Who is Alan Tarica?

[Melanie Sands]

Got this email:

QUOTE:
"
Melanie,
Once again I thought you might enjoy my reading of Shakespeare's Sonnets.
https://sites.google.com/site/eternitypromised/
I have little expectation that you are capable of providing them but I would welcome your thoughts."
UNQUOTE

He has "little expectation" that I am "capable of providing
thoughts"?!!

Gee, how flattering.

And what's this "once again"? Did we have a one-night stand
or something?

Barbiedoll





Sincerely,

Alan

[marco]

Off Topic, but some might be interested

on PBS tonight, Tuesday [2 hours]

John D. Rockefeller - The American Experience

A profile of oil magnate John D. Rockefeller (1839-1937), the world's first billionaire. At the height of his success, his companies owned 90 percent of the world's oil refineries and a third of all oil wells.

marc

[David L. Webb]

In article <22e4f530-79b6-4f8c...@googlegroups.com>,

Come now, Melanie -- surely you noticed that "Tarica" is an anagram
of "Art: CIA"! That should give h.l.a.s.'s small but outspoken paranoid
wing ample food for thought.

> Sincerely,
>
> Alan

[Melanie Sands]

Am Dienstag, 12. Februar 2013 19:49:16 UTC+1 schrieb nordicskiv2:

>
> Come now, Melanie -- surely you noticed that "Tarica" is an anagram
>
> of "Art: CIA"! That should give h.l.a.s.'s small but outspoken paranoid
>
> wing ample food for thought.
>

And "Alan" - is that Lana? Lana Turner? Lana Del Ray?
Lana Lang from Superman? Lana means wool - does this
mean...oh perish the thought...someone is pulling the wool
over our eyes?

The Plot Thickens!

Especially as SOMEONE ELSE on this newsgroup - who's a
lot smarter than I am, BTW - got THE EXACT SAME EMAIL
from said Wooly Tarica!

It's a conspiracy!

Melanie

[David L. Webb]

In article <b06e065b-8abd-4fbd...@googlegroups.com>,

Melanie Sands <Melani...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Am Dienstag, 12. Februar 2013 19:49:16 UTC+1 schrieb nordicskiv2:
>
> > Come now, Melanie -- surely you noticed that "Tarica" is an anagram
> > of "Art: CIA"! That should give h.l.a.s.'s small but outspoken paranoid
> > wing ample food for thought.

One might add that, like any good spy, Art shows betrays no sign of
any link with anything resembling intelligence.

> And "Alan" - is that Lana? Lana Turner? Lana Del Ray?
> Lana Lang from Superman? Lana means wool - does this
> mean...oh perish the thought...someone is pulling the wool
> over our eyes?

Of course, "Alan" also admits another anagram that you decorously
refrained from mentioning.

> The Plot Thickens!
>
> Especially as SOMEONE ELSE on this newsgroup - who's a
> lot smarter than I am, BTW

I doubt that, Melanie -- don't sell yourself short.

> - got THE EXACT SAME EMAIL
> from said Wooly Tarica!
>
> It's a conspiracy!

It must be. It shouldn't take Art too long to figure out who is
behind it. Templars, perhaps?

> Melanie

[hol....@gmail.com]

Just got an email from him about sonnets--i am assuming it is spam.
Thanks for posting this!

[sas...@gmail.com]

He e-mailed me two weeks ago, and said he wouldn't tell me how he got my e-mail until I read his stuff.

On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 11:31:42 AM UTC-5, Melanie Sands wrote:

[e...p]

Hi Everyone -- I just got a series of harassing emails from "Alan Tarica," so I thought I'd add my experiences to the list. I thought I would post our exchange here to clear up any confusion for anyone else who has the strange and unfortunate experience of interacting with him. I have no idea who this guy is -- he emailed me completely out of the blue and refused to identify himself. In a nutshell: Alan Tarica is a some sort of weirdo who goes around randomly emailing people, trying to get them to read his bogus conspiracy theory website on Shakespeare's sonnets. If you respond to him in any way whatsoever (perhaps to ask him "who are you?") he will refuse to tell you who he is, and insult you in order to try to goad you into looking at his website. It is a truly strange experience. Here is the exchange I had with him last week:


On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 12:20 PM, <alan....@gmail.com> wrote:
Evander,
I thought you might enjoy my take on Shakespeare's Sonnets.

https://sites.google.com/site/eternitypromised/

Sincerely,
Alan Tarica

--------------

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 12:30 PM, E..P <e…p...@gmail.com> wrote:
Beg your pardon, but do I know you?

------------

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 12:36 PM, <alan....@gmail.com> wrote:
Why do you suppose that is the most relevant question? Are you concerned about the link? In that case it is a google site and completely safe.
Do you not run a literary blog? Are you not interested in literature, arts, culture? How many people are offering complete exegeses of Shakespeare's Sonnets? Do you not think it would be worth a look?
Why don't you show me how smart you are and savage me with your brilliant criticism?

------------------

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 12:48 PM, E..P <e…p...@gmail.com> wrote:
This is truly a strange exchange.

I'm not in the mood to be challenged by some anonymous person on the internet who seems to be cold calling random scholars with trolling remarks. Surely someone such as yourself with such knowledge of Shakespeare would have better understanding of propriety and etiquette than to go about so randomly and rudely.

Please do not contact me further.

-------------------

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 1:17 PM, <alan....@gmail.com> wrote:
Fine it will be my pleasure not to have to interact further with you but to suggest propriety and etiquette trumps veracity and knowledge is a position only a fool could take.

------------------

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 1:22 PM, E..P <e...p@gmail.com> wrote:
Your claim may be true, and yet, here we are, one of us in graduate school, and the other of us spending his days sending rude emails to random people on the internet.

----------------

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 1:35 PM, <alan....@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm done with graduate school and the fact that by your own admission you are not smart enough to any reasonable determination of the epistemological quality of my work illustrates quite clearly your own lack of ability and intellect to be quite frank. And you'll like never be in any position to send random emails and receive responses like this:

Greenblatt, Stephen <g...l@f.h.edu>

Dear Alan Tarica,

Many thanks for this, which I've begun to read with pleasure.

Best,

SG

------------------------

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 1:40 PM, E..P <e...p@gmail.com> wrote:
The lady doth protest too much methinks.

--------------------------------

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 1:42 PM, <alan....@gmail.com> wrote:
Real clever you intellectual pansy.

------------------------------

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 1:56 PM, E..P <e...p@gmail.com> wrote:
Why? Who are you? You email me out of the blue and ask that I review your work. All I asked is who you are and you start insulting me.

Random anonymous internet troll starts spewing ad hominem attacks at random people he emails. No way I will click your link -- how could I possibly trust it?

----------------------------

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 2:01 PM, <alan....@gmail.com> wrote:
I didn't ask you to review anything dipshit. I offered it purely for your edification (which you obviously need). Further explained that the link is obviously safe and to which again you would realize if again you were not a dipshit.

I don't give a shit if you look or not at this point. You are obviously clueless and useless.

------------------------

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 2:30 PM, E..P <e...p@gmail.com> wrote:
I finally Googled you and found that you do this regularly to all sorts of people.
Scholarship doesn't hide underneath the cloak of anonymity.
You are nothing more than a conspiracy theorist -- but I do hope that your anonymous, one-man effort to promote your work provides you at least with a sense of fulfillment and purpose.

------------

On Tue, Nov 12, 2013 at 2:35 PM, <alan....@gmail.com> wrote:
You are a complete idiot. It is not anonymous when I put my name on it! And if you were not completely stupid and had the slightest bit of intellectual curiosity, talent and integrity you would fully recognize that I'm not just a conspiracy theorist, but a brilliantly creative conspiracy theorist.

--------------

[John W Kennedy]

Alan Tarica is an Oxfordian who believes that the best way to interpret
the sonnets is to read them backward. You are not the first to complain
of him.

--
John W Kennedy
"...if you had to fall in love with someone who was evil, I can see why
it was her."
-- "Alias"

[David L. Webb]

In article <d4b05850-2c6a-42f1...@googlegroups.com>,

"e...p" <evande...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Everyone -- I just got a series of harassing emails from "Alan Tarica," so
> I thought I'd add my experiences to the list. I thought I would post our
> exchange here to clear up any confusion for anyone else who has the strange
> and unfortunate experience of interacting with him. I have no idea who this
> guy is -- he emailed me completely out of the blue and refused to identify
> himself. In a nutshell: Alan Tarica is a some sort of weirdo who goes around
> randomly emailing people, trying to get them to read his bogus conspiracy
> theory website on Shakespeare's sonnets. If you respond to him in any way
> whatsoever (perhaps to ask him "who are you?") he will refuse to tell you who
> he is, and insult you in order to try to goad you into looking at his
> website.

Even if you don't respond to him *at all* he will email you
gratuitous insults anyway. He seems desperate for someone to read his
web site. That few intelligent people evidently have done so (or have
bothered to demolish it) is his great good fortune, as Irving Matus said
of Oxfordians generally. It reminds me of Mr. Streitz's blanket email
(some years ago) to all manner of scholars asking them to review his
hilarious book in exchange for a free copy.

I have ignored all his emails, but I have nonetheless received at
least four of them during the past year, each one more insulting than
the previous one -- one or more of them bore the delightful subject line
"Intellectual wimpiness", as I recall. It's pretty bizarre -- he seems
to think that his theory is scientific, and he has characterized it as
"probabilistic", "testable", "falsifiable", etc. He even writes of its
putative "predictive value".

[Melanie Sands]

Well, he stopped emailing me after the first time, and is probably
still salivating with gratefulness that I wrote a post with his
name so prominently on it on this newsgroup, which makes me in
his opinion presumably brilliantly intelligent, which just goes to
show how wrong someone can be.

Melanie

[katie.b...@gmail.com]

Just got this:

Katie,

I thought you would enjoy my original adaptation of Shakespeare's Sonnets.

https://sites.google.com/site/eternitypromised/

It is a Google site and thus I'm sure as you know it is safe link.

Perhaps this testimonial from the Vermont Poetry Newsletter will help:

http://poemshape.wordpress.com/2013/04/21/vermont-poetry-newsletter-%E2%80%A2-april-20-2013/
(See bullet 8)

For the love of Shakespeare, you've just got to visit Alan Tarica's web site, which deals with the poetic history (and more!) of Shakespeare's sonnets.

Or this testimonial/challenge from the The Canadian will help:

http://www.thecanadiandaily.ca/alan-tarica-true-story-shake-speares-sonnets/

"I hope that readers and skeptics will consider this a challenge and respond."

Sincerely,
Alan Tarica

[alac...@gmail.com]

Neat. This guy's still at it. I got one of these today.

Do I get a secret decoder ring and a membership card?

Ari

On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 8:31:42 AM UTC-8, Melanie Sands wrote:

[marco]

[marco]

Art N

[kindlea...@gmail.com]

I am so glad to see that I am not the only person being harassed by this pompous nag. Sorry gang, but misery loves company.

[fr...@bluemail.ch]

On Saturday, November 16, 2013 6:51:19 PM UTC+1, Melanie Sands wrote:
>
> Well, he stopped emailing me after the first time, and is probably
>
> still salivating with gratefulness that I wrote a post with his
>
> name so prominently on it on this newsgroup, which makes me in
>
> his opinion presumably brilliantly intelligent, which just goes to
>
> show how wrong someone can be.
>

Hi Melanie,
you might perhaps remember me from the summer of 2010.
We had some short and pleasant conversations, although
we are of different opinions. This morning I remembered
this group and had a look. Am apalled. What happens here?
How come a thread of 19 messages got 1530 views? Does
someone use an automatic program calling up certain
threads? Is the Usenet generally in decline?

If someone proposes a new hypothesis, ask him or her
for one single valid insight.

As for me, I believe the only way to find out the true
identity of the author in question is hermeneutics:
what can we gain from the plays themselves? what are
their messages? You may remember that I am an Oxfordian,
and compiled my interpretations from 2010 in one page
http://www.seshat.ch/home/vere.htm
(in freestyle English)
Don't worry, I come here for a flying visit and won't stay.
Go on being the good spirit of this haunted group
Franz

[fr...@bluemail.ch]

> If someone proposes a new hypothesis, ask him or her
>
> for one single valid insight.

Here is mine.

Robert Recorde published his most influential book
on algebra, The whetstone of witte, 1557 in London.
He introduced the equality sign as a pair of long
parallel lines ====== representing Gemowe 'twins'
- for what can be more equal than twins? Edward
de Vere read the book as teenager in the library of
his uncle, and found mathematical equations wanting,
one-sided: even twins are not really equal, whereas
poetic symbols can equate anything, a book one reads
with a cup or glass from which one drinks, the audience
with a girl, even a nut with the cosmos, just anything.
Thus he would have anticipated Goethe's world formula
and ever turning key: all is equal, all unequal ...

Later on Queen Elizabeth forced him to write under
a pseudonym. This made him angry for all his life,
but he took revenge by a joke: turning an analphabet
by the name of William Shackespere into the author
of his plays, William Shakespeare. Consider the play
As You Like It, Act V Scene I. Touchstone and his love
Audrey meet William in the forest of Arden. Touchstone
addressing William:

Then learn this of me:--to have is to have;
for it is a figure in rhetoric, that drink
being pour'd out of a cup into a glass,
by filling the one doeth empty the other;
for all your writers do consent that _ipse_
is he: now, you are not _ipse_, for I am he.

to have is to have -- an equation, already indicating
the unequal in the equal, for you can have very many
different things and features, here literary skills
and poetic genius

a figure in rhetoric -- a symbol equating the unequal

a drink poured out of a cup into a glass -- the plays
by Edward de Vere declared to be the work by William
Shakespeare

witty Touchstone -- a reference to Recorde's book,
The whetstone of witte

Audrey -- the woman de Vere woes as audience he writes for,
aud(ience) plus (poet)ry = Audrey

William -- William Shakespeare

all you writers consent that ipse is he -- everybody believes
that William Shakespeare is the author of my plays

you are not ipse -- you (William) are not the author of my plays

for I am he -- I, Edward de Vere alias Touchstone am the true
author of my plays.

[marco]

> Later on Queen Elizabeth forced him to write under
> a pseudonym. This made him angry for all his life,
> but he took revenge by a joke: turning an analphabet
> by the name of William Shackespere into the author
> of his plays, William Shakespeare.

that's a good one, very good;
and very original, I must say

you might even be able to compete with Paul Crowley;
but until we hear more,
I think Paul is the "king" of HLAS

just a layman,
marc

[fr...@bluemail.ch]

On Friday, September 26, 2014 4:58:34 PM UTC+2, marco wrote:
>
> that's a good one, very good;
>
> and very original, I must say
>
>
>
> you might even be able to compete with Paul Crowley;
>
> but until we hear more,
>
> I think Paul is the "king" of HLAS
>
>
>
> just a layman,
>
> marc

Thanks. I don't play a game of thrones, my intention
is hermeneutics, making the text speak, revealing the
message of a play, or rather the superposed levels
of messages, often self-reflective (plays about plays)
and at the same time meaning the world. I took my
liberty to start a new thread with my interpretation
in a nutshell, and will discuss there, if someone
is interested, but only on a flying visit (being
buzzy elsewhere).

[tyle...@gmail.com]

Yup, got the same spiel from this nut job. And, of course, in characteristic rudeness of the unintelligent and arrogant:

QUOTE:

Sounds great Tyler. One day you can look forward to learning how absurdly clueless you are.

On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 2:53 PM, Tyler Ocon <tyle...@gmail.com> wrote:
I would hardly think that receiving an unsolicited email from a complete stranger advertising his work and writing as if I should know him is not worth at least a little bit of suspicion. On top of that, it is quite unbecoming of anyone to send an unsolicited email and then respond to an inquiry as to how they came across me and my contact information with dismissive rudeness.

Given the tone of your response, it sounds like whatever I may or may not have missed, or whatever work you seem to be advertising, is something that is not worth caring about, so now I am kindly asking you to not contact me again.

~~~
Tyler N. Ocon

On Oct 19, 2014, at 12:35, <alan....@gmail.com> <alan....@gmail.com> wrote:

Apparently you missed it. But really in all honesty when your email is your first and last name at gmail I have to ask if you are joking?

But even more absurd is that I provide a comprehensive explanation for one of histories greatest mysteries all your interested in apparently is a breach of privacy that you should already have been completely aware of.

On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Tyler Ocon <tyle...@gmail.com> wrote:
How you found my email address.

~~~
Tyler N. Ocon

On Oct 19, 2014, at 12:24, <alan....@gmail.com> <alan....@gmail.com> wrote:

Someone catering to "Seekers of Knowledge". What exactly are you confused about?

On Sun, Oct 19, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Tyler Ocon <tyle...@gmail.com> wrote:
I'm sorry, but who are you?

On Oct 18, 2014, at 18:59, <alan....@gmail.com> <alan....@gmail.com> wrote:

Tyler,

I thought you might enjoy my "adaptation"/exegesis of Shakespeare's Sonnets:

https://sites.google.com/site/eternitypromised/

Mentioned on The National Book Critics Circle blog:

http://bookcritics.org/blog/archive/roundup37 (see top of the list)

Alan

END QUOTE

[tom c]

On Sunday, May 4, 2014 5:38:02 PM UTC+1, Peter J Ross wrote:
> In humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare on Sat, 3 May 2014 11:24:23

>
> -0700 (PDT), katie.b...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > Just got this:
>
> >
>
> > Katie,
>
> >
>
> > I thought you would enjoy my original adaptation of Shakespeare's Sonnets.
>
> >
>
> > https://sites.google.com/site/eternitypromised/
>
>
>

> *yawn*
>
>
>
> It's the usual semi-literate rubbish. The argument is that if one
>
> reads the Sonnets backwards, the author (naturally not the real
>
> author, William Shakespeare, but some other bloke) can be proved to be
>
> addressing Liz I and asking her to recognise the legitimacy of the son
>
> she bore to the bloke, thus enabling his and her line to continue, the
>
> Armada to be defeated, the Freemasons to be locked up in the Great
>
> Pyramid, and Mork and Mindy to live happily ever after. (I may have
>
> remembered some of the last parts of the argument slightly wrong.)
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> PJR :-)
>
>
>
> ἔστι τις σιῶν τίσις - Alcman

I agree

φυχινγ ελλας - Tom c

[marco]

E'en so, sir, as I say. and, for thy fiction, Timon of Athens: V, i

Condemn it as an improbable fiction. Twelfth Night: III, iv

But in a fiction, in a dream of passion, Hamlet: II, ii

Art N

[jacob....@gmail.com]

Well now I got him, too.

I don't know who any of you are but I received the email from him and looked up the name and this group with these complaints about this random person was the first result on the search engine. What is the deal?

[ArtNea...@germanymail.com]

On Friday, January 16, 2015 at 8:05:50 PM UTC-8, jacob....@gmail.com wrote:
> Well now I got him, too.
>
> I don't know who any of you are but I received the email from him and looked up the name and this group with these complaints about this random person was the first result on the search engine. What is the deal?

?

an

[Phil Innes]

On Saturday, September 27, 2014 at 3:16:39 AM UTC-4, fr...@bluemail.ch wrote:

> Thanks. I don't play a game of thrones, my intention
> is hermeneutics, making the text speak, revealing the
> message of a play, or rather the superposed levels
> of messages, often self-reflective (plays about plays)
> and at the same time meaning the world. I took my
> liberty to start a new thread with my interpretation
> in a nutshell, and will discuss there, if someone
> is interested, but only on a flying visit (being
> buzzy elsewhere).

The trouble with deconstruction and consequent reconstruction fragments is that all the pieces don't seem to fit in the box any more. This is not any particular Shakespearean comment. As Ted Hughes demonstrates in his title on Shakespeare, the 'hidden messages' are not textual encodings to yet further texts or subfusc identities, but references to less linear, more mythic, sensibilities, such as are aspects of consciousness, eg. Otherwise reconstructions are typically arid glass-bead games signifying nothing other than a superficial cleverness, or indicating even more obscure meanings. [see Art's Oeuvre.] Don't contact us, except here, where despite a sort of clannish campy and passive-aggressive badinage, there can be actual conversations from time to time, leading to actual insights. Phil Innes

[fr...@bluemail.ch]

On Sunday, July 12, 2015 at 3:04:35 PM UTC+2, Phil Innes wrote:
>
> The trouble with deconstruction and consequent reconstruction fragments is that all the pieces don't seem to fit in the box any more. This is not any particular Shakespearean comment. As Ted Hughes demonstrates in his title on Shakespeare, the 'hidden messages' are not textual encodings to yet further texts or subfusc identities, but references to less linear, more mythic, sensibilities, such as are aspects of consciousness, eg. Otherwise reconstructions are typically arid glass-bead games signifying nothing other than a superficial cleverness, or indicating even more obscure meanings. [see Art's Oeuvre.] Don't contact us, except here, where despite a sort of clannish campy and passive-aggressive badinage, there can be actual conversations from time to time, leading to actual insights. Phil Innes

Found this comment by mere chance, and don't really understand what you
are telling me. As for deconstruction: I am not a postmodernist, and
find deconstructionism a rather silly term - so-called postmodernist
architecture requires way more mathematics than classical buildings,
is more constructed. I have nothing to do with deconstructivism in
philosophy and literature but rely on my experience interpretating
Renaissance pictures, mainly Leonardo da Vinci. The series of paintings
involving John the Baptist are about himself as artist who announces
a greater one than himself, Jesus, God, creator of the world, nature
that outshines all human works. Mona Lisa, in my interpretation, is
an allegory of seeing, reflecting on the sense needed to contemplate
a painting, and via doing so condensating Leonardo's world view
- in his writings he praises the 'natural point' in the eye, wherein
the rays of vision focus, and in a similar way all he knows about
the world is focused in his painting. I found a hommage to Leonardo
in Prospero, and the same self-reflective spirit in plenty works
by Edward de Vere alias William Shakespeare. This my message to the group.
I left this thread and developed my further interpretation of Romeo and
Juliet in a separate thread, then combined it with my earlier interpretation
of seventeen plays on my page http://www.seshat.ch/home/vere.htm
What do you mean by "Don't contact us, except here"? I contact you now,
here, having found your lines by mere chance this morning. Have a good day,
anyway, Franz Gnaedinger, Zurich

[Phil Innes]

>
> Found this comment by mere chance, and don't really understand what you
> are telling me.

This is a newsgroup designed for interactive commentary, and nominally about Shakespeare. While one might reference other sites or works, it's the aspect of conversation rather than proselytization which seems absent from your messaging, either here or to people's emails.

> As for deconstruction: I am not a postmodernist, and
> find deconstructionism a rather silly term - so-called postmodernist
> architecture requires way more mathematics than classical buildings,
> is more constructed. I have nothing to do with deconstructivism in
> philosophy and literature but rely on my experience interpretating
> Renaissance pictures, mainly Leonardo da Vinci. The series of paintings
> involving John the Baptist are about himself as artist who announces
> a greater one than himself, Jesus, God, creator of the world, nature
> that outshines all human works. Mona Lisa, in my interpretation, is
> an allegory of seeing, reflecting on the sense needed to contemplate
> a painting, and via doing so condensating Leonardo's world view
> - in his writings he praises the 'natural point' in the eye, wherein
> the rays of vision focus, and in a similar way all he knows about
> the world is focused in his painting. I found a hommage to Leonardo
> in Prospero, and the same self-reflective spirit in plenty works
> by Edward de Vere alias William Shakespeare.

Here, at least is a talking point. When, would you say, did de Vere review Leonardo's works? Was it the 1575 journey? And do you think the 25 year old much influenced by subsequent writing of Lyly? And de Vere himself ambitious to create an English Commedia? These are the usual auspices for promoting Oxford to Shakespeare, but there are significant problems when one's attention admits to the text itself.

Wherefore all that Anglo Saxon? About 85% A.Sax originated words in Shakespeare-propre, but not in de Vere's other writing.

Then there is the writing itself, much praised at the time, even as the greatest in an age, but not since, pace C.S. Lewis, et al: "a faint talent", but is "for the most part undistinguished and verbose."

Continuing: Nelson says that "contemporary observers such as Harvey, Webbe, Puttenham, and Meres clearly exaggerated Oxford's talent in deference to his rank. By any measure, his poems pale in comparison with those of Sidney, Lyly, Spenser, Shakespeare, Donne, and Jonson." He says that his known poems are "astonishingly uneven" in quality, ranging from the "fine" to the "execrable"

Rather then, resolve upon a 15 month circumstantial visit to Italy, is the dissipated drunk's own named work not worth the candle of comparison?

Admitted, there are those who seem to have obsessed over 'the authorship question' for the best part of their lives, perhaps as an intellectual challenge? But there are certain characteristics of true-believers (including those proposing William Shakespeare as the Author based on 2 post-cards of datum) and that is they proselytize and do not readily commit to conversation that is disinterested inquiry.

Lest you cannot find this message, I'll make a new thread to illustrate as much about the proponents as of the accused, nominally Not Much Ado...

Cordially, Phil Innes

[Daniel B.]

Just got Alan's email today. I am perhaps the least likely of targets for it. I run multiple blogs, mostly focused on politics, but occasionally on books. Finding this group has been...enlightening?

[John W Kennedy]

Like most of USENET, this group was devastated by a perfect storm a few
years ago of political/sexual paranoia and a massive denial-of-service
attack. The action now is at the Facebook group "Oxfraud" and the
website that goes with it.

--
John W Kennedy
"The first effect of not believing in God is to believe in anything...."
-- Emile Cammaerts, "The Laughing Prophet"

[melani...@gmail.com]

You now all post on Facebook?!!!

Melanie

[John W Kennedy]

I wish to God I could bid farewell forever to the Website of the
Damned, but it has become a necessity.

--
John W Kennedy
"The pathetic hope that the White House will turn a Caligula into a
Marcus Aurelius is as naïve as the fear that ultimate power inevitably
corrupts."
-- James D. Barber (1930-2004)

[marco]

hmmm

[halex...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 11:31:42 AM UTC-5, Melanie Sands wrote:
> Got this email:
>
> QUOTE:
> "
> Melanie,

> Once again I thought you might enjoy my reading of Shakespeare's Sonnets.
> https://sites.google.com/site/eternitypromised/

> I have little expectation that you are capable of providing them but I would welcome your thoughts."
> UNQUOTE
>
> He has "little expectation" that I am "capable of providing
> thoughts"?!!
>
> Gee, how flattering.
>
> And what's this "once again"? Did we have a one-night stand
> or something?
>
> Barbiedoll
>
>
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Alan

This fellow is still at as of March 2016--I do run a lit blog--but sheesh I do nothing with Shakespeare...or crazy. Maybe he's getting extra desperate? Thanks for posting this...I'll be spreading the word to other friends in the field.

(This will make a very good chapter in someone's faux memoir about 21C academia one day...)

[jojo....@gmail.com]

Yes. March 2016. A new round of recipients to join the fold. I'm a English doctoral student at the CUNY Graduate Center working in digital humanities and was quite perplexed. Glad to have found this chain.
-Jono

[what...@gmail.com]

Thanks for the edification, all.
Just met Mr Tarica via an email promising that his sonnet 'adaptations' would be "avant-garde fun," which suggests some research on his part, as my research as a graduate student focuses on the avant-garde and I have recently coordinated a Shakespeare-themed festival as part of my assistantship duties...

Best,
Ira S. Murfin
Northwestern University

[marco]

.

[ArtNea...@germanymail.com]

Art N

[aileenr...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 11:31:42 AM UTC-5, Melanie Sands wrote:
> Got this email:
>
> QUOTE:
> "
> Melanie,
> Once again I thought you might enjoy my reading of Shakespeare's Sonnets.
> https://sites.google.com/site/eternitypromised/
> I have little expectation that you are capable of providing them but I would welcome your thoughts."
> UNQUOTE
>
> He has "little expectation" that I am "capable of providing
> thoughts"?!!
>
> Gee, how flattering.
>
> And what's this "once again"? Did we have a one-night stand
> or something?
>
> Barbiedoll
>
>
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Alan

Found this chain in 2017 - this guy is still at it. Just emailed me today, but I deleted it right away.

[marco]

.

[keithe...@gmail.com]

Here's the latest email from Alan and the corrospondance, which is pure insanity.


MAR 10

Keith,

I thought you might enjoy. [Link]

Best,
Alan




----

APR 15

Thanks,

What did you especially enjoy about these readings?





----


APR 15

That I made them a unified and connected whole when experts have insisted they couldn't be unified.
That I've provided a clear biographical connection where one was never been illustrated.
That I've provided clear and unambiguous motivation for their production when they've been characterized as "literary exercises".
That I've made them more symbolic and metaphorically meaningful than ever imagined.

I could go on but it is tedious to point out the outrageous stupidity I'm illustrating.

Alan



----
MAY 22 11:08AM [me, thinking this was a friend of mine and not a stranger]

Haha, so you don't buy his grand unifying explanation?

Someitmes it's hard to tell whether one is a world-class genius or a world-class moron. Safer to go with the latter...!

To clarify, I truly believe some people are world-class geniuses.

So it's not to say a grand unified theory of everything is impossible: Plato's Republic comes pretty close; Dante's Comedy even closer.

If you start to look for connections, you will often find them. Like the connections between Lincoln's and JFK's assassinations, which are numerous. It gives you a weird thrill, but that's it. (http://www.snopes.com/history/american/lincoln-kennedy.asp)




----
MAY 22 11:12am

What and whose grand unifying explanation are you talking about. The notion that some at best modestly educated man through the magic of "genius" and shear imagination wrote things he couldn't have possibly known about?

And it might be safer in a general probabilistic sense to assume people are morons but I prefer to rely on actual evidence and thus it is quite clear that you are monumental and useless dipshit.

If you can't understand the I've provided authorial intention and motivation to Shakespeaere's literary exercises that gives them metaphorical and symbolic meaning and provides and unified and explicit narrative involving explicit characters where there was none previously and discount, you are a jackass and fool on a level that is just frightening.


2:42PM [Me, trolling]

I'm monumental! My dear sir, I appreciate the kind words but do not think I have attained that status yet.



4:20PM [Him, softening]

Perhaps the attached might better help you realize your intellectual shortcomings.

Best,
Alan



4:56PM [me, placating]

That does help a bit...

PS. Your site is down:

Have you tried Github? It can host sites for free using Jekyll.


----

5:04PM [him, heartened]

Didn't realize you had replied to such a relatively old email.

New site address is: Link.


-------

END EMAIL

[ArtNea...@germanymail.com]

Art N

[marco]

reason's

Yet nature's tears are reason's merriment. Romeo and Juliet: IV, v

When oil and fire, too strong for reason's force, All's Well that Ends Well: V, iii

Love's reason's without reason: the bier at door, Cymbeline: IV, ii

From reason's yielding, your fair self should make Love's Labour's Lost: II, i

And that hath dazzled my reason's light; The Two Gentlemen of Verona: II, iv

William Shakespeare, poet

[ArtNea...@germanymail.com]

Art N

[meganf...@gmail.com]

Fantastic thread. Just got the email and, like many of you, found this thread by googling his name. He'd put the name of my recent symposium presentation into the subject line, so presume that's how he found me.

Honoured to be part of this select club. We should get t-shirts made: I WAS EMAILED BY ALAN TARICA (and all I got was etc etc)

Meg xx

[ArtNea...@germanymail.com]

Art N

[caspi...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 10:31:42 AM UTC-6, Melanie Sands wrote:
> Got this email:
>
> QUOTE:
> "
> Melanie,
> Once again I thought you might enjoy my reading of Shakespeare's Sonnets.
> https://sites.google.com/site/eternitypromised/
> I have little expectation that you are capable of providing them but I would welcome your thoughts."
> UNQUOTE
>
> He has "little expectation" that I am "capable of providing
> thoughts"?!!
>
> Gee, how flattering.
>
> And what's this "once again"? Did we have a one-night stand
> or something?
>
> Barbiedoll
>
>
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Alan

I got my first email from the elusive Alan Tarica 10 days ago. When I read one of his links, I decided to ignore it. Today, he sent me a brief message, asking, "No sense of fun or just no intellectual honesty or integrity?" At that point, I told him I wasn't interested, but said I hadn't solicited his input, and didn't appreciate his comment. A few minutes later, I received this lovely message:
"You apparently need to know what a useless dipshit you are. Solicited or not."

What a piece of work is this man...

[caspi...@gmail.com]

BTW, just looked ol' Alan up on Twitter, where I was amused to read this description: "Crafting literary illusions so verisimilitudinous, some might mistake them for the work of the Bard himself." Wow.

What a nasty bit of business. Someone needs to find a day job.

[caspi...@gmail.com]

Now that you mention it, maybe I should feel flattered that I am numbered among the group of Email Victims of Alan Tarica: it looks like several of you are actual Shakespeare scholars. I'm a church musician with a lifelong interest in Shakespeare, who occasionally blogs on Shakespeare, just for fun!

Cory

[marco]

scholar

All scholars, lawyers, courtiers, gentlemen, King Henry VI, part II: IV, iv
Yield many scholars. Pericles, Prince of Tyre: IV, vi

The worst of all her scholars, my good lord. Pericles, Prince of Tyre: II, v
My fellow-scholars, and to keep those statutes Love's Labour's Lost: I, i

As you are friends, scholars and soldiers, Hamlet: I, v
scholars allow'd freely to argue for her. King Henry VIII: II, ii


William Shakespeare, scholar

[ArtNea...@germanymail.com]

Art Neuendorffer

[carag...@gmail.com]

He's still doing it! I got one today. I wrote about Shakespeare a few days ago, so I can only assume he has a Google alert out. Thanks everyone for keeping tabs on him, I probably would have fallen for the bait.

[Confused Grad Student]

So thankful for this thread! I just found a couple emails from this guy in my spam box. First email is a copy of his hilarious article with a polite "Thought you might enjoy," followed by another message a few weeks ago (Jun 8): "No sense of fun or just no f*****g sense at all?" Good grief. I'll echo what others have said - what a piece of work.

[liamne...@hotmail.com]

On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 8:31:42 AM UTC-8, Melanie Sands wrote:
> Got this email:
>
> QUOTE:
> "
> Melanie,
> Once again I thought you might enjoy my reading of Shakespeare's Sonnets.
> https://sites.google.com/site/eternitypromised/
> I have little expectation that you are capable of providing them but I would welcome your thoughts."
> UNQUOTE
>
> He has "little expectation" that I am "capable of providing
> thoughts"?!!
>
> Gee, how flattering.
>
> And what's this "once again"? Did we have a one-night stand
> or something?
>
> Barbiedoll
>
>
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Alan

So I posted a joke about Oxfordian theory on twitter (I have less than 35 followers). The following ensued: https://twitter.com/Bobbluered/status/1107948324227674113

[kyle.h...@gmail.com]

Guess I’m part of the club now. Got this email from him this morning. SMH

Kyle,

What you fail to recognize is that all of this "documentary evidence" is invalidated by my much better literary evidence. Apparently you are too gullible and stupid to recognize that the the absurdly thin evidence you cluelessly take at face value is utter bullshit. And that is likely due to the fact that you are a dogmatic dipshit and a gullible and irrational twit. There there is no reasoning with dipshits like you. And the real travesty is that imbeciles like you have any place in the educational system. But thanks for getting back to me.

Best,
Alan

[John W Kennedy]

You can’t fool me. You’re Donald Trump.


--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"

[ndiek...@gmail.com]

Yup, me too now.

"Noah,

I thought you might enjoy.

Alan Tarica: Exploring the sonnets, and authorship, of William Shakespeare


Alan Tarica: Exploring the sonnets, and authorship, of William Shakespeare
Did William Shakespeare write the plays and sonnets that bear his name> we may never know,, but it is fun to thi...




The conspiratorial legacy of Charlton Ogburn – Beaufort South Carolina The Island News


The conspiratorial legacy of Charlton Ogburn – Beaufort South Carolina T...



site:

Eternity Promised



Eternity Promised



Best,
Alan"

[samuelj...@gmail.com]

Hello,

I was also contacted by Alan. I'm not sure why, or how he got my details. I've had some interest in Elizabethan literature in the past, but it's not my main focus. He sent me links to his blog. I replied to say that I wasn't interested in discussing it, and he sent me a one-line email back calling me a snowflake :D

Sam

[gwen...@gmail.com]

He’s still at it. This is the second time. Last year. I thought I’d blocked him.

[mi...@wagmail.com]

I heard from "Alan Talarica" this morning. I was puzzled what it was about and Googled his name and found this group.

He initially emailed me in 2017(!) and then followed up this morning. Those are the only two emails I received from him and there was a three-year gap between them. The first email was cordial, with links to articles about Shakespeare. The second, received this morning, read, "How do you have nothing to say? Idiots like you need to be exposed for having no critical thinking or meta cognition and no integrity."

I am not a Shakespearean scholar or a person with any significant interest in Shakespeare at all, beyond what the average educated person might have.

How odd!

[wolfpur...@gmail.com]

He just appeared my twitter DMs today and I googled him and found this thread, wow he's been at it a long time huh!

I have absolutely no links to academia so I'm very confused about where he found me to rant at on a Saturday afternoon

I screenshot the DMs and posted on twitter https://mobile.twitter.com/wolfpurplemoon/status/1274363717669527552

[flm...@gmail.com]

.

[tewal...@gmail.com]

On Friday, June 5, 2020 at 9:38:13 AM UTC-5, mi...@wagmail.com wrote:

Just had a similar experience to this:

> I heard from "Alan [Tarica]" this morning. I was puzzled what it was about and Googled his name and found this group.

>
> He initially emailed me in 2017(!) and then followed up this morning. Those are the only two emails I received from him and there was a three-year gap between them.

Same here -- even down to the three-year gap. I asked why he would send me such an antagonizing e-mail, and it turns out it's because I liked a friend's tweet IN DECEMBER 2016 about how she kept receiving antagonistic e-mails from a Shakespeare truther. (My friend didn't even mention him by his name or his Twitter handle.)

I suggested to A.T. that it wasn't fruitful or wise to go stirring up imaginary beefs from years ago with people who don't even know who he is. I went on to say that I hoped he would find some peace -- and stop antagonizing strangers on the Internet. I also told him not to contact me again . . . to which he promptly replied with more invective.

~shrug~

I find that setting a Gmail filter to automatically delete e-mails from an address like his is even more effective than marking him as spam. (I mean, I actually do check my spam folder for false positives, and I'd like it best if I never interact with his persecution complex again.

[Plashing Vole]

Prynhawn da/good afternoon all. I too have had a Twitter DM three years after he emailed me - that took some work, as my Twitter name is a pseudonym. He's getting subtle: my message just had links to some rather marginal websites which he either wrote or persuaded to devote some space to his ravings. In my younger days I might have had some sport with him but I'm too tired to do anything more than block.

Still, at least this humble scholar of Welsh literature now has the official imprimatur of being a Tarica Target.

[flm...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, October 8, 2020 at 12:42:33 PM UTC-4, Plashing Vole wrote:
> Prynhawn da/good afternoon all. I too have had a Twitter DM three years after he emailed me - that took some work, as my Twitter name is a pseudonym. He's getting subtle: my message just had links to some rather marginal websites which he either wrote or persuaded to devote some space to his ravings. In my younger days I might have had some sport with him but I'm too tired to do anything more than block.
>

> Still, at least this humble scholar of Welsh literature now has the official imprimatur of being a Tarica Target..

[Justine Houyaux]

I too received the attentions of the aforementioned individual after posting a silly tweet about how I, a Lewis Carroll scholar, was at least glad not to have to put up with the Shakespeare conspiracy theories. He insulted one of the people who replied to me, then proceeded to send emails to my two professional addresses and to my personal address. The biggest surprise was when he wrote to a Yahoo address I haven't used in over ten years. Say what you will about the chap, but he's very thorough.

[Candace Shaw]

Thank goodness for this thread! I just received an email from him, a re-forward of an email he sent in 2018 (which I don't remember receiving), and I was completely confused and wondering what I'd done now to get the message "Thanks for confirming what a dipshit you are."
It's a relief to know that I haven't done anything at all, it's just one surly old cuss that enjoys trolling people.
It seems his Twitter account has been suspended, so I guess sometimes the system works.
Thank you for easing my mind!
Candace