Cleopatra Is Alive Today
lackpurity
Yes, that's right. I've known about her for years. We are friends.
She recently put a book on the market. You can see her photo here, or
even join her group, if you like:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theosophy_talks_truth/
The lady in the photo is the reincarnation of Blavatsky and Cleopatra.
I'm as serious, as I can be.
What does this have to do with Shakespeare? Well, I just posted that
Shakespeare made it clear, that Cleopatra was a MASTER. She is NOW a
Living Master. People can learn from her, but they must keep an open
mind.
Michael Martin
Western Sat Guru
Peter Groves
news:1168326445....@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
> MM:
> Yes, that's right. I've known about her for years. We are friends.
> She recently put a book on the market. You can see her photo here, or
> even join her group, if you like:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theosophy_talks_truth/
>
> The lady in the photo is the reincarnation of Blavatsky and Cleopatra.
> I'm as serious, as I can be.
I think Mark H. has it wrong: you're either deranged, or a troll, but I
don't think you can be both at once. I'm going with 'deranged' at present
(read: "barking mad").
Peter G.
Ignoto
lackpurity wrote:
> MM:
> Yes, that's right. I've known about her for years. We are friends.
> She recently put a book on the market. You can see her photo here, or
> even join her group, if you like:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theosophy_talks_truth/
>
> The lady in the photo is the reincarnation of Blavatsky and Cleopatra.
> I'm as serious, as I can be.
Impossible, *I* was Cleopatra in a former life...
spinoza1111
Peter Groves wrote:
> "lackpurity" <lackp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1168326445....@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
> > MM:
> > Yes, that's right. I've known about her for years. We are friends.
> > She recently put a book on the market. You can see her photo here, or
> > even join her group, if you like:
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theosophy_talks_truth/
> >
> > The lady in the photo is the reincarnation of Blavatsky and Cleopatra.
> > I'm as serious, as I can be.
>
> I think Mark H. has it wrong: you're either deranged, or a troll, but I
> don't think you can be both at once. I'm going with 'deranged' at present
> (read: "barking mad").
Nawww. he's harmless. "He never did harm that I knew of" "Nay, nor will
he tomorrow, he will keep that name still", as Orleans and Constable
say in the old play.
None dast blame a regret that would reverse the tragic death of
Cleopatra. Shakespeare's genius was to show how she could live on in
words alone.
It's nonsense to want to bring Cleopatra "back to life" in a literal
sense. For one thing, she'd have to go to the laundromat in Venice,
California, the only livable place for her. This would expose her to
lewd gaze since she'd naturally wear an old mis-matched bikini.
No, she must be left on her barge, burning in the water. Her lesser
elements she has left to baser life.
In a scientific sense, she's still around in the form of DNA.
Mark Houlsby
Peter Groves wrote:
> "lackpurity" <lackp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1168326445....@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
> > MM:
> > Yes, that's right. I've known about her for years. We are friends.
> > She recently put a book on the market. You can see her photo here, or
> > even join her group, if you like:
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theosophy_talks_truth/
> >
> > The lady in the photo is the reincarnation of Blavatsky and Cleopatra.
> > I'm as serious, as I can be.
>
> I think Mark H. has it wrong: you're either deranged, or a troll, but I
> don't think you can be both at once. I'm going with 'deranged' at present
> (read: "barking mad").
>
> Peter G.
>
LOL. I still maintain both. Some deranged people don't troll. MM does.
I do accept the implication of superfluity, however.
Mark H.
Mark Houlsby
spinoza1111 wrote:
> Peter Groves wrote:
> > "lackpurity" <lackp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:1168326445....@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
> > > MM:
> > > Yes, that's right. I've known about her for years. We are friends.
> > > She recently put a book on the market. You can see her photo here, or
> > > even join her group, if you like:
> > >
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theosophy_talks_truth/
> > >
> > > The lady in the photo is the reincarnation of Blavatsky and Cleopatra.
> > > I'm as serious, as I can be.
> >
> > I think Mark H. has it wrong: you're either deranged, or a troll, but I
> > don't think you can be both at once. I'm going with 'deranged' at present
> > (read: "barking mad").
>
> Nawww. he's harmless.
Not entirely:
> "He never did harm that I knew of" "Nay, nor will
> he tomorrow, he will keep that name still", as Orleans and Constable
> say in the old play.
>
> None dast blame a regret that would reverse the tragic death of
> Cleopatra. Shakespeare's genius was to show how she could live on in
> words alone.
>
> It's nonsense to want to bring Cleopatra "back to life" in a literal
> sense. For one thing, she'd have to go to the laundromat in Venice,
> California, the only livable place for her. This would expose her to
> lewd gaze since she'd naturally wear an old mis-matched bikini.
>
> No, she must be left on her barge, burning in the water. Her lesser
> elements she has left to baser life.
>
> In a scientific sense, she's still around in the form of DNA.
Much diluted. True though.
Mark H.
Tom Reedy
news:1168331409....@42g2000cwt.googlegroups.com...
>
> lackpurity wrote:
>> MM:
>> Yes, that's right. I've known about her for years. We are friends.
>> She recently put a book on the market. You can see her photo here, or
>> even join her group, if you like:
>>
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theosophy_talks_truth/
>>
>> The lady in the photo is the reincarnation of Blavatsky and Cleopatra.
>> I'm as serious, as I can be.
>
> Impossible, *I* was Cleopatra in a former life...
You're both deranged. *I* am Spartacus . . . er, Cleopatra!
TR
Mark Cipra
> Peter Groves wrote:
>
>> "lackpurity" <lackp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1168326445....@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
>>> MM:
>>> Yes, that's right. I've known about her for years. We are friends.
>>> She recently put a book on the market. You can see her photo here,
>>> or even join her group, if you like:
>>>
>>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theosophy_talks_truth/
>>>
>>> The lady in the photo is the reincarnation of Blavatsky and
>>> Cleopatra. I'm as serious, as I can be.
>>
>> I think Mark H. has it wrong: you're either deranged, or a troll,
>> but I don't think you can be both at once. I'm going with
>> 'deranged' at present (read: "barking mad").
>>
>> Peter G.
>>
>
> LOL. I still maintain both. Some deranged people don't troll. MM does.
> I do accept the implication of superfluity, however.
>
Doesn't trolling require an *intention* to provoke flamewars? It seems to
me that his posts are a genuine attempt to enlighten us, and that his
arrogance is native to him.
I think that attempts to get him to stop posting at all might work, but I
can't imagine he'll ever acknowledge he's arrogant - and I don't think he's
trolling in the formal sense. For him the statement "I'm Enlightened and
you are not" is a simple statement of fact - the word "arrogance" has no
meaning to him in this context.
Tolerating lackpurity's posting here - where no one takes his nonsense
seriously - at least does the public service of taking time away from an
activity which truly is dangerous: cultivating disciples on less barren
ground.
> Mark H.
>
>>>
>>> What does this have to do with Shakespeare? Well, I just posted
>>> that Shakespeare made it clear, that Cleopatra was a MASTER. She
>>> is NOW a Living Master. People can learn from her, but they must
>>> keep an open mind.
>>>
>>> Michael Martin
>>> Western Sat Guru
--
Mark Cipra
"Know your lines and don't bump into the furniture." (Spencer Tracy on
acting)
(Play Indiana Jones! Hide the "ark" in my address to reply by email)
lackpurity
Peter Groves wrote:
> "lackpurity" <lackp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1168326445....@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
> > MM:
> > Yes, that's right. I've known about her for years. We are friends.
> > She recently put a book on the market. You can see her photo here, or
> > even join her group, if you like:
> >
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theosophy_talks_truth/
> >
> > The lady in the photo is the reincarnation of Blavatsky and Cleopatra.
> > I'm as serious, as I can be.
>
> I think Mark H. has it wrong: you're either deranged, or a troll, but I
> don't think you can be both at once. I'm going with 'deranged' at present
> (read: "barking mad").
>
> Peter G.
MM:
But who cares what you think? To me, you're just an temporary
irritant, like a screaming baby, which can be corrected by giving the
baby a pacifier..
Michael Martin
lackpurity
Mark Cipra wrote:
> Mark Houlsby wrote:
> > Peter Groves wrote:
> >
> >> "lackpurity" <lackp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1168326445....@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
> >>> MM:
> >>> Yes, that's right. I've known about her for years. We are friends.
> >>> She recently put a book on the market. You can see her photo here,
> >>> or even join her group, if you like:
> >>>
> >>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theosophy_talks_truth/
> >>>
> >>> The lady in the photo is the reincarnation of Blavatsky and
> >>> Cleopatra. I'm as serious, as I can be.
> >>
> >> I think Mark H. has it wrong: you're either deranged, or a troll,
> >> but I don't think you can be both at once. I'm going with
> >> 'deranged' at present (read: "barking mad").
> >>
> >> Peter G.
> >>
> >
> > LOL. I still maintain both. Some deranged people don't troll. MM does.
> > I do accept the implication of superfluity, however.
> >
>
> Doesn't trolling require an *intention* to provoke flamewars? It seems to
> me that his posts are a genuine attempt to enlighten us, and that his
> arrogance is native to him.
MM:
You don't know the difference between arrogance and truth, apparently.
Judging from what you wrote, you might be as ignorant as Robert Greene,
who pigeonholed Sant Sat Guru Shakespeare as an upstart crow.
> I think that attempts to get him to stop posting at all might work, but I
> can't imagine he'll ever acknowledge he's arrogant - and I don't think he's
> trolling in the formal sense. For him the statement "I'm Enlightened and
> you are not" is a simple statement of fact - the word "arrogance" has no
> meaning to him in this context.
MM:
Maybe you, Groves, and Home Boy Houlsby would think all Saints have
been arrogant? They've been tortured and killed by the ignorant, since
time immemorial. . You guys are nothing new, but just same ol', same
ol'.....
> Tolerating lackpurity's posting here - where no one takes his nonsense
> seriously - at least does the public service of taking time away from an
> activity which truly is dangerous: cultivating disciples on less barren
> ground.
>
> > Mark H.
MM:
Actually, this group, apparently, has been in the darkness of ignorance
for so many years. If we don't appreciate "light," from anyone, not
necessarily from me, only, then it is recorded as one's karma. Those
who like living in ignorance will lose the human form, eventually.
Google is a search engine, and some folks might come here, interested
in breaking the shackles of ignorance. It's possible. One did, today,
in fact. The poster was one of Maharishi's followers. Praise God, at
least there is somebody who realizes what we must do, and that is to
meditate.
There are other groups, where I could post, alt.meditation,
alt.paranormal.reincarnation, alt.luciddreams, etc., etc.. Since Google
is a search engine, seekers could find me here, or on any other group,
depending on the topic.
Maybe you, Groves, and Home Boy Houlsby, would think that Jesus was a
troll? If so, then I'd say it sounds like you three clowns have a
personal problem. Actually, IMO, all three of you are trolls, but
worse than that, you're hypocrites for calling others trolls, when that
is exactly what you are. Got that? LOL
Michael Martin
spinoza1111
If a man doesn't come up with a narrow and preferably nasty set of
opinions, but dares to have his own voice, he's a "troll" and must be
ostracized.
And yet this is supposed to be a venue of "freedom of speech"?
It's more like a pornographic movie in which the woman MUST be
degraded.
Where's the freedom?
Where's the tolerance?
The Historian
spinoza1111 wrote:
> Let me see if I understand The Rules.
>
> If a man doesn't come up with a narrow and preferably nasty set of
> opinions, but dares to have his own voice, he's a "troll" and must be
> ostracized.
>
> And yet this is supposed to be a venue of "freedom of speech"?
>
> It's more like a pornographic movie in which the woman MUST be
> degraded.
>
> Where's the freedom?
>
> Where's the tolerance?
Hi Phil.
Mark Cipra
I don't want to get into it with you, lackpurity. I'll get angry, and I
don't like me when I'm angry. I'll try to keep out of your way, and you
remain on my killfile, okay?
I'm sorry to hear someone from the outside found you, but as I said, I think
you do marginally less harm by posting here. As long as you're forcing the
poor fools to use search engines to find you, you're slightly less dangerous
than you would be posting to normal groups.
Ms. Mouse
Michael, I've practised meditation (usually with a mantra) for years.
I've also studied yoga, though I can't do much at the moment except the
breathing and head and neck asanas. And when I first got ill, I took a
course called "The Healing Journey," which used Eastern techniques of
breathing, relaxation, and meditation. It was wonderfully helpful. I'm
no expert, of course, but my teachers were. They remain incredibly
serene, open, and forgiving people. Your posts and behaviour, on the
other hand, don't appear to me to have the qualities I would associate
with enlightened people or gurus of any kind, never mind Sat Gurus. Why
is that?
Ms. Mouse
Mark Houlsby
spinoza1111 wrote:
> Let me see if I understand The Rules.
>
> If a man doesn't come up with a narrow and preferably nasty set of
> opinions, but dares to have his own voice, he's a "troll" and must be
> ostracized.
>
> And yet this is supposed to be a venue of "freedom of speech"?
>
> It's more like a pornographic movie in which the woman MUST be
> degraded.
>
> Where's the freedom?
>
> Where's the tolerance?
You're catching on.
Notice how Neil labelled you a troll ("Hi Phil") just because you wrote
that.
<snip>
Mark Houlsby
Mark Houlsby
Mark Cipra wrote:
> Mark Houlsby wrote:
> > Peter Groves wrote:
> >
<snip>
> >> I think Mark H. has it wrong: you're either deranged, or a troll,
> >> but I don't think you can be both at once. I'm going with
> >> 'deranged' at present (read: "barking mad").
> >>
> >> Peter G.
> >>
> >
> > LOL. I still maintain both. Some deranged people don't troll. MM does.
> > I do accept the implication of superfluity, however.
> >
>
> Doesn't trolling require an *intention* to provoke flamewars?
That's right, it doesn't...necessarily.
> It seems to
> me that his posts are a genuine attempt to enlighten us, and that his
> arrogance is native to him.
>
See above.
> I think that attempts to get him to stop posting at all might work, but I
> can't imagine he'll ever acknowledge he's arrogant - and I don't think he's
> trolling in the formal sense.
With much respect, your thinking that he is not, *does not mean* that
he *is not*.
> For him the statement "I'm Enlightened and
> you are not" is a simple statement of fact - the word "arrogance" has no
> meaning to him in this context.
>
True. Ergo, he's a deranged troll.
> Tolerating lackpurity's posting here - where no one takes his nonsense
> seriously - at least does the public service of taking time away from an
> activity which truly is dangerous: cultivating disciples on less barren
> ground.
>
Like where? How do you know that the ground here *is* barren? Can you
demonstrate, unequivocally, that it is?
> > Mark H.
> >
> >>>
> >>> What does this have to do with Shakespeare? Well, I just posted
> >>> that Shakespeare made it clear, that Cleopatra was a MASTER. She
> >>> is NOW a Living Master. People can learn from her, but they must
> >>> keep an open mind.
> >>>
> >>> Michael Martin
> >>> Western Sat Guru
>
> --
> Mark Cipra
> "Know your lines and don't bump into the furniture." (Spencer Tracy on
> acting)
>
> (Play Indiana Jones! Hide the "ark" in my address to reply by email)
Mark Houlsby
Mark Houlsby
lackpurity wrote:
> Mark Cipra wrote:
> > Mark Houlsby wrote:
> > > Peter Groves wrote:
> > >
> > >> "lackpurity" <lackp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > >> news:1168326445....@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
> > >>> MM:
> > >>> Yes, that's right. I've known about her for years. We are friends.
> > >>> She recently put a book on the market. You can see her photo here,
> > >>> or even join her group, if you like:
> > >>>
> > >>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theosophy_talks_truth/
> > >>>
> > >>> The lady in the photo is the reincarnation of Blavatsky and
> > >>> Cleopatra. I'm as serious, as I can be.
> > >>
> > >> I think Mark H. has it wrong: you're either deranged, or a troll,
> > >> but I don't think you can be both at once. I'm going with
> > >> 'deranged' at present (read: "barking mad").
> > >>
> > >> Peter G.
> > >>
> > >
> > > LOL. I still maintain both. Some deranged people don't troll. MM does.
> > > I do accept the implication of superfluity, however.
> > >
> >
> > Doesn't trolling require an *intention* to provoke flamewars? It seems to
> > me that his posts are a genuine attempt to enlighten us, and that his
> > arrogance is native to him.
>
> MM:
> You don't know the difference between arrogance and truth, apparently.
ROFLMAO!!! You're not big on irony, are you?
<snips the rest of MM's arrogant, trolling BS.>
Mark Cipra
> Let me see if I understand The Rules.
>
> If a man doesn't come up with a narrow and preferably nasty set of
> opinions, but dares to have his own voice, he's a "troll" and must be
> ostracized.
You're responding to me? I said he wasn't a troll.
>
> And yet this is supposed to be a venue of "freedom of speech"?
>
And I'm the one who said he should continue posting here.
> It's more like a pornographic movie in which the woman MUST be
> degraded.
And ... uh, um. What?
>
> Where's the freedom?
Groves trying to get lackpurity to realize he's off-balance is a hopeless
cause, but does it restrict his freedom in any significant way?
And Houlsby was trying, I think, to convince him not to be so arrogant -
likewise a hopeless cause, in my opinion, but arguably a noble one. I'm
dubious about Houlsby's methods, and I question his judgement, but all he
seems to be saying is "You can post whatever you want, as long as you're
reasonably nice about it." Contrast, for example, his polite responses to
the gentle fruitcake Art.
>
> Where's the tolerance?
I was arguing for tolerating him (admittedly not for freedom-of-speech
reasons, although I agree with them), but I can sympathize with those who'd
prefer to see him go away. There's no problem with someone attempting to
post an off-the-wall theory about Shakespeare, but after the first few dozen
posts in which it's pointed out that no one's interested in his religion, it
should become obvious that some material is on-topic, and some isn't.
The only sense in which lackpurity's posts are on topic for this group is
that, like Art N, he quotes Shakespeare from time to time. To put the
nicest spin possible on it, it's as though someone decided to sit in on a
chess discussion group and insisted on talking about racial inequality:
"When rook takes pawn it signifies the white man's hegemony over the other
races". It might be a worthy topic to discuss, somewhere, sometime, but
mentioning a chess move in the first clause doesn't make the second clause
on-topic.
In fact, this group has shown tolerance, to a remarkable degree. If I'm not
mistaken, over half the posts to this group are off-topic in the sense that
they involve a Masonic conspiracy that only the poster is interested in. I
wasn't here when Art started posting, but I'm guessing he got roughed up a
few times in the beginning. He continued posting, and he's a sunny fool, so
now everyone except David Webb simply killfiles him. Another group I follow
created a moderated version of itself specifically to eliminate an off-topic
poster.
lackpurity has essentially admitted that he's using this group merely as a
way of advertising his religious beliefs. I have no idea why a group of
secularists and humanists appeals to him for this purpose, but since we
can't be sure he's making any money off this, we can't accuse him of
spamming. His arrogance doesn't rise to the level of flaming, in my
opinion, and it arises from his certainty that he's right - and if that were
a criterion for banning someone, we'd all be goners. I'd recommend the
killfile. Let him post, don't respond to him, and let him get it out of his
system in a venue where he won't be noticed.
Mark Cipra
Pass.
Mark Houlsby
Mark Cipra wrote:
> Mark Houlsby wrote:
>
> Pass.
>
Well, it's a point-of-view. One might suggest--respectfully, it is
hoped--that your writing that in a troll thread might just possibly be
less-than-productive.
It's a thought. Put it in the background there, and throw it the
occasional glance.
Mark Houlsby
<snip>
Mark Houlsby
Mark Cipra wrote:
Opinion is one thing. Facts are another.
http://tinyurl.com/thjwj for a spiritual guy, he's pretty
vituperative.
"MM:
Try to decipher my cryptic writings. LOL Christ said, "Come to me as
little children." When we come before a Master, we are like little
children. Little children shouldn't be arguing with the Master."
> and it arises from his certainty that he's right - and if that were
> a criterion for banning someone, we'd all be goners.
Nonsense. Read the Bertrand Russell quote which Peter G. has posted in
the "Troll alert" thread and elsewhere.
> I'd recommend the
> killfile.
Recommendation noted. I don't have a killfile, however, and shall react
to attacks upon *anyone* however I may see fit.
> Let him post, don't respond to him, and let him get it out of his
> system in a venue where he won't be noticed.
>
Ah, but there's the rub! *If*, indeed, *nobody* responded to him...no
problemo. People *do* respond, however. This is Usenet.
Mark Houlsby
<snip>
Mark Cipra
It's your privilege.
Mark Cipra
> Mark Cipra wrote:
>
>> Mark Houlsby wrote:
>>
>> Pass.
>>
>
> Well, it's a point-of-view. One might suggest--respectfully, it is
> hoped--that your writing that in a troll thread might just possibly be
> less-than-productive.
Our definitions of "troll" differ.
>
> It's a thought. Put it in the background there, and throw it the
> occasional glance.
>
> Mark Houlsby
>
> <snip>
>
>> Mark Cipra
>> "Know your lines and don't bump into the furniture." (Spencer Tracy
>> on acting)
>>
>> (Play Indiana Jones! Hide the "ark" in my address to reply by email)
--
Mark Houlsby
Mark Cipra wrote:
> Mark Houlsby wrote:
> > Mark Cipra wrote:
> >
> >> Mark Houlsby wrote:
> >>
> >> Pass.
> >>
> >
> > Well, it's a point-of-view. One might suggest--respectfully, it is
> > hoped--that your writing that in a troll thread might just possibly be
> > less-than-productive.
>
> Our definitions of "troll" differ.
>
Evidently. Shall we leave it there?
Mark Houlsby
Mark Cipra wrote:
Thank you. Glad we sorted out *that much*, at least.
Regards,
Mark Cipra
> Mark Cipra wrote:
>
>> Mark Houlsby wrote:
>>> Mark Cipra wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mark Houlsby wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Pass.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, it's a point-of-view. One might suggest--respectfully, it is
>>> hoped--that your writing that in a troll thread might just possibly
>>> be less-than-productive.
>>
>> Our definitions of "troll" differ.
>>
>
> Evidently. Shall we leave it there?
Fine by me.
>
> Mark Houlsby
>
> <snip>
>
>> Mark Cipra
>> "Know your lines and don't bump into the furniture." (Spencer Tracy
>> on acting)
>>
>> (Play Indiana Jones! Hide the "ark" in my address to reply by email)
--
Tom Reedy
there since Day 2 of his residence here.
TR
"Mark Cipra" <cipr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:1r7ph.7208$ji1....@newssvr12.news.prodigy.net...
Mark Cipra
> Houlsby is another moron who belongs in the killfile, Mark. I've had
> him there since Day 2 of his residence here.
I don't *quite* agree, although I've been on the verge a few times. He does
post on-topic from time to time, and if I killfiled everyone who is
unpleasant, I might as well unsubscribe from the group.
Tom Reedy
> Tom Reedy wrote:
>> Houlsby is another moron who belongs in the killfile, Mark. I've had
>> him there since Day 2 of his residence here.
>
> I don't *quite* agree, although I've been on the verge a few times. He
> does post on-topic from time to time, and if I killfiled everyone who is
> unpleasant, I might as well unsubscribe from the group.
I've killfiled probably half the posters here. It does make for a slim list
of messages, but that suits me, as I'd rather not read the crap from people
like Art N., MM, Houlsby, Crowley, Willdever, etc. If you've read one of
their posts, you've read them all, my experience tells me.
TR
Mark Houlsby
> Tom Reedy wrote:
> > Houlsby is another moron who belongs in the killfile, Mark. I've had
> > him there since Day 2 of his residence here.
>
> I don't *quite* agree, although I've been on the verge a few times. He does
> post on-topic from time to time, and if I killfiled everyone who is
> unpleasant, I might as well unsubscribe from the group.
>
Heads-up. Discussions of trolling in a troll thread are, most
definitely, on-topic.
Would you care to post a link to an instance of my having *failed* to
post on-topic?
Just a clear reference, even?
Mark Houlsby
<snip>
Mark Houlsby
Tom Reedy wrote:
That explains your being *so* knowledgeable and *so* humble.
MH
John W. Kennedy
> I have no idea why a group
> of secularists and humanists appeals to him for this purpose,
Because his "religion" of hawking spiritual cheatsheets and heavenly
hacker's tools from the bottom of a tootsi-frootsi pushcart is far more
offensive to those who do believe in God than to those who do not--and
because his obscenely swollen self-love finds it easier to feel superior
to secularists and humanists who ignore him than to believers who are
openly revolted at the crawling little black thing that he has made of
his soul.
--
John W. Kennedy
"There are also those who heard from [Polycarp] that John, the disciple
of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within,
rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, 'Let us fly,
lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the
truth, is within.'"
-- Irenaeus of Lyons. "Against Heresies" Book III, Chapter III, Pt. 4
Art Neuendorffer
>>
>>>Houlsby is another moron who belongs in the killfile, Mark.
>>> I've had him there since Day 2 of his residence here.
> "Mark Cipra" <cipr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
>>
>>I don't *quite* agree, although I've been on the verge
>> a few times. He does post on-topic from time to time,
>
statement I've heard from Mark H. is that
he doesn't question Stratfordian authorship.
.
Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> I've killfiled probably half the posters here. It does make for a slim list
> of messages, but that suits me,
But is it OK with the Rosicrucian Grand Master?
.
Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> as I'd rather not read the crap from people like Art N.,
.
There is no one like Art N.
.
Art N.
Mark Houlsby
A most compelling analysis. On-topic, too.
Mark Houlsby
"They that approve a private opinion, call it opinion; but they that
mislike it, heresy: and yet heresy signifies no more than private
opinion."
--Thomas Hobbes, _Leviathan_, Pt. I, Ch. 11
Mark Houlsby
Art Neuendorffer wrote:
> >>Tom Reedy wrote:
> >>
> >>>Houlsby is another moron who belongs in the killfile, Mark.
> >>> I've had him there since Day 2 of his residence here.
> .
> > "Mark Cipra" <cipr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> >>
> >>I don't *quite* agree, although I've been on the verge
> >> a few times. He does post on-topic from time to time,
> >
> The only on-topic (Shakespeare and/or authorship)
> statement I've heard from Mark H. is that
> he doesn't question Stratfordian authorship.
> .
Untrue.
To be *absolutely explicit*: I *do not* support the Stratfordian
authorship. Neither do I support *any other* claim to authorship. At
all. I have explicitly stated as much, on a number of occasions. It's
extraordinary to me that such a number of people here are *so attached*
to their version (necessarily inaccurate) of the authorship question
that, evidently, this attachment is their *entire* motivation for
posting.
Disingenuous, Art, and therefore uncharacteristic.
> Tom Reedy wrote:
> >
> > I've killfiled probably half the posters here. It does make for a slim list
> > of messages, but that suits me,
>
> But is it OK with the Rosicrucian Grand Master?
> .
> Tom Reedy wrote:
> >
> > as I'd rather not read the crap from people like Art N.,
> .
> There is no one like Art N.
> .
Thank heaven for that.
Mark H.
> Art N.
Mark Cipra
> Mark Cipra wrote:
>
>> Tom Reedy wrote:
>>> Houlsby is another moron who belongs in the killfile, Mark. I've had
>>> him there since Day 2 of his residence here.
>>
>> I don't *quite* agree, although I've been on the verge a few times.
>> He does post on-topic from time to time, and if I killfiled everyone
>> who is unpleasant, I might as well unsubscribe from the group.
>>
>
> Heads-up. Discussions of trolling in a troll thread are, most
> definitely, on-topic.
>
> Would you care to post a link to an instance of my having *failed* to
> post on-topic?
>
> Just a clear reference, even?
Sorry, I should have been clearer. In humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare,
discussions of Shakespeare, Shakespeare authorship, Renaissance literature,
and closely related subjects are "on topic" as I understand the term. Other
postings, however relevant to the thread at hand, are off-topic for the
group. It doesn't mean they shouldn't be posted, or may not be of interest
to members of the group. Merely that they are not on the topic the group is
devoted to. I frequently post off-topic - as the present post suggests.
Unless we make that distinction, at least, I don't see how the phrases "on
topic" and "off topic" can be employed usefully.
lackpurity
Mark Cipra wrote:
> lackpurity wrote:
>
> I don't want to get into it with you, lackpurity. I'll get angry, and I
> don't like me when I'm angry. I'll try to keep out of your way, and you
> remain on my killfile, okay?
MM:
War is war, Bud. If you like peacetime, then stay off my toes.
> I'm sorry to hear someone from the outside found you, but as I said, I think
> you do marginally less harm by posting here.
MM:
I don't care what you think. You don't have a clue, IMO, regarding
what is good for that poster, and what is not. I don't know how much
harm has been caused to people in this group over the years. It has
been many cases of blind leading the blind. Very few have a clue
regarding Shakespeare. Only God knows how much harm you have caused.
If you interfere in my work, then it would be running the risk of
offending Shakespeare (God), IMO.
> As long as you're forcing the
> poor fools to use search engines to find you, you're slightly less dangerous
> than you would be posting to normal groups.
MM:
I'm not forcing anyone, fellow. To the contrary, you seem to like
trampling on my toes.. If you continue to do that with your snide
attitude, then you can expect a reply from me, and I won't care whether
you get mad, or not.
You, Reedy, Groves, and others, haven't done anything, IMO, to make
this group progress. Everybody is either wrong about Shakespeare, or
guessing. Farey, Mouse, Bede, and so many others, do you think they
are progressing? This group needs someone to get it out of the ditch
of ignorance, into which it has fallen under the old leadership of the
group.
Michael Martin
Mark Cipra
> Mark Cipra wrote:
>> I have no idea why a group
>> of secularists and humanists appeals to him for this purpose,
>
> Because his "religion" of hawking spiritual cheatsheets and heavenly
> hacker's tools from the bottom of a tootsi-frootsi pushcart is far
> more offensive to those who do believe in God than to those who do
> not--and because his obscenely swollen self-love finds it easier to
> feel superior to secularists and humanists who ignore him than to
> believers who are openly revolted at the crawling little black thing
> that he has made of his soul.
C'mon, John, get off the fence. Where do you really stand?
In all seriousness, your points are well taken. I know his pretension to
Enlightenment in particular is deeply offensive to you, and for that reason,
I am offended on your behalf. I don't respond on the specific religious
issues, of course, because my expertise and interests lie elsewhere, and you
can take care of yourself.
For what it's worth, I'm offended by him on my own behalf, too. Not to my
religious core, poor thing that it is, but to the one where decency and
respect for others is found. I don't think it's worth confronting him on
these issues - he's impervious - so I generally avoid them as well.
As always, I will continue to post on matters of fact, as I see them (and
when I notice them).
Ms. Mouse
Mark Cipra wrote:
> Mark Houlsby wrote:
> > Mark Cipra wrote:
> >
> >> Tom Reedy wrote:
> >>> Houlsby is another moron who belongs in the killfile, Mark. I've had
> >>> him there since Day 2 of his residence here.
> >>
> >> I don't *quite* agree, although I've been on the verge a few times.
> >> He does post on-topic from time to time, and if I killfiled everyone
> >> who is unpleasant, I might as well unsubscribe from the group.
> >>
> >
> > Heads-up. Discussions of trolling in a troll thread are, most
> > definitely, on-topic.
> >
> > Would you care to post a link to an instance of my having *failed* to
> > post on-topic?
> >
> > Just a clear reference, even?
>
> Sorry, I should have been clearer. In humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare,
> discussions of Shakespeare, Shakespeare authorship, Renaissance literature,
> and closely related subjects are "on topic" as I understand the term. Other
> postings, however relevant to the thread at hand, are off-topic for the
> group. It doesn't mean they shouldn't be posted, or may not be of interest
> to members of the group. Merely that they are not on the topic the group is
> devoted to. I frequently post off-topic - as the present post suggests.
>
> Unless we make that distinction, at least, I don't see how the phrases "on
> topic" and "off topic" can be employed usefully.
I dunno, Mark. Trolls and their trolleries seem to have become the main
topic here lately. Perhaps we should change our newsgroup title to
inhumanities.dorks.illiterates.onanists.trolls, or IDIOT for short.
Ms. Mouse
Mark Cipra
Hee hee.
You're right, and maybe I'll be able to resist responding in the future.
Gary
<mark_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
SNIP
>To be *absolutely explicit*: I *do not* support the Stratfordian
>authorship. Neither do I support *any other* claim to authorship. At
>all. I have explicitly stated as much, on a number of occasions. It's
>extraordinary to me that such a number of people here are *so attached*
>to their version (necessarily inaccurate) of the authorship question
>that, evidently, this attachment is their *entire* motivation for
>posting.
SNIP
Mark, I find the above interesting. Specifically, the part
about, apparently, all authorship versions being "necessarily
inaccurate". Why so? Surely someone or some group wrote the plays.
- Gary
Tom Reedy
news:45a53936...@news.datemas.de...
Thanks for replying to this, Gary. I might have to take him out of my
killfile, it looks like I'm missing out on some realy big laughs (but I
won't).
Yes, why would anybody post anything on authorship to a newsgroup named
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare. It boggles the mind, doesn't it?
TR
>
>
> - Gary
Mark Houlsby
Gary wrote:
Absolutely. Doesn't matter who. Doesn't matter how many (if, indeed,
it's more than one person). All that matters is the canon.
Mark
>
> - Gary
Mark Houlsby
Mark Cipra wrote:
> Mark Houlsby wrote:
> > Mark Cipra wrote:
> >
> >> Tom Reedy wrote:
> >>> Houlsby is another moron who belongs in the killfile, Mark. I've had
> >>> him there since Day 2 of his residence here.
> >>
> >> I don't *quite* agree, although I've been on the verge a few times.
> >> He does post on-topic from time to time, and if I killfiled everyone
> >> who is unpleasant, I might as well unsubscribe from the group.
> >>
> >
> > Heads-up. Discussions of trolling in a troll thread are, most
> > definitely, on-topic.
> >
> > Would you care to post a link to an instance of my having *failed* to
> > post on-topic?
> >
> > Just a clear reference, even?
>
> Sorry, I should have been clearer.
No problem. Most likely I am equally guilty of a lack of clarity.
> In humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare,
> discussions of Shakespeare, Shakespeare authorship, Renaissance literature,
> and closely related subjects are "on topic" as I understand the term. Other
> postings, however relevant to the thread at hand, are off-topic for the
> group.
Uh huh. I think I'm with you so far. You've posted to some of those
threads recently, as, of course, have I.
> It doesn't mean they shouldn't be posted, or may not be of interest
> to members of the group. Merely that they are not on the topic the group is
> devoted to. I frequently post off-topic - as the present post suggests.
>
Still with you. This is Usenet. What do you expect? Seriously.
> Unless we make that distinction, at least, I don't see how the phrases "on
> topic" and "off topic" can be employed usefully.
>
Fair enough.
Mark Houlsby
Mark Houlsby
Tom Reedy wrote:
It's because I'm interested in the canon. You're really stupid, Reedy.
Really very, *very* stupid.
MH
> >
> >
> > - Gary
Mark Houlsby
Ms. Mouse wrote:
Now *there's* an idea...
Mr. Houlsby
Gary
wrote:
In that respect, Mark does seem to evidence a misunderstanding
of one of the primary reasons why this newsgroup exists.
The point that I was questioning, though, was his apparent
contention that *all* authorship versions are wrong, or "necessarily
inaccurate".
- Gary
Gary
<mark.h...@eudoramail.com> wrote:
Ah! I see. So it's not that you think that *all* authorship
theories are wrong or inaccurate (which is illogical, because SOMEONE
or some group had to write the plays), it's that you think the
discussion itself is unnecessary or a waste of time?
If so, fair enough. And there's been more than a few people
who have passed through this group who would agree with you. But you
*are* aware that one of the primary reasons this group was established
was to discuss the historical question "Who wrote the works of
Shakespeare?"?
And surely you can understand that, even though the question
may be uninteresting or irrelevant to you, it may be very interesting
to other people?
- Gary
Peter Groves
news:1168461722....@i56g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
But what *does* matter is the relentless peddling of endlessly re-cycled
ignorance, lies, half-truths, inventions, prevarications, insinuations and
slanders, all under the banner of 'scholarship'. It's a kind of
intellectual poison or corrosive. Not all ant-strats use these lawyerly
methods, and with those that don't -- Peter F., Lynne -- I have no quarrel.
MM, on the other hand, appears to believe that Shakespeare wrote his own
plays (or was it the Holy Ghost?), but he's a legitimate target because of
the arrogant nonsense he constantly spews forth.
Peter G.
>
> Mark
>
> >
> > - Gary
>
Peter Groves
>
> Mark Cipra wrote:
> > lackpurity wrote:
> >
> > I don't want to get into it with you, lackpurity. I'll get angry, and I
> > don't like me when I'm angry. I'll try to keep out of your way, and you
> > remain on my killfile, okay?
>
> MM:
> War is war, Bud. If you like peacetime, then stay off my toes.
>
> > I'm sorry to hear someone from the outside found you, but as I said, I
think
> > you do marginally less harm by posting here.
>
> MM:
> I don't care what you think. You don't have a clue, IMO, regarding
> what is good for that poster, and what is not. I don't know how much
> harm has been caused to people in this group over the years. It has
> been many cases of blind leading the blind. Very few have a clue
> regarding Shakespeare. Only God knows how much harm you have caused.
> If you interfere in my work, then it would be running the risk of
> offending Shakespeare (God), IMO.
>
Yea verily I say unto ye, in humility is the beginning of wisdom.
--
Peter G.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts." (Bertrand
Russell)
spinoza1111
Mark Cipra wrote:
> spinoza1111 wrote:
> > Let me see if I understand The Rules.
> >
> > If a man doesn't come up with a narrow and preferably nasty set of
> > opinions, but dares to have his own voice, he's a "troll" and must be
> > ostracized.
>
> You're responding to me? I said he wasn't a troll.
OK. But I'd challenge the use of the word "troll". It arose among
wealthy homeowners in Santa Cruz to describe renters and homeless...who
had as much right to live in Santa Cruz as they.
>
> >
> > And yet this is supposed to be a venue of "freedom of speech"?
> >
>
> And I'm the one who said he should continue posting here.
So he can be mocked, and have his own personality be degraded through
the constant need to defend himself? What freedom!!!
>
> > It's more like a pornographic movie in which the woman MUST be
> > degraded.
>
> And ... uh, um. What?
It's more like a pornographic move in which the woman must be degraded,
that's what. "Freedom" of speech dialectically generates a demand to
enslave.
>
> >
> > Where's the freedom?
>
> Groves trying to get lackpurity to realize he's off-balance is a hopeless
> cause, but does it restrict his freedom in any significant way?
Yes, it does, because it destroys what would be otherwise a way in
which people without social capital could communicate.
>
> And Houlsby was trying, I think, to convince him not to be so arrogant -
> likewise a hopeless cause, in my opinion, but arguably a noble one. I'm
> dubious about Houlsby's methods, and I question his judgement, but all he
> seems to be saying is "You can post whatever you want, as long as you're
> reasonably nice about it." Contrast, for example, his polite responses to
> the gentle fruitcake Art.
No, you've never had here to be nice about anything, so don't tell
ANYONE to make nice. I note in this connection that bullies aren't told
here to be nice, only people with strange views.
>
> >
> > Where's the tolerance?
>
> I was arguing for tolerating him (admittedly not for freedom-of-speech
> reasons, although I agree with them), but I can sympathize with those who'd
> prefer to see him go away. There's no problem with someone attempting to
> post an off-the-wall theory about Shakespeare, but after the first few dozen
> posts in which it's pointed out that no one's interested in his religion, it
> should become obvious that some material is on-topic, and some isn't.
You can't say that "no-one" is anything since you're not Everyman. You
cannot PRESUME to speak for all actual or potential posters.
>
> The only sense in which lackpurity's posts are on topic for this group is
> that, like Art N, he quotes Shakespeare from time to time. To put the
> nicest spin possible on it, it's as though someone decided to sit in on a
> chess discussion group and insisted on talking about racial inequality:
> "When rook takes pawn it signifies the white man's hegemony over the other
> races". It might be a worthy topic to discuss, somewhere, sometime, but
> mentioning a chess move in the first clause doesn't make the second clause
> on-topic.
Actually, chess as psychological and social sublimation is perfectly
on-topic for chess.
Lackpurity has a Swedenborgian theory, with which I disagree, that
Shakespeare was an adept of a Gnostic religion. This is on topic.
And I note that wealthy and powerful bullies have been able to say for
years, and especially here, that Shakespeare (as a working person)
couldn't have written "Shakespeare".
But it's easier to bully someone who can't fight back, I suppose.
>
> In fact, this group has shown tolerance, to a remarkable degree. If I'm not
Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back. You've shown formal,
not substantive, tolerance.
> mistaken, over half the posts to this group are off-topic in the sense that
> they involve a Masonic conspiracy that only the poster is interested in. I
> wasn't here when Art started posting, but I'm guessing he got roughed up a
> few times in the beginning. He continued posting, and he's a sunny fool, so
> now everyone except David Webb simply killfiles him. Another group I follow
> created a moderated version of itself specifically to eliminate an off-topic
> poster.
>
> lackpurity has essentially admitted that he's using this group merely as a
> way of advertising his religious beliefs. I have no idea why a group of
> secularists and humanists appeals to him for this purpose, but since we
Shakespeare happened to be a religious person, and it's impossible to
understand him without understanding religion. Ted Hughes, in
SHAKESPEARE AND THE GODDESS OF COMPLETE BEING, explains much of
Shakespeare's work as the collision between Catholicism and
Protestantism.
Religious people therefore should NOT be discriminated against on the
basis of the fact that "secularists and humanists" are often strikingly
ignorant about religion and as such not even qualified to interpret
Shakespeare!
> can't be sure he's making any money off this, we can't accuse him of
In America, if you are making money, you are never "crazy". This
happens to be meta-crazy.
> spamming. His arrogance doesn't rise to the level of flaming, in my
> opinion, and it arises from his certainty that he's right - and if that were
> a criterion for banning someone, we'd all be goners. I'd recommend the
> killfile. Let him post, don't respond to him, and let him get it out of his
> system in a venue where he won't be noticed.
But you DO respond. This satisfies an irrational psychological need, a
reassurance that YOU are not the Loser.
spinoza1111
Ms. Mouse wrote:
> I've also studied yoga, though I can't do much at the moment except the
> breathing and head and neck asanas. And when I first got ill, I took a
> course called "The Healing Journey," which used Eastern techniques of
> breathing, relaxation, and meditation. It was wonderfully helpful. I'm
> no expert, of course, but my teachers were. They remain incredibly
> serene, open, and forgiving people. Your posts and behaviour, on the
> other hand, don't appear to me to have the qualities I would associate
> with enlightened people or gurus of any kind, never mind Sat Gurus. Why
> is that?
>
> Ms. Mouse
An astonishingly cruel thing to say which of course undercuts any claim
to have serenity, openness, or a willingness to forgive.
All you know of Michael is his text, and it is kind of Internet 101 to
know that usenet texts can APPEAR quite hostile because of the absence
of analog signals and nuance.
Michael is consistently bullied for his views, and he fights back.
This causes you to shudder and withdraw.
But there is no need to try to destroy him by taking away a part of his
identity on the basis of so little real signal input.
Usenet is part of an American cultural phenomenon in which people
dialectically shrink from "freedom" and play games of an astonishing
level of cruelty and childishness with each other, and this learned and
studied childishness got George Bush elected, because he promised
Americans they wouldn't have to grow up; Iraq would be a walk and there
was no need to sign Kyoto.
They need only disassociate themselves, whether on the office or in
usenet, from "losers" to be winners.
The results at home and abroad are clear enough.
spinoza1111
man of many words: the King complains that "you cram these words" into
his ear. Gonzalo is roundly mocked...by men of sin who plan to
overthrow the king.
Prospero recognizes that Gonzalo's use of language cannot be condemned
as a character flaw in Shakespeare's world, which was constructed by
language and Shakespeare's "verbosity" (Shakespeare had a vocabulary of
more that 20,000 words).
But Lackpurity is being attacked....for using language....by people who
claim to ignore him and do not in fact, instead use him to get their
own rocks off and relieve their anxieties through mechanisms of
psychological transfer.
And yet you call yourselves appreciators of Shakespeare...
lackpurity
MM:
It is due to circumstances, Ms. Mouse. I'm glad to read that you had
an interest in meditation. Self-Defense is fine. God is okay with
that. Oliver Cromwell, Joan of Arc, Cleopatra, Moses, were all
Masters. They could not always be sitting in meditation, in a serene
pose, as you suggest. They had to do their duty. Sometimes war is the
only option. God understands this, fully, so there is no problem with
it. When the war is over, then the mystics can go back to meditation,
if they're still alive, of course.
Remember "The Jew of Malta," regarding Barabas poisoning the others
(Nuns, Friars,) including his own daughter, because she betrayed her
Father (The Master Barabas?) Marlowe even justified that. He was not
writing for entertainment purposes, he was teaching us a tough, bitter
lesson. I suppose it went right over the heads of most people,
however.
Hamlet was a Master, yet, he killed Polonius. War is war.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
MM:
I just replied to her on that. Sometimes, there is no alternative, but
to go to war. Many Saints have been involved in wars. Wasn't Arjuna
involved in a war, in the Bhagavad Gita? Alexander the Great,
Napoleon, and others, were Mystics, yet they were involved in wars.
They, either had no alternative, or they were working under the orders
of God.
> All you know of Michael is his text, and it is kind of Internet 101 to
> know that usenet texts can APPEAR quite hostile because of the absence
> of analog signals and nuance.
>
> Michael is consistently bullied for his views, and he fights back.
>
> This causes you to shudder and withdraw.
>
> But there is no need to try to destroy him by taking away a part of his
> identity on the basis of so little real signal input.
MM:
I hope that wasn't her intention. I hope is was just something that
she needed clarified, and I hope I have done that.
> Usenet is part of an American cultural phenomenon in which people
> dialectically shrink from "freedom" and play games of an astonishing
> level of cruelty and childishness with each other, and this learned and
> studied childishness got George Bush elected, because he promised
> Americans they wouldn't have to grow up; Iraq would be a walk and there
> was no need to sign Kyoto.
MM:
My son spent a year of military duty in Iraq. Let's give our President
credit for what he has achieved in Afghanistan and Iraq,
notwithstanding the fact the Iraq is still a huge problem. American
had its own civil war, let's remember. 600,000 casualties were the
result. At least, the country survived, and has risen to become a
superpower.
The left and right are sharing power now, so we'll see what will become
of it.
> They need only disassociate themselves, whether on the office or in
> usenet, from "losers" to be winners.
>
> The results at home and abroad are clear enough.
MM:
Glad to see a broader POV, for a change. Thanks.
Michael Martin
Ms. Mouse
See my advice below.
>I'm glad to read that you had
> an interest in meditation. Self-Defense is fine. God is okay with
> that. Oliver Cromwell, Joan of Arc, Cleopatra, Moses, were all
> Masters. They could not always be sitting in meditation, in a serene
> pose, as you suggest.
The people I know don't sit in serene poses all day--one, for example,
is a very busy cancer doctor who has suffered from cancer himself--but
they are serene in their dealings with others at all times. I try to
follow their example when I can, but have a long way to go, I'm afraid.
>They had to do their duty. Sometimes war is the
> only option. God understands this, fully, so there is no problem with
> it. When the war is over, then the mystics can go back to meditation,
> if they're still alive, of course.
This is not war, Michael. Many countries are at war. Against other
countries. Against starvation or oppression. No one would stop you, for
example, going to one of those places and trying to fight back. They
would likely praise your bravery. But this is a newsgroup. Any concept
of war here is merely in the minds of the participants
>
> Remember "The Jew of Malta," regarding Barabas poisoning the others
> (Nuns, Friars,) including his own daughter, because she betrayed her
> Father (The Master Barabas?) Marlowe even justified that. He was not
> writing for entertainment purposes, he was teaching us a tough, bitter
> lesson. I suppose it went right over the heads of most people,
> however.
>
> Hamlet was a Master, yet, he killed Polonius.
He killed Polonius by accident, according to most interpretations of
the play. I also can't see how a character, rather than a real person,
can be a Master.
>War is war.
There is no necessity for war here, Michael. It is better to ignore or
to answer politely than to flame back, to say what you have to say then
turn the other cheek, as Jesus suggested. Eventually then, most people
will leave you alone, or only argue "ideas" with you, which is a much
better form of discussion, imo.
Best wishes,
Ms. Mouse
Ms. Mouse
No, it is simply the truth. Most gurus are known for their pacifism,
forgivenenss, and serenity. Michael does not seem to follow their
rules. Unlike others, I have never called him names, never called him a
troll, never been rude in any way. I have simply argued ideas and
interpretations with him. I am just pointing out now, after several
months of his posts, how he is undermining his own self definition.
By the way, whoever said I had serenity? Certainly not I. In fact, I
said myself above that I was no expert, although I try hard and am
improving somewhat. I do have an absolute willingness to forgive, and a
willingness to apologise when appropriate. I always have had these
qualities, as you would likely know, if you were a regular participant.
>
> All you know of Michael is his text, and it is kind of Internet 101 to
> know that usenet texts can APPEAR quite hostile because of the absence
> of analog signals and nuance.
>
> Michael is consistently bullied for his views, and he fights back.
I have not bullied him for his views at any point, although I've
certainly disagreed with his interpretations. I imagine this is
allowable?
>
> This causes you to shudder and withdraw.
I have done neither.
>
> But there is no need to try to destroy him by taking away a part of his
> identity on the basis of so little real signal input.
If Michael wants to present himself as an enlightened being, it would
be helpful to his cause if he would act like one. There has been plenty
of signal input.
>
> Usenet is part of an American cultural phenomenon in which people
> dialectically shrink from "freedom" and play games of an astonishing
> level of cruelty and childishness with each other, and this learned and
> studied childishness got George Bush elected, because he promised
> Americans they wouldn't have to grow up; Iraq would be a walk and there
> was no need to sign Kyoto.
I do not play games of cruelty.
I am not an American.
I would never have voted for Bush if I were.
I have been against the war in Iraq since before it started.
Canadians are not involved in Iraq.
The Canadian Government, I believe, originally signed Kyoto.
The head of the opposition in Canada has a dog named Kyoto. ;)
>
> They need only disassociate themselves, whether on the office or in
> usenet, from "losers" to be winners.
>
> The results at home and abroad are clear enough.
I am not a name caller or a game player. I come on hlas to discuss
ideas about Shakespeare. But those of us who do so are constantly
thrown off course by people who either flame, troll, or wish simply to
use hlas as a soapbox to preach their own agenda without discussing the
relative strengths or weaknesses of their theories.
If you have something to say about Shakespeare or his canon, Spinoza,
I'm sure people will be pleased to give you an intellectual run for
your money.
Ms. Mouse
Ms. Mouse
> Shakespeare's Gonzalo, the counselor of the King in The Tempest, is a
> man of many words: the King complains that "you cram these words" into
> his ear. Gonzalo is roundly mocked...by men of sin who plan to
> overthrow the king.
In fact, Gonzalo's verbosity is mocked by Shakespeare also. He is
likely a caricature of Gonzalo Oviedo, who was extremely verbose in his
writings. There are several almost verbatim parallels to his narrative
in Gonzalo's verbal meanderings in Tempest.
>
> Prospero recognizes that Gonzalo's use of language cannot be condemned
> as a character flaw in Shakespeare's world,
How does he Prospero show this? In fact, Shakespeare does attack
long-windedness, as for example, when Polonius is told to present "more
matter with less art."
>which was constructed by
> language and Shakespeare's "verbosity" (Shakespeare had a vocabulary of
> more that 20,000 words).
A large vocabulary has nothing to do with verbosity. My feeling is that
for the most part, Shakespeare used only as many words as he needed.
Best wishes,
Ms. Mouse
spinoza1111
Ms. Mouse wrote:>
> If you have something to say about Shakespeare or his canon, Spinoza,
> I'm sure people will be pleased to give you an intellectual run for
> your money.
>
> Ms. Mouse
Are you kidding? My first post was my exam on Henry V. I received only
one bonafide attempt to either answer the questions and no critique of
the exam. Instead, I received a lot of personal remarks (which are
apparently exempted from the rule that "we must focus on the topic" in
direct proportion to their authoritarian and negative content: in
direct proportion to the extent to which their source identifies with
an authority who has wounded her).
Note that Michael's interesting-if-wrong theories don't "start" flame
wars. The flame war is "started" whenever someone adopts The Mask of
Authority, and pretends, in a medium meant to be profoundly
egalitarian, to speak, as an authority, for the hypostatized normed
group.
I also discovered that posters were fairly uninformed about the actual
history of England in the 15th century and as such unqualified to teach
the history plays, or to critique the exam, which they didn't,
fortunately.
I haven't had a run for my money at all.
Michael reifies, in the Swedenborgian spirit, a sense of something
"higher" which is better treated not as physicalized or embodied but as
a text: the history of the canon and what it does: how it preserves our
humanity.
Ms. Mouse
spinoza1111 wrote:
> Ms. Mouse wrote:>
> > If you have something to say about Shakespeare or his canon, Spinoza,
> > I'm sure people will be pleased to give you an intellectual run for
> > your money.
> >
> > Ms. Mouse
>
> Are you kidding? My first post was my exam on Henry V.
An exam from a newbie is hardly the way to start a discussion. It would
just tend to put people's backs up. Some of us wouldn't be qualified to
answer, anyhow. I certainly wouldn't. The history plays are not my
forte by any means.
>I received only
> one bonafide attempt to either answer the questions and no critique of
> the exam. Instead, I received a lot of personal remarks (which are
> apparently exempted from the rule that "we must focus on the topic" in
> direct proportion to their authoritarian and negative content: in
> direct proportion to the extent to which their source identifies with
> an authority who has wounded her).
Your own content, I believe, iirc, prompted at least some of the
remarks. Even today (or last night) you were contradicting yourself by
speaking of
"I note in this connection that bullies aren't told
here to be nice, only people with strange views."
I am a person with strange views, as I am an Oxfordian, and I am also
against the idea that Strachey was a source for Tempest, and people
tried to get me in line when I first posted. But then you write:
"And I note that wealthy and powerful bullies have been able to say for
years, and especially here, that Shakespeare (as a working person)
couldn't have written 'Shakespeare'."
Wealthy and powerful bullies? Who are those? Most of us non-Strats are
neither wealthy or powerful. Especially the ones on hlas. And aren't we
the people with strange views who are told to be nice by the other
bullies?
>
> Note that Michael's interesting-if-wrong theories don't "start" flame
> wars. The flame war is "started" whenever someone adopts The Mask of
> Authority, and pretends, in a medium meant to be profoundly
> egalitarian, to speak, as an authority, for the hypostatized normed
> group.
I agree that he doesn't start flame wars, although he certainly
participates in them. There is no real authority for the group,
although most of us have come to some kind of understanding, or at
least equilibrium, but I have noticed that one or two recent people
have attempted to come on here and immediately speak for everyone re
trolls etc. It has proven a disaster not unlike (in microcosm) Bush
knowing what's best for the world and invading Iraq. He's just made a
worse mess.
>
> I also discovered that posters were fairly uninformed about the actual
> history of England in the 15th century and as such unqualified to teach
> the history plays, or to critique the exam, which they didn't,
> fortunately.
>
> I haven't had a run for my money at all.
I just resonded to you on Tempest. That's a beginning. Maybe you can
give *me* a run for my money.
Ms. Mouse
lackpurity
MM:
I'm not obliged to follow anyone's rules or prior concepts. Some Gurus
could live in peace. Others had to be involved in wars. I've already
made this point, clear. Either take it, or leave it. I'm not on
trial, but I think I've explained it pretty clear.
> Unlike others, I have never called him names, never called him a
> troll, never been rude in any way. I have simply argued ideas and
> interpretations with him. I am just pointing out now, after several
> months of his posts, how he is undermining his own self definition.
MM:
No, that might be your opinion, but I'm not undermining anything. You
appear to give me no wiggle room, at all. That's BS, if you don't mind
that I say so. Gurus can respond in self-defense, if they like. As I
mentioned to John Bede, Madame Blavatsky was still battling her critics
from a legal standpoint, when whe died. She believed in self-defense,
and so do I. Your logic is ridiculous.
Sometimes, when Saints have finished their work, they just surrender,
as Christ did, but if they have not finished their work, then they have
a right to respond in self-defense. I believe the Church of
Scientology bankrupted the cult-awareness network. They believed in
self-defense. They won the legal battles with them. Get it, Mouse?
> By the way, whoever said I had serenity? Certainly not I. In fact, I
> said myself above that I was no expert, although I try hard and am
> improving somewhat. I do have an absolute willingness to forgive, and a
> willingness to apologise when appropriate. I always have had these
> qualities, as you would likely know, if you were a regular participant.
> > All you know of Michael is his text, and it is kind of Internet 101 to
> > know that usenet texts can APPEAR quite hostile because of the absence
> > of analog signals and nuance.
> >
> > Michael is consistently bullied for his views, and he fights back.
>
> I have not bullied him for his views at any point, although I've
> certainly disagreed with his interpretations. I imagine this is
> allowable?
> > This causes you to shudder and withdraw.
>
> I have done neither.
> >
> > But there is no need to try to destroy him by taking away a part of his
> > identity on the basis of so little real signal input.
>
> If Michael wants to present himself as an enlightened being, it would
> be helpful to his cause if he would act like one. There has been plenty
> of signal input.
MM:
It would be helpful to your cause, if you had some logic, which applied
to the real world.
Michael Martin
spinoza1111
Ms. Mouse wrote:
> spinoza1111 wrote:
> > Ms. Mouse wrote:>
> > > If you have something to say about Shakespeare or his canon, Spinoza,
> > > I'm sure people will be pleased to give you an intellectual run for
> > > your money.
> > >
> > > Ms. Mouse
> >
> > Are you kidding? My first post was my exam on Henry V.
>
> An exam from a newbie is hardly the way to start a discussion. It would
A "newbie"? What ev er. This constructs a network accessed by
chronological adults as a sort of kindergarten where time is always
restarting and only tenure on this dysfunctional network counts.
> just tend to put people's backs up. Some of us wouldn't be qualified to
We mustn't do that: we mustn't ever offend the Generic Person, that
way-cool null statistical abstraction without sharp corners or humanity
as such, as opposed to the troll who is in Nietzche's words "human all
too human".
> answer, anyhow. I certainly wouldn't. The history plays are not my
> forte by any means.
The poster I talked to about the history plays seemed to be "unclear on
the concept" that there were TWO "Gloucesters" in the History plays:
the "good Duke Humphrey", younger brother of Henry V who was made, both
in the play and in reality, the Lord Protector of the infant Henry VI,
and then "Dickie Crookback Gloucester": the youngest son of Richard
Duke of York, the claimant to the throne AFTER Humphrey's death and, in
the plays, commencing his claim only after the end of "Henry VI, part
2", known to Wells and Taylor as "The First Part of the Contention".
In the Henrician trilogy "Dickie Crookback Gloucester" is a sort of
Sonny Corleone (but with Fredo's position in birth order), loyal to his
father and hot-tempered: after his father's bloody death, his elder
brother, the sensual Edward is rais'd from Duke of York to Edward IV
when he overthrows Henry VI (Lancaster) the first time in the wars
portrayed, the Wars of the Roses.
Upon his elder brother's becoming Edward IV, Dickie becomes the Duke of
Gloucester and MIDWAY through Henry VI part 3, Shakespeare CHANGES HIS
NAME in the text to Gloucester, since the lands of Gloucester were
assigned to the second younger brother for the same sillyass reason
that fat girl "Fergie" (Sarah Ferguson) was the Duchess of Gloucester
when she was married to Prince Andy.
Now, get this. I learned this in seventh grade using a public library
card in 1962. Today, the information is even more available in venues
including Wikipedia.
The poster in question, despite her unclarity on the Concept, posted a
lot of irrevelant information to confuse this fact.
This is extremely dysfunctional. I don't find serious scholars here. I
find instead people who even at prestige universities, even with
post-baccalaureate degrees, with amazing black holes in their knowledge
created by the fact that since 1970 or thereabouts, upper middle class
kids whose parents have money enough can be mollycoddled, and don't
have to take any class they don't want to take, such as a supplemental
Roman, or mediaeval English class, required for any concentration on
Shakespeare in particular or Elizabethan literature in general.
Nonetheless, to shore up the consciousness of these aporias, attacks
are unleashed on posters who have done their homework, including
posters who have done their homework in nonsense as well as genuine
scholarship, in the name of an authoritarian normalcy that in
universities today replaces breadth of knowledge.
If the History plays are not your fortay, then one would have to ask
about your commitment to understanding Shakespeare.
>
> >I received only
> > one bonafide attempt to either answer the questions and no critique of
> > the exam. Instead, I received a lot of personal remarks (which are
> > apparently exempted from the rule that "we must focus on the topic" in
> > direct proportion to their authoritarian and negative content: in
> > direct proportion to the extent to which their source identifies with
> > an authority who has wounded her).
>
> Your own content, I believe, iirc, prompted at least some of the
> remarks. Even today (or last night) you were contradicting yourself by
> speaking of
>
> "I note in this connection that bullies aren't told
> here to be nice, only people with strange views."
>
> I am a person with strange views, as I am an Oxfordian, and I am also
...a person in other words who SULLIES the name of NEIGHBOR
SHAKESPEARE, a good and hard-working, thrifty man who showed the pig
rich of his time (men who would kill other men on an airy word,
including Christopher Marlowe, and go unpunished) what ordinary people
can do and what they can be: a person who believes utter nonsense which
flies in the face of the evidence, while being with apparent pride
ignorant of approximately 33% of Shakespeare's work with the
misbegotten pride of the academic "specialist".
> against the idea that Strachey was a source for Tempest, and people
> tried to get me in line when I first posted. But then you write:
>
>
> "And I note that wealthy and powerful bullies have been able to say for
>
> years, and especially here, that Shakespeare (as a working person)
> couldn't have written 'Shakespeare'."
>
> Wealthy and powerful bullies? Who are those? Most of us non-Strats are
> neither wealthy or powerful. Especially the ones on hlas. And aren't we
No, you are lackeys of the wealthy and powerful, which is worse.
> the people with strange views who are told to be nice by the other
> bullies?
No. Your views aren't "strange". They are second-hand, and in most
cases they amount to the reading of <= 1 books peddled at Borders. They
are boring and they have been around for years, wherever lackeys of the
wealthy and powerful gather.
>
> >
> > Note that Michael's interesting-if-wrong theories don't "start" flame
> > wars. The flame war is "started" whenever someone adopts The Mask of
> > Authority, and pretends, in a medium meant to be profoundly
> > egalitarian, to speak, as an authority, for the hypostatized normed
> > group.
>
> I agree that he doesn't start flame wars, although he certainly
> participates in them. There is no real authority for the group,
> although most of us have come to some kind of understanding, or at
> least equilibrium, but I have noticed that one or two recent people
> have attempted to come on here and immediately speak for everyone re
> trolls etc. It has proven a disaster not unlike (in microcosm) Bush
> knowing what's best for the world and invading Iraq. He's just made a
> worse mess.
Oh, now that Bush (without any curiosity or hard information) has led
the country into a mess based on missing information and information
that was incorrect, let's find the next comforting feelgood fantasy,
such as the growing anti-Semitism I see on usenet, which blames "the
jews" for Iraq.
God forbid we should read one of the Very Short Introductions published
by Oxford University Press on the War of the Roses.
No, let's trash the name of knowledge instead! Let's burn the library
down!
We don't need no water let the motherfucker burn!
Laila Roth
lackpurity skrev:
> MM:
> Yes, that's right. I've known about her for years. We are friends.
> She recently put a book on the market. You can see her photo here, or
> even join her group, if you like:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theosophy_talks_truth/
>
> The lady in the photo is the reincarnation of Blavatsky and Cleopatra.
> I'm as serious, as I can be.
>
No, you are not. Your statement needs some evidence. Such statements
are worthless since no one ever could produce any evidence of anyone
having been anyone special in a previous life, that is, a special
celebrity. People who identify with deceased characters always identify
with celebrities. There have been 100,000 Napoleons and at least a
million Jesus. It's plain nonsense.
LR
laraine
> Ms. Mouse wrote:>
> > If you have something to say about Shakespeare or his canon, Spinoza,
> > I'm sure people will be pleased to give you an intellectual run for
> > your money.
> >
> > Ms. Mouse
>
> Are you kidding? My first post was my exam on Henry V. I received only
> one bonafide attempt to either answer the questions and no critique of
> the exam.
I must say that I was tempted to answer one or
two questions on your 'exam,' though it would have
been foolish of me, because why should one needlessly
subject oneself to red marks and harsh criticism when
one doesn't even know if the person discussing the
subject is an expert,....
BTW, I though it was very brave of Elizabeth to try
it out, though I've gotten the impression that she
likes to add some creativity or fantasy to her answers,
which you don't seem to realize (and it took me a long
time to suspect because she seems somewhat serious),
and is quite good at it, as is MM, and I do find such
ideas interesting too, as you do, but unfortunately,
many are all too ready to believe fantasies without
further analysis or questions.
My impression is that many on this group will not
get into a discussion unless they are experts in an
area, meaning that they have read several scholarly
works in such, particularly in complex areas such
as literary criticism, or medieval law. You will find
if you read more than one scholarly work in a
particular area, that scholars will have mild or even
serious disagreements about certain issues, so it
seems to me to be a good idea to be aware of all
the subtleties before strongly supporting one scholar,
and even better to try to answer the question with
one's own research. Now I personally support light
discussion of controversial issues much more
than do some other posters, I think, because I
think it can take too long to do proper research on
every relevant area, so one ends up not talking at
all if one takes that approach, but one can certainly
be criticized for the light approach, and perhaps validly
so, though such criticisms can be unkind.
You are probably correct, however, that the members
of this group are not medieval specialists, though I
could be wrong about that.
I think you would get more response if you just
focused on one question or quote at a time.
For example, your question about the French in
HV:
> 4 Catherine, the daughter of the crazy King of France, speaks French,
> and broken English as a Second Language, to her lady in waiting Alice
> both in the hilarious scene where Alice tries to teach "Kate"
> English, and when Henry tries to "woo" Alice. But in other scenes,
> the French guys speak English.
> Does this make any sense to you? Why or why not?
> Your Answer: Again, it works because we "know" that the French speak French.
Well, of course. And why would Shakespeare have
written a play in French to an English audience, particularly
one that wouldn't have been expected, for the most part, to
have known French? The more important question is why
he wrote a scene in French at all.
>Your Answer: Shakespeare wanted to foreground the language issue in two scenes to
>restrict the comedy to these scenes. Although the Dauphin is funny,
>Shakespeare puts nothing amusing in his mouth for then he would not be
>adequate as a foil to Henry: as it is, the Dauphin has to be
>supplemented by the much more worthy Constable to be so adequate.
Comedy? Is it really all that funny? Cute, perhaps, but funny?
Subjective, of course. It is a nice light break in the play,
though, I agree. More of a flirtation scene--and do you really
think for a moment that a French princess doesn't speak
English :-)
I had different thoughts than did you.
I was thinking that it might have been a move
by S to appease the French, because after all,
he has just written a play about their humiliating
defeat. I imagine that French scholars and others
might have read his play, and could have even
possibly been in his audience. The French
certainly remarked on Marlowe's 'Massacre' play
at that time. (Your remark on Marlowe being a
killer is exaggerated, BTW.)
But I could be totally wrong about the French scene,
and it seems that it would take some serious research
on my part to support that position--so that is why I did
not answer your question, though perhaps if it had not
been an 'exam,' I would have played the game.
And also, BTW, MM I believe is more into Hinduism
rather than Gnosticism. Gnosticism can lead some
into anti-Stratfordianism, BTW, as you might find, but
anti-S is considered a valid topic of debate on
this group, though a controversial one, to say the least.
In fact, the group was started by an Oxfordian.
C.
lackpurity
MM:
Just to clarify my background. My Master, Maharaj Charan Singh Ji
(1916-1990), was from a Sikh family, not Hindu. Of course, when one is
a Sat Guru, he is above and beyond all religions. He is at the source
of all religions. MCSJ's Master was Maharaj Sawan Singh Ji
(1858-1948), who was from a Sikh family, also. MSSJ's Master was
Maharaj Baba Jaimal Singh Ji (1839-1903), who was from a Sikh family,
also. MBJSJ's Master was Seth Shiv Dayal Singh Ji (1818-1878), who was
from a Hindu family. When Baba Jaimal Singh Ji chose to follow Shiv
Dayal Singh Ji, he had some doubts, because he was a Sikh, while Shiv
Dayal (Soami Ji Maharaj) was a Hindu. Soami Ji Maharaj lovingly told
him that Sant Mat was quite beyond all religions, and that he shouldn't
be worried about it, at all. Sant Mat is based on God's will, and it
was God's will that the Sikh Master would succeed the Hindu Master.
Soami Ji Maharaj left other successors, also, Rai Bahadur Saligram,
affectionately known as Huzur Maharaj. I believe he was a Hindu.
Gnosticism, at some point, must have had a Master. Maybe Christ?
Maybe John the Baptist? Maybe some Master preceding them? So, the
original teachings of Gnosticism were Sant Mat, IMO.
True Masters (Sat Gurus) are UNIVERSAL, they are not confined to any
particular country, nor to a particular religion. They take orders
from the Supreme Being, and they carry them out, as best they can.
When Great Masters die, we often form religions in their name, while
perhaps during the lifetime of the Master, he was relatively ignored,
or even tortured and killed.
Michael Martin
Ignoto
The Catherine/Alice english teaching scene is full of bawdy.
spinoza1111
laraine wrote:
> spinoza1111 wrote:
> > Ms. Mouse wrote:>
> > > If you have something to say about Shakespeare or his canon, Spinoza,
> > > I'm sure people will be pleased to give you an intellectual run for
> > > your money.
> > >
> > > Ms. Mouse
> >
> > Are you kidding? My first post was my exam on Henry V. I received only
> > one bonafide attempt to either answer the questions and no critique of
> > the exam.
>
> I must say that I was tempted to answer one or
> two questions on your 'exam,' though it would have
> been foolish of me, because why should one needlessly
> subject oneself to red marks and harsh criticism when
> one doesn't even know if the person discussing the
> subject is an expert,....
It is barbaric to use the word "expert" in connection with the learning
and teaching of language. This is because in my experience in software,
"experts" are half-educated whores.
Cf. Chomsky in "experts".
"Expertise" is no excuse...nor is its lack.
>
> BTW, I though it was very brave of Elizabeth to try
> it out, though I've gotten the impression that she
> likes to add some creativity or fantasy to her answers,
> which you don't seem to realize (and it took me a long
> time to suspect because she seems somewhat serious),
> and is quite good at it, as is MM, and I do find such
> ideas interesting too, as you do, but unfortunately,
> many are all too ready to believe fantasies without
> further analysis or questions.
>
> My impression is that many on this group will not
> get into a discussion unless they are experts in an
It is barbaric to use the word "expert" in connection with the learning
and teaching of language. This is because in my experience in software,
"experts" are half-educated whores.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
him who says what he thinks with words that also indicate what he
feels." His Slat Guru, Emily Dickinson, said, "Fuck serenity, you
morons; anger is the only road to enlightenment."
(Note, the Ganglerian value of the above is 3764!)
--Bob G.
Greg Reynolds
spinoza1111 wrote:
> It is barbaric to use the word "expert" in connection with the learning
> and teaching of language. This is because in my experience in software,
> "experts" are half-educated whores.
It is offensive that you condemn the Barbary Coast this way. Please
retract your reference. And think next time before you blurt out the
"b" word. It is as nice a place as you've ever seen.
Greg Reynolds
Greg Reynolds
Ms. Mouse wrote:
> See my advice below.
Great line.
I'll try it this weekend.
spinoza1111
laraine wrote:
> spinoza1111 wrote:
> > Ms. Mouse wrote:>
> > > If you have something to say about Shakespeare or his canon, Spinoza,
> > > I'm sure people will be pleased to give you an intellectual run for
> > > your money.
> > >
> > > Ms. Mouse
> >
> > Are you kidding? My first post was my exam on Henry V. I received only
> > one bonafide attempt to either answer the questions and no critique of
> > the exam.
>
> I must say that I was tempted to answer one or
> two questions on your 'exam,' though it would have
> been foolish of me, because why should one needlessly
> subject oneself to red marks and harsh criticism when
> one doesn't even know if the person discussing the
> subject is an expert,....
>
> BTW, I though it was very brave of Elizabeth to try
> it out, though I've gotten the impression that she
> likes to add some creativity or fantasy to her answers,
Nothing wrong with that.
> which you don't seem to realize (and it took me a long
No, I didn't. But does she know that there are two Humphreys? Just as
you can't violate grammar as a poet until you know grammar (in my
opinion), if you post fantasy without knowing the received, agreed upon
history of the 15th century (for which Shakespeare happens to be a
reasonably good source: the nonsense about "Tudor propaganda" may be
fashionable, but Shakespeare and Ralph Holinshed got most of their
facts straight), then you risk spreading confusion.
> time to suspect because she seems somewhat serious),
> and is quite good at it, as is MM, and I do find such
> ideas interesting too, as you do, but unfortunately,
> many are all too ready to believe fantasies without
> further analysis or questions.
>
> My impression is that many on this group will not
> get into a discussion unless they are experts in an
> area, meaning that they have read several scholarly
> works in such, particularly in complex areas such
> as literary criticism, or medieval law. You will find
> if you read more than one scholarly work in a
> particular area, that scholars will have mild or even
> serious disagreements about certain issues, so it
> seems to me to be a good idea to be aware of all
> the subtleties before strongly supporting one scholar,
> and even better to try to answer the question with
> one's own research. Now I personally support light
> discussion of controversial issues much more
> than do some other posters, I think, because I
> think it can take too long to do proper research on
> every relevant area, so one ends up not talking at
> all if one takes that approach, but one can certainly
> be criticized for the light approach, and perhaps validly
> so, though such criticisms can be unkind.
An educated person (whether he's gotten that education at an expensive
university or at the public library) is like a speaker of Received
World English able to agree with another educated person on both
grammar, and general cultural facts.
They will in my view agree that "it is I" is hypercorrect in speech and
that Americans spell "colour" without the u.
They will agree that the Shakespeare corpus was written by a
middle-class man from Stratford.
They will agree that Adolf Hitler set out to make Europe *Juden-Rein*
and that he did so.
Whereas a barbarian of these new Dark Ages we got goin' here will
pretend to be a scholar and announce that the Duke of fucking Earl
wrote Shakespeare or that Hitler didn't kill dem Jews.
>
> You are probably correct, however, that the members
> of this group are not medieval specialists, though I
> could be wrong about that.
Note that you logically imply that unless a man labels himself, or is
labeled by others, a "specialist" or an "expert" in xyz, he loses by
your rule the ability to make testable truth claims on xyz. This is
nonsense.
Shakespeare in fact portrays the corruption of "expertise" in the scene
wherein the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Ely persuade
King Henry that the "law Salic that they have in France" does not apply
in Rheims but only between the floods of Saar and Elbe for their own
selfish reasons.
>
> I think you would get more response if you just
> focused on one question or quote at a time.
> For example, your question about the French in
> HV:
>
> > 4 Catherine, the daughter of the crazy King of France, speaks French,
> > and broken English as a Second Language, to her lady in waiting Alice
> > both in the hilarious scene where Alice tries to teach "Kate"
> > English, and when Henry tries to "woo" Alice. But in other scenes,
> > the French guys speak English.
>
> > Does this make any sense to you? Why or why not?
>
> > Your Answer: Again, it works because we "know" that the French speak French.
>
> Well, of course. And why would Shakespeare have
> written a play in French to an English audience, particularly
> one that wouldn't have been expected, for the most part, to
> have known French? The more important question is why
> he wrote a scene in French at all.
No, I am looking for the respondent to come back at me with "suspension
of disbelief" and to ask how it works for the informed reader or
audience member when two gals enter speaking French.
>
> >Your Answer: Shakespeare wanted to foreground the language issue in two scenes to
> >restrict the comedy to these scenes. Although the Dauphin is funny,
> >Shakespeare puts nothing amusing in his mouth for then he would not be
> >adequate as a foil to Henry: as it is, the Dauphin has to be
> >supplemented by the much more worthy Constable to be so adequate.
>
> Comedy? Is it really all that funny? Cute, perhaps, but funny?
> Subjective, of course. It is a nice light break in the play,
> though, I agree. More of a flirtation scene--and do you really
> think for a moment that a French princess doesn't speak
> English :-)
Hmm, I'm not a fucking whore I mean expert, but I would hasard that
mediaeval women were not educated in foreign tongues. In fact, French
was eponomously the *lingua Franca* of England and France and it was
only in the later 14th century that the upper classes of England
abandoned the speaking of French according to language historian David
Crystal.
Katherine would have no reason prior to news of the invasion, and her
sexual excitement at the thought of meeting a lot of new chaps in the
event her boys lost (which looked likely given the disarray of the
court of the Valois) explains in the movie her sudden rage to learn the
language of the barbarian throng. The joke for the English man was that
the French girls had in secret decided that English men were hot.
The student should realize that Shakespeare was skilled at manipulating
our "suspension of disbelief" and that could change the mode or key of
this suspension in midstream.
>
> I had different thoughts than did you.
> I was thinking that it might have been a move
> by S to appease the French, because after all,
> he has just written a play about their humiliating
> defeat. I imagine that French scholars and others
> might have read his play, and could have even
> possibly been in his audience. The French
> certainly remarked on Marlowe's 'Massacre' play
> at that time. (Your remark on Marlowe being a
> killer is exaggerated, BTW.)
Christopher Marlowe was the son of an itinerant laborer who himself
labored 18 hour days at Cambridge (according to David Riggs in "The
World of Christopher Marlowe"). Again, this shows that the "Oxonians"
(not "Oxfordians": this is an American solecism) to be lackeys of the
upper classes spreading upper class lies, since Riggs shows that the
upper clawsses simply refused to learn at the depth that enabled
Marlowe to break new ground with the iambic pentameter and complex
classical allusions.
What I said was that Marlowe was murdered by upper clawss hirelings as
portrayed by the butler in James Cameron's Titanic in the world of 1911
because Marlowe had a mouth and he had talent.
Shakespeare wasn't writing Henry V for any planned French audience at
all to the best of my knowledge. The only play of his that could
possibly appeal in his time to a Continental audience was Love's
Labor's Lost which is set in a Navarre, a kingdom about which
Shakespeare knew little enough.
The scenes with Kate sent instead the patriotic message that English
men know how to handle women, a message which Shakespeare then
undercuts by showing that Henry is, when all is said and done, only a
Warrior and, lacking true princely insight, a war criminal, who invaded
France in anger over tennis balls, not because "in right and
conscience" he believed he was king of France.
In fact, as the Henry IV plays show, the Lancastrians were riven by
self-doubt over their title to the ENGLISH throne.
>
> But I could be totally wrong about the French scene,
> and it seems that it would take some serious research
> on my part to support that position--so that is why I did
> not answer your question, though perhaps if it had not
> been an 'exam,' I would have played the game.
>
> And also, BTW, MM I believe is more into Hinduism
> rather than Gnosticism. Gnosticism can lead some
> into anti-Stratfordianism, BTW, as you might find, but
> anti-S is considered a valid topic of debate on
> this group, though a controversial one, to say the least.
> In fact, the group was started by an Oxfordian.
Puh leeze. Oxonian. Or, if you prefer, damned fool lackey of an upper
class conspiracy to discredit the native genius of the middling sorts
and running dog.
spinoza1111
Peter Farey
"spinoza1111" wrote:
>
> An educated person (whether he's gotten that education
> at an expensive university or at the public library) is
> like a speaker of Received World English able to agree
> with another educated person on both grammar, and general
> cultural facts.
>
> They will in my view agree that "it is I" is hypercorrect
> in speech and that Americans spell "colour" without the u.
>
> They will agree that the Shakespeare corpus was written
> by a middle-class man from Stratford.
I would regard myself as an educated person, and believe
it far more probable that most of it was written by an
extremely well educated person from Canterbury.
<snip>
> > Comedy? Is it really all that funny? Cute, perhaps, but
> > funny?
Very funny, and very rude.
<snip>
> Christopher Marlowe was the son of an itinerant laborer
Not really. At the time of Christopher's birth, his father
was a Canterbury shoemaker who had lived there for several
years. In fact he had already completed some five years of
his apprenticeship there when he was admitted a freeman of
Canterbury, only a month or two after Christopher's birth and
stayed there for the remaining 40+ years of his life.
> who himself labored 18 hour days at Cambridge (according to
> David Riggs in "The World of Christopher Marlowe"). Again,
> this shows that the "Oxonians" (not "Oxfordians": this is
> an American solecism)
Rubbish. 'Oxonians' are either natives or inhabitants of
Oxford or members of the University there. The word 'Ox-
fordian' was coined in relation to the authorship question
by an Englishman, Percy Allen, back in 1930, and has been
used by people on all sides of the argument ever since.
> to be lackeys of the upper classes spreading upper class
> lies, since Riggs shows that the upper clawsses
The way it is pronounced in RP English rhymes with 'arses'.
> simply refused to learn at the depth that enabled Marlowe
> to break new ground with the iambic pentameter and complex
> classical allusions.
In fact Marlowe's classical allusions hardly ever went
beyond the grammar school level of Ovid's *Metamorphoses*.
> What I said was that Marlowe was murdered by upper clawss
> hirelings as portrayed by the butler in James Cameron's
> Titanic in the world of 1911 because Marlowe had a mouth
> and he had talent.
It's one possible explanation of the Deptford story, but
mine's better: <http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/sudden.htm>
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
spinoza1111
Peter Farey wrote:
> "spinoza1111" wrote:
> >
> > An educated person (whether he's gotten that education
> > at an expensive university or at the public library) is
> > like a speaker of Received World English able to agree
> > with another educated person on both grammar, and general
> > cultural facts.
> >
> > They will in my view agree that "it is I" is hypercorrect
> > in speech and that Americans spell "colour" without the u.
> >
> > They will agree that the Shakespeare corpus was written
> > by a middle-class man from Stratford.
>
> I would regard myself as an educated person, and believe
> it far more probable that most of it was written by an
> extremely well educated person from Canterbury.
How very high-toned: yet at this point I'm the only person in this
thread, as rude and crude a dude as I may be, to have actually posted
information that is verifiable, sourced, falsifiable, confirmable and
true.
I must have missed the seminar where "education" was redefined from
this to a retrograde and excessive respect for authority which confuses
the high social position of a Tudor aristocrat and dilettante with
education.
In fact, we find from the record that throughout the 16th century,
aristocrats minimized their exposure to education despite the fact that
what was on tap was limited by the primitive state of European
learning, and they minimized it to the striking of poses, the
memorization of Latin tags, and the theft of the intellectual property
of men like Marlowe and Shakespeare.
Renaissance humanism, and that of the 17th century Baroque, was a
production of the middle classes, not of the aristocracy. Are you even
aware that the founder of French art, Nicholas Poussin, was offended by
the jejune taste of Louis Bourbon XIV and preferred minor aristos and
middle class patrons resident in Rome?
Pray tell me, why would this Oxford character be motivated to write the
corpus in the First Folio? Aristocrats, as Hegel knew, simply see no
need to engage themselves in more than low-volume dillettante
production. Are you even aware of how much sheer LABOR was involved in
crafting the Shakespeare corpus, or are you one of those unpleasant
fellows who flits from spa to spa thrashing the help?
The HARD WORK of learning was done by Shakespeare in grammar school,
and by Marlowe in grammar school and at university, since it was only
by such HARD WORK could men from the middle and laboring classes enter
learned professions.
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Comedy? Is it really all that funny? Cute, perhaps, but
> > > funny?
>
> Very funny, and very rude.
>
> <snip>
>
> > Christopher Marlowe was the son of an itinerant laborer
>
> Not really. At the time of Christopher's birth, his father
> was a Canterbury shoemaker who had lived there for several
> years. In fact he had already completed some five years of
> his apprenticeship there when he was admitted a freeman of
> Canterbury, only a month or two after Christopher's birth and
> stayed there for the remaining 40+ years of his life.
Prior to establishing himself as such, Marlowe's father was...an
itinerant laborer.
BTW: the above is the first example of confirmable and true specific
information I've seen in this thread from another poster. I am
gratified to have so raised the bar.
>
> > who himself labored 18 hour days at Cambridge (according to
> > David Riggs in "The World of Christopher Marlowe"). Again,
> > this shows that the "Oxonians" (not "Oxfordians": this is
> > an American solecism)
>
> Rubbish. 'Oxonians' are either natives or inhabitants of
> Oxford or members of the University there. The word 'Ox-
> fordian' was coined in relation to the authorship question
> by an Englishman, Percy Allen, back in 1930, and has been
> used by people on all sides of the argument ever since.
Allen unsuccessfully tried to use the prestige of Oxford's aristocratic
standing, a standing which after the murder of Diana is a vicious joke,
to gull dullards into believing that Shakespeare just could not
(shudder) be so much smarter than the arses of the upper clarsses. His
ignorance and folly was shown in an invalid coinage which in using an
English suffix for a town, a region, and a great university that
existed before the English language and whose Roman origins require the
Latin ending for the same reason we say Cantabridgian, mate.
>
> > to be lackeys of the upper classes spreading upper class
> > lies, since Riggs shows that the upper clawsses
>
> The way it is pronounced in RP English rhymes with 'arses'.
This is complete bullshit. It rhymes in RP English with itself. It is a
Limey error to insert an R, and a lower-class one to be so deliberately
rhotic.
Its correct pronunciation is in fact midway between the American
"claaaass" with the a lengthened and nasalized, and the British
"clahss" which contains no hint of R save in lower clawss speech, and
in Lord Haw-Haw speech in which the r is emphasized only to become a W
through sheer aristo laziness.
>
> > simply refused to learn at the depth that enabled Marlowe
> > to break new ground with the iambic pentameter and complex
> > classical allusions.
>
> In fact Marlowe's classical allusions hardly ever went
> beyond the grammar school level of Ovid's *Metamorphoses*.
Oh? And Ovid mentions "Sweet Analytics" of which Dr. Faustus says, 'tis
thou hast ravished me? And Justinian? And Galen?
gangleri
> Pray tell me, why would this Oxford character be motivated to write the
> corpus in the First Folio? Aristocrats, as Hegel knew, simply see no
> need to engage themselves in more than low-volume dillettante
> production.
Just as Marx stood Hegel on his head, so Hegel stands on their head the
historical facts of Snorri Sturluson (d. 1241), the Icelandic
aristocratic author of Edda, Heimskringla etc.
Paul Crowley
news:eo7qc6$dme$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> "spinoza1111" wrote:
>>
>> An educated person (whether he's gotten that education
>> at an expensive university or at the public library) is
>> like a speaker of Received World English able to agree
>> with another educated person on both grammar, and general
>> cultural facts.
>> They will agree that the Shakespeare corpus was written
>> by a middle-class man from Stratford.
And obviously, in such a belief they will
only demonstrate their ignorance and
confusion, since (a) no 'middle-class'
existed at the time; and (b) insofar as one
could be seen in an embryonic state, the
Stratman certainly could NOT be counted
a member. They would (if pressed) agree
that the distinctive features of any 'middle-
class' anywhere were (i) literacy and
(ii) education. Since the Stratman's parents,
wife, siblings, and children were all illiterate
-- and all necessarily lacked anything
resembling education, one thing he could
not be was 'middle-class'. (Of course, he
was almost certainly illiterate himself.)
> I would regard myself as an educated person, and believe
> it far more probable that most of it was written by an
> extremely well educated person from Canterbury.
As we can see from Hamlet, the playwright
clearly (and rightly) had a low opinion of the
kind of education received at Cambridge.
He would have (rightly) regarded Marlowe
as being poorly educated. And, of course,
Marlowe did not have the benefit of having
a theatrical company living in his house
throughout every winter when he was a child
(also recorded in Hamlet).
> In fact Marlowe's classical allusions hardly ever went
> beyond the grammar school level of Ovid's *Metamorphoses*.
Our candidate did the first translation into
English while in his early teens. No wonder
he was familiar with it !
Paul/
Mark Cipra
> "Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:eo7qc6$dme$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
>>
>> "spinoza1111" wrote:
>>>
>>> An educated person (whether he's gotten that education
>>> at an expensive university or at the public library) is
>>> like a speaker of Received World English able to agree
>>> with another educated person on both grammar, and general
>>> cultural facts.
>
>>> They will agree that the Shakespeare corpus was written
>>> by a middle-class man from Stratford.
>
> And obviously, in such a belief they will
> only demonstrate their ignorance and
> confusion, since (a) no 'middle-class'
> existed at the time; and (b) insofar as one
> could be seen in an embryonic state, the
> Stratman certainly could NOT be counted
> a member. They would (if pressed) agree
> that the distinctive features of any 'middle-
> class' anywhere were (i) literacy and
> (ii) education. Since the Stratman's parents,
As usual, a five minute exploration of the Web demonstrates that you don't
have a clue, although you have at least finally admitted there might be an
"embryonic" middle class in the 16th-17th Centuries. Quite a robust embryo,
in my opinion:
Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia
Middle Class - see Bourgeoisie
Bourgeoisie
bourgeoisie, originally the name for the inhabitants of walled towns in
medieval France; as artisans and craftsmen, the bourgeoisie occupied a
socioeconomic position between the peasants and the landlords in the
countryside. The term was extended to include the middle class of France and
subsequently of other nations. The word bourgeois has also long been used to
imply an outlook associated with materialism, narrowness, and lack of
culture—these characteristics were early satirized by Molière and have
continued to be a subject of literary analysis.
Origins and Rise
The bourgeoisie as a historical phenomenon did not begin to emerge until the
development of medieval cities as centers for trade and commerce in Central
and Western Europe, beginning in the 11th cent. The bourgeoisie, or
merchants and artisans, began to organize themselves into corporations as a
result of their conflict with the landed proprietors. At the end of the
Middle Ages, under the early national monarchies in Western Europe, the
bourgeoisie found it in their interests to support the throne against the
feudal disorder of competing local authorities. In England and the
Netherlands, the bourgeoisie was the driving force in uprooting feudalism in
the late 16th and early 17th cent.
***********
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Middle class
History and evolution of the term
The middle class in this article refers to people neither at the top nor at
the bottom of a social hierarchy. The term "middle class" has a long history
and has had many, sometimes contradictory, meanings. It was once defined by
exception as an intermediate social class between the nobility and the
peasantry of Europe. While the nobility owned the countryside, and the
peasantry worked the countryside, a new bourgeoisie (literally
"town-dwellers") arose around mercantile functions in the city. This had the
result that the middle class were often the wealthiest stratum of society
(whereas today many take the term to refer by definition to the
only-moderately wealthy.)
************
Note that education per se plays no role in the primary definitions, and is
mentioned only in passing in the full articles which can be seen at:
http://www.reference.com/search?q=middle%20class
The actual term "middle class" seems to have arisen in the 17th Century.
> wife, siblings, and children were all illiterate
> -- and all necessarily lacked anything
> resembling education, one thing he could
> not be was 'middle-class'. (Of course, he
> was almost certainly illiterate himself.)
>
>> I would regard myself as an educated person, and believe
>> it far more probable that most of it was written by an
>> extremely well educated person from Canterbury.
>
> As we can see from Hamlet, the playwright
> clearly (and rightly) had a low opinion of the
> kind of education received at Cambridge.
> He would have (rightly) regarded Marlowe
> as being poorly educated. And, of course,
> Marlowe did not have the benefit of having
> a theatrical company living in his house
> throughout every winter when he was a child
> (also recorded in Hamlet).
>
>> In fact Marlowe's classical allusions hardly ever went
>> beyond the grammar school level of Ovid's *Metamorphoses*.
>
> Our candidate did the first translation into
> English while in his early teens. No wonder
> he was familiar with it !
>
>
> Paul/
--
laraine
It has been pointed out several times on this newsgroup
that is not at all fair to suggest that an anti-S would be a
Holocaust denier.
>
> >
> > You are probably correct, however, that the members
> > of this group are not medieval specialists, though I
> > could be wrong about that.
>
> Note that you logically imply that unless a man labels himself, or is
> labeled by others, a "specialist" or an "expert" in xyz, he loses by
> your rule the ability to make testable truth claims on xyz. This is
> nonsense.
>
Many people (including myself) will not assume that
someone who is not known as an expert or even as
an 'educated person' will not have good ideas to share.
Nor should the ideas of an expert necessarily go
unquestioned. One can still say, however, that some
people are more expert and/or educated in certain
topics than are others.
> Shakespeare in fact portrays the corruption of "expertise" in the scene
> wherein the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Ely persuade
> King Henry that the "law Salic that they have in France" does not apply
> in Rheims but only between the floods of Saar and Elbe for their own
> selfish reasons.
>
> >
> > I think you would get more response if you just
> > focused on one question or quote at a time.
> > For example, your question about the French in
> > HV:
> >
> > > 4 Catherine, the daughter of the crazy King of France, speaks French,
> > > and broken English as a Second Language, to her lady in waiting Alice
> > > both in the hilarious scene where Alice tries to teach "Kate"
> > > English, and when Henry tries to "woo" Alice. But in other scenes,
> > > the French guys speak English.
> >
> > > Does this make any sense to you? Why or why not?
> >
> > > Your Answer: Again, it works because we "know" that the French speak French.
> >
> > Well, of course. And why would Shakespeare have
> > written a play in French to an English audience, particularly
> > one that wouldn't have been expected, for the most part, to
> > have known French? The more important question is why
> > he wrote a scene in French at all.
>
> No, I am looking for the respondent to come back at me with "suspension
> of disbelief" and to ask how it works for the informed reader or
> audience member when two gals enter speaking French.
>
On this newsgroup, you'll likely get a much broader
response than what you'd get as a teacher in a
classroom.
> >
> > >Your Answer: Shakespeare wanted to foreground the language issue in two scenes to
> > >restrict the comedy to these scenes. Although the Dauphin is funny,
> > >Shakespeare puts nothing amusing in his mouth for then he would not be
> > >adequate as a foil to Henry: as it is, the Dauphin has to be
> > >supplemented by the much more worthy Constable to be so adequate.
> >
> > Comedy? Is it really all that funny? Cute, perhaps, but funny?
> > Subjective, of course. It is a nice light break in the play,
> > though, I agree. More of a flirtation scene--and do you really
> > think for a moment that a French princess doesn't speak
> > English :-)
>
> Hmm, I'm not a fucking whore I mean expert, but I would hasard that
> mediaeval women were not educated in foreign tongues. In fact, French
> was eponomously the *lingua Franca* of England and France and it was
> only in the later 14th century that the upper classes of England
> abandoned the speaking of French according to language historian David
> Crystal.
Well, I would expect that a princess would have a better
education than most. In any case, it sounds interesting
enough that I might research the whole story myself.
>
> Katherine would have no reason prior to news of the invasion, and her
> sexual excitement at the thought of meeting a lot of new chaps in the
> event her boys lost (which looked likely given the disarray of the
> court of the Valois) explains in the movie her sudden rage to learn the
> language of the barbarian throng. The joke for the English man was that
> the French girls had in secret decided that English men were hot.
>
Maybe S makes it into a 'joke,' but the actual
situation probably would not have been like that
at all. It was likely horrifying for Catherine to have
been in a position like that.
> The student should realize that Shakespeare was skilled at manipulating
> our "suspension of disbelief" and that could change the mode or key of
> this suspension in midstream.
>
Indeed, he is skillful at it, which is why I enjoy
the scene even though I realize that it is likely,
though not necessarily, unrealistic.
> >
> > I had different thoughts than did you.
> > I was thinking that it might have been a move
> > by S to appease the French, because after all,
> > he has just written a play about their humiliating
> > defeat. I imagine that French scholars and others
> > might have read his play, and could have even
> > possibly been in his audience. The French
> > certainly remarked on Marlowe's 'Massacre' play
> > at that time. (Your remark on Marlowe being a
> > killer is exaggerated, BTW.)
>
> Christopher Marlowe was the son of an itinerant laborer who himself
> labored 18 hour days at Cambridge (according to David Riggs in "The
> World of Christopher Marlowe"). Again, this shows that the "Oxonians"
> (not "Oxfordians": this is an American solecism) to be lackeys of the
> upper classes spreading upper class lies, since Riggs shows that the
> upper clawsses simply refused to learn at the depth that enabled
> Marlowe to break new ground with the iambic pentameter and complex
> classical allusions.
>
> What I said was that Marlowe was murdered by upper clawss hirelings as
> portrayed by the butler in James Cameron's Titanic in the world of 1911
> because Marlowe had a mouth and he had talent.
>
It's possible, but there isn't enough evidence to say that
for sure, even if Riggs has come to that conclusion. Other
scholars have reached different conclusions.
I believe they are more sincere than that.
C.
P.S. Camille Paglia has a Ph.D. from Yale.
Ms. Mouse
Thanks for saying that, Laraine.
L.
lyra
...............................................................................
Interesting encyclopedia articles.
I'm adding here some information on heraldry,
and the description "gentleman",
from the thread about Michael Drayton's family tree
- (he's not only a de Vere, but an Arden!) -
.............................................................
(quote, excerpts)
There had been an exchange in one of the Compuserve fora on this aspect
of Shakespeare's life, begun by a post that claimed ~
>> Shakespeare never made it, probably never expected to make it, to a rank as high as even the minor nobility. He attained the rank (after years of effort) of "gentleman." <<
....... and brought this reply ~
(quote)
>> Young Will did expect to make it, growing up in expectation of his recognition as a gentleman. The facts, briefly, are these:
Arms are the "ensigns of nobility" and, in Shakespeare's day, as during
the preceding centuries, the specific rank of gentleman (i.e. excluding
the generic use of the term) was the lowest rank in the nobility. (The
association of the term "nobility" as exclusively belonging to the
peerage is comparatively recent and almost wholly anglocentric.) A
patent of nobility is uncommon in the British Isles. We used to issue
them in Scotland to nobles about to travel abroad, to ensure they be
"received and treated in all places and among all nobles as nobles in
the noblesse of Scotland" (a clause still used in a Scottish grant of
arms), but it is a practice more usual in continental Europe. In the
British Isles then, as in Scotland still, the grant of arms was itself
the grantee's patent of nobility.
Which brings us to the critical point.
Will's father, John Shakespeare, was a merchant who was appointed a
Justice of the Peace and, in 1568, the Bailiff of Stratford-upon-Avon.
At that time he had preliminary discussions with Clarenceux King of
Arms, Robert Cook, on the preliminary sketches for a grant of arms, and
in 1596 the grant was made. The long wait is usually ascribed to some
financial difficulties, for a grant was then finalised only after very
substantial fees had been paid. So Will, from the age of four, grew up
knowing that his father had in principle been recognised as of a rank
equivalent to that of his (Will's) maternal grandfather, Robert Arden
of Wilmcote. Thus in 1596, when his father's fortunes had turned and
when Will himself was prosperous, he could account himself as having
been born a gentleman, born an English nobleman.
In 1586 Sir John Ferne, in "The Glorie of Generositie", states
specifically that Bailiffs of "ancient boroughs and incorporated towns"
held "offices of dignity and worship" meriting a grant of arms - so in
this Tudor period of phrenetic social climbing it would have been
impossible for Will to be other than very conscious of his impending
noble status. Moreover, for the scrambling social climbers the
difference between acquiring gentility by a grant of arms and being
born gentle was immense. Further divisions were attempted later by an
insistence that although a grant of arms made its grantee armigerous,
"three generations of coat armour" were required to make a gentleman.
This and similar distinctions were incorporated into the requirements
for certain orders of chivalry and various societies, but in law the
definition remained simple "Why, if he hath no arms, then he is no
gentleman" - and if he has, he is, and Will's father was.
_______________________________________________________________________________________
(quote, excerpts)
So ~ John Shakespeare was a gentleman of coat armour. William was born
a gentleman and, as a gentleman, belonged to the lowest rank of the
English nobility (classified as nobiles minores). The books you quote
are of little value in these matters. It is necessary to return to
original sources.
A contemporary of Shakespeare, Camden, who was Clarenceux King of Arms
when he died in 1623, always used "noble" for the recipient in the
letters patent he granted. Moreover, and I stress that he was of
Shakespeare's time, in his "Britannia" (dedicated to William Cecil, the
equivalent then of a twentieth century Prime Minister) he wrote -
"nobiles minores sunt equites aurati, armigeri et qui vulgo generosi,
et gentle men vocantur"
which I think I can fairly translate as
"the lesser nobility are knights, esquires and those commonly called
generosi or gentlemen."
___________________________________
(quote, excerpt)
We thought this correspondence worth quoting extensively for two
reasons. The first, obviously, is that the change of meanings of words
down the centuries is often unrecognised, and that when changed
meanings are not identified there is confusion. Here the confusion
caused the correspondent to believe that Shakespeare applied the
twentieth-century understanding of nobility to his own time. The second
is that Shakespeare's position in society is misunderstood by many of
his readers and has helped to foster much of the doubt sometimes
expressed about the true authorship of his plays.
http://www.baronage.co.uk/nl/nl-01-03.htm
..........................................................................................................................................................................................
Paul Crowley
news:M0Oph.26614$QU1....@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>>>> They will agree that the Shakespeare corpus was written
>>>> by a middle-class man from Stratford.
>>
>> And obviously, in such a belief they will
>> only demonstrate their ignorance and
>> confusion, since (a) no 'middle-class'
>> existed at the time; and (b) insofar as one
>> could be seen in an embryonic state, the
>> Stratman certainly could NOT be counted
>> a member. They would (if pressed) agree
>> that the distinctive features of any 'middle-
>> class' anywhere were (i) literacy and
>> (ii) education. Since the Stratman's parents,
>
> As usual, a five minute exploration of the Web demonstrates that you don't have a clue,
> although you have at least finally admitted there might be an "embryonic" middle class in the
> 16th-17th Centuries. Quite a robust embryo, in my opinion:
>
> Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia
>
> Middle Class - see Bourgeoisie
The term used by Spinoza1111 was the usual one
employed by Strats (in their desperate attempts to
confuse the argument and muddle history); it was
'middle-class' and NOT 'bourgeoisie'.
One is not the same as the other. For one thing, the
class structure in France around 1550-1600 was
quite different from England; (it has also developed
differently since).
> Note that education per se plays no role in the primary definitions,
Are you seriously claiming that YOU (or anyone
you know) would apply the term 'middle-class'
to a family of illiterates? Are you claiming that
ANYONE would EVER have used the term in
such a way? If so, find ONE application of
'middle-class' to such a family.
I am objecting to the sleight-of-hand employed
by ignorant Strats, such as you and Spinoza.
whereby the illiteracy of the Stratman and his
entire background is obscured by calling him
'middle-class' -- when such an attibution is no
more than a joke. Even if it were remotely
applicable (which it is not) it would be wildly
anachronistic. You might as well call (say)
Bill Clinton 'a yeoman'. Neither ascription
makes any sense -- and could only come from
the mouth of the utterly historically ignorant.
Which is, of course, a necessary condition of
being a Strat.
> The actual term "middle class" seems to have arisen in the 17th Century.
It is first recorded for 1766 -- and there its meaning
is explained by the writer. Clearly, the term was
not in common use at the time -- the reason being
that there was no need for it. The CLASS, as a
significant proportion of the society, was only just
beginning to emerge -- some 200 years after the
Stratman's birth.
'Middle-class' (OED)
a. The class of society between the ‘upper’ and the ‘lower’ class.
Also (now more commonly) pl. in the same sense.
1766 Queen Caroline Matilda of Denmark Let. 25 Dec. in Mem. Unfortunate
Queen (1776) 21 There is no such thing here as a middle class of people
living in affluence and independence.
Paul.
Mark Houlsby
Gary wrote:
> On 10 Jan 2007 12:42:02 -0800, "Mark Houlsby"
> <mark.h...@eudoramail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Gary wrote:
> >
> >> On 10 Jan 2007 09:44:38 -0800, "Mark Houlsby"
> >> <mark_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> SNIP
> >>
> >> >To be *absolutely explicit*: I *do not* support the Stratfordian
> >> >authorship. Neither do I support *any other* claim to authorship. At
> >> >all. I have explicitly stated as much, on a number of occasions. It's
> >> >extraordinary to me that such a number of people here are *so attached*
> >> >to their version (necessarily inaccurate) of the authorship question
> >> >that, evidently, this attachment is their *entire* motivation for
> >> >posting.
> >>
> >> SNIP
> >>
> >> Mark, I find the above interesting. Specifically, the part
> >> about, apparently, all authorship versions being "necessarily
> >> inaccurate". Why so? Surely someone or some group wrote the plays.
> >>
> >
> >Absolutely. Doesn't matter who. Doesn't matter how many (if, indeed,
> >it's more than one person). All that matters is the canon.
>
> Ah! I see. So it's not that you think that *all* authorship
> theories are wrong or inaccurate (which is illogical, because SOMEONE
> or some group had to write the plays), it's that you think the
> discussion itself is unnecessary or a waste of time?
>
Exactly.
> If so, fair enough. And there's been more than a few people
> who have passed through this group who would agree with you. But you
> *are* aware that one of the primary reasons this group was established
> was to discuss the historical question "Who wrote the works of
> Shakespeare?"?
>
Right. I wonder why it's not called
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare.authorship or something like that.
There's so little discussion of the canon here that it saddens one.
> And surely you can understand that, even though the question
> may be uninteresting or irrelevant to you, it may be very interesting
> to other people?
>
Absolutely. What gets me is people like Art who read into *my* posts
that I *must* adhere to this or that authorship claim. I do not.
Mark
>
> - Gary
Mark Houlsby
Peter Groves wrote:
> "Mark Houlsby" <mark.h...@eudoramail.com> wrote in message
> news:1168461722....@i56g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Gary wrote:
> >
> > > On 10 Jan 2007 09:44:38 -0800, "Mark Houlsby"
> > > <mark_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > SNIP
> > >
> > > >To be *absolutely explicit*: I *do not* support the Stratfordian
> > > >authorship. Neither do I support *any other* claim to authorship. At
> > > >all. I have explicitly stated as much, on a number of occasions. It's
> > > >extraordinary to me that such a number of people here are *so attached*
> > > >to their version (necessarily inaccurate) of the authorship question
> > > >that, evidently, this attachment is their *entire* motivation for
> > > >posting.
> > >
> > > SNIP
> > >
> > > Mark, I find the above interesting. Specifically, the part
> > > about, apparently, all authorship versions being "necessarily
> > > inaccurate". Why so? Surely someone or some group wrote the plays.
> > >
> >
> > Absolutely. Doesn't matter who. Doesn't matter how many (if, indeed,
> > it's more than one person). All that matters is the canon.
>
> But what *does* matter is the relentless peddling of endlessly re-cycled
> ignorance, lies, half-truths, inventions, prevarications, insinuations and
> slanders, all under the banner of 'scholarship'. It's a kind of
> intellectual poison or corrosive. Not all ant-strats use these lawyerly
> methods, and with those that don't -- Peter F., Lynne -- I have no quarrel.
> MM, on the other hand, appears to believe that Shakespeare wrote his own
> plays (or was it the Holy Ghost?), but he's a legitimate target because of
> the arrogant nonsense he constantly spews forth.
>
> Peter G.
>
This is my point, I think. It's *necessarily* divisive and obfuscating.
Mark H.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > >
> > > - Gary
> >
Mark Houlsby
Gary wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 20:20:06 GMT, "Tom Reedy" <tomr...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >"Gary" <gk...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote in message
> >news:45a53936...@news.datemas.de...
> >> On 10 Jan 2007 09:44:38 -0800, "Mark Houlsby"
> >> <mark_h...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> SNIP
> >>
> >>>To be *absolutely explicit*: I *do not* support the Stratfordian
> >>>authorship. Neither do I support *any other* claim to authorship. At
> >>>all. I have explicitly stated as much, on a number of occasions. It's
> >>>extraordinary to me that such a number of people here are *so attached*
> >>>to their version (necessarily inaccurate) of the authorship question
> >>>that, evidently, this attachment is their *entire* motivation for
> >>>posting.
> >>
> >> SNIP
> >>
> >> Mark, I find the above interesting. Specifically, the part
> >> about, apparently, all authorship versions being "necessarily
> >> inaccurate". Why so? Surely someone or some group wrote the plays.
> >
> >Thanks for replying to this, Gary. I might have to take him out of my
> >killfile, it looks like I'm missing out on some realy big laughs (but I
> >won't).
> >
> >Yes, why would anybody post anything on authorship to a newsgroup named
> >humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare. It boggles the mind, doesn't it?
>
> In that respect, Mark does seem to evidence a misunderstanding
> of one of the primary reasons why this newsgroup exists.
>
> The point that I was questioning, though, was his apparent
> contention that *all* authorship versions are wrong, or "necessarily
> inaccurate".
>
I believe I have addressed these points in a reply to you.
Mark
>
> - Gary
Mark Cipra
You'll recall, Paul, that I'm no longer going to do your research for you.
My time, unlike yours apparently, has value, and pulling things out of your
posterior is something you're capable of doing for yourself.
>
> I am objecting to the sleight-of-hand employed
> by ignorant Strats, such as you and Spinoza.
> whereby the illiteracy of the Stratman and his
> entire background is obscured by calling him
> 'middle-class' -- when such an attibution is no
> more than a joke. Even if it were remotely
> applicable (which it is not) it would be wildly
> anachronistic. You might as well call (say)
> Bill Clinton 'a yeoman'. Neither ascription
> makes any sense -- and could only come from
> the mouth of the utterly historically ignorant.
> Which is, of course, a necessary condition of
> being a Strat.
>
>> The actual term "middle class" seems to have arisen in the 17th
>> Century.
>
> It is first recorded for 1766 -- and there its meaning
Sorry - brain cramp. I meant 18th.
> is explained by the writer. Clearly, the term was
> not in common use at the time -- the reason being
> that there was no need for it. The CLASS, as a
> significant proportion of the society, was only just
> beginning to emerge -- some 200 years after the
> Stratman's birth.
>
> 'Middle-class' (OED)
> a. The class of society between the ‘upper’ and the ‘lower’ class.
> Also (now more commonly) pl. in the same sense.
> 1766 Queen Caroline Matilda of Denmark Let. 25 Dec. in Mem.
> Unfortunate Queen (1776) 21 There is no such thing here as a
> middle class of people living in affluence and independence.
>
>
> Paul.
--
gangleri
> >news:1168461722....@i56g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Gary wrote:
>
> > > > On 10 Jan 2007 09:44:38 -0800, "Mark Houlsby"
A concurring opinion from the past:
"All say that the said proposition* is foolish and absurd in
Philosophy..." **
* "That the sun is the centre of the world, and totally immovable as
to locomotion."
** "...and formally heretical inasmuch as it contradicts the express
opinion of Holy Scriptures in many places, according to the words
themselves and according to the common expositions and meanings of the
Church Fathers and doctors of theology."
nordicskiv2
Art Neuendorffer <aneuendor...@comcast.net>
(aneuendor...@comicass.nut) wrote:
> >>Tom Reedy wrote:
> >>
> >>>Houlsby is another moron who belongs in the killfile, Mark.
> >>> I've had him there since Day 2 of his residence here.
> > "Mark Cipra" <cipr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote
> >>
> >>I don't *quite* agree, although I've been on the verge
> >> a few times. He does post on-topic from time to time,
> The only on-topic (Shakespeare and/or authorship)
> statement I've heard from Mark H. is that
> he doesn't question Stratfordian authorship.
> Tom Reedy wrote:
> >
> > I've killfiled probably half the posters here. It does make for a slim list
> > of messages, but that suits me,
> But is it OK with the Rosicrucian Grand Master?
> Tom Reedy wrote:
> >
> > as I'd rather not read the crap from people like Art N.,
> There is no one like Art N.
Amazingly enough, I have to agree -- although Art exhibits some
superficial similarities with gangleri, lackpurity, Elizabeth, Mr.
Streitz, "Dr." Faker, etc., upon closer inspection he is unique. There
is no one like him.
While I can readily understand Tom's decision to filter Art's
posts, it is a pity to miss the humor that they afford so abundantly.
It is actually not too difficult to learn to glean the comedic gems
from Art's posts -- one quickly develops a sort of sixth sense, a feel
for the Gestalt of Art's effusions, that permits one to discern at a
glance whether a given post is worth reading. One hint: If Art glosses
words from *any* foreign language (I exclude English, although strictly
speaking, it too is a foreign tongue to Art), then the post is apt to
be quite funny by virtue of the risible linguistic revelations alone --
e.g., "vier" is Spanish for "four." I filtered Houlsby promptly after
he appeared, but I wouldn't dream of filtering Art, Elizabeth, Mr.
Innes, etc.
> Art N.
Peter Farey
"spinoza1111" wrote
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > "spinoza1111" wrote:
> > >
> > > An educated person (whether he's gotten that education
> > > at an expensive university or at the public library) is
> > > like a speaker of Received World English able to agree
> > > with another educated person on both grammar, and general
> > > cultural facts.
> > >
> > > They will in my view agree that "it is I" is hypercorrect
> > > in speech and that Americans spell "colour" without the u.
> > >
> > > They will agree that the Shakespeare corpus was written
> > > by a middle-class man from Stratford.
> >
> > I would regard myself as an educated person, and believe
> > it far more probable that most of it was written by an
> > extremely well educated person from Canterbury.
>
> How very high-toned: yet at this point I'm the only person
> in this thread, as rude and crude a dude as I may be, to
> have actually posted information that is verifiable, sourced,
> falsifiable, confirmable and true.
You said that "[An educated person (whether he's gotten
that education at an expensive university or at the public
library)] will agree that the Shakespeare corpus was written
by a middle-class man from Stratford." That you have changed
the subject is gruesomely obvious. What any of us may or may
not have posted here is irrelevant to the point you made and
which (subject to your showing that I am not an educated
person) stands refuted.
> I must have missed the seminar where "education" was redef-
> ined from this to a retrograde and excessive respect for
> authority which confuses the high social position of a
> Tudor aristocrat and dilettante with education.
What on earth are you burbling about? Whilst I am by no means
clever, I am by any normal standards an educated person. So
unless you can show otherwise you were wrong. Face it.
> In fact, we find from the record that throughout the 16th
> century, aristocrats minimized their exposure to education
> despite the fact that what was on tap was limited by the
> primitive state of European learning, and they minimized
> it to the striking of poses, the memorization of Latin
> tags, and the theft of the intellectual property of men
> like Marlowe and Shakespeare.
Hellooo...I'm over here!
> Renaissance humanism, and that of the 17th century Baroque,
> was a production of the middle classes, not of the arist-
> ocracy. Are you even aware that the founder of French art,
> Nicholas Poussin, was offended by the jejune taste of Louis
> Bourbon XIV and preferred minor aristos and middle class
> patrons resident in Rome?
Gordon Bennett, you do go on.
> Pray tell me, why would this Oxford character be motivated
> to write the corpus in the First Folio?
I've no idea. Nor does it have any relevance to what I said,
does it? You said that "[An educated person (whether he's
gotten that education at an expensive university or at the
public library)] will agree that the Shakespeare corpus was
written by a middle-class man from Stratford." And I replied
"I would regard myself as an educated person, and believe
it far more probable that most of it was written by an
extremely well educated person from Canterbury." What do
you imagine that this has to do with Oxford?
> Aristocrats, as Hegel knew, simply see no need to engage
> themselves in more than low-volume dillettante production.
> Are you even aware of how much sheer LABOR was involved in
> crafting the Shakespeare corpus, or are you one of those
> unpleasant fellows who flits from spa to spa thrashing the
> help?
I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.
> The HARD WORK of learning was done by Shakespeare in grammar
> school, and by Marlowe in grammar school and at university,
> since it was only by such HARD WORK could men from the
> middle and laboring classes enter learned professions.
Thank God that neither of them managed it then!
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > Comedy? Is it really all that funny? Cute, perhaps, but
> > > > funny?
> >
> > Very funny, and very rude.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Christopher Marlowe was the son of an itinerant laborer
> >
> > Not really. At the time of Christopher's birth, his father
> > was a Canterbury shoemaker who had lived there for several
> > years. In fact he had already completed some five years of
> > his apprenticeship there when he was admitted a freeman of
> > Canterbury, only a month or two after Christopher's birth and
> > stayed there for the remaining 40+ years of his life.
>
> Prior to establishing himself as such, Marlowe's father
> was...an itinerant laborer.
What you have done is to misunderstand David Riggs's statement
that John was a "migrant worker". All he meant was that John
wasn't born in Canterbury, but moved there from Ospringe (only
ten miles away) to find work as a shoemaker. It has nothing
to do with being either "itinerant" or a "laborer" - for which
there is certainly no evidence.
> BTW: the above is the first example of confirmable and true
> specific information I've seen in this thread from another
> poster. I am gratified to have so raised the bar.
Stick around my friend. The bar hasn't changed one millimeter
since your arrival.
> > > who himself labored 18 hour days at Cambridge (according to
> > > David Riggs in "The World of Christopher Marlowe"). Again,
> > > this shows that the "Oxonians" (not "Oxfordians": this is
> > > an American solecism)
> >
> > Rubbish. 'Oxonians' are either natives or inhabitants of
> > Oxford or members of the University there. The word 'Ox-
> > fordian' was coined in relation to the authorship question
> > by an Englishman, Percy Allen, back in 1930, and has been
> > used by people on all sides of the argument ever since.
>
> Allen unsuccessfully tried to use the prestige of Oxford's
> aristocratic standing, a standing which after the murder of
> Diana is a vicious joke, to gull dullards into believing
> that Shakespeare just could not (shudder) be so much smarter
> than the arses of the upper clarsses. His ignorance and
> folly was shown in an invalid coinage which in using an
> English suffix for a town, a region, and a great university
> that existed before the English language and whose Roman
> origins require the Latin ending for the same reason we say
> Cantabridgian, mate.
You made a statement which is demonstrably false. My source
for this is the *Oxford* English Dictionary. If you have a
more authoritative one, do share it with us. This failure
to acknowledge when you are wrong, coupled with yet another
attempt to pretend that some diversion is in any way relevant
to anything that has been said is becoming a fairly recognizable
trait of yours.
> > > to be lackeys of the upper classes spreading upper class
> > > lies, since Riggs shows that the upper clawsses
> >
> > The way it is pronounced in RP English rhymes with 'arses'.
>
> This is complete bullshit. It rhymes in RP English with
> itself. It is a Limey error to insert an R, and a lower-
> class one to be so deliberately rhotic.
The problem with being an autodidact is the lack of anyone
to tell you when you are wrong. Never mind, though, you now
have us to help you out. Whilst it may be in other English
accents, in RP the 'r' in 'arses' is never rhotic. Trust me.
> Its correct pronunciation is in fact midway between the
> American "claaaass" with the a lengthened and nasalized,
> and the British "clahss" which contains no hint of R save
> in lower clawss speech,
So just which accent do you fondly imagine that you are
replicating when you refer to "the upper clawsses"?
> and in Lord Haw-Haw speech in which the r is emphasized
> only to become a W through sheer aristo laziness.
Lord Haw-Haw an aristo? Blighter wasn't even British don't
you know? You'll be having us all saying "pip-pip old chap"
next.
> > > simply refused to learn at the depth that enabled Marlowe
> > > to break new ground with the iambic pentameter and complex
> > > classical allusions.
> >
> > In fact Marlowe's classical allusions hardly ever went
> > beyond the grammar school level of Ovid's *Metamorphoses*.
>
> Oh? And Ovid mentions "Sweet Analytics" of which Dr. Faustus
> says, 'tis thou hast ravished me? And Justinian? And Galen?
You call these "complex classical allusions"? They are simply
what he, fresh out of Wittenberg, was talking about. Why not
read what I actually said?
> > > What I said was that Marlowe was murdered by upper clawss
> > > hirelings as portrayed by the butler in James Cameron's
> > > Titanic in the world of 1911 because Marlowe had a mouth
> > > and he had talent.
> >
> > It's one possible explanation of the Deptford story, but
> > mine's better: <http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/sudden.htm>
I recommend you read it. In fact in his more recent biography
of Marlowe, Park Honan (with acknowledgment) made use
of it in refuting some of what your authority David Riggs had
said about Marlowe's death.
Paul Crowley
>>> Note that education per se plays no role in the primary definitions,
>>
>> Are you seriously claiming that YOU (or anyone
>> you know) would apply the term 'middle-class'
>> to a family of illiterates? Are you claiming that
>> ANYONE would EVER have used the term in
>> such a way? If so, find ONE application of
>> 'middle-class' to such a family.
>
> You'll recall, Paul, that I'm no longer going to do your research for you.
It does not take research to answer my first
question. Here it is again:
>> Are you seriously claiming that YOU (or anyone
>> you know) would apply the term 'middle-class'
>> to a family of illiterates?
Nor does it take research to answer my second.
Here it is again:
>> Are you claiming that
>> ANYONE would EVER have used the term in
>> such a way?
My third question would require research, but
only comes into effect after a 'Yes' to my first
two.
>> If so, find ONE application of 'middle-class' to such a family.
Paul.
Mark Cipra
> "Mark Cipra" <cipr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:WiQph.15768$Gw4....@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net...
>
>>>> Note that education per se plays no role in the primary
>>>> definitions,
>>>
>>> Are you seriously claiming that YOU (or anyone
>>> you know) would apply the term 'middle-class'
>>> to a family of illiterates? Are you claiming that
>>> ANYONE would EVER have used the term in
>>> such a way? If so, find ONE application of
>>> 'middle-class' to such a family.
>>
>> You'll recall, Paul, that I'm no longer going to do your research
>> for you.
>
> It does not take research to answer my first
> question. Here it is again:
>
>>> Are you seriously claiming that YOU (or anyone
>>> you know) would apply the term 'middle-class'
>>> to a family of illiterates?
Yup. I'd even apply the term "upper class" to an aristocratic family of
illiterates. It's a socio-economic classification, not an educational one.
>
> Nor does it take research to answer my second.
> Here it is again:
>
>>> Are you claiming that
>>> ANYONE would EVER have used the term in
>>> such a way?
Yup. I'd even apply the term "upper class" to an aristocratic family of
illiterates. It's a socio-economic classification, not an educational one.
Not that there's any reason to believe Shakespeare or his family were
illiterate, by the way.
So, I'm done feeding the ... Crowley.
>
> My third question would require research, but
> only comes into effect after a 'Yes' to my first
> two.
>
>>> If so, find ONE application of 'middle-class' to such a family.
>
>
> Paul.
--
laraine
Actually, I have missed something important, and that is
the separation of the two 'French-speaking' scenes. In the first
(the fingernail and elbow scene), Katharine (as I see
it spelled in MIT Shakespeare) and Alice are alone, and
are speaking only French, with K requesting to learn more.
So that would give some support that S characterized K as
definitely not fluent in English. That is a funny scene, and
you have to admit that K learns quickly. I would be curious,
however, to also find out if the actual princess knew
English well.
For some reason, I had thought that the two scenes
were just one, and that Henry had been in the
background listening all the time.
C.
John W. Kennedy
> And also, BTW, MM I believe is more into Hinduism
> rather than Gnosticism.
Gnosticism with Hindu trimming.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
John W. Kennedy
> Hmm, I'm not a fucking whore I mean expert, but I would hasard that
> mediaeval women were not educated in foreign tongues. In fact, French
> was eponomously the *lingua Franca* of England and France
Not so. Lingua Franca is not French, but an Arab-Romance pidgen that
became, for a time, the trade language of the Mediterranean.
John W. Kennedy
> It has been pointed out several times on this newsgroup
> that is not at all fair to suggest that an anti-S would be a
> Holocaust denier.
Say rather, would /necessarily/ be a Holocaust denier.
Bianca Steele
> spinoza1111 wrote:
> > laraine wrote:
[snipping post too long to reply to]
Yes.
>>
>> They will agree that the Shakespeare corpus was written by a
>> middle-class man from Stratford.
Yes, because they will both know that they are using the word
"middle-class" in a vague sort of way.
>>
>> They will agree that Adolf Hitler set out to make Europe *Juden-Rein*
>> and that he did so.
Yes, because they will both know that there were in fact Jews left in
Europe after the Second World War and that Adolf Hitler's power did not
extend to all of Europe.
>>
>> Whereas a barbarian of these new Dark Ages we got goin' here will
>> pretend to be a scholar and announce that the Duke of fucking Earl
>> wrote Shakespeare or that Hitler didn't kill dem Jews.
Yes, because he will NOT know that the fact that Adolf Hitler's power
did not extend to all of Europe does NOT logically imply that Hitler
didn't set out to kill all the Jews of Europe. Because he does not
have a good education, and because he has heard people he justifiably
considers "educated" do what appears to him to be the same.
That someone who's mistaken consensus for educated opinion calls those
he disagrees with "barbarians," does not make it TRUE that it anyone
who disagrees is a barbarian.
>>
>
> It has been pointed out several times on this newsgroup
> that is not at all fair to suggest that an anti-S would be a
> Holocaust denier.
It has also been pointed out several times on this newsgroup -- though
not, perhaps, to you -- and though not in several years -- that a
person might do well to be careful around here because there are
Holocaust deniers, neo-Nazis, or whatever here, whose ideas one would
want to be very careful not to pick up as one's own. I probably don't
have to tell you that when your post on a totally different topic is
replied to by someone telling you that you are starting to sound like a
Nazi, it is annoying. It is enough to make you begin to wonder just
how much and in what way those other people are projecting.
It is even more annoying when it begins to seem they have persuaded
others with no reason whatever to care about the question (as it does
begin to seem when those others take it upon themselves to compel those
who do care to consider the question settled).
>>>
>>> You are probably correct, however, that the members
>>> of this group are not medieval specialists, though I
>>> could be wrong about that.
>>
>> Note that you logically imply that unless a man labels himself, or is
>> labeled by others, a "specialist" or an "expert" in xyz, he loses by
>> your rule the ability to make testable truth claims on xyz. This is
>> nonsense.
>
> Many people (including myself) will not assume that
> someone who is not known as an expert or even as
> an 'educated person' will not have good ideas to share.
No, but it is natural to read the views of a person one doesn't believe
to be an expert in a different way than one reads the views of a person
one already trusts as an expert.
> Nor should the ideas of an expert necessarily go
> unquestioned.
Yes, but one is often more likely to remind other people that they
should not have let the ideas of an expert go unquestioned than to
accept other people's challenges to one's own presumed arguments from
authority.
>One can still say, however, that some
> people are more expert and/or educated in certain
> topics than are others.
Yes, but if one is unable to change one's mind regarding any given
person, one is logically going to assume anyone with whom one disagrees
is not an expert.
Discussion of this topic in this newsgroup is too often too abstract
for the comfort of someone who gets these kinds of answers too often,
in place of any other kind. The opposite is always also true.
[snip]
--
Bianca Steele
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
John W. Kennedy wrote:
> laraine wrote:
> > It has been pointed out several times on this newsgroup
> > that is not at all fair to suggest that an anti-S would be a
> > Holocaust denier.
>
> Say rather, would /necessarily/ be a Holocaust denier.
>
--Bob G.
laraine
> laraine wrote:
> > And also, BTW, MM I believe is more into Hinduism
> > rather than Gnosticism.
>
> Gnosticism with Hindu trimming.
He did say yesterday that he was a Sikh,
and he certainly sounds as serious about
that as one can get.
C.
John W. Kennedy
> John W. Kennedy wrote:
>> laraine wrote:
>>> And also, BTW, MM I believe is more into Hinduism
>>> rather than Gnosticism.
>> Gnosticism with Hindu trimming.
>
> He did say yesterday that he was a Sikh,
> and he certainly sounds as serious about
> that as one can get.
Not serious enough to have changed his name.
spinoza1111
Boo fucking hoo. Anti-Shakespeare people deliberately ignore the
written evidence which is presented in each introduction to Shakespeare
and which can be verified with a trip to places such as the Folger
Shakespeare Library to view original documents. Robert Greene, despite
his hatred of Shakespeare in his "repentance" diatribe, claims
contemporaneously with Shakespeare that Shakespeare wrote the popular
plays that neither Greene nor a half-literate aristocrap could write.
Likewise, Holocaust deniers have to claim that an enormous effort,
which itself left no trace, was mounted to deceive Europe as to the
known disappearance of Jew, who left far more that a rack behind, who
left mounds of suitcases, mounds of bones (discovered by British and
American soldiers and documented contemporaneously in regimental
histories, and the written testimonial of Mein Kampf, another
"pennysworth of wit bought with a pound of repentance".
If a Shakespeare-denier looks in the fucking mirror, he will see a
Holocaust denier, another shit of the lower middle class, who having
failed in some way to have his Genius recognized, appoints himself, in
the case of Holocaust denial, to denying the suffering of others so
that his shitty little life is seen as the "real" suffering, or in the
case of Shakespeare denial, as a way of showing that he's a ready
lackey of the rich.
>
> >
> > >
> > > You are probably correct, however, that the members
> > > of this group are not medieval specialists, though I
> > > could be wrong about that.
> >
> > Note that you logically imply that unless a man labels himself, or is
> > labeled by others, a "specialist" or an "expert" in xyz, he loses by
> > your rule the ability to make testable truth claims on xyz. This is
> > nonsense.
> >
>
> Many people (including myself) will not assume that
> someone who is not known as an expert or even as
> an 'educated person' will not have good ideas to share.
I'm not here to share but to set the record straight.
I find the response limited by economic forces to a narrow band
selected from the lower middle class, with an over-representation of
lower middle class agendas including the inappropriate sharing of a
personal, economic wouind, dressed up as Shakespeare denial.
E. F. Hobsbawm, the British Marxist historian, writes about the
anarchism of the lower middle class: the fact that their famous
self-discipline masks a deep and abiding rage against their
subordination.
Psychologically, Shakespeare denial performs two functions.
It allows the lower middle class clerk to smash something without
getting into trouble at work, and if you are subordinated for decades,
you want very much to smash something...a part of you said "cool" when
the World Trade Center went down, since for the actual workers in the
actual companies, the WTC was not hedonic in any way.
It simultaneously reaffirms his loyalty to money and to power.
> > >
> > > >Your Answer: Shakespeare wanted to foreground the language issue in two scenes to
> > > >restrict the comedy to these scenes. Although the Dauphin is funny,
> > > >Shakespeare puts nothing amusing in his mouth for then he would not be
> > > >adequate as a foil to Henry: as it is, the Dauphin has to be
> > > >supplemented by the much more worthy Constable to be so adequate.
> > >
> > > Comedy? Is it really all that funny? Cute, perhaps, but funny?
> > > Subjective, of course. It is a nice light break in the play,
> > > though, I agree. More of a flirtation scene--and do you really
> > > think for a moment that a French princess doesn't speak
> > > English :-)
> >
> > Hmm, I'm not a fucking whore I mean expert, but I would hasard that
> > mediaeval women were not educated in foreign tongues. In fact, French
> > was eponomously the *lingua Franca* of England and France and it was
> > only in the later 14th century that the upper classes of England
> > abandoned the speaking of French according to language historian David
> > Crystal.
>
> Well, I would expect that a princess would have a better
> education than most. In any case, it sounds interesting
> enough that I might research the whole story myself.
My understanding is that princesses needed in Henry's time to learn
ornamental, Geisha like arts only such as tapestry and music.
>
> >
> > Katherine would have no reason prior to news of the invasion, and her
> > sexual excitement at the thought of meeting a lot of new chaps in the
> > event her boys lost (which looked likely given the disarray of the
> > court of the Valois) explains in the movie her sudden rage to learn the
> > language of the barbarian throng. The joke for the English man was that
> > the French girls had in secret decided that English men were hot.
> >
>
> Maybe S makes it into a 'joke,' but the actual
> situation probably would not have been like that
> at all. It was likely horrifying for Catherine to have
> been in a position like that.
This was injected into the 1990 remake of Henry V by Ken Branagh's then
wife Emma Thompson, who acts dismayed by Henry's scarred face
throughout and positively disgusted by him when she says is it possible
zat I should love zee enemy of France.
She's being bought and sold. Henry had no need to woo her since she was
part of the deal. This I agree would suck for her.
Don't know if Riggs comes to that conclusion, haven't finished the
book. I think Marlowe was killed by police agents.
...they probably bent over backwards, in their laudable way, to be nice
to her even as Princeton put up with my library fines. Camille was
something new as an Italian gal on a traditionally male campus: I was
new as a Midwestern autodidact barbarian.
George Bush has an MBA.
spinoza1111
Not to me, you are. You've made several ridiculous claims starting with
your "Oxfordian" [sic sic sic] claim.
A person who believes impossible things before or after breakfast is a
lunatic, not an educated person.
He thought he saw an Elephant
That played upon a Fife
He looked again and saw it was
A letter from his wife.
Alas, he said, I now realize
The futility of life.
(Extempore and from memory. You're not worth my time to check it out)
>
> > In fact, we find from the record that throughout the 16th
> > century, aristocrats minimized their exposure to education
> > despite the fact that what was on tap was limited by the
> > primitive state of European learning, and they minimized
> > it to the striking of poses, the memorization of Latin
> > tags, and the theft of the intellectual property of men
> > like Marlowe and Shakespeare.
>
> Hellooo...I'm over here!
Yoo most assuredly hoo.
>
> > Renaissance humanism, and that of the 17th century Baroque,
> > was a production of the middle classes, not of the arist-
> > ocracy. Are you even aware that the founder of French art,
> > Nicholas Poussin, was offended by the jejune taste of Louis
> > Bourbon XIV and preferred minor aristos and middle class
> > patrons resident in Rome?
>
> Gordon Bennett, you do go on.
...past your ken. Yet you consider yourself "educated"...
>
> > Pray tell me, why would this Oxford character be motivated
> > to write the corpus in the First Folio?
>
> I've no idea. Nor does it have any relevance to what I said,
> does it? You said that "[An educated person (whether he's
> gotten that education at an expensive university or at the
> public library)] will agree that the Shakespeare corpus was
> written by a middle-class man from Stratford." And I replied
> "I would regard myself as an educated person, and believe
> it far more probable that most of it was written by an
> extremely well educated person from Canterbury." What do
> you imagine that this has to do with Oxford?
It's an uneducated person who is quick to challenge "revelance". He
can't Connect.
>
> > Aristocrats, as Hegel knew, simply see no need to engage
> > themselves in more than low-volume dillettante production.
> > Are you even aware of how much sheer LABOR was involved in
> > crafting the Shakespeare corpus, or are you one of those
> > unpleasant fellows who flits from spa to spa thrashing the
> > help?
>
> I have no idea what that is supposed to mean.
...and yet we are so edumocated...
>
> > The HARD WORK of learning was done by Shakespeare in grammar
> > school, and by Marlowe in grammar school and at university,
> > since it was only by such HARD WORK could men from the
> > middle and laboring classes enter learned professions.
>
> Thank God that neither of them managed it then!
Petitio, where is thy principii?
>
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > > Comedy? Is it really all that funny? Cute, perhaps, but
> > > > > funny?
> > >
> > > Very funny, and very rude.
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > Christopher Marlowe was the son of an itinerant laborer
> > >
> > > Not really. At the time of Christopher's birth, his father
> > > was a Canterbury shoemaker who had lived there for several
> > > years. In fact he had already completed some five years of
> > > his apprenticeship there when he was admitted a freeman of
> > > Canterbury, only a month or two after Christopher's birth and
> > > stayed there for the remaining 40+ years of his life.
> >
> > Prior to establishing himself as such, Marlowe's father
> > was...an itinerant laborer.
>
> What you have done is to misunderstand David Riggs's statement
> that John was a "migrant worker". All he meant was that John
> wasn't born in Canterbury, but moved there from Ospringe (only
> ten miles away) to find work as a shoemaker. It has nothing
> to do with being either "itinerant" or a "laborer" - for which
> there is certainly no evidence.
Ten miles was two days walk. Therefore Jack Marlowe was an itinerant
laborer. QED.
>
> > BTW: the above is the first example of confirmable and true
> > specific information I've seen in this thread from another
> > poster. I am gratified to have so raised the bar.
>
> Stick around my friend. The bar hasn't changed one millimeter
> since your arrival.
The saloon bar is over there. Let me buy you a drink. You clearly need
one, since the bar has been raised.
The OED reports educated usage, including the usage of educated idiots.
>
> > > > to be lackeys of the upper classes spreading upper class
> > > > lies, since Riggs shows that the upper clawsses
> > >
> > > The way it is pronounced in RP English rhymes with 'arses'.
> >
> > This is complete bullshit. It rhymes in RP English with
> > itself. It is a Limey error to insert an R, and a lower-
> > class one to be so deliberately rhotic.
>
> The problem with being an autodidact is the lack of anyone
> to tell you when you are wrong. Never mind, though, you now
> have us to help you out. Whilst it may be in other English
> accents, in RP the 'r' in 'arses' is never rhotic. Trust me.
I'd rather not.
>
> > Its correct pronunciation is in fact midway between the
> > American "claaaass" with the a lengthened and nasalized,
> > and the British "clahss" which contains no hint of R save
> > in lower clawss speech,
>
> So just which accent do you fondly imagine that you are
> replicating when you refer to "the upper clawsses"?
That of the pretentious Limey, a species I'd hoped had went to its
reward. Oh well.
>
> > and in Lord Haw-Haw speech in which the r is emphasized
> > only to become a W through sheer aristo laziness.
>
> Lord Haw-Haw an aristo? Blighter wasn't even British don't
> you know? You'll be having us all saying "pip-pip old chap"
> next.
Baldur von Schirach was an American. Your point being?
>
> > > > simply refused to learn at the depth that enabled Marlowe
> > > > to break new ground with the iambic pentameter and complex
> > > > classical allusions.
> > >
> > > In fact Marlowe's classical allusions hardly ever went
> > > beyond the grammar school level of Ovid's *Metamorphoses*.
> >
> > Oh? And Ovid mentions "Sweet Analytics" of which Dr. Faustus
> > says, 'tis thou hast ravished me? And Justinian? And Galen?
>
> You call these "complex classical allusions"? They are simply
> what he, fresh out of Wittenberg, was talking about. Why not
> read what I actually said?
Marlowe went to Wittenberg, not Cambridge? My word.
>
> > > > What I said was that Marlowe was murdered by upper clawss
> > > > hirelings as portrayed by the butler in James Cameron's
> > > > Titanic in the world of 1911 because Marlowe had a mouth
> > > > and he had talent.
> > >
> > > It's one possible explanation of the Deptford story, but
> > > mine's better: <http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/sudden.htm>
>
> I recommend you read it. In fact in his more recent biography
> of Marlowe, Park Honan (with acknowledgment) made use
> of it in refuting some of what your authority David Riggs had
> said about Marlowe's death.
I believe that Marlowe's death is unknowable but given what I have seen
of British behavior, I suspect he was murdered.