Cooking Bacon: the NSA Secret Recipe
bookburn
Fabyan Took on Shakespeare, Gravity
By F.N. D'ALESSIO, Associated Press Writer
GENEVA, Ill. (AP) - On a laboratory wall 40 miles west of
Chicago, a plaque reads simply: ``To the memory of George Fabyan
from a grateful government.''
The plaque at the Riverbank Acoustic Laboratory was presented
several years ago by the National Security Agency, an
organization that didn't exist when Col. George Fabyan died 65
years ago this month. And it doesn't specify what the government
was being grateful for - which is probably understandable.
Just what do you say in thanks to a man who was best known for
persuading a Chicago judge to rule that Sir Francis Bacon wrote
the works of Shakespeare and for building an antigravity machine
that never worked?
Fabyan, a millionaire cloth dealer, spent years and a small
fortune pursuing both notions. His 300-acre estate, Riverbank,
housed one of the world's first think tanks - staffed by
cryptologists, geneticists and acoustic scientists. They didn't
discover much to support Fabyan's theories, but inadvertently
contributed to U.S. victory in both World Wars.
And Fabyan didn't seem to mind that his experts rarely found what
he hired them to do. He seemed content with whatever they could
generate - even notoriety.
That notoriety hit its high-water mark on April 21, 1916, when
Judge Richard S. Tuthill issued a ruling on a lawsuit brought
against Fabyan by motion picture producer William N. Selig, who
was releasing a series of Shakespearean movies in conjunction
with the 300th anniversary of Shakespeare's death. Selig filed
his lawsuit ostensibly to keep Fabyan from publishing a book that
would use code analysis to prove Bacon was the true author of
Shakespeare's plays.
After listening to Fabyan's cryptologists, Tuthill ruled: ``This
cipher convinces me that Bacon not only wrote the works
attributed to Shakespeare, but also (Edmund) Spenser's best
output, (Robert) Burton's 'Anatomy of Melancholy' and all of
(Robert) Greene and (George) Peele.''
``Bacon must have been a very busy man!'' was the amused comment
of a modern Shakespeare scholar, professor Gail Kern Paster of
George Washington University and the Folger Shakespeare Library.
In 1916, Tuthill's ruling was front-page news in New York and
London, but Chicago reporters greeted it cynically. They knew
that Fabyan, Selig and Tuthill were all friends. They also knew
the self-educated Tuthill had a love of showing up his
college-trained colleagues on the bench. And, as a chancery court
judge, he had no business ruling on a civil lawsuit in the first
place.
The notion that it was a ``put up job'' gained strength when
Selig's assistant, Jack Wheeler, was questioned by the Chicago
Tribune about the $5,000 damages his boss was ordered to pay.
``Isn't that sad?'' Wheeler wisecracked. ``That will be about 9
million columns of publicity, won't it?''
Selig proceeded to release his movies, while court authorities
reprimanded the 75-year-old Tuthill and voided his ruling.
It's not known precisely when Fabyan became interested in Bacon,
but in 1912 or 1913 he arranged housing at Riverbank for
Elizabeth Wells Gallup, a woman who claimed to have found ciphers
in Shakespeare's plays, indicating that Bacon was their true
author.
Such claims were nothing new, and had been the subject of at
least one 19th-century best seller. But Gallup provided a new
twist by saying she had found cryptographic evidence that Bacon
was really the son of Queen Elizabeth I, and thereby the true
heir to the English throne.
Bacon was known to have invented and used a ``bilateral cipher''
which used two different typefaces in each message. Each set of
five letters in the printed text represented one letter in the
coded message. Using capital and lowercase letters, for example,
``Aaaa'' might stand for ``a,'' ``aAaaa'' might be ``b,'' and
``aaAaa'' might be ``c'' ... on through ``aAaAA'' as ``x,''
``aaAAA'' as ``y,'' and ``AAAAa'' as ``z.''
In actual use, the cipher could be relatively subtle. The first
line of ``Macbeth'' - ``When shall we three meet again?'' - could
be printed in a combination of regular and italic letters to
spell any five-letter encoded name, such as ``Elvis.''
Since the earliest editions of Shakespeare's works were printed
in a jumble of different typefaces, Fabyan thought there might be
a glimmering of truth in Gallup's claims. He paid to have early
Shakespeare editions and Bacon manuscripts sent from England for
her use, and recruited a staff of clerks and had them trained in
cryptography.
Fabyan read in one of Bacon's works a description of a levitation
device that allegedly worked on acoustic principles. He built
one, but couldn't get it to fly, so he sent to Harvard University
for some acoustic experts to help him.
Fabyan also had some unrelated stock-breeding experiments in
mind, so he hired a young Cornell University geneticist, William
Friedman.
Friedman turned out to be the true find. He fell in love with
cryptographer Elizebeth Smith, and taught himself her specialty
in a matter of weeks. He soon proved capable of cracking
Britain's most sophisticated field code at a speed that was
previously believed impossible.
But as Friedeman improved the code-breaking, Gallup's anticipated
breakthrough on the authorship question failed to occur. The
cryptanalysis simply didn't find anything useful and Friedman
began to suspect that no cipher existed.
The cryptology project might have dissolved had the United States
not entered World War I in April 1917. The federal government had
virtually no cryptographers, and Fabyan had plenty, so Riverbank
became the NSA of its day. Newlyweds William and Elizebeth
Friedman were soon cracking German and Mexican codes for the U.S.
military and helping Scotland Yard expose anti-British agents in
North America.
When the U.S. Army finally established its own Cipher Bureau, its
first 88 officers were trained by Fabyan and the Friedmans at
Riverbank. When they graduated, William Friedman took a
commission himself and went to France.
The Friedmans returned to Riverbank briefly in 1920 and then
entered government service.
William Friedman became the nation's top code breaker and led the
successful effort to crack the Japanese codes before World War
II. Elizebeth Friedman did her code breaking for the Coast Guard
and the Treasury Department (news - web sites), and later
established a secure communications system for the International
Monetary Fund (news - web sites).
In 1955, the Friedmans returned to the Shakespeare question in
their book, ``The Shakespearean Ciphers Examined.'' Although they
thanked Fabyan for encouraging code studies, they concluded that
they began their careers seeking something that did not exist.
Fabyan died in 1936, without ever getting his Baconian levitating
machine off the ground. But the building where it was housed, and
where the plaque now hangs, is still a functioning research
facility, specializing in architectural acoustics.
Bacon
just as foolish...wouldn't he?
john
John Baker
Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe
"Chance favors the prepared mind." Louis Pasteur
Bob Grumman
> Now if we could only get a judge to rule that Willy did it...he'd look
> just as foolish...wouldn't he?
>
Yes, like a judge ruling that Martians did not build the pyramids
or that two plus two does equal four.
(Thanks for the interesting article, Bookburn.)
--Bob G.
Elizabeth Weir
[snip]
> Bacon was known to have invented and used a ``bilateral cipher''
> which used two different typefaces in each message. Each set of
> five letters in the printed text represented one letter in the
> coded message. Using capital and lowercase letters, for example,
> ``Aaaa'' might stand for ``a,'' ``aAaaa'' might be ``b,'' and
> ``aaAaa'' might be ``c'' ... on through ``aAaAA'' as ``x,''
> ``aaAAA'' as ``y,'' and ``AAAAa'' as ``z.''
>
I'm using Bacon's bilateral cypher as I type this. It was stolen
without credit
by Leibnitz who converted the a's and b's to 1's and 2's.
As Sir Karl Popper--not a Victorian nutcase cypherer or channeler but
arguably
the greatest logician--said of Bacon 'Bacon's utopia was the only one
to have succeeded and we're livin' in it.'
That's a paraphrase.
There are cyphers in the plays and frontispieces, embellished letters
and headpieces. Bacon left a simple cypher under the Sonnets
dedication. Penn Leary discovered it. It was written in Bacon's
favorite +4 Caesar.
I don't think that Penn Leary discovered any other cyphers because the
program that he wrote to find cyphers throughout the plays is the same
defective program the so-called 'Bible Code' uses. Terry Ross wrote a
saracastic and mean-spirited article debunking Leary's program. I
thought Ross was unscholarly. Penn Leary is a nice man.
Neuendorffer's Sydney pheon is a beautiful cypher embedded in the
Sonnet dedication that represent's the 'inner letter' of the
dedication's awkward and ungrammatical 'outer letter.' The six words
of the 'inner letter' reiterate the major themes of the Sonnets and
are in the shape of the emblem of the Sydney and Dudley families grant
of arms which identifies the author of the Sonnets, the identity of
Mr. W.H. and the their unusual to say the least relationship.
Neuendorffer would have figured this out long ago but he suppoerts the
wrong authorship candidate.
Kathman and Webb have been abusing Neuendorffer over this cryptogram
for moths and they are going to wish they could take their posts down
after they understand what it is.
The only thing I'm not clear on is who discovered the pheon.
Neuendorffer?
Elizabeth Weir
I meant 1's and 0's.
Neuendorffer
> Neuendorffer's Sydney pheon is a beautiful cypher embedded in the
> Sonnet dedication that represent's the 'inner letter' of the
> dedication's awkward and ungrammatical 'outer letter.'
Why thank you Elizabeth. You are very kind.
--------------------------------------------------------------
L A I B I T TIBIAL => Order of Garter
E N D V E S => ENDUES
-------------------------------------------------------------
T O T H E O N L I E B 'raw' probabilities:
E G E T T E R O F T H
E S E I N S V I N G S TIBIAL: 1 in 11,600
O N N E T S M r W H A EMEPH: 1 in 300
L H A P I N E S GROTS: 1 in 199
|L] N D T [P] A T E [S| PHEON: 1 in 127
[E|A] T I [H] P R [T|E]
R [N|I] Y [E] V [O|M] I
S E [D|B] [O] [R|E] V E
R L I [V|I][N][G|P] O E T
W I S H [E||T||H] T H E W
E L L W I {S} H I N G A
D V E N T {U} R E R I N
S E T T I {N} G F O R T
H
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Grottoes <= G R O T S {worth of wit}
EMEPH|T| <= |T| H P E M E
------------------------------------------------------------------
> The six words
> of the 'inner letter' reiterate the major themes of the Sonnets and
> are in the shape of the emblem of the Sydney and Dudley families grant
> of arms which identifies the author of the Sonnets, the identity of
> Mr. W.H. and the their unusual to say the least relationship.
Well, it seems to be trying to tell us something.
I am pleased that you have found so much meaning in it all.
> Neuendorffer would have figured this out long ago
> but he suppoerts the wrong authorship candidate.
Neuendorffer has no problem at all with the original Delia Bacon
groupist version of Baconianism. Pioneering Baconian discoveries
pertaining to the Rosicrucians, Freemasonry, Cryptograms & Cervantes
form a major part of my thesis. However, I would assign *all* of the
_Sonnets_ and most of _Hamlet_ and _Troilus & Cressida_ to Oxford.
> Kathman and Webb have been abusing Neuendorffer over this cryptogram
> for moths and they are going to wish they could take their posts down
> after they understand what it is.
David Webb did, in fact, remove his 1999 post where he suggested to
me that ENDUES TIBIAL(S) might pertain to The Order of the Garter;
nevertheless, I will continue to give him the credit for this whether he
likes it or not.
As for Kathman . . . it is rather I who have bugging him with
the cryptogram; David K. has wisely chosen to ignore me.
> The only thing I'm not clear on is who discovered the pheon.
> Neuendorffer?
Terry Ross discovered the words: PHEON, ENDUES, TIBIAL, & GROTS.
http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/wds1.html
and David Webb made the useful suggestion that ENDUES TIBIAL(S)
might pertain to The Order of the Garter.
My humble contribution was to simply add the EMEPH & SUN. :-)
Art Neuendorffer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.renaissance.dm.net/heraldry/blazons3.html
http://www.geocities.co.jp/Milano/8947/m455a.gif
<<PHEON, n. A bearing representing the head of a dart or javelin,
with long barbs which are engrailed on the inner edge.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
L A I B I T TIBIAL => Order of Garter
E N D V E S => ENDUES
-------------------------------------------------------------
T O T H E O N L I E B 'raw' probabilities:
E G E T T E R O F T H
E S E I N S V I N G S TIBIAL: 1 in 11,600
O N N E T S M r W H A EMEPH: 1 in 300
L H A P I N E S GROTS: 1 in 199
|L] N D T [P] A T E [S| PHEON: 1 in 127
[E|A] T I [H] P R [T|E]
R [N|I] Y [E] V [O|M] I
S E [D|B] [O] [R|E] V E
R L I [V|I][N][G|P] O E T
W I S H [E||T||H] T H E W
E L L W I {S} H I N G A
D V E N T {U} R E R I N
S E T T I {N} G F O R T
H
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Grottoes <= G R O T S {worth of wit}
EMEPH|T| <= |T| H P E M E
------------------------------------------------------------------
EMEPHT & the Mundane EGG
-------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd/sd1-2-06.htm
<<Ammon-Ra, the generator, is the secondary aspect of the concealed
deity. Khnoum was adored at Elephanta and Philoe, Ammon at Thebes. But
it is EMEPHT, the One, Supreme Planetary principle, who blows the EGG
out of his mouth, and who is, therefore, Brahma. The shadow of the
deity, Kosmic and universal, of that which broods over and permeates the
EGG with its vivifying Spirit until the germ contained in it is ripe,
was the mystery god whose name was unpronounceable. It is Phtah,
however, "he who opens," the opener of life and Death, who proceeds from
the EGG of the world to begin his dual work. (Book of Numbers.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Jamblichus, a Platonic Philosopher, styled by Proclus the Divine,
declares, that 'Hermes speaks of Eicton as the first of intelligences,
and the first intelligible; and of Cneph, or EMEPH, as the Prince of
the Celestial Gods; and of the Demiurgic, or creating Mind,
as a third to these. Jamblichus calls these the Demiurgic Mind,
the Guardian of Truth, and Wisdom.>>
http://www.gospeltruth.net/1840skeletons/sk_lecture17.htm
http://theosophy.org/tlodocs/teachers/Iamblichus.htm
<<Iamblichus, writing as the Egyptian preceptor Abammon, offers an
example of descent in a discussion of the teachings of Hermes:
<<He arranges the god EMEPH (Kneph?) prior to and as leader of the
celestial gods. And he says that this god is an intellect, itself
intellectually perceiving itself and converting intellections to itself.
But prior to this, he arranges the impartible One, which he says is the
first paradigm, and which he denominates Eicton. In this also is
contained that which is first intellective, and the first intelligible,
and which is to be worshipped through silence alone. . . . The demiurgic
intellect, who is the custodian of truth and wisdom, descending into
generation, and leading the power of occult reasons into light, is
called in the Egyptian tongue Amon; but in consequence of perfecting
all things with veracity and artifice, he is called Ptha. . . .
So far also as he is effective of good, he is called Osiris.>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Neuendorffer
>
> > Neuendorffer's Sydney pheon is a beautiful cypher embedded in the
> > Sonnet dedication that represent's the 'inner letter' of the
> > dedication's awkward and ungrammatical 'outer letter.'
> Elizabeth Weir wrote:
>
> > The six words
> > of the 'inner letter' reiterate the major themes of the Sonnets and
> > are in the shape of the emblem of the Sydney and Dudley families grant
> > of arms which identifies the author of the Sonnets, the identity of
> > Mr. W.H. and the their unusual to say the least relationship.
> > The only thing I'm not clear on is who discovered the pheon.
> > Neuendorffer?
------------------------------------------------------------------
First and foremost credit should to the discoverer of the general
technique (as regards the Sonnets Dedication at least): Dr. John
Rollett.
> Terry Ross discovered the words: PHEON, ENDUES, TIBIAL, & GROTS.
> http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/wds1.html
>
> and David Webb made the useful suggestion that ENDUES TIBIAL(S)
> might pertain to The Order of the Garter.
----------------------------------------------------------------
http://eee.uci.edu/~papyri/diary/1eng..html
July 2, 1603: The festival of St. George is celebrated,
where Prince Henry,
the Duke of Lennox,
the Earl of Marr,
the Earl of Southampton [H.W.],
and the Earl of Pembroke [W.H.]
are invested in the Order of the Garter.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Neuendorffer
The big 'G' stands for Goodness
----------------------------------------------------------------
Once upon a time there was an Earl named Edward.
Edward was a Good POET, a Great POET, a Genius POET.
Let's just call him a G.POET - which is appropriate since
'G' is not only an important letter for FREEMASONRY but is
the 7th letter and Edward TRULY expected to become King Edward VII.
But when Edward learned that he would nEVER become Edward VII
he buried himself within an ALEPH-bed of 26 letters
with 7 letters on one side: [G.POET].WISHETH.
& 2x7 letters on the other: BY.OUR.EVERLIVIN[G.POET].WISHETH.
Now hidden within the surrounding 3x7 letters were Edward's patrons:
Henri Wriothesely &
Wil. Herbert
(both of whom were known as W.H. for short)
as well as Edward's family motto:
VERO NIHIL VERIUS
(Nothing is more true than Truth itself).
So they all lied happily for E.VER.
------------------------------------------------------------
David L. Webb
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <efbc3534.01062...@posting.google.com>, Elizabeth
Weir <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
> "bookburn" <book...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<tismdb5...@corp.supernews.com>...
>
> [snip]
>
> > Bacon was known to have invented and used a ``bilateral cipher''
> > which used two different typefaces in each message. Each set of
> > five letters in the printed text represented one letter in the
> > coded message. Using capital and lowercase letters, for example,
> > ``Aaaa'' might stand for ``a,'' ``aAaaa'' might be ``b,'' and
> > ``aaAaa'' might be ``c'' ... on through ``aAaAA'' as ``x,''
> > ``aaAAA'' as ``y,'' and ``AAAAa'' as ``z.''
> I'm using Bacon's bilateral cypher as I type this. It was stolen
> without credit
> by Leibnitz [sic] who converted the a's and b's to 1's and 2's.
Leibniz was interested in *computing* using binary representation;
in that regard he deserves far more credit for his insight than does
Bacon for his binary encoding of characters.
> As Sir Karl Popper--not a Victorian nutcase cypherer or channeler but
> arguably
> the greatest logician--said of Bacon 'Bacon's utopia was the only one
> to have succeeded and we're livin' in it.'
>
> That's a paraphrase.
>
> There are cyphers in the plays and frontispieces, embellished letters
> and headpieces. Bacon left a simple cypher under the Sonnets
> dedication. Penn Leary discovered it. It was written in Bacon's
> favorite +4 Caesar.
>
> I don't think that Penn Leary discovered any other cyphers because the
> program that he wrote to find cyphers throughout the plays is the same
> defective program the so-called 'Bible Code' uses.
As usual, you haven't the remotest idea what you're talking about
here, although that circumstance has never impeded your unsupported
speculations before. The work popularized in _The Bible Code_ and
elsewhere was undertaken independently by Eliyahu Rips, a gifted
Israeli mathematician and a world-renowned specialist in geometric
group theory, who owes no debt to Leary. Certainly the two didn't
share any "defective program" -- Rips's original work was undertaken
entirely on his own, and the program used in the later article by
Witztum, Rips, and Rosenberg in _Statistical Science_ was written by
Yaakov Rosenberg. Indeed, I'm inclined to doubt that Rips even has any
awareness of Leary. I remember translating a very early Russian
samizdat version of the very first Rips paper on the subject (evidently
produced on a defective Cyrillic typewriter, with much of the Hebrew
text written out in longhand) from Russian to English for a colleague
back around 1985, while the Soviet Union was still in existence, and,
while I didn't bother to check that the versions of the Hebrew and
Samaritan texts of _Genesis_ that he used were accurate, I certainly
found no mathematical mistakes. Most of the idiotic claims appearing
in the popular press are spectacular and wildly irresponsible
distortions of Rips's claims; some have been publicly repudiated by
Rips himself. Later Rips papers on the subject (in some cases with
coauthors) were published in peer-reviewed journals such as _Journal of
the Royal Statistical Society_, _Statistical Science_ (you can read
this one online), etc., in one case with a disclaimer from the editors
that, although the paper had been carefully refereed, no error had been
found. The work of Rips and his collaborators has been criticized by a
great many well-known mathematicians, among them Shlomo Sternberg (in
_Notices of the American Mathematical Society_ and in the scholarly
periodical _Bible Review_), Barry Simon, Dror Bar-Natan and Brendan
McKay, and others; Maya Bar-Hillel and others have offered statistical
explanations for the Rips phenomenon. In any case, to the extent that
Rips's work can be said to have been "debunked," it has taken some
effort by some excellent mathematicians and statisticians; it is
certainly not on a par with the ridiculous rubbish of Leary, a sample
of which I reproduce from <http://home.att.net/~tleary/home2.htm>:
"[text of Sonnet 144 deleted]
In this later version there are minor changes in spelling,
punctuation and one change in sense (faire in line 8 becomes
fowle in the later version). The major change is in
capitalization. Let us string all the capitals together and
examine them:
Ciphertext of the 1599 verse:
T V L I C D T S M A M M V T F T A A S D V A A S I F I A T I T A
Plaintext, +4 is:
B C P N G H B A Q E Q Q C B K B E E A H C E E A N K N E B N B E"
-------------------
In case you're not viewing this with a fixed-width font, Leary has
underscored the substring "BEEAHCEEAN"! Very impressive indeed!
Here's another sample for your delectation:
"Published in 1640 by John Benson was a book of "POEMS: WRITTEN
BY WIL. SHAKESPEARE. Gent." Many of them were included, but in
a different order, together with other poems. Most of the latter
are rejected by the scholars as unjustly imputed. Several verses
memorialize the Bard, as witness the following:
On the death of William Shakespeare, who died in Aprill,
Anno Dom. 1616.
REnowned Spenser lie a thought more nigh
To learned Chauser, and rare Beaumount lie
A little neerer Spenser to make roome,
For Shakespeare in your three-fold, foure-fold Tombe;
To lodge all foure in one bed make a shift,
Vntill Dommes-day, for hardly shall a fift
Betwixt this day and that by Fate be slaine,
For whom your Curtaines may be drawne againe.
If your precedencie in death doth barre,
A fourth place in your sacred Sepulchre
Vnder this sacred Marble of thy owne,
Sleepe rare Tragedian Shakespeare, sleepe alone;
Thy unmolested peace in an unshar'd Cave,
Possesse as Lord, not Tennant of thy Grave.
That unto us, and others it may be,
Honour hereafter to be laid by thee.
W. B.
[one possible "decipherment" elided]
Or, we may choose all of the capitals in the four lines
following "Curtaines," and just preceding Shakespeare:
Ciphertext is:
I A S V M S T
Ciphertext reversed:
T S M V S A I
Plaintext (+4) is:
B A Q C A E N"
What a stunning revelation -- "BAQCAEN"! This is in the venerable
tradition of ignorant cranks like Sir Edwin Durning-Lawrence, Delia
Bacon, Ignatius Donnelly, and other devotees of crackpot crypotography,
a tradition thoroughly debunked by the Friedmans but still practiced by
a few quantitatively clueless eccentrics.
> Terry Ross wrote a
> saracastic and mean-spirited article debunking Leary's program. I
> thought Ross was unscholarly. Penn Leary is a nice man.
Penn Leary is a nice man, so you think that someone who refutes his
nonsense is unscholarly?! Some of the believers in abduction by space
aliens are among the nicest and most sincere people one could ever hope
to meet, as are some of the members of the Flat Earth Society.
> Neuendorffer's Sydney pheon is a beautiful cypher embedded in the
> Sonnet dedication that represent's [sic] the 'inner letter' of the
> dedication's awkward and ungrammatical 'outer letter.' The six words
> of the 'inner letter' reiterate the major themes of the Sonnets and
> are in the shape of the emblem of the Sydney and Dudley families grant
> of arms which identifies the author of the Sonnets, the identity of
> Mr. W.H. and the their unusual to say the least relationship.
> Neuendorffer would have figured this out long ago but he suppoerts the
> wrong authorship candidate.
You obviously haven't been reading Art's posts very long. Art
enthusiastically supports practically *all* authorship "candidates" --
indeed, he postulates the existence of a vast Masonic authorship
coverup conspiracy that numbers among its members virtually every peer
of the realm and every writer in the history of literature, including
some born centuries before Shakespeare. Art's "conspiracy" is so vast
and far-reaching that one wonders whether there is anyone who is *not*
involved in the conspiracy, other than Art himself.
> Kathman and Webb have been abusing Neuendorffer over this cryptogram
> for moths [sic]
I can't recall Kathman having said anything specific about Art's
"cryptograms" for nearly two years. Can you produce a quotation? Dave
Kathman has wisely been ignoring Art and his deluded "decipherments"
for ages, a circumstance that Art himself has even groused about on
occasion (comedians thrive upon audience attention and adulation). Art
would be a complete waste of time were it not that his posts are so
funny.
> and they are going to wish they could take their posts down
> after they understand what it is.
Are you trying to outdo Art as funniest h.l.a.s. comedian?
> The only thing I'm not clear on is who discovered the pheon.
> Neuendorffer?
Of course not. Terry Ross discovered it, in the course of refuting
John Rollett's unintentionally amusing article on the Oxfordian
"cipher" embedded in the Sonnets' dedication. Although Terry doesn't
mention it specifically in the posts below, you can refer to
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Rollett+group:humanities.lit.authors.
*+author:Ross&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=2&ic=1&selm=Pine.GSO.4.10.990621121029
0.3047-100000%40mail.bcpl.net>,
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Rollett+group:humanities.lit.authors.
*+author:Ross&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=4&ic=1&selm=Pine.GSO.4.10.990629084949
0.17988-100000%40mail.bcpl.net>,
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Rollett+group:humanities.lit.authors.
*+author:Ross&start=10&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=15&ic=1&selm=Pine.GSO.4.10.99
04171240180.16632-100000%40mail.bcpl.net>, and
<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Rollett+group:humanities.lit.authors.
*+author:Ross&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=1&ic=1&selm=Pine.SO4.4.05.980930083414
0.9844-100000%40mail.bcpl.net>
for some background on Rollett's folly.
In fact, to my knowledge, Art has never discovered anything of any
interest concerning Shakespeare authorship. Rather, when someone
arbitrarily selects strings from the random noise that are just as
meaningless as the ones that Art has "discovered," Art eagerly ascribes
momentous significance to the random noise. When I pointed out to Art
that "Agnes a gob" in one of his "anagrams" makes no sense but that the
alternative "anagram" "Agnes Boga" means "Agnes of God" in Russian, Art
seized upon it with all the eagerness of a credulous caller dialing the
psychic hotline (I'm beginning to wish that I had had a 900 number for
Art to dial -- I could probably retire by age 40 on the proceeds!).
When I pointed out to Art that the surname of the Russian polymath
Lomonosov combines the Slavic roots "lom-" ("break") and "nos-"
("nose"), Art happily seized upon this "nose breaking" revelation as a
reference to Marlowe and/or Hiram Abif. When I pointed out to Art that
"Droeshout" is an anagram of "Herodotus," Art had a field day with that
gem as well. Similarly, when Terry Ross compiled a lengthy list of
random susbstrings that happen to be English words or names, Art
joyously selected "Hiram" and "pheon" as evidence for his mythical
Masonic conspiracy. Art even seems to believe that the Priory of Sion
and Rex Deus are involved in the authorship conspiracy (alongside the
usual suspects: Knights Templar, Rosicrucians, etc.).
In short, *any* Hermetic horse manure is fair game for Art. His
lack of understanding of probability, unthinkable in any sane person
who has studied physics, coupled with his comic confusion of signal
with noise, is perhaps the best indication I've seen that Art's posts
are a monstrous practical joke, a parody of anti-Stratfordian credulity
on a vast scale. Did you see his asinine anagram "I kill Edwasd de
Vese"? (Ast has sesious, issemediable tsouble with vesy osdinasy
osthogsaphy). Did you see his pronouncement on the significance of the
number 19, because it is both the sum of two consecutive integers and
the difference of their squares? (3=2+1=2^2-1^2, 5=3+2=3^2-2^2,
7=4+3=4^2-3^2, etc.). Did you see his affirmation that the missing
Shakespeare manuscripts are to be found in John Combe's tomb? Like the
Baconians, Art is farcically inept at cryptography -- but unlike the
Baconians, he is a gifted satirist, so his burlesques are often
outrageously funny.
David Webb
Neuendorffer
> > Neuendorffer's Sydney pheon is a beautiful cypher embedded in the
> > Sonnet dedication that represent's [sic] the 'inner letter' of the
> > dedication's awkward and ungrammatical 'outer letter.' The six words
> > of the 'inner letter' reiterate the major themes of the Sonnets and
> > are in the shape of the emblem of the Sydney and Dudley families grant
> > of arms which identifies the author of the Sonnets, the identity of
> > Mr. W.H. and the their unusual to say the least relationship.
> > Neuendorffer would have figured this out long ago but he
> > suppoerts the wrong authorship candidate.
"David L. Webb" wrote:
> You obviously haven't been reading Art's posts very long. Art
> enthusiastically supports practically *all* authorship "candidates"
I don't suppoert subpoets Marlowe & the illiterate Stratford boob.
> indeed, he postulates the existence of a vast Masonic authorship
> coverup conspiracy that numbers among its members virtually every peer
> of the realm and every writer in the history of literature, including
> some born centuries before Shakespeare. Art's "conspiracy" is so vast
> and far-reaching that one wonders whether there is anyone who is *not*
> involved in the conspiracy, other than Art himself.
I wouldn't say that I've specifically ruled myself out.
> > Kathman and Webb have been abusing Neuendorffer
> > over this cryptogram for moths [sic]
>
> I can't recall Kathman having said anything specific about
> Art's "cryptograms" for nearly two years.
Yes, but back when he did it was for a large sick moth.
> Can you produce a quotation?
"With the exception of the original Godzilla, Godzilla vs Mothra is
probably the high water mark of the Godzilla series of movies. The film
opens during a big storm that washes an even bigger egg on shore in
Japan. So what happens when an egg the size of an ocean liner washes
ashore? The local fisherman sell it to a huge company. ConHugeCo then
puts the egg on display, two bits a gander. This may be the most
realistic thing ever to happen in a Godzilla movie. But darn it all,
it's never that simple. No sooner has ConHugeCo got the egg than two
miniature fairy women (who represent the "powers of goodness and light,"
or so they say) appeal to the company's officers to return the egg to
Infant Island. The egg is the progeny of the god of Infant Island, the
giant insect Mothra, last seen in 1961's Mothra." --
http://www.stomptokyo.com/movies/godzilla-vs-mothra-64.html
> Dave Kathman has wisely been ignoring Art and his deluded "decipherments"
> for ages, a circumstance that Art himself has even groused about on
> occasion (comedians thrive upon audience attention and adulation).
------------------------------------------------------------------
KING HENRY V Think'st thou the fiery fever will go out
With titles blown from adulation?
------------------------------------------------------------------
> Art would be a complete waste of time were it not
> that his posts are so funny.
And that I'm also a nice man.
> > and they are going to wish they could take their posts down
> > after they understand what it is.
>
> Are you trying to outdo Art as funniest h.l.a.s. comedian?
You're going to wish you could take this post down
once you understand what it is, Dave!
> > The only thing I'm not clear on is who discovered the pheon.
> > Neuendorffer?
>
> Of course not. Terry Ross discovered it,
Well, at least Terry Ross' computer program discovered it;
(much to Terry's chagrin I would suppose).
> In fact, to my knowledge, Art has never discovered anything of any
> interest concerning Shakespeare authorship.
To my knowledge, Dave has never discovered anything of any interest
concerning Shakespeare authorship. Everything interesting of comes
directly from his Junior Goon Squad Handbook.
> When I pointed out to Art
> that "Agnes a gob" in one of his "anagrams" makes no sense but that the
> alternative "anagram" "Agnes Boga" means "Agnes of God" in Russian, Art
> seized upon it with all the eagerness of a credulous caller dialing the
> psychic hotline (I'm beginning to wish that I had had a 900 number for
> Art to dial -- I could probably retire by age 40 on the proceeds!).
So will I be coming into any money soon, Dave?
> When I pointed out to Art that the surname of the Russian polymath
> Lomonosov combines the Slavic roots "lom-" ("break") and "nos-"
> ("nose"), Art happily seized upon this "nose breaking" revelation
> as a reference to Marlowe and/or Hiram Abif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
''Tis the voice of the Lobster; I heard him declare,
"You have baked me too brown, I must sugar my hair."
As a duck with its eyelids, so he with his nose
Trims his belt and his buttons, and turns out his toes.'
--------------------------------------------------------------
> When I pointed out to Art that
> "Droeshout" is an anagram of "Herodotus,"
> Art had a field day with that gem as well.
And don't forget the time you informed me that
ENDUES TIBIAL(S) involved The Order of the Garter!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
L A I B I T TIBIAL => Order of Garter
E N D V E S => ENDUES
-------------------------------------------------------------
T O T H E O N L I E B 'raw' probabilities:
E G E T T E R O F T H
E S E I N S V I N G S TIBIAL: 1 in 11,600
O N N E T S M r W H A EMEPH: 1 in 300
L H A P I N E S GROTS: 1 in 199
|L] N D T [P] A T E [S| PHEON: 1 in 127
[E|A] T I [H] P R [T|E]
R [N|I] Y [E] V [O|M] I
S E [D|B] [O] [R|E] V E
R L I [V|I][N][G|P] O E T
W I S H [E||T||H] T H E W
E L L W I {S} H I N G A
D V E N T {U} R E R I N
S E T T I {N} G F O R T
H
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Grottoes <= G R O T S {worth of wit}
EMEPH|T| <= |T| H P E M E
------------------------------------------------------------------
> Similarly, when Terry Ross compiled a lengthy list of
> random susbstrings that happen to be English words or names, Art
> joyously selected "Hiram" and "pheon" as evidence for his mythical
> Masonic conspiracy.
That Magical mythical Masonic conspiracy is waiting to take me away.
> Art even seems to believe that the Priory of Sion and Rex Deus
> are involved in the authorship conspiracy (alongside the
> usual suspects: Knights Templar, Rosicrucians, etc.).
I do believe it's true.
> In short, *any* Hermetic horse manure is fair game for Art.
-------------------------------------------------------------
'T I S N'T
-------------------------------------------------------------
T O T H E O N L I E B 'raw' probabilities:
E G E [T] T E R O F T H
E S E I [N] S V I N G S TIBIAL: 1 in 11,600
O N N E T [S] M r W H A EMEPH: 1 in 300
L H A P [I] N E S GROTS: 1 in 199
|L] N D T [P]A[T] E[S| PHEON: 1 in 127
[E|A] T I [H]P R [T|E]
R [N|I] Y [E] V [O|M] I
S E [D|B] [O] [R|E] V E
R L I [V|I][N][G|P] O E T
W I S H [E||T||H] T H E W
E L L W I {S} H I N G A
D V E N T {U} R E R I N
S E T T I {N} G F O R T
H
------------------------------------------------
Truth may seem, but cannot be:
Beauty brag, but 'TISN'T she;
Truth and beauty buried be.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> His
> lack of understanding of probability, unthinkable in any sane person
> who has studied physics, coupled with his comic confusion of signal
> with noise,
I attained the rank of Specialist 4th Class in the Signal Corps
and I never once made the mistake of falling in with the Noise Corps.
> is perhaps the best indication I've seen that Art's posts
> are a monstrous practical joke, a parody of anti-Stratfordian
> credulity on a vast scale.
-------------------------------------------------------------
'TISN'T so deep as a well, nor so wide as a
church-door; but 'tis enough,'twill serve.
----------------------------------------------------------------
> Art . . . is a gifted satirist, so his burlesques
> are often outrageously funny.
-------------------------------------------------------------
'TISN'T my fault: the boar provoked my tongue;
Be wreak'd on him, invisible commander;
'Tis he, foul creature, that hath done thee wrong;
I did but act, he's author of thy slander.
---------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
David Kathman
>
> > Elizabeth Weir <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
> > > Kathman and Webb have been abusing Neuendorffer
> > > over this cryptogram for moths [sic]
> >
> > I can't recall Kathman having said anything specific about
> > Art's "cryptograms" for nearly two years.
>
> Yes, but back when he did it was for a large sick moth.
>
> > Can you produce a quotation?
>
> "With the exception of the original Godzilla, Godzilla vs Mothra is
> probably the high water mark of the Godzilla series of movies. The film
> opens during a big storm that washes an even bigger egg on shore in
> Japan. So what happens when an egg the size of an ocean liner washes
> ashore? The local fisherman sell it to a huge company. ConHugeCo then
> puts the egg on display, two bits a gander. This may be the most
> realistic thing ever to happen in a Godzilla movie. But darn it all,
> it's never that simple. No sooner has ConHugeCo got the egg than two
> miniature fairy women (who represent the "powers of goodness and light,"
> or so they say) appeal to the company's officers to return the egg to
> Infant Island. The egg is the progeny of the god of Infant Island, the
> giant insect Mothra, last seen in 1961's Mothra." --
> http://www.stomptokyo.com/movies/godzilla-vs-mothra-64.html
Art, I usually get tired of your posts, and often skip over them
entirely. But this time, you actually made me chuckle. Thanks!
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
David Kathman
> Weir <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > "bookburn" <book...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:<tismdb5...@corp.supernews.com>...
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > Bacon was known to have invented and used a ``bilateral cipher''
> > > which used two different typefaces in each message. Each set of
> > > five letters in the printed text represented one letter in the
> > > coded message. Using capital and lowercase letters, for example,
> > > ``Aaaa'' might stand for ``a,'' ``aAaaa'' might be ``b,'' and
> > > ``aaAaa'' might be ``c'' ... on through ``aAaAA'' as ``x,''
> > > ``aaAAA'' as ``y,'' and ``AAAAa'' as ``z.''
>
> > I'm using Bacon's bilateral cypher as I type this. It was stolen
> > without credit
> > by Leibnitz [sic] who converted the a's and b's to 1's and 2's.
Bacon called it a *biliteral* cipher, not a *bilateral* cipher.
(The third letter is an "i", not an "a".) He called it this
because it uses two ("bi-") sets of letters ("lit-").
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Elizabeth Weir
> [[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
> the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
>
> In article <efbc3534.01062...@posting.google.com>, Elizabeth
> Weir <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > "bookburn" <book...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:<tismdb5...@corp.supernews.com>...
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > Bacon was known to have invented and used a ``bilateral cipher''
> > > which used two different typefaces in each message. Each set of
> > > five letters in the printed text represented one letter in the
> > > coded message. Using capital and lowercase letters, for example,
> > > ``Aaaa'' might stand for ``a,'' ``aAaaa'' might be ``b,'' and
> > > ``aaAaa'' might be ``c'' ... on through ``aAaAA'' as ``x,''
> > > ``aaAAA'' as ``y,'' and ``AAAAa'' as ``z.''
>
> > I'm using Bacon's bilateral cypher as I type this. It was stolen
> > without credit
> > by Leibnitz [sic] who converted the a's and b's to 1's and 2's.
>
> Leibniz was interested in *computing* using binary representation;
> in that regard he deserves far more credit for his insight than does
> Bacon for his binary encoding of characters.
YOU don't know what you're talking about because you've read Leibniz
but you haven't read Bacon.
Leibnitz I mean Leibnizzzz picked up on Bacon's binary code along
with Bacon's suggestion that the Chinese ideogram might be a cure for
the ambiguity that makes words unstable in the thinking process.
Leibniz then reduced Bacon's understanding that words were not
necessary to the thought process, that we could think in 'forms,' to
mere computation.
I read Leibniz' interminable paper on the binary code and the I Ching
before I read Bacon. Leibniz did not discover the binary code in the
I Ching. He already had it and appeared to be looking to see if it was
in I Ching. I think Leibnitz wanted to obscure the fact that he
swiped it from Bacon.
> > As Sir Karl Popper--not a Victorian nutcase cypherer or channeler but
> > arguably
> > the greatest logician--said of Bacon 'Bacon's utopia was the only one
> > to have succeeded and we're livin' in it.'
> >
> > That's a paraphrase.
> >
> > There are cyphers in the plays and frontispieces, embellished letters
> > and headpieces. Bacon left a simple cypher under the Sonnets
> > dedication. Penn Leary discovered it. It was written in Bacon's
> > favorite +4 Caesar.
> >
> > I don't think that Penn Leary discovered any other cyphers because the
> > program that he wrote to find cyphers throughout the plays is the same
> > defective program the so-called 'Bible Code' uses.
>
> As usual, you haven't the remotest idea what you're talking about
> here, although that circumstance has never impeded your unsupported
> speculations before.
You snipped my remarks so I'll repost them with my replies:
1. I said: "There are cyphers in the plays and frontispieces,
embellished letters and headpieces."
Cyphers are a distraction but until serious scholarship on Bacon
resumes--and it will resume because the best Strats will not go over
to the Oxfordian side when Shakespeare is debunked--we are left to
amuse ourselves with cyphers.
There aren't very many.
Bacon left his name and that of his friend Tobey [Tobie] Matthews in
the capital letters of the first lines in The Tempest. The
embellished B in 'bote-swain' in the First Folio Tempest spells'
'Francis Bacon' in the design. Some of the headpieces have two
rabbits back to back which is a visual pun for 'back coney' or
'Baconi,' Bacon's name in Latin. Bacon used Baconi to sign his Latin
works.
That sort of thing.
2. "Bacon left a simple cypher under the Sonnets dedication. Penn
Leary discovered it. It was written in Bacon's favorite +4 Caesar."
Leary did discovered Bacon's simple cypher in the Sonnets dedication.
All the following letters are meaningful.
o o n y p i r c y p p h r s b e k a a n b a c o n
Bacon was interested in the work of Napier and Stevin and those
'periods' are decimals between the words of the dedication.
I'm going to find out why the reference to Napier would have
significance to William Herbert. It might have something to do with
navigation.
Bekaan is phonetic for beacon, a Baconian symbol. The Duke of
Brunswick honors Bacon as a beacon of light in the top panel of the
frontispiece of the 'Cryptomenytices.'
See 'beacon' in my post yesterday on the 'Cryptomenytices;'
"Shakespeare Caught Taking a Payoff."
The 'Cryptomenytices' has been ignored for four centuries because it
spells out 'Shakespeare was on the take.'
Not any more. Some Baconians have just set up a new website to
publish the 'Cryptomenytices' and neglected Baconian works.
The eccentric spelling of beacon in Leary's cypher is Bacon's
signature. Those who saw it would know that Bacon repeatedly
advocated the use of eccentric and phonetic spellings in cyphers
because it made it difficult for decrypters to break the codes. It's
like 'hello, I did this cypher," signed, Francis Bacon.
Also Paul Depuey has a well-cited page arguing that we should not be
surprised to find cyphers in anything Bacon published.
http://fly.hiwaay.net/~paul/cryptology/history.html
3. I said: "I don't think that Penn Leary discovered any other
cyphers.
Why are you misinterpreting my statement? I think Leary discovered
Bacon's simple +4 Caesar but I don't think Leary found anything else.
How hard is that to understand?
4. ". . .because the program that he wrote to find cyphers throughout
the plays is the same defective program the so-called 'Bible Code'
uses."
My point was that the Bible Code and Leary's program have the same
output.
The Bible Code would also produce 'whore of babylon' and 'mark of the
beast' in Shakespeare proving John of Patmos wrote the plays. What
they put on the list is what they get. Leary's program works the same
way and let's not mince words about mathematics.
5. I said: "Terry Ross wrote a saracastic and mean-spirited article
debunking Leary's program. I thought Ross was unscholarly. Penn Leary
is a nice man."
Nothing to apologize for there.
> The work popularized in _The Bible Code_ and
> elsewhere was undertaken independently by Eliyahu Rips, a gifted
> Israeli mathematician and a world-renowned specialist in geometric
> group theory, who owes no debt to Leary.
The careful reader will note that I did not say that Leary invented a
program.
Leary is an attorney. I assume he modified some code.
> Certainly the two didn't share any "defective program" --
Don't be so sure. I've got a citation below.
> Rips's original work was undertaken
> entirely on his own, and the program used in the later article by
> Witztum, Rips, and Rosenberg in _Statistical Science_ was written by
> Yaakov Rosenberg.
I don't feel sorry for Rips. The concept is nutty and that fact makes
it immaterial whether Rips' math is superior to Rosenberg's.
Why did you take the trouble to translate Rips from Russian, even the
'Cryllic typos and handwritten Hebrew?'
Are you a nutcase that believes that there's a code in the Bible?
You sound invested in it. Why would you take an interest in this
subject to the extent that you would bother to translate Rips?
> Indeed, I'm inclined to doubt that Rips even has any
> awareness of Leary.
I thought Rips was 'world-renown' unquote.
> I remember translating a very early Russian
> samizdat version of the very first Rips paper on the subject (evidently
> produced on a defective Cyrillic typewriter, with much of the Hebrew
> text written out in longhand) from Russian to English for a colleague
> back around 1985, while the Soviet Union was still in existence,
You've read Chekov.
> and, while I didn't bother to check that the versions of the Hebrew and
> Samaritan texts of _Genesis_ that he used were accurate, I certainly
> found no mathematical mistakes.
Samaritan Torah? You have a beam in your eye to use a biblical
maxim. You went to the trouble of translating Rips' paper and you
weren't curious *why* Rips was looking for codes in the
Samarian *and* Hebrew Torahs? [It's better than the Masons
and Shakespeare].
> Most of the idiotic claims appearing
> in the popular press are spectacular and wildly irresponsible
> distortions of Rips's claims; some have been publicly repudiated by
> Rips himself.
How smart is a guy who puts 'bible' and 'codes' together in one
sentence and then gets mad because the press runs with it.
> Later Rips papers on the subject (in some cases with
> coauthors) were published in peer-reviewed journals such as _Journal of
> the Royal Statistical Society_, _Statistical Science_ (you can read
> this one online), etc., in one case with a disclaimer from the editors
> that, although the paper had been carefully refereed, no error had been
> found.
No errors were made by Gestapo bookkeepers. There are many
insane things proven by perfect math. Bacon warned us about math.
Read last year's NYT series on the hallucinatory, yet mathematically
secure, state of particle physics.
> The work of Rips and his collaborators has been criticized by a
> great many well-known mathematicians, among them Shlomo Sternberg (in
> _Notices of the American Mathematical Society_ and in the scholarly
> periodical _Bible Review_), Barry Simon, Dror Bar-Natan and Brendan
> McKay, and others; Maya Bar-Hillel and others have offered statistical
> explanations for the Rips phenomenon. In any case, to the extent that
> Rips's work can be said to have been "debunked," it has taken some
> effort by some excellent mathematicians and statisticians; it is
> certainly not on a par with the ridiculous rubbish of Leary, a sample
> of which I reproduce from <http://home.att.net/~tleary/home2.htm>:
Rips program may run faster and better
but it does the same thing Leary's does. Here's the first and only
hit I bothered
to get from Google:
"And someone has. Mathematician Brendan McKay of Australian National
University in Canberra and three colleagues at Hebrew University in
Jerusalem say they have pegged the flaw in the original study as a
lack of precision in specifying the names and dates being sought. For
example, the list might specify "Robert," or it might allow a "Rob" or
"Bobby" in the text also to mean Robert. The protocol was so flexible,
the researchers found, that they could get significant results by
looking for the famous rabbis in a Hebrew translation of War and
Peace." from the The Academic Press.
Substitute beekkan for 'Bobby' and bacien for 'Rob' and it's the same
thing.
> "[text of Sonnet 144 deleted]
> In this later version there are minor changes in spelling,
> punctuation and one change in sense (faire in line 8 becomes
> fowle in the later version). The major change is in
> capitalization. Let us string all the capitals together and
> examine them:
>
> Ciphertext of the 1599 verse:
>
> T V L I C D T S M A M M V T F T A A S D V A A S I F I A T I T A
>
> Plaintext, +4 is:
>
> B C P N G H B A Q E Q Q C B K B E E A H C E E A N K N E B N B E"
> -------------------
>
> In case you're not viewing this with a fixed-width font, Leary has
> underscored the substring "BEEAHCEEAN"! Very impressive indeed!
> Here's another sample for your delectation:
I was talking about the fact that Rips and Leary's 'success' is based
on having an equivocal standard for judging the hits. You chose to
attack me on a level you knew I couldn't refute--mathematical
niceties.
Since your guy Rips is guilty of the same thing your post is looking
pretty silly at this point.
> > Terry Ross wrote a
> > saracastic and mean-spirited article debunking Leary's program. I
> > thought Ross was unscholarly. Penn Leary is a nice man.
>
> Penn Leary is a nice man, so you think that someone who refutes his
> nonsense is unscholarly?! Some of the believers in abduction by space
> aliens are among the nicest and most sincere people one could ever hope
> to meet, as are some of the members of the Flat Earth Society.
>
> > Neuendorffer's Sydney pheon is a beautiful cypher embedded in the
> > Sonnet dedication that represent's [sic] the 'inner letter' of the
> > dedication's awkward and ungrammatical 'outer letter.' The six words
> > of the 'inner letter' reiterate the major themes of the Sonnets and
> > are in the shape of the emblem of the Sydney and Dudley families grant
> > of arms which identifies the author of the Sonnets, the identity of
> > Mr. W.H. and the their unusual to say the least relationship.
> > Neuendorffer would have figured this out long ago but he suppoerts the
> > wrong authorship candidate.
>
> You obviously haven't been reading Art's posts very long. Art
> enthusiastically supports practically *all* authorship "candidates" --
> indeed, he postulates the existence of a vast Masonic authorship
> coverup conspiracy that numbers among its members virtually every peer
> of the realm and every writer in the history of literature, including
> some born centuries before Shakespeare. Art's "conspiracy" is so vast
> and far-reaching that one wonders whether there is anyone who is *not*
> involved in the conspiracy, other than Art himself.
That's a detail.
Art is closer to it than you and Kathman are.
> > Kathman and Webb have been abusing Neuendorffer over this cryptogram
> > for moths [sic]
>
> I can't recall Kathman having said anything specific about Art's
> "cryptograms" for nearly two years. Can you produce a quotation? Dave
> Kathman has wisely been ignoring Art and his deluded "decipherments"
> for ages, a circumstance that Art himself has even groused about on
> occasion (comedians thrive upon audience attention and adulation). Art
> would be a complete waste of time were it not that his posts are so
> funny.
I thought that the thread that you and Kathman had going that
ridiculed people in this forum was in bad taste.
> > and they are going to wish they could take their posts down
> > after they understand what it is.
>
> Are you trying to outdo Art as funniest h.l.a.s. comedian?
I think you and Kathman are being obtuse.
> > The only thing I'm not clear on is who discovered the pheon.
> > Neuendorffer?
>
> Of course not. Terry Ross discovered it, in the course of refuting
> John Rollett's unintentionally amusing article on the Oxfordian
> "cipher" embedded in the Sonnets' dedication. Although Terry doesn't
> mention it specifically in the posts below, you can refer to
I've seen it. It's flawed.
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Rollett+group:humanities.lit.authors.
> *+author:Ross&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=2&ic=1&selm=Pine.GSO.4.10.990621121029
> 0.3047-100000%40mail.bcpl.net>,
>
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Rollett+group:humanities.lit.authors.
> *+author:Ross&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=4&ic=1&selm=Pine.GSO.4.10.990629084949
> 0.17988-100000%40mail.bcpl.net>,
>
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Rollett+group:humanities.lit.authors.
> *+author:Ross&start=10&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=15&ic=1&selm=Pine.GSO.4.10.99
> 04171240180.16632-100000%40mail.bcpl.net>, and
>
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?q=Rollett+group:humanities.lit.authors.
> *+author:Ross&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=1&ic=1&selm=Pine.SO4.4.05.980930083414
> 0.9844-100000%40mail.bcpl.net>
>
> for some background on Rollett's folly.
>
> In fact, to my knowledge, Art has never discovered anything of any
> interest concerning Shakespeare authorship.
Nothing outside your den of orthodoxy is of interest to you [and
Kathman]. Art is at least expressing Bacon's phenomenological world
of the plays.
Rather, when someone
> arbitrarily selects strings from the random noise that are just as
> meaningless as the ones that Art has "discovered," Art eagerly ascribes
> momentous significance to the random noise.
It's not random noise. It's Art's radical protest against Strat
bourgeoisisme.
I resent being used as a conduit for your ridicule of Art.
Neuendorffer
> > Rather, when someone
> > arbitrarily selects strings from the random noise that are just as
> > meaningless as the ones that Art has "discovered," Art eagerly ascribes
> > momentous significance to the random noise.
Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> It's not random noise. It's Art's radical protest against Strat
> bourgeoisisme.
You go girl!
> > When I pointed out to Art . . .
> I resent being used as a conduit for your ridicule of Art.
Consider it a compliment that Webb ran out of ideas to criticize you
directly and so is forced to use guilt by association.
Art N.
David L. Webb
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <efbc3534.01062...@posting.google.com>, Elizabeth
Weir <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
> > > I'm using Bacon's bilateral [sic] cypher as I type this. It was stolen
> > > without credit
> > > by Leibnitz [sic] who converted the a's and b's to 1's and 2's.
> > Leibniz was interested in *computing* using binary representation;
> > in that regard he deserves far more credit for his insight than does
> > Bacon for his binary encoding of characters.
> YOU don't know what you're talking about because you've read Leibniz
> but you haven't read Bacon.
No, you don't know what you're talking about; how could you, since
you attempt to deduce my reading matter from your own ignorance? In
fact, I've read Bacon with far more attention than I've accorded
Leibniz. Bacon certainly deserves full credit for the biliteral (not
bilateral) cipher, which amounts to a binary encoding of characters;
however, that's a comparatively trivial insight compared to Leibiz's
insight concerning the possibliity of computation. Leibniz did not
steal *that* from anyone.
> Leibnitz I mean Leibnizzzz picked up on Bacon's binary code along
> with Bacon's suggestion that the Chinese ideogram might be a cure for
> the ambiguity that makes words unstable in the thinking process.
> Leibniz then reduced Bacon's understanding that words were not
> necessary to the thought process, that we could think in 'forms,' to
> mere computation.
You evidently do not understand even the rudiments of the computer
you are using if you can trivialize Leibniz's realizations in that way.
> I read Leibniz' interminable paper on the binary code and the I Ching
> before I read Bacon. Leibniz did not discover the binary code
I never said that he did.
> in the
> I Ching. He already had it and appeared to be looking to see if it was
> in I Ching. I think Leibnitz wanted to obscure the fact that he
> swiped it from Bacon.
You "think" lots of things for which there is no justification.
[...]
> > > There are cyphers in the plays and frontispieces, embellished letters
> > > and headpieces. Bacon left a simple cypher under the Sonnets
> > > dedication. Penn Leary discovered it. It was written in Bacon's
> > > favorite +4 Caesar.
> > >
> > > I don't think that Penn Leary discovered any other cyphers because the
> > > program that he wrote to find cyphers throughout the plays is the same
> > > defective program the so-called 'Bible Code' uses.
> > As usual, you haven't the remotest idea what you're talking about
> > here, although that circumstance has never impeded your unsupported
> > speculations before.
> You snipped my remarks so I'll repost them with my replies:
>
> 1. I said: "There are cyphers in the plays and frontispieces,
> embellished letters and headpieces."
And you furnished no credible evidence for the presence of "cyphers
in the plays and frontispieces," etc.
> Cyphers are a distraction but until serious scholarship on Bacon
> resumes--and it will resume because the best Strats will not go over
> to the Oxfordian side when Shakespeare is debunked--we are left to
> amuse ourselves with cyphers.
And it is *most* amusing indeed!
> There aren't very many.
I haven't seen *any* that would pass muster.
> Bacon left his name and that of his friend Tobey [Tobie] Matthews in
> the capital letters of the first lines in The Tempest. The
> embellished B in 'bote-swain' in the First Folio Tempest spells'
> 'Francis Bacon' in the design. Some of the headpieces have two
> rabbits back to back which is a visual pun for 'back coney' or
> 'Baconi,' Bacon's name in Latin. Bacon used Baconi to sign his Latin
> works.
>
> That sort of thing.
Proof? What's the statistical demonstration that this isn't just
Neuendorfferian noise? You do realize that you have to *prove* things,
don't you? It isn't enough just to assert your fond fantasies as fact.
> 2. "Bacon left a simple cypher under the Sonnets dedication. Penn
> Leary discovered it. It was written in Bacon's favorite +4 Caesar."
>
> Leary did discovered [sic] Bacon's simple cypher in the Sonnets dedication.
> All the following letters are meaningful.
>
> o o n y p i r c y p p h r s b e k a a n b a c o n
> Bacon was interested in the work of Napier and Stevin and those
> 'periods' are decimals between the words of the dedication.
> I'm going to find out why the reference to Napier would have
> significance to William Herbert. It might have something to do with
> navigation.
> Bekaan is phonetic for beacon, a Baconian symbol. The Duke of
> Brunswick honors Bacon as a beacon of light in the top panel of the
> frontispiece of the 'Cryptomenytices.'
> See 'beacon' in my post yesterday on the 'Cryptomenytices;'
> "Shakespeare Caught Taking a Payoff."
I already did; it was hilarious! See my reply.
> The 'Cryptomenytices' has been ignored for four centuries because it
> spells out 'Shakespeare was on the take.'
> Not any more. Some Baconians have just set up a new website to
> publish the 'Cryptomenytices' and neglected Baconian works.
More power to them! Durning-Lawrence is one of the funniest things
I've ever read.
> The eccentric spelling of beacon in Leary's cypher is Bacon's
> signature. Those who saw it would know that Bacon repeatedly
> advocated the use of eccentric and phonetic spellings in cyphers
> because it made it difficult for decrypters to break the codes. It's
> like 'hello, I did this cypher," signed, Francis Bacon.
> Also Paul Depuey has a well-cited page arguing that we should not be
> surprised to find cyphers in anything Bacon published.
> http://fly.hiwaay.net/~paul/cryptology/history.html
>
> 3. I said: "I don't think that Penn Leary discovered any other
> cyphers.
>
> Why are you misinterpreting my statement? I think Leary discovered
> Bacon's simple +4 Caesar but I don't think Leary found anything else.
I don't even think that Leary found *that*, and I won't until I see
some convincing quantitative evidence, not the ravings of Baconian
cryptographic cranks. You do realize that you have to *prove* things,
don't you? It isn't enough just to assert you fond fantasies as fact.
> 4. ". . .because the program that he wrote to find cyphers throughout
> the plays is the same defective program the so-called 'Bible Code'
> uses."
>
> My point was that the Bible Code and Leary's program have the same
> output.
No, they don't. In the first place, Rips has repudiated many of
Drosnin's farcical claims; although Drosnin may attribute the ideas to
Rips in order to capitalize upon Rips's scientific reputation, Rips
wants no part of much of it. In the second place, the work of Rips
that best withstands scrutiny has no parallel in Leary. But since
you've never even read the papers in question, how would you know that?
> The Bible Code would also produce 'whore of babylon' and 'mark of the
> beast' in Shakespeare proving John of Patmos wrote the plays.
Proof?
> What
> they put on the list is what they get. Leary's program works the same
> way and let's not mince words about mathematics.
Who's "mincing words"? You haven't said *anything* credible about
mathematics, nor have you displayed any familiarity with the subject.
> 5. I said: "Terry Ross wrote a saracastic and mean-spirited article
> debunking Leary's program. I thought Ross was unscholarly. Penn Leary
> is a nice man."
>
> Nothing to apologize for there.
If one calls someone else "unscholarly," one had better be prepared
to enumerate *specific* factual or methodological errors. Otherwise,
one merely looks like an idiot who has no notion whatever what
scholarship is.
> > The work popularized in _The Bible Code_ and
> > elsewhere was undertaken independently by Eliyahu Rips, a gifted
> > Israeli mathematician and a world-renowned specialist in geometric
> > group theory, who owes no debt to Leary.
> The careful reader will note that I did not say that Leary invented a
> program.
> Leary is an attorney. I assume he modified some code.
You "assume"? You assume quite a lot, don't you? It must be fun
just to make up stuff as you go along. You assume that Russell won the
Nobel Prize for Literature because there is no mathematics Nobel. You
assume that Russell's mathematics would have merited a Nobel in any
case. You assume that Rips is responsible for Drosnin's book. Now you
assume that Leary modifed somebody else's code, presumably Rips's. I
repeat that Leary did *not* share any "defective program" with Rips,
nor did he modify Rips's "code." I already told you that, to the
extent that Rips used computing power, the software was written by
Yaakov Rosenberg, well after Leary had already made a name for himself
as a crank.
> > Certainly the two didn't share any "defective program" --
> Don't be so sure. I've got a citation below.
Where? What "citation"?
> > Rips's original work was undertaken
> > entirely on his own, and the program used in the later article by
> > Witztum, Rips, and Rosenberg in _Statistical Science_ was written by
> > Yaakov Rosenberg.
> I don't feel sorry for Rips. The concept is nutty and that fact makes
> it immaterial whether Rips' math is superior to Rosenberg's.
Is English not your native tongue? Rosenberg is his coauthor.
How can you possibly know that when you haven't even read Rips's
paper, you don't even know what he said in it, and you continue to
confuse him with Drosnin, from whose _The Bible Code_, as I've told you
twice, Rips takes pains to distance himself?
> Why did you take the trouble to translate Rips from Russian, even the
> 'Cryllic [sic] typos and handwritten Hebrew?'
As a professional courtesy to an interested mathematical colleague.
What's it to you?
> Are you a nutcase that believes that there's a code in the Bible?
No. I'm a sane person who marvels at nutcases who believe that
there are Baconian ciphers and acrostics in Shakespeare.
> You sound invested in it. Why would you take an interest in this
> subject to the extent that you would bother to translate Rips?
I already told you: as a professional courtesy to an interested
mathematical colleague.
> > Indeed, I'm inclined to doubt that Rips even has any
> > awareness of Leary.
> I thought Rips was 'world-renown' [sic] unquote.
Is English not your native tongue? I said that, to my knowledge,
*Rips* is not even aware of *Leary*, not that *Leary* is not aware of
*Rips*. It would be *Leary's* "renown" that would be at issue in the
matter of whether Rips was aware of Leary. Do you understand that?
Very good. It's true that the name "Penn Leary" might be familiar to
connoisseurs of the eccentric and outré because of the name's
appearance in connection with a book on that crackpot Mecca, Oak
Island, but I doubt that Rips reads such stuff.
> > I remember translating a very early Russian
> > samizdat version of the very first Rips paper on the subject (evidently
> > produced on a defective Cyrillic typewriter, with much of the Hebrew
> > text written out in longhand) from Russian to English for a colleague
> > back around 1985, while the Soviet Union was still in existence,
> You've read Chekov.
Yes, but what on earth has Chekhov to do with this?
> > and, while I didn't bother to check that the versions of the Hebrew and
> > Samaritan texts of _Genesis_ that he used were accurate, I certainly
> > found no mathematical mistakes.
> Samaritan Torah? You have a beam in your eye to use a biblical
> maxim. You went to the trouble of translating Rips' paper and you
> weren't curious *why* Rips was looking for codes in the
> Samarian [sic] *and* Hebrew Torahs [sic]?
Why should I care? I was merely doing a favor for a friend and
colleague. I'm not sure why the use of both "the Samarian [sic] *and*
Hebrew Torahs [sic]" sends you into such paroxysms, but the use of both
was definitely necessary. In fact Rips's main point in the paper was
*not* that there is a "code" in the Bible, certainly *not* that one can
predict things like Rabin's assassination thereby, but merely that
meaningful Hebrew words occur in equidistant letter sequences in the
Hebrew version of _Breishit_ with strikingly greater frequency than in
the Samaritan version of_Breishit_, and that the effect he observes is
statistically significant.
> [It's better than the Masons
> and Shakespeare].
But not as funny.
> > Most of the idiotic claims appearing
> > in the popular press are spectacular and wildly irresponsible
> > distortions of Rips's claims; some have been publicly repudiated by
> > Rips himself.
> How smart is a guy who puts 'bible' and 'codes' together in one
> sentence and then gets mad because the press runs with it.
Boy, you're absolutely *determined* to make a complete ass of
yourself, aren't you? It was Drosnin who paired the words "bible" and
"code" in reference to Rips's earlier work and Drosnin's own
"contribution." To my knowledge, Rips has *never* "put 'bible' and
'codes' together in one sentence," except to criticize Drosnin and to
repudiate some of Drosnin's wild conclusions.
And Rips is definitely *very* smart. So is Art Neuendorffer, for
that matter. You cannot judge a person's intelligence solely on the
basis of some of the bizarre ideas that person professes to believe --
fortunately for you!
> > Later Rips papers on the subject (in some cases with
> > coauthors) were published in peer-reviewed journals such as _Journal of
> > the Royal Statistical Society_, _Statistical Science_ (you can read
> > this one online), etc., in one case with a disclaimer from the editors
> > that, although the paper had been carefully refereed, no error had been
> > found.
> No errors were made by Gestapo bookkeepers.
What *on earth* are you gibbering about? Certainly the Gestapo made
clerical errors.
> There are many
> insane things proven by perfect math.
What *on earth* are you gibbering about?
> Bacon warned us about math.
> Read last year's NYT series on the hallucinatory, yet mathematically
> secure, state of particle physics.
If you think that particle physics is "mathematically secure," then
you know next to nothing about either mathematics or particle physics
-- not at all a surprising state of affairs if your source is merely
popular newspaper accounts. Indeed, one of the major open problems in
contemporary mathematics is the task of putting on a rigorous
mathematical foundation various quantum field theories used by
physicists for heuristic calculations of great interest; it is clear
that the physicists are onto something important, but it is far from
clear how to make mathematical sense of it.
> > The work of Rips and his collaborators has been criticized by a
> > great many well-known mathematicians, among them Shlomo Sternberg (in
> > _Notices of the American Mathematical Society_ and in the scholarly
> > periodical _Bible Review_), Barry Simon, Dror Bar-Natan and Brendan
> > McKay, and others; Maya Bar-Hillel and others have offered statistical
> > explanations for the Rips phenomenon. In any case, to the extent that
> > Rips's work can be said to have been "debunked," it has taken some
> > effort by some excellent mathematicians and statisticians; it is
> > certainly not on a par with the ridiculous rubbish of Leary, a sample
> > of which I reproduce from <http://home.att.net/~tleary/home2.htm>:
> Rips program may run faster and better
> but it does the same thing Leary's does. Here's the first and only
> hit I bothered
> to get from Google:
>
> "And someone has. Mathematician Brendan McKay of Australian National
> University in Canberra and three colleagues at Hebrew University in
> Jerusalem say they have pegged the flaw in the original study as a
> lack of precision in specifying the names and dates being sought. For
> example, the list might specify "Robert," or it might allow a "Rob" or
> "Bobby" in the text also to mean Robert. The protocol was so flexible,
> the researchers found, that they could get significant results by
> looking for the famous rabbis in a Hebrew translation of War and
> Peace." from the The Academic Press.
Can you not read?! Or is this a case or Attention Deficit
Disorder?! I said, in the very post to which you are replying:
"The work of Rips and his collaborators has been criticized by
a great many well-known mathematicians, among them Shlomo
Sternberg, .... Barry Simon, Dror Bar-Natan and
BRENDAN MCKAY, and others;..." [emphasis added]
Do you recognize the name "Brendan McKay"? Take a close look at it and
see if you can recall where you've seen it before. In any case, this
does not pertain *at all* to the original Rips paper I mentioned; the
criticism of Dror Bar-Natan and McKay referred to in the Google "hit"
is directed at the *later* paper by Rips and his coauthors. If your
main source of information is whatever Google turns up on the web, then
it's no wonder that you're farcically misinformed about nearly
everything.
> Substitute beekkan for 'Bobby' and bacien for 'Rob' and it's the same
> thing.
They're both unwarranted conclusions.
> > "[text of Sonnet 144 deleted]
> > In this later version there are minor changes in spelling,
> > punctuation and one change in sense (faire in line 8 becomes
> > fowle in the later version). The major change is in
> > capitalization. Let us string all the capitals together and
> > examine them:
> >
> > Ciphertext of the 1599 verse:
> >
> > T V L I C D T S M A M M V T F T A A S D V A A S I F I A T I T A
> >
> > Plaintext, +4 is:
> >
> > B C P N G H B A Q E Q Q C B K B E E A H C E E A N K N E B N B E"
> > -------------------
> >
> > In case you're not viewing this with a fixed-width font, Leary has
> > underscored the substring "BEEAHCEEAN"! Very impressive indeed!
> > Here's another sample for your delectation:
> I was talking about the fact that Rips and Leary's 'success' is based
> on having an equivocal standard for judging the hits. You chose to
> attack me on a level you knew I couldn't refute--mathematical
> niceties.
No, that was Rips's *later* paper with coauthors, not the one to
which I alluded. Haven't you even read *any* of the stuff on which you
pontificate with such glib authority? The paper I mentioned does not
employ any lax standard of name recognition that I noticed, nor that
the Talmudic scholar whom I consulted noticed; indeed, it is Hebrew
words, not names of rabbis, that are at issue. Nor did the referees
who reviewed the paper find anything of that nature. The paper is
certainly vulnerable to various criticisms on other counts (there are
certainly clarifications that I would have sought had I refereed it),
but the paper is not, to my knowldege, vulnerable on that score.
In any case, if one has any hope whatever of proving the presence of
concealed messages in the works of Shakespeare, the claim will stand or
fall based upon mathematical/statistical analysis -- I think that even
nutcase Baconians have long since given up on finding a true cipher
that would meet the exacting standards of cryptologists as enumerated
by the Friedmans. Thus what you airily dismiss as "mathematical
niceties" are the very heart of the matter.
Finally, as for my choosing to "attack [you] on a level [I] knew
[you] couldn't refute--mathematical niceties," that's a groundless
charge. You cannot refute at *any* level something you have not even
read, so I could have chosen *any* level, mathematical or otherwise,
and you would still have made a fool of yourself. (It always
astonishes me how eager most anti-Stratfordians are to bring up -- and
then to argue vociferously and fatuously about -- topics of which they
are *completely ignorant*.)
[Crackpot cryptography deleted]
> Since your guy Rips is guilty of the same thing your post is looking
> pretty silly at this point.
Since you haven't even *read* Rips and are relying instead upon the
gross distortions of Drosnin even for the paucity of (mis)information
at your disposal, your post is looking utterly imbecilic at this point.
Rips is not "my guy" -- I am not a philosophical follower of Rips, nor
do I subscribe to the idea that he or anyone else has found "codes" in
the Bible. I have merely pointed out that Rips was actually smart
enough to realize that he needed to employ statistical methodology to
make his case, something that few if any Baconian ciphermongers seem to
have realized. Moreover, refutation of the work of Rips and his
collaborators required at least *some* effort, unlike the refutation of
the nutcase nonsense of Baconians, most of whom are far too clueless to
use quantitative methods.
A conspiracy theory on a scale that massive is a *detail*??!!
> Art is closer to it than you and Kathman are.
> > > Kathman and Webb have been abusing Neuendorffer over this cryptogram
> > > for moths [sic]
> > I can't recall Kathman having said anything specific about Art's
> > "cryptograms" for nearly two years. Can you produce a quotation? Dave
> > Kathman has wisely been ignoring Art and his deluded "decipherments"
> > for ages, a circumstance that Art himself has even groused about on
> > occasion (comedians thrive upon audience attention and adulation). Art
> > would be a complete waste of time were it not that his posts are so
> > funny.
> I thought that the thread that you and Kathman had going that
> ridiculed people in this forum was in bad taste.
Kathman didn't say *anything* about Art in that thread that I saw,
other than that Art was providing me with amusement and that I had
patience with his games. Those statements are both true and neutral.
As for "ridiculing," if anyone appeared foolish in that thread, it was
not Art, but rather Ken Kaplan, who accused Dave Kathman of dishonesty
and selectivity in quoting Dryden when, as soon became quite apparent,
Ken himself knew next to nothing about Dryden and had not read even the
essay in question, let alone Dryden's many reverential encomiums
concerning Shakespeare's genius. As for ridicule, I thought that I was
actually rather restrained in dismantling Ken's nonsense, as I respect
him and believe him to be sincere but misguided. However, despite
Ken's cautionary example, you seem quite determined to follow in Ken's
footsteps by making more and more blatantly erroneous assertions about
texts you have not even read and things you know nothing about.
> > > and they are going to wish they could take their posts down
> > > after they understand what it is.
> > Are you trying to outdo Art as funniest h.l.a.s. comedian?
> I think you and Kathman are being obtuse.
You also "think" that Russell won the Literature Nobel because there
is no mathematics prize, that Rips is responsible for the nonsense of
Drosnin that Rips himself has repudiated, and lots of other
demosntrably erroneous rubbish, so I'm not going to lose much sleep
over what you "think" about Kathman and me; I doubt that Dave Kathman
will either.
> > > The only thing I'm not clear on is who discovered the pheon.
> > > Neuendorffer?
> > Of course not. Terry Ross discovered it, in the course of refuting
> > John Rollett's unintentionally amusing article on the Oxfordian
> > "cipher" embedded in the Sonnets' dedication. Although Terry doesn't
> > mention it specifically in the posts below, you can refer to
> I've seen it. It's flawed.
Indeed. Still, "These sonnets all by ever" is more impressive than
"BEEAHCEEAN."
[...]
> > In fact, to my knowledge, Art has never discovered anything of any
> > interest concerning Shakespeare authorship.
> Nothing outside your den of orthodoxy is of interest to you [and
> Kathman]. Art is at least expressing Bacon's phenomenological world
> of the plays.
No, Art is probably parodying anti-Stratfordian credulity. Art's
posts have more to do with abnormal psycholoogy than with
phenomenology.
> I resent being used as a conduit for your ridicule of Art.
You're not. Art is very intelligent -- in my view, for too
intelligent to be serious about the stuff he posts (web pages railing
about space aliens, etc.). I haven't decided yet whether you're joking
as well. I certainly hope so.
David Webb
Neuendorffer
> Art is very intelligent -- in my view, for too
> intelligent to be serious about the stuff he posts (web pages railing
> about space aliens, etc.).
Right back too you, Dave. Most (though not all) of the Goon Squad are
-- in my view, far too intelligent to be serious about the illiterate
Stratford boob. But you guys have a job to do and you do it quite well.
Art N.
P.S. Happy Saint John's Day. (Or is it late this year?)
David L. Webb
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <3B35FCB1...@erols.com>, Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com>
(ph...@errors.comedy) wrote:
> "David L. Webb" wrote:
>
> > Art is very intelligent -- in my view, for too
> > intelligent to be serious about the stuff he posts (web pages railing
> > about space aliens, etc.).
> Right back too you, Dave. Most (though not all) of the Goon Squad are
> -- in my view, far too intelligent to be serious about the illiterate
> Stratford boob. But you guys have a job to do and you do it quite well.
What job is that, Art? And for whom do we do it? By the way, just
who *is* the "Goon Squad," anyway?
> P.S. Happy Saint John's Day. (Or is it late this year?)
Thanks, Art. But I thought I told you two years ago that Strict
Observance Templars of the Bloodline don't adhere to the conventional
calendar or to the date of St. John's Day mandated by the Church, and
haven't done so since the unpleasantness between the Order and the Pope
initiated by the avarice of Phillipe le Bel. The Shakespeare
Authorship Coverup Conspirators' Conclave is coming up.
David Webb
David L. Webb
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <3B3274A6...@erols.com>, Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com>
(ph...@errors.comedy) wrote:
> > Elizabeth Weir <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Neuendorffer's Sydney pheon is a beautiful cypher embedded in the
> > > Sonnet dedication that represent's [sic] the 'inner letter' of the
> > > dedication's awkward and ungrammatical 'outer letter.' The six words
> > > of the 'inner letter' reiterate the major themes of the Sonnets and
> > > are in the shape of the emblem of the Sydney and Dudley families grant
> > > of arms which identifies the author of the Sonnets, the identity of
> > > Mr. W.H. and the their unusual to say the least relationship.
> > > Neuendorffer would have figured this out long ago but he
> > > suppoerts the wrong authorship candidate.
>
> "David L. Webb" wrote:
>
> > You obviously haven't been reading Art's posts very long. Art
> > enthusiastically supports practically *all* authorship "candidates"
> I don't suppoert subpoets Marlowe & the illiterate Stratford boob.
But Art -- what about HI-ram/Mar-LO?
> > indeed, he postulates the existence of a vast Masonic authorship
> > coverup conspiracy that numbers among its members virtually every peer
> > of the realm and every writer in the history of literature, including
> > some born centuries before Shakespeare. Art's "conspiracy" is so vast
> > and far-reaching that one wonders whether there is anyone who is *not*
> > involved in the conspiracy, other than Art himself.
> I wouldn't say that I've specifically ruled myself out.
I'm glad to hear it, Art; you're welcome to join any time you like.
[...]
> > In fact, to my knowledge, Art has never discovered anything of any
> > interest concerning Shakespeare authorship.
> To my knowledge, Dave has never discovered anything of any interest
> concerning Shakespeare authorship. Everything interesting of comes
> directly from his Junior Goon Squad Handbook.
Have you eVER seen a copy of the Junior Goon Squad Handbook, Art?
Who wrote it, do you suppose?
> > When I pointed out to Art
> > that "Agnes a gob" in one of his "anagrams" makes no sense but that the
> > alternative "anagram" "Agnes Boga" means "Agnes of God" in Russian, Art
> > seized upon it with all the eagerness of a credulous caller dialing the
> > psychic hotline (I'm beginning to wish that I had had a 900 number for
> > Art to dial -- I could probably retire by age 40 on the proceeds!).
> So will I be coming into any money soon, Dave?
Not until you pay me the ten dollars you owe me from the bet about
the Shakespeare manuscripts being in John Combe's tomb.
[...]
> > Similarly, when Terry Ross compiled a lengthy list of
> > random susbstrings that happen to be English words or names, Art
> > joyously selected "Hiram" and "pheon" as evidence for his mythical
> > Masonic conspiracy.
> That Magical mythical Masonic conspiracy is waiting to take me away.
Masons don't wear white coats, Art; the guys coming to take you away
are from a different institution.
> > Art even seems to believe that the Priory of Sion and Rex Deus
> > are involved in the authorship conspiracy (alongside the
> > usual suspects: Knights Templar, Rosicrucians, etc.).
> I do believe it's true.
Need I say more? Case closed.
[...]
> > His
> > lack of understanding of probability, unthinkable in any sane person
> > who has studied physics, coupled with his comic confusion of signal
> > with noise,
> I attained the rank of Specialist 4th Class in the Signal Corps
> and I never once made the mistake of falling in with the Noise Corps.
A pity -- "Noisendorffer" seems such an apt sobriquet.
David Webb
john_baker
<David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
> the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
>
>In article <efbc3534.01062...@posting.google.com>, Elizabeth
>Weir <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>> > > I'm using Bacon's bilateral [sic] cypher as I type this. It was stolen
>> > > without credit
>> > > by Leibnitz [sic] who converted the a's and b's to 1's and 2's.
>
>> > Leibniz was interested in *computing* using binary representation;
>> > in that regard he deserves far more credit for his insight than does
>> > Bacon for his binary encoding of characters.
>
>> YOU don't know what you're talking about because you've read Leibniz
>> but you haven't read Bacon.
>
> No, you don't know what you're talking about; how could you, since
>you attempt to deduce my reading matter from your own ignorance? In
>fact, I've read Bacon with far more attention than I've accorded
>Leibniz. Bacon certainly deserves full credit for the biliteral (not
>bilateral) cipher, which amounts to a binary encoding of characters;
>however, that's a comparatively trivial insight compared to Leibiz's
>insight concerning the possibliity of computation. Leibniz did not
>steal *that* from anyone.
Webb,
A rainy day washed out my climb and gave me the opportunity to reflect
on this rather pernicious exchange.
Your summer seems to have provided you with more leisure time than you
know what to do with, so the day it finds you sitting at your desk
with nothing to do but to attempt to hammer Elizabeth Weir into
powder.
If I didn't know better I'd think you did your philosophic and social
training in those game arcades or for the Gestapo. Did you have any
friends when you were growing up?
Do you take this same attitude into your classes, do you direct it
towards your students?
My god the woman knows Leibniz, Bacon,Frosnin Leary, Rips, Rosenberg
and the Torah, translates at a high level and when she says
>>
>> No errors were made by Gestapo bookkeepers.
>
your write,
> What *on earth* are you gibbering about? Certainly the Gestapo made
>clerical errors.
You seen oblivious to her meaning! No wonder you are a Stratfordian
and so skilled at putting others down.
The obvious meaning here is that the peer reviewers for Rips' paper
were acting as goons or Gestapo types to keep his "thought" in the
well traveled channels eroded out by professional rigeur, free of all
flotsam and iconoclastic outre.
And yet somehow a man commanding double 800s on his GREs doesn't get
it? Talk about being obtuse.
>
>> There are many
>> insane things proven by perfect math.
>
> What *on earth* are you gibbering about?
Statements like this get your goat don't they? Eliz may not know
you're the mathematician who imagines math is a Science!!!
>
>> Bacon warned us about math.
>> Read last year's NYT series on the hallucinatory, yet mathematically
>> secure, state of particle physics.
>
> If you think that particle physics is "mathematically secure," then
>you know next to nothing about either mathematics or particle physics
>-- not at all a surprising state of affairs if your source is merely
>popular newspaper accounts. Indeed, one of the major open problems in
>contemporary mathematics is the task of putting on a rigorous
>mathematical foundation various quantum field theories used by
>physicists for heuristic calculations of great interest; it is clear
>that the physicists are onto something important, but it is far from
>clear how to make mathematical sense of it.
Its also far from clear how making mathematical sense of it will then
make it clear.
>/
>> > The work of Rips and his collaborators has been criticized by a
>> > great many well-known mathematicians, among them Shlomo Sternberg (in
>> > _Notices of the American Mathematical Society_ and in the scholarly
>> > periodical _Bible Review_), Barry Simon, Dror Bar-Natan and Brendan
>> > McKay, and others; Maya Bar-Hillel and others have offered statistical
>> > explanations for the Rips phenomenon. In any case, to the extent that
>> > Rips's work can be said to have been "debunked," it has taken some
>> > effort by some excellent mathematicians and statisticians; it is
>> > certainly not on a par with the ridiculous rubbish of Leary, a sample
>> > of which I reproduce from <http://home.att.net/~tleary/home2.htm>:
>
>> Rips program may run faster and better
>> but it does the same thing Leary's does. Here's the first and only
>> hit I bothered
>> to get from Google:
>>
>> "And someone has. Mathematician Brendan McKay of Australian National
>> University in Canberra and three colleagues at Hebrew University in
>> Jerusalem say they have pegged the flaw in the original study as a
>> lack of precision in specifying the names and dates being sought. For
>> example, the list might specify "Robert," or it might allow a "Rob" or
>> "Bobby" in the text also to mean Robert. The protocol was so flexible,
>> the researchers found, that they could get significant results by
>> looking for the famous rabbis in a Hebrew translation of War and
>> Peace." from the The Academic Press.
I'm not surprised, are you David?
>
> Can you not read?! Or is this a case or Attention Deficit
>Disorder?! I said, in the very post to which you are replying:
>
> "The work of Rips and his collaborators has been criticized by
> a great many well-known mathematicians, among them Shlomo
> Sternberg, .... Barry Simon, Dror Bar-Natan and
> BRENDAN MCKAY, and others;..." [emphasis added]
>
>Do you recognize the name "Brendan McKay"? Take a close look at it and
>see if you can recall where you've seen it before. In any case, this
>does not pertain *at all* to the original Rips paper I mentioned; the
>criticism of Dror Bar-Natan and McKay referred to in the Google "hit"
>is directed at the *later* paper by Rips and his coauthors. If your
>main source of information is whatever Google turns up on the web, then
>it's no wonder that you're farcically misinformed about nearly
>everything.
Keep at her David. She's ill-informed because she's informed...we're
getting somewhere now, right? Why not just advise her to stop
reading.
>
>> Substitute beekkan for 'Bobby' and bacien for 'Rob' and it's the same
>> thing.
>
> They're both unwarranted conclusions.
>
>> > "[text of Sonnet 144 deleted]
>> > In this later version there are minor changes in spelling,
>> > punctuation and one change in sense (faire in line 8 becomes
>> > fowle in the later version). The major change is in
>> > capitalization. Let us string all the capitals together and
>> > examine them:
>> >
>> > Ciphertext of the 1599 verse:
>> >
>> > T V L I C D T S M A M M V T F T A A S D V A A S I F I A T I T A
>> >
>> > Plaintext, +4 is:
>> >
>> > B C P N G H B A Q E Q Q C B K B E E A H C E E A N K N E B N B E"
>> > -------------------
>> >
>> > In case you're not viewing this with a fixed-width font, Leary has
>> > underscored the substring "BEEAHCEEAN"! Very impressive indeed!
>> > Here's another sample for your delectation:
I'll give both of you children a hint: Whenever the message is *more*
meaningful than the code the code is either redundant or a private
joke.
>
>> I was talking about the fact that Rips and Leary's 'success' is based
>> on having an equivocal standard for judging the hits. You chose to
>> attack me on a level you knew I couldn't refute--mathematical
>> niceties.
>
> No, that was Rips's *later* paper with coauthors, not the one to
>which I alluded. Haven't you even read *any* of the stuff on which you
>pontificate with such glib authority?
David, again your method here is that of a shooting gallery. Eliz is
a brilliant lady, she may not have the same opinions as you, but you
will have to stand in a long line to get her to marry you.
(I don't know where I'm at in the line...likely behind you...but at
least I know I'm in it.)
>The paper I mentioned does not
>employ any lax standard of name recognition that I noticed, nor that
>the Talmudic scholar whom I consulted noticed; indeed, it is Hebrew
>words, not names of rabbis, that are at issue. Nor did the referees
>who reviewed the paper find anything of that nature. The paper is
>certainly vulnerable to various criticisms on other counts (there are
>certainly clarifications that I would have sought had I refereed it),
>but the paper is not, to my knowldege, vulnerable on that score.
>
> In any case, if one has any hope whatever of proving the presence of
>concealed messages in the works of Shakespeare, the claim will stand or
>fall based upon mathematical/statistical analysis -- I think that even
>nutcase Baconians have long since given up on finding a true cipher
>that would meet the exacting standards of cryptologists as enumerated
>by the Friedmans. Thus what you airily dismiss as "mathematical
>niceties" are the very heart of the matter.
I should have guessed this!
Here I thought that math is a closed system devised to apply
a set of axioms that cannot be proven by the system, as opposed to a
science which can be proven.
(Confession, I either picked that up in the NYTs under Godel or from
Russell's Nobel speech, where he says, "if I'd been better at math, I
wouldn't have gotten this..." so it's most likely wrong.)
> Finally, as for my choosing to "attack [you] on a level [I] knew
>[you] couldn't refute--mathematical niceties," that's a groundless
>charge. You cannot refute at *any* level something you have not even
>read, so I could have chosen *any* level, mathematical or otherwise,
>and you would still have made a fool of yourself. (It always
>astonishes me how eager most anti-Stratfordians are to bring up -- and
>then to argue vociferously and fatuously about -- topics of which they
>are *completely ignorant*.)
Shooting gallery techniques again David.
You know when I was training for marathons I use to have a place were
all kinds of evil thoughts would just poor out of me...and the place
was always at a different place, since I varied the routes. Then I
noticed the time was always about the same.
So I suspect you have this private place where you go to purge your
system of vitriol by picking on Stratfordians who you deem vulnerable.
I'd like to remind you what Socrates says about this, and this is a
paraphase, "It is wise, my students, to see men as they are, but this
seeing implies that we understand they suppose themselves right, just
as we might, if we were fools too."
baker
ps.
I know you were traveling...so you may have missed my reply about the
"Fermat Steps" or "cross over points," if you did, I'll be happy to
direct you to it again, if you are going to be in town for a while.
Now that I know you can add and subtract, I'm all fingers.
Neuendorffer
> >
> > > > Neuendorffer's Sydney pheon is a beautiful cypher embedded in the
> > > > Sonnet dedication that represent's [sic] the 'inner letter' of the
> > > > dedication's awkward and ungrammatical 'outer letter.' The six words
> > > > of the 'inner letter' reiterate the major themes of the Sonnets and
> > > > are in the shape of the emblem of the Sydney and Dudley families grant
> > > > of arms which identifies the author of the Sonnets, the identity of
> > > > Mr. W.H. and the their unusual to say the least relationship.
> > > > Neuendorffer would have figured this out long ago but he
> > > > suppoerts the wrong authorship candidate.
> >
> > "David L. Webb" wrote:
> >
> > > You obviously haven't been reading Art's posts very long. Art
> > > enthusiastically supports practically *all* authorship "candidates"
> Neuendorffer wrote:
> > I don't suppoert subpoets Marlowe & the illiterate Stratford boob.
"David L. Webb" wrote:
> But Art -- what about HI-ram/Mar-LO?
"Mar-LO" is a made up name based upon "HI-ram".
> > > indeed, he postulates the existence of a vast Masonic authorship
> > > coverup conspiracy that numbers among its members virtually every peer
> > > of the realm and every writer in the history of literature, including
> > > some born centuries before Shakespeare. Art's "conspiracy" is so vast
> > > and far-reaching that one wonders whether there is anyone who is *not*
> > > involved in the conspiracy, other than Art himself.
>
> > I wouldn't say that I've specifically ruled myself out.
>
> I'm glad to hear it, Art; you're welcome to join any time you like.
Will I be force to undergo electric shock 'til my mind is a vegetable?
> > > In fact, to my knowledge, Art has never discovered anything of any
> > > interest concerning Shakespeare authorship.
>
> > To my knowledge, Dave has never discovered anything of any interest
> > concerning Shakespeare authorship. Everything interesting of comes
> > directly from his Junior Goon Squad Handbook.
>
> Have you eVER seen a copy of the Junior Goon Squad Handbook, Art?
> Who wrote it, do you suppose?
Francis Bacon?
> > > When I pointed out to Art
> > > that "Agnes a gob" in one of his "anagrams" makes no sense but that the
> > > alternative "anagram" "Agnes Boga" means "Agnes of God" in Russian, Art
> > > seized upon it with all the eagerness of a credulous caller dialing the
> > > psychic hotline (I'm beginning to wish that I had had a 900 number for
> > > Art to dial -- I could probably retire by age 40 on the proceeds!).
>
> > So will I be coming into any money soon, Dave?
>
> Not until you pay me the ten dollars you owe me from the bet about
> the Shakespeare manuscripts being in John Combe's tomb.
When you prove the manuscripts aint there.
> > > Similarly, when Terry Ross compiled a lengthy list of
> > > random susbstrings that happen to be English words or names, Art
> > > joyously selected "Hiram" and "pheon" as evidence for his mythical
> > > Masonic conspiracy.
>
> > That Magical mythical Masonic conspiracy is waiting to take me away.
>
> Masons don't wear white coats, Art;
White aprons then.
> the guys coming to take you away are from a different institution.
But they are all affiliated with each other.
> > > Art even seems to believe that the Priory of Sion and Rex Deus
> > > are involved in the authorship conspiracy (alongside the
> > > usual suspects: Knights Templar, Rosicrucians, etc.).
>
> > I do believe it's true.
>
> Need I say more?
You can't say more. You haven't said anything yet.
> > > His
> > > lack of understanding of probability, unthinkable in any sane person
> > > who has studied physics, coupled with his comic confusion of signal
> > > with noise,
>
> > I attained the rank of Specialist 4th Class in the Signal Corps
> > and I never once made the mistake of falling in with the Noise Corps.
>
> A pity -- "Noisendorffer" seems such an apt sobriquet.
I'd be careful if I were you, Dave.
Specialists 4th Class are trained to kill in the Signal Corps.
Art Neuendorffer
David Kathman
Isn't there a Usenet rule that any thread is automatically terminated
when any participant identifies his or her opponent with Hitler
or Nazis? Baker, this is the kind of thing that caused me to stop
responding to you for the most part. You're an asshole, and I
wouldn't complain a bit if you went away from this newsgroup forever.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Tom Reedy
news:240620011404535309%David....@Dartmouth.edu...
> [[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
> the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
>
> In article <3B3274A6...@erols.com>, Neuendorffer <ph...@erols.com>
> (ph...@errors.comedy) wrote:
>
>
> > To my knowledge, Dave has never discovered anything of any interest
> > concerning Shakespeare authorship. Everything interesting of comes
> > directly from his Junior Goon Squad Handbook.
>
> Have you eVER seen a copy of the Junior Goon Squad Handbook, Art?
> Who wrote it, do you suppose?
>
> David Webb
What makes Art think Dave is a junior member? Does he think rank in the Goon
Squad is based on age?
Major Tom
Ground Control
David L. Webb
> On Sat, 23 Jun 2001 23:31:23 -0400, "David L. Webb"
> <David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
> > the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
> >
> >In article <efbc3534.01062...@posting.google.com>, Elizabeth
> >Weir <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> > > I'm using Bacon's bilateral [sic] cypher as I type this. It was stolen
> >> > > without credit
> >> > > by Leibnitz [sic] who converted the a's and b's to 1's and 2's.
> >> > Leibniz was interested in *computing* using binary representation;
> >> > in that regard he deserves far more credit for his insight than does
> >> > Bacon for his binary encoding of characters.
> >> YOU don't know what you're talking about because you've read Leibniz
> >> but you haven't read Bacon.
> > No, you don't know what you're talking about; how could you, since
> >you attempt to deduce my reading matter from your own ignorance? In
> >fact, I've read Bacon with far more attention than I've accorded
> >Leibniz. Bacon certainly deserves full credit for the biliteral (not
> >bilateral) cipher, which amounts to a binary encoding of characters;
> >however, that's a comparatively trivial insight compared to Leibiz's
> >insight concerning the possibliity of computation. Leibniz did not
> >steal *that* from anyone.
[...]
> My god the woman knows Leibniz,
Huh? No, she doesn't.
> Bacon,Frosnin Leary, Rips,
No, she doesn't. She doesn't even know what's in Rips's papers or
she wouldn't keep confusing him with Drosnin.
> Rosenberg
No, she wrote:
"I don't feel sorry for Rips. The concept is nutty and that
fact makes it immaterial whether Rips' math is superior to
Rosenberg's."
Thus she was actually unaware (not having read Rips's paper) that
Rosenberg was one of Rips's *co-authors* on the paper in question, not
one of his predecessors in these investigations!
> and the Torah,
Huh? She exhibits no knowledge of the Torah. What are you smoking,
Baker? Or are you still trying to hit on her?
> translates at a high level and when she says
> >> No errors were made by Gestapo bookkeepers.
> your write,
>
> > What *on earth* are you gibbering about? Certainly the Gestapo made
> >clerical errors.
[...]
> The obvious meaning here is that the peer reviewers for Rips' paper
> were acting as goons or Gestapo types to keep his "thought" in the
> well traveled channels eroded out by professional rigeur, free of all
> flotsam and iconoclastic outre.
No, Baker; have you spent too much time at altitude? Or have you
not even read the thread? As I pointed out, the referees of two
peer-reviewed statistics publications ACCEPTED Rips's articles for
publication. They did not make any attempt to "keep his 'thought' in
the well traveled channels eroded out by professional rigeur," as you
so colorfully, if inaccurately, put it.
[...]
No, she's ill-informed because she hasn't even read the material
we're discussing.
> we're
> getting somewhere now, right? Why not just advise her to stop
> reading.
On the contrary, I'm advising her to start. I *already* called
Brendan McKay to her attention. She has not read McKay's papers,
because she confessed that she confined her "research" to a single
Google hit.
[...]
> >> I was talking about the fact that Rips and Leary's 'success' is based
> >> on having an equivocal standard for judging the hits. You chose to
> >> attack me on a level you knew I couldn't refute--mathematical
> >> niceties.
> > No, that was Rips's *later* paper with coauthors, not the one to
> >which I alluded. Haven't you even read *any* of the stuff on which you
> >pontificate with such glib authority?
> David, again your method here is that of a shooting gallery. Eliz is
> a brilliant lady,
How many brilliant people express credible opinions about things
they have not read and know nothing about?
[...]
> >The paper I mentioned does not
> >employ any lax standard of name recognition that I noticed, nor that
> >the Talmudic scholar whom I consulted noticed; indeed, it is Hebrew
> >words, not names of rabbis, that are at issue. Nor did the referees
> >who reviewed the paper find anything of that nature. The paper is
> >certainly vulnerable to various criticisms on other counts (there are
> >certainly clarifications that I would have sought had I refereed it),
> >but the paper is not, to my knowldege, vulnerable on that score.
> >
> > In any case, if one has any hope whatever of proving the presence of
> >concealed messages in the works of Shakespeare, the claim will stand or
> >fall based upon mathematical/statistical analysis -- I think that even
> >nutcase Baconians have long since given up on finding a true cipher
> >that would meet the exacting standards of cryptologists as enumerated
> >by the Friedmans. Thus what you airily dismiss as "mathematical
> >niceties" are the very heart of the matter.
> I should have guessed this!
>
> Here I thought that math is a closed system devised to apply
> a set of axioms that cannot be proven by the system, as opposed to a
> science which can be proven.
You mean you've never heard of applied mathematics or statistics,
Baker?
> > Finally, as for my choosing to "attack [you] on a level [I] knew
> >[you] couldn't refute--mathematical niceties," that's a groundless
> >charge. You cannot refute at *any* level something you have not even
> >read, so I could have chosen *any* level, mathematical or otherwise,
> >and you would still have made a fool of yourself. (It always
> >astonishes me how eager most anti-Stratfordians are to bring up -- and
> >then to argue vociferously and fatuously about -- topics of which they
> >are *completely ignorant*.)
> Shooting gallery techniques again David.
No, her ignorance of topics she herself raises is virtually
complete, so her wounds are entirely self-inflicted.
[...]
> So I suspect you have this private place where you go to purge your
> system of vitriol by picking on Stratfordians who you deem vulnerable.
Baker, isn't your nonsense even self-consistent? You've complained
on numerous occasions that I only make *anti*-Stratfordians look
foolish, and that I never pick on Stratfordians. Now you accuse me of
"picking on Stratfordians who [sic] you deem vulnerable"!
[...]
> I know you were traveling...so you may have missed my reply about the
> "Fermat Steps" or "cross over points," if you did, I'll be happy to
> direct you to it again, if you are going to be in town for a while.
No, I have never seen any coherent explanation from you of what on
earth you mean by this. I'll be away for the ensuing week anyway, and
I may or may not be able to access my Dartmouth account, but if you can
ever manage to say something mathematically coherent, I'll be glad to
try to answer whatever it is that you're asking when I get back.
David Webb
Greg Reynolds
"David L. Webb" wrote:
> How many brilliant people express credible opinions about things
> they have not read and know nothing about?
Busted.
I'm sorry.
Peer Pressure.
I'll do an Act of Contrition.
Greg Reynolds
(It's not the 39.95, it's the very idea)
john_baker
Gee David, it looks as if you've put your finger on another of my
laspes...make that "picking on anti-Stratfordians.." in this
particular case a woman who is obviously so many more times well
read and well thought than then average Stratfordian...
>
>[...]
>> I know you were traveling...so you may have missed my reply about the
>> "Fermat Steps" or "cross over points," if you did, I'll be happy to
>> direct you to it again, if you are going to be in town for a while.
>
> No, I have never seen any coherent explanation from you of what on
>earth you mean by this. I'll be away for the ensuing week anyway, and
>I may or may not be able to access my Dartmouth account, but if you can
>ever manage to say something mathematically coherent, I'll be glad to
>try to answer whatever it is that you're asking when I get back.
>
> David Webb
Good, we'll get to it then. We can look it up together, in case
I forget it.
How did you like my paraphrase of Socrates?
Let's review it when you come back from break...
john
ps: and have a good summer...really...your depth of knowledge is
extraordinary even for a guy with 1600 on his GREs and who still
believes Shakespeare wrote Shakespere...
john_baker
I do have an asshole, Dave, and if it weren't for it my belly would
burst. Yours, on the other hand, must be so tightly wired I'm worried
about your belly.
I chastised your buddy for picking on Ms. Weir, unmercifully.
His arrogance is tough to stomach, even when a fellow is an asshole.
I didn't call Professor Webb a Nazi, or even a member of the Gestapo,
but simiply remarked on his storm trooper tactics here on hals. I
assume you can still read right?
I stand by my remarks. And my advice to you is the same as before, if
you don't like my posts don't read them. And stay away from my web
page...you might just learn something.
Meanwhile, keep you chin down and see if you can't come up with
some answers for those questions of mine...and loosen up that bottom
of yours...I'd hate to see you bust...you're still plum of good
facts...its not your fault you bought on to a dumb theory...
john
Elizabeth Weir
> [[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
> the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
>
> In article <efbc3534.01062...@posting.google.com>, Elizabeth
> Weir <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > I'm using Bacon's bilateral [sic] cypher as I type this. It was stolen
> > > > without credit
> > > > by Leibnitz [sic] who converted the a's and b's to 1's and 2's.
>
> > > Leibniz was interested in *computing* using binary representation;
> > > in that regard he deserves far more credit for his insight than does
> > > Bacon for his binary encoding of characters.
>
> > YOU don't know what you're talking about because you've read Leibniz
> > but you haven't read Bacon.
>
> No, you don't know what you're talking about; how could you, since
> you attempt to deduce my reading matter from your own ignorance?
My deduction is based on the fact that someone who understands the
fundamentals of computing as you claim to do should have not missed
the analogy between Bacon's insights about the nature of
cogitation--thinking--and the process of computing.
Leibniz saw it. You missed it.
> In
> fact, I've read Bacon with far more attention than I've accorded
> Leibniz.
>Apparently you got stalled on Bacon's bi*lit*eral code.
It's the biliteral cypher and the binary code.
I haven't had time to write Dr. Kathman a thank you note for parsing
his
his explanation to me of the bi*lit*eral cypher in the style of dog
training commands.
> Bacon certainly deserves full credit for the biliteral (not
> bilateral) cipher, which amounts to a binary encoding of characters;
> however, that's a comparatively trivial insight compared to Leibiz's
> insight concerning the possibliity of computation.
See what I mean?
>Leibniz did not > steal *that* from anyone.
You haven't read Leibniz' paper on the binary code either.
> > Leibnitz I mean Leibnizzzz picked up on Bacon's binary code along
> > with Bacon's suggestion that the Chinese ideogram might be a cure for
> > the ambiguity that makes words unstable in the thinking process.
> > Leibniz then reduced Bacon's understanding that words were not
> > necessary to the thought process, that we could think in 'forms,' to
> > mere computation.
>
> You evidently do not understand even the rudiments of the computer
> you are using if you can trivialize Leibniz's realizations in that way.
I'm not talking about the computer per se. I'm talking about Bacon's
anti-artistotelian understanding that cogitation--thinking--isn't
dependent upon words.
That was Bacon's breakthrough that Leibniz reduced to mere
computation.
> > I read Leibniz' interminable paper on the binary code and the I Ching
> > before I read Bacon. Leibniz did not discover the binary code
>
> I never said that he did.
>
> > in the
> > I Ching. He already had it and appeared to be looking to see if it was
> > in I Ching. I think Leibnitz wanted to obscure the fact that he
> > swiped it from Bacon.
>
> You "think" lots of things for which there is no justification.
I think you don't know what Leibnitz owes to Bacon.
> [...]
> > > > There are cyphers in the plays and frontispieces, embellished letters
> > > > and headpieces. Bacon left a simple cypher under the Sonnets
> > > > dedication. Penn Leary discovered it. It was written in Bacon's
> > > > favorite +4 Caesar.
> > > >
> > > > I don't think that Penn Leary discovered any other cyphers because the
> > > > program that he wrote to find cyphers throughout the plays is the same
> > > > defective program the so-called 'Bible Code' uses.
>
> > > As usual, you haven't the remotest idea what you're talking about
> > > here, although that circumstance has never impeded your unsupported
> > > speculations before.
>
> > You snipped my remarks so I'll repost them with my replies:
> >
> > 1. I said: "There are cyphers in the plays and frontispieces,
> > embellished letters and headpieces."
>
> And you furnished no credible evidence for the presence of "cyphers
> in the plays and frontispieces," etc.
I'm going to post on 'the other paper trail.'
> > Cyphers are a distraction but until serious scholarship on Bacon
> > resumes--and it will resume because the best Strats will not go over
> > to the Oxfordian side when Shakespeare is debunked--we are left to
> > amuse ourselves with cyphers.
>
> And it is *most* amusing indeed!
> > There aren't very many.
>
> I haven't seen *any* that would pass muster.
Start with the +4 Caesar cypher above. Debunk that.
> > Bacon left his name and that of his friend Tobey [Tobie] Matthews in
> > the capital letters of the first lines in The Tempest. The
> > embellished B in 'bote-swain' in the First Folio Tempest spells'
> > 'Francis Bacon' in the design. Some of the headpieces have two
> > rabbits back to back which is a visual pun for 'back coney' or
> > 'Baconi,' Bacon's name in Latin. Bacon used Baconi to sign his Latin
> > works.
> >
> > That sort of thing.
>
> Proof? What's the statistical demonstration that this isn't just
> Neuendorfferian noise? You do realize that you have to *prove* things,
> don't you? It isn't enough just to assert your fond fantasies as fact.
Art ignorant of what thou art.naught knowing
T Then Prospero,Mafter of a full poore cell,
A And thy no greater Father.
Mira. More to know
D Did neuer medle with my thoughts.
ProS.'Tis time
I I fhould informe thee farther:Lend thy hand
A And plucke my Magick garment from me: So,
L Lye there my Art:wipe thou thine eyes,haue comfort,
THE The direfull fpectacle of the wracke which touch'd
T The very vertue of compaffion in thee:
I I haue with fuch prouifion in mine Art
S So fafely ordered,that there is no foule
N No not fo much perdition as an hayre
B Betid to any creature in the veffell
W Which thou heardft cry, which thou faw'ft finke:Sit
F For thou muft now know farther. [downe,
Mira. You haue often
B Begun to tell me what I am, but ftopt
A And left me to a booteleffe Inquifition,
CON Concluding,ftay:not yet.
ProS. The howr's now come
T The very minute byds thee ope thine eare,
OBEY Obey,and be attentiue. Canft thou remember
A time before we came vnto this Cell?
SIT THE DIAL AT NBW, F. BACON, TOBEY.
I'll try to find the embellished B with Francis Bacon in the design.
I found a picture of the nice man Terry Ross has been demonizing:
<http://home.att.net/~tleary/GIFS/TL43.JPG>
Here's the BACK CONEY headpiece for 'Shakes-speares Sonnets.' The
headpiece also feature's Bacon's
veiled sun I wrote about in the emeph post. The emeph veiled son
is the same as the Masonic feathered and veiled Sun in Splendor in the
17th c. meeting place
of the Masons in Canonbury. All the 'Shakespeare' headpieces are
loaded with Baconian symbols.
I haven't seen a single thing on Shakespearean symbols in
Shakespeare's headpieces. I wonder why.
<http://www.sirbacon.org/links/sonnethp.jpg>
> > 2. "Bacon left a simple cypher under the Sonnets dedication. Penn
> > Leary discovered it. It was written in Bacon's favorite +4 Caesar."
> >
> > Leary did discovered [sic] Bacon's simple cypher in the Sonnets dedication.
> > All the following letters are meaningful.
> >
> > o o n y p i r c y p p h r s b e k a a n b a c o n
> > Bacon was interested in the work of Napier and Stevin and those
> > 'periods' are decimals between the words of the dedication.
> > I'm going to find out why the reference to Napier would have
> > significance to William Herbert. It might have something to do with
> > navigation.
> > Bekaan is phonetic for beacon, a Baconian symbol. The Duke of
> > Brunswick honors Bacon as a beacon of light in the top panel of the
> > frontispiece of the 'Cryptomenytices.'
> > See 'beacon' in my post yesterday on the 'Cryptomenytices;'
> > "Shakespeare Caught Taking a Payoff."
>
> I already did; it was hilarious! See my reply.
Laugh at this.
I predicted in a previous post that the decimals in the Sonnets
dedication would have some connection to navigation.
I just looked up Stevins and Napier. I was right. There is a
definite connection between the innovation of the use of decimals in
mathematics and 17th c. navigation. That ties Adventurer Mr. W. H. of
the Virginia Company to the decimals between the words of the 'outer
letter' of the Sonnets.
> > The 'Cryptomenytices' has been ignored for four centuries because it
> > spells out 'Shakespeare was on the take.'
> > Not any more. Some Baconians have just set up a new website to
> > publish the 'Cryptomenytices' and neglected Baconian works.
>
> More power to them! Durning-Lawrence is one of the funniest things
> I've ever read.
Strats don't have a draft page from Henry IV in Shakespeare's
handwriting. Baconians have records from the Madrid archive, a draft
page from Henry IV found in the binder's waste of an Elizabethan book,
Bacon's own notebooks with lines from the plays, the Northumberland
manuscript and letters left by Bacon, his mother, his friends and
relatives attesting to his authorship [and his bastardy]. There are
2000 books from Bacon's library with marginalia that has *never* been
analysed. Anthony Bacon's 300 cyphered letters at Lambeth House are
awaiting decyphering.
In 1910 a Baconian, fooling around with a 'sample' cypher table in the
'Cryptomenytices'--something Brunswick had inserted as an example of
its type--applied it to the First Folio and came up with BACONE on his
second try. He didn't get OXFORD or SHAKESPEARE. Bacone is Bacon's
name in Latin on the title page of the Novum Organum and his other
Latin works.
http://www.sirbacon.org/scripta.gif
> > The eccentric spelling of beacon in Leary's cypher is Bacon's
> > signature. Those who saw it would know that Bacon repeatedly
> > advocated the use of eccentric and phonetic spellings in cyphers
> > because it made it difficult for decrypters to break the codes. It's
> > like 'hello, I did this cypher," signed, Francis Bacon.
> > Also Paul Depuey has a well-cited page arguing that we should not be
> > surprised to find cyphers in anything Bacon published.
> > http://fly.hiwaay.net/~paul/cryptology/history.html
> >
> > 3. I said: "I don't think that Penn Leary discovered any other
> > cyphers.
> >
> > Why are you misinterpreting my statement? I think Leary discovered
> > Bacon's simple +4 Caesar but I don't think Leary found anything else.
>
> I don't even think that Leary found *that*, and I won't until I see
> some convincing quantitative evidence, not the ravings of Baconian
> cryptographic cranks. You do realize that you have to *prove* things,
> don't you? It isn't enough just to assert you fond fantasies as fact.
I posted it. It's simple. Debunk it.
> > 4. ". . .because the program that he wrote to find cyphers throughout
> > the plays is the same defective program the so-called 'Bible Code'
> > uses."
> >
> > My point was that the Bible Code and Leary's program have the same
> > output.
>
> No, they don't. In the first place, Rips has repudiated many of
> Drosnin's farcical claims; although Drosnin may attribute the ideas to
> Rips in order to capitalize upon Rips's scientific reputation, Rips
> wants no part of much of it. In the second place, the work of Rips
> that best withstands scrutiny has no parallel in Leary. But since
> you've never even read the papers in question, how would you know that?
I'm going to admit that I thought that Rips was looking for a code in
the Samarian Torah. Bereshit. Then I realized that he was not
looking for a code but for internal consistency--elegance--in the
Hebrew Torah compared to the Samarian Torah. I don't want to get into
the explanation but I will say that Islamic scholars have jumped in
on the side of the Samarians.
> > The Bible Code would also produce 'whore of babylon' and 'mark of the
> > beast' in Shakespeare proving John of Patmos wrote the plays.
>
> Proof?
WHAT? It was turned on 'Moby Dick' and got the same list of words as
the ones found in the Bible. I thought everybody knew that.
> > What
> > they put on the list is what they get. Leary's program works the same
> > way and let's not mince words about mathematics.
>
> Who's "mincing words"? You haven't said *anything* credible about
> mathematics, nor have you displayed any familiarity with the subject.
> > 5. I said: "Terry Ross wrote a saracastic and mean-spirited article
> > debunking Leary's program. I thought Ross was unscholarly. Penn Leary
> > is a nice man."
> >
> > Nothing to apologize for there.
>
> If one calls someone else "unscholarly," one had better be prepared
> to enumerate *specific* factual or methodological errors. Otherwise,
> one merely looks like an idiot who has no notion whatever what
> scholarship is.
I meant that the tone of seething ridicule Ross used in his paper is
not acceptable in academic papers. Maybe Ross isn't an academic.
It's hard to know. I haven't seen Price's credentials. Or Dooleys.
Or Art's for that matter. You and Kathman have blazoned them about.
[snip]
> > > I remember translating a very early Russian
> > > samizdat version of the very first Rips paper on the subject (evidently
> > > produced on a defective Cyrillic typewriter, with much of the Hebrew
> > > text written out in longhand) from Russian to English for a colleague
> > > back around 1985, while the Soviet Union was still in existence,
>
> > You've read Chekov.
>
> Yes, but what on earth has Chekhov to do with this?
The style of the paragraph reminded me of Chekov. Maybe it's your
19th century
writing style. Not that it's bad.
> > > and, while I didn't bother to check that the versions of the Hebrew and
> > > Samaritan texts of _Genesis_ that he used were accurate, I certainly
> > > found no mathematical mistakes.
>
> > Samaritan Torah? You have a beam in your eye to use a biblical
> > maxim. You went to the trouble of translating Rips' paper and you
> > weren't curious *why* Rips was looking for codes in the
> > Samarian [sic] *and* Hebrew Torahs [sic]?
>
> Why should I care? I was merely doing a favor for a friend and
> colleague. I'm not sure why the use of both "the Samarian [sic]
Samaritans Or Samarians?
The Encyclopaedia Judaica:
"Little guidance is obtained from the name of the Samaritans. The
Bible uses the name Shomronim once, in II Kings 17:29, but this
probably means Samarians rather than Samaritans. The Samaritans
themselves do not use the name at all; they have long called
themselves Shamerin ; i.e., "keepers" or "observers" of the truth =
al ha-amet, both the short and long forms being in constant use in
their chronicles. They take the name Shomronim to mean in habitants of
the town of Samaria built by Omri (cf. I Kings 16:24), where the
probable origin of the word Shomronim is to be found).[8]"
As far as I know scholars use the term 'Samarians.'
*and*
> Hebrew Torahs [sic]"
What was that [sic] for?
> sends you into such paroxysms,
That's not very Chekovian.
> but the use of both
> was definitely necessary. In fact Rips's main point in the paper was
> *not* that there is a "code" in the Bible, certainly *not* that one can
> predict things like Rabin's assassination thereby,
I now understand what Rips was looking for. Let's drop it.
> but merely that
> meaningful Hebrew words occur in equidistant letter sequences in the
> Hebrew version of _Breishit_ with strikingly greater frequency than in
> the Samaritan version of_Breishit_, and that the effect he observes is
> statistically significant.
> > [It's better than the Masons
> > and Shakespeare].
>
> But not as funny.
The Samarians have been reduced by centuries of genocide to a
population of about 600. It's pretty tragic, actually.
[snip]
> > No errors were made by Gestapo bookkeepers.
>
> What *on earth* are you gibbering about? Certainly the Gestapo made
> clerical errors.
It was a metaphor.
> > There are many
> > insane things proven by perfect math.
>
> What *on earth* are you gibbering about?
>
> > Bacon warned us about math.
> > Read last year's NYT series on the hallucinatory, yet mathematically
> > secure, state of particle physics.
>
> If you think that particle physics is "mathematically secure," then
> you know next to nothing about either mathematics or particle physics
> -- not at all a surprising state of affairs if your source is merely
> popular newspaper accounts.
The NYTimes is not 'merely a popular newspaper.'
> Indeed, one of the major open problems in
> contemporary mathematics is the task of putting on a rigorous
> mathematical foundation various quantum field theories used by
> physicists for heuristic calculations of great interest; it is clear
> that the physicists are onto something important, but it is far from
> clear how to make mathematical sense of it.
I believe in aether theory. I'm not sympathetic.
[snip]
I used the Bible code only as a *comparison* and you chose to
misinterpret my meaning so you could have an opportunity to impress
Neuendorffer with the fact that you can translate Russian and Hebrew.
That's how we got into this dismal discussion. You refused to take my
comparison as a comparison.
> In any case, if one has any hope whatever of proving the presence of
> concealed messages in the works of Shakespeare, the claim will stand or
> fall based upon mathematical/statistical analysis -- I think that even
> nutcase Baconians have long since given up on finding a true cipher
> that would meet the exacting standards of cryptologists as enumerated
> by the Friedmans. Thus what you airily dismiss as "mathematical
> niceties" are the very heart of the matter.
I think the problem with the Friedman analysis is that the Friedman's
didn't bone up on Elizabethan cyphers. Some popular Elizabethan
cyphers, like book cyphers, don't respond to mathematical analysis.
I haven't studied Elizabethan cyphers but they seemed to rely on the
Roman system of sending some key ahead with the spy.
> Finally, as for my choosing to "attack [you] on a level [I] knew
> [you] couldn't refute--mathematical niceties," that's a groundless
> charge. You cannot refute at *any* level something you have not even
> read, so I could have chosen *any* level, mathematical or otherwise,
> and you would still have made a fool of yourself. (It always
> astonishes me how eager most anti-Stratfordians are to bring up -- and
> then to argue vociferously and fatuously about -- topics of which they
> are *completely ignorant*.)
>
> [Crackpot cryptography deleted]
>
> > Since your guy Rips is guilty of the same thing your post is looking
> > pretty silly at this point.
>
> Since you haven't even *read* Rips and are relying instead upon the
> gross distortions of Drosnin even for the paucity of (mis)information
> at your disposal, your post is looking utterly imbecilic at this point.
> Rips is not "my guy" -- I am not a philosophical follower of Rips, nor
> do I subscribe to the idea that he or anyone else has found "codes" in
> the Bible. I have merely pointed out that Rips was actually smart
> enough to realize that he needed to employ statistical methodology to
> make his case, something that few if any Baconian ciphermongers seem to
> have realized.
I don't like Rips 'case' and I don't care what kind of statistical
analysis he used to prove it.
> Moreover, refutation of the work of Rips and his
> collaborators required at least *some* effort, unlike the refutation of
> the nutcase nonsense of Baconians, most of whom are far too clueless to
> use quantitative methods.
At least the Baconians are pure in heart.
Freemasonry bores me but I will be posting some frontispieces that
support the fact that the Freemason's had control of 'Shakespeare's'
works after 1626. I don't think that it was a conspiracy. It was
Bacon's relatives--who happened to be Masons--that carried out his
posthumous instructions to advance the English Enlightenment.
>
> > Art is closer to it than you and Kathman are.
>
> > > > Kathman and Webb have been abusing Neuendorffer over this cryptogram
> > > > for moths [sic]
>
> > > I can't recall Kathman having said anything specific about Art's
> > > "cryptograms" for nearly two years. Can you produce a quotation? Dave
> > > Kathman has wisely been ignoring Art and his deluded "decipherments"
> > > for ages, a circumstance that Art himself has even groused about on
> > > occasion (comedians thrive upon audience attention and adulation). Art
> > > would be a complete waste of time were it not that his posts are so
> > > funny.
>
> > I thought that the thread that you and Kathman had going that
> > ridiculed people in this forum was in bad taste.
>
> Kathman didn't say *anything* about Art in that thread that I saw,
> other than that Art was providing me with amusement and that I had
> patience with his games.
You missed Kathman's gratuitous insult to Art in the 'moth' post.
> Those statements are both true and neutral.
No, they're not. See the 'moth' post.
> As for "ridiculing," if anyone appeared foolish in that thread, it was
> not Art, but rather Ken Kaplan, who accused Dave Kathman of dishonesty
> and selectivity in quoting Dryden when, as soon became quite apparent,
> Ken himself knew next to nothing about Dryden and had not read even the
> essay in question, let alone Dryden's many reverential encomiums
> concerning Shakespeare's genius. As for ridicule, I thought that I was
> actually rather restrained in dismantling Ken's nonsense, as I respect
> him and believe him to be sincere but misguided. However, despite
> Ken's cautionary example, you seem quite determined to follow in Ken's
> footsteps by making more and more blatantly erroneous assertions about
> texts you have not even read and things you know nothing about.
La lala la laaaa.
> > > > and they are going to wish they could take their posts down
> > > > after they understand what it is.
>
> > > Are you trying to outdo Art as funniest h.l.a.s. comedian?
>
> > I think you and Kathman are being obtuse.
>
> You also "think" that Russell won the Literature Nobel because there
> is no mathematics prize,
Yes, I do. Russell got the Sympathy Award for his popularized work on
Everybody Else's philosophy.
> that Rips is responsible for the nonsense of
> Drosnin that Rips himself has repudiated,
> and lots of other
> demosntrably erroneous rubbish, so I'm not going to lose much sleep
> over what you "think" about Kathman and me; I doubt that Dave Kathman
> will either.
>
> > > > The only thing I'm not clear on is who discovered the pheon.
> > > > Neuendorffer?
>
> > > Of course not. Terry Ross discovered it, in the course of refuting
> > > John Rollett's unintentionally amusing article on the Oxfordian
> > > "cipher" embedded in the Sonnets' dedication. Although Terry doesn't
> > > mention it specifically in the posts below, you can refer to
>
> > I've seen it. It's flawed.
>
> Indeed. Still, "These sonnets all by ever" is more impressive than
> "BEEAHCEEAN."
>
> [...]
> > I resent being used as a conduit for your ridicule of Art.
>
> You're not. Art is very intelligent -- in my view, for too
> intelligent to be serious about the stuff he posts (web pages railing
> about space aliens, etc.). I haven't decided yet whether you're joking
> as well. I certainly hope so.
>
> David Webb
How patronizing. Woof.
Elizabeth Weir
I didn't come into this forum to discuss the Bible Code. I have
contempt for it and contempt for what I perceive are Rips' motives for
looking for 'regularity' in word sequences in the Hebrew Torah versus
'irregularity' in the Samarian Torah. I do know something about that
subject and I am not naive about its political implications.
I'm not interested in discussing it in this forum.
When my Dartmouth account is inaccessible I use Google.
john_baker
Weir) wrote:
.]
>
>> > I resent being used as a conduit for your ridicule of Art.
>>
>> You're not. Art is very intelligent -- in my view, for too
>> intelligent to be serious about the stuff he posts (web pages railing
>> about space aliens, etc.). I haven't decided yet whether you're joking
>> as well. I certainly hope so.
>>
>> David Webb
>
>How patronizing. Woof.
Great reply. Don't forget I'm standing in your line...lets make sure
that Webb statys behind me....
Peter Farey
>
> Anthony Bacon's 300 cyphered letters at Lambeth House are
> awaiting decyphering.
Where on earth did you hear this?
A huge collection of Anthony Bacon's correspondence up to
around 1598 is housed in the archives of Lambeth Palace
Library (MSS. 647-662). The papers are bound in sixteen
volumes, each of which contains several hundred items.
In 1995, I went through these papers, looking for letters in
numerical code which A.D. Wraight had asked for my help in
decoding. I managed to find six, which were from Bacon's agent
in Spain, Anthony Rolston. These were:
MS.656 f.109 (26 February 1595/6)
MS.656 f.326 (7 March 1595/6)
MS.656 f.328 (27 March 1596)
MS.656 f.202 (10 April 1596)
MS.657 f.64 (9 May 1596)
MS.657 f.67 (24 May 1596)
They were all in a simple substitution code, which my son in
fact managed to crack quite easily. Only after I had decoded
all six, however, could I recognize that the files also
contained plaintext versions of three of them! All six mainly
concerned only the latest news from Spain, especially the
building of a Spanish fleet of ships not far from Fuenterrabia,
where all the letters were written.
Apart from this, I came across only another two or three
letters in a different code (I think from another agent,
Anthony Standen) using symbols rather than numbers, and which
I didn't try to decode. The references are in my notes
somewhere, but would take too much digging out for the moment.
So where are these 300 letters of which you speak?
Peter F.
pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk
http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm
Elizabeth Weir
> Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> >
> > Anthony Bacon's 300 cyphered letters at Lambeth House are
> > awaiting decyphering.
>
> Where on earth did you hear this?
On a Baconian page. I don't take anything on a Baconian page at
face value. I reasoned that since Anthony Bacon's letters are
part of a voluminous record of correspondence associated with
Essex, 300 encrypted letters was not unreasonable. I don't know
if Bacon's Essex letters are kept at Lambeth House or elsewhere.
> A huge collection of Anthony Bacon's correspondence up to
> around 1598 is housed in the archives of Lambeth Palace
> Library (MSS. 647-662). The papers are bound in sixteen
> volumes, each of which contains several hundred items.
Anthony Bacon was loyal to the end so there might be some
written after 1598.
> In 1995, I went through these papers, looking for letters in
> numerical code which A.D. Wraight had asked for my help in
> decoding. I managed to find six, which were from Bacon's agent
> in Spain, Anthony Rolston. These were:
>
> MS.656 f.109 (26 February 1595/6)
> MS.656 f.326 (7 March 1595/6)
> MS.656 f.328 (27 March 1596)
> MS.656 f.202 (10 April 1596)
> MS.657 f.64 (9 May 1596)
> MS.657 f.67 (24 May 1596)
>
I've read your website. I think you're a fine researcher.
> They were all in a simple substitution code, which my son in
> fact managed to crack quite easily. Only after I had decoded
> all six, however, could I recognize that the files also
> contained plaintext versions of three of them! All six mainly
> concerned only the latest news from Spain, especially the
> building of a Spanish fleet of ships not far from Fuenterrabia,
> where all the letters were written.
My only thought is that Anthony Bacon must have used other codes.
I thought the books in the trunk might be used for a 'book code' and
at the time I was thinking about e-mailing you to ask if you had
tried to apply the list of books and expenditures to the text of
the books in the trunk. Book codes are hard to break. It occurred to
me that if a spy were in a hurry he could conceal the code in a receipt
and send them along with the books.
I don't know if all the books on the list are still in print all these
centuries later.
> Apart from this, I came across only another two or three
> letters in a different code (I think from another agent,
> Anthony Standen) using symbols rather than numbers, and which
> I didn't try to decode. The references are in my notes
> somewhere, but would take too much digging out for the moment.
> So where are these 300 letters of which you speak?
I just got a hundred hits by keying in Anthony Bacon Lambeth House.
I'll go through them tonight and get back to you. I did pick up one
interesting reference in my first look. Sir Nicholas Bacon is believed
to have been born in a house belonging to the parents of Sir Francis
Walsingham. I'm always amazed at how intereconnected these people were.
David Kathman
>
> Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> >
> > Anthony Bacon's 300 cyphered letters at Lambeth House are
> > awaiting decyphering.
>
> Where on earth did you hear this?
From the voices in her head, no doubt.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Peter Farey
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> > >
> > > Anthony Bacon's 300 cyphered letters at Lambeth House are
> > > awaiting decyphering.
> >
> > Where on earth did you hear this?
>
> On a Baconian page. I don't take anything on a Baconian page at
> face value. I reasoned that since Anthony Bacon's letters are
> part of a voluminous record of correspondence associated with
> Essex, 300 encrypted letters was not unreasonable.
It is, however, wrong as far as this particular correspondence
is concerned.
> I don't know
> if Bacon's Essex letters are kept at Lambeth House or elsewhere.
I don't know of anywhere called Lambeth House that might
contain such records. These are held in the library of Lambeth
Palace, home of the Archbishop of Canterbury, having come via
a former holder of that office, Archbishop Tenison.
> > A huge collection of Anthony Bacon's correspondence up to
> > around 1598 is housed in the archives of Lambeth Palace
> > Library (MSS. 647-662). The papers are bound in sixteen
> > volumes, each of which contains several hundred items.
>
> Anthony Bacon was loyal to the end so there might be some
> written after 1598.
I am sure that many historians would give their eye-teeth to
find a collection covering his last few years. Unfortunately,
for whatever reason, no such collection exists. There may be
odd items in some of the other collections (at the British
Library for example) but nothing to compare with the Lambeth
Palace papers.
<snip>
> My only thought is that Anthony Bacon must have used other codes.
> I thought the books in the trunk might be used for a 'book code' and
> at the time I was thinking about e-mailing you to ask if you had
> tried to apply the list of books and expenditures to the text of
> the books in the trunk. Book codes are hard to break. It occurred to
> me that if a spy were in a hurry he could conceal the code in a receipt
> and send them along with the books.
Among the contents of the trunk was a *Clavis steganographia*,
or code-book. It seems not unlikely that it contained the key
to the code used by Rolston, and possibly Standen's too. Beyond
that, I don't really follow what you are talking about.
Despite my having accidentally stumbled on a second meaning
concealed in the Stratford monument, hidden codes and ciphers
are not something that I go out of my way to look for.
> I don't know if all the books on the list are still in print
> all these centuries later.
There are copies of nearly all of them in the British Library.
> > Apart from this, I came across only another two or three
> > letters in a different code (I think from another agent,
> > Anthony Standen) using symbols rather than numbers, and which
> > I didn't try to decode. The references are in my notes
> > somewhere, but would take too much digging out for the moment.
>
> > So where are these 300 letters of which you speak?
>
> I just got a hundred hits by keying in Anthony Bacon Lambeth House.
> I'll go through them tonight and get back to you.
As I said, the main collection is at Lambeth Palace.
> I did pick up one
> interesting reference in my first look. Sir Nicholas Bacon is believed
> to have been born in a house belonging to the parents of Sir Francis
> Walsingham. I'm always amazed at how intereconnected these people were.
He was also Lord Burghley's brother-in-Law, but that didn't
seem to do either of the Bacon boys much good!
John W. Kennedy
>
> "David L. Webb" <David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote in message news:<240620012151146306%David....@Dartmouth.edu>...
> > one of his predecessors in these investigations!
> I didn't come into this forum to discuss the Bible Code. I have
> contempt for it and contempt for what I perceive are Rips' motives for
> looking for 'regularity' in word sequences in the Hebrew Torah versus
> 'irregularity' in the Samarian Torah. I do know something about that
> subject and I am not naive about its political implications.
> I'm not interested in discussing it in this forum.
I don't think anyone here but you is interested in refighting a civil
war that happened nearly 3,000 years ago.
--
John W. Kennedy
(Working from my laptop)
john_baker
Another tasteless remark from Kathman...as I've pointed out elsewhere
it doesn't much matter where a solution to this problem comes from.
She's already told us where she picked up on this...and its nice to
have Peter correct her...and as you know I've been through the same
materials myself and supposed when I read the post it was just an
inflated claim relating to this collection...often happens...I'm sure
Ms. Weir will get her facts and ducks in a row before she
publishes...meanwhile try to refrain from kicking threaders when they
are down, Dave, t's in bad taste and politically incorrect to boot...a
small pun on storm trouper tactics intended.
Another tasteless remark from Kathman...as I've pointed out elsewhere
it doesn't much matter where a solution to this problem comes from.
Another tasteless remark from Kathman...as I've pointed out elsewhere
it doesn't much matter where a solution to this problem comes from.
She's already told us where she picked up on this...and its nice to
have Peter correct her...and as you know I've been through the same
materials myself and supposed when I read the post it was just an
inflated claim relating to this collection...often happens...I'm sure
Ms. Weir will get her facts and ducks in a row before she
publishes...meanwhile try to refrain from kicking threaders when they
are down....it's in bad taste and politically incorrect to boot...a
small pun on storm trouper tactics intended.
Suppose your were on her PhD committee..??..you promised to be fair
with me.....it is possible for real scholars to disagree not simply
over facts but conclusions from them as well...or at least this seems
the basic teaching of the history of ideas.
Elizabeth Weir
> Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> >
> > Peter Farey wrote:
> > >
> > > Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Anthony Bacon's 300 cyphered letters at Lambeth House are
> > > > awaiting decyphering.
> > >
> > > Where on earth did you hear this?
> >
> > On a Baconian page. I don't take anything on a Baconian page at
> > face value. I reasoned that since Anthony Bacon's letters are
> > part of a voluminous record of correspondence associated with
> > Essex, 300 encrypted letters was not unreasonable.
>
> It is, however, wrong as far as this particular correspondence
> is concerned.
>
> > I don't know
> > if Bacon's Essex letters are kept at Lambeth House or elsewhere.
>
> I don't know of anywhere called Lambeth House that might
> contain such records. These are held in the library of Lambeth
> Palace, home of the Archbishop of Canterbury, having come via
> a former holder of that office, Archbishop Tenison.
Palace. Sorry.
>
> > > A huge collection of Anthony Bacon's correspondence up to
> > > around 1598 is housed in the archives of Lambeth Palace
> > > Library (MSS. 647-662). The papers are bound in sixteen
> > > volumes, each of which contains several hundred items.
> >
> > Anthony Bacon was loyal to the end so there might be some
> > written after 1598.
>
> I am sure that many historians would give their eye-teeth to
> find a collection covering his last few years. Unfortunately,
> for whatever reason, no such collection exists. There may be
> odd items in some of the other collections (at the British
> Library for example) but nothing to compare with the Lambeth
> Palace papers.
>
> <snip>
>
> > My only thought is that Anthony Bacon must have used other codes.
> > I thought the books in the trunk might be used for a 'book code' and
> > at the time I was thinking about e-mailing you to ask if you had
> > tried to apply the list of books and expenditures to the text of
> > the books in the trunk. Book codes are hard to break. It occurred to
> > me that if a spy were in a hurry he could conceal the code in a receipt
> > and send them along with the books.
>
> Among the contents of the trunk was a *Clavis steganographia*,
> or code-book. It seems not unlikely that it contained the key
> to the code used by Rolston, and possibly Standen's too. Beyond
> that, I don't really follow what you are talking about.
I was referring to the itemized bill for the books that was found
IIRC in the trunk along with some of the books listed on the bill.
When I was reading your page it went through my mind that the bill
itself might be a key to a book code. If a spy 'were in a hurry'
he would not have time to send the cypher separately so it might
be concealed as an innocuous-looking bill.
> Despite my having accidentally stumbled on a second meaning
> concealed in the Stratford monument, hidden codes and ciphers
> are not something that I go out of my way to look for.
>
> > I don't know if all the books on the list are still in print
> > all these centuries later.
>
> There are copies of nearly all of them in the British Library.
>
> > > Apart from this, I came across only another two or three
> > > letters in a different code (I think from another agent,
> > > Anthony Standen) using symbols rather than numbers, and which
> > > I didn't try to decode. The references are in my notes
> > > somewhere, but would take too much digging out for the moment.
>
> > > So where are these 300 letters of which you speak?
> >
> > I just got a hundred hits by keying in Anthony Bacon Lambeth House.
> > I'll go through them tonight and get back to you.
>
> As I said, the main collection is at Lambeth Palace.
>
> > I did pick up one
> > interesting reference in my first look. Sir Nicholas Bacon is believed
> > to have been born in a house belonging to the parents of Sir Francis
> > Walsingham. I'm always amazed at how intereconnected these people were.
>
> He was also Lord Burghley's brother-in-Law, but that didn't
> seem to do either of the Bacon boys much good!
Ir worked out. Francis Bacon had a painful life but if his political
ambitions had been fulfilled he would have otherwise wasted his time
being Marcus Aurelius instead of creating our republican utopia.
Jefferson gives 'The New Atlantis' full credit for his own vision.
Bacon is not recognized in America as our original founding
father--his brief for the case of the Post-nati is the source of our
dual constitution. Some legal scholars acknowledge it.
Bob Grumman
> >
> >From the voices in her head, no doubt.
> >
Hey, at least he had the voices in her head--which is not the
part of her anatomy that I think she's hearing them from.
Boorish Bob
Elizabeth Weir
What is it that you found in "I'm not interested in discussing it in
this forum" that lead you to conclude that I am "interested in
refighting a civil war that happened nearly 3,000 years ago?"
john_baker
wrote:
good point, Bob, take a gander at my webpage on the
Sanders Portrait...I've just post an engraving of Fletcher...
go to the bottom of the page and let me know what
you think.
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe/portrait.htm
thanks
Bob Grumman
than the latter resembles Shakespeare. But lots of
portraits resemble each other. We need more data.
--Bob G.
john_baker
wrote:
>The engraving sort of resembles the portrait. More
I thought so too, obviously.
Let's assume Fletcher sat for the portrait and that the artist knew
him...but didn't name him...I collect portraits...oil portraits and
NONE of them have the sitter's name on the verso!
I'm the one, i.e., the owner of the portrait, who has to write the
name of the sitter on the verso...and I do...
Both people know what's going on so why put the name on the back...?
So the name gets added later.
Now the later is so much later the artist is dead or gone off, but the
oral tradition is that this was the playwright at the Globe or for the
King's Men...and at this point the name Shakespeare, rather than
Fletcher's gets attached....
baker
I left you a message (this a.m.) on another subject on "our" header on
corroborative evidence...I had missed your last jolt....
John W. Kennedy
Sure, sure. Vague accusations of hidden agendas, but you're not
actually _interested_. Yeah. Right....
Bob Grumman
Sure, anything's possible.
--Bob G.
David Kathman
>
> On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 18:33:34 -0600, David Kathman
> <dj...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >Peter Farey wrote:
> >>
> >> Elizabeth Weir wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Anthony Bacon's 300 cyphered letters at Lambeth House are
> >> > awaiting decyphering.
> >>
> >> Where on earth did you hear this?
> >
> >From the voices in her head, no doubt.
> >
> >Dave Kathman
> >dj...@ix.netcom.com
>
> Another tasteless remark from Kathman...as I've pointed out elsewhere
> it doesn't much matter where a solution to this problem comes from.
>
> She's already told us where she picked up on this...and its nice to
> have Peter correct her...and as you know I've been through the same
> materials myself and supposed when I read the post it was just an
> inflated claim relating to this collection...often happens...I'm sure
> Ms. Weir will get her facts and ducks in a row before she
> publishes...meanwhile try to refrain from kicking threaders when they
> are down, Dave, t's in bad taste and politically incorrect to boot...a
> small pun on storm trouper tactics intended.
Huh? I'm not sure where the "pun" on "storm trouper tactics"
is supposed to be. As usual, you're making very little sense.
> Another tasteless remark from Kathman...as I've pointed out elsewhere
> it doesn't much matter where a solution to this problem comes from.
>
> Another tasteless remark from Kathman...as I've pointed out elsewhere
> it doesn't much matter where a solution to this problem comes from.
>
> She's already told us where she picked up on this...and its nice to
> have Peter correct her...and as you know I've been through the same
> materials myself and supposed when I read the post it was just an
> inflated claim relating to this collection...often happens...I'm sure
> Ms. Weir will get her facts and ducks in a row before she
> publishes...meanwhile try to refrain from kicking threaders when they
> are down....it's in bad taste and politically incorrect to boot...a
> small pun on storm trouper tactics intended.
What's with all the repetition, Baker? Are the voices in
YOUR head repeating themselves? Have you got a broken record
up there? Or is this your multiple personalities coming out?
> Suppose your were on her PhD committee..??..you promised to be fair
> with me.....it is possible for real scholars to disagree not simply
> over facts but conclusions from them as well...or at least this seems
> the basic teaching of the history of ideas.
I can't imagine any set of circumstances under which I
would be on Elizabeth Weir's PhD committee, if only
because it's very hard for me to imagine any PhD
program admitting her. But let's suppose I found
myself in such a situation. If she handed me the
sort of laughable tripe she's been posting on this newsgroup,
I would certainly not find it acceptable, and I don't
think any academic with any intellectual standards
would either. She has repeatedly demonstrated her
farcical ignorance of many topics, including Elizabethan
literature, and she has shown no evidence of having
mastered even the basic rudiments of scholarly methods,
such as might be taught in a composition class for
college freshmen. David Webb has very patiently pointed
out many of her hilarious blunders and dubious reasoning,
and has shown far more patience than I think most
college instructors would have done if faced with such
stuff.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
john_baker
So your problem with her isn't her opinions but her lack
of...footnotes and style?
I thought this was a public forum...
somewhat more casual...come as you are kind of thing...
Suppose she typed it all up and footnoted it...could you
then deal with it?
And surely you must see her intelligence...even if you disagree
with her conclusions....
But in any case, thanks for taking the time to answer this..I've
written a reply to Chandler than doesn't say much about you...
so you might enjoy it...but then again I doubt it, since its not
nice to Stratfordianism....
off the record, why can't we all sit down to the table and toss the
ideas around without kicking each other in the shins?
Anti-Strats have a great love for this subject matter and for the
period and this should be a common ground.
But it would be a lot less fun.....meanwhile I hope your summer is
going well...
And I noticed that you fit Chandler's profile of the "gentleman
scholar" since you are now an independent...
Have you had a chance to take a look at the Fletcher/Sanders
scans on my web? What do you think?
Are there other paintings of Fletcher or is this one it? What's
its history?
baker
David Kathman
>
> On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 22:09:29 -0600, David Kathman
> <dj...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> David Webb has very patiently pointed
> >out many of her hilarious blunders and dubious reasoning,
> >and has shown far more patience than I think most
> >college instructors would have done if faced with such
> >stuff.
> >
> >Dave Kathman
> >dj...@ix.netcom.com
>
> So your problem with her isn't her opinions but her lack
> of...footnotes and style?
Uh... where did I ever say that? Can't you read
simple English prose? Even in the small fragment of
my post that you chose to excerpt, I mentioned her
"hilarious blunders and dubious reasoning", which goes
far beyond "footnotes and style". The "blunders" I'm
talking about are not trivia like misplaced commas,
which I couldn't care less about in this forum; they're
blunders of substance.
> I thought this was a public forum...
> somewhat more casual...come as you are kind of thing...
>
> Suppose she typed it all up and footnoted it...could you
> then deal with it?
Not if the ideas were the same half-baked ones.
What is it with antistratfordians and footnotes? You
seem to have this fixation with footnotes, and a
mistaken impression that the presence of footnotes
automatically transforms something into "scholarship".
That's a hilarious and ludicrously superficial notion.
Ogburn's book is full of footnotes (endnotes, actually),
but it's just as intellectually bankrupt as any other
antistratfordian work.
> And surely you must see her intelligence...even if you disagree
> with her conclusions....
I can only judge her on her posts in this newsgroup, so
I can't say much about her general intelligence. But
her posts show a distressing lack of *knowledge* of some
basic matters, and a distressing propensity for making
wild leaps of logic and practicing faulty reasoning.
Much like your own posts.
> But in any case, thanks for taking the time to answer this..I've
> written a reply to Chandler than doesn't say much about you...
> so you might enjoy it...but then again I doubt it, since its not
> nice to Stratfordianism....
I skimmed the beginning, but it doesn't look too interesting
to me. I can't read very much of your writing without
getting a headache.
> off the record, why can't we all sit down to the table and toss the
> ideas around without kicking each other in the shins?
>
> Anti-Strats have a great love for this subject matter and for the
> period and this should be a common ground.
I do have common ground with some antistratfordians, such as
Jerry Downs, with whom I've had some very enjoyable conversations.
I also had some enjoyable conversations with Diana and Pat
when I met them in person a few years ago. But my patience
for dealing with the same old discredited claims has been wearing
thin lately, and I've had very little interest in getting
involved in the spats going on in this newsgroup. That's probably
because I'm very busy with real scholarship, including a bunch
of DNB articles that I'm in the middle of writing.
> But it would be a lot less fun.....meanwhile I hope your summer is
> going well...
>
> And I noticed that you fit Chandler's profile of the "gentleman
> scholar" since you are now an independent...
If by "independent" you mean that I don't currently work
full-time in academia, you're correct. But as I just mentioned,
I'm very heavily involved in scholarly work, including the
aforementioned DNB articles, a book chapter for OUP, the
Variorum poems (on hold for the moment), a promised article
for Shakespeare Survey that I probably won't get done this year
like I'd hoped, and so on.
> Have you had a chance to take a look at the Fletcher/Sanders
> scans on my web? What do you think?
I think you're high. The engraving of Fletcher doesn't
look particularly like the Sanders portrait to me, except
to the extent that all portraits of the period have a certain
vague similarity.
> Are there other paintings of Fletcher or is this one it? What's
> its history?
It's not a painting of Fletcher, it's an engraving. Do you
understand the difference? This is the only picture of Fletcher
that's known. I'm not sure off the top of my head who engraved
it, but it might have been William Marshall, who engraved
several other portraits of the time, including that in the
1640 Shakespeare Poems. This engraving of Fletcher appeared
in the 1647 Beaumont and Fletcher folio, 22 years after Fletcher's
death.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
john_baker
I identified it as an engraving, it looks like an engraving...but it
could be pen and ink...in any case you know I know the difference...
if I were as precise in my writing as I should be I would have written
"are there any paintings of Flecher or is this engraving it..." but
that line would be longer than mine...
> This is the only picture of Fletcher
>that's known. I'm not sure off the top of my head who engraved
>it, but it might have been William Marshall, who engraved
>several other portraits of the time, including that in the
>1640 Shakespeare Poems. This engraving of Fletcher appeared
>in the 1647 Beaumont and Fletcher folio, 22 years after Fletcher's
>death.
I supposed this, but my source is in a collection of plays....and like
you I don't know of any other paintings or engravings....
Now back to Weir and footnotes...taking a mind like hers, with the
interest it has in this subject and directing it along the lines of a
Ph.D. would, I think, be worth the ride. You would be able to
point out areas where she should be better read and you
might even be able to cut her jumps down to size...but the question
is...could you handle her supposition that all your conclusions about
the facts are wrong and that her's are right?
She sees, ever so clearly, a huge mind and an equally huge education
and dilatory time frame behind these marvelous works, while you do
not. Can you live with that?
John
ps. Sorry about the headaches ...I have the same problem with your
posts...and I liked talking
with Jerry Downs myself...I'm sure Weir would be just as much fun...in
fact I liked all the Oxfordians at the conference and wish you had
been there too...we could have buttonholed
Roger and Wright....
Neuendorffer
> Have you had a chance to take a look at the Fletcher/Sanders
> scans on my web? What do you think?
> http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe
>
> Are there other paintings of Fletcher or is this one it?
---------------------------------------------------------
_Shakespeare, a life_ by Honan.
<<One work [Shakespeare] wrote with Fletcher, the missing _Cardenio_,
we know only a little about. This play was acted at court during
the winter revels of 1612-13 and again on 8 June 1613. Forty
years later Humphrey Moseley, who by then had acquired some of the
troupe's scripts, registered a drama called _The History of Cardenio,
by Mr. Fletcher & Shakespeare_. Much later, in 1728, Lewis Theobald
published his play _Double Falshood_ - based on the romatic fable of
Cardeio in _Don Quixote_ - and described that as 'Written Originally
by W. SHAKESPEARE; And now Revised and Adapted to the Stage By
Mr.THEOBALD'. Is the old Jacobean play at all evident in _Falshood_? If
so, the old play may have featured a duke's anxiety over the worth of
his two sons, a subplot, and a seduction scene - material ripe for
Fletcher, perhaps. But it is hard to find Fletcher's famous collaborator
in _Falshood_ except that words such as 'Imagination', 'Suspicions',
and 'Possession', in their older rhythmic uses, may be
the ghosts of Shakespeare's lost words.>>
--------------------------------------------------------------
_The Mysterious WS_ (p.526):Cardano's _De Consolatione_ was so named
"because there was a far greater number of unfortunate men needing
consolation that of fortunate ones in need of blame."
1573 - English translation of Cardano's _De Consolatione_ comes out:
CARDANUS
Comforte, translated
And Published
by commanundement of the right
Honourable the Ealre of
OXENFORDE.
Carduus n : genus of annual or perennial Old World prickly thistles
[syn: {Carduus}, {genus Carduus}]
http://www.sirbacon.org/gallery/thistles.html
---------------------------------------------------
<<On May 4, 1605 Augustine Phillips of the King's Men
bequeathed "a thirty shillings peece in gould":
"to my Fellowe William Shakespeare,
To my Fellowe Henry Condell
To my Servaunte Christopher Beeston",
and twenty shillings each to:
Lawrence FLETCHER,
Robert Armin,
Richard Cowley,
Alexander COOK and
Nicholas Tooley.>>
--------------------------------------------------------------------
John Fletcher* (1579-1625) joins Francis Beaumont* (1584-1616) in 1606
to form a writing team that is prodigious and enduring. Fletcher also
collaborates with Shakespeare*. Beaumont* and Fletcher* will be best
remembered for their comedy, The Knight of the Burning Pestle* in 1607
and a tragedy, The Maid's Tragedy* (c. 1610.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Maid's Tragedy
--------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Betsy Baker was employed as a servant in the house of John Warburton
(1682-1759) who had amassed a fine collection of 58 first edition
plays, including most of the works of Shakespeare. One day
Warburton returned home to find 55 of them charred beyond legibility.
Betsy had either burned them or used them as pie bottoms. The remaining
three folios are now in the British Museum. (The 3 surviving plays
are the work of Dekker, Ford and Massinger.)] >>
-- Stephen Pile, "The Book of Heroic Failures" etcher.
Philip Massinger* (1583-1640) doesn't appear in theatre until 1619. He
works some with Fletcher* and his A New Way to Pay Old Debts* (1625)
is one of the best of his plays to survive Betsy's depredations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://w2.xrefer.com/entry/372861
<< Massinger wrote only two social comedies,
_A New Way to Pay Old Debts_ and _The City Madam_.
A New Way was a mainstay of the English stage in the late 18th
and early 19th cents, with the villainous Sir Giles Overreach
providing a vehicle for the talents of a long line of actors including
Kemble and Kean. Both plays are inspired by his patrician contempt for
the ambitions and affectations of the rising mercantile classes in the
city. He wrote several excellent tragedies.
The early _Duke of Milan_, a tragedy of jealousy,
was followed by _The Roman Actor_, which was his favourite
play. It makes remarkable use of plays-within-the-play, and in the
person of Paris the actor he was able to show something of his own
prolonged difficulties with political censorship. Because of this
censorship he was forced to do a complete rewriting of Believe As You
List, perhaps his greatest tragedy. It is a powerful story of
a returned nationalist leader failing to get support
and being hounded by the imperial authorities.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
The Cambridge History of English and American Literature
<<Henry VIII, by Shakespeare and Fletcher, is commonly regarded as
Shakespeare’s; A Very Woman, which passes under the name of Massinger,
but in which Fletcher, probably, had a share; and Sir John van Olden
Barnavelt, by Fletcher and Massinger, which remained unprinted till
quite recently. Among the dramatists with whom Fletcher worked after
the retirement of Beaumont, by far the most important place is taken by
Massinger, who has a considerable share in at least sixteen plays, and
who in justice ought to have been mentioned upon the title-page of the
collection.>>
<<Field collaborated both with Fletcher and Massinger. Of these
collaborations, we need mention only The Fatall Dowry, produced about
1619, shortly before Field retired from the stage. He married about 1619
and became a publisher, dying in 1633. In 1616, he addressed a letter to
Sutton, the preacher at St. Mary Overy, who, like Field’s own father,
was a great denouncer of the stage. Field very loyally defends his
profession.>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
http://original.bibliomania.com/Reference/BiographicalDictionary/data/0126.html
<<Massinger, Philip (1583-1640).—Dramatist, was probably born at
Salisbury. His flourished appears to have been a retainer of the Earl of
Pembroke, by whom and by Queen Elizabeth he was employed in a
confidential capacity. Massinger was at Oxford, but quitted the
University suddenly without graduating. He is next found in London
writing for the stage, frequently in collaboration with others. Few
details of his life have come down, but it seems that he was on the
whole unfortunate. He was found dead in bed on March 16, 1640, and
was buried in St. Saviour’s, Southwark, by some of the actors.
The burial register has the entry,
“buried Philip Massinger, a stranger.”>>
------------------------------------------
A SAD SONG by Philip Massinger
Why art thou slow, thou rest of trouble, Death,
To stop a wretches breath,
That calls on thee, and offers her sad heart
A prey unto thy dart?
I am not young, nor fair, be therefore bold,
Sorrow hath made me old,
Deformed and wrinkled; all that I can crave
Is quiet in my grave.
Such as live happy hold long life a jewell,
But to me thou art cruell,
If thou end not my tedious miserie,
And I soon cease to be.
Strike, and strike home then; pitty unto me
In one short hour’s delay is tyrannie.
------------------------------------------
_Shakespeare In Fact_ - Matus
<<It would seem only fitting that Fletcher should have been interred
near his dear friend and collaborator, Beaumont. However when he died in
1625, he was buried in an unmarked grave in St. Saviour;s Church, the
present Southwark Cathedral. Not only was Philip Massinger deposited in
this same church, but as we learn from apoem by his admirer and probable
patron, Sir Aston Cokayne,
An Epitaph on Mr. John Fletcher, and Mr. Philip Massinger,
Who Lie Buried Both in One Grave in
St. Mary Overies Church in Southwark.
In the same grave Fletcher was buried here
Lies the Stage-poet Philip Massinger:
Plays they did write together, were great friends,
And now one grave includes them at their ends.>>
---------------------------------------------------------
"Edmund Shakspeare, a player,
buried in the Church with a forenoone knell
of the great bell, xx s."
From the daybook of the sexton of St. Saviour's, Southwark,
for December 31, 1607: Burial.
(Conjunction of Saturn & Sun)
-------------------------------------------------
Massinger, Philip (1583 - 1640)
http://w2.xrefer.com/entry/372861
<<Was born at Salisbury, and educated at St Alban Hall, Oxford. His
father was the trusted agent of the Herbert family, to members of which
the playwright addressed various dedications and poems. He became the
chief collaborator of J. Fletcher after the withdrawal of Beaumont, and
on Fletcher's death in 1625 he became the principal dramatist of the
King's Men. He was buried in Fletcher's grave at St Saviour's,
Southwark (now Southwark Cathedral).
He is known to have written or shared in the writing of 55 plays. Of
these 22 are lost. Of the extant plays 15 are of his sole composition,
16 were written in collaboration with Fletcher, and two in collaboration
with others. Massinger's share in the Fletcher plays was given no
acknowledgement in the Beaumont and Fletcher folios, but has been
identified with reasonable accuracy by modern scholars. He shared with
Fletcher the writing of such plays as The Custom of the Country
(?1619-22), Sir John Van Olden Barnavelt (1619), The Double Marriage
(?1621), The Beggars' Bush (?1622) and A Very Woman (?1625) and with
Fletcher and others collaborated in The Bloody Brother (c. 1616). With
Dekker he shared the writing of a religious play, The Virgin Martyr, a
work uncharacteristic of both men. With N. Field he wrote The Fatal
Dowry, in which his high romantic seriousness blends strikingly
with Field's satire.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
David Kathman
[snip]
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> The Cambridge History of English and American Literature
>
> <<Henry VIII, by Shakespeare and Fletcher, is commonly regarded as
> Shakespeare’s; A Very Woman, which passes under the name of Massinger,
> but in which Fletcher, probably, had a share; and Sir John van Olden
> Barnavelt, by Fletcher and Massinger, which remained unprinted till
> quite recently. Among the dramatists with whom Fletcher worked after
> the retirement of Beaumont, by far the most important place is taken by
> Massinger, who has a considerable share in at least sixteen plays, and
> who in justice ought to have been mentioned upon the title-page of the
> collection.>>
>
> <<Field collaborated both with Fletcher and Massinger. Of these
> collaborations, we need mention only The Fatall Dowry, produced about
> 1619, shortly before Field retired from the stage. He married about 1619
> and became a publisher, dying in 1633. In 1616, he addressed a letter to
> Sutton, the preacher at St. Mary Overy, who, like Field’s own father,
> was a great denouncer of the stage. Field very loyally defends his
> profession.>>
Actually, the Cambridge History is here confusing Nathan Field
with Nathaniel Field, as was commonly done in the 19th and
early 20th centuries. Nathan Field (1587-1619) was a boy actor
with the Blackfriars Boys who eventually wrote plays and joined
the King's Men before dying in 1619 at the young age of 32.
His brother Nathaniel (1581-1633) was apprenticed as a
stationer in 1597, took up his freedom in 1611, and published
several books in the mid-1620s. Nathaniel (the stationer)
is the one who married; Nathan (the actor and playwright)
died unmarried. Their father was John Field (d. 1588) was
a Puritan preacher who wrote *A Godly Exhortation* (1583), in
which he railed against "Heathenishe Enterludes and Playes",
which he thought should be "vtterly rid and taken away".
The irony of his son's later profession has not been lost on
scholars. John Field seemed to have a predilection for giving
his children similar names, for his other two sons were
named John and Jonathan. The various Fields were untangled
by Roberta Florence Brinkley in her biography, *Nathan Field,
the Actor-Playwright* (1928), but the confusion between
Nathan and Nathaniel persisted for years, and still crops
up today occasionally (as in Art's post) in writings by
people who use old reference works.
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Neuendorffer
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > The Cambridge History of English and American Literature
> >
> > <<Henry VIII, by Shakespeare and Fletcher, is commonly regarded as
> > Shakespeare’s; A Very Woman, which passes under the name of Massinger,
> > but in which Fletcher, probably, had a share; and Sir John van Olden
> > Barnavelt, by Fletcher and Massinger, which remained unprinted till
> > quite recently. Among the dramatists with whom Fletcher worked after
> > the retirement of Beaumont, by far the most important place is taken by
> > Massinger, who has a considerable share in at least sixteen plays, and
> > who in justice ought to have been mentioned upon the title-page of the
> > collection.>>
> >
> > <<Field collaborated both with Fletcher and Massinger. Of these
> > collaborations, we need mention only The Fatall Dowry, produced about
> > 1619, shortly before Field retired from the stage. He married about 1619
> > and became a publisher, dying in 1633. In 1616, he addressed a letter to
> > Sutton, the preacher at St. Mary Overy, who, like Field’s own father,
> > was a great denouncer of the stage. Field very loyally defends his
> > profession.>>
David Kathman wrote:
> Actually, the Cambridge History is here confusing Nathan Field
> with Nathaniel Field, as was commonly done in the 19th and
> early 20th centuries. Nathan Field (1587-1619) was a boy actor
> with the Blackfriars Boys who eventually wrote plays and joined
> the King's Men before dying in 1619 at the young age of 32.
> His brother Nathaniel (1581-1633) was apprenticed as a
> stationer in 1597, took up his freedom in 1611, and published
> several books in the mid-1620s. Nathaniel (the stationer)
> is the one who married; Nathan (the actor and playwright)
> died unmarried.
Nat didn't happen to bury a bastard son did he?
> Their father was John Field (d. 1588) was
> a Puritan preacher who wrote *A Godly Exhortation* (1583), in
> which he railed against "Heathenishe Enterludes and Playes",
> which he thought should be "vtterly rid and taken away".
So John had two sons: Nathaniel (the stationer) &
Nathan (the actor and playwright).
I could all be a fairy tale! :-)
> The irony of his son's later profession has not been lost on
> scholars. John Field seemed to have a predilection for giving
> his children similar names, for his other two sons were
> named John and Jonathan.
Aren't you forgetting about "Nat’s elder brother, Theophilus, who was
educated at Cambridge and rose to be bishop of Hereford"?
> The various Fields were untangled
> by Roberta Florence Brinkley in her biography, *Nathan Field,
> the Actor-Playwright* (1928), but the confusion between
> Nathan and Nathaniel persisted for years, and still crops
> up today occasionally (as in Art's post) in writings by
> people who use old reference works.
I have a book on Quantum Field Theory that is less confusing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bartholomew (or NATHANIEL) - Flayed alive in Albanapolis, Armenia.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bartholomew (or NATHANIEL) F(l)ayre
“Which is your Burbadge now?…. Your best actor, your FIELD?”
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Among the extant plays of the reign of king James, two by NATHANIEL
Field are of such merit as to suggest that the writer, probably, would
have risen above the ranks of the lesser dramatists, had he persevered
in the prosecution of his art. He was born in 1587, a few months before
his father’s death. That father was the famous preacher John Field,
whose rousing discourse upon the collapse of a gallery in Paris garden
in 1583 has come down to us. It contains interesting details about the
catastrophe and a violent attack upon theatrical performances, with
valuable information about London players and their theatres. Nat’s
elder brother, Theophilus, was educated at Cambridge and rose to be
bishop of Hereford; and it is singular, therefore, that Nat Field’s name
should be found first among the six “principal comedians” of the band of
lads called the children of the queen’s revels, who acted in Jonson’s
Cynthia’s Revels in 1600. These boys were the “young eyases” discussed
by Hamlet. For a time, as has been seen, they rivalled men players in
public favour; and Field, as he grew older, maintained his position and
may claim to have succeeded Burbage as the leading actor on the English
stage. Jonson, no doubt, owed a debt to Field for his clever acting in
Cynthia’s Revels and Poetaster, and the debt is repaid by the mention of
Field, in 1614, in Bartholomew Fayre— “Which is your Burbadge now?….
Your best actor, your Field?” Field joined the King’s company before he
finally retired from the stage, and, in the 1623 folio of Shakespeare’s
plays, he is seventeenth in the list there given of twenty-six players.
Jonson told Drummond that “Nat Field was his scholar.” An interesting
proof of Jonson’s regard for Field is afforded by the insertion of an
extra sheet of commendatory verses addressed by Field to Jonson in some
copies of the 1607 quarto of Volpone. Field’s verses are amateurish—he
speaks justly of his “weak flame”—but they show a great awe of Jonson,
whom “to dare commend were damnable presumption.” The lines should be
compared with the much more mature address “to his worthy and beloved
friend Master Ben Jonson on his Catiline.” Field had been educated by
Mulcaster at the Merchant Taylors’ school, but “taken” by N. GILES as
one of the company of the children of the revels. GILES was accused of
kidnapping boys against their parents’ wishes, and we may conjecture
that Field would not have been annexed, had his strenuous father been
alive to protect him>> -- Cambridge History of English & American Lit.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.utec.net/uccangola/jan16.htm
<<In a similar way, Jesus made contact with Nathaniel, who after
Pentecost was called Bartholomew. Nathaniel didn't know how Jesus knew
him, but he was impressed that Jesus knew so much about him. Jesus told
him, "I SAW YOU UNDER THE FIG TREE BEFORE PHILIP CALLED YOU." What do
you suppose he was doing there? something he shouldn't have been such as
having pre-marital sex, or burying money he had taken from someone?
Actually, it was tradition that the ideal place to study the torah was
in a seat under a fig tree. Nathaniel may have been a true searcher of
the scripture. Tradition has it that as Bartholomew he traveled with
Philip throughout the East - to Mesopotamia, Persia, Egypt and to
Armenia where he was eventually martyred.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer "Heathenishe AUTHORSHIP " home page:
http://www.clark.net/pub/tross/ws/will.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Kathman
Not sure, Art. Which Nat are you talking about? Supposedly
Nathan Field had a bastard child with the Earl of Argyll's
wife in 1619, but I'm not sure what happened to that child.
> > Their father was John Field (d. 1588) was
> > a Puritan preacher who wrote *A Godly Exhortation* (1583), in
> > which he railed against "Heathenishe Enterludes and Playes",
> > which he thought should be "vtterly rid and taken away".
>
> So John had two sons: Nathaniel (the stationer) &
> Nathan (the actor and playwright).
You got it, Art.
> I could all be a fairy tale! :-)
It could, couldn't it? At least I'm assuming that "I" above
is a typo for "It"; if not, then I heartily agree that you
could be a fairy tale as well, Art.
> > The irony of his son's later profession has not been lost on
> > scholars. John Field seemed to have a predilection for giving
> > his children similar names, for his other two sons were
> > named John and Jonathan.
>
> Aren't you forgetting about "Nat’s elder brother, Theophilus, who was
> educated at Cambridge and rose to be bishop of Hereford"?
You're absolutely right, Art. I meant to write "two of his
other sons" rather than "his two other sons". John Field
also had two daughters: Elizabeth, who died in childhood,
and Dorcas, who married Edward Rice in 1590 (when Nathan
was three) and later administered Nathan's estate after
he died.
> > The various Fields were untangled
> > by Roberta Florence Brinkley in her biography, *Nathan Field,
> > the Actor-Playwright* (1928), but the confusion between
> > Nathan and Nathaniel persisted for years, and still crops
> > up today occasionally (as in Art's post) in writings by
> > people who use old reference works.
>
> I have a book on Quantum Field Theory that is less confusing.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Bartholomew (or NATHANIEL) - Flayed alive in Albanapolis, Armenia.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Bartholomew (or NATHANIEL) F(l)ayre
>
> “Which is your Burbadge now?…. Your best actor, your FIELD?”
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> <<Among the extant plays of the reign of king James, two by NATHANIEL
> Field
Actually Nathan Field, of course.
I knew when I was writing that post that you'd come up with
some connection and go off on a wild tangent. Thanks for
not disappointing me, Art!
Dave Kathman
dj...@ix.netcom.com
Neuendorffer
> > > > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > The Cambridge History of English and American Literature
> > > >
> > > > collaborations, we need mention only The Fatall Dowry, produced about
> > > > 1619, shortly before Field retired from the stage. He married about 1619
> > > > and became a publisher, dying in 1633. In 1616, he addressed a letter to
> > > > Sutton, the preacher at St. Mary Overy, who, like Field’s own father,
> > > > was a great denouncer of the stage. Field very loyally defends his
> > > > profession.>>
> >
> > David Kathman wrote:
> >
> > > Actually, the Cambridge History is here confusing Nathan Field
> > > with Nathaniel Field, as was commonly done in the 19th and
> > > early 20th centuries. Nathan Field (1587-1619) was a boy actor
> > > with the Blackfriars Boys who eventually wrote plays and joined
> > > the King's Men before dying in 1619 at the young age of 32.
> > > His brother Nathaniel (1581-1633) was apprenticed as a
> > > stationer in 1597, took up his freedom in 1611, and published
> > > several books in the mid-1620s. Nathaniel (the stationer)
> > > is the one who married; Nathan (the actor and playwright)
> > > died unmarried.
> >
> > Nat didn't happen to bury a bastard son did he?
David Kathman wrote:
> Not sure, Art. Which Nat are you talking about?
Oh, I don't much care, Dave; you choose.
> Supposedly
> Nathan Field had a bastard child with the Earl of Argyll's
> wife in 1619, but I'm not sure what happened to that child.
The Earl of Argyll! So what color was the child?
> > > Their father was John Field (d. 1588) was a Puritan
> > > preacher who wrote *A Godly Exhortation* (1583), in which
> > > he railed against "Heathenishe Enterludes and Playes",
> > > which he thought should be "vtterly rid and taken away".
> >
> > So John had two sons: Nathaniel (the stationer) &
> > Nathan (the actor and playwright).
>
> You got it, Art.
>
> > I could all be a fairy tale! :-)
>
> It could, couldn't it? At least I'm assuming that "I" above
> is a typo for "It"; if not, then I heartily agree that you
> could be a fairy tale as well, Art.
Freudian slip. :-)
> > > The irony of his son's later profession has not been lost on
> > > scholars. John Field seemed to have a predilection for giving
> > > his children similar names, for his other two sons were
> > > named John and Jonathan.
> >
> > Aren't you forgetting about "Nat’s elder brother, Theophilus,
> > who was educated at Cambridge and rose to be bishop of Hereford"?
>
> You're absolutely right, Art. I meant to write "two of his
> other sons" rather than "his two other sons". John Field
> also had two daughters: Elizabeth, who died in childhood,
> and Dorcas, who married Edward Rice in 1590 (when Nathan
> was three) and later administered Nathan's estate after
> he died.
What a coincidence! I named one of my daughters Dorcas, too.
(John missed an opportunity to have a Dorcas/Dufus sister pair.)
> > > The various Fields were untangled
> > > by Roberta Florence Brinkley in her biography, *Nathan Field,
> > > the Actor-Playwright* (1928), but the confusion between
> > > Nathan and Nathaniel persisted for years, and still crops
> > > up today occasionally (as in Art's post) in writings by
> > > people who use old reference works.
> >
> > I have a book on Quantum Field Theory that is less confusing.
> > -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Bartholomew (or NATHANIEL) - Flayed alive in Albanapolis, Armenia.
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Bartholomew (or NATHANIEL) F(l)ayre
> >
> > “Which is your Burbadge now?…. Your best actor, your FIELD?”
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > <<Among the extant plays of the reign of king James, two by NATHANIEL
> > Field
>
> Actually Nathan Field, of course.
Of course.
You looked so sad when I saw you under that fig tree
before Phil called that I sorta felt obliged.
Art Neuendorffer
David L. Webb
the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
In article <efbc3534.01062...@posting.google.com>, Elizabeth
Weir <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
> "David L. Webb" <David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
> news:<230620012331232314%David....@Dartmouth.edu>...
> > [[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
> > the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]
> >
> > In article <efbc3534.01062...@posting.google.com>, Elizabeth
> > Weir <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > > I'm using Bacon's bilateral [sic] cypher as I type this. It was
> > > > > stolen
> > > > > without credit
> > > > > by Leibnitz [sic] who converted the a's and b's to 1's and 2's.
> > > > Leibniz was interested in *computing* using binary representation;
> > > > in that regard he deserves far more credit for his insight than does
> > > > Bacon for his binary encoding of characters.
> > > YOU don't know what you're talking about because you've read Leibniz
> > > but you haven't read Bacon.
> > No, you don't know what you're talking about; how could you, since
> > you attempt to deduce my reading matter from your own ignorance?
> My deduction is based on the fact that someone who understands the
> fundamentals of computing as you claim to do should have not missed
> the analogy between Bacon's insights about the nature of
> cogitation--thinking--and the process of computing.
Nothing of the kind. You still haven't established that Leibniz
"stole" anything from Bacon, although you're the one that made the
claim.
> > In
> > fact, I've read Bacon with far more attention than I've accorded
> > Leibniz.
> >Apparently you got stalled on Bacon's bi*lit*eral code.
>
> It's the biliteral cypher and the binary code.
>
> I haven't had time to write Dr. Kathman a thank you note for parsing
> his
> his explanation to me of the bi*lit*eral cypher in the style of dog
> training commands.
No, he was simply explaining a minor point to you in simple terms.
Since you have shown no signs thus far of possessing any understanding
of even the most rudimentary aspects of scholarship -- e.g., that mere
blatant assertion does not suffice to establish the truth of a claim;
that the factoids that reside on the web (particularly at many Baconian
web sites) are often notoriously unreliable (as I hope that you have
learned by now from Peter Farey, who actually does know something about
the period in question), so surfing the web is no substitute for
actually reading; that claims of ciphers not supported by quantitative
analysis generally lack credibility, etc. -- it is quite understandable
that Dave Kathman's explanation was couched in simple terms.
[...]
> > > I read Leibniz' interminable paper on the binary code and the I Ching
> > > before I read Bacon. Leibniz did not discover the binary code
> > I never said that he did.
> > > in the
> > > I Ching. He already had it and appeared to be looking to see if it was
> > > in I Ching. I think Leibnitz wanted to obscure the fact that he
> > > swiped it from Bacon.
> > You "think" lots of things for which there is no justification.
> I think you don't know what Leibnitz [sic] owes to Bacon.
As I already said, you "think" lots of things for which there is no
justification.
> > [...]
> > > > > There are cyphers in the plays and frontispieces, embellished letters
> > > > > and headpieces. Bacon left a simple cypher under the Sonnets
> > > > > dedication. Penn Leary discovered it. It was written in Bacon's
> > > > > favorite +4 Caesar.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't think that Penn Leary discovered any other cyphers because the
> > > > > program that he wrote to find cyphers throughout the plays is the same
> > > > > defective program the so-called 'Bible Code' uses.
> > > > As usual, you haven't the remotest idea what you're talking about
> > > > here, although that circumstance has never impeded your unsupported
> > > > speculations before.
> > > You snipped my remarks so I'll repost them with my replies:
> > >
> > > 1. I said: "There are cyphers in the plays and frontispieces,
> > > embellished letters and headpieces."
> > And you furnished no credible evidence for the presence of "cyphers
> > in the plays and frontispieces," etc.
> I'm going to post on 'the other paper trail.'
I'll look forward to it. In the meantime, I've seen no credible
evidence whatever for the presence of ciphers.
> > > Cyphers are a distraction but until serious scholarship on Bacon
> > > resumes--and it will resume because the best Strats will not go over
> > > to the Oxfordian side when Shakespeare is debunked--we are left to
> > > amuse ourselves with cyphers.
> > And it is *most* amusing indeed!
> > > There aren't very many.
> > I haven't seen *any* that would pass muster.
> Start with the +4 Caesar cypher above. Debunk that.
Since you've furnished no evidence, nor even any indication of what
you have in mind, there is nothing so far to "debunk."
> > > Bacon left his name and that of his friend Tobey [Tobie] Matthews in
> > > the capital letters of the first lines in The Tempest. The
> > > embellished B in 'bote-swain' in the First Folio Tempest spells'
> > > 'Francis Bacon' in the design. Some of the headpieces have two
> > > rabbits back to back which is a visual pun for 'back coney' or
> > > 'Baconi,' Bacon's name in Latin. Bacon used Baconi to sign his Latin
> > > works.
Yes, of course! And the winged creatures must be seraphs, and we
are obviously to interpret "seraph" as a visual pun for "Sir F."! This
sort of thing is farcically subjective.
> > > That sort of thing.
You mean, hilarious crap?
> > Proof? What's the statistical demonstration that this isn't just
> > Neuendorfferian noise? You do realize that you have to *prove* things,
> > don't you? It isn't enough just to assert your fond fantasies as fact.
> Art ignorant of what thou art.naught knowing
> T Then Prospero,Mafter of a full poore cell,
> A And thy no greater Father.
> Mira. More to know
> D Did neuer medle with my thoughts.
> ProS.'Tis time
> I I fhould informe thee farther:Lend thy hand
> A And plucke my Magick garment from me: So,
> L Lye there my Art:wipe thou thine eyes,haue comfort,
> THE The direfull fpectacle of the wracke which touch'd
> T The very vertue of compaffion in thee:
> I I haue with fuch prouifion in mine Art
> S So fafely ordered,that there is no foule
> N No not fo much perdition as an hayre
> B Betid to any creature in the veffell
> W Which thou heardft cry, which thou faw'ft finke:Sit
> F For thou muft now know farther. [downe,
> Mira. You haue often
> B Begun to tell me what I am, but ftopt
> A And left me to a booteleffe Inquifition,
> CON Concluding,ftay:not yet.
> ProS. The howr's now come
> T The very minute byds thee ope thine eare,
> OBEY Obey,and be attentiue. Canft thou remember
> A time before we came vnto this Cell?
>
> SIT THE DIAL AT NBW, F. BACON, TOBEY.
You've *got* to be kidding! What "dial"? What is "NBW"?
> I'll try to find the embellished B with Francis Bacon in the design.
[...]
> Here's the BACK CONEY headpiece for 'Shakes-speares Sonnets.' The
> headpiece also feature's Bacon's
> veiled sun I wrote about in the emeph post. The emeph veiled son
> is the same as the Masonic feathered and veiled Sun in Splendor in the
> 17th c. meeting place
> of the Masons in Canonbury. All the 'Shakespeare' headpieces are
> loaded with Baconian symbols.
>
> I haven't seen a single thing on Shakespearean symbols in
> Shakespeare's headpieces. I wonder why.
Probably because such interpretations are generally the farcically
subjective fantasies of the delusional.
> <http://www.sirbacon.org/links/sonnethp.jpg>
>
> > > 2. "Bacon left a simple cypher under the Sonnets dedication. Penn
> > > Leary discovered it. It was written in Bacon's favorite +4 Caesar."
> > >
> > > Leary did discovered [sic] Bacon's simple cypher in the Sonnets
> > > dedication.
> > > All the following letters are meaningful.
>
> > >
> > > o o n y p i r c y p p h r s b e k a a n b a c o n
You've *got* to be kidding!
> > > Bacon was interested in the work of Napier and Stevin and those
> > > 'periods' are decimals between the words of the dedication.
They are? Have you any proof? Or are we just supposed to take your
word for it, as usual? You've been farcically in error just about
every time you've asserted a "fact," so why should we? What would the
periods, even if they were decimals, as in your fantasy scenario, prove
in any case?
> > > I'm going to find out why the reference to Napier
*What* "reference to Napier"? Are you actually under the impression
that any period is a "reference to Napier"?!
> > > would have
> > > significance to William Herbert.
But since you've prejudged the matter well beforehand, you're sure
that you'll find some significance. *Anyone* just fishing around like
that can come up with some ridiculously subjective association that
"supports" a foregone conclusion -- even Art Neuendorffer can do it.
Scholars don't assume that there is a connection and then seek it;
rather, they follow the evidence wherever it leads, and the result is
often at odds with what they might have hoped or expected. But your
exchange with Peter Farey (let alone your earlier exchanges with me)
have established pretty conclusively that you haven't the foggiest
notion how scholars work.
> > > It might have something to do with
> > > navigation.
Or it might be a visual pun. The original Greek word can mean
"revolution," so maybe the periods are an incitement to rebellion.
"Period" can also mean "consummation," so perhaps there is a ribald
suggestion as well. Don't you see how ridiculously subjective this
sort of "reasoning" is?
> > > Bekaan is phonetic for beacon, a Baconian symbol. The Duke of
> > > Brunswick honors Bacon as a beacon of light in the top panel of the
> > > frontispiece of the 'Cryptomenytices.'
> > > See 'beacon' in my post yesterday on the 'Cryptomenytices;'
> > > "Shakespeare Caught Taking a Payoff."
One might as well argue that recent mentions in the press of
swindles on e-bay are references to "bay-cons," hence references to
Bacon. It makes about as much sense as what you're doing.
> > I already did; it was hilarious! See my reply.
> Laugh at this.
I suspect that I will.
> I predicted in a previous post that the decimals in the Sonnets
> dedication would have some connection to navigation.
>
> I just looked up Stevins and Napier. I was right. There is a
> definite connection between the innovation of the use of decimals in
> mathematics and 17th c. navigation.
You were right -- I *did* get quite a hearty laugh out of it!
> That ties Adventurer Mr. W. H. of
> the Virginia Company to the decimals between the words of the 'outer
> letter' of the Sonnets.
It does?! How?
> > > The 'Cryptomenytices' has been ignored for four centuries because it
> > > spells out 'Shakespeare was on the take.'
No, to the extent that it's been "ignored" (I presume that you mean
in serious Shakespeare studies), that is because there is no evident
link between the volume and Shakespeare, apart from the farcically
subjective "decipherments" of nutcases who have no quantitative
training, who view all of existence as a succession of Rorschach ink
blots, and who therefore see Bacon everywhere they look.
> > > Not any more. Some Baconians have just set up a new website to
> > > publish the 'Cryptomenytices' and neglected Baconian works.
> > More power to them! Durning-Lawrence is one of the funniest things
> > I've ever read.
> Strats don't have a draft page from Henry IV in Shakespeare's
> handwriting.
And Baconians do? Where? In "Lambeth House," where those hundreds
of precious ciphered messages are housed? Fascinating. Why do you
believe that Baconians have anything of the kind? Because you read it
at some nutcase web page that Google turned up?
> Baconians have records from the Madrid archive, a draft
I think you misspelled "daft."
> page from Henry IV found in the binder's waste of an Elizabethan book,
> Bacon's own notebooks with lines from the plays, the Northumberland
> manuscript and letters left by Bacon, his mother, his friends and
> relatives attesting to his authorship [and his bastardy].
What?
> There are
> 2000 books from Bacon's library with marginalia that has *never* been
> analysed.
Then how on earth do you know what they contain?!
> Anthony Bacon's 300 cyphered letters at Lambeth House are
> awaiting decyphering.
I think (or hope, at any rate) that Peter Farey has already
disabused you of that notion.
> In 1910 a Baconian, fooling
A well-chosen locution.
> around with a 'sample' cypher table in the
> 'Cryptomenytices'--something Brunswick had inserted as an example of
> its type--applied it to the First Folio and came up with BACONE on his
> second try. He didn't get OXFORD or SHAKESPEARE.
Presumably not -- you already said that he was a Baconian. An
Oxfordian could probably have found Oxford. It should not be difficult
to find Bacon or Oxford or Rutland or (insert your favorite candidate
here) -- Art Neuendorffer comes up with this sort of rubbish all the
time.
> Bacone is Bacon's
> name in Latin on the title page of the Novum Organum and his other
> Latin works.
>
> http://www.sirbacon.org/scripta.gif
That's odd -- in the gif whose URL you posted, the name is plainly
spelled "Francisci Baconi," as you yourself already said above.
> > > The eccentric spelling of beacon in Leary's cypher is Bacon's
> > > signature. Those who saw it would know that Bacon repeatedly
> > > advocated the use of eccentric and phonetic spellings in cyphers
> > > because it made it difficult for decrypters to break the codes. It's
> > > like 'hello, I did this cypher," signed, Francis Bacon.
> > > Also Paul Depuey has a well-cited page arguing that we should not be
> > > surprised to find cyphers in anything Bacon published.
> > > http://fly.hiwaay.net/~paul/cryptology/history.html
> > >
> > > 3. I said: "I don't think that Penn Leary discovered any other
> > > cyphers.
> > >
> > > Why are you misinterpreting my statement? I think Leary discovered
> > > Bacon's simple +4 Caesar but I don't think Leary found anything else.
> > I don't even think that Leary found *that*, and I won't until I see
> > some convincing quantitative evidence, not the ravings of Baconian
> > cryptographic cranks. You do realize that you have to *prove* things,
> > don't you? It isn't enough just to assert you fond fantasies as fact.
> I posted it. It's simple. Debunk it.
What?! You haven't posted *anything* except a vague, risible claim.
You haven't posted the cipher text. You haven't posted the putative
clear text. You haven't posted the proposed encipherment algorithm.
You haven't made any argument for the uniqueness of the "solution."
You haven't done any statistical or quantitative analysis. In short,
you haven't posted ANYTHING of substance. There is NOTHING yet to
"debunk."
> > > 4. ". . .because the program that he wrote to find cyphers throughout
> > > the plays is the same defective program the so-called 'Bible Code'
> > > uses."
> > >
> > > My point was that the Bible Code and Leary's program have the same
> > > output.
> > No, they don't. In the first place, Rips has repudiated many of
> > Drosnin's farcical claims; although Drosnin may attribute the ideas to
> > Rips in order to capitalize upon Rips's scientific reputation, Rips
> > wants no part of much of it. In the second place, the work of Rips
> > that best withstands scrutiny has no parallel in Leary. But since
> > you've never even read the papers in question, how would you know that?
> I'm going to admit that I thought that Rips was looking for a code in
> the Samarian Torah.
That's not at all what his early paper claimed, as you would have
known had you actually read it.
> Bereshit.
Modulo a trivial misspelling, that's what your post was, all right.
> Then I realized that he was not
> looking for a code but for internal consistency--elegance--in the
> Hebrew Torah compared to the Samarian Torah. I don't want to get into
> the explanation but I will say that Islamic scholars have jumped in
> on the side of the Samarians.
So?
> > > The Bible Code would also produce 'whore of babylon' and 'mark of the
> > > beast' in Shakespeare proving John of Patmos wrote the plays.
> > Proof?
> WHAT? It was turned on 'Moby Dick' and got the same list of words as
> the ones found in the Bible. I thought everybody knew that.
No, it didn't get the "same list of words as the ones found in the
Bible." Your farcical ignorance and your eagerness to pontificate upon
things you know nothing about have been your undoing yet again -- it's
getting to be an almost daily occurrence. Rips and his collaborators
found the names of various famous rabbis in the Bible. Then Dror
Bar-Natan and Brendan McKay found that a Hebrew translation of _War and
Peace_ would serve just as well for that purpose; subsequently, as I
already mentioned, Maya Bar-Hillel, Dror Bar-Natan, and Brendan McKay
published a paper in _Chance_ presenting their version of the "famous
rabbis" experiment.
On the other hand, the _Moby Dick_ experiment was conducted by McKay
and collaborators in response to a specific challenge from Drosnin, who
had claimed that equidistant letter sequences in the Bible predicted
Rabin's assassination (a claim that Rips wants no part of); Drosnin
challenged skeptics to find predictions of the assassination of a prime
minister in _Moby Dick_, and McKay _et al_ obliged by producing the
string "I. Gandhi" in an equidistant letter sequence intersecting the
cleartext reading "the bloody deed." To my knowledge, nobody found
"the same list of words as the ones found in the Bible," nor did anyone
try -- Rips's list of words is quite different from Drosnin's claim.
However, once you get your facts straight, you might reflect upon
the fact that the Friedmans long ago did the same thing for Baconian
ciphermongers that Bar-Hillel, Bar-Natan, and McKay did for Drosnin.
That's why nobody takes Baconian cipher claims seriously.
> > > What
> > > they put on the list is what they get.
No, that's not what Rips did, it's not what Rips and his later
collaborators did, and it's not even what Drosnin did.
[...]
> > > 5. I said: "Terry Ross wrote a saracastic and mean-spirited article
> > > debunking Leary's program. I thought Ross was unscholarly. Penn Leary
> > > is a nice man."
> > > Nothing to apologize for there.
> > If one calls someone else "unscholarly," one had better be prepared
> > to enumerate *specific* factual or methodological errors. Otherwise,
> > one merely looks like an idiot who has no notion whatever what
> > scholarship is.
> I meant that the tone of seething ridicule Ross used in his paper is
> not acceptable in academic papers.
What *on earth* are you talking about?! I've seen scholarly papers
and reviews that evince far more withering derision than anything in
the mild-mannered style of Terry Ross's article; at worst, it's mildly
dismissive, and for good reason. (See the Math Review by Clifford
Truesdell from which I quoted an extract earlier.) Ross merely points
out a few of the serious shortcomings that conclusively demolish
Leary's claims. It's astonishing how defensive so many
anti-Stratfordians get about what they perceive as "seething ridicule"
in bland presentations of fact.
> Maybe Ross isn't an academic.
> It's hard to know.
It's not so hard to know if one takes the trouble to find out. But
your track record so far makes it regrettably clear that you seldom, if
ever, bother to do so. Indeed, we've been discussing _The Bible Code_,
which *you* brought up, for some time now, and you still evidently have
not read either Rips's papers or Drosnin's book, so it is no surprise
that you have no idea what is in either one.
> I haven't seen Price's credentials. Or Dooleys.
> Or Art's for that matter. You and Kathman have blazoned them about.
What on earth are you gibbering about? I've taken pains to insist
upon many occasions that I am *not* an expert in literary history --
indeed, I am scarcely even a poorly informed amateur. I claim no
"credentials" whatever in the field, and I never have. Can you find a
*single* instance in which I have "blazoned about" these credentials
that you seem to be hallucinating that I possess? I thought not.
It's true that I apparently know far more about the subject than the
majority of anti-Stratfordians, at least judging by the sample one
encounters in this newsgroup, but that very minimal and superficial
familiarity with the material requires no expertise or credentials
whatever, particularly since various anti-Stratfordians in this
newsgroup have soberly (at least, I know of no evidence that they were
intoxicated at the time -- although of course one wonders...) informed
us that Shakespeare and Caxton were contemporaries, that only one of
Shakespeare's plays is set in a foreign country other than Italy, that
Digges wrote in nineteenth century Scots dialect, that a depiction of a
round building inside a walled city with mountains looming in the
background is clearly supposed to be the Globe, that Russell won the
Nobel Prize for Literature because there was no Mathematics prize, etc.
As for Kathman's credentials, I can't recall his "blazoning them
about," despite his obvious expertise, an expertise upon which even
anti-Stratfordians rely very heavily, if not gratefully or graciously.
He has remarked that doing genuine scholarship is far more rewarding
than patiently trying to set straight people who know nothing about the
subject and are often irrational, but that's a pretty unexceptionable
statement that can scarcely be gainsaid by anyone who has experience in
both pursuits.
> [snip]
>
> > > > I remember translating a very early Russian
> > > > samizdat version of the very first Rips paper on the subject (evidently
> > > > produced on a defective Cyrillic typewriter, with much of the Hebrew
> > > > text written out in longhand) from Russian to English for a colleague
> > > > back around 1985, while the Soviet Union was still in existence,
> > > You've read Chekov.
> > Yes, but what on earth has Chekhov to do with this?
> The style of the paragraph reminded me of Chekov. Maybe it's your
> 19th century
> writing style. Not that it's bad.
> > > > and, while I didn't bother to check that the versions of the Hebrew and
> > > > Samaritan texts of _Genesis_ that he used were accurate, I certainly
> > > > found no mathematical mistakes.
> > > Samaritan Torah? You have a beam in your eye to use a biblical
> > > maxim. You went to the trouble of translating Rips' paper and you
> > > weren't curious *why* Rips was looking for codes in the
> > > Samarian [sic] *and* Hebrew Torahs [sic]?
> > Why should I care? I was merely doing a favor for a friend and
> > colleague. I'm not sure why the use of both "the Samarian [sic]
> Samaritans Or Samarians?
>
> The Encyclopaedia Judaica:
>
> "Little guidance is obtained from the name of the Samaritans. The
> Bible uses the name Shomronim once, in II Kings 17:29, but this
> probably means Samarians rather than Samaritans. The Samaritans
> themselves do not use the name at all; they have long called
> themselves Shamerin ; i.e., "keepers" or "observers" of the truth =
> al ha-amet, both the short and long forms being in constant use in
> their chronicles. They take the name Shomronim to mean in habitants of
> the town of Samaria built by Omri (cf. I Kings 16:24), where the
> probable origin of the word Shomronim is to be found).[8]"
>
> As far as I know scholars use the term 'Samarians.'
"Samaritans" is the commonly recognized term used in normal
discourse. "Samarian" is ambiguous, and can also refer to a region in
Russia. (Moreover, when dealing with uninformed anti-Stratfordians,
one can never tell when they may have intended to write "Sumerians.")
> *and*
> > Hebrew Torahs [sic]"
[...]
> > sends you into such paroxysms,
[...]
> > but the use of both
> > was definitely necessary. In fact Rips's main point in the paper was
> > *not* that there is a "code" in the Bible, certainly *not* that one can
> > predict things like Rabin's assassination thereby,
> I now understand what Rips was looking for. Let's drop it.
Good -- I'm glad you've learned something, at least.
> > but merely that
> > meaningful Hebrew words occur in equidistant letter sequences in the
> > Hebrew version of _Breishit_ with strikingly greater frequency than in
> > the Samaritan version of_Breishit_, and that the effect he observes is
> > statistically significant.
> > > [It's better than the Masons
> > > and Shakespeare].
> > But not as funny.
> The Samarians have been reduced by centuries of genocide to a
> population of about 600. It's pretty tragic, actually.
That's one of the reasons that, as I said, I find the putative
Masonic Shakespeare authorship conspiracy much funnier.
[...]
> > > There are many
> > > insane things proven by perfect math.
> > What *on earth* are you gibbering about?
> > > Bacon warned us about math.
> > > Read last year's NYT series on the hallucinatory, yet mathematically
> > > secure, state of particle physics.
> > If you think that particle physics is "mathematically secure," then
> > you know next to nothing about either mathematics or particle physics
> > -- not at all a surprising state of affairs if your source is merely
> > popular newspaper accounts.
> The NYTimes is not 'merely a popular newspaper.'
It's not a very reliable source of information about mathematics and
physics. And it's not the Times that's "popular"; rather, the paper's
accounts of scientific advances are popular and decidedly nontechnical.
They are also sometimes misleading. This is not surprising, since
mainstream journalists (even at the _Times_) rarely have more than a
superficial acquaitance with the disciplines.
> > Indeed, one of the major open problems in
> > contemporary mathematics is the task of putting on a rigorous
> > mathematical foundation various quantum field theories used by
> > physicists for heuristic calculations of great interest; it is clear
> > that the physicists are onto something important, but it is far from
> > clear how to make mathematical sense of it.
> I believe in aether theory. I'm not sympathetic.
I have no idea what you're talking about here, and I'm almost afraid
to ask. Do you mean to say that you reject the Special Theory of
Relativity? That's about the only sense I can make of your assertion.
If so, I must confess that I'm astounded, even after having been
solemnly assured by Paul Streitz that AIDS is "a hoax." What next?
> [snip]
> >
> > > > "[text of Sonnet 144 deleted]
> > > > In this later version there are minor changes in spelling,
> > > > punctuation and one change in sense (faire in line 8 becomes
> > > > fowle in the later version). The major change is in
> > > > capitalization. Let us string all the capitals together and
> > > > examine them:
> > > >
> > > > Ciphertext of the 1599 verse:
> > > >
> > > > T V L I C D T S M A M M V T F T A A S D V A A S I F I A T I T A
> > > >
> > > > Plaintext, +4 is:
> > > >
> > > > B C P N G H B A Q E Q Q C B K B E E A H C E E A N K N E B N B E"
> > > > -------------------
> > > >
> > > > In case you're not viewing this with a fixed-width font, Leary has
> > > > underscored the substring "BEEAHCEEAN"! Very impressive indeed!
> > > > Here's another sample for your delectation:
> > > I was talking about the fact that Rips and Leary's 'success' is based
> > > on having an equivocal standard for judging the hits. You chose to
> > > attack me on a level you knew I couldn't refute--mathematical
> > > niceties.
> > No, that was Rips's *later* paper with coauthors, not the one to
> > which I alluded. Haven't you even read *any* of the stuff on which you
> > pontificate with such glib authority? The paper I mentioned does not
> > employ any lax standard of name recognition that I noticed, nor that
> > the Talmudic scholar whom I consulted noticed; indeed, it is Hebrew
> > words, not names of rabbis, that are at issue. Nor did the referees
> > who reviewed the paper find anything of that nature. The paper is
> > certainly vulnerable to various criticisms on other counts (there are
> > certainly clarifications that I would have sought had I refereed it),
> > but the paper is not, to my knowldege, vulnerable on that score.
> I used the Bible code only as a *comparison* and you chose to
> misinterpret my meaning so you could have an opportunity to impress
> Neuendorffer with the fact that you can translate Russian and Hebrew.
No; you look even more ridiculous than usual (which really takes
some doing) when you attempt to divine others' motivations. Art has
known that for several years already, and we've discussed both
languages several many times.
> That's how we got into this dismal discussion. You refused to take my
> comparison as a comparison.
That's because it's an utterly ridiculous "comparison." Rips was
smart enough to realize that such claims require some statistical
analysis to sort out signal (if any) from random noise; Baconians, by
and large, are not.
> > In any case, if one has any hope whatever of proving the presence of
> > concealed messages in the works of Shakespeare, the claim will stand or
> > fall based upon mathematical/statistical analysis -- I think that even
> > nutcase Baconians have long since given up on finding a true cipher
> > that would meet the exacting standards of cryptologists as enumerated
> > by the Friedmans. Thus what you airily dismiss as "mathematical
> > niceties" are the very heart of the matter.
> I think the problem with the Friedman analysis is that the Friedman's
> didn't bone up on Elizabethan cyphers.
No, the Friedmans' criteria for validity pertain to supposed ciphers
of *all* sorts, not merely Elizabethan ones.
> Some popular Elizabethan
> cyphers, like book cyphers, don't respond to mathematical analysis.
> I haven't studied Elizabethan cyphers
Then how on earth can you presume to write "I think the problem with
the Friedman analysis is that the Friedman's [sic] didn't bone up on
Elizabethan cyphers."?! The Friedmans are acknowledged experts in the
field, and you haven't studied the subject, yet you *think* you can
pinpoint the "problem" with their analysis?! As I've already said
twice, you "think" lots of things for which there is no justification
whatever.
[...]
> > Finally, as for my choosing to "attack [you] on a level [I] knew
> > [you] couldn't refute--mathematical niceties," that's a groundless
> > charge. You cannot refute at *any* level something you have not even
> > read, so I could have chosen *any* level, mathematical or otherwise,
> > and you would still have made a fool of yourself. (It always
> > astonishes me how eager most anti-Stratfordians are to bring up -- and
> > then to argue vociferously and fatuously about -- topics of which they
> > are *completely ignorant*.)
> >
> > [Crackpot cryptography deleted]
> > > Since your guy Rips is guilty of the same thing your post is looking
> > > pretty silly at this point.
> > Since you haven't even *read* Rips and are relying instead upon the
> > gross distortions of Drosnin even for the paucity of (mis)information
> > at your disposal, your post is looking utterly imbecilic at this point.
> > Rips is not "my guy" -- I am not a philosophical follower of Rips, nor
> > do I subscribe to the idea that he or anyone else has found "codes" in
> > the Bible. I have merely pointed out that Rips was actually smart
> > enough to realize that he needed to employ statistical methodology to
> > make his case, something that few if any Baconian ciphermongers seem to
> > have realized.
> I don't like Rips 'case'
I don't either. But how would you know in any case, since you
haven't even read it?
> and I don't care what kind of statistical
> analysis he used to prove it.
How would you know, since you evidently know no statistics?
> > Moreover, refutation of the work of Rips and his
> > collaborators required at least *some* effort, unlike the refutation of
> > the nutcase nonsense of Baconians, most of whom are far too clueless to
> > use quantitative methods.
> At least the Baconians are pure in heart.
If they only had a brain...
> > > > > Terry Ross wrote a
> > > > > saracastic and mean-spirited article debunking Leary's program. I
> > > > > thought Ross was unscholarly. Penn Leary is a nice man.
> > > > Penn Leary is a nice man, so you think that someone who refutes his
> > > > nonsense is unscholarly?! Some of the believers in abduction by space
> > > > aliens are among the nicest and most sincere people one could ever hope
> > > > to meet, as are some of the members of the Flat Earth Society.
> > > > > Neuendorffer's Sydney pheon is a beautiful cypher embedded in the
> > > > > Sonnet dedication that represent's [sic] the 'inner letter' of the
> > > > > dedication's awkward and ungrammatical 'outer letter.' The six words
> > > > > of the 'inner letter' reiterate the major themes of the Sonnets and
> > > > > are in the shape of the emblem of the Sydney and Dudley families grant
> > > > > of arms which identifies the author of the Sonnets, the identity of
> > > > > Mr. W.H. and the their unusual to say the least relationship.
> > > > > Neuendorffer would have figured this out long ago but he suppoerts the
> > > > > wrong authorship candidate.
> > > > You obviously haven't been reading Art's posts very long. Art
> > > > enthusiastically supports practically *all* authorship "candidates" --
> > > > indeed, he postulates the existence of a vast Masonic authorship
> > > > coverup conspiracy that numbers among its members virtually every peer
> > > > of the realm and every writer in the history of literature, including
> > > > some born centuries before Shakespeare. Art's "conspiracy" is so vast
> > > > and far-reaching that one wonders whether there is anyone who is *not*
> > > > involved in the conspiracy, other than Art himself.
> > > That's a detail.
> > A conspiracy theory on a scale that massive is a *detail*??!!
> Freemasonry bores me but I will be posting some frontispieces
I'll look forward to it.
> that
> support the fact that the Freemason's [sic] had control of 'Shakespeare's'
> works after 1626.
Evidence?
> I don't think that it was a conspiracy. It was
> Bacon's relatives--who happened to be Masons--that carried out his
> posthumous instructions to advance the English Enlightenment.
> > > Art is closer to it than you and Kathman are.
> > > > > Kathman and Webb have been abusing Neuendorffer over this cryptogram
> > > > > for moths [sic]
> > > > I can't recall Kathman having said anything specific about Art's
> > > > "cryptograms" for nearly two years. Can you produce a quotation? Dave
> > > > Kathman has wisely been ignoring Art and his deluded "decipherments"
> > > > for ages, a circumstance that Art himself has even groused about on
> > > > occasion (comedians thrive upon audience attention and adulation). Art
> > > > would be a complete waste of time were it not that his posts are so
> > > > funny.
> > > I thought that the thread that you and Kathman had going that
> > > ridiculed people in this forum was in bad taste.
> > Kathman didn't say *anything* about Art in that thread that I saw,
> > other than that Art was providing me with amusement and that I had
> > patience with his games.
> You missed Kathman's gratuitous insult to Art in the 'moth' post.
> > Those statements are both true and neutral.
> No, they're not. See the 'moth' post.
I saw it
(<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=moth++group:humanities.lit.authors.*
+author:kathman&hl=en&safe=off&rnum=1&ic=1&selm=3B32A53D.5DEB1887%40popd.
ix.netcom.com>), and I don't see any "gratuitous insult" in it. Dave
just remarked that Art had succeeded in making him chuckle, which may
well have been Art's goal in the first place. In any case, you said
that Kathman had been "abusing Neuendorffer over this cryptogram," and
I saw no reference whatever in Kathman's post to any cryptogram. Are
you referring to some post I didn't see? Or are you having trouble
keeping your facts straight again?
> > As for "ridiculing," if anyone appeared foolish in that thread, it was
> > not Art, but rather Ken Kaplan, who accused Dave Kathman of dishonesty
> > and selectivity in quoting Dryden when, as soon became quite apparent,
> > Ken himself knew next to nothing about Dryden and had not read even the
> > essay in question, let alone Dryden's many reverential encomiums
> > concerning Shakespeare's genius. As for ridicule, I thought that I was
> > actually rather restrained in dismantling Ken's nonsense, as I respect
> > him and believe him to be sincere but misguided. However, despite
> > Ken's cautionary example, you seem quite determined to follow in Ken's
> > footsteps by making more and more blatantly erroneous assertions about
> > texts you have not even read and things you know nothing about.
> La lala la laaaa.
Is that supposed to be a coherent utterance? It's about the closest
approximation I've seen in your post.
> > > > > and they are going to wish they could take their posts down
> > > > > after they understand what it is.
> > > > Are you trying to outdo Art as funniest h.l.a.s. comedian?
> > > I think you and Kathman are being obtuse.
> > You also "think" that Russell won the Literature Nobel because there
> > is no mathematics prize,
> Yes, I do. Russell got the Sympathy Award for his popularized work on
> Everybody Else's philosophy.
That's not what the citation says. Nor does Russell's _History of
Western Philosophy_ (to which I assume that you're referring) have much
to do with mathematics. Nor has anyone won any mathematical prize by
writing a popular history in any case.
[...]
> > > > > The only thing I'm not clear on is who discovered the pheon.
> > > > > Neuendorffer?
> > > > Of course not. Terry Ross discovered it, in the course of refuting
> > > > John Rollett's unintentionally amusing article on the Oxfordian
> > > > "cipher" embedded in the Sonnets' dedication. Although Terry doesn't
> > > > mention it specifically in the posts below, you can refer to
> > > I've seen it. It's flawed.
> > Indeed. Still, "These sonnets all by ever" is more impressive than
> > "BEEAHCEEAN."
Far more impressive, in fact -- not that that's saying much.
> > > I resent being used as a conduit for your ridicule of Art.
> > You're not. Art is very intelligent -- in my view, for too
> > intelligent to be serious about the stuff he posts (web pages railing
> > about space aliens, etc.). I haven't decided yet whether you're joking
> > as well. I certainly hope so.
> How patronizing. Woof.
I'm quite serious. I hope that you're joking. Art almost surely
is, and a little jocular needling often spurs him to new comedic
heights, as it does Stephanie Caruana. I don't know whether you're
joking or not, but I hope so.
David Webb
David L. Webb
elizabe...@mail.com (Elizabeth Weir) wrote:
Perhaps because you brought up the putative political implications of
Rips's work (which you haven't read) to begin with. Perhaps the fact that
you brought up _The Bible Code_ in the first place, despite not having
read either Rips or Drosnin, and despite having virtually no idea what
either of them said. Perhaps the fact that, not content with having made a
complete ass of yourself by pontificating upon papers and books you
obviously have never read, you went still further and imputed unworthy
motives to Rips. Perhaps the fact that, not having even read what Rips
wrote, you could scarcely hope to justify your ever more ridiculous claims
concerning the motivations actuating Rips in any case. Any one of these
circumstances might have led John Kennedy and others to surmise that you
were interested in reviving a conflict that transpired some three milennia
ago. You wisely lost interest when it became apparent to all that you
have no idea wbat you're talking about.
David Webb
Tom Reedy
I mean, 42 kilobytes? Please!!!!!
It wouldn't be so bad if I didn't feel this strange compulsion to read what
she's going to come up with next. It's like gaping at a wreck on the side of
the road or going to the freak show at the carnival; you want to have the
decency to not look at someone else's misfortune, but some strange
Springerish desire takes over and forces you to look!
There can be only two possibilities here.
She a troll, in which case she's having you on, and very successfully, I
might add, or she's retarded, and so deserves our pity.
I'm betting it's the first. Or at least I certainly hope so, for her sake.
But, for the love of God, Montresor!
Spare us from ourselves! Quit this cat's play!
TR
Elizabeth Weir
> john, baker wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 22:09:29 -0600, David Kathman
> > <dj...@popd.ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > David Webb has very patiently pointed
> > >out many of her hilarious blunders and dubious reasoning,
> > >and has shown far more patience than I think most
> > >college instructors would have done if faced with such
> > >stuff.
> > >Dave Kathman
> > >dj...@ix.netcom.com
> >
> > So your problem with her isn't her opinions but her lack
> > of...footnotes and style?
>
> Uh... where did I ever say that? Can't you read
> simple English prose? Even in the small fragment of
> my post that you chose to excerpt, I mentioned her
> "hilarious blunders and dubious reasoning", which goes
> far beyond "footnotes and style". The "blunders" I'm
> talking about are not trivia like misplaced commas,
> which I couldn't care less about in this forum; they're
> blunders of substance.
Does this mean I'm not going to make the Usenet Dean's List?
David L. Webb
Reedy <txr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> For Christ's sake, David, will you cut it out?
>
> I mean, 42 kilobytes? Please!!!!!
I was going to snip some of her prose, but as the paragraphs rolled
past, each funnier than the last, I just couldn't bring myself to do
it.
> It wouldn't be so bad if I didn't feel this strange compulsion to read what
> she's going to come up with next. It's like gaping at a wreck on the side of
> the road or going to the freak show at the carnival;
I don't think so; I suspect that she may just be trolling in the
Neuendorffer tradition. Who but a troll would hold forth so volubly
about books and articles she has never read?
> you want to have the
> decency to not look at someone else's misfortune, but some strange
> Springerish desire takes over and forces you to look!
>
> There can be only two possibilities here.
>
> She a troll, in which case she's having you on, and very successfully, I
> might add,
That's by far the more likely possibility. But I'm quite content
with the role of straight man when a troll is so creative.
> or she's retarded, and so deserves our pity.
>
> I'm betting it's the first. Or at least I certainly hope so, for her sake.
>
> But, for the love of God, Montresor!
>
> Spare us from ourselves! Quit this cat's play!
Where's your sense of humor, Tom? Given time and the right
handling, she might furnish almost as much amusement as Stephanie
Caruana has in the past. Stephanie was hilariously funny, and by no
means retarded -- indeed, it was a pleasure to read her graceful prose
after wading through Paul Streitz's incoherent and often apoplectic
muddle. Stephanie simply had an uproariously funny predilection for
holding forth authoritatively on topics she knew nothing about.
Elizabeth Weir has the same tendency, and she promises some rare
entertainment. She's already a serious rival to Art Neuendorffer for
most accomplished h.l.a.s. comedian. Besides, h.l.a.s. could use a
Baconian for a change. The Oxfordians are getting boring.
David Webb
Tom Reedy
> In article <w2z07.97$G_1....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, Tom
> Reedy <txr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > For Christ's sake, David, will you cut it out?
> >
> > I mean, 42 kilobytes? Please!!!!!
>
> I was going to snip some of her prose, but as the paragraphs rolled
> past, each funnier than the last, I just couldn't bring myself to do
> it.
I know what you mean. I got some good-sized guffaws from that one, and
laughter is certainly hard to come by on HLAS lately.
> > It wouldn't be so bad if I didn't feel this strange compulsion to read
what
> > she's going to come up with next. It's like gaping at a wreck on the
side of
> > the road or going to the freak show at the carnival;
>
> I don't think so; I suspect that she may just be trolling in the
> Neuendorffer tradition. Who but a troll would hold forth so volubly
> about books and articles she has never read?
>
> > you want to have the
> > decency to not look at someone else's misfortune, but some strange
> > Springerish desire takes over and forces you to look!
> >
> > There can be only two possibilities here.
> >
> > She a troll, in which case she's having you on, and very successfully, I
> > might add,
>
> That's by far the more likely possibility. But I'm quite content
> with the role of straight man when a troll is so creative.
But I have my doubts as to whether she's a real person. Her posts have that
odd, disembodied quality of a computer program written to mimic human
interaction, like those computers that dispense psychological therapy.
> > or she's retarded, and so deserves our pity.
> >
> > I'm betting it's the first. Or at least I certainly hope so, for her
sake.
> >
> > But, for the love of God, Montresor!
> >
> > Spare us from ourselves! Quit this cat's play!
>
> Where's your sense of humor, Tom? Given time and the right
> handling, she might furnish almost as much amusement as Stephanie
> Caruana has in the past. Stephanie was hilariously funny, and by no
> means retarded -- indeed, it was a pleasure to read her graceful prose
> after wading through Paul Streitz's incoherent and often apoplectic
> muddle. Stephanie simply had an uproariously funny predilection for
> holding forth authoritatively on topics she knew nothing about.
Yes, I miss reading Stephanie. She could take off on some bizarre
interpretation of a minor detail and inflate it to cosmic proportions. A
statement that would be a mere annoyance from Streitz or Crowley would end
up as a philosophical tome upon which her entire argument would rest--for a
couple of days, anyway, until someone pointed out that her original premise
was either a typographical error or a misreading.
And she was always wrong; she was so consistent.
> Elizabeth Weir has the same tendency, and she promises some rare
> entertainment.
I disagree. Weir's posts seem as if they are randomly generated by some
strange Baconian computer. At least Stephanie seemed able to follow the
general topic.
She's already a serious rival to Art Neuendorffer for
> most accomplished h.l.a.s. comedian. Besides, h.l.a.s. could use a
> Baconian for a change. The Oxfordians are getting boring.
I agree. I miss the weepy, self-conscious posing of the more amusing ones:
Alexander, Kaplan and Stritmatter (sigh!). Now those guys are champion
laugh-getters!
TR
>
> David Webb
>
Tom Reedy
news:jbmiller-040...@ppp0a119.std.com...
> In article <BoJ07.1234$G_1.1...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, "Tom
> Reedy" <txr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > "David L. Webb" <David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
> > news:040720011358571540%David....@Dartmouth.edu...
read
> > what
> > > > she's going to come up with next. It's like gaping at a wreck on the
> > side of
> > > > the road or going to the freak show at the carnival;
> > >
> > > I don't think so; I suspect that she may just be trolling in the
> > > Neuendorffer tradition. Who but a troll would hold forth so volubly
> > > about books and articles she has never read?
> > >
> > > > you want to have the
> > > > decency to not look at someone else's misfortune, but some strange
> > > > Springerish desire takes over and forces you to look!
> > > >
> > > > There can be only two possibilities here.
> > > >
> > > > She a troll, in which case she's having you on, and very
successfully, I
> > > > might add,
> > >
> > > That's by far the more likely possibility. But I'm quite content
> > > with the role of straight man when a troll is so creative.
> >
> > But I have my doubts as to whether she's a real person. Her posts have
that
> > odd, disembodied quality of a computer program written to mimic human
> > interaction, like those computers that dispense psychological therapy.
>
>
> -- Janice
>
I'm not knocking anything. I am doing what is known as striking a pose for
the amusement of myself and others. It gives me much enjoyment, with the
added benefit that I can think of myself as a very clever fellow.
If you're not receiving at least that much from your usenet experiences, I
would suggest you reassess your usenet goals, and determine whether or not
the medium is right for you. Hi-tech is not for everyone: other activities,
such making faces in the mirror, also have their advantages.
TR
David L. Webb
Tom Reedy <txr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "David L. Webb" <David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
> news:040720011358571540%David....@Dartmouth.edu...
> > In article <w2z07.97$G_1....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, Tom
> > Reedy <txr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > For Christ's sake, David, will you cut it out?
> > >
> > > I mean, 42 kilobytes? Please!!!!!
> > I was going to snip some of her prose, but as the paragraphs rolled
> > past, each funnier than the last, I just couldn't bring myself to do
> > it.
> I know what you mean. I got some good-sized guffaws from that one, and
> laughter is certainly hard to come by on HLAS lately.
> > > It wouldn't be so bad if I didn't feel this strange compulsion to read
> what
> > > she's going to come up with next.
[...]
> > > There can be only two possibilities here.
> > >
> > > She a troll, in which case she's having you on, and very successfully, I
> > > might add,
> > That's by far the more likely possibility. But I'm quite content
> > with the role of straight man when a troll is so creative.
> But I have my doubts as to whether she's a real person. Her posts have that
> odd, disembodied quality of a computer program written to mimic human
> interaction, like those computers that dispense psychological therapy.
That's in part because she breezily asserts as hard fact all sorts
of complete nonsense, without making any attempt even to indicate any
evidence, let alone any proof. It's that aspect of her writing -- the
unexpected appearence, like a bolt out of the blue, of some farcically
false _non sequitur_ -- that gives her prose that peculiar, disjointed
quality. Maybe she expects those who don't know better just to take
her word for it.
The other salient feature that makes her posts so uproariously funny
is her eagerness to pontificate with Crowleyan certainty (and Crowleyan
ignorance) upon topics she knows nothing about and upon the content of
works she has never read. Her lengthy disquisition on _The Bible
Code_, which she plainly had not even read, was a classic instance.
> > > or she's retarded, and so deserves our pity.
> > >
> > > I'm betting it's the first. Or at least I certainly hope so, for her
> sake.
> > >
> > > But, for the love of God, Montresor!
> > >
> > > Spare us from ourselves! Quit this cat's play!
> > Where's your sense of humor, Tom? Given time and the right
> > handling, she might furnish almost as much amusement as Stephanie
> > Caruana has in the past. Stephanie was hilariously funny, and by no
> > means retarded -- indeed, it was a pleasure to read her graceful prose
> > after wading through Paul Streitz's incoherent and often apoplectic
> > muddle. Stephanie simply had an uproariously funny predilection for
> > holding forth authoritatively on topics she knew nothing about.
> Yes, I miss reading Stephanie. She could take off on some bizarre
> interpretation of a minor detail and inflate it to cosmic proportions. A
> statement that would be a mere annoyance from Streitz or Crowley would end
> up as a philosophical tome upon which her entire argument would rest--for a
> couple of days, anyway, until someone pointed out that her original premise
> was either a typographical error or a misreading.
>
> And she was always wrong; she was so consistent.
This far, Elizabeth Weir has demonstrated almost the same solid
dependability -- you can count on her to be completely wrong. Her
comic contortion of the name of Sir Edwin Durning-Lawrence into "Sir
Edward Lawrence-Durning" has some of the flavor of the most comic
Caruaniana. True, it isn't as funny as Stephanie's confusion of
sublime novelist Anthony Powell with neo-Nazi nutcase Enoch Powell, but
given time, Elizabeth Weir may yet attain Stephanie's magisterial level
of muddle-headedness.
> > Elizabeth Weir has the same tendency, and she promises some rare
> > entertainment.
> I disagree. Weir's posts seem as if they are randomly generated by some
> strange Baconian computer. At least Stephanie seemed able to follow the
> general topic.
You have a point there. At least Stephanie, despite her tangential
flights of fancy, does have *some* embryonic sense of pertinence.
> She's already a serious rival to Art Neuendorffer for
> > most accomplished h.l.a.s. comedian. Besides, h.l.a.s. could use a
> > Baconian for a change. The Oxfordians are getting boring.
> I agree. I miss the weepy, self-conscious posing of the more amusing ones:
> Alexander, Kaplan and Stritmatter (sigh!). Now those guys are champion
> laugh-getters!
Time will tell. I have high hopes for Weir. Of course, she might
just be trolling like Art Neuendorffer (although I've seen nothing from
her even remotely reminiscent of Art's impressive, if idiosyncratic,
intelligence), and "Weir" might be a pseudonym intended, in the best
Baconian tradition, to suggest "weird."
David Webb
Neuendorffer
> I have high hopes for Weir. Of course, she might just
> be trolling like Art Neuendorffer (although I've seen nothing from
> her even remotely reminiscent of Art's impressive, if idiosyncratic,
> intelligence), and "Weir" might be a pseudonym intended, in the
> best Baconian tradition, to suggest "weird."
------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elizabeth Weir (elizabe...@mail.com)
Subject: Re: Taming of the "WeRhs"
Newsgroups: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
Date: 2001-06-26 10:39:35 PST
"The name Weir, like many lowland Scottish names, is of Norman origin
from one or several of the places named Vere around the Calvados
region of France. The word was introduced into Normandy by the
Norsemen from their own word "ver" meaning a station. . ."
---------------------------------------------------------------
WIRE PALADIN
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.electricscotland.com/webclans/stoz/weir2.html
<<Whier is a Caithness pronunciation, and on a tombstone in
TEMPLE churchyard, Midlothian, the name is spelt WIRE.>>
OLIVER: Charlemagne’s favourite PALADIN,
who, with Roland, rode by his side.
His sword was called Hauteclaire,
and his horse Ferrant d’Espagne.
[Ferrant d’Espagne => “the Spanish TRAVELLER.”]
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Have Gun, WILL TRAVEL - WIRE PALADIN, San Francisco"
-----------------------------------------------------
Have Gun, Will Travel reads the card of a man,
A knight without armor in a savage land.
His fast gun for hire, he's the CALLING WIND!!
A soldier of fortune is the man called Paladin.
Paladin, Paladin, where do you roam?
Paladin, Paladin, far, far from home.
-----------------------------------------------------
The word "paladin" means "vigilante protector".
Palatine, a. [F. palatin, L. palatinus, fr. palatium.] Of or pertaining
to a palace, or to a high officer of a palace; hence, possessing royal
privileges.
{Palatine hill}, or {The palatine}, one of the seven hills of Rome,
once occupied by the palace of the C[ae]sars.
Paladin, n. [F., fr.It. paladino, Medieval Latin palatinus courtier.
Date: 1592] A knight-errant; a distinguished champion; as,
the paladins of Charlemagne. --Sir W. Scott.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Orlando, called Rotolando, Roland, Rodlan, Hroudland,
and RUTLANDus in the Latin chronicles of the Middle Ages,
the paladin, was lord of Anglant, knight of Brava,
son of Milo d'Anglesis and Bertha, sister of Charlemagne.>>
----------------------------------------------------------------
h
a
m
r o g e r m a n n e r s, e. r u t l a n d
e
t
t
<< and more strange return. hamlet >>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Okay Fine
>
> "David L. Webb" <David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
> news:040720011358571540%David....@Dartmouth.edu...
> > In article <w2z07.97$G_1....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, Tom
> > Reedy <txr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > For Christ's sake, David, will you cut it out?
> > >
> > > I mean, 42 kilobytes? Please!!!!!
> >
> > I was going to snip some of her prose, but as the paragraphs rolled
> > past, each funnier than the last, I just couldn't bring myself to do
> > it.
>
> I know what you mean. I got some good-sized guffaws from that one, and
> laughter is certainly hard to come by on HLAS lately.
>
Yes, Tom, that sounds familiar. I still recall fondly how hard I
laughed when you offered your howler that you're the best one to decide
what others mean by their words. Thinking about it today gets me
started again. Surely it is the most ridiculous claim ever made on
hlas.
Thanks again! :-)
OF.
Tom Reedy
news:3B43CC88...@qwest.net...
You're quite welcome, altho' I have no idea what you're talking about.
TR
Neuendorffer
<<Paladin used a single-action Colt .44 with a long, rifled barrel.
It had a one-ounce trigger pull and was hand-made to his own
specifications. While Paladin often spared the life of a bad guy,
if Paladin was injured by the bad guy, they ALWAYS ended out dead!>>
---------------------------------------------------------------
The 6th Earl of Rutland paid Burbage & Shakspeare 44 shillings
each for impreso work.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
BURKE, EDMUND (1729-1797): British statesman and orator; thought to
have been a member of Jerusalem Lodge No. 44, Clerkenwell, London.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
EVERY MAN & his SACK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Genesis 44:11. Then they speedily took down EVERY MAN his SACK to the
ground, and opened EVERY MAN his SACK.
And he searched, and began at the eldest, and left at the youngest:
and the cup was found in Benjamin's SACK.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Bernhard Mickiewicz (1798 - 1855) Freemason poet.
<<The fantastic drama Dziady (1823-32, Forefathers' Eve), in which
Poland had a messanic role among the nations of westerns Europe. The
title of the play was taken from an ancient folk celebration in
Belorussia, held on All Souls' Day, which honors the memory of the dead
and were common in Lithuania during Mickiewicz's youth. The second part
dealt with the theme of earthy suffering and portrayed the ghosts of the
ill-treated tenants, children who cannot reach heaven because they have
not suffered on earth, and the virgin shepherdess who had experienced
neither love nor grief. Part III depicted the martyrdom of Poland and
presented a vision of the future country in which the sufferings are
equated with the Passion of Christ. This vision concludes
with a prophecy about a mysterious future savior of Poland,
bearing the name "44.">>
------------------------------------------------------
Charles Nodier (1801-44) - the flamboyant mentor for an entire
generation including young Victor Hugo, Balzac, Dalcroix, Dumas pere,
Lamartine, Musset, Theophile Gautier, Gerard de Nerval and Alfred de
Vigny - all who drew upon esoteric and Hermetic tradition. "Around 1793
he created another group - or perhaps an inner circle of the first [the
Philadephes]- which included one of the subsequent plotters against
Napoleon." - William T. Still, New World Order
Victor Hugo (1844-85) "prophesied that in the Twentieth Century, war
would die, frontier boundaries would die, dogma would die...and Man
would live. 'He will possess something higher than these...a great
country, the Whole Earth...and a great hope, the Whole Heaven'." -
Marilyn Ferguson, The Aquarian Conspiracy
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth I remained in power for 44+ years thanks in great part to an
efficient (and ruthless) secret service under Francis Walsingham. The
most famous portraiture of Elizabeth (called the 'rainbow' portrait
because Liz is holding a rainbow) shows Liz in a dress bedecked with
the 'eyes' and 'ears' of her secret service. Upon his death Francis
Walsingham's secret agents were divided, with most of it reverting back
to Lord Burghley or his son Robert Cecil; however, at least one agent
went to Essex: Thomas Phellipes, the cryptographer (i.e., someone adept
at languages including Turkish). Considering that Le Doux's effect
included a set of nstructions to him from the Earl of Essex isn't it
likely that Le Doux = Thomas Phellipes?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
JOHN 11:44 And he that was dead came forth, bound hand and foot
with graveclothes: and his face was bound about with a NAPKIN.
Jesus saith unto them, Loose him, and let him go.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.bcpl.net/~cbirkmey/cast.html
http://www.bcpl.net/~cbirkmey/agent44.html
Agent 44 had an unusual career on Get Smart. He appeared in the first
season five times (Victor French) and twice in the fifth season (Al
Molinaro). 44 was a good agent, however, he was consumed with self pity.
Hiding in unusual places was his speciality, but it just seemed to wear
on him greatly. He either was hidden so well that he missed code book
update (Back To The Old Drawing Board) or he was forced to room with
3,000 monkeys (Ship of Spies). Eventually, it would wear on him and
despite his best efforts, 44 would end up crying, embarassing everybody.
Agent 44's Hiding Places
Medicine cabinet in train compartment
Grandfather clock
Sailor's duffelbag
Cello case
Ship's porthole
Cargo hold filled with monkeys
Ship's funnel
A baby in a baby buggy
A lit, wood-burning stove
----------------------------------------------------
VENUS AND ADONIS
1 Even as the sunne with purple-colourd face,
2 Had tane his last leaue of the weeping morne,
3 ROSE-CHEEKT Adonis hied him to the CHACE,
---------------------------------------------------------------------
<<Only one person claimed that he saw John Shakspere. In the middle of
the 17th century, Archdeacon Thomas Plume of Rochester wrote down some
legends about Shakspere: 'He was a glover's son. Sir John MENNES saw
once his old father in his shop - a MERRY CHEEKT OLD MAN, that said,
"Will was a good honest fellow,
but he durst have crackt a jesst with him att any time."'
Sir John MENNES was only two-and-a-half when John Shakspere died;>>
-- _Who Wrote Shakespeare?_ by John Michell.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MENES the first king of Egypt
-----------------------------------------------------------------
* Memphis *
<<only in Hos. 9:6, Hebrew Moph. In Isa. 19:13; Jer. 2:16; 46:14,
19; Ezek. 30:13, 16, it is mentioned under the name Noph. It was
the capital of Lower, i.e., of Northern Egypt. From certain
remains found half buried in the sand, the site of this ancient
city has been discovered near the modern village of Minyet
Rahinch, or Mitraheny, about 16 miles above the ancient head of
the Delta, and 9 miles south of Cairo, on the west bank of the
Nile. It is said to have been founded by MENES, the first king
of Egypt, and to have been in circumference about 19 miles.
"There are few remains above ground," says Manning (The Land of
the Pharaohs), "of the splendour of ancient Memphis. The city
has utterly disappeared. If any traces yet exist, they are
buried beneath the vast mounds of crumbling bricks and broken
pottery which meet the eye in every direction. Near the village
of Mitraheny is a colossal statue of Rameses the Great. It is
apparently one of the two described by Herodotus and Diodorus as
standing in front of the temple of Ptah. They were originally
50 feet in height. The one which remains, though mutilated,
measures 48 feet. It is finely carved in limestone, which takes
a high polish, and is evidently a portrait. It lies in a pit,
which, during the inundation, is filled with water. As we gaze
on this fallen and battered statue of the mighty conqueror who
was probably contemporaneous with Moses, it is impossible not
to remember the words of the prophet Isaiah, 19:13; 44:16-19,
and Jeremiah, 46:19.">>
ISAIAH 44
13 The carpenter stretcheth out his rule; he marketh it out with a
line; he fitteth it with planes, and he marketh it out with the compass,
and maketh it after the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a
man; that it may remain in the house. He heweth him down cedars, and
taketh the cypress and the oak, which he strengtheneth for himself among
the trees of the forest: he planteth an ash, and the rain doth nourish
it.
Then shall it be for a man to burn: for he will take thereof, and warm
himself; yea, he kindleth it, and baketh bread; yea, he maketh a god,
and worshippeth it; he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down
thereto.
He burneth part thereof in the fire; with part thereof he eateth flesh;
he roasteth roast, and is satisfied: yea, he warmeth himself, and saith,
AHA, I am warm, I have seen the fire: And the residue thereof he maketh
a god, even his graven image: he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth
it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, DELIVER me; for thou art my god.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Although Marcus Junius Brutus was a trusted young friend of Caesar's, he
was also one of the conspirators who murdered him on the Ides of March
in 44 B.C. When Caesar entered the Senate that day, all of the senators
stood to show respect. Some of the conspirators snuck behind Caesar's
chair while others moved forward as if to greet him. As one grabbed
Caesar's robe to signal the beginning of the attack, another struck a
glancing blow to his neck. Each of the attackers then bared their
knives and closed around Caesar in a tightening circle. Caesar
attempted to fight the assassins until he saw his trusted friend,
Brutus, approach dagger in hand. In surprised resignation Caesar
uttered his famous last words, fell to the floor, and pulled his robe up
over his face. Brutus then stabbed Caesar in the groin and all of the
attackers joined in. In the frenzy, Caesar was pushed against a statue
of his old enemy, Pompey, which soon became drenched in blood. All
told, the attackers stabbed Caesar twenty-three times. Most people know
that the Latin translation of "You too, Brutus?" is "Et tu, Brute?" and
many will recall that in Shakespeare's play, the bard adds a final
English sentence to these Latin words, "Then fall, Caesar!" However,
some have suggested that the famous phrase was probably spoken--if it
was spoken at all--in the Greek that was commonly used by Roman
officials. The Greek version of Caesar's last words is
"Kai su, teknon?"
------------------------------------------------------------
II. James the Great
<<James the son of Zebedee, the elder brother of John, and
a relative of our Lord; for his mother Salome was cousin-german
to the Virgin Mary. It was not until ten years after the death
of Stephen that the second martyrdom took place; for no sooner had
Herod Agrippa been appointed governor of Judea, than, with a view to
ingratiate himself with them, he raised a sharp persecution against the
Christians, and determined to make an effectual blow, by striking at
their leaders. The account given us by an eminent primitive writer,
Clemens Alexandrinus, ought not to be overlooked; that, as James was
led to the place of martyrdom, his accuser was brought to repent of his
conduct by the apostle's extraordinary courage and undauntedness, and
fell down at his feet to request his pardon, professing himself a
Christian, and resolving that James should not receive the crown of
martyrdom alone. Hence they were both beheaded at the same time. Thus
did the first apostolic martyr cheerfully and resolutely receive that
cup, which he had told our Savior he was ready to drink. Timon and
Parmenas suffered martyrdom about the same time; the one at Philippi,
and the other in Macedonia. These events took place A.D. 44.>>
------------------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
Elizabeth Weir
> In article <w2z07.97$G_1....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, Tom
> Reedy <txr...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > For Christ's sake, David, will you cut it out?
> >
> > I mean, 42 kilobytes? Please!!!!!
>
> I was going to snip some of her prose, but as the paragraphs rolled
> past, each funnier than the last, I just couldn't bring myself to do
> it.
>
> > It wouldn't be so bad if I didn't feel this strange compulsion to read what
> > she's going to come up with next. It's like gaping at a wreck on the side of
> > the road or going to the freak show at the carnival;
> I don't think so; I suspect that she may just be trolling in the
> Neuendorffer tradition. Who but a troll would hold forth so volubly
> about books and articles she has never read?
You don't know what I've read.
You claim that I've never read Nabokov but I went limp with love for
Nabokov after I read 'Pale Fire.' I plan to read it again this fall
for Baconian allusions.
I'm getting close to finishing the post on 'Shekspir.' I've scrolled
through some of your HLAS posts on Nabokov but I am not quite sure if
you think 'Shekspir' is straight poetry or more of what you assume is
'Nabokovian parody of anti-Stratfordianism.'
David L. Webb
Weir <elizabe...@mail.com> wrote:
[...]
> > I don't think so; I suspect that she may just be trolling in the
> > Neuendorffer tradition. Who but a troll would hold forth so volubly
> > about books and articles she has never read?
> You don't know what I've read.
>
> You claim that I've never read Nabokov
I know that you haven't read much Nabokov if you think that he was a
Baconian. In particular, you cannot have read _Bend Sinister_ very
attentively if you missed the rollicking parody (which constitutes
almost the entire Chapter 7 of the novel) of hilarious misreadings of
Shakespeare, including the farcical Baconian delusions of Sir Edwin
Durning-Lawrence (or "Sir Edward Lawrence-Durning" to you). I know
that you cannot have read very much Nabokov if you have not read his
*nonfiction* criticism, interviews, and reviews, in which he expresses
dismissive disdain for Baconian ciphermongering, for Freud's reading of
Shakespeare, for the practice of trying to infer an author's "real
life" opinions from his or her fiction (a hallmark of anti-Stratfordian
"scholarship"), and in which he never expresses the slightest doubt
that Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to him. I've read
everything Nabokov ever wrote in two languages, English and Russian,
(with the exception of his technical scientific papers on lepidoptera),
including his autobiography (perhaps the best literary autobiography
ever penned), his criticism (whatever one thinks of Nabokov's sometimes
painfully literal and idiosyncratic translation of the poem, his
monumental, four-volume commentary on _Evgenii Onegin_ may well be the
best critical commentary ever written), his two volumes of Cornell
lectures on literature, his signed reviews, his many interviews, his
translations, both of the works of others (Pushkin, Lermontov, Lewis
Carroll, the anonymous author of _Slovo o polku Igoreve_, etc.) and of
his own Russian novels and poetry written during the pre-war period for
the meagre Russian emigré communities in Berlin and Paris under the
name Sirin', his correspondence, etc., and I've never seen anything
even remotely redolent of anything but amused contempt for
anti-Stratfordian readings.
> but I went limp with love for
> Nabokov after I read 'Pale Fire.'
_Pale Fire_ is a sublime book, one of the very best novels I've ever
read in English. I've read it at least a half-dozen times (as well as
once in Véra Nabokov's Russian translation) and I once knew practically
the whole poem by heart, yet every reading unfailingly discloses some
new surprise or insight overlooked in previous readings. (In this I am
not alone -- Brian Boyd, the well-known Nabokov scholar and author of a
magisterial two-volume Nabokov biography, has recently published a
book, _Nabokov's Pale Fire: The Magic of Artistic Discovery_, in which
he completely revises his earlier reading of _Pale Fire_, an
interpretation about which he had thought carefully and which he had
defended skilfully and convincingly with painstaking detail over a
period of many years.) I think that it's Nabokov's best novel in
English (although I would have a hard time picking a favorite between
_Pale Fire_ and Nabokov's great Russian masterpiece _Dar_), surpassing
even _Ada_, the often unjustly overlooked _The Real Life of Sebastian
Knight_, and the generally underappreciated but thoroughly delightful
_Pnin_.
> I plan to read it again this fall
> for Baconian allusions.
Then you'll just be playing Kinbote. Incidentally, as I've
mentioned to Art in another thread, _Pale Fire_ is a salutary,
cautionary tale for anti-Stratfordians. Just as Kinbote imposes his
own paranoid obsession (that he is the dethroned and exiled King of
Zembla) on John Shade's very personal poem of mystery and loss, so
anti-Stratfordians impose their own quasi-religious delusions on the
Shakespeare canon. In so doing, like Kinbote, they often commit
farcical blunders through ignorance, wishful thinking, linguistic
incompetence, paranoia, and other shortcomings.
For example, Kinbote tries to divine the source of the name of
Shade's poem, which he infers from Shade's phrase "Help me, Will" must
come from Shakespeare, but laments that in his sylvan isolation he
possesses none of Shakespeare's works to consult, except for a Zemblan
translation of _Timon of Athens_. Kinbote quotes in full the *very
passage* in _Timon_ that contains the phrase "pale fire" is his own
Englished version of the Zemblan translation, but he never realizes
that he has just quoted the *very passage he seeks* because his
translation from the Zemblan doesn't use precisely the wording "pale
fire."
Kinbote also furnishes an instance of the deficient English syntax
of Conmal, Duke of Aros, translator of _Timon_ into Zemblan, in a
riposte to a critic of that translation:
"I am not slave: let be my critic slave
I cannot be, and Shakespeare would not want thus;
Let drawing students study the acanthus,
I work with Master on the architrave."
(I may be misquoting slightly from memory.) This ludicrous linguistic
ineptness (despite the creative "want thus/acanthus" rhyme) is not that
far removed from what one sometimes finds among anti-Stratfordians.
Elsewhere, as I mentioned to Art, Kinbote furnishes a hilarious
gloss on a memento of Shade's beloved Aunt Maude mentioned in the poem:
"...Her room
We've kept intact. Its trivia create
A still life in her style: the paperweight
Of convex glass encircling a lagoon,
The verse book open at the Index (Moon,
Moonrise, Moor, Moral), the forlorn guitar,
The human skull, and from the local _Star_,
A curio: _Red Sox Beat Yanks 5-4
On Chapman's Homer_ thumbtacked to the door.
(Again, I may be misquoting slightly from memory.)
Kinbote's note on the baseball headline is priceless: he takes the
phrase "on Chapman's Homer" as a reference to Keats's famous sonnet on
first looking into Chapman's Homer! This, too, is pretty close to the
sort of thing one finds in much anti-Stratfordian "scholarship."
This is not to say that Nabokov had anti-Stratfordians explicitly in
mind when he wrote _Pale Fire_; it is far more likely that he had in
mind some of the criticism and commentary he had read while preparing
his recently completed, magisterial commentary on _Evgenii Onegin_
(e.g., what he characterizes as the "...running (or rather, stumbling)
commentary" of Dmitry Cizevsky on _Onegin_), but the novel is a caustic
cautionary tale for anti-Stratfordians nonetheless.
> I'm getting close to finishing the post on 'Shekspir.' I've scrolled
> through some of your HLAS posts on Nabokov but I am not quite sure if
> you think 'Shekspir' is straight poetry or more of what you assume is
> 'Nabokovian parody of anti-Stratfordianism.'
No, I certainly don't think that "Shekspir" is a parody. Rather,
it's a poetic expression of Nabokov's ambivalent feelings about the
double-edged sword of biography, which he expressed eloquently
elsewhere. Nabokov loathed the "human interest" school of literary
criticism, which seeks to understand an artist's work by recourse to
his or her biography, and conversely, attempts to reconstruct an
author's biography or opinions (in the worst case, even to
psychoanalyze the author) on the basis of his or her fictional
creations. Nabokov often lambasted scornfully and even indignantly the
latter tendency:
"The method he [Edmund Wilson in _Upstate_] favors is gleaning
from my fiction what he supposes to be actual, 'real-life'
impressions..."
Nabokov goes on to opine that those who misrepresent the views of
a writer based upon his or her fiction
"...should be subject to a rule or law that would require some
kind of formal consent from the victims of conjecture, ignorance,
and invention."
Nabokov always emphasized and celebrated the utter uniqueness of
every individual but lamented nonetheless that the prisons of time and
individuality practically preclude the possibility of any real
understanding of another person. (See the first volume of Brian Boyd's
biography for many instances in which Nabokov expressed this life-long
preoccupation. See also Nabokov's sublime autobiography _Speak,
Memory_.) Thus Nabokov regarded biography as a particularly futile and
even perilous pursuit, certainly one bound to lead readers astray, when
in Nabokov's view, only the individual work of art (not even the
inidividual artist) mattered. Nabokov's absorbing novel _The Real Life
of Sebastian Knight_, the first novel he wrote in English, explores at
length (indeed, is devoted to) the theme of the distorted, often
hallucinatory lens afforded by biography and the futility of knowing an
artist or a person by that means.
Nabokov was also an intensely private person, and according to some
close to him, viewed with some distaste and trepidation the invasion of
privacy that biography entails, and even dreaded what biographers would
eventually do to him. Indeed, Nabokov was scrupulously careful in his
choice of Andrew Field, the biographer entrusted to undertake his
"authorized" biography. Nabokov was appalled with the result. You can
learn more about this episode at
<http://www.libraries.psu.edu/iasweb/nabokov/coutnar2.htm>, from which
I qoute an excerpt:
"Andrew Field paid dearly for having tried to tell, and tamper
with, Nabokov's life story. Nabokov had perhaps confided too
much to him, providing him with precise information concerning
himself and his family. When he read Field's manuscript, he
was appalled to find many strange details, some of which may
have been provided or suggested by him, for all I know, others
having been dug up from other sources or even concocted by
Field himself, if Nabokov's subsequent criticisms of the book
are to be believed. Field quotes (whether faithfully or not,
I have no way to tell) from conversations he had with Nabokov
while preparing the biography. One, concerning the book's title,
is especially relevant here. Field claims that Nabokov wanted
him to entitle the book Nabokov-His Life and Parts but that
Véra scolded him on that score: "Volodya, leave him alone. It's
his book. Let him call it what he wants."23 This conversation,
assuming that it really took place, seems to suggest that
Nabokov wanted to impose his own version of his life, and also
that Field may have resented this authoritarianism, which
perhaps induced him to play games with the truth as he knew
it or could have known it. Nabokov tried hard to have the
manuscript amended before publication. Here is what he wrote
on the subject in a letter:
'If Field insists on telling the "history of bastardy and buggery"
inherent in the Nabokov family, as well as publishing bits of my
working notes toward a novel, and distorting information I gave
him in idiotic ways (by asking strangers to check details of
incidents that I alone could know), then I shall do everything
to stop him in his stride, besides composing for a sympathizing
periodical a special article about his dishonest behaviour
and blunders.'24
Brian Boyd, Nabokov's second biographer, finds it hard at times
to distinguish between what Field made up and what the biographee
may have tried to suppress after reading the manuscript.25 That
Nabokov was authoritarian, sometimes bullying, appears clearly
in his letters. He once derided Field somewhat ruthlessly after
the latter had sent him a copy of his own novel, Fractions.26
That may also explain why Field, to take his revenge and free
himself from the author's (alleged?) tyranny, drifted toward
slander of the Nabokov family. An unscholarly reaction, no doubt,
but one which is almost understandable after all that had occured
between Nabokov and his biographer. Field, who had begun his
career as a critic of Nabokov's works, was apparently acting as
if he enjoyed the same freedom in his presentation of the
author's life as he did in his interpretation of his novels: he
tried not only to tell the story as he knew it but to identify
the sources of Nabokov's desires and frustrations, to describe
the authorial figure beyond the known facts."
Thus Nabokov viewed with glee the fact that Shakespeare (with whom he
shared a birthday), the creator of what Nabokov called "the greatest
miracle in literature," is forever shrouded from the prying eyes of
would-be biographers. This he expressed eloquently in the poem
"Shekspir."
David Webb
Neuendorffer
>
> I've read
> everything Nabokov ever wrote in two languages, English and Russian,
> (with the exception of his technical scientific papers on lepidoptera),
Lepidoptera, n. pl. [NL., fr. Gr. lepi`s -i`dos, a scale + ptero`n a
feather, wing.] An order of insects, which includes the butterflies and
moths. They have broad wings, covered with minute overlapping scales,
usually brightly colored.
Note: They have a tubular proboscis, or haustellum, formed by the two
slender maxill[ae]. The labial palpi are usually large, and the
proboscis, when not in use, can be coiled up spirally between them. The
mandibles are rudimentary. The larv[ae], called caterpillars, are often
brightly colored, and they commonly feed on leaves. The adults feed
chiefly on the honey of flowers.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Eyre - Charlotte Bronte ** ( CHAPTER XXIII )
<<A great MOTH goes humming by me;
it alights on a plant at Mr. Rochester's foot:
he sees it, and bends to examine it.
"Now, he has his back towards me," thought I, "and he is occupied
too; perhaps, if I walk softly, I can slip away unnoticed."
I trode on an edging of turf that the crackle of the pebbly gravel
might not betray me: he was standing among the beds at a yard or
two distant from where I had to pass; the MOTH apparently engaged
him. "I shall get by very well," I meditated. As I crossed his
shadow, thrown long over the garden by the moon, not yet risen high,
he said quietly, without turning -
"Jane, come and look at this fellow."
I had made no noise: he had not eyes behind--could his shadow feel?
I started at first, and then I approached him.
"Look at his wings," said he, "he reminds me rather of a West Indian
insect; one does not often see so large and gay a night-rover in
England; there! he is flown." The MOTH roamed away.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ISAIAH 51:8 For the MOTH shall eat them up like a garment,
and the worm shall eat them like wool: but my righteousness
shall be for EVER, and my salvation from generation to generation.
-----------------------------------------------------
MOTH Yes, yes; he teaches boys the hornbook. What is
a, b, spelt backward, with the horn on his head?
HOLOFERNES Ba, pueritia, with a horn added.
--------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.stomptokyo.com/movies/godzilla-vs-mothra-64.html
<<With the exception of the original Godzilla, Godzilla vs Mothra is
probably the high water mark of the Godzilla series of movies. The film
opens during a big storm that washes an even bigger egg on shore in
Japan. So what happens when an egg the size of an ocean liner washes
ashore? The local fisherman sell it to a huge company. ConHugeCo then
puts the egg on display, two bits a gander. This may be the most
realistic thing ever to happen in a Godzilla movie. But darn it all,
it's never that simple. No sooner has ConHugeCo got the egg than two
miniature fairy women (who represent the "powers of goodness and light,"
or so they say) appeal to the company's officers to return the egg to
Infant Island. The egg is the progeny of the god of Infant Island,
the giant insect Mothra, last seen in 1961's Mothra.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
DORMER MASONIC STUDY CIRCLE NO. 53
A BRIEF SKETCH OF FREEMASONRY
By W.Bro.ERNEST H. SHACKLETON, Templars Lodge 4302.
<<In 1874 at the excavation of the ruins of Pompeii
was found a Masonic Table of square shape
engraved with the Masonic Symbols - it had remained buried
for 1,800 years. Also was discovered a Tracing Board made
of Marble and Inlaid. On a ground of Grey Stone is a human skull,
inlaid in grey, black and white, above it is a plumb line in coloured
wood, the points being made of brass. From the Top is suspended a plumb
line-beneath the skull is a six-spoked wheel, on the rim of which is a
MOTH with red wings edged with yellow, while its eyes are blue. On the
left there is an upright SPEAR from which hangs a scarlet and purple
robe. The SPEAR is surrounded by a white braid of black and white
squares. On the right is a thorn stick from which hangs a coarse piece
of cloth in grey brown and yellow tied with cord and over it a leather
knapsack. Here we have the Sq. and the plumb-line, the skull, emblem of
Mortality, the BUTTERFLY - MOTH - symbol of the Greeks to designate the
Soul - the wheel emblemic of the circle of life - the spokes are placed
to represent the six points of intersection and form the triangles - the
Hub - the Point in the Centre - the right side - the rugged Staff, the
robe and wallet of the Wanderer, denote the passing transitory life of
the world - the left - the SPEAR, purple robe and golden cord of the
conqueror - the reward of an upright and honourable life well spent. The
Skull has one ear placed on the side nearest the pilgrim's Staff and is
interpreted as "Listening to the wants of a distressed Brother." The
whole a symbol of Life - Death and Immortality. Probably the oldest
Tracing Board in the world to-day.>>
--------------------------------------------------------------
"David L. Webb" wrote:
>
<< in _Lolita_ Nabokov alludes to "fat, powdered Mrs. Leigh (born
Vanessa van Ness)." In the movie version of "A Streetcar Named
Desire," the role of Stella's sister Blanche was played by Vivian
LEIGH. In _Pale Fire_, the BUTTERFLY that flutters around the poet
John Shade just before he is murdered is a _VANESSA atalanta_, Art.
Shade's academic specialty was the age of Pope and Swift. In his poem
"Pale Fire," Shade addresses his wife Sybil as a _Vanessa atalanta_:
"my crimson-barred Vanessa." And Atalanta is a minor goddess who took
part in the Calydonian BOAR hunt! And the BLUE BOAR is associated
with...well, I'll let you figure that one out, Art>>
---------------------------------------------------------------
`Who are YOU?' said the Caterpillar.
This was not an encouraging opening for a conversation. Alice
replied, rather shyly, `I--I hardly know, sir, just at present--
at least I know who I WAS when I got up this morning, but I think
I must have been changed several times since then.'
`What do you mean by that?' said the Caterpillar sternly.
`Explain yourself!'
`I can't explain MYSELF, I'm afraid, sir' said Alice, `because
I'm not myself, you see.'
`I don't see,' said the Caterpillar.
`I'm afraid I can't put it more clearly,' Alice replied very
politely, `for I can't understand it myself to begin with; and
being so many different sizes in a day is very confusing.'
`It isn't,' said the Caterpillar.
`Well, perhaps you haven't found it so yet,' said Alice; `but
when you have to turn into a chrysalis--you will some day, you
know--and then after that into a BUTTERFLY, I should think you'll
feel it a little queer, won't you?'
`Not a bit,' said the Caterpillar.
`Well, perhaps your feelings may be different,' said Alice;
`all I know is, it would feel very queer to ME.'
`You!' said the Caterpillar contemptuously. `Who are YOU?'
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LOVE'S LABOURS LOST Act 1, Scene 2
ADRIANO DE ARMADO
GREEN indeed is the colour of loVERs; but to have a
love of that colour, methinks Samson had small reason
for it. He surely affected her for her wit.
MOTH It was so, sir; for she had a GREEN wit.
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.schuelers.com/chaos/chaos7.htm
<<1. The Fool. In the Deck of Thoth, the fool is shown
in a GREEN suit and gold shoes. A crystal is between his horns,
and he is falling. He holds A Wand in his right hand (power)
and a flaming pine cone in his left hand (purity).
The card shows a tiger, a dove, a vulture, a BUTTERFLY,
a rainbow, children, flowers, grapes, a crocodile, and ivy.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Life of [Sir Thomas] Browne By Samuel Johnson
-----------------------------------------------------------------
<<Some of the most pleasing performances have been produced by learning
and genius, exercised upon subjects of little importance. It seems to
have been, in all ages, the pride of wit, to show how it could exalt the
low, and amplify the little. To speak not inadequately of things really
and naturally great, is a task not only difficult but disagreeable;
because the writer is degraded in his own eyes, by standing in
comparison with his subject, to which he can hope to add nothing from
his imagination: but it is a perpetual triumph of fancy to expand a
scanty theme, to raise glittering ideas from obscure properties, and to
produce to the world an object of wonder, to which nature had
contributed little. To this ambition, perhaps, we owe:
the frogs of Homer,
the gnat and the bees of Virgil,
the BUTTERFLY of Spenser,
the shadow of Wowerus,
and the quincunx of Browne.>>
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Nickelby chapter 27
-----------------------------------------------------------
'Mrs WITitterly is delighted,' said Mr Wititterly, rubbing his
hands; 'delighted, my lord, I am sure, with this opportunity of
contracting an acquaintance which, I trust, my lord, we shall
improve. Julia, my dear, you must not allow yourself to be too much
excited, you must not. Indeed you must not. Mrs Wititterly is of a
most excitable nature, Sir MULBERRY.
The snuff of a candle,
the wick of a lamp,
the bloom on a peach,
the down on a BUTTERFLY.
You might blow her away, my lord; you might blow her away.'
Sir Mulberry seemed to think that it would be a great convenience if
the lady could be blown away. He said, however, that the delight
was mutual, and Lord VERisopht added that it was mutual, whereupon
Messrs Pyke and Pluck were heard to murmur from the distance that it
was very mutual indeed.
'I take an interest, my lord,' said Mrs Wititterly, with a faint
smile, 'such an interest in the drama.'
'Ye--es. It's very interesting,' replied Lord Verisopht.
'I'm always ill after Shakespeare,' said Mrs Wititterly. 'I
scarcely exist the next day; I find the reaction so very great after
a tragedy, my lord, and Shakespeare is such a delicious creature.'
'Ye--es!' replied Lord Verisopht. 'He was a clayVER man.'
'Do you know, my lord,' said Mrs Wititterly, after a long silence,
'I find I take so much more interest in his plays, after having been
to that dear little dull house he was born in! Were you EVER there,
my lord?'
'No, nayVER,' replied Verisopht.
'Then really you ought to go, my lord,' returned Mrs Wititterly, in
very languid and drawling accents. 'I don't know how it is, but
after you've seen the place and written your name in the little
book, somehow or other you seem to be inspired; it kindles up quite
a fire within one.'
'Ye--es!' replied Lord Verisopht, 'I shall certainly go there.'
'Julia, my life,' interposed Mr Wititterly, 'you are deceiving his
lordship--unintentionally, my lord, she is deceiving you. It is
your poetical temperament, my dear--your ethereal soul--your fERVID
imagination, which throws you into a glow of genius and excitement.
There is nothing in the place, my dear--nothing, nothing.'
'I think there must be something in the place,' said Mrs Nickleby,
who had been listening in silence; 'for, soon after I was married, I
went to Stratford with my poor dear Mr Nickleby, in a post-chaise
from Birmingham--was it a post-chaise though?' said Mrs Nickleby,
considering; 'yes, it must have been a post-chaise, because I
recollect remarking at the time that the driVER had a GREEN SHADE
over his left eye;--in a post-chaise from Birmingham, and after we
had seen Shakespeare's tomb and birthplace, we went back to the inn
there, where we slept that night, and I recollect that all night
long I dreamt of nothing but a black gentleman, at full length,
in PLASTER-OF-PARIS, with a lay-down collar tied with two tassels,
leaning against a post and thinking; and when I woke in the morning
and described him to Mr Nickleby, he said it was Shakespeare just as
he had been when he was alive, which was very curious indeed.>>
-----------------------------------------------------
Canterbury Tales CROESUS
"Yea," quoth our host, "and by Saint Paul's great bell,
You say the truth; this monk, his clapper's loud.
He spoke how 'Fortune covered with a cloud'
I know not what, and of a 'tragedy,'
As now you heard, and gad! no remedy
It is to wail and wonder and complain
That certain things have happened, and it's pain.
As you have said, to hear of wretchedness.
Sir monk, no more of this, so God you bless!
Your tale annoys the entire company;
Such talking is not worth a BUTTERFLY;
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Now, he has his back towards me," thought I, "and he is occupied
too; perhaps, if I walk softly, I can slip away unnoticed."
Art Neuendorffer
bookburn
Act 1, Scene 3
VALERIA O' my word, the father's son: I'll swear,'tis a
very pretty boy. O' my troth, I looked upon him o'
Wednesday half an hour together: has such a
confirmed countenance. I saw him run after a gilded
butterfly: and when he caught it, he let it go
again; and after it again; and over and over he
comes, and again; catched it again; or whether his
fall enraged him, or how 'twas, he did so set his
teeth and tear it; O, I warrant it, how he mammocked
it!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Act 5, Scene 4
MENENIUS There is differency between a grub and a butterfly;
yet your butterfly was a grub. This Marcius is grown
from man to dragon: he has wings; he's more than a
creeping thing.
Coriolanus
Act 1, Scene 3
VALERIA O' my word, the father's son: I'll swear,'tis a
very pretty boy. O' my troth, I looked upon him o'
Wednesday half an hour together: has such a
confirmed countenance. I saw him run after a gilded
butterfly: and when he caught it, he let it go
again; and after it again; and over and over he
comes, and again; catched it again; or whether his
fall enraged him, or how 'twas, he did so set his
teeth and tear it; O, I warrant it, how he mammocked
it!
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Act 5, Scene 4
MENENIUS There is differency between a grub and a butterfly;
yet your butterfly was a grub. This Marcius is grown
from man to dragon: he has wings; he's more than a
creeping thing.
john_baker
<jbmi...@world.std.com> wrote:
>
>"David L. Webb" <David....@Dartmouth.edu> wrote in message
>news:070720011252030005%David....@Dartmouth.edu...
>> _Pale Fire_ is a sublime book, one of the very best novels I've ever
>> read in English. I've read it at least a half-dozen times (as well as
>> once in Véra Nabokov's Russian translation) and I once knew practically
>> the whole poem by heart, yet every reading unfailingly discloses some
>> new surprise or insight overlooked in previous readings. (In this I am
>> not alone -- Brian Boyd, the well-known Nabokov scholar and author of a
>> magisterial two-volume Nabokov biography, has recently published a
>> book, _Nabokov's Pale Fire: The Magic of Artistic Discovery_, in which
>> he completely revises his earlier reading of _Pale Fire_, an
>> interpretation about which he had thought carefully and which he had
>> defended skilfully and convincingly with painstaking detail over a
>> period of many years.) I think that it's Nabokov's best novel in
>> English (although I would have a hard time picking a favorite between
>> _Pale Fire_ and Nabokov's great Russian masterpiece _Dar_), surpassing
>> even _Ada_, the often unjustly overlooked _The Real Life of Sebastian
>> Knight_, and the generally underappreciated but thoroughly delightful
>> _Pnin_.
>
>Then you may know the answer to this: are there any editions or critical
>commentaries on Nabokov that go into detail to the extent of such things as
>the name of the store from which H.H. buys his furniture? (The street
>address is given but no name, I think.) I know there's an annotated
>_Lolita_, but I can't imagine it goes to that level.)
>
>> ...
>> thus Nabokov viewed with glee the fact that Shakespeare (with whom he
>> shared a birthday), the creator of what Nabokov called "the greatest
>> miracle in literature," is forever shrouded from the prying eyes of
>> would-be biographers. This he expressed eloquently in the poem
>> "Shekspir."
>
>-- Janice
Ayn Rand did not like Nabokov. and beside Anna K and the Brothers K.
I'd have to say a close third...but I have always enjoyed his
autobiography Speak Memory...luicd...and I have often supposed
that there many be others with just as perfect memories who have never
written a word...what a shame....
More to point one the Oxford pages has listed him as an
anti-strat...and I know David Webb's take on this...but they had come
up with something to support it...I'll have to see what it was...if I
can still find it...I think it was on the Oxford Home page...under
those who supposrt anti=stratfordian viewpoint...it went on for pages
and pages...but I didn't see David Kathman's name on the list...mabybe
next year...
I think for David...both Davids...anti=stratofordianism is a bit like
that rock that was in the path of Anna's brother Demetry....it really
does get smaller and smaller the further you get away from it....
But not Lolita...if you have ever known one she just gets bigger
and bigger...
john