FRIPP: 'Only Francis Bacon Knew His Bible So Well.'
Elizabeth Weir
Fripp, who is generally hostile to Francis Bacon, states
that of Shakespeare's peers
Probably Francis Bacon alone among contemporary
laymen knew his Bible so well
and in a footnote adds
Not the most subtle allusion in Shakespeare to Scripture
would be lost on Bacon.
Fripp can't quite make the leap to the fact that the Stratford
tradesman did not know his Bible because Catholics, other
than priests like Southwell, could not have the Bible. It simply
was not available to them.
Bacon, on the other hand, was immersed in the Geneva
and Vulgate from earliest childhood thanks to his mother's
work as a translator of Greek and Latin doctrinal texts.
Fripp is right about another thing. If you do not know the Bible
you cannot know the Shakespeare works. Here's an
example from one of Fripp's footnotes:
Judas Iscariot, sits next to Christ, dips in the same dish,
parts bread with him, has the purse, sells Christ, must
'do quickly',
Said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly'
( John xiii. 27).
Macbeth confesses (as a Shakespeare audience would
recognize) that he is a Judas in killing Duncan: 'If it were
done when 'tis done then 'twere well it were done quickly'
(Macb. i. vii. 1 f.).
Best regards,
Elizabeth
Shakespeare, Man and Artist. Vol. 1. Edgar I. Fripp.
H. Milford: London. 1938. Page 101.
Lynne
> __________________________________________________________
>
> Fripp, who is generally hostile to Francis Bacon, states
> that of Shakespeare's peers
>
> Probably Francis Bacon alone among contemporary
> laymen knew his Bible so well
>
> and in a footnote adds
>
> Not the most subtle allusion in Shakespeare to Scripture
> would be lost on Bacon.
>
> Fripp can't quite make the leap to the fact that the Stratford
> tradesman did not know his Bible because Catholics, other
> than priests like Southwell, could not have the Bible. It simply
> was not available to them.
>
> Bacon, on the other hand, was immersed in the Geneva
> and Vulgate from earliest childhood thanks to his mother's
> work as a translator of Greek and Latin doctrinal texts.
>
> Fripp is right about another thing. If you do not know the Bible
> you cannot know the Shakespeare works. Here's an
> example from one of Fripp's footnotes:
>
> Judas Iscariot, sits next to Christ, dips in the same dish,
> parts bread with him, has the purse, sells Christ, must
> 'do quickly',
>
> Said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly'
> ( John xiii. 27).
Is that the Geneva or the Vulgate, Elizabeth?
Thanks,
Lynne
Elizabeth Weir
Fripp calls it the 'Geneva Version' which would have been
the earlier 1560 version of the Geneva used by the author
of the Shakespeare works.
The Vulgate is still the standard Latin bible. The Protestants
repeatedly tried to best the great Latin stylist Jerome (a lawyer)
but have never succeeded. The English version of the Vulgate
is the Douay-Reims named after the Catholic centers where
it was translated.
Best regards,
Elizabeth
Lynne
Thanks,
Lynne
Art Neuendorffer
"If Judas go forth tonight it is to Judas his steps will tend.
EVERy life is many days, day after day."
--------------------------------------------------------------------
He is, Stephen said. The boy of act one is the mature man of act five.
All in all. In Cymbeline, in Othello he is bawd and CUCKOLD.
He acts and is acted on. Lover of an ideal or a perversion,
like Jose he kills the real Carmen. His unremitting intellect is
the hornmad Iago ceaselessly willing that the moor in him shall suffer.
Man delights him not nor woman neither, Stephen said. He returns after a
life of absence to that spot of earth where he was born, where he has
always been, man and boy, a silent witness and there, his journey of
life ended, he plants his mulberry tree in the earth. Then dies. The
motion is ended. Gravediggers bury Hamlet pre and Hamlet fils. A king
and a prince at last in death, with incidental music. And, what though
murdered and betrayed, bewept by all frail tender hearts for, Dane or
Dubliner, sorrow for the dead is the only husband from whom they refuse
to be divorced. If you like the epilogue look long on it: prosperous
Prospero, the good man rewarded, Lizzie, grandpa's lump of love, and
nuncle Richie, the bad man taken off by poetic justice to the place
where the bad niggers go. Strong curtain. He found in the world without
as actual what was in his world within as possible. Maeterlinck says: If
Socrates leave his house today he will find the sage seated on his
doorstep. If Judas go forth tonight it is to Judas his steps will tend.
Every life is many days, day after day. We walk through ourselves,
meeting robbers, ghosts, giants, old men, young men, wives, widows,
brothers-in-love, but always meeting ourselves. The playwright who wrote
the folio of this world and wrote it badly (He gave us light first and
the sun two days later), the lord of things as they are whom the most
Roman of catholics call dio boia, hangman god, is doubtless all in all
in all of us, ostler and butcher, and would be bawd and CUCKOLD too but
that in the economy of heaven, foretold by Hamlet, there are no more
marriages, glorified man, an androgynous angel, being a wife unto himself."
----------------------------------------------------------------
CUCKOO, Middle English: CUCCU
----------------------------------------------------------------
DRAZIW L(CU)LIW EREVIV EVIL
WIZARD O(XF)ORD VIVERE VERO
----------------------------------------------------------------
QUICK, a. [As. cwic, CUCU, cwicu, cwucu, LIVING;
L. vivus LIVING, VIVERE to LIVE]
1. Alive; living; animate;
"Not fully QUYKE, ne fully dead they were." --Chaucer.
Shakspeare with whome QUICK nature DYED,
<<Shake-speare, with the English Man of War, lesser in bulk,
but lighter in sailing, could turn with all tides,
tack about, and take advantage of all winds,
by the QUICKness of his Wit and Invention.>> - THOMAS FULLER
"who shall judge the QUICK and the dead" --2 Tim. iv. 1.
"Man is no STAR, but a QUICK COAL Of mortal fire." -- Herbert.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Elizabeth Weir
> > Macbeth confesses (as a Shakespeare audience would
> > recognize) that he is a Judas in killing Duncan: 'If it were
> > done when 'tis done then 'twere well it were done quickly'
> > (Macb. i. vii. 1 f.).
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> "If Judas go forth tonight it is to Judas his steps will tend.
> EVERy life is many days, day after day."
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
If that's you way of insinuating that Francis Bacon is a Judas
you'll need to produce some hard evidence, Art. I don't like
character assassination by innuendo.
And while I'm thinking of it, I am not Webb's ally in any sense
of the word. Let Webb write his own posts to you instead of
parasitizing off mine. I am sick of these third person attacks.
> Man delights him not nor woman neither, Stephen said.
It's easy to prove Oxford's authorship with literary 'facts.'
There's no way you can lose.
It's not only more difficult to make a case based on real
facts, the kind of facts recognized by law and science,
but there is always the possibility that new facts will turn
up and you'll be proven wrong. I prefer that to 'literary
certainties.'
Best regards,
Elizabeth
Art Neuendorffer
> > "Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
> > > _________________________________________
>
> > > Macbeth confesses (as a Shakespeare audience would
> > > recognize) that he is a Judas in killing Duncan: 'If it were
> > > done when 'tis done then 'twere well it were done quickly'
> > > (Macb. i. vii. 1 f.).
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote
> > "If Judas go forth tonight it is to Judas his steps will tend.
> > EVERy life is many days, day after day."
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
"Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
> If that's you way of insinuating that Francis Bacon is a Judas
> you'll need to produce some hard evidence, Art.
> I don't like character assassination by innuendo.
That's in-Neuendo.
> And while I'm thinking of it, I am not Webb's ally in any sense
> of the word. Let Webb write his own posts to you instead of
> parasitizing off mine. I am sick of these third person attacks.
I didn't even know that Bob Dole was running this time.
> > Man delights him not nor woman neither, Stephen said.
>
> It's easy to prove Oxford's authorship with literary 'facts.'
> There's no way you can lose.
>
> It's not only more difficult to make a case based on real
> facts, the kind of facts recognized by law and science,
> but there is always the possibility that new facts will turn
> up and you'll be proven wrong. I prefer that to 'literary
> certainties.'
'twere well it were done quickly'
Art N.
David L. Webb
elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
> "Art Neuendorffer" <aneuendor...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:<I5-dnRGMnrv...@comcast.com>...
> > "Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
> > > _________________________________________
>
> > > Macbeth confesses (as a Shakespeare audience would
> > > recognize) that he is a Judas in killing Duncan: 'If it were
> > > done when 'tis done then 'twere well it were done quickly'
> > > (Macb. i. vii. 1 f.).
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> > "If Judas go forth tonight it is to Judas his steps will tend.
> > EVERy life is many days, day after day."
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> If that's you way of insinuating that Francis Bacon is a Judas
> you'll need to produce some hard evidence, Art.
Why on earth should he do that? You never produce any -- why hold
Art to a higher standard?
> I don't like
> character assassination by innuendo.
How about character asinination by insinuendorffer?
> And while I'm thinking of it, I am not Webb's ally in any sense
> of the word. Let Webb write his own posts to you instead of
> parasitizing off mine. I am sick of these third person attacks.
> > Man delights him not nor woman neither, Stephen said.
> It's easy to prove Oxford's authorship with literary 'facts.'
The irony could scarcely be richer!
> There's no way you can lose.
>
> It's not only more difficult to make a case based on real
> facts, the kind of facts recognized by law and science,
You mean, "facts" like these?
(1)
"Southampton was overly fond of drag and used to hang about
the theatres hoping to play female roles. He was given a few
parts and was apparently very convincing as a girl."
(2)
"The term 'shake-scene' was Elizabethan theatre slang for the
factotum who toted scenery around between acts."
(3)
"O[ld] E[nglish] was still spoken in some shires until
the 1800s."
(4)
"Southampton is wearing a theatrical wig."
(5)
"Not a coincidence that Minkowski's spacetime is hyperbolic
geometry and uses Poincare's [sic] equasion [sic]."
(6)
"Russell won [the Nobel Prize] for literature because there
is no Nobel for mathematics."
(7)
"Did you read about the cesium cell experiment done at Princeton
a year or so ago? The Princeton physicists don't have a theory
for the phenomena they produced. They admit, like Stephanie, that
'they're still loooooking.' Aether theory describes why a strand
of light wave would accelerate inside a cesium cell but also
explains why an incoherent totally collapsed wave would instantly
become coherent as it emerges from the cell."
(8)
"East Midland dialect (also called East Anglian-Oxford-
Cambridge-Chancery-London-Chaucerian-Shakespearean [sic!]
English) developed inside the Danelaw but unfortunately
for Strats, your guy spoke a Saxon (Wessex, West Midland)
dialogue [sic]."
(9)
"Verulam means 'state of truth' in Latin, Oxfordians."
Would you care to explain how any of these "facts" would be "recognized
by law and science"?! No wonder Art prefers his literary "facts."
[...]
Elizabeth Weir
> > If that's you way of insinuating that Francis Bacon is a Judas
> > you'll need to produce some hard evidence, Art.
>
> Why on earth should he do that? You never produce any -- why hold
> Art to a higher standard?
You never produce anything Webb. You only go through HLAS
pissing on posts. You don't seem to have a will of your own--the
one and only time you were cornered--by Dave More--all you could
come up with is
I don't know.
The most substantive thing you've had to say in HLAS.
> > I don't like
> > character assassination by innuendo.
>
> How about character asinination by insinuendorffer?
As-in-in-ation?
> > And while I'm thinking of it, I am not Webb's ally in any sense
> > of the word. Let Webb write his own posts to you instead of
> > parasitizing off mine. I am sick of these third person attacks.
>
> > > Man delights him not nor woman neither, Stephen said.
>
> > It's easy to prove Oxford's authorship with literary 'facts.'
>
> The irony could scarcely be richer!
Irony upon irony, Webb.
> > There's no way you can lose.
> >
> > It's not only more difficult to make a case based on real
> > facts, the kind of facts recognized by law and science,
>
> You mean, "facts" like these?
>
> (1)
> "Southampton was overly fond of drag and used to hang about
> the theatres hoping to play female roles. He was given a few
> parts and was apparently very convincing as a girl."
You didn't defend your case, Webb. You let Christine come in
and take a beating for you.
I noticed that you didn't make any of your usual pissy intrusions
when that debate was going on.
> (2)
> "The term 'shake-scene' was Elizabethan theatre slang for the
> factotum who toted scenery around between acts."
Well, Dr. Idealist, you've once again demonstrated that you
don't understand science. New facts MUST modify the premise.
I went to the OED to write the 'shake-scene' post and found that
the OED not only did not have a clue (it admitted) but
VIOLATED its own rules
by defining 'Shake-scene' with Jonson's 'shake the stage' which
WOULD NOT BE WRITTEN
by Jonson
FOR PRECISELY THIRTY YEARS.
The OED was of like your hero Rips retroactively predicting
the future with a debunked algorithm.
All institutions must prop up the empty Strat phallus.
> (3)
> "O[ld] E[nglish] was still spoken in some shires until
> the 1800s."
Webb The Turing Machine That Will Not Stop Pissing.
Compelled to piss pissy lies as you must, you have pissed that
particular lie countless times when YOU KNOW, Webb, that I
was referring to OE-inflected dialects. I wrote :
Since there was no BBC to standardize the 'presige' East Midlands
dialect the shires, which even today stubbornly hang on to their dialects
to some extent, didn't have to give up their dialects. OE was still
spoken in some shires until the 1800s.
Old English was NOT 'a dialect.' Old English or more correctly,
Anglo-Saxon, remained a persistent influence on dialects in
shires west of the Danelaw which includes Warwickshire.
William Shakespeare. as the speaker of an Anglo-Saxon, not
Danish, English dialect did not write the Shakespeare plays
because he was dialectly impaired.
He could not speak the university East Midlands of the
Shakespeare works.
> (4)
> "Southampton is wearing a theatrical wig."
I've presented facts that support that thesis,
you have put forth no facts to dispute it, only pissing
bouts.
> (5)
> "Not a coincidence that Minkowski's spacetime is hyperbolic
> geometry and uses Poincare's [sic] equasion [sic]."
Why don't you go to ten thousand university math departments
and explain to them the fine points of Minkowski's METAPHYSICAL
and unprovable 'space time.'
The whole Einsteinian claim is a metaphysical claim, Webb.
You can't seem to penetrate that, Dr. P. Idealist.
Einstein--and Hsu sees through this--didn't create an
explanatory theory--that was Bohr's job--Einstein created
an *aesthetic model* that the monsterously hubristic
Einstein claimed would REVEAL the laws of physics.
WOULD (future tense) REVEAL.
Calling Dr. Faustus.
> (6)
> "Russell won [the Nobel Prize] for literature because there
> is no Nobel for mathematics."
You didn't disprove that.
> (7)
> "Did you read about the cesium cell experiment done at Princeton
> a year or so ago? The Princeton physicists don't have a theory
> for the phenomena they produced.
Their very words.
> They admit, like Stephanie, that
> 'they're still loooooking.'
Their very words.
> Aether theory describes why a strand
> of light wave would accelerate inside a cesium cell but also
> explains why an incoherent totally collapsed wave would instantly
> become coherent as it emerges from the cell."
Maxwell hypothesized a carrier medium. With Hsu's
calculus of non-inertial frames it does not contradict
Newton.
You still haven't figure out that Hsu restored the aether (the Taiji)
to physics when he made time and the speed of light infinitely
relative. Do you even know how both theories line up vis a vis
the aether? Do you even see that when Einstein kicked the
dangerously (to paranoid German males) a posteriori aether
out of his STR (and spent the rest of his life trying to get it back
in) he was forced to turn to kinematics and inertial frames to
make it work?
How often do true inertial frames appear in nature, Webb?
Einstein was measuring a hypothetical. The Einsteinians
made it into a universal. That's why Hsu can calm down your
hysteria by truthfully stating that Einstein's STR is still valid
but if you read Hsu's fine print you find that it's only one of
an infiinite possible numbers of time and speeds of light.
I think that's extremely funny.
> (8)
> "East Midland dialect (also called East Anglian-Oxford-
> Cambridge-Chancery-London-Chaucerian-Shakespearean [sic!]
> English) developed inside the Danelaw but unfortunately
> for Strats, your guy spoke a Saxon (Wessex, West Midland)
> dialogue [sic]."
That is factual and all you could do was unzip and piss on it,
Dr. Pisser.
East Midland dialect was and is the dialect of:
1. The English universities.
2. The courts.
3. London.
4. Chaucer (whose popularity established East Midlands
as the prestige English dialect).
5. The Shakespeare works.
Piss on that, Dr. Idealist.
> (9)
> "Verulam means 'state of truth' in Latin, Oxfordians."
Search--carefully--the stem 'veru' on Perseus.
> Would you care to explain how any of these "facts" would be "recognized
> by law and science"?! No wonder Art prefers his literary "facts."
You can only aspire to the level of 'literary facts,' Webb.
Art Neuendorffer
> > > If that's you way of insinuating that Francis Bacon is a Judas
> > > you'll need to produce some hard evidence, Art.
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
> > Why on earth should he do that? You never produce any -
> > - why hold Art to a higher standard?
Because I answer to a higher authority.
"Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
> You never produce anything Webb. You only go through HLAS
> pissing on posts. You don't seem to have a will of your own--
> the one and only time you were cornered--by Dave More--
> all you could come up with is
>
> I don't know.
>
> The most substantive thing you've had to say in HLAS.
What about Dave's response to Psalm 46:
-----------------------------------------------------------
| Art Neuendorffer wrote:
| > --------------------------------------------------------
| > (The King James & only the King James version):
| > Psalm 46
| > "SHAKE" is the 46th word from the beginning,
| > and "SPEAR" is the 46th word from the end.
---------------------------------------------------------------
David L. Webb <David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
| I've already pointed out to you that this is false, Art,
| as Martin Gardner, has pointed out; as I already said,
| "In Richard TaVERner's 1539 VERsion of Psalm 46,
| 'shake' & 'spear' are in *precisely* the same positions.
| HoweVER, one would scarcely expect
| aneuendor...@comicass.nut
| to have VERified his idiotic claims about matters of fact."
| Are you completely senile, Art?
| Or are you just oblivious to facts?
---------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Elizabeth Weir
> > > "Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
>
> > > > If that's you way of insinuating that Francis Bacon is a Judas
> > > > you'll need to produce some hard evidence, Art.
>
> > "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote
>
> > > Why on earth should he do that? You never produce any -
> > > - why hold Art to a higher standard?
>
> Because I answer to a higher authority.
>
> "Elizabeth Weir" <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote
>
> > You never produce anything Webb. You only go through HLAS
> > pissing on posts. You don't seem to have a will of your own--
> > the one and only time you were cornered--by Dave More--
> > all you could come up with is
> >
> > I don't know.
> >
> > The most substantive thing you've had to say in HLAS.
>
> What about Dave's response to Psalm 46:
In the context that the question of 'shake' and 'spear'
in the KJV is in and of itself trivial and doesn't constitute
evidence of authorship, I'd have to say that Webb didn't
contribute anything substantial. It's just another quibble.
On the other hand, Webb believes that equidistant letter
strings can predict the future but only if found in the
Torah.
I'll let you make the call on that, Neuendorffer.
Best regards,
Elizabeth
Christine Cooper
That's odd, I don't feel bruised.
Have you located any experts to back up your claim
that Southampton was wearing a dress?
Have you located any portraits of Elizabethan women
wearing outfits that looked like the one in
the Hatchlands portrait?
Didn't you retract your statement that
Southampton would have his portrait painted
wearing women's clothing, when you made the claim
that he was wearing a "theatrical wig?"
(BTW, you never did specify whether it was
a man's or a woman's wig)
No, it is *more correctly*, "Old English."
"Anglo-Saxon" is a term reserved by scholars
for the people and their culture.
http://www.asnc.cam.ac.uk/SpokenWord/OldEnglish.html
remained a persistent influence on dialects in
> shires west of the Danelaw which includes Warwickshire.
Warwickshire is actually *EAST* of the Danelaw, Elizabeth.
http://viking.no/e/england/danelaw/ekart-danelaw.htm
>
> William Shakespeare. as the speaker of an Anglo-Saxon, not
> Danish, English dialect did not write the Shakespeare plays
> because he was dialectly impaired.
>
> He could not speak the university East Midlands of the
> Shakespeare works.
>
I think you mean East *Anglia,* where Cambridge is located,
and where West Saxon was the common dialect, and
which was adopted by the Court in London.
Warwickshire is located in the East Midlands,
and part of the Northumbrian dialectic region,
which was heavily influenced by Danish, because
the Danes completely overran that part of England.
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0005876.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English_language
> > (4)
> > "Southampton is wearing a theatrical wig."
>
> I've presented facts that support that thesis,
> you have put forth no facts to dispute it, only pissing
> bouts.
>
No, you've presented your opinions, expressed as "facts."
To date, you've not presented any evidence or authority
to demonstrate what an Elizabethan theatrical wig even
looked like.
John W. Kennedy
news:<efbc3534.04020...@posting.google.com>...
>particular lie countless times when YOU KNOW, Webb, that I
>was referring to OE-inflected dialects. I wrote :
> Since there was no BBC to standardize the 'presige' East Midlands
> dialect the shires, which even today stubbornly hang on to their dialects
> to some extent, didn't have to give up their dialects. OE was still
> spoken in some shires until the 1800s.
Is it possible that this is Lizzie's warped memory of the genuine fact
that OE dialect _boundaries_ persisted in large measure into the 19th
century (and indeed, into the 20th)?
--
John W. Kennedy
"But now is a new thing which is very old--
that the rich make themselves richer and not poorer,
which is the true Gospel, for the poor's sake."
-- Charles Williams. "Judgement at Chelmsford"
David L. Webb
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
> news:<david.l.webb-E5E6...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu>...
>
> > > If that's you way of insinuating that Francis Bacon is a Judas
> > > you'll need to produce some hard evidence, Art.
> > Why on earth should he do that? You never produce any -- why hold
> > Art to a higher standard?
> You never produce anything Webb. You only go through HLAS
> pissing on posts. You don't seem to have a will of your own--the
> one and only time you were cornered--by Dave More--all you could
> come up with is
>
> I don't know.
>
> The most substantive thing you've had to say in HLAS.
There is nothing dishonorable about admitting that one doesn't know
something. You should try it some time -- it would be a good way for
you to avoid making a complete ass of yourself by inventing complete
crap.
> > > I don't like
> > > character assassination by innuendo.
> > How about character asinination by insinuendorffer?
> As-in-in-ation?
Asinination -- the process of converting perfectly normal,
unremarkable data into something utterly asinine. I offer it as a
neologism for use in discussing your methods of "research" (as well as
Art's, of course, although I feel confident that Art is merely trolling).
[...]
> > > It's easy to prove Oxford's authorship with literary 'facts.'
> > The irony could scarcely be richer!
> Irony upon irony, Webb.
> > > There's no way you can lose.
> > >
> > > It's not only more difficult to make a case based on real
> > > facts, the kind of facts recognized by law and science,
> > You mean, "facts" like these?
> >
> > (1)
> > "Southampton was overly fond of drag and used to hang about
> > the theatres hoping to play female roles. He was given a few
> > parts and was apparently very convincing as a girl."
> You didn't defend your case, Webb.
Huh? What "case"? I made no assertion about Southampton's sartorial
preferences. You were the one who did so. I merely sought to learn
whether *you* had a case that you could actually support with credible
evidence. Plainly, you do not.
> You let Christine come in
> and take a beating for you.
"Take a beating"?! For me?! On the contrary, Christine refuted your
hilarious hallucinations quite decisively. Moreover, I feel sure that
her reasons for doing so had little to do with me.
> I noticed that you didn't make any of your usual pissy intrusions
> when that debate was going on.
Why should I? Christine was doing just fine, and you were making a
fool of yourself as always.
> > (2)
> > "The term 'shake-scene' was Elizabethan theatre slang for the
> > factotum who toted scenery around between acts."
> Well, Dr. Idealist, you've once again demonstrated that you
> don't understand science. New facts MUST modify the premise.
*What* "new facts"? You have not presented *any* facts yet, new or
otherwise.
> I went to the OED to write the 'shake-scene' post and found that
> the OED not only did not have a clue (it admitted)
Then your claim that "The term 'shake-scene' was Elizabethan theatre
slang for the factotum who toted scenery around between acts" is utterly
unsupportable. You have no source for it; evidently you just made it up.
> but
>
> VIOLATED its own rules
>
> by defining 'Shake-scene' with Jonson's 'shake the stage'
The OED did not *define* "shakescene" in that fashion. Rather, the
quotation from Jonson occurs in the *etymology* of the word, *not* in
its definition. Get someone who knows how to use the OED and who can
read to help you look it up and check this for yourself. But this has
been pointed out to you before.
> which
>
> WOULD NOT BE WRITTEN
>
> by Jonson
>
> FOR PRECISELY THIRTY YEARS.
>
> The OED was of like [sic] your hero Rips
Rips is not my hero. He is a very accomplished mathematician, but I
have never met him and do not even know his mathematical work well.
> retroactively predicting
> the future
Rips does not claim to predict the future. Indeed, as I have pointed
out to many times before, Rips's own public statement on the matter
contains the following explicit denial:
"PUBLIC STATEMENT BY DR. ELIYAHU RIPS Professor of Mathematics Hebrew
University Jerusalem, Israel
[...]
"6) For me, it [ Drosnin's tableau] was a catalyst to ask whether we
can, from a scientific point of view, attempt to use the Codes to
predict future events. After much thought, my categorical answer is
no. All attempts to extract messages from Torah codes, or to make
predictions based on them, are futile and are of no value. This is
not only my own opinion, but the opinion of every scientist who has
been involved in serious Codes research."
<http://perso.wanadoo.fr/luccros/sitedeluc/spirituel/aishatorah.htm>
> with a debunked algorithm.
The only thing thoroughly debunked is the vain hope that you
possessed a functioning memory.
> All institutions must prop up the empty Strat phallus.
Has anyone managed to read this far without laughing aloud?
> > (3)
> > "O[ld] E[nglish] was still spoken in some shires until
> > the 1800s."
> Webb The Turing Machine That Will Not Stop Pissing.
>
> Compelled to piss pissy lies as you must, you have pissed
You should seek help for your urinary obsession.
> that
> particular lie countless times when YOU KNOW, Webb, that I
> was referring to OE-inflected dialects. I wrote :
>
> Since there was no BBC to standardize the 'presige' East Midlands
> dialect the shires, which even today stubbornly hang on to their dialects
> to some extent, didn't have to give up their dialects. OE was still
> spoken in some shires until the 1800s.
No, the discussion pertained to *grammatical* inflection, and you
admitted at the time that you had not even understood the difference;
see
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=david.l.webb-ABD8BB.00314004102003%
40merrimack.dartmouth.edu&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain>
and its followup to refresh your dysfunctional memory.
> Old English was NOT 'a dialect.' Old English or more correctly,
> Anglo-Saxon, remained a persistent influence on dialects in
> shires west of the Danelaw which includes Warwickshire.
The text in question discussed not dialects, but grammatical
inflection.
> William Shakespeare. as the speaker of an Anglo-Saxon, not
> Danish, English dialect did not write the Shakespeare plays
> because he was dialectly impaired.
>
> He could not speak the university East Midlands of the
> Shakespeare works.
This contains so many farcical blunders that one scarcely knows where
to begin; revisit the URL above if you actually have any desire to know
anything about what you're talking about.
> > (4)
> > "Southampton is wearing a theatrical wig."
> I've presented facts that support that thesis,
> you have put forth no facts to dispute it, only pissing
> bouts.
"Thesis"? Earlier you claimed that you had *proved* your assertion.
Are you backing down?
> > (5)
> > "Not a coincidence that Minkowski's spacetime is hyperbolic
> > geometry and uses Poincare's [sic] equasion [sic]."
> Why don't you go to ten thousand university math departments
> and explain to them the fine points of Minkowski's METAPHYSICAL
> and unprovable 'space time.'
The applications of Minkowski space to physics that you dispute are
utterly irrelevant, as hyperbolic geometry is a *mathematical* notion
with a precise meaning. In fact, Minkowski space is of considerable
interest in pure mathematics, quite independent of its use as a model of
physical spacetime when gravitation can be disregarded. It has an
*indefinite* metric of *zero* curvature, while hyperbolic geometry is
that of a space with a *positive definite* metric of constant *negative*
sectional curvature. I realize of course that you don't know metrics
from meatloaf, but do try to have *some* idea what you're talking about
before making an ass of yourself by repeatedly uttering farcically false
pronouncements. Mathematical terms have precise definitions. It is
simply *false* that the geometry of Minkowski space is hyperbolic.
> The whole Einsteinian claim is a metaphysical claim, Webb.
> You can't seem to penetrate that, Dr. P. Idealist.
>
> Einstein--and Hsu sees through this--didn't create an
> explanatory theory--that was Bohr's job--
Bohr did not make important contributions to relativity, either the
special theory as it pertains to electrodynamics or the general theory
treating gravitation. Bohr's great contributions were in a completely
different area.
> Einstein created
> an *aesthetic model* that the monsterously hubristic
> Einstein claimed would REVEAL the laws of physics.
>
> WOULD (future tense) REVEAL.
>
> Calling Dr. Faustus.
> > (6)
> > "Russell won [the Nobel Prize] for literature because there
> > is no Nobel for mathematics."
> You didn't disprove that.
I have already been through this earlier as well; plainly, your
amnesia is particularly acute at present. Here is an extract from an
old post:
---------------------------
No, I'm afraid that you're misinformed again. There is no reason to
believe that Russell won his Nobel in Literature "because there is no
Nobel for mathematics." First, Russell's Nobel citation *doesn't even
mention* his work in mathematics, which was joint with Whitehead (who
was not honored by the Nobel Prize) -- rather, Russell is cited for his
"...varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian
ideals and freedom of thought." This Russell certainly did not do in
his early mathematical writing, although he did so quite eloquently in
his later philosophical writings. Russell did mathematics briefly
during his youth, then largely abandoned it in favor of philosophy.
As for there being no Nobel Prize in mathematics, the Fields Medal,
generally regarded as the equivalent of the Nobel Prize in mathematics,
has been around since 1936; the first Laureates were Lars Ahlfors and
Jesse Douglas. Most professional mathematicians, myself included,
greatly admire Russell's Herculean early foundational work with
Whitehead in mathematics, but would not dream of asserting that it was
the sort of work that would be recognized by a Fields Medal or a Nobel
Prize in mathematics had either award existed at the time. The work of
Russell and Whitehead had as its main impetus the goal of carefully
reexamining the foundations of set theory, and thereby of partially
salvaging the work of Frege, which contained, as Russell noted, a fatal
inconsistency; in this regard, the work of Russell and Whitehead was
rather like the work of Oscar Zariski and (later) Alexandre
Grothendieck, who thoroughly rebuilt the foundations of algebraic
geometry, another field plagued by imprecision despite the brilliant
insights of the earlier Italian school of algebraic geometers
(Castelnuovo, Severi, etc.). However, the work of Zariski and (later)
Grothendieck led to significant new mathematics, while that of Russell
and Whitehead did not; indeed, as the Britannica account correctly
notes, "...the theories of Russell, which he developed together with
Alfred North Whitehead in their _Principia Mathematica_ (1910-1913)...
never found lasting appeal with mathematicians." The versions of set
theory used in almost all mathematics now are Zermelo-Frankel set
theory or Gödel-Bernays set theory. There were many mathematicians of
the day who made more significant and deeper contributions, and who
were indeed in some cases recognized by various scientific prizes; this
number included people like David Hilbert, Hermann Weyl, Elie Cartan,
Emmy Noether, Henri Poincaré, Solomon Lefschetz, Stefan Banach, and
others. Russell's Nobel Prize in Literature was awarded, as the citation
plainly says, for his "...varied and significant writings in which he
champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought," that is, for his
philosophical writing. There is no indication of any kind that his
mathematics (done nearly a half-century earlier) had anything to do
with it.
-----------------------------
> > (7)
> > "Did you read about the cesium cell experiment done at Princeton
> > a year or so ago? The Princeton physicists don't have a theory
> > for the phenomena they produced.
> Their very words.
Source? You don't have one, of course; you never do.
However, if you will take a look at the web page of Arthur Dogariu,
one the collaborators in the Wang-Kuzmich-Dogariu experiment, you will
find the following:
"Our experiment is *not* at odds with Einstein's special
relativity. The experiment can be well explained using existing
physics theories that are consistent with Relativity. In fact,
the experiment was designed based on calculations using existing
physics theories."
<http://www.neci.nj.nec.com/homepages/arthur/>
You can also have a look at the home page of Lijun Wang, the lead
author, which contains the same text:
<http://www.neci.nj.nec.com/homepages/lwan/faq.htm#relativity>.
However, never content to leave any doubt whatever about your own
farcical functional illiteracy, you will probably *continue* to claim
that Wang, Kuzmich, and Dogariu have no explanation!
> > They admit, like Stephanie, that
> > 'they're still loooooking.'
> Their very words.
That's hilarious! Go ahead -- show us where in their paper they use
the locution "still loooooking." On what page does it occur?
> > Aether theory describes why a strand
> > of light wave would accelerate inside a cesium cell but also
> > explains why an incoherent totally collapsed wave would instantly
> > become coherent as it emerges from the cell."
> Maxwell hypothesized a carrier medium. With Hsu's
> calculus of non-inertial frames it does not contradict
> Newton.
Yes it does, because Hsu's theory contains Einstein's as a special
case. Maxwell's equations are *incompatible* with the Galilean
relativity of Newtonian mechanics. That was realized long before
Einstein, and indeed it served as an impetus for the Michelson-Morley
experiment -- but the presumption was that both Newtonian mechanics and
Maxwell's equations were correct, and that therefore Galilean relativity
had to be abandoned. Poincaré tried to retain relativity, an endeavor
that forced upon him the "special force" whose existence he was
compelled to postulate. Einstein's brilliant insight was that a
modification of Newtonian kinematics allowed one salvage *both*
relativity (albeit not the Galilean version) *and* Maxwell's theory.
> You still haven't figure out that Hsu restored the aether (the Taiji)
> to physics when he made time and the speed of light infinitely
> relative.
This is complete nonsense.
> Do you even know how both theories line up vis a vis
> the aether? Do you even see that when Einstein kicked the
> dangerously (to paranoid German males) a posteriori aether
> out of his STR (and spent the rest of his life trying to get it back
> in) he was forced to turn to kinematics and inertial frames to
> make it work?
This is hilarious! Learn some freshman-level physics.
> How often do true inertial frames appear in nature, Webb?
> Einstein was measuring a hypothetical.
Then so was Newton, who introduced inertial frames in the first place.
> The Einsteinians
> made it into a universal. That's why Hsu can calm down your
> hysteria by truthfully stating that Einstein's STR is still valid
> but if you read Hsu's fine print you find that it's only one of
> an infiinite [sic] possible numbers of time and speeds of light.
>
> I think that's extremely funny.
Your misunderstandings are indeed nothing short of hilarious! As
Professor Hsu himself said after seeing only a small sample of your
ravings,
"I do feel that trying to argue with cranks is hopeless task and in
fact, that arguing with them might inadvertently lend them some
legitimacy in some people's eyes, so please don't trouble yourself to
post a response from me. I can only hope that readers of her posts
will take note of the source and view her claims about the work of
others in a skeptical light."
There is every reason to share in his hope.
> > (8)
> > "East Midland dialect (also called East Anglian-Oxford-
> > Cambridge-Chancery-London-Chaucerian-Shakespearean [sic!]
> > English) developed inside the Danelaw but unfortunately
> > for Strats, your guy spoke a Saxon (Wessex, West Midland)
> > dialogue [sic]."
> That is factual and all you could do was unzip and piss on it,
> Dr. Pisser.
You really should seek some help for your urinary-obsessive disorder.
> East Midland dialect was and is the dialect of:
>
> 1. The English universities.
> 2. The courts.
> 3. London.
> 4. Chaucer (whose popularity established East Midlands
> as the prestige English dialect).
> 5. The Shakespeare works.
>
> Piss on that, Dr. Idealist.
I've already dealt with this before as well, and it's getting late.
> > (9)
> > "Verulam means 'state of truth' in Latin, Oxfordians."
> Search--carefully--the stem 'veru' on Perseus.
Search -- carefully -- any Latin dictionary and see whether you can
find a single one that says that "Verulam" means "state of truth." In
fact, you *acknowledged* your own blunder earlier, but you have
evidently forgotten all about it! Here it is, with a Google link to
refresh your memory:
Peter Groves:
[Quoting Elizabeth's howler]:
"|Verulam means "state of truth" in Latin, Oxfordians.
"Or is it Klingon? I see your knowledge of Latin is up there with
your erudition in literary history.
"Hint, dumbo: look at the quantity of the first vowel in <Verulamium>.
Fairly obviously it doesn't have any connection with <verus>.
"Elizabeth's motto: There's nothing either true or false, but
thinking makes it so."
Elizabeth's rejoinder:
"[...] And thanks for the correction. I learned two things:
1. Latin stems are longer than I thought.
2. You're uncivil."
See the post itself at
<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=efbc3534.0207231821.2db07a3a%40post
ing.google.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain>
to refresh your farcically fallible memory.
> > Would you care to explain how any of these "facts" would be "recognized
> > by law and science"?! No wonder Art prefers his literary "facts."
> You can only aspire to the level of 'literary facts,' Webb.
Comment would be superfluous.
David L. Webb
No, I have never said anything of the kind. Plainly, Elizabeth is
hallucinating again.
Elizabeth Weir
> > Old English was NOT 'a dialect.' Old English or more correctly,
> > Anglo-Saxon,
> No, it is *more correctly*, "Old English."
From the OED, 2nd ed:
'Anglo-Saxon:'
b. adj. absol. In this Dictionary, the language of England before
1100 is called, as a whole, Old English? (OE.); Anglo-Saxon, when
used, is restricted to the Saxon as distinguished from the Anglian
dialects of Old English . . .
Anglo-Saxon, when used, is restricted to the Saxon as distinguished
from the Anglian dialects of Old English.
That was the very gist of the argument.
> "Anglo-Saxon" is a term reserved by scholars
> for the people and their culture.
> http://www.asnc.cam.ac.uk/SpokenWord/OldEnglish.html
That particular use of 'Anglo-Saxon' is irrelevant.
> > remained a persistent influence on dialects in
> > shires west of the Danelaw which includes Warwickshire.
> http://viking.no/e/england/danelaw/ekart-danelaw.htm
> Warwickshire is actually *EAST* of the Danelaw, Elizabeth.
The English Channel and North Sea are east of the Danelaw,
Christine.
<http://historymedren.about.com/library/atlas/maps/england886a.gif>
> > William Shakespeare. as the speaker of an Anglo-Saxon, not
> > Danish, English dialect did not write the Shakespeare plays
> > because he was dialectly impaired.
> >
>
> > He could not speak the university East Midlands of the
> > Shakespeare works.
> >
> I think you mean East *Anglia,* where Cambridge is located,
Cambridge is in the East Midlands dialect region.
Warwickshire is in the West Midlands (Anglo-Saxon)
dialect area.
William Shakespeare spoke the Anglo-Saxon Warwickshire
dialect.
> and where West Saxon was the common dialect, and
Cambridge spoke East Midlands.
Oxford was in the Wessex dialogue area but eventually
went to East Midlands after East Midlands became the
printers' standard.
West Saxon or the Wessex dialect was on the west side of
Watling Street, the old Roman road that, with a tributary of
the Thames, formed the west boundary of the Danelaw. The
Danelaw itself was on the east side of Watling Street.
> which was adopted by the Court in London.
The London East Midlands dialect, not the West Saxon dialect
was the dialect of the Court, the courts, the Inns of Court and both
universities.
Standard American English is East Midlands. The Pilgrims, who
brought the first presses to New England, were from East Anglia.
> Warwickshire is located in the East Midlands,
Warwickshire is in the West Midlands.
<http://www.english-nature.org.uk/maps/region.asp?Reg=5>
> and part of the Northumbrian dialectic region,
> which was heavily influenced by Danish, because
> the Danes completely overran that part of England.
We're not concerned with the Yorkshire dialect. The question
is the East Midlands dialect of the Shakespeare works which
developed in the shires around Essex, Herts, and Middlesex.
<http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/shepherd/shires_of_england_10_cent.jpg>
> http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0005876.html
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English_language
>
> > > (4)
> > > "Southampton is wearing a theatrical wig."
> >
> > I've presented facts that support that thesis,
> > you have put forth no facts to dispute it, only pissing
> > bouts.
> >
>
>
> No, you've presented your opinions, expressed as "facts."
You haven't gotten a fact straight in this post, Christine.
> To date, you've not presented any evidence or authority
> to demonstrate what an Elizabethan theatrical wig even
> looked like.
I presented plenty of facts. I also showed how your witnesses
contradicted themselves and each other after the Shakesqueer
headlines hit the streets.
Case closed, Christine.
Best regards,
Elizabeth
Christine Cooper
I'm going to correct som of this, before Elizabeth
has a hissy fit.
Warwickshire *is* [was] west of the Danelaw.
> >
> > William Shakespeare. as the speaker of an Anglo-Saxon, not
> > Danish, English dialect did not write the Shakespeare plays
> > because he was dialectly impaired.
> >
>
> > He could not speak the university East Midlands of the
> > Shakespeare works.
> >
>
>
> I think you mean East *Anglia,* where Cambridge is located,
> and where West Saxon was the common dialect, and
> which was adopted by the Court in London.
...as the common language of literature in the Old English period.
Later, London was Mercian, as was Warwickshire.
http://colfa.utsa.edu/drinka/pie/lang_od.htm
>
> Warwickshire is located in the East Midlands,
> and part of the Northumbrian dialectic region,
> which was heavily influenced by Danish, because
> the Danes completely overran that part of England.
>
> http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0005876.html
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_English_language
And I'm changing this slightly.
In the Middle English period,
Warwickshire was roughly bisected by
the East and West Midlands dialects.
http://coral.lili.uni-bielefeld.de/Classes/Winter96/Dialects/dialects/node35.html#
And she's forgetting other influences:
Mary Arden, whose ancestry was Norman.
The local clergy in Stratford were
university educated.
The school masters would have spoken
an East Midlands dialect.
She's also forgetting the influence that
the Burbages, Jonson, & co,
would have had on his speech patterns.
<snip>
Christine
Elizabeth Weir
> I'm going to correct som of this, before Elizabeth
> has a hissy fit.
Are you saying that you didn't read my post containing at
least ten factual corrections of your error-ridden post before
you decided to post to yourself to spare me a 'hissy fit?'
If not, I'm really impressed by your concern for my well-being,
Christine.
Best regards,
Elizabeth
Christine Cooper
>
> > > Old English was NOT 'a dialect.' Old English or more correctly,
> > > Anglo-Saxon,
>
> > No, it is *more correctly*, "Old English."
>
> From the OED, 2nd ed:
>
> 'Anglo-Saxon:'
>
> b. adj. absol. In this Dictionary, the language of England before
> 1100 is called, as a whole, Old English? (OE.); Anglo-Saxon, when
> used, is restricted to the Saxon as distinguished from the Anglian
> dialects of Old English . . .
>
> Anglo-Saxon, when used, is restricted to the Saxon as distinguished
> from the Anglian dialects of Old English.
>
> That was the very gist of the argument.
>
> > "Anglo-Saxon" is a term reserved by scholars
> > for the people and their culture.
>
Hmm.
Then is it correct that when you said, "O[ld] E[nglish] was still
spoken in some shires until the 1800's," what you intended was
"'Anglo-Saxon' was still spoken in some shires until the 1800's?"
> > http://www.asnc.cam.ac.uk/SpokenWord/OldEnglish.html
>
> That particular use of 'Anglo-Saxon' is irrelevant.
>
> > > remained a persistent influence on dialects in
> > > shires west of the Danelaw which includes Warwickshire.
>
> > http://viking.no/e/england/danelaw/ekart-danelaw.htm
>
> > Warwickshire is actually *EAST* of the Danelaw, Elizabeth.
>
> The English Channel and North Sea are east of the Danelaw,
> Christine.
>
> <http://historymedren.about.com/library/atlas/maps/england886a.gif>
>
> > > William Shakespeare. as the speaker of an Anglo-Saxon, not
> > > Danish, English dialect did not write the Shakespeare plays
> > > because he was dialectly impaired.
> > >
But the West-Midlands and East-Midlands dialects are both
derived from the Mercian.
Here's a map of the Old English dialects, showing the Mercian region.
http://coral.lili.uni-bielefeld.de/Classes/Winter96/Dialects/dialects/node34.html
Here's a map of the Middle English dialects, showing the
demarcation between East Midlands and West Midlands.
http://coral.lili.uni-bielefeld.de/Classes/Winter96/Dialects/dialects/node35.html#
The Scandinavian northern dialect extended its
influences southward into both the East and West Midlands.
Kentish died out in the Early Modern period.
It's the Southern dialect west of Sussex and Southwest of
the Thames is the dialect that shows the least influence
from other languages, ["most important, no Scandinavian
influence. Descendants of Southern Middle English
still survive in the working-class country dialects
of the extreme Southwest of England."]
http://www.ling.upenn.edu/~dringe/CorpStuff/Thesis/Dialects.html
IOW: The "some shires" you were referring to
were located in the Southwest, not in Warwickshire.
In actual fact, it was Cornish that effectively
died out in the 1800's (but is being revived).
>
> > > He could not speak the university East Midlands of the
> > > Shakespeare works.
> > >
>
> > I think you mean East *Anglia,* where Cambridge is located,
>
> Cambridge is in the East Midlands dialect region.
>
> Warwickshire is in the West Midlands (Anglo-Saxon)
> dialect area.
>
No, Warwickshire was roughly bisected between
the East and West Midlands.
Shakespeare could have spoken either version,
or possibly both, and would be influenced
by his Norman mother, and by the local
clergy and school masters, who all learned
East Midlands,(if he went to school),
as well as by Burbage, Jonson, & Co.
> William Shakespeare spoke the Anglo-Saxon Warwickshire
> dialect.
>
See above.
> > and where West Saxon was the common dialect, and
>
> Cambridge spoke East Midlands.
>
> Oxford was in the Wessex dialogue area but eventually
> went to East Midlands after East Midlands became the
> printers' standard.
>
> West Saxon or the Wessex dialect was on the west side of
> Watling Street, the old Roman road that, with a tributary of
> the Thames, formed the west boundary of the Danelaw. The
> Danelaw itself was on the east side of Watling Street.
>
> > which was adopted by the Court in London.
>
> The London East Midlands dialect, not the West Saxon dialect
> was the dialect of the Court, the courts, the Inns of Court and both
> universities.
>
The West Saxon dialect was the language of literature
in *Old* English. Mercian eventually prevailed at court.
East Midlands was the dialect of the Court
in *Middle* English. Both East and West Midlands
are derived from Mercian, and both were influenced
from the Scandinavian north.
Cordelialy,
Christine
Christine Cooper
***************
Your post had not appeared at the time I corrected my post.
I admit when I've made a mistake.
I've never seen you change a mistake;
other than
to change "Old English"
to "Anglo Saxon," which didn't exactly
help your argument.
and
to retract your statement that
Southampton was wearing drag,
but then you flip-flopped on that issue again.
So, was he wearing a dress in the Hatchlands
portrait, or not?
If you contend that he was wearing a dress,
how many "experts agree" that Southampton
was wearing drag? Who are they?
Or, can you point to a portrait of an
Elizabethan woman wearing an outfit like
the one in the Hatchlands portrait?
Can you point to a picture
(or even a verbal description)
of an Elizabethan theatrical wig
for a female character,
that looks like the hairstyle in the
Hatchlands portrait?
Or, can you say that your statements
were pure speculation,
opinions, not facts?
Cordelialy,
Christine
Elizabeth Weir
> There is nothing dishonorable about admitting that one doesn't know
> something.
It's dishonorable to pretend to believe in something--so
you can use that as an excuse to wallow in abuse-- only
to have it exposed as something you didn't believe in
at all.
'I don't know.' -- D. Webb
> You should try it some time --
What? Gross hypocrisy? No, thanks.
> it would be a good way for
> you to avoid making a complete ass of yourself by inventing complete
> crap.
I'm deleting what I wrote because you should be
congratulated for your candor. It was a rare moment
but one worthy of praise, not condemnation.
Best regards,
Elizabeth
David L. Webb
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
> news:<david.l.webb-F189...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu>...
>
> > There is nothing dishonorable about admitting that one doesn't know
> > something.
> It's dishonorable to pretend to believe in something
Huh?! What is that I supposedly "pretend to believe in"?!
> --so
> you can use that as an excuse to wallow in abuse-- only
> to have it exposed as something you didn't believe in
> at all.
>
> 'I don't know.' -- D. Webb
I cannot recall making *any* affirmation of belief. Rather, I noted
that Dave's essay -- which you evidently *still* have not read -- did
not pretend to *know* how Shakespeare obtained access to the content of
the Strachey letter; instead, it showed convincingly that the author of
_The Tempest_ demonstrably knew of the letter's content, and it listed a
number of connections linking Shakespeare with the Virginia Company.
The essay does not single out any one of these multiple links as the
means of access (and it does not mention Richard Field *at all*, _pace_
your hallucinations to the contrary). I doubt if Dave Kathman claims to
*know* how Shakespeare learned of the letter's content, and certainly I
made no such claim.
> > You should try it some time --
> What? Gross hypocrisy? No, thanks.
No, admitting your ignorance -- it would spare you making an ass of
yourself virtually on a daily basis. Admitting that you don't know
something is vastly preferable to just inventing something out of thin
air and stating it as fact, as you routinely do.
[...]
Elizabeth Weir
[...]
> I cannot recall making *any* affirmation of belief.
Oh, but you did. You just don't know that you did.
You made at least 49 unqualified or qualified statements
that you are an 'agnostic on the question of Shakespeare
authorship.'
Searched Groups for agnostic OR agnosticism group:humanities.
lit.authors.shakespeare author:david author:webb. Results 1 - 49
of about 49. Search took 1.06 seconds.
You've told Caruana, Neuendorffer and even myself that you
are 'an agnostic.'
When Dave More corned you, you were forced to make a choice
between your claim to agnosticism and your closet Stratfordianism.
It was either the agnostic 'I don't know,' or 'Shakespeare had
the Strachey letter.'
You stated to Dave More that you believe--as does Kathman--
that the Stratfordian candidate
had possession of the Strachey letter.
That makes you a Strat, Webb.
Dave More wrote:
Dave, do you think William obtained access to the Strachey
letter?
You replied:
If not to the letter, then at least to its content.
You stated you believed that the Stratfordian candidate had,
at the very least, access to 'the contents of the Strachey letter'
so it follows, Webb, that you believe that the Stratfordian
candidate wrote The Tempest and therefore the Shakespeare
works.
Kathman, who has never called himself 'an agnostic,' said
essentially the same thing:
We will probably never know exactly how Shakespeare
came to see Strachey's letter.
(Kathman was at least right on that point--Strats will never
know).
I called you on your 'agnostism' two years ago:
You claim to be an agnostic in the Authorship Dispute yet
you will never attack Strats for the weak-to-nonexistant proof
of claims about Shakespeare's authorship based on evidence
"that would not fill half a page."
You indicted yourself--in more ways than one--even then.
The experts are virtually unanimous in declaring
that there is no serious doubt about the authorship of the
Shakespeare canon, except among the uninformed and
the hopelessly credulous.
Best regards,
Elizabeth
Searched Groups for agnostic OR agnosticism
group:humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare author:david author:webb.
Results 1 - 49 of about 49. Search took 1.06 seconds.
Re: Current New Yorker
... I've said all along that I, too, am agnostic (although that
doesn't mean ...
Now perhaps
you'll have a little more respect for my agnosticism, an agnosticism
not ...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Jun 20, 2003 by David L. Webb -
View Thread (50 articles)
Re: Fringe with (Oxford's uncle) Surrey on top
... in the Elizabethan/Jacobean period who takes any alternative
authorship attribution
seriously AN: Spoken like a TRUE agnostic. DW: My agnosticism has
nothing ...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Jun 20, 1998 by David L. Webb -
View Thread (4 articles)
Re: "any more than..."
... in the Elizabethan/Jacobean period who takes any alternative
authorship attribution
seriously Spoken like a TRUE agnostic. My agnosticism has nothing
whatEVER ...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Jun 18, 1998 by David L. Webb -
View Thread (39 articles)
Re: dart mouth
... that my professional inquiries have no connection with the
authorship debate, about
which I hold rather an agnostic opinion. A cautious agnosticism is
quite ...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Jun 14, 1998 by David L. Webb -
View Thread (4 articles)
Re: Steak dinner at the zoo
... First, because of the criticism I have received from the
Stratfordian camp as a
result of my agnostic view of the authorship debate; Agnosticism is a
very ...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Aug 17, 1999 by David L. Webb -
View Thread (32 articles)
Nabokov and authorship (long)
... [From another message] I have no opinion concerning the
Shakespeare authorship
question _per se_ -- I hold a rather agnostic attitude about it, as I
don't ...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Sep 21, 1998 by David L. Webb -
View Thread (2 articles)
Re: Authorship essay
... I have no expertise in Shakespeare authorship matters and indeed
have a rather agnostic
view of the whole question, but I do know something about Nabokov -- I
...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Jun 14, 2002 by David L. Webb -
View Thread (89 articles)
Re: Smith's "Chasing Shakespeares"
... They've never studied *anything*." She then asks Roper: "You
actually bought a
book?" Roper explains that it was given to him by an agnostic
quasi-Oxfordian ...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Sep 8, 2003 by David L. Webb -
View Thread (14 articles)
Re: Who Was Shakespeare
... your enigmatic answer to mean that you and your coreligionists
have retreated from
the Oxfordian fantasy cult to a stance of cautious agnosticism,
Stephanie. ...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Sep 25, 2001 by David L. Webb -
View Thread (12 articles)
Re: Could Oxford Have Been Shakespeare Without A Conspiracy?
... Baker, and one or two others seem absolutely determined to consign
me to the ranks
of "Stratfordians" when I have insisted all along on skeptical
agnosticism. ...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Sep 10, 2001 by David L. Webb -
View Thread (63 articles)
Re: Shakespeare's Natal Chart
... Why should the posts of a disinterested agnostic do any more than
correct ridiculous blunders in the most absurd Oxfordian posts? ...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Nov 14, 2000 by David L. Webb -
View Thread (57 articles)
Re: answer to Neuendorffer
... This agnosticism seems reasonable to me -- the Templars had been
crushed by Philip
the Fair several centuries earlier, and the modern Masonic order which
Art ...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Oct 15, 2000 by David L. Webb -
View Thread (16 articles)
Re: Books and Videos
... Since you insist that I'ma "Stratfordian" rather than an agnostic,
perhaps
you'll send me a free copy of this "lucid, compact study", Paul? ...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Jul 7, 2000 by David L. Webb -
View Thread (2 articles)
Re: Stephanie's originality
... those whom you label "Stratfordians" (a term you evidently regard
as inclusive enough
to refer to me, although I've told you before that I'm an agnostic on
the ...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Nov 26, 1999 by David L. Webb -
View Thread (17 articles)
Re: Style
... from some mental disorder; however, your most recent contributions
to the "More evidence..."
thread have induced me to adopt a cautiously agnostic viewpoint on ...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Oct 19, 1999 by David L. Webb -
View Thread (48 articles)
Re: (Maiden) First Folio Plays
... t profess to be in possession of the necessary expertise to decide
the authorship
question, so I am a skeptic and hence take a rather agnostic view,
although I ...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Nov 1, 1998 by David L. Webb -
View Thread (163 articles)
Re: SW holden William
... be "unheard". After all, I'm an agnostic, not an authorship
partisan,
yet even I read your posts. Farceur, hunt rear fondler. Of ...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Oct 21, 1998 by David L. Webb -
View Thread (5 articles)
Re: Kathman's Poor Spelling (was: Biographical Fallacy)
... In the first place, I am not a "Stratfordian"; I have an agnostic
attitude
about the authorship matter, and I do not normally join factions. ...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Jul 10, 1998 by David L. Webb -
View Thread (39 articles)
Re: I'm Sick Of This Oxfordian Bull About John Gielgud
... Do you not see why an agnostic who identifies with no authorship
"camp" might
nonetheless be a bit peeved by some Oxfordians' behavior in this
instance? ...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Jul 8, 2000 by David L. Webb -
View Thread (49 articles)
Re: Did Oxford Compose The Music Of William Byrd
... I don't think so. Two doubts in one post! At this rate, you'll be
an agnostic
in no time! Stephanie Ah, I see that your name is "attached"! ...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Aug 27, 2000 by David L. Webb -
View Thread (10 articles)
Re: Probabilities and Authorship
... logic. I'm not assuming that Shakespeare of Stratford was the
author
-- in fact, I've expressed agnosticism on that point before. ...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Aug 13, 1999 by David L. Webb -
View Thread (18 articles)
Re: Jim McGill Responds To Terry Ross
... Why should partisans of Rutland, Derby, Marlowe, Southampton,
William Shakespeare
of Stratford, etc., or those like myself who are agnostic about the
matter ...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Dec 5, 2001 by David L. Webb -
View Thread (63 articles)
Re: To the memory (was: Re: Nuncle Toby)
... OR SOME CRAVEN SCRUPLE OF THINKING A G N O S T I C F O POET
SUIREVLIHINOREV O
M A S B R I N C K N E L L What evidence is there that Oxford was
agnostic? ...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Oct 10, 1998 by David L. Webb -
View Thread (3 articles)
Re: Scratchmatter's thesis
... It's not what you *don't* believe that sets you apart --
agnosticism seems quite
a tenable position; it's what you *do* believe that is so remarkable.
...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Aug 15, 2001 by David L. Webb -
View Thread (43 articles)
Comedy of errors (was: Re: Streitz)
... If you say you are an agnostic on the matter of who wrote what
your ... As for my agnosticism,
even Art Neuendorffer evidently doesn't doubt it; in another thread
...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Jul 3, 2000 by David L. Webb -
View Thread (6 articles)
Re: Son of Stratfordianism (was 'Bye for now)
... a Court performance. It's quite reasonable for an agnostic to
reject
such "evidence" as hopelessly subjective. "Evidence" that is ...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Sep 14, 2000 by David L. Webb -
View Thread (10 articles)
Re: Christopher Sly and the OSF
... been proposed as a candidate. As I've said many, many times, I'm
an
agnostic, and a poorly informed one, at that. I don't regard ...
humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare - Aug 30, 2000 by David L. Webb -
View Thread (27 articles)
David L. Webb
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
> news:<david.l.webb-4093...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu>...
> [...]
> > I cannot recall making *any* affirmation of belief.
>
> Oh, but you did. You just don't know that you did.
> You made at least 49 unqualified or qualified statements
> that you are an 'agnostic on the question of Shakespeare
> authorship.'
>
> Searched Groups for agnostic OR agnosticism group:humanities.
> lit.authors.shakespeare author:david author:webb. Results 1 - 49
> of about 49. Search took 1.06 seconds.
>
> You've told Caruana, Neuendorffer and even myself that you
> are 'an agnostic.'
And indeed I am agnostic. I don't regard the identity of the author
of the Shakespeare canon as proven conclusively, and there is always the
remote possibility that a pseudonym was used. Thus far, all the actual
*evidence* that I've seen points to the conclusion that the actor and
shareholder William Shakespeare wrote the Shakespeare canon (and in
particular, the plays that his company performed). The "evidence" for
other "candidates" that I have seen thus far ranges from hopelessly
subjective wishful thinking (Oxford's verse sounds like Shakespeare's,
Hamlet's plot is Oxford's life story, etc.) to crank cryptography
("BEEAHCEEAN," "Agnes a gob," etc.) to complete comic claptrap (Bacon
has manuscripts, "Verulam" mean "state of truth" in Latin, Shakespeare's
regional accent disqualifies him, etc.). That is not to say that
persuasive evidence for an alternative author may not be found later,
but at the moment I know of none, so there seems to be very scant reason
for suspecting anything amiss in the conventional attribution.
A useful analogy I have made before concerns extraterrestrials. I am
agnostic on the question of the existence of sentient life elsewhere in
the universe; however, all the evidence that I have seen thus far for
its supposed existence -- flying saucers, space aliens, abductions and
sexual abuse, etc. -- is risible rubbish. I realize that you are
utterly unable to distinguish the rejection of ridiculous "arguments"
from an affirmation of belief in a contrary position, but your
functional illiteracy has been noted many times before.
> When Dave More corned you, you were forced to make a choice
> between your claim to agnosticism and your closet Stratfordianism.
No, I remain agnostic; however, I reject the farcical notion that one
must *know* how Shakespeare obtained access to the Strachey letter in
order to make a judgment on the attribution. I do not *know* whether
Eudoxus wrote with his left hand or with his right; nevertheless my lack
of knowledge of that detail is scant reason to doubt an otherwise
reasonable attribution to Eudoxus.
> It was either the agnostic 'I don't know,' or 'Shakespeare had
> the Strachey letter.'
As I said, the author of the canon clearly had access to the content
of the Strachey letter. How he obtained that information, I do not
know, nor does it matter much. Plenty of people besides the Renaissance
genius Francis Bacon had access to the letter, and some are known to
have had close ties with Shakespeare, as Dave Kathman points out.
> You stated to Dave More that you believe--as does Kathman--
> that the Stratfordian candidate
>
> had possession of the Strachey letter.
No, I said that the *author* clearly had *access* to the *content*
(*not* possession of the letter). As Dave Kathman points out, there are
numerous ties linking the actor William Shakespeare with both William
Strachey and the Virginia Company. Matters being so, there is scant
reason to doubt the conventional attribution, particularly in view of
all the evidence upon which the attribution is based.
> That makes you a Strat, Webb.
No, it makes me an agnostic who recognizes hilarious crap when he
sees it.
> Dave More wrote:
>
> Dave, do you think William obtained access to the Strachey
> letter?
>
> You replied:
>
> If not to the letter, then at least to its content.
>
> You stated you believed that the Stratfordian candidate had,
> at the very least, access to 'the contents of the Strachey letter'
> so it follows, Webb, that you believe that the Stratfordian
> candidate wrote The Tempest and therefore the Shakespeare
> works.
No, from the proposition that William Shakespeare of Stratford had
access to the Strachey letter it does *not* follow that he wrote _The
Tempest_. Even if it could be shown decisively that he had access to
the letter, he is *not* the only one who did. There are other reasons
for attributing the play (and indeed the rest of the canon) to him.
But carry on -- your uncanny insight into what you imagine my
reasoning must be is as revealing and almost as humorous as your uncanny
insight into the intimate details of Southampton's satorial preferences
and even the motives actuating them!
> Kathman, who has never called himself 'an agnostic,' said
> essentially the same thing:
>
> We will probably never know exactly how Shakespeare
> came to see Strachey's letter.
>
> (Kathman was at least right on that point--Strats will never
> know).
>
> I called you on your 'agnostism [sic]' two years ago:
Plainly, you need to look up the word "agnosticism" -- but see if you
can manage to distinguish the definition from the etymology this time.
> You claim to be an agnostic in the Authorship Dispute yet
> you will never attack Strats for the weak-to-nonexistant [sic]
> proof
> of claims about Shakespeare's authorship based on evidence
> "that would not fill half a page."
I have criticized the arguments of "Stratfordians" when I found them
weak, and have corrected errors when I noticed them; you evidently have
not been paying attention. However, *by far* the lion's share of the
errors have emanated from a few anti-Stratfordians -- most prominently,
yourself. To my knowledge, no "Stratfordian" has said anything *nearly*
as funny as "Verulam means 'state of truth' in Latin," "O[ld] E[nglish]
was still spoken in some shires until the 1800s," "Shakespeare Sounded
Like Beowulf," "Will was 12 years old in 1576, when Caxton set up the
first printing press in England...," Anne Hathaway was Shakespeare's
mother, etc. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
> You indicted yourself--in more ways than one--even then.
>
> The experts are virtually unanimous in declaring
> that there is no serious doubt about the authorship of the
> Shakespeare canon, except among the uninformed and
> the hopelessly credulous.
That statement is quite true. However, I am not an expert myself, so
my agnosticism remains -- while I think it quite likely that the experts
are right, I am not as certain as they, probably because I lack both
their knowledge base and their experience and expertise. Evidence that
I find merely persuasive they might find conclusive.
[...]
Elizabeth Weir
Heeeeehee. I obviously meant 'cornered' not 'corned.' I apologize,
Webb. Obviously Dave More did not 'corn' you.
Did you know that Elvis' last word was 'corn?'
Elizabeth Weir
[...]
> And indeed I am agnostic.
You STATED to Dave More that you believe that
William Shakespeare had possession of the Strachey
letter.
You're not going to be able to weasle your way out
of that, Dr. Dissembler.
> I don't regard the identity of the author
> of the Shakespeare canon as proven conclusively,
If you believe, as you stated to Dave More, that
Shakespeare had possession of the Strachey letter
'or the contents of the letter,' (unquote), then it follows
that you believe Shakespeare used 'those contents'
to write The Tempest.
You believe exactly the same thing Kathman believes.
<snip of Webb's verbiage about ciphers and extraterrestrials>
>
> > When Dave More corned you, you were forced to make a choice
> > between your claim to agnosticism and your closet Stratfordianism.
>
> No, I remain agnostic;
agnostic n. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about
something.
You were quite definite, Webb.
> however, I reject the farcical notion that one
> must *know* how Shakespeare obtained access to the Strachey letter in
> order to make a judgment on the attribution.
That ceased to be an issue, Webb, when you stated
that you believed Shakespeare 'had possession of the Strachey
letter or at least the contents of the letter.'
More's question was 'do you believe that he obtained
access to the Strachey letter' which is equivalent to 'do
you believe that he authored the Shakespeare works.'
<snip of Webb's really bad analogy>
> > It was either the agnostic 'I don't know,' or 'Shakespeare had
> > the Strachey letter.'
>
<snip of Webb's irrelevant rambling>
>
> > You stated to Dave More that you believe--as does Kathman--
> > that the Stratfordian candidate
> >
> > had possession of the Strachey letter.
>
> No, I said that the *author* clearly had *access* to the *content*
Dr. Quibbles. You're back!
IF he had 'possession of the letter,' THEN he had possession
of the contents of the letter. IF he had possession of the
contents of the letter THEN he had a document equivalent
to the letter.
Quibble, quibble.
Again,
Dave More wrote:
Dave, do you think William obtained access to the Strachey
letter?
You replied:
If not to the letter, then at least to its content.
You stated you believed that the Stratfordian candidate had,
at the very least, access to 'the contents of the Strachey letter.'
That is precisely Kathman's postition.
You're a Strat, Webb.
> (*not* possession of the letter).
That's a quibble.
> As Dave Kathman points out, there are
> numerous ties
Ties are not evidence, Webb, because 'ties' allow for a
multiplicity of inferences. They prove nothing.
> linking the actor William Shakespeare with both William
> Strachey and the Virginia Company.
Are you the one who lectured on the McCarthy hearings?
Wasn't that about trying to indict innocent people based
on 'ties?'
It's not about 'ties,' it's about 'direct knowledge of facts.' '
I showed that that the letter was locked up while Kathman's
source Gayley went to much strenuous effort to show that the letter
appeared in no other printed or manuscript source until the
royalists purloined it from the Virginia Company in 1624 and
printed it in Purchas His Pilgrime to humiliate Pembroke et al.
> Matters being so, there is scant
> reason to doubt the conventional attribution, particularly in view of
> all the evidence upon which the attribution is based.
The evidence that you're a Strat just keeps mounting
up.
> > That makes you a Strat, Webb.
>
> No, it makes me an agnostic
An agnostic who just stated and I quote:
Matters being so,
Kathman didn't prove that 'matters were so' but we'll
set that aside.
there is scant reason to doubt
I thought agnostics were doubters.
agnostic n. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about
something.
the conventional attribution,
So you have 'scant reason to doubt' the 'conventional
attribution,' which is, of course, the Strat attribution.
particularly in view of all the evidence upon which
the attribution is based.
You've just declared as a Strat, Webb.
1) You have scant doubt.
2) You accept the 'conventional attribution.'
3) You think Stratfordian evidence is sufficient
to prove authorship.
You're a Strat.
> who recognizes hilarious crap when he
> sees it.
Kathman's stock line.
> > Dave More wrote:
> >
> > Dave, do you think William obtained access to the Strachey
> > letter?
> >
> > You replied:
> >
> > If not to the letter, then at least to its content.
> >
> > You stated you believed that the Stratfordian candidate had,
> > at the very least, access to 'the contents of the Strachey letter'
> > so it follows, Webb, that you believe that the Stratfordian
> > candidate wrote The Tempest and therefore the Shakespeare
> > works.
>
> No, from the proposition that William Shakespeare of Stratford had
> access to the Strachey letter it does *not* follow that he wrote _The
> Tempest_.
You're argument is deteriorating, Webb.
You've already stated to Dave More that you believe
that Shakespeare had the letter itself or the contents
of the letter.
You'd be laughed off the podium if you made a speech stating
that Shakespeare had the Strachey 120-page official report
but he decided he'd rather wipe his ass with it than write
The Tempest.
> Even if it could be shown decisively that he had access to
> the letter, he is *not* the only one who did. There are other reasons
> for attributing the play (and indeed the rest of the canon) to him.
What you're saying--that even if he had the letter it
doesn't prove his authorship--is quibbling nonsense.
And you're wrong on the second point.
There is a single piece of evidence that is undisputed
to be requisite to authorship.
If another author has it--and Bacon has it--then that
fact automatically eliminates all other candidates.
> But carry on -- your uncanny insight
You put yourself on the record.
Insights would be superfluous.
> into what you imagine my
> reasoning must
I don't have to imagine anything.
You statements have the weight of fact.
If you want to change your mind, just say so.
<snip of off topic sarcasm>
> > Kathman, who has never called himself 'an agnostic,' said
> > essentially the same thing:
> >
> > We will probably never know exactly how Shakespeare
> > came to see Strachey's letter.
> >
> > (Kathman was at least right on that point--Strats will never
> > know).
> >
> > I called you on your 'agnostism [sic]' two years ago:
>
> Plainly, you need to look up the word "agnosticism" -- but see if you
> can manage to distinguish the definition from the etymology this time.
You used the word 'agnosticism.' What was it--89 times?
> > You claim to be an agnostic in the Authorship Dispute yet
> > you will never attack Strats for the weak-to-nonexistant [sic]
> > proof
> > of claims about Shakespeare's authorship based on evidence
> > "that would not fill half a page."
>
> I have criticized the arguments of "Stratfordians" when I found them
> weak,
<snip of 'we've seen it all before'>
> > The experts are virtually unanimous in declaring
> > that there is no serious doubt about the authorship of the
> > Shakespeare canon, except among the uninformed and
> > the hopelessly credulous.
>
> That statement is quite true.
You're on record for agreeing with the Stratfordian
experts that there is 'no serious doubt' about the authorship
of the Shakespeare cannon.
BELIE'VER, n. One who believes; one who gives credit to
other evidence than that of personal knowledge.
> However, I am not an expert myself, so
> my agnosticism remains --
There's a difference between 'agnostic' and 'equivocator'
and you are no agnostic.
Best regards,
Elizabeth
David L. Webb
elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
> "David L. Webb" <david....@dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
> news:<david.l.webb-CE00...@merrimack.dartmouth.edu>...
> [...]
> > And indeed I am agnostic.
> You STATED to Dave More that you believe that
> William Shakespeare had possession of the Strachey
> letter.
No, I said *access* to the *content*, not possession of the letter.
You really need to learn to read.
> You're not going to be able to weasle [sic] your way out
> of that, Dr. Dissembler.
Learning to write wouldn't hurt you either.
> > I don't regard the identity of the author
> > of the Shakespeare canon as proven conclusively,
> If you believe, as you stated to Dave More, that
> Shakespeare had possession of the Strachey letter
> 'or the contents of the letter,' (unquote), then it follows
> that you believe Shakespeare used 'those contents'
> to write The Tempest.
No, that does not follow. As I noted, Dave's essay explains why
there is no reasonable doubt that the ***AUTHOR*** of the canon had
access to the letter. According to the conventional attribution (about
which no evidence thus far has caused me to have very serious doubts),
that author was William Shakespeare of Stratford, the actor and company
shareholder. Dave's essay therefore goes on to list numerous ties
linking that actor with both William Strachey and with the Virginia
Company. Note that these links are *not* the basis of the attribution
of _The Tempest_, nor would anyone but a functional illiterate like you
imagine that they were -- on the contrary, the authorship of _The
Tempest_ is established with reasonable confidence on the basis of other
evidence entirely. Rather, the links merely serve to explain to
skeptical Oxfordians why the Stratford actor's access to the letter's
content is not the glaring anomaly that uninformed anti-Stratfordians
imagine it to be. Dave does not base an attribution of _The Tempest_
upon these connections, nor do I. I realize, of course, that you have
never read Dave's essay and would not understand it if you did, but
perhaps this précis will afford you some idea of its content.
> You believe exactly the same thing Kathman believes.
No, I am far less well informed than Dave, and hence less certain.
> <snip of Webb's verbiage about ciphers and extraterrestrials>
Why? Ciphers and extraterrestrials are right up your alley.
> > > When Dave More corned you, you were forced to make a choice
> > > between your claim to agnosticism and your closet Stratfordianism.
> > No, I remain agnostic;
> agnostic n. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about
> something.
Yes, I know what the word means -- but congratulations upon having
looked it up yourself! And this time you even got the definition rather
than the etymology!
> You were quite definite, Webb.
> > however, I reject the farcical notion that one
> > must *know* how Shakespeare obtained access to the Strachey letter in
> > order to make a judgment on the attribution.
> That ceased to be an issue, Webb, when you stated
> that you believed Shakespeare 'had possession of the Strachey
> letter or at least the contents of the letter.'
This "quotation" is entirely fabricated, as most of yours are. A
Google Groups search in the newsgroup h.l.a.s. shows no posts authored
by me containing the phrase "had possession of the Strachey," except a
post in this thread where I quote you. Those are your words, not mine,
and you fabricated yet another quotation. (At least this is closer to
what I actually said than your facricated quotation about Richard Field,
whom Dave Kathman never even mentions in the essay.)
> More's question was 'do you believe that he obtained
> access to the Strachey letter' which is equivalent to 'do
> you believe that he authored the Shakespeare works.'
>
> <snip of Webb's really bad analogy>
> > > It was either the agnostic 'I don't know,' or 'Shakespeare had
> > > the Strachey letter.'
> >
> <snip of Webb's irrelevant rambling>
> > > You stated to Dave More that you believe--as does Kathman--
> > > that the Stratfordian candidate
> > >
> > > had possession of the Strachey letter.
> > No, I said that the *author* clearly had *access* to the *content*
> Dr. Quibbles. You're back!
No, I know how to read; you plainly do not.
> IF he had 'possession of the letter,' THEN he had possession
> of the contents of the letter.
But he might well have gained familiarity with the letter's content
without having it in his possession. Your attempt at a logical
implication is idiotic: I did *not* hypothesize possession of the letter
-- but nobody ever supposed that you understand logic any better than
you do mathematics, phsyics, history, linguistics, foreign languages,
English, etc.
> IF he had possession of the
> contents of the letter THEN he had a document equivalent
> to the letter.
No, he might have been told of its content.
> Quibble, quibble.
>
> Again,
>
> Dave More wrote:
>
> Dave, do you think William obtained access to the Strachey
> letter?
>
> You replied:
>
> If not to the letter, then at least to its content.
>
> You stated you believed that the Stratfordian candidate had,
> at the very least, access to 'the contents of the Strachey letter.'
No, the *author* had access to its content, as Dave's essay shows.
There is scant reason to doubt that that author was anyone other than
William Shakespeare of Stratford, but that has not been shown as
conclusively as the proposition that the *author* knew of the letter's
content. Dave's essay suggests numerous plausible channels by which
William Shakespeare of Stratford might have obtained the information.
> That is precisely Kathman's postition.
>
> You're a Strat, Webb.
> > (*not* possession of the letter).
> That's a quibble.
No, I merely know how to read; you plainly do not.
> > As Dave Kathman points out, there are
> > numerous ties
> Ties are not evidence, Webb, because 'ties' allow for a
> multiplicity of inferences. They prove nothing.
Nobody said that such ties prove anything. As I already explained to
you, the attribution of _The Tempest_ is based upon other evidence
entirely.
> > linking the actor William Shakespeare with both William
> > Strachey and the Virginia Company.
> Are you the one who lectured on the McCarthy hearings?
No, I have only mentioned them in passing.
> Wasn't that about trying to indict innocent people based
> on 'ties?'
>
> It's not about 'ties,' it's about 'direct knowledge of facts.' '
>
> I showed that that the letter was locked up while Kathman's
> source Gayley went to much strenuous effort to show that the letter
> appeared in no other printed or manuscript source until the
> royalists purloined it from the Virginia Company in 1624 and
> printed it in Purchas His Pilgrime to humiliate Pembroke et al.
> > Matters being so, there is scant
> > reason to doubt the conventional attribution, particularly in view of
> > all the evidence upon which the attribution is based.
> The evidence that you're a Strat just keeps mounting
> up.
> > > That makes you a Strat, Webb.
> > No, it makes me an agnostic
> An agnostic who just stated and I quote:
>
> Matters being so,
>
> Kathman didn't prove that 'matters were so'
I never said that he did. You really need to learn to read.
> but we'll
> set that aside.
>
> there is scant reason to doubt
>
> I thought agnostics were doubters.
Scant reason to doubt is not the same thing as *no* reason to doubt.
Many an agnostic is distinguished from an outright atheist by a small,
niggling uncertainty.
> agnostic n. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about
> something.
>
> the conventional attribution,
>
> So you have 'scant reason to doubt' the 'conventional
> attribution,' which is, of course, the Strat attribution.
>
> particularly in view of all the evidence upon which
> the attribution is based.
>
> You've just declared as a Strat, Webb.
>
> 1) You have scant doubt.
Scant doubt is not the same thing as no doubt, but I doubt that you
know the meaning the word "scant."
> 2) You accept the 'conventional attribution.'
No, I accept it as probable, but not certain; certainly the farcical
evidence adduced by most of its detractors affords *no* reason for
doubt.
> 3) You think Stratfordian evidence is sufficient
> to prove authorship.
No, I think that the available evidence, while meagre by modern
standards, is actually quite robust by the standards of the period.
This evidence does not *prove* Shakespeare's authorship conclusively,
but it makes it very probable that Shakespeare indeed works attributed
to him.
> You're a Strat.
> > who recognizes hilarious crap when he
> > sees it.
> Kathman's stock line.
Well, if so, then one can scarcely improve upon it as a trenchant
characterization of what you've been posting for a year and a half.
> > > Dave More wrote:
> > >
> > > Dave, do you think William obtained access to the Strachey
> > > letter?
> > >
> > > You replied:
> > >
> > > If not to the letter, then at least to its content.
> > >
> > > You stated you believed that the Stratfordian candidate had,
> > > at the very least, access to 'the contents of the Strachey letter'
> > > so it follows, Webb, that you believe that the Stratfordian
> > > candidate wrote The Tempest and therefore the Shakespeare
> > > works.
No, I explained above that *author* had access to the letter's
content. The probability that Shakespeare the actor wrote _The Tempest_
is based upon other evidence entirely. His multiple means of possible
access to the letter merely serve to explain to uninformed Oxfordians
that the use of such a source is by no means the glaring anomaly that
they fondly imagine it to be.
> > No, from the proposition that William Shakespeare of Stratford had
> > access to the Strachey letter it does *not* follow that he wrote _The
> > Tempest_.
> You're [sic] argument is deteriorating, Webb.
You never had an argument to deteriorate.
> You've already stated to Dave More that you believe
> that Shakespeare had the letter itself or the contents
> of the letter.
>
> You'd be laughed off the podium if you made a speech stating
> that Shakespeare had the Strachey 120-page official report
> but he decided he'd rather wipe his ass with it than write
> The Tempest.
I made no such claim. While your scatological hallucinations may be
of keen interest to those seeking to understand psychopathology, they
are of scant interest here.
> > Even if it could be shown decisively that he had access to
> > the letter, he is *not* the only one who did. There are other reasons
> > for attributing the play (and indeed the rest of the canon) to him.
> What you're saying--that even if he had the letter it
> doesn't prove his authorship--is quibbling nonsense.
No, it isn't. Plenty of people had access to the letter, but I don't
suspect the entire Virginia Company of having penned _The Tempest_ by
committee.
> And you're wrong on the second point.
>
> There is a single piece of evidence that is undisputed
> to be requisite to authorship.
>
> If another author has it--and Bacon has it--then that
> fact automatically eliminates all other candidates.
No, it means nothing of the kind.
> > But carry on -- your uncanny insight
> You put yourself on the record.
>
> Insights would be superfluous.
> > into what you imagine my
> > reasoning must
> I don't have to imagine anything.
Then why do you do it so routinely, and so vividly?
> You statements have the weight of fact.
>
> If you want to change your mind, just say so.
>
> <snip of off topic sarcasm>
> > > Kathman, who has never called himself 'an agnostic,' said
> > > essentially the same thing:
> > >
> > > We will probably never know exactly how Shakespeare
> > > came to see Strachey's letter.
> > >
> > > (Kathman was at least right on that point--Strats will never
> > > know).
> > >
> > > I called you on your 'agnostism [sic]' two years ago:
> > Plainly, you need to look up the word "agnosticism" -- but see if you
> > can manage to distinguish the definition from the etymology this time.
> You used the word 'agnosticism.' What was it--89 times?
I have no idea; you're the obsessive about counting things.
> > > You claim to be an agnostic in the Authorship Dispute yet
> > > you will never attack Strats for the weak-to-nonexistant [sic]
> > > proof
> > > of claims about Shakespeare's authorship based on evidence
> > > "that would not fill half a page."
> > I have criticized the arguments of "Stratfordians" when I found them
> > weak,
> <snip of 'we've seen it all before'>
> > > The experts are virtually unanimous in declaring
> > > that there is no serious doubt about the authorship of the
> > > Shakespeare canon, except among the uninformed and
> > > the hopelessly credulous.
> > That statement is quite true.
> You're on record for agreeing with the Stratfordian
> experts that there is 'no serious doubt' about the authorship
> of the Shakespeare cannon.
No, I have merely noted that the *experts* are virtually unanimous; I
am no expert, so I am less certain than they.
> BELIE'VER, n. One who believes; one who gives credit to
> other evidence than that of personal knowledge.
> > However, I am not an expert myself, so
> > my agnosticism remains --
> There's a difference between 'agnostic' and 'equivocator'
> and you are no agnostic.
Since you evidently cannot even read what I said, your pronouncement
has all the credibility of your usual pronouncements -- that is to say,
none.
Elizabeth Weir
> > [...]
> > > And indeed I am agnostic.
You put yourself on record as a Strat, Webb.
> No, I said *access* to the *content*, not possession of the letter.
> You really need to learn to read.
If you could read you would see that I never quibbled
about your wording 'or its content.'
You're not going to be able to quibble your way out of
your predicament by inventing a quibble and then
quibbling about it.
You're now trying to claim that you told Dave More that
'William' did not obtain access to the letter but only
obtained access to 'the content.'
You didn't say to More 'I don't think he had the actual
letter but he obtained access to the content.'
You said in effect that 'William' either had the letter or
its content.
Dave More wrote: 'Dave, do you think William obtained access
to the Strachey letter?'
You replied: 'If not to the letter, then at least to its content.'
'At least.' At the very least William had 'the content.' At the
most William had the letter.
It is settled scholarship that the author of The Tempest
liberally relied on the Strachey letter.
Only the Oxfordians disagree.
It's Strat dogma that William Shakespeare obtained access
to the Strachey letter or its content.
Kathman states it as a certainty:
'We will probably never know exactly how Shakespeare
came to see Strachey's letter . . .' ('Dating The Tempest').
You stated that William Shakespeare obtained access
'if not to the letter, then at least to its content' which is
what Kathman said above.
Kathman additionally states 'there is every reason to believe'
that William got the Strachey letter from Digges (not likely
since Sir Dudley Digges was a radical Puritan who was
then trying to close the theatres and slice the thumbs of
playwrights) or if not Digges, William obtained access from
someone else with 'ties' to the Virginia Company. ('Ties'
are not evidence--a Siamese twin could grab a gun and
shoot his wife but his brother would not be the murderer).
That makes you a dogmatic Strat, Webb.
Best regards,
Elizabeth