text:
On Thu, 20 Sep 2001 08:49:17 GMT, Hyperopic wrote:

I'm just a bit lost here.

Or any number of new covers.  My own thesis supposes that those who
knew the actor, easily knew he hadn't written the plays...so there is
no problem here.  Its difficult now, I think for most to see this, but
Willy simply wasn't fronting the plays.

If he had been they would have killed him or at least locked him up.

So the name was a freebie...anyone one could use it.

If you want to talk about problems, what I don't understand is how the
publishers got away with it....and I think the answer is that because
these were plays and popular ones they simply didn't want to get
involved...clearly this didn't stop them from putting Jonson in
jail...so one must marvel here, why not the publishers, if they
couldn't come up with a name?

Now this leads back to the interrogation of Thomas Kyd...which was
brutal, Bloom is not the only one who supposes it resulted in his
death.  In any case here poor Kyd is on the rack and the says that
Marlowe wrote plays for his master...but "his master" is not
identified!!!!!

Now there are several good candidates for Kyd's master, Strange,
Herbert and Oxford... There is a good dissertation on this from
BYU...a recent one, which orders them in that
order.

But the point is why wasn't Kyd's master identified?

This leads us to suspect that these particular plays were being
produced by someone who
had what is called "protection".  Real protection.  Now, obviously we
don't know why.  But Marlowe with his knowledge of state
secretes...with his finger on dynastic affairs...did have protection
and it was Burghley's protection, which is why he walked from the
Privy Council's charges..walked even though the charges were of a
capital nature.

Ok I can see the objections here.  Why not protect his first identity?
Sometimes these things happen.  So we have to be content that it
wasn't possible.  But it was possible after the hard lessons, to
provide him with a safe identity.  And it was possible to allow the
plays that were published to be published.

See Famous Victories...this is the story line.  The Prince cannot
protect the little spy of the booties once the law has him, even when
he boxes the Judge on the ear...so the spy has to be saved off stage
and he is saved off stage and then he turns up at John Cobbler's house
and then he goes to France....sound familiar....and keep in mind this
"spy of the booties" committed a crime in Deptford Kent on 20/30 May
1593...its all in the book published in 1594 and frequently argued as
Shakespeare...read it on my site if you don't have a copy...I've
posted it.

Just for the record those history plays that were published in quarto
do deal with the civil wars of England and thus had a nationalistic
purpose.

So we don't have to broach this issue until we come to the FF and
there in the collected edition...the plays were old and considered
literature and, thus, we have escaped the problem of
why they were allowed to be published.

See above.  All we need suppose is that this segment of the population
knew it wasn't Willy, but supposed it someone with a similar name or
supposed it a pen name for someone hidden poet...no more, no less.

Caveat: it is obvious that in the uninformed the closeness of the
names began to cause the
general play going population to suppose a connection.

Have you considered my point about a sequel to Gone with the Wind
being found among the papers of Clark Gable or Vivian Leigh?  The
general public would buy it in record numbers.

I'm the authority here.  I've seen this edition. I've held it in my
hands, repeatedly in the vault of the Huntington and on its tables and
I've looked at the changes...they aren't "obsessive-compulsive" many
of them are wrong...
All I suggest happen is that he reread it cold and made changes as he
noticed them, some right, some wrong in the fashion of an author.

Wrong

  To use your inaccurate terminology, "Marlowe equals

Try tenet....

You are missing the mark here.

Look...you are again jump gun here. I consider these problems in my
own way, but a systematic consideration of them is, as I have said, a
daunting chore...I write quickly and freely and don't like
chores....and I haven't implied that in dealing with them I  would be
able to solve them...I only imply that I will attempt to....it may
well be that you can broach objections I can't field.

I don't believe a hempen homespun wrote these plays.  Marlowe was a
university groomed genius.

But to come to point here, I have been saying all along that if the
Rustic did write the plays and kept his daughters as illiterates and
acted the fool so as keep the hounds off his scent, then he was a hero
and Strats should be boasting about it....but I don't hear this.

What I hear is that the plays were churned out automatically by
someone who forgot about them as quickly as he wrote them and who
moved on to hoarding grain and changing sheets in his hostel rather
than work on them....

I don't buy this.  But if it makes you feel better I'll define the
term "tautology" more closely, I do think the discussion has
helped...but it wasn't offered casually, nor is it engraved in stone.
I don't think words have a read precise meaning...unless they are
carefully defined first.   So if you'd rather I change the heading to
"Stratfordianism rest on a single tenet," I'm ok with it. I'm easy.
My "mistake" has gotten us both up to speed.

And you are quite right to note that Marlovianism rests on a similar
tenet. Its just that the weight of the connection is very large and
opens many doors whereas the proposition or equation
that the Rustic was the Author closes doors or at least has closed
them, because it doesn't lead to an intelligent and cognitive, let
alone, reflective author.

John Baker

Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe

"The ultimate truth is penultimately always a falsehood.
He who will be proved right in the end appears to be
wrong and harmful before it."
 _Darkness at Noon_, Arthur Koestler


author: Paul Crowley (apply ROT13

subject: Re: Why Stratfordianism rests on a Tautology

text:
Roundtable <[email]> wrote in message news:[email]...

a) Few people for the couple of decades after 1624 saw his
plays -- they'd gone out of fashion;
b) Very few people bought the Folio -- it was extremely
expensive and effectively restricted to a class that knew
how to guard its tongue;
c) The quartos were long out of print;
d) There was no national or local press;
e) There was a thorough and well-enforced censorship;
f) The monument was not erected until some years after
the Stratman died.   No stranger was in a position to study
the documents left in respect of the Stratman nor find out
anything much about his character.  And if any person
started making enquiries, he could readily be discouraged
or silenced.

Although it's a good question.  The image of the author
on the front of the Folio is a manifest fraud.  No human
being has ever looked remotely like that.  But, in the
absence of a permitted public debate, almost anything
can get by.

Paul.


author: Bob Grumman

text:
**That list occurs in only one place -- Jonson's Folio
(of his own plays) published in 1616.

**No one can pretend that he should have been at the
head of such a list on the basis of his acting merits,
experience or status.  So what is the story?

**God knows what it was -- but it's not a simple logical
one that we can take at face value.  Jonson must have
had a quite peculiar motivation.

*Could it not have been a simple tribute to "il migglior fabbro"?

Or it could have been that Shakespeare played the lead in both
the Jonson plays that he is listed as an actor in.  After all, the
herald described him not as a play-maker but as an actor, so he
was apparently well-known as an actor, which suggests that he
played important roles at least sometimes.

                                            --Bob G.


text:
Okay Fine <[email]> wrote in message news:[email]...

I'm not 'denying the evidence' -- whatever you might mean
by that.

Sure, and I quoted it earlier in the thread.  It does not seem
likely that he was literate -- from his signatures, his
illiterate daughters, his illiterate parents, the absence of
any letters . . . . etc., etc.

I don't follow your 'reasoning' in the first place.  Neither do
I get the other part of your analogy.   Are you usually so
incomprehensible?

Paul.


text:
OF: "Clearly there is nothing in the documentary record to support
your wishful proposition that Shakespeare was writing before
Marlowe's death."

We're into super-nit-pickery.  If you want to claim a win, go ahead.
I would say that mine (and David's) simple point is that the person
who used the name Shakespeare was writing before Marlowe's death.
And I'm not up to arguing it further.

"It is, however, a very minor point."

 False.

I was speaking of the question of whether the man who wrote as
Shakespeare was writing before Marlowe's death, which is pretty
irrelevant because, as you state, it could have been Marlowe.

"You mean 'Groatsworth's...'?  Any assertion that there is a clear
reference to anyone there is nothing but the most tendentious reading
imaginable.  That text is a mess."

Right, all texts that corroborate Shakespeare as Shakespeare are
ambiguous, incoherent or lies.

 Interestingly, we have no direct concrete evidence that Marlowe was
 writing prior to the date that the direct concrete evidence shows
 that Shakespeare was.  Should we not then assume that Shakespeare
 wrote Marlowe?  That's always been one of my theories: Marlowe hired
 Shakespeare to make him look like a literateur.  This was after
 Shakespeare went through Cambridge taking Marlowe's exams for him.

 I'm perfectly willing to agree that Shakespeare and Marlowe are the same
 writer.  If you can make the case that it's Shakspere, state your
 reasons.

 OF.

Hero and Leander takes place in Stratford because it mentions clouds
and Stratford had clouds.  (I'm making this up; I can't remember
if H&L has clouds in it.)  Marlowe was just too rowdy to have
written poetry.  Etc.  You know, the same kind of stuff the
anti-Stratfordians use against Shakespeare.

                                                --Bob G.


author: Roundtable

text:
"Paul Crowley" <[email] (apply ROT13)> wrote in message

  You'd be surprised what people look like - maybe you don't get out
much. Try going to the mall from time to time. The Folio pic looks
like two guys I know.

1.WS of Stratford was the actor - proof: His coat of arms for Will
Shakespeare.

2. WS was the actor as a member of "the then Lord Chamberlayne his
servants"
   performing "Every Man in his Humour" by Ben Jonson in 1598, for
example.

3. WS was listed as one of the players for the same bunch of actors,
give or
   take one or two, as listed on the Folio, which is titled "The
workes of
   William Shakespeare"...etc.etc. as collected by his friends and
fellow-
   actors regretting that the Author is no longer alive to come
forward
   himself to present these works, etc.etc.

And you think that there were TWO William Shakespeare's? Or what?

You know, no matter what X-Files tell us - shape shifters do not
exist.

New Place was torn down, so there is nothing to find there.

I can't even find important documents from 10 years ago...moving to
new appartments a lot, it all somehow got lost...plus one throws stuff
away, so as to travel light...plus, after typing up the final version,
I always destroy the original effort...don't you? Or do you keep every
scrap of what you write for
your autobiography?

Roundtable


author: Alcibiades

text:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2001 00:09:12 +0100, "Paul Crowley"
<[email] (apply ROT13)> wrote:

Right-o, Paul.  That fire at Ben Jonson's place sure did a number...

- Alci


author: Okay Fine

text:
Paul Crowley wrote:

You are denying the evidence that says Shakspere was an actor without
listing evidence that, e.g., tells us who was that actor with his name.
Perhaps you think it was the author, but why?

That's not very strong evidence if it's all you've got.  His business
activity indicates more literacy than you're crediting.  I agree that
illiterate parents and children mark him unlikely to have written plays,
much less with genius, but the other shareholders in the company were
actors if memory serves.  The presumption that he was as well is hard to
rule out.

My, my, you're thin-skinned!

My reasoning is so simple that it would take an act of will to avoid
understanding it for anyone qualified to have an opinion on this
question, but I'll indulge you.  It seems you're saying that Jonson put
Shakespeare on his list for some mysterious reason; if that's an
argument, we're entitled to ask why Oxford is on your list and speculate
that you have a mysterious reason for putting him there.

OF.


text:
Bob Grumman wrote:

In other words, you're wrong but would like to pretend that you're
right, and won't even defend your false belief any more.

It's strange that you take exception to this kind of proposition yet
post to this question.  Setting aside your propensity to mistakenly
believe that all docs with the name 'Shakespeare' refer to your
candidate, you are referring in a meaningful way to docs that could
refer to Shakspere as Shakespeare but which anti-Strats do not accept
can be taken at face value.

It's obvious that docs like this are not taken at face value by an
anti-Strats, so if you intend this as some kind of criticism it must be
because you think there are so many examples that it's become a
syndrome.  I know of only one really good example: FF.

However, since you wish that Groatworth's refers to
Shakspere=Shakespeare, I'd be interested in your source or explanation.
Has someone explained this in a clear and convincing manner?  As far as
I know, there's question about attribution, provenance, purpose, and the
unfortunate fact for your side that no one ie referred to by name.

But I notice that you have not answered my question: is it Groatworth's?

You're not paying attention.  You lost the point -- which actually means
that you should correct your previously false belief --  and are trying
to pretend that this resolution gives you leave to ridicule the
opposition that has pointed out your false belief.

Now who's the rigidnik?

OF.


author: baker

text:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2001 02:18:48 +0000 (UTC), "Bob Grumman"
<[email]> wrote:

Interesting you should bring up H&L, it claims,in the opening lines,
to be a sequel to V&A, but as we all know V&A wasn't pritned before
Marlowe died...so a problem.

It alludes a dozen times to V&A in the text of the poem and even
quotes a line or two, "rose cheeked Adonis..."

On the other hand V&A does not quote from or allude to H&L.

Indeed I'll take us both to dinner if you can find any allusion in
V&A that is later than the early 1580s.

I've looked....the reference to the plauge could be, but it also
could be much earlier....

Here is how it shakes.  V&A alludes to the quakes of 1580 four or five
times, as if they had just happened,  it alludes to the October comet
of 1580 "see how it glides"  and it alludes to Spencer's c. 1580
works,,,if it had been published in 1585, no one would doubt
these allusions.

Its underlying Kentish locale is also clear.  Even that jerk Honan
notices that it contains topical allusions that the poet could not
have seen in Warwickshire...

baker
John Baker

Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe

"The ultimate truth is penultimately always a falsehood.
He who will be proved right in the end appears to be
wrong and harmful before it."
 _Darkness at Noon_, Arthur Koestler


text:
Roundtable <[email]> wrote in message news:[email]...

Actually I have spent some hours in the mall just looking.
I have never seen anyone with (a) eyes of different sizes
(b) a pupil off-centre in the iris;  (c) a bone-structure in a
male whereby the sides of the nose curve up into the
eyebrows (in fact it's physiologically impossible)
(d) anyone with a skull as narrow as that shown in the folio
-- in fact that is also physiologically impossible,
(e) any human being with square corners to the inner eye
(f) anyone with eyes askew  (g) anyone with the outside
corner of their eyes not pointing to the corner of the socket
(h) any adult with a head so disproportionate to their body.

 . . . and so on and on.

You've obviously never looked at it at all closely

He was attached to the players -- that I don't dispute.
I reckon that the story that he held the patrons horses
is on the right lines.

There are letter patent to that effect, strangely listing W.S as
the first of the Lord Chamberlain's men.

A record created in 1616 by Jonson himself, list W.S. at the
top of his list of actors -- we've been over this.

The playwright (Oxford) certainly went under that name.

It remained in the possession of the family until after
1660 -- long after the playwright had become famous
and tourists had started visiting the town.  Queen
Henrietta Maria stayed there for three days in 1643.
There is no reason for every scrap of manuscript
to have disappeared.

Sure, but the Stratman did NOT move after he bought
the place in 1597.  His daughter and son-in-law moved
in after he died (if not before) and Dr Hall was a highly
educated person whose own notes were collected by
another local doctor from the daughter Susanna (some-
time around 1644) and published by him.  Strangely that
guy did not write a single word about the supposedly
famous father-in-law.   Of course, neither did any other
local person -- at any time.

If I'd created famous national characters like Falstaff,
Dogberry, Justice Silence, Prince Hal, Peter Bottom,
etc., etc., I might hang on to the manuscripts -- and
I think I'd make sure that my daughters were able to
read the stories.

Paul.


author: MakBane

text:
Crowley:

Roundtable:

The FF Droeshout portrait of "Shakespeare" is pretty goofy looking, but even I
like it. It's not even a portrait anymore; it's an icon. Some
Anti-Stratfordians go on and on about its fraudulence (e.g., it's a mask) and
it may, after all, have a lot of that. It must be wondered, though, why the
investors in such an elaborate publication as the FF would have relied on such
a cartoon.

Are all actors playwrights and poets, Roundtable? You're conflating the two, as
all Stratfordians do.

I'll have to check on whether the publication of that list of dramatis personae
itself dates from 1598. Regardless, William Shakspere of Stratford was,
apparently, an actor. That doesn't make him the Author.

That's an inside joke. Besides, Shakspere and Oxford were both dead by that
time.

You are correct, although it's very likely that the guy from Stratford's name
was pronounced SHACK-spear.

It's a sin to destroy your own writings, even first drafts.

Toby Petzold
American


author: John W. Kennedy

text:
Roundtable wrote:

I know a professional Shakespeare impersonator who works without
makeup.  And the actor Harris Yulin comes pretty close.


text:
Okay Fine <[email]> wrote in message news:[email]...

Your English expression is appalling.  (Is English your
native tongue?)  The phrase 'denies evidence' means
that you don't accept that the evidence exists (e.g. 'There
is no evidence that a terrorist act was committed in New
York on Sep 11.')  Whereas a person can accept that the
evidence exists but deny the meaning others take from it.

I do NOT deny the existence of evidence which <QUOTE>
'says Shakspere was an actor' <ENDQUOTE>  I accept
that there is evidence which _indicates_ that.   I do not,
however, believe that it is strong enough for the conclusion
you take -- given the whole context.

<snip>

There is no point in trying to having a discussion with
someone who either can't or won't follow the standard
rules of communication within the agreed language.

Which other language would you prefer?

Paul.


text:
"In other words, you're wrong but would like to pretend that you're
right, and won't even defend your false belief any more."

No, moron: I have no more to add to my argument.

snip

OF: "You mean 'Groatsworth's...'?  Any assertion that there is a clear
reference to anyone there is nothing but the most tendentious reading
imaginable.  That text is a mess."

BG: "Right, all texts that corroborate Shakespeare as Shakespeare are
ambiguous, incoherent or lies."

OF: "It's strange that you take exception to this kind of proposition yet
post to this question."

BG: no comprende

OF: "Setting aside your propensity to mistakenly believe that
all docs with the name 'Shakespeare' refer to your candidate,"

BG: An absolute lie, of course.  As I have stated time and again,
what I believe is that the name "Shakespeare" on various documents
as their author are EVIDENCE that he wrote them.  In some cases, his
name on them seems to have been countered by STRONGER EVIDENCE that
he did not write them, and those I accept as (probably) not having
been by him.  Locrine, for example.  As for other documents that
refer to the writer Shakespeare, of course I believe they refer to
my candidate, but I argue from the premise that we don't know when
arguing authorship questions.

OF: "you are referring in a meaningful way to docs that could
refer to Shakspere as Shakespeare but which anti-Strats do not accept
can be taken at face value."

Yes.

OF: "It's obvious that docs like this are not taken at face value by an
anti-Strats, so if you intend this as some kind of criticism it must be
because you think there are so many examples that it's become a
syndrome.  I know of only one really good example: FF."

I'm not sure I'm following you, but when I wrote what I did about
all texts that corroborate Shakespeare's being Shakespeare, I was
thinking mainly of the way Priceans and others ambiguate texts like
Jonson's testimony, Davies's poem, the inscription on the Stratford
monument, Greene's Groatsworth, etc.

OF: "However, since you wish that Groatworth's refers to
Shakspere=Shakespeare, I'd be interested in your source or
explanation."

You'r ein luck: I still have my cut to paste of the address you can go to,
to read me on Greene/Chettle: http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Cafe/1492/crow.html

"Shake-scene" is a name.

I thought that was pretty obvious.  Yes, it is the Groastworth.

I didn't lose any point.  I argued (satirically, from the beginning)
that Shakespeare could as well have written Marlowe as Marlowe
Shakespeare.  You asked for arguments, and I gave them.  They are
bad arguments but as good as any of the arguments that Marlowe
wrote Shakespeare.

                                                --Bob G.


text:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2001 17:23:23 GMT, Okay Fine <[email]> wrote:

Ok,

I think I slamduncked Bob and the Strats this morning on this same
subject, which cam up thanks to this exchange.  Take a gander at
it under the heading "A Contemporary Allusion to Marlowe Rediscovered:
Bob G. goes to the Mat..."

and let me hear from you there or back here.

john
John Baker

Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe

"The ultimate truth is penultimately always a falsehood.
He who will be proved right in the end appears to be
wrong and harmful before it."
 _Darkness at Noon_, Arthur Koestler


text:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2001 16:32:15 GMT, baker wrote:

Bob,

This is complete and udder hog-wash.  (I'm not sure you actually wrote
that since you seem to know better.)  My best friend in high school
was known as the school's most rowdy, wild, and absolutely charming
brawler.  We got into a lot of scrapes together...

This man was a poet.  He'd go out and get into all sorts of trouble --
get tossed in the county jail, etc. -- and then stay up all night
writing poetry.

It wasn't Shakespeare, but it brought a tear to my eye more than once.

- Alcibiades


author: David L. Webb

text:
[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
   the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]

In article <CWOr7.1877$[email]>, Paul Crowley
<[email]> wrote:

[...]

   *Peter* Bottom?!  That must an Oxfreudian slip.  I guess we can add
you to the list of Oxfordians (Streitz, _et al_) who have not even read
the plays.  But you *have* created a memorable character like Dogberry
(a sort of misanthropic Dogberry, at that) -- in your Usenet persona.


text:
"Paul Crowley" <[email] (apply ROT13)> wrote in message news:<CWOr7.1877$[email]>...
1. People don't even look like their passport photos, and you expect
someone to look like his DRAWING?!!!! Check out the great masterpieces
- you'll see so many discrepancies..I mean really, that is an
engraving, not a photograph...geez...please...

2. If one writes plays in a time where poems were the thing, one does
not keep
   them oneself. They were kept in the Globe...hadn't you heard?

3. One does not keep the first drafts unless one is a pompous person
thinking of one's own posterity, guys...and WS the actor MOVED AROUND
a couple of times in London.... If I kept the first drafts of my
manuscripts, I'd have to rent a whole storage building to keep the
stuff. I mean, really, guys, please...

4. I can't remember the exact date, 1640 or something, but Susannah
the daughter of the Strat man went to file a complaint at the
bailiff's office because someone named Rush or something with an R
broke into her house with some rough men and took "books and notes and
desks and other objects of great value" which she never got back. I
gues this was after Dr. Hall had died. Look, sorry for the typos and
inexact info, but I'm really in a hurry, gotta go to work...

Roundtable


text:
On 24 Sep 2001 10:34:50 GMT, [email] (MakBane) wrote:

More reason for Jonson to have destroyed the manuscripts for Kit...

- Alci


author: KQKnave

text:
In article <[email]>, [email]
(MakBane) writes:

The engraving of Shakespeare *is* elaborate. Most publications
had nothing but a clumsily drawn symbolic seal. See the title
pages on the Renascence web pages. The most elaborate of
these may be in Jonson's "The Workes of Ben Jonson", which
has an elaborate frieze on the title page.

Jim


text:
Paul Crowley wrote:

A silly and incorrect criticism!  Denial can take more than the single
form you consider standard.  I think you've given a nice demonstration
of my superior command of the language.  Not to mention you understood
me perfectly.

Perhaps you're right. Which part of the context are you referring to?  I
can't think of anything that points to your conclusion.  Maybe there are
three obvious reference points that imply this context...?

I'll continue to try to communicate in an English with parameters
narrowed as you insist.

OF.


text:
Bob Grumman wrote:

On this ng are those who don't believe Shakspere = Shakespeare.  They
will naturally have other interpretations of the texts you think are
corroborative.  If you expect agreement on the meaning of those texts,
you shouldn't read what anti-Strats say about them.  However, since
you're in a dialoque with anti-Strats, I'd recommend that you accept
that there will be other ideas introduced.

That's not entirely accurate.  Actually, you came on the thread right
after David Webb lost his argument that Marlowe wasn't Shakespeare
(unsound reason: V&A predates Marlowe's death).  You defended him with
the assertion that Shakespeare was writing before Marlowe's death -- an
incredible blunder in that it could only be certain if Marlowe =
Shakespeare is false and that's what you're trying to establish, but
there you have it -- and in a later post mentioned the satirical idea
that Shakespeare wrote Marlowe.

Shakespeare wrote Marlowe....

In the context of this thread, one which has Strats defending the notion
that the original Marlowe was the author Shakespeare, 'Shakespeare wrote
Marlowe' must mean Shakspere wrote Marlowe.  You seem to think that's a
wild distortion of the record, yet no wilder than a Marlovian
perspective.  I would guess that you think it's a wild distortion
because Shakspere did not have the opportunity to write Marlowe, nor a
motive to use a pseudonym.

Sadly, those two factors distinguish your satire from Marlovianism.
Accepting Marlovian premises, he had the chance and the reason.

So did you lose the point?  Well, in your defense you never offered
anything more than Mr Webb, but he's wrong. Your assertion that the
point is trivial is false, too.  That you'd follow up that performance
with your habitual obloquy seems like a sort of sad performance.

OF.


text:
Bob Grumman wrote:

I don't find your explanation convincing.

1. There's no reason to assume that the charge of plagiarism is false.
You skip past that rather quickly.  Looks like the obvious reading to
me.

2. The idea that Groatsworth's author would consider actors speaking
their own lines from the stage as worthy of the condemnation he lists
there seems entirely plausible.  It's the most straightforward reading
of the passage.

3. You engage in name-calling, which is a leading indicator of poor
reasoning.

4. If Marlowe wrote 3 Henry VI and G's author knew it, the use of the
quotation from 3 Henry VI has a different color that you don't account
for.

5. "Yes trust them not : for there is an upstart Crow... supposes he is
as well able to bumbast out a blanke verse as the best of you."

This sentence tells us that the author of "Groatsworth's..." refers to
an actor, not a writer.  The antecedent of 'them' refers to actors.  The
Crow is one of them, so he's an actor.  I find nothing strained in
reading 'supposes' as 'pretends'; to me it's the most obvious reading
and I didn't need a special OED citation to see that's what was
intended.

In your paper you write:
"The letter clearly states that it is with this ["tyger's heart..."]
line that the Crow believes himself equal to the best of Greene's
acquaintances (Marlowe, Nashe and Peele) at "bombasting out a blank
verse." Since these three are all playwrights who are not known to have
acted, the only way the Crow could have used the line to compete with
them is as a writer. QED?"

This is faulty.  Is it really "with this line" that the Crow makes
himself the others' equal?  That doesn't seem quite right.  What could
that possibly mean anyway?  Does he wield it like a club, that line?
What kind of metaphor do you see in it?  You ignore the straighforward
reading that the Crow has a tyger's heart, however it's wrapped.

The allusion to 3 Henry VI might refer to a role played by the Crow, or
to a line he liked to repeat, to his appearance or reputation, or to a
line he claimed he wrote.  I don't see from the context how this refers
to Shakspere necessarily.  It could, but it would be a stretch.

And is writing the only way the Crow could compete with the
playwrights?  I don't think so.  Actors using their prominence to
diminish the accomplishments of authors is not unheard of.

6. Note that the balance of the paragraph distances the Crow from the
playwrights.  The author asks them to put distance between them, to end
the relationship.  That seems inconsistent with a reading of the Crow as
Shakespeare.

OF.


text:
"Marlowe was just too rowdy to have written poetry."

 Bob,

 This is complete and udder hog-wash.

Alkabaker, you have to learn to read.  That means reading one sentence
after another so you understand the context.  My line about Marlowe's
being too rowdy to have written poetry is just a sarcastic parody of
the Oxfordian cant about Shakespeare's being too common to have written
poetry.  I was asked to defend my notion that Shakespeare wrote
Marlowe.

                                               --Bob G.


text:
On Tue, 25 Sep 2001 11:16:22 -0400, "David L. Webb"
<[email]> wrote:

Webb,

Didn't you see MND?  And the great eye joke when M. Phiffer eyed
Bottom's mule like endowments!!!   I'd call this a classical Freduian
slip...give the guy a break...

john
John Baker

Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe

"The ultimate truth is penultimately always a falsehood.
He who will be proved right in the end appears to be
wrong and harmful before it."
 _Darkness at Noon_, Arthur Koestler


text:
Roundtable <[email]> wrote in message news:[email]...

There are thousands of portraits (including engravings)
from that period.   Not one other is _better_drawn_
(as a technical operation by the engraver);  not one
other has so many, or so egregious, physiological
absurdities.   Yet the engraving is located at the most
conspicuous possible place -- it is the first thing a
prospective buyer sees on opening the book.  And it
was not altered for any of the subsequent editions.

So all manuscripts were destroyed in 1613?  A mite too
convenient as a story don't you think?   And what was
used for the printing of the Folio in 1623?

It's the complete absence of every scrap of paper -- in
every location -- this is so devastating to the Strat case.
There is not a scrap.  NO ONE retained a poem in its
original manuscript, nor a bit of a manuscript -- not
even the author.  Now that's a bit hard to take.

Do you think that they were incapable of seeing the
quality of the verse?

Sure, it's all in the record.  But does the daughter mention
those manuscripts?  That they were part of the treasure
of the nation --- the first time that characters, now known
to every educated adult in the country, were created in
writing?  Does she heck.  The name of her father is absent
from the whole of those proceedings.

You don't know.  She quite likely got it all back.

Paul.


author: Richard Kennedy

text:
I've seen hundreds of Elizabethan frontispiece portraits, and
there are none at all so mask-like and unconvincing, the wraith
of a portrait.  On the other hand, Ben Jonson in his folio portrait
looks quite like a real person, not made up of wishes and hopes,
but a man of flesh and blood.  Shakespeare might as well be
ectoplasm for all we can find of him amongst his fellows in
London.

KQKnave wrote:


text:
On 24 Sep 2001 17:33:20 GMT, [email] (KQKnave) wrote:

It doesn't matter Jim, because Marlowe wrote Shakespeare.
John Baker

Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe

"The ultimate truth is penultimately always a falsehood.
He who will be proved right in the end appears to be
wrong and harmful before it."
 _Darkness at Noon_, Arthur Koestler


text:
Toby: "It must be wondered, though, why the investors in such an elaborate
publication
as the FF would have relied on such a cartoon."

Bob G.: Because, as Jonson said, it looked JUST LIKE HIM?  As Grumman
said, why would hoaxsters put in an engraving that didn't look like
him?

Jim's answer is good, too, and augments mine:

"The engraving of Shakespeare *is* elaborate. Most publications
had nothing but a clumsily drawn symbolic seal. See the title
pages on the Renascence web pages. The most elaborate of
these may be in Jonson's "The Workes of Ben Jonson", which
has an elaborate frieze on the title page."

But wasn't there a portrait of Jonson in his Workes?  Or has that
been added since?

                                                 --Bob G.


text:
[[ This message was both posted and mailed: see
   the "To," "Cc," and "Newsgroups" headers for details. ]]

In article <[email]>, Okay Fine <[email]>
wrote:

[...]

   No, I did *not* say that Marlowe could not have been Shakespeare
*because* _Venus and Adonis_ is registered prior to Marlowe's death; I
merely corrected another of Baker's many mistakes by noting that a poem
entitled _Venus and Adonis_ *was*, _pace_ Baker, registered prior to
Marlowe's death.

   That registration does *NOT* mean that Marlowe could not have been
Shakespeare (although there are other, very cogent reasons for doubting
Marlowe's putative authorship of Shakespeare).  Evidently you cannot
read what I wrote any better than than you can read what Terry Ross
wrote.  I suggest that you learn to read -- the ability to do so might
spare you many further misattributions and misunderstandings.

         David Webb


text:
BG: I didn't lose any point.  I argued (satirically, from the beginning),
blah blah blah

OF: That's not entirely accurate.  Actually, you. blah blah blah

All I'll say is that you remember this differently than I do,
and it's too trivial to bother futher with.

Shakespeare had every bit as much opportunity to write Marlowe as
Marlowe had to write Shakespeare.  His motive could have been money
Marlowe paid him to make Marlowe look like a playwright (and get through
school).  But WS could also, as others have suggested, have given
his possibly risky plays to a pseudonym (permanently, or until such
a time as his reputation was strong enough and/or he'd accumulated
sufficient friends in high places to write risky plays).

                                                     --Bob G.


text:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2001 20:18:05 +0000 (UTC), "Bob Grumman"
<[email]> wrote:

not your notion, Bob, but suggested in 1817 or so in the Gentlemen
Mag....

John Baker

Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe

"The ultimate truth is penultimately always a falsehood.
He who will be proved right in the end appears to be
wrong and harmful before it."
 _Darkness at Noon_, Arthur Koestler


text:
On Mon, 24 Sep 2001 20:18:05 +0000 (UTC), "Bob Grumman"
<[email]> wrote:

Bob,

You really should read my posts on the difference between sarcasm and
irony.

But the whole thing, including the context, was hogwash.

- Alka

"i liked the way my hand looked
"on your head
"in the presence of my knuckles
"but the beauty of this vision alone
"just like yesterday's sunset
"has been perverted by the sentimental
"and mistaken for love"

- "Iris" by Live on _Throwing_Copper_


text:
In article <[email]>, "Bob
Grumman" <[email]> writes:

It isn't mentioned in Rigg's biography. He only shows
the frieze.

Jim


text:
In article <[email]>, "Bob
Grumman" <[email]> writes:

His "Workes" was published in 1616. The earliest portrait of Jonson
is dated between 1622-1627, an engraving by Robert Vaughn,
according to Riggs' biography.

Jim


text:
I've said before that the greatest obstacle to my Oxfordianism is that
pestilent fellow Ben Jonson. He seems determined to make me think that his
opinion of Shakespeare wasn't bought and paid for by the Herberts!

Toby Petzold
American

p.s. Think of the depictions of Jonson, though. Don't they all very much
resemble the very same individual? One can just glance at one of them and
realize who the subject is, but I don't think the same can be said of
Shakespeare.


text:
"David L. Webb" wrote:

Oh, David, you're such a dear. I've long since forgotten exactly what
you originally wrote. Believe me, I didn't bother to go back and re-read
your mistake! We've all known you were wrong forever, now, dahling, and
you haven't said a word about it.  It's sad you lack the grace to admit
it, but perhaps your silence on the point is just your way.

I note that you haven't included a citation in support of your
hagiography.  I dearly hope you didn't waste time on that musty old
post.

Now I see you're asking us to believe that your purpose with Baker was
not to show that Marlowe couldn't be Shakespeare, no, but merely to make
a marginal correction on a narrow reading of one of his posts that had
no real import as to The Question.  I suppose that might be possible, no
matter how unlikely.

I'm going to have to be harder on you with this empty boast that you
have other, better arguments against Marlowe's authorship.  Cat got your
tongue on those?

However, I want to thank you for the confirmation that the documentary
record on V&A doesn't preclude Marlowe = Shakespeare. At the moment,
that seems to be the final word.

OF.


text:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2001 09:55:27 -0400, "David L. Webb"
<[email]> wrote:

Webb,

You can twist my words any way you please, but we both agree that V&A
entered while Marlowe was alive and well and in London, without a name
on it.  So there is no evidence of Shakespeare writing prior to
Marlowe's official date of death.  The evidence for Shakespeare begins
with the publication, not the registration of V&A.

 A simple bibliographic study of the text, one you can do yourself if
you can lay hands on a facsimile copy is of it and of _Rape of
Lucrece_ ,is to notice how the dedication page of V&A is blank on the
verso, meaning it was _added_ to the text, whereas the verso of the
dedication in RL has the Argument on the verso, meaning it was printed
_with_ the text.

We can agree here.  And if it helps.  You were entirely _right_ to
point out that my phrasing wasn't quite as precise as it should have
been.

I should have said "Shakespeare's name does not appear on any work
until _after_ Marlowe's official date of death."   Ok?

Let's do lunch.  You, I and Alki.  Rates are cheep and I've got time.
We'll talk Fermat and Willy...

john

John Baker

Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe
or e-mail me at: [email]

"The ultimate truth is penultimately always a falsehood.
He who will be proved right in the end appears to be
wrong and harmful before it."
 _Darkness at Noon_, Arthur Koestler


text:
Bob Grumman wrote:

My memory is not suffering on this.  You lost the point, it's
significant, and you don't want to admit it.

I agree that there is nothing in the record to rule out that Marlowe and
Shakespeare are the same person.

OF.


text:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2001 00:46:19 +0000 (UTC), "Bob Grumman"
<[email]> wrote:

Come on guy, this makes you look like a fool.  Marlowe didn't need a
hempen-homespun to write his works for him...Marlowe had the
education, the opportunity and the motive to write them.

Very funny!  And what about all those who knew him, his friends and
his publishers.  Chettle, Blount, Nashe, Sidney, Burghley....sure Bob.

A pseudonym with two legs who worked at the highest levels of the
foregin service....

You should be on the stage, Bob.  I think there is one leaving in the
morning....

John Baker

Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe
or e-mail me at: [email]

"The ultimate truth is penultimately always a falsehood.
He who will be proved right in the end appears to be
wrong and harmful before it."
 _Darkness at Noon_, Arthur Koestler


text:
Q: But wasn't there a portrait of Jonson in his Workes?  Or has that
been added since?

A: His "Workes" was published in 1616. The earliest portrait of Jonson
is dated between 1622-1627, an engraving by Robert Vaughn,
according to Riggs' biography.

Jim

Thanks, Jim.  This morsel makes up for the devastating news from
Price that Shakespeare is probably not documented as having come
to a trial in Stratford from the king's court.

                                                --Bob G.


text:
I've said before that the greatest obstacle to my Oxfordianism is that
pestilent fellow Ben Jonson. He seems determined to make me think that his
opinion of Shakespeare wasn't bought and paid for by the Herberts!

Toby Petzold
American

p.s. Think of the depictions of Jonson, though. Don't they all very much
resemble the very same individual? One can just glance at one of them and
realize who the subject is, but I don't think the same can be said of
Shakespeare.

Bob G:

Toby, I've always thought you sounded a lot like our one convert,
Richie; Jonson was the one who made a Stratfordian of him.  As for
the portraits of Shakespeare, I still want to see a photograph of
the bust from the same angle that the engraving depicts Shakespeare.
Hard to compare sculpture of a man at one age with an engraving of
him at, apparently, another age.

                                                     --Bob G.


text:
In article <[email]>, Okay Fine <[email]>
wrote:

   I know -- that's why you completely botched your attempted (and
mangled) paraphrase of what I said.  You virtually never look things
up, so it's little wonder that you do not report them accurately.

   Nor can you even read when you are forced to look things up, for
that matter.  (It was *really* shabby of Terry Ross to have "buried"
the main point of his essay past the second sentence!)  I would *never*
have expected *you* to report what I said accurately; I'm merely
setting the record straight for the few newsgroup participants who
still bother to open your posts; most of those participants can
actually *read*.

   As I said, it's quite evident that you didn't; had you done so, you
would have been aware (that is, if you were able to read English prose
at about the eighth-grade level) that what I said was true.

[...]

   What "hagiography"?  I merely corrected one of Baker's copious
inaccuracies.  If you're seeking a citation for what I wrote, you can
find it at

<http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&threadm=200920011805211493%25Davi
d.L.Webb%40Dartmouth.edu&rnum=2&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dbaker%2Bregister%2Bgr
oup:humanities.lit.authors.*%2Bauthor:webb%26hl%3Den%26rnum%3D2%26selm%3
D200920011805211493%2525David.L.Webb%2540Dartmouth.edu>;

however, since you did not bother to look up what I actually said the
first time you misstated my claim, I see no reason to expect that you
would do so now.  Nor is there any reason to hope that your reading
comprehension is adequate for the task in any case.

   That's exactly what I was doing.  In fact, I generally confine
myself to correcting errors rather than to constructing elaborate
authorship theories, as you would probably know were your reading
comprehension up to the level necessary for reading my posts.

   One good reason for being skeptical of Marlowe's authorshp is that
there are records of Marlowe's death in 1593, long before most of the
Shakespeare canon was written.  While it is logically possible to argue
that Marlowe survived his ostensible murder, such an argument would
have to be predicated on very strong and persuasive evidence, evidence
certainly not furnished by Baker.

[...]

   That depends upon what you mean by the documentary record.
Certainly the Stationers' Register entry does not preclude Marlowe's
authorship (but neither would it particularly suggest it, even if Baker
had had his facts straight).  If you include the official records
pertaining to Marlowe's murder in the "documentary record," then
Marlowe is effectively eliminated unless it can be shown that those
records are erroneous.

            David Webb


text:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2001 16:34:28 GMT, baker wrote:

John,

Do you think he doesn't like us?  What else would explain his being so
cold?

- Alki


text:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2001 01:32:47 GMT, baker wrote:

John,

Maybe we're hitting Grueseman too hard?  I saw his surrender post a
little while ago...

Maybe he needs some time in a Swiss sanitarium to collect himself?

But remember folks: if you hear from me no more after tonight there
will be fifty others to pick up the standard where and when I drop...

- Alcibiades


text:
Petzold:

Grumman:

Oh, ho! I'll BET you'd like to make it two! Alas, it isn't possible to believe
in the old horse-minder. Whether it's a simple matter of making my 21st Century
square peg of historical understanding fit into the round hole of
Elizabethan-Jacobean cultural being, I can't yet say, but there is something
satisfying in being a heretic. Does that add something to your psychological
theory?

When was the last time you REALLY read the prefatory epistles to the First
Folio? Or, REALLY thought about what was being conveyed in the Monument
inscription? There's something rotten there, you know.

I don't think that will answer anything. I just looked again at the engravings
of Jonson, Drayton, Florio, et al in Price's book and compared them to the
Droeshout picture. Jonson and Drayton, at least, are unquestionably themselves;
their individuality comes through. But Shakespeare is just a damned cartoon. I
like that picture, and always will, but it's just silly as a faithful depiction
of an actual human being.

Toby Petzold
American


author: Baker

text:
<[email]> wrote:

David, the strongest argument for Marlowe's post 1593 survival is the
continuation of his works under the names of others, particularly
Willy's.  That continuation was first noticed in the early 1800s.  In
the early 1900s difficult but precise  studies of word length proved
that Marlowe and Shakespeare share an average word length, whereas
other writers of the period do not.  Ule working with entire canons in
the 80s and early 90s proved the stylometric overlap between the two
was as certain as the stylometric overlap between plays within either
canon.  These studies took no samples and thus are not statistical.
It is unlikely they will ever be overturned.  My own study of T/tr
shows that Marlowe's ability to generate types among his tokens
includes within it Willy's and when a graph is constructed from
all of the anonymous plays of Kent, Marlowe's works and Shakespeare,
plus the few supernumerary plays, it plots to a nice bell shape,
similar to what one would expect in the growth and development of a
single
writer.

Additional studies can easily be considered.  The plays can be cut
up and recombined...then studied.  If your plays and mine were chopped
up and recombined we'd expect an increase in vocabulary count because
there would be two writers....but when we do this with Marlowe and
Shakespeare the vocabulary trees fit inside one another...

I've also proven Marlowe alive in the post 1593 diplomatic record and
proven that the person he was suppose to have been died in 1596,
three years before this "other" Marlowe surfaces.

I've given good evidence of an intentional date trail that begins in
the early 1590 and turns until 1654, the year Marlowe would have
turned 90...

You don't have to buy any of it...but it is evidence.

Again I've always had my facts on this point straight.  Shakespeare
does not appear in print until _after_ Marlowe's official date of
death.  The registration of V&A on William Herbert's 13th birthday
took place while Marlowe was officially alive.  The book was allowed
by Marlowe's Archbishop, the same man who went to the wire for him
at Cambridge and secured his degree.

If you've done you bibliographic homework you now know that the
dedication page was added after V&A was printed and the person
to whom it is dedicated to was, of the two, much more likely to have
been known by Marlowe than by Willy.

Then there is all the internal evidence of a Kentish locale underlying
the poem.

Those records don't base on DNA or finger prints.  And if you take
the time to explore what Peter has to say about the circumstances of
the "death" I'm sure you will discover there is ample reason to doubt
them.

But really I like it better that you are a Strat, because if you
became a Marlovians you might win the prize before Peter....

John Baker

Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe
or e-mail me at: [email]

"The ultimate truth is penultimately always a falsehood.
He who will be proved right in the end appears to be
wrong and harmful before it."
 _Darkness at Noon_, Arthur Koestler


text:
Dear Incredible,
I found that little article you recommended.  I'll enclose the key
excerpt in asterisks.

***
 From: David L. Webb ([email])
 Subject: Re: Why Stratfordianism rests on a Tautology
 Newsgroups: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
 Date: 2001-09-20 15:55:03 PST

In article <[email]>, baker wrote:

[...]

   I never said *anything* about Shakespeare's name; I merely said that
the poem was *registered* on April 18, 1593.  In any case, are you
actually suggesting that the Stationers' Register entry refers to a
*different poem* entitled _Venus and Adonis_ by a *different poet*?!
If not, what *is* your point?

[...]

David Webb

***

I'm sure this is terribly boring to others but there's your pigheaded
mistake right there.  You tried to show that Marlowe could not entirely
predate Shakespeare, you were wrong, and you even failed to appreciate
this completely obvious point when it was presented in the most
transparent possible form.

Now, Mr. Shrinking Man, this is beyond laughably bad understanding.
What's worse, you deny that you made this mistake and insulted my
comprehension for correctly describing it.

I know all Strats are not like you and Bob Grumman, retreating from
their errors with stupid lies that are contradicted on the very thread
you post to.  When I made an error I had the grace to admit it.
Apparently you lack this basic virtue.

I'm very pleased once again to thank you for the correct citation and to
have already arrived at the correct conclusion a small eternity ahead of
you.

OF.


text:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2001 16:19:10 -0400, Alcibiades
<[email]> wrote:

[

Webb's hot.

Under the collar any how.  And dying to talk Fermat.  He just doesn't
want us to know it.  Which one of us is going to buy him lunch?

I think we should have a gentleman's wager.

If it doesn't turn out to be the most interesting lunch he's ever had,
he'll buy us lunch....

John Baker

Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe
or e-mail me at: [email]

"The ultimate truth is penultimately always a falsehood.
He who will be proved right in the end appears to be
wrong and harmful before it."
 _Darkness at Noon_, Arthur Koestler


text:
Eric Ingman

Puhleaze, Eric!  Surely, I am at least five orders of magnitude worse
a lying swine than David Webb, grievous malfeasant though he be (though
I frankly can find no error in what he said, nor any lie); I therefore
resent your coupling us in this heartless manner.

When, by the way, are you going to tell us why we should take you
as the expert in linguistics you once claimed to be, or just what it
is that makes you so arrogantly certain of being significantly more
intelligent than such as I or David.

                                                       --Bob G.


text:
On Thu, 04 Oct 2001 12:59:30 GMT, Okay Fine <[email]> wrote:

it is funny to see how he doesn't see his own mistakes...it must be
the afterglow of  the fire and brimstone he reigns on us errant
fools....

oh well this is typical of his ilk...

john
John Baker

Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe
or e-mail me at: [email]

"The ultimate truth is penultimately always a falsehood.
He who will be proved right in the end appears to be
wrong and harmful before it."
 _Darkness at Noon_, Arthur Koestler


text:
On Thu, 27 Sep 2001 22:27:43 GMT, baker wrote:

Sounds good to me.  I blew my wad tonight on a lovely girl from
Worcester (that's "Wooster" to non-natives): 5'11", thin like a rail,
eyes full of depth and life, we talked about Nietzsche, Marlowe, and
going to Italy together in November... so I hope Webb pays.

- Alci

* * *
"Pink Girl with the Blues" by Curve

Pink girl
Pink girl with the blues
Pink girl with the blues
Pink girl

If I let it turn to dust
I could play it large and loud
I've got havoc in my veins
I'm just laying out my aim

When I get to stir it up
I forget I'm strong and proud
And I go cruising down the lanes
I'm dying to be entertained
By a festival crowd
By a festival crowd

When I get to stir it up
I forget I'm strong and proud
And I go cruising down the lanes
I'm dying to be entertained
I'm dying to be entertained

Curious yellow
Curious yellow

If I let it turn to dust
I could play it large and loud
I've got havoc in my veins
I'm just laying out my aim

When I get to stir it up
I forget I'm strong and proud
And I go cruising down the lanes
I'm dying to be entertained
By a festival crowd
By a festival crowd

If I'd never let you in

If I let it turn to dust
I could play it large and loud
I've got havoc in my veins
Pink girl with the blues

Oh yeah yeah
Oh yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah


text:
Bob Grumman wrote:

That's really funny.  He was so befuddled by the evidence he couldn't
even respond cogently.  How in heaven's name could he believe that Baker
referred to a different V&A?  That's not intellectual error; he simply
could not accept that he was plain and simple wrong about what the
evidence showed and his lack of preparedness for that result clouded his
mind so completely that he essentially saw a ghost.  Baker never said
anything about a different V&A -- the Incredible S.M. conjured it from
nothing.

And now you fail to see this obvious error.  Wow, you two are a pair.

I would dearly love to hear your explanation of how Incredible's
"inference" was sound.

I believe I charged myself with expertise in semantics.  The
intelligence business is your own inference and I thank you.

OF.

p.s. shout out to the I. S. Man: although Stratfordian responses to
admission of error are as graceless as anything I've experienced, I will
not criticize you for it.


text:
No, he didn't, halfwit.  He was referring to Shakespeare's Venus and
Adonis, the same poem Baker was referring to.

Well, being a semanticist like Eric, I hereby declare that "semantics"
means "linguistics," and that I made no error is describing what Eric
said.  Now the, when are you going to reveal why anyone should take
you as an expert in semantics (which is such an unbelievable joke that
I wonder what is going on with me psychologically that could make me
substitute linguistics for semantics?  Some desire not to hurt you?
Weird.)  I continue, too, to wonder just what accomplishments in life
you have made that makes you such an arrogant over-rater of your
intelligence.  Did you once score 105 on an IQ test and take it
seriously?

                                            --Bob G.


text:
Bob,

This will some day be a good question.  You have my Word.

- Alci


text:
Bob Grumman wrote:

Oh, boy, you make me laugh!  The Incredible Shrinking Man asked Baker
which poem he was referring to BESIDES Shakespeare's Venus & Adonis.  Or
did you miss that?  Here's the quote:

"   I never said *anything* about Shakespeare's name; I merely said that
the poem was *registered* on April 18, 1593.  In any case, are you
actually suggesting that the Stationers' Register entry refers to a
*different poem* entitled _Venus and Adonis_ by a *different poet*?!
If not, what *is* your point?" [David Webb]

And, of course, no one mentioned anything about a different poem or
poet!

Now you come along and even deny that he mentioned a different poem?
But, Bob, let's look at that quote again under a miscroscope.

"...are you
actually suggesting that the Stationers' Register entry refers to a
[Bob: start reading here}
*different poem* entitled _Venus and Adonis_ by a *different poet*?!
[Bob: did you see that?]
If not, what *is* your point?"

Did you see the part I bracketed in brackets?  So how can you say he
didn't conjure a phantom V&A?  He brought it up! He was outflanked by
the evidence and he couldn't face it.

I mean, let's look at it.  He was wrong.  He should have simply admitted
that No, there is nothing in the documentary record of Venus & Adonis
that contradicts Marlowe = Shakespeare.  Instead, he suggests that Baker
was talking about a different poem by the same name!  Well, I suppose
that would allow him to avoid facing the fact that he was wrong, to
pretend that the poem published anonymously and attributed to
Shakespeare after Marlowe's death certificate was not the poem Baker
wrote about.  But there's no reason to say it in the first place!

And you're too committed to your team to see how utterly devoid of
reality that is!  Now you've both got egg on your face.

I never said anything about my intelligence, Bob, but I guess you got
the idea that someone might think that I'm smarter than you.  Sorry if
that hurt your feelings.  I'd like to put things in perspective by
mentioning that Thomas Aquinas habitually was guilty of circular
reasoning in his proofs of God's existence and I happen to think he was
one of the great thinkers of any age.

OF.


text:
On Fri, 05 Oct 2001 21:13:39 -0400, Alcibiades
<[email]> wrote:

bob,

u have the numbers backwards: 501

john
John Baker

Visit my Webpage:
http://www2.localaccess.com/marlowe
or e-mail me at: [email]

"The ultimate truth is penultimately always a falsehood.
He who will be proved right in the end appears to be
wrong and harmful before it."
 _Darkness at Noon_, Arthur Koestler


text:
Well, I wrote the above, which was to Eric Ingman (Okay Fine), before
realizing how incredibly brilliant use of reasoning unknown to human
beings before Mr. Ingman to prove the flaws of David Webb.  It would
have to be a very special IQ test to be sensitive to Mr. Ingman's
way of reasoning, though, so I really doubt that he could ever have
scored 501 on one, or even 51 (IQ tests being notoriously biased
against real originality of mental processing).

                                                         --Bob G.


author: John H

subject: Re: Orthodox scholarship

text:
KQKnave wrote:

KQKnave's example of 1H6 is interesting.  In Prof Allison Gaw's book
"The Origin and Development of 1 Henry VI", it is concluded that George
Peele had a major hand in the writing of Act 4 (the second hand being
that of Marlowe). This is based on Gaw's thesis that the play "Harey
vj" recorded in Henslowe's diary was an earlier version of 1H6 (which
is now widely agreed), and which Gaw believes was written by the
University Wits.  Gaw identifies four separate hands apart from that of
Shakespeare, the major ones being Marlowe and Peele. He is less certain
about the other two contributors, whom he thinks could be Greene and
Nashe.  Gaw's overall interpretation of what happened is that
Shakespeare edited  and added to (in the late 1590s) their somewhat
uneven earlier work. The earlier version of the play was necessarily
written in haste in 1592. That's because Edward Alleyn is presumed to
have commissioned Marlowe to write it and, owing to an impending time
deadline, it is supposed that Marlowe solicited the assistance of Peele
for Act 4 (and perhaps also Greene and Nashe at a later stage, for help
with Acts 2 and 3).

Incidentally, Gaw also demonstrates that Greene's possible role in the
construction of "Harey vj" was not associated with his supposed
allegation against Shakespeare in "the Groatsworth of Wit", because the
chronology makes such a connection impossible.

--JH


author: Jim KQKnave

subject: Re: Orthodox scholarship

text:
In article <[email]>
"John H" <[email]> wrote:

First edition 1912, second edition 1927.

See my demolition of Monsarrat's RES paper!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/monsarr1.html

The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html

Agent Jim

-=-
This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.


subject: Re: Orthodox scholarship

text:
QKnave wrote:

That statement makes no sense. It appears Gaw began studying 1H6 in
late 1919. My copy of his book (only edition?) is dated 1926. Have I
missed something here?

--JH


subject: Re: Orthodox scholarship

text:
In article <[email]>
"John H" <[email]> wrote:

One edition at Amazon.com was dated 1912, another
in a university library was dated 1926 and was a
second edition. Perhaps the earlier date is incorrect?
The point is that disintegration was a fad at
that time, and its practitioners wrongly
used commonplace words to make "attributions".

See my demolition of Monsarrat's RES paper!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/monsarr1.html

The Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html

Agent Jim

-=-
This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.


subject: Re: Orthodox scholarship

text:
QKnave wrote:

It is.  Along with your inference about the scholarly integrity of the
work.

--JH


subject: Re: Orthodox scholarship

text:
QKnave wrote:

I have located the Amazon.com listing of this work, from which you
obtained your information. The very first issue (which I possess,
labelled 1st Ser., No 1) was a USC publication appearing in 1926.  It
seems there have been a number of editions since then by various other
publishers, including the years 1927, 1969, 1974, 1976, and 1978. There
may be additional editions that I have missed.

The listed "1912" issue is clearly spurious (Gaw specifically mentioned
that he first began to study the subject in late 1919). I have traced
the error to the web site of the publisher Ams Pr, which has the
statement "Release: 1912 -12". This should probably read "1972-12",
suggesting that it appeared in December 1972. The error was simply
reproduced on the Amazon.com web site.

--JH


author: Dennis

subject: Re: "for one night only"

text:
On May 24, 12:04 pm, [email] wrote:

Wow. A tyrannicide. And with a brother named Junius Brutus Booth JR,
he must have been to the manner born?

BRUTUS
It must be by his death: and for my part,
I know no personal cause to spurn at him,
But for the general. He would be crown'd:
How that might change his nature, there's the question.
It is the bright day that brings forth the adder;
And that craves wary walking. Crown him?--that;--
And then, I grant, we put a sting in him,
That at his will he may do danger with.
The abuse of greatness is, when it disjoins
Remorse from power: and, to speak truth of Caesar,
I have not known when his affections sway'd
More than his reason. But 'tis a common proof,
That lowliness is young ambition's ladder,
Whereto the climber-upward turns his face;
But when he once attains the upmost round.
He then unto the ladder turns his back,
Looks in the clouds, scorning the base degrees
By which he did ascend. So Caesar may.
Then, lest he may, prevent. And, since the quarrel
Will bear no colour for the thing he is,
Fashion it thus; that what he is, augmented,
Would run to these and these extremities:
And therefore think him as a serpent's egg
Which, hatch'd, would, as his kind, grow mischievous,
And kill him in the shell.

Thanks. Interesting.

Nicole


author: [redacted]

subject: Re: "for one night only"

text:
Dennis <[email]> wrote:
------------------------------------------------------
.     Julius Caesar > Act III, scene I

CASSIUS: How many ages hence
.   Shall this our lofty scene be acted over
.   In states unborn and *A(c)CENTS* yet unknown!
-----------------------------------------------
http://www.usmint.gov/mint_programs/lincolnredesign/index.cfm?flash=no

A. (c.) Neuendorffer


subject: Re: "for one night only"

text:
---------------------------------------------------------
http://4umi.com/shakespeare/
---------------------------------------------------------
http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_your_park/historical_signs/hs_historical_sign.php?id=9772

William Shakespeare Statue in Central Park
http://tinyurl.com/qxrn2m

<<This full-standing portrait of celebrated playwright and poet
William Shakespeare (1564-1616) was made by John Quincy Adams Ward
(1830-1910) and unveiled here on Literary Walk on May 23, 1872.

In 1864, coinciding with the tricentennial of Shakespeare's birth, a
group of actors and theatrical managers, among them noted Shakepearean
actor Edwin Booth (1833-1893), received permission from Central Park's
Board of Commissioners to lay the cornerstone for a statue at the
south end of the Mall *between two elms* . Nothing further was done
until the end of the Civil War, and through a competition in 1866,
Ward was selected as the sculptor.

The committee raised funds through several benefits, including a
performance of Julius Caesar. Jacob Wrey Mould (1825-1886) - chief
architect for parks at the time, and responsible for much of the
ornament and architecture in Central Park - designed the elaborate
pedestal for this statue. Ward combined a classical pose with many
details of Elizabethan dress, and he relied on numerous images of
Shakespeare, especially a bust in Stratford. The sculpture was cast in
Philadelphia in 1870, and due to delays in procuring and cutting the
granite pedestal in Scotland, was unveiled on a temporary base in
1872; some commentators found the work a noble effigy, and others
derided it statue as a costume piece.

http://tinyurl.com/qpq2ba

In 1986, a replica was made by Tallix Foundry for the State Theater in
Montgomery, Alabama, which hosts an annual Shakespeare Festival. In
exchange, Montgomery benefactor William M. Blount established a
maintenance endowment for the original here in Central Park, and in
1995, the Central Park Conservancy conserved the sculpture.

Central Park has other Shakespearean associations. In 1890, Eugene
Schieffelin released 80 starlings into the park, because they were
mentioned in Shakespeare's plays (there are now over 200 million of
them in America). In 1915, the Shakespeare Society assumed maintenance
of a rock garden, built in 1912, in the park near West 79th Street.
The Shakespeare Garden features only flowers that were mentioned in
Shakespeare's plays and poetry and was dedicated to Shakespeare in
1916 on the 300th anniversary of his death. In 1934, the Shakespeare
Garden was relocated to the hillside between *BelVEDERE* Castle and
the Swedish Cottage, and in 1989, a new landscape design by Bruce
Kelly and David Varnell was implemented. In 1958, after two seasons at
the East River Amphitheater, Joseph Papp's Shakespeare Festival moved
to Central Park; the Delacorte Theater, its permanent home, opened in
1962.>>
---------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer


subject: Re: "for one night only"

text:
-------------------------------------------------
[email] wrote:
-------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer


subject: Re: "for one night only"

text:
On Mon, 25 May 2009 04:44:11 -0700 (PDT), [email] wrote:

According to the OED, European starlings once had the reputation of
being not only able to speak, whistle, and sing, but were considered
good eating.

(quote)
OED

starling1

("stA;lIN)  Forms: 1 stï¿½rlinc, 4ï¿½5 sterling(e, -yng(e, 5ï¿½6 starlinge,
5ï¿½6, 7ï¿½8 Sc. stirling, 6 starlyng, Sc. stirlene, styrlyng, 7 sterling,
4ï¿½ starling. Also dial. starnel.  [OE. stï¿½rlinc, f. stï¿½r stare n.1:
see -ling1.]

   1. Any bird of the passerine genus Sturnus, esp. S. vulgaris. Now
also applied in wider sense to any bird of the family Sturnidï¿½.

(snip)

1596 Shakes. 1 Hen. IV, i. iii. 224 Ile haue a Starling shall be
taught to speake Nothing but ï¿½Mortimerï¿½.  1667ï¿½8 Pepys Diary 1 Mar., A
starling which+do whistle and talk the most and best that ever I heard
anything in my life.  1670 Eachard Cont. Clergy 86 Then, after all
this, came the jackdaws and sterlings (idle birds that they are!).
1724 Ramsay Tea-t. Misc. (1733) II. 137 Of all the birds+I far prefer
the stirling's notes.  1768 Sterne Sent. Journ. (1778) II. 25 (Hotel
at Paris), ï¿½I can't get outï¿½, said the starling.  1880 Cassell's Nat.
Hist. IV. 103 The Starlings are found only in the Old World, where
they form a very large and natural Group.  1880 W. Carnegie Pract.
Trapping 40 It is not generally known what a delicious bird the
starling is to eat.  1894ï¿½5 Lydekker Roy. Nat. Hist. III. 343
Starlings+all agree in possessing a wing with five primary quills, and
twelve tail-feathers.

(snip)

   c. Applied to birds of the American family Icteridï¿½.

   1731 Catesby Nat. Hist. Carolina (1754) I. 13 The red-wing'd
Starling.  1839 Audubon Ornith. Biog. V. 487 Red-winged Starling,
Icterus phï¿½niceus.  1869ï¿½73 T. R. Jones Cassell's Bk. Birds I. 215 The
Yellow or Golden Starlings.

   4. slang. (See quot.)

   a1700 B. E. Dict. Cant. Crew, Brother-starling, that Lies with the
same Woman.


author: Gertrude Renner

subject: What is objectivism?

text:
1. If you are standing on the side that is getting the better deal,
close your eyes to the plight of those on the other end.

2. Do not allow yourself to see beyond the minds of earlier philosophers
for free thinking means locking your thoughts into theirs...

3. Refuse to tackle sensitive subjects because it will hurt somebody's
feelings

4. Anything that suggests that what you believe or are schooled to
accept as reality may be at error is erroneous by default nature

5. The physical experience is the absolute reality.

6. All that glitters is gold

What else? I came in here with a rather naive conception of what
objectivism was and I am so much at a loss...... Is this it?


author: jo domani

subject: Re: What is objectivism?

text:
George Dance <[email]> wrote in message news:<6312c50b.0209
[email]>...

  Constructive criticism is welcomed from such as yourself.
  The elitism that uses either position or remoteness to
  cowardly slander another however, does get boring.

  I enjoy posting, using an enigmatic, sometimes cryptic style
  which annoys the elitist minority...too bad thats their problem.
  ATB


subject: Re: What is objectivism?

text:
jo domani <[email]> wrote

   My cryptic troll flushed out another one!!


author: George Dance

subject: Re: What is objectivism?

text:
jo domani <[email]> wrote in message news:<ccab9b50.0209011924
[email]>...

Actually, lines 1 and 3 (now 4 due to wordwrap) were written by
Gertrude, not Nomad.

     (2)Use no more than 65 characters to avoid word wrap.

The extra-long line that caused the ww, as you forecast, also came
from Gertrude.

And to the appropriate author. <g>

'Dissagrees.'  Bet you didn't spot that one.

I enjoy reading your posts here, and hope you don't take this bit of
criticism as an example of elitism.


subject: Re: What is objectivism?

text:
Nomad <[email]> wrote in message news:<pAac9.25648$Fb.1341236@news
1.west.cox.net>...

   Well done, you have gone from using one word to sentence
   construction. Now a few tips;

   (1)Line one above dissagrees with line three.Think before you type.
   (2)Use no more than 65 characters to avoid word wrap.
   (3)Make sure you are responding to appropriate post.

    Room for improvment, keep trying, I gave you 3/10.
    See if you can spot the spelling mistake?

    BTW you know I mentioned the *elite minority.........


author: Nomad

subject: Re: What is objectivism?

text:
"Gertrude Renner" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
understanding of
to
tends to
good
truth
mainstream?

Objectivists reject things because there is insufficient or inconsistent
evidence.  It is hardly a mainstream philosophy.

I'm not sure what your raving is about, but is it childish, naive, and
(willfully?) ignorant.


subject: Re: What is objectivism?

text:
"Gertrude Renner" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
up
for
today.

Quite the contrary.

might
matter
find

Your assement of evidence is humorous at best.

news:<3D6D1A6E.6F

How nice of these two loonytoons joining together. How appropriate.


subject: Re: What is objectivism?

text:
The topic shall be put to rest and I simply asked questions and gave responses
to your queries. Ranting and raving? Well those are just other adjectives to
add to the ones you have used to describe what I know. Ignorant? I will leave
that for you to decide just remember that ignorance is either the incapability
or the unwillingness to understand the cause behind phenomenon. As far as
objectivity is concerned, it might not be in mainstream academia but if it has
an adherent following who are willing to defend it at any cost, then it is
possible to talk of one as being in the mainstream objective school of thought.

Nomad wrote:


subject: Re: What is objectivism?

text:
George Dance wrote:

I still think it is possible to be objective and that is by not assuming th
at we
know what is best for other species and/or people. I tend to come into this
 from
an evolutionary perspective, whereby it is understood that our experiences
inform
our views and how we adapt to our environment. The goal is not to spread th
e hurt
and pain that one has experienced and therefore just because someone says that
they like something that you know is painful or hurtful is not a reason for
 you to
repeat the same thing to them. That does not mean you stop them from doing what
they think is good for them instead you do not make yourself responsible fo
r doing
something to someone else that you know to be painful. You leave them to bare
their own responsibility. In the case of the bat, you know that light is go
od for
you but the bat sees it otherwise so you do not put the bat in light but yo
u may
provide light as an alternative and let the bat make the choice (without
conditioning) to take it or not. So in the end, whatever the bat chooses, it is
his/her choice and it is fully responsible for that choice. Not you.

It is hard enough to appreciate the values of another human being without h
aving
to cross the species divide. This is because values are defined by need,
experiences and environment as these are related to the individual. One doe
s not
need to appreciate the values of another but merely to let the other be truly
responsible for their choices without conditioning thus giving them the fre
edom to
adjust their value system accordingly without having to pay a heavy penalty for
it. For example the case of the bat, if you do take the bat into light whic
h would
make the bat dependant on you because you put it in an environment in which it
would not have freely chosen because it is not adapted for it. Once in light it
probably wont be able to find its way around and find food, so you nurture the
dependency by giving it food, ultimately the bat begins to view itself through
your eyes (you have already conditioned its choices from there on) and it w
ould be
unwilling to return to darkness even though that is what is good for it. It
 will
now see anything that removes it from association with you as taking it awa
y from
its source of sustenance.

That is when going separate paths come in. Because the bat is dependent on
you and
given the fact that the needs and experiences between the two of you, which
 made
you into separate species are probably as far apart as the planets. The exp
erience
for the bat would be less than fulfilling which in effect will bring the bat
untold pain (I have no idea what pain a bat would experience but I am sure that
any animal living in an environment that is unsuitable for its being would
inevitably suffer). The bat in this case should have the choice (if it knew
better) to break away from that union and find what best suits its being. B
ut you
see, the bat cannot make such a choice because it thinks it's life depends
on you
now. This situation is not only going to be painful for the bat but it will
 have
some negative impact on you who is conditioning the situation and you too h
ave a
choice (if you knew better) to set the bat free, so it can return and/or
rediscover itself once again.


subject: Re: What is objectivism?

text:
Gertrude Renner <[email]> wrote in message news:<3D6D1A6E.6F
[email]>...

The Golden Rule is a nice moral principle, but it has nothing to do
with objectivity.  For me to know what objectively is best for the
bat, I would have to know what the bat would like or not like done to
it, not just what I (with my all-too-human viewpoint) would like or
not like done to me.

I could not be just toward the bat without appreciating its values.
Yet, if I recognize that the bat cannot be expected to appreciate my
values by appreciating its own, why should I expect that I am
appreciating its values by appreciating my own?  If I just do the
latter, and treat the bat by the standard of what I like or don't like
under my values, then I don't, and don't even try to, know or act on
what its values are in fact.  Hence, the Golden Rule and similar moral
principles (like universalizability) are quite easily and often
interpreted as implying absurdities like my not leaving the bat in the
dark, simply because *I* don't want to be left in the dark, which I
agree is just 'pretending' to an in this case non-existent
objectivity.

That's a much better moral principle than the Golden Rule, but it's
still pretty vague as you give it.  For one thing:  what's a 'life'?
Is my property part of my 'life'?  Is my reputation?  Does your
obligation to 'let live' mean your freedom is restricted wrt your
property or reputation (and vice versa)?

I would be interested if you can tell me a bit more about what this
second moral principle implies to you.


subject: Re: What is objectivism?

text:
The six points you are referring to, are not to be taken as my understanding of
objectivism. They are what I think it is not. I only put them up that way to
see what response I would get since it seemed any issue in discussion tends to
follow the trend in politics and/or some other popularly held views. It is good
you ask for citations, I saw that one coming, but would you reject the truth
because it was revealed by someone who was not in following with mainstream? I
respect all past philosophers for their great insight and I will not deny that
some have an influence on my perspective. But there are certain issues of life
that none of the western philosophers (at least not any that I know) will
provide an answer to. For example why do we have so much suffering in third
world countries? Why are certain peoples prone to bear the bulk of pains and
struggles within a given society while others are not? Why do we have crimes
and terrorism in the world? There are certainly people who have dealt with
these questions before but the nature of society then was more homogeneous and
pretty much localized, it is not today and because of that I choose to look and
see, then objectively find the truth in light of my experiences and those of
others like myself. Plato, Aristotle, Humes and all the other great
philosophers are respectable but I think that if we forget to look at our own
scenario and rediscover the truth of our world as it is today we will not only
disappoint them but we will be loosing our world to something we wish not have
around. In my view, what objectivity means to you is more important than what
objectivity meant to a Greek philosopher because you are in the now and your
views affect what is going on around your world.  While the past philosophers
may have been instrumental in informing your thought patterns, it is also
important we realize that the times that helped define their outlook then are
long gone.

Nomad wrote:


subject: Re: What is objectivism?

text:
I am glad that you think that way. However I do not think I intend to pick up
arms against what you call elitist minority (who exactly are these people
anyway?) I landed in this particular environment after searching endlessly for
a forum in which people were discussing issues that concern our world today.
So in effect I am here to listen as much as I am here to give my views and
discuss. Hopefully intelligibly. I am not on a mission to push my point of
view down people's throats (although I think by now there are a few who might
disagree with that) and they may be right because when it comes to taking
sides, everything else comes second to the truth. Like you it does not matter
whether a person is black, white, yellow, green or alien. If they seek to find
the truth, then we are on the same side.

jo domani wrote:


subject: Re: What is objectivism?

text:
"Gertrude Renner" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
Here
below.
for
as

I am referring to the quotes from ostensible "objectivists" that you have
used to derive your six points.


subject: Re: What is objectivism?

text:
Gertrude Renner <[email]> wrote in message news:<3D6D1A6E.6F
[email]>...

  <Good stuff>

  I would hope you would continue to post as I need your support
  to counteract the objectivist diatribe ensuing from the elitist
  minority.
  I dont care if you are black, white or polka dot yellow as long
  as you are sincere. I love you as a sister(my wife is listening)
  Humour is a medicine!!!!


subject: Re: What is objectivism?

text:
Thank you Nomad, I will put that into consideration the next time around. Here
is the quote I was referring to in the long, rambling diatribe comment below.
free thinking means locking your thoughts into >heirs...
feelings
reality may be at error is erroneous by default >nature
I hope it addresses your concern

Nomad wrote:


subject: Re: What is objectivism?

text:
"Gertrude Renner" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
many
of
[big rambling snip]

An example or two with some quotes would be much preferred to long, rambling
diatribes with absolutely no substance.


author: Ken Gardner

subject: Re: What is objectivism?

text:
taxslave <[email]> wrote:

But what IS Objectivism?

Isn't this question a bit like the scene in Gladiator (great movie) in
which Marcus Aurelius asks, "but what IS Rome, Maximus?"

Ken


subject: Re: What is objectivism?

text:
George Dance <[email]> wrote in message news:<6312c50b.0208
[email]>...

  Objectivity is, like life a wasting of time, a comment I do not
  expect any objectivist to understand. It is subjective, life that
  is not objectivism,which means you can spend your life working out
  what I just said, having wasted your time. Get my drift?

  Love you Gertrude.


subject: Re: What is objectivism?

text:
I thought that objectivity was not all of the above mentioned until I read many
said objectivists supporting with every conviction the political retorics of
today's society. Which I would think are anything but objective in their view.
If I say that everybody (except for a few) lives by imitation even when they
think they are making a choice. That what seems to be a choice is often
culturally coined and instilled in them from the cradle and that those who are
objective in life (forget scientist working in a lab) are the only people who
live by making choices. This will certainly inspire people to stand in
opposition because they truely believe they actually make choices. Here is what
I think that objectivity entails. A hypothetical situation, I am a black woman.
I do not like people hating what I represent and I do not like to be
discriminated upon and that is totally subjective. In order to be objective, I
have to step out of my circumstances and its experiences and look back at it
from the shoes of those who commit the unpleasant deads towards me. Then ask
myself that if I were they what would I have wanted me (now the black woman) to
do, would I have liked to be compelled to accept qualities that I honestly do
not value? The answer to that will be most likely NO which would mean that I
(the black woman) have the choice to remove myself from the environment that
causes me hurt and pain but not to compell the other to accept my being. The
situation is reversed for the white person if they are to be objective.


subject: Re: What is objectivism?

text:
jo domani <[email]> wrote in message news:<ccab9b50.0208272316
[email]>...

I'm not exactly sure; but what this reminded me of was the following
passage by Thomas Nagel, with which I do agree:

"We appear to be faced with a general difficulty about psychological
reduction.  In other areas the process of reduction is a move in the
direction of greater objectivity, toward a more accurate view of the
real nature of things.  This is accomplished by reducing our
dependence on individual or species-specific points of view toward the
object of investigation....

"Experience itself, however, does not seem to fit the pattern.  The
idea of moving from appearance to reality seems to make no sense here.
 What is the analogue in this case to pursuing amore objective
understanding of the same phenomena by abandoning the initial
subjective viewpoint toward them in favour of another that is more
objective but concerns the same thing?  Certainly it /appears/
unlikely that we will get closer to the real nature of human
experience by leaving behind the particularity of our human point of
view and striving for a description in terms accessible to beings that
could not imagine what it was like to be us.  If the subjective
character of experience is fully comprehensible only from one point of
view, then any shift to greater objectivity - that is, less attachment
to a specific viewpoint - does not take us nearer to the real nature
of the phenomenon:  It takes us farther away from it."  ("What is it
Like to be a Bat?", Pojman ed. /Intro to Philosophy/, 418)


subject: Re: What is objectivism?

text:
George Dance wrote:

Hell hall. That is why we have so much suffering in the world because everyone
(all cultures are culprit here) would rather be socially correct than free.
Because we do not wish to be objective, we choose to see it as a waste of time
yet we yearn for freedom, justice etc which by the way cannot be achieved
without objectivity to life. Yes you do not know what it is to be a bat and
that is why you should not expect the bat to appreciate your values. Unless of
course you wish to exploit its recourses then pretend to be protecting it from
the dark and putting it in a better lighted place because that is what you
value and thus it should be good for the bat too. Objectivity does not demand
you pretend to know what another person is going through but simply not doing
to someone else what you would not like done to you. Live, let live and go
seperate paths if being together is painful.


subject: Re: What is objectivism?

text:
"Gertrude Renner" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

More like reversed 180 degrees on every point.


author: taxslave

subject: Re: What is objectivism?

text:
"Gertrude Renner" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
 I am so much at a loss......

CHARLES NOVINS:
Yes.


subject: Re: What is objectivism?

text:
Gertrude Renner <[email]> wrote in message news:<3D6BC426.27
[email]>...

I don't think that's a correct summary of Objectivism.  Rather, the
correct principle is to make and recognize only the kind of deal
"which benefits both parties by their own independent judgement." (VoS
1964, 30)

No; that definitely contradicts Rand's belief that Independence
("accepting the responsibility of forming one's own judgements") and
Integrity ("one must never sacrifice one's own convictions to the
opinions or wishes of others") were moral virtues. (26)

"/One must never fail to pronounce moral judgement./" (71; i.i.o.)

"If some men do not choose to think, but survive by imitating and
repeating, like trained animals, the routine of sounds and motions
they learned from others, never making an effort to understand their
own work, it still remains true that their survival is made possible
only by those who did choose to think and to discover the motions they
are repeating." (23)

This one is close.  Practicing the virtue of rationality requires "the
rejection of ... any claim to some nonsensory, nonrational,
nondefineable, supernatural source of knowledge." (26)

I don't know about that one.

Way off base on 1-4; close on 5; can't say for 6.


author: Mike Scott Rohan

subject: Verwandlungsszene Bayreuth

text:
I'm reliably informed that the Bayreuth succession row has been
resolved. The financial backers got tired of the endless bitching and
they've demanded that Wolfgang step down. He's agreed to do this with
more or less immediate effect.

His place will now be taken by Eva Wagner-Pasquier and Katarina Wagner,
who have agreed to run the place as a team, and submit a joint plan for
the forthcoming programme. Apparently it was the death of Gudrun Wagner
that made this reconciliation possible -- although one notices that it's
a very deft way of cutting out Nike, who's probably the brainiest of the
three.

I'd say the festival might be better for the feminine touch, if only
they didn't have the track record of these too. As it is, I suspect this
one will run and run.

Cheers,

Mike


author: Derrick Everett

subject: Re: Verwandlungsszene Bayreuth

text:
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:15:15 +0100, Mike Scott Rohan wrote:

Not so much possible as necessary, given that the late Gudrun Wagner was
running the Festival for many years.  It sounds like a good compromise has
been reached to secure the future of the festival.  If it keeps Nike out
of the picture then all the better.


subject: Re: Verwandlungsszene Bayreuth

text:
The message <48039c66$[email]>
from Derrick Everett <[email]> contains these words:

{snip}

I can't think that anything that includes the airhead Katarina is a good
thing -- the Ivana Trump of producers. Nike at least has some brains.
Eva is well spoken of, but she seems as devoted to modernistic staging,
if not actual Eurotrash, as any member of the Euro establishment.

Cheers,

Mike


author: Tauser

subject: Re: immediate reality tv openings

text:
Allow me to suggest that being on a reality tv show is about the most
senseless, idiotic and unnecessary enterprise that a devotee of Wagnerian music
drama could devise.
Tauser


subject: Re: immediate reality tv openings

text:
Tauser wrote:

Idiotic?  hmmm...how much does it pay?  I can probably be an idiot if the
price is right...

michael


author: Chernobog

subject: Re: immediate reality tv openings

text:
mp72 <[email]> wrote in message
news:6SMZc.79090$[email]...
Wagnerian

There is no price. Idiots do it for the love of it; that's why they're
idiots. Of course , we all know that "reality TV" is nothing but an
oxymoron. There isn't a shred of reality about TV, it's all fiction.


subject: Hindi kii apaar kshamataa (Hindi)

text:
You need naidunia Hindi font installed to read this (see below). From Naidunia.

rJëJ ®n=e möbu˜l fuU Fw˜u mºt bü CtMt fUe yvth Gb;t vh rJëJtm Ôgÿ rfUgt
(˜k=l mu rlbo˜t Cwhtr\zgt)

˜k=l 16 rm;kch> rJëJ ®kn=e möbu˜l fUt ôfqU˜ ytpVU yturhYkx˜ Ykz yV{UefUl ôxzes gqrlJLmxe bü ytgturs; yts fUt mºt YfU Fw˜t mºt hnt> Rmbü ®n=e Œube Jÿtytü ytih rJÅtltü lu Fw˜fUh ytÀb-yt˜tualt fUe> fwUA lu mfUthtÀbfU mwStJ r=Y ;tu fwUA lu ®n=e fUe yvth Gb;tbü rJëJtm Ce Ôgÿ rfUgt> fwU˜ rb˜tfUh gn mºt "wytâ"th hnt, rsmbü mu fURo rf{UgtàJgl gtuÉg ct;ü rlfU˜é>

=irlfU stdhK fuU mkvt=fU ¶e lhüŠ btunl lu fUnt- Imöbu˜l YfU Yume lkéJ fUtu ô:trv; fUhlu fuU r˜Y ntu hnt ni rfU nb ytdtbe m=e bü yvle yrôb;t, yvlu ôJÁv fUtu stl mfüU> rVUse bü ®n=e htíx[CtMt ni, ˜urfUl Jntâ Rm cthu bü ®fU;w-vhk;w lné ˜du nî> Cth; bü ®n=e mkrJ"tl fuU rnmtc mu htíx[CtMt ni, ˜urfUl RmfuU mt: ®fU;w-vhk;w ˜du nî>O Wàntülu Œrmõ htslrgfU J ®n=e Œube ztp. ˜ÌbebÖ˜ ®mDJe fuU Rm WõhK fUt nJt˜t r=gt rfU nbthu vtm y;e; ctu" ni ;tu nb fU;oÔg ctu" Ce ;tu mtuaü> ¶e ®mDJe fuU Rm JÿÔg fUtu ytdu c\Zt;u ýY ¶elhüŠ btunl lu fUnt rfU fUtil bwrÿ r=˜tYdt nbü Rm =tm CtJlt mu> ¢gt gn =trgÀJ rJëJ ®n=e möbu˜l fUt lné ni!

Œrmõ vºtfUth ¶e htý˜ =uJ lu fUnt- Ign mtrnÀg fUt möbu˜l lné CtMt fUt möbu˜l ni> buhu rnmtc mu ®n=e mixu˜tRx se fuU btr˜fU ¶e mwCtMakŠ fUtu gntâ ntult atrnY :t> ®n=e mtpÜxJugh cltlu Jt˜u ˜tudtü, ¶e sgk; lt˜eofUh simu JiÒttrlfUtü fUe rNhfU; Ce möbu˜l bü ntult :e, stu ®n=e bü rJÒttl fU:t r˜F;u nî> gwJt ˜tud gntâ rfU;lu nî? CtJe ve\Ze fUntâ ni?O ¶e =uJ lu fUnt- fwUA fU\zJe måatRgtü fUt nbü mtblt fUhlt atrnY> Ntrç=fU Cw˜tJtü mu fwUA lné ntu;t>

Jné ®n=e fuU Œrmõ yt˜tuafU J rJÅtl ¶e rJ‘trlJtm rb¶ fUt btllt :t rfU ®n=e htßgt¶g vh lné rxfUe ni, Jn yvlu =b fuU c˜ vh serJ; hne ni> ˜tud gn l mbSü rfU ®n=e Jt˜tü bü stuN lné ni> Ju htF fuU leau =cu ykdthu fUe ;hn nî> nkdhe fuU Yxtuctum ˜tphkz rJëJrJ‘t˜gbü ®n=e v\Ztlu Jt˜e mw¶e btrhgt rldtuNe lu fUnt- I®n=e YfU mb]õ CtMt ni> ®n=e fUe mwk=h;t gne ni rfU ®n=e fUe Nç=tJ˜e ymerb; ni> Jn YfU mbwŠ ni>O cý; mtVU ytih ôvíx ®n=e ctu˜lu Jt˜e btrhgt fUn;e nî- Iytv ˜tudtü fuU Fstlu bü rs;lu Nç= nî, W;lu ytih rfUmeCtMt bü lné nî>O

btpheNm mu ytRo mw¶e mrh;t cw"tu lu fUnt- Iceceme ytih mlhtRm fuU aticem Dkxtü fuU fUtgof{Ub bü mu ®n=e fuU fUtgof{Ubtü lu ¶tu;tytü bü yvlt rJNuM ô:tl cltgt ni> btpheNm bü ®n=e Œr;íXt fUe ytih xeJe ytr= bltuhksl fUe CtMt ni ;tu Jn ;es-Àgtunthtü fUe CtMt Ce ni> Rm mºt bü Jÿtytü fuU ct= ¶tu;tytü lu Ce Ctde=the fUe> Jÿtytü fuU W=Tdthtü fuU ct= Jt;tJhK cý; stuNbg ntu awfUt :t> ¶tu;tytü fuU bl bü fURo mJt˜ :u stu Wàntülu WXtfUh ®n=e fUe rô:r; fuU cthu bü YfU ôJô: cnm fUe>

------


author: N.Aliic' ~{3I9zJ@=gSoU_!!~}

subject: Re: Hindi kii apaar kshamataa (Hindi)

text:
fon "Y.K.Malaiya" <[email]>  :

why don't you just use Itrans ; is there a reason
for making things unnecessary difficult ;
i agree with you that it's a shame that there's no
real standard for encoding Hindi , and that small
languages are suffering from too many standards ;
but the situation if even worse for languages which
aren't written in the latin alphabet except Hebrew
because all important standards can be in one font
because Hebrew only uses 32 characters .
Hope too that unicode will become the only standard
so that we get rid of those problems .

eï¿½oï¿½anï¿½o ï¿½iuï¿½aï¿½de (iso-8859-3) plejbone
ehoï¿½anï¿½o ï¿½iuï¿½aï¿½de (iso-8859-9) ehoï¿½anï¿½o ï¿½iuï¿½aï¿½de (iso-8859-4/6)
ehoï¿½anqo ï¿½iuï¿½aï¿½de (iso-8859-2) eho$anqo ï¿½iuï¿½aï¿½de (iso-8859-1)
eho$anqo xiuyawde (ASCII) plej malbone


author: Sid Harth

subject: Re: Hindi kii apaar kshamataa (Hindi)

text:
Holy Hindu Cow! What Now?

  Yashwant is turning into Hindi Babu, make it bada babu. God save the
world.

  "khudaa bachaaye isa ba,nde ko."

  Was that difficult my good brother? What was I telling you all this
time that Hindi can be and must be used to communicate on the Internet.
When is the next World Hindi Conference? Perhaps I might nominate you to
be the keynote speaker.

  " hi.ndikii barakata dina dugunii aura raata chaugunii ho. khudaa
haafiza"

  Sid

"Y.K.Malaiya" wrote:


author: TC

subject: Re: Is perception epistemological?

text:
Ken Gardner wrote:

These everday situations of interaction with human scale objects
are not a real philosophical difficulty.

In real life qua physicist one is not aware that a photon exists
independent of the the observor.  Nevertheless the concept of
photon is essential to the understanding of how computer chips
function.

You cannot discuss perceptions?
What a limiting philosophy you have!

There is that term "delusion" again.

My "name on it"?  What strong rhetoric!

Senses "tell" me?  I thought senses were passive.
Shouldn't that be because I conceptualize on the basis
of sense data that a train is coming at me?

If there is a train coming, the conceptualization would be
correct.

If the train is there.

Likek sugary cereal can be part of a balanced breakfast,
I think the senses can be part of a valid way to obtain
information about the world.

I don't think the senses are valid or invalid.  Examples like the
page you refuse to discuss show that senses can provide
information that is taken at-face-value invalid.

It does.  Do you deny it?

That was a bit tongue in cheek.  Lex Luthor as
quintessential evil scientist.

No.  That is the job of the web site:
http://tinyurl.com/d8f5p

The hologram was aimed specifically
at your traiin example which by the way does not
demonstrate that the senses are valid.

Exactly.  Mispercepting senses can be
" part of a valid way to obtain
information about the world."

But now that you know the images at
http://tinyurl.com/d8f5p appear to have incorrect colors
can you force yourself to have a differnet percept?
Be honest.

Tom


author: Reggie Perrin

subject: Re: Is perception epistemological?

text:
Robert J. Kolker wrote:

Gotta watch out for those darned Quakers ;-)


subject: Re: Is perception epistemological?

text:
Ken Gardner wrote:

Especially not for rocket scientists.  Reasoning Objectively is poison
for science.

Segue to Kolker rant about Aristotle.

Tom


subject: Re: Is perception epistemological?

text:
Matt Barrow wrote:

Anyway, reasoning objectively is not rocket science even for rocket
scientists.  You don't need to be an Objectivist to do be able to do
it.  Of course, it helps.  :)

Ken


author: Robert J. Kolker

subject: Re: Is perception epistemological?

text:
Ken Gardner wrote:

No it doesn't. Anything that reverts a person's thinking back to
Aristotle's errors is anti-progress. Aristotle, as a contributor to
physical science has been discredited for hundreds of years. To be
Aristotelean is to be wrong or intellectually constipated.

Bob Kolker