Anybody seen Parisious?
Tom Reedy
Nyle Parisious? He said he was going to post a
reference for me after calling me a liar, but I'm
afraid I may have missed it since it hasn't shown up on
my server yet.
TR
Tom Reedy
researcher and general all-around expert Roger Nyle
Parisious. He promised a reference about the ownership
of the Archaionomia volume with Shakespeare's signature
in it after he accused me of lying about it.
I said that a story by Roger Eagle, a Baconian, who
claimed he had owned the book previously and thought
the signature a forgery, was doubtful, since the title
page had to be ironed out by the Folger Library before
the signature was visible in the upper margin.
To which the illustrious and honored scholar Parisious
said, "Now you are lying about the Archaonomia
inscription of which you know nothing at all. The book
is recorded on a number of occasions in the early
twentieth century and was described several times in
Baconiana among other places before the Folgar
purchase."
And then he promised to furnish references to prove I
was lying, and also to prove he knew all about it,
presumably. (I hope the proof is better than his
spelling.)
But I seem to be having trouble with my server, as the
promised reference hasn't shown up yet, and since it
was five days ago that he promised it, I figure that
surely he has posted it by now. Would someone please
repost his message with the reference in it?
Thanks.
TR
"Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:r0Mb9.7646$%D6.7...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink
.net...
Bob Grumman
> researcher and general all-around expert Roger Nyle
> Parisious. He promised a reference about the ownership
> of the Archaionomia volume with Shakespeare's signature
> in it after he accused me of lying about it.
Aah, he probably expect Elizabeth to verify him, which--of course--would
close the matter. And, she, for some reason, is dilly-dallying.
--Bob G.
Roger Nyle Parisious
> I'm still looking for that post by that famous
> researcher and general all-around expert Roger Nyle
> Parisious. He promised a reference about the ownership
> of the Archaionomia volume with Shakespeare's signature
> in it after he accused me of lying about it.
Back on the lying bit.You threw that one out several times.I
replied ,gently enough, that it would be preferable to regard your
actions as those of a blinkered fanatic.You compounded it with several
more falsehoods in the course of less than forty-eight hours.You have
not answered back on any of those when challenged.In the unlikely
event, she would deign to take notice of you,Jane Cox could squash you
in under three minutes. The Eagle event was more serious as you were
slandering the dead(true, a regular thing among neo-Strats on this
site) and a man who had shown me great kindnesses in my teens.
By your own admission you had a date for 43, exactly my own
recollection,but since you likewise had a date for l971, a Schoenbaum
clipping,you did not check the earlier date but went ahead and called
both Eagle and myself frauds and liar with capitals and exclamation
points.
You moreover you had the gall to justify your conduct by claiming
you had not found the incident mentioned in your studies of Baconian
literature. Judging from your contributions to this web site,these
studies appear to be non-existent.
Mr. Eagle's first contribution to Baconiana dates from l916 and he
continued to contribute until his death in the fourth quarter of
this century.He also contributed to "Notes and Queries" and other
learned scholarly publication .At least one of his books received a
quite favorable notice in the TLS. Yet after your myriad studies in
Baconian lore, after a week of verbal dung throwing over the bodies of
men more honorable than yourself,you do not even know your would be
victem's name is Roderick Eagle.
I announced several weeks ago that I would be off this web for a
period (purpose to relocate with eight rooms of materials and six
animals) but have been held on with nearly l0,000 abusive words by the
lower forms of neo-Stratfordian life on this web site. Each one has
been answered. No matter how stupid or dishonest.You have addressed
eight to me since last Sunday usually in the company of individuals as
foul mouthed as yourself.On each and every factual involved you have
declined to give one word of answer accept to cut the pertinent
portions of the communications and substitute a string of
expletives.Your deviousness is on permanent record in these archives.I
have about two thousand further words to address to,at best,
disingenuous communications from you and your dueling partners.
I do not intend to unpack sixty-five years of Baconiana until
settled.You were the one who charged double fraud and lying in capital
letters.I am not your errand boy.I am the engineer who flushes out the
Augean stables of your mind.Inquiries have been made of friends with
access to a large urban library.There will be an earlier small black
letter section found, probably recording purchases from the truly
remarkable Smedley sale, a discussion by Eagle in the earlier 40's,
pointing out that Shakespeare's name was accompanied by an Elizabethan
street address(!) which he regarded as in the same handwriting,and
there may well be a third. As I left for Europe in l969 for ten
years,there is no way I saw the l970's argument.
>
> I said that a story by Roger Eagle, a Baconian, who
> claimed he had owned the book previously and thought
> the signature a forgery, was doubtful, since the title
> page had to be ironed out by the Folger Library before
> the signature was visible in the upper margin.
>
> To which the illustrious and honored scholar Parisious
> said, "Now you are lying about the Archaonomia
> inscription of which you know nothing at all. The book
> is recorded on a number of occasions in the early
> twentieth century and was described several times in
> Baconiana among other places before the Folgar
> purchase."
>
> And then he promised to furnish references to prove I
> was lying, and also to prove he knew all about it,
Reedy has again exhibited an unfortunate blinkered tendency
which,in a less fanatical man, would be characterised as
lying.Obviously he should have been prepared to furnish his own
references before launching his character assasination. If it had been
left at that we would not be hearing from Mr.Reedy today.(I have
challenged him for references at least six times in the last ten days.
Needless to say, not one has ever been forthcoming.)
The words to"prove he knew all about" are typical Reedy slop.At
the time he taunted me that I had nothing but my "failing memory" (as
I myself pointed out first) with the proviso that my memory is
generally better on incidents fifty years old than Reedy's was with
his imperfectly kept notes before his eyes.That's not knowing all
about it. Look at the quality of the opposition.
I
> presumably. (I hope the proof is better than his
> spelling.)
>
> But I seem to be having trouble with my server, as the
> promised reference hasn't shown up yet, and since it
> was five days ago that he promised it, I figure that
> surely he has posted it by now. Would someone please
> repost his message with the reference in it?
>
At my pleasure, not yours.
KQKnave
rpari...@yahoo.com (Roger Nyle Parisious) writes:
> I do not intend to unpack sixty-five years of Baconiana until
>settled.
No, Tom, you're not going to get your reference!
See my demolition of Monsarrat's RES paper!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/monsarr1.html
The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html
Agent Jim
Neil Brennen
"KQKnave" <kqk...@aol.comcrashed> wrote in message
news:20020831162148...@mb-cj.aol.com...
> In article <a3cc4070.02083...@posting.google.com>,
> rpari...@yahoo.com (Roger Nyle Parisious) writes:
>
> > I do not intend to unpack sixty-five years of Baconiana until
> >settled.
>
> No, Tom, you're not going to get your reference!
Agent Jim, isn't "I have my library packed away" the anti-Strat version of
"the dog ate my homework"? I seem to recall Stephanie C. using that excuse
once or twice.
Tom Reedy
message
news:a3cc4070.02083...@posting.google.com...
So I confused his name with yours. Big deal. You should
be flattered.
For the record, here is what Roger Nyle Parisious,
liar, said on the thread "Sir Thomas More: What Simpson
Said:"
"Roger Nyle Parisious" <rpari...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:a3cc4070.02082...@posting.google.com...
> "Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote in
message
news:<LXaa9.6518$ld4.6...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlin
k.net>...
> > "Roger Nyle Parisious" <rpari...@yahoo.com> wrote
in
> > message
> >
news:a3cc4070.02082...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
> > > OK ,you've lied about Jane Cox,Toby,Paul
Werstine
> > > and your humble servant this week,Pinocchio,and
this
> > > is only the slop I've casually run into .Now you
are
> > > lying about the Archaonomia inscription of which
> > > you know nothing at all.
> > >
> > > The book is recorded on a number of occasions
> > > in the early twentieth century and was described
> > > several times in Baconiana among
> > > other places before the Folgar purchase.
> >
> > Eagle told his story after the Folger bought the
volume
> > from the estate of William T. Smedley, ironed out
the
> > page and discovered the signature. Eagle claimed he
had
> > loaned it around 1920 to Smedley, another Baconian,
to
> > correct an error about decorative borders, and that
> > Smedley had not returned it.
> >
> > As far as I know, nobody but these two (if the
story is
> > true) knew about the volume until the Folger's
purchase
> > in 1938. There very well may be some references to
it
> > in Baconian literature, but I am not aware of any.
>
> You have never shown the slightest knowledge of
Baconian
> literature in anything you have ever
published,Chukie.
>
> >I'm sure you will furnish references.
>
> I will indeed.
<snip>
So we already know what you are, Parisious, by the very
words you posted. You are a liar. No amount of your
weak-ass, senile equivocation can change that.
Of course, that makes you a good representative of
antiStratfordism, which depends upon lying for its very
existence. Most of them also believe themselves clever,
the way you do, and most of them are also deficient in
their thinking abilities, the way you are. Sometimes
the culprit is drink, sometimes it is age, and
sometimes it is because of the effects of some social
disease whose symptoms they ignored due to thier
inherently deficient cognitive skills and now it has
worked its way into the host's nervous system. Of
course, it could also be congenital. Which reason
applies to you?
TR
Peter Zenner
>I said that a story by Roger Eagle, a Baconian, etc.
I have never heard of him, Tom, but I do have a book by
a Baconian named 'Roderick Eagle'. Perhaps he had a
brother who was a Baconian as well? Must have had --
Strats never make mistakes do they? ;^{D
RODERICK said, on page 16 of his 'Shakespeare: New
Views for Old', that --
Among the Manes [Manes Verulamiani, 1626], we
find one writer alluding to Bacon as an ever-disguising
and quick changing Proteus: "at length we ask him, 'who
art thou?' for he walks not every day showing the same
face.
Have you got the actual piece from the 'Manes', Elizabeth?
I have looked at a version on the web but can't find the quote
that Eagle refers to. It would be interesting to know how many
people 'Bacon' was, wouldn't it? We'll get there one day.
I didn't see any mention of 'Archaonomia' though, Tom, so
you had better put another call out to Roger N. P. about
Roger E.
Peter Zenner
Visit my web site 'Zenigmas' at
http://www.pzenner.freeserve.co.uk
Elizabeth Weir
I don't keep track of the politics in HLAS, Grumman. I just noticed
that Parisious mentioned that he had a collection of Baconiana. Does
that mean Parisious is a Baconian? I assumed he was an Oxfordian.
He made a reference to the sale of Smedley's collection. I knew
that Smedley had a wonderful collection that included rare quartos and
even some of Bacon's commonplace books--wonder where those are.
I was hoping that Smedley sold it to an institution that would catalogue
it.
My guess is that Parisious can back up his claim since he's referring
to an item in Smedley's collection.
Bob Grumman
>
> I have never heard of him, Tom, but I do have a book by
> a Baconian named 'Roderick Eagle'. Perhaps he had a
> brother who was a Baconian as well? Must have had --
> Strats never make mistakes do they?
Shakespeare-affirmers make lots of mistakes and don't mind making mistakes
because only rigidniks never make mistakes. Shakespeare-affirmers even
believe it's possible for others, like Henry Chettle and William
Shakespeare, to make
mistakes.
--Bob G.
John W. Kennedy
> In article <a3cc4070.02083...@posting.google.com>,
> rpari...@yahoo.com (Roger Nyle Parisious) writes:
>>I do not intend to unpack sixty-five years of Baconiana until
>>settled.
> No, Tom, you're not going to get your reference!
Certainly not from an idiot who can't distinguish between a newsgroup
and a website.
I also like his argument that anyone who's dead must be implicitly
trusted. Funny how he doesn't apply that to Hemmings, Condell, Jonson,
etc..
--
John W. Kennedy
Those in the seat of power oft forget their failings and seek only the
obeisance of others! Thus is bad government born! Hold in your heart
that you and the people are one, human beings all, and good government
shall arise of its own accord! Such is the path of virtue!
-- Kazuo Koike, "Lone Wolf and Cub: Thirteen Strings" (tr. Dana Lewis)
gro...@lwcdial.net
Roger Nyle Parisious
Shakspere certainly made a big mistake when he swore with the force
of an oath(teste) to George Buc,future Master of the Revels, that
"George a Green" was not the work of Robert Greene and was the
production of an amateur cleric.Actually by the double-ending test, it
is Greene's last known work and it was well vouched for by the
Henslowe management as a Robert Greene production.
Chettle certainly made a mistake in apologizing after "divers of
worship" put the pressure on him,Shakspere clearly knew more about
late Robert Greene manuscripts than he chose to share with Buc.
Then ,of course,K.Q.Knave made a mistake when ,in his thread "An
Appeal" ,he tried to blot all discussion of the two Buc marginalia
concerning Shakspere's fraudulant dealings.And on the "Thomas More"
tape the Knave made another mistake in denying he had done any such
thing, and suddenlly disappeared from the discussion.
Then,of course,Tom Reedy made no mistake on the Simpson tape when
he cut extensive refererences to the Buc memorandum, and substituted
about ten lines of his usual foul mouthed blabber without telling the
readers what he was trying to conceal.
Tom had been promising us "many" experts to verify his claim that
Hand D is the handwriting of William Shakspere. Finally after about
four goadings he produced an expert,Samuel Tannenbaum (late l920's),
of whose work he lyingly accused me of being ignorant.He now claimed
Tannenbaum(whom he had never mentioned before) was "central " to his
case.
As it happens I have had ,again, occasion three times since l997
to consult Tannenbaum in connection with the Buc memorandum.One of
the reasons he is not heard of more frequently as an expert is that
his efforts to discredit the Buc memorandums backfired completely when
Mark Eccles produced matching samples of Buc's handwriting which
completely vindicated the authenticity of both the W.S. and
Shakespeare marginalia.
Tannenbaum, like Simpson and Pollard, had an agenda. He was likewise
very much aware the mendacious Shakspere statements did not reflect
favorably on his larger authorship attributions.
Tom cut all of this and more and substituted ever meaner and lower
Reedy bilge. However, only two days later, he backtracked to Toby
Petzoldt and was back to his two original paleographical
experts,Simpson and Thompson, and seems to have decided we are never
going to get Dr. Tannenbaum. The sane Tannenbaum who was so recently
"central" to Tom's case.
Being insulted by Tom Reedy is like being insulted by Joseph
Goebbels. I don't really mind when we can extract some salient truths
out the Big Liar.
Tom Reedy
Can anybody figure out what Parisious is talking about
in this mess of drivel? To untangle the lies from the
distortions and misquotations would be an impossible
task.
The only thing I can figure out is that the references
he promised are not going to be forthcoming and this is
all hand-waving to distract us from it.
I knew you were lying to begin with, Roger. You don't
need to add any more.
TR
Bob Grumman
I have a vague idea what he's saying, and--of course--a very good idea of
what he's doing. But I'm not convinced he won't come up with some reference
that can be made to yield what he wants it to through Pricelation.
Seriously, for some reason I think he is not as dishonest at the use of
non-existent references as Elizabeth Weir, so maybe he really has a
pertinent one somewhere.
--Bob G.
--Bob G.
Neil Brennen
> Seriously, for some reason I think he is not as dishonest at the use of
Talk about damning with faint praise.
Roger Nyle Parisious
Goebbels used to say that too. Actually only one quotation was
used.The word "central". Is Tannenbaum "central" to your case? If not
why did you lie in claiming so? And why did you back down only two
days later? One word explain it ,Tombo.
Goebbels invented the big lie. He surrounded it with every
appearance of versimilitude. You are the Big Liar but you are too dumb
to surround yourself with any appearance of versimilitude .You are a
cheap Crystalnacht puppet who likes to believe he is an architect of
the neo-Stratfordian Reich.
>
> The only thing I can figure out is that the references
> he promised are not going to be forthcoming and this is
> all hand-waving to distract us from it.
You were on about Unproduced Reference number six to twelve on the
Thomas More tape(depending on how far back one starts counting) when
you raised this diversion. Any reference that will be given (at my
convenience) for serious readers interested in exposing yet another
faked Shakspere signature.
The simple fact is that you never believed that the hand D material
was in the handwriting of William Shakspere but you did believe you
could con the readership into believing it was. You failed,Reedy. And
all the hand waving cannot conceal your premeditated deceit. You can
figure that pretty plain.
>
> I knew you were lying to begin with, Roger. You don't
> need to add any more.
You knew that you were lying to begin with. And I will add more
every time you tell another one.
After all,Tombo,you aren't Dr. Goebbels. But you do sound off a lot
like Madame Mao Tse Dung.
RNP
>
> TR
John W. Kennedy
company of ladies and gentlemen. The fact that you are quite evidently
suffering from tertiary syphilis is your only excuse, and it is not an
adequate one.
Tom Reedy
message
news:a3cc4070.02090...@posting.google.com...
You're such a fucking moron. You can't even quote what
I said. It's no wonder nobody takes your "scholarship"
seriously except a bunch of whacked-out kooks.
> Goebbels invented the big lie. He surrounded it
with every
> appearance of versimilitude. You are the Big Liar but
you are too dumb
> to surround yourself with any appearance of
versimilitude .You are a
> cheap Crystalnacht puppet who likes to believe he is
an architect of
> the neo-Stratfordian Reich.
You've just lost. I suggest you learn a little more
about usenet etiquette before you post any more of your
senile drivel. Even your friends aren't taking up for
you. I can see why you're a failure in life.
TR
Neil Brennen
"John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:3D763508...@attglobal.net...
> You, sir, are a lying, foul-mouthed poltroon, and unfit for the
> company of ladies and gentlemen. The fact that you are quite evidently
> suffering from tertiary syphilis is your only excuse, and it is not an
> adequate one.
John, why sugarcoat it?
Neil Brennen
> You've just lost. I suggest you learn a little more
> about usenet etiquette before you post any more of your
> senile drivel. Even your friends aren't taking up for
> you. I can see why you're a failure in life.
> TR
Not only did he lose, but he invoked Godwin's Law very early.
Tom Reedy
in message news:al6bl1$5ub$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
That was my reference to usenet etiquette, but I wasn't
going to do any work for the moron.
Trying to understand Parisious' ravings is similar to
reading Richard Kennedy, except without the depth and
logic.
TR
David Kathman
Very early, and very heavy-handedly. Explicitly comparing
your opponent to Goebbels several times in the same post
is a bit ridiculous and redundant, even for Usenet.
Poor Roger probably doesn't even realize what a complete
ass he's made of himself.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Tom Reedy
news:al6ir6$onu$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net...
I doubt if it bothers him. When a person is either
unaware of or deluded about so many things, what's one
more?
TR
Roger Nyle Parisious
> company of ladies and gentlemen. The fact that you are quite evidently
> suffering from tertiary syphilis is your only excuse, and it is not an
> adequate one.
You said this before. Now get a new line. Get a new life. And
while you are at it, stop spewing your disgusting brand of religious
bigotry which you have done very recentlly on another thread.
Roger Nyle Parisious
Last time I spoke to you, you protested that you never spoke to
me.Actually you did speak to me first(do you want a reference?) and I
always answer my correspondence however stupid or occasionally
dishonest.Does it feel good to run with a pack. Especially when it can
only emit yelps (or is that whelps) at every bound.
Roger Nyle Parisious
As usual, you hope your readers (if any remain, outside the dirty
half dozen) will not check back five lines from here on what you
said.Now, in concise order (l)You complained of
misquotation.(2)Exactly one word by you was quoted .You were given
back that one word. I did exactly quote what you said.(3)You were
asked to explain it in context.You backed down two days later.(4)You
backed down again in this letter.(5)Repeat "One word[central],explain
what you meant by it in context.
Over the last several weeks it has become apparant to some readers
(who would not be caught dead debating you )that there is,possibly, an
extremely clever method behind your ever accelerating use of abuse and
obscenities in the course of a debate.When the heat is on you try to
make things so foul that no one will have the stomach to wade through
them a second time.
>
> > Goebbels invented the big lie. He surrounded it
> with every
> > appearance of versimilitude. You are the Big Liar but
> you are too dumb
> > to surround yourself with any appearance of
> versimilitude .You are a
> > cheap Crystalnacht puppet who likes to believe he is
> an architect of
> > the neo-Stratfordian Reich.
>
> You've just lost.
You are too dumb to surround yourself with any appearance of
versimilitude, only the same old batch of obscenities.
I suggest you learn a little more
> about usenet etiquette
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
before you post any more of your
> senile drivel.
You said that before.At least you don't pretend to have the
slightest creative ability. And we have just seen what your "Thomas
More "scholarship is worth.
Even your friends aren't taking up for
> you.
Tombo,you were alone on those "Thomas More" tapes three-quarters of
the way.Even your friends ,the most fanatic neo-Strats,had realized
the position was hopeless.
When this thing started in early August, I specifically said I
expected at least eight of the Dirty Dozen to appear within the course
of the next few weeks and ,with the appearance of Big Daddy the next
letter or two, I think it just about totals up.It was specifically
said that up to eight would be fought with one hand behind the back.
I can see why you're a failure in life.
No you can't see anything.And,further, you will never know any of
the great who have honored me with their friendship. Not excluding
that fine scholar,Roderick Eagle.
> RNP
Roger Nyle Parisious
If Tombo is down to bringing you in as his juror,he admits he's
lost. It's Murphy's Law not Godwin's.
Roger Nyle Parisious
> "Neil Brennen" <chessne...@mindspring.com> wrote
> in message news:al6bl1$5ub$1...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
> >
> > > You've just lost. I suggest you learn a little more
> > > about usenet etiquette before you post any more of
> your
> > > senile drivel. Even your friends aren't taking up
> for
> > > you. I can see why you're a failure in life.
> > > TR
> >
> > Not only did he lose, but he invoked Godwin's Law
> very early.
>
> That was my reference to usenet etiquette,
Name one honest and reliable reference you have given since you
started on your return to "scholarship" with your Werstine paper.
but I wasn't
> going to do any work for the moron.
You've worked your backside off for morons for most of your adult
life..Much academic respect that you've earned by it.Don't knock them
now.
>
> Trying to understand Parisious' ravings is similar to
> reading Richard Kennedy, except without the depth and
> logic.
Richard Kennedy is never less informed than John Kennedy. And he
was rather better informed than either of you when it comes to John
Ford.Too bad you and JK couldn't understand the depth and logic of his
position.You would have spared yourselves humiliation.Having Ford and
"More" both collapse simultaneously on you will certainly not look
good to the proprietorship of another Shakespeare Authorship website
on which you pitch much stock.
>
> TR
RNP
John W. Kennedy
> "John W. Kennedy" <jwk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message news:<3D763508...@attglobal.net>...
>>You, sir, are a lying, foul-mouthed poltroon, and unfit for the
>>company of ladies and gentlemen. The fact that you are quite evidently
>>suffering from tertiary syphilis is your only excuse, and it is not an
>>adequate one.
> You said this before. Now get a new line. Get a new life. And
> while you are at it, stop spewing your disgusting brand of religious
> bigotry which you have done very recentlly on another thread.
Lying is your religion? That would make sense, I suppose. No wonder
you're so upset by people who believe in telling the truth.
Neil Brennen
> > "John W. Kennedy" > wrote in message
> > > You, sir, are a lying, foul-mouthed poltroon, and unfit for the
> > > company of ladies and gentlemen. The fact that you are quite
evidently
> > > suffering from tertiary syphilis is your only excuse, and it is not an
> > > adequate one.
Neil Brennen wrote:
> > John, why sugarcoat it?
Roger Nyle Parasite wrote:
> Last time I spoke to you, you protested that you never spoke to
> me.Actually you did speak to me first(do you want a reference?) and I
> always answer my correspondence however stupid or occasionally
> dishonest.Does it feel good to run with a pack. Especially when it can
> only emit yelps (or is that whelps) at every bound.
Troll, don't you have a bridge to live under?
Neil Brennen
> > Not only did he lose, but he invoked Godwin's Law very early.
Roger Lying Parasite wrote:
> If Tombo is down to bringing you in as his juror,he admits he's
> lost. It's Murphy's Law not Godwin's.
http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/g/GodwinsLaw.html
Godwin's Law /prov./ [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the
probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There
is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over,
and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was
in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an
upper bound on thread length in those groups.
Roger Nyle Parisious
> > > Not only did he lose, but he invoked Godwin's Law very early.
>
> Roger Lying Parasite wrote:
If it looks like a whelp, yipes like a whelp, and eventually
joins the rear end of a pack, its a whelp. Welcome Neil Whelp.
> > If Tombo is down to bringing you in as his juror,he admits he's
> > lost. It's Murphy's Law not Godwin's.
>
> http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/g/GodwinsLaw.html
>
> Godwin's Law /prov./ [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the
> probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There
> is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over,
> and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was
> in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an
> upper bound on thread length in those groups.
And it is exactly at that self-created moment you choose to start
yiping ,whelp.
Repeat, if Tombo is down to bringing you in as his juror,he admits
he's lost.It's Murphy's Law, not Godwin's.
Roger Nyle Parisious
> > > "John W. Kennedy" > wrote in message
> > > > You, sir, are a lying, foul-mouthed poltroon, and unfit for the
> > > > company of ladies and gentlemen. The fact that you are quite
> evidently
> > > > suffering from tertiary syphilis is your only excuse, and it is not an
> > > > adequate one.
>
> Neil Brennen wrote:
> > > John, why sugarcoat it?
>
> Roger Nyle Parasite wrote:
> > Last time I spoke to you, you protested that you never spoke to
> > me.Actually you did speak to me first(do you want a reference?) and I
> > always answer my correspondence however stupid or occasionally
> > only emit yelps (or is that whelps?) at every bound.
>
> Troll, don't you have a bridge to live under?
If you were any more knowlegable about Norse mythology than
Shakespeare(and that would not require much learning) you would know
that Trolls ,without leaving the shelter of their bridges can catch
and swallow ten or more whelps whole before breakfast.
Elizabeth Weir
> >
> > I have never heard of him, Tom, but I do have a book by
> > a Baconian named 'Roderick Eagle'. Perhaps he had a
> > brother who was a Baconian as well? Must have had --
> > Strats never make mistakes do they?
>
> Shakespeare-affirmers make lots of mistakes and don't mind making mistakes
> because only rigidniks never make mistakes.
> Shakespeare-affirmers
It isn't whether or not the facts support the Strat case, it's
whether or not the Burhger is
** A F F I R M E D **
by Stratfordian "Shakespeare-affirmers" as in "our faith in the
Burgher is affirmed."
Strats have made the works into a boring substitute religion.
Stratianity.
> even
> believe it's possible for others, like Henry Chettle and William
> Shakespeare, to make
> mistakes.
That too.
Neil Brennen
"Roger Nyle Parisious" <rpari...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a3cc4070.02090...@posting.google.com...
Unfortunately for what passes for argument from you, Mr. Reedy didn't bring
me in. You brought your "friend" the Propaganda Minister into the thread.
Reedy wins.
Roger Nyle Parisious
Just managed to dig out later Tannenbaum from a hundred boxes of
materials.He did have the courage,despite his initial prejudices,to
give the Wilson orthography argument the short shrift it deserved. My
apologies to Tannenbaum. However,when he was either pro or
anti-"Thomas More", his opinions
> as an expert on handwriting must suffer severely by his performance on the Buc memoranda. Oddly enough, it was not the Buc gaffe (which was still getting
the silent treatment in the eighties from most Stratfordians) but
Tannenbaum's third theory that Peter Cunningham forged the Revels
accounts which brought about his downfall. Tannenbaum relied on
reproductions from a British source which should have been reliable.
It wasn't.
On the other hand,Tannenbaum had a substantial number of historical
arguments to impeach the "Cunningham" revels entries. These arguments
, in several instances , read impressively. If, as is now generally
claimed, it would have been a near physical impossibility for
Cunningham to have faked the accounts,Tannenbaum nevertheless raised
the strongest suspicions regarding the accuracy of these accounts.
Once again my apologies to a man who,in the end, went two out of
three times to the mat against the candidate he favored. His conscious
good faith(I had charged unconscious bad faith)in deauthenticating the
George Buc annotations is therefore unimpeachable.
> Tom cut all of this and more and substituted ever meaner and lower
> Reedy bilge. However, only two days later, he backtracked to Toby
> Petzoldt and was back to his two original paleographical
> experts,Simpson and Thompson, and seems to have decided we are never
> going to get Dr. Tannenbaum. The same Tannenbaum who was so recently
> "central" to Tom's case.
Well, I know better than ever now why we will never be hearing
more from Big Liar Reedy on the "central" character of Tannenbaum on
"More" research.Incidentally, many of late Tannenbaum's arguments on
the handwritings are interesting in themselves. Many certainly hold up
better than Hamilton or Thompson.But each must be judged on its own
liklihood and will be all the better for the lack of "authoritative"
hype with which Kathman and his camp followers ,such as the Big Liar
,like to envelop their paleographical pontifications.
>
> Being insulted by Tom Reedy is like being insulted by Joseph
> Goebbels. I don't really mind when we can extract some salient truths
> out the Big Liar.
Despite screams coming from the foulmouth section of the
spectrum(Brennan is yiping on three different threads),Reedy is not
equated with Joseph Goebbels.Goebbels was the founder of the Big Lie.
He knew how to handle it. Reedy,on the other hand, suffers from as bad
a case of foot and mouth disease as anyone on this site.He is an
incompetent Kathman sycophant who is consistently caught out in his
lies and deceptions within minutes of putting them on paper.
If (metaphor) Tombo's virulant insults recall in a single
respect,those of a notorious totalitarian ,it was specifically and
immediately stated that he was in no way a Dr. Goebbels. In his
somewhat effeminate hysteria,verbosity(third only to Rob and
GR),stridency, and rigidity he is in the field of politics comparable
only to Madame Mao Tse Dung(not Tung).
I hasten to add Reedy merely murders the laws of logic, the rules
of courteous discussion, and the English language, not human
beings.These may be crimes against humanity but I would never wish to
see him tried before an International Tribunal.
But he is like both Goebbels and Madame Mao in one further
respect. Outside the Dirty Dozen,a Reedy attack on absolutely anyone
counts as a plus mark on their balance sheet.
Incidentally what kind of lefties are making up these bogus laws?
Neil Brennen
"Roger Nyle Parisious" <rpari...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a3cc4070.02090...@posting.google.com...
> of courteous discussion, and the English language, not human
> beings.These may be crimes against humanity but I would never wish to
> see him tried before an International Tribunal.
PLONK!
Roger Nyle Parisious
No Parisious error.Except for my habit of responding to every
communication,however stupid or ,occasionally ,dishonest.
The Propaganda Minister was not brought into the thread ,only his
insult techniques. It was specifically stated that your pack leader
was NOT Dr. Goebbels. In so far as his clumsy, strident, verbose
debate techniques resemble
anyone it was stated to be and still is Madame Mao Tse Dung(not
Tung).
Look, you running dog of neo-Stratfordianism, it is signifigant
that you did not object to the latter comparison, which was the only
real comparison made.If made seriously ,you should have been up on
your haunches at once.
If you are going to ban totalitarians as examples of ridiculous
foibles, you ban all or none.If I say Rob, Greg, or Tom like to hug a
mike as tight as Fidel Castro,do you claim it implies that any of the
three individuals involved acted as hit men in their college days?
According to your point of view, Communism isn't as despicable as
National Socialism, though they killed several numbers of people.
Tom Reedy
message
news:a3cc4070.02090...@posting.google.com...
> Well, I know better than ever now why we will
never be hearing
> more from Big Liar Reedy on the "central" character
of Tannenbaum on
> "More" research.
<snip>
I know better than to try to get in an argument with a
feeble mind, but here's a genealogy of what Parisious
has said about what I said about Tannenbaum.
On the "Sir Thomas More: What Simpson Said" thread,
Parisious said:
> > > Observe that while Simpson relys [sic] on six
signatures, the Mountjoy
> > > deposition was not discovered until thirty-five
years after his death.
> > > His sixth signature is an unidentified book which
has not otherwise
> > > credibility within the Strat camp.
Note that Parisious implies knowledge of the sixth
signature Simpson used by adding, "which has not
otherwise credibility within the Strat camp."
Toby Petzold (a person whose intellectual capabilities
I have new respect for after reading Parisious'
confused bumblings) asked what other signature Simpson
used for comparison:
> > I was wondering about that. Is Simpson referring to
> > the Archaionomia inscription?
To which I replied:
> No. that wasn't discovered until the late 1930s when
it
> was bought at an auction by the Folger. A Baconian
> claimed he had owned it previously and thought the
> signature a forgery, but whether he did is doubtful,
> since the title page had to be ironed out before the
> signature was visible in the upper margin.
In a follow up post, I added:
> I forgot to add, the signature Simpson refers to
> appears in a copy of Montaigne's *Essays*. It is now
> generally thought to be a forgery, but it does not
look
> like one of Collier's.
In the same post, I told Toby:
> The fact that Parisious apparently doesn't know this
> should raise a question in your mind about his
> knowledge of the subject under discussion.
Parisious, a person who tries to masquerade as someone
knowledgeable on matters Shakespearian, tried to excuse
his ignorance in his reply:
> The fact that I cannot verify an unreferenced
> comment in an l870's article is proof that I am
> asking the readers to supply a reference.
(But notice he didn't ask anybody for a reference; he
just made what he considered to be a clever remark,
"His sixth signature is an unidentified book which has
not otherwise credibility within the Strat camp.")
Now here's where Tannenbaum comes in, on message 12 of
the thread, in which I said:
> The fact that you don't know the *Essays* signature
was
> generally accepted as genuine speaks volumes about
your
> knowledge. If you had even had a nodding
> acquantinacship with Tannenbaum, someone whose work
is
> central to the *More* manuscript, you would have
known
> that.
And how is Tannenbaum's work "central to the *More*
manuscript?"
Well, as anyone who has studied the matter knows (in
other words, *not* Parisious), Tannenbaum was one of
the "most effective and most persistent of the
opponents of the Shakespearian authorship of Add.IIc"
following the identification by Pollard, et al. "He
argues tenaciously, but the combination of his
insistence that whatever he presents as evidence be
accepted without question, of his immoderate style of
debate, the waywardness of some aspects of his
rationale inextricably mingled with sound scholarship[,
and his unwillingness to credit the most palpably valid
elements of his opponents' case -- plus his inability
to nominate any other dramatist as D44 -- induces a
reluctance on the part of more balanced scholars to
accept his argument against the Shakespearian
authorship of the Addition" (Metz in *Shakespeare and
Sir Thomas More, Howard-Hill, ed., page 22).
But that isn't why Tannenbaum is "central to the *More*
manuscript." By some of his "sound scholarship"
referred to by Metz, Tannenbaum identified Hand A as
Chettle's, an identification that is universally
accepted by all who have studied the matter.
Obviously Parisious, who shares a lot of Tannenbaum's
shortcomings while lacking his virtues, is ignorant of
Tannenbaum's contributions to the study of the *More*
manuscript. Instead, Parisious can produce only
confused ramblings which he takes to be salient points:
In message 13 of the thread, Parisious exposes his
confusion over Tannenbaum's work:
> Squirming again,Chuckie Doll,with your ever
convenient and always
> elusive "that".If you mean to say that you have found
a reference on a
> page in Tannenbaum which,as usual, you fail to
identify ,that
> eventually enabled you to identify Simpson's original
non- reference
> to an alleged Shakspere signature as a reference to a
notorious
> nineteenth century forgery,o.k. You should have
published the
> Tannenbaum citation with the original article, if you
knew about
> Tannenbaum's reference at that time. Of course it
would have exposed
> your expert as yet another non-expert, but he would
shortly be exposed
> anyway and you along with him. Alternatively you may
not have had the
> reference until recently and in such case are
pretending that I and
> the other readers on this web site should have known
something you did
> not know yourself until very recently,when it was
spoon fed to you.
>
>
> " Nodding acquaintanacship". Yes, indeed. I had to
go over the
> entire Tannenbaum stew when investigating the George
Buc annotations
> on Shakspere. Buc,as you well know,caught Shakspere
lying in his
> teeth about the provenance of a late Robert Greene
> manuscript.(Shakspere was setting an evil example for
his spiritual
> seed. People like you ,Chuckie.)Tannenbaum(a
psychiatrist who dabbled
> in handwriting analysis) was as desperate to
deauthenticate the Buc
> annotations as he was to authenticate the More
manuscript.
Notice Parisious' unwitting (why is that such a good
word to describe him?) admission of ignorance here,
although he would have us believe he has "go[ne] over
the entire Tannenbaum stew."
These
> compulsive and seemingly unanalysed Freudian
obsessions(like the
> widely self advertised one you have with fecal
things,Chuckie)
Notice his confusion of me with Toby "Steaming Loaf"
Petzold, a typical antiStratfordian misidentification.
drove
> him to some of the wildest misidentifications in the
history of
> graphology.
No examples given, of course. And a typical
Parisiousian confusion of paleography with graphology
(personality analysis through handwriting).
> Luckily for most of us, a young Strat of integrity
named
> Mark Eccles authenticated both Buc entries and
quietly blew
> Tannenbaum's pretensions sky high as far back as
l930.But ,as
> professional Strats are generally a rather thick and
stodgy lot ,the
> news hadn't yet reached all of them in the
l980's.(See the way
> Schoenbaum handles the issue.)
Here's a typical Parisiousian technique: make a vague
allusion to a non-existent reference. Maybe someone
will think he actually knows what he's talking about if
he drops some names here and there, as if he's actually
read them. It works with antiStrats; so maybe it will
work with everyone else.
> While Tannenbaum's bibliographical lists are still
extremely
> useful,he is almost unreadable and his "Thomas More"
done at the same
> time as his Buc work is of the same cut of cloth. And
this long
> quietly dropped "expert" is going to be central to
your case!What a
> fraud you are, Tom Reedy.
It is obvious Parisious is confused about the nature of
Tannenbaum's work, and how his "work is central to the
*More* manuscript," as I said. If he actually had a
nodding acquaintance with Tannenbaum, he would have
known that T used and accepted the Montaigne's *Essays*
signature as genuine, as did most scholars in the 19th
century and up until around WWII, which was the whole
point of my mentioning Tannenbaum.
But Parisious' confusion doesn't end with this post. He
gets confused even more later on in the "Anybody Seen
Parisious?" thread which I started after he promised to
produce an early 20th century reference for the
Archaionomia signature (a reference he has yet to
produce, and one for which I will not hold my breath,
now knowing his character and the quality of his
"scholarship").
In message 13 of the thread, Parisious said:
> Tom had been promising us "many" experts to verify
his claim that
> Hand D is the handwriting of William Shakspere.
Finally after about
> four goadings he produced an expert,Samuel Tannenbaum
(late l920's),
> of whose work he lyingly accused me of being
ignorant.He now claimed
> Tannenbaum(whom he had never mentioned before) was
"central " to his
> case.
Only a moron like Parisious could get that out of what
I said, especially given that I know, unlike Parisious,
obviously, that Tannenbaum argued *against* the
Shakespearian attribution. It's no wonder Parisious is
an antiStrat, with such cognitive skills as he
demonstrates.
But Parisious insists on claiming to be extremely
knowledgeable about Tannenbaum, even though he should
know by now that his bluffs will be called on this
newsgroup:
> As it happens I have had ,again, occasion three
times since l997
> to consult Tannenbaum in connection with the Buc
memorandum.One of
> the reasons he is not heard of more frequently as an
expert is that
> his efforts to discredit the Buc memorandums
backfired completely when
> Mark Eccles produced matching samples of Buc's
handwriting which
> completely vindicated the authenticity of both the
W.S. and
> Shakespeare marginalia.
>
> Tannenbaum, like Simpson and Pollard, had an
agenda. He was likewise
> very much aware the mendacious Shakspere statements
did not reflect
> favorably on his larger authorship attributions.
>
> Tom cut all of this and more and substituted ever
meaner and lower
> Reedy bilge. However, only two days later, he
backtracked to Toby
> Petzoldt and was back to his two original
paleographical
> experts,Simpson and Thompson, and seems to have
decided we are never
> going to get Dr. Tannenbaum. The sane Tannenbaum who
was so recently
> "central" to Tom's case.
His confused ramblings made no sense to me, so I put
out a general call for help:
> > Can anybody figure out what Parisious is talking
about
> > in this mess of drivel? To untangle the lies from
the
> > distortions and misquotations would be an
impossible
> > task
To which Parisious said, bringing up Tannenbaum once
again (and once again demonstrating his inability to
read English, as well as his ignorance of Tannenbaum):
> Goebbels used to say that too. Actually only one
quotation was
> used.The word "central". Is Tannenbaum "central" to
your case? If not
> why did you lie in claiming so? And why did you back
down only two
> days later? One word explain it ,Tombo.
Of course, Parisious lost whatever "debate" was going
on here by invoking Godwin's Law, and then, rather than
taking his lumps and apologizing like a man, he started
backing up from what he said, trying to make the case
that he didn't say what he said, which is typical
Parisious, as we've learned over the past weeks.
I suppose when you're as confused as he is, you can
claim all kinds of misunderstandings, but the point
remains that a confused, rambling post that can't stay
on point and misinterprets plain English indicates a
confused, rambling mind that can't stay on point and
misunderstands plain English.
And to top it all off, Parisious, in what I hope is the
last post of the thread, says he's now "Just managed to
dig out later Tannenbaum from a hundred boxes of
materials." (Why he can't find his Roderick Eagle
reference is, I suppose, one of those mysteries we will
just have to live with.)
Parisious now recants about half of what he said about
Tannenbaum, but he's still confused about the other
half and what I said about him. He misses completely
the irony of his arguing from his "memory" (whatever is
left of it) for the last two weeks or so and admitting
now that his memory is faulty. We are still obligated
to take whatever he says as the gospel, he thinks. (Or
should that be, "He believes?")
To sum up:
Roger Nyle Parisious has demonstrated himself that he
is a moron.
I had earlier put it down to senility, but the man is
not that much older than I am, so my guess is some
congenital mental defect is even now blotting out
whatever cognitive skills he may have had earlier in
life.
If I were him, I think I would spend what precious few
moments of lucidity I had left with my loved ones
rather than making confused posts to a bunch of
strangers who know what an ass he's making of himself.
But then again, maybe they know also what an ass he is,
and are grateful for the distraction.
TR
Bob Grumman
I'm pretty sure it was rightwingers who got annoyed by idiot leftwingers who
accused them of being Nazis whenever the leftwingers couldn't handle their
arguments, and made up the rule about losing an argument when you start
calling your opponent a Hitler or the like. They were right most of the
time, I suspect--and the fascist accusations have been very common on
newsgroups, and elsewhere. It goes back to leftwingers calling rightwingers
not politically correct and rightwingers finally taking the offensive and
calling people who accuse others of being politically incorrect as the true
slanderers and argument evaders. The bottom line is that what counts are
arguments, not
the tone of arguments or the amount of insults accompanying them, so I agree
with Roger about his Goebbels reference--except that I believe he started it
all with some other rule that I now forget. And whether tasteless or not,
the Goebbels reference was certainly inept.
--Bob G.
Roger Nyle Parisious
> "Roger Nyle Parisious" <rpari...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> message
> news:a3cc4070.02090...@posting.google.com...
> <snip>
>
> > Well, I know better than ever now why we will
> never be hearing
> > more from Big Liar Reedy on the "central" character
> of Tannenbaum on
> > "More" research.
Well,Reedy is slightly more adept with the Big Lie than he was
last time around.And if my moderate remonstrances spur him,however
slightly, to enliven the quality of his turgid rebuttals ,so much the
better for the readership. Tombo, at last, gives a very few quotes
from the well over one hundred despatches which are now circulating
over his ill-advised disenterment of the Hand D controversy.However,
he inserts them in the midst of a number of summaries which in no way
represent the original nature of the exchanges.Since he has,for the
first time, included certain quotes,he must, in the process, have
likewise seen the less convenient sections which has deceitfully
summarized.
I do not intend to gratify Tombo's megalomaniac tendencies by going
through a two hour "he said ,Madame Mao said" routine. He would first
relish the sight of how mush further painful labor he had caused and
would next punctuate several hundred lines of further abuse with five
to ten new whoppers or (more probably) five or ten old whoppers which
he has been keeping in cold storage for a couple weeks. Threre is
method to this madness. No normal human memory could retain the highly
uninspired things that he said weeks previously and,I fear, he is
counting on that. Unless, as I said to begin with(and I would still
rather have been right the first time) he becomes so blinkered by his
intense belief system that he can no longer distinguish the ordinary
realities.
The best that can be done ,under these circumstances, is to
ruthlessly snip the merely abusive parts of Tombo's communication(you
can read them all in the despatch preceeding this) and, sometime this
next week,reprint directly some quotations from his nine or ten
original threads on this subject. He has often run these
simultaneously over periods since July.
>
> <snip>
>
> I know better than to try to get in an argument with a
> feeble mind, but here's a genealogy of what Parisious
> has said about what I said about Tannenbaum.
There is more than one bar sinister in this geneology, but, as
already observed ,the issue is, and will remain,the utter mess which
has been made of the hand D argument.This is nearly as bad a stew as
Tannenbaum made of the Buc and Revel materials.Remember that is the
argument.
I tried to get answers on approximately six key points and
,perhaps, up to fourteen additional points over a period of weeks, the
answer was an ever increasing barrage of invective and fecal workouts
by Tombo. Frequently entire sections devoted to controversy were
snipped without warning and further ravings by Reedy SUBSTITUTED for
the original quite non-abusive constructions.
Several people(who for obvious reasons do not chose to have their
names on this site)warned me how much rawer this thing was going to
get but several also thought it was time someone showed up just how
bad things were getting around here when there were so many worthwhile
subjects which deserved fairer discussion..So I decided to continue
until it would be possible to again focus on the original issues both
on the Ben Jonson "Timber" and Hand D.questions.Regardless of the
amount of dung which it would be necessary to wade through in the
interim.
> Among the lesser points,the Tannenbaum reference,which occupied a
line and a half in toto, was particularly interesting as Reedy
referred to it as "central".For some weeks previous both Toby and I
had been punching him on who the "many" handwriting experts he kept
referring to ,but never producing, were.He finally gave me the name of
Giles Dawson(without a reference) and refused to be drawn out on the
subject. When he then brought in Tannenbaum as "central",I could only
take it that TR claimed Tannenbaum was an expert who supported his
position and was witholding his reference for the purposes of
delivering a kick to the groin later. Further he specifically cited
Tannenbaum(again without giving a citation) as proof that Simpson was
using the Florio signature in his handwriting comparisons.A fact which
Simpson nowhere states this in his article.
> On the "Sir Thomas More: What Simpson Said" thread,
> Parisious said:
>
> > > > Observe that while Simpson relys [sic] on six
> signatures, the Mountjoy
> > > > deposition was not discovered until thirty-five
> years after his death.
> > > > His sixth signature is an unidentified book which
> has not otherwise
> > > > credibility within the Strat camp.
>
> Note that Parisious implies knowledge of the sixth
> signature Simpson used by adding, "which has not
> otherwise credibility within the Strat camp."
As no one else writing on "Thomas More" (unless Reedy is telling
the truth about a Tannenbaum citation) has ever produced a comparison
with an unnamed sixth signature, any reasonable being would conclude
that ,otherwise than with Simpson ,the sixth signature had no
credibility inside the Stratfordian camp.Ordinarily things that cannot
be identified do not,Tombo.
>
> Toby Petzold (a person whose intellectual capabilities
> I have new respect for after reading Parisious'
> confused bumblings) asked what other signature Simpson
> used for comparison:
>
> > > I was wondering about that. Is Simpson referring to
> > > the Archaionomia inscription?
>
> To which I replied:
>
> > No. that wasn't discovered until the late 1930s when
> it
> > was bought at an auction by the Folger. A Baconian
> > claimed he had owned it previously and thought the
> > signature a forgery, but whether he did is doubtful,
> > since the title page had to be ironed out before the
> > signature was visible in the upper margin.
You might have added one of the reasons he thought it a forgery
and didn't mind handing it over to Smedley was that it contained a
street address in what was apparantly the same handwriting as the
signature.
>
> In a follow up post, I added:
>
> > I forgot to add, the signature Simpson refers to
> > appears in a copy of Montaigne's *Essays*. It is now
> > generally thought to be a forgery, but it does not
> look
> > like one of Collier's.
>
> In the same post, I told Toby:
>
> > The fact that Parisious apparently doesn't know this
> > should raise a question in your mind about his
> > knowledge of the subject under discussion.
Typical Tombo slop.Because I do not know that Simpson was basing
an argument(which he never published) on a signature which he never
identified,I do not that a forged nineteenth century signature exists.
>
> Parisious, a person who tries to masquerade as someone
> knowledgeable on matters Shakespearian, tried to excuse
> his ignorance in his reply:
>
> > The fact that I cannot verify an unreferenced
> > comment in an l870's article is proof that I am
> > asking the readers to supply a reference.
>
> (But notice he didn't ask anybody for a reference; he
> just made what he considered to be a clever remark,
> "His sixth signature is an unidentified book which has
> not otherwise credibility within the Strat camp.")
An extremely accurate remark.And no one in the world is more in the
dark than Reedy on what I "consider" about anything.
>
> Now here's where Tannenbaum comes in, on message 12 of
> the thread, in which I said:
>
> > The fact that you don't know the *Essays* signature
> was
> > generally accepted as genuine speaks volumes about
> your
> > knowledge. If you had even had a nodding
> > acquantinacship with Tannenbaum, someone whose work
> is
> > central to the *More* manuscript, you would have
> known
> > that.
Reedy rewriting history from line to line.I spent a whole
communication of his slippery use of the word general here and a
second use which he seems to have,understandably,snipped.
>
> And how is Tannenbaum's work "central to the *More*
> manuscript?"
>
> Well, as anyone who has studied the matter knows (in
> other words, *not* Parisious), Tannenbaum was one of
> the "most effective and most persistent of the
> opponents of the Shakespearian authorship of Add.IIc"
> following the identification by Pollard, et al. "He
> argues tenaciously, but the combination of his
> insistence that whatever he presents as evidence be
> accepted without question, of his immoderate style of
> debate, the waywardness of some aspects of his
> rationale inextricably mingled with sound scholarship[,
> and his unwillingness to credit the most palpably valid
> elements of his opponents' case -- plus his inability
> to nominate any other dramatist as D44 -- induces a
> reluctance on the part of more balanced scholars to
> accept his argument against the Shakespearian
> authorship of the Addition" (Metz in *Shakespeare and
> Sir Thomas More, Howard-Hill, ed., page 22).
Quite well known. That was why it was astonishing to see you
introduce Tannenbaum as "central" to your case the only one under
discussion for many weeks. During these weeks you were perpetually to
produce "many" experts. We finally got a second name, which I was in
no position to disprove, but was astonished to see on your short list.
I did exactly what I did with your non-citation of Dawson, made a
general attack on the witness on the basis of his worst performances
known to me and waited for you to produce the bombshell.
>
> But that isn't why Tannenbaum is "central to the *More*
> manuscript." By some of his "sound scholarship"
> referred to by Metz, Tannenbaum identified Hand A as
> Chettle's, an identification that is universally
> accepted by all who have studied the matter.
No,that is not why it is "central".And the explanation which you
are now producing,only after some weeks of heckling, is incredible in
the original context.Hand A was never mentioned once by you,or any one
else, in the multitudinous course of the present discussion.You
specifically introduced the subject of Tannenbaum in relation to the
Simpson handwriting speciman. When, (at considerable trouble it will
please you to hear) I actually got to my Tannenbaum notes, it was
obvious (on the question of date) that there was no room for a
Tannenbaum recantation. So I published the error ,but only after at
least once more trying to draw you out first.
And your conduct has again been very revealing. About two days
after the Tannenbaum non-citation you admitted to Toby that Simpson
was no paleographer and Thompson was the beginning and end of that
part of your case.Dawson mysteriously disappears. It is a fair
question, what happened to "central" Tannenbaum? I(n the heat of your
invective, you simply forgot what part Tannenbaum had played in the
controversy.Within a couple of days, you beat a hasty retreat for
Toby, but weren't man enough to admit you had deliberately tried to
beat down an opponent with a display of fake erudition.Since my name
is not Reedy I would have immediately accepted an explanation of
"Oops, you know I get hot about this, it means a lot to me. Hasn't it
ever happened to you?" And as far as I was concerned we would then
have moved into the interesting issue of orthography.
You need go no farther than Jerry Downs's citations on this site
to realise I am quite well acquainted with Tannenbaum's work on
orthography and Jerry previously did me the honor of sending his
unpublished brochure on "More"to me for criticism. I was also present
when he read his paper at the Detroit conference.In this recent thread
I was given the option that a hitherto unknown Tannenbaum was to be
launched as a deadly missile.In such cases (where both or all sides
are hostile to a given witness, a witness who nevertheless is throwing
each of the contestants separate bones) the simplest and least dubious
thing to do is scrap the witness entirely for purposes of the
controversy.Now that it again appears ,as I recently noted, that
Tannenbaum actually went against his own passionate convictions in
respect to both the Revels accounts and the More manuscript,we will
safely call him as a witness on orthography.
>
> Obviously Parisious, who shares a lot of Tannenbaum's
> shortcomings while lacking his virtues, is ignorant of
> Tannenbaum's contributions to the study of the *More*
> manuscript. Instead, Parisious can produce only
> confused ramblings which he takes to be salient points:
>
> In message 13 of the thread, Parisious exposes his
> confusion over Tannenbaum's work:
>
> > Squirming again,Chuckie Doll,with your ever
> convenient and always
> > elusive "that".
TR had been caught out on a wretched "that". He pulled the same
stunt a second time here.
If you mean to say that you have found
> a reference on a
> > page in Tannenbaum which,as usual, you fail to
> identify ,that
> > eventually enabled you to identify Simpson's original
> non- reference
> > to an alleged Shakspere signature as a reference to a
> notorious
> > nineteenth century forgery,o.k. You should have
> published the
> > Tannenbaum citation with the original article, if you
> knew about
> > Tannenbaum's reference at that time. Of course it
> would have exposed
> > your expert as yet another non-expert, but he would
> shortly be exposed
> > anyway and you along with him. Alternatively you may
> not have had the
> > reference until recently and in such case are
> pretending that I and
> > the other readers on this web site should have known
> something you did
> > not know yourself until very recently,when it was
> spoon fed to you.
We have been over this for the third time today. It is plain
from the above that I assumed Tombo wouldn't dare come up with a fake
Tannenbaum reference. It now appears, after a month of
interogation,that there is third possibility that he never had a
reference at all.Any more than he had a "central" reference about Hand
D.
> >
> >
> > " Nodding acquaintanacship". Yes, indeed. I had to
> go over the
> > entire Tannenbaum stew when investigating the George
> Buc annotations
> > on Shakspere. Buc,as you well know,caught Shakspere
> lying in his
> > teeth about the provenance of a late Robert Greene
> > manuscript.(Shakspere was setting an evil example for
> his spiritual
> > seed. People like you ,Chuckie.)Tannenbaum(a
> psychiatrist who dabbled
> > in handwriting analysis) was as desperate to
> deauthenticate the Buc
> > annotations as he was to authenticate the More
> manuscript.
>
> Notice Parisious' unwitting (why is that such a good
> word to describe him?) admission of ignorance here,
> although he would have us believe he has "go[ne] over
> the entire Tannenbaum stew."
The "entire Tannenbaum stew" was the double scandel(l) with the Buc
marginalia regarding Shakespeare and Greene and(2) the Revels Accounts
which I deliberately omitted (and Reedy still apparantly knows nothing
about) to avoid
expanding the issue. Reedy was threatening to raise a third stew which
,it develops, he was in no position to do; but, until I forced the
issue,he was willing to keep the threat of it hovering indefinitely in
the background. Now it turns out the big surprise was that he meant
Hand A all along.
And the Howard Hughes manuscript is genuine also.
>
> These
> > compulsive and seemingly unanalysed Freudian
> obsessions(like the
> > widely self advertised one you have with fecal
> things,Chuckie)
>
> Notice his confusion of me with Toby "Steaming Loaf"
> Petzold, a typical antiStratfordian misidentification.
At last! A trace of humor in your aimiable correspondence.Still
the joke is still on you. A countdown on the last couple of threads
will reveal you are not only still heavily into excrement but show an
unhealthy interest in excrement lodged in various unusual apertures of
the human body and even the devouring of excrement.Too bad you hate
Oxfordians, Freud and Tannenbaum could diagnose simple problems like
this quite well.But until you are willing to face these factors in
your personality you should not start threads about other people's
ugly minds.
There was another thread where I did shoot in between Toby and
you ( also )and pointed out that in trying to hit Toby you had done
more than anybody since Lee Harvey Oswald to shoot up a John
Kennedy.Actually, it did some good for a short time. Kennedy actually
stopped referring to individuals as anal orifices for at least two or
more weeks.And Toby stopped using the four letter variety, which
compelled you to stop it using it until it got to be a question of
whether it was worse to call your opponent excrement or a liar when
they were caught in misstatements which their opponents held to be
malicious.
Since you claim the title of scholar, you might try an analysis(not
a psychoanalysis) of the HLAS archives.The earliest use of the anal
orifice I have found here was apparently applied by your father
figure,David Kathman,to the Earl of Oxford.This was later excused on
the grounds that Oxford was dead.I have no data on who first applied
the same to a still living individual.
Further research again indicates that the confusion of excrement
with the brain cavity was probably first introduced to you by
Dr.Kathman.You seem to have surpressed this unwholesome example set by
the revered father figure;but until you trace it to the source, it
will continue to needlessly complicate your relationships with third
parties.
> drove
> > him to some of the wildest misidentifications in the
> history of
> > graphology.
>
> No examples given, of course. And a typical
> Parisiousian confusion of paleography with graphology
> (personality analysis through handwriting).
Tannenbaum being a Freudian analyst,graphology seemed a fun word
for what he was doing.And don't tell me he would have been able to
completely resist the possibilities offered thereby.I did not confuse
it with the word Paleography.You are so dead bent on cracking the
whip, you don't realize when you are being mocked.
>
> > Luckily for most of us, a young Strat of integrity
> named
> > Mark Eccles authenticated both Buc entries and
> quietly blew
> > Tannenbaum's pretensions sky high as far back as
> l930.But ,as
> > professional Strats are generally a rather thick and
> stodgy lot ,the
> > news hadn't yet reached all of them in the
> l980's.(See the way
> > Schoenbaum handles the issue.)
>
> Here's a typical Parisiousian technique: make a vague
> allusion to a non-existent reference.
Lying again,Tombo.The Tannenbaum thing showed a certain amount of
guile.You were able to string it out for a month.But if you are so
dumb or so arrogant as not to have read Eccles seventy-three years
after the event and think you can bluff it out think again. Not even
the entire Dirty Dozen would be that imprudent.Big Daddy just tried to
cover for you. He is not ass enough to cover you on this one.
If you can not find Eccles(he is the third part of the team and
did not make the cover),there is no excuse for not having read Allen
Nelson's treatment in the last three years.
Maybe someone
> will think he actually knows what he's talking about if
> he drops some names here and there, as if he's actually
> read them. It works with antiStrats; so maybe it will
> work with everyone else.
Well, you cited "many" paleographers who turned out not to
exist.Including the Tannenbaum reference.Hostile transference?
>
> > While Tannenbaum's bibliographical lists are still
> extremely
> > useful,he is almost unreadable and his "Thomas More"
> done at the same
> > time as his Buc work is of the same cut of cloth.
Readability is not Tannenbaum's strong suit.
And
> this long
> > quietly dropped "expert" is going to be central to
> your case!What a
> > fraud you are, Tom Reedy.
>
> It is obvious Parisious is confused about the nature of
> Tannenbaum's work, and how his "work is central to the
> *More* manuscript," as I said.
Second time running you've tried the "as I said "stunt.Every
knows by now that is not the context in which you said it.
It was you who were doing the confusing and what you wrote about
ten minutes back bears no relation to your previous pretensions.
If he actually had a
> nodding acquaintance with Tannenbaum, he would have
> known that T used and accepted the Montaigne's *Essays*
> signature as genuine, as did most scholars in the 19th
> century and up until around WWII, which was the whole
> point of my mentioning Tannenbaum.
The question wasn't what Tannenbaum accepted--not until this very
second.Now its the whole point. What happened to Hands D and A and
SIMPSON'S use of a signature which he did not bother to identify.You
may well wish you had said that. But you did not and you know that you
did not.
>
> But Parisious' confusion doesn't end with this post. He
> gets confused even more later on in the "Anybody Seen
> Parisious?" thread which I started after he promised to
> produce an early 20th century reference for the
> Archaionomia signature (a reference he has yet to
> produce, and one for which I will not hold my breath,
> now knowing his character and the quality of his
> "scholarship").
The Buc references are before your eyes and you still deny the
existence of the Eccles report. I am not working for you,Reedy. You
would still be trying to extract mileage from your stupid
misrecollection of a non-existent "central" Tannenbaum piece if I
hadn't come back on you first.
Since you,second time around, admitted you had a l943 reference
(in which you seem to have spoken truly ) to Eagle but were too lazy
to follow it up. Easier to call fraud against your betters, isn't it?
Just lay back with your belly hanging out and do your incompetent
meanest.
> In message 13 of the thread, Parisious said:
>
> > Tom had been promising us "many" experts to verify
> his claim that
> > Hand D is the handwriting of William Shakspere.
> Finally after about
> > four goadings he produced an expert,Samuel Tannenbaum
> (late l920's),
> > of whose work he lyingly accused me of being
> ignorant.He now claimed
> > Tannenbaum(whom he had never mentioned before) was
> "central " to his
> > case.
>
> Only a moron like Parisious could get that out of what
> I said, especially given that I know, unlike Parisious,
> obviously, that Tannenbaum argued *against* the
> Shakespearian attribution.
No one is giving that you knew anything of the kind.You are in
no position to beg favors.It is on record that I participated in two
or three projects that dealt specifically with the negative aspects of
Tannenbaum's criticism.
You still do not seem to have got your story straight about what
you knew when.
Snipping Reedy insults, not Reedy arguments as he repeatedly has
done with my despatches.
>
> > As it happens I have had ,again, occasion three
> times since l997
> > to consult Tannenbaum in connection with the Buc
> memorandum.
Again the references to the Tannenbaum stew dealt directly with
the Buc memorandum.I couldn't consult Reedy's Tannenbaum
material,which would have created another Tannenbaum stew, because it
didn't exist.
Yes they did ;that's why you cut the key section and substituted
more Reedy bilge.If you seriously had any one of the three or four
inconsistent explanations you have substituted today,you would have
given them. You wanted to string out what was originally a mere hot
tempered error as far as possible.You figured you were perfectly safe
with your whoppers because if you worked the execretory factors as
far as possible you would literally stink us all out before you
exposed yourself.
so I put
> out a general call for help:
>
> > > Can anybody figure out what Parisious is talking
> about
> > > in this mess of drivel? To untangle the lies from
> the
> > > distortions and misquotations would be an
> impossible
> > > task
>
> To which Parisious said, bringing up Tannenbaum once
> again (and once again demonstrating his inability to
> read English, as well as his ignorance of Tannenbaum):
>
> > Goebbels used to say that too. Actually only one
> quotation was
> > used.The word "central". Is Tannenbaum "central" to
> your case? If not
> > why did you lie in claiming so? And why did you back
> down only two
> > days later? One word explain it ,Tombo.
Tombo has spewed several thousand words.On under two lines.He has
explained nothing.
And all of this to cover an excreble set of Thomas More papers,
which have strangely ceased production.
>
> Of course, Parisious lost whatever "debate" was going
> on here by invoking Godwin's Law, and then, rather than
> taking his lumps and apologizing like a man,
There is nothing to apologize for. You have produced some of the
nasty pieces of non-work ever seen on this sight. And no less than
seven buddies sent in to cover for you cannot undo the
damage.Everything went exactly as predicted in the beginning.As I told
you then, you bring in more than eight thugs and I may have to untie
the second hand.
he started
> backing up from what he said,
This is four days ago.I gave it right back to your puss,Madame Mao
Tze Dung.
> More Tombo lies about short threads of less than thirty lines total.
> And to top it all off, Parisious, in what I hope is the
> last post of the thread,[don't you wish] says he's now "Just managed to
> dig out later Tannenbaum from a hundred boxes of
> materials." (Why he can't find his Roderick Eagle
> reference is, I suppose, one of those mysteries we will
> just have to live with.)
Top it!You have, by your own demonstration, only published the
above several thousand lying words because I took the trouble in
three or four recent despatches to challenge ONE of the frauds you
were running over the past six weeks here.That is one of about
fourteen minor points and around six major points that ought to be up
for consideration as they are worthy of discussion
even when they have past through the mouth of a conscious and
malicious cheat.
>
> He misses completely
> the irony of his arguing from his "memory" (whatever is
> left of it) for the last two weeks or so and admitting
> now that his memory is faulty.
On the contrary except for recollecting that Eagle had sold, rather
than lent, his book to Smedley my memory has been completely accurate
whereas Reedy
> who was given his own choice of objects to debate has shown he cannot remember what lies he invented even a few lines earlier.
> I had earlier put it down to senility, but the man is
> not that much older than I am
This is truly monstrous in the full sense of the word.All the
fecal workout, the brown nosing with Kathman, the transexual
dialogue,the sadism,the evasions, it had to come from some thirty
something academic climber who wasn't very successful and liked
leaving his stomach hang out over the beer bottles.And this is the
fruit of your maturity.How pitiful ,indeed.
>
> TR
RNP
Bob Grumman
Reedy on this and related threads although I have always found his posts
coherent enough. Yours I have found to be extremely confusing--sometimes
incoherent. So why don't you start again, and tell us what your point
is--or what your FIRST point is. Next, present evidence for it. Then
address the arguments against you on your point when they appear--and don't
change the topic! If you can do that, go on to your next point, if you have
one.
I suggest you do this on paper, then copy it into the computer.
If you think I am unfair to characterize your posts as generally incoherent,
get a fellow Shakespeare-opposer to tell us what you said. I'll bet you
can't get one to work out your meaning.
--Bob G.
Tom Reedy
message
news:a3cc4070.02090...@posting.google.com...
> "Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote in
message
news:<Gbue9.14131$LI2.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthl
ink.net>...
<snip>
> > He misses completely
> > the irony of his arguing from his "memory"
(whatever is
> > left of it) for the last two weeks or so and
admitting
> > now that his memory is faulty.
>
> On the contrary except for recollecting that Eagle
had sold, rather
> than lent, his book to Smedley my memory has been
completely accurate
Parisious doen't know when to give up. He must live on
Irony Street in Irony City, USA.
TR
Peter Groves
| Roger, I no longer have any idea at all what has gone on between you and
Tom
| Reedy on this and related threads although I have always found his posts
| coherent enough. Yours I have found to be extremely confusing--sometimes
| incoherent. So why don't you start again, and tell us what your point
| is--or what your FIRST point is. Next, present evidence for it. Then
| address the arguments against you on your point when they appear--and
don't
| change the topic! If you can do that, go on to your next point, if you
have
| one.
|
| I suggest you do this on paper, then copy it into the computer.
|
Or get someone who can spell and punctuate to do so.
Nicholas Whyte
> > He misses completely
> > the irony of his arguing from his "memory" (whatever is
> > left of it) for the last two weeks or so and admitting
> > now that his memory is faulty.
>
> On the contrary except for recollecting that Eagle had sold, rather
> than lent, his book to Smedley my memory has been completely accurate
And except for locating "Firenze" on the Adriatic coast east of Venice...
Nicholas
Neil Brennen
> Parisious doen't know when to give up. He must live on
> Irony Street in Irony City, USA.
Not too far wrong. Many small towns in Pennsylvania, including possibly the
one Parasite lives in, fit the description.
Tom Reedy
message
news:7b33cc41.02091...@posting.google.com...
The further irony, of course, for those who are not
familiar with the Archaionomia case, is that Eagle did
*not* sell his book to Smedley; he only lent it and
never got it back (or so he claimed, almost 40 years
after the fact). Parisious is just guessing, because I
took him at his word and wrongly assumed he was
familiar with the case and didn't spell it out for him.
And to top it off, Parisious in his ignorance also
said, as a way of establishing his knowledge,
> You might have added one of the reasons
> he [Eagle] thought it a forgery and didn't
> mind handing it over to Smedley was that it
> contained a street address in what was
> apparantly the same handwriting as the signature.
which is wrong also. The street address and the comment
that Shakespeare lived there is in a completely
different handwriting. Parisious is shooting in the
dark again, with no more results than the first or
second time he did.
But there is really no point in trying to keep up with
Parisious' errors; there are so many, and his
blustering about what all he knows establishes that the
man is an obvious and compulsive liar.
TR
John W. Kennedy
Roger Nyle Parisious
> "Nicholas Whyte" <nichol...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> message
> news:7b33cc41.02091...@posting.google.com...
> > rpari...@yahoo.com (Roger Nyle Parisious) wrote in
> message
> news:<a3cc4070.02090...@posting.google.com>.
> ..
> > > "Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote in
> message
> news:<Gbue9.14131$LI2.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthl
> ink.net>...
How many lies can you put in on one day,Reedy. You just got
caught out on your favorite subject, excrement, on an apprpriately
named thread.
> >
> > > > He misses completely
> > > > the irony of his arguing from his "memory"
> (whatever is
> > > > left of it) for the last two weeks or so and
> admitting
> > > > now that his memory is faulty.
> > >
> > > On the contrary except for recollecting that
> Eagle had sold, rather
> > > than lent, his book to Smedley my memory has been
> completely accurate
> >
> > And except for locating "Firenze" on the Adriatic
> coast east of Venice...
> >
> > Nicholas
On another thread,you had the grace to realize this was a
misprint for Trieste.You then managed to forget the entire point of my
communication. I have started it over as a new thread "Shakespeare's
Erudition-Again".Though,having made the requisite corrections,I doubt
that we will have much further to say to each other.
>
> The further irony, of course, for those who are not
> familiar with the Archaionomia case,
Tombo, you were not familiar with the Archaionomia when you
mouthed off.
I was the one,as usual, who first called attention to the fact
that Eagle had passed the book on.He did state, and not in l971, that
he valued the book at only a few pounds.
is that Eagle did
> *not* sell his book to Smedley; he only lent it and
> never got it back
(or so he claimed, almost 40 years
> after the fact).
He claimed so in approximately l943 and you yourself slipped on
this and gave that date as being in your possession. This is another
fake like that non-existent Tannenbaum expertise.
Since you have admitted having the l943 reference but enjoy
surpressing it,the only real question is whether you have ever read
Eagle's l970's contributions.There is nothing on this site to show
that you have anything better than an unidentified page in Schoenbaum
as the total extent of your research.
Parisious is just guessing, because I
> took him at his word and wrongly assumed he was
> familiar with the case and didn't spell it out for him.
Syntax,Tombo. Your road rage is choaking you up.Diagram that
sentence,Mr. M.A>
>
> And to top it off,
What
Parisious in his ignorance also
> said, as a way of establishing his knowledge,
>
> > You might have added one of the reasons
> > he [Eagle] thought it a forgery and didn't
> > mind handing it over to Smedley was that it
> > contained a street address in what was
> > apparantly the same handwriting as the signature.
>
> which is wrong also. The street address and the comment
> that Shakespeare lived there is in a completely
> different handwriting.
I thought you hadn't seen the l940's material and now you claim I
am wrong about them?Tom, produce the quote. You know you have it.
Parisious is shooting in the
> dark again, with no more results than the first or
> second time he did.
Result achieved.You are lying about your possession of the 40's
Eagle material and have never seen the 70's stuff.
>
> But there is really no point in trying to keep up with
> Parisious' errors; there are so many, and his
> blustering about what all he knows establishes that the
> man is an obvious and compulsive liar.
I have for approximately the fifth time recently, that you are
the compulsive liar,Tombo. RNP
>
> TR
Tom Reedy
guy's drunk most of the day.
"Roger Nyle Pissious" <rpari...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:a3cc4070.02091...@posting.google.com...
SENILITY ALERT! SENILITY ALERT!
Just so you will know in the future, that quoted
section was not composed by me.
An easy way to tell is that it is signed, "Nicholas."
> > The further irony, of course, for those who are not
> > familiar with the Archaionomia case,
>
> Tombo, you were not familiar with the
Archaionomia when you
> mouthed off.
> I was the one,as usual, who first called
attention to the fact
> that Eagle had passed the book on.
I find it hard to believe you would deliberately lie
about such an easily-checked matter, so therefore I
conclude you suffer from some type of senility, or
possibly brain lesions.
> He did state, and not in l971, that
> he valued the book at only a few pounds.
You've said this many times, and you've even promised a
reference for it. When are you going to come across?
> is that Eagle did
> > *not* sell his book to Smedley; he only lent it and
> > never got it back
> (or so he claimed, almost 40 years
> > after the fact).
>
> He claimed so
He claimed what? That he sold it?
> in approximately l943
Wait a minute. Who cares about 1943? Where did this
date come from? You said in message No. 11 of the
thread, "Sir Thomas More: What Simpson Said,":
LP-> The book is recorded on a number of occasions in
the early
LP-> twentieth century and was described several times
in Baconiana among
LP-> other places before the Folgar purchase. A
previous owner, Roderick
LP-> Eagle ,was happy to part with it very cheaply,
though he had
LP-> everything to gain by hyping it as a Shakspere
signature.
(LP stands for Lying Parisious, BTW)
Following your post, in No. 12 of the same thread, I
said:
TR-> Eagle told his story after the Folger bought the
volume
TR-> from the estate of William T. Smedley, ironed out
the
TR-> page and discovered the signature. Eagle claimed
he had
TR-> loaned it around 1920 to Smedley, another
Baconian, to
TR-> correct an error about decorative borders, and
that
TR-> Smedley had not returned it.
TR->
TR-> As far as I know, nobody but these two (if the
story is
TR-> true) knew about the volume until the Folger's
purchase
TR-> in 1938. There very well may be some references to
it
TR-> in Baconian literature, but I am not aware of any.
I'm
TR-> sure you will furnish references.
To which you replied in message No. 13:
LP-> I will indeed.
So your 1943 date doesn't have anything at all to do
with the reference you promised us (and which I doubt
you will ever produce, since you are either lying or
your brain has turned to mush).
> and you yourself slipped on
> this and gave that date as being in your possession.
That is the date Giles Dawson published his first paper
on it, dumbass!
"Authenticity and Attribution of Written Matter,"
*English Institute Annual 1942*. New York: Colombia UP,
1943, pp. 77-100.
For your information, and since you display such
ignorance on the matter, I will tell you that as far as
I know the first mention of the signature in print was
a progress report by J.Q. Adams in 1942 that he later
expanded into an article published in 1943.
This is another
> fake like that non-existent Tannenbaum expertise.
>
> Since you have admitted having the l943 reference
but enjoy
> surpressing it,the only real question is whether you
have ever read
> Eagle's l970's contributions.
No, the only real question on this thread is whether
you are lying or mentally incapacitated.
> There is nothing on this site to show
> that you have anything better than an unidentified
page in Schoenbaum
> as the total extent of your research.
Like I said, the 1943 reference is not the issue here.
Eagle did write a letter to N&Q in 1943, but that is
not the reference you promised, no matter how you try
to blur the lines of the issue.
> Parisious is just guessing, because I
> > took him at his word and wrongly assumed he was
> > familiar with the case and didn't spell it out for
him.
>
> Syntax,Tombo. Your road rage is choaking you
up.Diagram that
> sentence,Mr. M.A>
> >
> > And to top it off,
>
> What
>
>
> Parisious in his ignorance also
> > said, as a way of establishing his knowledge,
> >
> > > You might have added one of the reasons
> > > he [Eagle] thought it a forgery and didn't
> > > mind handing it over to Smedley was that it
> > > contained a street address in what was
> > > apparantly the same handwriting as the signature.
> >
> > which is wrong also. The street address and the
comment
> > that Shakespeare lived there is in a completely
> > different handwriting.
>
> I thought you hadn't seen the l940's material and
now you claim I
> am wrong about them?Tom, produce the quote. You know
you have it.
What does 1940s material have to do with the fact that
you are wrong yet one more time (no surprise to you,
eh?)? Are you admitting that you are wrong? Or are you
still stubbonly clinging to that sinking ship that is
your rotted memory?
I have shown you are wrong on two counts, and so far
your score is zero.
In case you can't count up to two, here's a summary of
the two statements you made about the Archaionomia
signature that were wrong (it would take too long to
list your errors about the *More* fragment):
1. You said Eagle sold the book to Smedley; he loaned
it to him.
2. You said the handwriting of the addfress was the
same as the signature; it is not, as even R. Eagle
knew.
And another item you are wrong on: a long, long time
ago, I said:
TR-> Eagle told his story after the Folger bought the
volume
TR-> from the estate of William T. Smedley, ironed out
the
TR-> page and discovered the signature. Eagle claimed
he had
TR-> loaned it around 1920 to Smedley, another
Baconian, to
TR-> correct an error about decorative borders, and
that
TR-> Smedley had not returned it.
TR->
TR-> As far as I know, nobody but these two (if the
story is
TR-> true) knew about the volume until the Folger's
purchase
TR-> in 1938. There very well may be some references to
it
TR-> in Baconian literature, but I am not aware of any.
I'm
TR-> sure you will furnish references.
You have yet to produce anything contradicting these
statements except for slow-witted bluster.
> Parisious is shooting in the
> > dark again, with no more results than the first or
> > second time he did.
>
> Result achieved.You are lying about your
possession of the 40's
> Eagle material and have never seen the 70's stuff.
> >
> > But there is really no point in trying to keep up
with
> > Parisious' errors; there are so many, and his
> > blustering about what all he knows establishes that
the
> > man is an obvious and compulsive liar.
>
> I have for approximately the fifth time
recently, that you are
> the compulsive liar,Tombo. RNP
Mmmm. That would have been such a witty riposte (for
you, at least) if it made any sense.
Before I go on, I need to ask you this: have you
suffered a stroke lately? Because I would really feel
bad if I found out I was making all these points
against a man mentally disabled through no fault of his
own.
TR
Toby Petzold
> > Well, I know better than ever now why we will
> never be hearing
> > more from Big Liar Reedy on the "central" character
> of Tannenbaum on
> > "More" research.
Reedy:
Didn't you have to make that follow-up post because you had already
expended yourself being so vicious and clever? Or, was it just
senility?
> > I forgot to add, the signature Simpson refers to
> > appears in a copy of Montaigne's *Essays*. It is now
> > generally thought to be a forgery, but it does not
> > look
> > like one of Collier's.
In all of this, we should never forget just how clean these bones have
been picked. Squabbling over single signatures, as though one more or
fewer would make Shakspere any more of a literary man? It's an
embarrassment to common sense.
Oh! And what would THOSE be?
> -- plus his inability
> to nominate any other dramatist as D44
[sic]
> -- induces a
> reluctance on the part of more balanced scholars
Translation: "people who agree with me"
> to
> accept his argument against the Shakespearian
> authorship of the Addition" (Metz in *Shakespeare and
> Sir Thomas More, Howard-Hill, ed., page 22).
This is why Metz is a craphound with his cleric's collar wrapped too
tightly around his neck. That he would criticize Tannenbaum for his
dogmatic approach to the Hand D attribution in the same sentence as
his OWN insistence that an alternative candidate must be proposed if
any refutation is to even be countenanced is pure hypocrisy. You can't
see how ridiculous that is, can you? Shakspere is NOT the default
candidate for Hand D. The paleographical argument is worthless. The
orthographical argument is slight, resting on some coincidences (and
suppositions about how foul papers were ultimately transmitted into
print). The chronological evidence works against Shakspere, as does
the authorial-sequential evidence. Where else does Shakspere work with
Munday or Chettle or Dekker? Can you even be sure WHO wrote the Jack
Cade scenes from 2H6, which are suposed to compare so favorably to the
More mob speech? I don't think you've made a case for Shakspere at
all.
Get your facts straight, Tom: it's either "smoldering loaf" or
"steaming load."
Who cares? So the Essays signature's been discarded and the one the
Wallaces found has been added. You're still talking about
four-and-a-half to six signatures, give or take two or three. It's
preposterous to believe that a playwright in Shakespeare's place (a
presumably well-connected, two-city wheeler-dealer with ties to the
greatest theatrical companies of his day) would have left behind so
little of his own hand. It's a joke.
I take it that you agree with Tannenbaum's identification of Chettle's
hand in STM, so why is he not to be trusted on Hand D?
You know what I like best about Goebbels? Even when he was burnt down
to the carbon, you could still tell it was him.
Instant karma's gonna get you, Tom. Now just put your truncheon down.
Toby Petzold
Bob Grumman
> > > appears in a copy of Montaigne's *Essays*. It is now
> > > generally thought to be a forgery, but it does not
> > > look
> > > like one of Collier's.
>
> In all of this, we should never forget just how clean these bones have
> been picked. Squabbling over single signatures, as though one more or
> fewer would make Shakspere any more of a literary man? It's an
> embarrassment to common sense.
As usual, you don't know what you're talking about, American. The
squabbling is caused mainly by wacks who question everything related to
Shakespeare. The sane don't need any of the signatures, the name on the
title-pages, nowhere refuted as his, being enough. But there is also the
desire to know everything we can about a favorite author. The signatures
are thus important, but primarily for what they are on, which of course tell
us a fair amount about Shakespeare. It would be of interest, for instance,
to know he owned a law book--outside its obvious evidentiary value against
the idiots who think no one who did not own a law book could have used a
bunch of legal terms in his writing.
> > -- induces a
> > reluctance on the part of more balanced scholars
> Translation: "people who agree with me"
Hey, that's a good one, American.
> > to
> > accept his argument against the Shakespearian
> > authorship of the Addition" (Metz in *Shakespeare and
> > Sir Thomas More, Howard-Hill, ed., page 22).
>
> This is why Metz is a craphound with his cleric's collar wrapped too
> tightly around his neck.
No, Metz is that only because he doesn't agree with you! (Gotcha back!!)
> That he would criticize Tannenbaum for his
> dogmatic approach to the Hand D attribution in the same sentence as
> his OWN insistence that an alternative candidate must be proposed if
> any refutation is to even be countenanced is pure hypocrisy.
He says he won't accept ANY refutation without an
alternative candidate's being proposed?
> You can't
> see how ridiculous that is, can you? Shakspere is NOT the default
> candidate for Hand D. The paleographical argument is worthless.
Anti-continuumism. You can't say the paleographical argument is weak; you
have to either/or it as worthless. I know, it's just stylistic hyperbole.
> The
> orthographical argument is slight, resting on some coincidences (and
> suppositions about how foul papers were ultimately transmitted into
> print). The chronological evidence works against Shakspere, as does
> the authorial-sequential evidence. Where else does Shakspere work with
> Munday or Chettle or Dekker? Can you even be sure WHO wrote the Jack
> Cade scenes from 2H6, which are suposed to compare so favorably to the
> More mob speech? I don't think you've made a case for Shakspere at
> all.
No case AT ALL? This is not anti-continuumism?
snip
> > It is obvious Parisious is confused about the nature of
> > Tannenbaum's work, and how his "work is central to the
> > *More* manuscript," as I said. If he actually had a
> > nodding acquaintance with Tannenbaum, he would have
> > known that T used and accepted the Montaigne's *Essays*
> > signature as genuine, as did most scholars in the 19th
> > century and up until around WWII, which was the whole
> > point of my mentioning Tannenbaum.
>
> Who cares? So the Essays signature's been discarded and the one the
> Wallaces found has been added. You're still talking about
> four-and-a-half to six signatures, give or take two or three. It's
> preposterous to believe that a playwright in Shakespeare's place (a
> presumably well-connected, two-city wheeler-dealer with ties to the
> greatest theatrical companies of his day) would have left behind so
> little of his own hand. It's a joke.
Not to the sane.
snip
> I take it that you agree with Tannenbaum's identification of Chettle's
> hand in STM, so why is he not to be trusted on Hand D?
Because he's wrong about it?
--Bob G.
Tom Reedy
message
news:2dbd058e.02091...@posting.google.com...
<snip>
> > Well, as anyone who has studied the matter knows
(in
> > other words, *not* Parisious), Tannenbaum was one
of
> > the "most effective and most persistent of the
> > opponents of the Shakespearian authorship of
Add.IIc"
> > following the identification by Pollard, et al. "He
> > argues tenaciously, but the combination of his
> > insistence that whatever he presents as evidence be
> > accepted without question, of his immoderate style
of
> > debate, the waywardness of some aspects of his
> > rationale inextricably mingled with sound
scholarship[,
> > and his unwillingness to credit the most palpably
valid
> > elements of his opponents' case
>
> Oh! And what would THOSE be?
Sorry. I don't have time, but the book is readily
available at one of the UT libraries.
> > -- plus his inability
> > to nominate any other dramatist as D44
>
> [sic]
>
> > -- induces a
> > reluctance on the part of more balanced scholars
>
> Translation: "people who agree with me"
>
> > to
> > accept his argument against the Shakespearian
> > authorship of the Addition" (Metz in *Shakespeare
and
> > Sir Thomas More, Howard-Hill, ed., page 22).
>
> This is why Metz is a craphound with his cleric's
collar wrapped too
> tightly around his neck. That he would criticize
Tannenbaum for his
> dogmatic approach
How did you get that phrase from what Metz wrote?
Remember kids, if we're going to sharpen our brains for
this kind of work, we need to give up sloppy habits of
mind and learn how to use words exactly.
to the Hand D attribution in the same sentence as
> his OWN insistence that an alternative candidate must
be proposed if
> any refutation is to even be countenanced is pure
hypocrisy. You can't
> see how ridiculous that is, can you? Shakspere is NOT
the default
> candidate for Hand D. The paleographical argument is
worthless.
Worthless? So you admit it doesn't eliminate William
Shakesepare of Stratford?
The
> orthographical argument is slight, resting on some
coincidences (and
> suppositions about how foul papers were ultimately
transmitted into
> print).
You'll have to be more specific. Broad generalities
offered up without supporting evidence are generally
considered to be "worthless."
> The chronological evidence works against Shakspere,
as does
> the authorial-sequential evidence.
What exactly are you talking about here?
> Where else does Shakspere work with
> Munday or Chettle or Dekker? Can you even be sure WHO
wrote the Jack
> Cade scenes from 2H6, which are suposed to compare so
favorably to the
> More mob speech?
The Jack Cade scenes are not the only comparisons from
the canon, and that comparison makes a very small part
fo the argument.
> I don't think you've made a case for Shakspere at
> all.
So are you recanting your own identification of the
pages as written by Shakespeare?
And my purpose in the series of posts was not to make
the Hand D case, but to show how Werstine uses bad
scholarship in his effort to dismiss the Hand D case. I
believe I have succeeded in doing that, although I
still have one post to go.
Of course, to antiStrats, who are used to bad
scholarship, my argument will not be convincing.
<snip>
> > Notice his confusion of me with Toby "Steaming
Loaf"
> > Petzold, a typical antiStratfordian
misidentification.
>
> Get your facts straight, Tom: it's either "smoldering
loaf" or
> "steaming load."
Thanks for the correction. The point about his
confusion remains, though, doesn't it?
<snip>
> > It is obvious Parisious is confused about the
nature of
> > Tannenbaum's work, and how his "work is central to
the
> > *More* manuscript," as I said. If he actually had a
> > nodding acquaintance with Tannenbaum, he would have
> > known that T used and accepted the Montaigne's
*Essays*
> > signature as genuine, as did most scholars in the
19th
> > century and up until around WWII, which was the
whole
> > point of my mentioning Tannenbaum.
>
> Who cares?
So you're saying careful exactness and precision in
what a person says doesn't matter? Knowledge of what
has gone before doesn't matter?
No wonder you're an antiStrat. It's the only religion
that fits your sloppy habits of mind.
> So the Essays signature's been discarded and the one
the
> Wallaces found has been added. You're still talking
about
> four-and-a-half to six signatures, give or take two
or three. It's
> preposterous to believe that a playwright in
Shakespeare's place (a
> presumably well-connected, two-city wheeler-dealer
with ties to the
> greatest theatrical companies of his day) would have
left behind so
> little of his own hand. It's a joke.
Just out of curiosity, how many signatures of
well-connected, two-city wheeler-dealer playwrights
have survived? Do you have any idea, of did you just
pull this one out of your ass, as usual?
<snip>
> > Only a moron like Parisious could get that out of
what
> > I said, especially given that I know, unlike
Parisious,
> > obviously, that Tannenbaum argued *against* the
> > Shakespearian attribution. It's no wonder Parisious
is
> > an antiStrat, with such cognitive skills as he
> > demonstrates.
>
> I take it that you agree with Tannenbaum's
identification of Chettle's
> hand in STM, so why is he not to be trusted on Hand
D?
<snip>
Because everybody who has looked at it corroborates his
identification. If he were the only person to claim the
hand for Chettle, and the rest of the *More* scholars
proposed an alternate candidate, I would look more
critically at his assertion.
<snip>
> You know what I like best about Goebbels? Even when
he was burnt down
> to the carbon, you could still tell it was him.
Goering has always been my favorite Nazi. He's much
more interesting than any other memebr of that
murderous pack.
<snip>
> > To sum up:
> >
> > Roger Nyle Parisious has demonstrated himself that
he
> > is a moron.
> >
> > I had earlier put it down to senility, but the man
is
> > not that much older than I am, so my guess is some
> > congenital mental defect is even now blotting out
> > whatever cognitive skills he may have had earlier
in
> > life.
> >
> > If I were him, I think I would spend what precious
few
> > moments of lucidity I had left with my loved ones
> > rather than making confused posts to a bunch of
> > strangers who know what an ass he's making of
himself.
> >
> > But then again, maybe they know also what an ass he
is,
> > and are grateful for the distraction.
>
> Instant karma's gonna get you, Tom. Now just put your
truncheon down.
>
> Toby Petzold
I admit that was one of the more evil posts I have ever
done, if only because it so thoroughly pounded
Parisious into a greasy smudge on the pavement. I must
have been inspired.
TR
Roger Nyle Parisious
> Stop lying
Thanks for reprinting my piece,Kennedy. You may,and do, find facts
as unpalatable as truth.But they come back to haunt you every time.
>
> Dodger Vile Paresis wrote
Foul deeds will rise,though all the world o'erwhelm to men's
eyes.
Roger Nyle Parisious
The Chuckie doll is vicious but it's a dullard and tends to
repeat itself.To spare a readership that already adequately despises
Tombo any further boredom we will,and just did,flush him and a lot of
his sewage straight down the drain.
However, despite any personal inconvenience,we are always glad to
include in anything which shows the slightest evidence of ingenuity on
Tombo's own part.
Consider:
>
> "Roger Nyle Pissious"
After two hundred odd (very odd)despatches Reedy discovers there
is a second execretory factor. A Red(Scarlet P) letter day on HLAS.
Previously the rapidly disintegrating Reedy's painful prostrate
condition has caused him to be sparing in his use of urinary
adjectives.But he has broken through that barrier and we can
confidently look forward to much future fluidic activity on his own
part.
RNP
True ,but desperate for any support you can get,you have
incorporated Nicholas's letter in your text. If you want to make this
a two-headed act(Don't you wish you were as clever as Nicholas?) I
will address both heads.
>
> An easy way to tell is that it is signed, "Nicholas."
Yes,that why you put it here.Remember?
>
> > > The further irony, of course, for those who are not
> > > familiar with the Archaionomia case,
> >
> > Tombo, you were not familiar with the
> Archaionomia when you
> > mouthed off.
> > I was the one,as usual, who first called
> attention to the fact
> > that Eagle had passed the book on.
>
> I find it hard to believe you would deliberately lie
> about such an easily-checked matter,
RNP
More rep about senility.
>
> > He did state, and not in l971, that
> > he valued the book at only a few pounds.
>
> You've said this many times, and you've even promised a
> reference for it. When are you going to come across?
That was before I realized from your own text that you had never
even bothered to read the Eagle letter from l971 but were relying
solely on Schoenbaum however you had slipped badly in another respect
in that same first LLLLLIAR!!!!!thread. You inadvertantly referred to
a l943 text by Eagle.You had already lied about the non-existent
Tannenbaum recantation and I admit foxed me out the first time around.
You had previously about our respective priorities on the Simpson
text. The issue was to find out what you were hiding this time.
>
> > is that Eagle did
> > > *not* sell his book to Smedley; he only lent it and
> > > never got it back
> (or so he claimed, almost 40 years
> > > after the fact).
> >
> > He claimed so
>
> He claimed what? That he sold it?
Dullard.
>
> > in approximately l943
>
> Wait a minute. Who cares about 1943? Where did this
> date come from?
Comes from the LLLLLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIAAAARRRR!!!!!!!!tape.
You said in message No. 11 of the
> thread, "Sir Thomas More: What Simpson Said,":
>
> LP-> The book is recorded on a number of occasions in
> the early
> LP-> twentieth century and was described several times
> in Baconiana among
> LP-> other places before the Folgar purchase. A
> previous owner, Roderick
> LP-> Eagle ,was happy to part with it very cheaply,
> though he had
> LP-> everything to gain by hyping it as a Shakspere
> signature.
>
> (LP stands for Lying Parisious, BTW)
Why don't you read Wilde,"On the Art of Lying" and enliven
your vocabulary,Reedy.
>
> Following your post, in No. 12 of the same thread, I
> said:
>
> TR-> Eagle told his story after the Folger bought the
> volume
> TR-> from the estate of William T. Smedley, ironed out
> the
> TR-> page and discovered the signature. Eagle claimed
> he had
> TR-> loaned it around 1920 to Smedley, another
> Baconian, to
> TR-> correct an error about decorative borders, and
> that
> TR-> Smedley had not returned it.
> TR->
> TR-> As far as I know, nobody but these two (if the
> story is
> TR-> true) knew about the volume until the Folger's
> purchase
> TR-> in 1938. There very well may be some references to
> it
> TR-> in Baconian literature, but I am not aware of any.
> I'm
> TR-> sure you will furnish references.
Stands for transexual,no doubt. Remember that thread ,Reedy.
>
> To which you replied in message No. 13:
>
> LP-> I will indeed.
>
> So your 1943 date doesn't have anything at all to do
> with the reference you promised us
The readership can judge for itself.
>
> > and you yourself slipped on
> > this and gave that date as being in your possession.
>
> That is the date Giles Dawson published his first paper
> on it, dumbass!
You tried that same trick when claimed,after weeks of
prodding ,that
you really meant "Hand A" when you said Tannenbaum was central to
your case.Eagle couldn't reply till the word got out.And it is Eagle,
or more accurately your slurs on Eagle that were under discussion.
>
> "Authenticity and Attribution of Written Matter,"
> *English Institute Annual 1942*. New York: Colombia UP,
> 1943, pp. 77-100.
>
> For your information, and since you display such
> ignorance on the matter, I will tell you that as far as
> I know the first mention of the signature in print was
> a progress report by J.Q. Adams in 1942 that he later
> expanded into an article published in 1943.
For once you exhibit some knowledge of the subject.The first
Adams report contained a number of errors and it is not usually cited
in later bibliographies. I am always glad to acknowledge your virtues
on the rare occasions you exhibit them.
>
> This is another
> > fake like that non-existent Tannenbaum expertise.
> >
> > Since you have admitted having the l943 reference
> but enjoy
> > surpressing it,the only real question is whether you
> have ever read
> > Eagle's l970's contributions.
>
> No, the only real question on this thread is whether
> you are lying or mentally incapacitated.
Brilliant stuff. Dullard.
>
> > There is nothing on this site to show
> > that you have anything better than an unidentified
> page in Schoenbaum
> > as the total extent of your research.
>
> Like I said, the 1943 reference is not the issue here.
> Eagle did write a letter to N&Q in 1943, but that is
> not the reference you promised, no matter how you try
> to blur the lines of the issue.
Now he admits he has an Eagle reference in l943 just as I
predicted.It's Tannenbaum all over again.
As I admitted in my second communication.I was recollecting he
discussed the real value of the book, which he found to be slight.
> 2. You said the handwriting of the addfress was the
> same as the signature; it is not, as even R. Eagle
> knew.
Eagle regarded them as of the same cloth and therefore this was
not a genuine Elizabethan signature.
>
> And another item you are wrong on: a long, long time
> ago, I said:
>
> TR-> Eagle told his story after the Folger bought the
> volume
> TR-> from the estate of William T. Smedley, ironed out
> the
> TR-> page and discovered the signature. Eagle claimed
> he had
> TR-> loaned it around 1920 to Smedley, another
> Baconian, to
> TR-> correct an error about decorative borders, and
> that
> TR-> Smedley had not returned it.
> TR->
> TR-> As far as I know, nobody but these two (if the
> story is
> TR-> true) knew about the volume until the Folger's
> purchase
> TR-> in 1938. There very well may be some references to
> it
> TR-> in Baconian literature, but I am not aware of any.
You cut the part,TR, where it is obvious you did not know
Baconian literature and did not know any of Eagle's fifty years of
work.
> I'm
> TR-> sure you will furnish references.
>
> You have yet to produce anything contradicting these
> statements except for slow-witted bluster.
Bluster is new. There is hope. Two new words in four hundred
lines.
>
> > Parisious is shooting in the
> > > dark again, with no more results than the first or
> > > second time he did.
> >
> > Result achieved.You are lying about your
> possession of the 40's
> > Eagle material and have never seen the 70's stuff.
> > >
> > > But there is really no point in trying to keep up
> with
> > > Parisious' errors; there are so many, and his
> > > blustering about what all he knows establishes that
> the
> > > man is an obvious and compulsive liar.
> >
> > I have shown for approximately the fifth time
> recently, that you are
> > the compulsive liar,Tombo. RNP
>
> Mmmm. That would have been such a witty riposte (for
> you, at least) if it made any sense.
>
> > We are snipping more dum-dum-dum from Tombo. He said it before and he will say it again.
> TR
Remember,I always answer my letters. No matter how stupid or,
occasionally ,dishonest.And always remember this began and will end in
"Thomas More" of which you made such a terrible hash. For
days(weeks?) you kept asserting you would produce many experts. These
experts always turned out to be the same two,Simpson and Thompson.
Finally you produced Dawson(and with good reason) dropped him after
one sentence. We continued to press you and you came up with
Tannenbaum and further confounded it with an unintelligible half
reference back to the Simpson article.You were quite aware we were
discussing Tannenbaum(as your expert) and I was demanding the evidence
for a lengthy period of time.What you did was evil but it was neither
clever or convincing.You have called in eight blades and it hasn't
been necessary to undo the second hand.
RNP
Tom Reedy
message
news:a3cc4070.02091...@posting.google.com...
> "Tom Reedy" <reed...@earthlink.net> wrote in
message
.net>...
>
<snip all but the crux of the thread>
> > > He did state, and not in l971, that
> > > he valued the book at only a few pounds.
> >
> > You've said this many times, and you've even
promised a
> > reference for it. When are you going to come
across?
>
> That was before I realized from your own text
that you had never
> even bothered to read the Eagle letter from l971 but
were relying
> solely on Schoenbaum however you had slipped badly
in another respect
> in that same first LLLLLIAR!!!!!thread. You
inadvertantly referred to
> a l943 text by Eagle.You had already lied about the
non-existent
> Tannenbaum recantation and I admit foxed me out the
first time around.
> You had previously about our respective priorities on
the Simpson
> text. The issue was to find out what you were hiding
this time.
> >
<snip>
<snip>
> > Like I said, the 1943 reference is not the issue
here.
> > Eagle did write a letter to N&Q in 1943, but that
is
> > not the reference you promised, no matter how you
try
> > to blur the lines of the issue.
>
>
> Now he admits he has an Eagle reference in l943
just as I
> predicted.It's Tannenbaum all over again.
<snip>
<snip>
OK. I need to know if anybody understands the comments
made by Parisious, because I admit I don't have
whatever it takes to make sense of his toothless
mouthings.
So can somebody tell me what his point is and what he
thinks he's accomplished? Is this a generational thing?
Has Parisious just forgotten to take his medicine? Or
is he really making sense and I need to see my doctor?
TR
John W. Kennedy
> Thanks for reprinting my piece,Kennedy. You may,and do, find facts
> as unpalatable as truth.But they come back to haunt you every time.
No, sane people don't find truth _or_ facts unpalatable.
Roger Nyle Parisious
> "Toby Petzold" <neogno...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> message
> news:2dbd058e.02091...@posting.google.com...
> <snip>
>
> > > Well, as anyone who has studied the matter knows
> (in
> > > other words, *not* Parisious), Tannenbaum was one
> of
> > > the "most effective and most persistent of the
> > > opponents of the Shakespearian authorship of
> Add.IIc"
RNP:
You know very well that I have participated in seminars
involving the Tannenbaum attribution a number of years ago.Actually I
first read him in my teens,but he is not the kind of an author one
goes back to for pleasure.I mistakenly took you word ,for a time, that
you were going to produce a later(or very early Tannenbaum source that
would be central to your argument.I will not make the same error a
second time nor will others in this neck of the woods.
TR
> > > following the identification by Pollard, et al. "He
> > > argues tenaciously, but the combination of his
> > > insistence that whatever he presents as evidence be
> > > accepted without question, of his immoderate style
> of
> > > debate, the waywardness of some aspects of his
> > > rationale inextricably mingled with sound
> scholarship[,
> > > and his unwillingness to credit the most palpably
> valid
> > > elements of his opponents' case
> >TP
> > Oh! And what would THOSE be?
> TR
> Sorry. I don't have time, but the book is readily
> available at one of the UT libraries.
RNP:
How many "palpably valid elements" are there? As many as there are
credible handwriting experts to support your case?
Why is it that Reedy has time for thousands of words on scatology
and other abuse formulas and cannot spare two hundred to define the
"palpably valid elements" which he is supposed to be defining here.
> TR
> > > -- plus his inability
> > > to nominate any other dramatist as D44
> >
> > [sic]
> >
> > > -- induces a
> > > reluctance on the part of more balanced scholars
> >TP
> > Translation: "people who agree with me"
> >
> > > to
> > > accept his argument against the Shakespearian
> > > authorship of the Addition" (Metz in *Shakespeare
> and
> > > Sir Thomas More, Howard-Hill, ed., page 22).
> >TP
> > This is why Metz is a craphound with his cleric's
> collar wrapped too
> > tightly around his neck. That he would criticize
> Tannenbaum for his
> > dogmatic approach
>
> How did you get that phrase from what Metz wrote?
> Remember kids, if we're going to sharpen our brains for
> this kind of work, we need to give up sloppy habits of
> mind and learn how to use words exactly.
RNP
In other words,Toby, stop wasting your time with this slop hound
and read something brief but good like Owen Barfield's "Speaker's
Meaning" or "Poetic Diction" by the same author.
> TP
> to the Hand D attribution in the same sentence as
> > his OWN insistence that an alternative candidate must
> be proposed if
> > any refutation is to even be countenanced is pure
> hypocrisy. You can't
> > see how ridiculous that is, can you? Shakspere is NOT
> the default
> > candidate for Hand D. The paleographical argument is
> worthless.
> TR
> Worthless? So you admit it doesn't eliminate William
> Shakesepare of Stratford?
RNP
This is as sloppy a reasoning as yet seen on this site.Tom is really
admitting he is unqualified to instruct Toby. In fact,it could be
interpreted as an unconscious cry for help.
>
> The
> > orthographical argument is slight, resting on some
> coincidences (and
> > suppositions about how foul papers were ultimately
> transmitted into
> > print).
>
> You'll have to be more specific.
RNP
Old Tombo just said he had no time to discuss the "valid elements"
of his case which is apparantly synonomous with Metz's case.Now he
wants you to do both jobs for him,Toby. He is definitely the laziest
non-researcher as well as the loudest grouser on this web.Don't do any
homework for him.
Actually,you can start and finish with his own essay on "Thomas
More and Orthography" which no one here has yet found worthy of
passing comment.
Broad generalities
> offered up without supporting evidence are generally
> considered to be "worthless."
> TP
> > The chronological evidence works against Shakspere,
> as does
> > the authorial-sequential evidence.
> TR
> What exactly are you talking about here?
RNP
He is talking about the fact that the later the hand D.Section is
placed chronologically, the less impressive the imagistic parallels
,which are your one genuinely good argument, become.Simpson wanted to
make them late 1580s.I dealt in passing with this in my first "Thomas
More" thread in late Spring.I would like to believe the content is
early Shakespeare,a proposition which is quite distict from the
groundless contention(regardless whose handwriting is involved) that
it represents authorial copy.However,given a date of l594 on into the
l7th century, the quality of the work becomes less and less
remarkable.Given the latter dates ,it is no better scene than some
good chemeleon on the Henslowe circuit could have churned out.
> TP
> > Where else does Shakspere work with
> > Munday or Chettle or Dekker?
RNP
I've never seen Toby this gnomic in an argument before.But ,as
all of these writers had appeared with Henslowe,he is saying that Hand
D is fourth man in a run of Henslowe authors.TR has consistently
ignored the question of provenance in arguing the case for Shaksperian
authorship.
In other words, if the content of Hand D is both Shakespearean and
Henslowvian, Charlton Ogburn(who was so castigated by David Kathman on
this point) is absolutely right in demanding to know why Shakespeare's
name is not in Henslowe's Diary. Neither Toby or I is taking this
position today,but the many Strats who do want it(I beleve mistakenly)
to be late Shakespeare and admit the provenance to be Henslowe,are
seriously compromising their general identity claim by this particular
stylistic claim.
Can you even be sure WHO
> wrote the Jack
> > Cade scenes from 2H6, which are suposed to compare so
> favorably to the
> > More mob speech?
>
> The Jack Cade scenes are not the only comparisons from
> the canon, and that comparison makes a very small part
> fo the argument.
As the Jack Cade scenes,if genuine, would relate to a period no
later than l592, and plausably as early as l587-l588,they are about as
good an argument for a parallel Shakespearean imagery as can be
produced.They are only a small(and ever smaller) part of the argument
as you,Reedy, move the play into the 17th century.
> TP
> > I don't think you've made a case for Shakspere at
> > all.
>
TR
> So are you recanting your own identification of the
> pages as written by Shakespeare?
Don't be modest,TR.It was you who flooded him with the best
stylistic parallels your source was able to dig up. It was your finest
hour,or at least the finest hours of your sources.Either or both
ways,you took Toby outside the space-time continuum.He was surfing big
sloppy beautiful waves.Then he did what you preach,in your more
rational moments, rather than what you practice.The questions of where
and when,like the question of authorial copy,should logically preceed
any attempt at authorship attribution.
> TR
> And my purpose in the series of posts was not to make
> the Hand D case,
RNP
Very obviously.
but to show how Werstine uses bad
> scholarship in his effort to dismiss the Hand D case. I
> believe I have succeeded in doing that,
RNP
Apart from BG ,who is to be congratulated on becoming more and
more tolerant these days, your rooting section ,this time,formed only
the smaller and more obsessed members of the Dirty Dozen. It is
surprising but gratifying to see you have had to stand three quarters
of your course alone.Hence, it is widely believed, the road rage aimed
at this humble annotator.(Cue:Two thousand words of excremental road
rage.)
although I
> still have one post to go.
>
> Of course, to antiStrats, who are used to bad
> scholarship, my argument will not be convincing.
RNP
Those who prefer the best scholarship have long since ceased
reading your threads.
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Notice his confusion of me with Toby "Steaming
> Loaf"
> > > Petzold, a typical antiStratfordian
> misidentification.
> >
> > Get your facts straight, Tom: it's either "smoldering
> loaf" or
> > "steaming load."
>
> Thanks for the correction. The point about his
> confusion remains, though, doesn't it?
RNP
No,Toby knows you'll go to the grafitti laden wall on this
subject every time around. The question is,Tombo, why at the age of
fifty something you still publically indulge this obsession before
strangers before whom you are literally making an ass of yourself,
whereas you could be tranquilly sequestering yourself with your loved
ones.
>
> <snip>TR loves snipping parts where he has been sent up.RNP
>
> > > It is obvious Parisious is confused about the
> nature of
> > > Tannenbaum's work, and how his "work is central to
> the
> > > *More* manuscript," as I said.
RNP
No, you were confused.It took most of a month to find out what you
were implying by the word "central".Then you gave three and a half
contradictory accounts,none of them plausable,of what you once meant
by the little word "central".
TR
If he actually had a
> > > nodding acquaintance with Tannenbaum, he would have
> > > known that T used and accepted the Montaigne's
> *Essays*
> > > signature as genuine,
RNP
Which is why I did not use Tannenbaum as my expert.I preferred
to rely on the more balanced experts who appeared before the Supreme
Court Justices in l987.
as did most scholars in the
> 19th
> > > century and up until around WWII,
RNP
More than dubious.But we all have seen Tom bluffing(lying?) about
his "many "handwriting experts before.
TR
which was the
> whole
> > > point of my mentioning Tannenbaum.
This is priceless.He gave three and a half explanations of what he
meant by Tannenbaum and central in his own words,his "most evil
post."One of these evils was lying about his relations with the
Tannenbaum text.We now have four and one half lying accounts. I am
going to cut and reprint this stuff side by side.
> >
> > Who cares?
> TR
> So you're saying careful exactness and precision in
> what a person says doesn't matter? Knowledge of what
> has gone before doesn't matter?
> Much abuse of RNP for exhibiting TR's foibles/
> > > > >
> > Toby Petzold
>
> I admit that was one of the more evil posts I have ever
> done, if only because it so thoroughly pounded
> Parisious into a greasy smudge on the pavement. I must
> have been inspired.
Good things of day begin to droop and drowse
And night's black agents to their prey do rouse.
>
> TR The Evil One
RNP
Tom Reedy
you is about as useful as arguing with someone in a
coma. It's hard to relate to someone who lives in their
own world.
Never did find that reference, eh?
"Roger Nyle Parisious" <rpari...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message
news:a3cc4070.0209...@posting.google.com...
<snip dribble and drool>
Toby Petzold
> > > > I forgot to add, the signature Simpson refers to
> > > > appears in a copy of Montaigne's *Essays*. It is now
> > > > generally thought to be a forgery, but it does not
> > > > look
> > > > like one of Collier's.
Petzold:
> > In all of this, we should never forget just how clean these bones have
> > been picked. Squabbling over single signatures, as though one more or
> > fewer would make Shakspere any more of a literary man? It's an
> > embarrassment to common sense.
Grumman:
> As usual, you don't know what you're talking about, American.
No, as a matter of fact, I do. At the very least, I am supplying you
with the layman's common sensical view of things, such as regards the
paucity of Shakspere's autograph. Do you understand how that's NOT
insane? I can go and look at the handwriting of OTHER men who lived in
the same places and times as your horse-minder and who DID write plays
and poems and pamphlets; why can't I go and see Shakspere's MSS.? It
ISN'T enough to say, "Have a squint at THESE lovely signatures!" It's
crap.
> The
> squabbling is caused mainly by wacks who question everything related to
> Shakespeare.
There is nothing to take away from this sentence but that you believe
that those who hold and express doubts about the true identity of
Shakespeare are mentally ill and that, were it not for their
interference, life itself would be more peaceful because everyone
would believe the same things. Now, if your retarded view of this
heavenly homogeneity isn't, in itself, repulsive to the true direction
of the human spirit, then I don't know what is. You can come back and
pick some qualifier out of the stool of your assertions to dangle in
my face and show that you've contradicted me or that I don't know how
to read or think, but, in fact, you are wrong.
> The sane don't need any of the signatures, the name on the
> title-pages, nowhere refuted as his, being enough.
You associate yourself with the sane which, in your mind, means the
majority, but that's just more evidence of your fascist mentality.
Don't you get tired of being so orthodox? As for the name of
Shakespeare or the initials "W.S." being irrefutable evidence of
ANYTHING, one might think that you were absolutely ignorant and/or
forgetful of the many examples that contradict you. Why would you even
say such a thing?
> But there is also the
> desire to know everything we can about a favorite author.
And, so, having blurted itself on to the floor, it veers...
> The signatures
> are thus important,
Oh, but what became of their superfluity?
> but primarily for what they are on, which of course tell
> us a fair amount about Shakespeare.
Nope. They tell us about Shakspere. A will, a lease, a mortgage, and a
deposition. None of them tell us a goddamned thing about the Author.
You know this, but you pretend to be right.
> It would be of interest, for instance,
> to know he owned a law book--outside its obvious evidentiary value against
> the idiots who think no one who did not own a law book could have used a
> bunch of legal terms in his writing.
It's really a bankrupt understanding of how thoroughly legalisms
pervade his thought.
> > > -- induces a
> > > reluctance on the part of more balanced scholars
>
> > Translation: "people who agree with me"
>
> Hey, that's a good one, American.
Well, that's what he meant.
> > > to
> > > accept his argument against the Shakespearian
> > > authorship of the Addition" (Metz in *Shakespeare and
> > > Sir Thomas More, Howard-Hill, ed., page 22).
> >
> > This is why Metz is a craphound with his cleric's collar wrapped too
> > tightly around his neck.
>
> No, Metz is that only because he doesn't agree with you! (Gotcha back!!)
But Metz, like the others in the Hand D crowd, have it in their heads
that Shakespeare has the default claim on the authorship. That's just
not true.
> > That he would criticize Tannenbaum for his
> > dogmatic approach to the Hand D attribution in the same sentence as
> > his OWN insistence that an alternative candidate must be proposed if
> > any refutation is to even be countenanced is pure hypocrisy.
>
> He says he won't accept ANY refutation without an
> alternative candidate's being proposed?
Yep. You'll have to read the literature. They ALL think that. Crazy,
huh?
> > You can't
> > see how ridiculous that is, can you? Shakspere is NOT the default
> > candidate for Hand D. The paleographical argument is worthless.
>
> Anti-continuumism. You can't say the paleographical argument is weak; you
> have to either/or it as worthless. I know, it's just stylistic hyperbole.
No, the paleographical argument ISN'T just weak; it's non-existent. If
there is no example of a MAJORITY of the handwritten letters (in both
cases) in Shakspere's hand, how can these dolts make any claim of
comparison to the letters in Hand D? Just answer that.
> > The
> > orthographical argument is slight, resting on some coincidences (and
> > suppositions about how foul papers were ultimately transmitted into
> > print). The chronological evidence works against Shakspere, as does
> > the authorial-sequential evidence. Where else does Shakspere work with
> > Munday or Chettle or Dekker? Can you even be sure WHO wrote the Jack
> > Cade scenes from 2H6, which are suposed to compare so favorably to the
> > More mob speech? I don't think you've made a case for Shakspere at
> > all.
>
> No case AT ALL? This is not anti-continuumism?
Tom says he's got more for us. Maybe that means some parallels or
stylometry or that sort of thing.
> snip
>
> > > It is obvious Parisious is confused about the nature of
> > > Tannenbaum's work, and how his "work is central to the
> > > *More* manuscript," as I said. If he actually had a
> > > nodding acquaintance with Tannenbaum, he would have
> > > known that T used and accepted the Montaigne's *Essays*
> > > signature as genuine, as did most scholars in the 19th
> > > century and up until around WWII, which was the whole
> > > point of my mentioning Tannenbaum.
> >
> > Who cares? So the Essays signature's been discarded and the one the
> > Wallaces found has been added. You're still talking about
> > four-and-a-half to six signatures, give or take two or three. It's
> > preposterous to believe that a playwright in Shakespeare's place (a
> > presumably well-connected, two-city wheeler-dealer with ties to the
> > greatest theatrical companies of his day) would have left behind so
> > little of his own hand. It's a joke.
>
> Not to the sane.
Meaningless.
> snip
>
> > I take it that you agree with Tannenbaum's identification of Chettle's
> > hand in STM, so why is he not to be trusted on Hand D?
>
> Because he's wrong about it?
On what basis would you make that claim? I don't think you know what
you're talking about.
Toby Petzold
Bob Grumman
Shirley jumped up on the keyboard and either deleted it or posted it.
So I'll return to it later.
--Bob G.
neogno...@hotmail.com (Toby Petzold) wrote in message news:<2dbd058e.02091...@posting.google.com>...
> Reedy:
>
> > > > > I forgot to add, the signature Simpson refers to
> > > > > appears in a copy of Montaigne's *Essays*. It is now
> > > > > generally thought to be a forgery, but it does not
> > > > > look
> > > > > like one of Collier's.
>
> Petzold:
SNIP
Art Neuendorffer
> I was well into a reply to thie post by the Anerican below when my cat
> Shirley jumped up on the keyboard and either deleted it or posted it.
--------------------------------------------------------
there is a cat here called mehitabel i wish you would have
removed she nearly ate me the other night why dont she
catch rats that is what she is supposed to be fore
there is a rat here she should get without delay
archy
Roger Nyle Parisious
> Roger Nyle Parisious wrote:
> > Thanks for reprinting my piece,Kennedy. You may,and do, find facts
> > as unpalatable as truth.But they come back to haunt you every time.
>
> No, sane people don't find truth _or_ facts unpalatable.
So try to excuse yourself on the grounds of insanity.
Roger Nyle Parisious
> As Rob is finding out on another thread, arguing with
> you is about as useful as arguing with someone in a
> coma. It's hard to relate to someone who lives in their
> own world
Rob told me to take my time.There was the necessity of flushing out
the Augean Stables of your mind,Reedy.
Are you trying to get Rob to run shotgun for you?Look how badly you
just did with up to eight of the Dirty Dozen running shotgun for
you.Still,Rob can cast a cold eye and he will show to better advantage
if you do not try kibbutzing again..
Recently you equated yourself with "everyone".That was on a very
recent thread, one appropriately named after your favorite waste
product.In fighting you I was attacking "everyone".That's called
living in your own world ,Reedy.
>
> Never did find that reference, eh?
Nope. Those of us with clear consciences will proceed with moving
eight rooms and six pets and most of a hundred cartons of Shakespeare
and Yeats materials before going back sixty-five years in the
Baconiana and Notes and Queries materials.
By the way if you were a serious researcher,I would actually do
that.I have for others.But not for a puling coward who never does an
honest day's research in his life if he can get someone else to do it
for him.And who may already be
>
> "Roger Nyle Parisious" <rpari...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> message
> news:a3cc4070.0209...@posting.google.com...
> <snip dribble and drool>
Which means you have been caught lying yet again about both your
l943 reference and your scatological obsessions(fifty something and
you try to blame Toby for your behavior) and that you cannot defend
your "Thomas More" methodology which seems to exist outside any very
real Elizabethan world time space continuum.
We have cleansed at least one room in the Augean stables of your
mind.And will try to arrange a final, bitterly realistic, thread of
that mind in its own words chronologically arranged with full
references.But it will prove to be ,not an entire world, but merely a
somewhat decadent slum division.After that there are many more
beautiful worlds to visit.
Bob Grumman
delete my partial reply.> > > In all of this, we should never forget just
how clean these bones have
> > > been picked. Squabbling over single signatures, as though one more or
> > > fewer would make Shakspere any more of a literary man? It's an
> > > embarrassment to common sense.
>
> Grumman:
>
> > As usual, you don't know what you're talking about, American.
>
> No, as a matter of fact, I do.
Here you are showing how stupid you are by jumping into a response to my
paragraph after it first sentence only. This means you don't know what I'm
saying you're ignorant of yet.
>At the very least, I am supplying you
> with the layman's common sensical view of things, such as regards the
> paucity of Shakspere's autograph.
Which is irrelevant, as I go on to show. It's also meaningless, if true,
because one can't expect a common sense layman necessarily to know that we
have more signatures from Shakespeare than we do from any other playwright
except, possibly, Jonson (so far as I know).
> Do you understand how that's NOT insane?
I can go and look at the handwriting of OTHER men who lived in
> the same places and times as your horse-minder and who DID write plays
> and poems and pamphlets; why can't I go and see Shakspere's MSS.?
I thought we were talking about signatures. As for manuscripts, almost NO
manuscripts of plays exist from that time, and I think only one or two
complete manuscripts do. Why do the sane have to so repeatedly tell you
that things have a tendency to disappear over the years--and that
manuscripts were not valued then the way they are now.
> It ISN'T enough to say, "Have a squint at THESE lovely signatures!" It's
crap.
Who said it was?
> > The
> > squabbling is caused mainly by wacks who question everything related to
> > Shakespeare.
> There is nothing to take away from this sentence but that you believe
Yes, Toby, it is an assertion. It is quite permissible to make assertions
in discussions like this--if you follow them with support.
> that those who hold and express doubts about the true identity of
> Shakespeare are mentally ill and that, were it not for their
> interference, life itself would be more peaceful because everyone
> would believe the same things.
(1) "Wacks" is a rhetorical term meaning people who believe in something
that seems insane.
(2) The clause, "who question everything related to Shakespeare" does not
say the same thing as
"who hold and express doubts about the true identity of Shakespeare.
(3) I do not, nor could any sane person, hold that
life would be peaceful if not for the interference of
people who hold and express doubts about the true identity of Shakespeare.
Of course, you jumped irrationally into a generalization based on your
insane belief that if I oppose SOME ideas opposed to mine about Shakespeare,
it means I am against all disagreement with my ideas. Actually, I would
hate it if no one disagreed with me on anything. I am not even against the
airing of insane views. But I will oppose all views significantly opposed
to those of my own that I most value, and I will label all oppositional
views that strike me a extremely unreasonable "insane."
>Now, if your retarded view of this
> heavenly homogeneity isn't, in itself, repulsive to the true direction
> of the human spirit, then I don't know what is.
One of many things that is worse is idiotic misrepresentation of another
person's outlook. But the idea that it is repulsive to want a kind of
heavenly homogeneity is pretty intolerant/rigidnikal, it seems to me. You
are exactly to people holding such an idea as you claim I am to people
holding your objectively wrong ideas. I note, too, your standard evasion of
arguments you can't answer by disgressing to judgements about your
opponent's moral worth.
>You can come back and
> pick some qualifier out of the stool of your assertions to dangle in
> my face and show that you've contradicted me or that I don't know how
> to read or think, but, in fact, you are wrong.
You say I'm wrong, so I'm wrong?
> > The sane don't need any of the signatures, the name on the
> > title-pages, nowhere refuted as his, being enough.
> You associate yourself with the sane
in this particular case
> which, in your mind, means the majority,
No, in my mind it means the rational
>but that's just more evidence of your fascist mentality.
I have to admit that I have no reply whatever to this.
> Don't you get tired of being so orthodox?
Yes, Toby, I do. I'm an Aquarius! Therefore, I revel in non-conformity.
However, something makes me like sanity even more than non-conformity.
Hence, I am orthodox about the Shakespeare question, the moon landings, the
origin of the pyramids, the death of Elvis, evolution, chemistry up to 1900
or so, etc. I am not orthodox about modern physics but recognize that my
unorthodoxy has no weight because of my ignorance of modern physics. I am
considered almost as foolishly opposed to the mainstream, or orthodoxy, at
one poetry discussion group on the net as you are here at HLAS. My literary
criticism is considered retrograde since it's standard "new criticism,"
which went out of fashion years ago, but my poetry is cutting edge, I think
everyone would agree. (Which does not mean it is necessarily any good.)
And, as you well know, I have worked many years on a theory of psychology
that is near-completely uncertified and in many ways unorthodox. My
political and religious outlooks are not at all orthodox.
>As for the name of
> Shakespeare or the initials "W.S." being irrefutable evidence of
> ANYTHING,
I can't quite see how such things wouldn't be evidence of SOMEthing,
American.
>one might think that you were absolutely ignorant and/or
> forgetful of the many examples that contradict you. Why would you even
> say such a thing?
When have I? To say that the names on the title pages are sufficient
evidence to establish the authorship of Shakespeare beyond reasonable doubt
given that there is no hard evidence against their being Shakespeare's is
NOT to say that they are irrefutable evidence.
> > But there is also the
> > desire to know everything we can about a favorite author.
> And, so, having blurted itself on to the floor, it veers...
> > The signatures
> > are thus important,
> Oh, but what became of their superfluity?
Try to learn how to read, Toby. It requires, among other things, the
ability to take context into consideration when working out a text's
meaning. In this case, the context of my statement that the signatures are
not important is the authorship question; the context of my statement that
the signatures are important is, as we shall see, the biography of
Shakespeare.
> > but primarily for what they are on, which of course tell
> > us a fair amount about Shakespeare.
> Nope. They tell us about Shakspere. A will, a lease, a mortgage, and a
> deposition. None of them tell us a goddamned thing about the Author.
> You know this, but you pretend to be right.
I don't know this, halfwit. What I know is that "Shakspere" was
Shakespeare. That connects the signatures of "Shakspere" to Shakespeare.
> > It would be of interest, for instance,
> > to know he owned a law book--outside its obvious evidentiary value
against
> > the idiots who think no one who did not own a law book could have used a
> > bunch of legal terms in his writing.
> It's really a bankrupt understanding of how thoroughly legalisms pervade
his thought.
Most of the legalisms you wacks find are just words that everyone uses or
used that have both everyday uses and legal uses. As for the other
legalisms, it has been shown time and time again that other playwrights who
were not lawyers used legalisms as much as Shakespeare--and the way modern
playwrights probably automatically use computer terminology that will get
the wacks of the future thinking they were all computer programmers.
> > > > -- induces a
> > > > reluctance on the part of more balanced scholars
> >
> > > Translation: "people who agree with me"
> > Hey, that's a good one, American.
>
> Well, that's what he meant.
Actually, it is not. He meant scholars who investigate all the evidence
available (or most of it) and weigh it as opposed to cherry pickers of the
Dooley/Price variety. And/or (I can't speak for him) he meant scholars most
of whose opinions have come to be accepted by other scholars as opposed to
scholars most of whose opinions have come to be rejected by other scholars.
SNIP
> > > That he would criticize Tannenbaum for his
> > > dogmatic approach to the Hand D attribution in the same sentence as
> > > his OWN insistence that an alternative candidate must be proposed if
> > > any refutation is to even be countenanced is pure hypocrisy.
> >
> > He says he won't accept ANY refutation without an
> > alternative candidate's being proposed?
>
> Yep. You'll have to read the literature. They ALL think that. Crazy,
> huh?
I guess I will have to read it. I think it's a very substantial point
against anyone who says hand D is not Shakespeare's if he can't come up with
anyone else it could have been, but surely such a person could refute D =
Shakespeare in other ways, like . . . actually, it'd be hard. You'd have to
find something like a letter about Shakespeare that had him in Italy
throughout the summer of 1595 PLUS a firm date for hand D of 11-17 August
1595. Most evidence that would refute Shakespeare would be evidence for
some other person (not necessarily named).
> > > You can't
> > > see how ridiculous that is, can you? Shakspere is NOT the default
> > > candidate for Hand D. The paleographical argument is worthless.
> >
> > Anti-continuumism. You can't say the paleographical argument is weak;
you
> > have to either/or it as worthless. I know, it's just stylistic
hyperbole.
> No, the paleographical argument ISN'T just weak; it's non-existent. If
> there is no example of a MAJORITY of the handwritten letters (in both
> cases) in Shakspere's hand, how can these dolts make any claim of
> comparison to the letters in Hand D? Just answer that.
They can take the first S in the earliest signature and compare it to
capital S's in the hand D fragment, etc. They can also compare the general
slant (left or right) of the signatures against that of the fragment. Also
distance between levels, number of breaks in words. All kinds of similar
things, Toby. Do you really think any scholar should NOT use any evidence
as the basis of some conclusion until he has enough, whatever enough is?
You have to go with what you have, then alter your conclusions if further
evidence requires you to.
> > > The
> > > orthographical argument is slight, resting on some coincidences (and
> > > suppositions about how foul papers were ultimately transmitted into
> > > print). The chronological evidence works against Shakspere, as does
> > > the authorial-sequential evidence. Where else does Shakspere work with
> > > Munday or Chettle or Dekker? Can you even be sure WHO wrote the Jack
> > > Cade scenes from 2H6, which are suposed to compare so favorably to the
> > > More mob speech? I don't think you've made a case for Shakspere at
> > > all.
> >
> > No case AT ALL? This is not anti-continuumism?
>
> Tom says he's got more for us. Maybe that means some parallels or
> stylometry or that sort of thing.
Yes, but you said that right now he has NO CASE AT ALL. That's ridiculous.
> > snip
> > > I take it that you agree with Tannenbaum's identification of Chettle's
> > > hand in STM, so why is he not to be trusted on Hand D?
> >
> > Because he's wrong about it?
>
> On what basis would you make that claim?
I don't know whether he was right or wrong, but I do know that we shouldn't
automatically trust him on hand D because he was right on Chettle. I find
his conclusions wrong because other evidence contradicts them.
Why is he to be trusted when he has as little to go on as the other
signature-investigators?
> I don't think you know what
> you're talking about.
> Toby Petzold
I don't much know what I'm talking about. I would love to read some book
that objectively covers the history of the More play.
--Bob G.
(My cat came back while I was typing this, but I managed to keep her off the
keyboard.)
Toby Petzold
> Okay, I have to plow through this again, thanks to Shirley, since she DID
> delete my partial reply.
> > > > In all of this, we should never forget just
> > > > how clean these bones have
> > > > been picked. Squabbling over single signatures, as though one more or
> > > > fewer would make Shakspere any more of a literary man? It's an
> > > > embarrassment to common sense.
> >
> > Grumman:
> >
> > > As usual, you don't know what you're talking about, American.
> >
> > No, as a matter of fact, I do.
>
> Here you are showing how stupid you are by jumping into a response to my
> paragraph after it first sentence only. This means you don't know what I'm
> saying you're ignorant of yet.
Are you serious? Do you think this is a real-time exchange? Ha, ha.
> > At the very least, I am supplying you
> > with the layman's common sensical view of things, such as regards the
> > paucity of Shakspere's autograph.
>
> Which is irrelevant, as I go on to show.
No, it is extremely relevant. The autographs of many of Shakspere's
putative contemporaries have survived. More importantly, these
survivals are of a literary nature ---something that cannot be claimed
for Shakspere. Your assertion of this fact's irrelevance is simply
foolish.
> It's also meaningless, if true,
> because one can't expect a common sense layman necessarily to know that we
> have more signatures from Shakespeare than we do from any other playwright
> except, possibly, Jonson (so far as I know).
I'm not sure if you know this, but I'm an Anti-Stratfordian: I don't
believe that William Shakspere of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote any plays
or poems. Thus, your a priori notion that he and the Author are one
and the same is not going to impress me much. Moreover, the number of
signatures that you believe "Shakespeare" can boast of, which is more
than can anyone else but Jonson (you're pretty sure), IS irrelevant. I
would give practically all of the weight to the context of those
signatures, and that's where Shakspere comes up short.
> > Do you understand how that's NOT insane?
> > I can go and look at the handwriting of OTHER men who lived in
> > the same places and times as your horse-minder and who DID write plays
> > and poems and pamphlets; why can't I go and see Shakspere's MSS.?
>
> I thought we were talking about signatures.
Sure. You nailed me on that.
> As for manuscripts, almost NO
> manuscripts of plays exist from that time, and I think only one or two
> complete manuscripts do.
Who cares? Try ANY form of handwritten literature or letters or
inscriptions, etc. Where is your deer-poacher's hand, Bob? It's
important to remember that when an Anti-Stratfordian asks this
inevitable question, it's not because he's been blinded by
anachronistic expectation, but because it IS reasonable to suppose
that the chief playwright for the most important acting company
(LCM-KM) of its day WOULD have left some evidence of his literary hand
behind. Then, as YOU have him (i.e., Shakspere), he's a guy travelling
between two towns and who maintains relationships with his colleagues
here and there. No letters? No inscriptions? No nothing?
> Why do the sane have to so repeatedly tell you
> that things have a tendency to disappear over the years--and that
> manuscripts were not valued then the way they are now.
Your obsession with sanity and insanity is truly pathetic. The idea
that you would presume to claim to know how the mind works when your
sociopathic lack of charity for those who disagree with you is in
constant evidence is actually appalling. And you think that these
tossed-off reasons you've given for why there's no evidence of
Shakspere's literary hand are the work of "sane" men? I say they're
the generalizations and rationalizations of lazy men.
> > It ISN'T enough to say, "Have a squint at THESE lovely signatures!" It's
> crap.
>
> Who said it was?
>
> > > The
> > > squabbling is caused mainly by wacks who question everything related to
> > > Shakespeare.
>
> > There is nothing to take away from this sentence but that you believe
>
> Yes, Toby, it is an assertion. It is quite permissible to make assertions
> in discussions like this--if you follow them with support.
>
> > that those who hold and express doubts about the true identity of
> > Shakespeare are mentally ill and that, were it not for their
> > interference, life itself would be more peaceful because everyone
> > would believe the same things.
>
> (1) "Wacks" is a rhetorical term meaning people who believe in something
> that seems insane.
Fur Schamme, Herr Grummann! Mark it all down to rhetoric, do you?
SHAMEFUL!
> (2) The clause, "who question everything related to Shakespeare" does not
> say the same thing as
> "who hold and express doubts about the true identity of Shakespeare.
Where, effectively, IS the distinction?
> (3) I do not, nor could any sane person, hold that
> life would be peaceful if not for the interference of
> people who hold and express doubts about the true identity of Shakespeare.
> Of course, you jumped irrationally into a generalization based on your
> insane belief that if I oppose SOME ideas opposed to mine about Shakespeare,
> it means I am against all disagreement with my ideas.
Do you even THINK anymore? So, do you mean that you are FOR the
disagreement with SOME of your ideas? What gibberish! See what
thinking continuumistically gets you? See how there IS no virtue in
your chronic relativism?
> Actually, I would
> hate it if no one disagreed with me on anything.
Right.
> I am not even against the
> airing of insane views.
Since you are incapable of making a distinction between those who
disagree with you and those who are insane, then I guess what you say
goes without saying.
> But I will oppose all views significantly opposed
> to those of my own that I most value, and I will label all oppositional
> views that strike me a extremely unreasonable "insane."
*Hammering black currant jam to the wall*
> > Now, if your retarded view of this
> > heavenly homogeneity isn't, in itself, repulsive to the true direction
> > of the human spirit, then I don't know what is.
>
> One of many things that is worse is idiotic misrepresentation of another
> person's outlook.
Or, worse still: constant characterization of those who disagree with
you as mentally ill. And, remember, folks, this is a man who has
concocted a theory of human psychology!
> But the idea that it is repulsive to want a kind of
> heavenly homogeneity is pretty intolerant/rigidnikal, it seems to me.
Sure.
> You
> are exactly to people holding such an idea as you claim I am to people
> holding your objectively wrong ideas.
Okay, Uncle Chalkboard. Quantify, quantify!
> I note, too, your standard evasion of
> arguments you can't answer by disgressing to judgements about your
> opponent's moral worth.
You once told me that moral judgements don't work on you. What the
hell do YOU care?
> > You can come back and
> > pick some qualifier out of the stool of your assertions to dangle in
> > my face and show that you've contradicted me or that I don't know how
> > to read or think, but, in fact, you are wrong.
>
> You say I'm wrong, so I'm wrong?
>
> > > The sane don't need any of the signatures, the name on the
> > > title-pages, nowhere refuted as his, being enough.
>
> > You associate yourself with the sane
>
> in this particular case
Has anyone ever told you that you remind him of one of Vonnegut's
asterisks?
> > which, in your mind, means the majority,
>
> No, in my mind it means the rational
Pointlessness....
> >but that's just more evidence of your fascist mentality.
>
> I have to admit that I have no reply whatever to this.
>
> > Don't you get tired of being so orthodox?
>
> Yes, Toby, I do. I'm an Aquarius!
Please, whatever you do, find a way to work your belief in astrology
into your psychological theory. I'm sure it'll help your readers
understand you better.
> Therefore, I revel in non-conformity.
Of course!
> However, something makes me like sanity even more than non-conformity.
> Hence, I am orthodox about the Shakespeare question, the moon landings, the
> origin of the pyramids, the death of Elvis, evolution, chemistry up to 1900
> or so, etc. I am not orthodox about modern physics but recognize that my
> unorthodoxy has no weight because of my ignorance of modern physics. I am
> considered almost as foolishly opposed to the mainstream, or orthodoxy, at
> one poetry discussion group on the net as you are here at HLAS. My literary
> criticism is considered retrograde since it's standard "new criticism,"
> which went out of fashion years ago, but my poetry is cutting edge, I think
> everyone would agree. (Which does not mean it is necessarily any good.)
> And, as you well know, I have worked many years on a theory of psychology
> that is near-completely uncertified and in many ways unorthodox. My
> political and religious outlooks are not at all orthodox.
>
> > As for the name of
> > Shakespeare or the initials "W.S." being irrefutable evidence of
> > ANYTHING,
>
> I can't quite see how such things wouldn't be evidence of SOMEthing,
> American.
To depend on them to the exclusion of other evidence such as autograph
letters and manuscripts (which Shakespeare's contemporaries DO have)
is to be subject to very considerable contradiction. And you are.
> > one might think that you were absolutely ignorant and/or
> > forgetful of the many examples that contradict you. Why would you even
> > say such a thing?
>
> When have I? To say that the names on the title pages are sufficient
> evidence to establish the authorship of Shakespeare beyond reasonable doubt
> given that there is no hard evidence against their being Shakespeare's is
> NOT to say that they are irrefutable evidence.
How "hard" is the evidence behind the orthodox opinion that plays like
Locrine, Arden of Feversham, London Prodigal, etc. are NOT
Shakespeare's even though they were attributed to him by initials or
name? Of COURSE a name on a title-page is refutable! Therefore, they
are not to be accorded the kind of authority that you would wish.
> > > But there is also the
> > > desire to know everything we can about a favorite author.
>
> > And, so, having blurted itself on to the floor, it veers...
>
> > > The signatures
> > > are thus important,
>
> > Oh, but what became of their superfluity?
>
> Try to learn how to read, Toby. It requires, among other things, the
> ability to take context into consideration when working out a text's
> meaning. In this case, the context of my statement that the signatures are
> not important is the authorship question; the context of my statement that
> the signatures are important is, as we shall see, the biography of
> Shakespeare.
I'm starting to think that when you ordered up something to be
obsessed over, you may have misspelled the word insanity on the
invoice. Is that possible? This whole time, you've been thinking (as
it were) in terms of inanity when you actually meant to sink yourself
into insanity. Don't worry, though, over any lost time: we've all been
covering for you.
Oh, but, see: manuscripts and playwriting just weren't considered to
be all that important back then. We've undoubtedly lost whole careers
full of brilliant, Shakespearean-quality plays by unknown playwrights.
I'm thinking that Hand D belonged to one of them, but, owing to their
middle-class status and the concomitantly low level of survivability
for MSS. in that class, there's really no wonder that we would not
know this unknown playwright's name.
> > > > You can't
> > > > see how ridiculous that is, can you? Shakspere is NOT the default
> > > > candidate for Hand D. The paleographical argument is worthless.
> > >
> > > Anti-continuumism. You can't say the paleographical argument is weak;
> you
> > > have to either/or it as worthless. I know, it's just stylistic
> hyperbole.
>
> > No, the paleographical argument ISN'T just weak; it's non-existent. If
> > there is no example of a MAJORITY of the handwritten letters (in both
> > cases) in Shakspere's hand, how can these dolts make any claim of
> > comparison to the letters in Hand D? Just answer that.
>
> They can take the first S in the earliest signature and compare it to
> capital S's in the hand D fragment, etc.
The "earliest" signature because that helps make the comparison more
chronologically proximate and valid? Okay, I'll play along.
> They can also compare the general
> slant (left or right) of the signatures against that of the fragment.
Yes, because that would be invariable.
> Also
> distance between levels, number of breaks in words. All kinds of similar
> things, Toby.
Hmmm. You're SELLING me on it, Bob! You're really SELLING me on it!
> Do you really think any scholar should NOT use any evidence
> as the basis of some conclusion until he has enough, whatever enough is?
> You have to go with what you have, then alter your conclusions if further
> evidence requires you to.
Well, since the principal clowns from this ongoing play are dead, I am
happy to help those like Gerald Downs and Paul Werstine "alter [the]
conclusions" which the evidence requires.
> > > > The
> > > > orthographical argument is slight, resting on some coincidences (and
> > > > suppositions about how foul papers were ultimately transmitted into
> > > > print). The chronological evidence works against Shakspere, as does
> > > > the authorial-sequential evidence. Where else does Shakspere work with
> > > > Munday or Chettle or Dekker? Can you even be sure WHO wrote the Jack
> > > > Cade scenes from 2H6, which are suposed to compare so favorably to the
> > > > More mob speech? I don't think you've made a case for Shakspere at
> > > > all.
> > >
> > > No case AT ALL? This is not anti-continuumism?
> >
> > Tom says he's got more for us. Maybe that means some parallels or
> > stylometry or that sort of thing.
>
> Yes, but you said that right now he has NO CASE AT ALL. That's ridiculous.
That is my belief.
> > > snip
>
> > > > I take it that you agree with Tannenbaum's identification of Chettle's
> > > > hand in STM, so why is he not to be trusted on Hand D?
> > >
> > > Because he's wrong about it?
> >
> > On what basis would you make that claim?
>
> I don't know whether he was right or wrong, but I do know that we shouldn't
> automatically trust him on hand D because he was right on Chettle. I find
> his conclusions wrong because other evidence contradicts them.
>
> Why is he to be trusted when he has as little to go on as the other
> signature-investigators?
>
> > I don't think you know what
> > you're talking about.
>
> I don't much know what I'm talking about. I would love to read some book
> that objectively covers the history of the More play.
>
> --Bob G.
>
> (My cat came back while I was typing this, but I managed to keep her off the
> keyboard.)
Congratulations.
Toby Petzold
Bob Grumman
> putative contemporaries have survived.
Absolutely untrue. The autographs of a very few of Shakespeare's fellow
dramatists survive.
> More importantly, these
> survivals are of a literary nature ---something that cannot be claimed
> for Shakspere. Your assertion of this fact's irrelevance is simply
> foolish.
Okay, we know what you believe. I believe the contrary, as I've stated:
that we have more than enough evidence to establish Shakespeare as
Shakespeare without the signatures. That makes the signatures, whatever
laymen may think, if not irrelevant, strictly speaking, of minimal
importance.
> > It's also meaningless, if true,
> > because one can't expect a common sense layman necessarily to know that
we
> > have more signatures from Shakespeare than we do from any other
playwright
> > except, possibly, Jonson (so far as I know).
> I'm not sure if you know this, but I'm an Anti-Stratfordian: I don't
> believe that William Shakspere of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote any plays
> or poems. Thus, your a priori notion that he and the Author are one
> and the same is not going to impress me much.
We're just going over old ground, with you taking off into too many
directions for me to keep up with. I now forget what the point under
discussion here was. All I know is that it has nothing to do with what
you're talking about.
Moreover, the number of
> signatures that you believe "Shakespeare" can boast of, which is more
> than can anyone else but Jonson (you're pretty sure), IS irrelevant. I
> would give practically all of the weight to the context of those
> signatures, and that's where Shakspere comes up short.
>
> > > Do you understand how that's NOT insane?
> > > I can go and look at the handwriting of OTHER men who lived in
> > > the same places and times as your horse-minder and who DID write plays
> > > and poems and pamphlets; why can't I go and see Shakspere's MSS.?
> >
> > I thought we were talking about signatures.
>
> Sure. You nailed me on that.
>
> > As for manuscripts, almost NO
> > manuscripts of plays exist from that time, and I think only one or two
> > complete manuscripts do.
>
> Who cares? Try ANY form of handwritten literature or letters or
> inscriptions, etc. Where is your deer-poacher's hand, Bob? It's
> important to remember that when an Anti-Stratfordian asks this
> inevitable question, it's not because he's been blinded by
> anachronistic expectation, but because it IS reasonable to suppose
> that the chief playwright for the most important acting company
> (LCM-KM) of its day WOULD have left some evidence of his literary hand
> behind. Then, as YOU have him (i.e., Shakspere), he's a guy travelling
> between two towns and who maintains relationships with his colleagues
> here and there. No letters? No inscriptions? No nothing?
Right, Toby: ignore what's there and ask for what is not. Standard
rigidnikry. The name is on the title pages, so ask why an address isn't
with it. "All that he hath writ" is on the monument, so ask why no names of
the works he wrote are on it. A poem by William Basse written a few years
after Shakespeare died that establishes Shakespeare as Shakespeare, so ask
why it wasn't written sooner, and accompanied by more such poems by others.
A mountain of evidence says Shakespeare was Shakespeare, so ask why it's not
bigger. And ignore all explanations why it is not.
One can have doubts about who Shakespeare was and NOT question everything
related to Shakespeare. Study Farey, for instance. He takes a lot of
material relating to Shakespeare at face value yet expresses doubts that
Shakespeare was Shakespeare. Compare Farey to the idiots arguing about the
dot that they think is an i in the book by Peacham that clearly has nothing
to do with Shakespeare.
> > (3) I do not, nor could any sane person, hold that
> > life would be peaceful if not for the interference of
> > people who hold and express doubts about the true identity of
Shakespeare.
> > Of course, you jumped irrationally into a generalization based on your
> > insane belief that if I oppose SOME ideas opposed to mine about
Shakespeare,
> > it means I am against all disagreement with my ideas.
> Do you even THINK anymore? So, do you mean that you are FOR the
> disagreement with SOME of your ideas? What gibberish! See what
> thinking continuumistically gets you? See how there IS no virtue in
> your chronic relativism?
You're really too stupid to argue with, Toby. I am for the existence of
disagreement across the board. To be for disagreement does not mean I have
to accept all disagreement as sane, nor that I should not label disagreement
that I think insane as insane.
> > Actually, I would
> > hate it if no one disagreed with me on anything.
>
> Right.
>
> > I am not even against the
> > airing of insane views.
>
> Since you are incapable of making a distinction between those who
> disagree with you and those who are insane, then I guess what you say
> goes without saying.
Toby, the way to stop people from calling you insane is to show that you are
capable of reading and reasoning, not by calling them fascists.
I'm not going to spend any more time defending my name-calling. One last
time, though, I will state my position regarding insanity.
(1) Most of the time at HLAS I call people insane, in one way or another,
out of frustration with their stupidity; I do not usually truly consider
these people clinically insane but extremely irrational about whatever is
being discussed; sometimes I do consider such people mildly insane.
I find nothing wrong with expressing feelings as well as arguments in any
discussion. As a writer, I feel that doing this almost always makes one's
writing more entertaining, and I'm in favor of being entertaining.
(2) I am very much interested in the question of how one can assure oneself
of not being insane when established opinion is against him. I bring this
up sometimes partly to embarrass Paul Crowley, I admit, but I am much more
concerned with getting some kind of answers to my question. (It is a
question I've always asked myself, but most urgently when, in my thirties, I
was writing plays no one seemed to think were any good. Was I insane to
keep writing them? I still don't know, but have finally had a small bit of
reassuring conventional success in other fields, so the matter is less
pressing. In any case, it is not a question I devised only recently to use
against anti-Stratfordians.)
(3) I do not consider anyone who disagrees with me insane. Everyone
disagrees with me on something, and I doubt that even you, Toby, could think
I was ridiculous enough to think I was the only sane person in the world.
Aside from that, there are many questions that have no one sane answer, such
as whether welfare helps or hinders the poor.
It is also true, in my opinion, that one can answer a question insanely and
not be insane. Many people who are sane have one or more insane views.
Being insane on a few topics does not make one insane. (And when I call
anti-Stratfordians insane, I almost always mean insane on the authorship
question only, and I believe that's clear from the context.) So someone
could disagree with me insanely and I still wouldn't consider him
necessarily insane. That doesn't mean that a person can't disagree with me
and be insane.
(4) When I am formally describing anti-Stratfordians, as I rarely do is a
discussion group like this, I characterize the main ones as rigidniks.
Rigidniks are people with a kind of mental defect that makes them
irrational. To the degree that they have it, they range from mildly
neurotic to institutionalizably deranged. You seem to be at the fairly mild
end, so not insane, though your views are. Paul Crowley seems much more
rigidnikal than you. Needless to say, all I know of you and him are what
you reveal at HLAS, so all I can say about you with any accuracy is that
according to my theory you are definitely rigidnikal, being so in the one
are of attribution studies.
(5) The subject is complex. My book, if I ever manage to get back to it and
finish it, will clarify my position further.
(6) I will no longer bother defending my calling people insane, nor will I
stop doing it.
SNIP
> > > As for the name of
> > > Shakespeare or the initials "W.S." being irrefutable evidence of
> > > ANYTHING,
> >
> > I can't quite see how such things wouldn't be evidence of SOMEthing,
> > American.
>
> To depend on them to the exclusion of other evidence such as autograph
> letters and manuscripts (which Shakespeare's contemporaries DO have)
> is to be subject to very considerable contradiction. And you are.
I don't depend on them to the exclusion of other evidence, you stupid moron.
I merely believe that I could depend on them CONSIDERING THERE IS NOT
EVIDENCE AGAINST THEM. But throw them out and we still have the monument,
which in some ways is much better evidence since it was placed where those
who HAD to be able to judge its veracity could see it daily.
> > > one might think that you were absolutely ignorant and/or
> > > forgetful of the many examples that contradict you. Why would you even
> > > say such a thing?
> >
> > When have I? To say that the names on the title pages are sufficient
> > evidence to establish the authorship of Shakespeare beyond reasonable
doubt
> > given that there is no hard evidence against their being Shakespeare's
is
> > NOT to say that they are irrefutable evidence.
> How "hard" is the evidence behind the orthodox opinion that plays like
> Locrine, Arden of Feversham, London Prodigal, etc. are NOT
> Shakespeare's even though they were attributed to him by initials or
> name? Of COURSE a name on a title-page is refutable! Therefore, they
> are not to be accorded the kind of authority that you would wish.
I said they were refutable. But, unlike the Locrine title-page names, etc.,
they have not been refuted.
That gives them sufficient authority to withstand opposition from people
with nothing but fantasy.
If title-page names aren't enough, how about title-page names PLUS the
picture of the author? And no hard evidence or plausible soft evidence
against.
SNIP
> > I guess I will have to read it. I think it's a very substantial point
> > against anyone who says hand D is not Shakespeare's if he can't come up
with
> > anyone else it could have been, but surely such a person could refute D
=
> > Shakespeare in other ways, like . . . actually, it'd be hard. You'd
have to
> > find something like a letter about Shakespeare that had him in Italy
> > throughout the summer of 1595 PLUS a firm date for hand D of 11-17
August
> > 1595. Most evidence that would refute Shakespeare would be evidence for
> > some other person (not necessarily named).
>
> Oh, but, see: manuscripts and playwriting just weren't considered to
> be all that important back then. We've undoubtedly lost whole careers
> full of brilliant, Shakespearean-quality plays by unknown playwrights.
> I'm thinking that Hand D belonged to one of them, but, owing to their
> middle-class status and the concomitantly low level of survivability
> for MSS. in that class, there's really no wonder that we would not
> know this unknown playwright's name.
Great parallel, Toby. But you have NOTHING for this unknown playwright
whereas we have a great deal for Shakespeare, if not any manuscripts, except
the More fragment if it turns out to be his (and I don't think that's been
established beyond doubt although I lean toward acceptance).
> > > how can these dolts make any claim of
> > > comparison to the letters in Hand D? Just answer that.
> >
> > They can take the first S in the earliest signature and compare it to
> > capital S's in the hand D fragment, etc.
>
> The "earliest" signature because that helps make the comparison more
> chronologically proximate and valid? Okay, I'll play along.
No, the earliest because then they can take them one by one and not get
confused. They could go backwards to or by some other scheme.
> > They can also compare the general
> > slant (left or right) of the signatures against that of the fragment.
>
> Yes, because that would be invariable.
No, moron. But it doesnt have to. In questions like this, one looks for
tendencies.
Interesting. I've been argued with by fellow Shakespeare-affirmers for
saying that there IS a case for Oxford as Shakespeare--because he WAS known
as both a poet and a playwright. I consider the case beyond reasonable
doubt too weak to stand, but it is not non-existent.
On the other hand, I think the case against hand D being Shakespeare's is
fairly strong, just not as strong as the case for.
SNIPS
--Bob G
Art Neuendorffer
>> The autographs of many of Shakspere's
>>putative contemporaries have survived.
Bob Grumman wrote:
> Absolutely untrue. The autographs of a very few of Shakespeare's
> fellow dramatists survive.
--------------------------------------------------------
1) Examples of dramatists whose autographs didn't survive?
2) Examples of dramatists whose autographs did survive
and are as illegible as Shakespeare's are?
--------------------------------------------------------
> Toby Petzold wrote:
>>More importantly, these
>>survivals are of a literary nature ---something that cannot be claimed
>>for Shakspere. Your assertion of this fact's irrelevance is simply
>>foolish.
Bob Grumman wrote:
> Okay, we know what you believe. I believe the contrary, as I've stated:
> that we have more than enough evidence to establish Shakespeare as
> Shakespeare without the signatures.
We have more than enough evidence to establish that someone wanted us
to believe that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare without *specifically*
stating the same. And we even know *why* they lied:
------------------------------------------------------------------
[F]er[E]tt[E]ge[B]ei[L]on[E]ht{O}t
[F]ee[B]le{O}
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a 1615 verse-letter to Ben Jonson,
F. B. (Francis Beaumont?) wrote:
"Here I would let slip
(If I had any in me) scholarship,
And from all learning keep these lines as clear
as Shakespeare's BEST are, which our HEIRes shall
HEARE PREACHERS APTE TO THEIR AUDITORS TO SHOWE
how farr sometimes a mortall
man may goe by the dimme light of NATURE..."
----------------------------------------------------------
Bob Grumman wrote:
> That makes the signatures, whatever
> laymen may think, if not irrelevant,
> strictly speaking, of minimalimportance.
Almost every 'fact' we have about the Stratman is *an embarassment*
requiring an apology from his biographers (including, though by no
means, limited to) the illegible signatures (err-elephant art?).
> Toby Petzold wrote:
>> the number of
>>signatures that you believe "Shakespeare" can boast of, which is more
>>than can anyone else but Jonson (you're pretty sure), IS irrelevant.
>> I would give practically all of the weight to the context of those
>> signatures, and that's where Shakspere comes up short.
>> Bob Grumman wrote:
>>>As for manuscripts, almost NO
>>>manuscripts of plays exist from that time, and I think only one or two
>>>complete manuscripts do.
> Toby Petzold wrote:
>>Who cares? Try ANY form of handwritten literature or letters or
>>inscriptions, etc. Where is your deer-poacher's hand, Bob? It's
>>important to remember that when an Anti-Stratfordian asks this
>>inevitable question, it's not because he's been blinded by
>>anachronistic expectation, but because it IS reasonable to suppose
>>that the chief playwright for the most important acting company
>>(LCM-KM) of its day WOULD have left some evidence of his literary hand
>>behind. Then, as YOU have him (i.e., Shakspere), he's a guy travelling
>>between two towns and who maintains relationships with his colleagues
>>here and there. No letters? No inscriptions? No nothing?
Bob Grumman wrote:
> Right, Toby: ignore what's there and ask for what is not.
What's there is an embarassment.
What's not there is *any reasonable evidence* that an illiterate
boob from the sticks wrote the greatest works of English literature and
did so from a nobleman's perspective.
Bob Grumman wrote:
> The name is on the title pages,
> so ask why an address isn't with it.
Obviously a *phoney* name is on the title pages (as was commonly the
case in those days), so we ask for some *any reasonable evidence*
pertaining to who the real author might actually have been.
Bob Grumman wrote:
> "All that he hath writ" is on the monument, so ask
> why no names of the works he wrote are on it.
"Read if thou canst" is on the monument,
so we accept this challenge to solve the authorship riddle.
Bob Grumman wrote:
> A poem by William Basse written a few years
> after Shakespeare died that establishes Shakespeare as Shakespeare, so ask
> why it wasn't written sooner, and accompanied by more such poems by others.
Why wasn't it written sooner,
and accompanied by more such poems by others?
---------------------------------------------------------------
William Basse (1622) _On Mr. Wm. Shakespeare,
he dyed in April 1616."
Renowned SPENCER, LIE A THOUGHT more nigh
To learned Chaucer; and rare Beaumont, LIE
A LITTLE neerer Spenser to make roome
For Shakespeare in your threefold fowerfold Tombe.
---------------------------------------------------------
HAMLET Whose grave's this, sirrah?
First Clown Mine, sir.
HAMLET I think it be thine, indeed; for thou LIEst in't.
First Clown You LIE out on't, sir, and therefore it is not
yours: for my part, I do not LIE in't, and yet it is mine.
HAMLET 'Thou dost LIE in't, to be in't and say it is thine:
'tis for the dead, not for the quick; therefore thou LIEst.
First Clown 'Tis a QUICK LIE, sir; 'tWILL away gain,
--------------------------------------------------------
LIE A LITTLE FURTHER
--------------------------------------------------------
Ben Jonson (1623) _To the Memory of Shakespeare_
My Shakespeare, rise! I will not lodge thee by
Chaucer or SPENSER, or bid Beaumont LIE
A LITTLE FURTHER, to make thee a room.
------------------------------------------------------
Bob Grumman wrote:
> A mountain of evidence says Shakespeare was Shakespeare,
> so ask why it's not bigger.
Why isn't there ONE piece of evidence that doesn't smell of raw fish?
> And ignore all explanations why it is not.
Why isn't there ONE Strat explanation that doesn't smell of raw fish?
Art Neuendorffer
Art Neuendorffer
>> The autographs of many of Shakspere's
>> putative contemporaries have survived.
Bob Grumman wrote:
> Absolutely untrue. The autographs of a very few
> of Shakespeare's fellow dramatists survive.
--------------------------------------------------------
1) Examples of dramatists whose autographs didn't survive?
2) Examples of dramatists whose autographs did survive
but are as illegible as Shakspere's are?
--------------------------------------------------------
> Toby Petzold wrote:
>> More importantly, these survivals
>> are of a literary nature ---something that cannot be claimed
>> for Shakspere. Your assertion of this fact's irrelevance
>> is simply foolish.
Bob Grumman wrote:
> Okay, we know what you believe. I believe the contrary, as I've
> stated: that we have more than enough evidence to establish
> Shakespeare as Shakespeare without the signatures.
We have more than enough evidence to establish that someone wanted
us to believe that Shakspere wrote Shakespeare without
*specifically* stating the same. And we even know *why* they lied:
------------------------------------------------------------------
[F]er[E]tt[E]ge[B]ei[L]on[E]ht{O}t
[F]ee[B]le{O}
--------------------------------------------------------------
In a 1615 verse-letter to Ben Jonson,
F. B. (Francis Beaumont?) wrote:
"Here I would let slip
(If I had any in me) scholarship,
And from all learning keep these lines as clear
as Shakespeare's BEST are, which our HEIRes shall
HEARE PREACHERS APTE TO THEIR AUDITORS TO SHOWE
how farr sometimes a mortall
man may goe by the dimme light of NATURE..."
----------------------------------------------------------
Bob Grumman wrote:
> That makes the signatures, whatever
> laymen may think, if not irrelevant,
> strictly speaking, of minimalimportance.
Almost every 'fact' we have about the Stratman is *an embarassment*
requiring an apology from his biographers, including (though by no
means, limited to) the illegible signatures (err-elephant art?).
> Toby Petzold wrote:
>> the number of signatures
>> that you believe "Shakespeare" can boast of, which is more
>> than can anyone else but Jonson (you're pretty sure), IS irrelevant.
>> I would give practically all of the weight to the context of those
>> signatures, and that's where Shakspere comes up short.
Bob Grumman wrote:
> As for manuscripts, almost NO manuscripts of plays exist from
> that time, and I think only one or two complete manuscripts do.
> Toby Petzold wrote:
>> Who cares? Try ANY form of handwritten literature or letters or
>> inscriptions, etc. Where is your deer-poacher's hand, Bob? It's
>> important to remember that when an Anti-Stratfordian asks this
>> inevitable question, it's not because he's been blinded by
>> anachronistic expectation, but because it IS reasonable to suppose
>> that the chief playwright for the most important acting company
>> (LCM-KM) of its day WOULD have left some evidence of his literary
>> hand behind. Then, as YOU have him (i.e., Shakspere), he's a guy
>> travelling between two towns and who maintains relationships
>> with his colleagues here and there.
>> No letters? No inscriptions? No nothing?
Bob Grumman wrote:
> Right, Toby: ignore what's there and ask for what is not.
What's there is an embarassment.
What's not there is *any reasonable evidence* that an illiterate
boob from the sticks wrote the greatest works of English literature
and did so from a nobleman's perspective.
Bob Grumman wrote:
> The name is on the title pages,
> so ask why an address isn't with it.
Obviously a *phoney* name is on the title pages (as was commonly
the case in those days), so we ask for *any reasonable evidence*
pertaining to who the real author might actually have been.
Bob Grumman wrote:
> "All that he hath writ" is on the monument, so ask
> why no names of the works he wrote are on it.
"Read if thou canst" is on the monument, so we gladly
accept this challenge to solve the authorship riddle.
Bob Grumman wrote:
> A poem by William Basse written a few years after
> Shakespeare died that establishes Shakespeare as Shakespeare,
> so ask why it wasn't written sooner, and accompanied by more
> such poems by others.
Why wasn't it written sooner,
and accompanied by more such poems by others?
---------------------------------------------------------------
William Basse (1622) _On Mr. Wm. Shakespeare,
he dyed in April 1616."
Renowned SPENCER, LIE A THOUGHT more nigh
To learned Chaucer; and rare Beaumont, LIE
A LITTLE neerer Spenser to make roome
For Shakespeare in your threefold fowerfold Tombe.
---------------------------------------------------------
HAMLET Whose grave's this, sirrah?
First Clown Mine, sir.
HAMLET I think it be thine, indeed; for thou LIEst in't.
First Clown You LIE out on't, sir, and therefore it is not
yours: for my part, I do not LIE in't, and yet it is mine.
HAMLET 'Thou dost LIE in't, to be in't and say it is thine:
'tis for the dead, not for the quick; therefore thou LIEst.
First Clown 'Tis a QUICK LIE, sir; 'tWILL away gain,
--------------------------------------------------------
LIE A LITTLE FURTHER
--------------------------------------------------------
Ben Jonson (1623) _To the Memory of Shakespeare_
My Shakespeare, RISE! I will not lodge thee by
Chaucer or SPENSER, or bid Beaumont LIE
A LITTLE FURTHER, to make thee a room.
------------------------------------------------------
http://www.sirbacon.org/gallery/pyramid.html
Dear son of *MEMORY*, great *HEIR of FAME*,-- Milton (1630)
<= SONNET 33 =>
/T/ O T /H\ EONLIEBEGE /T/ TEROFTHESEINSUINGS
/O/ N N /E T\ SMRWHALL /H/ APPINESSEANDTHATETE
/R/ N I /T(I)E\ PROMIS /E/ DBYOUREVERLIVINGPOET
/W/ I S /H_E_T_H\ THEW /E/ LLWISHINGADVENTURERIN
S E /T T I N G FO/rT/ HTT . . . TOTH
/E/ O /N/LIEB/E/G E TTER [oF] THES/E/IN
\S\U I N/G/ S /O/NNET/ß/MRW\H\ ALLH [A] PPI/N/ESS
\E\A N/D/ T /H/ATET/E/RNITI\E\ PRO [M] IS/E/DBYO
\U\R/E/ V /E/RLIV/I/NGPOETW\I\ SH [E] T/H/THEWE
\L L/ W /I/SHIN/G/ADVENTURE\R\ IN /S/ETTING
\F/ O /R/THTT . . . . . . . TOTH
*E*.O. NLIE BEGET [T] E ROFTHESEI
/N/*S*UING SONNE [T] S M RWHALLH
/A/P*P*I*NES [S]EAND [T] HA\T\ ETERN
/I/TI*E*p*R*OM[I]SEDB {Y} OUR\E\ VER
/L/IVI*N*GPOE [T]WISH {E} THTH\E\ W
/E/LLWI*S*HING [A]DVEN {T} URERI\N\
SETTIN GFORT HTT
Shakespeare,*R I S E*! I will not lodge thee by *S P E N S*
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Grumman wrote:
> A mountain of evidence says Shakespeare was Shakespeare,
> so ask why it's not bigger.
Why isn't there ONE piece of evidence that doesn't smell of raw fish?
> And ignore all explanations why it is not.
Why isn't there *ONE* Strat explanation that doesn't smell of raw fish?
Art Neuendorffer
John W. Kennedy
I'm not the one who regards truth as a fixed mark of unpalatability.
John W. Kennedy
> I thought we were talking about signatures. As for manuscripts, almost NO
> manuscripts of plays exist from that time, and I think only one or two
> complete manuscripts do.
If I remember aright, we have no play mss. whatsoever of plays that made
it into print. The only mss. we have are mss. of plays that existed in
no other form.
Greg Reynolds
Toby Petzold wrote:
> Congratulations.
>
> Toby Petzold
Done with your American phase? What's next?
Bob Grumman
> > As for manuscripts, almost NO
> > manuscripts of plays exist from that time, and I think only one or two
> > complete manuscripts do.
>
> If I remember aright, we have no play mss. whatsoever of plays that made
> it into print. The only mss. we have are mss. of plays that existed in
> no other form.
>
> --
> John W. Kennedy
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure you're right. Very interesting
point.
--Bob G.
Toby Petzold
> > The autographs of many of Shakspere's
> > putative contemporaries have survived.
>
> Absolutely untrue. The autographs of a very few of Shakespeare's fellow
> dramatists survive.
Why are you limiting the field to dramatists? Regardless, you're
wrong: Chapman, Heywood, Fletcher, Munday, Dekker, Chettle, Drayton,
Spenser, Nashe, Lyly, Lodge, Sidney, Golding, G. Harvey, Donne, Peele,
Sackville, Camden, Jonson, and Oxford are ALL survived by examples of
their autograph ---and, in MOST of these cases, they are literary. You
consider this list to only include a "very few"? I could easily double
this number and never even scrape bottom. I think you've been lied to,
Bob.
> > More importantly, these
> > survivals are of a literary nature ---something that cannot be claimed
> > for Shakspere. Your assertion of this fact's irrelevance is simply
> > foolish.
>
> Okay, we know what you believe. I believe the contrary, as I've stated:
> that we have more than enough evidence to establish Shakespeare as
> Shakespeare without the signatures. That makes the signatures, whatever
> laymen may think, if not irrelevant, strictly speaking, of minimal
> importance.
Well, it's just indicative of how Stratfordians rationalize these
things. Of course it's not important that a great man of letters is so
feebly survived by his own hand. Nothing suspicious about that at all.
> > > It's also meaningless, if true,
> > > because one can't expect a common sense layman necessarily to know that
> > > we
> > > have more signatures from Shakespeare than we do from any other
> > > playwright
> > > except, possibly, Jonson (so far as I know).
>
> > I'm not sure if you know this, but I'm an Anti-Stratfordian: I don't
> > believe that William Shakspere of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote any plays
> > or poems. Thus, your a priori notion that he and the Author are one
> > and the same is not going to impress me much.
>
> We're just going over old ground, with you taking off into too many
> directions for me to keep up with.
You contradicted my statement that many of Shakspere's putative
contemporaries (i.e., other dramatists, poets, pamphleteers, etc.) are
known to have extant examples of their autograph. You said "very few"
of them do. I gave you a list of those who do, and it's more than a
dozen. Your belief on this issue is "absolutely" false and you should
do better to acknowledge that.
> I now forget what the point under
> discussion here was.
This is your thread, Bob. And, typically, it's riddled with unnoted
snipping and unattributed statements.
> All I know is that it has nothing to do with what
> you're talking about.
Well, at least you remember something.
Man, you and title-pages: there's an undying friendship if ever there
was one.
> "All that he hath writ" is on the monument, so ask why no names of
> the works he wrote are on it.
Why do Stratfordians assume that this phrase can only be construed
unironically? What is it that all that he has written does? There are
multiple answers, they say.
> A poem by William Basse written a few years
> after Shakespeare died that establishes Shakespeare as Shakespeare, so ask
> why it wasn't written sooner, and accompanied by more such poems by others.
Basse probably believed, as did the vast majority of others, exactly
what it was intended that he and they SHOULD believe, which is that
the man responsible for "supplying" the stage with these plays WAS
William Shakspere. Unless someone like Basse knew Shakspere personally
and knew whether he was the actual author of those plays and poems, it
is no surprise that the praise intended for the Author should have
fallen on Shakspere's shoulders when that was the whole purpose of his
representations! He was a patcher and a poacher and he claimed the
credit of authorship for his company. Just look at all of the
canonical plays that have their earlier manifestations: you KNOW
Shakspere had nothing to do with them! Leir, John, Henry the Fift,
etc. He wasn't writing Hamlet or the Henriad back in the late 1580s at
the same time as the Comedy of Errors or whatever else you can think
of. The standard chronology has gotten people CONFUSED.
> A mountain of evidence says Shakespeare was Shakespeare, so ask why it's not
> bigger. And ignore all explanations why it is not.
You're in it too deep, Bob. You don't recognize what a mess it all is.
That doesn't even make sense. If a person DID doubt Shakespeare's
traditonal biography, why WOULDN'T he be curious about everything
when, in that, he might be disabused of (or, reconfirmed in) his
beliefs?
> Study Farey, for instance. He takes a lot of
> material relating to Shakespeare at face value yet expresses doubts that
> Shakespeare was Shakespeare.
So, you respect Farey as an agnostic? (Why does that not surprise me?)
Or, maybe you respect him as an Anti-Stratfordian (if, indeed, he is
one, which I seem to recall that he is), but that's because he is only
moderately curious about the evidence, as he takes a lot of it at
"face value." So, I guess there's a canon of skeptical propriety which
you observe, right? The potentially/actively insane (i.e., those who
disagree with you) are free to harbor their doubts, but within a given
pale of discretion. I'll try to keep this in mind.
> Compare Farey to the idiots arguing about the
> dot that they think is an i in the book by Peacham that clearly has nothing
> to do with Shakespeare.
I don't want to. I'm afraid I'll lose all my faith in
Anti-Stratfordianism if I found out that Ogburn was full of shit about
an illustration in the front of some book.
> > > (3) I do not, nor could any sane person, hold that
> > > life would be peaceful if not for the interference of
> > > people who hold and express doubts about the true identity of
> Shakespeare.
> > > Of course, you jumped irrationally into a generalization based on your
> > > insane belief that if I oppose SOME ideas opposed to mine about
> Shakespeare,
> > > it means I am against all disagreement with my ideas.
>
> > Do you even THINK anymore? So, do you mean that you are FOR the
> > disagreement with SOME of your ideas? What gibberish! See what
> > thinking continuumistically gets you? See how there IS no virtue in
> > your chronic relativism?
>
> You're really too stupid to argue with, Toby. I am for the existence of
> disagreement across the board.
Just LOOK at what you're reduced to confessing! Ha, ha!
> To be for disagreement does not mean I have
> to accept all disagreement as sane, nor that I should not label disagreement
> that I think insane as insane.
Well, there it is.
> > > Actually, I would
> > > hate it if no one disagreed with me on anything.
> >
> > Right.
> >
> > > I am not even against the
> > > airing of insane views.
> >
> > Since you are incapable of making a distinction between those who
> > disagree with you and those who are insane, then I guess what you say
> > goes without saying.
>
> Toby, the way to stop people from calling you insane is to show that you are
> capable of reading and reasoning, not by calling them fascists.
I called YOU a fascist because YOU can't STOP calling me or anyobody
else here you disagree with INSANE. Don't bother saddling others with
YOUR disorder. You like it all neat and tidy and homogenous, even
though you mouth the usual liberal cant that diversity should be
tolerated.
> I'm not going to spend any more time defending my name-calling. One last
> time, though, I will state my position regarding insanity.
Yes, your "white paper."
> (1) Most of the time at HLAS I call people insane, in one way or another,
> out of frustration with their stupidity;
Frustration shouldn't be what compels you to characterize EVERYONE as
mentally ill, though. You ought to just stick with "stupid."
> I do not usually truly consider
> these people clinically insane but extremely irrational about whatever is
> being discussed; sometimes I do consider such people mildly insane.
I don't believe you.
> I find nothing wrong with expressing feelings as well as arguments in any
> discussion. As a writer, I feel that doing this almost always makes one's
> writing more entertaining, and I'm in favor of being entertaining.
Hear, hear!
> (2) I am very much interested in the question of how one can assure oneself
> of not being insane when established opinion is against him.
Why does that matter? Insanity, schmanity. Are you functional? Pay
your bills? Shop for groceries? Say hi to someone ever so often? Then,
who cares if you're insane? I think insanity is for losers.
> I bring this
> up sometimes partly to embarrass Paul Crowley, I admit, but I am much more
> concerned with getting some kind of answers to my question. (It is a
> question I've always asked myself, but most urgently when, in my thirties, I
> was writing plays no one seemed to think were any good. Was I insane to
> keep writing them? I still don't know, but have finally had a small bit of
> reassuring conventional success in other fields, so the matter is less
> pressing. In any case, it is not a question I devised only recently to use
> against anti-Stratfordians.)
>
> (3) I do not consider anyone who disagrees with me insane. Everyone
> disagrees with me on something, and I doubt that even you, Toby, could think
> I was ridiculous enough to think I was the only sane person in the world.
> Aside from that, there are many questions that have no one sane answer, such
> as whether welfare helps or hinders the poor.
It does both: helps inititally, hinders habitually.
> It is also true, in my opinion, that one can answer a question insanely and
> not be insane.
That's only because the frequency of your voice and the stylometric
patterns in your written texts temporarily suppress the autonomic
glockenspiel or turpentine in tune a feathery five point nine.
> Many people who are sane have one or more insane views.
> Being insane on a few topics does not make one insane. (And when I call
> anti-Stratfordians insane, I almost always mean insane on the authorship
> question only, and I believe that's clear from the context.) So someone
> could disagree with me insanely and I still wouldn't consider him
> necessarily insane. That doesn't mean that a person can't disagree with me
> and be insane.
*blank stare*
> (4) When I am formally describing anti-Stratfordians, as I rarely do is a
> discussion group like this, I characterize the main ones as rigidniks.
> Rigidniks are people with a kind of mental defect that makes them
> irrational.
That is, you believe that these people are mentally ill and that this
dysfunction is the cause of their disagreement with you.
> To the degree that they have it, they range from mildly
> neurotic to institutionalizably deranged. You seem to be at the fairly mild
> end, so not insane, though your views are. Paul Crowley seems much more
> rigidnikal than you. Needless to say, all I know of you and him are what
> you reveal at HLAS, so all I can say about you with any accuracy is that
> according to my theory you are definitely rigidnikal, being so in the one
> are of attribution studies.
>
> (5) The subject is complex. My book, if I ever manage to get back to it and
> finish it, will clarify my position further.
>
> (6) I will no longer bother defending my calling people insane, nor will I
> stop doing it.
>
>
> SNIP
>
> > > > As for the name of
> > > > Shakespeare or the initials "W.S." being irrefutable evidence of
> > > > ANYTHING,
> > >
> > > I can't quite see how such things wouldn't be evidence of SOMEthing,
> > > American.
> >
> > To depend on them to the exclusion of other evidence such as autograph
> > letters and manuscripts (which Shakespeare's contemporaries DO have)
> > is to be subject to very considerable contradiction. And you are.
>
> I don't depend on them to the exclusion of other evidence, you stupid moron.
See? You're getting better all the time (it can't get much worse).
> I merely believe that I could depend on them CONSIDERING THERE IS NOT
> EVIDENCE AGAINST THEM. But throw them out and we still have the monument,
> which in some ways is much better evidence since it was placed where those
> who HAD to be able to judge its veracity could see it daily.
Oh? And what were their comments? (None of them survived, I know.)
> > > > one might think that you were absolutely ignorant and/or
> > > > forgetful of the many examples that contradict you. Why would you even
> > > > say such a thing?
> > >
> > > When have I? To say that the names on the title pages are sufficient
> > > evidence to establish the authorship of Shakespeare beyond reasonable
> doubt
> > > given that there is no hard evidence against their being Shakespeare's
> is
> > > NOT to say that they are irrefutable evidence.
>
> > How "hard" is the evidence behind the orthodox opinion that plays like
> > Locrine, Arden of Feversham, London Prodigal, etc. are NOT
> > Shakespeare's even though they were attributed to him by initials or
> > name? Of COURSE a name on a title-page is refutable! Therefore, they
> > are not to be accorded the kind of authority that you would wish.
>
> I said they were refutable. But, unlike the Locrine title-page names, etc.,
> they have not been refuted.
> That gives them sufficient authority to withstand opposition from people
> with nothing but fantasy.
>
> If title-page names aren't enough, how about title-page names PLUS the
> picture of the author?
Gimme a break!
Even if you read up on that, you'd still see things the way YOU want
to see them. There's just no point.
> > > > how can these dolts make any claim of
> > > > comparison to the letters in Hand D? Just answer that.
> > >
> > > They can take the first S in the earliest signature and compare it to
> > > capital S's in the hand D fragment, etc.
> >
> > The "earliest" signature because that helps make the comparison more
> > chronologically proximate and valid? Okay, I'll play along.
>
> No, the earliest because then they can take them one by one and not get
> confused. They could go backwards to or by some other scheme.
>
> > > They can also compare the general
> > > slant (left or right) of the signatures against that of the fragment.
> >
> > Yes, because that would be invariable.
>
> No, moron. But it doesnt have to. In questions like this, one looks for
> tendencies.
Tendencies deduced from the Shaksperian Autographic Opus? See, that's
just it: there IS no tendency! It's a load of crapola!
Fair enough.
Toby Petzold
Bob Grumman
> > > putative contemporaries have survived.
> >
> > Absolutely untrue. The autographs of a very few of Shakespeare's fellow
> > dramatists survive.
> Why are you limiting the field to dramatists?
Shakespeare was a dramatist.
> Regardless, you're
> wrong: Chapman, Heywood, Fletcher, Munday, Dekker, Chettle, Drayton,
> Spenser, Nashe, Lyly, Lodge, Sidney, Golding, G. Harvey, Donne, Peele,
> Sackville, Camden, Jonson, and Oxford are ALL survived by examples of
> their autograph ---and, in MOST of these cases, they are literary. You
> consider this list to only include a "very few"?
Okay, more than I thought. Still, the majority of dramatists of
Shakespeare's time left behind no signatures.
>I could easily double
> this number and never even scrape bottom. I think you've been lied to,
> Bob.
> > > More importantly, these
> > > survivals are of a literary nature ---something that cannot be claimed
> > > for Shakspere. Your assertion of this fact's irrelevance is simply
> > > foolish.
> >
> > Okay, we know what you believe. I believe the contrary, as I've stated:
> > that we have more than enough evidence to establish Shakespeare as
> > Shakespeare without the signatures. That makes the signatures, whatever
> > laymen may think, if not irrelevant, strictly speaking, of minimal
> > importance.
>
> Well, it's just indicative of how Stratfordians rationalize these
> things. Of course it's not important that a great man of letters is so
> feebly survived by his own hand. Nothing suspicious about that at all.
Not after four hundred years.
> > > > It's also meaningless, if true,
> > > > because one can't expect a common sense layman necessarily to know
that
> > > > we
> > > > have more signatures from Shakespeare than we do from any other
> > > > playwright
> > > > except, possibly, Jonson (so far as I know).
> >
> > > I'm not sure if you know this, but I'm an Anti-Stratfordian: I don't
> > > believe that William Shakspere of Stratford-upon-Avon wrote any plays
> > > or poems. Thus, your a priori notion that he and the Author are one
> > > and the same is not going to impress me much.
> >
> > We're just going over old ground, with you taking off into too many
> > directions for me to keep up with.
>
> You contradicted my statement that many of Shakspere's putative
> contemporaries (i.e., other dramatists, poets, pamphleteers, etc.) are
> known to have extant examples of their autograph. You said "very few"
> of them do. I gave you a list of those who do, and it's more than a
> dozen. Your belief on this issue is "absolutely" false
not quite absolutely false, Toby
>and you should
> do better to acknowledge that.
> > I now forget what the point under
> > discussion here was.
>
> This is your thread, Bob. And, typically, it's riddled with unnoted
> snipping and unattributed statements.
none of which is significant; unlike you, I'm not in favor of the confusion
that multiplies when too little is snipped.
Why do wacks think EVERYTHING that clearly indicates Shakespeare was
Shakespeare must be an example of irony? It is not ironic because the
inscription on the monument gives no indication whatever that it was not a
serious epitaph, nor is there any hard evidence outside it that it could
have been.
Farey is not an agnostic.
>(Why does that not surprise me?)
> Or, maybe you respect him as an Anti-Stratfordian (if, indeed, he is
> one, which I seem to recall that he is), but that's because he is only
> moderately curious about the evidence, as he takes a lot of it at
> "face value." So, I guess there's a canon of skeptical propriety which
> you observe, right? The potentially/actively insane (i.e., those who
> disagree with you) are free to harbor their doubts, but within a given
> pale of discretion. I'll try to keep this in mind.
> > Compare Farey to the idiots arguing about the
> > dot that they think is an i in the book by Peacham that clearly has
nothing
> > to do with Shakespeare.
>
> I don't want to. I'm afraid I'll lose all my faith in
> Anti-Stratfordianism if I found out that Ogburn was full of shit about
> an illustration in the front of some book.
Amusing retort--but you're evading the point, which is that many
anti-Stratfordians, in questioning every idiotic detail that MIGHT have
something to do with Shakespeare, and finding it to be a clue to his TRUE
IDENTITY are, in that respect, insane.
I recently disagreed for quite a number of posts with Tom Reedy but didn't
call him insane. You are refuted. You might check your definition for
fascist, by the way: one can call people insane ALL the time, and not be a
fascist.
> > I'm not going to spend any more time defending my name-calling. One
last
> > time, though, I will state my position regarding insanity.
>
> Yes, your "white paper."
>
> > (1) Most of the time at HLAS I call people insane, in one way or
another,
> > out of frustration with their stupidity;
>
> Frustration shouldn't be what compels you to characterize EVERYONE as
> mentally ill, though. You ought to just stick with "stupid."
I call you insane because you continually say I call everyone mentally ill,
which is insanely far from the truth, and suggests that you think you are
the only one in the world who counts and if I call you insane, I'm in effect
calling everyone insane.
> > I do not usually truly consider
> > these people clinically insane but extremely irrational about whatever
is
> > being discussed; sometimes I do consider such people mildly insane.
>
> I don't believe you.
Another indication of your own insanity. You can't take my statement at
face value.
> > I find nothing wrong with expressing feelings as well as arguments in
any
> > discussion. As a writer, I feel that doing this almost always makes
one's
> > writing more entertaining, and I'm in favor of being entertaining.
>
> Hear, hear!
>
> > (2) I am very much interested in the question of how one can assure
oneself
> > of not being insane when established opinion is against him.
>
> Why does that matter? Insanity, schmanity. Are you functional? Pay
> your bills? Shop for groceries? Say hi to someone ever so often? Then,
> who cares if you're insane? I think insanity is for losers.
I care because psychology is one of my main interests in life. I also care
because I want to be able to believe I'm rational, and that would be
unlikely if I were insane.
> > (4) When I am formally describing anti-Stratfordians, as I rarely do iN
a
> > discussion group like this, I characterize the main ones as rigidniks.
> > Rigidniks are people with a kind of mental defect that makes them
> > irrational.
>
> That is, you believe that these people are mentally ill and that this
> dysfunction is the cause of their disagreement with you.
No. I believe that they are mentall ill and that's why they are irrational
about the Shakespeare authorship question and disagree with all the
established authorities in the field.
> > To the degree that they have it, they range from mildly
> > neurotic to institutionalizably deranged. You seem to be at the fairly
mild
> > end, so not insane, though your views are. Paul Crowley seems much more
> > rigidnikal than you. Needless to say, all I know of you and him are
what
> > you reveal at HLAS, so all I can say about you with any accuracy is that
> > according to my theory you are definitely rigidnikal, being so in the
one FIELD
> > are of attribution studies.
caps in quoted material are corrections, usually
> > (5) The subject is complex. My book, if I ever manage to get back to it
and
> > finish it, will clarify my position further.
> >
> > (6) I will no longer bother defending my calling people insane, nor will
I
> > stop doing it.
> >
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> > > > > As for the name of
> > > > > Shakespeare or the initials "W.S." being irrefutable evidence of
> > > > > ANYTHING,
> > > >
> > > > I can't quite see how such things wouldn't be evidence of SOMEthing,
> > > > American.
> > >
> > > To depend on them to the exclusion of other evidence such as autograph
> > > letters and manuscripts (which Shakespeare's contemporaries DO have)
> > > is to be subject to very considerable contradiction. And you are.
> >
> > I don't depend on them to the exclusion of other evidence, you stupid
moron.
>
> See? You're getting better all the time (it can't get much worse).
But you so persistently misrepresent my views.
> > I merely believe that I could depend on them CONSIDERING THERE IS NO
> > EVIDENCE AGAINST THEM. But throw them out and we still have the
monument,
> > which in some ways is much better evidence since it was placed where
those
> > who HAD to be able to judge its veracity could see it daily.
>
> Oh? And what were their comments? (None of them survived, I know.)
That's obviously because they made no gossip-worthy ones.
So what is the picture? A pen-face? A pseudograph?
snip of a lot of stuff about hand D but nothing new
--Bob G.
Neil Brennen
> > Study Farey, for instance. He takes a lot of
> > material relating to Shakespeare at face value yet expresses doubts that
> > Shakespeare was Shakespeare.
>
> So, you respect Farey as an agnostic? (Why does that not surprise me?)
I respect Peter for actually doing field research, as opposed to spinning
lies on HLAS. It took me a while to come around to this view.
> Or, maybe you respect him as an Anti-Stratfordian (if, indeed, he is
> one, which I seem to recall that he is)...
I think he's horribly wrong on the non-existent "authorship" issue, and I
think it a waste of a good researcher.
but that's because he is only
> moderately curious about the evidence, as he takes a lot of it at
> "face value."
I thought a willingness to view the evidence with an unjaundiced eye would
bring such a charge. Better to twist things into a pretzel, or a cryptogram,
as if the Shakespeare canon was just a word-game in the Sunday paper.
So, I guess there's a canon of skeptical propriety which
> you observe, right? The potentially/actively insane (i.e., those who
> disagree with you) are free to harbor their doubts, but within a given
> pale of discretion. I'll try to keep this in mind.
>
> > Compare Farey to the idiots arguing about the
> > dot that they think is an i in the book by Peacham that clearly has
nothing
> > to do with Shakespeare.
>
> I don't want to. I'm afraid I'll lose all my faith in
> Anti-Stratfordianism if I found out that Ogburn was full of shit about
> an illustration in the front of some book.
Oh no Toby. I doubt that if Shakespeare himself rose from the dead and, like
Aldrin, flattened you in a barfight you would recant.
Peter Farey
>
> I think he's horribly wrong on the non-existent
> "authorship" issue, and I think it a waste of a good
> researcher.
Thanks for the generally positive remarks, Neil, but
I can't let this one go!
Partly because of where I live, and partly because I
enjoy it, I do indeed spend some time doing my own
research. I am not a very good researcher, however,
quite mediocre in fact, being only an amateur and having
very few of the skills that a professional researcher in
this subject would have.
What I *do* claim to have some expertise in, however -
having for many years made my living helping managers to
improve their abilities in this area - is in making
rational decisions based upon limited data.
You *believe* that I am horribly wrong, Neil, and you
*believe* that it is the waste of a good researcher, but
I have as yet seen no evidence that you (or Toby, who
of course agrees with the first bit) have really
given it much actual *thought* at all!
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Neil Brennen
"Peter Farey" <Peter...@prst17z1.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:am96ph$9td$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk...
> What I *do* claim to have some expertise in, however -
> having for many years made my living helping managers to
> improve their abilities in this area - is in making
> rational decisions based upon limited data.
>
> You *believe* that I am horribly wrong, Neil, and you
> *believe* that it is the waste of a good researcher, but
> I have as yet seen no evidence that you (or Toby, who
> of course agrees with the first bit) have really
> given it much actual *thought* at all!
"I think, therefore I am a Marlovian", Peter? This is the court of last
resort for you, and I'd rather not get into an on-line pissing match over
the subject of your strained cryptogram hunting in the monument inscription.
As for your skills as a researcher, I understand that you actually do
research, and while I accept that you don't consider yourself to be a
professional historian, you function effectively as one on the "hobby"
level. And you are a world above most of the "antis" on this newsgroup.
Peter Farey
Neil Brennen wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > What I *do* claim to have some expertise in, however -
> > having for many years made my living helping managers to
> > improve their abilities in this area - is in making
> > rational decisions based upon limited data.
> >
> > You *believe* that I am horribly wrong, Neil, and you
> > *believe* that it is the waste of a good researcher, but
> > I have as yet seen no evidence that you (or Toby, who
> > of course agrees with the first bit) have really
> > given it much actual *thought* at all!
>
> "I think, therefore I am a Marlovian", Peter? This is
> the court of last resort for you
My opinions are indeed based upon what I know to
be clear thinking. That reasoning brings me to the
conclusion that the most probable explanation of
*all* the relevant evidence that I am aware of is
that Marlowe survived 1593 and wrote most of what
we call the work of Shakespeare.
> and I'd rather not get into an on-line pissing match over
> the subject of your strained cryptogram hunting in the
> monument inscription.
In other words. you are happy to shout it to the world
that I am wrong, but when I ask you why, you refuse to
tell me? You'll be claiming I've got nuclear weapons
next.
You seem to admire Clark's site. Why not check out the
thread "Epitaph for a riddle" which occupied Clark and
me for a while, to see how it should be done. We each
of us, of course - and as it should be - firmly believed
that we had slaughtered the other. Pick out the main
points he makes.
Or if that's too tame for you, simply *summarize* Terry
Ross's arguments on the subject, which I think were on
the "The Monument's Meaning" thread. I would not class
either of these discussions (overly rhetorical as they may
have both been at times!) as "pissing matches".
Or why not be the first person ever to explain why
(rather than just to claim that) my statistical argument
- that the clues to the hidden meaning were deliberate -
doesn't work?
I wish you luck!
P.S. Or perhaps, best of all, if you are not prepared to
put your arguments where your keyboard is, simply
stop claiming to all and sundry that you think (rather
than that you have faith) that I am horribly wrong?
Neil Brennen
> > and I'd rather not get into an on-line pissing match over
> > the subject of your strained cryptogram hunting in the
> > monument inscription.
>
> In other words. you are happy to shout it to the world
> that I am wrong, but when I ask you why, you refuse to
> tell me? You'll be claiming I've got nuclear weapons
> next.
I thought the phrase "strained cryptogram hunting" summed it up, Peter. It's
a monument inscription. Period. It's not a word-puzzle in the sunday paper.
Why treat it as such, unless you have an agenda?
> You seem to admire Clark's site. Why not check out the
> thread "Epitaph for a riddle" which occupied Clark and
> me for a while, to see how it should be done. We each
> of us, of course - and as it should be - firmly believed
> that we had slaughtered the other. Pick out the main
> points he makes.
Perhaps I will. Although I've already destroyed your argument above.
> Or if that's too tame for you, simply *summarize* Terry
> Ross's arguments on the subject, which I think were on
> the "The Monument's Meaning" thread. I would not class
> either of these discussions (overly rhetorical as they may
> have both been at times!) as "pissing matches".
Not with Terry Ross, certainly.
> Or why not be the first person ever to explain why
> (rather than just to claim that) my statistical argument
> - that the clues to the hidden meaning were deliberate -
> doesn't work?
> I wish you luck!
Borrowing a page from Crowley now, Peter?
Peter Farey
Neil Brennen wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > and I'd rather not get into an on-line pissing match over
> > > the subject of your strained cryptogram hunting in the
> > > monument inscription.
> >
> > In other words. you are happy to shout it to the world
> > that I am wrong, but when I ask you why, you refuse to
> > tell me? You'll be claiming I've got nuclear weapons
> > next.
>
> I thought the phrase "strained cryptogram hunting"
> summed it up, Peter. It's a monument inscription.
> Period. It's not a word-puzzle in the sunday paper.
> Why treat it as such, unless you have an agenda?
>
> > You seem to admire Clark's site. Why not check out the
> > thread "Epitaph for a riddle" which occupied Clark and
> > me for a while, to see how it should be done. We each
> > of us, of course - and as it should be - firmly believed
> > that we had slaughtered the other. Pick out the main
> > points he makes.
>
> Perhaps I will. Although I've already destroyed your
> argument above.
Good grief.
> > Or if that's too tame for you, simply *summarize* Terry
> > Ross's arguments on the subject, which I think were on
> > the "The Monument's Meaning" thread. I would not class
> > either of these discussions (overly rhetorical as they may
> > have both been at times!) as "pissing matches".
>
> Not with Terry Ross, certainly.
>
> > Or why not be the first person ever to explain why
> > (rather than just to claim that) my statistical argument
> > - that the clues to the hidden meaning were deliberate -
> > doesn't work?
> > I wish you luck!
>
> Borrowing a page from Crowley now, Peter?
I'm sorry, Neil, I started you off at too advanced
a level. Let's go back to basics.
Look at your post (above). Then look at Clark's post,
sent on the "Frizer's Pardon" thread at about the
same time as yours. His approach to these discussions
differs in several ways from yours. See if you can spot
what those differences are. (Hint: they have something
to do with information and something to do with logic).
Neil Brennen
> > > Or why not be the first person ever to explain why
> > > (rather than just to claim that) my statistical argument
> > > - that the clues to the hidden meaning were deliberate -
> > > doesn't work?
> > > I wish you luck!
> >
> > Borrowing a page from Crowley now, Peter?
>
> I'm sorry, Neil, I started you off at too advanced
> a level. Let's go back to basics.
Yes Peter, let's go back to anti-Shakespeare 101. Compare your stateement
above to Crowley's "No one has ever refuted my sonnet analysis" mantra. Now
Peter, what may they have in common?
> Look at your post (above). Then look at Clark's post,
> sent on the "Frizer's Pardon" thread at about the
> same time as yours. His approach to these discussions
> differs in several ways from yours. See if you can spot
> what those differences are. (Hint: they have something
> to do with information and something to do with logic).
No Peter, the difference is that Clark accepts your premise that the
monument inscription might be a cryptogram, although it appears that he only
does so that he can point out the weaknesses in your cryptogram argument. I
reject your premise entirely, on the basis that there is no reason to doubt
that the inscription is just an inscription. (I hope Grumman's book will
discuss the anti-Shakespearean fascination with attempting to find
double-meanings and cryptograms in every word associated with The Bard.)
Toby Petzold
> "Toby Petzold" <neogno...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:2dbd058e.02091...@posting.google.com...
> Bob Grumman wrote:
> > > Study Farey, for instance. He takes a lot of
> > > material relating to Shakespeare at face value yet expresses doubts that
> > > Shakespeare was Shakespeare.
> >
> > So, you respect Farey as an agnostic? (Why does that not surprise me?)
>
> I respect Peter for actually doing field research, as opposed to spinning
> lies on HLAS. It took me a while to come around to this view.
I don't understand why it should have taken you any time at all to
reject the lies told here.
> > Or, maybe you respect him as an Anti-Stratfordian (if, indeed, he is
> > one, which I seem to recall that he is)...
>
> I think he's horribly wrong on the non-existent "authorship" issue, and I
> think it a waste of a good researcher.
Why would you lie about something so easily disproven? Obviously, the
Authorship Question DOES exist and you, in your very small way, have
tried to answer it. I don't think you know enough to do more than
shake your little pom-poms and squeal a bit, but don't let that
dissuade you.
> > but that's because he is only
> > moderately curious about the evidence, as he takes a lot of it at
> > "face value."
>
> I thought a willingness to view the evidence with an unjaundiced eye would
> bring such a charge. Better to twist things into a pretzel, or a cryptogram,
> as if the Shakespeare canon was just a word-game in the Sunday paper.
It's interesting that you should mention the Sunday paper because,
like your understanding of Anti-Stratfordianism, it, too, is full of
lame cartoons. I don't know whether your knowledge of the Question is
limited to having skimmed a few biographical encyclopedia entries or
if you've done some graver labor, but there is a great supply of
mysteries and coincidences involved. It's the lifelessness of your
imagination that's at fault, Neil; you seem to lack the basic
equipment by which to be intrigued.
> > So, I guess there's a canon of skeptical propriety which
> > you observe, right? The potentially/actively insane (i.e., those who
> > disagree with you) are free to harbor their doubts, but within a given
> > pale of discretion. I'll try to keep this in mind.
> >
> > > Compare Farey to the idiots arguing about the
> > > dot that they think is an i in the book by Peacham that clearly has
> > > nothing
> > > to do with Shakespeare.
> >
> > I don't want to. I'm afraid I'll lose all my faith in
> > Anti-Stratfordianism if I found out that Ogburn was full of shit about
> > an illustration in the front of some book.
>
> Oh no Toby. I doubt that if Shakespeare himself rose from the dead and, like
> Aldrin, flattened you in a barfight you would recant.
That's because I know the difference between what Aldrin actually did
do and what Shakspere could not have.
Toby Petzold
Neil Brennen
"Toby Petzold" <Neogno...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ad8b29ae.02092...@posting.google.com...
> "Neil Brennen" <chessne...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:<am73f6$b1h$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>...
> > "Toby Petzold" <neogno...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:2dbd058e.02091...@posting.google.com...
> > Bob Grumman wrote:
> > > > Study Farey, for instance. He takes a lot of
> > > > material relating to Shakespeare at face value yet expresses doubts
that
> > > > Shakespeare was Shakespeare.
> > >
> > > So, you respect Farey as an agnostic? (Why does that not surprise me?)
> >
> > I respect Peter for actually doing field research, as opposed to
spinning
> > lies on HLAS. It took me a while to come around to this view.
>
> I don't understand why it should have taken you any time at all to
> reject the lies told here.
It didn't; it only took a little while to remove the wheat from the chaff.
Wanna guess where you fall?
> > > Or, maybe you respect him as an Anti-Stratfordian (if, indeed, he is
> > > one, which I seem to recall that he is)...
> >
> > I think he's horribly wrong on the non-existent "authorship" issue, and
I
> > think it a waste of a good researcher.
>
> Why would you lie about something so easily disproven? Obviously, the
> Authorship Question DOES exist and you, in your very small way, have
> tried to answer it.
That's like saying that because it's known that man walked on the moon, that
I am admiting there is a "question" about it. Please don't make me part of
your delusion, Toby.
I don't think you know enough to do more than
> shake your little pom-poms and squeal a bit, but don't let that
> dissuade you.
Ah, the "You haven't read enough Oxfordian Lit" argument.
> > > but that's because he is only
> > > moderately curious about the evidence, as he takes a lot of it at
> > > "face value."
> >
> > I thought a willingness to view the evidence with an unjaundiced eye
would
> > bring such a charge. Better to twist things into a pretzel, or a
cryptogram,
> > as if the Shakespeare canon was just a word-game in the Sunday paper.
>
> It's interesting that you should mention the Sunday paper because,
> like your understanding of Anti-Stratfordianism, it, too, is full of
> lame cartoons.
Cartoons such as Peter Zenner and Elizabeth Weir? I would agree that the
anti-Shakespearean ranks are filled with line drawings and stick figures,
Peter Farey being an exception.
I don't know whether your knowledge of the Question is
> limited to having skimmed a few biographical encyclopedia entries or
> if you've done some graver labor, but there is a great supply of
> mysteries and coincidences involved.
No more so than for other historical figures, Toby.
It's the lifelessness of your
> imagination that's at fault, Neil; you seem to lack the basic
> equipment by which to be intrigued.
Sigh, I suppose my life would be so much richer if I could imagine vast
"Gemstone" conspiracies, faked moon landings, faked epidemics, and dead
noblemen writing Shakespeare while fornicating with their mothers (or
describing excretions to the Queen, depending on which Paul you take as
gospel).
Sorry historical truth is so boring, Toby.
> > > So, I guess there's a canon of skeptical propriety which
> > > you observe, right? The potentially/actively insane (i.e., those who
> > > disagree with you) are free to harbor their doubts, but within a given
> > > pale of discretion. I'll try to keep this in mind.
> > >
> > > > Compare Farey to the idiots arguing about the
> > > > dot that they think is an i in the book by Peacham that clearly has
> > > > nothing
> > > > to do with Shakespeare.
> > >
> > > I don't want to. I'm afraid I'll lose all my faith in
> > > Anti-Stratfordianism if I found out that Ogburn was full of shit about
> > > an illustration in the front of some book.
> >
> > Oh no Toby. I doubt that if Shakespeare himself rose from the dead and,
like
> > Aldrin, flattened you in a barfight you would recant.
>
> That's because I know the difference between what Aldrin actually did
> do and what Shakspere could not have.
Q. E. D.
Peter Farey
Neil Brennen wrote:
>
> I reject your premise entirely, on the basis that
> there is no reason to doubt that the inscription is
> just an inscription. (I hope Grumman's book will
> discuss the anti-Shakespearean fascination with
> attempting to find double-meanings and cryptograms
> in every word associated with The Bard.)
OK, I uderstand that you don't want to discuss it,
and I will respect that. Just a last few words,
if I may, and then I'll shut up.
First, you really must understand that, as far as *this*
double-meaning is concerned, I did *not* go attempting
to find one. I happened upon it while we were having a
perfectly orthodox discussion about what those six
lines of doggerel might mean.
The main reason why I noticed it and nobody else has
is NOT because I believe Marlowe wrote the works of
Shakespeare, but because of a precise and probably
unique combination of factors arising from this
interest in both of them, and HLAS.
1. We happened to be discussing what the poem might
mean, and had wondered about that somewhat strange
injunction "Read, if thou canst".
2. I was prepared to think it possible (not likely,
but possible) that the poem might have a
hidden meaning.
3. I knew the layout of the monument and grave, and
the exact words on the latter, having only just
been there to check what the wording, the spelling
and the punctuation on the monument actually were
(also having a bit of a thing about accuracy).
4. I knew all of the ways in which Marlowe's name was
spelt, particularly his own spelling of it.
5. I have fairly easy access to the full OED, and therefore
to contemporary words that we have no idea of.
Now obviously I was more intrigued than most to find
that the name it seemed I had been *asked* to look for
(Read if thou canst, whom...) could possibly start
with the syllable 'Christ', and couldn't believe it
when the next clearly segregated portion gave the
remaining letters of Christofer, with A, M and R left
over. Naturally, I thought that the probability of
the last bit (again clearly delineated) giving 'lowe'
or whatever was just about zero. But, when I checked
out 'ley' in the dictionary, there it was.
Clearly I had jumped to that name rather sooner than
I should, so I went back, and *this* time made damned
sure that every single step I took along the way was
the same as anybody else with that particular combin-
ation of knowledge (i.e. Jacobeans trying to 'solve'
it) would have followed. And it still led inexorably
to that name. I promise you, I would have been just
as amazed if it had come up with anyone else's name,
but there it was.
The number of coincidences in this and the rest of
the poem is pretty huge, but I guess that they could
still have been, as I'm sure you would believe, just
coincidences. Terry had, however, been pushing me on
two fronts (among others): the larger and smaller
initial capitals - and how did I explain them? and
that I should be able to *demonstrate* the answer's
validity using methods advocated by William and
Elizebeth Friedman.
I suddenly realized that the size of these letters was
in fact a clue to the whole thing, and that this would
permit me to do the sort of statistical check they had
advocated. I did so, and found that the probability of
this clue occurring by accident is less than 1 chance
in over 20 million. It had to be deliberate, so this
removes it from the area of subjective judgement
upon which each of us otherwise has to rely.
In other words, the statistical case that I asked
you to look at is designed specifically to counter
your argument "that there is no reason to doubt that
the inscription is just an inscription". There is too
a reason, and I say that this is demonstrated at
odds of over twenty million to one. Whether what
the resulting hidden meaning says is true, however,
or whether I have got the answer exactly right,
is a quite different matter!
Now let's leave it, OK?
Neil Brennen
> Now let's leave it, OK?
Agreed Peter. Subject and correspondence closed.
Amici Sumus,
Neil Brennen