-- The Complete Solution to the Puzzle in the Inscription on the Stratford Monument --

[frode]

In a series of posts I am going to present the solution to the puzzle found in the inscription on the Stratford monument. I don’t expect the regular contributors at HLAS to be able to follow the argument (no insult intended), but by presenting it here, it will be possible for more competent readers to stumble upon it. The puzzle reveals Francis Bacon as the main mind behind Shakespeare’s work, and it is most probably made by him. In an article found here http://tinyurl.com/8tgbtfp I have shown how Bacon in the sonnets is teaching the observant reader his version of Gematria, and also his use of Greek letters. A main point in the puzzles in the sonnets is that by substituting the letters in Francis Bacon’s name with numbers representing the letters position in Bacon’s alphabet and adding the numbers, we get the sum 100. (Here is his alphabet as presented in De Augmentis Scientiarum, containing the 24 letters ABCDEFGHIKLMNOPQRSTVWXYZ: http://i49.tinypic.com/2mgl1sx.jpg. Here are the numbers corresponding to Bacon’s letters summed: http://i50.tinypic.com/14iewwx.jpg)

Bacon then instructs us in so many ways to find his numerical signature inside the name WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE. The last part of wiLLIAM should be read as LL I AM and interpreted as 100 I AM. The character L represents 50 read as a Roman numeral, and according to Shakespeare’s Love’s Labour’s Lost (act IV, scene II) two consecutive L’s can be interpreted as representing the number 100,

If Sore be sore, than ell to Sore,
makes fiftie sores O sorell:
Of one sore I an hundred make
by adding but one more L.

Bacon also wants us to read I AM SHA inside willIAM SHAkespeare as I AM SEA = I AM C = I AM 100. (C is the Roman numeral representing 100). The rationale for this is that we should read the H in “I AM SHA” as a Greek H, that is, as the Greek letter eta, pronounced e.

The main focus of the puzzle found in the inscription on the Stratford monument is on this last point.

[frode]

I will start by describing a facet of the inscription which both highlights the significance of the letter E in the puzzle, and the significance of the position of letters in the alphabet, the key to Bacon’s version of gematria.

Shakespeare’s name is spelled SHAKSPEARE and not SHAKESPEARE in the inscription. SHAKESPEARE, with an E as letter number 5 is what we find on the title page of the first folio and in the dedications to the poems published in 1593 and 1594.Tom C. on this site has observed that SHAKSPEARE is word number 5 in line number 5. This means that E, the fifth letter of the alphabet, is missing as letter number 5 in word number 5 in line number 5 in the inscription.

If we now calculate the Bacon style gematria for the 5 first letters in word number 5 on line 5, we find that the sum is 55:

18 (S) + 8 (H) + 1 (A) + 10 (K) + 18 (S) = 55

Word number 5 counted from the end of line number 5 from the end of the inscription is the word WHOM. We find this word twice in the inscription, but the other occurrence of the word is spelled WHOME. Comparing WHOM to WHOME, we should have had letter number 5 in the alphabet as letter number 5 in word number 5 on line 5 counted from the end of the inscription, but the E is missing, like letter number 5 in SHAKSPEARE.

http://i48.tinypic.com/1i720.jpg

As we should expect, the Bacon style gematria for WHOM is 55:

21 (W) + 8 (H) + 14 (O) + 12 (M) = 55

[frode]

The inscription contains several orthographic anomalies, like WHOM and WHOME spelled differently, the non-existent word SIEH, and both WRITT and WITT spelled with two Ts. All the anomalies have several functions in the puzzle. Let us first take a look at the unusual spelling of WRITT and WITT.

According to a search in an original spelling version of the first folio found here: http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/efts/OTA-SHK/restricted/search.form.html , Shakespeare’s first folio contains only one instance of WRITT, none of WITT, but 97 instances of WRIT and 241 instances of WIT.

The Alphabet Francis Bacon is using consists of the 24 letters ABCDEFGHIKLMNOPQRSTVWXYZ (from De Augmentis Scientiarum: http://i49.tinypic.com/2mgl1sx.jpg ). In this alphabet, the T is letter number 19. Counting from the end of the Stratford inscription we find a T as letter number 19.

If T = 19, then TT should equal 19 + 19 = 38. Counting letters from the end of the Stratford inscription we find that letter number 38 is the first of the two Ts in WRITT, the only other occurrence of two consecutive Ts found in the inscription.

http://i45.tinypic.com/xoozsl.jpg

These findings are the first hints to the effect that the Puzzle makes use of Bacon’s version of Gematria combined with counting of letters.

[frode]

We have already seen indications that the letter E is central to the puzzle. I will now present some examples from the puzzle where the E is connected to the letter C and the value 100. (Remember that my claim here is that the puzzle is about SHA which should be read as SEA, and as representing C = 100).

Let us first take a look at the word SIEH. This is not an English word, but if the H is silent and SIE is pronounced like it is in other English words, like in “siege”, then SIEH has same pronunciation as the English name of the letter C. SIEH read backwards with a space in the middle gives us HE IS. I take the message to be that someone is here identified as C = 100.

In my article found here: http://tinyurl.com/8tgbtfp I document that Bacon wants us to read the last part of WILLIAM as LL I AM = 100 I AM. Taking a look at the Stratford-inscription we can see that the only occurrence of LL in the inscription is found in the word following after SIEH. Starting with SIEH we can read SIEH ALL. Substituting 100 for LL, we have SIEH A 100, which I read as support for reading SIEH as C = 100. I will soon come back to how this idea is confirmed in the inscription.

We have seen that word number 5 on line 5 both from the beginning and the end of the inscription accentuate the letter E, which is letter number 5 in the alphabet. If the puzzle is about an H which should be replaced by an E, as I claim, we should expect to find something similar for the letter H. The H is letter number 8 in Bacon’s alphabet. Word number 8 on line number 8 in the inscription is the word HIS. Starting on HIS and reading to the end of the inscription we get

HIS WITT

Putting a space after the H, this can be read as

H IS WITT

Replacing the H by an E, like I claim we should do inside the name SHAKESPEARE, we get

E IS WITT

The Bacon-style gematria for E IS WITT is 100:

5 (E) + 9 (I) + 18 (S) + 21 (W) + 9 (I) + 19 (T) + 19 (T) = 100.


If we replace the H in SHAKESPEARE with an E, we get SEAKESPEARE. Also the Bacon-style gematria for SEAKESPEARE is 100:

18 (S) + 5 (E) + 1 (A) + 10 (K) + 5 (E) + 18 (S) + 15 (P) + 5 (E) + 1 (A) + 17 (R) + 5 (E) = 100

[frode]

I will now present more evidence to the effect that HIS should be read as H IS, and finally as E IS. We find HIS two places in the inscription; in HIS WITT and in the word THIS. The occurrence of HIS inside the word THIS is of particularly interest since we by starting at the beginning of line five can read

WITH IN THIS

and what we find within THIS is HIS. If we take out HIS as a separate word, we can notice that the letters preceding HIS on the line spell out WIT HINT, when the spaces are distributed differently, that is, WITH IN THIS can be read as WIT HINT HIS (and also as WIT H IN THIS). My claim is that the H in HIS WITT should be replaced by an E giving us E IS WITT with the Bacon-style gematria of 100. If we replace the last H in WIT HINT HIS with an E we get

WIT HINT E IS

The gematria for WIT HINT E IS is 130

21 (W) + 9 (I) + 19 (T) + 8 (H) + 9 (I) + 13 (N) + 19 (T) + 5 (E) + 9 (I) + 18 (S) = 130

Counting letters from the end of the inscription we find that letter number 130 brings us to the exact place where H is replaced by E in WITH IN THIS.
Counting letters from the beginning of the inscription we find that letter number 130 is the E in DEATH. Starting to read on this E we can read E AT H, a rather clear indication that H should be replaced by E.

Thus, the gematria for WIT HINT E IS (130) brings us to the place where an H should be replaced by an E (in HIS), and to a place where we are instructed to do this (E AT H).

See the counting here: http://i50.tinypic.com/2mx01s8.jpg

If we now take the instruction E AT H literally and place the E where we have an H, we get AT E. AT E read backwards is ETA. Since the same point is emphasized repeatedly in the puzzles in the sonnets, I am quite sure that the point here is that the H in HIS should be read as a Greek eta, and that this is the rationale why it can be replaced by an E, since the eta looks like H, but is pronounced like E.

The Bacon-style gematria for AT E and ETA is 25

5 (E) + 19 (T) + 1 (A) = 25

Counting from the beginning of the inscription we find that letter number 25 is an E and that we by starting on this E can read ETA backwards.

See the counting here: http://i49.tinypic.com/21lvi55.jpg

[frode]

In the next couple of posts I will show that Bacon applies a shift cipher in the puzzle in the inscription. In a shift cipher, each letter in the plaintext is replaced by a letter some fixed number of positions down the alphabet. I will present convincing evidence that Bacon wants us to see that a shift cipher applied to the first part of the name WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE gives us a message supporting the idea that the H in SHAKESPEARE should be replaced by an E, giving us I AM SEA = I AM C = I AM 100 inside the name willIAM SEAkespeare.

We should first notice that the Bacon style gematria for I AM C is 25:

9 (I) + 1 (A) + 12 (M) + 3 (C) = 25

The reason why we are allowed to read the H in SHAKESPEARE as an E is that the H can be read as a Greek eta. Also the Bacon style gematria for ETA is 25:

5 (E) + 19 (T) + 1 (A) = 25

The message found by applying a shift cipher on the first part of the name WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE must be regarded as a coincidence, but it is nonetheless a coincidence Francis Bacon wants us to notice. The starting point is the observation that the W in William is written as VV (as two Vs) on the title page of the first folio, and also elsewhere in the prefatory material. See here: http://i45.tinypic.com/14b3u5d.jpg The two first letters of WILLIAM can therefore be read as VVI = 5 + 5 + 1 = 11 when read as Roman numerals. The part we should apply the shift cipher to is WILLIAM SH after the H is replaced by an E. We can notice that VVILLIAM SE can be read as VVILLIAM’S E. As I said, the two first letters can be read as representing the number 11. We are supposed to apply a shift cipher where we read the letters 11 steps further out in the alphabet for the rest of VVILLIAM’S E. I will call this a shift cipher with an 11 shift. If we shift the letters one place at the time we get:

LLIAMSE – (1) MMKBNTF – (2) NNLCOVG – (3) OOMDPWH - (4) PPNEQXI – (5) QQOFRYK – (6) RRPGSZL – (7) SSQHTAM – (8) TTRIVBN – (9) VVSKWCO – (10) WWTLXDP – (11) XXVMYEQ = XXV MY E Q

XXV = 25 when read as a Roman numeral. I read the Q in XXV MY E Q as “CUE”. The message XXV MY E Q then tells us that 25 is a cue to the E of whoever is giving us this message. We see that this fits well with 25 being the gematria for both ETA and I AM C.

In my next post I will show how Bacon confirms the significance of XXV MY E Q.

[metri...@gmail.com]

Extraordinary -- you make Art and Crowley look almost sane.

Peter G.

[frode]

kl. 00:20:53 UTC+2 fredag 12. oktober 2012 skrev metri...@gmail.com følgende:
>
> Extraordinary -- you make Art and Crowley look almost sane.
>
> Peter G.

Thanks. I actually think they are almost sane.

Frode

[John W Kennedy]

"While the 'Pistis Sophia' is just readable, the 'Books of Jeū' are
not. The revelations they contain are conveyed in mystic diagrams, and
numbers, and meaningless collections of letters, and it requires a vast
deal of historical imagination and sympathy to put oneself into the
place of anybody who could tolerate, let alone reverence, the dreary
stuff."
-- Montague Rhodes James

--
John W Kennedy
"There are those who argue that everything breaks even in this old dump
of a world of ours. I suppose these ginks who argue that way hold that
because the rich man gets ice in the summer and the poor man gets it in
the winter things are breaking even for both. Maybe so, but I'll swear
I can't see it that way."
-- The last words of Bat Masterson

[frode]

kl. 04:51:36 UTC+2 fredag 12. oktober 2012 skrev John W Kennedy følgende:
> "While the 'Pistis Sophia' is just readable, the 'Books of Je�' are

> not. The revelations they contain are conveyed in mystic diagrams, and
> numbers, and meaningless collections of letters, and it requires a vast
> deal of historical imagination and sympathy to put oneself into the
> place of anybody who could tolerate, let alone reverence, the dreary
> stuff."
>
> -- Montague Rhodes James
>

> John W Kennedy

It requires a vast deal of historical imagination and sympathy to put oneself into the place of anybody who could tolerate, let alone reverence, the dreary stuff, but you should try it, its fun.

[frode]

I will now start to present how Bacon confirms the significance of the message XXV MY E Q found by a shift cipher inside William Shakespeare’s name. XXV = 25 as a Roman numeral. I will show that we find this confirmed several places in the inscription; at letter number 25 counted from the beginning and from the end of the inscription, at word number 25 counted from the beginning and from the end of the inscription and at the two places in the inscription corresponding to the gematria for XXV MY E Q.

We have already seen that ETA has the Bacon-style gematria 25, and that by starting to read on letter number 25 from the beginning of the inscription we can read ETA backwards (see here: http://i49.tinypic.com/21lvi55.jpg ).

Word number 25 counted from the end of the inscription is WHOSE (see here: http://i47.tinypic.com/10hvjp3.jpg ).The message XXV MY E Q was found by applying an 11 shift. Applying an 11 shift on WHOSE we get

WHOSE – (1) XIPTF - (2) YKQVG - (3) ZLRWH - (4) AMSXI - (5) BNTYK - (6) COVZL - (7) DPWAM - (8) EQXBN - (9) FRYCO - (10) GSZDP - (11) HTAEQ

We end up with HTAEQ. Backwards we can read HTAEQ as Q E AT H, instructing us to place an E at H. If we replace the H with an E, the letters in HTAEQ is changed to ETA E Q. I take this as support for the idea that the H in SHA should be interpreted as an eta, and read as E. I still think that the Q should be read as CUE. I will present evidence for this interpretation later.

We shall see that the puzzle in the inscription also makes frequent use of a 4 shift. A first indication of this is found by applying a 4 shift on HTAEQ. We then get

HTAEQ – (1) IVBFR – (2) KWCGS – (3) LXDHT – (4) MYEIV = MY E IV

The result MY E IV fits well with this being the result of a 4 shift. I also think MY E IV is supposed to incite us to apply a 4 shift on MY E Q from the message found inside Shakespeare’s name. If we do that, we get

MYEQ – (1) NZFR – (2) OAGS – (3) PBHT – (4) QCIV

Let us assume that Q CIV is meant to bring us to letter number 104 in the inscription (since CIV = 104 as a Roman numeral). If we count from the end of the inscription, we find that letter number 104 is the E in WHOME. This is the E we found missing in the other occurrence of WHOM written without E at the end. If we now start to read on letter number 100 in the inscription, and read letter number 100, 101, 102, 103 and 104 we get this:

CIV Q E
(This is found inside WHOME QVICK in the inscription, see here: http://i45.tinypic.com/ppt8o.jpg ). Thus, Q CIV = Q 104 brings us to letter number 104 from the end of the inscription, where we can read CIV Q E = 104 Q E, with the E as letter number 104. I believe Q CIV is placed where it is in the inscription to confirm the message found inside Shakespeare’s name by use of an 11 shift, where a further 4 shift of MY E Q gives us Q CIV. We should notice here that the letter C representing 100 as a Roman numeral is letter number 100 counting from the end of the inscription (see here: http://i50.tinypic.com/v5lixg.jpg )

Letter number 104 counting from the beginning of the inscription is the first letter in READ (see here: http://i47.tinypic.com/6iyxi0.jpg ). I think we are supposed to read the whole sentence READ IF THOV CANST. The Bacon-style gematria for READ IF THOV CANST is 157

17 (R) + 5 (E) + 1 (A) + 4 (D) + 9 (I) + 6 (F) + 19 (T) + 8 (H) + 14 (O) + 20 (V) + 3 (C) + 1 (A) + 13 (N) + 18 (S) + 19 (T) = 157

Letter number 157 counted from the beginning of the inscription is the third letter in SHAKSPEARE. The number 157 therefore picks out SHA inside SHAKSPEARE (see here: http://i47.tinypic.com/21d07tk.jpg ). I assume that the point with READ IF THOV CANST = 157 is that we should read SHA if we can. After several instructions to the effect that we should read H as eta = E, we should be able to read SHA as SEA = C = 100.

[Arthur Neuendorffer]

>> Extraordinary -- you make Art and Crowley look almost sane.
>
>> Peter G.

frode <habber...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks. I actually think they are almost sane.

Thanks.

Art N.

[Arthur Neuendorffer]

--------------------------------------------------------
Cipher evidence for Francis Bacon is irrelevant since
Bacon was in charge of his cousin OXENford's "BOOKE" in 1601:
............................................
http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~ahnelson/PERSONAL/011007.html
.
Cecil Papers 88/101 (bifolium, 232mm x 170mm),
Oxford to Cecil; 7 October 1601 (W337;F593).
.
...for I am aduised, that I may passe *MY BOOKE* from her
Magestie, yf a warrant may be procured to my cosen *BACON*
and Seriant [=Sergeant] *HARRIS* to perfet [= *PERFECT* ] yt.
Whic[HE BE]inge *DOONE* , I know to whome formallye to
thanke, but reallye they shalbe, and are from me, and myne,
*to be SEALED VP* in an *AETERNALL REMEMBRANCE* to yowre
selfe. And thus *WISHINGE ALL HAPPINES* to yow,
.
Yowre most assured and louinge Broother.
(signed) Edward Oxenford (ital.; 4+7)
--------------------------------------------------------
Seventeenth-century References
to Shakespeare's Stratford Monument by David Kathman
http://shakespeareauthorship.com/monrefs.html

<<In 1634 a military company of Norwich was travelling through
the English countryside. One Lieutenant Hammond of the company
kept a diary of what he encountered during his travels,
and on or about September 9 he made the following entry:

".... A *NEAT* Monument of that famous
English Poet, Mr. William Shakesp[E]ere;
who was borne heere. And one of an old Gentleman a
Batchelo[R], Mr. Combe, upon whose name, the sayd Poet,
did merrily fann up som[E] witty, and facetious verses,
which time would nott give us lea[V]e to sacke up.
.....................................
_____ <= 51 =>

. A *N E A T* MonumentofthatfamousEnglishPoetMrWilliamShakes
. p [E] e r e whowasborneheereAndoneofanoldGentlemanaBatchel
. o [R] M r C ombeuponwhosenamethesaydPoetdidmerrilyfannupso
. m [E] w i t tyandfacetiousverseswhichtimewouldnottgiveusle
. a [V] e t o sackeup.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aubrey on Francis Bacon: Viscount St. Albans

<<(Bacon's) men's boots were of Spanish not
*NEAT's leather* because of the smell.">>
----------------------------------------------------------
*NEAT*, a. [OE. nett, fr. nitere *to shine* ]

1. Very clean; free from foul or extraneous matter.

2. Pure; free from impure words and phrases.

3. Free from tawdry appendages and well adjusted.
.......................................................
*NEAT*, n. sing. & pl. [AS. neát; akin to OHG. nz, Icel. naut, Sw.
nöt, Dan. nöd, and to AS. neótan to make use of, G. geniessen, Goth.
niutan to have a share in, have joy of, Lith. nauda use, profit.]
(Zoöl.) Cattle of the genus Bos; an animal of the genus Bos;
as, a *NEAT*'s tongue; a *NEAT*'s foot.

"The steer, the heifer, and the calf Are all called *NEAT*." Shak.
--------------------------------------------------------------
_____ *SEALD & DOONE*
............................................
http://ist-socrates.berkeley.edu/~ahnelson/PERSONAL/011007.html
.
Cecil Papers 88/101 (bifolium, 232mm x 170mm),
Oxford to Cecil; 7 October 1601 (W337;F593).
.
...for I am aduised, that I may passe *MY BOOKE* from her
Magestie, yf a warrant may be procured to my cosen *BACON*
and Seriant [=Sergeant] *HARRIS* to perfet [= *PERFECT* ] yt.
Whic[HE BE]inge *DOONE* , I know to whome formallye to
thanke, but reallye they shalbe, and are from me, and myne,
*to be SEALED VP* in an *AETERNALL REMEMBRANCE* to yowre selfe.
And thus *WISHINGE ALL HAPPINES* to yow, and sume fortunat
meanes to me, wherby I myght recognise soo *DIEPE* merites,
I take my leaue this 7th of October from my House at HAKNEY. 1601.
.
Yowre most assured and louinge Broother.
(signed) Edward Oxenford (ital.; 4+7)
.
Addressed (O): To the ryghte honorable & my very good Broother
Sir Robert Cecill on [=one] of her Magestyes pryvie Councel
and principall Secretarie giue thes at the Coorte. [seal]
.
Endorsed: 1601 7 October: Erle of Oxenford to my Master.
---------------------------------------------------------
______ Hamlet (Q2, 1604)
.
King: Follow him at foote,
. Tempt him with speede abord,
. Delay it not, Ile haue him hence
. to nig[H]t. Aw[A]y, fo[R] eue[R]y th[I]ng i[S]
. *SEALD and DONE*
. That els leanes on th'affayre, pray you make hast,
..........................................................
______ Hamlet (Folio, 1623)
.
King: Follow him at foote,
. Tempt him with speed aboord:
. Delay it not, Ile haue him hence to
. nig[H]t. Aw[A]y, fo[R] eue[R]y th[I]ng i[S]
. *SEAL'D and DONE*
. That else leanes on th'Affaire, pray you make hast.
........................................................
Ile haue him hence to
.
. --- n i g
. [H]{t A w}
. [A] y f o
. [R] e u e
. [R] y t h
-. [I] n g i
. [S] *SEAL'D and DONE*
.
[HARRIS] 4 {2,300,000}
-------------------------------------------------
__ Hamlet Q1 (1603: Bad Quarto 1) Act 1 Scene 4
.
Ham.: I mary i'st and though I am Natiue here,
. and to t[H]e m[A]ne[R] bo[R]ne, [I]t i[S]
. a custome, more honourd in the breach,
. Then in the obseruance.
.
[HARRIS] 3 {3,450,000}
-----------------------------------------
Arthur Neuendorffer

[David L. Webb]

In article
<71962688-bfa8-4ac6...@n16g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,

A skip of *fifty-one* for a mere *four-letter word*, and backwards at
that?! That's a virtually zero signal-to-noise ratio, Art:

"One could make the monument decipher into about anything
one wished with such a slap dash [sic] subjective procedure."

"One could make the monument decipher into about anything
one wished with such a slap dash [sic] subjective procedure."

> -----------------------------------------
> Arthur Neuendorffer

[Arthur Neuendorffer]

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> A skip of *fifty-one* for a mere *four-letter word*, and backwards
> at that?! That's a virtually zero signal-to-noise ratio, Art:

It forms a perfect Masonic Square
with the Ox word: *NEAT* (Prob. ~ 1 in 385)
---------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freemasonry#Ritual.2C_symbolism.2C_and_morality

<<Two of the principal symbolic tools always found in a Lodge are the
square and compasses. Some Lodges and rituals explain these tools as
lessons in conduct: for example, that Masons should "square their
actions by the square of virtue" and to learn to "circumscribe their
desires and keep their passions within due bounds toward all
mankind.">>
---------------------------------------------
Arthur Neuendorffer

[David L. Webb]

In article
<a9c6c4b7-11c3-46b6...@d17g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,

Arthur Neuendorffer <acne...@gmail.com> (aka Noonedafter) wrote:

[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]

> >> _____ <= 51 =>
> >
> >> . A *N E A T* MonumentofthatfamousEnglishPoetMrWilliamShakes
> >> . p [E] e r e whowasborneheereAndoneofanoldGentlemanaBatchel
> >> . o [R] M r C ombeuponwhosenamethesaydPoetdidmerrilyfannupso
> >> . m [E] w i t tyandfacetiousverseswhichtimewouldnottgiveusle
> >> . a [V] e t o sackeup.

> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > A skip of *fifty-one* for a mere *four-letter word*, and backwards
> > at that?! That's a virtually zero signal-to-noise ratio, Art:

> It forms a perfect Masonic Square

Huh?!?! It forms nothing of the kind, Art! For one thing, both arms
of a Masonic square are the *same length*. This cannot be said of the
cretinous crap that you have emphasized above, the horizontal leg "NEAT"
being four letters long and the VERtical leg "NVERE" being five letters
in length. Anything that is a candidate for a Masonic square should
have both arms the same length, like

O X F O R D
R
A
Z
I
O

or

D E V E R E
E
M
E
N
T

MoreoVER, the VERtical arm of the supposed Masonic square reads "NVERE",
a string that is moronic nonsense -- in English, at any rate.

Finally, this is all cretinous crap at the outset anyway, because
Freemasonry did not exist at the time, as I've told you before.

> with the Ox word: *NEAT* (Prob. ~ 1 in 385)

VERy unimpressive, Art. "Neat" is scarcely an "Ox word," as there is
no evidence whateVER that Oxford eVER used it, or that it was eVER
associated with him. You would do better to beat your neat, Art.

"One could make the monument decipher into about anything
one wished with such a slap dash [sic] subjective procedure."

[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]

> Arthur Neuendorffer

[Arthur Neuendorffer]

>>>> _____ <= 51 =>
>
>>>> . A *N E A T* MonumentofthatfamousEnglishPoetMrWilliamShakes
>>>> . p [E] e r e whowasborneheereAndoneofanoldGentlemanaBatchel
>>>> . o [R] M r C ombeuponwhosenamethesaydPoetdidmerrilyfannupso
>>>> . m [E] w i t tyandfacetiousverseswhichtimewouldnottgiveusle
>>>> . a [V] e t o sackeup.

>> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>> A skip of *fifty-one* for a mere *four-letter word*, and backwards
>>> at that?! That's a virtually zero signal-to-noise ratio, Art:

> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> It forms a perfect Masonic Square

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Huh?!?! It forms nothing of the kind, Art! For one thing, both arms
> of a Masonic square are the *same length*. This cannot be said of the
> cretinous crap that you have emphasized above, the horizontal leg "NEAT"
> being four letters long and the VERtical leg "NVERE" being five letters

> in length. MoreoVER,

> the VERtical arm of the supposed Masonic square reads "NVERE",
> a string that is moronic nonsense -- in English, at any rate.

The VERtical leg is "NEREV" = *NERE* + *VERE*

*NERE* : (Latin) To weave; spin, interlace, entwine.

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Finally, this is all cretinous crap at the outset anyway, because
> Freemasonry did not exist at the time, as I've told you before.

What is it about the term: "SECRET SOCIETY" that you don't understand?

> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> with the Ox word: *NEAT* (Prob. ~ 1 in 385)

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>

> VERy unimpressive, Art.

I'm here to supply necessary Oxfordian ciphers;
I nEVER promised that they would be sufficient.

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> "Neat" is scarcely an "Ox word," as there is no
> evidence whateVER that Oxford eVER used it,
> or that it was eVER associated with him.

---------------------------------------------------------
"Francis Bacon made his men wear Spanish leather,
*nEVER [NEAT]'s leather* ." - (Encyclopedia Brittanica)
---------------------------------------------------------
STEPHANO (on Trinculo)

This is some monster of the isle with four legs, who
hath got, as I take it, an ague. Where the devil
should he learn our language? I will give him some
relief, if it be but for that. if I can rEcoVER
him and keep him tame and get to Naples with him,
he's a present for

*any emperor that EVER trod on [NEAT]'s leather* .
......................................................
. JULIUS CAESAR Act 1, Scene 1

TRULY, sir, all that I live by is with the awl: I
meddle with no tradesman's matters, nor women's
matters, but with awl. I am, indeed, sir, a surgeon
to old shoes; when they are in great danger,
I rEcoVER them.

*As proper men as EVER trod upon [NEAT]'s leather*

have gone upon my handiwork.
---------------------------------------------------------
[NEAT] Terence, witty Plautus, now not please,
To the mEmoRy of my bEloVed, Ben Jonson (1623)
-------------------------------------------------
First published Shake-speare use of "TEST" :
...............................................
. Hamlet (1604 Q2) Act 3, Scene 4
.
Hamlet: My pulse as yours doth temperatly keepe time,
. And makes as healthfull m(U)sicke, it is not madnesse
. That I haue vttr(E)d, *bring me to the TEST* ,
. And the matter *Will reWO(R)D* , which madnesse
. Would gambole from, mother f(O)r loue of grace,
. Lay not tha[T] fl[A]tt[E]ri[N]g vnction to your soule
. That not your trespasse but my madnesse speakes,
. It will but skin and filme the vlcerous place
. Whiles RANCK corruption mining all within
.
[NEAT] -3 Prob. ~1 in 8
(UERO) 20
...................................................
. Infects VNS[E]ENE , confesse you[R] selfe to heauen,
. R[E]pent what's past, a[V]oyd what is to com[E],
. And doe no{T} sprea[D] the c{O}mpost on th[E] {W}EEDES
. To mak{E} them RANCK(E|R}, forgiue me this my ve(R)tue,
. For in the fatness(E) of these pursie times
. (V)ertue it selfe of vice *must pardon beg* ,
. Yea curbe and wooe for leaue to doe him good.
...................................................
. <= 15 =>
.
. I n f e c t s*U N S[E]E N E*c o n f
. e s f e s s e y o u[R]s e l f e t o
. h e o h e a u e n R[E]p e n t w h a
. t s a t s p a s t a[V]o y d w h a t
. i s t i s t o c o m[E]A n d d o e n
. o T n o T s p r e a[D]t h e c O m p
. o s p o s t o n t h[E|W E E D E S}
.................................
[EDEVERE] -15 James Ferris find
{ http://www.drjsferris.com }

The probability of finding [E.DE VERE] with
a Skip of 15 or less in Hamlet Q2 ~ 1 in 40.
-------------------------------------------------------
The noblest *TA'EN*. - Cymbeline: V, v

Brutus is *TA'EN*, brutus is *TA'EN*, my lord.
- Julius Caesar: V, iv
-------------------------------------------------
Venus and Adonis Stanza 0

EVEN as the sun with purple-colour'd face
Had *TA'EN* his last leave of the weeping morn,
Rose-cheek'd Adonis hied him to the chase;
Hunting he loved, but love he laugh'd to scorn;
--------------------------------------------------------
___ Hamlet (Quarto 2, 1604) Act 3, Scene 4

Ham. It will b{U}t skin and filme the vlcerous p(L)ace
. Whiles ranc{K} corruption mining all within
. (I)nfects *UNS[E]ENE* {C}onfesse you[R] selfe to heauen,
. R[E]pent what's past, {A|V]oyd what is to com[E],
. And doe not sprea[D] the compo{S}t on *TH[E] WEEDes*
. To make them rancker, forgiue me t{H}is *MY VERtuE*,
. For in the fatnesse of these pursie {T}imes
. *VERtuE* it selfe of vice must *PARDON* beg,
. Yea curbe and wooe for leaue to doe him good.
...........................................
_______ <= 41 =>

I t*W I L L*b{U}tskinandfilme[T]h e v l c e rouspLaceWhil
e s r a[N]c{K}c orruptionmini n g[A]l l w i thinInfectsvn
s E e n[E|C}o n fesseyouRself e t o h[E]a u enREpentwhats
p a s t{A}V o y dwhatistocomE A n d d o e[N]otspreaDtheco
m p o{S|T]o n t hEweedesTomak e t h e m r a nckerforgiuem
e t{H}i s M Y V ERtuEForinthe f a t n e s s eofthesepursi
e{T}i m e s V E RtuEitselfeof v i c e m u s tPARDONbeg

{TH.SACKU.} -40
[NEAT] 41, -43
.......................................................
A [NEAT] monument of that famous English Poet,
Mr. WILLiam Shakespeere; who was borne heere.
And one of an old Gentleman a Batchelor, Mr. Combe,

upon whose name, the sayd Poet, did merrily fann

up some witty, and facetious verses, which
time would nott give us leave {To SACKE U}p .
- [Chambers, William Shakespeare, II, 242]
-----------------------------------------------------
PUTTENHAM's (Conspiracy) List of Noble poets:
..................................................
1) Edward, Earl of Oxford (1550-1604)

2) {TH}omas {SACKV}ille, Lord Buckhurst, (1536-1608)
. - Grand Master Freemason (1561-1567)
. {Stone Guild => Guildensteen}
--------------------------------------------------
http://www.sirbacon.org/gallery/west.htm
http://www.sirbacon.org/gallery/scroll.jpg

. The Cloud cup[T] Tow'rs,
. Th[E] Gorgeou[S] Palaces
. {T}he {S|O}l{E}mn {T}emples,
. The Great Globe itself
. Yea all which it Inherit,
. Shall *DisSOlue* ;
. And like [T]he b[A]sel[E]ss F[N]brick of a Vision
. Lea{V}e n{O}t a {W}reck behind.
..............................................
__ <= 4 =>

. T h e C
. l o u d
. c u p [T]
. T o w' r
. s, T h [E]
. G o r g
. e o u [S]
. P a l a
. c e s {T}
. h e {S}|O}
. l {E} m n
. {T} e m p
. l e s,
..............
. [T] h e b
. [A] s e l
. [E] s s F
. [N] b r i
. c k o f
. a V i s
. i o n L
. e a {V} e
. n {O} t a
. {W} r e c
. k b e h
. i n d.

[TEST] 8, -3 Prob. of 2 [TEST]s Skip < 9 ~ 1 in 200
{VOW} 3 Prob. of {VOW} in the last line ~ 1 in 127
[NEAT] -4
-----------------------------------------------------

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> You would do better to beat your neat, Art.

I beg you pardon.

Arthur Neuendorffer

[David L. Webb]

In article
<18f690b1-e757-4e58...@l12g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,

Arthur Neuendorffer <acne...@gmail.com> (aka Noonedafter) wrote:

> >>>> _____ <= 51 =>
> >
> >>>> . A *N E A T* MonumentofthatfamousEnglishPoetMrWilliamShakes
> >>>> . p [E] e r e whowasborneheereAndoneofanoldGentlemanaBatchel
> >>>> . o [R] M r C ombeuponwhosenamethesaydPoetdidmerrilyfannupso
> >>>> . m [E] w i t tyandfacetiousverseswhichtimewouldnottgiveusle
> >>>> . a [V] e t o sackeup.

> >> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>> A skip of *fifty-one* for a mere *four-letter word*, and backwards
> >>> at that?! That's a virtually zero signal-to-noise ratio, Art:

> > Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> It forms a perfect Masonic Square

> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Huh?!?! It forms nothing of the kind, Art! For one thing, both arms
> > of a Masonic square are the *same length*. This cannot be said of the
> > cretinous crap that you have emphasized above, the horizontal leg "NEAT"
> > being four letters long and the VERtical leg "NVERE" being five letters
> > in length. MoreoVER,
> > the VERtical arm of the supposed Masonic square reads "NVERE",
> > a string that is moronic nonsense -- in English, at any rate.

> The VERtical leg is "NEREV" = *NERE* + *VERE*

"Nerev" is moronic nonsense, Art; it means nothing whateVER in
English.

HoweVER, you have not answered the main objection, Art: the arms of a
Masonic square are the *SAME LENGTH*. "Nerev" is *not* the same length
as neat, although nobody familiar with your output will expect you to be
able to count to five. Here's a hint, Art: Even you don't know how to
count, you can still compare the lengths of words by lining them up, one
below the other:

NEREV
NEAT

Of course, you need to do this with a fixed-width font, and it's
important that your words not be preceded by spaces, but I have
confidence that you can manage that. You will see, then, that one word
(well, one string, at any rate -- "nerev" is cretinous nonsense rather
than a genuine word) is manifestly longer than the other. Thus

N E A T
E
R
E
V

*CANNOT* a Masonic square; you would have to find something like

O X F O R D
R
A
Z
I
O

in order to satisfy the equal arm length criterion.

> *NERE* : (Latin) To weave; spin, interlace, entwine.

> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Finally, this is all cretinous crap at the outset anyway, because
> > Freemasonry did not exist at the time, as I've told you before.

> What is it about the term: "SECRET SOCIETY" that you don't understand?

I understand that our Order is secret, Art; howeVER, that doesn't
mean that its existence is not well documented. That documentation
postdates the era in question.

> > Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> with the Ox word: *NEAT* (Prob. ~ 1 in 385)

> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > VERy unimpressive, Art.

> I'm here to supply necessary Oxfordian ciphers;

Well, I'll grant you one thing, Art: all your Oxfordian ciphers do
seem to belong in what is euphemistically denominated "the necessary":

<http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/necessary#Noun>

> I nEVER promised that they would be sufficient.

It's a good thing that you didn't, Art.

> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > "Neat" is scarcely an "Ox word," as there is no
> > evidence whateVER that Oxford eVER used it,
> > or that it was eVER associated with him.
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> "Francis Bacon made his men wear Spanish leather,
> *nEVER [NEAT]'s leather* ." - (Encyclopedia Brittanica)

Francis Bacon is not Oxford, Art.

> STEPHANO (on Trinculo)
>
> This is some monster of the isle with four legs, who
> hath got, as I take it, an ague. Where the devil
> should he learn our language? I will give him some
> relief, if it be but for that. if I can rEcoVER
> him and keep him tame and get to Naples with him,
> he's a present for
>
> *any emperor that EVER trod on [NEAT]'s leather* .

That's by Shakespeare, Art; it's not by Oxford.

> . JULIUS CAESAR Act 1, Scene 1
>
> TRULY, sir, all that I live by is with the awl: I
> meddle with no tradesman's matters, nor women's
> matters, but with awl. I am, indeed, sir, a surgeon
> to old shoes; when they are in great danger,
> I rEcoVER them.
>
> *As proper men as EVER trod upon [NEAT]'s leather*
>
> have gone upon my handiwork.

Again, that's by Shakespeare, Art; it's not by Oxford.

> [NEAT] Terence, witty Plautus, now not please,
> To the mEmoRy of my bEloVed, Ben Jonson (1623)
> -------------------------------------------------
> First published Shake-speare use of "TEST" :

Huh?! What does the first use of "test" have to do with what we were
discussing, Art?!

> . Hamlet (1604 Q2) Act 3, Scene 4
> .
> Hamlet: My pulse as yours doth temperatly keepe time,
> . And makes as healthfull m(U)sicke, it is not madnesse
> . That I haue vttr(E)d, *bring me to the TEST* ,

As I've already told you, Art, Lehigh already *did* exactly that, and
your results were disappointing.

> . And the matter *Will reWO(R)D* ,

That's the problem, Art: you didn't "reword" *anything*. That's why
Lehigh was so disappointed -- although if they had known about your
idiocy concerning the number 19, it would have disappointed them as well.

> which madnesse
> . Would gambole from, mother f(O)r loue of grace,
> . Lay not tha[T] fl[A]tt[E]ri[N]g vnction to your soule
> . That not your trespasse but my madnesse speakes,

Your madness speaks, Art -- or rather, that of your Petulant Paranoid
persona speaks.

> . It will but skin and filme the vlcerous place
> . Whiles RANCK corruption mining all within
> .
> [NEAT] -3 Prob. ~1 in 8

One in eight?! VERy unimpressive, Art.

[Crackpot cryptography snipped]

> . <= 15 =>
> .
> . I n f e c t s*U N S[E]E N E*c o n f
> . e s f e s s e y o u[R]s e l f e t o
> . h e o h e a u e n R[E]p e n t w h a
> . t s a t s p a s t a[V]o y d w h a t
> . i s t i s t o c o m[E]A n d d o e n
> . o T n o T s p r e a[D]t h e c O m p
> . o s p o s t o n t h[E|W E E D E S}
> .................................
> [EDEVERE] -15 James Ferris find
> { http://www.drjsferris.com }
>
> The probability of finding [E.DE VERE] with
> a Skip of 15 or less in Hamlet Q2 ~ 1 in 40.

That's still VERy unimpressive, Art.

[Crackpot cryptography snipped]

> _______ <= 41 =>
>
> I t*W I L L*b{U}tskinandfilme[T]h e v l c e rouspLaceWhil
> e s r a[N]c{K}c orruptionmini n g[A]l l w i thinInfectsvn
> s E e n[E|C}o n fesseyouRself e t o h[E]a u enREpentwhats
> p a s t{A}V o y dwhatistocomE A n d d o e[N]otspreaDtheco
> m p o{S|T]o n t hEweedesTomak e t h e m r a nckerforgiuem
> e t{H}i s M Y V ERtuEForinthe f a t n e s s eofthesepursi
> e{T}i m e s V E RtuEitselfeof v i c e m u s tPARDONbeg
>
> {TH.SACKU.} -40

"Thsacku" is imbecilic nonsense, Art; it means nothing in any natural
language known to me.

> [NEAT] 41, -43

A skip of *forty-one* to find a mere four-letter word, Art?! That's
a signal-to-noise ratio that's virtually zero! MoreoVER, "neat" has an
INIPNC score of zero as well.

> A [NEAT] monument of that famous English Poet,
> Mr. WILLiam Shakespeere; who was borne heere.
> And one of an old Gentleman a Batchelor, Mr. Combe,
> upon whose name, the sayd Poet, did merrily fann
> up some witty, and facetious verses, which
> time would nott give us leave {To SACKE U}p .
> - [Chambers, William Shakespeare, II, 242]
> -----------------------------------------------------
> PUTTENHAM's (Conspiracy) List of Noble poets:

Puttenham says nothing about a conspiracy, Art; that's your own
demented paranoid contribution.

> 1) Edward, Earl of Oxford (1550-1604)
>
> 2) {TH}omas {SACKV}ille, Lord Buckhurst, (1536-1608)
> . - Grand Master Freemason (1561-1567)
> . {Stone Guild => Guildensteen}

[Crackpot cryptography snipped]

> . [T] h e b
> . [A] s e l
> . [E] s s F
> . [N] b r i
> . c k o f
> . a V i s
> . i o n L
> . e a {V} e
> . n {O} t a
> . {W} r e c
> . k b e h
> . i n d.
>
> [TEST] 8, -3 Prob. of 2 [TEST]s Skip < 9 ~ 1 in 200
> {VOW} 3 Prob. of {VOW} in the last line ~ 1 in 127
> [NEAT] -4

All VERy unimpressive, Art -- as always.

> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > You would do better to beat your neat, Art.

> I beg you [sic] pardon.

Is English your native tongue, Art? But you needn't beg anyone's
pardon -- just don't do it in public.

> Arthur Neuendorffer

[Arthur Neuendorffer]

>>>>>> _____ <= 51 =>
>
>>>>>> . A *N E A T* MonumentofthatfamousEnglishPoetMrWilliamShakes
>>>>>> . p [E] e r e whowasborneheereAndoneofanoldGentlemanaBatchel
>>>>>> . o [R] M r C ombeuponwhosenamethesaydPoetdidmerrilyfannupso
>>>>>> . m [E] w i t tyandfacetiousverseswhichtimewouldnottgiveusle
>>>>>> . a [V] e t o sackeup.

>>>> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>>>> A skip of *fifty-one* for a mere *four-letter word*, and backwards
>>>>> at that?! That's a virtually zero signal-to-noise ratio, Art:

>>> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> It forms a perfect Masonic Square

>> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>> Huh?!?! It forms nothing of the kind, Art! For one thing, both arms
>>> of a Masonic square are the *same length*. This cannot be said of the
>>> cretinous crap that you have emphasized above, the horizontal leg "NEAT"
>>> being four letters long and the VERtical leg "NVERE" being five letters
>>> in length. MoreoVER,
>>> the VERtical arm of the supposed Masonic square reads "NVERE",
>>> a string that is moronic nonsense -- in English, at any rate.

> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> The VERtical leg is "NEREV" = *NERE* + *VERE*
>>

>> *NERE* : (Latin) To weave; spin, interlace, entwine.

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> "Nerev" is moronic nonsense, Art;
> it means nothing whateVER in English.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Nureyev

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> HoweVER, you have not answered the main objection, Art:
> the arms of a Masonic square are the *SAME LENGTH*.

Leicester Square then:
--------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leicester_Square

<<In the middle of Leicester Square is a small park, in the centre of
which is a 19th century statue of William Shakespeare surrounded by
dolphins. The four corner gates of the park have one bust each,
depicting Sir Isaac Newton, the scientist; Sir Joshua Reynolds, the
first President of the Royal Academy; John Hunter, a pioneer of
surgery; and William Hogarth, the painter. The most recent addition is
a statue of film star and director Charlie Chaplin.>>
..................................

*NERE* : (Latin) To weave; spin, interlace, entwine.

--------------------------------------

>> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>> Finally, this is all cretinous crap at the outset anyway, because
>>> Freemasonry did not exist at the time, as I've told you before.

> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> What is it about the term: "SECRET SOCIETY" that you don't understand?

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> I understand that our Order is secret, Art;

YOUR ORDER, Dave !!!!!!

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> howeVER, that doesn't mean that its existence is not well documented.

But NOT for the eyes of cowans.

>>> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> with the Ox word: *NEAT* (Prob. ~ 1 in 385)

>> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>> VERy unimpressive, Art.

> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm here to supply necessary Oxfordian ciphers;

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Well, I'll grant you one thing, Art: all your Oxfordian ciphers do
> seem to belong in what is euphemistically denominated "the necessary":

VERy CHAIRitable of you, Dave.

>> I nEVER promised that they would be sufficient.

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> It's a good thing that you didn't, Art.

Then stop acting as if I am.

>> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>> "Neat" is scarcely an "Ox word," as there is no
>>> evidence whateVER that Oxford eVER used it,
>>> or that it was eVER associated with him.

> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------
>> "Francis Bacon made his men wear Spanish leather,
>> *nEVER [NEAT]'s leather* ." - (Encyclopedia Brittanica)

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Francis Bacon is not Oxford, Art.

Which is why he is not keen on [NEAT]'s leather

> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> STEPHANO (on Trinculo)
>
>> This is some monster of the isle with four legs, who
>> hath got, as I take it, an ague. Where the devil
>> should he learn our language? I will give him some
>> relief, if it be but for that. if I can rEcoVER
>> him and keep him tame and get to Naples with him,
>> he's a present for
>
>> *any emperor that EVER trod on [NEAT]'s leather* .

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> That's by Shakespeare, Art; it's not by Oxford.

Make up your mind, Dave.

> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> . JULIUS CAESAR Act 1, Scene 1
>
>> TRULY, sir, all that I live by is with the awl: I
>> meddle with no tradesman's matters, nor women's
>> matters, but with awl. I am, indeed, sir, a surgeon
>> to old shoes; when they are in great danger,
>> I rEcoVER them.
>
>> *As proper men as EVER trod upon [NEAT]'s leather*
>
>> have gone upon my handiwork.

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Again, that's by Shakespeare, Art; it's not by Oxford.

Make up your mind, Dave.

> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [NEAT] Terence, witty Plautus, now not please,
>> To the mEmoRy of my bEloVed, Ben Jonson (1623)
>> -------------------------------------------------
>> First published Shake-speare use of "TEST" :

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Huh?! What does the first use of "test"
> have to do with what we were discussing, Art?!

We were discussing how one might decipher the Stratford Monument.

> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> . Hamlet (1604 Q2) Act 3, Scene 4
>> .
>> Hamlet: My pulse as yours doth temperatly keepe time,
>> . And makes as healthfull m(U)sicke, it is not madnesse
>> . That I haue vttr(E)d, *bring me to the TEST* ,

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> As I've already told you, Art, Lehigh already *did*
> exactly that, and your results were disappointing.

You can lead a Neufer to an essay test
but you can't make him write/right.

> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> . And the matter *Will reWO(R)D* ,

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> That's the problem, Art: you didn't "reword" *anything*. That's why
> Lehigh was so disappointed -- although if they had known about your
> idiocy concerning the number 19, it would have disappointed them as well.

Well...I'm not going to let them name a building after me, I tell you!

> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> which madnesse
>> . Would gambole from, mother f(O)r loue of grace,
>> . Lay not tha[T] fl[A]tt[E]ri[N]g vnction to your soule
>> . That not your trespasse but my madnesse speakes,

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Your madness speaks, Art -- or rather,
> that of your Petulant Paranoid persona speaks.

It speaks volumes!

> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> . It will but skin and filme the vlcerous place
>> . Whiles RANCK corruption mining all within
>> .
>> [NEAT] -3 Prob. ~1 in 8

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> One in eight?! VERy unimpressive, Art.
>
> [Crackpot cryptography snipped]

> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> . <= 15 =>
>> .
>> . I n f e c t s*U N S[E]E N E*c o n f
>> . e s f e s s e y o u[R]s e l f e t o
>> . h e o h e a u e n R[E]p e n t w h a
>> . t s a t s p a s t a[V]o y d w h a t
>> . i s t i s t o c o m[E]A n d d o e n
>> . o T n o T s p r e a[D]t h e c O m p
>> . o s p o s t o n t h[E|W E E D E S}
>> .................................
>> [EDEVERE] -15 James Ferris find
>> {http://www.drjsferris.com}
>
>> The probability of finding [E.DE VERE] with
>> a Skip of 15 or less in Hamlet Q2 ~ 1 in 40.

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> That's still VERy unimpressive, Art.

Tell Jim Ferris.

> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> _______ <= 41 =>
>
>> I t*W I L L*b{U}tskinandfilme[T]h e v l c e rouspLaceWhil
>> e s r a[N]c{K}c orruptionmini n g[A]l l w i thinInfectsvn
>> s E e n[E|C}o n fesseyouRself e t o h[E]a u enREpentwhats
>> p a s t{A}V o y dwhatistocomE A n d d o e[N]otspreaDtheco
>> m p o{S|T]o n t hEweedesTomak e t h e m r a nckerforgiuem
>> e t{H}i s M Y V ERtuEForinthe f a t n e s s eofthesepursi
>> e{T}i m e s V E RtuEitselfeof v i c e m u s tPARDONbeg
>
>> {TH.SACKU.} -40

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> "Thsacku" is imbecilic nonsense, Art;
> it means nothing in any natural language known to me.

It must be an artificial language then.

> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [NEAT] 41, -43

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> A skip of *forty-one* to find a mere four-letter word, Art?!

A skip of *forty-one* to find a pair of relavent
four-letter words in the same array as {TH.SACKU.}

> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> A [NEAT] monument of that famous English Poet,
>> Mr. WILLiam Shakespeere; who was borne heere.
>> And one of an old Gentleman a Batchelor, Mr. Combe,
>> upon whose name, the sayd Poet, did merrily fann
>> up some witty, and facetious verses, which
>> time would nott give us leave {To SACKE U}p .
>> - [Chambers, William Shakespeare, II, 242]
>> -----------------------------------------------------
>> PUTTENHAM's (Conspiracy) List of Noble poets:

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Puttenham says nothing about a conspiracy, Art;

He really doesn't have to;
it is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer.

> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 1) Edward, Earl of Oxford (1550-1604)
>
>> 2) {TH}omas {SACKV}ille, Lord Buckhurst, (1536-1608)
>> . - Grand Master Freemason (1561-1567)
>> . {Stone Guild => Guildensteen}

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>

> [Crackpot cryptography snipped]

>
> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> . [T] h e b
>> . [A] s e l
>> . [E] s s F
>> . [N] b r i
>> . c k o f
>> . a V i s
>> . i o n L
>> . e a {V} e
>> . n {O} t a
>> . {W} r e c
>> . k b e h
>> . i n d.
>
>> [TEST] 8, -3 Prob. of 2 [TEST]s Skip < 9 ~ 1 in 200
>> {VOW} 3 Prob. of {VOW} in the last line ~ 1 in 127
>> [NEAT] -4

"David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> All VERy unimpressive, Art -- as always.

If it was impressive, Dave, you would designate
it as Crackpot cryptography and snip it.

Arthur Neuendorffer

[David L. Webb]

In article
<6dd92057-0266-4f89...@g18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,

Arthur Neuendorffer <acne...@gmail.com> (aka Noonedafter) wrote:

Nureyev did not style himself "Nerev" in the Noonedafter/Neufer
fashion, Art.

> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > HoweVER, you have not answered the main objection, Art:
> > the arms of a Masonic square are the *SAME LENGTH*.

> Leicester Square then:
> --------------------------------------
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leicester_Square
>
> <<In the middle of Leicester Square is a small park, in the centre of
> which is a 19th century statue of William Shakespeare surrounded by
> dolphins. The four corner gates of the park have one bust each,
> depicting Sir Isaac Newton, the scientist; Sir Joshua Reynolds, the
> first President of the Royal Academy; John Hunter, a pioneer of
> surgery; and William Hogarth, the painter. The most recent addition is
> a statue of film star and director Charlie Chaplin.>>

If you'll get someone to read to you the paragraph that you just
quoted, Art, you'll discoVER the fatal objection: Leicester Square has
*four* corners, not one.

[...]

> >> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>> Finally, this is all cretinous crap at the outset anyway, because
> >>> Freemasonry did not exist at the time, as I've told you before.

> > Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> What is it about the term: "SECRET SOCIETY" that you don't understand?

> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > I understand that our Order is secret, Art;

> YOUR ORDER, Dave !!!!!!

That was a typo, Art; I meant to write "the Order", of course.

> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > howeVER, that doesn't mean that its existence is not well documented.

> But NOT for the eyes of cowans.

Its *existence* is. The situation is comparable that of the Templars
-- nobody knew anything of the Order's initiation rituals, its internal
workings, or what it found in the Temple in Jerusalem, but the Order's
existence was VERy well known right from the outset. A secret order is
one whose internal workings are known only to the initiates (the elite),
but its VERy existence can scarcely be a secret or it will be unable to
recruit members.

> >>> Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>> with the Ox word: *NEAT* (Prob. ~ 1 in 385)

> >> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>> VERy unimpressive, Art.

> > Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> I'm here to supply necessary Oxfordian ciphers;

> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Well, I'll grant you one thing, Art: all your Oxfordian ciphers do
> > seem to belong in what is euphemistically denominated "the necessary":

> VERy CHAIRitable of you, Dave.

You're welcome, Art. Your ciphers all merit the "john gesture".

[...]

> >> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>> "Neat" is scarcely an "Ox word," as there is no
> >>> evidence whateVER that Oxford eVER used it,
> >>> or that it was eVER associated with him.

> > Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------
> >> "Francis Bacon made his men wear Spanish leather,
> >> *nEVER [NEAT]'s leather* ." - (Encyclopedia Brittanica)

> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Francis Bacon is not Oxford, Art.

> Which is why he is not keen on [NEAT]'s leather

...which does not even come close to a refutation of what I said:
"Neat" is scarcely an "Ox word," as there is no evidence whateVER that
Oxford eVER used it, or that it was eVER associated with him.

[...]

> >> First published Shake-speare use of "TEST" :
>
> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Huh?! What does the first use of "test"
> > have to do with what we were discussing, Art?!

> We were discussing how one might decipher the Stratford Monument.

There is nothing to "decipher", Art. I'll grant you that *you* think
(usual disclaimer) that it's some sort of secret code, because to you it
is -- after all, it's written in *English*.

> > Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> . Hamlet (1604 Q2) Act 3, Scene 4
> >> .
> >> Hamlet: My pulse as yours doth temperatly keepe time,
> >> . And makes as healthfull m(U)sicke, it is not madnesse
> >> . That I haue vttr(E)d, *bring me to the TEST* ,

> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > As I've already told you, Art, Lehigh already *did*
> > exactly that, and your results were disappointing.

> You can lead a Neufer to an essay test
> but you can't make him write/right.

One can't make a Noonedafter right no matter what one does, as he
remains blithely ineducable, as Lehigh foresaw. And, as I've said
before, you can lead a horse -- or in your case, Art, the hindquarters
thereof -- to water, but you can't make him think.

> > Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> . And the matter *Will reWO(R)D* ,

> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > That's the problem, Art: you didn't "reword" *anything*. That's why
> > Lehigh was so disappointed -- although if they had known about your
> > idiocy concerning the number 19, it would have disappointed them as well.

> Well...I'm not going to let them name a building after me, I tell you!

What are you talking about, Art?! They already named seVERal
buildings after you! See

<http://www4.lehigh.edu/about/luevents/maps/textonlymapbuildings.aspx>:

Arts Lehigh
230 West Packer Avenue

Drinker House
64 Quad Drive

Jordan Hall
(see OED nominal sense 2)

There is also a building apparently named after Oxford:

Severs House (must be a typo for "Dever's House")
1-3 Duh Drive (note the address!)

Your Petulant Paranoid persona might even be interested to learn that
there is a building named after an old Bloodline/Rex Deus family:

Sinclair Laboratory

> > Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> which madnesse
> >> . Would gambole from, mother f(O)r loue of grace,
> >> . Lay not tha[T] fl[A]tt[E]ri[N]g vnction to your soule
> >> . That not your trespasse but my madnesse speakes,

> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Your madness speaks, Art -- or rather,
> > that of your Petulant Paranoid persona speaks.

> It speaks volumes!

Then you *agree* that your madness speaks! Gracefully conceded, Art!

[Crackpot cryptography snipped]

> >> The probability of finding [E.DE VERE] with
> >> a Skip of 15 or less in Hamlet Q2 ~ 1 in 40.

> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > That's still VERy unimpressive, Art.

> Tell Jim Ferris.

You tell him, Art; I am not acquainted with him.

> > Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> _______ <= 41 =>
> >
> >> I t*W I L L*b{U}tskinandfilme[T]h e v l c e rouspLaceWhil
> >> e s r a[N]c{K}c orruptionmini n g[A]l l w i thinInfectsvn
> >> s E e n[E|C}o n fesseyouRself e t o h[E]a u enREpentwhats
> >> p a s t{A}V o y dwhatistocomE A n d d o e[N]otspreaDtheco
> >> m p o{S|T]o n t hEweedesTomak e t h e m r a nckerforgiuem
> >> e t{H}i s M Y V ERtuEForinthe f a t n e s s eofthesepursi
> >> e{T}i m e s V E RtuEitselfeof v i c e m u s tPARDONbeg
> >
> >> {TH.SACKU.} -40

> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > "Thsacku" is imbecilic nonsense, Art;
> > it means nothing in any natural language known to me.

> It must be an artificial language then.

Like your native COBOL, you mean? Hardly. It is, as I said,
imbecilic nonsense, Art.

> > Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> [NEAT] 41, -43

> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > A skip of *forty-one* to find a mere four-letter word, Art?!
>
> A skip of *forty-one* to find a pair of relavent
> four-letter words in the same array as {TH.SACKU.}

But we already established above that "THSACKU" is cretinous
nonsense, Art. And it isn't *two* four-letter words, but two random and
meaningless occurrences of *one* four-letter word. (HoweVER, it's worth
noting that most words used to name Oxford are four-letter words.)

[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]

> >> PUTTENHAM's (Conspiracy) List of Noble poets:
>
> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Puttenham says nothing about a conspiracy, Art;

> He really doesn't have to;
> it is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer.

"It is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer" is what
hapless students and cranks generally say when they have no evidence
whateVER for a ludicrous claim.

[...]

> > [Crackpot cryptography snipped]
> >
> > Arthur Neuendorffer <acneu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> . [T] h e b
> >> . [A] s e l
> >> . [E] s s F
> >> . [N] b r i
> >> . c k o f
> >> . a V i s
> >> . i o n L
> >> . e a {V} e
> >> . n {O} t a
> >> . {W} r e c
> >> . k b e h
> >> . i n d.
> >
> >> [TEST] 8, -3 Prob. of 2 [TEST]s Skip < 9 ~ 1 in 200
> >> {VOW} 3 Prob. of {VOW} in the last line ~ 1 in 127
> >> [NEAT] -4

> "David L. Webb" <david.l.w...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > All VERy unimpressive, Art -- as always.

> If it was impressive, Dave, you would designate
> it as Crackpot cryptography and snip it.

How do you know that, Art? You have neVER produced anything
impressive (it has *all* been crackpot cryptography), so you are
speculating on the basis of no data whateVER.

> Arthur Neuendorffer