Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare, and Peele wrote Peele (including Titus Andronicus 1, 2.1 and 4.1)

[Peter Groves]

As I will be demonstrating in a paper at the British Shakespeare
Association conference at the end of February. The point of the paper
is not to prove this (since everyone with an ear and a brain knows it
already) but to demonstrate my new model of forensic analysis of metre
and prosody. It also corroborates the traditional division of Henry 8
between Shakespeare and Fletcher.

Peter G.

[Jim KQKnave]

I'm going to speak as slowly and carefully as I can
so that you won't become confused:

If...you...look...exclusively...for...likenesses...between...one
writer...and...another,...you...will...find...them....For...example,
if...you...look...for...likenesses...between...Titus...1.1...and
the...writings...of...Peele,...you...will...find...them....But...if
you...look...for...likenesses...between...Titus...1.1...and...
Shakespeare,...particulary...early...Shakespeare,...you...will
find...many...more,...and...these...likenesses...are...habits
of...thought...that...in...combination...are...not...reproducible
by...any...other...single...writer.

So I'm sure that what you've done is just make the
same mistake that lots of people have been making
since about 1950, since anyone with an ear and a brain
can see that Titus is 100% Shakespeare, and that Peele
was just copying/stealing/borrowing from him.
======================================================

Despite the many candidates proposed as the "true" author
of Shakespeare's works by the tin foil hats on this newsgroup,
William Shakespeare of Stratford remains the only candidate
supported by the historical evidence.

http://tinyurl.com/cojgwl

see also

http://ShakespeareAuthorship.com

The Droeshout portrait isn't unusual at all!
http://shakesandbacon.yolasite.com

Agent Jim

[Peter Groves]

On Feb 4, 12:31 am, Jim KQKnave <kqkn...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> I'm going to speak as slowly and carefully as I can
> so that you won't become confused:
>
> If...you...look...exclusively...for...likenesses...between...one
> writer...and...another,...you...will...find...them....For...example,
> if...you...look...for...likenesses...between...Titus...1.1...and
> the...writings...of...Peele,...you...will...find...them....But...if
> you...look...for...likenesses...between...Titus...1.1...and...
> Shakespeare,...particulary...early...Shakespeare,...you...will
> find...many...more,...and...these...likenesses...are...habits
> of...thought...that...in...combination...are...not...reproducible
> by...any...other...single...writer.
>

Have you any idea what a moron you are making of yourself? Or
perhaps, I should say, what a silly, ignorant and absurdly self-
assured amateur you show yourself to be?

Peter G.

[Jim KQKnave]

Have you any idea how you are going to look to the next
generation of Shakespeare scholars? The ones who won't
be your buddies and give your publications a free pass
in "peer-reviewed" journals? You are going to look like
how Robertson looks now: clueless.

O, monstrous!

[Mark Steese]

Jim KQKnave <kqk...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:4f2c82e8-914f-4baa-b906-
7b3696...@c20g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:

> I'm going to speak as slowly and carefully as I can
> so that you won't become confused:
>
> If...you...look...exclusively...for...likenesses...between...one
> writer...and...another,...you...will...find...them....

Categorically false. One may look till one's eyes bleed for likenesses
between Jim KQKnave and any legitimate Shakespeare scholar - for example,
Edmond Malone, Sidney Lee, Edmund Chambers, Dover Wilson, Samuel
Schoenbaum, Brian Vickers - but one will never find any.

On the other hand, I am beginning to wonder if anyone has ever seen Knave
and Crowley in the same room.
--
The proud flag went up, hoisted on a staff in the center of the old Sonoma
Plaza. The crowds of Mexicans greeted it with laughter and derision, taking
the rather corpulent bear for a pig. -Lambert Florin

[Bob Grumman]

On Feb 6, 11:32 pm, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Jim KQKnave <kqkn...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in news:4f2c82e8-914f-4baa-b906-
> 7b3696777...@c20g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:

>
> > I'm going to speak as slowly and carefully as I can
> > so that you won't become confused:
>
> > If...you...look...exclusively...for...likenesses...between...one
> > writer...and...another,...you...will...find...them....
>
> Categorically false.

Ah, there are no likenesses between Peele and Shakespeare?

> One may look till one's eyes bleed for likenesses
> between Jim KQKnave and any legitimate Shakespeare scholar - for example,
> Edmond Malone, Sidney Lee, Edmund Chambers, Dover Wilson, Samuel
> Schoenbaum, Brian Vickers - but one will never find any.

Seems to me they all use subjective judgements of style to guess at
authorship, as does Crowley. But Jim has all the external evidence on
his side--the testimony of Heminges and Condell, and Shakespeare's
name on the title page of the first folio, which concern Vickers no
more than they do Crowley.

By the way, Mark, I've just read that some physicists believe space
consists of digital information coding the universe. You're so much
more knowledgeable about physics than I, I was wondering if you could
tell me who or what is reading this information. That is, how does it
become "known." I suppose it reads itself? I have nothing against
the idea. In fact, my own theoretical universe could be considered
digital--but it isn't space that's digital but the surface of matter.

--Bob

[Mark Steese]

Bob Grumman <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in
news:ef1e8d6c-fd49-467f...@t5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:

> On Feb 6, 11:32 pm, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Jim KQKnave <kqkn...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>> news:4f2c82e8-914f-4baa-b906-
>> 7b3696777...@c20g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > I'm going to speak as slowly and carefully as I can
>> > so that you won't become confused:
>>
>> > If...you...look...exclusively...for...likenesses...between...one
>> > writer...and...another,...you...will...find...them....
>>
>> Categorically false.
>
> Ah, there are no likenesses between Peele and Shakespeare?

Non sequitur much?

>> One may look till one's eyes bleed for likenesses between Jim KQKnave
>> and any legitimate Shakespeare scholar - for example, Edmond Malone,
>> Sidney Lee, Edmund Chambers, Dover Wilson, Samuel Schoenbaum, Brian
>> Vickers - but one will never find any.
>
> Seems to me they all use subjective judgements of style to guess at
> authorship, as does Crowley.

That it seems that way to you, I don't doubt.

> But Jim has all the external evidence on his side--the testimony of
> Heminges and Condell, and Shakespeare's name on the title page of the
> first folio, which concern Vickers no more than they do Crowley.

So you believe that every word of every playtext in the First Folio is
correctly attributed to Shakespeare and Shakespeare alone, including the
bits in Macbeth that effectively all scholars now attribute to Thomas
Middleton? Interesting.

> By the way, Mark, I've just read that some physicists believe space
> consists of digital information coding the universe.

A cite would be helpful, Bob. Which physicists?

> You're so much more knowledgeable about physics than I, I was
> wondering if you could tell me who or what is reading this
> information.

Wouldn't that question be better asked of the physicists? I've never
claimed to be more knowledgeable about physics than you, though I fancy
I could give you a run for your money in the smug smartass sweepstakes.

> That is, how does it become "known." I suppose it reads itself? I
> have nothing against the idea. In fact, my own theoretical universe
> could be considered digital--but it isn't space that's digital but the
> surface of matter.

I wish I could help you out, but you haven't told me whether the
physicists' beliefs you alluded to above have been peer-reviewed or not.
How can I evaluate a belief unless I know whether it's been peer-
reviewed?
--
The main house contained a carefully tuned piano at which Harris,
without any previous musical training, could play and thereby invoke his
Lily Queen into "electro-vital form." -Robert Hine

[Bob Grumman]

On Feb 7, 4:32 pm, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote innews:ef1e8d6c-fd49-467f...@t5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Feb 6, 11:32 pm, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Jim KQKnave <kqkn...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> >> news:4f2c82e8-914f-4baa-b906-
> >> 7b3696777...@c20g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> > I'm going to speak as slowly and carefully as I can
> >> > so that you won't become confused:
>
> >> > If...you...look...exclusively...for...likenesses...between...one
> >> > writer...and...another,...you...will...find...them....
>
> >> Categorically false.
>
> > Ah, there are no likenesses between Peele and Shakespeare?
>
> Non sequitur much?

Not if the subject is likenesses between two writers, as it seems to
me it is.

> >> One may look till one's eyes bleed for likenesses between Jim KQKnave
> >> and any legitimate Shakespeare scholar - for example, Edmond Malone,
> >> Sidney Lee, Edmund Chambers, Dover Wilson, Samuel Schoenbaum, Brian
> >> Vickers - but one will never find any.
>
> > Seems to me they all use subjective judgements of style to guess at
> > authorship, as does Crowley.
>
> That it seems that way to you, I don't doubt.
>
> > But Jim has all the external evidence on his side--the testimony of
> > Heminges and Condell, and Shakespeare's name on the title page of the
> > first folio, which concern Vickers no more than they do Crowley.
>
> So you believe that every word of every playtext in the First Folio is
> correctly attributed to Shakespeare and Shakespeare alone, including the
> bits in Macbeth that effectively all scholars now attribute to Thomas
> Middleton? Interesting.

This is at least the second time you've said something like this,
which is close to Crowley-level insanity.

> > By the way, Mark, I've just read that some physicists believe space
> > consists of digital information coding the universe.
>
> A cite would be helpful, Bob. Which physicists?

It's in the latest Scientific American. But it's irrelevant.

> > You're so much more knowledgeable about physics than I, I was
> > wondering if you could tell me who or what is reading this
> > information.
>
> Wouldn't that question be better asked of the physicists? I've never
> claimed to be more knowledgeable about physics than you, though I fancy
> I could give you a run for your money in the smug smartass sweepstakes.

Right, but the three certified physicists next door are all in
Guatamala. You know enough to tell me I'm wrong to be skeptical about
modern physics (in a manner that suggests you know the subject a lot
better than I do, which wouldn't surprise me since I don't know much
about it), so I thought you might be familiar with the idea of the
digital universe.

> > That is, how does it become "known."  I suppose it reads itself?  I
> > have nothing against the idea.  In fact, my own theoretical universe
> > could be considered digital--but it isn't space that's digital but the
> > surface of matter.
>
> I wish I could help you out, but you haven't told me whether the
> physicists' beliefs you alluded to above have been peer-reviewed or not.
> How can I evaluate a belief unless I know whether it's been peer-
> reviewed?

What physicists could I have been referring to whose theories were not
peer-reviewed? Particularly inasmuch as you piece of wit here reveals
that you remember I have voiced skepticism of peer-reviewed
physicists--"real" physicists, so would not likely be bringing up
something weird believed in by other physicists. I do recognize that
you couldn't have an opinion of your own on the matter.

--Bob

[Mark Steese]

Bob Grumman <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in

news:5e42dbf5-865a-4823...@t24g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:

> On Feb 7, 4:32 pm, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote

>> innews:ef1e8d6c-fd49-467f-a1
> 5d-5771...@t5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:

>>
>> > On Feb 6, 11:32 pm, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> Jim KQKnave <kqkn...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
>> >> news:4f2c82e8-914f-4baa-b906-
>> >> 7b3696777...@c20g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >> > I'm going to speak as slowly and carefully as I can
>> >> > so that you won't become confused:
>>
>> >> > If...you...look...exclusively...for...likenesses...between...one
>> >> > writer...and...another,...you...will...find...them....
>>
>> >> Categorically false.
>>
>> > Ah, there are no likenesses between Peele and Shakespeare?
>>
>> Non sequitur much?
>
> Not if the subject is likenesses between two writers, as it seems to
> me it is.

But that wasn't the claim I was addressing. Jim asserted that one will
find likenesses between one writer and another merely by looking
exclusively for such likenesses. In order for the claim to be true, it
would have to be applicable to any given pair of writers: if you were to
look exclusively for likenesses between Shakespeare and Jonson, you
would find them; if you were to look exclusively for likenesses between
the prose of Jim KQKnave and the prose of Samuel Schoenbaum, you would
find them. That was the claim I was disagreeing with.

>> >> One may look till one's eyes bleed for likenesses between Jim
>> >> KQKnave and any legitimate Shakespeare scholar - for example,
>> >> Edmond Malone, Sidney Lee, Edmund Chambers, Dover Wilson, Samuel
>> >> Schoenbaum, Brian Vickers - but one will never find any.
>>
>> > Seems to me they all use subjective judgements of style to guess at
>> > authorship, as does Crowley.
>>
>> That it seems that way to you, I don't doubt.
>>
>> > But Jim has all the external evidence on his side--the testimony of
>> > Heminges and Condell, and Shakespeare's name on the title page of
>> > the first folio, which concern Vickers no more than they do
>> > Crowley.
>>
>> So you believe that every word of every playtext in the First Folio
>> is correctly attributed to Shakespeare and Shakespeare alone,
>> including the bits in Macbeth that effectively all scholars now
>> attribute to Thomas Middleton? Interesting.
>
> This is at least the second time you've said something like this,
> which is close to Crowley-level insanity.

How close?

>> > By the way, Mark, I've just read that some physicists believe space
>> > consists of digital information coding the universe.
>>
>> A cite would be helpful, Bob. Which physicists?
>
> It's in the latest Scientific American. But it's irrelevant.

One physicist's as good as another?

>> > You're so much more knowledgeable about physics than I, I was
>> > wondering if you could tell me who or what is reading this
>> > information.
>>
>> Wouldn't that question be better asked of the physicists? I've never
>> claimed to be more knowledgeable about physics than you, though I
>> fancy I could give you a run for your money in the smug smartass
>> sweepstakes.
>
> Right, but the three certified physicists next door are all in
> Guatamala.

"The physicists" = the ones who "believe space consists of digital
information coding the universe" - i.e., Craig Hogan, the physicist who
was the subject of the Scientific American article. Would you like to
email him? Here's his website:

http://astro.uchicago.edu/people/craig-hogan.shtml

I'm sure he can answer you questions about his beliefs better than I
can.

> You know enough to tell me I'm wrong to be skeptical about
> modern physics (in a manner that suggests you know the subject a lot
> better than I do, which wouldn't surprise me since I don't know much
> about it), so I thought you might be familiar with the idea of the
> digital universe.

Sadly, you missed the point of what I was saying: my problem with your
skepticism about the Big Bang is your failure to address the external
evidence for it. Given how much stock you place in the external evidence
for Shakespeare's authorship of the First Folio, it seems odd to me that
you should be willing to ignore the external evidence for the Big Bang.

>> > That is, how does it become "known."  I suppose it reads itself?  I
>> > have nothing against the idea.  In fact, my own theoretical
>> > universe could be considered digital--but it isn't space that's
>> > digital but the surface of matter.
>>
>> I wish I could help you out, but you haven't told me whether the
>> physicists' beliefs you alluded to above have been peer-reviewed or
>> not. How can I evaluate a belief unless I know whether it's been
>> peer- reviewed?
>
> What physicists could I have been referring to whose theories were not
> peer-reviewed?

Well, that's why I asked you for a cite, isn't it?

> Particularly inasmuch as you piece of wit here reveals
> that you remember I have voiced skepticism of peer-reviewed
> physicists--"real" physicists, so would not likely be bringing up
> something weird believed in by other physicists.

Another non sequitur.

> I do recognize that you couldn't have an opinion of your own on the
> matter.

But I do have an opinion of my own on the matter. I think the
idea of a digital universe isn't interesting enough to bother with,
regardless of its veracity.

[Bob Grumman]

On Feb 8, 12:40 pm, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote innews:5e42dbf5-865a-4823...@t24g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 7, 4:32 pm, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote
> >> innews:ef1e8d6c-fd49-467f-a1

> > 5d-5771f547c...@t5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:

>
> >> > On Feb 6, 11:32 pm, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> Jim KQKnave <kqkn...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
> >> >> news:4f2c82e8-914f-4baa-b906-
> >> >> 7b3696777...@c20g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
>
> >> >> > I'm going to speak as slowly and carefully as I can
> >> >> > so that you won't become confused:
>
> >> >> > If...you...look...exclusively...for...likenesses...between...one
> >> >> > writer...and...another,...you...will...find...them....
>
> >> >> Categorically false.
>
> >> > Ah, there are no likenesses between Peele and Shakespeare?
>
> >> Non sequitur much?
>
> > Not if the subject is likenesses between two writers, as it seems to
> > me it is.
>
> But that wasn't the claim I was addressing. Jim asserted that one will
> find likenesses between one writer and another merely by looking
> exclusively for such likenesses. In order for the claim to be true, it
> would have to be applicable to any given pair of writers: if you were to
> look exclusively for likenesses between Shakespeare and Jonson, you
> would find them; if you were to look exclusively for likenesses between
> the prose of Jim KQKnave and the prose of Samuel Schoenbaum, you would
> find them. That was the claim I was disagreeing with.
>
>

You're wrong. Any two writers will have things in common as
writers.

>
> >> >> One may look till one's eyes bleed for likenesses between Jim
> >> >> KQKnave and any legitimate Shakespeare scholar - for example,
> >> >> Edmond Malone, Sidney Lee, Edmund Chambers, Dover Wilson, Samuel
> >> >> Schoenbaum, Brian Vickers - but one will never find any.
>
> >> > Seems to me they all use subjective judgements of style to guess at
> >> > authorship, as does Crowley.
>
> >> That it seems that way to you, I don't doubt.
>
> >> > But Jim has all the external evidence on his side--the testimony of
> >> > Heminges and Condell, and Shakespeare's name on the title page of
> >> > the first folio, which concern Vickers no more than they do
> >> > Crowley.
>
> >> So you believe that every word of every playtext in the First Folio
> >> is correctly attributed to Shakespeare and Shakespeare alone,
> >> including the bits in Macbeth that effectively all scholars now
> >> attribute to Thomas Middleton? Interesting.
>
> > This is at least the second time you've said something like this,
> > which is close to Crowley-level insanity.
>
> How close?

"Close" is sufficient to indicate for the purposes of this discussion.

> >> > By the way, Mark, I've just read that some physicists believe space
> >> > consists of digital information coding the universe.
>
> >> A cite would be helpful, Bob. Which physicists?
>
> > It's in the latest Scientific American.  But it's irrelevant.
>
> One physicist's as good as another?

Obviously I'm speaking of certain peer-reviewed physcists this
discussion has been about.

>
> >> > You're so much more knowledgeable about physics than I, I was
> >> > wondering if you could tell me who or what is reading this
> >> > information.
>
> >> Wouldn't that question be better asked of the physicists? I've never
> >> claimed to be more knowledgeable about physics than you, though I
> >> fancy I could give you a run for your money in the smug smartass
> >> sweepstakes.
>
> > Right, but the three certified physicists next door are all in
> > Guatamala.
>
> "The physicists" = the ones who "believe space consists of digital
> information coding the universe" - i.e., Craig Hogan, the physicist who
> was the subject of the Scientific American article. Would you like to
> email him? Here's his website:
>
> http://astro.uchicago.edu/people/craig-hogan.shtml

You know enough to tell me I'm wrong about the big bang theory, and
you were bothering to reply to me, as Craig Hogan porobably would not,
so I asked you.

> I'm sure he can answer you questions about his beliefs better than I
> can.
>
> > You know enough to tell me I'm wrong to be skeptical about
> > modern physics (in a manner that suggests you know the subject a lot
> > better than I do, which wouldn't surprise me since I don't know much
> > about it), so I thought you might be familiar with the idea of the
> > digital universe.
>
> Sadly, you missed the point of what I was saying: my problem with your
> skepticism about the Big Bang is your failure to address the external
> evidence for it. Given how much stock you place in the external evidence
> for Shakespeare's authorship of the First Folio, it seems odd to me that
> you should be willing to ignore the external evidence for the Big Bang.

It seems odd to me that you think I ignore it rather than feel it
fails to convince me. Or that you think I should go into detail about
it.

> >> > That is, how does it become "known."  I suppose it reads itself?  I
> >> > have nothing against the idea.  In fact, my own theoretical
> >> > universe could be considered digital--but it isn't space that's
> >> > digital but the surface of matter.
>
> >> I wish I could help you out, but you haven't told me whether the
> >> physicists' beliefs you alluded to above have been peer-reviewed or
> >> not. How can I evaluate a belief unless I know whether it's been
> >> peer- reviewed?
>
> > What physicists could I have been referring to whose theories were not
> > peer-reviewed?
>
> Well, that's why I asked you for a cite, isn't it?
>
> > Particularly inasmuch as you piece of wit here reveals
> > that you remember I have voiced skepticism of peer-reviewed
> > physicists--"real" physicists, so would not likely be bringing up
> > something weird believed in by other physicists.
>
> Another non sequitur.

> > I do recognize that you couldn't have an opinion of your own on the
> > matter.
>
> But I do have an opinion of my own on the matter. I think the
> idea of a digital universe isn't interesting enough to bother with,
> regardless of its veracity.

It has veracity? To use your arguing style.

--Bob

[Mark Steese]

Bob Grumman <bobgr...@nut-n-but.net> wrote in

news:6b9297f1-595f-47c0...@b18g2000vbz.googlegroups.com:

> On Feb 8, 12:40 pm, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Bob Grumman <bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net> wrote

>> innews:5e42dbf5-865a-4823-83
> e1-c17f...@t24g2000yqj.googlegroups.com:

Bob, I like you, but you're either the most obtuse individual living or
you're doing a damned good imitation of him.
--
Opposing phalanxes of automobiles stream and stop, stream and stop,their
motors agitated by complex refinements of the same subtance that
preserved, in the La Brea Pits, those petrified relics of vanished forms
of life. -David Lavender