Zensearch.
Richard Kennedy
Nathan is the author of the Richard Kennedy messages sent out by
the Richard Kennedy at Zensearch. My detectives have been on the
case.
Me: "You tracked it down then, and Zensearch gave you the dope."
Mike Dick: "Yeah, we gumshoed him right to his own joint."
Me: "You got the tape, then?"
Mike Dick: "200 mm lens, you bet. We got him at the computer.
The screen showed up beautiful."
Me: And he was sending out these Zensearch messages?
Mike Dick: "Yep."
Me: "Then what?"
Mike Dick: Then he wrote to you, a private message.
Me: "Yeah, I got it. What did he do then?"
Mike Dick: "He jacked off, "hotpants.com".
Me: He promised to give that up during Lent.
Mike Dick: It isn't Lent.
Me: Oh, yeah....well....
Mike Dick: What do you want I should do now?
Me: Are you any relation to Philip K. Dick?
Mike Dick: I'm an illigitimate first cousin, matter of fact.
Me: Okay, have you read "Flow my tears, the Policeman Said"
Mike Dick: Got a first edition, signed, got all his books.
Me: All right, go to -- wait, I'll get my copy -- ah, here it is,
go to page 137, and you'll know what to do next.
Mike: Gotcha. But you know, I'm kind of worried about all
this. Libel, slander, all that, and I'd be a sort of accomplice.
Me: Read the law, Truth is the defense against slander.
Mike Dick: Okay, so he denies he's a jack-off.
Me: He hasn't yet. If he did I wouldn't say it anymore, and
besides that you got the tapes.
Mike Dick: Well, that's a rough thing to lay on a guy, you know.
That's why he's so pissed off in the first place, saying it out in
public like that, I mean....
Me: Look at it this way. 99.9 % of men jack-off, and the others
are in a coma. Take yourself, for example...
Mike Dick: Hey, wait just a goddam second here, who you calling
a jack-off ?
Me: Can you deny it?
Mike Dick: I can punch your lights out! You're a jack-off, too,
don't give me that shit!
Me: Hey, don't stick your gum under the chair!
Mike Dick: Sorry.
Me: That's okay. Yeah, well, I used to be a jack-off, that's true enough.
Mike Dick: No shit? I mean, no shit you quit jacking off?
Me: Ah, that's for kids, you know, adolescent stuff. I gave it up.
Mike Dick: No kidding, I mean that's a hellava thing pardner.
Me: Cold turkey. Wasn't hard. Anyone could do it.
Mike Dick: Gave it up. Man, I give it to you for willpower. How
long ago you stop jacking off?.
Me: Let's see....it was last Saturday, I think.
Mike Dick: So you got deniability?
Me: Anyone can have it. All Nathan has to say is that he's stopped
jacking off, and I'll stop tormenting him.
Mike Dick: Page 137 you say?
Me: That's it, cousin. Check it out, then get to work.
Mike Dick: You know, it occurs to me that this Nathan creep, doing
that Zensearch thing is on a sort of....of....ah.....
Me: Slippery slope.
Mike Dick: Right, and I've got the tapes to prove it.
Me: See you later.
Mike Dick: I'll be around, and I'm keeping notes.
Me: Maybe I'll publish them.
Mike Dick: Phillip would have been proud. Page 137, got it.
This may be the last of the Mike Dick dialogues. He's kind of a heavy
dude, Tenderloin District ex-cop sort of character, smells of rye whiskey
and bribery, borderline scumbag jack-off, but so far he's useful, very much
the nature of Zensearch so we've got this common mind-set between the
both of them, and he should do okay. However, during the conversation
I saw him take his gum from his mouth, very obviously, and stick it under
the chair, and as I called him on it, as you can read, he stuck the wad back
in his mouth. Or so it seemed. When he left, I looked under the chair and
found a micro-bug stuck on with gum. Well, he's got a way to go yet before
he gets my complete trust. Page 137, like I said, and where he's going to
find a Shetland pony I wouldn't know, and how he's going to get it to
Nathan's yard I know less. But that's his job, nothing for a gentleman
scholar like myself, and I'm glad he answered my ad.
Richard Nathan
can't get anything right.
I'm not the person who has been posting messages under Richard Kennedy's
name.
While I can't blame anyone for wanting to poke fun at Kennedy, my father
is a victim of Alzheimer's, and it's not something I would ever choose to
joke about.
Richard Kennedy <stai...@teleport.com> wrote:
>
>Nathan is the author of the Richard Kennedy messages sent out by
>the Richard Kennedy at Zensearch. My detectives have been on the
>case.
>
>
(snip a lot of worthless crap)
Tom Reedy
accused you of it. If a person can't get Shakespeare right, how can you
expect him to get anything else right?
TR
In article <8104of$cmo$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Richard Nathan
I don't know who is posing as Richard Kennedy. It might be someone whom,
aside from this, I admire. But I don't admire continued posing as someone
else and attempting to mislead people.
One of the hardest things there is to justify is deliberately misleading
people. I'm not saying it should never be done - but I don't think its
right in this instance.
robert...@my-deja.com
an idea who he may be. If he is indeed not Richard Kennedy, I
don't really see that anyone is being misled since he acts and writes
exactly like Richard Kennedy. And he seems to be distracting Richard,
however little, from telling us that nobody ever called the Stratford
man a writer until he had been dead for seven years, etc., which
is a good thing. He also seems to be annoying Richard. Considering
how much Richard has annoyed the sane contributors to HLAS, I
count that another good thing.
By the way, I don't know why Richard Kennedy keeps claiming I'm calling
him a drunken moron. The only thing that connects him to the person
I'm calling a drunken moron is his name.
--Bob G.
Richard Kennedy
Zensearch Kennedy. He says he has an opinion, and let us hear what
it is. And, as he says, I must confess that I have long time disturbed
the Stratfordians at this place. Zensearch has been disturbed down
to the cost and trouble of a new email address, down to his ratsoul ,
down to his loins, and he is down on his knees sucking at my
cyber-cock. Guarantee yourself that I can keep him there until he has
knee-scabs and a sore glottis, for I can fuck him in his cyber-mouth
till his eyes goggle, his brains gurggle and his sinus spouts ratshit,
believe it.
Symposium1
>If Zensense Richard Kennedy isn't teleport Richard Kennedy, I have
>an idea who he may be. If he is indeed not Richard Kennedy, I
>don't really see that anyone is being misled since he acts and writes
>exactly like Richard Kennedy.
Oh, good grief, another authorship controversy. Is there no end?
--Ann
robert...@my-deja.com
Calm down, Ann--this is only the third one. It only
afflicts the greatest geniuses, Homer, Shakespeare, and
Richard J. Kennedy, so we shouldn't have any more for
a while.
Caius Marcius
LOL!
Only difference is that we have multiple claimants for the honor of
writing the Iliad and Hamlet, while no one wants to acknowledge being
the author of Zensearch.
- CMC
Stephanie Caruana
Caius Marcius wrote in message <813gli$l03$1...@nntp6.atl.mindspring.net>...
Give the controversy time to ripen.
Stephanie
Greg Reynolds
Stephanie Caruana wrote:
But Stephanie, 250 years ??
Greg Reynolds
Dave Kathman
>
> In article <8152sn$nii$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, robert...@my-deja.com writes:
>
> >But things move faster in modern times, so zensense
> >Kennedy's work has already been assigned to Richard Nathan and
> >Dave Kathman. Also to Richard Kennedy, the first literary genius in
> >history to use his own name as a pseudonym (and fool himself).
>
> Perhaps Richard Kennedy never existed; perhaps all this time he has been the
> alterego of one of these or another HLAS member. That would explain a lot.
If so, this person would have to have been a member
of the SHAKSPER for at least the last five years, because
I first encountered Kennedy there before HLAS ever existed.
In fact, he was largely responsible for getting
authorship discussion banned from that list, which
indirectly led to the creation of this group.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Symposium1
cori...@ix.netcom.com(Caius Marcius) writes:
>In <813coh$fl9$1...@nnrp1.deja.com> robert...@my-deja.com writes:
>>
>>In article <19991118235228...@ngol02.aol.com>,
>> sympo...@aol.computer (Symposium1) wrote:
>>> In article <811tu1$fin$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, robert...@my-deja.com
>>writes:
>>>
>>> >If Zensense Richard Kennedy isn't teleport Richard Kennedy, I have
>>> >an idea who he may be. If he is indeed not Richard Kennedy, I
>>> >don't really see that anyone is being misled since he acts and
>writes
>>> >exactly like Richard Kennedy.
>>>
>>> Oh, good grief, another authorship controversy. Is there no end?
>>>
>>> --Ann
>>>
>>
>>Calm down, Ann--this is only the third one. It only
>>afflicts the greatest geniuses, Homer, Shakespeare, and
>>Richard J. Kennedy, so we shouldn't have any more for
>>a while.
>
>LOL!
>
>Only difference is that we have multiple claimants for the honor of
>writing the Iliad and Hamlet, while no one wants to acknowledge being
>the author of Zensearch.
Wait...did I miss something here, Caius?
Multiple claimants? These people CLAIMED themselves to be the authors of these
respective works? I thought that other people posthumously assigned them those
honors.
--Ann
robert...@my-deja.com
That's right. But things move faster in modern times, so zensense
Kennedy's work has already been assigned to Richard Nathan and
Dave Kathman. Also to Richard Kennedy, the first literary genius in
history to use his own name as a pseudonym (and fool himself).
--Bob G.
Symposium1
>But things move faster in modern times, so zensense
>Kennedy's work has already been assigned to Richard Nathan and
>Dave Kathman. Also to Richard Kennedy, the first literary genius in
>history to use his own name as a pseudonym (and fool himself).
Perhaps Richard Kennedy never existed; perhaps all this time he has been the
alterego of one of these or another HLAS member. That would explain a lot.
--Ann
Richard Kennedy
Shaksper groups is that it was just getting too difficult for Kathman and
the like to answer a few simple questions about the man from Stratford,
and besides that, Mr. Kathman's use of the term "brain farts" to refer
to some of these questions.
Dave Kathman wrote:
Dave Kathman
>
> Actrually, I think what got the Authorship Questin banned from the
> Shaksper groups is that it was just getting too difficult for Kathman and
> the like to answer a few simple questions about the man from Stratford,
> and besides that, Mr. Kathman's use of the term "brain farts" to refer
> to some of these questions.
No, I believe you're mistaken. I never used the term
"brain farts" or anything similar on SHAKSPER; I
tried to respond reasonably to your shrill posts,
only occasionally betraying my annoyance with your
tiresome repetition and apparent inability or
unwillingness to actually read your opponents'
words. For the record, the following are your
first few posts to SHAKSPER almost exactly five
years ago, and my responses. Other people were
also responding to you, but your last post in the
exchange below led numerous people to accuse you
of gratuitous racism, and to express their incredulity
that such childishness was appearing on a supposedly
moderated mailing list for the discussion of Shakespeare.
This in turn led to an avalanche of posts which
led Hardy Cook, a week or two later, to declare
authorship out of bounds on SHAKSPER. Several of
the Oxfordians on the list privately expressed to me
their regret that you had shown up and caused the
discussion to degenerate so quickly, but they agreed
that things could not go on as they were.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard J Kennedy <rken...@ednet1.osl.or.gov> |
Date: Sunday, 4 Dec 1994 16:27:48 -0800
Subject: Re: SHK 5.0962 Authorship
Foster's study is flawed from the start because the assumption it is
based on
is wrong. He supposes that his results prove that the playwright, being
an
actor, imprinted on his brain ceretain "rare words" that he himself had
to
memorize and act out on the stage. These fresh new words, so the theory
goes,
just naturally found a way into the next play that he wrote.
Now it's obvious that we don't know anything at all, nor have we any
precedent
to believe that this is how the creative process works.
But that is a small jump. The big jump Foster makes is to assume that
the
actor from Stratford wrote the plays. Foster is merely inventing that.
There
is no proof that the man from Stratford wrote a single sentence in his
whole
life. When he was dead for seven years, he is first put up as the
writer of
the plays, and not a moment before.
But yet Kathman says it is a good study, and can't imagine any other
"assumption" that fits. Since we're taking a lot of liberty here, why
not
imagine this:
The parts in which those *rare words* occur were the parts
played by an actor who always wanted some fresh words to
say, and the playwright obliged.
I've had to invent this actor and imagine his temper, but it's more
reasonable
than inventing a story that the man from Stratford could write plays, or
write
anything more than his own name. There's no proof of that at all, and
even the
Stratfordians admit it.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard J Kennedy <rken...@ednet1.osl.or.gov>
Date: Sunday, 4 Dec 1994 17:33:49 -0800
Subject: Re: SHK 5.0962 Authorship
Kathman says in his latest post that the Oxfordians depend their claim
on a
conspiracy. Isn't that okay? Aren't conspiracies possible? Let's look
at the
Stratfordian conspiracy.
This man from Stratford lived in London and wrote two long and popular
poems,
plus a double handful of plays which were much admired and attended, and
acted
parts in them as well. He was a man of the theater, hung out with the
other
actors, poets, and play- wrights, I suppose. He was also an intimate of
the
court and had a great lord as a patron. I suppose he knew hundreds of
people,
and was doing theater business a good part of his lifetime and was very
successful at it. That's the Stratfordian story.
Now the Stratfordian conspiracy. No one ever mentions that this man from
Stratford is a writer. They *all* keep mum about it, total silence is
the
game, and hundreds of people involved in this absolute shut down of any
information that would connect the man from Stratford with the writing
of the
poems and plays. It's true. Not a word leaks out. Even when he dies
the
secret is kept. Nobody says "boo" when he's alive, and no one says
"boo-hoo"
when he dies. A great hush lies over the man's life if you would seek
to find
him out as a playwright.
So the Oxfordians have their conspiracy theory, and the Stratfordians
have
theirs. Kathman likes the Stratfordian conspiracy best, and that's fair
enough.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Joseph Kathman <dj...@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Monday, 5 Dec 94 18:44:26 CST
Subject: authorship
A tip for Richard J. Kennedy: you can attract more flies with honey than
you
can with vinegar.
Normally, I wouldn't bother responding to Mr. Kennedy's snit, since he
obviously hasn't been reading this thread (at least that's the most
charitable
interpretation I can put on his comments), but since I'm in the mood
I'll
respond briefly to his assertion that "when he [the Stratford man] was
dead for
seven years he is first put up as the writer of the plays, and not a
moment
before." Now, to me, when a man's name appears repeatedly on the title
pages
of various works, he is being claimed as the author of those works. The
name
"William Shakespeare" appeared in print under the dedications to *Venus
and
Adonis* and *The Rape of Lucrece*, and on the title pages of various
works,
plus "Shakespeare" (and sometimes "Shakspeare") was cited in print by
Meres and
others as the author of various works. There was a man named William
Shakespeare, from Stratford, who was an actor in the company which put
on these
plays. (And please don't try to tell me that this man's name was
"Shaksper" or
some such thing; the most common spelling of his name by far was
"Shakespeare",
and in London records this spelling was used 85 percent of the time ---
45
times out of 53 by my count.) To me, this is prima facie evidence that
this
man was the author of these plays, or at the very least that everybody
thought
he was. If you want something more definite, look at the play *The
Return from
Parnassus*, written in 1601-2 and published in 1606. There are two
characters
named Kempe and Burbage, who are obviously intended to be William Kempe
and
Richard Burbage from the King's Men; at one point Kempe says, "Few of
the
university pen plaies well, they smell too much of that writer Ovid, and
that
writer Metamorphosis, and talke too much of Properpina and Jupiter. Why
heres
our fellow Shakespeare puts them all down, aye and Ben Jonson too. O
that Ben
Jonson is a pestilent fellow, he brought up Horace giving the Poets a
pill, but
our fellow Shakespeare hath given him a purge that made him beray his
credit."
A little later Burbage has another character audition for the part of
Richard
III by reciting a couple of lines from the play. This to me looks like
clear
evidence that the author Shakespeare: (1) was a fellow of Kempe and
Burbage in
the King's Men, (2) did not have a University education, and (3) was a
rival of
Ben Jonson. Or, *at the very least*, this is clear evidence that a lot
of
people thought that these things were true in 1601-2. There are
numerous other
instances where the author Shakespeare is spoken of as an actor, as
uneducated,
and as a real person, both during the Stratford man's lifetime and
afterword.
I didn't intend to go on this long, but I just wanted to address the
silly
Oxfordian claim that until 1623 nobody associated the actor William
Shakespeare
from Stratford with the plays and poems, since it's one of the more
egregiously
ridiculous and most easily falsifiable bits of Oxfordian dogma, and I
don't
think I've dealt with it before.
Dave Kathman
dj...@midway.uchicago.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard Kennedy <rken...@ednet1.osl.or.gov>
Date: Tuesday, 6 Dec 1994 19:27:06 -0800
Subject: Authorship
David Kathman quotes a passage from The Return From Parnassus, a frolic
that
was written by some St. John's College, Cambridge students for the fun
of the
1601 Christmas season. It was a sort of Hasty Pudding show, an
irreverent
antic, or an "ironical review", as Sidney Lee has it. Kathman wants us
to
believe that this clabbered-up amusement supports his view that the man
from
Stratford was a playwright. Sidney Lee is not so humorless. He says
that this
"perplexing passage...may well be incapable of a literal
interpretation."
But I thought that my question to Kathman was as clear as water. Here
it is
again: Why is it that the man from Stratford cannot be found out to be
the
writer of the poems and plays of "Shakespeare"? It seems it would be an
easy
thing to prove. Whoever wrote the poems and plays was for some 15 years
a
superstar, but the man from Stratford, an actor no less, never stands
forth in
the limelight. "Shakespeare" remains to be a name on paper only. There
is no
flesh and blood man behind the name. That's the whole problem; that's
why
there's an "authorship question.
I believe that the question, insofar as it touches on the Stratfordian
conspiracy, is quite intelligible. If my machine could do the job, I'd
draw
Kathman a picture.
Kennedy ###
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Joseph Kathman <dj...@midway.uchicago.edu>
Date: Wednesday, 7 Dec 94 19:31:29 CST
Subject: Authorship
Against my better judgement, I am actually going to respond to Richard
J.
Kennedy, albeit briefly. Mr. Kennedy asserts that a "Stratfordian
conspiracy"
is necessary to account for the lack of any contemporary document saying
"William Shakespeare of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote Hamlet", which is what
I take
it he demands as evidence for Shakespeare's authorship. I'm going to
beat my
head one more time against this particular brick wall: the amount and
type of
evidence linking William Shakespeare of Stratford with the plays which
bear his
name is entirely typical for the time, and is considerably better than
the
comparable evidence for most of Shakespeare's contemporaries.
Apparently Mr.
Kennedy was snoozing several weeks ago when I went through the
tenousness of
the evidence linking Christopher Marlowe to the plays attributed to him
(or to
any writing at all, for that matter). Mr. Kennedy also says that "even
when he
dies the secret is kept," and "no one says 'boo-hoo' when he dies, a
reference
to the Oxfordian dogma that Shakespeare's death went unnoticed. What
the hell
do you call the Stratford monument? I know, I know, part of the
conspiracy.
And what about William Basse's memorial poem to Shakespeare, which
explicitly
says that "he dyed in April 1616"? It circulated widely in manuscript,
as
evidenced by the fact that about a dozen seventeenth century copies
survive, and
though it didn't reach print until 1640, it was clearly around before
1623,
since Ben Jonson responds to it in his poem in the First Folio. Oh
yeah, I
forgot that Ben's poem is part of the conspiracy too, and I suppose
Basse's
poem must be as well. The fact is, Shakespeare's death was better
memorialized
than those of just about any of his contemporary playwrights. What do
you
want, his obituary? Sorry to burst your bubble, but there were no
newspapers
then. I could go through a long list of Elizabethan dramatists and
poets whose
deaths passed with much less of a reaction than Shakespeare's caused.
We don't
even know what *decade* John Webster died in, for God's sake; he could
have
died any time between 1625 and 1634.
I don't want to get into a long discussion of *The Return from
Parnassus*. Dom
Saliani says that the passage I quoted doesn't connect the plays with
Stratford; well, no, but it does connect the actor Shakespeare with the
plays,
and I thought we had established that the actor was the Stratford man.
Mr.
Saliani also says that the Cambridge students who wrote the plays were
making
fun of the players; I can see that, and it's certainly in keeping with
the
reputation of actors at the time. My point on this passage is that it's
clearly being *asserted* that the actor Shakespeare was a playwright,
rival of
Ben Jonson, etc., and that this assertion must have been widely
believed, or
else the passage would make no sense. Whether you think the assertion
was true
or not, it makes it impossible to claim, as Richard Kennedy did, that
the
Stratford man was never connected with the plays during his lifetime
(and
that's quite apart from his name appearing on all those title pages,
plus other
pre-1616 allusions to the author being an actor and unlearned). I'm not
in the
mood right now to argue over the meaning of this passage; maybe some
other
time.
Charles Boyle's comments are reasonable, and not unlike those I've heard
from
other Oxfordians. Shakespeare's plays are so great that we naturally
want to
know more about the mind that produced them; what we know about William
Shakespeare, while entirely typical in both quantity and quality for the
playwrights of the time, leaves us thirsting for more. Nature abhors a
vacuum,
and believing in the Oxfordian theory allows some people to associate
these
great works with a person whose life story is more in keeping with their
idea
of who the playwright must have been. If this required a conspiracy of
unprecedented vastness, never revealed by any of the hundreds or
thousands who
must have been privy to it, so be it. But you know what? I'm sure if
the
dramas of Marlowe and Webster were as widely read as Shakespeare's,
people
would start questioning their authorship too; what we know of them (at
least in
relation to the plays) is less than we know for Shakespeare, but their
plays
are as rich and powerful as just about any of Shakespeare's.
Shakespeare is so
familiar that people identify with him, I think, and feel a personal
interest
in authorship debates. The passions aroused in this thread and
elsewhere is
certainly real. As I've said before, I don't want to shout anybody down
or
suppress anybody's views; I just want to get the facts straight and in
the
proper context. Once this is done, I think the Oxfordian case is much
less
compelling to the layman than it is as usually presented, but if someone
still
wants to believe it, along with the attendant conspiracy, I won't stop
you. I
just don't see any reason either to doubt the attribution of these plays
and
poems to William Shakespeare, or to believe that Edward de Vere wrote
them; all
the external evidence we have says Shakespeare wrote them, and the
alleged
internal evidence for Oxford is extremely weak when you look at the
whole
picture. Plus, the evidence that some of the plays were written after
Oxford's
death is very strong.
I see this message is longer than I expected. With regard to my last
point,
I've written up a piece which summarized the very considerable evidence
that
*The Tempest* was written no earlier than 1610. It's very long, at
least twice
as long as any of these Authorship postings, so I don't plan to post it;
but if
anybody would like a copy, drop me a line and I can forward you one. I
think
it's pretty convincing, but what do I know?
Dave Kathman
dj...@midway.uchicago.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Richard J Kennedy <rken...@ednet1.osl.or.gov>
Date: Thursday, 8 Dec 1994 17:40:15 -0800
Subject: authorship
It certainly *should* be "against the better judgment" of David Kathman
to
start an argument with Sidney Lee about the obscurity of that passage in
*The
Return from Parnassus".
As to the death of the man from Stratford in 1616. It was some 7 years
later
that the monument was put up in Holy Trinity church. As to the William
Basse
poem, it first turns up in 1620, 4 years after the man from Stratford
dies, and
it is all alone.
On the other hand, when Ben Jonson died in 1637, he was buried in
Westminster,
and within a year was published *Jonsonus Virbius*, a collection of some
40
poems of praise and sorrow, contributed by the most distinguished poets
of the
time.
I believe such facts *are* of interest to the layman, although Kathman
doesn't.
Perhaps he truly doesn't understand the question. This all goes to the
conspiracy of silence surrounding the Stratford man. Since I can't draw
him a
picture, let me try another way to coax Kathman to the understanding of
a very
simple thing.
"Stratford man -- big fella poet -- he die. No other
fella poet makem words, say goodbye, sorry Big Fella."
Catch'em question, Kathman?
Kennedy
Richard Kennedy
I should mention once again that the Zensearch rat poster is
Greg Reynolds. I've said this once before. Would Greg Reynolds
like to deny it?
Deep in his rathole, Reynolds is grinding his long yellow teeth on
a bone, wondering what to do next. Should he deny it, and will
he want me to prove it?
But before that proof is asked for, here's something to think about.
You all know how Reynolds jumped into the ratposter discussion
immediately, quite interested in reporting how it was going, and how
I was helpless,and it was such a joy for him to be working at the
puzzle that was perplexing several of us here. Picture a rat in his
hole, afraid to come into the light, lounging on his garbage, laying
turds and licking them smooth, then rolling them out into the bright
room of H.L.A.S where the rest of us, no matter our opinions,
go by our own honest names.
But you know how it is with pyromaniacs, how they are always in
the crowd, their eyes aglow with burning interest about everything,
talking it up with the crowd, admiring their wonderful blazing work.
And in the case of a mysterious murder, how they want to rub
against the detectives and give opinions and make suggestions on
the modus operandi of the killer, and even want to help out solving
the case. Same thing with Reynolds, not clever, but like a child
who shits in the closet and can't help pointing it out, needing the
attention he wasn't getting otherwise.
But as I say, he wasn't the most obvious choice for the rat poster
until it became obvious he was more interested in his ratshit than
anyone else and was promoting interest, rather taking the part of
our host and guide, making book, and nudging the turd to keep it
rolling along. But the mistake he made that convinced me, was when
he made a reference to me in a "Bear suit." Only someone who had
been digging into deja news would know that several years ago
I mentioned that I played the Bear in The Winter's Tale. No doubt
that was forgotten by everyone, but it was brought fresh to Greg
Reynolds as he was searching deja news for some image to dress
me in.
Now let Greg Reynolds deny all this, and we'll get to the hard ball,
which is to say that there is a path that goes from Zensearch.com
directly back to Reynolds. It's technical, and a bit tiresome, and I
won't bother with it unless Reynolds denies that he is the rat poster,
and then he will not only be a rat-sneak, but a rat-liar as well.
Also, I believe it might be fair to punish Greg Reynolds for his rat-antics.
By putting up those rat-posts, he wanted to hide out in his rat-hole and
be a non-person laying his rat shit on all of us. Therefore, I declare
Greg Reynolds to be a Non-Person from this day on. Anyone who
associates with the man at this place, engages in conversation, debate,
or his general name-calling, is a rat-patron by approval of this rat-man.
He is a Non-Person, fiat. His opinions touching on the sonnets or the
plays, or on the Authorship Question are the opinions of a rat-man,
and to touch him is to be infected, for he carries a sickness, and he is
a sickness.
Greg Reynolds
promptly.
Richard Kennedy wrote:
> I should mention once again that the Zensearch rat poster is
> Greg Reynolds. I've said this once before. Would Greg Reynolds
> like to deny it?
You are a liar, I am not Zensearch.
> Deep in his rathole, Reynolds is grinding his long yellow teeth on
> a bone, wondering what to do next. Should he deny it, and will
> he want me to prove it?
You can't prove it. You can prove that you lied, though.
> But before that proof is asked for, here's something to think about.
> You all know how Reynolds jumped into the ratposter discussion
> immediately, quite interested in reporting how it was going, and how
> I was helpless,and it was such a joy for him to be working at the
> puzzle that was perplexing several of us here.
Not my words, you drunken moron. I believe Zensearch is your own son.
> Picture a rat in his
> hole, afraid to come into the light, lounging on his garbage, laying
> turds and licking them smooth, then rolling them out into the bright
> room of H.L.A.S where the rest of us, no matter our opinions,
> go by our own honest names.
Envy that writing!
> But you know how it is with pyromaniacs, how they are always in
> the crowd, their eyes aglow with burning interest about everything,
> talking it up with the crowd, admiring their wonderful blazing work.
Sorry, mine would be greater, brighter. This is kidstuff (your kid).
> And in the case of a mysterious murder, how they want to rub
> against the detectives and give opinions and make suggestions on
> the modus operandi of the killer, and even want to help out solving
> the case.
My theory is the best I've read, yes.
> Same thing with Reynolds, not clever, but like a child
> who shits in the closet and can't help pointing it out, needing the
> attention he wasn't getting otherwise.
Mirror writing.
You have no idea the subject matter of this group, do you?
> But as I say, he wasn't the most obvious choice for the rat poster
> until it became obvious he was more interested in his ratshit than
> anyone else and was promoting interest, rather taking the part of
> our host and guide, making book, and nudging the turd to keep it
> rolling along.
I am innocent.
> But the mistake he made that convinced me, was when
> he made a reference to me in a "Bear suit." Only someone who had
> been digging into deja news would know that several years ago
> I mentioned that I played the Bear in The Winter's Tale. No doubt
> that was forgotten by everyone, but it was brought fresh to Greg
> Reynolds as he was searching deja news for some image to dress
> me in.
Never happened, Yogi.
> Now let Greg Reynolds deny all this, and we'll get to the hard ball,
> which is to say that there is a path that goes from Zensearch.com
> directly back to Reynolds.
I denied it yesterday, because it ain't so.
You are lying. Drunk, stupid, and lying.
And you're about to go to far (again).
> It's technical, and a bit tiresome, and I
> won't bother with it unless Reynolds denies that he is the rat poster,
> and then he will not only be a rat-sneak, but a rat-liar as well.
I deny it. Get busy.
Maybe an electrical engineer can straighten you out.
You are a liar, and that is the only conclusion you can draw.
> Also, I believe it might be fair to punish Greg Reynolds for his rat-antics.
> By putting up those rat-posts, he wanted to hide out in his rat-hole and
> be a non-person laying his rat shit on all of us. Therefore, I declare
> Greg Reynolds to be a Non-Person from this day on. Anyone who
> associates with the man at this place, engages in conversation, debate,
> or his general name-calling, is a rat-patron by approval of this rat-man.
> He is a Non-Person, fiat. His opinions touching on the sonnets or the
> plays, or on the Authorship Question are the opinions of a rat-man,
> and to touch him is to be infected, for he carries a sickness, and he is
> a sickness.
Dead wrong again.
Let's hear ya prove it now.
But first, let's make it interesting.
If you prove your idiotic belief, I will leave forever.
If you fail, you leave forever.
Got guts?
You are a miserable liar and I got you on the spit now.
There is no way out for you. I am innocent, and you're stuck.
Show your proof (ha ha ha) and pack your bags.
Its time somebody shut your filthy mouth for good, Richard.
And I'll need a retraction from you in your final farewell.
If your next post is not your "proof," it better be your apology.
Greg Reynolds
(Your stupid giveaway was accusing me of searching deja for YOUR posts! Why
would anyone devote a single minute to anything you've thought or said, you
vainglorious, self-indulged, corrupt, intoxicated lunatic?)
Richard Kennedy
My apologies to Greg Reynolds about being the Rat-Poster, but it's
the standard drill for detectives, you know, a game of elimination you
understand after rounding up the usual suspects. Now we know that
Nathan, Grumman, Kathman, and yourself are innocent, because you
have all said so, and I'm sorry for the mental anguish I've caused you
and your family especially, but you are now out of contention as the
rat-poster,and I take your quick and angry denial to be the work of a
man truely insulted.
Who's next? Who's this shit-whiskered rodent rolling his turds out
for us to admire and wonder at? It would be someone of enormous
vanity, someone who slicks and licks his ratty tale, someone who
turns the mirror on himself and finds the reflection of his writing full
of wit and accomplishment. It's someone who would be at the scene
of the crime, as I've said, someone who would like to help out,
someone who would like to examine his handiwork as Zensearch
and make some comment on his own cleverness. Someone, in
short, who would say things like this, commenting on the prose of
the Zensearch Kennedy:
"Thanks for the laughs, mystery man. You've got him down so well
he can't tell your words from his own."
"You play the fool so adeptly I'm almost compelled to belief. However,
I think you've overplayed it slightly here. No one is quite as dense as
you'd have us think you are. Thanks again for the laughs.
"(your post) is not as good as what you've been sending from your
zensearch address...."
"You post the worse of zensearch's posts. I'll do the same for your
recent efforts. We'll compare them side by side."
"Actually, compared to that, zensearch's style is relatively calm..."
"I'm enjoying your joke. Keep up the good work. The zensearch
posts were your best yet."
"...you seem to be indulging in a humorous bit of self-flagellation with
your mysterious zensearch alter-ego. As far as content and style goes,
his posts might as well be yours. If no detectable difference exists, why
then, he's the ultimate Richard Kennedy clone or he's you in disguise...."
"The zensearch man is not Kennedy? I was two or three times thinking
that he was not and yet the closeness of the texts to his preferred modes
of flatus, the very authentic temper of the argument, drives me to the
notion, that at the bottom of this ancient mystery (etc)...."
And who wrote these things, all a-tickle with laughter and full of
compliments for the rat-poster at zensearch? The ratshitter of the above is
Xrob. The rat-poster is Xrob, who has got himself into a true rat-hole,
and dragging his rat-tail behind him from this time on has made himself
at this place a Non-person. That's my declaration, and all who have
any truck with Xrob are Rat-Patrons.
But let him deny it and we'll go to the next suspect, and I will make my
usual humble apology. Let's hear it from Xrob, then. Will he deny that
he wrote the Zensearch posts?
But here's more. Just a couple of days ago, Xrob busted through the
yellow tape and got right next to the detective in this wise, giving his
best help to solve the case. Read his Friday the 19th post, how the
man is just so eager to examine the evidence. But notice how his
vanity gets in the way, and how he gives himself away in the admiration
of his own cunning.
"If teleport Kennedy is zensearch, then he's playing a brilliant prank
on us all. He would be deserving of the highest applause and would,
I have no doubt, be awarded the first-ever HLAS Genius of the Year
Award."
Then Xrob goes on to review the evidence for the detective, but he
can't do it without more compliments for himself:
"The character, substance, and style of zensearch's posts have been
nearly identical to teleport's (Perhaps a touch more witty....)
"....he is a brilliant prankster."
"...he's worthy of our applause...."
The Non-person Xrob has had some good laughs, as he tells us, but now
he will have to be sad. Either sad or silent. Now he sits in his rathole
fingering his long yellow teeth. What should he do? Should he quickly
made a light-hearted confession, as if such a low rat-shit practice is just
good fun and everyone should admire his "brilliant" work, his "genius"
as he calls it? Maybe he should deny the thing outright, with such a
passion as Reynolds righteously called up? Should he just say nothing
further and hope for the best? Do I really have some tech-evidence that
nails him for certain? He's not sure about that. It he denies he's the
rat-poster will I also show him to be a rat-liar? It's all dark in his
rathole. He would like to do something brilliant and genius-like, but
maybe the best of that was spent on the zensearch posts. His rat-anus
is getting tight, his reputation at stake, and he ponders the situation and
licks his rat-balls for comfort, sitting in the tangled nest he's made for
himself.
He may deny his Rat-posts, and maybe not. Whatever he says will
be cheesy, depend on that, but the rat-trap is hair-triggered, and
Xrob is slow, all grimed and knotted over with the ratshit of his own
making, a very slow-witted lugging rat, quick at the mouth only.
BobGr...@nut-n-but.net
Kennedy, but if I have, it would only be because I'd hate anyone to know
I've wasted enough time reading your drivel to be able to imitate it.
So I hereby disavow any denials, implicit or explicit I--or Robert
Grumman, whoever he is--may have made.
I'm with Greg, however, in believing that zensense Kennedy is you. My
scenario is different from his, though. I think that you suddenly saw
how you could double your repetitions of lying propaganda by taking
on a pseudonym, and "Richard Kennedy" struck you as a good one--
neutral-sounding but with connotations of (American) royalty. You
had, of course, forgotten that it was your own real name. Later,
when you were sober enough to realize what you'd done, you began
pretending zensense Kennedy was someone else--and continued him,
giving him lines to support your revised hoax.
Alvin Sidwick
> >
> > - CMC
>
> Give the controversy time to ripen.
>
> Stephanie
Nope -- this one's spoiled. It's been mentioned around 200 years too
early.
Xr...@xpcr8.xpcr.com
On Sun, 21 Nov 1999, Inspector Clouseau bumbled:
>
>
> My apologies to Greg Reynolds about being the Rat-Poster, but it's
> the standard drill for detectives, you know, a game of elimination you
> understand after rounding up the usual suspects.
The detective, after making several absurdly false arrests in a row, finds
himself in an occupation more suitable to his talents, perhaps bagging
groceries or busing tables.
Or are you now re-casting yourself(for our entertainment) as the Inspector
Clouseau of HLAS?
"Yeuw swine! Yeuw have behn accuse-ed!"
<snip>
> Who's next? Who's this shit-whiskered rodent rolling his turds out
> for us to admire and wonder at? It would be someone of enormous
> vanity, someone who slicks and licks his ratty tale, someone who
> turns the mirror on himself and finds the reflection of his writing full
> of wit and accomplishment. It's someone who would be at the scene
> of the crime, as I've said, someone who would like to help out,
> someone who would like to examine his handiwork as Zensearch
> and make some comment on his own cleverness. Someone, in
> short, who would say things like this, commenting on the prose of
> the Zensearch Kennedy:
>
> "Thanks for the laughs, mystery man. You've got him down so well
> he can't tell your words from his own."
Should I should be faulted for telling the truth? After all, you *did*
claim his words as your own. (If you are not zensearch, it makes you look
like a proper idiot.)
> "You play the fool so adeptly I'm almost compelled to belief. However,
> I think you've overplayed it slightly here. No one is quite as dense as
> you'd have us think you are. Thanks again for the laughs.
I suppose I should admit that I don't really think you do what you
do in play.
> "(your post) is not as good as what you've been sending from your
> zensearch address...."
Zensearch does *seem* the wittier Kennedy. They say competition is
healthy. What do you think? Will you now be inspired to wittier efforts?
(I, for one, would appreciate it.)
> "You post the worse of zensearch's posts. I'll do the same for your
> recent efforts. We'll compare them side by side."
By the way, I'm still waiting.
> "Actually, compared to that, zensearch's style is relatively calm..."
A kinder, gentler, less obsessed with rat-shit, Kennedy.
<snip>
> "The zensearch man is not Kennedy? I was two or three times thinking
> that he was not and yet the closeness of the texts to his preferred modes
> of flatus, the very authentic temper of the argument, drives me to the
> notion, that at the bottom of this ancient mystery (etc)...."
That was part of my own unfortunately pathetic attempt at a
RichardKennedyism. (I do believe I've sewed up last place.)
> And who wrote these things, all a-tickle with laughter and full of
> compliments for the rat-poster at zensearch? The ratshitter of the above is
> Xrob. The rat-poster is Xrob, who has got himself into a true rat-hole,
> and dragging his rat-tail behind him from this time on has made himself
> at this place a Non-person. That's my declaration, and all who have
> any truck with Xrob are Rat-Patrons.
To be honest, rat-shit doesn't really do much for me. To each his own,
I guess. I imagine you already have socks full. Otherwise, I suggest
putting in an order with Santa.
> But let him deny it and we'll go to the next suspect, and I will make my
> usual humble apology. Let's hear it from Xrob, then. Will he deny that
> he wrote the Zensearch posts?
>
> But here's more. Just a couple of days ago, Xrob busted through the
> yellow tape and got right next to the detective in this wise, giving his
> best help to solve the case. Read his Friday the 19th post, how the
> man is just so eager to examine the evidence. But notice how his
> vanity gets in the way, and how he gives himself away in the admiration
> of his own cunning.
>
> "If teleport Kennedy is zensearch, then he's playing a brilliant prank
> on us all. He would be deserving of the highest applause and would,
> I have no doubt, be awarded the first-ever HLAS Genius of the Year
> Award."
And if you can demonstrate that you are indeed zensearch Kennedy, you'll
surely have my vote.
> Then Xrob goes on to review the evidence for the detective, but he
> can't do it without more compliments for himself:
If you can demonstrate that I am zensearch Kennedy, you can have my vote
for HLAS genius of the decade.
<snip Richard's rat-copralala>
Have a hippo Thanksgiving,
Rob
Remove the Xs to reply.
Richard Kennedy
anonymous and pseudonymous writing is the great
lesson of how very easy it is to hoodwink a lot of
innocent lookers-on as to who wrote what (if they
care at all), and of what use it is to deny or to take
credit for a piece of writing, which is to say that
it’s of practically no use at all. It should be very
clear that someone doesn’t wish to be known as the
Zensearch Kennedy, and in the tempest of accusation
and denial, how should an innocent by-stander know
anything much? -- and of course he doesn’t.
This is the reason that 50% of Elizabethan writing
goes without an author attached, Shakespeare being
the most famous example. The small sample we
have of principals involved at HLAS in regard to the
writing of the Zensearch posts (less than a dozen) is
somewhat the size of those names attached to the
puzzle of Greene’s Groatsworth of Wit, much
discussed amongst a few of us here. But turn that
puzzle whichever way you will, practically nothing
can be known of the identity of the persons alluded
to in that “scald lying pamphlet” as it was called.
We don’t even know who wrote it, although there
is a name very clearly printed on the title page, and
400 years of investigation and opinion have brought
us no nearer to a solution.
Also, it seems to me that the small number of
interested parties who stand in suspicion of being the
writer of the Zensearch posts, or who stand about
making guesses, would make it fairly easy to find
out the author of those posts. But not so. And each
addition to the list of suspects only makes the problem
more difficult, and every clue added to the mystery
only compounds the difficulty of knowing what is
what and who’s who.
In fact, that’s the answer to the commonly expressed
belief that with so many people in London who were
seeing Shakespeare’s plays and reading the quartos --
that it would have been impossible for a writer to keep
his identity a secret. Exactly the opposite, I think. The
thinner the mystery is spread out the safer it would be
from discovery. That’s mathematics, I think. We
simply have too many possible choices of who
Shakespeare might have been, for example, and almost
anyone who could read or write is a better suspect than
the man from Stratford, no matter the name on the title
page.
If the writer of the Zensearch posts wanted to further
obscure his identity, what he might do is write some more
posts falsifying the name of Volker, More, Caruana, or
whomever, compounding the confusion by addition,
and even let those fake people comment on one another’s
posts. You see how that would be. Or if I were of that
close and secretive nature, I could easily do as our mystery
poster has done, and publish some posts in his name that
I myself wrote. You see how it is, then, this business of
anonymity, and why Shakespeare comes to us most
uncertainly out of the Elizabethan fog.
The difference with the whole Elizabethan world and our
little world at HLAS, is that their mysteries were oftentimes
very great mysteries, urgent and dangerous, while of course
the Zensearch posts are trivial and merely annoying. For
myself, I like an open and honest debate, and this skulking
about is for those who haven’t quite grown up enough to
engage in a civil discussion of differences. With the proviso,
of course, that if push comes to shove everyone is allowed
to get glandular.
Stephanie Caruana
Richard Kennedy wrote in message <383A0AC5...@teleport.com>...
<The best we can get out of this recent exercise in
<anonymous and pseudonymous writing is the great
<lesson of how very easy it is to hoodwink a lot of
<innocent lookers-.....
<cut>.
<If the writer of the Zensearch posts wanted to further
<obscure his identity, what he might do is write some more
<posts falsifying the name of Volker, More, Caruana, or
<whomever, compounding the confusion by addition,
<and even let those fake people comment on one another’s
<posts......
Owrrrr! Richard, please leave me out of this madness!
[Hmmm-- I guess it would be fun (??) or perhaps not, to see how people copy
my style...]
But no!
Thank you, no.
Stephanie Caruana
Spear Shaker Review - On-line Quarterly Oxfordian Magazine
http://www.spear-shaker-review.com
.