Re: 2009 Houston Conference I
art
>>>>>>http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/?p=138
>>>>>> <<The date and location of the 2009 Shakespeare-Oxford Society/
>>>>>> Shakespeare Fellowship conference is Houston, Texas from November 5 to
>>>>>> 8. The conference will take place at the newly renovated Doubletree
>>>>>> Hotel Houston International Airport. The Doubletree is conveniently
>>>>>> located just one mile from George Bush International Airport
>>>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>>>>> Is there a "Mission Accomplished" banner prominently displayed?
>>> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>>> We're talking 41 here, Dave...
>>>> the Bush who avoided occupying Baghdad.
>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>>> You mean the one with the idiot son?
>>> He must feel like Joseph A. Neuendorffer.
.
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>
>> It wouldn't be prudent to comment.
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Since when have you eVER been prudent, Art?!
<<Prudent, a. Sagacious in adapting means to ends.>>
Oxfordians are always being accused of adapting means to ends.
So are you saying that I'm not as sagacious as Sagan?
-----------------------------------------------------
. Coriolanus > Act III, scene I
.
BRUTUS: Sir, those cold ways,
. That seem like *prudent* helps, are VERy poisonous
. Where the disease is violent. Lay hands upon him,
. And bear him to the rock.
-----------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> Individuals interested in presenting papers at
>>>>>> the conference should read the Guidelines for Presenters.
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> From the "Guidelines for Presenters":
> "If you have previously presented a topic that you believe
> deserves continued attention by the Oxfordian community,
> please consider presenting it again if you have a fresh
> layer of argument or evidence to present."
> The phrase "fresh layer of argument or evidence" suggests that the
> writer is under no illusions concerning the nature or the consistency
> of the "argument" or "evidence" that is likely to be presented.
Looks like they are desperate for speakers.
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> HoweVER, Oxfordians are a bit behind the times -- mechanization
> has rendered the process easier and less labor-intensive
> with the use of a modern manure spreader.
-----------------------------------------------------
. Othello > Act I, scene III
.
IAGO: Our bodies are our gardens, to the which
. our Wills are Gardners: so that if we Will plant
. nettles, or sow lettuce, set hyssop and weed up
. thyme, supply it with one gender of herbs, or
. distract it with many, either to have it sterile
. with idleness, or manured with industry, why, the
. power and corrigible authority of this lies in our
. Wills. If the balance of our lives had not one
. scale of reason to poise another of sensuality, the
. blood and baseness of our natures would conduct us
. to most preposterous conclusions: but we have
. reason to cool our raging motions, our carnal
. stings, our unbitted lusts, whereof I take this
. that you call love to be a sect or scion.
-----------------------------------------------------
"The blood of Stratfordians shall manure the ground."
>>>>>> Keir Cutler: Teaching Shakespeare
>>>>>> Keir Cutler: Is Shakespeare Dead?
>>>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>>>>> Presumably so --
>>> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>>> It's an excellent book by Mark Twain, dumb-dumb.
.
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>
>>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7004942638729319523
>>http://www.tjdawe.com/works/teaching/index.php
>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>>> One can neVER be too sure with Oxfordians, Art -- you'll scarcely
>>> believe this, but some of the looniest of the lunatic-fringe
>>> Oxfordians think (if I may abuse the term) that Oxford did not
>>> die in 1604, but went on the write things like _Don Quixote_
>>> and the King James Bible!
.
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>
>> Well, Oxford had already finished Part I in 1601:
-------------------------------------------------------
[=34] *CECIL* Papers 88/101 (bifolium, 232mm x 170mm),
Oxford to [Robert] *CECIL*; 7 October 1601 (W337;F593).
.
My VERy good Brother,
.
.... I am aduised, that I may passe *MY BOOKE* from her
Magestie, yf a warrant may be procured to my cosen Bacon
and Seriant [=Sergeant] *HARRIS* to *PERFET [=perfect] yt* .
Whiche beinge doone, I know to whome formallye to thanke,
but reallye they shalbe, and are from me, and myne,
*to be sealed vp in an AETERNALL REMEMBRANCE to yowre selfe*
And thus *WISHINGE ALL HAPPINES* to yow....
.
7th of October from my House at Hakney. 1601.
Yowre most assured and louinge Broother.
(signed) Edward Oxenford (ital.; 4+7)
.
Addressed (O): To the ryghte honorable & my VERy good Broother
Sir Robert *CECILL* on [=one] of her Magestyes pryvie Councel
and principall Secretarie giue thes at the Coorte. [seal]
Endorsed: 1601 7 October: Erle of Oxenford to my Master.
----------------------------------------------------
Just as: *DE CERVANTES* is code for *SCANT: DE VERE*
([Hamlet]'s fat, & *SCANT* of breath.)
*DANVER's ESChEaT* is code for
*has DE CERVANTES* where *has* = *you possess* (Spanish)
----------------------------------------------------
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> I've already told you, Art --
> "haber" had the sense of possession in Old Castilian, but it had
> lost that sense completely and had been relegated to use only as
> an auxiliary VERb (and in the third person in a few impersonal
> constructions) by the time of the Spanish of Cervantes, as indeed
> Cervantes's use of the phrase "haber tenido" ("had possessed")
> shows quite clearly.
Don Quixote/Oxford read *Old Castilian* books on chivalry.
>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is_Shakespeare_Dead%3F
>>>> <<Is Shakespeare Dead? is a short, semi-autobiographical work by
>>>> American humorist Samuel Clemens, better known as Mark Twain. It
>>>> explores the controversy over the authorship of the Shakespearean
>>>> literary canon via satire, anecdote, and extensive quotation of
>>>> contemporary authors on the subject. The original publication spans
>>>> only 150 pages, and the formatting leaves roughly half of each page
>>>> blank. The spine is thread bound. It was published in April 1909
>>>> by Harper & Brothers, twelve months before Mark Twain's death.
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> ...when Twain was in his dotage?
When Twain no longer had anything much to lose.
>>>> In the book, Clemens clearly states his opinion that Shakespeare
>>>> of Stratford was not the author of the canon, and lends tentative
>>>> support to the Baconians. The book opens with a scene from his
>>>> early adulthood, where he was trained to be a steamboat pilot
>>>> by an elder who often argued with him over the controversy.
>>>> Clemens's argument rests on the following points:
>>>> * That little was known about Shakespeare's life,
>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>>> That's true of virtually all of Shakespeare's middle-class literary
>>> contemporaries, with the sole exception of the self-promoting Jonson.
.
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>
>> Virtually all of Shakespeare's so called middle-class literary
>> contemporaries, were also phonies... *especially* Jonson.
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> You mean, there were *no* middle class playwrights, Art?! Then who
> wrote the works of Marlowe? Kyd? Nashe? Beaumont? Fletcher?
> Middleton? Webster? Dekker? Marston? Jonson? Tourneur?
Others.
>>>> and the bulk of his
>>>> biographies were based on conjecture.
>>>> * That a number of eminent British barristers and judges found
>>>> Shakespeare's plays permeated with precise legal thought, and that
>>>> the author could only have been a veteran legal professional.
.
>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>>> ...just as many eminent mathematicians and physicists
>>> have found Tom Stoppard's plays permeated with
>>> the latest mathematical and physical ideas;
.
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>
>> The *latest* mathematical & physical ideas???
>> Flipping coins (Pascal) & water displacement (Archimedes)?
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> You plainly have not read _Arcadia_, Art.
Et in Arcadia ego.
.
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>
>> At least my own published mathematical work was circa 1900.
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> Huh? Your "result" was published by Königs in 1884, Art.
I hadst bin a companion for a Crone;
And, beene a Königs among the meaner sort.
>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>>> howeVER, only loonies like Oxfordians opine that Stoppard
>>> must be a professional physicist or mathematician.
.
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>
>> Stoppard is one of you, Dave.
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> You mean, a Templar? Rex Deus? One of Desposyni?
Take your pick.
>>>> * That in contrast, Shakespeare of Stratford had never held
>>>> a legal position or office, and had only been in court over
>>>> petty lawsuits late in life.
>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>>> Tom Stoppard left school at 17, and neVER even had a uniVERsity
>>> education, much less specialized scientific training -- and
>>> mathematics and physics are much more demanding subjects to understand
>>> than the law; indeed, in some small towns uneducated and unemployed
>>> idlers who spend all their time at the court house become quite well
>>> VERsed in the law.
.
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>
>> Well...you would know, Dave.
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> So I have been told by respected attorneys, Art.
_____ *Lionel Hutz* ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZWFf9MyVXs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_Hutz
>>>> * That small towns lionize and celebrate their famous authors
>>>> for generations, but this had not happened in Shakespeare's case.
>>>> He described his own fame in Hannibal as a case in point.
>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>>> There is no indication that small towns "lionized" their famous
>>> authors for generations in Elizabethan England; do you know of
>>> any small town that did so, Art?
.
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>
>> I could describe my own fame in District Heights
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> I don't doubt that you're famous in District Heights, Art -- just
> as Ludwig Plutonium was famous in the Hanover/Norwich area. But you
> still have not given even a *single example* of an Elizabethan town
> that "lionized" its famous middle-class playwrights and poets for
> generations, Art, as I knew that you couldn't. Twain was judging
> Elizabethan England by late nineteenth century U. S. standards,
> meaning that he was only off by some three centuries.
Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
.
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>
>> except that I haven't finished *MY BOOKE* yet.
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> What's holding up its completion, Art?
I can't figure out who my audience would be.
>>>>>> John Hamill: A Spaniard in the Elizabethan Court : Don Antonio Perez
>>>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>>>>> If "Hammond" is a bogus name meant to suggest "Hamlet," as
>>>>> you suggest, Art, what it one to make of a name like "Hamill"?
<<Paul Streitz has an AB from *HAMILton* College,>>
-------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
nordicskiv2
<8e4f7325-7099-4252...@e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
art <acne...@gmail.com>
(aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>>>>> 2009 Houston Conference
>
> >>>>>>http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/?p=138
>
> >>>>>> <<The date and location of the 2009 Shakespeare-Oxford Society/
> >>>>>> Shakespeare Fellowship conference is Houston, Texas from November 5 to
> >>>>>> 8. The conference will take place at the newly renovated Doubletree
> >>>>>> Hotel Houston International Airport. The Doubletree is conveniently
> >>>>>> located just one mile from George Bush International Airport
> >>>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Is there a "Mission Accomplished" banner prominently displayed?
> >>> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>
> >>>> We're talking 41 here, Dave...
> >>>> the Bush who avoided occupying Baghdad.
> >> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> >>> You mean the one with the idiot son?
> >>> He must feel like Joseph A. Neuendorffer.
> > art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>
> >> It wouldn't be prudent to comment.
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Since when have you eVER been prudent, Art?!
[...]
> >>>>>> Individuals interested in presenting papers at
> >>>>>> the conference should read the Guidelines for Presenters.
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > From the "Guidelines for Presenters":
>
> > "If you have previously presented a topic that you believe
> > deserves continued attention by the Oxfordian community,
> > please consider presenting it again if you have a fresh
> > layer of argument or evidence to present."
> > The phrase "fresh layer of argument or evidence" suggests that the
> > writer is under no illusions concerning the nature or the consistency
> > of the "argument" or "evidence" that is likely to be presented.
> Looks like they are desperate for speakers.
Not as desperate as they were at their Baltimore nutfest.
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > HoweVER, Oxfordians are a bit behind the times -- mechanization
> > has rendered the process easier and less labor-intensive
> > with the use of a modern manure spreader.
[...]
> >>>>>> Keir Cutler: Teaching Shakespeare
> >>>>>> Keir Cutler: Is Shakespeare Dead?
> >>>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Presumably so --
> >>> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>
> >>>> It's an excellent book by Mark Twain, dumb-dumb.
> .
> > art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>
> >>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7004942638729319523
> >>http://www.tjdawe.com/works/teaching/index.php
> >> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> >>> One can neVER be too sure with Oxfordians, Art -- you'll scarcely
> >>> believe this, but some of the looniest of the lunatic-fringe
> >>> Oxfordians think (if I may abuse the term) that Oxford did not
> >>> die in 1604, but went on the write things like _Don Quixote_
> >>> and the King James Bible!
> > art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>
> >> Well, Oxford had already finished Part I in 1601:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> [=34] *CECIL* Papers 88/101 (bifolium, 232mm x 170mm),
> Oxford to [Robert] *CECIL*; 7 October 1601 (W337;F593).
> .
> My VERy good Brother,
> .
> .... I am aduised, that I may passe *MY BOOKE* from her
> Magestie, yf a warrant may be procured to my cosen Bacon
> and Seriant [=Sergeant] *HARRIS* to *PERFET [=perfect] yt* .
> Whiche beinge doone, I know to whome formallye to thanke,
> but reallye they shalbe, and are from me, and myne,
> *to be sealed vp in an AETERNALL REMEMBRANCE to yowre selfe*
> And thus *WISHINGE ALL HAPPINES* to yow....
> .
> 7th of October from my House at Hakney. 1601.
> Yowre most assured and louinge Broother.
> (signed) Edward Oxenford (ital.; 4+7)
> .
> Addressed (O): To the ryghte honorable & my VERy good Broother
> Sir Robert *CECILL* on [=one] of her Magestyes pryvie Councel
> and principall Secretarie giue thes at the Coorte. [seal]
> Endorsed: 1601 7 October: Erle of Oxenford to my Master.
There is nothing in this lunatic logorrhea that remotely suggests
-- to the sane, at any rate -- that the book in question is one that
Oxford *wrote*, far less that it is any part of the King James Bible.
[...]
> *DANVER's ESChEaT* is code for
> *has DE CERVANTES* where *has* = *you possess* (Spanish)
> ----------------------------------------------------
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > I've already told you, Art --
> > "haber" had the sense of possession in Old Castilian, but it had
> > lost that sense completely and had been relegated to use only as
> > an auxiliary VERb (and in the third person in a few impersonal
> > constructions) by the time of the Spanish of Cervantes, as indeed
> > Cervantes's use of the phrase "haber tenido" ("had possessed")
> > shows quite clearly.
> Don Quixote/Oxford read *Old Castilian* books on chivalry.
No, Art. First, there is no persuasive evidence known to me that
Oxford knew Spanish. Second, whateVER you speculate that Quixote or
Oxford *read*, the fact remains that Cervantes *wrote* in modern
Spanish, not in Old Castilian; indeed, the Spanish language has
changed far less between the time of Cervantes and the present than it
did between Old Castilian and Cervantes, just as English has changed
far less during the four centuries since Shakespeare than it did
during the period between the Middle English of Chaucer and the Early
Modern English of Shakespeare.
[...]
> >>>> In the book, Clemens clearly states his opinion that Shakespeare
> >>>> of Stratford was not the author of the canon, and lends tentative
> >>>> support to the Baconians. The book opens with a scene from his
> >>>> early adulthood, where he was trained to be a steamboat pilot
> >>>> by an elder who often argued with him over the controversy.
>
> >>>> Clemens's argument rests on the following points:
...to the extent that it is an "argument"...
> >>>> * That little was known about Shakespeare's life,
> >> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> >>> That's true of virtually all of Shakespeare's middle-class literary
> >>> contemporaries, with the sole exception of the self-promoting Jonson.
> > art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>
> >> Virtually all of Shakespeare's so called middle-class literary
> >> contemporaries, were also phonies... *especially* Jonson.
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > You mean, there were *no* middle class playwrights, Art?! Then who
> > wrote the works of Marlowe? Kyd? Nashe? Beaumont? Fletcher?
> > Middleton? Webster? Dekker? Marston? Jonson? Tourneur?
> Others.
Who, Art? Inquiring minds want to know. Was Chaucer also a phony?
[...]
> >>>> * That a number of eminent British barristers and judges found
> >>>> Shakespeare's plays permeated with precise legal thought, and that
> >>>> the author could only have been a veteran legal professional.
> >> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >>> ...just as many eminent mathematicians and physicists
> >>> have found Tom Stoppard's plays permeated with
> >>> the latest mathematical and physical ideas;
> > art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>
> >> The *latest* mathematical & physical ideas???
> >> Flipping coins (Pascal) & water displacement (Archimedes)?
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> > You plainly have not read _Arcadia_, Art.
> Et in Arcadia ego.
That's my line, Art. But the fact remains that you have clearly
neVER read it -- nor have you eVER read much else.
> > art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>
> >> At least my own published mathematical work was circa 1900.
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> > Huh? Your "result" was published by Königs in 1884, Art.
> I hadst bin a companion for a Crone;
> And, beene a Königs among the meaner sort.
Excellent, Art! See, you *still* can be amusing when you try.
> >> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> >>> howeVER, only loonies like Oxfordians opine that Stoppard
> >>> must be a professional physicist or mathematician.
> > art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>
> >> Stoppard is one of you, Dave.
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > You mean, a Templar? Rex Deus? One of Desposyni?
> Take your pick.
You're the one making the paranoid allegation, Art; *you* decide
which he is.
> >>>> * That in contrast, Shakespeare of Stratford had never held
> >>>> a legal position or office, and had only been in court over
> >>>> petty lawsuits late in life.
> >> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >>> Tom Stoppard left school at 17, and neVER even had a uniVERsity
> >>> education, much less specialized scientific training -- and
> >>> mathematics and physics are much more demanding subjects to understand
> >>> than the law; indeed, in some small towns uneducated and unemployed
> >>> idlers who spend all their time at the court house become quite well
> >>> VERsed in the law.
[...]
> >>>> * That small towns lionize and celebrate their famous authors
> >>>> for generations, but this had not happened in Shakespeare's case.
> >>>> He described his own fame in Hannibal as a case in point.
> >> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> >>> There is no indication that small towns "lionized" their famous
> >>> authors for generations in Elizabethan England; do you know of
> >>> any small town that did so, Art?
> > art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>
> >> I could describe my own fame in District Heights
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> > I don't doubt that you're famous in District Heights, Art -- just
> > as Ludwig Plutonium was famous in the Hanover/Norwich area. But you
> > still have not given even a *single example* of an Elizabethan town
> > that "lionized" its famous middle-class playwrights and poets for
> > generations, Art, as I knew that you couldn't. Twain was judging
> > Elizabethan England by late nineteenth century U. S. standards,
> > meaning that he was only off by some three centuries.
> Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
Things *did* change in three centuries following Shakespeare, Art;
howeVER, I have little doubt that your Chronologically Clueless Cretin
persona remains blissfully ignorant of any changes. That's one reason
that the anachronisms in Shakespeare don't bemuse you.
> > art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>
> >> except that I haven't finished *MY BOOKE* yet.
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > What's holding up its completion, Art?
> I can't figure out who my audience would be.
*I* would read it, Art, provided in came in at less than twenty
pounds; after all, I read Mr. Streitz's moronic monograph and
Stephanie Caruana's tract -- why shouldn't I read yours as well?
> >>>>>> John Hamill: A Spaniard in the Elizabethan Court : Don Antonio Perez
>
> >>>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >>>>> If "Hammond" is a bogus name meant to suggest "Hamlet," as
> >>>>> you suggest, Art, what it one to make of a name like "Hamill"?
> <<Paul Streitz has an AB from *HAMILton* College,>>
I know, Art; but we have already seen that some colleges and
uniVERsities (e.g., MIT) have no literacy requirement for admission,
so the fact is not as counterintuitive as it at first appears.
> -------------------------------------------
> Art Neuendorffer
art
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> There is nothing in this lunatic logorrhea that remotely suggests
> -- to the sane, at any rate -- that the book in question is one that
> Oxford *wrote*, far less that it is any part of the King James Bible.
The King James Bible?
.
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>
>> *DANVER's ESChEaT* is code for
>> *has DE CERVANTES* where *has* = *you possess* (Spanish)
>> ----------------------------------------------------
>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>> I've already told you, Art --
>>> "haber" had the sense of possession in Old Castilian, but it had
>>> lost that sense completely and had been relegated to use only as
>>> an auxiliary VERb (and in the third person in a few impersonal
>>> constructions) by the time of the Spanish of Cervantes, as indeed
>>> Cervantes's use of the phrase "haber tenido" ("had possessed")
>>> shows quite clearly.
.
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>
>> Don Quixote/Oxford read *Old Castilian* books on chivalry.
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> No, Art. First, there is no persuasive evidence known to me that
> Oxford knew Spanish. Second, whateVER you speculate that Quixote or
> Oxford *read*, the fact remains that Cervantes *wrote* in modern
> Spanish, not in Old Castilian;
.
That's all "cosen Bacon's" doing.
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> indeed, the Spanish language has
> changed far less between the time of Cervantes and the present than it
> did between Old Castilian and Cervantes, just as English has changed
> far less during the four centuries since Shakespeare than it did
> during the period between the Middle English of Chaucer and the Early
> Modern English of Shakespeare.
.
That's all "cosen Bacon's" doing.
.
>>>>>> In the book, Clemens clearly states his opinion that Shakespeare
>>>>>> of Stratford was not the author of the canon, and lends tentative
>>>>>> support to the Baconians. The book opens with a scene from his
>>>>>> early adulthood, where he was trained to be a steamboat pilot
>>>>>> by an elder who often argued with him over the controversy.
>
>>>>>> Clemens's argument rests on the following points:
>>>>>> * That little was known about Shakespeare's life,
>>>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>>>> That's true of virtually all of Shakespeare's middle-class literary
>>>>> contemporaries, with the sole exception of the self-promoting Jonson.
>>> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>
>>>> Virtually all of Shakespeare's so called middle-class literary
>>>> contemporaries, were also phonies... *especially* Jonson.
>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>> You mean, there were *no* middle class playwrights, Art?! Then who
>>> wrote the works of Marlowe? Kyd? Nashe? Beaumont? Fletcher?
>>> Middleton? Webster? Dekker? Marston? Jonson? Tourneur?
.
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>
>> Others.
.
The Webbster wrote:
>
> Who, Art? Inquiring minds want to know.
Marlowe = MAR-L.O. = a young Lord Oxford
Marston = MAR-stone
Jonson = Francis Bacon.
.
The Webbster wrote:
>
> Was Chaucer also a phony?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Saints Crispin Day: Oct.25 = 33rd day of Autumn (mystic Masonic #33)
.
Geoffrey Chaucer (1343-1400) died on St. Crispin's Day, 1400
6 x 33 years later: Richard Quiney's HASTE letter to Shakspere
.
. 1598 - 1400 = 18 x 11
-----------------------------------------------------------------
. Richard Quiney 25 October [Saints Crispin Day] 1598
-------------------------------------------------------------------
. http://home.earthlink.net/~mark_alex/1600.htm
.
11a. 1598 Oct 25 [St.Crispin's day] Letter from Richard Quiney asking
for a £30 loan. This is the only letter that has ever been found
addressed to William Shakspere of Stratford. It is addressed
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Shakspere was poisoned in Stratford on St.George's Day, 1616.
. (Cervantes died the same day.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
. RESURRECTION:
. Saint George
. Feastday: April 23
. April 23 = 33rd day of Spring (mystic Masonic #33)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
*VER(st)E(hen)* : to understand, understand, understood [German]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
. Revelation 13:18. Here is WISDOM.
Let him that hath *UNDERSTANDING* count the number of the beast:
. for it is the number of a man;
. and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
.
. Shakspere died 216 years after Chaucer died.
.
. 216 = 6 x 6 x 6 = 18 x 12
--------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> * That a number of eminent British barristers and judges found
>>>>>> Shakespeare's plays permeated with precise legal thought, and that
>>>>>> the author could only have been a veteran legal professional.
>>>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>>>>> ...just as many eminent mathematicians and physicists
>>>>> have found Tom Stoppard's plays permeated with
>>>>> the latest mathematical and physical ideas;
>>> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>
>>>> The *latest* mathematical & physical ideas???
>>>> Flipping coins (Pascal) & water displacement (Archimedes)?
>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>>> You plainly have not read _Arcadia_, Art.
.
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>
>> Et in Arcadia ego.
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> That's my line, Art.
Is THAT where I heard it!
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> But the fact remains that you have clearly neVER
> read it -- nor have you eVER read much else.
So why don't you tell us about the *latest*
mathematical & physical ideas in _Arcadia_ ,
Dave, instead of just grepping.
>>> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>
>>>> At least my own published mathematical work was circa 1900.
>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>>> Huh? Your "result" was published by Königs in 1884, Art.
.
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>
>> I hadst bin a companion for a Crone;
>> And, beene a Königs among the meaner sort.
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> Excellent, Art! See, you *still* can be amusing when you try.
>
>>>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>>>> howeVER, only loonies like Oxfordians opine that Stoppard
>>>>> must be a professional physicist or mathematician.
>>> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>
>>>> Stoppard is one of you, Dave.
>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
>>> You mean, a Templar? Rex Deus? One of Desposyni?
.
> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
>>
>> Take your pick.
.
nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> You're the one making the paranoid allegation, Art;
> *you* decide which he is.
A Junior Woodchuck, perhaps?
----------------------------------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junior_Woodchucks_Guidebook
<<The Junior Woodchucks Guidebook, or the Woodchuck book for short, is
a fictional book in the Scrooge McDuck universe. The Guidebook appears
to contain information and advice on *EVERy possible* subject. Huey,
Dewey, and Louie frequently consult a volume of the set to get
themselves and their uncles Donald Duck and Scrooge McDuck out of
dangerous situations. According to the cartoonist Don Rosa, this book
was written by the Guardians of the lost *Library of Alexandria* ,
compiling the essence of all the knowledge that was unique to the
Library. It was later found by Cornelius Coot who gave the book to his
son Clinton Coot who, in turn, was inspired to found The Junior
Woodchucks as a continuation of the Guardians of the Library. The
Woodchuck book seems almost magical in its breadth of information; it
almost never fails to provide the required information and yet is
small enough to fit into a Junior Woodchuck's backpack. In particular,
the Guidebook contains information on lost treasure, a complete
survival guide, extensive historical and technical information and
phrase books for various more or less common languages (like a minimal
lizard phrase book). However, it does not contain information that a
Junior Woodchuck is already supposed to know, such as the location of
Cape of Good Hope nor does it contain information on allegedly non-
existent things. (In one episode of Duck Tales, the three nephews
faced a dragon and when they consulted the Guidebook, the entry on
dragons read that since dragons did not exist, there was no reason to
include information on them.) On the other hand, the Guidebook does
have information on Martian technology, despite the fact that in the
Duck Tales universe Martians had not been discovered when the book was
printed. In short, it is a minimal encyclopedia, available only to
Junior Woodchucks. Information is readily available by searching the
extensive index; a key skill of a Junior Woodchuck is being able to
retrieve information quickly from the Woodchuck book in the midst of a
dangerous situation, such as a bear attack, an earthquake, or falling
out of an airplane sans parachute.>>
-------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer
nordicskiv2
<cb9046b2-8d51-43c4...@y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
art <acne...@gmail.com>
(aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>>>>>>> 2009 Houston Conference
> >
> >>>>>>>> Keir Cutler: Teaching Shakespeare
> >>>>>>>> Keir Cutler: Is Shakespeare Dead?
> >>>>>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>> Presumably so --
> >>>>> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >
> >>>>>> It's an excellent book by Mark Twain, dumb-dumb.
[...]
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > There is nothing in this lunatic logorrhea that remotely suggests
> > -- to the sane, at any rate -- that the book in question is one that
> > Oxford *wrote*, far less that it is any part of the King James Bible.
> The King James Bible?
I repeat: There is *nothing* in this lunatic logorrhea that
remotely suggests -- to the sane, at any rate (and I apologize for
leaving you out, Art, but it can't be helped) -- that the book in
question is one that Oxford *wrote*. If you mean _Don Quixote_, that
is even stupider than part of the King James Bible, since:
(1) the second part did not appear until oVER a decade after Oxford's
death;
(2) there is no evidence whateVER that Oxford knew Spanish -- not that
his English was anything to write home about either;
(3) the first English translation of _Don Quixote_ (by Shelton) did
not appear until 1612, and it is taken not from the first Spanish
edition of the novel (published in Madrid in 1605), but from a 1607
Belgian edition;
(4) there is a tradition that Cervantes read part of the work at the
court of the Duke of Bejar, to whom the work is dedicated;
> > art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>
> >> *DANVER's ESChEaT* is code for
> >> *has DE CERVANTES* where *has* = *you possess* (Spanish)
> >> ----------------------------------------------------
> >> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>> I've already told you, Art --
> >>> "haber" had the sense of possession in Old Castilian, but it had
> >>> lost that sense completely and had been relegated to use only as
> >>> an auxiliary VERb (and in the third person in a few impersonal
> >>> constructions) by the time of the Spanish of Cervantes, as indeed
> >>> Cervantes's use of the phrase "haber tenido" ("had possessed")
> >>> shows quite clearly.
> > art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>
> >> Don Quixote/Oxford read *Old Castilian* books on chivalry.
Don Quixote is a character of *fiction*, Art; Oxford was a
historical figure -- although your hallucinated history is much more
like fiction.
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > No, Art. First, there is no persuasive evidence known to me that
> > Oxford knew Spanish. Second, whateVER you speculate that Quixote or
> > Oxford *read*, the fact remains that Cervantes *wrote* in modern
> > Spanish, not in Old Castilian;
> That's all "cosen Bacon's" doing.
Huh? Bacon has nothing to do with this, Art. The fact remains
that Cervantes wrote in Spanish, not in Old Castilian; in Spanish the
VERb "haber" has long lost the sense of possession, appearing only as
an auxiliary VERb (and in the third person in certain impersonal
constructions), as even an illiterate boob like yourself can plainly
see from Cervantes's phrase "haber tenido" ("to have possessed"), in
which "haber" is the auxiliary VERb while the VERb of possession is
"tener", as it always is in Spanish.
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > indeed, the Spanish language has
> > changed far less between the time of Cervantes and the present than it
> > did between Old Castilian and Cervantes, just as English has changed
> > far less during the four centuries since Shakespeare than it did
> > during the period between the Middle English of Chaucer and the Early
> > Modern English of Shakespeare.
> That's all "cosen Bacon's" doing.
Huh??? Bacon is responsible for English having changed more
between Chaucer and Shakespeare than it has done between Shakespeare
and the present?! Your Chronologically Clueless Cretin persona
evidently has not thought this through at all, Art.
> >>>>>> In the book, Clemens clearly states his opinion that Shakespeare
> >>>>>> of Stratford was not the author of the canon, and lends tentative
> >>>>>> support to the Baconians. The book opens with a scene from his
> >>>>>> early adulthood, where he was trained to be a steamboat pilot
> >>>>>> by an elder who often argued with him over the controversy.
> >
> >>>>>> Clemens's argument rests on the following points:
>
> >>>>>> * That little was known about Shakespeare's life,
> >>>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>>>> That's true of virtually all of Shakespeare's middle-class literary
> >>>>> contemporaries, with the sole exception of the self-promoting Jonson.
> >>> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>>> Virtually all of Shakespeare's so called middle-class literary
> >>>> contemporaries, were also phonies... *especially* Jonson.
> >> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>> You mean, there were *no* middle class playwrights, Art?! Then who
> >>> wrote the works of Marlowe? Kyd? Nashe? Beaumont? Fletcher?
> >>> Middleton? Webster? Dekker? Marston? Jonson? Tourneur?
> > art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>
> >> Others.
> The Webbster wrote:
> >
> > Who, Art? Inquiring minds want to know.
> Marlowe = MAR-L.O. = a young Lord Oxford
There is no evidence whateVER that Marlowe was Oxford, Art; there
is documentary evidence of Marlowe's education at Cambridge, his
activity in espionage, and his death in 1593, oVER a decade before
Oxford's death.
> Marston = MAR-stone
Huh? So who wrote the works of Marston, Art?
> Jonson = Francis Bacon.
Huh?
> The Webbster wrote:
> >
> > Was Chaucer also a phony?
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> Saints Crispin Day: Oct.25 = 33rd day of Autumn (mystic Masonic #33)
There was nothing "mystical" about the number 33 until the mid
nineteenth century, Art; indeed, the earlier incarnations of the
Scottish Rite had at most 25 degrees.
> Geoffrey Chaucer (1343-1400) died on St. Crispin's Day, 1400
> 6 x 33 years later: Richard Quiney's HASTE letter to Shakspere
> .
> . 1598 - 1400 = 18 x 11
Nutcase numerology.
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> . Richard Quiney 25 October [Saints Crispin Day] 1598
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
> . http://home.earthlink.net/~mark_alex/1600.htm
> .
> 11a. 1598 Oct 25 [St.Crispin's day] Letter from Richard Quiney asking
> for a £30 loan. This is the only letter that has ever been found
> addressed to William Shakspere of Stratford. It is addressed
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Shakspere was poisoned in Stratford on St.George's Day, 1616.
> . (Cervantes died the same day.)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> . RESURRECTION:
> . Saint George
> . Feastday: April 23
> . April 23 = 33rd day of Spring (mystic Masonic #33)
There was nothing "mystical" about the number 33 until the mid
nineteenth century, Art; indeed, the earlier incarnations of the
Scottish Rite had at most 25 degrees.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> *VER(st)E(hen)* : to understand, understand, understood [German]
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> . Revelation 13:18. Here is WISDOM.
> Let him that hath *UNDERSTANDING* count the number of the beast:
> . for it is the number of a man;
> . and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
> .
> . Shakspere died 216 years after Chaucer died.
> .
> . 216 = 6 x 6 x 6 = 18 x 12
Nutcase numerology. But does that mean that Oxford also wrote the
1812 oVERture, Art?
You did not answer the question, Art. I repeat it, since you
evidently did not comprehend it:
Was Chaucer also a phony, Art?
> >>>>>> * That a number of eminent British barristers and judges found
> >>>>>> Shakespeare's plays permeated with precise legal thought, and that
> >>>>>> the author could only have been a veteran legal professional.
> >>>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>
> >>>>> ...just as many eminent mathematicians and physicists
> >>>>> have found Tom Stoppard's plays permeated with
> >>>>> the latest mathematical and physical ideas;
> >>> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >
> >>>> The *latest* mathematical & physical ideas???
> >>>> Flipping coins (Pascal) & water displacement (Archimedes)?
> >> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >>> You plainly have not read _Arcadia_, Art.
> > art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>
> >> Et in Arcadia ego.
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > That's my line, Art.
> Is THAT where I heard it!
You could have heard it from *anyone* associated with the Priory or
Rex Deus, Art.
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > But the fact remains that you have clearly neVER
> > read it -- nor have you eVER read much else.
> So why don't you tell us about the *latest*
> mathematical & physical ideas in _Arcadia_ ,
> Dave, instead of just grepping.
For one thing, _Arcadia_ plays with various notions of what is
popularly called "chaos" in both discrete-time and continuous-time
nonlinear classical dynamical systems; among these is the sensitive
dependence of solutions upon initial conditions, so that orbits
corresponding to "nearby" initial conditions may be VERy far apart.
But that's one of many reasons that you should learn to read English,
Art -- you would probably like it. One of the main characters is
Thomasina CoVERly, the action opens in DERBYshire, and the pre-
publication title was _Et in Arcadia ego_! Fractals also make an
appearance. HoweVER, as I noted, Stoppard did not even attend
uniVERsity.
[...]
> >>>> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>>>> howeVER, only loonies like Oxfordians opine that Stoppard
> >>>>> must be a professional physicist or mathematician.
> >>> art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >
> >>>> Stoppard is one of you, Dave.
> >> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> >>> You mean, a Templar? Rex Deus? One of Desposyni?
> > art <acneu...@gmail.com> (aka Cuixot) wrote:
> >>
> >> Take your pick.
> nordicskiv2 <David.L.W...@Dartmouth.edu> wrote:
> >
> > You're the one making the paranoid allegation, Art;
> > *you* decide which he is.
> A Junior Woodchuck, perhaps?
> ----------------------------------------------
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junior_Woodchucks_Guidebook
>
> <<The Junior Woodchucks Guidebook, or the Woodchuck book for short, is
> a fictional book in the Scrooge McDuck universe. The Guidebook appears
> to contain information and advice on *EVERy possible* subject.
"EVERy"?! Did Oxford create Donald Duck's nephews also, Art, as
you seem to believe that he did Popeye?
[Lunatic logorrhea snipped]