Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Karpeles Manuscript Library
47 views
Skip to first unread message
Arthur Neuendorffer
Feb 23, 2019, 8:24:54 AM2/23/19
to
Dim Witte
Feb 23, 2019, 4:45:14 PM2/23/19
to
On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 05:24:53 -0800 (PST), Arthur Neuendorffer
<acne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>https://www.noozhawk.com/article/was_shakespeare_really_the_bard_that_was_the_question_considered_at_karp
Lawyers talking about "evidence." Should have referenced the comments
by a couple Supreme Court Justices a couple decades ago, who had fun
with this..
Actually, as an interested spectator, I would consider "evidence" for
Stratman to be rather solid; evidence for de Vere only conjecture.
Shakespeare's will refers to his authorship in several ways, I think,
especially by leaving money for rings to three of his partners. The
will also plays on the issues about his name by him signing in three
different ways. He did publish in his own name at least once.
Evidence in the plays includes his consistent style, as in the study
on *Shakespeare and His Imagery, and What It Tells Us*, by Caroline
Spurgeone. Biographical connections to reference points in the plays
and sonnets point to Stratman's life. At one point, Stratman appears
to parody de Vere's wearing "yellow stockings" at court.
And we know all about Stratman from contemporary connections with
others, including nobles addressed in dedications, co-authors, as well
as relatives, business associates, and public reports.
Of course, Ben Jonson identifies Shakespeare most personally and
professionally in his essays, referring to him critically. Preface to
Shakespeare's First Folio clearly identifies him by numerous
contemporaries who also knew de Vere.
In order to consider another author than Stratman, have to go into the
authorship question as a play on conspiracies, foolish one, too;
although we can benefit from toying with the questions.
For fun, I might try to suggest that Stratman and the "white glove"
reference comes from his connection with the court through his
"bastard" inheritance as a love child dropped by a noble into a family
already doing business with the court as a provider of white kid
gloves. So that explains a "benefactor" that provided a quick
marriage with bond of 40 pounds, how he was promoted as a business
man, his odd relationship with Wriothesly in the Dedication and
sonnets, and perhaps inherited genius from royalty.
<acne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>https://www.noozhawk.com/article/was_shakespeare_really_the_bard_that_was_the_question_considered_at_karp
Lawyers talking about "evidence." Should have referenced the comments
by a couple Supreme Court Justices a couple decades ago, who had fun
with this..
Actually, as an interested spectator, I would consider "evidence" for
Stratman to be rather solid; evidence for de Vere only conjecture.
Shakespeare's will refers to his authorship in several ways, I think,
especially by leaving money for rings to three of his partners. The
will also plays on the issues about his name by him signing in three
different ways. He did publish in his own name at least once.
Evidence in the plays includes his consistent style, as in the study
on *Shakespeare and His Imagery, and What It Tells Us*, by Caroline
Spurgeone. Biographical connections to reference points in the plays
and sonnets point to Stratman's life. At one point, Stratman appears
to parody de Vere's wearing "yellow stockings" at court.
And we know all about Stratman from contemporary connections with
others, including nobles addressed in dedications, co-authors, as well
as relatives, business associates, and public reports.
Of course, Ben Jonson identifies Shakespeare most personally and
professionally in his essays, referring to him critically. Preface to
Shakespeare's First Folio clearly identifies him by numerous
contemporaries who also knew de Vere.
In order to consider another author than Stratman, have to go into the
authorship question as a play on conspiracies, foolish one, too;
although we can benefit from toying with the questions.
For fun, I might try to suggest that Stratman and the "white glove"
reference comes from his connection with the court through his
"bastard" inheritance as a love child dropped by a noble into a family
already doing business with the court as a provider of white kid
gloves. So that explains a "benefactor" that provided a quick
marriage with bond of 40 pounds, how he was promoted as a business
man, his odd relationship with Wriothesly in the Dedication and
sonnets, and perhaps inherited genius from royalty.
Arthur Neuendorffer
Feb 23, 2019, 9:59:03 PM2/23/19
to
Don wrote:
<<Actually, as an interested spectator, I would consider
"evidence" for Stratman to be rather solid.>>
<<Actually, as an interested spectator, I would consider
So that would be #2 type "evidence" then.
Art N.
nordicskiv2
Feb 24, 2019, 10:14:23 AM2/24/19
to
> Art N. (aka Noonedafter)
Arthur Neuendorffer
Feb 24, 2019, 5:02:56 PM2/24/19
to
> Don wrote:
>
> <<Actually, as an interested spectator, I would consider
> "evidence" for Stratman to be rather solid.>>
Neufer wrote: So that would be #2 type "evidence" then.
>
> <<Actually, as an interested spectator, I would consider
> "evidence" for Stratman to be rather solid.>>
Lea wrote:
<<To paraphrase Sam Diamond, virtually all Oxfordian "evidence"
is more like #2, if you know what I mean.>>
---------------------------------------------
https://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/end-of-an-oxfordian-era-on-the-supreme-court/
Bryan H. Wildenthal wrote:
<<Justice Stevens emphasized the importance of carrying on a respectful debate recognizing “the good faith and the honorable motives” of all participants. He expressly validated both the Oxfordian cause and the importance of the authorship inquiry itself—an implicit and powerful rebuke to all those who impatiently dismiss the issue. He specifically thanked Oxfordians for “putting forth honest views that are based on careful and deliberate study and interest in a very, very difficult problem,” and declared that “this really incomparable author who has given so much to our civilization … does continue to merit the study that we have seen today and that led up to this controversy.” Finally, he concluded, “the doctrine of res judicata”—the rule that a lawsuit, once finally resolved, may not generally be relitigated—“does not apply to this.”
Justice Stevens firmly identified himself as an Oxfordian to the New York Times in 2002 and to the Wall Street Journal in 2009. (Niederkorn, 2002; Bravin, 2009.) Stevens recalled that he and Justice Blackmun started developing more authorship doubts after the 1987 debate. (Bravin, 2009.) Stevens accepted the “Oxfordian of the Year” Award later in 2009, jointly bestowed by the Shakespeare Oxford Society and Shakespeare Fellowship. (Shakespeare Oxford Newsletter 45:3, Dec. 2009, p. 1.) But as far back as early 1991, less than four years after the 1987 debate, Stevens delivered a speech (published in 1992) that already strongly hinted at his support for the Oxfordian theory.
Justice Blackmun went even further by 1992. The second edition of Ogburn’s book quoted him stating that “Oxfordians have presented a very strong—almost fully convincing—case,” and that if he again “had to rule on the evidence presented, it would be in favor of the Oxfordians.”
Thus, within just a few years, fulfilling the prediction of Justice Stevens that the matter would not stay settled, the original verdict of 1987 was effectively reversed. Oxfordians ultimately won, in effect, a 2-to-1 judgment against the Stratford theory and in favor of Edward de Vere—from the most distinguished neutral panel of judges ever to read and hear such a thorough presentation of the evidence and arguments.
It should be kept in mind that the evidence in favor of the Oxfordian theory has been substantially strengthened since 1987—perhaps most notably by Professor Roger Stritmatter’s breakthrough study of Vere’s Geneva Bible annotations, Mark Anderson’s compelling biography of Vere, and Richard Paul Roe’s study of Shakespeare’s Italian references. During those same years, still more holes have been blown in the capsizing Stratfordian theory, including by Diana Price’s study of Shakespeare’s missing literary paper trail and by Katherine Chiljan’s well-documented book.
Justice Powell was also revealed as an emphatic anti-Stratfordian in Ogburn’s 1992 book. Powell’s disbelief in the orthodox view apparently long preceded the 1987 debate. He stated that he “never thought that the man of Stratford-on-Avon wrote the plays of Shakespeare.”
This non-Stratfordian era on the U.S. Supreme Court, however, now seems largely over. Justice Powell retired in 1987 and died in 1998. Justice Blackmun retired in 1994 and died in 1999. Justice Scalia’s views, as noted earlier, were not publicized until 2009. Justice O’Connor’s views on the SAQ were also (to my knowledge) not publicized until 2009, and she had already retired by then.
The 2009 Wall Street Journal article indicated that Justice O’Connor (now, as of December 2017, age 87) is not a Stratfordian, but was less clear about whether she is an Oxfordian and revealed nothing about the origins of her views. Justice Stevens eagerly testified that she leaned toward Oxford: “Sandra is persuaded that it definitely was not Shakespeare … [and is] more likely de Vere than any other candidate.” But Justice O’Connor herself, in line with her 2009 signing of the SAC’s Declaration of Reasonable Doubt, stated for the record only that “it might well have been someone other than our Stratford man.” (Bravin, Wall St. J., 2009.)
John Shahan reports that Justice Scalia declined an invitation to sign the Declaration of Reasonable Doubt. Scalia cited a general policy against signing petitions and expressed surprise that anyone would care about his views on the SAQ. Justices Powell and Blackmun died before the Declaration was issued, but are listed as prominent past authorship doubters.[27] Justice O’Connor retired in 2006 and Justice Stevens in 2010. Justice Scalia was the last known Oxfordian among active members of the Court. Justice Stevens, interestingly, was born in 1920—the very same year that Looney published his landmark statement of the Oxfordian theory. Absent further clarification from Justice O’Connor, Justice Stevens is now (as of December 2017), at age 97, the last known Oxfordian justice still living.
There are signs of possible reinforcements. Authorship doubters continue to reach out to the current justices. The same 2009 Wall Street Journal article, just months before Justice David H. Souter retired (he is now 78), quoted him as having “no idea” who the true author of the works of Shakespeare was. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, well known as a Shakespeare aficionado[28] and close personal friend of Justice Scalia, said in the same article that she had “no informed views” about the authorship question, but expressed some interest in alternative candidates (though not endorsing any). (Bravin, Wall St. J., 2009; see also endnote 4, discussing the friendship between Justices Ginsburg and Scalia.)
Justice Ginsburg is still in active service on the Court at age 84. Neither she nor Justice Souter has ever signed the SAC Declaration of Reasonable Doubt, and it would be a stretch to claim either as a clearcut non-Stratfordian based on what is publicly known so far. But it is certainly interesting that they decline to endorse the view of leading academic Stratfordians that no educated person should have any doubt at all about the orthodox authorship attribution. And it is interesting that Justice Ginsburg has openly expressed interest in alternative authorship candidates.
With Justices Stevens and Scalia still actively serving Oxfordians in 2009, and Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito, Jr., declining to comment, this left Stratfordians, at the time of the 2009 Wall Street Journal article, in a rather embarrassing position. They were able to claim only two overt supporters—Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Stephen G. Breyer—a mere 22% of the active Court at that time! (Bravin, Wall St. J., 2009.)
As we look back on the last thirty years, we can reflect on a remarkable period in the Supreme Court’s history. Justice Scalia, given his strongly stated views on so many difficult issues that came before the Court, will probably always be controversial.[29] But we should remember and admire him for his patriotism, his dedication to public service, his intellectual brilliance, and his sheer love of family, life, and literature. He was also a man of deeply abiding religious faith who loved the ancient traditions of his Roman Catholic Church. Justice Scalia always insisted his religious beliefs had no influence on his legal philosophy or role as a judge. I am not aware of any reason to draw a connection between his religion and his views on the authorship of Shakespeare.
Indeed, the history recounted here is a good reminder, in an unusually divisive and troubling political year, that the SAQ is a shared enthusiasm that has long brought together people of otherwise dramatically diverse religious, political, and other views.
A mystery I have not been able to illuminate is the extent to which the Supreme Court justices may have influenced each other’s views about Shakespeare. It is well known among Court-watching lawyers that the justices have surprisingly little influence on each other’s legal views, typically operating almost like nine separate law offices. Nor, according to many accounts, are the Court’s private conferences (contrary to what one might hope) the scene for much deep philosophical discussion—rather, apparently, more like what diplomats call “an exchange of views.” The justices seem to debate each other mostly through the public media of oral arguments and published opinions.
What we do know, as traced above, suggests that Justices Stevens and Blackmun interacted quite a bit regarding their Oxfordian interests, and perhaps with Justice O’Connor too. Stevens’s comments quoted earlier suggest he may have engaged in some friendly efforts to bring O’Connor around to the Oxfordian cause. But the views of Justices Scalia and Powell appear to have been well set long before they came to the Court. And even though Justices Scalia and Ginsburg were, as we have seen, close friends who shared interests in opera and literature (including Shakespeare), no suggestion has yet emerged that the SAQ cropped up in their tête-à-têtes. Still, as noted above, Justice Ginsburg has demurely declined to endorse the Stratfordian theory and has expressed some interest in the SAQ. Perhaps more will emerge in time.>>
--------------------------------------------------
Dim Witte
Feb 24, 2019, 8:33:17 PM2/24/19
to
On Sat, 23 Feb 2019 12:45:14 -0900, Dim Witte <daka...@gmail.com>
wrote:
And to my brief "brief," I would add a further surmise, that the
question about Shakespeare and court censorship would be illuminated
by hypothetically examining how a noble "benefactor" would have
protected him.
The whole Richard II episode concerning the attempted Essex Rebellion
and its reprisals aftermath suggests Shakespeare was protected. And
we surmise that all of the history plays were cleared by censors with
little complication, even consider management of Shakespeare's
production of history plays popularizing the court and behaviors of
nobles as a development of a National Literature.
More fun and games attend consideration of a preferred and protected
status of Shakespeare with the Elizabethan Court, perhaps paralleling
Walsingham and the Security Service use of Christopher Marlowe as a
spy. Do we know Shakespeare wasn't a spy like Marlowe, who also had
court connections and play collaborator?
Thus Stratman may seem to have a useful "benefactor" at court, and
that the many allusions and plot ramifications to "bastards" in the
plays are revealing.
wrote:
question about Shakespeare and court censorship would be illuminated
by hypothetically examining how a noble "benefactor" would have
protected him.
The whole Richard II episode concerning the attempted Essex Rebellion
and its reprisals aftermath suggests Shakespeare was protected. And
we surmise that all of the history plays were cleared by censors with
little complication, even consider management of Shakespeare's
production of history plays popularizing the court and behaviors of
nobles as a development of a National Literature.
More fun and games attend consideration of a preferred and protected
status of Shakespeare with the Elizabethan Court, perhaps paralleling
Walsingham and the Security Service use of Christopher Marlowe as a
spy. Do we know Shakespeare wasn't a spy like Marlowe, who also had
court connections and play collaborator?
Thus Stratman may seem to have a useful "benefactor" at court, and
that the many allusions and plot ramifications to "bastards" in the
plays are revealing.
Arthur Neuendorffer
Feb 24, 2019, 11:30:30 PM2/24/19
to
Don wrote:
> Do we know Shakespeare wasn't a spy like Marlowe,
Simple Simon a spy-man? I don't think so!
> Do we know Shakespeare wasn't a spy like Marlowe,
Art N.
Dim Witte
Feb 25, 2019, 8:07:50 PM2/25/19
to
is, was in the 155 range.
2. Intelligence offices in Elizabeth's court that would have tracked
and used Shakespeare probably included:
a. A sort of personnel bureau specifically in charge of managing
court security risks, such as "love children" that must be placed with
secrecy in secure homes for nobles.
1) Stratman was put into the Shakespeare's home on certain
terms, probably including payment and accounting, promise of a
"benefactor" oversight. Confirming factors included that John was
connected to the court by delivering white kid gloves, his wife was an
Arden of old family name, and Stratford was nearby, yet removed.
2) When conditions arose suggesting that reliable operators
were needed by branches of state government, referred placements such
as Shakespeare were considered for training.
a) Shakespeare was inclined toward acting, so was
placed in London for training in "behind the scenes" as well as
theatre employment.
b) Shakespeare was positioned in a public theatre
company on the other side of the Thames, which had multiple exposures
to "dark side" activities, including contact with foreign diplomats
and other "behind the scenes" work.
c) The theatres, which traveled at home and abroad with
troupes of actors, were probably as capable of doing intelligence work
as reporters, tourists, professional athletes, and actors in the U.S.
today.
d) As the contact person buying marketable plays for his
theatre, Shakespeare would have been in position to also collect
information and relay alliances.
3. At some point, State Security, both internal and external,
probably the equivalent of the FBI and CIA, invested interest in
Shakespeare in several capacities.
1) Clandestine operations aimed at specific foreign and
domestic economic, political, religious, financial, social, and
propaganda agencies.
2) Contact with important people and their interests.
3) Information about various cabals and coteries that
developed.
4. Shakespeare's involvement with lengthy projects concerning writing
history plays and attending certain literary groups probably came to
the attention of a government "think tank" of influential lords who
thought in terms of developing British National Literature and
Language. They, in turn, worked with State Security and censorship
about influencing and sanctioning him.
Add it up and we're talking state intelligence agendas. Probably,
even as today, they kept a separate dossier on each part of their
operations, and Shakespeare, the spy, was not revealed. We don't seem
to know what he did with his manuscripts, what he was doing buying
London property, why he left his wife at home, what else he was about.
Perhaps he did reveal some hidden intelligence in poetic imagery or
code that someone may yet discover.
Dim Witte
Feb 26, 2019, 11:21:34 AM2/26/19
to
On Mon, 25 Feb 2019 16:07:48 -0900, Dim Witte <daka...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 20:30:29 -0800 (PST), Arthur Neuendorffer
><acne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Don wrote:
>>
>>> Do we know Shakespeare wasn't a spy like Marlowe,
>>
>>Simple Simon a spy-man? I don't think so!
>>
>>Art N.
>
>1. Scholars estimate that Shakespeare's "intelligence," whatever that
>is, was in the 155 range.
>
>2. Intelligence offices in Elizabeth's court that would have tracked
>and used Shakespeare probably included:
> a. A sort of personnel bureau specifically in charge of managing
>court security risks, such as "love children" that must be placed with
>secrecy in secure homes for nobles.
[As an aside, can't help noticing that LeCarre's plot in *Smiley's
People* makes extensive use of this very gin in the intelligence game,
where the hidden child of an asset or liability is found and used. Who
the real parents of Stratman were would be valuable to know.
For all I know, de Vere is still being presented as the real
Shakespeare due to an on-going cover-up by single-minded relatives of
the old Elizabethan Court think tank. For me, a juicy tid-bit would
be uncovering something about Elizabeth's love child or two, which
ironically could involve de Vere.]]
wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Feb 2019 20:30:29 -0800 (PST), Arthur Neuendorffer
><acne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Don wrote:
>>
>>> Do we know Shakespeare wasn't a spy like Marlowe,
>>
>>Simple Simon a spy-man? I don't think so!
>>
>>Art N.
>
>1. Scholars estimate that Shakespeare's "intelligence," whatever that
>is, was in the 155 range.
>
>2. Intelligence offices in Elizabeth's court that would have tracked
>and used Shakespeare probably included:
> a. A sort of personnel bureau specifically in charge of managing
>court security risks, such as "love children" that must be placed with
>secrecy in secure homes for nobles.
People* makes extensive use of this very gin in the intelligence game,
where the hidden child of an asset or liability is found and used. Who
the real parents of Stratman were would be valuable to know.
For all I know, de Vere is still being presented as the real
Shakespeare due to an on-going cover-up by single-minded relatives of
the old Elizabethan Court think tank. For me, a juicy tid-bit would
be uncovering something about Elizabeth's love child or two, which
ironically could involve de Vere.]]
Arthur Neuendorffer
Feb 26, 2019, 11:28:17 AM2/26/19
to
Don wrote:
We don't seem to know what [Shakespeare] did with his manuscripts...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqV44taFNUc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38dk0ctTUNM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2aw0mez19I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3P3HKJtwWY
-----------------------------------------------
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-2AaElwQP0
--------------------------------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Monument
<<The Washington Monument cornerstone was laid with great ceremony at the northeast corner of the lowest course or step of the old foundation on July 4, 1848. The cornerstone was a 24,500-pound marble block with a large hole for a zinc case filled with memorabilia. The memorabilia in the zinc case included items associated with the monument, the city of Washington, the national government, state governments, benevolent societies, and George Washington, plus miscellaneous publications, both governmental and commercial, a coin set, and a Bible, totaling 73 items or collections of items, as well as 71 newspapers containing articles relating to George Washington or the monument. The cornerstone was pronounced sound after a Masonic ceremony using George Washington's Masonic gavel, apron and sash, as well as other Masonic symbols.
The [100 ounce] aluminum apex, at the time a rare metal, was the largest piece of aluminum in the world when it was set on Dec.6, 1884(; note: still a little too early for Bruns constant). It was 8.9 inches tall with a base 5.6 inches square. The four faces of the external aluminum apex all bear inscriptions in cursive writing, which are incised into the aluminum. LAUS DEO (Latin for "praise be to God") is the inscription on the East face.>>
---------------------------------------------
" LAUS DEO " is found in both early & late Shakespeare:
---------------------------------------------
____ Love's Labour's Lost Act 5, Scene 1
SIR NATHANIEL: * LAUS DEO * , bene intelligo.
HOLOFERNES: Bon, bon, fort bon, Priscian!
______ a little scratch'd, *tWILL sERVE* .
---------------------------------------------
. Last speech in the First Folio (1623):
. http://tinyurl.com/q7mtmcg
. http://tinyurl.com/q3588wk
...........................................
Cymbeline: *LAUD WE THE GODS* ,
. And let our crooked Smoakes climbe to their Nostrils
. From our blest *ALTARS*. *PUBLISH* we {T}his Pe{A}ce
. [T]o [A]{L}[L] o[U]r [S]{U}biect{S}. Set we forward: Let
. A Roman, and a Brittish Ensigne wave
. Friendly together: so through Luds-Towne march,
. And in the Temple of great Iupiter
. Our Peace wee'l ratifie: Seale it with Feasts.
. Set on there: NEVER was a Warre did cease
. (Ere bloodie hands were wash'd) with such a Peace.
...........................................
[TALUS] 2
{TALUS} 6
Prob. of 2[TALUS]'s with skip < 7
in Last FF Speech: ~ 1 in 830,000
---------------------------------------------
In _The Fairie Queene_ Edmund Spenser makes Sir Artegal's
IRON man "TALUS" run continually round the island of CRETE
to protect it like the mythical Greek BRASS/BRONZE "TALOS"
................................
A slavishe Smi[T]h to protect an island nation in other words:
---------------------------------------------
http://tinyurl.com/ykugrfq
Edward (De Vere) Earl of Oxford poetry:
.
. A slavishe Smi[T]h of rude [A]nd rasca[L]l race,
. Fo[U]nde mean[S] in tyme to gaine a Goddes' grace.
. Then loftie Love, thy sacred sailes advaunce,
. My sithyng seas shall flowe with streames of teares;
. Amidds disdaine drive forthe my dolefull chaunce,
. A valiaunt minde no deadly daunger feare[S].
. Who l[O]ves a[L]ofte [A]nd se[T]ts his hart on hie,
. DE(s)ERVE(s) no paine, though he doe pine and die.
---------------------------------------------
My own take is that Shakespeare was primarily
a work by Oxenford revised by Roger Manners.
Perhaps the manuscripts are even hidden in "blest *ALTARS*"
---------------------------------------------
James Joyce's _Ulysses_ : https://tinyurl.com/y3pevdet
................................
Manner of Oxenford.
Day. Wheelbarrow sun over arch of bridge.
A dark back went before them. Step of a pard,
down, out by the gateway, under portcullis barbs.
They followed.
Offend me still. Speak on.
Kind air defined the coigns of houses in Kildare street. No birds.
Frail from the housetops two plumes of smoke ascended, pluming,
and in a flaw of softness softly were blown.
Cease to strive. Peace of the druid priests of Cymbeline:
hierophantic: from wide earth an altar.
Laud we the gods
And let our crooked smokes climb to their nostrils
From our bless'd altars.
---------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
We don't seem to know what [Shakespeare] did with his manuscripts...
Perhaps he did reveal some hidden intelligence in poetic imagery or
code that someone may yet discover.
-----------------------------------------------
code that someone may yet discover.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XqV44taFNUc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=38dk0ctTUNM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2aw0mez19I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3P3HKJtwWY
-----------------------------------------------
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-2AaElwQP0
--------------------------------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Monument
<<The Washington Monument cornerstone was laid with great ceremony at the northeast corner of the lowest course or step of the old foundation on July 4, 1848. The cornerstone was a 24,500-pound marble block with a large hole for a zinc case filled with memorabilia. The memorabilia in the zinc case included items associated with the monument, the city of Washington, the national government, state governments, benevolent societies, and George Washington, plus miscellaneous publications, both governmental and commercial, a coin set, and a Bible, totaling 73 items or collections of items, as well as 71 newspapers containing articles relating to George Washington or the monument. The cornerstone was pronounced sound after a Masonic ceremony using George Washington's Masonic gavel, apron and sash, as well as other Masonic symbols.
The [100 ounce] aluminum apex, at the time a rare metal, was the largest piece of aluminum in the world when it was set on Dec.6, 1884(; note: still a little too early for Bruns constant). It was 8.9 inches tall with a base 5.6 inches square. The four faces of the external aluminum apex all bear inscriptions in cursive writing, which are incised into the aluminum. LAUS DEO (Latin for "praise be to God") is the inscription on the East face.>>
---------------------------------------------
" LAUS DEO " is found in both early & late Shakespeare:
---------------------------------------------
____ Love's Labour's Lost Act 5, Scene 1
SIR NATHANIEL: * LAUS DEO * , bene intelligo.
HOLOFERNES: Bon, bon, fort bon, Priscian!
______ a little scratch'd, *tWILL sERVE* .
---------------------------------------------
. Last speech in the First Folio (1623):
. http://tinyurl.com/q7mtmcg
. http://tinyurl.com/q3588wk
...........................................
Cymbeline: *LAUD WE THE GODS* ,
. And let our crooked Smoakes climbe to their Nostrils
. From our blest *ALTARS*. *PUBLISH* we {T}his Pe{A}ce
. [T]o [A]{L}[L] o[U]r [S]{U}biect{S}. Set we forward: Let
. A Roman, and a Brittish Ensigne wave
. Friendly together: so through Luds-Towne march,
. And in the Temple of great Iupiter
. Our Peace wee'l ratifie: Seale it with Feasts.
. Set on there: NEVER was a Warre did cease
. (Ere bloodie hands were wash'd) with such a Peace.
...........................................
[TALUS] 2
{TALUS} 6
Prob. of 2[TALUS]'s with skip < 7
in Last FF Speech: ~ 1 in 830,000
---------------------------------------------
In _The Fairie Queene_ Edmund Spenser makes Sir Artegal's
IRON man "TALUS" run continually round the island of CRETE
to protect it like the mythical Greek BRASS/BRONZE "TALOS"
................................
A slavishe Smi[T]h to protect an island nation in other words:
---------------------------------------------
http://tinyurl.com/ykugrfq
Edward (De Vere) Earl of Oxford poetry:
.
. A slavishe Smi[T]h of rude [A]nd rasca[L]l race,
. Fo[U]nde mean[S] in tyme to gaine a Goddes' grace.
. Then loftie Love, thy sacred sailes advaunce,
. My sithyng seas shall flowe with streames of teares;
. Amidds disdaine drive forthe my dolefull chaunce,
. A valiaunt minde no deadly daunger feare[S].
. Who l[O]ves a[L]ofte [A]nd se[T]ts his hart on hie,
. DE(s)ERVE(s) no paine, though he doe pine and die.
---------------------------------------------
My own take is that Shakespeare was primarily
a work by Oxenford revised by Roger Manners.
Perhaps the manuscripts are even hidden in "blest *ALTARS*"
---------------------------------------------
James Joyce's _Ulysses_ : https://tinyurl.com/y3pevdet
................................
Manner of Oxenford.
Day. Wheelbarrow sun over arch of bridge.
A dark back went before them. Step of a pard,
down, out by the gateway, under portcullis barbs.
They followed.
Offend me still. Speak on.
Kind air defined the coigns of houses in Kildare street. No birds.
Frail from the housetops two plumes of smoke ascended, pluming,
and in a flaw of softness softly were blown.
Cease to strive. Peace of the druid priests of Cymbeline:
hierophantic: from wide earth an altar.
Laud we the gods
And let our crooked smokes climb to their nostrils
From our bless'd altars.
---------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
nordicskiv2
Feb 27, 2019, 10:45:50 AM2/27/19
to
On Sunday, February 24, 2019 at 5:02:56 PM UTC-5, Arthur Neuendorffer (aka Noonedafter) wrote:
> > Don wrote:
> >
> > <<Actually, as an interested spectator, I would consider
> > "evidence" for Stratman to be rather solid.>>
> Neufer (aka Noonedafter) wrote: So that would be #2 type "evidence" then.
> > Don wrote:
> >
> > <<Actually, as an interested spectator, I would consider
> > "evidence" for Stratman to be rather solid.>>
> Lea wrote:
>
> <<To paraphrase Sam Diamond, virtually all Oxfordian "evidence"
> is more like #2, if you know what I mean.>>
> Tell it to the Judge:
> ---------------------------------------------
> Justice Stevens firmly identified himself as an Oxfordian to the New York
> Times in 2002 and to the Wall Street Journal in 2009.
Incidentally, Art, here is an international conference that might interest you:
<https://tn.com.ar/sociedad/el-cuestionado-movimiento-terraplanista-hara-su-primera-reunion-internacional-en-la-argentina_942546>.
<https://www.lanoticia1.com/noticia/insolito-encuentro-de-terraplanismo-en-colon-para-los-que-creen-que-la-tierra-es-plana-112823.html>
You might find this conference more accessible than the annual SACCC, if only because its venue is not a carefully concealed secret, and even cowans are welcome to attend.
Curiously enough, the event is being held in Colón, which has a dual resonance for you: besides its obvious reference to the Genoan navigator, it is the source of virtually all anti-Stratfordian delusions. Get your tickets right away, Art!
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
> Justice Blackmun went even further by 1992.
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
> It should be kept in mind that the evidence in favor of the Oxfordian theory
> has been substantially strengthened since 1987—perhaps most notably by
> Professor Roger Stritmatter’s breakthrough study of Vere’s Geneva Bible
> annotations,
> Mark Anderson’s compelling biography of Vere,
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
It's "compelling", all right -- it compelled me to laugh aloud!
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
> including by Diana Price’s study of Shakespeare’s missing literary paper
> trail and by Katherine Chiljan’s well-documented book.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> Justice Powell was also revealed as an emphatic anti-Stratfordian in
> Ogburn’s 1992 book.
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
> John Shahan reports that Justice Scalia declined an invitation to sign the
> Declaration of Reasonable Doubt.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Many of the "VERified signatories" are quite...uh...eccentric, Art. As Dave Kathman put it,
"Check out the last page of signatories, which contains these self-
descriptions:
'Teacher/student of kabbalah and western esoteric tradition; member of
Bacon Society for 27 years.'
'My doctorate in language and learning was inspired by the Bard. How
could he only have had one bed!'
'English teacher, author of "Shake-speare's Tombe 'Epigramma'," in
GAMES magazine, February 1998'
'I may one day be notable for being one of two determined female
scientists who exposed the most truth about 9/11. See
http://shoes4industry.blogspot.com'
[Do check out that link, Art: it's paranoia on steroids! You and the most demented of your coreligionists will love it!]
'Voice Teacher, The Juilliard [sic] School (fired from); Tisch School of the
Arts (NYU) (fired from). I still have my smelly cooter.'
'A student of Shakespeare for 45 years, I've studied the entire body
of work and favor De Vere or Bacon. After so long, what's in a name?'
'Painter, former set designer. Working on theory of "falsified history
of humankind" that fits well with doubts about authorship.'
The whole thing is amusing but also sad. So much time and effort
wasted."
One might add a few other amusing self-descriptions of signatories:
"Actor and M.A. in Cosmology and Divination with particular reference to the shamanic aspects of drama"
"Layperson, avid reader - Will was Amelia Bassano Lanyer"
"Schollar [sic] of Law"
"Granddaughter of Barbara Crowley"
"Descendant of Bacon Family. My Shaksper page: http://www.baconlinks.com/VVILL/BaconShaker.html"
"Esteemed fellow"
"My former wife had doubts about Willie the Shake, as she called the bard."
"Master theatre shoemaker (early retirement)"
"I did not write the Shake-speare documents, nor do I know of anyone who may have written them."
[There's one authorship candidate who can be eliminated!]
"I find it incredible [sic] Italan [sic] and Spanish knowledges [sic] from a man never travelling [sic] out of England."
[An English stylist of your own stripe, Art!]
"Former Chair and Professor of Neurology, Technical University Munich. My German Wikipedia authorship article has been erased."
"I believe Sir Francis Bacon, William Shakespeare and The Arden family were all related and had a common ancestry!"
[We really must do a better job of safeguarding the secrets of the Bloodline!]
"Possessor of some logical faculties"
[He's claiming to have an unfair advantage over you, Art!]
"Justice of the Peace for Oxfordian/Stratfordian marriages"
"I believe the Elizabethan pronunciations of 'bard' and 'baud' were curiously similar."
"BA, English literature, Shakespeare aficianado [sic]"
"There is a lot of doubt. I also show in my book 'Jane Austen - a New Revelation' that there are great doubts about the authorship of Jane Austen"
"My mother with a master's degree in English literature had doubts."
"There is no doubt."
[A VERy odd sentiment for a signatory of a Declaration of Reasonable Doubt!]
"Creator of Light-of-Truth.com, and the theory that Francis Bacon was born as William Tudor"
"NLP practitioner accredited supervised i.q level of 136. Ive [sic] been most certain for several years now that William Shakspere and the author are 2 seperate entiti [sic]"
And the above are only from roughly the first third of the list of signatories! There is much more comedy to be mined, but you'll have to pursue it on your own, Art.
Back when the Declaration reached the 3,000 signature mark (many years ago now), I posted the following:
"However, the remarks of the signatories do afford some
welcome amusement in places. They exhibit the familiar
hallmarks of the anti-Stratfordian 'movement,' ranging
from borderline paranoia ('Keeping Shakespeare's identity
as it is only benefits those who make money off of it')
to formidable erudition ('Electrical Engineer. I studied
'Macbeth' as part the English Literature course of the
University of London General Certificate of Education,
1972') to eccentricity ('Campionist. Originator of the
theory/website contending that St. Edmund Campion S.J.
is the author of the works of Shakespeare') to expertise
('Longtime amateur decanter and student of forensic
conspiracy') to appeal to authority ('My college English
professor has doubts about Mr. Shakspeare'; 'My mother
raised me on this theory, so I support the research.') to
wishful thinking ('Book coming out next summer -- may soon
be famous author?!') to unassailable reasoning ('There
must be evidence out there, we need to look to determine
one way or another'; 'If the man from Stratford was the
author of Shakespeare's works, why didn't he partake in
the translation of King James' version of the Bible?';
'I have always wondered how he could write so well and not
be able to write at all.') to an inability to write in
English ('...a Will sceptic for sure, and recognise strong
circumstantial evidence for de Vere, but no concrete yet.';
'As a student I find the truth to be essential, for most
papers give analogies of the writers [sic] life experiences
and how they may have attributed [sic] to the piece(s).") to
a religious conviction ('I hold that the true author of the
works, to the exclusion of all others, is, and only can be,
Edward, 17th Earl of Oxford.") to inscrutability ('I believe
that Will's ability to hold a generic quality of passion
towards all of his subjects shows a parallel to an ability to
be studying non-attachment.'; 'I'm too young to be in
college!!') to slapstick ('The high school graduation gift
in our family was the Complete Works of William Shakespeare,
and I want to know if I should have asked for a car instead.')
-- and most of these gems come from only the first few pages
of signatories!"
"The declaration has the great virtue of making one aware of
amusing books and web pages that were obscure enough to have
escaped one's attention. I especially commend to the attention
of connoisseurs of crank conspiracy theories and of offbeat
reasoning the following:
<http://www.thegreatpesher.com>
<http://www.shakespeareunmasked.com>
<http://www.sirbacon.org/links/carrquixote.html>
<http://www.cappella.demon.co.uk/examine/voyage.html>
<http://www.authorsden.com/visit/viewwork.asp?AuthorID=348>"
Finally, Art, some of the "VERified signatories" (and even the *academic* ones!) include luminaries such as Profesor Voluntad San Juan Sacudón de Lanza, whose given name, Voluntad, means "will" and whose surname, Sacudón de Lanza, means "shaking of a spear", a self-proclaimed retired Shakespeare scholar ("Profesor [sic] demeritus [sic]") who by his own account resides in Vado de Estrata ("Ford of Strat") and signed on or around April 1.
But keep slogging, Art -- 4,000 signatories is around 0.000000005 percent of the world's population! The Declaration might eventually enjoy success approaching that of the Amazon sales rank of Mr. Streitz's book!
--------------------------------------------------------------
No wonder Justice Scalia declined to sign it!
> Scalia cited a general policy against signing petitions and expressed
> surprise that anyone would care about his views on the SAQ.
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
> There are signs of possible reinforcements. Authorship doubters continue to
> reach out to the current justices. The same 2009 Wall Street Journal
> article, just months before Justice David H. Souter retired (he is now 78),
> quoted him as having “no idea” who the true author of the works of
> Shakespeare was. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, well known as a Shakespeare
> aficionado[28] and close personal friend of Justice Scalia, said in the same
> article that she had “no informed views”
> about the authorship question, but expressed some interest in alternative
> candidates (though not endorsing any).
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
> With Justices Stevens and Scalia still actively serving Oxfordians in 2009,
> and Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justices Clarence Thomas and
> Samuel A. Alito, Jr., declining to comment, this left Stratfordians, at the
> time of the 2009 Wall Street Journal article, in a rather embarrassing
> position.
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
> As we look back on the last thirty years, we can reflect on a remarkable
> period in the Supreme Court’s history.
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
> Still, as noted above, Justice Ginsburg has demurely declined to endorse the
> Stratfordian theory and has expressed some interest in the SAQ. Perhaps more
> will emerge in time.>>
> --------------------------------------------------
Arthur Neuendorffer
Feb 27, 2019, 12:32:39 PM2/27/19
to
--------------------------------------------------
Lea wrote:
<<While he is a distinguished jurist, Justice Stevens was neVER an Elizabethan/Jacobean scholar or a literary historian, Art.>>
In other words, he's never had to grovel to the corrupt SBT.
<<While he is a distinguished jurist, Justice Stevens was neVER an Elizabethan/Jacobean scholar or a literary historian, Art.>>
--------------------------------------------------
Lea wrote:
<<Justice Blackmun was neVER an Elizabethan/Jacobean scholar or a literary historian, Art.>>
In other words, he's never had to grovel to the corrupt SBT.
<<Justice Blackmun was neVER an Elizabethan/Jacobean scholar or a literary historian, Art.>>
--------------------------------------------------
Lea wrote:
<<Justice Powell was neVER an Elizabethan/Jacobean scholar or a literary historian, Art.>>
In other words, he's never had to grovel to the corrupt SBT.
<<Justice Powell was neVER an Elizabethan/Jacobean scholar or a literary historian, Art.>>
--------------------------------------------------
https://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/end-of-an-oxfordian-era-on-the-supreme-court/
Bryan H. Wildenthal wrote:
Bryan H. Wildenthal wrote:
<<John Shahan reports that Justice Scalia declined an invitation to sign the
Declaration of Reasonable Doubt.
---------------------------------------------
Declaration of Reasonable Doubt.
Lea wrote:
<<A prudent position, in view of the...uhh...eccentricity of many of the signatories:>>
https://doubtaboutwill.org/signatories/notable
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lea wrote:
<<But keep slogging, Art -- 4,000 signatories is
around 0.000000005 percent of the world's population!>>
Are you *that* incompetent as a Math professor or do you really
<<But keep slogging, Art -- 4,000 signatories is
around 0.000000005 percent of the world's population!>>
believe that the world's population is 80,000,000,000,000?
--------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
nordicskiv2
Mar 1, 2019, 2:28:46 PM3/1/19
to
On Wednesday, February 27, 2019 at 12:32:39 PM UTC-5, Arthur Neuendorffer (aka Noonedafter) wrote:
> ---------------------------------------------
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
> It should be kept in mind that the evidence in favor of the Oxfordian theory
> has been substantially strengthened since 1987—perhaps most notably
If Dr. antiStratnutter's thesis is the most notable strengthening of the Oxfordian "theory" since 1987, then the theory is indeed moribund!
> by Professor Roger Stritmatter’s breakthrough
> study of Vere’s Geneva Bible annotations,
You mean, the one whose *only* evidence of Oxford's authorship was the risible statistical appendix? But I admit that it was a breakthrough of sorts -- there had probably neVER before been any literary/historical thesis accepted that confused Mary Tudor with Mary, Queen of Scots.
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
> This non-Stratfordian era on the U.S. Supreme Court, however, now seems
> largely over.
Let's just hope that sanity also returns to the Court in more important and more substantive judicial matters, not merely in something as inconsequential to the Court's mission as the silly Shakespeare authorship "question".
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
> John Shahan reports that Justice Scalia declined an invitation to sign the
> Declaration of Reasonable Doubt. Scalia cited a general policy against
> signing petitions and expressed surprise that anyone would care about his
> views on the SAQ.
It *is* surprising -- but since Oxfordians have no qualified professionals to cite, they resort to Supreme Court Justices with no expertise whateVER in the matter. One hopes that, in the same spirit, they entrust their dental health to their auto mechanics.
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
> There are signs of possible reinforcements.
Huh?! He must be hoping that beer has clouded Kavanaugh's wits.
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
> --------------------------------------------------
> https://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/end-of-an-oxfordian-era-on-the-supreme-court/
>
> Bryan H. Wildenthal wrote:
>
> <<John Shahan reports that Justice Scalia declined an invitation to sign the
> Declaration of Reasonable Doubt.
> ---------------------------------------------
> Lea wrote:
>
> <<A prudent position, in view of the...uhh...eccentricity of many of the
> signatories:>>
>
> https://doubtaboutwill.org/signatories/notable
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Lea wrote:
>
> <<But keep slogging, Art -- 4,000 signatories is
> around 0.000000005 percent of the world's population!>>
> Are you *that* incompetent as a Math professor or do you really
> believe that the world's population is 80,000,000,000,000?
Of course not, Art; that's a typo, occasioned by a sticking "00" key on my laptop that stutters and repeats zeros about 25% of the time. Since I can't use that key reliably until it is fixed, I'll spell out the mathematics in English for your benefit: the number of VERified signatories of the Declaration of Reasonable [sic!] Doubt is around 4 times ten^3; the world's population is a little less than 8 times ten^9. Thus the ratio
(delusional Declaration signatories)/(total population)
is roughly (4 x ten^3)/(8 x 10^9)=.5 x ten^(-6)=5 x ten^(-7). (Of course, the situation is actually still worse: some of those signatories may fall into the same category as el profesor Voluntad San Juan Sacudón de Lanza of Vado de Estrata.)
In case you're keeping track, Art, that ratio is many orders of magnitude smaller than the fraction of the population recently surveyed who expressed doubts about the earth being round. It is also around five orders of magnitude smaller than the fraction of Americans who believe that they have been abducted by space aliens. (Were *you* eVER abducted by space aliens, Art? If so, were they Freemasons?) As a comparison, the fraction of four-leaf cloVERs to all cloVERs is about ten^(-4), seVERal orders of magnitude larger.
Incidentally, Art, I wouldn't bring up mathematical competence -- or indeed, competence in *any* intellectual endeavor -- if I were you: the mathematically competent can tell which natural numbers are both the sum of two consecutive integers and the difference of their squares. Those among the competent who have enjoyed the benefits of even a modest education can correctly order Virgil and Herodotus chronologically. The competent can generally achieve reasonable proficiency in at least *some* natural language -- generally their own native tongue, at a minimum, plus one or two others; in particular, they are not apt to mistake Russian for Ossetian, since the two tongues do not even share the same alphabet. The competent would not infer that a man traveling from New Haven to Manhattan would begin by boarding a nonstop flight from Boston to Los Angeles. MoreoVER, the competent are fully aware that the same given name and surname may be borne by more than one individual, and that a discrepancy of any *one* datum among middle initial, age, and profession is a VERy clear indication that two distinct individuals are being discussed. And of course, the competent are not led astray by the farcical lunacy of risible, uninformed cranks like Francis Carr, the Alex Jones of history. But don't take my word for it, Art: check out that suspicious pizza parlor for yourself -- just don't go armed.
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Art Neuendorffer (aka Noonedafter)
> ---------------------------------------------
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
> It should be kept in mind that the evidence in favor of the Oxfordian theory
> has been substantially strengthened since 1987—perhaps most notably
> by Professor Roger Stritmatter’s breakthrough
> study of Vere’s Geneva Bible annotations,
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
> This non-Stratfordian era on the U.S. Supreme Court, however, now seems
> largely over.
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
> John Shahan reports that Justice Scalia declined an invitation to sign the
> Declaration of Reasonable Doubt. Scalia cited a general policy against
> signing petitions and expressed surprise that anyone would care about his
> views on the SAQ.
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
> There are signs of possible reinforcements.
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]
> --------------------------------------------------
> Lea wrote:
>
> <<While he is a distinguished jurist, Justice Stevens was neVER an
> Elizabethan/Jacobean scholar or a literary historian, Art.>>
> In other words, he's never had to grovel to the corrupt SBT.
There is no connection whateVER between Elizabethan scholars or literary historians and the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, Art. In particular, the former need not "grovel" before the latter, nor do they. Rather, what is published in professional journals is carefully scrutinized by experts in the relevant area; these experts have nothing whateVER to do with the Trust (they take their marching orders from the Grand Master, not from the Trust). But your frenzied delusion that Shakespeare scholarship is in any way influenced by the Birthplace Trust is surely one of the funniest (and stupidest) delusions of your Petulant Paranoid persona.
> Lea wrote:
>
> <<While he is a distinguished jurist, Justice Stevens was neVER an
> Elizabethan/Jacobean scholar or a literary historian, Art.>>
> In other words, he's never had to grovel to the corrupt SBT.
> --------------------------------------------------
> Lea wrote:
>
> <<Justice Blackmun was neVER an Elizabethan/Jacobean scholar or a literary
> historian, Art.>>
> In other words, he's never had to grovel to the corrupt SBT.
There is no connection whateVER between Elizabethan scholars or literary historians and the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, Art. In particular, the former need not "grovel" before the latter, nor do they. Rather, what is published in professional journals is carefully scrutinized by experts in the relevant area; these experts have nothing whateVER to do with the Trust (they take their marching orders from the Grand Master, not from the Trust). But your frenzied delusion that Shakespeare scholarship is in any way influenced by the Birthplace Trust is surely one of the funniest (and stupidest) delusions of your Petulant Paranoid persona.
> Lea wrote:
>
> <<Justice Blackmun was neVER an Elizabethan/Jacobean scholar or a literary
> historian, Art.>>
> In other words, he's never had to grovel to the corrupt SBT.
> --------------------------------------------------
> Lea wrote:
>
> <<Justice Powell was neVER an Elizabethan/Jacobean scholar or a literary
> historian, Art.>>
> In other words, he's never had to grovel to the corrupt SBT.
There is no connection whateVER between Elizabethan scholars or literary historians and the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, Art. In particular, the former need not "grovel" before the latter, nor do they. Rather, what is published in professional journals is carefully scrutinized by experts in the relevant area; these experts have nothing whateVER to do with the Trust (they take their marching orders from the Grand Master, not from the Trust). But your frenzied delusion that Shakespeare scholarship is in any way influenced by the Birthplace Trust is surely one of the funniest (and stupidest) delusions of your Petulant Paranoid persona.
> Lea wrote:
>
> <<Justice Powell was neVER an Elizabethan/Jacobean scholar or a literary
> historian, Art.>>
> In other words, he's never had to grovel to the corrupt SBT.
> --------------------------------------------------
> https://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/end-of-an-oxfordian-era-on-the-supreme-court/
>
> Bryan H. Wildenthal wrote:
>
> <<John Shahan reports that Justice Scalia declined an invitation to sign the
> Declaration of Reasonable Doubt.
> ---------------------------------------------
> Lea wrote:
>
> <<A prudent position, in view of the...uhh...eccentricity of many of the
> signatories:>>
>
> https://doubtaboutwill.org/signatories/notable
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Lea wrote:
>
> <<But keep slogging, Art -- 4,000 signatories is
> around 0.000000005 percent of the world's population!>>
> Are you *that* incompetent as a Math professor or do you really
> believe that the world's population is 80,000,000,000,000?
(delusional Declaration signatories)/(total population)
is roughly (4 x ten^3)/(8 x 10^9)=.5 x ten^(-6)=5 x ten^(-7). (Of course, the situation is actually still worse: some of those signatories may fall into the same category as el profesor Voluntad San Juan Sacudón de Lanza of Vado de Estrata.)
In case you're keeping track, Art, that ratio is many orders of magnitude smaller than the fraction of the population recently surveyed who expressed doubts about the earth being round. It is also around five orders of magnitude smaller than the fraction of Americans who believe that they have been abducted by space aliens. (Were *you* eVER abducted by space aliens, Art? If so, were they Freemasons?) As a comparison, the fraction of four-leaf cloVERs to all cloVERs is about ten^(-4), seVERal orders of magnitude larger.
Incidentally, Art, I wouldn't bring up mathematical competence -- or indeed, competence in *any* intellectual endeavor -- if I were you: the mathematically competent can tell which natural numbers are both the sum of two consecutive integers and the difference of their squares. Those among the competent who have enjoyed the benefits of even a modest education can correctly order Virgil and Herodotus chronologically. The competent can generally achieve reasonable proficiency in at least *some* natural language -- generally their own native tongue, at a minimum, plus one or two others; in particular, they are not apt to mistake Russian for Ossetian, since the two tongues do not even share the same alphabet. The competent would not infer that a man traveling from New Haven to Manhattan would begin by boarding a nonstop flight from Boston to Los Angeles. MoreoVER, the competent are fully aware that the same given name and surname may be borne by more than one individual, and that a discrepancy of any *one* datum among middle initial, age, and profession is a VERy clear indication that two distinct individuals are being discussed. And of course, the competent are not led astray by the farcical lunacy of risible, uninformed cranks like Francis Carr, the Alex Jones of history. But don't take my word for it, Art: check out that suspicious pizza parlor for yourself -- just don't go armed.
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Art Neuendorffer (aka Noonedafter)
Arthur Neuendorffer
Mar 1, 2019, 3:06:04 PM3/1/19
to
> --------------------------------------------------
> Lea wrote:
>
> <<While he is a distinguished jurist, Justice Stevens was neVER an
> Elizabethan/Jacobean scholar or a literary historian, Art.>>
> In other words, he's never had to grovel to the corrupt SBT.
> Lea wrote:
>
> <<While he is a distinguished jurist, Justice Stevens was neVER an
> Elizabethan/Jacobean scholar or a literary historian, Art.>>
> In other words, he's never had to grovel to the corrupt SBT.
> --------------------------------------------------
> Lea wrote:
>
> <<Justice Blackmun was neVER an Elizabethan/Jacobean scholar or a literary
> historian, Art.>>
> In other words, he's never had to grovel to the corrupt SBT.
> Lea wrote:
>
> <<Justice Blackmun was neVER an Elizabethan/Jacobean scholar or a literary
> historian, Art.>>
> In other words, he's never had to grovel to the corrupt SBT.
> --------------------------------------------------
> Lea wrote:
>
> <<Justice Powell was neVER an Elizabethan/Jacobean scholar or a literary
> historian, Art.>>
> In other words, he's never had to grovel to the corrupt SBT.
> Lea wrote:
>
> <<Justice Powell was neVER an Elizabethan/Jacobean scholar or a literary
> historian, Art.>>
> In other words, he's never had to grovel to the corrupt SBT.
Lea wrote:
<<There is no connection whateVER between Elizabethan scholars or literary historians and the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, Art. In particular, the former need not "grovel" before the latter, nor do they. Rather, what is published in professional journals is carefully scrutinized by experts in the relevant area;
"Carefully screw-tinized by experts in the relevant area?"
<<There is no connection whateVER between Elizabethan scholars or literary historians and the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, Art. In particular, the former need not "grovel" before the latter, nor do they. Rather, what is published in professional journals is carefully scrutinized by experts in the relevant area;
Lea wrote:
<<these experts have nothing whateVER to do with the Trust
(they take their marching orders from the Grand Master, not from the Trust).>>
> --------------------------------------------------
> https://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/end-of-an-oxfordian-era-on-the-supreme-court/
>
> Bryan H. Wildenthal wrote:
>
> <<John Shahan reports that Justice Scalia declined an invitation to sign the
> Declaration of Reasonable Doubt.
> ---------------------------------------------
> Lea wrote:
>
> <<A prudent position, in view of the...uhh...eccentricity of many of the
> signatories:>>
>
> https://doubtaboutwill.org/signatories/notable
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Lea wrote:
>
> <<But keep slogging, Art -- 4,000 signatories is
> around 0.000000005 percent of the world's population!>>
> Are you *that* incompetent as a Math professor or do you really
> believe that the world's population is 80,000,000,000,000?
Lea wrote:
<<Of course not, Art; that's a typo, occasioned by a sticking "00" key on my laptop that stutters and repeats zeros about 25% of the time.>>
It must be the same type of laptop Drumpf uses:
<<Of course not, Art; that's a typo, occasioned by a sticking "00" key on my laptop that stutters and repeats zeros about 25% of the time.>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTRQJbhwT2s
Lea wrote:
<<Since I can't use that key reliably until it is fixed, I'll spell out the mathematics in English for your benefit: the number of VERified signatories of the Declaration of Reasonable [sic!] Doubt is around 4 times ten^3; the world's population is a little less than 8 times ten^9. Thus the ratio
(delusional Declaration signatories)/(total population)
is roughly (4 x ten^3)/(8 x 10^9)=.5 x ten^(-6)=5 x ten^(-7).>>
And... the ratio of:
(delusional Declaration signatories)/(total Declaration signatories)
is roughly ten^(-2).
I assume that the total number of Declaration signatories roughly
matches the total number of folks who actually give a damn about
*who wrote Shakespeare* and who aren't intimidated by the SBT (or GM).
Lea wrote:
<<I wouldn't bring up mathematical competence -- or indeed, competence in
*any* intellectual endeavor -- if I were you: the mathematically competent
can tell which natural numbers are both the sum of two consecutive integers
and the difference of their squares.>>
--------------------------------------------------
"Now for some 19 number juggling.
It is equal to 10^2 - 9^2."
-- Martin Gardner _Did Adam & Eve Have Navels?_ (p.261)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
> | Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> | > --------------------------------------------------------
> | > (The King James & only the King James version):
> | > Psalm 46
> | > "SHAKE" is the 46th word from the beginning,
> | > and "SPEAR" is the 46th word from the end.
---------------------------------------------------------------
David L. Webb <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> | I've already pointed out to you that this is false, Art,
> | as Martin Gardner, has pointed out; as I already said,
> | "In Richard TaVERner's 1539 VERsion of Psalm 46,
> | 'shake' & 'spear' are in *precisely* the same positions.
> | HoweVER, one would scarcely expect
> | aneuendorffer114...@comicass.nut
> | to have VERified his idiotic claims about matters of fact."
> | Are you completely senile, Art?
> | Or are you just oblivious to facts?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Groves wrote:
>
> I've just had a look at the text on EEBO
> (Early English Books Online) and while "spere" is 47 words from
> the end (not counting "Selah"), Taverner has "shooke" rather
> than "shake" and it's actually 57 words from the beginning.
> Also, for some reason, he numbers the psalm 45.
-------------------------------------------------------------
(Richard TaVERner's 1539 VERsion):
Psalm *45*
"*SHOOKE*" is the *57*th word from the beginning,
and "SPERE" is the *47*th word from the end.
---------------------------------------------------------------
(The King James & only the King James Version):
Psalm *46*
"SHAKE" is the *46*th word from the beginning,
and "SPEAR" is the *46*th word from the end.
----------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
nordicskiv2
Mar 2, 2019, 2:15:19 PM3/2/19
to
On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 3:06:04 PM UTC-5, Arthur Neuendorffer (aka Noonedafter) wrote:
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > Lea wrote:
> >
> > <<While he is a distinguished jurist, Justice Stevens was neVER an
> > Elizabethan/Jacobean scholar or a literary historian, Art.>>
> > In other words, he's never had to grovel to the corrupt SBT.
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > Lea wrote:
> >
> > <<Justice Blackmun was neVER an Elizabethan/Jacobean scholar or a literary
> > historian, Art.>>
>
> > In other words, he's never had to grovel to the corrupt SBT.
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > Lea wrote:
> >
> > <<Justice Powell was neVER an Elizabethan/Jacobean scholar or a literary
> > historian, Art.>>
>
> > In other words, he's never had to grovel to the corrupt SBT.
> Lea wrote:
>
> <<There is no connection whateVER between Elizabethan scholars or literary
> historians and the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, Art. In particular, the
> former need not "grovel" before the latter, nor do they. Rather, what is
> published in professional journals is carefully scrutinized by experts in
> the relevant area;
> "Carefully screw-tinized by experts in the relevant area?"
I wouldn't bring up "screw" and "tin" if I were you, Art; it's poor salesmanship, in view of Oxford's obsessions with both.
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > Lea wrote:
> >
> > <<While he is a distinguished jurist, Justice Stevens was neVER an
> > Elizabethan/Jacobean scholar or a literary historian, Art.>>
> > In other words, he's never had to grovel to the corrupt SBT.
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > Lea wrote:
> >
> > <<Justice Blackmun was neVER an Elizabethan/Jacobean scholar or a literary
> > historian, Art.>>
>
> > In other words, he's never had to grovel to the corrupt SBT.
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > Lea wrote:
> >
> > <<Justice Powell was neVER an Elizabethan/Jacobean scholar or a literary
> > historian, Art.>>
>
> > In other words, he's never had to grovel to the corrupt SBT.
> Lea wrote:
>
> <<There is no connection whateVER between Elizabethan scholars or literary
> historians and the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, Art. In particular, the
> former need not "grovel" before the latter, nor do they. Rather, what is
> published in professional journals is carefully scrutinized by experts in
> the relevant area;
> "Carefully screw-tinized by experts in the relevant area?"
> Lea wrote:
>
> <<these experts have nothing whateVER to do with the Trust
> (they take their marching orders from the Grand Master, not from the Trust).>>
> Good to know.
> > https://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/end-of-an-oxfordian-era-on-the-supreme-court/
> >
> > Bryan H. Wildenthal wrote:
> >
> > <<John Shahan reports that Justice Scalia declined an invitation to sign the
> > Declaration of Reasonable Doubt.
> > ---------------------------------------------
> > Lea wrote:
> >
> > <<A prudent position, in view of the...uhh...eccentricity of many of the
> > signatories:>>
> >
> > https://doubtaboutwill.org/signatories/notable
> > --------------------------------------------------------------
> > Lea wrote:
> >
> > <<But keep slogging, Art -- 4,000 signatories is
> > around 0.000000005 percent of the world's population!>>
>
> > Are you *that* incompetent as a Math professor or do you really
> > believe that the world's population is 80,000,000,000,000?
> Lea wrote:
>
> <<Of course not, Art; that's a typo, occasioned by a sticking "00" key on
> my laptop that stutters and repeats zeros about 25% of the time.>>
> It must be the same type of laptop Drumpf uses:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTRQJbhwT2s
> Lea wrote:
>
> <<Since I can't use that key reliably until it is fixed, I'll spell out the
> mathematics in English for your benefit: the number of VERified signatories
> of the Declaration of Reasonable [sic!] Doubt is around 4 times ten^3; the
> world's population is a little less than 8 times ten^9. Thus the ratio
>
> (delusional Declaration signatories)/(total population)
>
> is roughly (4 x ten^3)/(8 x 10^9)=.5 x ten^(-6)=5 x ten^(-7).>>
> ...................................................................
> And... the ratio of:
> (delusional Declaration signatories)/(total Declaration signatories)
> is roughly ten^(-2).
> I assume
Therein lies your error, Art.
> that the total number of Declaration signatories roughly
> matches the total number of folks who actually give a damn about
> *who wrote Shakespeare*
> and who aren't intimidated by the SBT (or GM).
> Lea wrote:
>
> <<I wouldn't bring up mathematical competence -- or indeed, competence in
> *any* intellectual endeavor -- if I were you: the mathematically competent
> can tell which natural numbers are both the sum of two consecutive integers
> and the difference of their squares.>>
> Like Martin Gardner say:
> --------------------------------------------------
> "Now for some 19 number juggling.
> It is equal to 10^2 - 9^2."
>
> -- Martin Gardner _Did Adam & Eve Have Navels?_ (p.261)
> > | Art Neuendorffer (aka Noonedafter) wrote:
> > | > --------------------------------------------------------
> > | > (The King James & only the King James version):
> > | > Psalm 46
> > | > "SHAKE" is the 46th word from the beginning,
> > | > and "SPEAR" is the 46th word from the end.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> David L. Webb <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> > | I've already pointed out to you that this is false, Art,
> > | as Martin Gardner, has pointed out;
(1) It happened in the case of your moronic misreading of the Ossetian word _тæрин_ as Russian for "youth", despite the fact that Russian and Ossetian do not even share the same alphabet.
(2) It happened in the case of your moronic misattribution of Wordsworth's poem "The Idiot Boy" to Coleridge -- yet despite conclusive refutation of the error, you kept *repeating* this idiocy, oVER and oVER and oVER and oVER.
(3) It happened in the case of the supposed birth date of Mary Wollstonecraft, which even an idiot could have looked up.
(4) It happened in the case of the supposed birth of Prince Albert, which even an idiot could have looked up.
(5) It happened in the case of the (nonexistent) word _turk_ [sic] in the (nonexistent) "Celtic" [sic] language.
There are of course *many* more examples of idiocies that you have reposted countless times even after having been corrected by the saner and better informed among us -- that could be nearly anyone, of course -- but these examples sERVE to illustrate a VERy pERVasive pattern.
The most tenable explanation is that you're a gifted comedian and parodist, idly trolling a nearly moribund Usenet newsgroup, who understandably wants his work always in the public eye. Indeed, in the case of some of your greatest gaffes, it would be a great pity not to revel periodically in such demented lunacy -- it would be the comedic equivalent of possessing a great painting but keeping it always hidden, where it could not be savored and appreciated by other art (or Art) loVERs.
Incidentally, Art, in addition to the parallels between you and (T)rump, there is also a salient parallel between you and Paul Manafort: Manafort engaged in witness tampering, while you engage in witless hampering.
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Art Neuendorffer (aka Noonedafter)
Arthur Neuendorffer
Mar 2, 2019, 5:22:36 PM3/2/19
to
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> Lea wrote:
>>
>> <<While he is a distinguished jurist, Justice Stevens was neVER an
>> Elizabethan/Jacobean scholar or a literary historian, Art.>>
>> In other words, he's never had to grovel to the corrupt SBT.
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> Lea wrote:
>>
>> <<Justice Blackmun was neVER an Elizabethan/Jacobean scholar or a literary
>> historian, Art.>>
>
>> In other words, he's never had to grovel to the corrupt SBT.
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> Lea wrote:
>>
>> <<Justice Powell was neVER an Elizabethan/Jacobean scholar or a literary
>> historian, Art.>>
>
>> In other words, he's never had to grovel to the corrupt SBT.
> Lea wrote:
>
> <<There is no connection whateVER between Elizabethan scholars or literary
> historians and the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, Art. In particular, the
> former need not "grovel" before the latter, nor do they. Rather, what is
> published in professional journals is carefully scrutinized by experts in
> the relevant area;
> "Carefully screw-tinized by experts in the relevant area?"
>> Lea wrote:
>>
>> <<While he is a distinguished jurist, Justice Stevens was neVER an
>> Elizabethan/Jacobean scholar or a literary historian, Art.>>
>> In other words, he's never had to grovel to the corrupt SBT.
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> Lea wrote:
>>
>> <<Justice Blackmun was neVER an Elizabethan/Jacobean scholar or a literary
>> historian, Art.>>
>
>> In other words, he's never had to grovel to the corrupt SBT.
>> --------------------------------------------------
>> Lea wrote:
>>
>> <<Justice Powell was neVER an Elizabethan/Jacobean scholar or a literary
>> historian, Art.>>
>
>> In other words, he's never had to grovel to the corrupt SBT.
> Lea wrote:
>
> <<There is no connection whateVER between Elizabethan scholars or literary
> historians and the Shakespeare Birthplace Trust, Art. In particular, the
> former need not "grovel" before the latter, nor do they. Rather, what is
> published in professional journals is carefully scrutinized by experts in
> the relevant area;
> "Carefully screw-tinized by experts in the relevant area?"
Lea wrote:
<<I wouldn't bring up "screw" and "tin" if I were you, Art;>>
A tin pest in a teapot, Dave.
<<I wouldn't bring up "screw" and "tin" if I were you, Art;>>
--------------------------------------------
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_pest
<<Tin pest is an autocatalytic, allotropic transformation of the element tin, which causes deterioration of tin objects at low temperatures. Tin pest was observed in medieval Europe that the pipes of pipe organs were affected in cool climates. With the adoption of the Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive (RoHS) regulations in Europe, and similar regulations elsewhere, traditional lead/tin solder alloys in electronic devices have been replaced by nearly pure tin, introducing tin pest and related problems such as tin whiskers.>>
--------------------------------------------
> Lea wrote:
>
> <<these experts have nothing whateVER to do with the Trust
> (they take their marching orders from the Grand Master, not from the Trust).>>
> Good to know.
>
> <<these experts have nothing whateVER to do with the Trust
> (they take their marching orders from the Grand Master, not from the Trust).>>
> Good to know.
>> https://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/end-of-an-oxfordian-era-on-the-supreme-court/
>>
>> Bryan H. Wildenthal wrote:
>>
>> <<John Shahan reports that Justice Scalia declined an invitation to sign the
>> Declaration of Reasonable Doubt.
>> ---------------------------------------------
>> Lea wrote:
>>
>> <<A prudent position, in view of the...uhh...eccentricity of many of the
>> signatories:>>
>>
>> https://doubtaboutwill.org/signatories/notable
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> Lea wrote:
>>
>> <<But keep slogging, Art -- 4,000 signatories is
>> around 0.000000005 percent of the world's population!>>
>
>> Are you *that* incompetent as a Math professor or do you really
>> believe that the world's population is 80,000,000,000,000?
> Lea wrote:
>
> <<Of course not, Art; that's a typo, occasioned by a sticking "00" key on
> my laptop that stutters and repeats zeros about 25% of the time.>>
> It must be the same type of laptop Drumpf uses:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTRQJbhwT2s
>>
>> Bryan H. Wildenthal wrote:
>>
>> <<John Shahan reports that Justice Scalia declined an invitation to sign the
>> Declaration of Reasonable Doubt.
>> ---------------------------------------------
>> Lea wrote:
>>
>> <<A prudent position, in view of the...uhh...eccentricity of many of the
>> signatories:>>
>>
>> https://doubtaboutwill.org/signatories/notable
>> --------------------------------------------------------------
>> Lea wrote:
>>
>> <<But keep slogging, Art -- 4,000 signatories is
>> around 0.000000005 percent of the world's population!>>
>
>> Are you *that* incompetent as a Math professor or do you really
>> believe that the world's population is 80,000,000,000,000?
> Lea wrote:
>
> <<Of course not, Art; that's a typo, occasioned by a sticking "00" key on
> my laptop that stutters and repeats zeros about 25% of the time.>>
> It must be the same type of laptop Drumpf uses:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTRQJbhwT2s
Lea wrote:
<<(T)rump doesn't use a laptop, Art; his hands are way too small for a laptop keyboard, so he prefers his cellphone.
His unsecured cellphone? You, your intimidating tactics and your laptop could be useful to the Donald now that Cohen is gone.
<<(T)rump doesn't use a laptop, Art; his hands are way too small for a laptop keyboard, so he prefers his cellphone.
> Lea wrote:
>
> <<Since I can't use that key reliably until it is fixed, I'll spell out the
> mathematics in English for your benefit: the number of VERified signatories
> of the Declaration of Reasonable [sic!] Doubt is around 4 times ten^3; the
> world's population is a little less than 8 times ten^9. Thus the ratio
>
> (delusional Declaration signatories)/(total population)
>
> is roughly (4 x ten^3)/(8 x 10^9)=.5 x ten^(-6)=5 x ten^(-7).>>
> ...................................................................
> And... the ratio of:
> (delusional Declaration signatories)/(total Declaration signatories)
> is roughly ten^(-2).
<<No, Art; the word "delusional" above was redundant.>>
That should earn you a Dundie: Extreme Repulsiveness Award.
. https://theoffice.fandom.com/wiki/Dundie
> I assume that the total number of Declaration signatories roughly
> matches the total number of folks who actually give a damn about
> *who wrote Shakespeare*
> *who wrote Shakespeare*
Lea wrote:
<<No, Art; many of us care who wrote Shakespeare, yet we have not signed the Declaration. Others, like Profesor Voluntad Sacudón de Lanza of Vado de Estrata, have evidently signed it in jest.
But you *DID* sign the Declaration, Dave, posing as Profesor Voluntad Sacudón de Lanza of Vado de Estrata.
<<No, Art; many of us care who wrote Shakespeare, yet we have not signed the Declaration. Others, like Profesor Voluntad Sacudón de Lanza of Vado de Estrata, have evidently signed it in jest.
> and who aren't intimidated by the SBT (or GM).
Lea wrote:
<<I am intimidated by neither, Art -- the former is an innocuous educational charity, while the latter is an old man presiding oVER an irrelevant organization of mostly elderly, mostly conservative men, an organization that has deteriorated gravely since the days of William St. Clair of Roslin -- yet I have not signed the Declaration, Art.>>
But you *DID* sign the Declaration, Dave, posing as Profesor Voluntad Sacudón de Lanza of Vado de Estrata.
<<I am intimidated by neither, Art -- the former is an innocuous educational charity, while the latter is an old man presiding oVER an irrelevant organization of mostly elderly, mostly conservative men, an organization that has deteriorated gravely since the days of William St. Clair of Roslin -- yet I have not signed the Declaration, Art.>>
Curiously, interest in Shakespeare and in Freemasonry
both peaked *simultaneously* about a century ago.
> Lea wrote:
>
> <<I wouldn't bring up mathematical competence -- or indeed, competence in
> *any* intellectual endeavor -- if I were you: the mathematically competent
> can tell which natural numbers are both the sum of two consecutive integers
> and the difference of their squares.>>
> Like Martin Gardner say:
> --------------------------------------------------
> "Now for some 19 number juggling.
> It is equal to 10^2 - 9^2."
>
> -- Martin Gardner _Did Adam & Eve Have Navels?_ (p.261)
Martin Gardner was *kidding*, Art -- just as Tom Reedy was.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Major Tom Reedy wrote HLAS (and the quickly deleted):
<<Hi Bob [Grumman].
thanks for the compliment, but as you know, who we debate is out of
our hands. I got an e-mail from the Trust & was assigned Foelster just
as soon as his name appeared on the ng. Boy, I'm glad I was taken off
Crowley: the man is too well-read & intelligent, it was all I could do
to keep up with him.
I'm damn glad they've never given me Art to debate; I feel sorry for
poor David. Of course that new anagram program they have is sure coming
in handy for him, but I *NEVER* want to go toe-to-toe with Art--he knows
too much, although I doubt if he's even aware of all he knows.
Hey, I finally got the check. Something about a computer virus in the
mainframe at Stratford. I was glad to see it--the rent was overdue
& I had to pay a late fee.
Sorry about that last e-mail appearing on the ng.
Apparently I hit "post" instead of "e-mail." It won't happen again.
My 14-year-old is giving me trouble--the usual ersatz teenage angst.
.........................................................................
https://0.academia-photos.com/4702560/1983473/2342263/s200_tom.reedy.jpg
.........................................................................
He doesn't want to accept his occupation being already chosen for him. I
told him it was like the Phantom--the ghost who walks--& that it was an
honor to be born into a family with a 400-year old mission, but he just
sulks off & gets on the computer. I'm sure he'll come around--we all
do, eventually.
Meanwhile all he does is play on the computer (he's a real whiz at
programming) & mutters about how he's going to "fix me" & about
some grandoise plan he has to "expose the truth to the world."
Yeah, right, that'll be the day, hey Bob?
Who do you think is going to get the old monument in April? Schoenbaum
had it for so long I think they almost completely forgot about it. I
vote for Matus--he deserves it. I've heard some say that Dave or Terry
should get it, but they're a little young yet, I think. I know damn
well it'll be years before I'm eligible, not to mention that whoever
gets it keeps it for life.
Say, before they ship it to whomever they give it to we should all
gather around it & have our picture taken & send it to Kennedy! I'd
want to pose atop the woolsack. Wouldn't that be a hoot! I bet the old
fart would think he was having the DTs! If a picture could be printed
with some type of disappearing ink that couldn't be copied it would be
worth it. Maybe he'd have a heart attack or something & we'd be rid of
that thorn in the side & make our jobs a lot easier.
Well, that's about it for now. Brenda says to tell the family "hi"
& that we'll see you all in Stratford in April.
-------------------------------------------------------
>> | Art Neuendorffer (aka Noonedafter) wrote:
>> | > --------------------------------------------------------
>> | > (The King James & only the King James version):
>> | > Psalm 46
>> | > "SHAKE" is the 46th word from the beginning,
>> | > and "SPEAR" is the 46th word from the end.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> David L. Webb <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>> | I've already pointed out to you that this is false, Art,
>> | as Martin Gardner, has pointed out;
M.G. apologized? (When/where?) And that was OK with G.M.?
>> | > --------------------------------------------------------
>> | > (The King James & only the King James version):
>> | > Psalm 46
>> | > "SHAKE" is the 46th word from the beginning,
>> | > and "SPEAR" is the 46th word from the end.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> David L. Webb <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>> | I've already pointed out to you that this is false, Art,
>> | as Martin Gardner, has pointed out;
-------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
nordicskiv2
Mar 3, 2019, 12:13:31 PM3/3/19
to
> > Lea wrote:
> >
> > <<these experts have nothing whateVER to do with the Trust
> > (they take their marching orders from the Grand Master, not from the
> > Trust).>>
> > Good to know.
> >> https://shakespeareoxfordfellowship.org/end-of-an-oxfordian-era-on-the-supreme-court/
> >>
> >> Bryan H. Wildenthal wrote:
> >>
> >> <<John Shahan reports that Justice Scalia declined an invitation to sign the
> >> Declaration of Reasonable Doubt.
> >> ---------------------------------------------
> >> Lea wrote:
> >>
> >> <<A prudent position, in view of the...uhh...eccentricity of many of the
> >> signatories:>>
> >>
> >> https://doubtaboutwill.org/signatories/notable
> >> --------------------------------------------------------------
> >> Lea wrote:
> >>
> >> <<But keep slogging, Art -- 4,000 signatories is
> >> around 0.000000005 percent of the world's population!>>
> >> Are you *that* incompetent as a Math professor or do you really
> >> believe that the world's population is 80,000,000,000,000?
> > Lea wrote:
> >
> > <<Of course not, Art; that's a typo, occasioned by a sticking "00" key on
> > my laptop that stutters and repeats zeros about 25% of the time.>>
> > It must be the same type of laptop Drumpf uses:
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTRQJbhwT2s
> Lea wrote:
>
> <<(T)rump doesn't use a laptop, Art; his hands are way too small for a
> laptop keyboard, so he prefers his cellphone.
> His unsecured cellphone? You, your intimidating tactics
> and your laptop
> could be useful to the Donald now that Cohen is gone.
The fact remains that the signatories of the Declaration are a minuscule and negligible minority, Art. The number of self-styled alien abductees is many of orders of magnitude larger than the number of Declaration signatories. So is the number of flat-earth partisans.
> > Lea wrote:
> >
> > <<Since I can't use that key reliably until it is fixed, I'll spell out the
> > mathematics in English for your benefit: the number of VERified signatories
> > of the Declaration of Reasonable [sic!] Doubt is around 4 times ten^3; the
> > world's population is a little less than 8 times ten^9. Thus the ratio
> >
> > (delusional Declaration signatories)/(total population)
> >
> > is roughly (4 x ten^3)/(8 x 10^9)=.5 x ten^(-6)=5 x ten^(-7).>>
> > ...................................................................
> > And... the ratio of:
> > (delusional Declaration signatories)/(total Declaration signatories)
> > is roughly ten^(-2).
> Lea wrote:
>
> <<No, Art; the word "delusional" above was redundant.>>
> That should earn you a Dundie: Extreme Repulsiveness Award.
> . https://theoffice.fandom.com/wiki/Dundie
>
> > I assume
> > that the total number of Declaration signatories roughly
> > matches the total number of folks who actually give a damn about
> > *who wrote Shakespeare*
> Lea wrote:
>
> <<No, Art; many of us care who wrote Shakespeare, yet we have not signed
> the Declaration. Others, like Profesor Voluntad Sacudón de Lanza of Vado
> de Estrata, have evidently signed it in jest.
> But you *DID* sign the Declaration, Dave, posing as Profesor Voluntad
> Sacudón de Lanza of Vado de Estrata.
> > and who aren't intimidated by the SBT (or GM).
> Lea wrote:
>
> <<I am intimidated by neither, Art -- the former is an innocuous educational
> charity, while the latter is an old man presiding oVER an irrelevant
> organization of mostly elderly, mostly conservative men, an organization
> that has deteriorated gravely since the days of William St. Clair of Roslin
> -- yet I have not signed the Declaration, Art.>>
> But you *DID* sign the Declaration, Dave, posing as Profesor Voluntad
> Sacudón de Lanza of Vado de Estrata.
> Curiously, interest in Shakespeare and in Freemasonry
> both peaked *simultaneously* about a century ago.
Second, there are *lots* of things that occur "simultaneously"; howeVER, simultaneity does not imply any causal connection whateVER. Interest in whaling and in steam engines peaked around the same time as you ascribe to interest in Shakespeare and Freemasonry, yet there is no connection between either and Shakespeare -- or between either and Freemasonry, for that matter.
> > Lea wrote:
> >
> > <<I wouldn't bring up mathematical competence -- or indeed, competence in
> > *any* intellectual endeavor -- if I were you: the mathematically competent
> > can tell which natural numbers are both the sum of two consecutive integers
> > and the difference of their squares.>>
> > --------------------------------------------------
> > "Now for some 19 number juggling.
> > It is equal to 10^2 - 9^2."
> >
> > -- Martin Gardner _Did Adam & Eve Have Navels?_ (p.261)
> Martin Gardner was *kidding*, Art -- just as Tom Reedy was.
> And Drumpf was *kidding* when he asked Russia for the emails?
I didn't say that, Art; do learn to read English. I said that Martin Gardner was (obviously!) kidding, because anyone with the mathematical proficiency of the aVERage middle school student could work out which natural numbers are both the sum of two consecutive integers and the difference of their squares, and that Tom Reedy was kidding, because anyone who can read English and possesses an I.Q. sufficient to require at least two digits in decimal positional notation could tell immediately that he was joking. For example, Sabrina Feldman, a fellow anti-Stratfordian, recognized immediately that Tom was joking, and told you so in this VERy forum.
> > "Now for some 19 number juggling.
> > It is equal to 10^2 - 9^2."
> >
> > -- Martin Gardner _Did Adam & Eve Have Navels?_ (p.261)
> Martin Gardner was *kidding*, Art -- just as Tom Reedy was.
> And Drumpf was *kidding* when he asked Russia for the emails?
> (When/where?)
I neVER said that he apologized, Art; do learn to read English -- I exhort you again to avail yourself of an ESL class. In fact, I doubt that the matter was eVER even brought to his attention. HoweVER. *I* apologized and acknowledged the error, in this VERy forum.
By contrast, you *neVER* apologized for erroneously and irresponsibly reporting, in a public forum, the supposed death of a distinguished Yale historian, just as (T)rump neVER apologized for inflaming public sentiment against the unjustly convicted (and later exonerated) Central Park Five. You and (T)rump both disseminated, irresponsibly and unapologetically, fake news of a most insidious sort! Alex Jones does the same thing.
As I noted in an earlier post in this thread, I have already acknowledged -- *multiple times* -- that I was wrong, Art, and that Gardner was insufficiently careful, and I have neVER *repeated* the error -- unlike you and (T)rump, both of whom, no matter how conclusively your seVERal idiocies are refuted, just keep repeating them oVER and oVER and oVER and oVER, utterly impervious to readily VERified fact. This pattern has been often repeated, yet, like (T)rump, you have VERy rarely, if eVER, even acknowledged your errors, let alone apologized for them:
(1) It happened in the case of your moronic misreading of the Ossetian word _тæрин_ as Russian for "youth", despite the fact that Russian and Ossetian do not even share the same alphabet.
(3) It happened in the case of the supposed birth date of Mary Wollstonecraft, which even an idiot could have looked up.
(4) It happened in the case of the supposed birth of Prince Albert, which even an idiot could have looked up.
(5) It happened in the case of the (nonexistent) word _turk_ [sic] in the (nonexistent) "Celtic" [sic] language.
There are of course *many* more examples of idiocies that you have reposted countless times even after having been corrected by the saner and better informed among us -- that could be nearly anyone, of course -- but these examples sERVE to illustrate a VERy pERVasive pattern.
> And that was OK with G.M.?
M.G. did not answer to G.M., Art, although I have little doubt that you will be enamored of the trivial anagram -- since, unlike most of yours, it really *is* an anagram.
Martin was not a Freemason. Thus he owed no allegiance or obedience to the Grand Master.
0 new messages