as the
actor from Stratford, as Oxford was not. He also knew him as the man
depicted by Droeshout, which is clearly the same man as the one
depicted on the monument to the Shakespeare of Stratford born in
1564. Jonson undeniably knew Will Shakespeare of Stratford as a
writer.
Leonard Digges almost certainly knew him, too. Meres probably knew
him, as did Davies.
Your only out is to claim all these men were liars. Or that the
illiterate Shakespeare somehow folled these actors and men of letters
into beliving he was a wold-class playwright.
Note to one of my fellows in this thread: we do not know for a fact
that Shakespeare attended his hometown grammar school, we only know he
very probably did.
--Bob
lackpurity
MM:
The denial of truth seems to be the common alleged factor. Those who
deny the truth in one category might be inclined to deny it in other
categories.
Michael Martin
art
>
>>>> The clear physical evidence for the Holocaust fills whole museums
>>>> and there are many thousands of eye witness affidavits.
>
>>>> The written evidence for Shaksper is ambiguous at best and may
>>>> fill a couple of post-it notes and there is no physical
>>>> evidence nor any eye witness affidavit.
>>>> -----------------------------------------------------
>> <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
>>> There is undeniable eye-witness testimony for Shakespeare:
>>> from Jonson, Heminges and Condell. There is much more
>>> such evidence but it is not undeniably eye-witness testimony.
art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Not as regards a "Shaksper" from Stratford-upon-Avon.
<bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
> Yes, because Heminges and Condell are recorded as knowing Will
> Shakespeare, and Will Shakespeare of Stratford is recorded as leaving
> those two money in his will for rings. The Herald's Office has a
> record in which someone there described a "Shakespeare" whose coat of
> arms was the same as Will Shakespeare of Stratford's as an actor; no
> other actor is known to have had that name. Heminges signed something
> concerning a property Shakespeare of Stratford bought (the Blackfriars
> Gatehouse). It is insane to doubt that Heminges and Condell did not
> personally know Shakespeare of Stratford as their fellow actor.
> Hence their testimony is undeniably eye-witness testimony.
Many Stratfordian scholars admit that Ben Jonson
wrote the Heminges and Condell Folio dedication.
Heminges and Condell have nothing to say about the author
Shake-speare except for the piece they didn't write for the Folio.
<bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
> Jonson referred to Shakespeare's address, Stratford, and spoke of him
> as an actor, and friend of Heminges and Condell (when he spoke of the
> actors who said SHakespeare never blotted a line, as H&C did in one
> of their Folio prefaces). He therefore also clearly knew him
> as the actor from Stratford, as Oxford was not.
-------------------------------------------------------
13 people were burned at the stake on June 27, 1556
at STRATFORD atte Bowe [in London]. One of them:
.
_ "John Routh said, that he was convented
_ before the [16th] earle of Oxford,
_ and by him sent to the Castle of Colchester:"
-----------------------------------------------------
<bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
> He also knew him as the man
> depicted by Droeshout, which is clearly the same man as the one
> depicted on the monument to the Shakespeare of Stratford born
> in 1564. Jonson undeniably knew Will Shakespeare of Stratford
> as a writer.
Jonson (i.e., Bacon) & Shake-speare (i.e., Bacon) were cousins.
-------------------------------------------------------
Quintilian characterizes *HERODOTUS* as
___ " *SWEET* and clear and diffuse"
___ " *DULCIS et candidus et fuSUS* "
...................................................
______________*DROESHOUT*
______________ {anagram}
______________*HERODOTUS*
...................................................
Cicero: "For what was *SWEETER THAN HERODOTUS* .”
___ *Quid enim aut *HERODOTO DULCIUS*
------------------------------------------------------
A CABINET OF GEMS, FROM BEN JONSON'S DISCOVERIES:
*POEsy* — A *DULCET* and gentle philosophy,
which leads on and guides us by the hand to action,
with a ravishing delight, and incredible *SWEETNESS* .
Dio Chrysostom commends *HERODOTUS'S*
" free and leisurely movement and *SWEETNESS* ";
---------------------------------------------------------
. The *DROESHOUT/HERODOTUS* anagram,
. and the DROESHOUT portrait
. (with its 'two left shoulders' & 'two right eyes')
.
represent a SPARAGMOS of Southampton & Oxford portraits:
--------------------------------------------------------
_____ S O U T H A M P T O N : *DULCET*
______ S
______- I
______ R
______- I
______ S
......................................................
______ M
______ A
____ D R O E S H O U T : *SCULPSIT*
______ T
______- I
______ N
......................................................
_ MARTIN DROESHOUT(HERODOTUS) Jr. was baptized on
_ April 26, 1601 => 37 years after Shakspere.
_ _ _ (Raphael's age at death)
-------------------------------------------------------
. (1939) Encyclopedia Britannica on "Drama"
.
. *HERODOTUS* had a lot to say
. about TRAGEDY (i.e., a goat-song) being
. a *PATHOS* (i.e., the violent death of Dionysus/Osiris
. by *SPARAGMOS* or dismemberment):
.
<< we have the express testimony of *HERODOTUS* that the ritual
worship of Dionysus (the god of Drama) was the same as the ritual
. worship of Osiris such that it involved a *SPARAGMOS*
(dismemberment), mourning, search, discovery & resurrection.>>
.
. However, *HERODOTUS* avoided directly mentioning
. Dionysus OR *OSIRIS* in this regard:
.
. "When the Egyptians lament the god
. whom I may not name in this connection"
"They lament but whom they lament I must not say" -- HERODOTUS
.
For in the manner of ancient religion, it was always necessary
that Dionysus or *OSIRIS* be represented by some surrogate.
.
In fact, ALL TRAGIC HEROS are simply surrogates of *Dionysus/OSIRIS*:
.
<<We find a frequent sparagmos of beings who have committed some sin:
.
. [A]ctaeon by hounds
. [D]irce by a bull
. [O]rpheus by Maenads
. [L]ycurgus by horses
. [P]entheus by Maenads
. [H]YPPOLYTUS by horses
.
This use of a surrogate was made easier by the fact that both at
Eleusis & in the Osiris rite the myth was conveyed by *tableaux*
. (i.e., 'things shown') rather than by words.
.
. Thus the death of Pentheus, wearing Dionysiac dress,
would be shown by exactly the same tableau as that of Dionysus.
.
. THE TRUTH COULD BE SHOWN TO THE WISE
. AND AT THE SAME TIME *VEILED FROM THE UNKNOWING*
.
. Such facts help to explain the charge of
. "profaning the mysteries" brought against Aeschylus.>>
.
. - 'Drama' in (1939) _Encyclopedia Britannica_
.........................................................
___ Saint [ADOLPH] , OSB Abbot : June 17
.
<<Died c. 680. The relics of the noble Saxon, Saint Adolph,
together with those of his brother of Saint *BOTOLPH* , were
translated to Thorney Abbey by Saint Ethelwold about 972.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------
. HERODOTUS & Myth
http://www.usask.ca/antharch/cnea/CourseNotes/HdtNotes.html
.
<<HERODOTUS' use of myth is quite cunning, at times seeming to
translate specific literary genres into the medium of prose "history."
.
Many have noted, e.g., that the story of Croesus' son *ATYS* has
been developed along lines that directly recall the practices of
the Greek tragedians. This is even more interesting when we consider:
.
. (1) that an ancient tradition held that HERODOTUS was
. a friend of Sophocles, the famous tragic playwright;
.
. (2) that he & Sophocles sound similar themes in their works.
.
Like Chaucer, HERODOTUS presents us with a narrator who
at times seems incredibly naive, even *ABSURD* , but there
is evidence that, like Chaucer, a cunning intelligence
lies beneath that humble facade.>>
---------------------------------------------------------
<bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
> Leonard Digges almost certainly knew him, too.
> Meres probably knew him, as did Davies.
Almost certainly...probably...without a doubt....
> Your only out is to claim all these men were liars.
My claim is that all these "eye witnesses" are fictitious.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
__ FRANCIS BACON • ESSAYS • Of Truth
<<Montaigne saith prettily, when he inquired the reason,
why the word of the lie should be such a disgrace, and such
an odious charge? Saith he, If it be well weighed, to say that a
man lieth, is as much to say, as that he is brave towards God, and a
coward towards men. For a lie faces God, and shrinks from man. Surely
the wickedness of falsehood, and breach of faith, cannot possibly be
so highly expressed, as in that it shall be the last peal, to call
the judgments of God upon the generations of men; it being foretold,
that when Christ cometh, he shall not find faith upon the earth.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Paul Crowley
>>> There is undeniable eye-witness testimony for Shakespeare:
>>> from Jonson, Heminges and Condell. There is much more
>>> such evidence but it is not undeniably eye-witness testimony.
>>
>> Not as regards a "Shaksper" from Stratford-upon-Avon.
>
> Yes, because Heminges and Condell are recorded as
> knowing Will Shakespeare,
. . in the Stratman's will.
> and Will Shakespeare of
> Stratford is recorded as leaving those two money in
> his will for rings. The Herald's Office has a record in
> which someone there described a "Shakespeare"
> whose coat of arms was the same as Will
> Shakespeare of Stratford's as an actor;
That there was a Shagsber from Stratford,
who was, rarely, mistaken for an actor, and
who was put forward, in some vague way
and at some times, as the playwright, is
beyond doubt.
The question is whether or not he was
the playwright.
> no other actor
> is known to have had that name. Heminges signed
> something concerning a property Shakespeare of
> Stratford bought (the Blackfriars Gatehouse). It is
> insane to doubt that Heminges and Condell did not
> personally know Shakespeare of Stratford as their
> fellow actor. Hence their testimony is undeniably
> eye-witness testimony.
Eh? What 'testimony'?
> Jonson referred to Shakespeare's address, Stratford,
There are many Stratfords.
> and spoke of him as an actor
Nonsense.
> , and friend of Heminges
> and Condell (when he spoke of the actors
Eh? What are you on about?
> who said SHakespeare never blotted a line
He meant that the scripts the actors received
were in good order. Being Jonson, he probably
meant a few other things as well.
> as H&C did in one of their Folio prefaces).
Jonson is thought by many (including the
academic 'scholars') as being the author
of those prefaces.
> He therefore also clearly knew him as the actor from
> Stratford,
He therefore clearly (if ambiguously)
gave that impression.
> He also knew him as the man depicted by
> Droeshout, which is clearly the same man
The (very carefully drawn) Droeshout
shows a creature that only vaguely
resembles a human being -- but which
could never have existed. It is
manifestly a joke.
> as the one depicted on the monument
The 'pork butcher' shows no similarity
to the Droeshout.
> to the Shakespeare of Stratford born in 1564.
The 'pork butcher' was probably an
'improvement' made decades or
centuries later.
> Jonson undeniably knew Will Shakespeare of Stratford
> as a writer.
He undeniably knew what was going on,
and that the Stratford illiterate was a
stooge.
> Leonard Digges almost certainly knew him, too.
Probably not.
> Meres probably knew him, as did Davies.
Most unlikely.
> Your only out is to claim all these men were liars.
Your 'out' is to distort almost everything..
> Or that the illiterate Shakespeare somehow folled
> these actors and men of letters into beliving he was a
> wold-class playwright.
A lot of fools have been quite
deliberately mislead.
> Note to one of my fellows in this thread: we do not
> know for a fact that Shakespeare attended his
> hometown grammar school, we only know he very
> probably did.
Since he had illiterate parents, an
illiterate wife, illiterate children, and
an illiterate 'signature', he probably
didn't.
Paul.
John W Kennedy
> Furthermore, we know that Shakespeare attended school (I forget
We do not, strictly speaking, know that. Given that his father was an
alderman and that King Edward VI's School was free, it is
overwhelmingly likely that young Shakespeare attended, but we have no
direct evidence one way or the other, as we have no student records,
and attendance was not mandatory.
--
John W Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
I've repeate dthe information enough.
--Bob
book...@yahoo.com
<jwke...@optonline.net> wrote:
>On 2010-02-08 12:03:21 -0500, Paul J Gans said:
>> Furthermore, we know that Shakespeare attended school (I forget
>> which one) in Stratford-on-Avon....
>
>We do not, strictly speaking, know that. Given that his father was an
>alderman and that King Edward VI's School was free, it is
>overwhelmingly likely that young Shakespeare attended, but we have no
>direct evidence one way or the other, as we have no student records,
>and attendance was not mandatory.
----------------
Of course, with no records of school attendance in evidence, naysayers
conclude what they like. But here's an example fetched from the
Internet that makes bold to surmise what was the case.
From http://quazen.com/arts/art-history/elizabethan-art/
(quote)
For young Elizabethan boys, their education began at a Petty School
which they attended for the ages of five to seven. This schooling
however, usually happened in the household of the instructor or adult.
It was called Petty school due to the fact that classes were
diminutive and there were very not many teachers. The tutor was
usually a well educated house wife who worked for a small fee. In this
school, the main objectives for students were to learn how to properly
read and write English. Also, the students learned Catechism from
books that taught the many aspects of the Christian faith. Along with
this, the pupils learned behavior and how to use proper etiquette.
This included things such as the respect for elders and the right
table manners. This was mainly taught from the book Hugh Rhode�s Book
of Nurture (1557). The students were forced to memorize certain
passages that told about being a good Christian.
One of the main tools used by the professors in Elizabethan England
was the object called the Horn Book. The Horn Book was a piece of
parchment that was pasted to a small wooden board with a handle.
Covering the paper was a thin, transparent sheet of horn. The Horn
Book was the key to learning the basic reading and writing skills that
were needed in life at the time. The best qualities about the Horn
Book were that it was inexpensive and highly durable. This meant that
even the poorest teachers could afford one for their students in order
to receive a suitable education. Displayed on the parchment was Lord�s
Prayer which was there for students to memorize and recite. Along with
this, was the alphabet in both capital and lower case letters. The
alphabet in the time of Elizabethan England however is slightly
different than the one used today. (In the alphabet there were twenty-
four letters. This was because u and v were the same letters, and the
same went for i and j. Also, the y sound in words was written as th
and numbers were written in lower case roman numerals.)
After most young boys were done with Petty School, they attended
Grammar school usually from the ages of seven to fourteen. The grammar
school was mostly for children of lower standing and a small section
of the upper class. The schooling and education for most students was
mostly if not all financed by the local guild. In their early years at
the Grammar school, the boys were taught the seniors at the school
known as Ushers. The students first learned the roots and origins of
Latin for the book, Lily�s Latin Grammar. This was a book compiled by
William Lily and was one of the sole Latin grammar books of the time.
In their first year at the school the pupils learned the usage of
parts of speech, verbs, and nouns. In the next year at the institute,
students were taught the construction and formation of different
sentences. In the third year, English to Latin and Latin to English
translations were a big part of the school�s education. Hand writing
and penmanship was taught by a temporary traveling scrivener who was
at the school for a few weeks out of the year.
When the boys finally reached age ten, they advance from regular
Grammar school to the Master Grammar School. The main grammar school
where boys studied at the master level was called King Henry IV
Grammar School located in Stratford. Here, students were taught by
more experienced masters and study the works of classical authors and
dramatists. These were authors such as Ovid, Plautus, Horace, Virgil,
Cicero, and Seneca. The works of Caesar, Sallust, and Livy were all
studied because of the moral examples that they presented to the
students. Greek was studied only very little because it was difficult
to type, and only certain teacher had enough experience to teach it.
The teachers in the school, masters, were paid �10 a year while the
headmaster was paid around �40 a year. (snip)
(unquote)
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> >>> from Jonson, Heminges and Condell. There is much more
> >>> such evidence but it is not undeniably eye-witness testimony.
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Not as regards a "Shaksper" from Stratford-upon-Avon.
> <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote:
>
> > Yes, because Heminges and Condell are recorded as knowing Will
> > Shakespeare, and Will Shakespeare of Stratford is recorded as leaving
> > those two money in his will for rings. The Herald's Office has a
> > record in which someone there described a "Shakespeare" whose coat of
> > arms was the same as Will Shakespeare of Stratford's as an actor; no
> > other actor is known to have had that name. Heminges signed something
> > concerning a property Shakespeare of Stratford bought (the Blackfriars
> > Gatehouse). It is insane to doubt that Heminges and Condell did not
> > personally know Shakespeare of Stratford as their fellow actor.
> > Hence their testimony is undeniably eye-witness testimony.
>
> Many Stratfordian scholars admit that Ben Jonson
> wrote the Heminges and Condell Folio dedication.
Some scholars believe Jonson wrote the prefaces Heminges and Condell
put
their names to, indicating that they accepted it as voicing what they
believed. In short, they as good as wrote it. They supplied some of
the information Jonson used, if he wrote it.
> Heminges and Condell have nothing to say about the author
> Shake-speare except for the piece they didn't write for the Folio.
Heminges signed as witness (or in some capacity) the deed to the
Blackfriars Gatehouse when Shakespeare bought it. He appears on lists
of actors with
Shakespeare, and was left money by Shakespeare. He was undeniably a
friend of
Shakespeare, and other evidence says he was a fellow of the writer,
Shakespeare.
Since both the writer and the Stratford bumpkin had the same name.
Occam tells us we should consider that Heminges knew one Will
Shakespeare who was an actor in his company and a playwright and a
Stratford man. So does the fact that there is no evidence there were
two Shakespeares, and we should expect some if one were an actor in a
company doing plays by the other.
The idea that two long-term actors in Shakespeare's plays, one the
business manager of the troupe, could not have written the prefaces is
ridiculous.
--Bob
William Black
"Paul J Gans" <gan...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:hkpg4p$889$3...@reader2.panix.com...
> In alt.history.british William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>"art" <acne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:ca5f96d7-96a1-4a92...@p6g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>>On Feb 7, 12:30 pm, "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk>
>>wrote:
>>> "art" <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:b5a07486-ac42-422f-9c66-
>>>
>>> >> There is undeniable eye-witness testimony for Shakespeare:
>>> >> from Jonson, Heminges and Condell. There is much more
>>> >> such evidence but it is not undeniably eye-witness testimony.
>>>
>>> > Not as regards a "Shaksper" from Stratford-upon-Avon.
>>>
>>> Eh?
>>>
>>> You mean it was some other bloke with the same name and background?
>
>>Some aristocrat with a different name & background?
>
>>-----------------------
>
>>Your denial of the ability of a common man to write the text says more
>>about you and your source than about the man who wrote the text.
>
> Yup.
>
> Furthermore, we know that Shakespeare attended school (I forget
> which one) in Stratford-on-Avon
Stratford Grammar School.
It still exists...
Robin G.
Gee, I would think Sobran would be at the heart of the Oxfordian
movement given he appears in the famous April 1999 Harper's along with
Daniel Wright, Mark K. Anderson, and Richard F. Whalen. Also, in the
Bookstore section of the Shakespeare Oxford Society website, the
second book listed, after Mark Anderson's "Shakespeare By Another
Name," is Alias Shakespeare by Joseph Sobran. The site also features
Sobran's review of Alan Nelson's book. Is this an example of hate the
man, but love is scholarship? Strange bedfellows indeed!
These days, I'd tie Oxfordians to the intelligent design crowd, the
Birthers, and the Tea Party movement.
art
> Stratford Grammar School.
>
> It still exists...
Only by the skin of its desks:
http://www.great-britain.co.uk/regions/central/stratford_-grammar_school.jpg
[Let] my name be buried where my [student] body is,
And live no more to shame nor me nor you.
-------------------------------------------
*WHITTLE*. A knife. (Anglo-Saxon kwytel, a knife; hWAT, sharp or
keen.)
"He wore a Sheffield *WHITTLE* in his hose." Betterton.
"Walter de Aldeham holds land of the king in the More, in the county
of Salop, by the service of paying to the king yearly at his exchequer
two knives [*WHITTLES*], whereof one ought to be of that value or
goodness that at the first stroke it would cut ASUNDERr in the middle
a hasle-rod of a year's growth, and of the length of a cubit, which
service ought to be ... on the morrow of St. Michael ... The said
knives [*WHITTLES*] to be DEliVERED to the chamberlain to keep for the
king's use."- Blount: Ancient Tenures.
------------------------------------------------------
. Timon of Athens > Act V, scene I
.
TIMON: In pity of our aged and our youth,
. I cannot choose but tell him, that I care not,
. And let him take't at *WORST* ; for their knives care not,
. While you have throats to answer: for myself,
. There's not a *WHITTLE* in the unruly camp
. But I do prize it at my love before
. The rEVEREnD'st throat in Athens.
------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
William Black
> "William Black" <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Stratford Grammar School.
>>
>> It still exists...
>
> Only by the skin of its desks:
>
> http://www.great-britain.co.uk/regions/central/stratford_-grammar_school.jpg
That's the old grammar school building.
Most of them are now museums, although mine is now a teacher's centre...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_Edward_VI_School_Stratford-upon-Avon
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
>
I sure wouldn't. Then again, I have a lot of sympathy with the Tea
Party Movement, a good part of which seems to me simply against the
government's running our lives. I'd be interested in know why you
would tie to Oxfordians to the groups you list above. Any reason
besides the fact that they are ignorant?
--Bob G.
John W Kennedy
> From http://quazen.com/arts/art-history/elizabethan-art/
>
> (quote)
> ...
> Also, the y sound in words was written as th....
No it wasn't, although the sound of "th" was sometimes still written as �.
> When the boys finally reached age ten, they advance from regular
> Grammar school to the Master Grammar School. The main grammar school
> where boys studied at the master level was called King Henry IV
> Grammar School located in Stratford....
All that appears to be sheer rubbish.
--
John W Kennedy
"You can, if you wish, class all science-fiction together; but it is
about as perceptive as classing the works of Ballantyne, Conrad and W.
W. Jacobs together as the 'sea-story' and then criticizing _that_."
-- C. S. Lewis. "An Experiment in Criticism"
art
>
>I have a lot of sympathy with the Tea Party Movement,
> a good part of which seems to me simply against the
> government's running our lives.
I have a lot of sympathy with
The Shakespeare Authorship Coalition
http://www.doubtaboutwill.org/
a good part of which seems to me simply against
Stratford-upon-Avon running our history books.
Art Neuendorffer
elizabeth
So you're one of the 52% of Americans who believe
there's a Devil.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Right, Elizabeth: if I am in sympathy with a group some of whose
members believe in the devil, it follows that I believe in the devil.
Similarly, if I believe anti-Stratfordians are as illogical as
holocaust-deniers, I must believe they want to exterminate the Jews.
--Bob
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" wrote:
>
> >I have a lot of sympathy with the Tea Party Movement,
> > a good part of which seems to me simply against the
> > government's running our lives.
>
> I have a lot of sympathy with
>
> a good part of which seems to me simply against
> Stratford-upon-Avon running our history books.
You must mean our English Literature books. Shakespeare rarely gets
more than a line or two in any history book. But certainly Stratford
should be kept from running English Literature Books. Too much like
Darwinians running our biology books.
--Bob
nordicskiv2
<cd5f273b-4897-4cc9...@u19g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
elizabeth <message...@yahoo.com> wrote:
nordicskiv2
<c55f78d7-b60d-4a52...@p23g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
art <acne...@gmail.com>
(acnew...@gmail.comedy) wrote:
No doubt you also have a lot of sympathy with
a good part of which seems to be simply against
Copernicans running our astronomy books, Art.
> Art Neuendorffer
art
>
>>>I have a lot of sympathy with the Tea Party Movement,
>>> a good part of which seems to me simply against the
>>> government's running our lives.
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I have a lot of sympathy with
>> The Shakespeare Authorship Coalition
>>http://www.doubtaboutwill.org/
>
>> a good part of which seems to me simply against
>> Stratford-upon-Avon running our history books.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> No doubt you also have a lot of sympathy with
>
> <http://www.fixedearth.com/>
>
> a good part of which seems to be simply against
> Copernicans running our astronomy books, Art.
There has been an awful lot of good science over
the last centuries to prove Copernicus right.
There has been an awful lot of good scholarship
over the last centuries to prove Stratfordians wrong.
Art Neuendorffer
elizabeth
I believe, Bob, that it's blasphemous to make
trivial comparisons between the mass murder of
millions of innocent people and those people who
don't find any evidence to show that Shaksper was
capable of writing literary works.
La Mouse
> On Feb 8, 11:20 am, La Mouse <lynnekosit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 7, 9:05 pm, "Robin G." <doc...@proaxis.com> wrote:
>
> > > > It's immoral to compare The Holocaust to the
> > > > Shakespeare authorship question.
>
> > > Well-known Oxfordian, JOSEPH SOBRAN is a Holocaust denier! Of course,
> > > Oxfordians want to keep this fact a big fat secret!
>
> > No, actually we don't, Robin. I've been very open about it when asked.
> > Most of us will have nothing whatsoever to do with him. The
> > Shakespeare Fellowship has never invited him to speak, and I can't see
> > us ever doing so. Although he has never professed that the Holocaust
> > never happened, it is easy to see where his sympathies lie. His
> > articles show him to be both a Jew hater and Gay hater. I find his
> > opinions execrable.
>
> > But of course, there are many more non-Oxfordians than Oxfordians who
> > are Holocaust Deniers. So it's rather silly to tie Holocaust Deniers
> > to Oxfordians, some of whom are Jewish.
>
> > Mouse the Jewish Oxfordian
>
> Gee, I would think Sobran would be at the heart of the Oxfordian
> movement given he appears in the famous April 1999 Harper's along with
> Daniel Wright, Mark K. Anderson, and Richard F. Whalen.
Well of course Harper's could invite anyone they wished to, and though
I can't be sure, I'd guess this was before most knew about his other
activities. I in fact recommended him in one of my books many years
ago, totally unaware of his more unpleasant side. I would never have
anything to do with him now, and in the past when I was giving lots of
presentations I made sure he's not appearing before I agreed to speak.
And I know many others feel the same way. But it's not a very big
problem, as no one seems to be inviting him.
> Also, in the
> Bookstore section of the Shakespeare Oxford Society website, the
> second book listed, after Mark Anderson's "Shakespeare By Another
> Name," is Alias Shakespeare by Joseph Sobran.
I can't speak for the SOS. I belong to and was at one time the
president of the Shakespeare Fellowship, and we have never promoted or
advertised him or invited him to speak.
>The site also features
> Sobran's review of Alan Nelson's book. Is this an example of hate the
> man, but love is scholarship? Strange bedfellows indeed!
Again, I can only speak for the Fellowship in this matter. But I am
surprised.
>
> These days, I'd tie Oxfordians to the intelligent design crowd, the
> Birthers, and the Tea Party movement.- Hide quoted text -
You are entitled to believe whatever you wish to; however, that
statement says more about you than it does about Oxfordians.
Regards,
Mouse
La Mouse
La Mouse
For "I made sure he's not appearing" read "I made sure he wasn't
appearing."
Thanks,
Mouse
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Robin G.
> > Also, in the
> > Bookstore section of the Shakespeare Oxford Society website, the
> > second book listed, after Mark Anderson's "Shakespeare By Another
> > Name," is Alias Shakespeare by Joseph Sobran.
>
> I can't speak for the SOS. I belong to and was at one time the
> president of the Shakespeare Fellowship, and we have never promoted or
> advertised him or invited him to speak.
>
> >The site also features
> > Sobran's review of Alan Nelson's book. Is this an example of hate the
> > man, but love is scholarship? Strange bedfellows indeed!
>
> Again, I can only speak for the Fellowship in this matter. But I am
> surprised.
>
The Fellowship site has a direct link to the SOS site.
>
>
> > These days, I'd tie Oxfordians to the intelligent design crowd, the
> > Birthers, and the Tea Party movement.- Hide quoted text -
>
> You are entitled to believe whatever you wish to; however, that
> statement says more about you than it does about Oxfordians.
If the shoe fits, wear it!
Robin G.
>
> There has been an awful lot of good scholarship
> over the last centuries to prove Stratfordians wrong.
>
> Art Neuendorffer
Most of what you call good scholarship can't withstand close reading
and examination. Many of the Oxfordian claims prove to be false when
one takes the time to check the original source material.
Robin G.
>
> I believe, Bob, that it's blasphemous to make
> trivial comparisons between the mass murder of
> millions of innocent people and those people who
> don't find any evidence to show that Shaksper was
> capable of writing literary works.
The problem I have with most anti-Strats is their habit of distorting
and misreading of source material. You are a prime example of someone
who does this. On the other hand, you provide a good laugh and your
posts can be used by teachers to show their students how not to do
research.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sorry, Art, but the assertion that Shakespeare's parents were
illiterate when there is not enough evidence to demonstrate that
beyond reasonable doubt and then reasoning from that that their won
could not have been a great writer although literacy is not hereditary
is not good scholarship. There has in fact not been any
scholarship, good or bad, that "proves" your case, or that even
indicates that it is not insane.
--Bob G.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Sorry, Mouse, buy you people truly are ignorant how to carry out
authorship attribution studies. Or maybe you do know but are
icompetent at applying your knowledge? In any case, I note that Robin
won't answer my question. He's basically just ignorantly popping off.
--Bob
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> I can't be sure, I'd guess this was before most knew about his other
> activities.
Wrong. Like all mediocrities choosing participants in these kinds of
thing, they chose him not on the basis of his intelligence and
knowledge but on the basis of his credentials, which for such
mediocrities are of two kinds only, academic status and national
prominence as a commercial writer, which Sobran had.
> I in fact recommended him in one of my books many years
> ago, totally unaware of his more unpleasant side. I would never have
> anything to do with him now, and in the past when I was giving lots of
> presentations I made sure he's not appearing before I agreed to speak.
> And I know many others feel the same way. But it's not a very big
> problem, as no one seems to be inviting him.
Thank goodness. It's whether or not a person is moral, not whether
what he says makes sense or not that counts.
The Bad Bunny
Paul Crowley
> Sorry, Art, but the assertion that Shakespeare's parents were
> illiterate when there is not enough evidence to demonstrate that
> beyond reasonable doubt
Bob, the phrase " . . beyond reasonable
doubt . ." is used in criminal cases, when
the jury is asked to send someone to prison.
Although I appreciate that, given the depth
of your religious belief in the Stratman,
you'd want such a level of proof.
> and then reasoning from that that their
> won could not have been a great writer although literacy is not
> hereditary is not good scholarship.
Name another great writer brought up in a
household of illiterates. Name another good
writer. Name another writer brought up in a
household of illiterates.
Name another great writer with illiterate
children. Name another good writer.
Name another writer with illiterate
children.
> There has in fact not been any scholarship, good or bad, that
> "proves" your case,
Scholarship of any kind will never dislodge
a religious belief.
> or that even indicates that it is not insane.
See? If anti-Stratfordianism was insane, how
come you can never point out the 'insanity'
or even respond coherently to simple logical
points?
Here's a quote from Schoenbaum, 'Compact
Documentary Life' p 37
When, after his year in office and presiding at thirteen
sessions of the Court of Record, John stepped down, he was
not again elected bailiff by his brethren, although others
served more than once (Robert Salisbury, a brewer, was thus
honoured three times). . . . . The public man who enjoyed
such unqualified trust witnessed corporation minutes with his
mark. Usually he employed as his sign a gracefully drawn pair
of compasses, the instrument used for measuring and making
ornamental cuttings in the backs of gloves. Once he
appended a different sign, which has been interpreted as a
glover's stitching clamp, or 'donkey'. Legal documents (such
as the inventory of Henry Field's goods and movables) he
witnessed with a cross. It is therefore natural to infer that he
was illiterate. But is this necessarily the case? Literate
persons, as some authorities have pointed out, preferred on
occasion to use a mark-Adrian Quiney, for example, whose
mark or sign (an inverted upper-case Q) embellishes the same
page as John Shakespeare's in the council records; that
Quiney could sign his name we know, for letters written by
him have come down. A cross on a document symbolized the
Holy Cross, and avouched the piety of the signer; it was, in
other words, equivalent to an oath. It has been suggested that
the compass sign meant 'God Encompasseth Us', and the
clamp had some other, undeciphered allegorical significance;
but to this admittedly sceptical writer John Shakespeare's
signs symbolize his trade and no more. It is true that he
handled complicated municipal business, and that literacy is
an asset to a book-keeper. It is also true that unlettered men
may have shrewd business acumen. Possible light on the
problem is shed by a teasing memorandum of 1596. It
concerns the suit of Widow Margaret Young (she was Richard
Field's sister) against another widow, Joan Perrott, over some
'deceitfully' appropriated goods, and among the items appears
'Mr. Shaxpere, one book'. Probably the entry refers to John
Shakespeare rather than William, but one cannot tell for
certain; and although possession of a book points to a
capacity to read, it does not necessarily carry that
presumption:some owners are no users. To sum up: John
Shakespeare may have mastered reading and writing-there is
some force to the arguments supporting that conclusion. But
not a single autograph by him is extant, his civic
responsibilities did not absolutely require such knowledge (a
professional scrivener always stood at the ready, pen in
hand), and raised as he was, a tenant farmer's son in a
country village without a school, his educational opportunities
were strictly limited. . .
Paul.
William Black
<bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message
news:9b844a20-9e25-482d...@z19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 9, 2:42 pm, art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" wrote:
>
> >I have a lot of sympathy with the Tea Party Movement,
> > a good part of which seems to me simply against the
> > government's running our lives.
>
> I have a lot of sympathy with
> The Shakespeare Authorship Coalitionhttp://www.doubtaboutwill.org/
>
> a good part of which seems to me simply against
> Stratford-upon-Avon running our history books.
You must mean our English Literature books.
----------------------------
The one thing everyone with an IQ over room temperature agrees is that who
wrote the bloody things doesn't actually matter. What matters is the text.
Paul Crowley
>
> The one thing everyone with an IQ over room
> temperature agrees is that who wrote the bloody things
> doesn't actually matter. What matters is the text.
That's just what I say about Mark Twain's "War
and Peace" and Hardy's "Hiawatha" and Tolstoy's
"Passage from India" and Tennyson's "Huckleberry
Finn" and so on and on.
Authorship -- pah! Who cares what anyone
rote? We got de books. What moor does
anyone kneed? Noing who reely rote what
makes no diference to anyone with eny
kind of edycation.
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
prove it is not with your assertion that no one
had produced evidence that it is, an assertion
you require no support for other than your
anti-Stratfordian judgement, and--in fact--
refuse to suggest someone neutral who might
be thought to have a more objective opinion of
the matter.
As for Sheonbaum, I'd love to read some anti-Stratfordian
on whether John Shakespeare was literate or not who
wrote so completely an intellectually responsible
analysis of the question. He comes out as undecided,
by the way. As am I. Or, without sufficient data to
be sure one way or the other. You always have
sufficient data, though, but you have helpt from Venusians.
We don't.
Oh, and PLEASE, try to learn the definition of religion. It's
not belief in something you don't believe in, Paul, it's belief
in something that requires a suspension of the laws of nature
to be true. A son of illiterates who became a great writer (and
some have been cited, one, the Russian, by David Webb) would
not break any laws of Nature. Well, except "All the Paul
Crowley says is True."
--Bob
nordicskiv2
<eb88e2bb-d1db-424d...@b35g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
art <acne...@gmail.com>
(acnew...@gmail.comedy) wrote:
> >> "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" wrote:
> >
> >>>I have a lot of sympathy with the Tea Party Movement,
> >>> a good part of which seems to me simply against the
> >>> government's running our lives.
> > art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I have a lot of sympathy with
> >> The Shakespeare Authorship Coalition
> >>http://www.doubtaboutwill.org/
> >
> >> a good part of which seems to me simply against
> >> Stratford-upon-Avon running our history books.
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > No doubt you also have a lot of sympathy with
> >
> > <http://www.fixedearth.com/>
> >
> > a good part of which seems to be simply against
> > Copernicans running our astronomy books, Art.
> There has been an awful lot of good science over
> the last centuries to prove Copernicus right.
Of course, Art -- but that fact has never prevented a small handful
of lunatic-fringe cranks, most of whom are farcically ignorant of the
methodology underlying much painstaking theoretical and experimental
scientific work and completely unfamiliar even with the data
supporting it, from rejecting the overwhelming consensus of
scientists; such cranks are often actuated not only by ignorance and
an inability to understand even the rudiments of the discipline, but
also by an ideological agenda; for some striking cases in point, see
Elizabeth's lunatic rants about special relativity, Mr. Streitz's
revisionist fluid mechanics, Mr. Streitz's "AIDS is a hoax" claims,
Mr. Crowley's flirtation with the "aquatic ape" hypothesis, and "Dr."
Faker's conspiracy theory about the allegedly faked lunar landings.
Their pseudoscientific fulminations are not wholly worthless, if only
by virtue of the amusement that they afford.
Analogously, there has been a lot of excellent historical work over
some four centuries that has shed much more light upon Shakespeare's
life and works -- but that fact has never prevented a small handful of
lunatic-fringe cranks, most of whom are farcically ignorant of the
methodology underlying much painstaking historical work and completely
unfamiliar even with the data supporting it, from rejecting the
overwhelming consensus of literary historians and scholars in allied
fields; such cranks are often actuated not only by ignorance and an
inability to understand even the rudiments of the discipline (some of
them don't even know English, let alone Renaissance-era Latin, French,
Spanish, and other tongues, let alone paleography, etc.!) but also by
an ideological agenda. Their pseudohistorical fulminations are not
wholly worthless, if only by virtue of the amusement that they afford.
> There has been an awful lot of good scholarship
I hate to be the one to say it, but you wouldn't know good
scholarship if it bit you, Art -- just as Elizabeth, Mr. Streitz,
Crowley, and "Dr." Faker wouldn't know good science if it bit them.
You have already conceded that you don't know what a primary source
is, you don't even bother to read the sources that you criticize, and
your knowledge of history, foreign languages, paleography, etc. is nil
-- how can someone who thinks that Virgil predated Herodotus and that
"vier" means "four" in Spanish pontificate about "good scholarship"
with a straight face?!
art
>
> there has been a lot of excellent historical work
> over some four centuries that has shed much more
> light upon Shakespeare's life and works
Example?
----------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Paul Crowley
> Ah, I say anti-Stratfordianism is insane, and you
> prove it is not with your assertion that no one
> had produced evidence that it is
You are making the assertion that it
is insane. I've never seen you make
even the beginning of any such case.
When literary or historical arguments
are insane, it is usually very easy to
demonstrate that fact. How come you
(and other Strats) find that so difficult?
> an assertion
> you require no support for other than your
> anti-Stratfordian judgement, and--in fact--
> refuse to suggest someone neutral who might
> be thought to have a more objective opinion of
> the matter.
YOU are making the assertion.
> As for Sheonbaum, I'd love to read some anti-
> Stratfordian on whether John Shakespeare was
> literate or not who wrote so completely an
> intellectually responsible analysis of the question.
> He comes out as undecided, by the way.
Of course -- he was a Strat 'scholar'.
How else was he going to come down?
But we can all see which way the great
bulk of the evidence points.
Initially the Stratman was accepted as
the author only by fools. Then it grew
into 'common knowledge'. But its falsity
should have been recognised as soon as
the nature of the Stratman's background
was appreciated -- around 1720. That
did not happen because people are
stupid and slow to change. But as more
and more discoveries were made, belief
in the Stratman became more and more
absurd.
> Oh, and PLEASE, try to learn the definition of
> religion. It's not belief in something you don't
> believe in, Paul, it's belief in something that
> requires a suspension of the laws of nature to be
> true. A son of illiterates who became a great writer
It's being brought up in an illiterate
household -- in a bookless town, without
the faintest trace of any kind of mentor
-- that matters. Then starting his 'career'
in his mid-twenties. You have to be nuts
to believe a word of it.
> (and some have been cited, one, the Russian, by
> David Webb)
Webb has been in my kill-file for years,
And I would not believe anything he
says -- or the sources he quotes. No
doubt, his author was a Hero of the
Soviet Union -- and with impeccable
proletarian credentials.
Paul.
nordicskiv2
<c94474ad-0b32-43cc...@o16g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,
art <acne...@gmail.com>
(acnew...@gmail.comedy) wrote:
> "Robin G." <doc...@proaxis.com> wrote:
> >
> > Well-known Oxfordian, JOSEPH SOBRAN is a Holocaust denier!
> > Of course, Oxfordians want to keep this fact a big fat secret!
> I see no indication that Sobran is a Holocaust denier;
> he is rather a denier of Israel as it currently exists.
While I don't know whether he is a Holocaust denier, he is
demonstrably much more than a mere "denier of Israel as it currently
exists," Art. MoreoVER, I am astounded that you could reach such a
conclusion -- you must be getting so senile that you've forgotten a
lengthy discussion of this VERy topic that we had here in 2002. I
quote, with slight editorial emendations, from a post of mine in
response to Ken Kaplan, a post in which I quoted one of Sobran's
repellent anti-Semitic rants at length:
-----------------------------------------------------------
Let me get this straight: when Sobran whines that he has been
"ostracized" merely for transgressing the conservative "party line" on
Israel, you BELIEVE that sentiment?! Don't you think it far more
likely that Sobran's perceived banishment may have been occasioned by
prose like the following? From a Sobran essay:
"By such reasoning as Wistrich's, it would be easy to blame the
Jews for bringing persecution on themselves. After all, they
have been unpopular not only in Christian countries, but in
pagan and Muslim lands. Cicero, Tacitus, Juvenal, and other
Roman authors inveighed against them. They have repeatedly
migrated to Christian countries and have been repeatedly
expelled,
[For the benefit of illiterate District Heights boobs and the like,
Sobran is not talking about the modern state of Israel here -- but
such a chronologically clueless cretin might imagine that the Jews
expelled from Spain in 1492 were all Israelis, citizens of a nation
founded in 1947.]
for reasons that have usually had little to do with
theology -- though the obscene blasphemies against Christ and
his mother in the Talmud, unique in religious literature,
besides reflecting oddly on Jewish demands for Christian
tolerance and for the cleansing of offensive passages in the
Gospels, have done nothing to endear the Jews to Christians."
[For the benefit of chronologically clueless District Heights boobs
and the like, Sobran is not discussing the modern nation state of
Israel here -- Cicero, Tacitus, and Juvenal had nothing to say about
that, although someone who thinks that Virgil predated Herodotus might
well believe that Tacitus was critical of Menachem Begin or of Ariel
Sharon.]
"Wistrich mentions none of this. Nor does he mention one of
the principal incitements to anti-Semitism in this century:
Jewish participation in Communism, with its terrifying
persecution of Christians."
[For the benefit of chronologically clueless District Heights boobs
and the like, Sobran is not discussing the modern nation state of
Israel here: the modern nation state of Israel came into being in
1947, several decades after the "terrifying persecution of Christians"
in the Soviet Union was well underway.]
"Further, might the Talmudic imprecations against Christ and
Christians have helped form the Bolshevik Jews' anti-Christian
animus? Did the Talmud help form the 'cultural framework' for
the persecution of Christians, and for the eradication of
Christian culture in America today? If so, will Jews make an
effort to expunge the offending passages from the Talmud? How
many rabbis speak of their 'spiritual kinship' with Christianity?"
[For the benefit of chronologically clueless District Heights boobs
and the like, Sobran is not discussing the modern state of Israel
here; the Talmud was compiled somewhat earlier than that state's
founding in 1947, and the "Bolshevik Jews" who are the apparent
targets of Sobran's rant were active decades before Israel existed.]
"The answers to these questions are only too obvious. The Jews,
with honorable but ineffectual exceptions, judge Christians by
a standard that doesn't seem to apply to themselves. Or rather,
their single standard is 'Is it good for the Jews?'"
[For the benefit of illiterate District Heights boobs and the like,
Sobran isn't discussing the modern nation state of Israel here.]
Not content with these vicious slurs, Sobran pulls out all the stops:
"In intellectual life, Jews have been brilliantly subversive
of the cultures of the natives they have lived amongst. Their
tendencies, especially in modern times, have been radical and
nihilistic. One thinks of Marx, Freud, and many other shapers
of modern thought and authors of reductionist ideologies. Even
Einstein, the greatest of Jewish scientists, was, unlike Sir
Isaac Newton, no mere contemplator of nature's laws; he helped
inspire the development of nuclear weapons and consistently
defended the Soviet Union under Stalin."
[Once again, for the benefit of illiterate District Heights boobs and
the like, Sobran isn't discussing the modern nation state of Israel
here -- unless perhaps he fondly imagines that Freud and Marx were
Israeli citizens. Of course, that fact that neither man was Israeli
is no doubt news to you, Art.]
"Jews have generally supported Communism, socialism, liberalism,
and secularism [Sobran's uncritical repetition of meaningless
generalities and absurd stereotypes here is fairly typical];
the agenda of major Jewish groups is the de-Christianization
of America, using a debased interpretation of the 'living
Constitution' as their instrument. When the Jewish side of an
issue is too unpopular to prevail democratically, [the whole
notion of 'the Jewish side of an issue' would be risible were
not the potential consequences of such 'thought' so firmly
fixed in recent memory], the legal arm of Jewry seeks to make
the issue a 'constitutional' one, appealing to judicial
sovereignty to decide it in defiance of the voters.
Overwhelming Jewish support for legal abortion illustrates that
many Jews hate Christian morality more than they revere Jewish
tradition itself."
[This is truly bizarre -- evidently Sobran is blithely unaware of the
positions of many modern mainstream Christians if he believes that
"Christian morality" must perforce include opposition to abortion --
or
perhaps he doesn't consider Protestants Christian. Even more bizarre
is his apparent unawareness of the vigorous debate within Judaism
itself concerning abortion and other complex ethical issues.]
[...]
"Today, in American politics, journalism, and ecclesiastical
circles, fear of Jewish power is overwhelming...."
Do you REALLY believe that Sobran is shunned by fellow conservatives
because of his violation of some unspoken but ruthlessly enforced
conservative intellectual othodoxy concerning the state of Israel?!
If
not, precisely *which* of the "sentiments" expressed by Sobran in the
essay *do* you believe? As usual, Sobran doesn't mention anything
*specific* by way of evidence -- he merely intones vapid, vague
generalities about imagined intellectual orthodoxies, in the aggrieved
tone of someone who has been passed over because he lacks the
requisite
qualifications. We have seen that the reason for Sobran's exclusion
from groups of conservative intellectuals who formerly welcomed him
can
be reasonably sought elsewhere than in his position on Israel; by the
same token, the reason for the dismissal of his views on Shakespeare
by
scholars can be sought elsewhere as well.
[...]
"Why is academia so close-minded on a mystery that has fascinated
so many people?"
[Academia is equally "close minded" about alien abductions, which have
fascinated FAR more people than the Shakespeare authorship "mystery"
ever will, yet alien abductions are probably discussed in far fewer
university seminars than crank Shakespeare authorship theories. The
fact that a theory has "fascinated so many people" is no reason at all
that that theory should be given serious consideration in institutions
of higher education, except perhaps as a case study in intellectual
pathology.]
"Because the prestige of the scholars is at stake."
[Precisely WHOM does Sobran mean by "the scholars" whom he deprecates?
Is Dr. Daniel Wright included? Scholars are quite accustomed to being
wrong; it comes with the territory.]
"If they can be wrong about something as basic as Shakespeare's
identity,
[Of course, Sobran furnishes no evidence whatever that "the scholars,"
whomever he may mean by that locution, are wrong -- other than the
fact
that the "mystery" has "fascinated so many people," virtually none of
them Renaissance literary historians.]
"while a lot of amateurs have been right,
[Of course, Sobran furnishes no evidence whatever that "a lot of
amateurs have been right." Precisely *which* amateurs does he mean?
Delia Bacon? Claud Sykes? Ignatius Donnelly?]
"they'll wind up with a lot of
egg on their long, solemn faces."
[This is a risible caricature, and it provides further confirmation,
if
any were needed, that Sobran's familiarity with the world of academic
scholarship is meager indeed.]
"The professional scholars aren't really afraid of the amateurs.
[Again, WHICH "professional scholars" does he mean?]
"They are afraid of each other. They are afraid of being scorned
and
shunned for dissent.
[Then why do scholars go way out on a limb exploring controversial
ideas (like Foster's attribution to Shakespeare of the _Funeral
Elegy_,
or Segal's attack on the prevailing Big Bang cosmology) that are bound
to be heatedly disputed, if not ridiculed outright, by their peers?
Passages like this make one wonder if Sobran has ever been on a
university campus, attended a professional scholarly conference, or
even read the literature.]
"They'd rather talk nonsense, as long as it fits the party line,
[Again we meet Sobran's pet bugbear, that intangible yet inviolable,
imaginary "party line." We've already seen how reliable Sobran's
perception was in the matter of the conservative "party line" on
Israel; this "party line" seems no different.]
"than speak a risky truth.
["Risky"?! The institution of tenure is specifically intended to
protect professional scholars from any "risk" by affording them the
intellectual freedom to pursue all kinds of daring and even unpopular
hypotheses, without fear of reprisals for championing politically or
ideologically unpopular ideas. And "truth"?!! Sobran certainly has
furnished no evidence of any "truth," risky or otherwise.]
> Jimmy Carter is also a denier of Israel as it currently exists;
But Jimmy Carter has *never* spewed the kind of vitriol that
permeates the Sobran article quoted above, despite Carter's outspoken
criticisms of Israel. That is why many of Sobran's former
conservative colleagues found his anti-Semitism undeniable and
indefensible and said so, while Jimmy Carter's forceful criticism is
not generally regarded as anti-Semitic -- Carter confines his critique
to the modern nation state of Israel, while in the essay quoted above,
Sobran plainly does not, resorting instead to all manner of
stereotypes and discredited canards about Jews throughout history, as
subverters of cultures, as Bolsheviks, etc.
> that doesn't make Carter a Holocaust denier.
Do you deny that the Sobran essay quoted above is blatantly anti-
Semitic, Art?
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Art Neuendorffer.
art
>
>>> Well-known Oxfordian, JOSEPH SOBRAN is a Holocaust denier!
>>> Of course, Oxfordians want to keep this fact a big fat secret!
>
>>
>> I see no indication that Sobran is a Holocaust denier;
>> he is rather a denier of Israel as it currently exists.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> While I don't know whether he is a Holocaust denier,
> he is demonstrably much more than a mere
> "denier of Israel as it currently exists," Art.
He may well be, Dave, but neither Robin G. nor anyone
else has provided evidence that he is "a Holocaust denier."
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> From a Sobran essay:
>
> "In intellectual life, Jews have been brilliantly subversive
> of the cultures of the natives they have lived amongst. Their
> tendencies, especially in modern times, have been radical and
> nihilistic. One thinks of Marx, Freud, and many other shapers
> of modern thought and authors of reductionist ideologies."
Need I quote all the nasty things that
you yourself have said about Freud, Dave?
That must be evidence that you are anti-Semitic.
>--------------------------------------------------------
> From a Sobran essay:
>
> "Jews have generally supported...
> socialism, liberalism, and secularism"
Not nearly enough in my opinion.
>-------------------------------------------------------
> From a Sobran essay:
>
> When the Jewish side of an issue
> is too unpopular to prevail democratically,
> the legal arm of Jewry seeks to make the issue
> a 'constitutional' one, appealing to judicial
> sovereignty to decide it in defiance of the voters.
Not nearly enough in my opinion.
>--------------------------------------------------------
> From a Sobran essay:
>
> Overwhelming Jewish support for legal abortion
> illustrates that many Jews hate Christian morality."
More like Christian hypocrisy, IMO.
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> From a Sobran essay:
>
> "Today, in American politics, journalism, and ecclesiastical
> circles, fear of Jewish power is overwhelming...."
Today, in American politics, journalism, and ecclesiastical
circles, fear of the "Tea Party Movement" is overwhelming..
-----------------------------------------------------------
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Jimmy Carter is also a denier of Israel as it currently exists;
>> that doesn't make Carter a Holocaust denier.
> But Jimmy Carter has *never* spewed the kind of vitriol that
> permeates the Sobran article quoted above, despite Carter's
> outspoken criticisms of Israel. That is why many of Sobran's former
> conservative colleagues found his anti-Semitism undeniable and
> indefensible and said so, while Jimmy Carter's forceful criticism is
> not generally regarded as anti-Semitic -- Carter confines his critique
> to the modern nation state of Israel, while in the essay quoted above,
> Sobran plainly does not, resorting instead to all manner of
> stereotypes and discredited canards about Jews throughout
> history, as subverters of cultures, as Bolsheviks, etc.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Do you deny that the Sobran essay quoted
> above is blatantly anti-Semitic, Art?>
That is *NOT* the issue, Dave.
You haven't provided any evidence that Sobran is "a Holocaust denier"
It is a false Stratfordian premise that anti-Stratfordians
are in the same class as "a Holocaust deniers"
and many other group of ignoramuses you try to
associate us with.
Sobran, Tom Bethell, Richard Wagner and others may
be extremely bigoted but that does not make them
ignoramuses and you have no evidence to that effect.
> ----------------------------------------------------
> From a Sobran essay:
>
> "Why is academia so close-minded on a mystery
> that has fascinated so many people?"
> "Because the prestige of the scholars is at stake."
>
> "If they can be wrong about something as basic
> as Shakespeare's identity,
>
> "while a lot of amateurs have been right,
>
> "they'll wind up with a lot of
> egg on their long, solemn faces."
>
> "The professional scholars aren't really afraid of the amateurs.
>
> "They are afraid of each other.
> They are afraid of being scorned and shunned for dissent.
>
> "They'd rather talk nonsense, as long as it fits the party line,
>
> "than speak a risky truth.
-----------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> > Ah, I say anti-Stratfordianism is insane, and you
> > prove it is not with your assertion that no one
> > had produced evidence that it is
>
> You are making the assertion that it
> is insane. I've never seen you make
> even the beginning of any such case.
> When literary or historical arguments
> are insane, it is usually very easy to
> demonstrate that fact. How come you
> (and other Strats) find that so difficult?
>
> > an assertion
> > you require no support for other than your
> > anti-Stratfordian judgement, and--in fact--
> > refuse to suggest someone neutral who might
> > be thought to have a more objective opinion of
> > the matter.
>
> YOU are making the assertion.
Right, and I say I'm right, and I say no one
has produced a single argument against my assertion.
> > As for Sheonbaum, I'd love to read some anti-
> > Stratfordian on whether John Shakespeare was
> > literate or not who wrote so completely an
> > intellectually responsible analysis of the question.
> > He comes out as undecided, by the way.
>
> Of course -- he was a Strat 'scholar'.
> How else was he going to come down?
He could say Shakespeare's parents were literate--the
way anti_stratfordian "scholars" say they were illiterate.
> But we can all see which way the great
> bulk of the evidence points.
>
> Initially the Stratman was accepted as
> the author only by fools. Then it grew
> into 'common knowledge'. But its falsity
> should have been recognised as soon as
> the nature of the Stratman's background
> was appreciated -- around 1720. That
> did not happen because people are
> stupid and slow to change. But as more
> and more discoveries were made, belief
> in the Stratman became more and more
> absurd.
> > Oh, and PLEASE, try to learn the definition of
> > religion. It's not belief in something you don't
> > believe in, Paul, it's belief in something that
> > requires a suspension of the laws of nature to be
> > true. A son of illiterates who became a great writer
>
> It's being brought up in an illiterate
> household -- in a bookless town, without
> the faintest trace of any kind of mentor
> -- that matters. Then starting his 'career'
> in his mid-twenties. You have to be nuts
> to believe a word of it.
Right, you have to be nuts. But you have not
shown it to be a religion. You have not shown
that we believe something happened that breaks
the laws of nature.
> > (and some have been cited, one, the Russian, by
> > David Webb)
>
> Webb has been in my kill-file for years,
> And I would not believe anything he
> says -- or the sources he quotes. No
> doubt, his author was a Hero of the
> Soviet Union -- and with impeccable
> proletarian credentials.
>
> Paul.
Right. All evidence against you is a lie.
--Bob
William Black
"Paul Crowley" <dsfds...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote in message
news:hkupda$qg8$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Lack of content noted.
ignoto
> On Feb 6, 8:30 pm, Abdul Quinsutt <yut8...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "The search for the truth is an important search,
>> and if it isn�t, we�re lost in all kinds of ways.
>> We�re lost in the fields of Holocaust denial. We�re
>> lost in being able to compare what is good and what
>> is bad because we can�t agree what actually happened.
>> We�re lost when it comes to guarding minorities against
>> populist agitation. Nobody�s going to die from saying
>> Shakespeare wasn�t Shakespeare, but in other areas,
>> when the truth suffers, our decision making suffers.
>> When there is no authority to the truth, prejudices thrive."
>>
>> http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2010/02/03/david_aaronovitch_consp...
>
> It's immoral to compare The Holocaust to the
> Shakespeare authorship question.
It's something of a category error. Whilst the anti-historical
methodologies of holocaust denial and anti-stratfordianism bear certain
similarities, the refusal to grant WS of Stratford the authorship of his
works, whilst morally repugnant, is clearly not as morally bad as
holocaust denial.
> And the claim that "when there is no authority to
> the truth prejudices thrive" is itself authoritarian.
This is not authoritarian. It states a fact. Indeed, I think it quite
apparent that the dismissal of truth as the touchstone of reason has had
a deleterious effect on both academic investigation and public policy.
Ign.
> By the way, Abdul Quinsutt, your name reminds me
> of the name of one of our irregular posters, Algernon
> Nuttsack.
>
> I'm sure Art will agree since the names Quinsutt,
> Nuttsakk and Webb all possess double consonants.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> William Black wrote:
>
> > The one thing everyone with an IQ over room
> > temperature agrees is that who wrote the bloody things
> > doesn't actually matter. What matters is the text.
Right, William--if all you care about is literature, then anyone
who cares about literary history, or the creative process, or
even just about the right writers getting credit for what they've
accomplished has to be feeble-minded. Satisfaction of your
narrow interests is all that matters.
> That's just what I say about Mark Twain's "War
> and Peace" and Hardy's "Hiawatha" and Tolstoy's
> "Passage from India" and Tennyson's "Huckleberry
> Finn" and so on and on.
>
> Authorship -- pah! Who cares what anyone
> rote? We got de books. What moor does
> anyone kneed? Noing who reely rote what
> makes no diference to anyone with eny
> kind of edycation.
>
> Paul.
But Paul Crowley IS feeble-minded, so you needn't
pay any attention to him. He believes you can't
possibly appreciate a piece of literature without
knowing who composed it and his life in detail.
Twelfth Night is entertainment for five-year-olds
unless the fact that Viola is Raleigh in drag and who
all the other characters are based on is known.
--Bob G.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> > It's immoral to compare The Holocaust to the
> > Shakespeare authorship question.
She means the holocaust debate, I'm sure.
>
> It's something of a category error. Whilst the anti-historical
> methodologies of holocaust denial and anti-stratfordianism bear certain
> similarities, the refusal to grant WS of Stratford the authorship of his
> works, whilst morally repugnant, is clearly not as morally bad as
> holocaust denial.
>
It's a category error to claim authorship revisionists are the
same as holocaust wacks, but not to claim that the
reasoning ability of authorship wacks is at the same
low level as that of the holocaust wacks.
I don't know what it's called but the people who think that
if you say aspect X of entity A equals aspect X of entity B,
it follows that you're saying entity A equals entity B are guilty
of some kind of error in logic.
--Bob
William Black
<bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message
news:5f2708e7-4f03-460c...@l19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 10, 12:12 pm, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> William Black wrote:
>
> > The one thing everyone with an IQ over room
> > temperature agrees is that who wrote the bloody things
> > doesn't actually matter. What matters is the text.
Right, William--if all you care about is literature, then anyone
who cares about literary history, or the creative process, or
even just about the right writers getting credit for what they've
accomplished has to be feeble-minded. Satisfaction of your
narrow interests is all that matters.
-------------------------------------------
Shakespear was, and remains, popular entertainment.
It plays to packed houses in two major theaters in the UK just about every
night.
Nobody cares about the creative process because the society that produced
the plays is far too alien for us to understand properly.
-------------------------------------------
He believes you can't
possibly appreciate a piece of literature without
knowing who composed it and his life in detail.
-------------------------------------------
That's because he's an idiot.
------------------------------------------
Twelfth Night is entertainment for five-year-olds
unless the fact that Viola is Raleigh in drag and who
all the other characters are based on is known.
---------------------------------------
Like most of Shakespeare's play the story is a straight lift from another
source.
The stuff about Raleigh in drag, in a play written at a time when he was
not at court but Governor of Jersey, and busy building fortifications, is
obviously the deranged maunderings of a diseased mind.
Paul Crowley
>
>>> The one thing everyone with an IQ over room
>>> temperature agrees is that who wrote the bloody things
>>> doesn't actually matter. What matters is the text.
>>
>> That's just what I say about Mark Twain's "War
>> and Peace" and Hardy's "Hiawatha" and Tolstoy's
>> "Passage from India" and Tennyson's "Huckleberry
>> Finn" and so on and on.
>>
>> Authorship -- pah! Who cares what anyone
>> rote? We got de books. What moor does
>> anyone kneed? Noing who reely rote what
>> makes no diference to anyone with eny
>> kind of edycation.
>
> Lack of content noted.
I appreciate that, as a Strat, you can
only cope with simple literal statements,
having to read slowly word by word.
However, anyone who adopted the point
of view I parody above would be regarded
as a total idiot.
How do you think Oxfordians regard Strats?
For Strats, the plays are fairy tales, that
could have been written by almost anyone
-- so long, of course, as they had recourse
to that magic pen. Their own candidate is
a complete nonentity, so they therefore
necessarily assume that great literature
can come from nonentities -- in fact, almost
anyone (with, of course, that magic pen) --
and that allows them to come out with sets
of asinine pronouncements, much like yours
above.
Stratfordianism requires (and encourages)
an infantile attitude to literature -- and a
near-complete absence of any sense of
the relationship it can (or must) bear to
real life.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
>> It's something of a category error. Whilst the anti-
>> historical methodologies of holocaust denial and anti-
>> stratfordianism bear certain similarities,
If you are going to make potentially
libellous allegations of this nature,
you should provide examples. Of
course, you don't because you can't.
> It's a category error to claim authorship revisionists are
> the same as holocaust wacks, but not to claim that
> the reasoning ability of authorship wacks is at the
> same low level as that of the holocaust wacks.
If you are going to make potentially
libellous allegations of this nature,
you should provide examples. Of
course, you don't because you can't
-- being just another worthless piece
of Stratfordian shit.
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> who cares about literary history, or the creative process, or
> even just about the right writers getting credit for what they've
> accomplished has to be feeble-minded. Satisfaction of your
> narrow interests is all that matters.
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Shakespear was, and remains, popular entertainment.
>
> It plays to packed houses in two major theaters in the UK just about every
> night.
>
> Nobody cares about the creative process because the society that produced
> the plays is far too alien for us to understand properly.
Congratulations, William--you've matched Crowley for idiocy.
1, The society that produced the plays is not alien.
2. If it were, it'd be all the more fascinating to investigate its
members'
minds worked (for people with IQs abouve 90).
3. Human beings produce plays, not societies.
4. Knowing who wrote plays is necessary for knowing literary history,
which many people are interested in, and which you needed to know in
order
to decide, however insanely, how alien the society was in
Shakespeare's time.
5. You seem not to care that the proper persons get credit for
achievements.
--Bob G.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> >> It's something of a category error. Whilst the anti-
> >> historical methodologies of holocaust denial and anti-
> >> stratfordianism bear certain similarities,
>
> If you are going to make potentially
> libellous allegations of this nature,
> you should provide examples. Of
> course, you don't because you can't.
>
> > It's a category error to claim authorship revisionists are
> > the same as holocaust wacks, but not to claim that
> > the reasoning ability of authorship wacks is at the
> > same low level as that of the holocaust wacks.
>
> If you are going to make potentially
> libellous allegations of this nature,
> you should provide examples.
Easily done: the holocaust deniers consider all the evidence for the
holocaust lies; the anti-Shakespeareans consider all the evidence
for Shakespeare lies. Neither kind of wack ever believes the evidence
against his delusional system is enough no matter how much there is.
Both kinds argue propagandistically.
I don't think both necessarily believe in the fascism of libel laws,
but the worst authorship wacks all seem to.
I'm not expert in holocaust denial nor do I have time to try to
convince
an unconvincible cretin that Shakespeare-deniers and holocaust-deniers
have certain mental characteristics in common. So that's all I'll say
about it.
--Bob
John W Kennedy
> <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message
> news:5f2708e7-4f03-460c...@l19g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On
>
> Feb 10, 12:12 pm, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
>> William Black wrote:
>>
>>> The one thing everyone with an IQ over room
>>> temperature agrees is that who wrote the bloody things
>>> doesn't actually matter. What matters is the text.
>
> Right, William--if all you care about is literature, then anyone
> who cares about literary history, or the creative process, or
> even just about the right writers getting credit for what they've
> accomplished has to be feeble-minded. Satisfaction of your
> narrow interests is all that matters.
> -------------------------------------------
>
> Shakespear was, and remains, popular entertainment.
>
> It plays to packed houses in two major theaters in the UK just about
> every night.
>
> Nobody cares about the creative process because the society that
> produced the plays is far too alien for us to understand properly.
"In the evening she looked again. They were crossing a golden sea, in
which lay many small islands and one peninsula. She repeated, 'No ideas
here,' and hid Greece behind a metal blind."
--
John W Kennedy
"You can, if you wish, class all science-fiction together; but it is
about as perceptive as classing the works of Ballantyne, Conrad and W.
W. Jacobs together as the 'sea-story' and then criticizing _that_."
-- C. S. Lewis. "An Experiment in Criticism"
Ignoto
"I find it very interesting nowadays, now that I have fortunately
achieved a definite publicity value, to read criticisms and analyses of
my plays written by people of whom I have never heard and whom I have
certainly never seen, and who appear to have an insatiable passion for
labelling everything with a motive. They search busily behind the
simplest of my phrases, like old ladies peering under the bed for
burglars, and are not content until they have unearthed some definite,
usually quite inaccurate, reason for my saying this or that. This
strange mania i can only suppose is the distinctive feature of a
critical mind as opposed to a creative one. It seems to me that a
professional writer should be animated by no other motive other than the
desire to write and, by doing so, to earn his living." Noel Coward,
Collected Works, Volume I, vii-viii
"[A] book is not justified by its author's worthiness to write it, but
by the quality of what has been written. There are terrible books that
arise directly out of experience, and extraordinary imaginative feats
dealing with themes which the author has been obliged to approach from
the outside" (Salman Rushdie, Imaginary Homelands, 14).
Ign.
>
> Paul.
Paul Crowley
>>> As for Sheonbaum, I'd love to read some anti-
>>> Stratfordian on whether John Shakespeare was
>>> literate or not who wrote so completely an
>>> intellectually responsible analysis of the question.
>>> He comes out as undecided, by the way.
>> Of course -- he was a Strat 'scholar'.
>> How else was he going to come down?
>
> He could say Shakespeare's parents were literate--
> the way anti_stratfordian "scholars" say they were
> illiterate.
He was obliged to maintain some slight
credibility -- the book was aimed at a
wider market, and many of the readers
who were not academics would disapprove
of a total disregard of the evidence.
>>> Oh, and PLEASE, try to learn the definition of
>>> religion. It's not belief in something you don't
>>> believe in, Paul, it's belief in something that
>>> requires a suspension of the laws of nature to be
>>> true. A son of illiterates who became a great writer
>> It's being brought up in an illiterate
>> household -- in a bookless town, without
>> the faintest trace of any kind of mentor
>> -- that matters. Then starting his 'career'
>> in his mid-twenties. You have to be nuts
>> to believe a word of it.
>
> Right, you have to be nuts. But you have not
> shown it to be a religion.
It being nuts is pretty good prima-facie
evidence. Only a religion or a quasi-
religion provides adequate motivation
for believing in so insane a proposition.
> You have not shown that we believe
> something happened that breaks the laws of
> nature.
Of course it does. Great learning,
high culture, immense theatrical
skills, huge poetic ability (and so
on and on) are not acquired by
breathing in the air of a pig-sty.
You would regard the request for
a remotely parallel example as
blasphemy, or some other improper
challenge to your Faith -- and not
as a perfectly sensible and legitimate
historical question.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
>>> It's a category error to claim authorship revisionists are
>>> the same as holocaust wacks, but not to claim that
>>> the reasoning ability of authorship wacks is at the
>>> same low level as that of the holocaust wacks.
>>
>> If you are going to make potentially
>> libellous allegations of this nature,
>> you should provide examples.
>
> Easily done: the holocaust deniers consider all the
> evidence for the holocaust lies; the anti-
> Shakespeareans consider all the evidence for
> Shakespeare lies.
So, according to you, the evidence for
the authorship of the Stratman is of
much the same nature and quality as
the evidence for the holocaust. A
stupid monument (high up in a dark
church) which says he has the wit of
a marrow, and that truly ridiculous
portrait in the Folio (and a couple of
other VERY minor things) are all much
the same as the testimony of millions
now living, who either personally
experienced the holocaust, or who
suffer the disappearance of large
chunks of their own families, plus,
of course, the huge documentary
record.
You are an exceedingly stupid wack.
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> > evidence for the holocaust lies; the anti-
> > Shakespeareans consider all the evidence for
> > Shakespeare lies.
>
> So, according to you, the evidence for
> the authorship of the Stratman is of
> much the same nature and quality as
> the evidence for the holocaust.
How does that follow, asshole? (Note to Peter--Paul
is a near-constant asshole, you only a temporary one.)
I know you can read, but you are congenitally incapable
of reporting what you read about those opposed to your
deslusional system anywhere near correctly.
> A stupid monument (high up in a dark
> church) which says he has the wit of
> a marrow,
Only to a moron, Paul. The inscription compares him
to "Pyleum," which all sane scholars take to be Nestor,
then directly to Socrates, and finally to "Maronem."
Not only do the sane take "Maronem" to indicate Virgil
the same way Pyleum" indicates Nestor, but it would
be ridiculous to praise a man for the "judicio" of Nestor,
then the "genio" of Socrates, and then the wit (actually
the "arte") of a marrow. Yes, it'd be a good joke if he did,
but there is no set-up for this joke: nothing in the inscription
signals that it's there.
I really really really don't understand why you don't just
take the insription as a lie, like you take so much of the
other evidence for WS, and drop it. Why do you search
for these ridiculous puns (and I doubt "maronem" means
"marrow" in Latin.
> and that truly ridiculous
> portrait in the Folio (and a couple of
> other VERY minor things) are all much
> the same as the testimony of millions
> now living, who either personally
> experienced the holocaust, or who
> suffer the disappearance of large
> chunks of their own families, plus,
> of course, the huge documentary
> record.
>
> You are an exceedingly stupid wack.
But I said nothing about the quantity of evidence in
each case, only that the Shakespeare-deniers treat
the evidence for Shakespeare exactly the same way
holocaust-deniers treat the evidence for the holocaust.
--stupid wack
William Black
<bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in message
news:b0abc2b4-6398-4631...@o3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
----------------------------------
1. Of course it's bloody alien. They're still passing sumptuary laws.
2. Of course it's interesting. It just isn't comprehensible.
3. Actually societies do produce works of art rather than individuals.
Shakespeare's plays are undoubtedly the product of his society.
4. What matters is the text. All the rest is propaganda.
5. They're all long dead son. Nobody really cares.
Ignoto
"Holocaust deniers generally do not accept the term "denial" as an
appropriate description of their point of view, and use the term
Holocaust revisionism instead.[4] Scholars use the term "denial" to
differentiate Holocaust deniers from historical revisionists, who use
established historical methodologies.[5]
Most Holocaust denial claims imply, or openly state, that the Holocaust
is a hoax arising out of a deliberate Jewish conspiracy to advance the
interest of Jews at the expense of other peoples.[6] For this reason,
Holocaust denial is generally considered to be an antisemitic[7]
conspiracy theory.[8] The methodologies of Holocaust deniers are
criticized as based on a predetermined conclusion that ignores extensive
historical evidence to the contrary.[9]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_denial
So, what are the *methodological* similarities between
anti-stratfordianism and holocaust denial?
1. Both ignore "established historical methodologies"
2. Both justify their claims via a "conspiracy theory"
3. Both use methodologies that are based on "predetermined
conclusion[s]" that ignore "extensive historical evidence to the contrary"
Ign.
> --stupid wack
Paul Crowley
>>> Easily done: the holocaust deniers consider all the
>>> evidence for the holocaust lies; the anti-
>>> Shakespeareans consider all the evidence for
>>> Shakespeare lies.
>>
>> So, according to you, the evidence for
>> the authorship of the Stratman is of
>> much the same nature and quality as
>> the evidence for the holocaust.
>
> How does that follow, asshole?
Tell us how it does NOT follow, or how
it could NOT follow. YOU (correctly)
make evidence the central point in
your defence above.
[..]
>> You are an exceedingly stupid wack.
>
> But I said nothing about the quantity of evidence
> in each case, only that the Shakespeare-deniers
> treat the evidence for Shakespeare exactly the
> same way holocaust-deniers treat the evidence
> for the holocaust.
Your clear and unambiguous implication
is that anti-Strats are just as wrong as
holocaust-deniers -- BECAUSE the
evidence for the Stratman is as good as
that for the Holocaust.
I repeat: you are an exceedingly stupid wack.
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
That's not what I said. But you can't focus. What I
said is that Shakespeare-deniers call evidence
against their delusions lies as do Holocaust-deniers.
This is a similarity between them. If you want, I will
add that the evidence against the Shakespeare-deniers
is not as strong as the evidence against the
holocaust deniers, but it doesn't matter.
I am a writer, so is Shakespeare. We are similar
inasmuch as we are writers. It doesn't matter how
much better what Shakespeare wrote is than what
I write, we have in common the fact that we both
write. I play tennis, so does Federer. Ergo I am similar
to him--regardless of how much better he plays than I do.
Two inches is similar to a billion light years inasmuch as both
are distances. This is true in spite of the difference in their
length. A comparison of characteristics depends on the
nature of the characterists, not on what they are
characteristics of.
That Shakespeare-deniers are cranks, just as holocaust deniers,
moon-landing-deniers, alien abduction believers, creationists,
JFK assassination buffs, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, does not
mean they are necessarily similar in anything more than in being
cranks, or excessively irrational people unwilling to accept hard
evidence.
> I repeat: you are an exceedingly stupid wack.
>
A wack, by definition, believes in a minority view of some
significant subject, unsupported by hard evidence;
I don't however stupid I may be, at least not regarding
Shakespeare, so my analogy between the way
Shakespeare-deniers and holocaust-deniers deal
with hard evidence against them does not make me
a wack.
--Bob G.
nordicskiv2
> > bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
I missed this post, as I generally do not see Mr. Crowley's
extraordinary exhibitions of ignorance, and I am grateful to Bob for
bringing it to my attention. Mr. Crowley never (to my knowledge)
reads any material on which he pontificates so authoritatively nor has
any idea what he is talking about, and this instance is no exception.
In fact, the great Russian physicist, oceanographer, poet,
grammarian, historian, educator, etc. to whom I referred was Mikhail
Vasil'yevich Lomonosov, a polymath scientist, scholar, and artist who
grew up in a household (indeed, in an entire village) of illiterates,
and was beaten by his stepmother for his attempts as an autodidact to
teach himself grammar and mathematics. His formal education began at
the age of nineteen, when Lomonosov walked the sledge route between
the Arkhangelsk region and Moscow, where he entered the high-prestige
Slavonic-Greek-Latin Academy (the Eton of the Russian empire) by
pretending to be the son of an impoverished member of the nobiility;
his schoolmates were 12 and 13 years of age, and he was entering at an
age when students normally graduated from the academy after intensive
study of Greek and Latin classics and natural science.
And no, he was not a Hero of the Soviet Union; that would have
been difficult, since Lomonosov was a contemporary and correspondent
of Leonhard Euler in the mid 1700s, over a century and a half before
the Soviet Union existed. In fact, Lomonosov did some of the first
important experimental work in electromagnetism, as did his American
contemporary Benjamin Franklin; he died several decades before Michael
Faraday's birth. The breadth of Lomonosov's intellectual activity was
truly astounding -- unlike that of Mr. Crowley, who apparently has not
the remotest idea that there is anything amiss in proclaiming a
contemporary of Euler (who came to the Russian court at the end of the
reign of Catherine the Great) a Hero of the Soviet Union.
Mr. Crowley need not take my word for it. He might try consulting
*any* reasonably authoritative historical source. He might begin with
the Encyclopedia Britannica -- if he knows what that is.
Since I reside comfortably in Mr. Crowley's filter file (or so he
says), I would be indebted to Bob or anyone else who could bring
Lomonosov's example (and the correct chronology) to Mr. Crowley's
attention -- not that it will do any good, as Mr. Crowley doubtless
won't accept anything that the Encyclopedia Brtannica says, since I
mentioned it.
> > Paul.
>
> Right. All evidence against you is a lie.
That sums up his paranoid pontifications admirably, Bob.
> --Bob
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
the great Russian physicist, oceanographer, poet, grammarian,
historian, educator, etc. to whom David Webb referred was Mikhail
Vasil'yevich Lomonosov, a polymath scientist, scholar, and artist who
grew up in a household (indeed, in an entire village) of illiterates,
and was beaten by his stepmother for his attempts as an autodidact to
teach himself grammar and mathematics. His formal education began at
the age of nineteen, when Lomonosov walked the sledge route between
the Arkhangelsk region and Moscow, where he entered the high-prestige
Slavonic-Greek-Latin Academy (the Eton of the Russian empire) by
pretending to be the son of an impoverished member of the nobiility;
his schoolmates were 12 and 13 years of age, and he was entering at an
age when students normally graduated from the academy after intensive
study of Greek and Latin classics and natural science.
And no, he was not a Hero of the Soviet Union; that would have
been difficult, since Lomonosov was a contemporary and correspondent
of Leonhard Euler in the mid 1700s, over a century and a half before
the Soviet Union existed. In fact, Lomonosov did some of the first
important experimental work in electromagnetism, as did his American
contemporary Benjamin Franklin; he died several decades before Michael
Faraday's birth. The breadth of Lomonosov's intellectual activity was
truly astounding -- unlike that of Mr. Crowley, who apparently has not
the remotest idea that there is anything amiss in proclaiming a
contemporary of Euler (who came to the Russian court at the end of the
reign of Catherine the Great) a Hero of the Soviet Union.
To verify this, Mr. Crowley, David Webb suggest he might try
consulting
*any* reasonably authoritative historical source. He might begin with
the Encyclopedia Britannica -- if he knows what that is.
Note to David: Thanks for entering the thread and helping me out (yet
again--why'd he have to have such a long name, subm Russian) about
Lomonosov (not really that bad a name, but. . .), whom I need to
remember so I can remind Crowley of him, however futilely, whenever he
wants challenges me to cite someone with illiterate parents who became
a great writer.
--Bob
nordicskiv2
<8be6988f-517b-4560...@c10g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
art <acne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "Robin G." <doc...@proaxis.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> Well-known Oxfordian, JOSEPH SOBRAN is a Holocaust denier!
> >>> Of course, Oxfordians want to keep this fact a big fat secret!
> > art <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I see no indication that Sobran is a Holocaust denier;
> >> he is rather a denier of Israel as it currently exists.
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > While I don't know whether he is a Holocaust denier,
> > he is demonstrably much more than a mere
> > "denier of Israel as it currently exists," Art.
> He may well be, Dave, but neither Robin G. nor anyone
> else has provided evidence that he is "a Holocaust denier."
Don't be an idiot, Art -- or, if that is beyond your capabilities,
at least don't be such a conspicuous one. You wrote, and I quote
VERbatim:
"[...] he [Sobran] is rather a denier of Israel as it
currently exists."
Since you evidently were unable to read it either the first time or
the second time, let me furnish a précis of the anti-Semitic screed of
Sobran that I quoted in my post. Sobran mentions that Cicero,
Tacitus, and Juvenal, among others, fulminated against the Jews in
antiquity, and that the Jews were expelled from various nations
throughout history; he is plainly *not* talking about "Israel as it
currently exists," since the modern nation state of Israel did not
exist in the Rome of Cicero, Tacitus, and Juvenal, nor in the Spain of
the 1492 expulsion -- although I realize that this is news to you.
Thus your characterization of Sobran -- "he is rather a denier of
Israel as it currently exists" -- is plainly utter rubbish: Sobran is
something much more troubling than a mere "denier of Israel as it
currently exists," as the hate-filled rant that I quoted makes plain
to everyone -- except, apparently, the illiterate District Heights
boob. If you cannot distinguish Sobran's rabidly anti-Semitic rant
from criticism of "Israel as it currently exists," then your reading
comprehension is even more sadly deficient than was divined by that
prescient Lehigh admissions committee so many year ago, Art.
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
> > From a Sobran essay:
> >
> > "In intellectual life, Jews have been brilliantly subversive
> > of the cultures of the natives they have lived amongst. Their
> > tendencies, especially in modern times, have been radical and
> > nihilistic. One thinks of Marx, Freud, and many other shapers
> > of modern thought and authors of reductionist ideologies."
> Need I quote all the nasty things that
> you yourself have said about Freud, Dave?
You're quite welcome to quote them, Art -- I would say many of the
same things about Jung, who was not Jewish. Nor do I cite Freud and
Marx as exemplars of the supposed tendency of Jews to "subvert" the
cultures of peoples whom they live amongst, as Sobran does.
> That must be evidence that you are anti-Semitic.
If you cannot distinguish criticism of Freud's descents into
crankery from the outright anti-Semitism on display in Sobran's
appalling article, then your reading comprehension is even more sadly
deficient than was divined by that prescient Lehigh admissions
committee so many year ago, Art. There is abundant evidence of
Sobran's anti-Semitism throughout the article that I quoted, Art,
although I realize that your inability to read it must have
handicapped you in this discussion.
> > From a Sobran essay:
> >
> > "Jews have generally supported...
> > socialism, liberalism, and secularism"
>
> Not nearly enough in my opinion.
> >-------------------------------------------------------
> > From a Sobran essay:
> >
> > When the Jewish side of an issue
> > is too unpopular to prevail democratically,
> > the legal arm of Jewry seeks to make the issue
> > a 'constitutional' one, appealing to judicial
> > sovereignty to decide it in defiance of the voters.
>
> Not nearly enough in my opinion.
Your opinion of Jewry is not what is at issue, Art; it is Sobran's
opinion that we were discussing. The only opinion of yours with which
I took is issue was this one:
"[...] he [Sobran] is rather a denier of Israel as it
currently exists."
He is plainly much more than that.
> > From a Sobran essay:
> >
> > Overwhelming Jewish support for legal abortion
> > illustrates that many Jews hate Christian morality."
> More like Christian hypocrisy, IMO.
Plenty of Christians support reproductive choice; Sobran merely
does not acknowledge that Protestants who hold such views share what
he views as "Christian morality."
[...]
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Do you deny that the Sobran essay quoted
> > above is blatantly anti-Semitic, Art?>
> That is *NOT* the issue, Dave.
Of course it is, Art -- you opined -- absurdly -- that Sobran is
"...rather a denier of Israel as it currently exists." As I have
shown, he is much more than that.
> You haven't provided any evidence that Sobran is "a Holocaust denier"
Do learn to read, Art -- it would enhance your credibility (not to
mention diminishing your credulity) enormously. I never said that he
was. Indeed, the VERy first sentence in my post was the following:
"While I don't know whether he [Sobran] is a Holocaust denier, he
is demonstrably much more than a mere 'denier of Israel as it
currently exists,' Art."
> It is a false Stratfordian premise that anti-Stratfordians
> are in the same class as "a Holocaust deniers"
> and many other group [sic]
Is English your native tongue, Art? And I never equated anti-
Stratfordians with Holocaust deniers, although both groups are
generally blissfully ignorant of the methodology of history; the main
difference is that the latter are often actuated by prejudice at least
as much as by ignorance, which makes them far more dangerous than the
former. Nor is such an identification a "Stratfordian premise."
> of ignoramuses you try to
> associate us with.
What on earth are you gibbering about, Art?! Many of your
coreligionists *are* demonstrably ignoramuses. Have you already
forgotten Mr. Streitz's contention that AIDS is "a hoax"? Or his
fulminations about the Mexican conspiracy to effect a "reconquista" of
the American southwest? Or his crank aerodynamic theories? Have you
forgotten "Dr." Faker's "solution" to Fermat's Last Theorem? Or his
belief in the supposed NASA conspiracy that, he claims, faked the
Apollo lunar landings? Have you forgotten Stephanie Caruana's
insistence that Shakespeare could not have read books during his youth
because none in English had yet been printed in England, the printer
Caxton having been Shakespeare's contemporary? Have you forgotten
Elizabeth Weird's ludicrous denial of special relativity and her
embrace of "aether theory"? Or her comic confusion of grammatical
inflection with inflection in the sense of modulation of the voice?
Or her Latin "translations"? Or her revelation that Old English was
spoken in some shires as late the nineteenth century? Have you
already forgotten Raeto West's farcical fulminations about modern
physics and modern biology being hoaxes, and his revisionist history?
Have you forgotten Mr. Crowley's "aquatic ape" primatology, or his
confident pronouncement as Elizabethan a modern pastiche with a
glaring grammatical gaffe in the VERy first line -- one that would
have been (and was) obvious to anyone who had read any period
literature? For that matter, have you forgotten the ignoramus who
dated Virgil prior to Herodotus, who declared that "vier" means "four"
in Spanish, who extolled the marvelous properties of the number 19,
who identified Anne Hathaway as Shakespeare's mother, and who thinks
that "has de Cervantes" makes any sense in modern Spanish?
There is absolutely *no* need whatever to *associate* you and your
coreligionists with ignoramuses, Art -- that would be like bringing
coals to Newcastle. I am simply objecting strongly to your cretinous
characterization of Sobran as merely a "denier of Israel as it
currently exists." He is much more than that, as I have shown
decisively, and as many of your saner Oxfordian coreligionists readily
acknowledge!
> Sobran, Tom Bethell, Richard Wagner and others may
> be extremely bigoted but that does not make them
> ignoramuses
Huh? You don't think that Bethell's denial of evolution by natural
selection and his embrace of "intelligent design" makes him an
ignoramus, Art?! Perhaps you should run for a seat on a school board
in Kansas. And I suspect that even you could dismantle his global
warming denial, Art -- that is, if you really did anything useful at
NOAA. As for Richard Wagner, I am not sure to whom you are
referring. If you mean the celebrated operatic composer, then there
is no question that Wagner was a genius. HoweVER, being a genius does
not by any means preclude being an ignoramus, especially outside one's
field of expertise. William Shockley was a scientist and inventor of
genius, yet he ventured into areas in which he was untrained and about
which he knew comparatively little, with very unfortunate results.
> and you have no evidence to that effect.
See above. Sobran may not be a *universal* ignoramus, as so many
of your coreligionists are, as there may well be some subjects that he
knows something about; howeVER, he pontificates on topics about which
he knows VERy little, as do so many anti-Stratfordians.
> > From a Sobran essay:
> >
> > "Why is academia so close-minded on a mystery
> > that has fascinated so many people?"
>
> > "Because the prestige of the scholars is at stake."
> >
> > "If they can be wrong about something as basic
> > as Shakespeare's identity,
> >
> > "while a lot of amateurs have been right,
> >
> > "they'll wind up with a lot of
> > egg on their long, solemn faces."
> >
> > "The professional scholars aren't really afraid of the amateurs.
> >
> > "They are afraid of each other.
> > They are afraid of being scorned and shunned for dissent.
> >
> > "They'd rather talk nonsense, as long as it fits the party line,
> >
> > "than speak a risky truth.
As I already wrote:
"'Risky'?! The institution of tenure is specifically intended
to protect professional scholars from any 'risk' by affording
them the intellectual freedom to pursue all kinds of daring and
even unpopular hypotheses, without fear of reprisals for
championing politically or ideologically unpopular ideas."
There are few "risky truths" in academia. That's what tenure is for
-- to make it possible for investigators who have established their
reputations in their fields by a strong record of achievement during
their probationary period to venture into more speculative and daring
research that may have potentially significant payoffs (but may also
fail spectacularly) without fear of reprisals. Many professional
scholars do exactly that. Sobran's ridiculous caricature of academic
culture as enforcing a "party line" something like Soviet ideological
orthodoxy make one wonder how long it has been since he visited a
college campus.
As for Sobran's question "Why is academia so close-minded on a
mystery that has fascinated so many people?", one need only consider
that *far* more people have been fascinated by perpetual motion, alien
abductions, crop circles, ancient astronauts, relativity denial,
simple proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem, intelligent design, angle
trisection, Velikovskian planetary "science," etc., yet the reason
that academia may seem -- to the uninformed, at any rate -- "close-
minded" about "mysteries" such as these has VERy little to do with
Sobran's _bête noire_, his imagined ideological orthodoxy. The reason
for the apparent academic disinterest in the "mystery" of the
authorship of the Shakespeare canon is much the same. Nor is the
"close minded" attitude that Sobran laments that widespread in
academia -- there are many members of the professoriate (loosely
interpreted) who embrace anti-Stratfordian scenarios, as Oxfordians
proudly point out, just as there are Velikovskians in departments of
Slavic Languages; howeVER, VERy few anti-Stratfordians are in
reputable departments of English or History, for a VERy good reason --
the same reason that there are very few "aquatic ape" fanciers among
primatologists or angle trisectors among professional mathematicians
or Velikovskians in Physics departments.
> Art Neuendorffer
Paul Crowley
> So, what are the *methodological* similarities between
> anti-stratfordianism and holocaust denial?
>
> 1. Both ignore "established historical methodologies"
Oxfordianism does not ignore "established
historical methodologies".
> 2. Both justify their claims via a "conspiracy theory"
Oxfordianism claims that there was a
government-sponsored cover-up.
Maybe, in your opinion, it is good 'historical
method' to assume that no government-
sponsored cover-up ever took place?
> 3. Both use methodologies that are based on
> "predetermined conclusion[s]" that ignore "extensive
> historical evidence to the contrary"
Utter nonsense. There has been nothing
"pre-determined" in anti-Stratfordianism,
It has in its development gone down a
number of blind alleys, and had to find
its way back again. Oxfordianism has
matured substantially in recent years.
(Not that there are still plenty of semi-
crazy ideas among its proponents --
such as the Prince Tudor garbage.)
Nor does it ignore ANY historical
evidence.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
>>> But I said nothing about the quantity of evidence
>>> in each case, only that the Shakespeare-deniers
>>> treat the evidence for Shakespeare exactly the
>>> same way holocaust-deniers treat the evidence
>>> for the holocaust.
> That's not what I said. But you can't focus. What I
> said is that Shakespeare-deniers call evidence
> against their delusions lies as do Holocaust-deniers.
> This is a similarity between them. If you want, I will
> add that the evidence against the Shakespeare-deniers
> is not as strong as the evidence against the
> holocaust deniers, but it doesn't matter.
>
> I am a writer, so is Shakespeare. We are similar
> inasmuch as we are writers. It doesn't matter how
> much better what Shakespeare wrote is than what I
> write, we have in common the fact that we both
> write. I play tennis, so does Federer. Ergo I am
> similar to him--regardless of how much better he
> plays than I do. Two inches is similar to a billion
> light years inasmuch as both are distances.
So, according to your logic, it is sufficient
to find SOME similarity -- no matter how
insignificant -- and you can claim an
identity!
Would having a wart in the same place
on your face as Cromwell count?
Do you know what superstitions are?
I bet you that if you were to ask anyone
who knows you to list people in history
and alive now to whom you are similar,
both Federer and Shakespeare would
be so far down the list, that they would
never be reached.
> That Shakespeare-deniers are cranks, just as
> holocaust deniers, moon-landing-deniers, alien
> abduction believers, creationists, JFK
> assassination buffs, 9/11 conspiracy theorists,
> does not mean they are necessarily similar in
> anything more than in being cranks, or excessively
> irrational people unwilling to accept hard evidence.
Let's cut to the chase. Rigidniks like
yourself object to ANY challenge to the
orthodox view (whatever it may be at any
particular time). You were told, at school,
that certain things were true, and you are
shocked when you hear that some people
say that they aren't. So you readily lump
together all 'dissenters'. In earlier ages --
and depending on the time and place --
you'd have put witches, aetheists,
republicans, Copernicans, homosexuals,
cripples, lepers, card-players, Roman
Catholics, and a few other groups, all in
one bunch, and happily burned them all.
Today, you might go for paedophiles,
bankers, parents who use physical
punishment, holocaust-deniers and
Oxfordians.
The "mental processes" involved have
not changed.
Paul.
sasheargold
> Ignoto wrote:
> > So, what are the *methodological* similarities between
> > anti-stratfordianism and holocaust denial?
>
> > 1. Both ignore "established historical methodologies"
>
> Oxfordianism does not ignore "established
> historical methodologies".
>
> > 2. Both justify their claims via a "conspiracy theory"
>
> Oxfordianism claims that there was a
> government-sponsored cover-up.
Claims. Show us the documentary evidence.
>
> Maybe, in your opinion, it is good 'historical
> method' to assume that no government-
> sponsored cover-up ever took place?
We'll assume there wasn't until you produce evidence to the contrary.
>
> > 3. Both use methodologies that are based on
> > "predetermined conclusion[s]" that ignore "extensive
> > historical evidence to the contrary"
>
> Utter nonsense. There has been nothing
> "pre-determined" in anti-Stratfordianism,
> It has in its development gone down a
> number of blind alleys, and had to find
> its way back again. Oxfordianism has
> matured substantially in recent years.
Yes, we now know he did everything from writing the Martin Marprelate
tracts through to designing Mercator's maps.
> (Not that there are still plenty of semi-
> crazy ideas among its proponents --
> such as the Prince Tudor garbage.)
At least you can get something right.
>
> Nor does it ignore ANY historical
> evidence.
>
> Paul.
Well, you can't ignore what isn't there.
SB.
art
> There is no question that Wagner was a genius.
> HoweVER, being a genius does not by any means preclude
> being an ignoramus, especially outside one's field of expertise.
> William Shockley was a scientist and inventor of genius,
> yet he ventured into areas in which he was untrained and about
> which he knew comparatively little, with very unfortunate results.
(My dad knew Shockley from World War II.)
One can even stay in ones field of expertise
and still get things wrong. E.g.,
1) Albert Einstein on quantum mechanics,
2) Linus Pauling on vitamin C,
3) Fred Hoyle & Geoffrey Burbidge on cosmology
4) S. Fred Singer on almost everything.
Is Elizabethan literature your "field of expertise," Dave?
Art Neuendorffer
elizabeth
> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> >>> Easily done: the holocaust deniers consider all the
> >>> evidence for the holocaust lies; the anti-
> >>> Shakespeareans consider all the evidence for
> >>> Shakespeare lies.
I don't like that comparison or any other that trivializes
The Holocaust. The Jews murdered by the Nazis
were citizens of Germany, many descended from
families that had migrated to GermanIa during the
Roman era. There are extant first century records of
the tithes they sent to the Temple in Jerusalem.
In other words, Jews had every right to live unmolested
in Germany but were instead murdered WITHOUT the
benefit of DUE PROCESS.
How does evil of that magnitude compare to
the question of Shakespeare authorship?
I'm disgusted by this discussion, this thread needs
to be taken down with apologies.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Yes, Paul, that would be a similarity. Look it up.
> Do you know what superstitions are?
Yes, Paul--a belief in something contradicted by
most people's idea of what the laws of nature are.
> I bet you that if you were to ask anyone
> who knows you to list people in history
> and alive now to whom you are similar,
> both Federer and Shakespeare would
> be so far down the list, that they would
> never be reached.
Ah, but if I asked them if I were similar to either
in any way, they would all say yes. And you're
probably wrong about Shakespeare--being a poet
makes me in some people's minds fairly similar
to Shakespeare.
> > That Shakespeare-deniers are cranks, just as
> > holocaust deniers, moon-landing-deniers, alien
> > abduction believers, creationists, JFK
> > assassination buffs, 9/11 conspiracy theorists,
> > does not mean they are necessarily similar in
> > anything more than in being cranks, or excessively
> > irrational people unwilling to accept hard evidence.
>
> Let's cut to the chase. Rigidniks like
> yourself object to ANY challenge to the
> orthodox view (whatever it may be at any
> particular time). You were told, at school,
> that certain things were true, and you are
> shocked when you hear that some people
> say that they aren't. So you readily lump
> together all 'dissenters'. In earlier ages --
> and depending on the time and place --
> you'd have put witches, aetheists,
> republicans, Copernicans, homosexuals,
> cripples, lepers, card-players, Roman
> Catholics, and a few other groups, all in
> one bunch, and happily burned them all.
Hey, I still am, Paul!
> Today, you might go for paedophiles,
> bankers, parents who use physical
> punishment, holocaust-deniers and
> Oxfordians.
Your insight into me is amazing.
Hey, you know what? I personally know a
holocaust denier, and guess what--he's not
anti-Semitic, he just thinks that the holocaust
never happened. There's nothing inherently
evil about it; it's just a wrong opinion, like
Oxfordianism.
--Bob
Ignoto
> Ignoto wrote:
>
>> So, what are the *methodological* similarities between
>> anti-stratfordianism and holocaust denial?
>>
>> 1. Both ignore "established historical methodologies"
>
> Oxfordianism does not ignore "established
> historical methodologies".
So, you now accept (eg) that a title page is evidence of authorship or
that psychobiography is not a valid method of establishing authorship?
>> 2. Both justify their claims via a "conspiracy theory"
>
> Oxfordianism claims that there was a
> government-sponsored cover-up.
>
> Maybe, in your opinion, it is good 'historical
> method' to assume that no government-
> sponsored cover-up ever took place?
There is no evidence of a "government- sponsored cover-up" or indeed of
any cover up at all.
Of course, you and your tribe *assume* the existence of a cover-up and
then proceed to filter all evidence through that assumption.
>> 3. Both use methodologies that are based on
>> "predetermined conclusion[s]" that ignore "extensive
>> historical evidence to the contrary"
>
> Utter nonsense. There has been nothing
> "pre-determined" in anti-Stratfordianism,
> It has in its development gone down a
> number of blind alleys, and had to find
> its way back again. Oxfordianism has
> matured substantially in recent years.
> (Not that there are still plenty of semi-
> crazy ideas among its proponents --
> such as the Prince Tudor garbage.)
>
> Nor does it ignore ANY historical
> evidence.
Nonsense. Take the psychobiographical method for instance: assume Oxford
was the author, interpret the works according to that assumption and
then conclude that oxford was indeed the author. Any real evidence
(documentary, testimonial or circumstantial) that runs counter to this
pre-determined conclusion is ignored.
Ign.
>
>
> Paul.
>
Robin G.
> On Feb 12, 1:52 pm, Ignoto <""ignoto \"@ blahblahblah.org"> wrote:
>
> > bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> > >>> Easily done: the holocaust deniers consider all the
> > >>> evidence for the holocaust lies; the anti-
> > >>> Shakespeareans consider all the evidence for
> > >>> Shakespeare lies.
>
> I don't like that comparison or any other that trivializes
> The Holocaust. The Jews murdered by the Nazis
> were citizens of Germany, many descended from
> families that had migrated to GermanIa during the
> Roman era. There are extant first century records of
> the tithes they sent to the Temple in Jerusalem.
>
> In other words, Jews had every right to live unmolested
> in Germany but were instead murdered WITHOUT the
> benefit of DUE PROCESS.
>
Elizabeth - Do you know Jewish citizens of Germany weren't the only
Jews murdered by the Nazis? I'm confused by your remark, ". . . but
were instead murdered WITHOUT the benefit of DUE PROCESS." Would it
make a difference to you if they were murdered WITH the benefit of DUE
PROCESS?
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
The magnitude of that is not under discussion, Elizabeth; what is,
is the rationality of it.
> I'm disgusted by this discussion, this thread needs
> to be taken down with apologies.
Ah, we should take this thread down because you don't like it.
--Bob
La Mouse
Bob, forgive me, but you are talking a lot of rubbish. I expect better
of you.
Mouse
>
> --Bob- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> of you.
> Mouse
Sorry, Mouse, but I've consistently talked this rubbish, so you
shouldn't
expect better of me. I don't plan to continue doing so on this
thread, though.
--Bob
Paul Crowley
>>> So, what are the *methodological* similarities between
>>> anti-stratfordianism and holocaust denial?
>>>
>>> 1. Both ignore "established historical methodologies"
>>
>> Oxfordianism does not ignore "established
>> historical methodologies".
>
> So, you now accept (eg) that a title page is
> evidence of authorship
A title page bearing the name of the
author "W.Shake-speare", especially
when hyphenated, is clear and
unambiguous evidence that the
author was using a pseudonym.
> or that psychobiography is not a valid method of
> establishing authorship?
I don't know what "psychobiography" is.
>>> 2. Both justify their claims via a "conspiracy theory"
>>
>> Oxfordianism claims that there was a
>> government-sponsored cover-up.
>>
>> Maybe, in your opinion, it is good 'historical
>> method' to assume that no government-
>> sponsored cover-up ever took place?
>
> There is no evidence of a "government-
> sponsored cover-up" or indeed of any cover
> up at all.
There is overwhelming evidence of
such a cover-up.
>>> 3. Both use methodologies that are based on
>>> "predetermined conclusion[s]" that ignore "extensive
>>> historical evidence to the contrary"
>> Nor does it ignore ANY historical
>> evidence.
>
> Nonsense. Take the psychobiographical
> method for instance: assume Oxford was
> the author, interpret the works according to
> that assumption
This is the standard method for
testing any new hypothesis. Maybe
the earth does revolve on its axis
every day -- if so, how is the theory
to be tested?
> that assumption and then conclude that
> oxford was indeed the author.
The conclusion is justified when
readings based on the working
assumption prove correct -- e.g.
that "Twelfth Night" was written
in 1580.
> Any real evidence (documentary, testimonial
> or circumstantial) that runs counter to this
> pre-determined conclusion is ignored.
Which items of evidence are ignored?
Paul.
Paul Crowley
>>> So, what are the *methodological* similarities between
>>> anti-stratfordianism and holocaust denial?
>>>
>>> 1. Both ignore "established historical methodologies"
>>
>> Oxfordianism does not ignore "established
>> historical methodologies".
>
> So, you now accept (eg) that a title page is
> evidence of authorship
A title page bearing the name of the
author "W.Shake-speare", especially
when hyphenated, is clear and
unambiguous evidence that the
author was using a pseudonym.
> or that psychobiography is not a valid method of
> establishing authorship?
I don't know what "psychobiography" is.
>>> 2. Both justify their claims via a "conspiracy theory"
>>
>> Oxfordianism claims that there was a
>> government-sponsored cover-up.
>>
>> Maybe, in your opinion, it is good 'historical
>> method' to assume that no government-
>> sponsored cover-up ever took place?
>
> There is no evidence of a "government-
> sponsored cover-up" or indeed of any cover
> up at all.
There is overwhelming evidence of
such a cover-up.
>>> 3. Both use methodologies that are based on
>>> "predetermined conclusion[s]" that ignore "extensive
>>> historical evidence to the contrary"
>> Nor does it ignore ANY historical
>> evidence.
>
> Nonsense. Take the psychobiographical
> method for instance: assume Oxford was
> the author, interpret the works according to
> that assumption
This is the standard method for
testing any new hypothesis. Maybe
the earth does revolve on its axis
every day -- if so, how is the theory
to be tested?
> that assumption and then conclude that
> oxford was indeed the author.
The conclusion is justified when
readings based on the working
assumption prove correct -- e.g.
that "Twelfth Night" was written
in 1580, and characters in the
play can be seen to have
counterparts in real life.
> Any real evidence (documentary, testimonial
> or circumstantial) that runs counter to this
> pre-determined conclusion is ignored.
Which items of evidence are ignored?
Paul.
sasheargold
You have repeatedly been asked to produce it but have so far failed to
do so.
What does that tell us (aside from the fact that you're a choker)?
SB.