Count Tolstoy
Art Neuendorffer
.
<<the overwhelming majority of aristocrats who, notwithstanding,
have indeed been great writers have been outright royalty rather than
mere nobles (I don't understand why this should be, but it's true)>>
--------------------------------------------
James Joyce noted: "[Count Tolstoy] is
nEVER dull,
nEVER stupid,
nEVER tired,
nEVER pedantic,
nEVER theatrical!".
------------------------------------------
Wednesday Jones wrote:
.
<<Just finished reading Leo Tolstoy's essay "On Shakespeare" and must
say I am a little distressed. Tolstoy comes down quite hard on the old
boy; not that that's distressing on its own, just that his logic and
knowledge of the plays actually seems faulty. Of course I'm used to
Tolstoy's logic being slightly flawed, but I'm surprised to see him
making freshman mistakes in literary criticism. He devotes a large
portion of the essay to a discussion of _Lear_ but it seems almost
as if he got hold of an incomplete version. At first I thought it
might be the translation, but according to Maude, Tolstoy read and
approved it prior to publication.>>
--------------------------------------------
Count Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy (Russian: ??? ??????????? ????????),
commonly referred to in English as Leo Tolstoy (September 9
[O.S. August 28] 1828 ? November 20 [O.S. November 7] 1910)
was a Russian novelist, writer, essayist, philosopher, Christian
anarchist, pacifist, educational reformer, vegetarian, moral
thinker, and an influential member of the Tolstoy family.
.
Tolstoy is widely regarded as one of the greatest of all novelists,
particularly noted for his masterpieces War and Peace and Anna
Karenina;
in their scope, breadth and realistic depiction of Russian life, the
two books stand at the peak of realistic fiction. As a moral
philosopher
he was notable for his ideas on nonviolent resistance through his
work The Kingdom of God is Within You, which in turn influenced such
twentieth-century figures as Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.
.
Tolstoy's contemporaries paid him lofty tributes: Dostoevsky thought
him
the finest of all living writers while Gustave Flaubert compared him to
Shakespeare and gushed: "What an artist and what a psychologist!".
Anton
Chekhov, who often visited Tolstoy at his country estate, wrote: "When
literature possesses a Tolstoy, it is easy and pleasant to be a writer;
even when you know you have achieved nothing yourself and are still
achieving nothing, this is not as terrible as it might otherwise be,
because Tolstoy achieves for everyone. What he does serves to
justify all the hopes and aspirations invested in literature."
Ivan Turgenev called Tolstoi a "great writer of the Russian land".
.
Leo (pronounced in his family circle as "Lyov", not "Lev") was born on
his father's estate of Yasnaya Polyana, in the Tula guberniya of
Central
Russia. The Tolstoys are a well-known family of old Russian nobility,
the writer's mother was born a Princess Volkonsky, while his
grandmothers came from the Troubetzkoy and Gorchakov princely families.
Tolstoy was connected to the grandest families of Russian aristocracy;
Alexander Pushkin was his fourth cousin. The fact of belonging by birth
to the best Russian nobility marks off Tolstoy very distinctly from the
other writers of his generation. He always remained a class-conscious
nobleman who cherished his impeccable French pronunciation and kept
aloof from the intelligentsia.
.
Tolstoy's childhood and boyhood were passed between Moscow and Yasnaya
Polyana, in a large family of three brothers and a sister. He has left
us an extraordinarily vivid record of his early human environment in
the
wonderful notes he wrote for his biographer Pavel Biryukov. He lost his
mother when he was two, and his father when he was nine. His subsequent
education was in the hands of his aunt, Madame Ergolsky, who is
supposed
to be the starting point of Sonya in War and Peace. (His father and
mother are respectively the starting points for the characters of
Nicholas Rostov and Princess Marya in the same novel).
.
Tolstoy's first literary effort was a translation of A Sentimental
Journey Through France and Italy. Sterne's influence on his early works
was substantial, although he subsequently denigrated him as "a devious
writer". To the year 1851 belongs his first attempt at a more ambitious
and more definitely creative kind of writing, his first short story, "A
History of Yesterday". In the same year, sick of his seemingly empty
and
useless life in Moscow, which brought heavy gambling debts, he went to
the Caucasus, where he joined an artillery unit garrisoned in the
Cossack part of Chechnya, as a volunteer of private rank, but of noble
birth (?????). In 1854 he received his commission and was, at his
request, transferred to the army operating against the Turks in
Wallachia, where he took part in the siege of Silistra (located in
North-Eastern Bulgaria). In November of the same year he joined the
garrison of Sevastopol. There he saw some of the most serious fighting
of the century. He took part in the defense of the famous Fourth
Bastion
and in the Battle of Chernaya River, the bad management of which he
satirized in a humorous song, the only piece of verse he is known to
have written.
.
In 1859 he started a school for peasant children at Yasnaya, followed
by twelve others, whose ground-breaking libertarian principles Tolstoy
described in his 1862 essay, "The School at Yasnaya Polyana". He also
authored a great number of stories for peasant children. Tolstoy's
educational experiments were short-lived, but as a direct forerunner
to A.S.Neill's Summerhill School, the school at Yasnaya Polyana can
justifiably be claimed to be the first example of a coherent theory
of libertarian education.
.
Tolstoy was remarkably healthy for his age, but he fell seriously ill
in
1901 and had to live for a long time in Gaspra and Simeiz, Crimea.
Still
he continued working to the last and never showed the slightest sign of
any weakening of brain power. Ever more oppressed by the apparent
contradiction between his preaching of communism and the easy life he
led under the regime of his wife, full of a growing irritation against
his family, which was urged on by Chertkov, he finally left Yasnaya, in
the company of his daughter Alexandra and his doctor, for an unknown
destination. After some restless and aimless wandering he headed for a
convent where his sister was the mother superior but had to stop at
Astapovo junction. There he was laid up in the stationmaster's house
and
died on November 7, 1910. He was buried in a simple peasant's grave in
a
wood 500 meters from Yasnaya Polyana. Thousands of peasants lined the
streets at his funeral.
.
His first publications were three autobiographical novels, Childhood,
Boyhood, and Youth (1852?1856). They tell of a rich landowner's son
and
his slow realization of the differences between him and his peasants.
Although in later life Tolstoy rejected these books as sentimental, a
great deal of his own life is revealed, and the books still have
relevance for their telling of the universal story of growing up.
Tolstoy served as a second lieutenant in an artillery regiment during
the Crimean War, recounted in his Sevastapol Sketches. His experiences
in battle helped develop his pacifism, and gave him material for
realistic depiction of the horrors of war in his later work.
.
War and Peace is generally thought to be one of the greatest novels
ever written, remarkable for its breadth and unity. Its vast canvas
includes 580 characters, many historical, others fictional. The story
moves from family life to the headquarters of Napoleon, from the court
of Alexander I of Russia to the battlefields of Austerlitz & Borodino.
The novel explores Tolstoy's theory of history, and in particular the
insignificance of individuals such as Napoleon and Alexander. But more
importantly, Tolstoy's imagination created a world that seems to be so
believable, so real, that it's not easy to realize that most of his
characters actually never existed and that Tolstoy never witnessed the
epoch described in the novel. Tolstoy had an abiding interest in
children and children's literature and wrote tales and fables.
.
Later critics and novelists continue to bear testaments to his art:
Virginia Woolf went on to declare him "greatest of all novelists",
and Thomas Mann wrote of his seemingly guileless artistry?
Seldom did art work so much like nature"?
sentiments shared in part by many others, including Marcel Proust,
William Faulkner, Vladimir Nabokov, who placed him above all
other Russian fiction writers, even Gogol, and
equalled him with Pushkin among Russian poets.>>
--------------------------------------------------------
. _War and Peace_ - Tolstoy ** ( BK6|CH10 )
.
<<27th November. . .Then our talk turned to the interpretation
of the seven pillars and steps of the TEMPLE, the seven sciences,
the seven virtues, the seven vices, and the seven gifts
of the Holy Spirit.>>
--------------------------------------------------------
"David L. Webb" <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
.
> Tolstoy wasn't Rex Deus or Strict Observance, Art
> -- take it from me: he was not a scion of the Bloodline.
----------------------------------------
Aleksandr Sergeyevich Pushkin (Russian: ?????????? ?????????? ???????,
IPA)
(June 6 [O.S. May 26] 1799 ? February 10 [O.S. January 29] 1837) was
a
Russian Romantic author who is considered to be the greatest Russian
poet and the founder of modern Russian literature. Pushkin pioneered
the
use of vernacular speech in his poems and plays, creating a style of
storytelling?mixing drama, romance, and satire?associated with
Russian
literature ever since and greatly influencing later Russian writers.
Pushkin's father descended from a distinguished family of the Russian
nobility which traced its ancestry back to the 12th century. Pushkin's
mother's grandfather was Abram Petrovich Gannibal, a Paris-educated
African slave who entered into the ranks of the Russian nobility and
even served as governor of Reval. It should be noted that some British
aristocrats descend from Gannibal, such as Natalia Grosvenor, Duchess
of
Westminster and George Mountbatten, 4th Marquess of Milford Haven.
Pushkin became committed to social reform and emerged as a spokesman
for
literary radicals; in the early 1820s he clashed with the government,
which sent him into exile in southern Russia. While under the strict
surveillance of government censors and unable to travel or publish at
will, he wrote his most famous play, the drama Boris Godunov, but could
not publish it until years later. His novel in verse, Eugene Onegin,
was
published serially from 1823?1831.
.
Pushkin emerged as a spokesman for literary radicals. This angered the
government, and led to his transfer from the capital. He went first to
Kishinev in 1820, where he became a *FREEMASON* . Here he joined the
Filiki Eteria, a secret organization whose purpose was to overthrow
the Ottoman rule over Greece and establish an independent Greek state.
He was inspired by the Greek Revolution and when the war against the
Ottoman Turks broke out he kept a diary with the events of the great
national uprising. He stayed in Kishinev until 1823 and?after a
summer
trip to the Caucasus and to the Crimea?wrote two Romantic poems which
brought him wide acclaim, The Captive of the Caucasus and The Fountain
of Bakhchisaray. In 1823 Pushkin moved to Odessa, where he again
clashed
with the government, which sent him into exile at his mother's rural
estate in north Russia from 1824 to 1826. However, some of the
authorities allowed him to visit Tsar Nicholas I to petition for
his release, which he obtained. But some of the insurgents in the
Decembrist Uprising (1825) in St. Petersburg had kept some of his
early political poems amongst their papers, and soon Pushkin found
himself under the strict control of government censors and unable
to travel or publish at will. He had written what became his most
famous play, the drama Boris Godunov, while at his mother's estate
but could not gain permission to publish it until five years later.
.
When the Tsar gave Pushkin the lowest court title, the poet became
enraged: He felt this occurred not only so that his wife, who had many
admirers?including the Tsar himself?could properly attend court
balls,
but also to humiliate him. In 1837, falling into greater and greater
debt amidst rumors that his wife had started conducting a scandalous
affair, Pushkin challenged her alleged lover, Georges d'Anth?s, to a
duel which left both men injured, Pushkin mortally. He died two days
later. His last words were: "Try to be forgotten. Go live in the
country. Stay in mourning for two years, then remarry, but choose
somebody decent." The government feared a political demonstration
at his funeral. His body was spirited away secretly at midnight
and buried on his mother's estate.
.
Critics consider many of his works masterpieces, such as the poem The
Bronze Horseman and the drama The Stone Guest, a tale of the fall of
Don
Juan. His poetic short drama "Mozart and Salieri" was the inspiration
for Peter Shaffer's Amadeus. Pushkin himself preferred his verse novel
Eugene Onegin, which he wrote over the course of his life and which,
starting a tradition of great Russian novels, follows a few central
characters but varies widely in tone and focus. "Onegin" is a work of
such complexity that, while only about a hundred pages long, translator
Vladimir Nabokov needed four full volumes of material to fully render
its meaning in English.
.
Pushkin's works also provided fertile ground for Russian composers.
Glinka's Ruslan and Lyudmila is the earliest important Pushkin-inspired
opera. Tchaikovsky's operas Eugene Onegin (1879) and The Queen of
Spades
(1890) became perhaps better known outside of Russia than Pushkin's own
works of the same name, while Mussorgsky's monumental Boris Godunov
(two
versions, 1868-9 and 1871-2) ranks as one of the very finest and most
original of Russian operas. Other Russian operas based on Pushkin
include Dargomyzhsky's Rusalka and The Stone Guest; Rimsky-Korsakov's
Mozart and Salieri, Tale of Tsar Saltan, and The Golden Cockerel; Cui's
Prisoner of the Caucasus, Feast in Time of Plague, and The Captain's
Daughter; Tchaikovsky's Mazeppa; and N?pravn?k's Dubrovsky. This is
not
to mention ballets and cantatas, as well as innumerable songs set to
Pushkin's verse. Pushkin is usually credited with developing literary
Russian. Not only is he seen as having originated the highly nuanced
level of language which characterizes Russian literature after him, but
he is also credited with substantially augmenting the Russian lexicon.
Where he found gaps in the Russian vocabulary, he devised calques. His
rich vocabulary and highly sensitive style are the foundation for
modern
literary Russian.>>
-------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Laila Roth
different mentality and blind to the Shakespeare spirituality and
poetry - Tolstoy never wrote any poetry himself. He was just a strict
realist seeing nothing but naked reality and perhaps the best one in
that field, but he missed everything else, which for instance
Dostoyevsky did not. Tolstoy could not understand Dostoyevsky either
and even wondered at Dostoyevsky having any readers at all. He thought
everything he could not understand 'ridiculous', failing to appreciate
and learn what was beyond his horizon. Instead he lowered himself to
tendentiousness, ending up in his old age as a preacher (like our own
MM), for which he has ever been criticised. In post-soviet Russia the
critical tendency is to blame him for helping in bringing on the bloody
revolution, the greatest mistake in Russian history, since life under
the 19th century Czars was the best age Russia ever had. The countess
Sonia Tolstoy, who wrote out his major novels, was his sharpest critic,
and she was right in accusing her husband of ingratefulness and
absurdity. In "Voskresenye" (his last great novel) he actually covertly
preached the murder of the Czar. Lenin was his pupil and ordered the
massacre of the Czar and his whole family (with doctors and servants
and a dog) including four innocent daughters and a hoemophilic 12-year
old son. The communists tried to get away with it by eliminating the
corpses and trying to dissolve them, but the bones were later
discovered in a mine. They were all there, except the bones of
Anastasia and the boy. No one knows where these corpses finally ended
up, so at least Anastasia might have escaped alive.
Laila Roth
Art Neuendorffer skrev:
Ms. Mouse
Laila Roth wrote:
> Tolstoy simply didn't understand Shakespeare. He was of a totally
> different mentality and blind to the Shakespeare spirituality and
> poetry - Tolstoy never wrote any poetry himself.
Of course he did, Laila.
Mouse
Art Neuendorffer
>
>>Tolstoy simply didn't understand Shakespeare. He was of a totally
>>different mentality and blind to the Shakespeare spirituality and
>>poetry - Tolstoy never wrote any poetry himself.
>
>
> Of course he did, Laila.
He did? Where?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibliography_of_Leo_Tolstoy
.
Perhaps you're confusing him with 'Kozma Prutkov' :
------------------------------------------------
Aleksey Tolstoy was a Russian poet, novelist & dramatist.
September 5 [O.S. August 24] 1817
- October 10] [O.S. September 28] 1875)
.
Aleksey Konstantinovich Tolstoy was born in Saint Petersburg to the
famed family of Count Tolstoy. He graduated from the University of
Moscow in 1836. Aleksey spent most of his life at court, serving first
as the Master of Ceremonies, later as Grand Master of Royal Hunting. He
retired from service in 1861 to dedicate more time to writing poetry.
.
He wrote admirable ballads, a historical novel, some licentious verse,
and satires published under the pen name of Kozma Prutkov. But his
lasting contribution to the Russian literature was a trilogy of
historical dramas, modelled after Pushkin's Boris Godunov.
------------------------------------------
LOVE'S EBB AND FLOW by A. K. TOLSTOY
.
Believe me not, dear, when in hours of anguish
I say my love for thee exists no more.
At ebb of tide, think not the sea is faithless;
It will return with love unto the shore.
.
E'en now I pine for thee with old-time passion,
And place my freedom in thy hands once more.
Already, with loud noise, the waves are hasting
Back from afar to the beloved shore.
------------------------------------------
_The Kingdom Within_ Signs of Spring
http://allgodsword.com/Trs/Trs16.htm
.
Lev Tolstoy's fascination with coming to life from death
(as portrayed in his book Voskresenye, 'Resurrection')
involved far more than what most Russians thought. He wrote:
.
"There are times when a higher truth, revealed at first to a few
persons, gradually gains ground until it has taken hold of such a number
of persons that the old public opinion, founded on a lesser order of
truth, begins to totter and the new is ready to take its place, but has
not yet been firmly established. It is like the spring, this time of
transition, when the old order of ideas has not quite broken up !and the
new has not quite gained a footing. Men begin to criticize their actions
in the light of the new truth, but in the meantime they continue to
follow, through inertia and tradition, what once represented
the highest point of their understanding."
.
These men are in an abnormal, wavering condition, feeling the
necessity of following the new ideal, yet not bold enough to break
with the old established traditions.
.
Such is the attitude in regard to truth, Lev Tolstoy believed, of
most who profess to believe in Christ. But he felt certain
that great changes, either for better or worse, would soon come:
.
"No one can stand still when the earth is shaking under his feet. If
we do not go forward we must go back. And strange and terrible to say,
the cultivated men of our time, the leaders of thought, are in
reality drawing society back with their subtle reasonings--not
back to paganism even, but to a state of primitive barbarism.">>
------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
spinoza1111
On Jan 23, 5:34 pm, "Laila Roth" <lailar...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Tolstoy simply didn't understand Shakespeare. He was of a totally
> different mentality and blind to the Shakespeare spirituality and
> poetry - Tolstoy never wrote any poetry himself. He was just a strict
> realist seeing nothing but naked reality and perhaps the best one in
> that field, but he missed everything else, which for instance
> Dostoyevsky did not. Tolstoy could not understand Dostoyevsky either
Let's see, we were talking about Shakespeare and Tolstoy but all of a
sudden we're talking about Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, Oh well. Ramble
on...
> and even wondered at Dostoyevsky having any readers at all. He thought
> everything he could not understand 'ridiculous', failing to appreciate
> and learn what was beyond his horizon. Instead he lowered himself to
That's a foul fault! Of course, we all of us trivially and in a strict
sense "fail to appreciate and learn what is beyond our horizon".
"Appreciating and learning beyond your horizon" is of course what the
Little Darlings at university are "supposed" to do, it is what they
are exhorted to do by boilerplate.
Thus, there is a distinct tendency for a Little Darling to believe
she's discovered this in a Dead White Male, on which it's open season
anyhoo.
Thus the teacher has to actually GRADE papers that variously lay this
foul fault at the stonecold feet of a variety of Dead White Males by
whom students afraid to criticise on the other hands various
fashionable bluestockings and writers of color, even in cases where
those groups knew their limits.
The exhortation "expand your horizons" ignores the distinct
possibility that the author was already under a vast, indeed Russian
sky, and that it is jejune for some clown or some scribbling
bluestocking, here, to tell the author of War and fucking Peace, "oh,
Count, all you ever talk about are Russian nobles, and Moscow, and
Paris, and the country, and great battles, and little battles, and
love affairs, and birth, and death, and love. You should rilly expand
your horizons. And throw in a Nasty Story, or two. It would be an
improvement."
This is as laughable as the Emperor's advice in Shaffer's Amadeus that
Mozart REDUCE his horizons and take out every other note.
> tendentiousness, ending up in his old age as a preacher (like our own
> MM), for which he has ever been criticised. In post-soviet Russia the
The only boy that could ever move me was the son of a preacher man...
I've always appreciated, as a reprobate, a rollicking good sermon such
as that day when the Reverend Edwards made strong men tremble, infants
wail, and women to faint with his Sinners in the Hands of an Angry
God. Perhaps for this reason, I rilly don't understand the blue-
penciled sniffy comment "preaching" for there are instances of
preaching that constitute great literature, such as the Sermon on the
Mount.
Of course, "preaching" as a critique has to address whether a wrong
note was sounded, a false note. And, it expects the preacher to be
less like John Edwards (who was no more confident of Election than the
next man and who could have as well said timor mortis conturbat me)
and a perfect man, will listen to no less.
It fails to realize that by this rule, the only effective preaching
would be Christ preaching to the choir in heaven, for the charge of
"preaching" as literary criticism assumes without argument that the
preacher may not himself be a sinner, and that the audience, like the
seven virgins, is prepared.
But this means there can be no dissonant attempt to call us to shape
the fuck up, no wounded healer. But this in turn means that no
preaching at all may occur anywhere in literature.
Prince Andre lays dying and when dying realizes the truth of life.
Sentimental? Maudlin? Preaching? I don't think so.
> critical tendency is to blame him for helping in bringing on the bloody
> revolution, the greatest mistake in Russian history, since life under
I think the Russian Revolution was a Good Thing on balance, honey
bun.
> the 19th century Czars was the best age Russia ever had. The countess
> Sonia Tolstoy, who wrote out his major novels, was his sharpest critic,
> and she was right in accusing her husband of ingratefulness and
Yeah, what ev er. Count Tolstoy realized the vicious folly of 19th
century aristocracy in a lived sense but this might fright the ladies,
sitting on their cans in the drawing room? Too bad.
> absurdity. In "Voskresenye" (his last great novel) he actually covertly
> preached the murder of the Czar. Lenin was his pupil and ordered the
What you fail to realize here is that anger is unbounded. Hey, you
drive me into a ghetto, you take my plot of land to build a factory,
you cannot assume that at any pint in my anger, I will stop and reason
that "on the whole" the Czar is a good thing in an Utilitarian
sense...Utilitarians always say, not in my backyard.
> massacre of the Czar and his whole family (with doctors and servants
> and a dog) including four innocent daughters and a hoemophilic 12-year
> old son. The communists tried to get away with it by eliminating the
> corpses and trying to dissolve them, but the bones were later
> discovered in a mine. They were all there, except the bones of
> Anastasia and the boy. No one knows where these corpses finally ended
> up, so at least Anastasia might have escaped alive.
Oh, how romantic!
The Romanovs were a gang of thugs killed by stronger thugs. I really
don't care if some screeching harridan ended up in an estaminet in
Paris claiming she was the grand duchess.
> > importantly, Tolstoy's imagination created a world that...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Laila Roth
On 27 Jan, 20:22, "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 23, 5:34 pm, "Laila Roth" <lailar...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Tolstoy simply didn't understand Shakespeare. He was of a totally
> > different mentality and blind to the Shakespeare spirituality and
> > poetry - Tolstoy never wrote any poetry himself. He was just a strict
> > realist seeing nothing but naked reality and perhaps the best one in
> > that field, but he missed everything else, which for instance
> > Dostoyevsky did not. Tolstoy could not understand Dostoyevsky eitherLet's see, we were talking about Shakespeare and Tolstoy but all of a
> sudden we're talking about Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, Oh well. Ramble
> on...
>
> > and even wondered at Dostoyevsky having any readers at all. He thought
> > everything he could not understand 'ridiculous', failing to appreciate
> > and learn what was beyond his horizon. Instead he lowered himself toThat's a foul fault! Of course, we all of us trivially and in a strict
> sense "fail to appreciate and learn what is beyond our horizon".
>
> "Appreciating and learning beyond your horizon" is of course what the
> Little Darlings at university are "supposed" to do, it is what they
> are exhorted to do by boilerplate.
>
> Thus, there is a distinct tendency for a Little Darling to believe
> she's discovered this in a Dead White Male, on which it's open season
> anyhoo.
>
> Thus the teacher has to actually GRADE papers that variously lay this
> foul fault at the stonecold feet of a variety of Dead White Males by
> whom students afraid to criticise on the other hands various
> fashionable bluestockings and writers of color, even in cases where
> those groups knew their limits.
>
> The exhortation "expand your horizons" ignores the distinct
> possibility that the author was already under a vast, indeed Russian
> sky, and that it is jejune for some clown or some scribbling
> bluestocking, here, to tell the author of War and fucking Peace, "oh,
> Count, all you ever talk about are Russian nobles, and Moscow, and
> Paris, and the country, and great battles, and little battles, and
> love affairs, and birth, and death, and love. You should rilly expand
> your horizons. And throw in a Nasty Story, or two. It would be an
> improvement."
>
> This is as laughable as the Emperor's advice in Shaffer's Amadeus that
> Mozart REDUCE his horizons and take out every other note.
>
> > tendentiousness, ending up in his old age as a preacher (like our own
> > MM), for which he has ever been criticised. In post-soviet Russia theThe only boy that could ever move me was the son of a preacher man...
>
> I've always appreciated, as a reprobate, a rollicking good sermon such
> as that day when the Reverend Edwards made strong men tremble, infants
> wail, and women to faint with his Sinners in the Hands of an Angry
> God. Perhaps for this reason, I rilly don't understand the blue-
> penciled sniffy comment "preaching" for there are instances of
> preaching that constitute great literature, such as the Sermon on the
> Mount.
>
> Of course, "preaching" as a critique has to address whether a wrong
> note was sounded, a false note. And, it expects the preacher to be
> less like John Edwards (who was no more confident of Election than the
> next man and who could have as well said timor mortis conturbat me)
> and a perfect man, will listen to no less.
>
> It fails to realize that by this rule, the only effective preaching
> would be Christ preaching to the choir in heaven, for the charge of
> "preaching" as literary criticism assumes without argument that the
> preacher may not himself be a sinner, and that the audience, like the
> seven virgins, is prepared.
>
> But this means there can be no dissonant attempt to call us to shape
> the fuck up, no wounded healer. But this in turn means that no
> preaching at all may occur anywhere in literature.
>
> Prince Andre lays dying and when dying realizes the truth of life.
> Sentimental? Maudlin? Preaching? I don't think so.
>
> > critical tendency is to blame him for helping in bringing on the bloody
> > revolution, the greatest mistake in Russian history, since life underI think the Russian Revolution was a Good Thing on balance, honey
> bun.
>
> > the 19th century Czars was the best age Russia ever had. The countess
> > Sonia Tolstoy, who wrote out his major novels, was his sharpest critic,
> > and she was right in accusing her husband of ingratefulness andYeah, what ev er. Count Tolstoy realized the vicious folly of 19th
> century aristocracy in a lived sense but this might fright the ladies,
> sitting on their cans in the drawing room? Too bad.
>
> > absurdity. In "Voskresenye" (his last great novel) he actually covertly
> > preached the murder of the Czar. Lenin was his pupil and ordered theWhat you fail to realize here is that anger is unbounded. Hey, you
> drive me into a ghetto, you take my plot of land to build a factory,
> you cannot assume that at any pint in my anger, I will stop and reason
> that "on the whole" the Czar is a good thing in an Utilitarian
> sense...Utilitarians always say, not in my backyard.
>
> > massacre of the Czar and his whole family (with doctors and servants
> > and a dog) including four innocent daughters and a hoemophilic 12-year
> > old son. The communists tried to get away with it by eliminating the
> > corpses and trying to dissolve them, but the bones were later
> > discovered in a mine. They were all there, except the bones of
> > Anastasia and the boy. No one knows where these corpses finally ended
> > up, so at least Anastasia might have escaped alive.Oh, how romantic!
>
> The Romanovs were a gang of thugs killed by stronger thugs. I really
> don't care if some screeching harridan ended up in an estaminet in
> Paris claiming she was the grand duchess.
Well, you certainly are right concerning certain Romanovs, like Peter
the Great, who murdered his own son and heir, but the last Romanovs,
those who got butchered, happened to be all completely innocent. I
wouldn't call those four daughters with their hoemophilic little
brother a gang of thugs, while the cowardice of Lenin and his thugs to
kill them although banished in Siberia and kept in strict confinement
with no possibility of any communication with anyone outside the
Ipachev house in Yekaterinburg (later torn down by Yeltsin) is
something to be wondered at.
My basic argument here was that Count Tolstoy failed to recognize the
Shakespeare genius because he could not understand him since he was no
poet himself. Art has paid some honour to his last great novel
"Resurrection", which is indeed a wonderful masterpiece, which
nonetheless contains some controversial bolshevik propaganda. My
argument concerning this was that Russia today tends to criticize and
even partly blame Count Tolstoy for being influential in Russia's
total collapse into the havoc of 1917, when the culturally highest
standing nation in the world fell down to cannibalism under the
guidance of those communists that Count Tolstoy sympathized with.
Experts of literature have compared that final novel with the
masterpieces "War and Peace" and "Anna Karenina" and found
"Resurrection" lacking above all in style. The difference between the
earlier great novels and the final one is, that the great ones were
written out by his wife Sonia while "Resurrection" wasn't. Maybe his
wife Sonia deserves some more credit, then, than she has received for
making "War and Peace" and "Anna Karenina" so much better novels than
the "Resurrection" which Count Tolstoy wrote all by himself at a much
maturer age.
Laila Roth
spinoza1111
> > Paris claiming she was the grand duchess.Well, you certainly are right concerning certain Romanovs, like Peter
> the Great, who murdered his own son and heir, but the last Romanovs,
> those who got butchered, happened to be all completely innocent. I
Nicholas wasn't innocent, now was his consort. His consort in
particular had consulted monks while Russia bled.
> wouldn't call those four daughters with their hoemophilic little
> brother a gang of thugs, while the cowardice of Lenin and his thugs to
> kill them although banished in Siberia and kept in strict confinement
> with no possibility of any communication with anyone outside the
> Ipachev house in Yekaterinburg (later torn down by Yeltsin) is
> something to be wondered at.
I believe it is the Ipatiev house. My friend's Dad was hired by
Ipatiev's son in Chicago when he came to America.
Of course, I have no brief for murdering the Tsar, which is why I
opposed the execution of Saddam Husayn. The British wisely refrained
from executing Napoleon, and the Chinese communists wisely refrained
from executing Aisin Goro Pu Yi.
But it is sentimentality to mourn victims with names when the point in
Russia and today is that your REAL victim is unknown.
>
> My basic argument here was that Count Tolstoy failed to recognize the
> Shakespeare genius because he could not understand him since he was no
> poet himself. Art has paid some honour to his last great novel
> "Resurrection", which is indeed a wonderful masterpiece, which
> nonetheless contains some controversial bolshevik propaganda. My
Well, this is nonsense. If anti-materialism is now Bolshevik
propaganda, the Sermon on the Mount is Bolshi propaganda.
The consequences of its opposite, which has had the microphone since
1980, are world wide disaster and they include the revival of widow
burning in India, rural misery in China, and the destruction of the
middle class in America.
> argument concerning this was that Russia today tends to criticize and
> even partly blame Count Tolstoy for being influential in Russia's
Complete and utter nonsense.
The nihilism of the Romanovs produced its opposite in the Narodniks
and in Dosteoevsky, but Count Tolstoy RETAINED his humanity and good
sense. What he SAW was how industrialism would create misery UNLESS
Russia evolved politically...which it did thanks to Lenin and
Kruschchev. Lenin realized his mistake when his first attempts to feed
the cities with collectivization created famine (famines that had also
existed under the Tsars) and he promptly instituted the New Economic
Policy.
However, Lenin died, and an ambitious thug named Stalin, a follower of
the Romanov path, took over.
But almost immediately after his death, Nikita Kruschchev, one of the
thugs, revealed Stalin's crimes...something the Romanovs had never
done with respect to their own!
What this was was a self-correcting system. However, it was met by the
American attempt to destroy it by involving it in an arms race, and
the Cold War as started by America delayed what today is a still
evolving Russian democracy.
Note that once America destroyed the Soviet Union, it took absolutely
no responsibility for the successor state, and it failed to support
Gorbachev. The result is that the economy was taken over by the
Communist *nomenklatura*, resulting in ten more years of misery.
> total collapse into the havoc of 1917, when the culturally highest
> standing nation in the world fell down to cannibalism under the
Russia was of course no such thing. It was mediaeval until at least
1825 and the Decembrist affair.
> guidance of those communists that Count Tolstoy sympathized with.
>
> Experts of literature have compared that final novel with the
> masterpieces "War and Peace" and "Anna Karenina" and found
> "Resurrection" lacking above all in style. The difference between the
> earlier great novels and the final one is, that the great ones were
> written out by his wife Sonia while "Resurrection" wasn't. Maybe his
> wife Sonia deserves some more credit, then, than she has received for
> making "War and Peace" and "Anna Karenina" so much better novels than
> the "Resurrection" which Count Tolstoy wrote all by himself at a much
> maturer age.
Complete twaddle. I'm no expert on Tolstoy but this sounds like
undigested feminist bullshit to me.
Have to let the little lady have her say, huh? Otherwise big fella
might get all radical and free the serfs and then what would Madame
do? Why she might have to fix her own hair or something!
How scandalous!
Give me an ounce of civet, good apothecary!
>
> Laila Roth- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
spinoza1111
important second-order sense that he pimped Trotsky's ass in the old
style by failing to tell Trotsky about the funeral and was a knout-
wielding thug.
Laraine, Queenie, what's next? A spirited defense of the behavior of
Goneril and Regan? I think Maggie Thatcher wrote that for her A-
levels, but what the hell, you know?
It's clear to me that some of what passes for "feminism" in the West
has now devolved into a lower middle class Fascist campaign. Here, in
your on the face of it ridiculous campaign to destroy "Tolstoy" as an
author, we see what E. F. Hobsbawm called the destructiveness of the
lower middle class, here in feminist garb.
Can't finish War and Peace? Oh well, rent the movie (the one with that
adorable Audrey Hepburn, not the difficult multidisk Bondarchuk
version of course, the subtitles make the Missus' head to ache) and
then smash "Tolstoy" on the Web, where nobody knows you're a dog, or a
nickel-plated bitch.
Not that you are a nickel-plated bitch. No such claim is here advanced
even if you are.
Give me an ounce of civet...
> > those who got butchered, happened to be all completely innocent. INicholas wasn't innocent, now was his consort. His consort in
> particular had consulted monks while Russia bled.
>
> > wouldn't call those four daughters with their hoemophilic little
> > brother a gang of thugs, while the cowardice of Lenin and his thugs to
> > kill them although banished in Siberia and kept in strict confinement
> > with no possibility of any communication with anyone outside the
> > Ipachev house in Yekaterinburg (later torn down by Yeltsin) is
> > something to be wondered at.I believe it is the Ipatiev house. My friend's Dad was hired by
> Ipatiev's son in Chicago when he came to America.
>
> Of course, I have no brief for murdering the Tsar, which is why I
> opposed the execution of Saddam Husayn. The British wisely refrained
> from executing Napoleon, and the Chinese communists wisely refrained
> from executing Aisin Goro Pu Yi.
>
> But it is sentimentality to mourn victims with names when the point in
> Russia and today is that your REAL victim is unknown.
>
>
>
> > My basic argument here was that Count Tolstoy failed to recognize the
> > Shakespeare genius because he could not understand him since he was no
> > poet himself. Art has paid some honour to his last great novel
> > "Resurrection", which is indeed a wonderful masterpiece, which
> > nonetheless contains some controversial bolshevik propaganda. MyWell, this is nonsense. If anti-materialism is now Bolshevik
> propaganda, the Sermon on the Mount is Bolshi propaganda.
>
> The consequences of its opposite, which has had the microphone since
> 1980, are world wide disaster and they include the revival of widow
> burning in India, rural misery in China, and the destruction of the
> middle class in America.
>
> > argument concerning this was that Russia today tends to criticize and
> > even partly blame Count Tolstoy for being influential in Russia'sComplete and utter nonsense.
>
> The nihilism of the Romanovs produced its opposite in the Narodniks
> and in Dosteoevsky, but Count Tolstoy RETAINED his humanity and good
> sense. What he SAW was how industrialism would create misery UNLESS
> Russia evolved politically...which it did thanks to Lenin and
> Kruschchev. Lenin realized his mistake when his first attempts to feed
> the cities with collectivization created famine (famines that had also
> existed under the Tsars) and he promptly instituted the New Economic
> Policy.
>
> However, Lenin died, and an ambitious thug named Stalin, a follower of
> the Romanov path, took over.
>
> But almost immediately after his death, Nikita Kruschchev, one of the
> thugs, revealed Stalin's crimes...something the Romanovs had never
> done with respect to their own!
>
> What this was was a self-correcting system. However, it was met by the
> American attempt to destroy it by involving it in an arms race, and
> the Cold War as started by America delayed what today is a still
> evolving Russian democracy.
>
> Note that once America destroyed the Soviet Union, it took absolutely
> no responsibility for the successor state, and it failed to support
> Gorbachev. The result is that the economy was taken over by the
> Communist *nomenklatura*, resulting in ten more years of misery.
>
> > total collapse into the havoc of 1917, when the culturally highest
> > standing nation in the world fell down to cannibalism under theRussia was of course no such thing. It was mediaeval until at least
> 1825 and the Decembrist affair.
>
>
>
> > guidance of those communists that Count Tolstoy sympathized with.
>
> > Experts of literature have compared that final novel with the
> > masterpieces "War and Peace" and "Anna Karenina" and found
> > "Resurrection" lacking above all in style. The difference between the
> > earlier great novels and the final one is, that the great ones were
> > written out by his wife...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Laila Roth
> The Romanovs were a gang of thugs killed by stronger thugs. I
really
> > > don't care if some screeching harridan ended up in an estaminet in
> > > Paris claiming she was the grand duchess.Well, you certainly are right concerning certain Romanovs, like Peter
> > the Great, who murdered his own son and heir, but the last Romanovs,
> > those who got butchered, happened to be all completely innocent. I
> Nicholas wasn't innocent, now was his consort. His consort in
> particular had consulted monks while Russia bled.
Is it a crime to consult monks? What crimes did they commit? The only
reason why Alexis consulted Rasputin was because that monk had a
healing influence on the hoemophilic heir, whose illness,
unfortunately, made her dependent on the only man in Russia who could
do anything about that constant illness crisis. She had to overlook
the fact that he was totally undisciplined for her son's sake. Is it a
crime of a mother to care for a sick son?
In "while Russia bled" I think you refer to the "Bloody Sunday" in
January 1905 when a demonstration led by a revolutionary fanatic (the
agitator 'father Gapon') was gunned down by the Czar's soldiers. The
Czar wasn't even in Petersburg on that day, the soldiers panicked,
which later was ruthlessly used by the revolutionaries to defame the
Czar in one-sided propaganda.
>
> > wouldn't call those four daughters with their hoemophilic little
> > brother a gang of thugs, while the cowardice of Lenin and his thugs to
> > kill them although banished in Siberia and kept in strict confinement
> > with no possibility of any communication with anyone outside the
> > Ipachev house in Yekaterinburg (later torn down by Yeltsin) is
> > something to be wondered at.I believe it is the Ipatiev house. My friend's Dad was hired by
> Ipatiev's son in Chicago when he came to America.
>
> Of course, I have no brief for murdering the Tsar, which is why I
> opposed the execution of Saddam Husayn. The British wisely refrained
> from executing Napoleon, and the Chinese communists wisely refrained
> from executing Aisin Goro Pu Yi.
Yes, it was very unwise to execute Saddam Hussein to soon, which made
him get away more easy. He should have been committed for life.
Pu Yi was brainwashed, which was hardly a milder alternative to
execution, although he had never done anything blameworthy. He was
born into a position which he could do nothing to alter. He was forced
into co-operation with the Japanese, he had no option there, but they
at least didn't brainwash him.
>
> But it is sentimentality to mourn victims with names when the point in
> Russia and today is that your REAL victim is unknown.
>
Anna Politkovskaya? Litvinovsky? Is it sentimentality to mourn them
too?
>
>
> > My basic argument here was that Count Tolstoy failed to recognize the
> > Shakespeare genius because he could not understand him since he was no
> > poet himself. Art has paid some honour to his last great novel
> > "Resurrection", which is indeed a wonderful masterpiece, which
> > nonetheless contains some controversial bolshevik propaganda. My
Well, this is nonsense. If anti-materialism is now Bolshevik
> propaganda, the Sermon on the Mount is Bolshi propaganda.
I didn't say anti-materialism was Bolshi propaganda. I refer to the
paragraph in "Voskresenye" where the author lets a communist preach
the murder of the Czar. At least morally that is complicity in murder,
only since the murder later actually took place.
>
> The consequences of its opposite, which has had the microphone since
> 1980, are world wide disaster and they include the revival of widow
> burning in India, rural misery in China, and the destruction of the
> middle class in America.
Well, I agree that the world isn't exactly getting better.
>
> > argument concerning this was that Russia today tends to criticize and
> > even partly blame Count Tolstoy for being influential in Russia'sComplete and utter nonsense.
>
> The nihilism of the Romanovs produced its opposite in the Narodniks
> and in Dosteoevsky, but Count Tolstoy RETAINED his humanity and good
> sense. What he SAW was how industrialism would create misery UNLESS
> Russia evolved politically...which it did thanks to Lenin and
> Kruschchev. Lenin realized his mistake when his first attempts to feed
> the cities with collectivization created famine (famines that had also
> existed under the Tsars) and he promptly instituted the New Economic
> Policy.
According to the testimony of Alexander Solshenitsyn, there was never
any famine in Russia before the revolution. There was actually never
any famine anywhere in the world ever, unless it was caused by
political incompetence. The NEP was a complete failure that only made
matters worse. Collectivization aborted from the start and has never
worked, no matter how hard the Soviets tried for 70 years. Even more
catastrophic the constant failures have been in China for 58 years
now.
>
> However, Lenin died, and an ambitious thug named Stalin, a follower of
> the Romanov path, took over.
>
> But almost immediately after his death, Nikita Kruschchev, one of the
> thugs, revealed Stalin's crimes...something the Romanovs had never
> done with respect to their own!
They allowed criticism. Dostoyevsky the socialist was a friend with
the Czar, who happened to be the most liberal and enlightened Czar
ever, Alexander II, who liberated the serfs. The later Czars (after
Nicholas I) always listened to their critics.
>
> What this was was a self-correcting system. However, it was met by the
> American attempt to destroy it by involving it in an arms race, and
> the Cold War as started by America delayed what today is a still
> evolving Russian democracy.
>
> Note that once America destroyed the Soviet Union, it took absolutely
> no responsibility for the successor state, and it failed to support
> Gorbachev.
Gorbachev fell by accident because of the coup d'état in August 1991,
which no one had expected. If those reactionaries hadn't rebelled
against Gorbachev, he would have managed to save Russia from misery.
Unfortunately he also made himself impopular with the Russian people
by insisting on fighting against the general alcoholism and the
reckless consumtion of Vodka.
The result is that the economy was taken over by the
> Communist *nomenklatura*, resulting in ten more years of misery.
>
> > total collapse into the havoc of 1917, when the culturally highest
> > standing nation in the world fell down to cannibalism under the
> Russia was of course no such thing. It was mediaeval until at least
> 1825 and the Decembrist affair.
Yes, you are partly right, but compare the age of Turgenev, Tchekhov,
Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy with the persecutions against Mandelstam,
Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Chachaturian, Pasternak, Solshenitsyn and
even Maxim Gorky, who might have been murdered by Stalin (according to
Solshenitsyn's testimony). Only those intellectual Russians made it
who escaped abroad, like Rachmaninov, Stravinsky, Ivan Bunin, Dimitry
Mereshkovsky, Michael Fokine, Vaslav Nijinsky, and even Nureyev and
Baryshnikov. Fleeing emigrants is no good testimonial of a regime.
>
> > guidance of those communists that Count Tolstoy sympathized with.
>
> > Experts of literature have compared that final novel with the
> > masterpieces "War and Peace" and "Anna Karenina" and found
> > "Resurrection" lacking above all in style. The difference between the
> > earlier great novels and the final one is, that the great ones were
> > written out by his wife Sonia while "Resurrection" wasn't. Maybe his
> > wife Sonia deserves some more credit, then, than she has received for
> > making "War and Peace" and "Anna Karenina" so much better novels than
> > the "Resurrection" which Count Tolstoy wrote all by himself at a much
> > maturer age.
Complete twaddle. I'm no expert on Tolstoy but this sounds like
> undigested feminist bullshit to me.
>
If I am wrong, prove it. If you can't prove it, you have nothing to
say.
> Have to let the little lady have her say, huh? Otherwise big fella
> might get all radical and free the serfs and then what would Madame
> do? Why she might have to fix her own hair or something!
>
> How scandalous!
>
> Give me an ounce of civet, good apothecary!
>
> > Laila Roth- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Just a final word to return to the main issue here, Tolstoy's
subjective criticism of Shakespeare. My opinion is that it was simply
based on his own inferiority complex in relation to poetry. Ms Mouse
claimed he did write poetry, which is quite wrong. Many realists and
especially social realists have reacted violently against poetry as
'false' and 'altering reality' by beautifying it, which Tolstoy was
too great a realist to have any talent for.
Laila Roth
Queen Christina of Sweden
On Jan 28, 6:43 am, "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> what's next? A spirited defense of the behavior of
> Goneril and Regan?
I have my own personal preferences about how I
interpret plays, but as far as feminism goes,
rather than listening to your continual oversimplifications
and guesses, I thought it would be a good idea to start
with the wikipedia article on King Lear so that I could at
least get an idea what literary feminists might write
about in Shakespeare studies:
'The feminism movement that emerged last century
interpreted that the message of the play was that
chaos occurred when power was given to women
and that order was restored only when men returned
to power. This overshadowing message, coupled
with a number of Lear's misogynist remarks has
fuelled this debate.'
C.
John W. Kennedy
> 'The feminism movement that emerged last century
> interpreted that the message of the play was that
> chaos occurred when power was given to women
> and that order was restored only when men returned
> to power.
I don't think that actually is the message of the play. (Does any
character whatever express that view?) Goneril and Regan are not
irresponsible or silly, which is the common libel against women; rather,
they are plain evil, covering at least five of the seven deadly sins.
Nevertheless, in British history, up to that time, such an attitude
would have been more or less simply an acknowledgment of reality.
Empress Matilda, Margaret "the fair maid of Norway", Jane Grey, Mary I
(from a Protestant viewpoint, at least), Mary Queen of Scots --
Elizabeth had changed the pattern, of course, but I doubt anyone would
have felt safe during the Jacobean era in concluding that the curse was
broken for good.
--
John W. Kennedy
"The blind rulers of Logres
Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
-- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"
Queen Christina of Sweden
On Jan 28, 4:25 pm, "John W. Kennedy" <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> Queen Christina of Sweden wrote:
>
> > 'The feminism movement that emerged last century
> > interpreted that the message of the play was that
> > chaos occurred when power was given to women
> > and that order was restored only when men returned
> > to power.
>I don't think that actually is the message of the play. (Does any
> character whatever express that view?) Goneril and Regan are not
> irresponsible or silly, which is the common libel against women; rather,
> they are plain evil, covering at least five of the seven deadly sins.
>
Many feminists I imagine would prefer a
female warrior character like Boudica,
who fights a war for a noble purpose,
and who leads the troops herself.
> Nevertheless, in British history, up to that time, such an attitude
> would have been more or less simply an acknowledgment of reality.
> Empress Matilda, Margaret "the fair maid of Norway", Jane Grey, Mary I
> (from a Protestant viewpoint, at least), Mary Queen of Scots --
> Elizabeth had changed the pattern, of course, but I doubt anyone would
> have felt safe during the Jacobean era in concluding that the curse was
> broken for good.
It doesn't help if other rulers assume that a female
monarch will be weak, and then attack because of
that. It is not clear to me exactly why the French
attack Lear's daughters--is it because they are
women and are therefore perceived as weak rulers,
or because they have unfairly usurped the kingdom?
One wonders if Cordelia goaded them on.
C.
spinoza1111
On Jan 29, 4:09 am, "Queen Christina of Sweden" <lari...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On Jan 28, 6:43 am, "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > what's next? A spirited defense of the behavior of
> > Goneril and Regan?I have my own personal preferences about how I
> interpret plays, but as far as feminism goes,
> rather than listening to your continual oversimplifications
Gee, what's an "oversimplification", Queenie? Understanding
independent of scribbling down what Teacher says?
Clear expression?
I find myself between a Scylla and Charybdis constructed by half-
literate people who pull critical terms out of the air as used by
madmen in charge, and thus in these texts I can be EITHER
"oversimplified" or "too complex": but this is the property not of my
text but of schizophrenia as created by the edumocation system, a
schizophrenia that shuttles without rest between polar opposites.
And you might take the opportunity at this time for apologizing, for
killing Descartes. If you ARE the Queen of Sweden which I rather
doubt, you brought him to your barbarous land to give you a smattering
of philosophy in your vanity. You forced him to start at 5:00 AM and
he shortly DIED.
This was the usual barbarism in which the middle and lower classes are
expendable. Their lives, and in the case of Shakespeare their good
names have been continually expropriated by dilettantes and by
tyrants.
> and guesses, I thought it would be a good idea to start
> with the wikipedia article on King Lear so that I could at
Oh do, let's read what convenience store clerks and mad monks have to
say...
> least get an idea what literary feminists might write
> about in Shakespeare studies:
>
> 'The feminism movement that emerged last century
How 'bout that old feminism movement
> interpreted that the message of the play was that
"If you want a message, call Western Union"
> chaos occurred when power was given to women
Maggie Thatcher feminism, and, as such, bullshit.
Here's a dollar, Ms. Vasa. Get a clue, Queenie. CORDELIA fucking
invades England with Shakespeare's implicit approval and uses her
female power to temporarily save her Dad and the blinded Gloucester.
Until the current generation of vipers, feminists have read and loved
Shakespeare for his strong and admirable FEMALE characters including
Cordelia, Desdemona, Cleopatra, Miranda, Olivia, Isabella, and
Rosalinde. Even his minor female characters are limn'd with an
unsexist pen: Jehan la Pucelle in HVI pt 1 has a lot of spunk,
Katherine *de Valois* talks back to Henry V (ees eet posseeble dat I
should love zee enemy dat is of France?), Queen Margaret has a lot of
fun screeching imprecations at Richard the Turd, so much that Sir
Lawrence eliminated her from the film lest be have his precious butt
upstaged, etc. etc. etc!
Are you so insensitive to the scene of the blinding of Gloucester to
see that over and above your apparent Maggie Thatcher feminism,
Shakespeare is showing us what happens when power is given to BAD
PEOPLE?
> and that order was restored only when men returned
> to power. This overshadowing message, coupled
> with a number of Lear's misogynist remarks has
> fuelled this debate.'
You haven't even read what Germaine Greer (a feminist when you were
probably playing with Barbie Dolls) has written about the ONLY scene
in which Lear expresses ANY hatred for women in the play, over and
above the default sexism of Shakespeare's time:
Behold yond simpering dame,
Whose face between her forks presages snow;
That minces virtue, and does shake the head
To hear of pleasure's name;
The fitchew, nor the soiled horse, goes to 't
With a more riotous appetite.
Down from the waist they are Centaurs,
Though women all above:
But to the girdle do the gods inherit,
Beneath is all the fiends';
There's hell, there's darkness, there's the
sulphurous pit,
Burning, scalding, stench, consumption; fie,
fie, fie! pah, pah! Give me an ounce of civet,
good apothecary, to sweeten my imagination:
there's money for thee.
But what comes after? Acceptance, phrased by one who'd so mastered
iambic pentameter and its conventions that like the *dernier*
Beethoven, he could go ahead and violate those self-same conventions:
When we are born, we cry that we are come
To this great stage of fools
That is, "we come crying", like the cry of the angel of history,
pictures what it is to come crying while never disavowing what Lear
and Gloucester have seen since they come crying. It maintains the
rhythm but returns to the single syllables of childhood and the cry
itself, but in the mouth of a man who is at the other end of life.
Lear is in fact self-psychoanalyzing. I fully realize the
unfashionability of "psychiatry" constituted in the fact that
corporate media, which is psychoanalysis IN REVERSE, creates creeps
and shitheads in the process of undialectical and one way regression,
not adults MAN ENOUGH to go back and then return.
Lear realizes where his hatred of his daughters AS WOMEN comes from:
the pain he remembers of his own birth! He realizes that his expulsion
from the castle has re-enacted his own birthing, and he accepts his
fate as a Resurrection constituted in his (Cartesian) presence to
himself and his (Levinasian) presence to the ruined Gloucester!
With an angelic annunciation, he recalls the floods of tears he shed
when he emerged "to this great stage of fools" in the phrases of
Beethoven's A Minor quartet:
We come crying hither
This is not my interpretation! It is of real, honest to god, kick-ass,
unshaven, capital B Byoch-assed first generation feminists who could
actually spell sighkiatry! And the daughters of these women are
betraying Mom!
Mom! Christina's a booger! She thinks she's Queen of Sweden! She
killed Descartes!
We come crying hither!
This Annunciation, this moment of absolute clarity, is what happens
when two men OVERCOME their fear and hatred of women, a fear and
hatred which is today deliberately incited by corporations in league
with upper middle class byoch-assed feminism to divide us. This an
absolute acceptance which catapults Lear into prophetic being.
Maggie Thatcher upper middle class byoch-assed feminism is what
happens when the lower middle class, in this case the careerist
daughters of Sixties feminists cast down into the lower middle class
by the choices of their mothers and their damned foolishness and
stupidity, are deliberately maddened by false promises and soured by
true miseries in the Fascist register, which sets itself to turn
Liberation BACK into enslavement. Maggie Thatcher upper middle class
byoch-assed feminism has made a Holocaust in the small of the lives of
good men and their children by bringing ideology into the home from
the streets.
Maggie Thatcher upper middle class byoch-assed feminism as
systematically and with malice misread in community colleges and n-
tier universities by sexually confused GIRLS in the 1970s is directly
responsible for the mass creation of marriages without love in which
the men sit in the basement and pour out their anger on the Internet,
bullying people and making complete and utter fools of themselves.
Maggie Thatcher upper middle class byoch-assed feminism has returned
the bully to American life, a bully that disappeared in the 1960s
after Stonewall showed that sissy boys can fight. This is because by
making narcissistic desire into an ideology, it creates Gonerils and
Regans as it were on an assembly line.
Its latest stunt is to send men and now women to die in Iraq.
Lear had a right to expect fair treatment, even fucking Albany knew
this: even an unnamed serving man knew this. Regan's and Goneril's
pussies had nothing to do with their behavior, indeed they both
relied, not as "strong" women, but as incestuous toads, on the penis
of a little bastard to make them whole.
Have you even read the fucking play? Goneril and Regan in no way take
responsibility for governance. Instead, they fall to fighting over the
affections of Gloucester's bastard son, the very type of vicious
little shit who as the boy issues from the loins of Maggie Thatcher
upper middle class byoch-assed feminists, indeed a Mark Thatcher on
the stage.
FUCK wikipedia. It is written by halfwits and maintained by Hitler
Youth. It was founded by a pornographer and follower of the madwoman
Ayn Rand.
READ THE PLAY.
Give me an ounce of civet, good apothecary. Give me a tumbler of
Scotch. Lord what FOOLS these mortals be!
>
> C.
spinoza1111
On Jan 29, 5:25 am, "John W. Kennedy" <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> Queen Christina of Sweden wrote:
>
> > 'The feminism movement that emerged last century
> > interpreted that the message of the play was that
> > chaos occurred when power was given to women
> > and that order was restored only when men returned
> > to power.I don't think that actually is the message of the play. (Does any
> character whatever express that view?) Goneril and Regan are not
> irresponsible or silly, which is the common libel against women; rather,
> they are plain evil, covering at least five of the seven deadly sins.
Damn, the monkey at the typewriter finally writes something sensible.
Wisdom do cry aloud in the streets and from the mouths of babes.
FALSTAFF
Thou hast the most unsavoury similes and art indeed
the most comparative, rascalliest, sweet young
prince. But, Hal, I prithee, trouble me no more
with vanity. I would to God thou and I knew where a
commodity of good names were to be bought. An old
lord of the council rated me the other day in the
street about you, sir, but I marked him not; and yet
he talked very wisely, but I regarded him not; and
yet he talked wisely, and in the street too.
PRINCE HENRY
Thou didst well; for wisdom cries out in the
streets, and no man regards it.
FALSTAFF
O, thou hast damnable iteration and art indeed able
to corrupt a saint. Thou hast done much harm upon
me, Hal; God forgive thee for it!
Queen Christina of Sweden
On Jan 29, 1:49 am, "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 29, 4:09 am, "Queen Christina of Sweden" <lari...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 28, 6:43 am, "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > what's next? A spirited defense of the behavior of
> > > Goneril and Regan?I have my own personal preferences about how I
> > interpret plays, but as far as feminism goes,
> > rather than listening to your continual oversimplificationsGee, what's an "oversimplification", Queenie? Understanding
> independent of scribbling down what Teacher says?
>
> Clear expression?
>
> I find myself between a Scylla and Charybdis constructed by half-
> literate people who pull critical terms out of the air as used by
> madmen in charge, and thus in these texts I can be EITHER
> "oversimplified" or "too complex": but this is the property not of my
> text but of schizophrenia as created by the edumocation system, a
> schizophrenia that shuttles without rest between polar opposites.
>
> And you might take the opportunity at this time for apologizing, for
> killing Descartes. If you ARE the Queen of Sweden which I rather
> doubt, you brought him to your barbarous land to give you a smattering
> of philosophy in your vanity. You forced him to start at 5:00 AM and
> he shortly DIED.
>
> This was the usual barbarism in which the middle and lower classes are
> expendable. Their lives, and in the case of Shakespeare their good
> names have been continually expropriated by dilettantes and by
> tyrants.
>
> > and guesses, I thought it would be a good idea to start
> > with the wikipedia article on King Lear so that I could atOh do, let's read what convenience store clerks and mad monks have to
> say...
>
> > least get an idea what literary feminists might write
> > about in Shakespeare studies:
>
> > 'The feminism movement that emerged last centuryHow 'bout that old feminism movement
>
> > interpreted that the message of the play was that"If you want a message, call Western Union"
>
> > chaos occurred when power was given to womenMaggie Thatcher feminism, and, as such, bullshit.
My goodness, I've never started (why would anyone
bother to finish) reading prose that was so full of
meaningless hatred in my life.
It's almost laughable!
C.
spinoza1111
On Jan 29, 2:22 pm, "Queen Christina of Sweden" <lari...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On Jan 28, 4:25 pm, "John W. Kennedy" <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > Queen Christina of Sweden wrote:
>
> > > 'The feminism movement that emerged last century
> > > interpreted that the message of the play was that
> > > chaos occurred when power was given to women
> > > and that order was restored only when men returned
> > > to power.
> >I don't think that actually is the message of the play. (Does any
> > character whatever express that view?) Goneril and Regan are not
> > irresponsible or silly, which is the common libel against women; rather,
> > they are plain evil, covering at least five of the seven deadly sins.
> Many feminists I imagine would prefer a
> female warrior character like Boudica,
> who fights a war for a noble purpose,
> and who leads the troops herself.
Feminism as shopping. Feminism as the search for poppets for A Room of
One's Own. Barbie Doll and Bratz feminism.
>
> > Nevertheless, in British history, up to that time, such an attitude
> > would have been more or less simply an acknowledgment of reality.
> > Empress Matilda, Margaret "the fair maid of Norway", Jane Grey, Mary I
> > (from a Protestant viewpoint, at least), Mary Queen of Scots --
> > Elizabeth had changed the pattern, of course, but I doubt anyone would
> > have felt safe during the Jacobean era in concluding that the curse was
> > broken for good.
> It doesn't help if other rulers assume that a female
> monarch will be weak, and then attack because of
> that. It is not clear to me exactly why the French
> attack Lear's daughters--is it because they are
> women and are therefore perceived as weak rulers,
> or because they have unfairly usurped the kingdom?
Well, it always helps to eeeeek read the eeeeerk play.
News fa-lash. Cordelia is Queen of France. She bloody married the King
of France in the first act, did you know that?
KING LEAR
Thou hast her, France: let her be thine; for we
Have no such daughter, nor shall ever see
That face of hers again. Therefore be gone
Without our grace, our love, our benison.
Come, noble Burgundy.
The French invade because Goneril and Regan have set up a Fascist
dictatorship. This anachronism is allowable, I think, given the utter
contempt expressed by Regan (so brought out so well by Diana Rigg,
formerly of Avengers fame, in a 1990s production) for the "first
servingman" who tries to prevent Gloucester's blinding, and Sir Ian
McKellan's movie version of Richard III, set in a Fascist Britain of
the 1930s, is precedent.
Anyway, Albany puts to rest ANY proto-feminist reading of Goneril and
Regan:
Wisdom and goodness to the vile seem vile: [O how apposite this is in
this great stage of usenet!]
Filths savour but themselves. What have you done?
Tigers, not daughters, what have you perform'd?
A father, and a gracious aged man,
Whose reverence even the head-lugg'd bear would lick,
Most barbarous, most degenerate! have you madded.
Could my good brother suffer you to do it?
A man, a prince, by him so benefited!
If that the heavens do not their visible spirits
Send quickly down to tame these vile offences,
It will come,
Humanity must perforce prey on itself,
Like monsters of the deep.
> One wonders if Cordelia goaded them on.
Yeah, Vasa, one does. Especially if one hasn't bother to read the
play.
Hey maybe she was their Annoying Little Gei Gei Sister! Hey maybe she
was cuter than the two of those fucking hagged-out byoches put
together!
Give me a ton of blow, good apothecary! O for the marching powder of
Bolivia! But that I am forbid!
>
> C.
>
>
>
>
>
> > --
> > John W. Kennedy
> > "The blind rulers of Logres
> > Nourished the land on a fallacy of rational virtue."
Yeah, well you fixed them, huh?
Worm.
> > -- Charles Williams. "Taliessin through Logres: Prelude"- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
spinoza1111
On Jan 29, 3:01 pm, "Queen Christina of Sweden" <lari...@yahoo.com>
> > > C.My goodness, I've never started (why would anyone
> bother to finish) reading prose that was so full of
> meaningless hatred in my life.
But then how would you know what's in it, Madame?
Of course, you skimmed it, didn't you. And you saw Bad Words, which
terrify Tyrants all over the world.
You didn't read Lear, and didn't read Hughes, and you didn't read
Germaine Greer.
What do you read? Fashion magazines?
I'm going back to France, babe.
>
> It's almost laughable!
>
> C.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
spinoza1111
On Jan 29, 3:01 pm, "Queen Christina of Sweden" <lari...@yahoo.com>
> > > C.My goodness, I've never started (why would anyone
> bother to finish) reading prose that was so full of
> meaningless hatred in my life.
>
> It's almost laughable!
Albany
Wisdom and goodness to the vile seem vile:
Filths savour but themselves
>
> C.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
spinoza1111
On Jan 29, 3:01 pm, "Queen Christina of Sweden" <lari...@yahoo.com>
> > > C.My goodness, I've never started (why would anyone
> bother to finish) reading prose that was so full of
> meaningless hatred in my life.
You stand idly by while a good man like Michael is trashed right here
in the castle of usenet. But if a man uses Bad Words to show how Lear
teaches us to transit from birth to death without becoming monsters or
creeps, you call THIS "meaningless hatred".
Oh well...
>
> It's almost laughable!
>
> C.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
spinoza1111
Queen of Sweden over there, cackling in the corner, to read the text
and my reply. I spent much time composing a reply to Ms. Vasa but it
would have been better spent with you. Let me get back to you on your
most thoughtful reply after work.
> > Paris claiming she was the grand duchess.Well, you certainly are right concerning certain Romanovs, like Peter
> Laila Roth- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Laila Roth
On 28 Jan, 12:43, "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Correction: Stalin wasn't a "follower of the Romanovs" EXCEPT in the
> important second-order sense that he pimped Trotsky's ass in the old
> style by failing to tell Trotsky about the funeral and was a knout-
> wielding thug.
>
> Laraine, Queenie, what's next? A spirited defense of the behavior of
> Goneril and Regan? I think Maggie Thatcher wrote that for her A-
> levels, but what the hell, you know?
>
> It's clear to me that some of what passes for "feminism" in the West
> has now devolved into a lower middle class Fascist campaign. Here, in
> your on the face of it ridiculous campaign to destroy "Tolstoy" as an
> author, we see what E. F. Hobsbawm called the destructiveness of the
> lower middle class, here in feminist garb.
>
I was never a feminist, although I never hesitated to defend the
female cause against male recklessness. Softness is, after all, better
than brutality.
It was never my intention to "destroy" Tolstoy, but I felt he could do
with some criticism - he never had too much of that.
> Can't finish War and Peace? Oh well, rent the movie (the one with that
> adorable Audrey Hepburn, not the difficult multidisk Bondarchuk
> version of course, the subtitles make the Missus' head to ache) and
> then smash "Tolstoy" on the Web, where nobody knows you're a dog, or a
> nickel-plated bitch.
>
I've read it a number of times, but it was best the first time. After
a few times you notice it's not much better than "Gone with the Wind",
while for instance Dostoyevsky gets better each time you read him.
Yes, the Audrey Hepburn version is much better than the Bondarchuk
one, which failed completely in portraying Volkonsky, while Mel Ferrer
was superb. Henry Fonda was all wrong, of course, while the best
Pierre Besuchov was Anthony Hopkins in the BBC version. The best
sequences of the King Vidor version, though, is the retreat from
Moscow with the crossing of the Berezina, which not even Tolstoy dared
to expose.
> > existed under the Tsars) and...
>
> läs mer »
laraine
On Jan 29, 1:22 am, "Queen Christina of Sweden" <lari...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> > Nevertheless, in British history, up to that time, such an attitude
> > would have been more or less simply an acknowledgment of reality.
> > Empress Matilda, Margaret "the fair maid of Norway", Jane Grey, Mary I
> > (from a Protestant viewpoint, at least), Mary Queen of Scots --
> > Elizabeth had changed the pattern, of course, but I doubt anyone would
> > have felt safe during the Jacobean era in concluding that the curse was
> > broken for good.
>It doesn't help if other rulers assume that a female
> monarch will be weak, and then attack because of
> that. It is not clear to me exactly why the French
> attack Lear's daughters--is it because they are
> women and are therefore perceived as weak rulers,
> or because they have unfairly usurped the kingdom?
> One wonders if Cordelia goaded them on.
Here I meant--one wonders if Cordelia goaded the
French on. Don't know if that was clear.
(While posing as a queen--ruler that is--the way
Mr. 1111 is posing as being the best in the world
just slightly above lackpurity perhaps, it wouldn't
have been appropriate to admit to being
unclear, so back to the laraine name.)
I guess I personally didn't see exact answers to
those questions in the text, though one might
infer answers, unless it is said very subtly, or
I didn't understand the language properly.
C.
spinoza1111
On Jan 29, 4:49 pm, "Laila Roth" <lailar...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On 28 Jan, 12:43, "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Correction: Stalin wasn't a "follower of the Romanovs" EXCEPT in the
> > important second-order sense that he pimped Trotsky's ass in the old
> > style by failing to tell Trotsky about the funeral and was a knout-
> > wielding thug.
>
> > Laraine, Queenie, what's next? A spirited defense of the behavior of
> > Goneril and Regan? I think Maggie Thatcher wrote that for her A-
> > levels, but what the hell, you know?
>
> > It's clear to me that some of what passes for "feminism" in the West
> > has now devolved into a lower middle class Fascist campaign. Here, in
> > your on the face of it ridiculous campaign to destroy "Tolstoy" as an
> > author, we see what E. F. Hobsbawm called the destructiveness of the
> > lower middle class, here in feminist garb.
>I was never a feminist, although I never hesitated to defend the
> female cause against male recklessness. Softness is, after all, better
> than brutality.
Not always. With people like this "Mark Houlsby" character, for
example, I am being brutal in order to create a space in this
newsgroup for discussion of Shakespeare, not of his perceptions of the
personalities of other posters.
> It was never my intention to "destroy" Tolstoy, but I felt he could do
> with some criticism - he never had too much of that.
Yes, all writers can do with "criticism" in the sense you are using
here, although more broadly, "criticism" includes a friendly
interpretation, not blaming someone for having a penis, and, for good
measure, causing the Russian Revolution (a novel charge, not one made
by historians).
>
> > Can't finish War and Peace? Oh well, rent the movie (the one with that
> > adorable Audrey Hepburn, not the difficult multidisk Bondarchuk
> > version of course, the subtitles make the Missus' head to ache) and
> > then smash "Tolstoy" on the Web, where nobody knows you're a dog, or a
> > nickel-plated bitch.
> I've read it a number of times, but it was best the first time. After
> a few times you notice it's not much better than "Gone with the Wind",
> while for instance Dostoyevsky gets better each time you read him.
Interesting point, although you missed the central fact about GWTW:
it's racist in a way Shakespeare and Tolstoy were not.
I'm not trying to be a snob when I say that GWTW is nothing more than
pop-national literature of zero interest to the rest of the world,
which cannot emotionally "connect" to the perpetuation, in ante-bellum
America, of fragments of feudalism and ancient society. I also find a
Fascist cynicism in the valorization of Scarlett.
I think a first-rate novelist would have combined old Rhett and Ashley
into one man. As it is, both fail to develop: compare Pierre's moral
development, compare Andre's, compare Natasha's.
Missing is an epiphany. This is the vulgar attraction of American
production: the fantasy of self-preservation.
Most ordinary people, whose biography includes a war, become in many
ways different people. In GWTW, the reader is encouraged to fantasize
about a fixed personality who if it is "strong" enough (and in
Scarlett's case, a nickel plated bitch) can preserve itself unchanged.
So, frankly my dear, as far as GWTW is concerned, I don't give a damn.
Shakespeare and Tolstoy both shared the "default" racist and sexist
assumptions of their time. Margaret Mitchell, on the other hand,
creates nostalgia for a primitive and racist police state. She failed
in other words to face reality.
> Yes, the Audrey Hepburn version is much better than the Bondarchuk
> one, which failed completely in portraying Volkonsky, while Mel Ferrer
> was superb. Henry Fonda was all wrong, of course, while the best
> Pierre Besuchov was Anthony Hopkins in the BBC version. The best
Haven't seen the Hop, I have him in Othello. He's great.
> > > > Shakespeare genius because he could not understand...
John W. Kennedy
> It is not clear to me exactly why the French
> attack Lear's daughters--is it because they are
> women and are therefore perceived as weak rulers,
> or because they have unfairly usurped the kingdom?
> One wonders if Cordelia goaded them on.
I doubt that "goaded" is the right word, but the play is written so as
to make it, for all dramatic purposes, Cordelia's war. The King of
France, having served a necessary purpose in Act I, has become
superfluous to the action, and is removed quite clumsily.
spinoza1111
> Queen Christina of Sweden wrote:
>
> > It is not clear to me exactly why the French
> > attack Lear's daughters--is it because they are
> > women and are therefore perceived as weak rulers,
> > or because they have unfairly usurped the kingdom?
> > One wonders if Cordelia goaded them on.
>
> I doubt that "goaded" is the right word, but the play is written so as
> to make it, for all dramatic purposes, Cordelia's war. The King of
> France, having served a necessary purpose in Act I, has become
> superfluous to the action, and is removed quite clumsily.
Yet another critic supposes he could have done better.
The King of France DEFERS to Cordelia and this displays his decency.
He's not "removed clumsily", any more than any other character.
Mark Houlsby
On 29 Jan, 15:15, "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 29, 4:49 pm, "Laila Roth" <lailar...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 28 Jan, 12:43, "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Correction: Stalin wasn't a "follower of the Romanovs" EXCEPT in the
> > > important second-order sense that he pimped Trotsky's ass in the old
> > > style by failing to tell Trotsky about the funeral and was a knout-
> > > wielding thug.
>
> > > Laraine, Queenie, what's next? A spirited defense of the behavior of
> > > Goneril and Regan? I think Maggie Thatcher wrote that for her A-
> > > levels, but what the hell, you know?
>
> > > It's clear to me that some of what passes for "feminism" in the West
> > > has now devolved into a lower middle class Fascist campaign. Here, in
> > > your on the face of it ridiculous campaign to destroy "Tolstoy" as an
> > > author, we see what E. F. Hobsbawm called the destructiveness of the
> > > lower middle class, here in feminist garb.
> >I was never a feminist, although I never hesitated to defend the
> > female cause against male recklessness. Softness is, after all, better
> > than brutality.
> Not always. With people like this "Mark Houlsby" character, for
> example, I am being brutal in order to create a space in this
> newsgroup for discussion of Shakespeare, not of his perceptions of the
> personalities of other posters.
>
Why put quotation marks around my name? It's my real name, Nilges.
Your brutality, BTW, serves only to place your astonishing ignorance
and stupidity in the spotlight.
There *is* space in this NG to discuss Shakespeare. Start a thread
discussing Shakespeare.
> > It was never my intention to "destroy" Tolstoy, but I felt he could do
> > with some criticism - he never had too much of that.
> Yes, all writers can do with "criticism" in the sense you are using
> here, although more broadly, "criticism" includes a friendly
> interpretation, not blaming someone for having a penis, and, for good
> measure, causing the Russian Revolution (a novel charge, not one made
> by historians).
>
So...you're arguing that the Crimean War caused the Russian
Revolution? Which Russian Revolution? February (Julian)/March
(Gregorian) 1917? October (Julian)/November (Julian) 1917? Perhaps you
refer to 1905?
What are your justifications for suggesting this historical corollary
(i.e. whichever one you meant)?
>
>
> > > Can't finish War and Peace? Oh well, rent the movie (the one with that
> > > adorable Audrey Hepburn, not the difficult multidisk Bondarchuk
> > > version of course, the subtitles make the Missus' head to ache) and
> > > then smash "Tolstoy" on the Web, where nobody knows you're a dog, or a
> > > nickel-plated bitch.
> > I've read it a number of times, but it was best the first time. After
> > a few times you notice it's not much better than "Gone with the Wind",
> > while for instance Dostoyevsky gets better each time you read him.Interesting point, although you missed the central fact about GWTW:
> it's racist in a way Shakespeare and Tolstoy were not.
>
> I'm not trying to be a snob when I say that GWTW is nothing more than
> pop-national literature of zero interest to the rest of the world,
That cannot be. My Mum has a copy, and she's English.
> which cannot emotionally "connect" to the perpetuation, in ante-bellum
> America, of fragments of feudalism and ancient society. I also find a
> Fascist cynicism in the valorization of Scarlett.
>
Very nice for you, I'm sure.
> I think a first-rate novelist would have combined old Rhett and Ashley
> into one man. As it is, both fail to develop: compare Pierre's moral
> development, compare Andre's, compare Natasha's.
>
Yet Margaret Mitchell is better known that Ed Nilges. How can this be?
Oh yes, of course, it's because Ed Nilges is smart, whereas everyone
else is dumb.
> Missing is an epiphany. This is the vulgar attraction of American
> production: the fantasy of self-preservation.
>
So...what you're saying is: "I could do better"....
> Most ordinary people, whose biography includes a war, become in many
> ways different people. In GWTW, the reader is encouraged to fantasize
> about a fixed personality who if it is "strong" enough (and in
> Scarlett's case, a nickel plated bitch) can preserve itself unchanged.
>
Really? So you're arguing that Scarlett is no different at the end at
the book from how she was at the beginning? Account for this. Cite
relevant passages.
> So, frankly my dear, as far as GWTW is concerned, I don't give a damn.
>
Yet you've taken the time and trouble to construct a rather
idiosyncratic thesis about it... strange.
> Shakespeare and Tolstoy both shared the "default" racist and sexist
> assumptions of their time. Margaret Mitchell, on the other hand,
> creates nostalgia for a primitive and racist police state. She failed
> in other words to face reality.
>
That would 'splain the book's (and perhaps even more the movie's)
enduring popularity, then.... no, wait, such popularity is merely a
fantasy, of course.
<snip>
spinoza1111
wrote:
> On 29 Jan, 15:15, "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 29, 4:49 pm, "Laila Roth" <lailar...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > On 28 Jan, 12:43, "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Correction: Stalin wasn't a "follower of the Romanovs" EXCEPT in the
> > > > important second-order sense that he pimped Trotsky's ass in the old
> > > > style by failing to tell Trotsky about the funeral and was a knout-
> > > > wielding thug.
>
> > > > Laraine, Queenie, what's next? A spirited defense of the behavior of
> > > > Goneril and Regan? I think Maggie Thatcher wrote that for her A-
> > > > levels, but what the hell, you know?
>
> > > > It's clear to me that some of what passes for "feminism" in the West
> > > > has now devolved into a lower middle class Fascist campaign. Here, in
> > > > your on the face of it ridiculous campaign to destroy "Tolstoy" as an
> > > > author, we see what E. F. Hobsbawm called the destructiveness of the
> > > > lower middle class, here in feminist garb.
> > >I was never a feminist, although I never hesitated to defend the
> > > female cause against male recklessness. Softness is, after all, better
> > > than brutality.
> > Not always. With people like this "Mark Houlsby" character, for
> > example, I am being brutal in order to create a space in this
> > newsgroup for discussion of Shakespeare, not of his perceptions of the
> > personalities of other posters.
>
> Why put quotation marks around my name? It's my real name, Nilges.
Then stop acting like a self-caricature.
> Your brutality, BTW, serves only to place your astonishing ignorance
> and stupidity in the spotlight.
You don't seem to deserve anything but brutality. Stay with us,
people, there's a real shocker later on in this post...
>
> There *is* space in this NG to discuss Shakespeare. Start a thread
> discussing Shakespeare.
I did that. You disrupted it.
>
> > > It was never my intention to "destroy" Tolstoy, but I felt he could do
> > > with some criticism - he never had too much of that.
> > Yes, all writers can do with "criticism" in the sense you are using
> > here, although more broadly, "criticism" includes a friendly
> > interpretation, not blaming someone for having a penis, and, for good
> > measure, causing the Russian Revolution (a novel charge, not one made
> > by historians).
>
> So...you're arguing that the Crimean War caused the Russian
> Revolution? Which Russian Revolution? February (Julian)/March
> (Gregorian) 1917? October (Julian)/November (Julian) 1917? Perhaps you
> refer to 1905?
News Fa Lash: WAR AND PEACE WAS NOT ABOUT THE CRIMEAN WAR
Please leave. You don't belong here.
War and Peace is about the failed invasion of Russia by Napoleon
Bonaparte in 1812, NOT the invasion by way of the Crimea by the
English, French and Turks in the 1850s.
People who like the mad Queen of Sweden believe that Goneril and Regan
were treated sympathetically by Shakespeare, or should have been in
order to be Politically Correct, DON'T BELONG HERE.
People who like this Kennedy character dare to equate early American
melodramatic racist TRIPE with Shakespeare don't belong here.
People who think War and Peace was about the Crimean war don't belong
here.
Except as courteous people, who do not engage in trivial spelling
flames and who do NOT, and I mean NOT, trash other people including
Michael and this Innes character!
Who zip the fuck up and LEARN.
Mark Houlsby
On 27 Jan, 19:22, "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 23, 5:34 pm, "Laila Roth" <lailar...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Tolstoy simply didn't understand Shakespeare. He was of a totally
> > different mentality and blind to the Shakespeare spirituality and
> > poetry - Tolstoy never wrote any poetry himself. He was just a strict
> > realist seeing nothing but naked reality and perhaps the best one in
> > that field, but he missed everything else, which for instance
> > Dostoyevsky did not. Tolstoy could not understand Dostoyevsky either
> Let's see, we were talking about Shakespeare and Tolstoy but all of a
> sudden we're talking about Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, Oh well. Ramble
> on...
>
Yup. That's USENET. Too difficult for you to follow, huh? Got a short
little span of attention?
> > and even wondered at Dostoyevsky having any readers at all. He thought
> > everything he could not understand 'ridiculous', failing to appreciate
> > and learn what was beyond his horizon. Instead he lowered himself to
> That's a foul fault! Of course, we all of us trivially and in a strict
> sense "fail to appreciate and learn what is beyond our horizon".
>
Right, but we don't all dismiss the same as 'ridiculous'... DUH!
> "Appreciating and learning beyond your horizon" is of course what the
> Little Darlings at university are "supposed" to do, it is what they
> are exhorted to do by boilerplate.
>
You've got a real hardon about universities, haven't you? What gives,
Ed? Your writing this shit just makes you look even more dumb.
> Thus, there is a distinct tendency for a Little Darling to believe
> she's discovered this in a Dead White Male, on which it's open season
> anyhoo.
>
Well, it's a point-of-view, but it's no more valid than that which
Laila expressed. It seems to this reader that one of the many reasons
why classic works endure is precisely their ability to withstand a
gamut of possible interpretations, even encompassing historical
changes in fashion and in social mores.
> Thus the teacher has to actually GRADE papers that variously lay this
> foul fault at the stonecold feet of a variety of Dead White Males by
> whom students afraid to criticise on the other hands various
> fashionable bluestockings and writers of color, even in cases where
> those groups knew their limits.
>
You're seriously twisted, Ed. Once again: not ALL teachers are like
that. In fact, it could even be a minority.
> The exhortation "expand your horizons" ignores the distinct
> possibility that the author was already under a vast, indeed Russian
> sky, and that it is jejune for some clown or some scribbling
> bluestocking, here, to tell the author of War and fucking Peace, "oh,
> Count, all you ever talk about are Russian nobles, and Moscow, and
> Paris, and the country, and great battles, and little battles, and
> love affairs, and birth, and death, and love. You should rilly expand
> your horizons. And throw in a Nasty Story, or two. It would be an
> improvement."
>
"Missing is an epiphany..."
--Edward Nilges on (get this) _Gone With The Wind_
> This is as laughable as the Emperor's advice in Shaffer's Amadeus that
> Mozart REDUCE his horizons and take out every other note.
>
No, not "...every other note.". What Jeffrey Jones, as Emperor Joseph
II, actually said was: "...too many notes.". No more specific than
that.
> > tendentiousness, ending up in his old age as a preacher (like our own
> > MM), for which he has ever been criticised. In post-soviet Russia the
> The only boy that could ever move me was the son of a preacher man...
>
> I've always appreciated, as a reprobate, a rollicking good sermon such
> as that day when the Reverend Edwards made strong men tremble, infants
> wail, and women to faint with his Sinners in the Hands of an Angry
> God. Perhaps for this reason, I rilly don't understand the blue-
> penciled sniffy comment "preaching" for there are instances of
> preaching that constitute great literature, such as the Sermon on the
> Mount.
>
> Of course, "preaching" as a critique has to address whether a wrong
> note was sounded, a false note. And, it expects the preacher to be
> less like John Edwards (who was no more confident of Election than the
> next man and who could have as well said timor mortis conturbat me)
> and a perfect man, will listen to no less.
>
> It fails to realize that by this rule, the only effective preaching
> would be Christ preaching to the choir in heaven, for the charge of
> "preaching" as literary criticism assumes without argument that the
> preacher may not himself be a sinner, and that the audience, like the
> seven virgins, is prepared.
>
Define what you mean by: "...effective preaching...". Does it mean
that its having been effective serves as a perfect excuse for the
United States to invade Iraq, notwithstanding that it was widely known
(even I knew) that there were no weapons of mass destruction in the
country?
Does it mean that its having been effective not only gave Pat
Robertson a career, it also emptied the wallets of the stupid and
gullible--not only in the United States, but here in the United
Kingdom and in many countries around the world?
Besides, what exactly is there in the biographical information about
Count Leo Tolstoy, which Laila wrote, that is inaccurate?
The above is *your* critique of *historical events*. You have argued
that as such it requires *justification*.
It's time for you to justify, Ed.
> But this means there can be no dissonant attempt to call us to shape
> the fuck up, no wounded healer. But this in turn means that no
> preaching at all may occur anywhere in literature.
>
ROFLMAO! You've got some explaining to do, my lad!
> Prince Andre lays dying and when dying realizes the truth of life.
> Sentimental? Maudlin? Preaching? I don't think so.
>
That was hardly Laila's point. She was providing *biographical
information* about *Tolstoy*.
Do learn to read, illiterate fuckwit.
> > critical tendency is to blame him for helping in bringing on the bloody
> > revolution, the greatest mistake in Russian history, since life under
> I think the Russian Revolution was a Good Thing on balance, honey
> bun.
>
How do you know? Its ramifications are still being played out, not
least here in England. You have *heard* of polonium-210, haven't you?
> > the 19th century Czars was the best age Russia ever had. The countess
> > Sonia Tolstoy, who wrote out his major novels, was his sharpest critic,
> > and she was right in accusing her husband of ingratefulness and
> Yeah, what ev er. Count Tolstoy realized the vicious folly of 19th
> century aristocracy in a lived sense but this might fright the ladies,
> sitting on their cans in the drawing room? Too bad.
>
You're rambling now...
> > absurdity. In "Voskresenye" (his last great novel) he actually covertly
> > preached the murder of the Czar. Lenin was his pupil and ordered the
> What you fail to realize here is that anger is unbounded.
Literally unbounded? Account for this.
> Hey, you
> drive me into a ghetto, you take my plot of land to build a factory,
> you cannot assume that at any pint in my anger, I will stop and reason
> that "on the whole" the Czar is a good thing in an Utilitarian
> sense...Utilitarians always say, not in my backyard.
>
Always? They never say anything else? All Utilitarians? All the time?
> > massacre of the Czar and his whole family (with doctors and servants
> > and a dog) including four innocent daughters and a hoemophilic 12-year
> > old son. The communists tried to get away with it by eliminating the
> > corpses and trying to dissolve them, but the bones were later
> > discovered in a mine. They were all there, except the bones of
> > Anastasia and the boy. No one knows where these corpses finally ended
> > up, so at least Anastasia might have escaped alive.
> Oh, how romantic!
>
It is, actually, if historically untrue, as was proved forensically, a
few years ago.
> The Romanovs were a gang of thugs killed by stronger thugs. I really
> don't care if some screeching harridan ended up in an estaminet in
> Paris claiming she was the grand duchess.
>
Okaaay....
Mark Houlsby
Ummm... if I adopt a trollhunter persona, it's because I'm hunting a
TROLL, dude...
> > Your brutality, BTW, serves only to place your astonishing ignorance
> > and stupidity in the spotlight.
> You don't seem to deserve anything but brutality.
I don't, huh? The only folks who would agree with that would be your
fellow TROLLS...
> Stay with us,
> people, there's a real shocker later on in this post...
>
Oh, I shall, don't you worry....
>
>
> > There *is* space in this NG to discuss Shakespeare. Start a thread
> > discussing Shakespeare.
> I did that. You disrupted it.
>
Oh yes? Where was that, then? Post a link, or at least quote yourself,
or me...
>
>
> > > > It was never my intention to "destroy" Tolstoy, but I felt he could do
> > > > with some criticism - he never had too much of that.
> > > Yes, all writers can do with "criticism" in the sense you are using
> > > here, although more broadly, "criticism" includes a friendly
> > > interpretation, not blaming someone for having a penis, and, for good
> > > measure, causing the Russian Revolution (a novel charge, not one made
> > > by historians).
>
> > So...you're arguing that the Crimean War caused the Russian
> > Revolution? Which Russian Revolution? February (Julian)/March
> > (Gregorian) 1917? October (Julian)/November (Julian) 1917? Perhaps you
> > refer to 1905?
> News Fa Lash: WAR AND PEACE WAS NOT ABOUT THE CRIMEAN WAR
>
You do realise that Count Leo Tolstoy *served* in the Crimean War,
don't you?
You do realise that he commanded a battery, and witnessed the siege of
Sebastopol?
You do realise that he drew upon his experiences in the Crimean War
when he was writing _War and Peace_ don't you?
> Please leave. You don't belong here.
>
No, that would be you.
> War and Peace is about the failed invasion of Russia by Napoleon
> Bonaparte in 1812, NOT the invasion by way of the Crimea by the
> English, French and Turks in the 1850s.
Right, but the point I was making was that Laila was discussing
*biographical information* about *Tolstoy*. You rather hijacked this,
so I took it back, and *alluded* to the sense in which _War and Peace_
was shaped, in large measure, by Tolstoy's *experience* in *The
Crimean War*. In other words, I was arguing that without his having
served in *The Crimean War*, Tolstoy *could not* have written the
book that we know as _War and Peace_.
Get it, fuckwit? Or are there "...too many notes..."?
>
> People who like the mad Queen of Sweden believe that Goneril and Regan
> were treated sympathetically by Shakespeare, or should have been in
> order to be Politically Correct, DON'T BELONG HERE.
>
No, that would be you.
> People who like this Kennedy character dare to equate early American
> melodramatic racist TRIPE with Shakespeare don't belong here.
>
He did no such thing, fuckwit. Your *writing* shit like that
*reinforces* his position. You've been told this already. Jeez but
you're dumb.
> People who think War and Peace was about the Crimean war don't belong
> here.
>
I don't think that. See above....
> Except as courteous people, who do not engage in trivial spelling
> flames and who do NOT, and I mean NOT, trash other people including
> Michael and this Innes character!
>
> Who zip the fuck up and LEARN.
Maybe you should try that, fuckwit....
Mark Houlsby
On 28 Jan, 11:32, "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Of course, I have no brief for murdering the Tsar, which is why I
> opposed the execution of Saddam Husayn.
For that, you deserve credit.
> The British wisely refrained
> from executing Napoleon, and the Chinese communists wisely refrained
> from executing Aisin Goro Pu Yi.
>
> But it is sentimentality to mourn victims with names when the point in
> Russia and today is that your REAL victim is unknown.
>
>
Entirely unknown? Might not one take a stab at it?
>
> > My basic argument here was that Count Tolstoy failed to recognize the
> > Shakespeare genius because he could not understand him since he was no
> > poet himself. Art has paid some honour to his last great novel
> > "Resurrection", which is indeed a wonderful masterpiece, which
> > nonetheless contains some controversial bolshevik propaganda. My
> Well, this is nonsense. If anti-materialism is now Bolshevik
> propaganda, the Sermon on the Mount is Bolshi propaganda.
>
That's another of your famous "non-sequitors" [sic].
Undoubtedly it's a stretch to suggest that "Resurrection" (written in
1899, IIRC) is out-and-out Bolshevik propaganda, it's difficult to
argue convincingly that it does not contain resonances which pertain
to the Bolshevik mentality.
As for introducing the idea that TSOTM is Bolshevik propaganda... that
*really is* Bullshit with a capital B.
> The consequences of its opposite, which has had the microphone since
> 1980, are world wide disaster and they include the revival of widow
> burning in India, rural misery in China, and the destruction of the
> middle class in America.
>
Not just in the USA, dude, in Europe, too, for example.
> > argument concerning this was that Russia today tends to criticize and
> > even partly blame Count Tolstoy for being influential in Russia'sComplete and utter nonsense.
>
> The nihilism of the Romanovs produced its opposite in the Narodniks
> and in Dosteoevsky, but Count Tolstoy RETAINED his humanity and good
> sense. What he SAW was how industrialism would create misery UNLESS
> Russia evolved politically...which it did thanks to Lenin and
> Kruschchev. Lenin realized his mistake when his first attempts to feed
> the cities with collectivization created famine (famines that had also
> existed under the Tsars) and he promptly instituted the New Economic
> Policy.
>
...which also failed.
> However, Lenin died, and an ambitious thug named Stalin, a follower of
> the Romanov path, took over.
>
I take it that you've read Lenin's _What is to be done?_?
How, exactly, was Stalin "...a follower of the Romanov path..."?
> But almost immediately after his death, Nikita Kruschchev, one of the
> thugs, revealed Stalin's crimes...something the Romanovs had never
> done with respect to their own!
>
No shit, Sherlock! Stalin never revealed his own crimes, either!
Incredible!
> What this was was a self-correcting system.
No, what this was was payback.
> However, it was met by the
> American attempt to destroy it by involving it in an arms race, and
> the Cold War as started by America delayed what today is a still
> evolving Russian democracy.
>
It was *way* more complex than that, dude. Still is.
> Note that once America destroyed the Soviet Union, it took absolutely
> no responsibility for the successor state, and it failed to support
> Gorbachev. The result is that the economy was taken over by the
> Communist *nomenklatura*, resulting in ten more years of misery.
>
Again, this is an incredible oversimplification. There are many things
going on in Russia and its former satellites in which the United
States has a considerable interest. You didn't know this?
> > total collapse into the havoc of 1917, when the culturally highest
> > standing nation in the world fell down to cannibalism under the
> Russia was of course no such thing. It was mediaeval until at least
> 1825 and the Decembrist affair.
>
Not mediaeval...feudal. Mediaeval was a historical period. Feudal is a
way of being.
> > guidance of those communists that Count Tolstoy sympathized with.
>
> > Experts of literature have compared that final novel with the
> > masterpieces "War and Peace" and "Anna Karenina" and found
> > "Resurrection" lacking above all in style. The difference between the
> > earlier great novels and the final one is, that the great ones were
> > written out by his wife Sonia while "Resurrection" wasn't. Maybe his
> > wife Sonia deserves some more credit, then, than she has received for
> > making "War and Peace" and "Anna Karenina" so much better novels than
> > the "Resurrection" which Count Tolstoy wrote all by himself at a much
> > maturer age.
> Complete twaddle. I'm no expert on Tolstoy but this sounds like
> undigested feminist bullshit to me.
>
Oh well that's fine then. You can just pontificate ignorantly, and
we'll all kowtow to the superior being.
You really are a fuckwitted troll, Ed....
laraine
On Jan 30, 8:43 am, "Mark Houlsby" <mark.houl...@eudoramail.com>
wrote:
> > People who like the mad Queen of Sweden believe that Goneril and Regan
> > were treated sympathetically by Shakespeare, or should have been in
> > order to be Politically Correct, DON'T BELONG HERE.No, that would be you.
>
Just for the record, I've never supported any position like that.
I've always questioned feminism that seemed like it was
only about power, particularly evil power, though I'm cautious
on this newsgroup because I realize that I don't know enough,
and that it's important to realize that women are human too.
I'm rather trying to piece together what I've heard over the years
from feminists or various teachers, and I see each of them as
individual--I don't think there is just one feminist voice. If
Nilges doesn't like that, I don't care. If he does not want
to be cautious and discuss things slowly, I still want to be.
One thing that I agree with Nilges about on a personal
level is that some here are a bit hard on MM, but he has
in effect taken over the newsgroup in some ways. Even
if he has had valid mystical experiences, this ng is really
about Shakespeare. When he does defend himself when
others call him idiot, I think that is a natural reaction. Yet
he is very tough in general, and is quite capable of
fighting his own battles.
C.
Mark Houlsby
On 30 Jan, 15:11, "laraine" <lari...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 8:43 am, "Mark Houlsby" <mark.houl...@eudoramail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > People who like the mad Queen of Sweden believe that Goneril and Regan
> > > were treated sympathetically by Shakespeare, or should have been in
> > > order to be Politically Correct, DON'T BELONG HERE.No, that would be you.Just for the record, I've never supported any position like that.
> I've always questioned feminism that seemed like it was
> only about power, particularly evil power, though I'm cautious
> on this newsgroup because I realize that I don't know enough,
> and that it's important to realize that women are human too.
>
> I'm rather trying to piece together what I've heard over the years
> from feminists or various teachers, and I see each of them as
> individual--I don't think there is just one feminist voice. If
> Nilges doesn't like that, I don't care. If he does not want
> to be cautious and discuss things slowly, I still want to be.
>
> One thing that I agree with Nilges about on a personal
> level is that some here are a bit hard on MM, but he has
> in effect taken over the newsgroup in some ways. Even
> if he has had valid mystical experiences, this ng is really
> about Shakespeare. When he does defend himself when
> others call him idiot, I think that is a natural reaction. Yet
> he is very tough in general, and is quite capable of
> fighting his own battles.
>
> C.
Might this have been better in a reply to spinoza1111?
M.
laraine
On Jan 30, 10:19 am, "Mark Houlsby" <mark.houl...@eudoramail.com>
> > C.Might this have been better in a reply to spinoza1111?
>
> M.
Nope.
C.
spinoza1111
wrote:
> On 27 Jan, 19:22, "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 23, 5:34 pm, "Laila Roth" <lailar...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > Tolstoy simply didn't understand Shakespeare. He was of a totally
> > > different mentality and blind to the Shakespeare spirituality and
> > > poetry - Tolstoy never wrote any poetry himself. He was just a strict
> > > realist seeing nothing but naked reality and perhaps the best one in
> > > that field, but he missed everything else, which for instance
> > > Dostoyevsky did not. Tolstoy could not understand Dostoyevsky either
> > Let's see, we were talking about Shakespeare and Tolstoy but all of a
> > sudden we're talking about Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, Oh well. Ramble
> > on...
>
> Yup. That's USENET. Too difficult for you to follow, huh? Got a short
> little span of attention?
usenet (not "USENET") is not your ape fiefdom, jerkwad.
>
> > > and even wondered at Dostoyevsky having any readers at all. He thought
> > > everything he could not understand 'ridiculous', failing to appreciate
> > > and learn what was beyond his horizon. Instead he lowered himself to
> > That's a foul fault! Of course, we all of us trivially and in a strict
> > sense "fail to appreciate and learn what is beyond our horizon".
>
> Right, but we don't all dismiss the same as 'ridiculous'... DUH!
Hey, how about that Crimean War, on which as we all know Count Tolstoy
based War and Peace...NOT
Buffoon.
The problem is that you have no, or a negative horizon. You're
incurious in the same way Bush is incurious.
All you care about is insulting people and belittling them (even as
the President seems to be that sort of person, who belittled a woman
on Death Row), and you make yourself absurd when you do so, because
you, in all probability, LOOKED UP old Russian dates (because your
randomized stock of knowledge includes some dim awareness of the old
calendar), and then managed to clumsily display your belief that War
and Peace is about the Crimean War.
>
> > "Appreciating and learning beyond your horizon" is of course what the
> > Little Darlings at university are "supposed" to do, it is what they
> > are exhorted to do by boilerplate.
>
> You've got a real hardon about universities, haven't you? What gives,
Perhaps. I've taught at three.
> Ed? Your writing this shit just makes you look even more dumb.
>
> > Thus, there is a distinct tendency for a Little Darling to believe
> > she's discovered this in a Dead White Male, on which it's open season
> > anyhoo.
>
> Well, it's a point-of-view, but it's no more valid than that which
> Laila expressed. It seems to this reader that one of the many reasons
Well, the ignorant gull and full-of shit fool, manipulated as he is by
Fascism, does indeed in the "bad" post-modernist register that somehow
it's been decided on his behalf that all propositions are true, or can
be spun as true. This is because he's been, you've been, manipulated
so consistently by public relations men that you have lost the
capacity for knowledge. As a result, you are spitting the hurt of this
over this newsgroup.
The ignorant gull and full-of-shit fool's DEFAULT argument is indeed
this generalized skepticism, but he never manages to turn this
skepticism on himself, nor to turn it on others as TOLERANCE.
Ultimately, his default belief, soured as he is by true miseries, and
maddened as he is by false promises, becomes that because the worst
case "may" be true, he should probably turn upon others, such as the
Jews or the Bosnian Moslems, and kill them.
ALBANY
Wisdom and goodness to the vile seem vile:
Filths savour but themselves. What have you done?
Tigers, not daughters, what have you perform'd?
A father, and a gracious aged man,
Whose reverence even the head-lugg'd bear would lick,
Most barbarous, most degenerate! have you madded.
Could my good brother suffer you to do it?
A man, a prince, by him so benefited!
If that the heavens do not their visible spirits
Send quickly down to tame these vile offences,
It will come,
Humanity must perforce prey on itself,
Like monsters of the deep.
> why classic works endure is precisely their ability to withstand a
> gamut of possible interpretations, even encompassing historical
> changes in fashion and in social mores.
A gamut, not a random set. Hey, do you even know that a "gamut" is
topologically a range? O, never mind.
>
> > Thus the teacher has to actually GRADE papers that variously lay this
> > foul fault at the stonecold feet of a variety of Dead White Males by
> > whom students afraid to criticise on the other hands various
> > fashionable bluestockings and writers of color, even in cases where
> > those groups knew their limits.
>
> You're seriously twisted, Ed. Once again: not ALL teachers are like
> that. In fact, it could even be a minority.
I was talking about student production, not teacher production. Can't
read, can we.
>
> > The exhortation "expand your horizons" ignores the distinct
> > possibility that the author was already under a vast, indeed Russian
> > sky, and that it is jejune for some clown or some scribbling
> > bluestocking, here, to tell the author of War and fucking Peace, "oh,
> > Count, all you ever talk about are Russian nobles, and Moscow, and
> > Paris, and the country, and great battles, and little battles, and
> > love affairs, and birth, and death, and love. You should rilly expand
> > your horizons. And throw in a Nasty Story, or two. It would be an
> > improvement."
>
> "Missing is an epiphany..."
> --Edward Nilges on (get this) _Gone With The Wind_
Fucking A.
>
> > This is as laughable as the Emperor's advice in Shaffer's Amadeus that
> > Mozart REDUCE his horizons and take out every other note.
>
> No, not "...every other note.". What Jeffrey Jones, as Emperor Joseph
> II, actually said was: "...too many notes.". No more specific than
> that.
I was referring to the award-winning film, in which the Emperor
recommends at a separate point that Mozart remove every other note. I
referred to the film, and not the stage play, in hopes of being
understood. O well...
Wow, even you knew that. I'm impressed.
Let's see if I can explain it to this dull fool: if you didn't
"preach" the war, you necessarily are obliged as a citizen to "preach"
keeping the peace. Of course, you don't have to use words. You can
join the Marines (and unavoidably set an example) to "preach" support
for the war: you can go to a demonstration to "preach" the opposite.
>
> Does it mean that its having been effective not only gave Pat
> Robertson a career, it also emptied the wallets of the stupid and
> gullible--not only in the United States, but here in the United
> Kingdom and in many countries around the world?
When a teacher mindlessly writes "preaching" on a morally serious
paper, he is appealing to a nihilistic axiom: that since all points of
view are somehow equivalent, we must never strongly advocate a point
of view. This is just nonsense since human beings are machines for
understanding the world and taking a point of view.
>
> Besides, what exactly is there in the biographical information about
> Count Leo Tolstoy, which Laila wrote, that is inaccurate?
It's a baldfaced lie that his wife wrote his major works, for
starters.
>
> The above is *your* critique of *historical events*. You have argued
> that as such it requires *justification*.
>
> It's time for you to justify, Ed.
I've done so already, without making stupid mistakes about the Crimean
war versus Napoleon's invasion. It's time for you to LEAVE.
>
> > But this means there can be no dissonant attempt to call us to shape
> > the fuck up, no wounded healer. But this in turn means that no
> > preaching at all may occur anywhere in literature.
>
> ROFLMAO! You've got some explaining to do, my lad!
God, this is a stupid and vicious little shit.
You can't even follow a reduction to absurdity, and you don't know
what a non-sequitor or an ad hominem is.
Get out.
>
> > Prince Andre lays dying and when dying realizes the truth of life.
> > Sentimental? Maudlin? Preaching? I don't think so.
>
> That was hardly Laila's point. She was providing *biographical
> information* about *Tolstoy*.
She made a scandalous accusation of plagiarism against a dead man.
This isn't "information", or if it is, we live in a Fascist state
where dull fools and full-of-shit gulls will believe ANYTHING, as long
as there's a hint of blood, and some destruction.
"Fascism is a rumour about the Jews" - Adorno
That is: "bad" post-modernism is Fascism in which people without
attention spans or common courtesy become not tolerant but
"skeptical", and pose, in their ignorance of basic facts in the area
in which they choose to open their yaps (the existence of two
Gloucesters in the History plays, the "Crimean" war, the IMPOSSIBILITY
of any "feminist" reading of Lear that redeems Goneril, etc) they must
perforce, like monsters of the deep, cultivate not tolerance but an
unearned skepticism.
>
> Do learn to read, illiterate fuckwit.
Shut your filthy little mouth.
>
> > > critical tendency is to blame him for helping in bringing on the bloody
> > > revolution, the greatest mistake in Russian history, since life under
> > I think the Russian Revolution was a Good Thing on balance, honey
> > bun.
>
> How do you know? Its ramifications are still being played out, not
> least here in England. You have *heard* of polonium-210, haven't you?
Your ignorance of course includes ignorance of modern Russian history.
Are you even aware of the end of Communism? The Communist party of
Russia today OPPOSES the murderer Putin.
>
> > > the 19th century Czars was the best age Russia ever had. The countess
> > > Sonia Tolstoy, who wrote out his major novels, was his sharpest critic,
> > > and she was right in accusing her husband of ingratefulness and
> > Yeah, what ev er. Count Tolstoy realized the vicious folly of 19th
> > century aristocracy in a lived sense but this might fright the ladies,
> > sitting on their cans in the drawing room? Too bad.
>
> You're rambling now...
>
> > > absurdity. In "Voskresenye" (his last great novel) he actually covertly
> > > preached the murder of the Czar. Lenin was his pupil and ordered the
> > What you fail to realize here is that anger is unbounded.
>
> Literally unbounded? Account for this.
Your anger is a specimen.
>
> > Hey, you
> > drive me into a ghetto, you take my plot of land to build a factory,
> > you cannot assume that at any pint in my anger, I will stop and reason
> > that "on the whole" the Czar is a good thing in an Utilitarian
> > sense...Utilitarians always say, not in my backyard.
>
> Always? They never say anything else? All Utilitarians? All the time?
Yup.
>
> > > massacre of the Czar and his whole family (with doctors and servants
> > > and a dog) including four innocent daughters and a hoemophilic 12-year
> > > old son. The communists tried to get away with it by eliminating the
> > > corpses and trying to dissolve them, but the bones were later
> > > discovered in a mine. They were all there, except the bones of
> > > Anastasia and the boy. No one knows where these corpses finally ended
> > > up, so at least Anastasia might have escaped alive.
> > Oh, how romantic!
>
> It is, actually, if historically untrue, as was proved forensically, a
> few years ago.
How 'bout that National Enquirer...all you need to read, huh?
>
> > The Romanovs were a gang of thugs killed by stronger thugs. I really
> > don't care if some screeching harridan ended up in an estaminet in
> > Paris claiming she was the grand duchess.
>
> Okaaay....- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mark Houlsby
> Nope.
>
> C.
Right. I figured you'd say that.
Evidently, it may help if I explain some things about what I'm
posting...
I have not read very many of your posts, laraine, but those which I
have read are, at least intrinsically, uniformly intelligent and
thoughtful, not to mention well-constructed and informative.
Now, the post which may now be located three posts up the subthread
from this post, here:
...is a typical example of this uniformity.
That said, the first two paragraphs, if they are addressed to me
rather than to Nilges, are quite superfluous, since I already
understood as much.
Concerning the third paragraph, in it you wrote:
"One thing that I agree with Nilges about on a personal
level is that some here are a bit hard on MM,...".
This is a point-of-view to which you are absolutely entitled, but
perhaps you are missing the rather important point that MM is given,
at intervals, to unsupported, unprovoked, splenetic attacks on people,
motivated, it seems, by his deranged spirituality. This makes him a
troll. When he trolls, he should be reprimanded. Were he harmless (and
harmless trolls do exist) then there'd be no problem.
He's not harmless, however, and there's the rub.
You continued:
"...but he has
in effect taken over the newsgroup in some ways. Even
if he has had valid mystical experiences, this ng is really
about Shakespeare."
Here's what I mean. When he trolls his mystical bullshit, he *truly
believes* that he *is* writing about Shakespeare, or Marlowe, or any
one of a number of authors who he perceives as occupying a kind of
spiritual lineage through the ages.
So, my point, as you have probably gathered by now, is that you can't
have it both ways. Either you accept that as far as MM is concerned,
he's *always* on-topic, and that therefore *everything* he writes
(including his unprovoked vituperation) is, by definition, on-
topic...*because he says so*. Or, you accept that *nothing* he writes
is on-topic, and that therefore he's a troll, and quite a dangerous
one, who ought to leave the group. The reason it's necessary to be so
black-and-white about all this is that *for MM* everything is black-
and-white. There's no middle ground at all. You're either with him or
against him, and therefore a "pigeonholer" (to borrow his favoured
adjective).
Which are you?
To continue, you then wrote:
"When he does defend himself when
others call him idiot, I think that is a natural reaction."
Absolutely. So are the unprovoked attacks.
You then wrote:
"Yet
he is very tough in general, and is quite capable of
fighting his own battles."
So why pitch in on his behalf? His toughness is typical of trolls of
his type. If he were faint-hearted, he'd've given up shortly after he
first started posting.
So, what I'm arguing here is that notwithstanding that in this post:
...you were intelligent, thoughtful, informative and all, given what I
already know, it's possible that in posting it you not only failed to
tell me anything which I did not know already, you might even have
thrown some kerosene onto the flames, and encouraged both Nilges and
MM to troll more than they might have otherwise.
Does that make sense? I'm aware that sometimes my writing appears to
some readers to be excessively inscrutable.
Regards,
M.
spinoza1111
Yes. In all probability, you just learned that.
You believed that War and Peace was based on the Crimean War, in all
probability. I set you straight, and you immediately looked up the
facts and were ASTONISHED to learn you were a stupid fuck.
You also learned "just in time", that Count Tolstoy served in the
Crimea.
But you have already displayed complete ignorance combined
unforgiveably with discourtesy towards other people in this thread,
and an inability to even follow an argument, for example, my
"reduction to absurdity" re "preaching".
I have suspended ANY inclination to give you ANY "benefit of the
doubt" here, not because you are an ignorant slob, for even ignorant
slobs deserve tolerance, but based on your conduct towards Michael and
Innes, and many other people here.
You didn't prior to this discussion know the difference between the
Napoleonic wars and the Crimean war, and this is because in modern
universities, students, as long as they are white and rich, are
allowed to take electives in place of survey classes.
Worse, you didn't read the original exchange correctly at all.
Laraine, if anyone, was arguing that "Count Tolstoy's experiences with
the stupidity and vacuity of the officer class were input to his
epiphany and subsequent authorship of War and Peace, but this book, by
spreading anti-materialism and anti-authoritarianism, was responsible
for all those awful people shooting the Tsar, his lovely wife, and his
adorable daughters".
Her argument has absolutely no traction with either historians of the
Russian Revolution, even conservatives like Pipes, or a major Russian
writer who counts himself an admirer of Tolstoy, Alexander
Solzyenitsyn. In fact, Solzyenitsyn was a MAJOR Russian dissident
whose *samizdat* writings helped to bring about the demise of
Communism, and who based his critique of Communism on a Tolstoyan
critique of BOTH dialectical materialism and economic "liberalism".
Because you have been subject to more than twenty years of binary
PROPAGANDA, that the only political choice is between economic
globalized liberalism and "Communism, Fascism, or Islamo-Fascism", you
actually think that an anti-materialism (Christian, other-religious,
or simply standalone) which, incidentally, "preaches" that people
shouldn't torment each other on person or through the fucking
wireless, is an automatic prelude to thug Communism.
Which, of course, it isn't. Indeed, the residual humanitarianism and
Christianity of the workers is all that stands between them and their
takeover of your universities, where you sit and learn NOTHING.
LEAVE.
>
> You do realise that he commanded a battery, and witnessed the siege of
> Sebastopol?
>
> You do realise that he drew upon his experiences in the Crimean War
> when he was writing _War and Peace_ don't you?
>
> > Please leave. You don't belong here.
>
> No, that would be you.
>
> > War and Peace is about the failed invasion of Russia by Napoleon
> > Bonaparte in 1812, NOT the invasion by way of the Crimea by the
> > English, French and Turks in the 1850s.
>
> Right, but the point I was making was that Laila was discussing
> *biographical information* about *Tolstoy*. You rather hijacked this,
She was lying about him, and calling him in effect a plagiarist, in
the Shakespeare and Holocaust denial gesture which, to me, immediately
marks the speaker as a destructive member of the lower middle class.
> so I took it back, and *alluded* to the sense in which _War and Peace_
> was shaped, in large measure, by Tolstoy's *experience* in *The
> Crimean War*. In other words, I was arguing that without his having
> served in *The Crimean War*, Tolstoy *could not* have written the
> book that we know as _War and Peace_.
Keep talking scumbag. You just LOOKED UP the truth in Wikipedia.
Before this evening you did not know the difference between the
Crimean war and the Napoleonic war.
History ain't your for-tay.
>
> Get it, fuckwit? Or are there "...too many notes..."?
No, methinks the lady doth protest too much.
>
>
>
> > People who like the mad Queen of Sweden believe that Goneril and Regan
> > were treated sympathetically by Shakespeare, or should have been in
> > order to be Politically Correct, DON'T BELONG HERE.
>
> No, that would be you.
At a loss for words, shitface? I suggest "Mom, he's doin' it again".
>
> > People who like this Kennedy character dare to equate early American
> > melodramatic racist TRIPE with Shakespeare don't belong here.
>
> He did no such thing, fuckwit. Your *writing* shit like that
> *reinforces* his position. You've been told this already. Jeez but
Only in the sense of *reinforcing* his position in the crypto-racist
upper middle class, which DELIBERATELY REVIVES TRIPE like "the
octoroon" in order to make people of color leave their little theater.
I have no interest in belonging to that club.
> you're dumb.
>
> > People who think War and Peace was about the Crimean war don't belong
> > here.
>
> I don't think that. See above....
>
> > Except as courteous people, who do not engage in trivial spelling
> > flames and who do NOT, and I mean NOT, trash other people including
> > Michael and this Innes character!
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3cq2y4
>
> > Who zip the fuck up and LEARN.
>
> Maybe you should try that, fuckwit....
Mom, he's doin' it again!
- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Mark Houlsby
You keep speculating like this about me.... and you're ALWAYS 100%
WRONG. I have known this for years.
> You believed that War and Peace was based on the Crimean War, in all
> probability.
Wrong. I believed that much of what is _War and Peace_ was based upon
Tolstoy's *experiences* in the Crimean War.
It's like: the TV series _M*A*S*H_ was set in Korea, but it was
*really* about Vietnam.
See?
> I set you straight, and you immediately looked up the
> facts and were ASTONISHED to learn you were a stupid fuck.
>
Wrong yet again. I already knew all of this, and more. I figured that
because Laila and you were discussing stuff like Bolshevism and the
Sermon on the Mount, I could toss in the Crimean War, WHICH IS MORE
PERTINENT, and you'd understand why I was doing that. How stupid of me
to figure that you'd actually *understand* something!
Mea culpa.
> You also learned "just in time", that Count Tolstoy served in the
> Crimea.
>
Nope. Like I said, I've known it for years.
> But you have already displayed complete ignorance combined
> unforgiveably with discourtesy towards other people in this thread,
> and an inability to even follow an argument, for example, my
> "reduction to absurdity" re "preaching".
>
Wrong yet again. That's what *you* do.
> I have suspended ANY inclination to give you ANY "benefit of the
> doubt" here, not because you are an ignorant slob, for even ignorant
> slobs deserve tolerance, but based on your conduct towards Michael and
> Innes, and many other people here.
>
In other words, you're a typical troll, and PROUD of the fact.
> You didn't prior to this discussion know the difference between the
> Napoleonic wars and the Crimean war, and this is because in modern
> universities, students, as long as they are white and rich, are
> allowed to take electives in place of survey classes.
>
Wrong yet again.
> Worse, you didn't read the original exchange correctly at all.
> Laraine, if anyone, was arguing that "Count Tolstoy's experiences with
> the stupidity and vacuity of the officer class were input to his
> epiphany and subsequent authorship of War and Peace, but this book, by
> spreading anti-materialism and anti-authoritarianism, was responsible
> for all those awful people shooting the Tsar, his lovely wife, and his
> adorable daughters".
>
Ok, lets go through the relevant posts, shall we? Where exactly did
laraine write those words? Post a link, or at least indicate something
like: the post below post number n by x.
Are you *absolutely sure* that you're not confusing laraine with Laila
Roth?
You see, if you *are* confusing laraine with Laila Roth...well, you'll
look pretty dumb again, won't you?
> Her argument has absolutely no traction with either historians of the
> Russian Revolution, even conservatives like Pipes, or a major Russian
> writer who counts himself an admirer of Tolstoy, Alexander
> Solzyenitsyn. In fact, Solzyenitsyn was a MAJOR Russian dissident
> whose *samizdat* writings helped to bring about the demise of
> Communism, and who based his critique of Communism on a Tolstoyan
> critique of BOTH dialectical materialism and economic "liberalism".
>
Uh huh, I think I knew that. Still you're accusing the *wrong person*.
> Because you have been subject to more than twenty years of binary
> PROPAGANDA, that the only political choice is between economic
> globalized liberalism and "Communism, Fascism, or Islamo-Fascism", you
> actually think that an anti-materialism (Christian, other-religious,
> or simply standalone) which, incidentally, "preaches" that people
> shouldn't torment each other on person or through the fucking
> wireless, is an automatic prelude to thug Communism.
>
I'm sorry... is that addressed to me? If so, I actually think nothing
of the kind. Never have.
> Which, of course, it isn't. Indeed, the residual humanitarianism and
> Christianity of the workers is all that stands between them and their
> takeover of your universities, where you sit and learn NOTHING.
>
> LEAVE.
Ummm.... I left university years ago. When I graduated, in fact.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > You do realise that he commanded a battery, and witnessed the siege of
> > Sebastopol?
>
> > You do realise that he drew upon his experiences in the Crimean War
> > when he was writing _War and Peace_ don't you?
>
> > > Please leave. You don't belong here.
>
> > No, that would be you.
>
> > > War and Peace is about the failed invasion of Russia by Napoleon
> > > Bonaparte in 1812, NOT the invasion by way of the Crimea by the
> > > English, French and Turks in the 1850s.
>
> > Right, but the point I was making was that Laila was discussing
> > *biographical information* about *Tolstoy*. You rather hijacked this,She was lying about him, and calling him in effect a plagiarist, in
> the Shakespeare and Holocaust denial gesture which, to me, immediately
> marks the speaker as a destructive member of the lower middle class.
>
> > so I took it back, and *alluded* to the sense in which _War and Peace_
> > was shaped, in large measure, by Tolstoy's *experience* in *The
> > Crimean War*. In other words, I was arguing that without his having
> > served in *The Crimean War*, Tolstoy *could not* have written the
> > book that we know as _War and Peace_.
> Keep talking scumbag. You just LOOKED UP the truth in Wikipedia.
> Before this evening you did not know the difference between the
> Crimean war and the Napoleonic war.
>
> History ain't your for-tay.
>
You see... here's the problem.... your repeatedly posting conjecture
like this does not make it *true*.
>
>
> > Get it, fuckwit? Or are there "...too many notes..."?
> No, methinks the lady doth protest too much.
>
>
So, you don't get it?
>
> > > People who like the mad Queen of Sweden believe that Goneril and Regan
> > > were treated sympathetically by Shakespeare, or should have been in
> > > order to be Politically Correct, DON'T BELONG HERE.
>
> > No, that would be you.
> At a loss for words, shitface? I suggest "Mom, he's doin' it again".
>
Do you refer to me? I'm never at a loss for words.
>
>
> > > People who like this Kennedy character dare to equate early American
> > > melodramatic racist TRIPE with Shakespeare don't belong here.
>
> > He did no such thing, fuckwit. Your *writing* shit like that
> > *reinforces* his position. You've been told this already. Jeez but
> Only in the sense of *reinforcing* his position in the crypto-racist
> upper middle class, which DELIBERATELY REVIVES TRIPE like "the
> octoroon" in order to make people of color leave their little theater.
> I have no interest in belonging to that club.
>
So why do you reinforce it, fuckwit?
To laraine:
See what I mean?
Mark Houlsby
On 30 Jan, 16:01, "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 9:26 pm, "Mark Houlsby" <mark.houl...@eudoramail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 27 Jan, 19:22, "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 23, 5:34 pm, "Laila Roth" <lailar...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > > Tolstoy simply didn't understand Shakespeare. He was of a totally
> > > > different mentality and blind to the Shakespeare spirituality and
> > > > poetry - Tolstoy never wrote any poetry himself. He was just a strict
> > > > realist seeing nothing but naked reality and perhaps the best one in
> > > > that field, but he missed everything else, which for instance
> > > > Dostoyevsky did not. Tolstoy could not understand Dostoyevsky either
> > > Let's see, we were talking about Shakespeare and Tolstoy but all of a
> > > sudden we're talking about Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, Oh well. Ramble
> > > on...
>
> > Yup. That's USENET. Too difficult for you to follow, huh? Got a short
> > little span of attention?usenet (not "USENET") is not your ape fiefdom, jerkwad.
>
>
>
> > > > and even wondered at Dostoyevsky having any readers at all. He thought
> > > > everything he could not understand 'ridiculous', failing to appreciate
> > > > and learn what was beyond his horizon. Instead he lowered himself to
> > > That's a foul fault! Of course, we all of us trivially and in a strict
> > > sense "fail to appreciate and learn what is beyond our horizon".
>
> > Right, but we don't all dismiss the same as 'ridiculous'... DUH!Hey, how about that Crimean War, on which as we all know Count Tolstoy
> based War and Peace...NOT
>
> Buffoon.
>
No, that would be you. I already understood all of this, and more
besides.
> The problem is that you have no, or a negative horizon. You're
> incurious in the same way Bush is incurious.
>
ROFLMAO! Your propensity to project may just have reached a new nadir.
> All you care about is insulting people and belittling them (even as
> the President seems to be that sort of person, who belittled a woman
> on Death Row), and you make yourself absurd when you do so, because
> you, in all probability, LOOKED UP old Russian dates (because your
> randomized stock of knowledge includes some dim awareness of the old
> calendar), and then managed to clumsily display your belief that War
> and Peace is about the Crimean War.
>
Totally wrong. Complete fantasy. You project ignorance onto others,
but in my case you've been 100% wrong, every time you've done it.
>
>
> > > "Appreciating and learning beyond your horizon" is of course what the
> > > Little Darlings at university are "supposed" to do, it is what they
> > > are exhorted to do by boilerplate.
>
> > You've got a real hardon about universities, haven't you? What gives,Perhaps. I've taught at three.
>
> > Ed? Your writing this shit just makes you look even more dumb.
>
> > > Thus, there is a distinct tendency for a Little Darling to believe
> > > she's discovered this in a Dead White Male, on which it's open season
> > > anyhoo.
>
> > Well, it's a point-of-view, but it's no more valid than that which
> > Laila expressed. It seems to this reader that one of the many reasons
> Well, the ignorant gull and full-of shit fool, manipulated as he is by
> Fascism, does indeed in the "bad" post-modernist register that somehow
> it's been decided on his behalf that all propositions are true, or can
> be spun as true. This is because he's been, you've been, manipulated
> so consistently by public relations men that you have lost the
> capacity for knowledge. As a result, you are spitting the hurt of this
> over this newsgroup.
>
Nope. I subscribe to neither relativism nor to post-modernism.
My point was that *your* being hung up on the *inevitability* that
*every* university
teaches BS *all the time* ensures only that you paint yourself into a
corner, repeatedly.
> The ignorant gull and full-of-shit fool's DEFAULT argument is indeed
> this generalized skepticism, but he never manages to turn this
> skepticism on himself, nor to turn it on others as TOLERANCE.
>
No, it's not. You really need to learn to read.
> Ultimately, his default belief, soured as he is by true miseries, and
> maddened as he is by false promises, becomes that because the worst
> case "may" be true, he should probably turn upon others, such as the
> Jews or the Bosnian Moslems, and kill them.
>
You're projecting again, and looking dumb, again.
> ALBANY
> Wisdom and goodness to the vile seem vile:
> Filths savour but themselves. What have you done?
> Tigers, not daughters, what have you perform'd?
> A father, and a gracious aged man,
> Whose reverence even the head-lugg'd bear would lick,
> Most barbarous, most degenerate! have you madded.
> Could my good brother suffer you to do it?
> A man, a prince, by him so benefited!
> If that the heavens do not their visible spirits
> Send quickly down to tame these vile offences,
> It will come,
> Humanity must perforce prey on itself,
> Like monsters of the deep.
>
> > why classic works endure is precisely their ability to withstand a
> > gamut of possible interpretations, even encompassing historical
> > changes in fashion and in social mores.
>A gamut, not a random set. Hey, do you even know that a "gamut" is
> topologically a range? O, never mind.
>
You're starting to ramble.
>
>
> > > Thus the teacher has to actually GRADE papers that variously lay this
> > > foul fault at the stonecold feet of a variety of Dead White Males by
> > > whom students afraid to criticise on the other hands various
> > > fashionable bluestockings and writers of color, even in cases where
> > > those groups knew their limits.
>
> > You're seriously twisted, Ed. Once again: not ALL teachers are like
> > that. In fact, it could even be a minority.
> I was talking about student production, not teacher production. Can't
> read, can we.
>
Student production, eh? So you're arguing that it's reached a point at
which education, per se, as it is practised, is a waste of time, and
that we should close all schools and universities, since all they do
is produce ignorant students?
>
>
> > > The exhortation "expand your horizons" ignores the distinct
> > > possibility that the author was already under a vast, indeed Russian
> > > sky, and that it is jejune for some clown or some scribbling
> > > bluestocking, here, to tell the author of War and fucking Peace, "oh,
> > > Count, all you ever talk about are Russian nobles, and Moscow, and
> > > Paris, and the country, and great battles, and little battles, and
> > > love affairs, and birth, and death, and love. You should rilly expand
> > > your horizons. And throw in a Nasty Story, or two. It would be an
> > > improvement."
>
> > "Missing is an epiphany..."
> > --Edward Nilges on (get this) _Gone With The Wind_Fucking A.
>
>
>
> > > This is as laughable as the Emperor's advice in Shaffer's Amadeus that
> > > Mozart REDUCE his horizons and take out every other note.
>
> > No, not "...every other note.". What Jeffrey Jones, as Emperor Joseph
> > II, actually said was: "...too many notes.". No more specific than
> > that.
> I was referring to the award-winning film, in which the Emperor
> recommends at a separate point that Mozart remove every other note. I
> referred to the film, and not the stage play, in hopes of being
> understood. O well...
>
So was I, dude. You have *seen* the film, I take it?
You're seriously deranged, Ed, you know that?
>
>
> > Does it mean that its having been effective not only gave Pat
> > Robertson a career, it also emptied the wallets of the stupid and
> > gullible--not only in the United States, but here in the United
> > Kingdom and in many countries around the world?When a teacher mindlessly writes "preaching" on a morally serious
> paper, he is appealing to a nihilistic axiom: that since all points of
> view are somehow equivalent, we must never strongly advocate a point
> of view. This is just nonsense since human beings are machines for
> understanding the world and taking a point of view.
>
>
>
> > Besides, what exactly is there in the biographical information about
> > Count Leo Tolstoy, which Laila wrote, that is inaccurate?It's a baldfaced lie that his wife wrote his major works, for
> starters.
>
>
>
> > The above is *your* critique of *historical events*. You have argued
> > that as such it requires *justification*.
>
> > It's time for you to justify, Ed.I've done so already, without making stupid mistakes about the Crimean
> war versus Napoleon's invasion. It's time for you to LEAVE.
>
>
>
> > > But this means there can be no dissonant attempt to call us to shape
> > > the fuck up, no wounded healer. But this in turn means that no
> > > preaching at all may occur anywhere in literature.
>
> > ROFLMAO! You've got some explaining to do, my lad!
> God, this is a stupid and vicious little shit.
>
> You can't even follow a reduction to absurdity, and you don't know
> what a non-sequitor or an ad hominem is.
>
> Get out.
>
The evidence suggests that the opposite of all this is true.
>
>
> > > Prince Andre lays dying and when dying realizes the truth of life.
> > > Sentimental? Maudlin? Preaching? I don't think so.
>
> > That was hardly Laila's point. She was providing *biographical
> > information* about *Tolstoy*.
> She made a scandalous accusation of plagiarism against a dead man.
Where? Be specific.
> This isn't "information", or if it is, we live in a Fascist state
> where dull fools and full-of-shit gulls will believe ANYTHING, as long
> as there's a hint of blood, and some destruction.
>
> "Fascism is a rumour about the Jews" - Adorno
>
> That is: "bad" post-modernism is Fascism in which people without
> attention spans or common courtesy become not tolerant but
> "skeptical", and pose, in their ignorance of basic facts in the area
> in which they choose to open their yaps (the existence of two
> Gloucesters in the History plays, the "Crimean" war, the IMPOSSIBILITY
> of any "feminist" reading of Lear that redeems Goneril, etc) they must
> perforce, like monsters of the deep, cultivate not tolerance but an
> unearned skepticism.
>
>
>
> > Do learn to read, illiterate fuckwit.
> Shut your filthy little mouth.
>
When I type, my mouth is closed.
>
>
> > > > critical tendency is to blame him for helping in bringing on the bloody
> > > > revolution, the greatest mistake in Russian history, since life under
> > > I think the Russian Revolution was a Good Thing on balance, honey
> > > bun.
>
> > How do you know? Its ramifications are still being played out, not
> > least here in England. You have *heard* of polonium-210, haven't you?
> Your ignorance of course includes ignorance of modern Russian history.
> Are you even aware of the end of Communism? The Communist party of
> Russia today OPPOSES the murderer Putin.
>
Yes, I know.
>
>
> > > > the 19th century Czars was the best age Russia ever had. The countess
> > > > Sonia Tolstoy, who wrote out his major novels, was his sharpest critic,
> > > > and she was right in accusing her husband of ingratefulness and
> > > Yeah, what ev er. Count Tolstoy realized the vicious folly of 19th
> > > century aristocracy in a lived sense but this might fright the ladies,
> > > sitting on their cans in the drawing room? Too bad.
>
> > You're rambling now...
>
> > > > absurdity. In "Voskresenye" (his last great novel) he actually covertly
> > > > preached the murder of the Czar. Lenin was his pupil and ordered the
> > > What you fail to realize here is that anger is unbounded.
>
> > Literally unbounded? Account for this.
> Your anger is a specimen.
>
You perceive anger in the above? You need a good psychiatrist, dude.
>
>
> > > Hey, you
> > > drive me into a ghetto, you take my plot of land to build a factory,
> > > you cannot assume that at any pint in my anger, I will stop and reason
> > > that "on the whole" the Czar is a good thing in an Utilitarian
> > > sense...Utilitarians always say, not in my backyard.
>
> > Always? They never say anything else? All Utilitarians? All the time?
> Yup.
>
So, they never say: "Could I get a cup of coffee?" or "Where is the
bathroom please?" or "Would you like to go to a movie?" or "I enjoyed
that article which Ed Nilges wrote in Usenet." or...
Mark Houlsby
> >snip>
>
> > The Romanovs were a gang of thugs killed by stronger thugs. I
> really
>
> > > > don't care if some screeching harridan ended up in an estaminet in
> > > the Great, who murdered his own son and heir, but the last Romanovs,
> > > those who got butchered, happened to be all completely innocent. I
> > Nicholas wasn't innocent, now was his consort. His consort in
> > particular had consulted monks while Russia bled.
>
> reason why Alexis consulted Rasputin was because that monk had a
> healing influence on the hoemophilic heir, whose illness,
> unfortunately, made her dependent on the only man in Russia who could
> do anything about that constant illness crisis. She had to overlook
> the fact that he was totally undisciplined for her son's sake. Is it a
> crime of a mother to care for a sick son?
>
> In "while Russia bled" I think you refer to the "Bloody Sunday" in
> January 1905 when a demonstration led by a revolutionary fanatic (the
> agitator 'father Gapon') was gunned down by the Czar's soldiers. The
> Czar wasn't even in Petersburg on that day, the soldiers panicked,
> which later was ruthlessly used by the revolutionaries to defame the
> Czar in one-sided propaganda.
>
>
>
> > > wouldn't call those four daughters with their hoemophilic little
> > > brother a gang of thugs, while the cowardice of Lenin and his thugs to
> > > kill them although banished in Siberia and kept in strict confinement
> > > with no possibility of any communication with anyone outside the
> > > Ipachev house in Yekaterinburg (later torn down by Yeltsin) is
> > > something to be wondered at.I believe it is the Ipatiev house. My friend's Dad was hired by
> > Ipatiev's son in Chicago when he came to America.
>
> > from executing Napoleon, and the Chinese communists wisely refrained
> > from executing Aisin Goro Pu Yi.
>
> him get away more easy. He should have been committed for life.
> Pu Yi was brainwashed, which was hardly a milder alternative to
> execution, although he had never done anything blameworthy. He was
> born into a position which he could do nothing to alter. He was forced
> into co-operation with the Japanese, he had no option there, but they
> at least didn't brainwash him.
>
>
>
> > But it is sentimentality to mourn victims with names when the point in
> > Russia and today is that your REAL victim is unknown.
>
> too?
>
>
>
> > > My basic argument here was that Count Tolstoy failed to recognize the
> > > Shakespeare genius because he could not understand him since he was no
> > > poet himself. Art has paid some honour to his last great novel
> > > "Resurrection", which is indeed a wonderful masterpiece, which
> > > nonetheless contains some controversial bolshevik propaganda. My
>
> Well, this is nonsense. If anti-materialism is now Bolshevik
>
> > propaganda, the Sermon on the Mount is Bolshi propaganda.
>
> paragraph in "Voskresenye" where the author lets a communist preach
> the murder of the Czar. At least morally that is complicity in murder,
> only since the murder later actually took place.
>
>
>
> > The consequences of its opposite, which has had the microphone since
> > 1980, are world wide disaster and they include the revival of widow
> > burning in India, rural misery in China, and the destruction of the
> > middle class in America.
>
>
>
>
> > > argument concerning this was that Russia today tends to criticize and
> > > even partly blame Count Tolstoy for being influential in Russia'sComplete and utter nonsense.
>
> > The nihilism of the Romanovs produced its opposite in the Narodniks
> > and in Dosteoevsky, but Count Tolstoy RETAINED his humanity and good
> > sense. What he SAW was how industrialism would create misery UNLESS
> > Russia evolved politically...which it did thanks to Lenin and
> > Kruschchev. Lenin realized his mistake when his first attempts to feed
> > the cities with collectivization created famine (famines that had also
> > existed under the Tsars) and he promptly instituted the New Economic
> > Policy.
>
> any famine in Russia before the revolution. There was actually never
> any famine anywhere in the world ever, unless it was caused by
> political incompetence. The NEP was a complete failure that only made
> matters worse. Collectivization aborted from the start and has never
> worked, no matter how hard the Soviets tried for 70 years. Even more
> catastrophic the constant failures have been in China for 58 years
> now.
>
>
>
> > However, Lenin died, and an ambitious thug named Stalin, a follower of
> > the Romanov path, took over.
>
> > thugs, revealed Stalin's crimes...something the Romanovs had never
> > done with respect to their own!
>
> the Czar, who happened to be the most liberal and enlightened Czar
> ever, Alexander II, who liberated the serfs. The later Czars (after
> Nicholas I) always listened to their critics.
>
>
>
> > What this was was a self-correcting system. However, it was met by the
> > American attempt to destroy it by involving it in an arms race, and
> > the Cold War as started by America delayed what today is a still
> > evolving Russian democracy.
>
> > no responsibility for the successor state, and it failed to support
> > Gorbachev.
>
> which no one had expected. If those reactionaries hadn't rebelled
> against Gorbachev, he would have managed to save Russia from misery.
> Unfortunately he also made himself impopular with the Russian people
> by insisting on fighting against the general alcoholism and the
> reckless consumtion of Vodka.
>
> The result is that the economy was taken over by the
>
> > Communist *nomenklatura*, resulting in ten more years of misery.
>
> > > standing nation in the world fell down to cannibalism under the
> > Russia was of course no such thing. It was mediaeval until at least
> > 1825 and the Decembrist affair.
>
> Dostoyevsky and Tolstoy with the persecutions against Mandelstam,
> Prokofiev, Shostakovich, Chachaturian, Pasternak, Solshenitsyn and
> even Maxim Gorky, who might have been murdered by Stalin (according to
> Solshenitsyn's testimony). Only those intellectual Russians made it
> who escaped abroad, like Rachmaninov, Stravinsky, Ivan Bunin, Dimitry
> Mereshkovsky, Michael Fokine, Vaslav Nijinsky, and even Nureyev and
> Baryshnikov. Fleeing emigrants is no good testimonial of a regime.
>
>
>
> > > guidance of those communists that Count Tolstoy sympathized with.
>
> > > Experts of literature have compared that final novel with the
> > > masterpieces "War and Peace" and "Anna Karenina" and found
> > > "Resurrection" lacking above all in style. The difference between the
> > > earlier great novels and the final one is, that the great ones were
> > > written out by his wife Sonia while "Resurrection" wasn't. Maybe his
> > > wife Sonia deserves some more credit, then, than she has received for
> > > making "War and Peace" and "Anna Karenina" so much better novels than
> > > the "Resurrection" which Count Tolstoy wrote all by himself at a much
> > > maturer age.
>
> Complete twaddle. I'm no expert on Tolstoy but this sounds like
>
> > undigested feminist bullshit to me.
>
> say.
>
> > Have to let the little lady have her say, huh? Otherwise big fella
> > might get all radical and free the serfs and then what would Madame
> > do? Why she might have to fix her own hair or something!
>
> > How scandalous!
>
> > Give me an ounce of civet, good apothecary!
>
> > > Laila Roth- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
>
> Just a final word to return to the main issue here, Tolstoy's
> subjective criticism of Shakespeare. My opinion is that it was simply
> based on his own inferiority complex in relation to poetry. Ms Mouse
> claimed he did write poetry, which is quite wrong.
> Many realists and
> especially social realists have reacted violently against poetry as
> 'false' and 'altering reality' by beautifying it, which Tolstoy was
> too great a realist to have any talent for.
>
> Laila Roth
Mark Houlsby
lackpurity
> Tolstoy simply didn't understand Shakespeare. He was of a totally
> different mentality and blind to the Shakespeare spirituality and
> poetry - Tolstoy never wrote any poetry himself. He was just a strict
> realist seeing nothing but naked reality and perhaps the best one in
> that field, but he missed everything else, which for instance
> Dostoyevsky did not. Tolstoy could not understand Dostoyevsky either
> everything he could not understand 'ridiculous', failing to appreciate
> and learn what was beyond his horizon. Instead he lowered himself to
> MM), for which he has ever been criticised.
MM:
Tolstoy had clue, regarding Mysticism, Shakespeare, nor the Creator.
I have much more in common with Shakespeare. His Guru and my Guru
even died on the same day, June 1. Is it a sign and a wonder? Yes,
it is. Shakespeare and I practiced meditation. I doubt if Tolstoy
did, considering his ignorance of Shakespeare's mysticism.
Saints try to shake us out of our worldly ruts. We have so many
sinful habits. They come to teach us spirituality and correct
conduct. This irritates many, of course, and that is why so many
Saints have been tortured and killed. So, I think we should consider
tendentiousness in that light. They are not tendentious for the fun
of it. They are carrying out God's will.
In post-soviet Russia the
> critical tendency is to blame him for helping in bringing on the bloody
> revolution, the greatest mistake in Russian history, since life under
> the 19th century Czars was the best age Russia ever had. The countess
> Sonia Tolstoy, who wrote out his major novels, was his sharpest critic,
> and she was right in accusing her husband of ingratefulness and
> absurdity. In "Voskresenye" (his last great novel) he actually covertly
> preached the murder of the Czar. Lenin was his pupil and ordered the
> massacre of the Czar and his whole family (with doctors and servants
> and a dog) including four innocent daughters and a hoemophilic 12-year
> old son. The communists tried to get away with it by eliminating the
> corpses and trying to dissolve them, but the bones were later
> discovered in a mine. They were all there, except the bones of
> Anastasia and the boy. No one knows where these corpses finally ended
> up, so at least Anastasia might have escaped alive.
>
> Laila Roth
MM:
I don't know all the facts about the killings of the Czar and his
family. I'll comment, however, on Rasputin. It would appear that he
was the beloved of God, but he was killed, also, so that is the sad
fact regarding that historical period. Mystics such as Rasputin only
appear rarely on earth.
Michael Martin
> Art Neuendorffer skrev:
>
>
>
> > John Kennedy wrote:
> > .
> > <<the overwhelming majority of aristocrats who, notwithstanding,
> > have indeed been great writers have been outright royalty rather than
> > mere nobles (I don't understand why this should be, but it's true)>>
> > --------------------------------------------
> > James Joyce noted: "[Count Tolstoy] is
> > nEVER dull,
> > nEVER stupid,
> > nEVER tired,
> > nEVER pedantic,
> > nEVER theatrical!".
> > ------------------------------------------
> > Wednesday Jones wrote:
> > .
> > <<Just finished reading Leo Tolstoy's essay "On Shakespeare" and must
> > say I am a little distressed. Tolstoy comes down quite hard on the old
> > boy; not that that's distressing on its own, just that his logic and
> > knowledge of the plays actually seems faulty. Of course I'm used to
> > Tolstoy's logic being slightly flawed, but I'm surprised to see him
> > making freshman mistakes in literary criticism. He devotes a large
> > portion of the essay to a discussion of _Lear_ but it seems almost
> > as if he got hold of an incomplete version. At first I thought it
> > might be the translation, but according to Maude, Tolstoy read and
> > approved it prior to publication.>>
> > --------------------------------------------
> > Count Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy (Russian: ??? ??????????? ????????),
> > commonly referred to in English as Leo Tolstoy (September 9
> > [O.S. August 28] 1828 ? November 20 [O.S. November 7] 1910)
> > was a Russian novelist, writer, essayist, philosopher, Christian
> > anarchist, pacifist, educational reformer, vegetarian, moral
> > thinker, and an influential member of the Tolstoy family.
> > .
> > Tolstoy is widely regarded as one of the greatest of all novelists,
> > particularly noted for his masterpieces War and Peace and Anna
> > Karenina;
> > in their scope, breadth and realistic depiction of Russian life, the
> > two books stand at the peak of realistic fiction. As a moral
> > philosopher
> > he was notable for his ideas on nonviolent resistance through his
> > work The Kingdom of God is Within You, which in turn influenced such
> > twentieth-century figures as Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr.
> > .
> > Tolstoy's contemporaries paid him lofty tributes: Dostoevsky thought
> > him
> > the finest of all living writers while Gustave Flaubert compared him to
>
> > Shakespeare and gushed: "What an artist and what a psychologist!".
> > Anton
> > Chekhov, who often visited Tolstoy at his country estate, wrote: "When
> > literature possesses a Tolstoy, it is easy and pleasant to be a writer;
>
> > even when you know you have achieved nothing yourself and are still
> > achieving nothing, this is not as terrible as it might otherwise be,
> > because Tolstoy achieves for everyone. What he does serves to
> > justify all the hopes and aspirations invested in literature."
> > Ivan Turgenev called Tolstoi a "great writer of the Russian land".
> > .
> > Leo (pronounced in his family circle as "Lyov", not "Lev") was born on
> > his father's estate of Yasnaya Polyana, in the Tula guberniya of
> > Central
> > Russia. The Tolstoys are a well-known family of old Russian nobility,
> > the writer's mother was born a Princess Volkonsky, while his
> > grandmothers came from the Troubetzkoy and Gorchakov princely families.
>
> > Tolstoy was connected to the grandest families of Russian aristocracy;
> > Alexander Pushkin was his fourth cousin. The fact of belonging by birth
>
> > to the best Russian nobility marks off Tolstoy very distinctly from the
>
> > other writers of his generation. He always remained a class-conscious
> > nobleman who cherished his impeccable French pronunciation and kept
> > aloof from the intelligentsia.
> > .
> > Tolstoy's childhood and boyhood were passed between Moscow and Yasnaya
> > Polyana, in a large family of three brothers and a sister. He has left
> > us an extraordinarily vivid record of his early human environment in
> > the
> > wonderful notes he wrote for his biographer Pavel Biryukov. He lost his
>
> > mother when he was two, and his father when he was nine. His subsequent
>
> > education was in the hands of his aunt, Madame Ergolsky, who is
> > supposed
> > to be the starting point of Sonya in War and Peace. (His father and
> > mother are respectively the starting points for the characters of
> > Nicholas Rostov and Princess Marya in the same novel).
> > .
> > Tolstoy's first literary effort was a translation of A Sentimental
> > Journey Through France and Italy. Sterne's influence on his early works
>
> > was substantial, although he subsequently denigrated him as "a devious
> > writer". To the year 1851 belongs his first attempt at a more ambitious
>
> > and more definitely creative kind of writing, his first short story, "A
>
> > History of Yesterday". In the same year, sick of his seemingly empty
> > and
> > useless life in Moscow, which brought heavy gambling debts, he went to
> > the Caucasus, where he joined an artillery unit garrisoned in the
> > Cossack part of Chechnya, as a volunteer of private rank, but of noble
> > birth (?????). In 1854 he received his commission and was, at his
> > request, transferred to the army operating against the Turks in
> > Wallachia, where he took part in the siege of Silistra (located in
> > North-Eastern Bulgaria). In November of the same year he joined the
> > garrison of Sevastopol. There he saw some of the most serious fighting
> > of the century. He took part in the defense of the famous Fourth
> > Bastion
> > and in the Battle of Chernaya River, the bad management of which he
> > satirized in a humorous song, the only piece of verse he is known to
> > have written.
> > .
> > In 1859 he started a school for peasant children at Yasnaya, followed
> > by twelve others, whose ground-breaking libertarian principles Tolstoy
> > described in his 1862 essay, "The School at Yasnaya Polyana". He also
> > authored a great number of stories for peasant children. Tolstoy's
> > educational experiments were short-lived, but as a direct forerunner
> > to A.S.Neill's Summerhill School, the school at Yasnaya Polyana can
> > justifiably be claimed to be the first example of a coherent theory
> > of libertarian education.
> > .
> > Tolstoy was remarkably healthy for his age, but he fell seriously ill
> > in
> > 1901 and had to live for a long time in Gaspra and Simeiz, Crimea.
> > Still
> > he continued working to the last and never showed the slightest sign of
>
> > any weakening of brain power. Ever more oppressed by the apparent
> > contradiction between his preaching of communism and the easy life he
> > led under the regime of his wife, full of a growing irritation against
> > his family, which was urged on by Chertkov, he finally left Yasnaya, in
>
> > the company of his daughter Alexandra and his doctor, for an unknown
> > destination. After some restless and aimless wandering he headed for a
> > convent where his sister was the mother superior but had to stop at
> > Astapovo junction. There he was laid up in the stationmaster's house
> > and
> > died on November 7, 1910. He was buried in a simple peasant's grave in
> > a
> > wood 500 meters from Yasnaya Polyana. Thousands of peasants lined the
> > streets at his funeral.
> > .
> > His first publications were three autobiographical novels, Childhood,
> > Boyhood, and Youth (1852?1856). They tell of a rich landowner's son
> > and
> > his slow realization of the differences between him and his peasants.
> > Although in later life Tolstoy rejected these books as sentimental, a
> > great deal of his own life is revealed, and the books still have
> > relevance for their telling of the universal story of growing up.
> > Tolstoy served as a second lieutenant in an artillery regiment during
> > the Crimean War, recounted in his Sevastapol Sketches. His experiences
> > in battle helped develop his pacifism, and gave him material for
> > realistic depiction of the horrors of war in his later work.
> > .
> > War and Peace is generally thought to be one of the greatest novels
> > ever written, remarkable for its breadth and unity. Its vast canvas
> > includes 580 characters, many historical, others fictional. The story
> > moves from family life to the headquarters of Napoleon, from the court
> > of Alexander I of Russia to the battlefields of Austerlitz & Borodino.
> > The novel explores Tolstoy's theory of history, and in particular the
> > insignificance of individuals such as Napoleon and Alexander. But more
> > importantly, Tolstoy's imagination created a world that
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
spinoza1111
You haven't demonstrated that.
>
> > The problem is that you have no, or a negative horizon. You're
> > incurious in the same way Bush is incurious.
>
> ROFLMAO! Your propensity to project may just have reached a new nadir.
You're looking at yourself in the mirror. Don't like what you see. do
you? Whatever it is, it isn't me.
>
> > All you care about is insulting people and belittling them (even as
> > the President seems to be that sort of person, who belittled a woman
> > on Death Row), and you make yourself absurd when you do so, because
> > you, in all probability, LOOKED UP old Russian dates (because your
> > randomized stock of knowledge includes some dim awareness of the old
> > calendar), and then managed to clumsily display your belief that War
> > and Peace is about the Crimean War.
>
> Totally wrong. Complete fantasy. You project ignorance onto others,
> but in my case you've been 100% wrong, every time you've done it.
You're at the Mom he's doin' it again level because you are merely
restating your position, like George W. Bush.
>
>
>
> > > > "Appreciating and learning beyond your horizon" is of course what the
> > > > Little Darlings at university are "supposed" to do, it is what they
> > > > are exhorted to do by boilerplate.
>
> > > You've got a real hardon about universities, haven't you? What gives,Perhaps. I've taught at three.
>
> > > Ed? Your writing this shit just makes you look even more dumb.
>
> > > > Thus, there is a distinct tendency for a Little Darling to believe
> > > > she's discovered this in a Dead White Male, on which it's open season
> > > > anyhoo.
>
> > > Well, it's a point-of-view, but it's no more valid than that which
> > > Laila expressed. It seems to this reader that one of the many reasons
> > Well, the ignorant gull and full-of shit fool, manipulated as he is by
> > Fascism, does indeed in the "bad" post-modernist register that somehow
> > it's been decided on his behalf that all propositions are true, or can
> > be spun as true. This is because he's been, you've been, manipulated
> > so consistently by public relations men that you have lost the
> > capacity for knowledge. As a result, you are spitting the hurt of this
> > over this newsgroup.
>
> Nope. I subscribe to neither relativism nor to post-modernism.
I wasn't talking about post-modernism (not to be confused with
relativism, which is a straw man's name) in the form of published
texts. I am talking about the illusion produced in students that
somehow, perhaps around 1905, everything became sorta, kinda, relative
and now it's OK to jerk off, at least until they come to Jesus who
makes them knock it off.
You aren't WORTHY to "subscribe" to ANYTHING. You haven't the general
framework. You've confused the Crimean and Napoleonic wars.
>
> My point was that *your* being hung up on the *inevitability* that
> *every* university
> teaches BS *all the time* ensures only that you paint yourself into a
> corner, repeatedly.
Of course, I never said any such thing. You've confused "most of the
time and as far as I give a fuck" with "all the time" as a straw man.
No, your attention span is starting to drift.
>
>
>
> > > > Thus the teacher has to actually GRADE papers that variously lay this
> > > > foul fault at the stonecold feet of a variety of Dead White Males by
> > > > whom students afraid to criticise on the other hands various
> > > > fashionable bluestockings and writers of color, even in cases where
> > > > those groups knew their limits.
>
> > > You're seriously twisted, Ed. Once again: not ALL teachers are like
> > > that. In fact, it could even be a minority.
> > I was talking about student production, not teacher production. Can't
> > read, can we.
>
> Student production, eh? So you're arguing that it's reached a point at
> which education, per se, as it is practised, is a waste of time, and
> that we should close all schools and universities, since all they do
> is produce ignorant students?
No, I think we should kick the rich white kids out.
>
>
>
> > > > The exhortation "expand your horizons" ignores the distinct
> > > > possibility that the author was already under a vast, indeed Russian
> > > > sky, and that it is jejune for some clown or some scribbling
> > > > bluestocking, here, to tell the author of War and fucking Peace, "oh,
> > > > Count, all you ever talk about are Russian nobles, and Moscow, and
> > > > Paris, and the country, and great battles, and little battles, and
> > > > love affairs, and birth, and death, and love. You should rilly expand
> > > > your horizons. And throw in a Nasty Story, or two. It would be an
> > > > improvement."
>
> > > "Missing is an epiphany..."
> > > --Edward Nilges on (get this) _Gone With The Wind_Fucking A.
>
> > > > This is as laughable as the Emperor's advice in Shaffer's Amadeus that
> > > > Mozart REDUCE his horizons and take out every other note.
>
> > > No, not "...every other note.". What Jeffrey Jones, as Emperor Joseph
> > > II, actually said was: "...too many notes.". No more specific than
> > > that.
> > I was referring to the award-winning film, in which the Emperor
> > recommends at a separate point that Mozart remove every other note. I
> > referred to the film, and not the stage play, in hopes of being
> > understood. O well...
>
> So was I, dude. You have *seen* the film, I take it?
Yeah, dude. So you were asleep when Joseph said when he climbed
onstage to congratulate Mozart after the first production of The
Abduction from the Seraglio that Mozart should remove every other
note? And then, Mozart's landlady announces Costanza to the emperor in
order to make sure that Mozart marries Stanzi having boned her? And
then, the soprano belts Mozart because he's also boned her?
Thank you. I will take that as a complement because most of the
posters to this newsgroup are SERIOUSLY DERANGED in the statistically
modal, default way, in the sense analyzed by Fromm and Adorno.
Many posters, of which you are the poster child, have authoritarian
personality disorders and are psychologically UNABLE to express any
emotion other than infantile rage (which is why their tolerance has
long since become fuck-you libertarianism and skepticism about
everything including their self-worth, which has to be continually
reasserted by trashing people right here). Any man they call
"deranged" is probably a class act.
>
>
>
> > > Does it mean that its having been effective not only gave Pat
> > > Robertson a career, it also emptied the wallets of the stupid and
> > > gullible--not only in the United States, but here in the United
> > > Kingdom and in many countries around the world?When a teacher mindlessly writes "preaching" on a morally serious
> > paper, he is appealing to a nihilistic axiom: that since all points of
> > view are somehow equivalent, we must never strongly advocate a point
> > of view. This is just nonsense since human beings are machines for
> > understanding the world and taking a point of view.
>
> > > Besides, what exactly is there in the biographical information about
> > > Count Leo Tolstoy, which Laila wrote, that is inaccurate?It's a baldfaced lie that his wife wrote his major works, for
> > starters.
>
> > > The above is *your* critique of *historical events*. You have argued
> > > that as such it requires *justification*.
>
> > > It's time for you to justify, Ed.I've done so already, without making stupid mistakes about the Crimean
> > war versus Napoleon's invasion. It's time for you to LEAVE.
>
> > > > But this means there can be no dissonant attempt to call us to shape
> > > > the fuck up, no wounded healer. But this in turn means that no
> > > > preaching at all may occur anywhere in literature.
>
> > > ROFLMAO! You've got some explaining to do, my lad!
> > God, this is a stupid and vicious little shit.
>
> > You can't even follow a reduction to absurdity, and you don't know
> > what a non-sequitor or an ad hominem is.
>
> > Get out.
>
> The evidence suggests that the opposite of all this is true.
What a feeble opponent have we here. Ah, for the 1980s, when a man
could have a flame war with MEN, dispatching like Hotspur six or seven
Scots before breakfast and saying to his wife, fie upon this quiet
life:
...the Hotspur of the north; he that kills me some six or
seven dozen of Scots at a breakfast, washes his
hands, and says to his wife 'Fie upon this quiet
life! I want work.' 'O my sweet Harry,' says she,
'how many hast thou killed to-day?' 'Give my roan
horse a drench,' says he; and answers 'Some
fourteen,' an hour after; 'a trifle, a trifle.'
All you do is say "you are wrong, and I jest know it". C'mon punk,
give it a better shot. You did ok when you learned last night about
the difference between the Crimean and Napoleonic wars and then had
the brass to claim your incoherent claim said that "I" linked the
Crimean war to the Russian Revolution as you clumsily lurched to a
foulup of *reductio*: but here you're a child.
>
>
>
> > > > Prince Andre lays dying and when dying realizes the truth of life.
> > > > Sentimental? Maudlin? Preaching? I don't think so.
>
> > > That was hardly Laila's point. She was providing *biographical
> > > information* about *Tolstoy*.
> > She made a scandalous accusation of plagiarism against a dead man.
>
> Where? Be specific.
Do your own homework.
>
> > This isn't "information", or if it is, we live in a Fascist state
> > where dull fools and full-of-shit gulls will believe ANYTHING, as long
> > as there's a hint of blood, and some destruction.
>
> > "Fascism is a rumour about the Jews" - Adorno
>
> > That is: "bad" post-modernism is Fascism in which people without
> > attention spans or common courtesy become not tolerant but
> > "skeptical", and pose, in their ignorance of basic facts in the area
> > in which they choose to open their yaps (the existence of two
> > Gloucesters in the History plays, the "Crimean" war, the IMPOSSIBILITY
> > of any "feminist" reading of Lear that redeems Goneril, etc) they must
> > perforce, like monsters of the deep, cultivate not tolerance but an
> > unearned skepticism.
>
> > > Do learn to read, illiterate fuckwit.
> > Shut your filthy little mouth.
>
> When I type, my mouth is closed.
Then get your filthy little paw off the keyboard, ape.
>
>
>
> > > > > critical tendency is to blame him for helping in bringing on the bloody
> > > > > revolution, the greatest mistake in Russian history, since life under
> > > > I think the Russian Revolution was a Good Thing on balance, honey
> > > > bun.
>
> > > How do you know? Its ramifications are still being played out, not
> > > least here in England. You have *heard* of polonium-210, haven't you?
> > Your ignorance of course includes ignorance of modern Russian history.
> > Are you even aware of the end of Communism? The Communist party of
> > Russia today OPPOSES the murderer Putin.
>
> Yes, I know.
Yes, I toldya.
>
>
>
> > > > > the 19th century Czars was the best age Russia ever had. The countess
> > > > > Sonia Tolstoy, who wrote out his major novels, was his sharpest critic,
> > > > > and she was right in accusing her husband of ingratefulness and
> > > > Yeah, what ev er. Count Tolstoy realized the vicious folly of 19th
> > > > century aristocracy in a lived sense but this might fright the ladies,
> > > > sitting on their cans in the drawing room? Too bad.
>
> > > You're rambling now...
>
> > > > > absurdity. In "Voskresenye" (his last great novel) he actually covertly
> > > > > preached the murder of the Czar. Lenin was his pupil and ordered the
> > > > What you fail to realize here is that anger is unbounded.
>
> > > Literally unbounded? Account for this.
> > Your anger is a specimen.
>
> You perceive anger in the above? You need a good psychiatrist, dude.
Of course you're not angry. That restraining order was a mistake,
wasn't it? All you did was go ape in the 7-11.
>
>
>
> > > > Hey, you
> > > > drive me into a ghetto, you take my plot of land to build a factory,
> > > > you cannot assume that at any pint in my anger, I will stop and reason
> > > > that "on the whole" the Czar is a good thing in an Utilitarian
> > > > sense...Utilitarians always say, not in my backyard.
>
> > > Always? They never say anything else? All Utilitarians? All the time?
> > Yup.
>
> So, they never say: "Could I get a cup of coffee?" or "Where is the
> bathroom please?" or "Would you like to go to a movie?" or "I enjoyed
> that article which Ed Nilges wrote in Usenet." or...
A jejune counterexample: you don't understand logic. Utilitarian
philosophy IMPLIES the utilitarian's reluctance to be the person
sacrificed for the great good and this was identified as a major flaw
in utilitarianism when I studied political philosophy at Princeton.
lackpurity
MM:
Let me drop a hint. There are significant reasons to consider that I
might be the reincarnation of William Shakespeare. Remember my
threads "An Interesting Parallel," and "More Parallels?" Of course,
everything went over everybodys' heads, apparently,just as
Shakespeare's canon has been misunderstood, criticized and even his
authorship has been thrown in doubt by the ignorant.
Read the prophecies of Willaim Blake for America. Read Walt Whitman's
prophecy about "What lurks behind Shakespeare's Plays," and take not
of the possiblity, which he raised, that Shakespeare would be born in
America a couple of generations after him. Read Nostradamus' prophecy
that a Great King from Heaven would be manifested on earth, to
resurrect another Great King, Century X, Quatrain 72.
Michael Martin
Western Sat Guru
lackpurity
MM:
Frankly, Laraine, nobody has more right to discuss Shakespeare, than
yours truly. LOL Maybe, if you try very hard, you can start to
understand that?
Michael Martin
spinoza1111
> On Jan 30, 9:11?am, "laraine" <lari...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 30, 8:43 am, "Mark Houlsby" <mark.houl...@eudoramail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > People who like the mad Queen of Sweden believe that Goneril and Regan
> > > > were treated sympathetically by Shakespeare, or should have been in
> > > > order to be Politically Correct, DON'T BELONG HERE.No, that would be you.
>
> > Just for the record, I've never supported any position like that.
> > I've always questioned feminism that seemed like it was
> > only about power, particularly evil power, though I'm cautious
> > on this newsgroup because I realize that I don't know enough,
> > and that it's important to realize that women are human too.
>
> > I'm rather trying to piece together what I've heard over the years
> > from feminists or various teachers, and I see each of them as
> > individual--I don't think there is just one feminist voice. If
> > Nilges doesn't like that, I don't care. If he does not want
> > to be cautious and discuss things slowly, I still want to be.
>
> > One thing that I agree with Nilges about on a personal
> > level is that some here are a bit hard on MM, but he has
> > in effect taken over the newsgroup in some ways. Even
> > if he has had valid mystical experiences, this ng is really
> > about Shakespeare. When he does defend himself when
> > he is very tough in general, and is quite capable of
> > fighting his own battles.
>
> > C.
>
> MM:
> Let me drop a hint. There are significant reasons to consider that I
> might be the reincarnation of William Shakespeare. Remember my
> threads "An Interesting Parallel," and "More Parallels?" Of course,
> everything went over everybodys' heads, apparently,just as
> Shakespeare's canon has been misunderstood, criticized and even his
> authorship has been thrown in doubt by the ignorant.
>
> Read the prophecies of Willaim Blake for America. Read Walt Whitman's
> prophecy about "What lurks behind Shakespeare's Plays," and take not
> of the possiblity, which he raised, that Shakespeare would be born in
> America a couple of generations after him. Read Nostradamus' prophecy
> that a Great King from Heaven would be manifested on earth, to
> resurrect another Great King, Century X, Quatrain 72.
>
> Michael Martin
>
> - Show quoted text -
Michael, although I subscribe to the Buddhist doctrine of
reincarnation, I rather doubt you are the reincarnation of
Shakespeare.
Try to reread this feeling, which is refreshingly unlike the rage and
hate expressed elsewhere, as what happens when you read Shakespeare
and find that he knows what it is to be human.
Blessed are they who have not seen, but believe.
spinoza1111
> On Jan 30, 9:11?am, "laraine" <lari...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 30, 8:43 am, "Mark Houlsby" <mark.houl...@eudoramail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > People who like the mad Queen of Sweden believe that Goneril and Regan
> > > > were treated sympathetically by Shakespeare, or should have been in
> > > > order to be Politically Correct, DON'T BELONG HERE.No, that would be you.
>
> > Just for the record, I've never supported any position like that.
> > I've always questioned feminism that seemed like it was
> > only about power, particularly evil power, though I'm cautious
> > on this newsgroup because I realize that I don't know enough,
> > and that it's important to realize that women are human too.
>
> > I'm rather trying to piece together what I've heard over the years
> > from feminists or various teachers, and I see each of them as
> > individual--I don't think there is just one feminist voice. If
> > Nilges doesn't like that, I don't care. If he does not want
> > to be cautious and discuss things slowly, I still want to be.
>
> > One thing that I agree with Nilges about on a personal
> > level is that some here are a bit hard on MM, but he has
> > in effect taken over the newsgroup in some ways. Even
> > if he has had valid mystical experiences, this ng is really
> > about Shakespeare. When he does defend himself when
> > he is very tough in general, and is quite capable of
> > fighting his own battles.
>
> > C.
>
> MM:
> Frankly, Laraine, nobody has more right to discuss Shakespeare, than
> yours truly. LOL Maybe, if you try very hard, you can start to
> understand that?
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Also, my dear fellow, a true guru would never speak from ego drives.
He would realize here that owing to the posting mechanism, the miracle
has already happened. No matter how many bullies and idiots are here,
we can still continue to speak and be heard in the silence in front of
our computer.
That's where Swedenborg went wrong, and Peter O'Toole went right in
The Magic Christian. In his Christ phase they said, show us a miracle.
He showed them a flower, pistils, stamens, all the science to hand and
he said here it is and there ain't no more.
Here we can if we choose to be like Ariel because the bullies can't
get to us unless we let them by playing their ego games (as opposed to
a game which because of my underdeveloped spiritual state I still
enjoy: kicking their butts).
lackpurity
MM:
You say you doubt it, but why? Are you guessing?
> Try to reread this feeling, which is refreshingly unlike the rage and
> hate expressed elsewhere, as what happens when you read Shakespeare
> and find that he knows what it is to be human.
MM:
I'm 63, and I know what it's like to be human, I assure you.
> Blessed are they who have not seen, but believe.
MM:
Good quote. It indicates what FAITH can do for a person. I discussed
faith, earlier tonight. This is what I wrote:
Matthew chapter 8 verse 10-13
>
> Verily i say unto you, I have not found so great faith no not
in Israel.
> And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and
west,
> and sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the
kingdom of
> heaven: But the children of the kingdom 'shall be cast out
into outer
> darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Go thy
way;
> and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee.
>
> Poster's name deleted
MM:
We can't take the Bible too literally, because the mystic teachings
have been misunderstood, and other people, for one reason or another
might have altered or corrupted it.
These verses are discussing faith, which is a mystic teaching, of
course. Faith can result in getting a lot of help from God, even
miracles, even reaching the stage of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
However, lack of faith can result in the antithesis, i.e. banishment
to outer darkness, weeping, and gnashing of teeth. IMO, the gnashing
of teeth seems to be a reference to lower species, to falling into
chaurasi. We can choose, whether to follow the Master, or to take
our chances with Satan.
Michael Martin
lackpurity
MM:
Now, I'm speaking from an ego drive? I thought I was most patient,
and simply trying to help those lost in the wilderness. Maybe, you
are speaking from the POV of your OWN ego??
> He would realize here that owing to the posting mechanism, the miracle
> has already happened. No matter how many bullies and idiots are here,
> we can still continue to speak and be heard in the silence in front of
> our computer.
MM:
I realize that, but it doesn't change the fact of the pervasive
ignorance in this group, now does it? Discussions have been going on
here for many years, but it's like ships without rudders. No doubt
about it. Anti-Strats don't even believe Shakespeare wrote his own
works!
> That's where Swedenborg went wrong, and Peter O'Toole went right in
> The Magic Christian.
MM:
I respect Swedenborg, and Peter O'Toole is one of the greatest
actors. Please clarify how you think Swedenborg went wrong? If you
can't clarify it, I might think that you've misunderstood him.
In his Christ phase they said, show us a miracle.
> He showed them a flower, pistils, stamens, all the science to hand and
> he said here it is and there ain't no more.
MM:
That is physical, isn't it? Surely, if you believe in reincarnation,
you believe there are higher planes, which are in charge of this lower
plane?
> Here we can if we choose to be like Ariel because the bullies can't
> get to us unless we let them by playing their ego games (as opposed to
> a game which because of my underdeveloped spiritual state I still
> enjoy: kicking their butts).
MM:
It's not just about bullies. It's much bigger and broader in scope.
We're talking 400 years of pervasive ignorance regarding Marlowe and
Shakespeare. Whitman prophesied that someone would "expose,"
Shakespeare. Guess who would do it? Give ya three guesses. LOL
Michael Martin
laraine
> On Jan 30, 9:11?am, "laraine" <lari...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 30, 8:43 am, "Mark Houlsby" <mark.houl...@eudoramail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > People who like the mad Queen of Sweden believe that Goneril and Regan
> > > > were treated sympathetically by Shakespeare, or should have been in
> > > > order to be Politically Correct, DON'T BELONG HERE.No, that would be you.
>
> > Just for the record, I've never supported any position like that.
> > I've always questioned feminism that seemed like it was
> > only about power, particularly evil power, though I'm cautious
> > on this newsgroup because I realize that I don't know enough,
> > and that it's important to realize that women are human too.
>
> > I'm rather trying to piece together what I've heard over the years
> > from feminists or various teachers, and I see each of them as
> > individual--I don't think there is just one feminist voice. If
> > Nilges doesn't like that, I don't care. If he does not want
> > to be cautious and discuss things slowly, I still want to be.
>
> > One thing that I agree with Nilges about on a personal
> > level is that some here are a bit hard on MM, but he has
> > in effect taken over the newsgroup in some ways. Even
> > if he has had valid mystical experiences, this ng is really
> > about Shakespeare. When he does defend himself when
> > he is very tough in general, and is quite capable of
> > fighting his own battles.
>
> > C.
>
> MM:
> Frankly, Laraine, nobody has more right to discuss Shakespeare, than
> yours truly. LOL Maybe, if you try very hard, you can start to
> understand that?
>
> Michael Martin
MM,
It just seems to me that you are more interested in
discussing religion than in discussing Shakespeare.
I found an interesting pamphlet that someone had
left lying around, and thought you might like hearing.
about it. It's by someone named Sri Sri Ravi Shankar:
Here's a selection:
Virtues
Virtues cannot be cultivated. You have to assume
that they are there.
In the Gita, Krishna said to Arjuna, "Grieve not
Arjuna, you are born with virtues."
The seeker should remember that he is born with
virtues; otherwise he could not have been a seeker.
If you think you do not have virtues and then try to
cultivate them, you will fail.
You often compare yourself with others on the basis of
virtues. Do not compare yourself with them. Simply
recognize all the virtues you appreciate in others, and
realize that they are already present in you in seed
form. You only have to nurture them.
When you think you do not have a virtue, then you
come from a space of lack of deficiency.
lackpurity
MM:
There's no difference, really, because Shakespeare was the word made
flesh which dwelt among us. He gave us spirituality, which is the
basis of all religions.
> I found an interesting pamphlet that someone had
> left lying around, and thought you might like hearing.
> about it. It's by someone named Sri Sri Ravi Shankar:
>
> Here's a selection:
>
> Virtues
>
> Virtues cannot be cultivated. You have to assume
> that they are there.
MM:
We are potentially God, as we've come from that source. Now, we are
lost souls with sinful habits, which obstruct our access to God.
Getting initiated by a Master is like the Master sowing a seed in us.
It will sprout, grow, and develop, then we will realize all the
virtues. All the sinful habits just fade out.
> In the Gita, Krishna said to Arjuna, "Grieve not
> Arjuna, you are born with virtues."
MM:
We have both qualities, good and bad. The bad ones need to be
conquered, otherwise we would all be Saints.
> The seeker should remember that he is born with
> virtues; otherwise he could not have been a seeker.
MM:
That is true, but it is just the partial truth. We also were born
with sinful habits, as I mentioned above.
> If you think you do not have virtues and then try to
> cultivate them, you will fail.
MM:
We should have faith that we have inherent virtues, definitely. They
have to grow and develop, while the sinful habits need to fade out. A
course of meditation is the only way to become perfect.
> You often compare yourself with others on the basis of
> virtues. Do not compare yourself with them. Simply
> recognize all the virtues you appreciate in others, and
> realize that they are already present in you in seed
> form. You only have to nurture them.
MM:
What's the difference between cultivating and nurturing? I don't see
much difference.
> When you think you do not have a virtue, then you
> come from a space of lack of deficiency.
MM:
Christ said, "The meek shall inherit the earth." And, "Blessed are
the poor in spirit."
Michael Martin
Jim KQKnave <kqknave
"Mark Houlsby" <mark.houl...@eudoramail.com> wrote:
> You're seriously deranged, Ed, you know that?
Suck thy master, and bring forth moon-calves, fop, do!
See my demolition of Monsarrat's RES paper!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/monsarr1.html
The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Agent Jim
Mark Houlsby
>
> - Show quoted text -
Which are you, laraine?
Mark Houlsby
Mark Houlsby
> On Jan 30, 9:11?am, "laraine" <lari...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 30, 8:43 am, "Mark Houlsby" <mark.houl...@eudoramail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > > People who like the mad Queen of Sweden believe that Goneril and Regan
> > > > were treated sympathetically by Shakespeare, or should have been in
> > > > order to be Politically Correct, DON'T BELONG HERE.No, that would be you.
>
> > Just for the record, I've never supported any position like that.
> > I've always questioned feminism that seemed like it was
> > only about power, particularly evil power, though I'm cautious
> > on this newsgroup because I realize that I don't know enough,
> > and that it's important to realize that women are human too.
>
> > I'm rather trying to piece together what I've heard over the years
> > from feminists or various teachers, and I see each of them as
> > individual--I don't think there is just one feminist voice. If
> > Nilges doesn't like that, I don't care. If he does not want
> > to be cautious and discuss things slowly, I still want to be.
>
> > One thing that I agree with Nilges about on a personal
> > level is that some here are a bit hard on MM, but he has
> > in effect taken over the newsgroup in some ways. Even
> > if he has had valid mystical experiences, this ng is really
> > about Shakespeare. When he does defend himself when
> > he is very tough in general, and is quite capable of
> > fighting his own battles.
>
> > C.
>
> MM:
> Let me drop a hint.
No, I've told you... you've dropped *enough* hints already. Anyone who
hasn't understood on the basis of what you have *already posted* will
*never* understand.
> There are significant reasons to consider that I
> might be the reincarnation of William Shakespeare.
No, there are not. There's only your deranged imagination.
> Remember my
> threads "An Interesting Parallel," and "More Parallels?"
How could one forget? Unmitigated shit, they were.
> Of course,
> everything went over everybodys' heads,
It didn't go over *my* head, you patronising, deranged fuck.
> apparently,just as
> Shakespeare's canon has been misunderstood, criticized and even his
> authorship has been thrown in doubt by the ignorant.
>
You refer to yourself, of course.
> Read the prophecies of Willaim Blake for America. Read Walt Whitman's
> prophecy about "What lurks behind Shakespeare's Plays," and take not
> of the possiblity, which he raised, that Shakespeare would be born in
> America a couple of generations after him. Read Nostradamus' prophecy
> that a Great King from Heaven would be manifested on earth, to
> resurrect another Great King, Century X, Quatrain 72.
>
You're making connections which simply are not there. There *are*
connections to be made, but they're *quite distinct* from the
connections which *you* make, which are nothing more, and nothing
less, than a product of your deranged imagination.
Mark Houlsby
North-by-Northeastern Fri Swami
Mark Houlsby
>
>
Your buddy Michael is seriously deranged, dude. Don't *encourage* him
to become *more deranged*.
BTW, how's that litigation going?
Mark Houlsby
> > > might be the reincarnation of William Shakespeare. ?Remember my
> > > threads "An Interesting Parallel," and "More Parallels?" ?Of course,
> > > everything went over everybodys' heads, apparently,just as
> > > Shakespeare's canon has been misunderstood, criticized and even his
> > > authorship has been thrown in doubt by the ignorant.
>
> > > prophecy about "What lurks behind Shakespeare's Plays," and take not
> > > of the possiblity, which he raised, that Shakespeare would be born in
> > > that a Great King from Heaven would be manifested on earth, to
> > > resurrect another Great King, Century X, Quatrain 72.
>
> > > Michael Martin
> > > Western Sat Guru- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Michael, although I subscribe to the Buddhist doctrine of
> > reincarnation, I rather doubt you are the reincarnation of
> > Shakespeare.
>
> MM:
> You say you doubt it, but why? Are you guessing?
>
No, you see, apart from you, nobody else here likes him, everyone else
wants him to leave, so he's trying to find some common ground with
you, his intention may well be to forge an alliance with you.
If he *does* try to form an alliance with you, however, it may not be
the smartest move he ever made.
> > Try to reread this feeling, which is refreshingly unlike the rage and
> > hate expressed elsewhere, as what happens when you read Shakespeare
> > and find that he knows what it is to be human.
>
> MM:
> I'm 63, and I know what it's like to be human, I assure you.
>
Enjoy it while it lasts. Soon you'll be dead, as will I, as will Ed.
> > Blessed are they who have not seen, but believe.
>
> MM:
> Good quote. It indicates what FAITH can do for a person. I discussed
> faith, earlier tonight. This is what I wrote:
>
Oh, so *you* wrote Matthew's gospel. So *you* were Matthew in a
previous incarnation, then? Did you know Cleopatra in those days?
Did you guys vacation on Iapetus? Maybe Europa, or Io?
> Matthew chapter 8 verse 10-13
>
>
>
> > Verily i say unto you, I have not found so great faith no not
> in Israel.
> > And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and
> west,
> > and sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the
> kingdom of
> > heaven: But the children of the kingdom 'shall be cast out
> into outer
> > darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Go thy
> way;
> > and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee.
>
> > Poster's name deleted
>
> MM:
> We can't take the Bible too literally, because the mystic teachings
> have been misunderstood, and other people, for one reason or another
> might have altered or corrupted it.
>
No shit, Sherlock!
> These verses are discussing faith, which is a mystic teaching, of
> course. Faith can result in getting a lot of help from God,
Wrong! God doesn't exist, that's just your deranged imagination
playing tricks again....
> even
> miracles, even reaching the stage of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
You mean...being dead for thousands of years? Yes, we shall *all*
achieve that, eventually.
> However, lack of faith can result in the antithesis, i.e. banishment
> to outer darkness, weeping, and gnashing of teeth.
Even for folks who wear dentures? My goodness!
> IMO, the gnashing
> of teeth seems to be a reference to lower species, to falling into
> chaurasi.
Well, it's an opinion, but it's unlikely to be worth as much as one
bit.
> We can choose, whether to follow the Master, or to take
> our chances with Satan.
>
If *you* are a typical Master, I'm willing to take that chance with
Satan, indeed eternal damnation seems like blessèd relief compared
with the shit which spills out of your deranged imagination....
Mark Houlsby
> Michael Martin
Mark Houlsby
ROFLMAO!!! In your dreams, illiterate fuckwitted troll.
Mark Houlsby
> In article <1170176825.314574.100...@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com>
>
> "Mark Houlsby" <mark.houl...@eudoramail.com> wrote:
> > You're seriously deranged, Ed, you know that?
>
> Suck thy master, and bring forth moon-calves, fop, do!
>
>
> The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
>
> Agent Jim
You're not paying attention, dude.
Not a gent Mark
Mark Houlsby
> On Jan 31, 1:07 am, "Mark Houlsby" <mark.houl...@eudoramail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 30 Jan, 16:01, "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 30, 9:26 pm, "Mark Houlsby" <mark.houl...@eudoramail.com>
> > > wrote:
<snip>
> > No, that would be you. I already understood all of this, and more
> > besides.
>
> You haven't demonstrated that.
>
ROFLMAO! Yes I have! You're a fucking moron.
>
>
> > > The problem is that you have no, or a negative horizon. You're
> > > incurious in the same way Bush is incurious.
>
> > ROFLMAO! Your propensity to project may just have reached a new nadir.
>
> You're looking at yourself in the mirror. Don't like what you see. do
> you? Whatever it is, it isn't me.
>
You're rambling again, Ed... er... I mean... You're rambling again,
fuck you.
>
> > > All you care about is insulting people and belittling them (even as
> > > the President seems to be that sort of person, who belittled a woman
> > > on Death Row), and you make yourself absurd when you do so, because
> > > you, in all probability, LOOKED UP old Russian dates (because your
> > > randomized stock of knowledge includes some dim awareness of the old
> > > calendar), and then managed to clumsily display your belief that War
> > > and Peace is about the Crimean War.
>
> > Totally wrong. Complete fantasy. You project ignorance onto others,
> > but in my case you've been 100% wrong, every time you've done it.
>
> You're at the Mom he's doin' it again level because you are merely
> restating your position, like George W. Bush.
>
Still fantasising dude. Still 100% wrong.
>
>
> > > > > "Appreciating and learning beyond your horizon" is of course what the
> > > > > Little Darlings at university are "supposed" to do, it is what they
> > > > > are exhorted to do by boilerplate.
>
> > > > You've got a real hardon about universities, haven't you? What gives,
>Perhaps. I've taught at three.
>
"Perhaps"! LOL!
Your opinions of universities are off-topic, dude. When you write
about them, you look shit.
> > > > Ed? Your writing this shit just makes you look even more dumb.
>
> > > > > Thus, there is a distinct tendency for a Little Darling to believe
> > > > > she's discovered this in a Dead White Male, on which it's open season
> > > > > anyhoo.
>
> > > > Well, it's a point-of-view, but it's no more valid than that which
> > > > Laila expressed. It seems to this reader that one of the many reasons
> > > Well, the ignorant gull and full-of shit fool, manipulated as he is by
> > > Fascism, does indeed in the "bad" post-modernist register that somehow
> > > it's been decided on his behalf that all propositions are true, or can
> > > be spun as true. This is because he's been, you've been, manipulated
> > > so consistently by public relations men that you have lost the
> > > capacity for knowledge. As a result, you are spitting the hurt of this
> > > over this newsgroup.
>
> > Nope. I subscribe to neither relativism nor to post-modernism.
>
> I wasn't talking about post-modernism (not to be confused with
> relativism, which is a straw man's name) in the form of published
> texts. I am talking about the illusion produced in students that
> somehow, perhaps around 1905, everything became sorta, kinda, relative
> and now it's OK to jerk off, at least until they come to Jesus who
> makes them knock it off.
>
Yes, I got that. Like I said above, your doing that makes you look
fucking dumb, as usual.
> You aren't WORTHY to "subscribe" to ANYTHING. You haven't the general
> framework. You've confused the Crimean and Napoleonic wars.
>
No, I haven't. You're *still* projecting, and you're *still* wrong,
and since this has already been explained to you more than once,
you're *still* TROLLING.
This is why eveyone except MM wants you to leave the group.
You're fucking clueless.
>
>
> > My point was that *your* being hung up on the *inevitability* that
> > *every* university
> > teaches BS *all the time* ensures only that you paint yourself into a
> > corner, repeatedly.
>
> Of course, I never said any such thing. You've confused "most of the
> time and as far as I give a fuck" with "all the time" as a straw man.
>
Dude, whether you intended that impression or not, that's the
impression you conveyed by your choice of words.
You're really not very good at either reading or writing. When you
make a howler (which you do all-too-frequently) you refuse to
acknowledge the fact, and usually attack someone.
This makes you a TROLL.
Shut the fuck up about universities. It's not relevant. At all.
LOL right!
Like I can't remember that your very first post to HLAS was:
Introducing yourself with the words: "What utter horseshit." ... was
*really* smart. Nice calling card.
You might as well have adopted the handle: I_Am_A_Troll.
>
>
> > > > > Thus the teacher has to actually GRADE papers that variously lay this
> > > > > foul fault at the stonecold feet of a variety of Dead White Males by
> > > > > whom students afraid to criticise on the other hands various
> > > > > fashionable bluestockings and writers of color, even in cases where
> > > > > those groups knew their limits.
>
> > > > You're seriously twisted, Ed. Once again: not ALL teachers are like
> > > > that. In fact, it could even be a minority.
> > > I was talking about student production, not teacher production. Can't
> > > read, can we.
>
> > Student production, eh? So you're arguing that it's reached a point at
> > which education, per se, as it is practised, is a waste of time, and
> > that we should close all schools and universities, since all they do
> > is produce ignorant students?
>
> No, I think we should kick the rich white kids out.
>
Great idea! Then most of the heavy-duty alumni will stop contributing
funds, the universities will become poor, and the standard of
education will magically rise.... no, wait....
No, I wasn't.
Figures.
> Many posters, of which you are the poster child, have authoritarian
> personality disorders and are psychologically UNABLE to express any
> emotion other than infantile rage (which is why their tolerance has
> long since become fuck-you libertarianism and skepticism about
> everything including their self-worth, which has to be continually
> reasserted by trashing people right here). Any man they call
> "deranged" is probably a class act.
>
No, dude. EVERYONE EXCEPT MM wants you to LEAVE.
JEEZ but you're FUCKING DUMB.
I see, so you're asserting that you were a TROLL long before you came
to HLAS... interesting. Care to cite some examples of your TROLLING
from the early days, fuckwit?
> ...the Hotspur of the north; he that kills me some six or
> seven dozen of Scots at a breakfast, washes his
> hands, and says to his wife 'Fie upon this quiet
> life! I want work.' 'O my sweet Harry,' says she,
> 'how many hast thou killed to-day?' 'Give my roan
> horse a drench,' says he; and answers 'Some
> fourteen,' an hour after; 'a trifle, a trifle.'
>
> All you do is say "you are wrong, and I jest know it".
Nonsense. You can't read, you can't spell, and you can't admit when
you're wrong.
> C'mon punk,
> give it a better shot.
> You did ok when you learned last night about
> the difference between the Crimean and Napoleonic wars and then had
> the brass to claim your incoherent claim said that "I" linked the
> Crimean war to the Russian Revolution as you clumsily lurched to a
> foulup of *reductio*: but here you're a child.
>
Now I really don't think you should insult children. What's
next...insulting your own mother?
>
>
> > > > > Prince Andre lays dying and when dying realizes the truth of life.
> > > > > Sentimental? Maudlin? Preaching? I don't think so.
>
> > > > That was hardly Laila's point. She was providing *biographical
> > > > information* about *Tolstoy*.
> > > She made a scandalous accusation of plagiarism against a dead man.
>
> > Where? Be specific.
>
> Do your own homework.
>
>
>
> > > This isn't "information", or if it is, we live in a Fascist state
> > > where dull fools and full-of-shit gulls will believe ANYTHING, as long
> > > as there's a hint of blood, and some destruction.
>
> > > "Fascism is a rumour about the Jews" - Adorno
>
> > > That is: "bad" post-modernism is Fascism in which people without
> > > attention spans or common courtesy become not tolerant but
> > > "skeptical", and pose, in their ignorance of basic facts in the area
> > > in which they choose to open their yaps (the existence of two
> > > Gloucesters in the History plays, the "Crimean" war, the IMPOSSIBILITY
> > > of any "feminist" reading of Lear that redeems Goneril, etc) they must
> > > perforce, like monsters of the deep, cultivate not tolerance but an
> > > unearned skepticism.
>
> > > > Do learn to read, illiterate fuckwit.
> > > Shut your filthy little mouth.
>
> > When I type, my mouth is closed.
>
> Then get your filthy little paw off the keyboard, ape.
>
Not a chance. I'm sticking around, troll. You're the one who must
leave. Ask anyone (except MM).
>
>
> > > > > > critical tendency is to blame him for helping in bringing on the bloody
> > > > > > revolution, the greatest mistake in Russian history, since life under
> > > > > I think the Russian Revolution was a Good Thing on balance, honey
> > > > > bun.
>
> > > > How do you know? Its ramifications are still being played out, not
> > > > least here in England. You have *heard* of polonium-210, haven't you?
> > > Your ignorance of course includes ignorance of modern Russian history.
> > > Are you even aware of the end of Communism? The Communist party of
> > > Russia today OPPOSES the murderer Putin.
>
> > Yes, I know.
>
> Yes, I toldya.
>
Yes, you did, but I knew *before that*. DUH!
>
>
> > > > > > the 19th century Czars was the best age Russia ever had. The countess
> > > > > > Sonia Tolstoy, who wrote out his major novels, was his sharpest critic,
> > > > > > and she was right in accusing her husband of ingratefulness and
> > > > > Yeah, what ev er. Count Tolstoy realized the vicious folly of 19th
> > > > > century aristocracy in a lived sense but this might fright the ladies,
> > > > > sitting on their cans in the drawing room? Too bad.
>
> > > > You're rambling now...
>
> > > > > > absurdity. In "Voskresenye" (his last great novel) he actually covertly
> > > > > > preached the murder of the Czar. Lenin was his pupil and ordered the
> > > > > What you fail to realize here is that anger is unbounded.
>
> > > > Literally unbounded? Account for this.
> > > Your anger is a specimen.
>
> > You perceive anger in the above? You need a good psychiatrist, dude.
>
> Of course you're not angry. That restraining order was a mistake,
> wasn't it? All you did was go ape in the 7-11.
>
More deranged fantasising. You trolls really have this projection
thing down, dontcha? Except that it's always 100% wrong.
D'OH!
>
>
> > > > > Hey, you
> > > > > drive me into a ghetto, you take my plot of land to build a factory,
> > > > > you cannot assume that at any pint in my anger, I will stop and reason
> > > > > that "on the whole" the Czar is a good thing in an Utilitarian
> > > > > sense...Utilitarians always say, not in my backyard.
>
> > > > Always? They never say anything else? All Utilitarians? All the time?
> > > Yup.
>
> > So, they never say: "Could I get a cup of coffee?" or "Where is the
> > bathroom please?" or "Would you like to go to a movie?" or "I enjoyed
> > that article which Ed Nilges wrote in Usenet." or...
>
> A jejune counterexample: you don't understand logic.
More projection. 100% wrong, again.
> Utilitarian
> philosophy IMPLIES the utilitarian's reluctance to be the person
> sacrificed for the great good and this was identified as a major flaw
> in utilitarianism when I studied political philosophy at Princeton.
Yeah. I know about Utilitarian philosophy.
Mark Houlsby
> > > understand that?
>
> > > Michael Martin- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Also, my dear fellow, a true guru would never speak from ego drives.
>
> MM:
> Now, I'm speaking from an ego drive?
Yup.
> I thought I was most patient,
> and simply trying to help those lost in the wilderness.
ROFLMAO!!! You're FUCKING DERANGED, Michael....
> Maybe, you
> are speaking from the POV of your OWN ego??
>
Maybe he is. What's it to you, o omniscient one?
> > He would realize here that owing to the posting mechanism, the miracle
> > has already happened. No matter how many bullies and idiots are here,
> > we can still continue to speak and be heard in the silence in front of
> > our computer.
>
> MM:
> I realize that, but it doesn't change the fact of the pervasive
> ignorance in this group, now does it?
Well, it certainly doesn't change YOUR pervasive ignorance, evidently.
> Discussions have been going on
> here for many years, but it's like ships without rudders.
Welcome to Usenet.
> No doubt
> about it. Anti-Strats don't even believe Shakespeare wrote his own
> works!
>
Well...DUH!
> > That's where Swedenborg went wrong, and Peter O'Toole went right in
> > The Magic Christian.
>
> MM:
> I respect Swedenborg, and Peter O'Toole is one of the greatest
> actors. Please clarify how you think Swedenborg went wrong? If you
> can't clarify it, I might think that you've misunderstood him.
>
Well I'm sure he's worried about *that*. Not.
> In his Christ phase they said, show us a miracle.
>
> > He showed them a flower, pistils, stamens, all the science to hand and
> > he said here it is and there ain't no more.
>
> MM:
> That is physical, isn't it? Surely, if you believe in reincarnation,
> you believe there are higher planes, which are in charge of this lower
> plane?
>
> > Here we can if we choose to be like Ariel because the bullies can't
> > get to us unless we let them by playing their ego games (as opposed to
> > a game which because of my underdeveloped spiritual state I still
> > enjoy: kicking their butts).
>
> MM:
> It's not just about bullies. It's much bigger and broader in scope.
> We're talking 400 years of pervasive ignorance regarding Marlowe and
> Shakespeare. Whitman prophesied that someone would "expose,"
> Shakespeare. Guess who would do it? Give ya three guesses. LOL
>
> Michael Martin
You see, fuck you? MM thinks he's GOD.
Trust me, you don't want him as an ally.
Mark Houlsby
spinoza1111
The paradox of the "off topic" is that a thing is known only by the
properties it has, and all properties are relational. The
Impressionists teach us that that paradigm case of the nonrelational
property "color" is in fact a relation to other colors, since snow can
look blue in front of an orange barn...to the Impressionist.
Likewise, if a teacher uses white chalk to draw monochrome chiaroscuro
on the board, we unconsciously accept that "white is black".
All properties are relational. This means that we can't discuss
ANYTHING without getting "off topic" in the sense that no property can
be discussed nonrelationally. Trivially, Shakespeare's "religion" is
best discussed as a dynamic relationship to a religious establishment
that in his day was in the process itself of rapid evolution.
Ultimately, what we name by Shakespeare (cf. Wittgenstein of the
Tractatus, or Spinoza) was an atom without properties defined by its
ability to enter into atomic propositions.
This ontology COULD in fact mean that what-we-mean-by-Shakespeare was
the frigging Earl of Oxford (but, he wasn't, and Francis Meres, Robert
Greene, and Ben Jonson all constitute witnesses to the fact that what-
we-mean-by-Shakespeare was a noncustodial father from Stratford with a
grammar school education, that, in terms of English studies, was in
its time superior to that of most contemporary PhDs in English).
Now, many "analytic" philosophers would claim that "Shakespeare" was
necessarily a "person": their language, unlike Wittgenstein's, is
typed. But this neglects a logical possibility (but a falsity given
the evidence): that "Shakespeare" was a consortium of odd sods, or a
computer, operated by aliens.
In Buddhist ontology, "Shakespeare" was necessarily a "sentient being"
which for at least some Buddhists can be a human being, an animal,
possibly a plant. It appears to me, given my superficial knowledge of
Buddhist ontology, that an "airplane" or a "rock" cannot be a sentient
being because both are complex entities that do not have a telos. The
airplane is rusting junk without a vast and encompassing system (an
airline) that makes it go: the rock consists of further particles
brought together by exogenous forces and it has, perhaps, no telos in
the same way has the banyan tree.
But ultimately, the universe MAY consist of a nondenumerable infinity
of souls, none of which has any property whatsoever but which gets
properties at the moment of (re)incarnation. For example, Mark Houlsby
may return to life as a cockroach's butt.
But, I digress.
"Shakespeare" was interested in, and had a strong relationship to,
religion, and was probably himself more interested in discussing,
within the confines of the primitive Tudor police state, religion, as
in hey, how about them Papists, how do ya think they'll do this
season.
Shakespeare by all appearances was not a self-centered prick like
Robert Greene or Mark Houlsby, and probably did not want to discuss
"Shakespeare".
Which renders it strange that we're here to focus, oh let us focus, on
"Shakespeare", a man without qualities who looked outward from the
portals of his sweet eyes over a vast tapestry, all of it Other to
him:
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world, that has such people in
it!
But this is PRECISELY what latter day pedants and other snirps do.
They focus bitter, twisted, and prematurely aged graduate students so
much on Shakespeare that the RESULT is the bitter, twisted and
prematurely aged technical writer with a Master's degree or Doctor Ate
in English who can't find a damn job in his field with health
insurance, and doesn't much want one, either, because he was forced by
snirps to "focus" on some detail of the canvas, such as Shakespeare's
doctor's dog, so as to have something to write for a thesis that
wouldn't at all be so broad or so brave as to piss somebunny off.
The result is here, as bitter, twisted and prematurely aged people
engage in systematic character assassination because they had their
nuts stapled bleeding to a Master's degree from a cow college in 1969,
when I was getting laid and they weren't.
Give me an ounce of civet.
But, you have a point. Although "everything is related to everything
else", and reading Shakespeare "across the grain" by probing his
relationship, say, to natural science is useful, you have to tie it
back, and sometimes Michael seems to me more concerned with promoting
himself as the next big thing in the theosophical area than with
"Shakespeare".
But this (gasp) is a venial sin. I realize that in usenet hell, there
aren't supposed to be any venial sins: everything is made grounds for
a Puritan rant. But I gave at the fucking office, you know? And any
man whose main goal here is promoting an idea other than the failings
of another is basically a good egg, in my book...even if it is warmed
over Theosophical Blavatsky nonsense.
But as Shakespeare and St. Paul knew, "all have sinned", and "use
every man according to his deserts, no man should 'scape whipping". I
may be concerned more with kicking ass and taking names than with
"Shakespeare", although I doubt it.
>
> I found an interesting pamphlet that someone had
> left lying around, and thought you might like hearing.
> about it. It's by someone named Sri Sri Ravi Shankar:
>
> Here's a selection:
>
> Virtues
>
> Virtues cannot be cultivated. You have to assume
> that they are there.
>
> In the Gita, Krishna said to Arjuna, "Grieve not
> Arjuna, you are born with virtues."
>
> The seeker should remember that he is born with
> virtues; otherwise he could not have been a seeker.
>
> If you think you do not have virtues and then try to
> cultivate them, you will fail.
>
> You often compare yourself with others on the basis of
> virtues. Do not compare yourself with them. Simply
> recognize all the virtues you appreciate in others, and
> realize that they are already present in you in seed
> form. You only have to nurture them.
>
> When you think you do not have a virtue, then you
> come from a space of lack of deficiency.- Hide quoted text -
Mark Houlsby
> On Jan 31, 3:39 pm, "laraine" <lari...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 30, 10:12 pm, "lackpurity" <lackpur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 30, 9:11?am, "laraine" <lari...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
<snip>
> > > MM:
> > > Frankly, Laraine, nobody has more right to discuss Shakespeare, than
> > > yours truly. LOL Maybe, if you try very hard, you can start to
> > > understand that?
>
> > > Michael Martin
>
> > MM,
>
> > It just seems to me that you are more interested in
> > discussing religion than in discussing Shakespeare.
>
> The paradox of the "off topic" is that a thing is known only by the
> properties it has, and all properties are relational. The
> Impressionists teach us that that paradigm case of the nonrelational
> property "color" is in fact a relation to other colors, since snow can
> look blue in front of an orange barn...to the Impressionist.
>
Gee... really?
> Likewise, if a teacher uses white chalk to draw monochrome chiaroscuro
> on the board, we unconsciously accept that "white is black".
>
Gee... really?
> All properties are relational. This means that we can't discuss
> ANYTHING without getting "off topic" in the sense that no property can
> be discussed nonrelationally.
That's another of your famous "non-sequitors" [sic].
> Trivially, Shakespeare's "religion" is
> best discussed as a dynamic relationship to a religious establishment
> that in his day was in the process itself of rapid evolution.
>
"...in the process *itself*...", eh?
Has it occurred to you that Shakespeare (or whoever wrote the canon)
may have been an atheist, or a humanist, or both? If true, then that
would seem to rule out the concept of '...Shakespeare's "religion"..."
now, wouldn't it?
> Ultimately, what we name by Shakespeare (cf. Wittgenstein of the
> Tractatus,
Good choice!
"The world is all that is the case." is almost as stupid an
introduction as "What utter horseshit." which YOU chose as your
introduction to HLAS.
> or Spinoza)
We've already discussed Spinoza. At least, I have. You didn't reply.
> was an atom without properties defined by its
> ability to enter into atomic propositions.
>
Another spectacular "non-sequitor"!
> This ontology
Oh, this horseshit is *ontology*, is it? I see....
> COULD in fact mean that what-we-mean-by-Shakespeare was
> the frigging Earl of Oxford (but, he wasn't, and Francis Meres, Robert
> Greene, and Ben Jonson all constitute witnesses to the fact that what-
> we-mean-by-Shakespeare was a noncustodial father from Stratford with a
> grammar school education, that, in terms of English studies, was in
> its time superior to that of most contemporary PhDs in English).
>
Substantiate this.
> Now, many "analytic" philosophers would claim that "Shakespeare" was
> necessarily a "person": their language, unlike Wittgenstein's, is
> typed. But this neglects a logical possibility (but a falsity given
> the evidence): that "Shakespeare" was a consortium of odd sods, or a
> computer, operated by aliens.
>
The former is a distinct possibility. A probability, one might
suggest.The latter is not a possibility, although MM might argue the
contrary.
> In Buddhist ontology,
Excuse me, but since Buddhists don't believe in any sort of God, isn't
"Buddhist ontology" a contradiction-in-terms?
> "Shakespeare" was necessarily a "sentient being"
> which for at least some Buddhists can be a human being, an animal,
> possibly a plant. It appears to me, given my superficial knowledge of
> Buddhist ontology,
Oh... your knowledge is *superficial*. What a surprise! So, as usual,
you're just typing shit, then?
> that an "airplane" or a "rock" cannot be a sentient
> being because both are complex entities that do not have a telos. The
> airplane is rusting junk without a vast and encompassing system (an
> airline) that makes it go: the rock consists of further particles
> brought together by exogenous forces and it has, perhaps, no telos in
> the same way has the banyan tree.
>
> But ultimately, the universe MAY consist of a nondenumerable infinity
> of souls, none of which has any property whatsoever but which gets
> properties at the moment of (re)incarnation. For example, Mark Houlsby
> may return to life as a cockroach's butt.
>
> But, I digress.
>
Yeah, and what a lot of ignorant, unsubstantiated bullshit it was...
> "Shakespeare" was interested in, and had a strong relationship to,
> religion,
Account for this.
> and was probably himself more interested in discussing,
> within the confines of the primitive Tudor police state, religion, as
> in hey, how about them Papists, how do ya think they'll do this
> season.
>
That seems most likely.... not.
> Shakespeare by all appearances was not a self-centered prick like
> Robert Greene or Mark Houlsby,
Don't insult Greene, dude.
> and probably did not want to discuss
> "Shakespeare".
>
He told you this in a vision, did he?
> Which renders it strange that we're here to focus, oh let us focus, on
> "Shakespeare", a man without qualities who looked outward from the
> portals of his sweet eyes over a vast tapestry, all of it Other to
> him:
>
> How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world, that has such people in
> it!
>
> But this is PRECISELY what latter day pedants and other snirps do.
>
Some do. Some don't.
> They focus bitter, twisted, and prematurely aged graduate students so
> much on Shakespeare that the RESULT is the bitter, twisted and
> prematurely aged technical writer with a Master's degree or Doctor Ate
> in English who can't find a damn job in his field with health
> insurance, and doesn't much want one, either, because he was forced by
> snirps to "focus" on some detail of the canvas, such as Shakespeare's
> doctor's dog, so as to have something to write for a thesis that
> wouldn't at all be so broad or so brave as to piss somebunny off.
>
You really need to stop writing this sort of shit, dude.
> The result is here, as bitter, twisted and prematurely aged people
> engage in systematic character assassination because they had their
> nuts stapled bleeding to a Master's degree from a cow college in 1969,
> when I was getting laid and they weren't.
>
More projection. Again 100% wrong.
> Give me an ounce of civet.
>
> But, you have a point. Although "everything is related to everything
> else", and reading Shakespeare "across the grain" by probing his
> relationship, say, to natural science is useful, you have to tie it
> back, and sometimes Michael seems to me more concerned with promoting
> himself as the next big thing in the theosophical area than with
> "Shakespeare".
>
Only "sometimes" eh?
> But this (gasp) is a venial sin. I realize that in usenet hell, there
> aren't supposed to be any venial sins: everything is made grounds for
> a Puritan rant. But I gave at the fucking office, you know? And any
> man whose main goal here is promoting an idea other than the failings
> of another is basically a good egg, in my book...even if it is warmed
> over Theosophical Blavatsky nonsense.
>
So, essentially you're saying that a fellow troll who is *so deranged*
that he thinks that he's God, "is basically a good egg, in [your]
book...".
Interesting.
> But as Shakespeare and St. Paul knew, "all have sinned", and "use
> every man according to his deserts,
You mean, like the Sahara?
> no man should 'scape whipping".
Well, you sure don't!
> I
> may be concerned more with kicking ass and taking names than with
> "Shakespeare", although I doubt it.
>
This from a man who entered HLAS, less than two months ago, with the
immortal words: "What utter horseshit."
lackpurity
MM:
Why so defensive? I've mentioned Leslie Joy McClinton, the
reincarnation of BOTH, Cleopatra and Madame Blavatsky. That is proof
that I'm not only interested in myself. It's proof that I'm
interested in offering the lost souls a way out. If they don't like
me, then let them follow Leslie. No problem. Notice how CLEO is
spelled from Leslie's full name.
Now, would like to retract that charge of self-promotion? If you want
to charge me with that, then I dare say, it is like Hound Dog
Houlsby's charge that I'm a troll. If I'm a troll, then everyone is
the group is a troll. The difference between Hound Dog's trolling,
and my trolling, is that I know Shakespeare, and he doesn't.
> But this (gasp) is a venial sin. I realize that in usenet hell, there
> aren't supposed to be any venial sins: everything is made grounds for
> a Puritan rant. But I gave at the fucking office, you know? And any
> man whose main goal here is promoting an idea other than the failings
> of another is basically a good egg, in my book...even if it is warmed
> over Theosophical Blavatsky nonsense.
MM:
I wonder what your concept of Blavatsky is? She save the world from a
nuclear holocaust.
> But as Shakespeare and St. Paul knew, "all have sinned", and "use
> every man according to his deserts, no man should 'scape whipping". I
> may be concerned more with kicking ass and taking names than with
> "Shakespeare", although I doubt it.
MM:
I think you're headed in the right direction, Spinoza.
Michael Martin
>
>
>
>
> > I found an interesting pamphlet that someone had
> > left lying around, and thought you might like hearing.
> > about it. It's by someone named Sri Sri Ravi Shankar:
>
> > Here's a selection:
>
> > Virtues
>
> > Virtues cannot be cultivated. You have to assume
> > that they are there.
>
> > In the Gita, Krishna said to Arjuna, "Grieve not
> > Arjuna, you are born with virtues."
>
> > The seeker should remember that he is born with
> > virtues; otherwise he could not have been a seeker.
>
> > If you think you do not have virtues and then try to
> > cultivate them, you will fail.
>
> > You often compare yourself with others on the basis of
> > virtues. Do not compare yourself with them. Simply
> > recognize all the virtues you appreciate in others, and
> > realize that they are already present in you in seed
> > form. You only have to nurture them.
>
> > When you think you do not have a virtue, then you
> > come from a space of lack of deficiency.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
spinoza1111
> On 31 Jan, 13:53, "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 31, 3:39 pm, "laraine" <lari...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 30, 10:12 pm, "lackpurity" <lackpur...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 30, 9:11?am, "laraine" <lari...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > MM:
> > > > Frankly, Laraine, nobody has more right to discuss Shakespeare, than
> > > > yours truly. LOL Maybe, if you try very hard, you can start to
> > > > understand that?
>
> > > > Michael Martin
>
> > > MM,
>
> > > It just seems to me that you are more interested in
> > > discussing religion than in discussing Shakespeare.
>
> > The paradox of the "off topic" is that a thing is known only by the
> > properties it has, and all properties are relational. The
> > Impressionists teach us that that paradigm case of the nonrelational
> > property "color" is in fact a relation to other colors, since snow can
> > look blue in front of an orange barn...to the Impressionist.
>
> Gee... really?
Shut the fuck up, Otto.
>
> > Likewise, if a teacher uses white chalk to draw monochrome chiaroscuro
> > on the board, we unconsciously accept that "white is black".
>
> Gee... really?
Shut the fuck up, Otto.
>
> > All properties are relational. This means that we can't discuss
> > ANYTHING without getting "off topic" in the sense that no property can
> > be discussed nonrelationally.
>
> That's another of your famous "non-sequitors" [sic].
No, that's another of your famous inabilities to follow an argument.
Nonfollowus argumentatus boneheadus.
>
> > Trivially, Shakespeare's "religion" is
> > best discussed as a dynamic relationship to a religious establishment
> > that in his day was in the process itself of rapid evolution.
>
> "...in the process *itself*...", eh?
D'oh. It was in the process, itself, of rapid evolution. "Itself"
disambiguates the evolution of the English established church from
Shakespeare's evolution, bonehead.
>
> Has it occurred to you that Shakespeare (or whoever wrote the canon)
> may have been an atheist, or a humanist, or both? If true, then that
> would seem to rule out the concept of '...Shakespeare's "religion"..."
> now, wouldn't it?
>
Have you even read any Shakespeare at all? A man who could insert a
reference to St Paul in Bottom's "dream" speech had a strong interest
in religion independent of his personal beliefs, Otto.
> > Ultimately, what we name by Shakespeare (cf. Wittgenstein of the
> > Tractatus,
>
> Good choice!
Oh G-d Otto is happy. I must be losing my grip. Otto is happy.
>
> "The world is all that is the case." is almost as stupid an
> introduction as "What utter horseshit." which YOU chose as your
> introduction to HLAS.
So Wittgenstein was stupid, right otto. I quote from memory die Welt
is alles, was der Fall ist. Fuck you if I'm going to even look it up.
>
> > or Spinoza)
>
> We've already discussed Spinoza. At least, I have. You didn't reply.
I think it was so stupid I deliberately forgot. Post-traumatic stress.
>
> > was an atom without properties defined by its
> > ability to enter into atomic propositions.
>
> Another spectacular "non-sequitor"!
No, another spectacular Otto makes a fool of himself! Ottoiensis
foolus selfus!
>
> > This ontology
>
> Oh, this horseshit is *ontology*, is it? I see....
Do you even know what "ontology" is, moron?
>
> > COULD in fact mean that what-we-mean-by-Shakespeare was
> > the frigging Earl of Oxford (but, he wasn't, and Francis Meres, Robert
> > Greene, and Ben Jonson all constitute witnesses to the fact that what-
> > we-mean-by-Shakespeare was a noncustodial father from Stratford with a
> > grammar school education, that, in terms of English studies, was in
> > its time superior to that of most contemporary PhDs in English).
>
> Substantiate this.
It is substantiated, Otto, in any introduction to Shakespeare. It's
COMMON FUCKING KNOWLEDGE among people qualified to be in this room.
GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE.
>
> > Now, many "analytic" philosophers would claim that "Shakespeare" was
> > necessarily a "person": their language, unlike Wittgenstein's, is
> > typed. But this neglects a logical possibility (but a falsity given
> > the evidence): that "Shakespeare" was a consortium of odd sods, or a
> > computer, operated by aliens.
>
> The former is a distinct possibility. A probability, one might
> suggest.The latter is not a possibility, although MM might argue the
> contrary.
>
To ignorant, foolish, discourteous little shits, who haven't read the
text in this class, *anything* is possible.
> > In Buddhist ontology,
>
> Excuse me, but since Buddhists don't believe in any sort of God, isn't
> "Buddhist ontology" a contradiction-in-terms?
Wow. The mind boggles.
Son, you just confused THEOLOGY with ONTOLOGY.
Wow.
I mean, you are quite a specimen.
>
> > "Shakespeare" was necessarily a "sentient being"
> > which for at least some Buddhists can be a human being, an animal,
> > possibly a plant. It appears to me, given my superficial knowledge of
> > Buddhist ontology,
>
> Oh... your knowledge is *superficial*. What a surprise! So, as usual,
> you're just typing shit, then?
>
No, I'm such a class act and so much above you that I can afford to
admit my limitations. Whereas you are a step from the edge, if you are
not already a homeless bum and ANY admission of ANY limitation would
SHATTER your sense of self, you dismal little turd.
You.
> > that an "airplane" or a "rock" cannot be a sentient
> > being because both are complex entities that do not have a telos. The
> > airplane is rusting junk without a vast and encompassing system (an
> > airline) that makes it go: the rock consists of further particles
> > brought together by exogenous forces and it has, perhaps, no telos in
> > the same way has the banyan tree.
>
> > But ultimately, the universe MAY consist of a nondenumerable infinity
> > of souls, none of which has any property whatsoever but which gets
> > properties at the moment of (re)incarnation. For example, Mark Houlsby
> > may return to life as a cockroach's butt.
>
> > But, I digress.
>
> Yeah, and what a lot of ignorant, unsubstantiated bullshit it was...
Somebody hit him.
>
> > "Shakespeare" was interested in, and had a strong relationship to,
> > religion,
>
> Account for this.
I just did. You haven't even read the baby play, the one for children,
A Midsummer Night's Dream:
BOTTOM
[Awaking] When my cue comes, call me, and I will
answer: my next is, 'Most fair Pyramus.' Heigh-ho!
Peter Quince! Flute, the bellows-mender! Snout,
the tinker! Starveling! God's my life, stolen
hence, and left me asleep! I have had a most rare
vision. I have had a dream, past the wit of man to
say what dream it was: man is but an ass, if he go
about to expound this dream. Methought I was--there
is no man can tell what. Methought I was,--and
methought I had,--but man is but a patched fool, if
he will offer to say what methought I had. The eye
of man hath not heard, the ear of man hath not
seen, man's hand is not able to taste, his tongue
to conceive, nor his heart to report, what my dream
was. I will get Peter Quince to write a ballad of
this dream: it shall be called Bottom's Dream,
because it hath no bottom; and I will sing it in the
latter end of a play, before the duke:
peradventure, to make it the more gracious, I shall
sing it at her death.
Shakespeare is PARAPHRASING St. Paul. Christian symbolism occurs in
nearly all the plays. Which DOESN'T imply that Shakespeare was a
Christian. What it does imply is that Shakespeare was not an incurious
little shithead like you or George Bush, who confuses "believing
something" with the duty to be BONE IGNORANT about all that is not
that SOMETHING.
>
> > and was probably himself more interested in discussing,
> > within the confines of the primitive Tudor police state, religion, as
> > in hey, how about them Papists, how do ya think they'll do this
> > season.
>
> That seems most likely.... not.
>
> > Shakespeare by all appearances was not a self-centered prick like
> > Robert Greene or Mark Houlsby,
>
> Don't insult Greene, dude.
How did I do that, dude? By associating him with you. What a Freudian
slip! What a confession of your sense of complete inadequacy!
>
> > and probably did not want to discuss
> > "Shakespeare".
>
> He told you this in a vision, did he?
No, there are these things called books and there is this act called
reading, as opposed to jerking off.
>
> > Which renders it strange that we're here to focus, oh let us focus, on
> > "Shakespeare", a man without qualities who looked outward from the
> > portals of his sweet eyes over a vast tapestry, all of it Other to
> > him:
>
> > How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world, that has such people in
> > it!
>
> > But this is PRECISELY what latter day pedants and other snirps do.
>
> Some do. Some don't.
Ba da bing ba doop.
>
> > They focus bitter, twisted, and prematurely aged graduate students so
> > much on Shakespeare that the RESULT is the bitter, twisted and
> > prematurely aged technical writer with a Master's degree or Doctor Ate
> > in English who can't find a damn job in his field with health
> > insurance, and doesn't much want one, either, because he was forced by
> > snirps to "focus" on some detail of the canvas, such as Shakespeare's
> > doctor's dog, so as to have something to write for a thesis that
> > wouldn't at all be so broad or so brave as to piss somebunny off.
>
> You really need to stop writing this sort of shit, dude.
Make me, punk. Any time.
>
> > The result is here, as bitter, twisted and prematurely aged people
> > engage in systematic character assassination because they had their
> > nuts stapled bleeding to a Master's degree from a cow college in 1969,
> > when I was getting laid and they weren't.
>
> More projection. Again 100% wrong.
>
> > Give me an ounce of civet.
>
> > But, you have a point. Although "everything is related to everything
> > else", and reading Shakespeare "across the grain" by probing his
> > relationship, say, to natural science is useful, you have to tie it
> > back, and sometimes Michael seems to me more concerned with promoting
> > himself as the next big thing in the theosophical area than with
> > "Shakespeare".
>
> Only "sometimes" eh?
Yeah, punk. He's a human being. You're a monster.
>
> > But this (gasp) is a venial sin. I realize that in usenet hell, there
> > aren't supposed to be any venial sins: everything is made grounds for
> > a Puritan rant. But I gave at the fucking office, you know? And any
> > man whose main goal here is promoting an idea other than the failings
> > of another is basically a good egg, in my book...even if it is warmed
> > over Theosophical Blavatsky nonsense.
>
> So, essentially you're saying that a fellow troll who is *so deranged*
> that he thinks that he's God, "is basically a good egg, in [your]
> book...".
You're *so deranged* that to you the world is shit and there's no
escape. That's the real madness.
>
> Interesting.
>
> > But as Shakespeare and St. Paul knew, "all have sinned", and "use
> > every man according to his deserts,
>
> You mean, like the Sahara?
BONEHEAD ALERT
HASN'T READ THE TEXT ALERT
GET THE FUCK OUTA HERE
You don't even know that "desert", usually but not always uncountable
in Early Modern English, countable later on, meant what we deserve:
LORD POLONIUS
My lord, I will use them according to their desert.
HAMLET
God's bodykins, man, much better: use every man
after his desert, and who should 'scape whipping?
Use them after your own honour and dignity: the less
they deserve, the more merit is in your bounty.
Take them in.
I used the more recent countable version in a paraphrase in order to
be understood.
But just as you can't tell the difference between the Napoleonic and
the Crimean war, YOU don't know that desert had that meaning!
YOU DON'T BELONG HERE. GET OUT.
>
> > no man should 'scape whipping".
>
> Well, you sure don't!
>
> > I
> > may be concerned more with kicking ass and taking names than with
> > "Shakespeare", although I doubt it.
>
> This from a man who entered HLAS, less than two months ago, with the
> immortal words: "What utter horseshit."
...and started kicking your ass and taking your name.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2lq8f8- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
What a JERK.
But unfortunately all too common.
Mark Houlsby
Maybe he's not accustomed to addressing minor deities.
> I've mentioned Leslie Joy McClinton, the
> reincarnation of BOTH, Cleopatra and Madame Blavatsky. That is proof
> that I'm not only interested in myself.
No, it's proof that you're FUCKING DERANGED.
> It's proof that I'm
> interested in offering the lost souls a way out.
No, it's proof that you're FUCKING DERANGED.
> If they don't like
> me, then let them follow Leslie. No problem. Notice how CLEO is
> spelled from Leslie's full name.
>
Wow! Another miracle!
> Now, would like to retract that charge of self-promotion?
You'll be lucky, dude. He won't even retract his idiosyncratic
orthographic renderings.
> If you want
> to charge me with that, then I dare say, it is like Hound Dog
> Houlsby's charge that I'm a troll.
No, it's not. He doesn't think you're a troll. He may be beginning to
think that you're deranged. Let's hope so, for his sake.
> If I'm a troll, then everyone is
> the group is a troll.
Nope.
> The difference between Hound Dog's trolling,
> and my trolling, is that I know Shakespeare, and he doesn't.
>
Wrong again.
> > But this (gasp) is a venial sin. I realize that in usenet hell, there
> > aren't supposed to be any venial sins: everything is made grounds for
> > a Puritan rant. But I gave at the fucking office, you know? And any
> > man whose main goal here is promoting an idea other than the failings
> > of another is basically a good egg, in my book...even if it is warmed
> > over Theosophical Blavatsky nonsense.
>
> MM:
> I wonder what your concept of Blavatsky is? She save the world from a
> nuclear holocaust.
>
She save [sic] the world from a nuclear holocaust, di [sic] she? When
was that? Just before she died in 1891? Before nuclear weapons had
even been conceived? That was clever of her....
> > But as Shakespeare and St. Paul knew, "all have sinned", and "use
> > every man according to his deserts, no man should 'scape whipping". I
> > may be concerned more with kicking ass and taking names than with
> > "Shakespeare", although I doubt it.
>
> MM:
> I think you're headed in the right direction, Spinoza.
>
Yeah, so do I... straight out of the group. This time, let's hope it's
permanent.
Mark Houlsby
> Michael Martin
>
spinoza1111
Again, you can't even read. Perhaps was the modality of the previous
sentence.
People like you, who don't read, who are incurious about the world,
just love to talk about "the impression you make on others" because
they can never be wrong when they introspect and generalize their
narcissistic findings.
>
> You're really not very good at either reading or writing. When you
> make a howler (which you do all-too-frequently) you refuse to
> acknowledge the fact, and usually attack someone.
>
> This makes you a TROLL.
>
> Shut the fuck up about universities. It's not relevant. At all.
Again, make me. I'd soon as kick your ass as look at you.
Mark Houlsby
> On Jan 31, 10:15 pm, "Mark Houlsby" <mark_houl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > > The paradox of the "off topic" is that a thing is known only by the
> > > properties it has, and all properties are relational. The
> > > Impressionists teach us that that paradigm case of the nonrelational
> > > property "color" is in fact a relation to other colors, since snow can
> > > look blue in front of an orange barn...to the Impressionist.
>
> > Gee... really?
>
> Shut the fuck up, Otto.
>
Make me, fuck you.
>
>
> > > Likewise, if a teacher uses white chalk to draw monochrome chiaroscuro
> > > on the board, we unconsciously accept that "white is black".
>
> > Gee... really?
>
> Shut the fuck up, Otto.
>
Make me, fuck you.
>
>
> > > All properties are relational. This means that we can't discuss
> > > ANYTHING without getting "off topic" in the sense that no property can
> > > be discussed nonrelationally.
>
> > That's another of your famous "non-sequitors" [sic].
>
> No, that's another of your famous inabilities to follow an argument.
> Nonfollowus argumentatus boneheadus.
>
You're projecting again, fuck you. You're wrong again, fuck you.
>
>
> > > Trivially, Shakespeare's "religion" is
> > > best discussed as a dynamic relationship to a religious establishment
> > > that in his day was in the process itself of rapid evolution.
>
> > "...in the process *itself*...", eh?
>
> D'oh. It was in the process, itself, of rapid evolution. "Itself"
> disambiguates the evolution of the English established church from
> Shakespeare's evolution, bonehead.
>
So punctuate, fuck you. Then what you write might have a chance of
making sense, fuck you.
>
>
> > Has it occurred to you that Shakespeare (or whoever wrote the canon)
> > may have been an atheist, or a humanist, or both? If true, then that
> > would seem to rule out the concept of '...Shakespeare's "religion"..."
> > now, wouldn't it?
>
> Have you even read any Shakespeare at all?
You're projecting again, fuck you. You're wrong again, fuck you.
> A man who could insert a
> reference to St Paul in Bottom's "dream" speech had a strong interest
> in religion independent of his personal beliefs, Otto.
>
So WRITE that, fuck you.
DUH!
> > > Ultimately, what we name by Shakespeare (cf. Wittgenstein of the
> > > Tractatus,
>
> > Good choice!
>
> Oh G-d Otto is happy. I must be losing my grip. Otto is happy.
>
I think you lost your grip a while ago.
>
>
> > "The world is all that is the case." is almost as stupid an
> > introduction as "What utter horseshit." which YOU chose as your
> > introduction to HLAS.
>
> So Wittgenstein was stupid, right otto. I quote from memory die Welt
> is alles, was der Fall ist. Fuck you if I'm going to even look it up.
>
Right, fuck you. Of course, you didn't put quotation marks around the
quote. Never mind.
>
>
> > > or Spinoza)
>
> > We've already discussed Spinoza. At least, I have. You didn't reply.
>
> I think it was so stupid I deliberately forgot. Post-traumatic stress.
>
>
>
> > > was an atom without properties defined by its
> > > ability to enter into atomic propositions.
>
> > Another spectacular "non-sequitor"!
>
> No, another spectacular Otto makes a fool of himself! Ottoiensis
> foolus selfus!
>
No, you really have difficulty reading, fuck you. I'd learn to read
before posting again.
>
>
> > > This ontology
>
> > Oh, this horseshit is *ontology*, is it? I see....
>
> Do you even know what "ontology" is, moron?
>
Well, I confess that I do *now*... later in the post you are quite
right to correct me. Thank you for doing that.
>
>
> > > COULD in fact mean that what-we-mean-by-Shakespeare was
> > > the frigging Earl of Oxford (but, he wasn't, and Francis Meres, Robert
> > > Greene, and Ben Jonson all constitute witnesses to the fact that what-
> > > we-mean-by-Shakespeare was a noncustodial father from Stratford with a
> > > grammar school education, that, in terms of English studies, was in
> > > its time superior to that of most contemporary PhDs in English).
>
> > Substantiate this.
>
> It is substantiated, Otto, in any introduction to Shakespeare. It's
> COMMON FUCKING KNOWLEDGE among people qualified to be in this room.
>
Qualified to be in this room, eh? What qualifications might those be,
fuck you?
> GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE.
>
No, that's what you need to do.
Have you even researched this group at all?
Do you normally introduce yourself to a group with the words:
"What utter horseshit."?
Or was that a special privilege you granted to HLAS?
>
>
> > > Now, many "analytic" philosophers would claim that "Shakespeare" was
> > > necessarily a "person": their language, unlike Wittgenstein's, is
> > > typed. But this neglects a logical possibility (but a falsity given
> > > the evidence): that "Shakespeare" was a consortium of odd sods, or a
> > > computer, operated by aliens.
>
> > The former is a distinct possibility. A probability, one might
> > suggest.The latter is not a possibility, although MM might argue the
> > contrary.
>
> To ignorant, foolish, discourteous little shits, who haven't read the
> text in this class, *anything* is possible.
>
That may be. However, you're talking to me. I plead guilty to
ignorance, of course...which of us can say that we are not ignorant.
> > > In Buddhist ontology,
>
> > Excuse me, but since Buddhists don't believe in any sort of God, isn't
> > "Buddhist ontology" a contradiction-in-terms?
>
> Wow. The mind boggles.
>
> Son, you just confused THEOLOGY with ONTOLOGY.
>
> Wow.
>
You're absolutely right there.
Thank you for correnting me, fuck you, I appreciate it.
Really.
> I mean, you are quite a specimen.
>
Pot. Kettle.
>
>
> > > "Shakespeare" was necessarily a "sentient being"
> > > which for at least some Buddhists can be a human being, an animal,
> > > possibly a plant. It appears to me, given my superficial knowledge of
> > > Buddhist ontology,
>
> > Oh... your knowledge is *superficial*. What a surprise! So, as usual,
> > you're just typing shit, then?
>
> No, I'm such a class act
ROFLMAO!!!!
> and so much above you that I can afford to
> admit my limitations.
You mean, like when you trolled me over a *correct* spelling (as Peter
G. pointed out to you)?
> Whereas you are a step from the edge, if you are
> not already a homeless bum and ANY admission of ANY limitation would
> SHATTER your sense of self, you dismal little turd.
>
You're projecting again, fuck you. You're wrong again, fuck you.
> You.
>
> > > that an "airplane" or a "rock" cannot be a sentient
> > > being because both are complex entities that do not have a telos. The
> > > airplane is rusting junk without a vast and encompassing system (an
> > > airline) that makes it go: the rock consists of further particles
> > > brought together by exogenous forces and it has, perhaps, no telos in
> > > the same way has the banyan tree.
>
> > > But ultimately, the universe MAY consist of a nondenumerable infinity
> > > of souls, none of which has any property whatsoever but which gets
> > > properties at the moment of (re)incarnation. For example, Mark Houlsby
> > > may return to life as a cockroach's butt.
>
> > > But, I digress.
>
> > Yeah, and what a lot of ignorant, unsubstantiated bullshit it was...
>
> Somebody hit him.
>
Nobody hit me. That must have been your imagination.
>
>
> > > "Shakespeare" was interested in, and had a strong relationship to,
> > > religion,
>
> > Account for this.
>
> I just did. You haven't even read the baby play, the one for children,
> A Midsummer Night's Dream:
>
ROFLMAO! You're projecting again, fuck you. You're 100% wrong again,
fuck you.
Uh huh. Well, apart from your absurd, unsubstantianted assertion about
my being incurious, I'd accept that, fuck you.
>
>
> > > and was probably himself more interested in discussing,
> > > within the confines of the primitive Tudor police state, religion, as
> > > in hey, how about them Papists, how do ya think they'll do this
> > > season.
>
> > That seems most likely.... not.
>
> > > Shakespeare by all appearances was not a self-centered prick like
> > > Robert Greene or Mark Houlsby,
>
> > Don't insult Greene, dude.
>
> How did I do that, dude? By associating him with you. What a Freudian
> slip!
Was it, or was it deliberate?
> What a confession of your sense of complete inadequacy!
>
Nope, I'm just slumming it with you, fuck you.
>
>
> > > and probably did not want to discuss
> > > "Shakespeare".
>
> > He told you this in a vision, did he?
>
> No, there are these things called books and there is this act called
> reading, as opposed to jerking off.
>
So, from which book did you get the passage which you ended with:
"...and probably did not want to discuss "Shakespeare".", fuck you?
If your source is a book, cite it, fuck you.
Standard boilerplate technique associated with presenting a thesis,
fuck you.
>
>
> > > Which renders it strange that we're here to focus, oh let us focus, on
> > > "Shakespeare", a man without qualities who looked outward from the
> > > portals of his sweet eyes over a vast tapestry, all of it Other to
> > > him:
>
> > > How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world, that has such people in
> > > it!
>
> > > But this is PRECISELY what latter day pedants and other snirps do.
>
> > Some do. Some don't.
>
> Ba da bing ba doop.
>
>
>
> > > They focus bitter, twisted, and prematurely aged graduate students so
> > > much on Shakespeare that the RESULT is the bitter, twisted and
> > > prematurely aged technical writer with a Master's degree or Doctor Ate
> > > in English who can't find a damn job in his field with health
> > > insurance, and doesn't much want one, either, because he was forced by
> > > snirps to "focus" on some detail of the canvas, such as Shakespeare's
> > > doctor's dog, so as to have something to write for a thesis that
> > > wouldn't at all be so broad or so brave as to piss somebunny off.
>
> > You really need to stop writing this sort of shit, dude.
>
> Make me, punk. Any time.
>
Oh, I shall... I shall. I've seen off bigger shits than you. Often.
Ok. Once again, thank you for correcting me about ontology.
See you around, fuck you.
Mark Houlsby
> On Jan 31, 9:40 pm, "Mark Houlsby" <mark.houl...@eudoramail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 31 Jan, 02:41, "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 31, 1:07 am, "Mark Houlsby" <mark.houl...@eudoramail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On 30 Jan, 16:01, "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jan 30, 9:26 pm, "Mark Houlsby" <mark.houl...@eudoramail.com>
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > > > > You've got a real hardon about universities, haven't you? What gives,
> > >Perhaps. I've taught at three.
>
> > "Perhaps"! LOL!
>
> Again, you can't even read. Perhaps was the modality of the previous
> sentence.
>
No, fuck you, I read what you write about universities, and deduce
that you've got
a real hardon about them.
Your writing about them in this group just makes you look even more
fucking dumb
than you usually look.
You're projecting again, fuck you. You're wrong again, fuck you.
>
>
> > You're really not very good at either reading or writing. When you
> > make a howler (which you do all-too-frequently) you refuse to
> > acknowledge the fact, and usually attack someone.
>
> > This makes you a TROLL.
>
> > Shut the fuck up about universities. It's not relevant. At all.
>
> Again, make me.
I shall, dude, I shall.
> I'd soon as kick your ass as look at you.
>
Write that again, but in comprehensible English (or French, or German,
Spanish...), fuck you.
laraine
As you can see by spinoza's post, it is not
easy to precisely define what is off-topic.
I get the impression that MM would prefer to be
informational rather than confrontational, yet what
he says bothers some posters.
I think it would help a lot if someone who thought
that a particular post was off-topic tried to steer
that post to something that the newsgroup is
used to discussing. It's not too practical to drive
20mph sideways on a highway where everyone
else is driving 60mph, but newcomers might not
have a good feel for the group.
For example, MM once posted on how Shakespeare
thinks that Polonius is a good and wise man, or
something to that effect, and many posters took
issue with that, and gave him a hard time. An
alternative approach would be to think outside the
box, and try to find truth in what he says. For
example, in some ways, isn't Polonius a good
father who tries to give his children good advice?
It's possible that some posters might find that an
interesting question.
If you personally are interested in laws and rules,
like Socrates, then you need to start a thread
about rules and regulations on hlas, and how
they are currently expressed on the charter.
That way, the 300+ members of this group
could fairly respond to you.
C.
spinoza1111
> On 31 Jan, 18:54, "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 31, 10:15 pm, "Mark Houlsby" <mark_houl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > The paradox of the "off topic" is that a thing is known only by the
> > > > properties it has, and all properties are relational. The
> > > > Impressionists teach us that that paradigm case of the nonrelational
> > > > property "color" is in fact a relation to other colors, since snow can
> > > > look blue in front of an orange barn...to the Impressionist.
>
> > > Gee... really?
>
> > Shut the fuck up, Otto.
>
> Make me, fuck you.
Any time, scum bag.
>
>
>
> > > > Likewise, if a teacher uses white chalk to draw monochrome chiaroscuro
> > > > on the board, we unconsciously accept that "white is black".
>
> > > Gee... really?
>
> > Shut the fuck up, Otto.
>
> Make me, fuck you.
[Spinoza lifts Otto up and hurls him against the wall. Otto starts to
cry.]
>
>
>
> > > > All properties are relational. This means that we can't discuss
> > > > ANYTHING without getting "off topic" in the sense that no property can
> > > > be discussed nonrelationally.
>
> > > That's another of your famous "non-sequitors" [sic].
>
> > No, that's another of your famous inabilities to follow an argument.
> > Nonfollowus argumentatus boneheadus.
>
> You're projecting again, fuck you. You're wrong again, fuck you.
[Spinoza bitch-slaps Otto]
>
>
>
> > > > Trivially, Shakespeare's "religion" is
> > > > best discussed as a dynamic relationship to a religious establishment
> > > > that in his day was in the process itself of rapid evolution.
>
> > > "...in the process *itself*...", eh?
>
> > D'oh. It was in the process, itself, of rapid evolution. "Itself"
> > disambiguates the evolution of the English established church from
> > Shakespeare's evolution, bonehead.
>
> So punctuate, fuck you. Then what you write might have a chance of
> making sense, fuck you
Learn to read, punk.
.
>
>
>
> > > Has it occurred to you that Shakespeare (or whoever wrote the canon)
> > > may have been an atheist, or a humanist, or both? If true, then that
> > > would seem to rule out the concept of '...Shakespeare's "religion"..."
> > > now, wouldn't it?
>
> > Have you even read any Shakespeare at all?
>
> You're projecting again, fuck you. You're wrong again, fuck you.
[Otto: "ow, stop!"]
>
> > A man who could insert a
> > reference to St Paul in Bottom's "dream" speech had a strong interest
> > in religion independent of his personal beliefs, Otto.
>
> So WRITE that, fuck you.
For you? Not in my lifetime, BYOCH.
>
> DUH!
>
> > > > Ultimately, what we name by Shakespeare (cf. Wittgenstein of the
> > > > Tractatus,
>
> > > Good choice!
>
> > Oh G-d Otto is happy. I must be losing my grip. Otto is happy.
>
> I think you lost your grip a while ago.
Not on your nuts [gives them a squeeze]
>
>
>
> > > "The world is all that is the case." is almost as stupid an
> > > introduction as "What utter horseshit." which YOU chose as your
> > > introduction to HLAS.
>
> > So Wittgenstein was stupid, right otto. I quote from memory die Welt
> > is alles, was der Fall ist. Fuck you if I'm going to even look it up.
>
> Right, fuck you. Of course, you didn't put quotation marks around the
> quote. Never mind.
You're not worth my time, punk.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > or Spinoza)
>
> > > We've already discussed Spinoza. At least, I have. You didn't reply.
>
> > I think it was so stupid I deliberately forgot. Post-traumatic stress.
>
> > > > was an atom without properties defined by its
> > > > ability to enter into atomic propositions.
>
> > > Another spectacular "non-sequitor"!
>
> > No, another spectacular Otto makes a fool of himself! Ottoiensis
> > foolus selfus!
>
> No, you really have difficulty reading, fuck you. I'd learn to read
> before posting again.
>
>
>
> > > > This ontology
>
> > > Oh, this horseshit is *ontology*, is it? I see....
>
> > Do you even know what "ontology" is, moron?
>
> Well, I confess that I do *now*... later in the post you are quite
> right to correct me. Thank you for doing that.
Gettin' through to this punk-ass byotch I see. Thought a little
ultraviolence would help. Now stop crying.
>
>
>
> > > > COULD in fact mean that what-we-mean-by-Shakespeare was
> > > > the frigging Earl of Oxford (but, he wasn't, and Francis Meres, Robert
> > > > Greene, and Ben Jonson all constitute witnesses to the fact that what-
> > > > we-mean-by-Shakespeare was a noncustodial father from Stratford with a
> > > > grammar school education, that, in terms of English studies, was in
> > > > its time superior to that of most contemporary PhDs in English).
>
> > > Substantiate this.
>
> > It is substantiated, Otto, in any introduction to Shakespeare. It's
> > COMMON FUCKING KNOWLEDGE among people qualified to be in this room.
>
> Qualified to be in this room, eh? What qualifications might those be,
> fuck you?
Well, for starters, I can kick the shit out of you in a fair fight.
[Get on the troll's level here...]
>
> > GET THE FUCK OUT OF HERE.
>
> No, that's what you need to do.
>
> Have you even researched this group at all?
>
> Do you normally introduce yourself to a group with the words:
>
> "What utter horseshit."?
If it's a group of puling Mama's boys who haven't read the text,
that's what I do.
>
> Or was that a special privilege you granted to HLAS?
>
>
>
> > > > Now, many "analytic" philosophers would claim that "Shakespeare" was
> > > > necessarily a "person": their language, unlike Wittgenstein's, is
> > > > typed. But this neglects a logical possibility (but a falsity given
> > > > the evidence): that "Shakespeare" was a consortium of odd sods, or a
> > > > computer, operated by aliens.
>
> > > The former is a distinct possibility. A probability, one might
> > > suggest.The latter is not a possibility, although MM might argue the
> > > contrary.
>
> > To ignorant, foolish, discourteous little shits, who haven't read the
> > text in this class, *anything* is possible.
>
> That may be. However, you're talking to me. I plead guilty to
> ignorance, of course...which of us can say that we are not ignorant.
I can, for starters.
I can see that thrashing worked.
>
> > > > In Buddhist ontology,
>
> > > Excuse me, but since Buddhists don't believe in any sort of God, isn't
> > > "Buddhist ontology" a contradiction-in-terms?
>
> > Wow. The mind boggles.
>
> > Son, you just confused THEOLOGY with ONTOLOGY.
>
> > Wow.
>
> You're absolutely right there.
>
> Thank you for correnting me, fuck you, I appreciate it.
Take out the fuck you and I won't throw you out the window.
>
> Really.
>
> > I mean, you are quite a specimen.
>
> Pot. Kettle.
Not at all.
>
>
>
> > > > "Shakespeare" was necessarily a "sentient being"
> > > > which for at least some Buddhists can be a human being, an animal,
> > > > possibly a plant. It appears to me, given my superficial knowledge of
> > > > Buddhist ontology,
>
> > > Oh... your knowledge is *superficial*. What a surprise! So, as usual,
> > > you're just typing shit, then?
>
> > No, I'm such a class act
>
> ROFLMAO!!!!
Say "fuck you" again, I dare you!
>
> > and so much above you that I can afford to
> > admit my limitations.
>
> You mean, like when you trolled me over a *correct* spelling (as Peter
> G. pointed out to you)?
I don't care HOW many butt buddies you have, they are WRONG and I am
RIGHT: a spelling flame has no place here from an IGNORANT little punk
like you.
>
> > Whereas you are a step from the edge, if you are
> > not already a homeless bum and ANY admission of ANY limitation would
> > SHATTER your sense of self, you dismal little turd.
>
> You're projecting again, fuck you. You're wrong again, fuck you.
I warned you. Consider yourself defenestrated.
Jesus, Mary and Joseph, this is Enlightenment by inches.
This guy is getting it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > and was probably himself more interested in discussing,
> > > > within the confines of the primitive Tudor police state, religion, as
> > > > in hey, how about them Papists, how do ya think they'll do this
> > > > season.
>
> > > That seems most likely.... not.
>
> > > > Shakespeare by all appearances was not a self-centered prick like
> > > > Robert Greene or Mark Houlsby,
>
> > > Don't insult Greene, dude.
>
> > How did I do that, dude? By associating him with you. What a Freudian
> > slip!
>
> Was it, or was it deliberate?
You LIKE Greene, then. He's a soul mate. He's a butt buddy.
>
> > What a confession of your sense of complete inadequacy!
>
> Nope, I'm just slumming it with you, fuck you.
No, you've admitted you were wrong, and you learned. But I had to beat
the crap out of you and you still have an attitude problem. We will
work on that in future classes. Now, get out of here.
"The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities
of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the
name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley
of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of
lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance
and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my
brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my
vengeance upon thee."
>
>
>
>
>
> > > > and probably did not want to discuss
> > > > "Shakespeare".
>
> > > He told you this in a vision, did he?
>
> > No, there are these things called books and there is this act
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Peter Groves
news:1170308996....@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 1, 3:27 am, "Mark Houlsby" <mark.houl...@eudoramail.com> wrote:
>>> On 31 Jan, 18:54, "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> >On Jan 31, 10:15 pm, "Mark Houlsby" <mark_houl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > I can afford to admit my limitations
How much time do you think we've *got*, Eddie?
>> You mean, like when you trolled me over a *correct* spelling (as Peter
>> G. pointed out to you)?
>I don't care HOW many butt buddies you have,
It's not very intelligent to assume that everyone enjoys your own favourite
pastimes, Eddie.
>they are WRONG and I am
>RIGHT:
This is the "argumentum de infante lacrimoso" (I know your Latin's a bit
rusty, Eddie, so I'll translate it for you: the "teary toddler's argument")
>a spelling flame
Would that be something like your own recent remark: "Thanks, creep.
However, even as you [Mark Houlsby] mis-spell and mis-use the name of the
informal logical fallacy of non sequitor [cetera desunt]"?
Now here's a bit of friendly advice, Eddie: if you must go in for spelling
flames, make sure you get the spelling *right*. I'm sure you'll grasp this
if you give it a little thought.
> has no place here from an IGNORANT little punk
> like you.
>
As your friend MM, with whom you appear to share *fundamental* interests,
would say: I shall leave the question of who best deserves the epithet
"IGNORANT little punk" to the sagacity of the readers.
Peter G.
spinoza1111
wrote:
The pedant kicks in...
> "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1170308996....@a75g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 1, 3:27 am, "Mark Houlsby" <mark.houl...@eudoramail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On 31 Jan, 18:54, "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >On Jan 31, 10:15 pm, "Mark Houlsby" <mark_houl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> > I can afford to admit my limitations
>
> How much time do you think we've *got*, Eddie?
Who's "we"? You're an isolated person behind a screen.
>
> >> You mean, like when you trolled me over a *correct* spelling (as Peter
> >> G. pointed out to you)?
> >I don't care HOW many butt buddies you have,
>
> It's not very intelligent to assume that everyone enjoys your own favourite
> pastimes, Eddie.
But it is to assume they should. But, of course, you may be incapable
of romance, homosexual or otherwise.
>
> >they are WRONG and I am
> >RIGHT:
>
> This is the "argumentum de infante lacrimoso" (I know your Latin's a bit
> rusty, Eddie, so I'll translate it for you: the "teary toddler's argument")
The language you've used is unrecognizably a mishmash of half-
forgotten and never-learned Latin, Spanish, and perhaps Portuguese.
>
> >a spelling flame
>
> Would that be something like your own recent remark: "Thanks, creep.
> However, even as you [Mark Houlsby] mis-spell and mis-use the name of the
> informal logical fallacy of non sequitor [cetera desunt]"?
You only think, because you are a pedant out of the court of the
Merovingians, that there is such a thing as unitary spelling in the
absence of dictionaries, and do note: spelling became a concern only
in the Dark Ages, and subsequently only in those times when half-
literate pedants were anxious about their position as tutors.
The fact that English did without dictionaries until Johnson's
dictionary shows that at the level of the letter, English is similar
to English at the level of the word, for in the absence of an agreed-
upon dictionary, literate English readers, like those of Shakespeare's
time, are nonetheless able to recognize words, by performing two and
not one levels of parsing.
Which isn't of course to say that dictionaries aren't great (if
overrated by pedants whose smallness of mind and lack of general
culture makes them all the more reliant on such aids).
But I'm speaking to people who are collectively ignorant of basic
texts, and proud and vicious in this ignorance, and who use spelling
flames to assert authority.
>
> Now here's a bit of friendly advice, Eddie: if you must go in for spelling
> flames, make sure you get the spelling *right*. I'm sure you'll grasp this
> if you give it a little thought.
You don't know what a non sekwitor IS. Therefore, you have no right
whatsoever to tell a man who's taught logic how to spell it.
>
> > has no place here from an IGNORANT little punk
> > like you.
>
> As your friend MM, with whom you appear to share *fundamental* interests,
> would say: I shall leave the question of who best deserves the epithet
> "IGNORANT little punk" to the sagacity of the readers.
Who are the readers? Most lurkers turn out to despise people like you,
who strut and fret their hour upon the Web because they don't have a
life.
>
> Peter G.
spinoza1111
> On Feb 1, 4:40 pm, "Peter Groves" <MontiverdiREMOVET...@bigpond.com>
...garbage...
In terms of flaming, a "spelling flame" is the lowest form of life.
There happens to be no general agreement as to how to spell loan and
foreign words in general, the case of Wade-Giles versus Pinyin being
exemplary.
But what's despicable is that you believed, and may continue to
believe, that a non sekwitor MEANS "I don't follow the logic".
Of course, it MEANS, "does not follow, I claim, and stand willing to
courteously defend in a collegial spirit this claim".
That is: the use of such a word asserts membership in a collegial
community as opposed to "fuck you".
But then, you proceed to trash people. Sure, this is characteristic of
n-tier universities in Amerikkka, but that only indicates the rot and
the speed at which the rot proceeds, even as it proceeded in German
universities.
Likewise, ad hominem doesn't mean "my narcissism is wounded by what
choo say".
It means quite precisely an IRREVELANT as opposed to a REVELANT
inference from facts about your opponent's character.
What bugs you, in fact, is the geometrical difference between what you
and your butt buddy Otto Foolsby post, and what I, MM and Laraine
post...visible to the eye from across the room.
This is the paragraph, dipshit, not the smartass cute remark.
The paragraph, containing a moral grammar...an attempt to justify
with, in Laraine's case especially, qualification that shows a
willingness to compromise.
Whereas from across the room, your shit, and shit posted by Otto von
Trollsby, look like a rally by the Hitler Youth.
Which is what they pretty much are.
You pretend to be an educated person. What you are is a destructive
thug, and SS working hand in glove with Houlsby's SA.
Go die.
> > Peter G.- Hide quoted text -
spinoza1111
He's also 63 years old. Show a little respect.
Punk-assed byotch.
>
> BTW, how's that litigation going?- Hide quoted text -
spinoza1111
wrote:
Fucking infant.
> wants him to leave, so he's trying to find some common ground with
> you, his intention may well be to forge an alliance with you.
>
> If he *does* try to form an alliance with you, however, it may not be
No such alliance exists, apart from the fact that people seem to be
too silent here, and scared of your Fascist terror, to simply post
something like "lay off the guy". I don't agree at all with MM's point
of view, but I'm not so insecure that I feel a need to trash him.
This is because you, and Peter Groves, and several other posters here
are vicious, punk ass little Mama's boys who haven't learned
compassion for others from a father.
> the smartest move he ever made.
>
> > > Try to reread this feeling, which is refreshingly unlike the rage and
> > > hate expressed elsewhere, as what happens when you read Shakespeare
> > > and find that he knows what it is to be human.
>
> > MM:
> > I'm 63, and I know what it's like to be human, I assure you.
>
> Enjoy it while it lasts. Soon you'll be dead, as will I, as will Ed.
>
> > > Blessed are they who have not seen, but believe.
>
> > MM:
> > Good quote. It indicates what FAITH can do for a person. I discussed
> > faith, earlier tonight. This is what I wrote:
>
> Oh, so *you* wrote Matthew's gospel. So *you* were Matthew in a
> previous incarnation, then? Did you know Cleopatra in those days?
What are you doing here? You're a nasty little fuckhead. Unequal,
certainly, to reading Shakespeare or anything else, given that you've
(1) Confused the Crimean war with the Napoleonic war
(2) Confused ontology and theology (and admitted that you did so)
(3) Misunderstood completely the meaning of the logical fallacy
"doesn't follow"
(4) Misunderstood Internet posting guidelines
(5) Treated people here like shit
>
> Did you guys vacation on Iapetus? Maybe Europa, or Io?
>
>
>
>
>
> > Matthew chapter 8 verse 10-13
>
> > > Verily i say unto you, I have not found so great faith no not
> > in Israel.
> > > And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and
> > west,
> > > and sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the
> > kingdom of
> > > heaven: But the children of the kingdom 'shall be cast out
> > into outer
> > > darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Go thy
> > way;
> > > and as thou hast believed, so be it done unto thee.
>
> > > Poster's name deleted
>
> > MM:
> > We can't take the Bible too literally, because the mystic teachings
> > have been misunderstood, and other people, for one reason or another
> > might have altered or corrupted it.
>
> No shit, Sherlock!
>
> > These verses are discussing faith, which is a mystic teaching, of
> > course. Faith can result in getting a lot of help from God,
>
> Wrong! God doesn't exist, that's just your deranged imagination
> playing tricks again....
You're not even worthy to be called an athiest, pond scum
>
> > even
> > miracles, even reaching the stage of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
>
> You mean...being dead for thousands of years? Yes, we shall *all*
> achieve that, eventually.
Terrifies the shit out of you, apparently.
>
> > However, lack of faith can result in the antithesis, i.e. banishment
> > to outer darkness, weeping, and gnashing of teeth.
>
> Even for folks who wear dentures? My goodness!
>
> > IMO, the gnashing
> > of teeth seems to be a reference to lower species, to falling into
> > chaurasi.
>
> Well, it's an opinion, but it's unlikely to be worth as much as one
> bit.
You can't form a comprehensible paragraph. You can't write a coherent
sentence. You can't follow a reduction to absurdity.
Thus everything is indeed "fuzzy logic" and opinion, that can be
manipulated by the biggest thug, even as Al Gore's "lockbox" plan for
Social Security was trashed by your spiritual father, Bush, as "fuzzy
logic".
>
> > We can choose, whether to follow the Master, or to take
> > our chances with Satan.
>
> If *you* are a typical Master, I'm willing to take that chance with
> Satan, indeed eternal damnation seems like blessèd relief compared
> with the shit which spills out of your deranged imagination....
You're not worth the gas bill to the Father of Lies. Your behavior
here seems to imply you belong on the plain of useless dainty people:
Dante: Inferno:
And I: "O Master, what so grievous is
To these, that maketh them lament so sore?"
He answered: "I will tell thee very briefly.
These have no longer any hope of death;
And this blind life of theirs is so debased,
They envious are of every other fate.
No fame of them the world permits to be;
Misericord and Justice both disdain them.
Let us not speak of them, but look, and pass."
And I, who looked again, beheld a banner,
Which, whirling round, ran on so rapidly,
That of all pause it seemed to me indignant;
And after it there came so long a train
Of people, that I ne'er would have believed
That ever Death so many had undone.
When some among them I had recognised,
I looked, and I beheld the shade of him
Who made through cowardice the great refusal.
Forthwith I comprehended, and was certain,
That this the sect was of the caitiff wretches
Hateful to God and to his enemies.
Shape up or ship out.
>
> Mark Houlsby
>
>
>
> > Michael Martin- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
spinoza1111
wrote:
Of course, I am quite literate, and a published author (since 1975).
But given the behavior of people here who claim to be literate and
brag of their educations, where they've learned to paper over vast
aporias in same (not being able, for example, to use the name of the
logical fallacy non sequitor properly, while manifesting complete
ignorance of the nature of orthography), I'd rather be illiterate. You
bring shame on writing every time you post.
spinoza1111
> On 31 Jan, 19:02, "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 31, 9:40 pm, "Mark Houlsby" <mark.houl...@eudoramail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On 31 Jan, 02:41, "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 31, 1:07 am, "Mark Houlsby" <mark.houl...@eudoramail.com>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On 30 Jan, 16:01, "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jan 30, 9:26 pm, "Mark Houlsby" <mark.houl...@eudoramail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > <snip>
>
> > > > > > > You've got a real hardon about universities, haven't you? What gives,
> > > >Perhaps. I've taught at three.
>
> > > "Perhaps"! LOL!
>
> > Again, you can't even read. Perhaps was the modality of the previous
> > sentence.
>
> No, fuck you, I read what you write about universities, and deduce
By the way, when I quoted David Mamet and said my name is fuck you,
you need to change "you" to "me" when you use my name. But I don't
think you'll get any takers.
Mark Houlsby
appears, you'll know why....
On 31 Jan, 22:38, "laraine" <lari...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 31, 6:18 am, "Mark Houlsby" <mark.houl...@eudoramail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Which are you, laraine?
>
> As you can see by spinoza's post,
I guess that you mean this one:
> it is not
> easy to precisely define what is off-topic.
True, although of course some things clearly are.
> I get the impression that MM would prefer to be
> informational rather than confrontational, yet what
> he says bothers some posters.
>
You seem perhaps to be missing an important point
of netiquette, namely that posting and reposting and
reposting the same information (regardless of its
intrinsic merit) is considered trolling.
> I think it would help a lot if someone who thought
> that a particular post was off-topic tried to steer
> that post to something that the newsgroup is
> used to discussing.
Is "thinking" that a post is off-topic sufficient grounds
for such behaviour? Does such behaviour have any
prerequisites? Ought it to have? Who says so?
A recent example: a newbie named willarkin began a
thread entitled: "this group", the thread is located here:
Now, in that thread, in this post:
...David Kathman wrote:
"This newsgroup was founded in
August 1995 by Marty Hyatt, an Oxfordian who wanted a civil place to
discuss Shakespeare where the authorship topic was allowed."
A little lower down the thread, in this post:
...lyra replied:
"ah! a CIVIL PLACE........."
In a reply to lyra, here:
...I wrote:
"Yes.
It's a shame that the authorship issue is intrinsically divisive and
destructive, and so Marty Hyatt's wish was always doomed to remain
unfulfilled....."
> It's not too practical to drive
> 20mph sideways on a highway where everyone
> else is driving 60mph, but newcomers might not
> have a good feel for the group.
>
On the other hand, newcomers, like for example willarkin, might
post one message:
...read the replies:
...and decide, presumably on the basis of the utterly
reprehensible behaviour of many prominent members
of HLAS, that it's just not worth posting again:
> For example, MM once posted on how Shakespeare
> thinks that Polonius is a good and wise man,
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. Perhaps you refer
to one of these eight threads:
Then again, perhaps you don't.
Regardless, I understand the point which you are making.
> or
> something to that effect, and many posters took
> issue with that, and gave him a hard time.
Not so. No matter which thread it was "many posters" will
have taken issue not with the argument about Polonius, but
rather with MM's habit of presenting his argument in terms
of his deranged--and clearly off-topic--spirituality.
I should be most surprised if this assessment (based upon
what may well be complete ignorance of the thread to which
you were actually referring) proves false. It may, however.
> An
> alternative approach would be to think outside the
> box, and try to find truth in what he says.
Ah, but there's the rub, you see, no matter how many posters
might try intelligently to discuss a point raised by MM, he'd be
in there calling them pigeonholers and worse.
I do know what you mean about MM, though. On occasion,
he does post something lucid and intelligent. A couple of
recent examples:
...a thread in which Greg Reynolds wisely posted words of
encouragement to MM.
Then there was:
...to which I replied with:
> For
> example, in some ways, isn't Polonius a good
> father who tries to give his children good advice?
> It's possible that some posters might find that an
> interesting question.
>
It is, indeed, possible. The problem, however, is that MM's
civility *never* extends beyond a solitary post. One good
post and then he's back to his deranged spiritual musing.
This would mean, inevitably, that any attempted discussion
of Polonius in particular would be bound to be seriously
disrupted not only by MM, but also by willedever, who
is puritanically certain that his--somewhat idiosyncratic--take
on Hamlet is the only one which matters.
> If you personally are interested in laws and rules,
> like Socrates,
If you mean: am I personally interested in a Socratic ideal of
laws and rules, then the answer is no.
If you mean: am I personally interested in the framing of laws
and rules, generally, then the answer is no.
One thing which *does* interest me is the lengths to which people
(naturally, I include myself especially) are prepared to go to make
complete idiots of themselves.
The reason why I'm interested in that is that I read the _New
Scientist_,
_Nature_ and _Scientific American_.
It seems that almost every week, in one or more of these periodicals,
there is a report of a newly-discovered (or newly-precipitated)
ecological
disaster.
For example, when the United Kingdom (where I live) signed the Kyoto
Accord, we committed ourselves to reducing carbon emissions within a
given time-frame.
Since we signed the Accord, our carbon emissions have actually
*increased*.
We're building airports, and new runways at existing airports, and
introducing
ridiculously cheap flights to countries in Europe (last week, my Dad's
friend's
son flew from the UK to Italy for a penny (plus airport tax)).
In short, we are doing all the wrong things, and none of the right
things. BTW
I'm just as guilty as the next guy, I've got a lot of major appliances
and all.
To me, HLAS seems like a microcosm of that stupidity, and as such it's
interesting.
> then you need to start a thread
> about rules and regulations on hlas, and how
> they are currently expressed on the charter.
Let's discuss the charter, shall we?
http://www.shakespeare.handshake.de/faq1.html
"CHARTER
The unmoderated newsgroup humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
will be for discussion of:
1 - The plays and poems of William Shakespeare and other
English writers of the 16th and 17th centuries.
2 - The life and times of Shakespeare and his contemporaries.
3 - The production, staging, and acting of Shakespeare's
plays,
including current and past productions.
4 - Shakespeare's influence and impact on subsequent
literature
and culture.
5 - Shakespeare's authorship including his sources, allusions
in his works, publication of his works, possible
collaborations, and possible pseudonymity."
There are, I believe, many people who, like willarkin and me, are
interested
only in discussing the canon. Point 5 could not possibly be more
irrelevant,
or indeed stupid.
The problem is that there is a significant number of prominent members
of
HLAS who are determined that point 5 should necessarily overshadow the
preceding four points, so anyone who is interested in the preceding
four
points without colouring that interest with point 5 must *themselves*
be
excluded from the group.
This means that, in essence, HLAS is designed as one gigantic flame
war.
It's enshrined in the charter. Look! Look!
> That way, the 300+ members of this group
> could fairly respond to you.
>
Not a chance. You respond to me fairly. Peter G. and Peter F. respond
to
me fairly. John Bede responds to me fairly. Quite a lot of people here
respond to me fairly.
The majority, unfortunately, does not. Why? I'm uninterested in point
5,
therefore I must be the spawn of Satan.
That's how HLAS works, it seems to me.
M.
> C.
Mark Houlsby
You really are a pathetic little shit, aren't you, fuck you?
Mark Houlsby
No, that would be you, fuck you.
Mark Houlsby
I do, in his moments of clarity, or didn't you notice? Hint: there was
one such incident in your thread "spinoza1111 is outa here" in which
you attacked him for becoming my buddy, which he hadn't.
Mark Houlsby
You really are a pathetic little shit, aren't you, fuck you?
Peter Groves
> >
> > >they are WRONG and I am
> > >RIGHT:
> >
> > This is the "argumentum de infante lacrimoso" (I know your Latin's a bit
> > rusty, Eddie, so I'll translate it for you: the "teary toddler's
argument")
>
> The language you've used is unrecognizably
Unrecognizable to you, naturally, who think "sequitor" is a possible
thrid-person sungular latin verb form.
> a mishmash of half-
> forgotten and never-learned Latin, Spanish, and perhaps Portuguese.
>
You never tire of parading your ignorance, do you?
> >
> > >a spelling flame
> >
> > Would that be something like your own recent remark: "Thanks, creep.
> > However, even as you [Mark Houlsby] mis-spell and mis-use the name of
the
> > informal logical fallacy of non sequitor [cetera desunt]"?
>
> You only think, because you are a pedant out of the court of the
> Merovingians, that there is such a thing as unitary spelling in the
> absence of dictionaries, and do note: spelling became a concern only
> in the Dark Ages, and subsequently only in those times when half-
> literate pedants were anxious about their position as tutors.
In that case, half-literate pedant, why did you write : "Thanks, creep.
However, even as you [Mark Houlsby] mis-spell and mis-use the name of the
informal logical fallacy of non sequitor [cetera desunt]"? You keep
dodging this.
>
> The fact that English did without dictionaries until Johnson's
> dictionary shows that at the level of the letter, English is similar
> to English at the level of the word, for in the absence of an agreed-
> upon dictionary, literate English readers, like those of Shakespeare's
> time, are nonetheless able to recognize words, by performing two and
> not one levels of parsing.
But we're talking about Latin (in case you hadn't noticed), where spelling
(at least in the case of a word like <sequitur>) has been fixed for over
2000 years)
>
> Which isn't of course to say that dictionaries aren't great (if
> overrated by pedants whose smallness of mind and lack of general
> culture makes them all the more reliant on such aids).
>
No, people with general culture don't need dictionaries to spell everyday
words. It's pathetic little pretenders like you who need them (boy, do you
need them).
> But I'm speaking to people who are collectively ignorant of basic
> texts, and proud and vicious in this ignorance, and who use spelling
> flames to assert authority.
Ah, you mean like "Thanks, creep. However, even as you [Mark Houlsby]
mis-spell and mis-use the name of the informal logical fallacy of non
sequitor [cetera desunt]"?
I know this is hard for you to grasp, but drawing attention to absurdity of
someone "proud and vicious in [his] ignorance" flaming someone else for a
spelling that was actually correct is not, in itself, a spelling flame. If
we really work at this, I'm sure you'll eventually understand this not very
taxing point.
>
>
> >
> > Now here's a bit of friendly advice, Eddie: if you must go in for
spelling
> > flames, make sure you get the spelling *right*. I'm sure you'll grasp
this
> > if you give it a little thought.
>
> You don't know what a non sekwitor IS.
As Mark and David have pointed out to you (indeed, as I have), you mustn't
project your own inadequacies onto others. It just makes you look silly.
> Therefore, you have no right
> whatsoever to tell a man who's taught logic how to spell it.
>
That's a very logical position, Eddie. Of *course* you must have taught the
subject: it stands out a mile.
> >
> > > has no place here from an IGNORANT little punk
> > > like you.
> >
> > As your friend MM, with whom you appear to share *fundamental*
interests,
> > would say: I shall leave the question of who best deserves the epithet
> > "IGNORANT little punk" to the sagacity of the readers.
>
> Who are the readers? Most lurkers turn out to despise people like you,
> who strut and fret their hour upon the Web because they don't have a
> life.
Now, lurkers all, who does that last description remind you of? Answers on
a postcard, please.
> >
> > Peter G.
>
>
Peter Groves
> On Feb 1, 9:43 pm, "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 1, 4:40 pm, "Peter Groves" <MontiverdiREMOVET...@bigpond.com>
>
> ...garbage...
>
> In terms of flaming, a "spelling flame" is the lowest form of life.
>
True: that would be something like your own "Thanks, creep.
However, even as you [Mark Houlsby] mis-spell and mis-use the name of the
informal logical fallacy of non sequitor [cetera desunt]"? You keep
dodging this.
> There happens to be no general agreement as to how to spell loan and
> foreign words in general, the case of Wade-Giles versus Pinyin being
> exemplary.
>
Newsflash, Eddie: Chinese isn't written in the Latin alphabet! But you know
what? Latin *is*! Spooky, isn't?
So there has been general agreement as to how to spell Latin words for about
2000 years. Until you came along, of course.
> But what's despicable is that you believed, and may continue to
> believe, that a non sekwitor MEANS "I don't follow the logic".
I wonder if you could point out the source of this (Google has an excellent
search feature, if you haven't noticed). I'm afraid you've been having
those visions again.
>
> Of course, it MEANS, "does not follow, I claim, and stand willing to
> courteously defend in a collegial spirit this claim".
>
> That is: the use of such a word asserts membership in a collegial
> community as opposed to "fuck you".
>
> But then, you proceed to trash people.
Cet animal est trPs méchant:
Quand on l'attaque, il se défend.
> Sure, this is characteristic of
> n-tier universities in Amerikkka, but that only indicates the rot and
> the speed at which the rot proceeds, even as it proceeded in German
> universities.
>
> Likewise, ad hominem doesn't mean "my narcissism is wounded by what
> choo say".
I wonder if you could point out where I may have made any such claim or
implication. I'm afraid you've been having those visions again.
>
> It means quite precisely an IRREVELANT as opposed to a REVELANT
> inference from facts about your opponent's character.
>
> What bugs you, in fact, is the geometrical difference between what you
> and your butt buddy Otto Foolsby post, and what I, MM and Laraine
> post...visible to the eye from across the room.
In your and MM's case, sensible to the nose.
>
> This is the paragraph, dipshit, not the smartass cute remark.
>
> The paragraph, containing a moral grammar...an attempt to justify
> with, in Laraine's case especially, qualification that shows a
> willingness to compromise.
Was that meant to be in English?
>
> Whereas from across the room, your shit, and shit posted by Otto von
> Trollsby, look like a rally by the Hitler Youth.
Of course, of course. (Nurse? I think we might need your help again).
>
> Which is what they pretty much are.
>
> You pretend to be an educated person. What you are is a destructive
> thug, and SS working hand in glove with Houlsby's SA.
>
> Go die.
Not at your convenience, I'm afraid.
Peter G.
Mark Houlsby
I'm not using your name, fuck you.
Peter Groves
news:8Itwh.1604$sd2....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> Unrecognizable to you, naturally, who think "sequitor" is a possible
> thrid-person sungular latin verb form.
>
Before you launch another spelling flame over my hasty typos, Eddie, I'll
correct them for you (I know you have difficulties with written language):
"third-person singular Latin"
laraine
wrote:
> Ok this is my second attempt to post a reply, so if a similar post
> appears, you'll know why....
>
> On 31 Jan, 22:38, "laraine" <lari...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 31, 6:18 am, "Mark Houlsby" <mark.houl...@eudoramail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > Which are you, laraine?
>
> > As you can see by spinoza's post,
>
> I guess that you mean this one:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yrlvam
>
> > it is not
> > easy to precisely define what is off-topic.
>
> True, although of course some things clearly are.
>
What reason exactly would you give for MM's posts being
off-topic? Even if you say that he is preaching, which
I personally consider to be off-topic, where exactly in
the hlas charter does it say that one cannot preach,
if the topic is about Shakespeare?
> > I get the impression that MM would prefer to be
> > informational rather than confrontational, yet what
> > he says bothers some posters.
>
> You seem perhaps to be missing an important point
> of netiquette, namely that posting and reposting and
> reposting the same information (regardless of its
> intrinsic merit) is considered trolling.
>
Fair enough, but you seem to think that by telling
'trolls' that they are 'trolls', they will stop their behavior.
Dr. Phil would ask you if that's working for you. Check
the history of this newsgroup several years ago. You
will see essentially the same conversations with people
like Crowley and Art/David Webb. It's not necessarily
possible to control/change people.
> > I think it would help a lot if someone who thought
> > that a particular post was off-topic tried to steer
> > that post to something that the newsgroup is
> > used to discussing.
>
> Is "thinking" that a post is off-topic sufficient grounds
> for such behaviour? Does such behaviour have any
> prerequisites? Ought it to have? Who says so?
>
That's the only way it can be, because there is no
official moderator. I do my best to treat others as I
would like to be treated, but it can be hard to truly
understand where others are coming from. I've stayed
silent quite a lot though, mostly because I don't believe
in trying to quickly change the dynamics of a group--from
past experiences, I realize that one can have too great on
effect on what goes on, and that can sometimes change
the group for the worst in ways that one did not
anticipate.
willarkin did not ask a question about Shakespeare--if he/she had,
he would have likely gotten a good response. As it was, he got
an excellent response for the question that he did ask.
I think that if a person is getting basically free information
about S, or whatever they want to know, they've already gotten
a good deal. If they get a little fantasy in the bargain, well,
there's
a little fantasy in Shakespeare too, and if they don't like that, then
they are probably bothered by literature in general. The only danger
I see is if they take the fantasy literally, but people seem to do
that
anyway--this newsgroup is one place where people can talk
out the fantasy, and where it can be criticized.
If they are bothered by a slightly hostile remark or two, well, then
that's what they will encounter in real life, as well as on usenet.
I've certainly seen two workplaces that seem a lot like usenet,
one with the hostility and the other with the chaos of hlas. To
say that usenet is not like real life is just not true. Not that we
can't work on improving that.
> > For example, MM once posted on how Shakespeare
> > thinks that Polonius is a good and wise man,
>
> I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. Perhaps you refer
> to one of these eight threads:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/36cydd
>
> Then again, perhaps you don't.
>
I think it was a continuation of the topic in the
first thread you list, but I don't remember the details.
> Regardless, I understand the point which you are making.
>
> > or
> > something to that effect, and many posters took
> > issue with that, and gave him a hard time.
>
> Not so. No matter which thread it was "many posters" will
> have taken issue not with the argument about Polonius, but
> rather with MM's habit of presenting his argument in terms
> of his deranged--and clearly off-topic--spirituality.
>
That might be some of it, but I think a lot of it was the
fact that he is perceived as misrepresenting Shakespeare.
I think it is more helpful to perceive him as creating his
own fantasy about what Shakespeare thought or did, just
as people who write fiction about S might do that.
I guess he doesn't bother me too much, because he doesn't
seem to be preaching evil.
> I should be most surprised if this assessment (based upon
> what may well be complete ignorance of the thread to which
> you were actually referring) proves false. It may, however.
>
> > An
> > alternative approach would be to think outside the
> > box, and try to find truth in what he says.
>
> Ah, but there's the rub, you see, no matter how many posters
> might try intelligently to discuss a point raised by MM, he'd be
> in there calling them pigeonholers and worse.
>
He's had a few good discussions about some points, and is
often quite polite; he just will not agree, for the most part,
with what others say.
> I do know what you mean about MM, though. On occasion,
> he does post something lucid and intelligent. A couple of
> recent examples:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/34znma
>
> ...a thread in which Greg Reynolds wisely posted words of
> encouragement to MM.
>
> Then there was:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/399mv6
>
> ...to which I replied with:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2sjea7
>
> > For
> > example, in some ways, isn't Polonius a good
> > father who tries to give his children good advice?
> > It's possible that some posters might find that an
> > interesting question.
>
> It is, indeed, possible. The problem, however, is that MM's
> civility *never* extends beyond a solitary post. One good
> post and then he's back to his deranged spiritual musing.
>
> This would mean, inevitably, that any attempted discussion
> of Polonius in particular would be bound to be seriously
> disrupted not only by MM, but also by willedever, who
> is puritanically certain that his--somewhat idiosyncratic--take
> on Hamlet is the only one which matters.
>
I have no clue how to communicate with Willedever,
and I don't know enought about Oxfordianism to do so
either.
> > If you personally are interested in laws and rules,
> > like Socrates,
>
> If you mean: am I personally interested in a Socratic ideal of
> laws and rules, then the answer is no.
>
> If you mean: am I personally interested in the framing of laws
> and rules, generally, then the answer is no.
I was referring to the fact that Socrates basically gave up
his life for the law. He was sentenced to death, and his friends
found a way for him to escape, yet he refused to do it, because
he believed that obeying the law, even an unfair law,
was important. (That's a simplified version, I'm sure.)
>
> One thing which *does* interest me is the lengths to which people
> (naturally, I include myself especially) are prepared to go to make
> complete idiots of themselves.
>
> The reason why I'm interested in that is that I read the _New
> Scientist_,
> _Nature_ and _Scientific American_.
>
> It seems that almost every week, in one or more of these periodicals,
> there is a report of a newly-discovered (or newly-precipitated)
> ecological
> disaster.
>
> For example, when the United Kingdom (where I live) signed the Kyoto
> Accord, we committed ourselves to reducing carbon emissions within a
> given time-frame.
>
> Since we signed the Accord, our carbon emissions have actually
> *increased*.
>
> We're building airports, and new runways at existing airports, and
> introducing
> ridiculously cheap flights to countries in Europe (last week, my Dad's
> friend's
> son flew from the UK to Italy for a penny (plus airport tax)).
>
> In short, we are doing all the wrong things, and none of the right
> things. BTW
> I'm just as guilty as the next guy, I've got a lot of major appliances
> and all.
>
Well, that's rather depressing; I had thought that the Kyoto Accord
would have solved a lot of problems.
> To me, HLAS seems like a microcosm of that stupidity, and as such it's
> interesting.
>
Ah, I see. So perhaps you have some ambition to be some sort of
environmentalist policeperson who will goad others into doing the
right things in order to make sure that the effects of climate
change are minimal.
I think goading (similar to what Socrates did?) can be good for
purposes like that, but it seems to me that one has to be
somewhat indirect and 'trick' the person into doing something;
the direct approach rarely works, and if it seems to, there are
often afteraffects, such as suppressed hostility, which can
show up later.
Many people are interested in point 5, and that has been the main
topic of discussion here for several years. I personally am mostly
interested in 1, 2, and 5. Topics 3 and 4 sound interesting to me,
but I don't have a firm footing with them.
> The problem is that there is a significant number of prominent members
> of
> HLAS who are determined that point 5 should necessarily overshadow the
> preceding four points, so anyone who is interested in the preceding
> four
> points without colouring that interest with point 5 must *themselves*
> be
> excluded from the group.
>
Not at all. If you started a thread on the other points, there are
plenty of knowledgeable people here who would respond. But if you
only know a little, you won't get too much discussion. This is not a
place to learn about the rudiments of Shakespeare, for the most part.
> This means that, in essence, HLAS is designed as one gigantic flame
> war.
>
> It's enshrined in the charter. Look! Look!
>
Well, it's already been said that the group was started by an
Oxfordian.
> > That way, the 300+ members of this group
> > could fairly respond to you.
>
> Not a chance. You respond to me fairly. Peter G. and Peter F. respond
> to
> me fairly. John Bede responds to me fairly. Quite a lot of people here
> respond to me fairly.
>
If I do respond to you fairly, part of the reason is that I do my
best not to get entangled in fights. Some debate, discussion, and
even a little altercation is fine, but some of that can go too far.
First of all, fights between males and females is, ahem, well, ....
you
know, and I personally do not enjoy female-female fights. Furthermore,
if I am involved in a fight, I, like many other human beings, get
angry
and say things that I will later often regret.
> The majority, unfortunately, does not. Why? I'm uninterested in point
> 5,
> therefore I must be the spawn of Satan.
>
I don't get that impression. I rather get the impression that you
don't like the way people like Reedy and Ignoto act because, like you,
they are a little out of line, and so the fight begins. Sure, you can
tell them
that if you want, but then why not just leave it at that? Why continue
to
fight about it? Plus you dwell on grammar without having the knowledge
of a Ph.D. grammarian, and that's just a personal pet peeve of some
here.
I must say that I do not at all understand why you are bothered by
Lynne.
For the most part, she seems like a very friendly poster to me.
> That's how HLAS works, it seems to me.
>
> M.
>
Unfortunately, I will not have much, if any time, to respond to
posts in the next week or so...
C.
lackpurity
> On Feb 1, 12:44 pm, "Mark Houlsby" <mark.houl...@eudoramail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ok this is my second attempt to post a reply, so if a similar post
> > appears, you'll know why....
>
> > On 31 Jan, 22:38, "laraine" <lari...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 31, 6:18 am, "Mark Houlsby" <mark.houl...@eudoramail.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Which are you, laraine?
>
> > > As you can see by spinoza's post,
>
> > I guess that you mean this one:
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/yrlvam
>
> > > it is not
> > > easy to precisely define what is off-topic.
>
> > True, although of course some things clearly are.
>
> What reason exactly would you give for MM's posts being
> off-topic? Even if you say that he is preaching, which
> I personally consider to be off-topic, where exactly in
> the hlas charter does it say that one cannot preach,
> if the topic is about Shakespeare?
MM:
What is the difference between preaching and posting? I'm only
discussing what Shakespeare, Marlowe, Bacon, and Donne taught. That
is not preaching. They were mystics, so it is necessary to discuss
mysticism, if we're going to discuss them.
> > > I get the impression that MM would prefer to be
> > > informational rather than confrontational, yet what
> > > he says bothers some posters.
>
> > You seem perhaps to be missing an important point
> > of netiquette, namely that posting and reposting and
> > reposting the same information (regardless of its
> > intrinsic merit) is considered trolling.
MM:
Continued discussions of Shakespeare's mysticism is appropriate, even
if it is repetitive. This crybaby needs to go somewhere else, if all
he is going to do is cry. Crying is off-topic, and has nothing to do
with Shakespeare. Hypocrite.
> Fair enough, but you seem to think that by telling
> 'trolls' that they are 'trolls', they will stop their behavior.
MM:
Discussing Shakespeare's mysticism is not trolling. Can you
understand that simple fact?
> Dr. Phil would ask you if that's working for you. Check
> the history of this newsgroup several years ago. You
> will see essentially the same conversations with people
> like Crowley and Art/David Webb. It's not necessarily
> possible to control/change people.
MM:
Yes, if you're going to discuss what is on-topic, then you're opening
a can of worms. Is genealogy on-topic? Is ridiculous Marlovian
theory on-topic? Baconianism? Derbyism? Give me a break. They are
all created fantasies by Anti-Strats. Is fantasy on-topic? It is so
childish. I come to the group, get right down to the nitty-gritty, as
opposed to all the off-topic nonsense, then I'm accused of trolling
and being off-topic. Sorry, but this group has a lot to learn. What
about ciphers of Gangleri? Are they on topic? What about the
flamers, such as Groves, Webb, Bede, Reedy, and Hound Dog? Is flaming
on topic? No, it's not. Neither is crying.
MM:
FYI, that's how I consider my posts. Nobody has told the truth about
Shakespeare in 400 years. Truth should be appreciated, not trashed,
or considered off-topic. Those who consider the truth to be off-topic
are idiots.
If they get a little fantasy in the bargain, well,
> there's
> a little fantasy in Shakespeare too, and if they don't like that, then
> they are probably bothered by literature in general. The only danger
> I see is if they take the fantasy literally, but people seem to do
> that
> anyway--this newsgroup is one place where people can talk
> out the fantasy, and where it can be criticized.
MM:
Now, you're discussing fantasy? Let's split hairs, as you do,
occasionally. Fantasy is off-topic here.
> If they are bothered by a slightly hostile remark or two, well, then
> that's what they will encounter in real life, as well as on usenet.
MM:
Let's reverse it, and say that my truth is in a similar situation.
Truth shouldn't cause a negative reaction, unless the person wants to
remain in darkness and ignorance. This group has been in darkness
since it's creation. How come nobody has thanked me for enlightening
it?
> I've certainly seen two workplaces that seem a lot like usenet,
> one with the hostility and the other with the chaos of hlas. To
> say that usenet is not like real life is just not true. Not that we
> can't work on improving that.
MM:
He won't like to hear that. He thinks, since this is Usenet, that
gives him a license to insult people. He will find out on the day of
reckoning, what a foolish idea that was.
> > > For example, MM once posted on how Shakespeare
> > > thinks that Polonius is a good and wise man,
>
> > I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. Perhaps you refer
> > to one of these eight threads:
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/36cydd
>
> > Then again, perhaps you don't.
>
> I think it was a continuation of the topic in the
> first thread you list, but I don't remember the details.
>
> > Regardless, I understand the point which you are making.
>
> > > or
> > > something to that effect, and many posters took
> > > issue with that, and gave him a hard time.
>
> > Not so. No matter which thread it was "many posters" will
> > have taken issue not with the argument about Polonius, but
> > rather with MM's habit of presenting his argument in terms
> > of his deranged--and clearly off-topic--spirituality.
MM:
Your flaming is what is off-topic.
> That might be some of it, but I think a lot of it was the
> fact that he is perceived as misrepresenting Shakespeare.
MM:
No, I'm discussing the truth about Shakespeare. You've got it
bassackwards.
> I think it is more helpful to perceive him as creating his
> own fantasy about what Shakespeare thought or did, just
> as people who write fiction about S might do that.
MM:
You are about as confused as you can get then. Shakespeare told
Polonius, as he was dying, "Take thy treasure." This clearly has
mystic implications, "treasure in heaven." Those who argued that
point, simply were wrong. If Polonius had accumulated a treasure, it
means that he was a disciple of Hamlet. Just use a little
discernment. It would be fantasy to reject this truth.
> I guess he doesn't bother me too much, because he doesn't
> seem to be preaching evil.
MM:
Amazing. Simply amazing. God gives us this opportunity to learn from
our superiors. If we blow this chance, we might not get it, again,
for millions of years.
> > I should be most surprised if this assessment (based upon
> > what may well be complete ignorance of the thread to which
> > you were actually referring) proves false. It may, however.
>
> > > An
> > > alternative approach would be to think outside the
> > > box, and try to find truth in what he says.
>
> > Ah, but there's the rub, you see, no matter how many posters
> > might try intelligently to discuss a point raised by MM, he'd be
> > in there calling them pigeonholers and worse.
MM:
Laraine, READ MY LIPS. Nobody in this group is intelligent. The
group is pervaded by an ignorance. Nobody has ever cleared up this
ignorance so the light of truth can shine. Got it?
Those who oppose the truth are ignorant fools.
> He's had a few good discussions about some points, and is
> often quite polite; he just will not agree, for the most part,
> with what others say.
MM:
You got that right, Laraine. I won't agree with the ignorant
fantasies and concepts of this group. No way. If I did, I would be
just as ignorant as they.
This group is like kindergarten. Just a bunch of children, who are
speculating, conjecturing, fantasizing, but all are off the mark.
Nobody has a clue to the truth.
> > I do know what you mean about MM, though. On occasion,
> > he does post something lucid and intelligent. A couple of
> > recent examples:
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/34znma
>
> > ...a thread in which Greg Reynolds wisely posted words of
> > encouragement to MM.
>
> > Then there was:
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/399mv6
>
> > ...to which I replied with:
>
> >http://tinyurl.com/2sjea7
>
> > > For
> > > example, in some ways, isn't Polonius a good
> > > father who tries to give his children good advice?
> > > It's possible that some posters might find that an
> > > interesting question.
MM:
This is an example of the pervasive ignorance of this group. Polonius
was much more than just a father giving good advice to his children.
He was a disciple of Hamlet.
> > It is, indeed, possible. The problem, however, is that MM's
> > civility *never* extends beyond a solitary post. One good
> > post and then he's back to his deranged spiritual musing.
>
> > This would mean, inevitably, that any attempted discussion
> > of Polonius in particular would be bound to be seriously
> > disrupted not only by MM, but also by willedever, who
> > is puritanically certain that his--somewhat idiosyncratic--take
> > on Hamlet is the only one which matters.
>
> I have no clue how to communicate with Willedever,
> and I don't know enought about Oxfordianism to do so
> either.
MM:
You don't know much about anything, regarding Shakespeare.
> somewhat indirect and 'trick' the person ...
Michael Martin
Peter Groves
news:1170446133....@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 2, 11:44?am, "laraine" <lari...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 1, 12:44 pm, "Mark Houlsby" <mark.houl...@eudoramail.com>
> wrote:
>
We are truly blessed to be at last enlightened in our pride and ignorance by
so great a spiritual genius as MM, who has finally brought us the truth
about Shakespeare after 400 years of grovelling in the mire of unknowing.
Take this brilliant example of what might be called 'spiritual close
reading':
---------------------
MM:
You are about as confused as you can get then. Shakespeare told
Polonius, as he was dying, "Take thy treasure." This clearly has
mystic implications, "treasure in heaven." Those who argued that
point, simply were wrong. If Polonius had accumulated a treasure, it
means that he was a disciple of Hamlet. Just use a little
discernment. It would be fantasy to reject this truth.
----------------------
Now, mortals whose eyes are blinded by sin can see only the mere text, in
which Hamlet (not Shakespeare, who would have been put away if he had
started chatting to fictional characters) says to the dying Polonius:
"Thou wretched, rash, intruding foole farwell,
I tooke thee for thy better, take thy fortune,
Thou find'st to be too busie is some danger," (F1; Q2 has <Betters>)
In my benighted folly I have always taken "take thy fortune" to mean
something like "this is what you get for poking your nose into my business:
a dagger in the guts". Hard to believe, but it never occurred to me that
what in fact he was saying was something like "Go thou in peace to heaven, O
thou beloved disciple".
Clearly I had better give up teaching Shakespeare.
Peter G.
--
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)
gangleri
>
> MM:
> You got that right, Laraine. I won't agree with the ignorant
> fantasies and concepts of this group. No way. If I
>
> read more »
Michael.
Re. the following:
> Sorry, but this group has a lot to learn. What
> about ciphers of Gangleri? Are they on topic?
According to St. Augustine, Numbers contain - hence convey - the
Thoughts of God.
Did you know that?
Gangleri
spinoza1111
wrote:
>
> > On Feb 1, 9:43 pm, "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 1, 4:40 pm, "Peter Groves" <MontiverdiREMOVET...@bigpond.com>
>
> > ...garbage...
>
> > In terms of flaming, a "spelling flame" is the lowest form of life.
>
> True: that would be something like your own "Thanks, creep.
> However, even as you [Mark Houlsby] mis-spell and mis-use the name of the
> informal logical fallacy of non sequitor [cetera desunt]"? You keep
> dodging this.
You have to understand it first. And note that modern logic classes
and texts are abandoning Latin, for Latin reveals nothing about the
nature of the fallacy: its use is a classist attempt to exclude people
from understanding. I would prefer to call it the fallacy of "doesn't
follow", which immediately reveals that it has nothing to do with the
speaker's reading comprehension.
>
> > There happens to be no general agreement as to how to spell loan and
> > foreign words in general, the case of Wade-Giles versus Pinyin being
> > exemplary.
>
> Newsflash, Eddie: Chinese isn't written in the Latin alphabet! But you know
> what? Latin *is*! Spooky, isn't?
My name isn't "Eddie", Petey.
The alphabet, at such time when Latin was actually in use, was quite
different, lacking the letter U as I hope you are aware. There are no
fixed rules for spelling and pronunciation of Latin, because to a
scientific linguist, the rule is in the actual usage, and spelling,
and this varied considerably over the history and extent of the Roman
empire and Europe of the "dark" ages.
Only a racist pedant, or a damned fool, takes any one system of
orthography as definitional as if his teachers set the rules, and to
do so indicates a regressive and infantile personality, unable here to
confront its narcissistic disorder (which leads it to systematically
read its failures as someone else's fault).
>
> So there has been general agreement as to how to spell Latin words for about
> 2000 years. Until you came along, of course.
Quite simply untrue. But even if it were true you'd still have no
right to replace informed and collegial argument with spelling flames,
especially since you happen to be talking to an English teacher and a
published author. My friends are laughing at you.
Drop it, asshole.
>
> > But what's despicable is that you believed, and may continue to
> > believe, that a non sekwitor MEANS "I don't follow the logic".
>
> I wonder if you could point out the source of this (Google has an excellent
> search feature, if you haven't noticed). I'm afraid you've been having
> those visions again.
No, I'm not going to give you tuition. Speaking of the Dark ages, if
you'd troubled to read an intellectual history of the Dark Ages and
its literature, as I did when you were in diapers in all probability,
you would have noticed that today, we experience the same shift from
an *internalized* self-confidence and *internalized* knowledge of
canonical texts and ideas, to a monkish, indeed half-crazed,
insistence on sources for that which precedes any informed, civilized
or collegial debate.
>
>
>
> > Of course, it MEANS, "does not follow, I claim, and stand willing to
> > courteously defend in a collegial spirit this claim".
>
> > That is: the use of such a word asserts membership in a collegial
> > community as opposed to "fuck you".
>
> > But then, you proceed to trash people.
>
> Cet animal est trPs méchant:
> Quand on l'attaque, il se défend.
"trPs". Gee, that's a spelling flame right there, if I were a crazed
monk. Trouble is I'm not.
I agree that certain animals are dangerous in that they defend
themselves when attacked. However, the only thing "attacked" was your
narcissism.
>
> > Sure, this is characteristic of
> > n-tier universities in Amerikkka, but that only indicates the rot and
> > the speed at which the rot proceeds, even as it proceeded in German
> > universities.
>
> > Likewise, ad hominem doesn't mean "my narcissism is wounded by what
> > choo say".
>
> I wonder if you could point out where I may have made any such claim or
> implication. I'm afraid you've been having those visions again.
Stands to reason as a narcissistic personality, you'd fail to see
yourself. But no more than give you tuition shall I give you therapy.
>
>
>
> > It means quite precisely an IRREVELANT as opposed to a REVELANT
> > inference from facts about your opponent's character.
>
> > What bugs you, in fact, is the geometrical difference between what you
> > and your butt buddy Otto Foolsby post, and what I, MM and Laraine
> > post...visible to the eye from across the room.
>
> In your and MM's case, sensible to the nose.
In the normalized Fascist mass psychology, the metaphor of "shit"
becomes so pervasive that people speak as if they can smell things, as
if in other words they are being victimized...by things, including
smells, that don't exist, and they set themselves not to constructive
projects to improve their lives, but to the eradication of shit,
because (as Susan Sontag has written), Fascism is the denial, the fear
of, shit.
You don't scroll past it or use a killfile in any seriousness because
you are sexually obsessed and in denial.
>
>
>
> > This is the paragraph, dipshit, not the smartass cute remark.
>
> > The paragraph, containing a moral grammar...an attempt to justify
> > with, in Laraine's case especially, qualification that shows a
> > willingness to compromise.
>
> Was that meant to be in English?
Your reading skills are not my concern.
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
spinoza1111
wrote:
> "Peter Groves" <MontiverdiREMOVET...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
Having violated Internet guidelines in place since 1987, you live in
fear that I might "unleash a spelling flame". Not to worry, chump.
About the only time I spelling-flame is when the spelling error has an
interesting Freudian component. No, I'd rather demolish you at a much
higher level.
Peter Groves
On Feb 2, 6:34 am, "Peter Groves" <MontiverdiREMOVET...@bigpond.com>
wrote:
> "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1170338104.8...@s48g2000cws.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Feb 1, 9:43 pm, "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Feb 1, 4:40 pm, "Peter Groves" <MontiverdiREMOVET...@bigpond.com>
>
> > ...garbage...
>
> > In terms of flaming, a "spelling flame" is the lowest form of life.
>
> True: that would be something like your own "Thanks, creep.
> However, even as you [Mark Houlsby] mis-spell and mis-use the name of the
> informal logical fallacy of non sequitor [cetera desunt]"? You keep
> dodging this.
You have to understand it first.
**Understand what? That it's a spelling flame, produced by you (which was
my fairly simple point)? We all understand that except you.
And note that modern logic classes
and texts are abandoning Latin, for Latin reveals nothing about the
nature of the fallacy: its use is a classist attempt to exclude people
from understanding. I would prefer to call it the fallacy of "doesn't
follow", which immediately reveals that it has nothing to do with the
speaker's reading comprehension.
>
> > There happens to be no general agreement as to how to spell loan and
> > foreign words in general, the case of Wade-Giles versus Pinyin being
> > exemplary.
>
> Newsflash, Eddie: Chinese isn't written in the Latin alphabet! But you
know
> what? Latin *is*! Spooky, isn't?
My name isn't "Eddie", Petey.
The alphabet, at such time when Latin was actually in use, was quite
different, lacking the letter U as I hope you are aware.
**I see: so you imagine that instead of SEQUITVR the Romans would have
written SEQUITOR (that's the only possible point you could be making here).
I'm afraid you really aren't very bright, are you?
There are no
fixed rules for spelling and pronunciation of Latin, because to a
scientific linguist, the rule is in the actual usage, and spelling,
and this varied considerably over the history and extent of the Roman
empire and Europe of the "dark" ages.
**You really are full of it, aren't you? What we are talking about, if I
can remind you, is the spelling of one of a number of Latin phrases that are
commonly used in English for legal, philsophical and other purpopses: the
spelling of these has been fixed for centuries. No-bodyt other than a
pompous ignorant pretender to learning like yourself ever supposed that
there was a latin word "sequitor". When you stupidly flamed mark Houlsby
for spelling it correctly, I expressed mild amusement, which is what has
provoked this infantile display of rage.
Only a racist
**Let me see if I can imitate your level of 'logical' argument: your mother
wanted to be a whore but she's shit-ugly and no-one would pay two bits for
her body. So I'm RIGHT and you're WRONG. I think that's about It, isn't
it?
pedant, or a damned fool, takes any one system of
orthography as definitional as if his teachers set the rules, and to
do so indicates a regressive and infantile personality, unable here to
confront its narcissistic disorder (which leads it to systematically
read its failures as someone else's fault).
>
> So there has been general agreement as to how to spell Latin words for
about
> 2000 years. Until you came along, of course.
Quite simply untrue. But even if it were true you'd still have no
right to replace informed and collegial argument with spelling flames,
**A spelling flame>? Let me see, would that be something like your own
"Thanks, creep.
However, even as you [Mark Houlsby] mis-spell and mis-use the name of the
informal logical fallacy of non sequitor [cetera desunt]"?
especially since you happen to be talking to an English teacher and a
published author. My friends are laughing at you.
**I'll take that as a compliment.
Tom Reedy
> "spinoza1111" <spino...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
<snip>
> Quite simply untrue. But even if it were true you'd still have no
> right to replace informed and collegial argument with spelling flames,
>
> **A spelling flame>? Let me see, would that be something like your own
> "Thanks, creep.
> However, even as you [Mark Houlsby] mis-spell and mis-use the name of the
> informal logical fallacy of non sequitor [cetera desunt]"?
>
>
> especially since you happen to be talking to an English teacher and a
> published author.
This is really hilarious.
TR
lackpurity
MM:
I've written you previously, that everything is interrelated. Christ
said, "Even the hairs on our heads are numbered." Every breath, which
are to take in our lives has been numbered. Similarly, every step,
every morsal of food, every heartbeat, etc., has been numbered. I'm
not against numbers.
My discussion with her was about what's on topic. Remember? I'm a
believer in astrology, as was Shakespeare and Marlowe. Astrology has
a lot to do with numbers, also. If you like, you could expound about
what St. Augustine mentioned about it. I'm not familiar with what he
said about numbers.
You deal with cipher values, but who assigned those particular
values? If you get a certain total, how can we have faith that it
means anything in particular?
You say God's thoughts are found in numbers. Okay, here is a
challenge. Can you ascertain by your numbers whether God wants a war
between Iran and the USA, or not? What do you think God is thinking
about that, according to your numbers?
Michael Martin
spinoza1111
>
> - Show quoted text -
You can't even flame, Otto.
spinoza1111
> "Peter Groves" <MontiverdiREMOVET...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5jUwh.2234$sd2....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> > "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> <snip>
>
> > Quite simply untrue. But even if it were true you'd still have no
> > right to replace informed and collegial argument with spelling flames,
>
> > **A spelling flame>? Let me see, would that be something like your own
> > "Thanks, creep.
> > However, even as you [Mark Houlsby] mis-spell and mis-use the name of the
> > informal logical fallacy of non sequitor [cetera desunt]"?
>
> > especially since you happen to be talking to an English teacher and a
> > published author.
>
> This is really hilarious.
Yeah, especially if you don't have those qualifications.
It wearies me to mention them, but in this form of cyberspace, it
doesn't hurt to keep before other posters and lurkers a sense of who's
who. Peter Groves and Otto the Fool (Mark Houlsby) are attempting to
make a big deal out of an alternate spelling, without being qualified
to do so, not because they don't teach English, not because there is a
99.9999% probability that neither of them has published any where but
here, but because *litera scripta manet*.
That is, evidence of the low character of Peter Groves is in the fact
that he doesn't know what constitutes the logical fallacy of "does not
follow" or *non sequitor* (which spelling I used because I studied
fucking Latin and *non sequitur* does look wrong to me) which makes
him completely inqualified to even spelling flame me.
That is, evidence of the low character of Otto von Foolsby is in the
texts he posts, which are just half literate snarls. He doesn't have
the grammar to realize that if I tell him, quoting David Mamet in
Glengarry Glen Ross, "my name is fuck you", he has to change it when
he uses it to "fuck me".
What emerges in their posts is the absolute lowest common denominator,
modal personality of our age, the face in the crowd of 1914, the
street level Fascist who is psychotically unable to express connection
in any way and is spurred to passionate resentment by simple assertion
of hope. Who sucks up to the boss and shits on people he thinks he can
shit on. Who has a single recurrent dream and no others, one in which
he is pursued by demons.
Their behavior isn't innocent and must be stopped. Fuck "free speech".
"Speech" has to have some meaningful connection to a livable lifeworld
and theirs does not. Their free speech materially endangers the
careers and reputations of real people because of increasing corporate
and government surveillance with ever more powerful computers and has
already made job search an agony for good people bullied right here.
>
> TR
>
>
>
> > My friends are laughing at you.
> > **I'll take that as a compliment.- Hide quoted text -
Peter Groves
> On Feb 3, 3:26 pm, "Tom Reedy" <tomre...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > "Peter Groves" <MontiverdiREMOVET...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
> >
> > news:5jUwh.2234$sd2....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> >
> > > "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Quite simply untrue. But even if it were true you'd still have no
> > > right to replace informed and collegial argument with spelling flames,
> >
> > > **A spelling flame>? Let me see, would that be something like your
own
> > > "Thanks, creep.
> > > However, even as you [Mark Houlsby] mis-spell and mis-use the name of
the
> > > informal logical fallacy of non sequitor [cetera desunt]"?
> >
> > > especially since you happen to be talking to an English teacher and a
> > > published author.
> >
> > This is really hilarious.
>
> Yeah, especially if you don't have those qualifications.
>
> It wearies me to mention them, but in this form of cyberspace, it
> doesn't hurt to keep before other posters and lurkers a sense of who's
> who. Peter Groves and Otto the Fool (Mark Houlsby) are attempting to
> make a big deal out of an alternate spelling, without being qualified
> to do so, not because they don't teach English, not because there is a
> 99.9999% probability that neither of them has published any where but
> here, but because *litera scripta manet*.
>
You're right, Tom, he just gets funnier and funnier.
Peter G.
> That is, evidence of the low character of Peter Groves is in the fact
> that he doesn't know what constitutes the logical fallacy of "does not
> follow" or *non sequitor* (which spelling I used because I studied
> fucking Latin and *non sequitur* does look wrong to me)
As MM would say, LOL
spinoza1111
> know
> what? Latin *is*! Spooky, isn't?
Actually, if we're going to be pedants, it **isn't** the "Latin"
alphabet. It **is** the "Roman" alphabet.
And you're being real cute when you mess up the greater than signs, or
just a bumbling fool.
>
> >My name isn't "Eddie", Petey.
>
> >The alphabet, at such time when Latin was actually in use, was quite
> >different, lacking the letter U as I hope you are aware.
>
> **I see: so you imagine that instead of SEQUITVR the Romans would have
> written SEQUITOR (that's the only possible point you could be making here).
> I'm afraid you really aren't very bright, are you?
The Roman alphabet was sufficiently different from the modern alphabet
to render this spelling flame a complete joke. Now that you have
learned (from me, quite possibly) about there being no letter U in the
Roman alphabet, you have to concede that we have to fall back on best
reproducing the sound of the word as it would be pronounced by an
educated person (as opposed to a creep like you).
What you don't realize is that prior to Johnson's dictionary, this is
what people did. They followed orthographical rules of a
microgrammar.
The position of Latin is so unimportant in a world in which 1 our of 5
people are Chinese that insisting on your point makes you an utter
fool and pedant.
You think of course you're onto something because in all probability
you in real life ARE judged by metrics from which you are alienated
and wish to gain a sense of pathetic mastery by inventing recreational
metrics and applying them here to victims who you think can't strike
back.
>
>> There are no
>> fixed rules for spelling and pronunciation of Latin, because to a
>> scientific linguist, the rule is in the actual usage, and spelling,
>> and this varied considerably over the history and extent of the Roman
>> empire and Europe of the "dark" ages.
>
>**You really are full of it, aren't you? What we are talking about, if I
>can remind you, is the spelling of one of a number of Latin phrases that are
>commonly used in English for legal, philsophical and other purpopses: the
Phil-sophical, huh. Purpopses, sic. Two spelling errors on one line.
So you're an authority on Latin spelling?
Litera scripta manet, chump.
These aren't typos. You pontificate, like a shitbag little pontifex
minimis, and yet you lack the basic literacy that would have typed the
world "philosophical" mindful of its Greek roots in such a way that
the error wouldn't have occured.
>spelling of these has been fixed for centuries. No-bodyt other than a
Centuries? Not really. The first English dictionary was only issued in
the later half of the 18th century, and the spelling of loanwords was
not added to dictionaries until the 19th. You only think the spelling
is time-honored for the same reason silly bourgeois were fooled in
1954 by Queen Elizabeth's "centuries old" coronation rites, which in
fact had been established only on Victoria's accession as a
conservative response to Chartism, and associated calls for a British
republic.
And, of course, you don't know that "non sequitor" is a solecism to
use it to refer to ANYTHING but a informal logical argument. Only half
educated people even think to apply the label to a text, which is only
in the skeletal sense an informal logical argument, both because real
people, that is to say men and women "with bones" use considerably
more techniques to COMMUNICATE and to PERSUADE, thus "non sequitor*
should only be applied to certain very formal legal arguments.
To generalize its application to the essay form clearly demonstrates
that you don't belong here. Informal logic is helpful in English
studies, but only in spotting the most brutal errors, such as your
own.
Furthermore, informal logic was proved incomplete, and pathetically
so, by Frege and Russell more than one hundred years ago.
The experience of Peter Abelard, who in mediaeval "flame wars" was
judicially murdered because of the resentment of crappy little people
like you when he bested them in debate also shows us, as American
philosopher Andrea Nye demonstrated in 1990 ("Words of Power: a
Feminist HIstory of Logic"), that the use of informal logic is
normally an indication of failure at anger management.
>pompous ignorant pretender to learning like yourself ever supposed that
>there was a latin word "sequitor". When you stupidly flamed mark Houlsby
>for spelling it correctly, I expressed mild amusement, which is what has
>provoked this infantile display of rage.
What's infantile is returning to this topic, because you're so clearly
wrong that even you know it, but your character armor doesn't admit
the possibility of being wrong. Even Otto admitted when he was wrong,
but that's because he's Sturmbateilung Arbeiter to your SS. You
represent the armored middle class while he does your dirty work in
the back alley, but precisely because he's willing at least to admit
his considerable dark side, he will admit it when he's wrong and he
believes he is wrong.
>
> Only a racist
>
> **Let me see if I can imitate your level of 'logical' argument: your mother
> wanted to be a whore but she's shit-ugly and no-one would pay two bits for
> her body. So I'm RIGHT and you're WRONG. I think that's about It, isn't
> it?
Not really, but that's interesting information about your mother.
Actually, I don't need to use argumentum ad hominem. You've made an
utter fool of yourself.
And your probable racism IS revelant here. This is because for
centuries, education in pig Latin (an impure and decadent language by
definition because of the demise of living speakers of the language)
was used to oppress the working class and people of color, and you
represent that tradition.
Let me see if I can clear things up for you. When I studied Latin in
Catholic school, we said Cicero's name with the sibilant C. Whereas
John F. Kennedy, who studied Latin, if I recall correctly not wanting
to waste my time on you looking it up, at Andover or a similar posh
school.
When Kennedy addressed the citizens of West Berlin in 1961, he said
famously *ich bin ein Berliner*, and he prefixed this with Cicero's
*civis Romanus sum*. He used the K sound for Cicero and of course
pronounced the v as a u.
This was because JFK had a better education in Latin than I.
But, of course, the key rhetoric was his identification with the
citizens of Berlin, and only a twerp would criticise his choices on
the basis that CORRECT Latin would involve updating the pronunciation
so as to be a bit clearer to the auditors.
CORRECT Romanization of Chinese demands in other words a higher
faithfulness to a community of living speakers whereas the rule in
using Latin is to accurately name the concept to living people,
especially in view of the changes in Latin orthography.
Which is why most modern texts ABANDON the use of Latin.
You introduced it and misused it from the start, because as the name
of an informal logical fallacy, it doesn't name your deficiencies in
reading comprehension. Instead, it names a property of formal
arguments.
You are engaged in a Bush-style coverup of your bonehead and pedantic
ignorance by persisting.
I've read more than you. I know more than you. But far more important,
since 1987, I have exercised to the best of my ability a certain
collegiality and self-restraint which you need to learn.
Peter Groves
Sorry, Eddie-boy, but this conversation is over. It's like mud-wrestling
with a retarded adolescent: degrading and pointless. You've shown yourself
completely incapable of following even a simple argument, and I'm afraid my
patience is exhausted. If you were one of my students I'd have to recommend
some sort of remedial work (and I'd be asking questions about how you were
let in in the first place).
Enjoy your spelling flames, and don't get too depressed about that chip on
your shoulder: those useless universities are just incapable of appreciating
your True Genius.
--
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)).
Ms. Mouse
> On Feb 3, 3:26 pm, "Tom Reedy" <tomre...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Peter Groves" <MontiverdiREMOVET...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:5jUwh.2234$sd2....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> > > "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > <snip>
>
> > > Quite simply untrue. But even if it were true you'd still have no
> > > right to replace informed and collegial argument with spelling flames,
>
> > > **A spelling flame>? Let me see, would that be something like your own
> > > "Thanks, creep.
> > > However, even as you [Mark Houlsby] mis-spell and mis-use the name of the
> > > informal logical fallacy of non sequitor [cetera desunt]"?
>
> > > especially since you happen to be talking to an English teacher and a
> > > published author.
>
> > This is really hilarious.
>
> Yeah, especially if you don't have those qualifications.
>
> It wearies me to mention them, but in this form of cyberspace, it
> doesn't hurt to keep before other posters and lurkers a sense of who's
> who.
In that case, since you're more or less new to hlas, allow me to give
you a sense of who's who. Many posters here are published, some widely
published, although those who are tend not to make a song and dance
about it. Some are both published and English teachers (although truth
be told, we are still known to make spelling errors). A few hlasers
even publish articles about Shakespeare/the Renaissance in leading
journals and/or write books on the subject. Peter would be one of
these. He teaches in Australia, I believe, and his publishing history,
which is extensive, can be found on the web.
Perhaps you could tell us what you've published, apart from BUILD YOUR
OWN .NET LANGUAGE AND COMPILER, which is in your profile and sounds
interesting. I always find it fascinating--and sometimes surprising--
to see what other hlasers have written and published. Their interests
are many and varied.
>Peter Groves and Otto the Fool (Mark Houlsby) are attempting to
> make a big deal out of an alternate spelling, without being qualified
> to do so, not because they don't teach English, not because there is a
> 99.9999% probability that neither of them has published any where but
> here,
See above with regard to Peter.
Best wishes,
Lynne
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Tom Reedy
>
> "spinoza1111" <spino...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1170504685.0...@l53g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> On Feb 3, 3:26 pm, "Tom Reedy" <tomre...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> > "Peter Groves" <MontiverdiREMOVET...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
>> >
>> > news:5jUwh.2234$sd2....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> >
>> > > "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> >
>> > > Quite simply untrue. But even if it were true you'd still have no
>> > > right to replace informed and collegial argument with spelling
>> > > flames,
>> >
>> > > **A spelling flame>? Let me see, would that be something like your
> own
>> > > "Thanks, creep.
>> > > However, even as you [Mark Houlsby] mis-spell and mis-use the name of
> the
>> > > informal logical fallacy of non sequitor [cetera desunt]"?
>> >
>> > > especially since you happen to be talking to an English teacher and a
>> > > published author.
>> >
>> > This is really hilarious.
>>
>> Yeah, especially if you don't have those qualifications.
Anybody with more than double-digit IQ points should be able to use Google.
If you had those qualifications you would know what I find so funny. I
daresay this group probably has one of the highest ratios of at least
college-level English teachers (or, as in my case, ex-teachers) than most
Usenet groups. Probably the same could be said about publication, although
that term is rather loose. Did you mean to say "published in a peer-reviewed
journal?"
>>
>> It wearies me to mention them, but in this form of cyberspace, it
>> doesn't hurt to keep before other posters and lurkers a sense of who's
>> who. Peter Groves and Otto the Fool (Mark Houlsby) are attempting to
>> make a big deal out of an alternate spelling, without being qualified
>> to do so, not because they don't teach English, not because there is a
>> 99.9999% probability that neither of them has published any where but
>> here, but because *litera scripta manet*.
>>
>
> You're right, Tom, he just gets funnier and funnier.
Slapstick foolery never grows stale.
TR