If at first you don't succeed . . .

[tom....@gmail.com]

Oxfordians are trying to rehabilitate last year's flop "Anonymous" (it made back half its $30 million cost) with a "documentary" reusing the movie's scenes.

http://www.facebook.com/LastWill.andTestamentTheMovie?ref=ts&fref=ts

Click on the trailer link on the page. (You don't have to enable ads; just wait until the ad timer in the top left corner of the screen runs out and the trailer will start.)

It appears they're resorting to flat-out lying now. Beginning at 1:39 an Oxfodian intones, "If he were the man from Stratford, there would be some evidence. That there is none, speaks volumes."

Apparently their idea of evidence is different than the rest of the world, but we already knew that.

TR

[Arthur Neuendorffer]

tom.re...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Oxfordians are trying to rehabilitate last year's flop
> "Anonymous" (it made back half its $30 million cost)
> with a "documentary" reusing the movie's scenes.

So....did ANYBODY pay to see "Anonymous"?

tom.re...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> http://www.facebook.com/LastWill.andTestamentTheMovie?ref=ts&fref=ts
>
> Click on the trailer link on the page.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/409868

tom.re...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> (You don't have to enable ads; just wait until
> the ad timer in the top left corner of the
> screen runs out and the trailer will start.)
>
> It appears they're resorting to flat-out lying now.

Of course, Stratfordians would *never* lie!
(Listen to Stanley Wells: http://www.hulu.com/watch/409868)


tom.re...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Beginning at 1:39 an Oxfodian [sic] intones,

>
> "If he were the man from Stratford,
> there would be some evidence.
> That there is none, speaks volumes."
>
> Apparently their idea of evidence is different
> than the rest of the world, but we already knew that.

--------------------------------------------------
Originally appearing in Volume V02, Page 550
of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.
http://tinyurl.com/8cdrh9f

<<[Noah's] ARK: It may be interesting to recall the account given
in the first edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1771), which
contained a summary of some of these various views (substantially
repeated up to the publication of the eighth edition, 1853).

"Some have thought the dimensions of the ark as given by Moses too
scanty... and hence an argument has been drawn against the authority
of the relation. To solve this difficulty many of the ancient Fathers
and the modern critics have been put to miserable shifts. But Buteo
and Kircher have proved geometrically that, taking the cubit of a
foot & a half, the ark was abundantly sufficient for all the animals
supposed to be lodged in it. Snellius computes the ark to have been
above half an acre in area and Dr Arbuthnot computes it to have been
81,062 tuns... if we come to a calculation the number of species
of animals will be found much less than is generally imagined, not
amounting to a hundred species of quadrupeds, nor to two hundred of
birds.... Zoologists usually reckon but an hundred & seventy species
in all. The progress of the " higher criticism," and the gradual
surrender of attempts to square scientific facts with a literal
interpretation of the Bible, are indicated in the shorter account
given in the eighth edition, which concludes as follows:—" the
insuperable difficulties connected with the belief that all the
existing species of animals were provided for in the ark, are obviated
by adopting the suggestion of Bishop Stillingfleet, approved by
Matthew Poole, Pye Smith, le Clerc, Rossenmuller and others, that the
deluge did not extend beyond the region of the earth then inhabited,
and that only the animals of that region were pre-served in the ark."

The first edition also gives an engraving of the ark (repeated in
the editions up to the fifth), in shape like a long roofed box,
floating on the waters; the animals are seen in separate stalls.
By the time of the ninth edition (1875) precise details
are no longer considered worthy of inclusion; and
the age of scientific comparative mythology has been reached.>>

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html
----------------------------------------------
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/0 ... 44808.html wrote:

<<Congressman Paul Broun (R-Ga.) said last week that evolution and the
big bang theory are "lies straight from the pit of Hell."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rikEWuBrkHc

"God's word is true. I've come to understand that. All that stuff I
was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all
that is lies straight from the pit of Hell," said Broun, who is an MD.
"It's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that
from understanding that they need a savior." He continued: "You see,
there are a lot of scientific data that I've found out as a scientist
that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don't believe
that the earth's but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created
in six days as we know them. That's what the Bible says."

According to NBC News, Broun's comments were part of a larger speech
given at the 2012 Sportsman's Banquet at Liberty Baptist Church in
Hartwell, Georgia on September 27th.

Broun is a high-ranking member of the House Science Committee,
of which Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.) is also a member.

Akin made headlines last month for suggesting that women don't get
pregnant from "legitimate rape" because their bodies have "ways to try
to shut that whole thing down."

As Gawker points out, Broun made headlines in 2009 for trying to make
2010 "the year of the Bible."

Broun is running for reelection unopposed, the AP reports.>>
-------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer

[David L. Webb]

In article
<2ed9353b-c3f0-415c...@b15g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,

Arthur Neuendorffer <acne...@gmail.com> (aka Noonedafter) wrote:

> tom.re...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Oxfordians are trying to rehabilitate last year's flop
> > "Anonymous" (it made back half its $30 million cost)
> > with a "documentary" reusing the movie's scenes.

> So....did ANYBODY pay to see "Anonymous"?

Why would anyone sane do that, Art? One might pay to watch it for a
laugh, perhaps, but even at its best, the film wasn't *nearly* as funny
as the anti-Stratfordian loons at h.l.a.s.

> tom.re...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > http://www.facebook.com/LastWill.andTestamentTheMovie?ref=ts&fref=ts
> >
> > Click on the trailer link on the page.

> http://www.hulu.com/watch/409868

> tom.re...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > (You don't have to enable ads; just wait until
> > the ad timer in the top left corner of the
> > screen runs out and the trailer will start.)
> >
> > It appears they're resorting to flat-out lying now.

> Of course, Stratfordians would *never* lie!

You have said yourself that we don't lie, Art -- we merely equivocate.

> (Listen to Stanley Wells: http://www.hulu.com/watch/409868)

> tom.re...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Beginning at 1:39 an Oxfodian [sic] intones,
> >
> > "If he were the man from Stratford,
> > there would be some evidence.
> > That there is none, speaks volumes."
> >
> > Apparently their idea of evidence is different
> > than the rest of the world, but we already knew that.

Indeed, Art's idea (usual disclaimer) of "evidence" is priceless!

> Originally appearing in Volume V02, Page 550
> of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.
> http://tinyurl.com/8cdrh9f
>
> <<[Noah's] ARK: It may be interesting to recall the account given
> in the first edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1771), which
> contained a summary of some of these various views (substantially
> repeated up to the publication of the eighth edition, 1853).

As I said, Art, Noah's Ark is *MUCH* more plausible than NOAA's Art.

[...]

> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html
> ----------------------------------------------
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/0 ... 44808.html wrote:
>
> <<Congressman Paul Broun (R-Ga.) said last week that evolution and the
> big bang theory are "lies straight from the pit of Hell."
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rikEWuBrkHc
>
> "God's word is true. I've come to understand that. All that stuff I
> was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all
> that is lies straight from the pit of Hell," said Broun, who is an MD.
> "It's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that
> from understanding that they need a savior." He continued: "You see,
> there are a lot of scientific data that I've found out as a scientist
> that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don't believe
> that the earth's but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created
> in six days as we know them. That's what the Bible says."

[...]

So? It's well known that there are politicians so ignorant of
science, history, languages, etc. that they would make good Oxfordians,
Art.

By the way, Art, you *still* have not answered my query: you
characterized anti-Stratfordians as "skilled". "Skilled" at *WHAT*?
The unintentional comedy of incompetence? Their area of skill cannot be
history, ancient and modern foreign languages (and for many of the
more...uh...eccentric anti-Stratfordians, that includes English),
textual attribution, natural science, mathematics, or even ordinary
common sense. In what pursuit are anti-Stratfordians "skilled", Art?!
Inquiring minds want to know.

And what is the source of your idiotic gloss of _doi_ as Polish for
"two", Art? Was it the same source that led you to think (usual
disclaimer) that _vier_ is Spanish for "four"? Was it the same source
that led you to think (usual disclaimer) that "bon" is Slovak for "ass"?
Was it the same source that led you to think (usual disclaimer) that
"t�rin" is Russian for "youth" -- or indeed that a word containing a
letter not in the Russian alphabet could be a Russian word *at all*?
Was it the same source that led you to think (usual disclaimer) that
_perversidade_ is Portuguese for "monstrous" -- or indeed that *any*
Portuguese adjective ends in "dade"?! Was it t he same source that led
you to think (usual disclaimer) that _omspit_ is Danish for "to dig up",
or indeed that *any* Danish infinitive ends in "-it"?! Was it the same
source that led you to think (usual disclaimer) that _turk_ is "Celtic
[sic]" for "ox" -- or indeed that "Celtic" is a language at all?!
Restless, inquiring minds want to know the answers to these riddles, Art.

> -------------------------------------------
> Art Neuendorffer

[Arthur Neuendorffer]

>> tom.re...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> Oxfordians are trying to rehabilitate last year's flop
>>> "Anonymous" (it made back half its $30 million cost)
>>> with a "documentary" reusing the movie's scenes.

> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> So....did ANYBODY pay to see "Anonymous"?

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Why would anyone sane do that, Art?

--------------------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28film%29#Accolades

<<Audiences gave it an A- rating in its first weekend of limited
release.

Rex Reed regards Anonymous as "one of the most exciting on-screen
literary rows since Norman Mailer was beaten with a hammer," and well
worth the stamina required to sit out what is an otherwise exhausting
film. Not only Shakespeare's identity, but also that of Queen
Elizabeth, the 'Virgin Queen' is challenged by Orloff's script, which
has her as "a randy piece of work who had many lovers and bore several
children." Visually, the film gives us a "dazzling panorama of Tudor
history" which will not bore viewers. It boasts a cast of pure gold,
and its "recreation of the Old Globe, the fame that brought ruin and
dishonor to both Oxford and the money-grubbing Shakespeare, and the
sacrifice of Oxford's own property and family fortune to write plays
he believed in against a background of danger and violence make for a
bloody good yarn, masterfully told, lushly appointed, slavishly
researched and brilliantly acted." He adds the caveats that it does
play "hopscotch with history", has a bewildering and confusing cast of
characters and is jumpy in its timeframes.

Michael Phillips for the Chicago Tribune writes that the film is not
dull. Its best scenes are those of the candle-lit interiors caught by
the Alexa digital camera on a lovely copper-and-honey-toned palette.
After a week, what remains in Phillips' memory is "the way Redgrave
gazes out a window, her reign near the end, her eyes full of regret
but also of fiery defiance."

Roger Ebert finds Orloff's screenplay "ingenious," Emmerich's
direction "precise", and the cast "memorable". Anonymous is "a
marvellous historical film," giving viewers "a splendid experience:
the dialogue, the acting, the depiction of London, the lust, jealousy
and intrigue."

Kirk Honeycutt ranked it as Emmerich's best film, with a superb cast
of British actors, and a stunning digitally-enhanced recreation of
London in Elizabethan times. The film is "glorious fun." Damon Wise,
reviewing the film for the Guardian, appraises Emmerich's
'meticulously crafted' and 'stunningly designed takedown of the Bard,'
as shocking only in that it is rather good. Special mention is given
to Edward Hogg's performance as Robert Cecil, and Vanessa Redgrave's
role as Elizabeth.

Kristopher Tapley champions the film, finding that Orloff has spun 'a
fascinating yarn'. Ifans gives a stunning performance, and Spall's
Shakespeare provides delightful comic relief. The film is 'gorgeous'
and Tapley agrees with a colleague's judgement that "people will
likely look back to Anonymous as the tipping point of what you can
really do with digital in a next-level kind of way".'

Reviewing for Associated Press, Christy Lemire commends Rhys Ifans'
performance as "flamboyant, funny, sexy."

Lou Lumenick, writing for the New York Post, writes that the movie "is
a thoroughly entertaining load of eye candy with solid performances,
even if John Orloff’s exposition-heavy script practically requires a
concordance to follow at times." Emmerich's CGI effects are well-done,
but it is amazing just to watch an "actor on a bare wooden stage,
using nothing but a sequence of words that make your scalp prickle."

Andrea Chase in Killer Movie Reviews rates Anonymous as "superb",
dwelling on Orloff's rich script, which has "done an excellent job of
fitting the known facts to the thesis on offer", on Emmerich's
dramatic flair and the wonderful supporting cast. Spall's Shakespeare,
"preening with the narcissist's elan of a confirmed ham, lights up the
screen."

Louise Keller for Urban Cinefile admires the "thought-provoking
scenario" of Orloff's "marvellous conspiracy story", though its
"twists and turns" are headspinning: "anyone who can follow the first
30 minutes of the plot, must have been polishing the grey matter with
advanced Sudoku: it's an unholy mess of complicated situations and
jumps in time frame."

Anonymous was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Costume Design
for German Costume Designer Lisy Christl's work. That same year, it
was also nominated for 7 Lolas, winning in 6 Categories including Best
Cinematography for Anna J. Foerster, Best Art Direction for Stephan O.
Gessler and Sebastian T. Krawinkel and Best Costume Design for Lisy
Christl. At the Satellite Awards, the film was nominated in two
categories including Best Art Direction (and Production Design) for
Stephan O. Gessler and Sebastian T. Krawinkel, and Best Costume Design
for Lisy Christl. Vanessa Redgrave was nominated for Best British
Actress of the Year at the London Film Critics Circle Awards for
Anonymous and Coriolanus. The film also received a nomination from the
Art Directors Guild for Period Film, honouring Production designer
Sebastian T. Krawinkel. Results will be known on February 4, 2012.>>
--------------------------------------------------------------

>> tom.re...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>>http://www.facebook.com/LastWill.andTestamentTheMovie?ref=ts&fref=ts
>
>>> Click on the trailer link on the page.

>>http://www.hulu.com/watch/409868

>> tom.re...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> (You don't have to enable ads; just wait until
>>> the ad timer in the top left corner of the
>>> screen runs out and the trailer will start.)
>
>>> It appears they're resorting to flat-out lying now.

> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Of course, Stratfordians would *never* lie!

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> You have said yourself that we don't lie,
> Art -- we merely equivocate.

I was quite naive (or too polite).

> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> (Listen to Stanley Wells:http://www.hulu.com/watch/409868)

>> tom.re...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>> Beginning at 1:39 an Oxfodian [sic] intones,
>
>>> "If he were the man from Stratford,
>>> there would be some evidence.
>>> That there is none, speaks volumes."
>
>>> Apparently their idea of evidence is different
>>> than the rest of the world, but we already knew that.

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Indeed, Art's idea of "evidence" is priceless!

There's no charge at all at HLAS!

> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Originally appearing in Volume V02, Page 550
>> of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.
>>http://tinyurl.com/8cdrh9f
>
>> <<[Noah's] ARK: It may be interesting to recall the account given
>> in the first edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1771), which
>> contained a summary of some of these various views (substantially
>> repeated up to the publication of the eighth edition, 1853).

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> As I said, Art, Noah's Ark is *MUCH* more plausible than NOAA's Art.

As I said, Dave, I'm sure that you believe that.

> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html
>> ----------------------------------------------

>>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/0... 44808.html wrote:
>
>> <<Congressman Paul Broun (R-Ga.) said last week that evolution and the
>> big bang theory are "lies straight from the pit of Hell."
>
>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rikEWuBrkHc
>
>> "God's word is true. I've come to understand that. All that stuff I
>> was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all
>> that is lies straight from the pit of Hell," said Broun, who is an MD.
>> "It's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that
>> from understanding that they need a savior." He continued: "You see,
>> there are a lot of scientific data that I've found out as a scientist
>> that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don't believe
>> that the earth's but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created
>> in six days as we know them. That's what the Bible says."

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> So? It's well known that there are politicians
> so ignorant of science, history, languages, etc.

Like Stratfordians,
they cling to their ancient preposterous myths.
----------------------------------------------
. Hamlet, Prince of Denmark Act 5, Scene 1

HAMLETT: That skull had a tongue in it, and could sing once:
. how the knave jowls it to the ground, as if it were
. Cain's jaw-bone, that did the first murder! It
. might be the pate of a [Stratfordian], which this ass
. now o'er-reaches; one that would circumvent God,
. might it not?
-----------------------------------------------
. Twelfth Night Act 3, Scene 2

SIR ANDRE: Wan't be any way, it must be with valour; for policy

. I hate: I had as lief be a Brownist as a [Stratfordian].
-----------------------------------------------
. King Lear Act 4, Scene 6

KING LEAR: None does offend, none, I say, none; I'll able 'em:

. Take that of me, my friend, who have the power
. To seal the accuser's lips. Get thee glass eyes;
. And like a scurvy [Stratfordian], seem
. To see the things thou dost not. Now, now, now, now:
. Pull off my boots: harder, harder: so.
-----------------------------------------------
. King Henry IV, Part i Act 1, Scene 3

HOTSPUR: Why, look you, I am whipp'd and scourged with rods,

. Nettled and stung with pismires, when I hear
. Of this vile [Stratfordian], Bolingbroke.
. In Richard's time,--what do you call the place?--
. A plague upon it, it is in Gloucestershire;
. 'Twas where the madcap duke his uncle kept,
----------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer

[David L. Webb]

In article
<54be580c-6c9a-4e3c...@a7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,

Arthur Neuendorffer <acne...@gmail.com> (aka Noonedafter) wrote:

[...]

> >> So....did ANYBODY pay to see "Anonymous"?

> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Why would anyone sane do that, Art?
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28film%29#Accolades
>
> <<Audiences gave it an A- rating in its first weekend of limited
> release.

But Art -- "A minus" is a perfect anagram of "animus"!

> Rex Reed regards Anonymous as "one of the most exciting on-screen
> literary rows since Norman Mailer was beaten with a hammer," and well
> worth the stamina required to sit out what is an otherwise exhausting
> film. Not only Shakespeare's identity, but also that of Queen
> Elizabeth, the 'Virgin Queen' is challenged by Orloff's script, which
> has her as "a randy piece of work who had many lovers and bore several
> children."

Exactly -- this is the kind of lurid, hallucinatory pseudohistory
proffered by the likes of Mr. Streitz and Elizabeth Weird. That's the
reason that the film was such a risible farce -- or *one* reason, at any
rate.

[...]

> Kirk Honeycutt ranked it as Emmerich's best film,

Now *there's* a case of damning by faint praise!

[...]

> Lou Lumenick, writing for the New York Post, writes that the movie "is

> a thoroughly entertaining load of..."

It's a load, all right; a load of *what* I'll be discreet and refrain
from saying.

[...]
> >> tom.re...@gmail.com wrote:
[...]

> >>> It appears they're resorting to flat-out lying now.

> > Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Of course, Stratfordians would *never* lie!

> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > You have said yourself that we don't lie,
> > Art -- we merely equivocate.

> I was quite naive (or too polite).

Politeness has neVER been among your assets, Art; howeVER, in view of
your critical "reading" (usual disclaimer), the word "na�ve" could well
have been invented with you in mind.

[...]

> >>> Apparently their idea of evidence is different
> >>> than the rest of the world, but we already knew that.

> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Indeed, Art's idea of "evidence" is priceless!

> There's no charge at all at HLAS!

I've neVER understood why people *pay* for such commodities:

<http://www.sevenyeargold.com/buy.html>.

[...]

> >>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/0... 44808.html wrote:
> >
> >> <<Congressman Paul Broun (R-Ga.) said last week that evolution and the
> >> big bang theory are "lies straight from the pit of Hell."
> >
> >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rikEWuBrkHc
> >
> >> "God's word is true. I've come to understand that. All that stuff I
> >> was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all
> >> that is lies straight from the pit of Hell," said Broun, who is an MD.
> >> "It's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that
> >> from understanding that they need a savior." He continued: "You see,
> >> there are a lot of scientific data that I've found out as a scientist
> >> that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don't believe
> >> that the earth's but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created
> >> in six days as we know them. That's what the Bible says."

> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > So? It's well known that there are politicians
> > so ignorant of science, history, languages, etc.

> Like Stratfordians,
> they cling to their ancient preposterous myths.

What "myths" would those be, Art? Anti-Stratfordians are much more
adept at creating and perpetuating long-discredited myths: the Dowager
Countess of Oxford's supposedly "hasty" marriage, the supposed sense of
"moniment" as "laughingstock" in the English of the early 1600s (a sense
that it would not acquire until the nineteenth century, and only in an
obscure Scottish regional dialect at that), the multiple illegitimate
progeny of the Virgin Queen, etc.

Speaking of myths, Art, although I have asked you repeatedly, you
*STILL(!)* have not answered my question: in an earlier post, you

characterized anti-Stratfordians as "skilled". "Skilled" at *WHAT*?

The unintentional comedy of incompetence? Their area of supposed skill

cannot be history, ancient and modern foreign languages (and for many of

the more...uh...eccentric anti-Stratfordians, including certain (or
better, cretin) District Heights boobs, that includes English), textual

attribution, natural science, mathematics, or even ordinary common
sense. In what pursuit are anti-Stratfordians "skilled", Art?!
Inquiring minds want to know.

And speaking of ludicrous fiction masquerading as fact, what is the

source of your idiotic gloss of _doi_ as Polish for "two", Art? Was it
the same source that led you to think (usual disclaimer) that _vier_ is
Spanish for "four"? Was it the same source that led you to think (usual
disclaimer) that "bon" is Slovak for "ass"? Was it the same source that
led you to think (usual disclaimer) that "t�rin" is Russian for "youth"
-- or indeed that a word containing a letter not in the Russian alphabet
could be a Russian word *at all*? Was it the same source that led you
to think (usual disclaimer) that _perversidade_ is Portuguese for
"monstrous" -- or indeed that *any* Portuguese adjective ends in
"dade"?! Was it t he same source that led you to think (usual
disclaimer) that _omspit_ is Danish for "to dig up", or indeed that
*any* Danish infinitive ends in "-it"?! Was it the same source that led

you to think (usual disclaimer) that _turk_ is "Celtic [sic!]" for "ox"

-- or indeed that "Celtic" is a language at all?! Restless, inquiring
minds want to know the answers to these riddles, Art.

[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]

> Art Neuendorffer

[Robin G.]

What a waste! I see the directors rounded up the usual cast of loons: Charles Beauclerk, Michael Delahoyde, Derek Jacobi, Charlton Ogburn, Diana Price, Roger Stritmatter, Hank Whittemore and Daniel Wright.

What? No Lynne Kositsky? Perhaps she was busy polishing up her book about The Tempest.

What? No Mark Anderson? Has the Oxfordians' Golden Boy fallen off his throne?

What? No Art N? Perhaps his tin hat was in the wash?

Bob G is probably in a snit because the directors included Jonathan Bate and Stanley Wells, not him.

I noticed on IMDB, those two well-known Oxfordian shills, Howard Schumann and William Ray, posted glowing reviews. Figures.

[Robin G.]

The person(s) who created the trailer has a great future in making political ads. Comments by Jonathan Bate and Stanley Wells are taken out of context and used against them. This is a typical Oxfordian tactic.

The comments by Jacobi, Redgrave, and Rylance prove they should stick to acting. When it comes to literary, historical and theatre research, they know nothing. Three ignorant fools!

[marc hanson]

The trailer for Anonymous actually looks nice.
I mean, the costumes and sets appear nice.
I will get it from my local library, soon I hope.

funny
money money money makes the world go around

the worlds greatest mystery?
to who?

the ongoing debate?
amongst whom, or who?

funny funny funny

i guess i should contribute something,
to keep the coffers of some half full:
how about,
the facts/records are - Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare
now wasn't that brilliant, Watson?

marc

[Arthur Neuendorffer]

>>>> So....did ANYBODY pay to see "Anonymous"?

>> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>> Why would anyone sane do that, Art?

> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28film%29#Accolades
>
>> <<Audiences gave it an A- rating in its first weekend of limited
>> release.

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> But Art -- "A minus" is a perfect anagram of "animus"!

-----------------------------------------------------
Animus, n.; pl. Animi [L., *MIND* ] Animating spirit; intention

. "The enemy of my animi is my friend."
-----------------------------------------------------

> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Rex Reed regards Anonymous as "one of the most exciting on-screen
>> literary rows since Norman Mailer was beaten with a hammer," and well
>> worth the stamina required to sit out what is an otherwise exhausting
>> film. Not only Shakespeare's identity, but also that of Queen
>> Elizabeth, the 'Virgin Queen' is challenged by Orloff's script,
>> which has her as "a randy piece of work who had many lovers
>> and bore several children."

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Exactly -- this is the kind of lurid, hallucinatory pseudohistory
> proffered by the likes of Mr. Streitz and Elizabeth Weird.

So, Elizabeth I really was a virgin?

> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Kirk Honeycutt ranked it as Emmerich's best film,

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Now *there's* a case of damning by faint praise!

It could have been worse.

> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Lou Lumenick, writing for the New York Post, writes that the movie "is
>> a thoroughly entertaining load of..."

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> It's a load, all right; a load of *what*

Can't you read, Dave:

Lou Lumenick, writing for the New York Post, writes that the movie

"is a thoroughly entertaining load of eye candy with solid
performances,"

>>>> tom.re...@gmail.com wrote:
> [...]
>>>>> It appears they're resorting to flat-out lying now.
>>> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Of course, Stratfordians would *never* lie!

>> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>> You have said yourself that we don't lie,
>>> Art -- we merely equivocate.

> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I was quite naive (or too polite).

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Politeness has neVER been among your assets, Art;

I beg your pardon, Dave!

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> howeVER, in view of your critical "reading" (usual disclaimer),

> the word "naïve" could well have been invented with you in mind.
--------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naivety

<<In early use, the word "naive" meant natural or innocent, and did
*NOT* connote ineptitude. As a French word, it is spelled naïve, naïf
or Neuf.>>

The noun form can be written naivety, naïvety, naïveté, naïvete, or
naiveté.

>>>>> Apparently their idea of evidence is different
>>>>> than the rest of the world, but we already knew that.
>> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>> Indeed, Art's idea of "evidence" is priceless!

> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> There's no charge at all at HLAS!

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> I've neVER understood why people *pay* for such commodities

Your brain, that never undertook anything comical vainly
and were bu[T] the vain nam[E]s of comedie[S]
changed for [T]he titles of *commodities*
--------------------------------------------------
A NEVER WRITER TO AN EVER READER. NEWS.

Eternal reader, you have here a new play, never staled with the stage,
never clapper-clawed with the palms of the vulgar, and yet passing
full of the palm comical; for it is a birth of your brain, that never
undertook anything comical vainly and were bu[T] the vain nam[E]s of
comedie[S] changed for [T]he titles of *commodities* or of plays for
pleas, you should see all those grand censors, that now style them
such vanities, flock to them for the main grace of their gravities;
especially this author's comedies, that are so framed to the life,
that [T]hey [S]erv[E] for [T]he most common commentaries of all the
actions of our lives, showing such a dexterity and power of wit,
tha[T] the most displ[E]ased with play[S] are pleased wi[T]h his
comedies. Amongst all there is none more witty than this: and had I
time I would comment upon it, though I know it needs not (for so much
as will make you think your *TESTern* well bestowed), but for so much
worth as even poor I know to be stuffed in it. It deserves such a
labour, as well as [T]HE BE[S]t com[E]dy in [T]erence or Plautus.
And believe this, that when he is gone, and his comedies out of sale,
you will scramble for them, and set up a new English Inquisition.
Take this for a warning, and at the peril of your pleasures' loss and
judgments, refuse not, nor like this the less for not being sullied
with the smoky breath of the multitude, but thank fortune for the
scape it bath made amongst you, since by the grand possessors' wills
I believe you should have prayed for them rather than been prayed.
And so I leave all such to he prayed for (for the states of their
wit's healths) that will not praise it. Vale.
-- PREFACE TO FIRST EDITION, 1609.

http://www.geocities.com/litpageplus/shakmoul-troilus.html
-------------------------------------------------------------

>>>>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/0... 44808.html wrote:
>
>>>> <<Congressman Paul Broun (R-Ga.) said last week that evolution
>>>> and the big bang theory are "lies straight from the pit of Hell."
>
>>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rikEWuBrkHc
>
>>>> "God's word is true. I've come to understand that. All that stuff I
>>>> was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all
>>>> that is lies straight from the pit of Hell," said Broun, who is an MD.
>>>> "It's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that
>>>> from understanding that they need a savior." He continued: "You see,
>>>> there are a lot of scientific data that I've found out as a scientist
>>>> that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don't believe
>>>> that the earth's but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created
>>>> in six days as we know them. That's what the Bible says."

>> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>> So? It's well known that there are politicians
>>> so ignorant of science, history, languages, etc.

> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Like Stratfordians,
>> they cling to their ancient preposterous myths.

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> What "myths" would those be, Art?

Illiterate authors like Hans Sachs, Shake-speare & Cædmon:
----------------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Saxon_literature

<<Most Old English poets are anonymous; twelve are known by name from
Medieval sources, but only four of those are known by their vernacular
works to us today with any certainty: Caedmon, Bede, Alfred the Great,
and Cynewulf. Of these, only Caedmon, Bede, and Alfred the Great have
known biographies.

Caedmon is the best-known and considered the father of Old English
poetry. He lived at the abbey of Whitby in Northumbria in the 7th
century. Only a single nine-line poem remains, called Hymn,
which is also the oldest surviving text in English:

. Now let us praise the Guardian of the Kingdom of Heaven
. the might of the Creator and the thought of his mind,
. the work of the glorious Father, how He, the eternal Lord
. established the beginning of every wonder.
. For the sons of men, He, the Holy Creator
. first made heaven as a roof, then the
. Keeper of mankind, the eternal Lord
. God Almighty afterwards made the middle world
. the earth, for men.

. --(Caedmon, Hymn, St Petersburg Bede)

Aldhelm, bishop of Sherborne (d. 709), is known through William of
Malmesbury who said he performed secular songs while accompanied by a
harp. Much of his Latin prose has survived, but none of his Old
English remains.

Cynewulf has proven to be a difficult figure to identify, but recent
research suggests he was from the early part of the 9th century to
which a number of poems are attributed including The Fates of the
Apostles and Elene (both found in the Vercelli Book), and
Christ II and Juliana (both found in the Exeter Book).>>
------------------------------------------------------------------
. Cædmon: a country boy who made good:
......................................................
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%C3%A6dmon

<<Cædmon is the earliest English poet whose name is known. An Anglo-
Saxon herdsman attached to the double monastery of Streonæshalch
(Whitby Abbey) during the abbacy ((657–80) of St. Hilda (614–680), he
was originally ignorant of "the art of song" but learned to compose
one night in the course of a dream, according to the 8th-century
monk Bede. He later became a zealous monk and an accomplished
and inspirational religious poet.

Cædmon is one of twelve Anglo-Saxon poets identified in medieval
sources, and one of only three for whom both roughly contemporary
biographical information and examples of literary output have
survived. His story is related in the Historia ecclesiastica gentis
Anglorum ("Ecclesiastical History of the English People") by Bede who
wrote, "[t]here was in the Monastery of this Abbess a certain brother
particularly remarkable for the Grace of God, who was wont to make
religious verses, so that whatever was interpreted to him out of
scripture, he soon after put the same into poetical expressions of
much sweetness and humility in English, which was his native language.
By his verse the minds of many were often excited to despise the
world, and to aspire to heaven."

Cædmon's only known surviving work is Cædmon's Hymn, the nine-line
alliterative vernacular praise poem in honour of God which he
supposedly learned to sing in his initial dream. The poem is one of
the earliest attested examples of Old English and is, with the runic
Ruthwell Cross and Franks Casket inscriptions, one of three candidates
for the earliest attested example of Old English poetry. It is also
one of the earliest recorded examples of sustained poetry in a
Germanic language.

The sole source of original information about Cædmon's life and work
is Bede's Historia ecclesiastica. According to Bede, Cædmon was a lay
brother who worked as a herdsman at the monastery Streonæshalch (now
known as Whitby Abbey). One evening, while the monks were feasting,
singing, and playing a harp, Cædmon left early to sleep with the
animals because he knew no songs. While asleep, he had a dream in
which "someone" (quidem) approached him and asked him to sing
principium creaturarum, "the beginning of created things."
After first refusing to sing, Cædmon subsequently produced a short
eulogistic poem praising God, the Creator of heaven and earth.

Upon awakening the next morning, Cædmon remembered everything he had
sung and added additional lines to his poem. He told his foreman
about his dream and gift and was taken immediately to see the abbess.
The abbess and her counsellors asked Cædmon about his vision and,
satisfied that it was a gift from God, gave him a new commission, this
time for a poem based on “a passage of sacred history or doctrine”,
by way of a test. When Cædmon returned the next morning with the
requested poem, he was ordered to take monastic vows. The abbess
ordered her scholars to teach Cædmon sacred history and doctrine,
which after a night of thought, Bede records, Cædmon would turn into
the most beautiful verse. According to Bede, Cædmon was responsible
for a large oeuvre of splendid vernacular poetic texts on
a variety of Christian topics.

The only biographical or historical information that modern
scholarship has been able to add to Bede’s account concerns the
Brittonic origins of the poet’s name. Although Bede specifically
notes that English was Cædmon’s "own" language, the poet’s name is of
Celtic origin: from Proto-Welsh *Cadṽan (from Brythonic *Catumandos).

No other independent accounts of Cædmon’s life and work are known to
exist. The only other reference to Cædmon in English sources before
the 12th century is found in the 10th century Old English translation
of Bede's Latin Historia. Otherwise, no mention of Cædmon is found
in the corpus of surviving Old English. The Old English translation
of the Historia ecclesiastica does contain several minor details not
found in Bede’s Latin original account. Of these, the most significant
is that Cædmon felt "shame" for his inability to sing vernacular songs
before his vision, and the suggestion that Hilda’s scribes copied
down his verse æt muðe "from his mouth".

A second, possibly pre-12th century allusion to the Cædmon story is
found in two Latin texts associated with the Old Saxon Heliand poem.
These texts, the Praefatio (Preface) and Versus de Poeta (Lines about
the poet), explain the origins of an Old Saxon biblical translation
(for which the Heliand is the only known candidate) in language
strongly reminiscent of, and indeed at times identical to, Bede’s
account of Cædmon’s career. According to the prose Praefatio, the Old
Saxon poem was composed by a renowned vernacular poet at the command
of the emperor Louis the Pious; the text then adds that this poet had
known nothing of vernacular composition until he was ordered to
translate the precepts of sacred law into vernacular song in a dream.
The Versus de Poeta contain an expanded account of the dream itself,
adding that the poet had been a herdsman before his inspiration
and that the inspiration itself had come through the medium of
a heavenly voice when he fell asleep after pasturing his cattle.

In contrast to his usual practice elsewhere in the Historia
ecclesiastica, Bede provides no information about his sources for
the Cædmon story. Since a similar paucity of sources is also
characteristic of other stories from Whitby Abbey in his work,
this may indicate that his knowledge of Cædmon's life was based
on tradition current at his home monastery in (relatively)
nearby Wearmouth-Jarrow.

Hilda's original convent is not known, except that it was on the north
bank of the River Wear. Bede describes Hilda as a woman of great
energy, who was a skilled administrator and teacher. She gained such a
reputation for wisdom that kings and princes sought her advice. She
also had a concern for ordinary folk such as Cædmon, however. He was a
herder at the monastery, who was inspired in a dream to sing verses in
praise of God. Hilda recognized his gift and encouraged him to develop
it. Hilda suffered from fever for the last six years of her life, but
she continued to work until her death on November 17, 680. ["Bloody
Mary" I (18 February 1516 – 17 November 1558) died during an influenza
epidemic that claimed the life of Reginald Pole later the same day,
17 November 1558.]

Ruins of Streonæshalch (Whitby Abbey) in North Yorkshire, England—
founded in 657 by St. Hilda, the abbey fell to a viking attack in
867 and was abandoned. It was re-built in 1078 and flourished
until 1540 when it was destroyed by Henry VIII.>>
---------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer

[Paul Crowley]

On 09/10/2012 02:57, tom....@gmail.com wrote:

> http://www.facebook.com/LastWill.andTestamentTheMovie?ref=ts&fref=ts

> It appears they're resorting to flat-out lying now. Beginning at
> 1:39 an Oxfodian intones, "If he were the man from Stratford,
> there would be some evidence. That there is none, speaks
> volumes."
>
> Apparently their idea of evidence is different than the rest of the
> world, but we already knew that.

It's not a lie -- more an over-statement or over-
simplification. The 'evidence' for the Stratford man
is so thin that it is close to non-existent. There is
not a fraction of what would exist IF the Stratford
story were true, and everything in was quite normal
and above-board.

How come his 'signatures' are so few and so bad?
This was a time when good calligraphy was the
mark of an educated person. No Strat here has
found a signature of a noble or a gentleman that
was as bad between the years 1200 and 1900 --
in spite of my numerous requests.

That's one minor point among thousands. The
others have been rehearsed here time and time
again, with no answer from the Strats. What other
author has had illiterate children? What other
author was brought up in an illiterate household by
illiterate parents? How come literature and the
theatre in England was the only Renaissance Art
financed by the common people? How come no
Strat ever points out this most striking fact (a 'fact'
only if it were true) . .?

And so on and on . . .


Paul.

[David L. Webb]

In article
<390ef13a-d692-47ae...@i14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,

Arthur Neuendorffer <acne...@gmail.com> (aka Noonedafter) wrote:

> >>>> So....did ANYBODY pay to see "Anonymous"?

> >> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>> Why would anyone sane do that, Art?

> > Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_%28film%29#Accolades
> >
> >> <<Audiences gave it an A- rating in its first weekend of limited
> >> release.

> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > But Art -- "A minus" is a perfect anagram of "animus"!
> -----------------------------------------------------
> Animus, n.; pl. Animi [L., *MIND* ] Animating spirit; intention

"Animus" in current English more frequently means "animosity" or
"hostility", Art. But I realize that competence in English is not among
your accomplishments.

> . "The enemy of my animi is my friend."
> -----------------------------------------------------
> > Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Rex Reed regards Anonymous as "one of the most exciting on-screen
> >> literary rows since Norman Mailer was beaten with a hammer," and well
> >> worth the stamina required to sit out what is an otherwise exhausting
> >> film. Not only Shakespeare's identity, but also that of Queen
> >> Elizabeth, the 'Virgin Queen' is challenged by Orloff's script,
> >> which has her as "a randy piece of work who had many lovers
> >> and bore several children."

> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Exactly -- this is the kind of lurid, hallucinatory pseudohistory
> > proffered by the likes of Mr. Streitz and Elizabeth Weird.

> So, Elizabeth I really was a virgin?

There is insufficient evidence to decide such an intimate question,
Art. HoweVER, what can be said for certain is that there is *no*
credible evidence suggesting the existence of even *one* child of the
Queen, let alone the existence of the half a dozen or so illegitimate
progeny luridly conjured up in the scenarios of Mr. Streitz, Elizabeth
Weird, and the more eccentric PT/DT partisans.

Why do you ask, Art? Do you *actually believe* that Elizabeth I had
many loVERs and bore seVERal children, as in Orloff's screenplay?!?!
Indeed, in that farce, Elizabeth is the one who got the Orloff -- when
Cogno wasn't available, at any rate.

> > Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Kirk Honeycutt ranked it as Emmerich's best film,

> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Now *there's* a case of damning by faint praise!

> It could have been worse.

Perhaps, but _Anonymous_ (a misnomer at the VERy outset -- doesn't
the moron understand the distinction between "anonymous" and
"pseudonymous"?) could scarcely have been *much* worse than it actually
was. (Our saboteurs saw to that, of course.)

> > Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Lou Lumenick, writing for the New York Post, writes that the movie "is
> >> a thoroughly entertaining load of..."

> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > It's a load, all right; a load of *what*

> Can't you read, Dave:

I read what was written, Art; howeVER, I obsERVED that it was only
partly correct: the film was indeed a load, but of a commodity that I
shall refrain from naming. [Hint: Think (if thou canst) of the Augean
Stables, Art.]

[...]

> >>>> tom.re...@gmail.com wrote:
> > [...]
> >>>>> It appears they're resorting to flat-out lying now.

> >>> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>> Of course, Stratfordians would *never* lie!

> >> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>> You have said yourself that we don't lie,
> >>> Art -- we merely equivocate.

> > Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I was quite naive (or too polite).

> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Politeness has neVER been among your assets, Art;

> I beg your pardon, Dave!

Now you're getting the hang of it, Art.

> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > howeVER, in view of your critical "reading" (usual disclaimer),
> > the word "naïve" could well have been invented with you in mind.
> --------------------------------------
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naivety
>
> <<In early use, the word "naive" meant natural or innocent, and did
> *NOT* connote ineptitude.

Why did you bring up ineptitude, Art? Because I was using the word
in reference to you? Point taken.

> As a French word, it is spelled naïve, naïf
> or Neuf.>>

You're misquoting your source again, Art. HoweVER, you seem to be
attempting to prove my point _ipso facto_, for which I am grateful.

> The noun form can be written naivety, naïvety, naïveté, naïvete, or
> naiveté.

> >>>>> Apparently their idea of evidence is different
> >>>>> than the rest of the world, but we already knew that.

> >> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>> Indeed, Art's idea of "evidence" is priceless!

> > Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> There's no charge at all at HLAS!

> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > I've neVER understood why people *pay* for such commodities

> Your brain, that never undertook anything comical vainly
> and were bu[T] the vain nam[E]s of comedie[S]
> changed for [T]he titles of *commodities*

Huh?

Huh?!?!

> http://www.geocities.com/litpageplus/shakmoul-troilus.html
> -------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/0... 44808.html wrote:
> >
> >>>> <<Congressman Paul Broun (R-Ga.) said last week that evolution
> >>>> and the big bang theory are "lies straight from the pit of Hell."
> >
> >>>>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rikEWuBrkHc
> >
> >>>> "God's word is true. I've come to understand that. All that stuff I
> >>>> was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all
> >>>> that is lies straight from the pit of Hell," said Broun, who is an MD.
> >>>> "It's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that
> >>>> from understanding that they need a savior." He continued: "You see,
> >>>> there are a lot of scientific data that I've found out as a scientist
> >>>> that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don't believe
> >>>> that the earth's but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created
> >>>> in six days as we know them. That's what the Bible says."

> >> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>> So? It's well known that there are politicians
> >>> so ignorant of science, history, languages, etc.

...that they would make excellent anti-Stratfordians.

> > Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Like Stratfordians,
> >> they cling to their ancient preposterous myths.

> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > What "myths" would those be, Art?

> Illiterate authors like Hans Sachs, Shake-speare & Cædmon:

Do you think (usual disclaimer) that the great oral traditions
underlying the epics of Homer in Greece or the Fenian cycle of Oisin in
Ireland come from a literate poet, Art? Just as there are excellent
musicians who do not read music, so there were excellent poets who had
little if any formal education; the medium is, after all, an oral one.
As late as the mid-twentieth century, there were *still* professional
opera singers who did not read music -- indeed, in his memoir _Am I Too
Loud?_, Gerald Moore, one of the greatest accompanists of his
generation, recounts doing "hack work": playing the piano transcription
of an opera score so that a soprano who could not read music could learn
her part by ear.

In any case, what makes you think (usual disclaimer) that Hans Sachs
was illiterate, Art? His biographies recount that he attended Latin
school in Nuremberg until he took up his apprenticeship. For that
matter, what makes you think (usual disclaimer) that Shakespeare was
illiterate?

> Celtic origin: from Proto-Welsh *Cad?an (from Brythonic *Catumandos).

>
> No other independent accounts of Cædmon’s life and work are known to
> exist. The only other reference to Cædmon in English sources before
> the 12th century is found in the 10th century Old English translation
> of Bede's Latin Historia. Otherwise, no mention of Cædmon is found
> in the corpus of surviving Old English. The Old English translation
> of the Historia ecclesiastica does contain several minor details not
> found in Bede’s Latin original account. Of these, the most significant
> is that Cædmon felt "shame" for his inability to sing vernacular songs
> before his vision, and the suggestion that Hilda’s scribes copied

> down his verse æt mu©£e "from his mouth".
>
> A second, possibly pre-12th century allusion to the C©°dmon story is

> found in two Latin texts associated with the Old Saxon Heliand poem.
> These texts, the Praefatio (Preface) and Versus de Poeta (Lines about
> the poet), explain the origins of an Old Saxon biblical translation
> (for which the Heliand is the only known candidate) in language

> strongly reminiscent of, and indeed at times identical to, Bede°Øs
> account of C©°dmon°Øs career. According to the prose Praefatio, the Old

> Saxon poem was composed by a renowned vernacular poet at the command
> of the emperor Louis the Pious; the text then adds that this poet had
> known nothing of vernacular composition until he was ordered to
> translate the precepts of sacred law into vernacular song in a dream.
> The Versus de Poeta contain an expanded account of the dream itself,
> adding that the poet had been a herdsman before his inspiration
> and that the inspiration itself had come through the medium of
> a heavenly voice when he fell asleep after pasturing his cattle.
>
> In contrast to his usual practice elsewhere in the Historia
> ecclesiastica, Bede provides no information about his sources for

> the C©°dmon story. Since a similar paucity of sources is also

> characteristic of other stories from Whitby Abbey in his work,

> this may indicate that his knowledge of C©°dmon's life was based

> on tradition current at his home monastery in (relatively)
> nearby Wearmouth-Jarrow.
>
> Hilda's original convent is not known, except that it was on the north
> bank of the River Wear. Bede describes Hilda as a woman of great
> energy, who was a skilled administrator and teacher. She gained such a
> reputation for wisdom that kings and princes sought her advice. She

> also had a concern for ordinary folk such as C©°dmon, however. He was a

> herder at the monastery, who was inspired in a dream to sing verses in
> praise of God. Hilda recognized his gift and encouraged him to develop
> it. Hilda suffered from fever for the last six years of her life, but
> she continued to work until her death on November 17, 680. ["Bloody
> Mary" I (18 February 1516 °© 17 November 1558) died during an influenza
> epidemic that claimed the life of Reginald Pole later the same day,
> 17 November 1558.]
>

> Ruins of Streon©°shalch (Whitby Abbey) in North Yorkshire, England°™

> founded in 657 by St. Hilda, the abbey fell to a viking attack in
> 867 and was abandoned. It was re-built in 1078 and flourished
> until 1540 when it was destroyed by Henry VIII.>>

Early Anglo-SaXOn poetry arises from an oral tradition, Art. If you
think (usual disclaimer) that facility with a written language was
necessary for the creation of poetry, or for that matter, that the
development of musical notation was a precondition for the composition
of music of surpassing beauty, then your Clueless Cretin persona is even
more of an imbecile than he has shown himself to be thus far, Art,
implausible though such an attainment may seem to those familiar with
his track record.

> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Art Neuendorffer

[Arthur Neuendorffer]

>>> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> Like Stratfordians,
>>>> they cling to their ancient preposterous myths.

>> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>> What "myths" would those be, Art?

> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Illiterate authors like Hans Sachs, Shake-speare & Cædmon:

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>

> Do you think that the great oral traditions underlying

> the epics of Homer in Greece or the Fenian cycle of Oisin in
> Ireland come from a literate poet, Art? Just as there are excellent
> musicians who do not read music, so there were excellent poets who had
> little if any formal education; the medium is, after all, an oral one.
> As late as the mid-twentieth century, there were *still* professional
> opera singers who did not read music -- indeed, in his memoir
> _Am I Too Loud?_, Gerald Moore, one of the greatest accompanists

> his generation, recounts doing "hack work": playing the

> piano of transcription of an opera score so that a soprano

> who could not read music could learn her part by ear.

Does that explain the "bad" quartos, Dave:
the illiterate Stratford boob's London secretary
couldn't transcribe Will's thick Warwickshire accent?
---------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer

[John W Kennedy]

On 2012-10-10 14:01:52 +0000, David L. Webb said:
> As late as the mid-twentieth century, there were *still* professional
> opera singers who did not read music

Right up to the present, to my certain knowledge.

--
John W Kennedy
"Only an idiot fights a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne
of the kingdom of idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts"
-- J. Michael Straczynski. "Babylon 5", "Ceremonies of Light and Dark"

[Arthur Neuendorffer]

> On 2012-10-10 14:01:52 +0000, David L. Webb said:
>
>> As late as the mid-twentieth century, there were *still*
>> professional opera singers who did not read music

John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Right up to the present, to my certain knowledge.

Not to mention the professional actors
who could not read... like William Shaksper.

Art Neuendorffer

[Dominic Hughes]

On Oct 9, 6:04 pm, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:

> On 09/10/2012 02:57, tom.re...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >http://www.facebook.com/LastWill.andTestamentTheMovie?ref=ts&fref=ts
> > It appears they're resorting to flat-out lying now. Beginning at
> > 1:39 an Oxfodian intones, "If he were the man from Stratford,
> > there would be some evidence. That there is none, speaks
> > volumes."
>
> > Apparently their idea of evidence is different than the rest of the
> > world, but we already knew that.

Exactly. As Crowley himself has stated, the evidence that supports
the Oxenfordian cause is of "a totally different nature" from that
which is usually considered to be evidence [a term he has never
defined although I have asked him to do so]. In addition, if his
posts here at HLAS have done nothing else they have most certainly
demonstrated that he does not understand the conventional notions of
what qualifies as evidence or grasp th3e concept of how such evidence
is to be used in attempting to prove a proposition.

> It's not a lie -- more an over-statement or over-
> simplification.

No, actually, it is a lie -- and it is also an example of insane
thinking as has already been suggested. The statement reveals that
its propounder exhibits an irrational misunderstanding as to the
concept of evidence and how it functions in reality.

> The 'evidence' for the Stratford man
> is so thin that it is close to non-existent.

If it is so thin as to be "close to non-existent" then you are even
more challenged intellectually than I had previously surmised as you
have never come remotely close to rebutting the prima facie case that
is established by that evidence.

> There is
> not a fraction of what would exist IF the Stratford
> story were true, and everything in was quite normal
> and above-board.

What should exist according to you? While you're at it why don't you
also show why the evidence that does exist does not suffice to support
the Stratford man's case. Why is there absolutely no direct evidence
of any kind for the proposition that Oxenford wrote the works, and
please don't fall back on your conspiracy nonsense?

> How come his 'signatures' are so few and so bad?

Why do we only have one signature from Marlowe? How many signatures
do we have from Kyd, Webster, Beaumont, Fletcher, Nashe, Greene,
etc.? What makes the signatures "bad" in your expert opinion?

> This was a time when good calligraphy was the
> mark of an educated person.  No Strat here has
> found a signature of a noble or a gentleman that
> was as bad between the years 1200 and 1900 --
> in spite of my numerous requests.

Do you have any signatures from nobes or gentlemen in the last months
of their lives? There are many variables that can change
handwriting. That you fail to acknowledge this fact is a symptom of
your irrationality. In addition, it is typical of deniers of reality
such as yourself to focus on one piece of evidence to the exclusion
of others that contradict your claims. In this instance, there is a
wealth of documentary evidence attesting to the proposition that
Shakespeare of Stratford was literate, and yet you can't even begin to
admit that such evidence exists [for instance, we know that two of his
closest friends wrote letters to him].

> That's one minor point among thousands.

Thousands? Really? Then why do you repeat the same three or four
points over and over and over again while never managing to rebut the
actual evidence?

> The
> others have been rehearsed here time and time
> again, with no answer from the Strats.

This is another symptom of your irrationality -- your repeated
assertions that you, and your silly arguments, have never been
answered.

> What other
> author has had illiterate children?

When are you going to prove that they were, and, if there are
thousands of points you could raise, why is this one of the only three
or four you ever present.

> What other
> author was brought up in an illiterate household by
> illiterate parents?

When are you going to prove that they were, and, if there are
thousands of points you could raise, why is this one of the only three
or four you ever present? It is a riduculous point anyway as it has
no bearing on whether or not William Shakespeare could have recived an
education, gone to London, and written plays. Can you prove that John
Webster's coach-maker father and his mother [the daughter of a
blacksmith] were literate?

> How come literature and the
> theatre in England was the only Renaissance Art
> financed by the common people?

Literature was not, as much of it was generated in an attempt to gain
patronage. As for the theatre, what do you think [and I use that word
advisedly] that the public theatres were for [don't bother answering
as we've discussed this previously and you are irrationally immune to
a consideration of the actual evidence]?

> How come no
> Strat ever points out this most striking fact (a 'fact'
> only if it were true) . .?
>
> And so on and on . . .

Yes, your inability to deal with facts, with evidence, does go on and
on and on, and eventually isn't even humorous anymore. It is simply
boring. Maybe if you would start presenting some of those "thousands"
of points that you allege could be made...but that will never happen.
You'd rather make vague and unsupported conjectures and then treat
your speculations as fact.

Dom

[David L. Webb]

In article
<3ccb9db4-b827-4f35...@z8g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,

Arthur Neuendorffer <acne...@gmail.com> (aka Noonedafter) wrote:

> > On 2012-10-10 14:01:52 +0000, David L. Webb said:
> >
> >> As late as the mid-twentieth century, there were *still*
> >> professional opera singers who did not read music

> John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > Right up to the present, to my certain knowledge.

Interesting -- I'm surprised that basic musicianship at that level is
not a necessary condition for professional status nowadays.

> Not to mention the professional actors
> who could not read... like William Shaksper.

But Art -- elsewhere you have suggested that you thought (usual
disclaimer) that the actor William Shakespeare did not even exist! Have
you changed your mind (such as it is)? If so, what persuaded you of the
existence of the actor and shareholder in the company that performed the
plays?

Incidentally, Art, do you know of any actual *evidence* that there
were professional actors in Elizabethan Londonwho could not read? I
thought not.

> Art Neuendorffer

[David L. Webb]

In article
<7d507ee0-1129-4271...@o8g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,

Arthur Neuendorffer <acne...@gmail.com> (aka Noonedafter) wrote:

> >>> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>> Like Stratfordians,
> >>>> they cling to their ancient preposterous myths.

> >> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>> What "myths" would those be, Art?

> > Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>

> >> Illiterate authors like Hans Sachs, Shake-speare & C�dmon:

> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Do you think that the great oral traditions underlying
> > the epics of Homer in Greece or the Fenian cycle of Oisin in
> > Ireland come from a literate poet, Art? Just as there are excellent
> > musicians who do not read music, so there were excellent poets who had
> > little if any formal education; the medium is, after all, an oral one.
> > As late as the mid-twentieth century, there were *still* professional
> > opera singers who did not read music -- indeed, in his memoir
> > _Am I Too Loud?_, Gerald Moore, one of the greatest accompanists
> > his generation, recounts doing "hack work": playing the
> > piano of transcription of an opera score so that a soprano
> > who could not read music could learn her part by ear.

> Does that explain the "bad" quartos, Dave:

What about the bad quartos do you think (usual disclaimer) needs
"explain[ing]", Art?

You also did not address my question: What makes you think (usual
disclaimer) that Hans Sachs was illiterate? His biographers state that
he attended Latin school until his mid-teens, when he took up his
apprenticeship. And what makes you think (usual disclaimer) that
William Shakespeare was illiterate? Ignorant Oxfordian propaganda?
That's what I thought.

[Paul Crowley]

On 10/10/2012 22:44, Dominic Hughes wrote:

>>> http://www.facebook.com/LastWill.andTestamentTheMovie?ref=ts&fref=ts
>>> It appears they're resorting to flat-out lying now. Beginning at
>>> 1:39 an Oxfodian intones, "If he were the man from Stratford,
>>> there would be some evidence. That there is none, speaks
>>> volumes."
>>
>>> Apparently their idea of evidence is different than the rest of the
>>> world, but we already knew that.
>
> Exactly. As Crowley himself has stated, the evidence that
> supports the Oxenfordian cause is of "a totally different
> nature" from that which is usually considered to be evidence

That is a lie. Although you make my point by what
you would "usually consider to be evidence" in this
particular instance. For example, Strats (like
yourself) routinely ask "Where is the written evidence
that the Government was involved in a cover-up?"
going on to say that "We cannot believe in any kind
of cover-up unless we have documentary proof."

> [a term he has never defined although I have asked him
> to do so].

When and where? If asked for the meaning of any
fairly common word in the English language,
I would point you to any convenient dictionary.
I appreciate that English is not your native
language, and that you frequently need to look
up the meaning of such words, but for some
reason (your Alzheimers?) you constantly fail
to remember the existence of dictionaries.

>> There is
>> not a fraction of what would exist IF the Stratford
>> story were true, and everything in was quite normal
>> and above-board.
>
> What should exist according to you?

It would be fairly easy to roughly set out what
SHOULD exist IF the Stratfordian story was
true. Many well-educated people are ignorant
about the details of the 'Stratfordian argument'
-- and just assume that it is soundly based
on historical fact. Gather together (say) some
Chinese, Japanese or Russian professors, or
Ph.D. students, and -- after eliminating the few
who had been informed of the (supposed)
history -- ask the rest what documents a
highly respected author would probably leave
after his death, especially since his house
remained in his family's possession for
50 years after his death.

Then ask the group what they would expect
to see in his will.

Or tell them that his lawyer was highly
intelligent, well-educated, and interested in
literary matters, and ask what record there
was likely to be of their discussions. Then
tell them, that in fact there was only one
record of a conversation between them.
But what would they expect to see in that
record.

Ask them what remembrances were likely
made by the local town council. Or made
by the Monarch, government and nation as
a whole (bearing in mind that the monarch
had his own personal copy of the Folio, in
which he made his own notes.)

Ask them what his wife, daughter, son-in-law,
and grand-daughter would have said about
him -- not least on their tombstones.

> While you're at it why don't you also show why the
> evidence that does exist does not suffice to support
> the Stratford man's case. Why is there absolutely
> no direct evidence of any kind for the proposition
> that Oxenford wrote the works, and please don't fall
> back on your conspiracy nonsense?

See -- we are obliged to prove that there was
a government-inspired cover-up by first denying
the possibility that there was a government-
inspired cover-up.

Are you really that dim?

Or did government-inspired cover-ups never
ever happen in the history of the human
race?

>> How come his 'signatures' are so few and so bad?
>
> Why do we only have one signature from Marlowe?
> How many signatures do we have from Kyd,
> Webster, Beaumont, Fletcher, Nashe, Greene,
> etc.? What makes the signatures "bad" in your
> expert opinion?

Yeah, yeah, you need to be "an expert" to
be able to contrast an elegant, well-drawn
signature from a illegible scrawl.

What a dope you are! Surely someone, even
as stupid and ignorant as you, can tell when
you are dodging a question?

>> This was a time when good calligraphy was the
>> mark of an educated person. No Strat here has
>> found a signature of a noble or a gentleman that
>> was as bad between the years 1200 and 1900 --
>> in spite of my numerous requests.
>
> Do you have any signatures from nobes or
> gentlemen in the last months of their lives?

Three (of the six) of Shagsber's signatures
are from legal documents signed in 1612,
four years before he died. They were made
in London, when the man was well enough to
travel there -- probably on horseback. He was
no invalid. And each of them is of the same
"quality" (i.e. appalling) as those made on his
will. The hand is strong -- but uneducated.
They show the writing of a person who does
NOT know how to write, and who is
uncomfortable in the use of a pen.

> There are many variables that can change
> handwriting. That you fail to acknowledge this fact
> is a symptom of your irrationality.

This hand (in your view) wrote tens of
thousands of words. Not one of which survive
in manuscript. He would also have written
numerous letters -- not one of which survive.
And your only recourse is to plead infirmity
for his six appalling 'signatures'. Do you
make the same case for his daughters?

And you call this 'rational'?

> In addition, it is typical of deniers of reality such as
> yourself to focus on one piece of evidence to the
> exclusion of others that contradict your claims.

Eh -- every scrap of information we have about
the Stratman demonstrates his illiteracy. Of
course, illiterates don't usually leave much of
a written record. And, unsurprisingly, what we
get from the Stratman is 'not much of a written
record'.

> In this instance, there is a wealth of documentary
> evidence attesting to the proposition that
> Shakespeare of Stratford was literate, and yet you
> can't even begin to admit that such evidence exists
> [for instance, we know that two of his closest
> friends wrote letters to him].

Wealthy illiterates OFTEN got (and get) letters
addressed to them. Do you think Rose Blumkin
never got any letters?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Furniture_Mart

> > The others have been rehearsed here time and time
> > again, with no answer from the Strats.
>
> This is another symptom of your irrationality -- your
> repeated assertions that you, and your silly
> arguments, have never been answered.

Your 'answer' to evidence about the Stratman's
illiteracy is to ask "what about Marlowe leaving
only one signature?".

>> What other
>> author has had illiterate children?
>
> When are you going to prove that they were, and, if
> there are thousands of points you could raise, why
> is this one of the only three or four you ever
> present.

These are the most striking and most amusing.
But I raise hundreds -- e.g. the Stratman never
went to Italy, whereas we can be certain that
the author of the canon knew it well.
The Stratman was never a soldier, whereas we
can be certain that the author of the canon
had military experience,
The Stratman had no access to books,
whereas we can be certain that the author of
the canon had read hundreds,
The Stratman had no education - even IF he
had attended the local school until he was 13.
whereas we can be certain that the author of
the canon had a great one,
The Stratman knew no language other than
English, whereas we can be certain that the
author of the canon knew French, Italian, Latin
and more.
The Stratman had no training in Law whereas
we can be certain that the author of the canon
had one.
We can be certain that the author of the canon
practised at poetry from an early age, whereas
the notion of a near-peasant writing poetry (to
make money!) after a day of cleaning out stables
(or whatever) is so absurd as to be manifestly a
joke.

I could go on and on and on . . . . and
often do

> Can you prove that John Webster's coach-
> maker father and his mother [the daughter of a
> blacksmith] were literate?

Note how you dodge the question, and change
the subject. The question was "What other
author was brought up by illiterate parents in
household of illiterates?|"

It is not an answer to ask me to prove that the
parents of every writer were literate. But the
Websters probably were. They dealt in expensive
high-quality items. sold only to the very rich. Their
clients would probably have expected or required
literacy in such suppliers.

John Webster's father was (like Ben Jonson's
step-father) wealthy enough to afford to give his
son a good education, including attendance at
the Inns of Court.

>> How come literature and the
>> theatre in England was the only Renaissance Art
>> financed by the common people?
>
> Literature was not, as much of it was
> generated in an attempt to gain patronage. As
> for the theatre, what do you think [and I use
> that word advisedly] that the public theatres
> were for

They were the rough equivalent of modern
X-Factor reality TV shows, or Victorian music-
halls, or Roman circuses. They sold
entertainment as well as they could and were
allowed: blood, guts, sex, music spectacle,
fighting . . whatever. Art was rarely thought
much of an attraction.

> [don't bother answering as we've
> discussed this previously and you are
> irrationally immune to a consideration of the
> actual evidence]?

I appreciate that you cannot deal with my answers.
You prefer fantasy.


Paul.

[Dominic Hughes]

On Oct 11, 7:27 am, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> On 10/10/2012 22:44, Dominic Hughes wrote:
>
> >>>http://www.facebook.com/LastWill.andTestamentTheMovie?ref=ts&fref=ts
> >>> It appears they're resorting to flat-out lying now. Beginning at
> >>> 1:39 an Oxfodian intones, "If he were the man from Stratford,
> >>> there would be some evidence. That there is none, speaks
> >>> volumes."
>
> >>> Apparently their idea of evidence is different than the rest of the
> >>> world, but we already knew that.
>
> > Exactly.  As Crowley himself has stated, the evidence that
> > supports the Oxenfordian cause is of "a totally different
> > nature" from that which is usually considered to be evidence
>
> That is a lie.

It isn't a lie at all. In fact, here is exactly what was said:

DH: "My point was that you have zero evidence to support your
theory."

PC: "And my point was that the evidence that supports it is of a
TOTALLY different nature from what you would count as 'evidence'. (As
is always the case in paradigm shifts. You're looking for the
equivalent of Biblical proofs of Helio-centrism or of Evolution.)

Anti-Strat theories obviously dispute the shallow and superficial
Stratfordian readings of various (ambiguous)statements in legal
documents. They rely much more on the absence of anything clear or
definitive -- and
on the entire nature of the ALL the 'documents' as well on the whole
historical and cultural background."

http://groups.google.com/group/humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare/msg/0f83e5de11005744?hl=en&dmode=source

Are you lying, is your memory shot, are you just pulling answers out
of your arse as you go along...all of the above?

Here are some further quotations from the archives:

1.
DH: "One more time...what evidence do you have, of the nature that is
commonly accepted to be evidence or of the "TOTALLY different nature"
that you claim exists, for your pronouncement that the plotters
pickedintentionally chose an illiterate man to stand in for the
author, so as to play a joke on the ignorant."

PC: "His manifest illiteracy -- among much else."

Comment: This excerpt alone reveals that you have no clue as to what
constitutes evidence. It also highlights your utter lack of the
mental ability necessary to fashion an actual, responsive argument.

2.
DH:
You can't even remember your own assertions. You asserted that the
mother, father and wife of William Shakespeare were all illiterate. I
asked you for the EVIDENCE that YOU relied on to support your
assertions. Without citing anyone in particular, you replied that no
serious student of the times would dispute that they were illiterate.
You obviously have no idea whatsoever as to what qualifies as
evidence. What is also interesting is that you cite "serious students
of the times" as authority for the proposition that the mother, father
and wife were illiterate, but you would condemn those same authorities
as idiots when they would not dispute that Shakespeare of Stratford
was the author. You don't know what evidence is and you are mentally
incapable of mounting an argument.

PC:
> >> That penmanship is not the sloppiness
> >> we so often see from the hands of the
> >> careless literate. It is the striving of the
> >> quite incompetent. It has some similarity
> >> to the writing of a typical seven-year old.
> >> There is no fluency. This person has only
> >> rarely sought to draw the letters, and is
> >> liable to do it in an uncertain and varying
> >> manner each time.

DH
> > These are your opinions...

PC:
> You don't deny them, of course.

DH:
Actually, I did. I offered the example of modern physicians, all
fully literate, who have notoriously bad, often illegible,
penmanship. You felt compelled to snip that argument because you had
no answer for it.

PC:
> Every
> Stratfordian looking at those 'signatures'
> objectively must be aghast.

DH:
Not at all.

PC:
> It's the
> same for every scrap of evidence in the
> entire field. There is NOTHING that
> supports the Strat 'argument'.

DH:
You obviously do not have the mental ability to understand what
qualifies as evidence that supports an argument. Can you define the
"TOTALLY different nature" of the so-called evidence on which you
rely?

There is plenty of evidence that supports the Strat argument. Your
job is to impeach that evidence -- to show that is not authentic or
reliable. So far you have failed miserably at that task.

PC:
> It isn't an
> argument -- it's a set of very stupid
> assumptions.

DH:
The irony is rich. Your entire case is built on stupid assumptions.
You have no documentary evidence such as that which tends to prove the
Strat argument. All you have is speculation.

Comment: You never did attempt to define what you meant by "evidence
of a TOTALLY different nature."

>Although you make my point by what
> you would "usually consider to be evidence" in this
> particular instance.

You had a point? It isn't what "I" would usually consider to be
evidence. Rather it is the definition of evidence that is generally
and conventionally accepted by reasonable people, as opposed to your
still undefined "evidence of a TOTALLY different nature." More
particularly, it is what constitutes evidence in a legal setting.

>For example, Strats (like
> yourself) routinely ask "Where is the written evidence
> that the Government was involved in a cover-up?"
> going on to say that "We cannot believe in any kind
> of cover-up unless we have documentary proof."

Well, let's take one example. You contend that Thomas Greene was paid
by the conspirators to mind William Shakespeare in Stratford. We
should be able to follow the money and yet you can't produce a single
government record showing any such payment. Of course, even though
you can't produce any such documentary evidence that will not prevent
you from stating, as fact, that the conspirators paid Thomas Greene to
tend to WS in Stratford.

Sadly, you fail to see the problems inherent in treating your
factually unsupported speculations as if they were evidence. If the
choice is between your irrational modus operandi and a method which
relies on and confines itself to facts, I'll take the latter.

> > [a term he has never defined although I have asked him
> > to do so].
>
> When and where?

Answered above.

> If asked for the meaning of any
> fairly common word in the English language,
> I would point you to any convenient dictionary.
> I appreciate that English is not your native
> language, and that you frequently need to look
> up the meaning of such words, but for some
> reason (your Alzheimers?) you constantly fail
> to remember the existence of dictionaries.

Your stupidity and bluster here is glaring. The meaning of "any
fairly common word in the English language" is not the issue here, you
evasive weasel. You have stated that the evidence which supports your
conspiracy theory is "evidence of a TOTALLY different nature" from
that which is conventionally defined as evidence. The fact that you
are, and have been, unable to define what you mean by that concept is
just one more symptom illustrating your irrationality. It is your
term and it is incumbent upon you to explain what you mean by it --
except that you are mentally incapable of doing so.

> >> There is
> >> not a fraction of what would exist IF the Stratford
> >> story were true, and everything in was quite normal
> >> and above-board.
>
> > What should exist according to you?
>
> It would be fairly easy to roughly set out what
> SHOULD exist IF the Stratfordian story was
> true.  Many well-educated people are ignorant
> about the details of the 'Stratfordian argument'

Like you, except that I doubt you were well-educated.

> -- and just assume that it is soundly based
> on historical fact.

It is...the facts contained in the historical record are more than
sufficient to support the proposition that WS of Stratford was the
author of the works. You are obviously unable to mount any challenge
to them or rebut them in any logical and coherent fashion.

>Gather together (say) some
> Chinese, Japanese or Russian professors, or
> Ph.D. students, and -- after eliminating the few
> who had been informed of the (supposed)
> history -- ask the rest what documents a
> highly respected author would probably leave
> after his death, especially since his house
> remained in his family's possession for
> 50 years after his death.

That's your answer? Seriously? Ask a bunch of people from around the
world with absolutely no expertise in Elizabethan literature or
history?

> Then ask the group what they would expect
> to see in his will.

I take back what I said earlier...you can still be a source of some
amusement. Your method is to ignore all of the documentary evidence
that exists that tends to prove that WS of Stratford was the author
and ask a bunch of uninformed individuals what they would expect to
find in a writer's Last Will?

> Or tell them that his lawyer was highly
> intelligent, well-educated, and interested in
> literary matters, and ask what record there
> was likely to be of their discussions.  Then
> tell them, that in fact there was only one
> record of a conversation between them.
> But what would they expect to see in that
> record.

Right...ignore all of the other documentary evidence and look instead
for what a lawyer might have said about a legal matter.

> Ask them what remembrances were likely
> made by the local town council.  Or made
> by the Monarch, government and nation as
> a whole (bearing in mind that the monarch
> had his own personal copy of the Folio, in
> which he made his own notes.)

Remebrances...like a monument in his hometown...like a First Folio.

> Ask them what his wife, daughter, son-in-law,
> and grand-daughter would have said about
> him -- not least on their tombstones.

Why would they have said anything about him on their tombstones?

> > While you're at it why don't you also show why the
> > evidence that does exist does not suffice to support
> > the Stratford man's case. Why is there absolutely
> > no direct evidence of any kind for the proposition
> > that Oxenford wrote the works, and please don't fall
> > back on your conspiracy nonsense?
>
> See -- we are obliged to prove that there was
> a government-inspired cover-up by first denying
> the possibility that there was a government-
> inspired cover-up.

See -- Crowley will first dodge the question about the evidence
supporting the Stratfordian argument. Then he will fall back on his
all-powerful conspiracy theory for which there is no evidence at all,
the lack of such evidence being attributable, so Crowley argues, to
the fact that there was a conspiracy.

> Are you really that dim?

Are you really that irrational. I am not asking you to deny your
conspiracy at all. I'd be satisfied if you simply admitted that it is
conjecture on your part that such a conspiracy existed -- that would
at least show that you were somewhat rational and understood the
concept of evidence as opposed to raw speculation.

I'll change the question just for you. Why don't you produce the
"evidence of a TOTALLY different nature" which you contend supports
the existence of a conspiracy.

> Or did government-inspired cover-ups never
> ever happen in the history of the human
> race?

Nice straw man. How do we know that such cover-ups occurred...because
evidence of the conventional kind [as opposed to your "evidence of a
TOTALLY different nature"] was uncovered.

> >> How come his 'signatures' are so few and so bad?
>
> > Why do we only have one signature from Marlowe?
> > How many signatures do we have from Kyd,
> > Webster, Beaumont, Fletcher, Nashe, Greene,
> > etc.?  What makes the signatures "bad" in your
> > expert opinion?
>
> Yeah, yeah, you need to be "an expert" to
> be able to contrast an elegant, well-drawn
> signature from a illegible scrawl.

Notice the dodge. I am using evidence from the period to make a point
that you obviously are unable to handle.

What a dope you are!  Surely someone, even as stupid and ignorant as
you, can tell when you are dodging a question?

[...]

> >> This was a time when good calligraphy was the
> >> mark of an educated person.  No Strat here has
> >> found a signature of a noble or a gentleman that
> >> was as bad between the years 1200 and 1900 --
> >> in spite of my numerous requests.
>
> > Do you have any signatures from nobes or
> > gentlemen in the last months of their lives?
>
> Three (of the six) of Shagsber's signatures
> are from legal documents signed in 1612,
> four years before he died.  They were made
> in London, when the man was well enough to
> travel there -- probably on horseback.  He was
> no invalid.   And each of them is of the same
> "quality" (i.e. appalling) as those made on his
> will.  The hand is strong -- but uneducated.
> They show the writing of a person who does
> NOT know how to write, and who is
> uncomfortable in the use of a pen.

Great argument...the writing shows that he did not know how to write.

> > There are many variables that can change
> > handwriting. That you fail to acknowledge this fact
> > is a symptom of your irrationality.
>
> This hand (in your view) wrote tens of
> thousands of words.  Not one of which survive
> in manuscript.

So you say, but many experts in the field say otherwise.

>He would also have written
> numerous letters -- not one of which survive.

Which is not really that surprising.

> And your only recourse is to plead infirmity
> for his six appalling 'signatures'.  Do you
> make the same case for his daughters?

I don't give a fig about his daughters.

> And you call this 'rational'?

Yes, it is a rational explanation. Is it rational to treat your
speculations as if they were facts?

> > In addition, it is typical of deniers of reality such as
> > yourself to focus on one piece of evidence to the
> > exclusion of others that contradict your claims.
>
> Eh -- every scrap of information we have about
> the Stratman demonstrates his illiteracy.

This is idotic even for you. The documentary evidence shows the exact
opposite of what you claim. There's even a monumnet to all that he
wrote. And Ben Jonson testifies to the fact that he wrote the works.
Of course, being the irrational clod that you are you will deny that
evidence.

>Of
> course, illiterates don't usually leave much of
> a written record.  And, unsurprisingly, what we
> get from the Stratman is 'not much of a written
> record'.

What written records do we have from other playwrights of the era?

> > In this instance, there is a wealth of documentary
> > evidence attesting to the proposition that
> > Shakespeare of Stratford was literate, and yet you
> > can't even begin to admit that such evidence exists
> > [for instance, we know that two of his closest
> > friends wrote letters to him].
>
> Wealthy illiterates OFTEN got (and get) letters
> addressed to them.  Do you think Rose Blumkin
> never got any letters?

I see...your speculations are rational, but others are not. It is all
part and parcel of your narcissistic megalomania.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Furniture_Mart
>
> > > The others have been rehearsed here time and time
> > > again, with no answer from the Strats.
>
> > This is another symptom of your irrationality -- your
> > repeated assertions that you, and your silly
> > arguments, have never been answered.
>
> Your 'answer' to evidence about the Stratman's
> illiteracy is to ask "what about Marlowe leaving
> only one signature?".

No, you ignoramus. That was in response to your question regarding
why the number of known signatures was "so few"? Are you unable to
keep track of your own arguments? My response is a starting
point...your answer is missing?

> >> What other
> >> author has had illiterate children?
>
> > When are you going to prove that they were, and, if
> > there are thousands of points you could raise, why
> > is this one of the only three or four you ever
> > present.
>
> These are the most striking and most amusing.
> But I raise hundreds -- e.g. the Stratman never
> went to Italy,

More speculatiuon stated as fact...

> whereas we can be certain that
> the author of the canon knew it well.


> The Stratman was never a soldier, whereas we
> can be certain that the author of the canon
> had military experience,

Your certainty is amusing.

> The Stratman had no access to books,

Bullshit.

> whereas we can be certain that the author of
> the canon had read hundreds,
> The Stratman had no education - even IF he
> had attended the local school until he was 13.
> whereas we can be certain that the author of
> the canon had a great one,

Your assumptions turn into facts once again. I'm beginning to see
that your "evidence of a TOTALLY different nature" should be defined
as "what Crowley believes".

> The Stratman knew no language other than
> English,

You were there?

> whereas we can be certain that the
> author of the canon knew French, Italian, Latin
> and more.
> The Stratman had no training in Law  whereas
> we can be certain that the author of the canon
> had one.

Mark Twain wrote a legal novel...he had no training in the law.

> We can be certain that the author of the canon
> practised at poetry from an early age, whereas
> the notion of a near-peasant writing poetry (to
> make money!) after a day of cleaning out stables
> (or whatever) is so absurd as to be manifestly a
> joke.

So Crowley has spoken...so it must be believed.

> I could go on and on and on  .  .  .  . and
> often do

You certainly do...

> > Can you prove that John Webster's coach-
> > maker father and his mother [the daughter of a
> > blacksmith] were literate?
>
> Note how you dodge the question, and change
> the subject.

It isn't a dodge at all you ignorant ass. Many of the authors of the
time, such as Kit Marlowe and John Webster, came from the lower
classes but were able to rise above their parents. I would note also
that you removed my question from its context without indicating that
you had done so. You are a venal and dishonest prick.

Context: It is a ridiculous point anyway as it has no bearing on
whether or not William Shakespeare could have received an education,

gone to London, and written plays.

> The question was "What other
> author was brought up by illiterate parents in
> household of illiterates?|"
>
> It is not an answer to ask me to prove that the
> parents of every writer were literate.  But the
> Websters probably were.

This shows the lengths you will go to to argue your irrational case.
A blacksmith's daughter was literate? A coach-maker was literate?
Garbage.

> They dealt in expensive
> high-quality items. sold only to the very rich.  Their
> clients would probably have expected or required
> literacy in such suppliers.

They probably had nothing to do with the very rich, but with their
servants, and there is absolutely nothing to support your moronic
claim that some lord looking for a new coach would expect or require
that the maker of that coach should be literate. This is one more
example of you just making shit up.

> John Webster's father was (like Ben Jonson's
> step-father) wealthy enough to afford to give his
> son a good education, including attendance at
> the Inns of Court.

First, it is not known for certain that the John Webster who attended
the Middle Temple was, in fact, John Webster the author. You state
things as facts that are not established facts. Second, there is no
evidence that his father paid for him to attend the Inns of Court.
Finally, even accepting one and two, that does nothing to tend to
prove that Webster senior was literate.

> >> How come literature and the
> >> theatre in England was the only Renaissance Art
> >> financed by the common people?
>
> > Literature was not, as much of it was
> > generated in an attempt to gain patronage.  As
> > for the theatre, what do you think [and I use
> > that word advisedly] that the public theatres
> > were for
>
> They were the rough equivalent of modern
> X-Factor reality TV shows, or Victorian music-
> halls, or Roman circuses.  They sold
> entertainment as well as they could and were
> allowed:  blood, guts, sex, music spectacle,
> fighting . .  whatever.  Art was rarely thought
> much of an attraction.

Right. And so title pages which assert that plays were performed at
the public theatres are just one more project undertaken by the
invisible hand of the conspiracy to hoodwink all of the people who
were attending the theatres. Right.

> > [don't bother answering as we've
> > discussed this previously and you are
> > irrationally immune to a consideration of the
> > actual evidence]?
>
> I appreciate that you cannot deal with my answers.
> You prefer fantasy.

I deal with your answers more than I should and your answers are
fantasy.

Dom

[John W Kennedy]

"David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> In article
> <3ccb9db4-b827-4f35...@z8g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
> Arthur Neuendorffer <acne...@gmail.com> (aka Noonedafter) wrote:
>
>>> On 2012-10-10 14:01:52 +0000, David L. Webb said:
>>>
>>>> As late as the mid-twentieth century, there were *still*
>>>> professional opera singers who did not read music
>
>> John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Right up to the present, to my certain knowledge.
>
> Interesting -- I'm surprised that basic musicianship at that level is
> not a necessary condition for professional status nowadays.

It surprised me, but I’ve spent most of my adult life with one foot in that
world, and it isn’t all that rare. Of course, they mostly pick up the
rudiments -- know which note is middle C and the like -- because they’re
exposed to it constantly, but that’s not the same as being able to
sight-read an actual passage. And as long as they need only to memorize
music, and have weeks to do it in, they get by. (Note that this is not
remotely like the frenetic schedule at the Globe.)

[John W Kennedy]

Dominic Hughes <mah...@aol.com> wrote:
> Actually, I did. I offered the example of modern physicians, all
> fully literate, who have notoriously bad, often illegible,
> penmanship. You felt compelled to snip that argument because you had
> no answer for it.

And I know a full-time professional actress who's been doing leads in
Shakespeare and Tennessee Williams since the sixties, and who has the
handwriting of a seven year old.

[Bob Grumman]

On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 2:47:43 PM UTC-4, Robin G. wrote:
> What a waste! I see the directors rounded up the usual cast of loons: Charles Beauclerk, Michael Delahoyde, Derek Jacobi, Charlton Ogburn, Diana Price, Roger Stritmatter, Hank Whittemore and Daniel Wright.
>
>
>
> What? No Lynne Kositsky? Perhaps she was busy polishing up her book about The Tempest.
>
>
>
> What? No Mark Anderson? Has the Oxfordians' Golden Boy fallen off his throne?
>
>
>
> What? No Art N? Perhaps his tin hat was in the wash?
>
>
>
> Bob G is probably in a snit because the directors included Jonathan Bate and Stanley Wells, not him.

I suspect Dave Kathman would have done a better job than I. But it is certainly true that the directors avoided having anyone genuinely knowledgeable about the authorship question get near their project.

--Bob

[Dominic Hughes]

I had the pleasure of typing up a memoir from a handwritten
manuscript. The man was a physician, board-certified in two
specialties, and also had obtained a law degree. He was an actor, had
written plays for performance by a college acting troupe, and was a
wondeful singer. He was one of the most intelligent men I ever met.

He had no physical limitations which affected his ability to write,
but his handwriting was not good. In fact, at certain times it was
indecipherable, and, when a particular word or phrase could not be
gleaned from its context, I would take the text to him to ask what it
said. There were a number of occasions where even he could not
determine what it was he had written and the sentence had to be
changed or removed.

I knew a fellow in law school who was very intelligent and well-
educated. His handwriting went from bad to worse over the three years
of study until it became illegible. Of course, that was easily
explainable by the fact that he was afflicted with juvenile rheumatoid
arthritis which became progressively worse.

I knew another man whose handwriting grew worse in his later years.
He had Parkinson's and the tremors grew much worse over time.

There are many factors that can affect one's handwriting...or one can
simply have bad handwriting. None of that means that the person with
the "bad" handwriting is illiterate, and certainly not when there is
dcoumentary evidence to the contrary.

Dom

[John W Kennedy]

Not to mention that most anti-Strats are no more familiar with
secretary hand than they are with Tironian shorthand in the first place.

--
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"

[Paul Crowley]

On 11/10/2012 14:49, Dominic Hughes wrote:

>>> Exactly. As Crowley himself has stated, the evidence that
>>> supports the Oxenfordian cause is of "a totally different
>>> nature" from that which is usually considered to be evidence
>>
>> That is a lie.
>
> It isn't a lie at all. In fact, here is exactly what was said:
>
> DH: "My point was that you have zero evidence to support your
> theory."
>
> PC: "And my point was that the evidence that supports it is of a
> TOTALLY different nature from what you would count as 'evidence'.

Note the FULL sentence.
. . . . TOTALLY DIFFERENT NATURE FROM WHAT YOU WOULD COUNT AS 'EVIDENCE'.

I accept that you are so ignorant, so egocentric
and so stupid that you regard the words

"different from that which is usually considered
to be evidence"

as to be identical in meaning to:

"different nature from what you (i.e. DH) would count
as 'evidence'.

But their meaning is not the same. For normal
people the claim that they are the same is what
is called by them "a lie".

> DH: "One more time...what evidence do you have,
> of the nature that is commonly accepted to be
> evidence or of the "TOTALLY different nature"

Note your lying substitution and lying snip --
just to change the meaning of the words

> DH:
> You obviously do not have the mental ability to
> understand what qualifies as evidence that supports
> an argument. Can you define the "TOTALLY
> different nature" of the so-called evidence on which
> you rely?

Note your lying substitution and lying snip --
just to change the meaning of the words

> DH:
> The irony is rich. Your entire case is built on stupid assumptions.
> You have no documentary evidence such as that which tends to prove the
> Strat argument. All you have is speculation.
>
> Comment: You never did attempt to define what you meant by "evidence
> of a TOTALLY different nature."

Note your lying substitution and lying snip --
just to change the meaning of the words

> that is generally
> and conventionally accepted by reasonable people,
> as opposed to your still undefined "evidence of a
> TOTALLY different nature." More particularly, it is
> what constitutes evidence in a legal setting.

Note your lying substitution and lying snip --
just to change the meaning of the words

> evasive weasel. You have stated that the evidence
> which supports your conspiracy theory is "evidence
> of a TOTALLY different nature" from that which is
> conventionally defined as evidence.

Note your lying substitution and lying snip --
just to change the meaning of the words

> I'll change the question just for you. Why don't you
> produce the "evidence of a TOTALLY different
> nature" which you contend supports the existence
> of a conspiracy.

Note your lying substitution and lying snip --
just to change the meaning of the words

>> Or did government-inspired cover-ups never
>> ever happen in the history of the human
>> race?
>
> Nice straw man. How do we know that such cover-
> ups occurred...because evidence of the conventional
> kind [as opposed to your "evidence of a TOTALLY
> different nature"] was uncovered.

Note your lying substitution and lying snip --
just to change the meaning of the words

> Your assumptions turn into facts once again. I'm
> beginning to see that your "evidence of a TOTALLY
> different nature" should be defined as "what Crowley
> believes".

Note your lying substitution and lying snip --
just to change the meaning of the words


Your endlessly repeated lies are tedious. Your
endlessly repeated lies are tedious. Your endlessly
repeated lies are tedious. Your endlessly repeated
lies are tedious.Your endlessly repeated lies are
tedious. Your endlessly repeated lies are tedious.
Your endlessly repeated lies are tedious. Your
endlessly repeated lies are tedious. Your endlessly
repeated lies are tedious.Your endlessly repeated
lies are tedious. Your endlessly repeated lies are
tedious. Your endlessly repeated lies are tedious.
Your endlessly repeated lies are tedious. Your
endlessly repeated lies are tedious.Your endlessly
repeated lies are tedious. Your endlessly repeated
lies are tedious. Your endlessly repeated lies are
tedious. Your endlessly repeated lies are tedious.
Your endlessly repeated lies are tedious.Your
endlessly repeated lies are tedious. Your endlessly
repeated lies are tedious. Your endlessly repeated
lies are tedious. Your endlessly repeated lies are
tedious. Your endlessly repeated lies are
tedious.Your endlessly repeated lies are tedious.
Your endlessly repeated lies are tedious. Your
endlessly repeated lies are tedious. Your endlessly
repeated lies are tedious. Your endlessly repeated
lies are tedious.Your endlessly repeated lies are
tedious. Your endlessly repeated lies are tedious.
Your endlessly repeated lies are tedious. Your
endlessly repeated lies are tedious. Your endlessly
repeated lies are tedious.Your endlessly repeated
lies are tedious. Your endlessly repeated lies are
tedious. Your endlessly repeated lies are tedious.
Your endlessly repeated lies are tedious. Your
endlessly repeated lies are tedious.Your endlessly
repeated lies are tedious. Your endlessly repeated
lies are tedious. Your endlessly repeated lies are
tedious. Your endlessly repeated lies are tedious.
Your endlessly repeated lies are tedious.Your
endlessly repeated lies are tedious. Your endlessly
repeated lies are tedious. Your endlessly repeated
lies are tedious. Your endlessly repeated lies are
tedious. Your endlessly repeated lies are
tedious.Your endlessly repeated lies are tedious.
Your endlessly repeated lies are tedious. Your
endlessly repeated lies are tedious. Your endlessly
repeated lies are tedious. Your endlessly repeated
lies are tedious.Your endlessly repeated lies are
tedious. Your endlessly repeated lies are tedious.
Your endlessly repeated lies are tedious. Your
endlessly repeated lies are tedious. Your endlessly
repeated lies are tedious.Your endlessly repeated
lies are tedious. Your endlessly repeated lies are
tedious. Your endlessly repeated lies are tedious.
Your endlessly repeated lies are tedious. Your
endlessly repeated lies are tedious.Your endlessly
repeated lies are tedious. Your endlessly repeated
lies are tedious. Your endlessly repeated lies are
tedious. Your endlessly repeated lies are tedious.
Your endlessly repeated lies are tedious.Your
endlessly repeated lies are tedious. Your endlessly
repeated lies are tedious. Your endlessly repeated
lies are tedious. Your endlessly repeated lies are
tedious. Your endlessly repeated lies are
tedious.Your endlessly repeated lies are tedious.
Your endlessly repeated lies are tedious. Your
endlessly repeated lies are tedious. Your endlessly
repeated lies are tedious. Your endlessly repeated
lies are tedious.Your endlessly repeated lies are
tedious.


Paul.

[David L. Webb]

In article
<690661771371655025.6030...@news.optonline.net>,

John W Kennedy <jwk...@attglobal.neg> wrote:

> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> > In article
> > <3ccb9db4-b827-4f35...@z8g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
> > Arthur Neuendorffer <acne...@gmail.com> (aka Noonedafter) wrote:
> >
> >>> On 2012-10-10 14:01:52 +0000, David L. Webb said:
> >>>
> >>>> As late as the mid-twentieth century, there were *still*
> >>>> professional opera singers who did not read music

> >> John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Right up to the present, to my certain knowledge.

> > Interesting -- I'm surprised that basic musicianship at that level is
> > not a necessary condition for professional status nowadays.

> It surprised me, but I’ve spent most of my adult life with one foot in that
> world, and it isn’t all that rare. Of course, they mostly pick up the
> rudiments -- know which note is middle C and the like -- because they’re
> exposed to it constantly, but that’s not the same as being able to
> sight-read an actual passage.

I know some good amateur singers with well trained voices who cannot
sight-sing and hence have to play through their vocal line on the piano
to learn it, but I'm surprised that such types still exist among the
ranks of professionals.

> And as long as they need only to memorize
> music, and have weeks to do it in, they get by. (Note that this is not
> remotely like the frenetic schedule at the Globe.)

Absolutely -- it's pretty inconceivable that an Elizabethan theatre
company could carry an illiterate actor. Of course, in Art's entire
effusion of lunatic logorrhea, he did not provide any evidence whatever
of the existence of illiterate actors. But since Art thinks (here the
Neuendorffer Disclaimer must be invoked) that the Globe (and indeed
public theaters in general) did not exist, the Globe's frenetic schedule
doesn't trouble him in the least.

[jaelsheargold]

A bit of advice, mate. You really do need to get some help.
Seriously.


SB.

[Dominic Hughes]

On Oct 11, 2:21 pm, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
> On 11/10/2012 14:49, Dominic Hughes wrote:
>
> >>> Exactly.  As Crowley himself has stated, the evidence that
> >>> supports the Oxenfordian cause is of "a totally different
> >>> nature" from that which is usually considered to be evidence
>
> >> That is a lie.
>
> > It isn't a lie at all.  In fact, here is exactly what was said:
>
> > DH: "My point was that you have zero evidence to support your
> > theory."
>
> > PC: "And my point was that the evidence that supports it is of a
> > TOTALLY different nature from what you would count as 'evidence'.
>
> Note the FULL sentence.
>  . . . . TOTALLY DIFFERENT NATURE FROM WHAT YOU WOULD COUNT AS 'EVIDENCE'.
>
> I accept that you are so ignorant, so egocentric
> and so stupid that you regard the words
>
> "different from that which is usually considered
> to be evidence"
>
> as to be identical in meaning to:
>
> "different nature from what you (i.e. DH) would count
> as 'evidence'.

PLEASE STATE how what I would count as evidence is not identical to
that which is usually considered to be evidence.

In responding, you should remember [if you are able to do so] that I
have consistently relied on documentary, tangible and testimonial
evidence that is generally accepted to constitute evidence.

So, PLEASE STATE how is evidence in the form of documents from the
historical record different in meaning from "that which is usually
considered to be evidence?

So, PLEASE STATE how is evidence in the form of tangible things found
in the historical record different in meaning from "that which is
usually considered to be evidence?

So, PLEASE STATE how is evidence in the form of statements from
contemporary witnesses, taken from the historical record, different in
meaning from "that which is usually considered to be evidence?


You are an ignorant ass. Since, from the very beginning, I have been
promoting physical, documenatry evidence of the very type which is
usually considered to be evidence, yes, they are identical in meaning
in the context of our discussion. If you didn't understand that then
you are more ignorant and stupid than I had thought. What have I been
offering up as evidence over all these years if not what is commonly
accepted to be evidence -- documents, physical objects, testimonial
evidence? Are you so brain-dead that you have utterly failed to
comprehend that...I guess that could be an explanation for why you
summarily dismiss such evidence and why you have never once sought to
attempt to rebut it in any rational manner.

But the fact is that you did understand what was being said, and that
fact was made quite clear in the subsequent exchanges which I will
repeat here even though, due to your mental incapacity, it will not
benefit you in the slightest:

DH: "One more time...what evidence do you have, of the nature that is
commonly accepted to be evidence or of the "TOTALLY different nature"

that you claim exists, for your pronouncement that the plotters picked
intentionally chose an illiterate man to stand in for the author, so
as to play a joke on the ignorant."

PC: "His manifest illiteracy -- among much else."

Are you actually now contending that your opinion as to Shakespeare's
alleged "manifest illiteracy" qualifies as evidence of the kind that
is commonly accepted to be evidence, similar in every regard to
documentary, testamentary or physical evidence? When I established
the dichotomy between what is commonly accepted to be evidence and
your notion of "evidence of a TOTALLY different nature" you didn't
complain at that time that you were making a point which applied only
to me. This is simply another attempt to dodge responsibility for
what you have previously stated.

Whenever you are shown to be in error, you merely pretend to be saying
something else.

And here is the other bit which proves you are now lying again.

DH:
You obviously do not have the mental ability to understand what
qualifies as evidence that supports an argument. Can you define the
"TOTALLY different nature" of the so-called evidence on which you
rely?

There is plenty of evidence that supports the Strat argument. Your
job is to impeach that evidence -- to show that is not authentic or
reliable. So far you have failed miserably at that task.

PC:
> It isn't an
> argument -- it's a set of very stupid
> assumptions.

I once again set up the two terms to highlight the difference between
them. On one side was the evidence that supports the Stratfordian
argument -- evidence that must be shown to be inauthentic or
unreliable for it to be impeached -- applying a legal standard that
even someone as stupid as you should have grasped. On the other side
was your notion as to "evidence of a TOTALLY different nature."

Why don't you come out and, once and for all, offer an explanation as
to what you mean by that term.

******************************************

What exactly do you mean by the term "evidence of a Totally different
nature"?

Make it even more specific...what makes that evidence different from
what I would accept as evidence, and just exactly what is it that you
think I only accept as evidence?

Can you answer these questions?

****************************************

> But their meaning is not the same.

Yes, as a amtter of fact they are the same. The documents, physical
objects and testimonial statements upon which I have relied are
exactly the same as what is generally accepted to constitute
evidence. If you think otherwise you are more demented than I
thought.

> For normal
> people the claim that they are the same is what
> is called by them "a lie".

No, it is not a lie. The evidence with which I have repeatedly, but
vainly, attempted to get you to engage, and which you have avoided
like the plague [or vapidly answered with your cries of "Fake!
Forgery! Conspiracy! etc."], is made up of documents from the
historical records, physical objects, and the words of contemporary
witnesses -- all of which are fully contained in the definition of
what is commonly accepted to be evidence. Normal people understand
that. People with abnormal psychgology, such as yourself, apparently
do not.

What I count as "evidence" is what normal people count and accept as
evidence. There is no difference in the meaning and you are either a
liar or a mindless idiot or both.

> > DH:  "One more time...what evidence do you have,
> > of the nature that is commonly accepted to be
> > evidence or of the "TOTALLY different nature"
>
> Note your lying substitution and lying snip --
> just to change the meaning of the words

There is no change in the meaning of the words, there is no lying
snip, and your claim to the contrary is merely evidence that, whenever
you are shown to be in error, you simply pretend to be saying
something else.

Your silence at the time of the quoted exchange is the evidence that
shows you are lying now.

> > DH:
> > You obviously do not have the mental ability to
> > understand what qualifies as evidence that supports
> > an argument.  Can you define the "TOTALLY
> > different nature" of the so-called evidence on which
> > you rely?
>
> Note your lying substitution and lying snip --
> just to change the meaning of the words

There is no change in the meaning of the words, there is no lying
snip, and your claim to the contrary is merely evidence that, whenever
you are shown to be in error, you simply pretend to be saying
something else.

Your silence at the time of the quoted exchange is the evidence that
shows you are lying now.

> > DH:
> > The irony is rich.  Your entire case is built on stupid assumptions.
> > You have no documentary evidence such as that which tends to prove the
> > Strat argument.  All you have is speculation.
>
> > Comment:  You never did attempt to define what you meant by "evidence
> > of a TOTALLY different nature."
>
> Note your lying substitution and lying snip --
> just to change the meaning of the words

There is no change in the meaning of the words, there is no lying
snip, and your claim to the contrary is merely evidence that, whenever
you are shown to be in error, you simply pretend to be saying
something else.

Your silence at the time of the quoted exchange is the evidence that
shows you are lying now.

I note that you are still avoiding any attempt to define the term that
you created.

> > that is generally
> > and conventionally accepted by reasonable people,
> > as opposed to your still undefined "evidence of a
> > TOTALLY different nature."  More particularly, it is
> > what constitutes evidence in a legal setting.
>
> Note your lying substitution and lying snip --
> just to change the meaning of the words

There is no change in the meaning of the words, there is no lying
snip, and your claim to the contrary is merely evidence that, whenever
you are shown to be in error, you simply pretend to be saying
something else.

Your silence at the time of the quoted exchange is the evidence that
shows you are lying now.

The undisputed fact remains that, in all of my discussions with you
here at HLAS over the years, the evidence that I have put forward is
evidence which is of the type that is commonly, reasonably, generally
and widely accepted to qualify as evidence. Your attempt to change
your comment about "evidence of a TOTALLY different nature" into
something that was about me, and some idosyncratic view of evidence
that I was supposed to hold, only makes you look more daft.

> > evasive weasel.  You have stated that the evidence
> > which supports your conspiracy theory is "evidence
> > of a TOTALLY different nature" from that which is
> > conventionally defined as evidence.
>
> Note your lying substitution and lying snip --
> just to change the meaning of the words

There is no change in the meaning of the words, there is no lying
snip, and your claim to the contrary is merely evidence that, whenever
you are shown to be in error, you simply pretend to be saying
something else.

> > I'll change the question just for you.  Why don't you
> > produce the "evidence of a TOTALLY different
> > nature" which you contend supports the existence
> > of a conspiracy.
>
> Note your lying substitution and lying snip --
> just to change the meaning of the words

There is no change in the meaning of the words, there is no lying
snip, and your claim to the contrary is merely evidence that, whenever
you are shown to be in error, you simply pretend to be saying
something else.

Even so, I'll change the question once again, just for you. What is
the "evidence of a TOTALLY different nature" from what I would accept
as evidence which you contend supports your claim as to the existence
of a conspiracy?

This should entail you offering up what you think my understanding of
evidence might be, although how you would know better than me what I
consider to be evidence is impossible to fathom [and is just one more
sign of your arrogant narcissistic megalomania].

> >> Or did government-inspired cover-ups never
> >> ever happen in the history of the human
> >> race?
>
> > Nice straw man.  How do we know that such cover-
> > ups occurred...because evidence of the conventional
> > kind [as opposed to your "evidence of a TOTALLY
> > different nature"] was uncovered.
>
> Note your lying substitution and lying snip --
> just to change the meaning of the words

There is no change in the meaning of the words, there is no lying
snip, and your claim to the contrary is merely evidence that, whenever
you are shown to be in error, you simply pretend to be saying
something else.

This is all merely a dodge to cover the fact that there is no
evidence, OF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER, to support your speculation-turned-
to-fact that there was a conspiracy.

> > Your assumptions turn into facts once again.  I'm
> > beginning to see that your "evidence of a TOTALLY
> > different nature" should be defined as "what Crowley
> > believes".
>
> Note your lying substitution and lying snip --
> just to change the meaning of the words

There is no change in the meaning of the words, there is no lying
snip, and your claim to the contrary is merely evidence that, whenever
you are shown to be in error, you simply pretend to be saying
something else.

The sad fact is that you are unable to comprehend that your method
consists of turning speculations into facts, so that what you believe
is transformed into what is a fact -- just as your belief that there
was a conspiracy is magically turned into the fact that there was a
conspiracy. You are delusional.

Your endlessly repeated lies and speculations are tedious.

Let's see if you can answer any of the questions posed in this post...

Dom

[John W Kennedy]

On 2012-10-11 19:55:51 +0000, David L. Webb said:

> In article
> <690661771371655025.6030...@news.optonline.net>,
> John W Kennedy <jwk...@attglobal.neg> wrote:
>
>> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <3ccb9db4-b827-4f35...@z8g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Arthur Neuendorffer <acne...@gmail.com> (aka Noonedafter) wrote:
>>>
>>>>> On 2012-10-10 14:01:52 +0000, David L. Webb said:
>>>>>
>>>>>> As late as the mid-twentieth century, there were *still*
>>>>>> professional opera singers who did not read music
>
>>>> John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Right up to the present, to my certain knowledge.
>
>>> Interesting -- I'm surprised that basic musicianship at that level is
>>> not a necessary condition for professional status nowadays.
>
>> It surprised me, but I’ve spent most of my adult life with one foot in that
>> world, and it isn’t all that rare. Of course, they mostly pick up the
>> rudiments -- know which note is middle C and the like -- because they’re
>> exposed to it constantly, but that’s not the same as being able to
>> sight-read an actual passage.
>
> I know some good amateur singers with well trained voices who cannot
> sight-sing and hence have to play through their vocal line on the piano
> to learn it, but I'm surprised that such types still exist among the
> ranks of professionals.

Well, they let me join the professional world as an amateur singer with
(at the time) no vocal training at all, although I could sight-sing
(apart from the unwritten, but implied, appoggiature in recitativo
secco, which I had to be taught about). Opera is very results-oriented.

--
John W Kennedy
"Information is light. Information, in itself, about anything, is light."
-- Tom Stoppard. "Night and Day"

[tom....@gmail.com]

On Thursday, October 11, 2012 3:46:10 PM UTC-5, Dominic Hughes wrote:
> On Oct 11, 2:21 pm, Paul Crowley <dsfdsfd...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:

<snip>

Dom, is there really any point in responding to this fuckwit? It's self-evident to all (except perhaps Art N.) that he's either (a)totally disconnected from reality, or (b)the most successful troll of all time. He (if indeed it is a he) has been this way since this group began in the late 1990s. His Oxfordian hope feeds on nothing more substantial than his delusions. Trying to reason with him is like kicking a dead dog.

TR

[Dominic Hughes]

No doubt. As I stated in my last post I've spent more time answering
him than he is worth.

Dom