author: Elizabeth Hubbell

subject: Re: Building Hamlet Resources

text:
[from Geof. Riggs; not Eliz. H., my better half]

[courtesy cc of h.l.a.s. posting sent on to Ms. McAuley and Mr. Downs]

JerryDowns wrote:

I've been out of the loop here for a while, and I'm not sure whether Ms.
McAuley has not already progressed considerably in her web site for
Hamlet.  So my remarks here may well be out of date.

However, it might be useful (if Ms. McAuley has not done so already) to
provide links to the four original Hamlet texts.  Fortunately, they are
all available on the Net today.

The First Quarto (Q1), 1603, generally considered a memorial report and
therefore highly unreliable textually and called a "Bad Quarto", but
valuable, IMO, for indicating the earliest theatrical practice in
respect of names, stage-directions, etc., is at

http://web.uvic.ca/shakespeare/Annex/DraftTxt/Ham/Ham_Q1/index.html

The Second Quarto (Q2), 1604/5, generally considered a direct printing
from Shak(e)speare's own foul papers, but with evident reference, now
and then, to the "Bad Quarto" during Act I (first act set by Compositor
X, the rest of the play shared between Compositors X and Y), and called
a "Good Quarto", valuable as probably the most "transparent" text of
what Shak(e)speare first wrote, is at

http://web.uvic.ca/shakespeare/Annex/DraftTxt/Ham/Ham_Q2/index.html

The First Folio (F1), 1623, generally considered a transcript of some
kind of the Globe theater's acting version, reflecting the play after it
had already been in production, although there may be occasional
reference made to the "Good Quarto" as well, valuable as a much more
careful text reflecting theatrical practice than the "Bad Quarto" but
may reflect a slightly later, less authorial stage in its production
history, is at

http://web.uvic.ca/shakespeare/Annex/DraftTxt/Ham/Ham_F/index.html

The "Bestrafte Brudermord", a German version of the mid-1600s that shows
surprising traces of the same early traditions reflected only in Q1(!),
although heavily simplified and abridged, is available in English
translation at

http://www.columbia.edu/~fs10/bruder~1.htm

These links should be of great use to students, actors and general
readers of this play who can never get enough of it<G>.

Cordially,

Geoffrey Riggs
www.operacast.com


author: lackpurity

subject: Lyra, Come Back And Be Neutral

text:
Dear Lyra,
I understand your position.  You can be neutral.  That will be fine
with me.  In fact, it will probably be best for all concerned.  Don't
feel that you are under pressure from anyone.  Just be neutral, if you
like.

You haven't posted for a week, and I think the group needs your
messages.  You've been a prominent member of the group for years, so
please consider returning.

I think Lyra, you're so full of love, that you don't want to offend
anyone.  In such cases, it is best to take the middle of the road.
Take the neutral position.  I hope everyone will understand.

Blessings, Michael Martin


subject: Re: end of discussion

text:
On Aug 3, 6:08?pm, Greg Reynolds <[email]> wrote:

MM:
I have no plans to go anywhere, Mr. Powerless.

Michael Martin


subject: Re: Lyra, Come Back And Be Neutral

text:
On Aug 3, 2:37?pm, lackpurity <[email]> wrote:

MM:
Mr. Powerless is changing my headers.  It's a shame when a couple of
bad apples can mess up a whole group.

Michael Martin


subject: Re: end of discussion

text:
On Aug 3, 6:07?pm, Michael Turner <[email]> wrote:

MM:
This is obviously a distortion of the truth.  If someone were to try
and mislead my 500 members, then there would be disharmony, obviously,
no denying that.  I would simply inform them, that there was too much
conflict, that's all.  There shouldn't be any need for discussing
God's wrath.

MM:
If anybody is stalking anybody, it is you stalking me.  Can you learn
that lesson?  Your hypocrisy stinks to high heaven.

MM:
I'm separating the men from the boys, Turner.  I have my version of
what is "socially appropriate," and you have yours.  I'll continue
with my work, and frankly, you can keep your advice to yourself.

By the way, when Jesus frequently kissed Mary Magdalene on the mouth,
did you consider that socially appropriate, or what?  Some Gospels say
that he often did that.  Would you have told Jesus that he was wrong,
and that he needed lessons in proper social behaviour?  Would you say,
"Hey, Jesus, that is coming from a negative source?"

Knowing that ego of yours, I wouldn't be surprised if you would.  LOL

Michael Martin


author: Greg Reynolds

subject: Re: Lyra, Come Back And Be Neutral

text:
On Aug 3, 7:24 pm, lackpurity <[email]> wrote:

STOP telling Lyra what to do.

You are powerless over Lyra.

Do not command Lyra.

Do not tell her to come back; do not tell her to be neutral.

That is all.

Yes, you will obey, you freak.
You WILL stop ordering Lyra around. Agreed?

Greg Reynolds


subject: Re: end of discussion

text:
On Aug 3, 6:18?pm, Greg Reynolds <[email]> wrote:

MM:
It wasn't meant to be funny.  Course, you are running out of options
now, so you might as well laugh.  Have a good one.

MM:
She knows it is a suggestion.  I clarified it in the message text, by
adding "if you like."  So, it's up to her.

MM:
It's up to her.  It's a suggestion.

MM:
I'm not on trial.  I'm a member here.  Just like you.  Making
suggestions is not imposing.  It's up to her.  How many times do I
need to repeat this?

MM:
It's a suggestion.  Why don't you ask her to come back?  Are you that
indifferent?  It seems to me, that I'm showing more love and concern
than anyone, including you.

MM:
You don't command me, either, you foolish wimp.

MM:
Is that the best flame that you could come up with?  You're losing
your touch?  I've never done what Jim Bakker did.  You're way off base
here, with your flaming.  Lyra knows her own position.  I'm going to
respect her privacy.  I think she knows that I want what is best for
her, as I mentioned in the first article of this thread.

MM:
But, I have no desire to go away, Powerless One.

MM:
Okay, then.  Make a major contribution, as I did earlier discussing
Hamlet.  It appears now, that all you're doing is flaming me.

MM:
This is your distorted perception, so I'm considering the source.
Your flaming is not bullying, you hypocrite?

MM:
Man, you get more and more ridiculous.  Stop whining.  Give the group
a break.

Michael Martin


subject: Re: Lyra, Come Back And Be Neutral

text:
On Aug 3, 7:46?pm, Greg Reynolds <[email]> wrote:

MM:
You must be living in dreamland.

Michael Martin


subject: Re: Lyra, Come Back And Be Neutral

text:
Michael Martin, the Jim Bakker of HLAS who thinks Lyra is his Tammy
Faye, went:

Stop ordering Lyra around.
Do not use this forum to cloy like a sick baby goat.
We are HLAS.
We are not Michael.Martin.Abuses.Of.Lyra

You are a disgrace to wield your phony graces here.

i strongly wish to disassociate HLAS from your repulsive attack on
Lyra.

You, Michael Martin, you are the jackass who named this thread! Your
repeated demands that she return and that she demonstrate neutrality
is wholly unholy.

You must stop imposing your demands on others, agreed?
[It is not a trick question unless you get it wrong AGAIN, you bully.]

Greg Reynolds

I figure if you leave and your torment subsides,
we can regain Lyra and all Shakespeare folk
not interested in your gaudy God,
your fakirism, your dismal spiritualism, and your
all-out obnoxious treatment of others.

Anagram that.


author: Michael Turner

subject: Re: end of discussion

text:
On Aug 3, 5:42 pm, lackpurity <[email]> wrote:

LOL.  Mislead?  Offering a perspective that diverges from your own is
"misleading" people?  Such is the talk of true-believing megalomania.
As is saying you had lunch with God and he told you he was going to
smite me and my city for disagreeing with you.  I do not believe in
using the Divine as a bludgeon to threaten people with different
perspectives

Are you feeling stalked, Mr. Martin?  Have I threatened you or said
voices inside my head have told me to travel to Texas to visit you?
No.  I found this group by accident when I noticed you were cross-
posting a conversation here to alt.meditation.shabda, a newsgroup I co-
founded with Harry Kight a decade ago.  I didn't even know this group
existed and, being a former English major and fan of Shakespeare for
most of my life, thought I'd check it out.  Were you not stalking and
harassing a female member here, I would be content to talk solely
about the Bard.  It's nice finding a group of intelligent, literate
people to chat with.

Hmmm, "separating the men from the boys".  So part of being a man is
publically stalking a woman voices inside your head tell you is your
"consort"?  That is not how I was raised.  I was raised to respect
women.  If I were single and found myself attracted to a woman here, I
would respectfully ask for her private e-mail address, and keep
matters of attraction and relationship private, unless and until a
point where we privately mutually agreed it was appropriate to discuss
personal matters in public.  And even then, I would maintain basic
social decorum.  And were that relationship to hit obstacles or
dissolve, I would keep that private as well.  It is a matter of
respect.

As far as your personal interpretation of Shakespeare goes, have at
it.  Whatever you want to believe is fine with me.  But when you are
being abusive to someone, I will offer my advice.

If Jesus was grabbing Mary and kissing her on the mouth against her
will, then that would of course be inappropriate - to say the least.
However, if Jesus and Mary were a couple in love, then what they
consentually agreed was appropriate public behavior would be just
fine.  It's common sense.

Now I have a question for you.  If Lyra asked you to please stop
pursuing her and publically proclaiming her your past life spouse and
consort, would you honor her request and stop?  What if she said
"stop", but your "muses" said "She doesn't really mean it."?  Would
you listen to her, or the voices inside your head?

Michael Turner


subject: Lyra, Come Back And Be Neutral

text:
On Aug 3, 10:01?pm, Michael Turner <[email]> wrote:

MM:
It sure could be.  Yep.

MM:
It's just wise talk.

MM:
Don't put words in my mouth.  God's wrath is always a possibility, if
we offend him.  It's between YOU and GOD, not between YOU and ME.  Can
you understand that?  I've never threatened you, crybaby.  I've only
discussed God's wrath.

MM:
I don't care what you believe, Mr. Turner.  Your leading statements
based on false assumptions are bullcrap, too, I might add.

MM:
You try to put words in my mouth.  You pigeonhole me.  Yes, you've
been stalking me, IMO.

MM:
Turner, I'm innocent until found guilty.  You allege bullcrap.  That's
about it.  Pigeonholers like you are a dime a dozen.  I could allege
things about you, too, but I'm too much of a gentleman to do it.
You're not.  You don't mind getting down in that gutter.

MM:
Another leading question?  Judge:  Objection sustained.  Okay.  I'm
playing Perry Mason now.  LOL  There is a difference between posting
and stalking.  You haven't proved that I was doing anything other than
having a conversation with a female member.

MM:
Well, you recently got divorced, but I won't go into that.  Did she
think that you respected her?  You got custody of the boy?  Strange.

MM:
Turner, I don't care what you think.  You live your life, and I'll
live mine.  HLAS has been coming apart at the seams for a long time.
You are a newbie here.

MM:
Turner, did you notice that I suggested that Lyra take a NEUTRAL
position?  That means that there would be nothing out of the ordinary
posted, as I agreed to that position.  Can you cogitate that one,
Turner?

MM:
This abusive charge is a leading statement.  Leading the witness.
Judge:  Objection sustained.  You're not doing too well, Turner.  She
can be neutral, I will agree with that, so there would be no
possibility of abuse.  Only in your distorted imagination, perhaps?

MM:
I doubt if it was against her will.  Why can't you stay on topic,
Turner?  You're always recreating the scenario to fit your
imaginations.  That's ridiculous.

MM:
Now you're taking a step in the right direction.

MM:
Absolutely.  I would leave very promptly.  However, I don't consider
what I've been doing as pursuing, Turner.  That is your distorted
perception of it.  It is a leading question, and the Objection is
Sustained.  Get it?

MM:
I would abide by her wishes in such a personal matter.

Michael Martin


subject: Re: Lyra, Come Back And Be Neutral

text:
On Aug 3, 8:59 pm, lackpurity <[email]> wrote:

I am glad you see the wisdom in it.

Is it really necessary to call names?  You are starting to sound like
the bully in A Christmas Story.  So unnecessary.

The profanity is unnecessary too.

Putting words in your mouth?  You're the one citing voice inside your
head telling you what to do.  IMO your aversion to being "pigeonholed"
is just an avoidance of being held accountable and taking
responsibility for your words and actions.

I am discussing your recent public behavior here in this group.  You
do not seem to want to be accountable for your actions.  Or perhaps
you think you are infallible and above the rules of mere mortals.  The
biggest gutter one can get into, IMO, is to use God as a weapon to
scare people.  .

A conversation?  It's been a one-sided conversation for awhile.  If
you respect her, then give her her space, or talk to her via private
emails.  Do not bring your personal laundry into this group unless she
agrees to it.

Seven years divorced is not that recent.  And I do not believe in
discussing private matters in public, unless the other party is
present or agrees to having themselves become a topic of discussion in
their absence.  Again, it is a matter of respect.

This is true, I am new to this group.  However, you do seem to be
upsetting people here, and not observing basic respect towards a
female group member by repeatedly publically posting messages to her
which should be kept private.

Um, the point is that you are making suggestions to her at all, in a
public forum, when she is clearly ignoring you - suggestions which
should (at the very most, if made at all) be made in private
communications.  You are taking someone who is not engaging in public
conversation with you, and making a public spectacle of them.  Again,
it is not respectful, and could clearly be viewed as cyber-stalking.

You "will agree to that"?  Who are you to agree to anything.  Her
"neutrality" is not something you have the right to grant her.  You
actually think you have the power and authority to "magnanimously"
agree to or grant her the right to her neutrality?   Wow.

I am making an elementary point of comparison - between someone
imposing their will on another, and willing, mutually freely chosen
and agreeable expressions of affection.

This is a good thing, and a step in the right direction.

I get that there is quite an edge to your literary voice.

This is a good thing.


author: Art Neuendorffer

subject: Re: Lyra, Come Back And Be Neutral

text:
lackpurity <[email]> wrote:
--------------------------------------------
___  *LACKPURITY*
_____  {anagram}
___  *LYRA UPTICK*
--------------------------------------------
*UPTICK* :  A transaction in the stock market at a price
.      above the price of the preceding transaction.
-----------------------------------------------------
From: [email](Caius Marcius)
Subject: HLAS' Marlovian Upsurge: What's All This Then?
Date: 1999/04/07  1:50:18 AM CDT 1999
Newsgroups: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
.
In the HLAS FAQ, written last spring, we read in the section on the
authorship issue: "On HLAS, the authorship issue is almost always
a strictly Stratford vs. Oxford debate, though advocates for other
candidates are always welcome to participate."
.
What was true last spring is certainly not true now.  Over the last
few
months, the Marlovians have been the cutting-edge anti-Strats, leaving
the Oxfordian orthodoxy in the lurch.
.
So - is Marlowe about to supplant Oxford as *the* alternate candidate
for authorship? Has Oxford's day passed, doomed to be irrevocably
eclipsed by Kit Marlowe? Or is the current Marlowe surge a mere
*UPTICK* of the clock, no sooner detected than corrected?
-----------------------------------------------------
Art Neuendorffer


subject: Re: Lyra, Come Back And Be Neutral

text:
On Aug 4, 1:21?am, Michael Turner <[email]> wrote:

MM:
My perspective, not yours.

Turner, this group has lost its charisma, and it's getting rather
boring, so I might just sort of fade out of here.  IOW, I might not be
replying to ALL of your whining.

MM:
Is it really necessary for you to put words in my mouth?

MM:
If you want to start a war, then you might get a retaliation, buddy.
I believe in self-defense.  I've put up with way too much of your crap
already.

MM:
Sow bad seeds.  Reap bad crops.  It's elementary, Turner.

MM:
Every Saint whoever lived has been guided by "voices in his head."
You look like a fool flogging this dead horse, Turner.

MM:
You need to prove your allegations, otherwise you are a common
pigeonholer, worth no more than a dime a dozen.

MM:
When?  In 2005, TWO YEARS AGO?  You posted a reply to John W. Kennedy
on June 13, 2005.  It was a crossposted thread, which I started.  So,
you have been knowing about this group for TWO YEARS.  Now, you say
you're not stalking me, but just found this group by accident?  Sorry,
Turner, you've been caught on this one.  As usual, your hypocrisy
stinks to high heaven.

MM:
It looks like you've been knowing about it for TWO YEARS.

MM:
You've been stalking and harassing the whole world with your claim to
be a Shabd Guru.  Hypocrite.

MM:
Sure.  Sure.  I wonder why you chose to ignore FOR TWO YEARS all these
nice intelligent people to chat with?

MM:
Are you in dreamland?  If I were accountable to you, I would be in a
bad way.

MM:
Some people might agree with your hypothesis, that God's wrath doesn't
exist.  Some might agree with me, too.  The "scaring people,"
allegation has not been proven.  God's wrath is discussed by thousands
of preachers every week.  You're probably in a minority, chump.

One could just as easily say that you bait people, telling them what
they want to hear, that they can do anything and get away with it.  I
could allege a lot of things about you and your teachings, Mr.
Turner.  If you want a war, be ready for a retaliation.  Are you ready
to be defeated? ?.

MM:
Why can't you keep your personal laundry out of it, as you did for the
last two years?  If she doesn't come back, I'll probably leave, as the
group has lost its charisma to a great extent, anyway.

MM:
It's relative.  The main issue is whether she thought you respected
her.  Since she decided to call it quits, it doesn't look too good for
your claim to be a great "respecter of women."  Now, does it?

MM:
You're a hypocrite, because you don't mind calling me a stalker in
public.  Like I said, if you want a war, you will get one, and I'm
thinking you will lose it.

MM:
I don't agree to be the victim of your allegations.  Get it,
hypocrite?  Since you're tiptoeing through the tulips, spinning,
skating, and dodging, I submit to the group that we can just throw out
the window your claim that you are a great "respecter of women."  Your
lack of guts to face the music is pretty obvious, Mr. Turner.

Your and your wife divorced and you ended up with her son, so I
suggest that your claim needs to be seriously reviewed, Mr. Turner.
All the female members can take notice of this.

MM:
Want to discuss if your wife thought you respected her, buddy?  Hmmm?
The message I posted publicly was mostly for the group, Mr. Turner.
Your claim that it should be kept private is ridiculous.  I can ask
any member of the group to come back to the group, male or female.  It
is no big crime, as you want to portray it.

Christ said in the Bible, that he would leave the 99 sheep to bring
back sheep #100.  My message was regarding the integrity of the
group.  Since the departure of Lyra, the charisma of the group has
taken a nosedive, IMO.  Why do you think that asking a member to
return is such a "private matter?"  I would ask Mouse (Lynne Kositsky)
to return, for example, publically also, if her health permitted it.
You're flogging a dead horse, as usual, Mr. Turner.  You make much ado
over nothing.

MM:
No, you're flogging a dead horse on that one.  Many people have posted
regarding the departure of others.  "Where is Houlsby?"  "Where is
Spinoza?"  Just a couple of examples.  This is nothing new.  You're
making a mountain out of a molehill.  You're looking like a fool.

The reason I posted it to the group, was mainly for the group.  I even
mentioned in the last line, I think, "I hope everyone will
understand."  I was hoping it would allow her to return to an
understanding group.  That's all.  There was a reason for posting it
to the group, whether you are able to comprehend that, or not.  At any
rate, I do believe that my invitation to her to return showed love and
concern for her.  I was also thinking that she would benefit the
group, too.  I don't think having love and concern for Lyra is a sin.
Maybe you do?  If we are all brothers and sisters in this group, then
she is my sister.  I don't think calling back a sister is a sin.
Maybe you do?  Did you ever have any brothers or sisters, Turner?

MM:
I just don't think calling a sister back to the group is making a
public spectacle of them.  I think it shows love and concern for them.

MM:
You go from bad to worse.  Calling a sister back to the group, if she
likes, is not cyber-stalking, you fool, it is showing love and
concern.  I left it up to her.  We could ask your ex-wife how
respectful you were to her.  Do you have her email address?

MM:
Turner, you are not going to keep me between a rock and a hard place.
I'm the person, to whom you objected that I discussed past lives
regarding Lyra, remember?  By agreeing that if she will be neutral on
that, I will not bring up the history.  That is what I meant.

MM:
Tit for tat.  If she wants to be neutral, I'll just pretend like
nothing happened in the past lives.  IS THAT FINALLY CLEAR?  It's her
choice.  I never said I was granting anything to her, fool.

MM:
See above, you fool.

MM:
You would tell Jesus, hey Dude, you're wrong?  He was a Master.  He
was God in human form.  Did you forget that, Turner?

MM:
Practically everybody thinks Mary Magdalene loved Jesus, and couldn't
have cared less that he kissed her in public. You had to change the
scenario to make it fit your distorted scenario.  My guess is that
there were many sexual partners in the cult of Jesus.  There was no
raping going on, IMO.  It was all consensual.  It was like the scenes
in As You Like It, IMO.  The Nazoreans were more open regarding sex.
It was the Pope and the Catholic Church, for the most part, who
started suppressing sexuality.

If you had been there, you would probably have accused Jesus of
stalking and disrespecting the women.  LOL  You're such a joker, Mr.
Turner.  You're good for a laugh.

MM:
It was not just them (Jesus and Mary.)  Sexuality was much more open
in the whole cult.

MM:
You would probably have claimed that Jesus was pursuing Mary
Magdalene?  Wouldn't you?  LOL  Let's see you spin, skate, and dodge
again, Turner.

Michael Martin


subject: Re: Lyra, Come Back And Be Neutral

text:
On Aug 4, 8:45?am, Art Neuendorffer <[email]>
wrote:

MM:
Good one.  I'm bullish on Lyra, and not the way Turner might be
thinking.  :-(  She is in an uptrend.  It had to happen sooner or
later.

MM:
Somebody asked a Master, "How does the predecessor come into the
successor?"  The answer was, "Like sugar in a glass of water.  The
color is not changed, but the taste is definitely improved."

This is what happened when Marlowe departed.  He manifested himself in
Shakespeare.  At the highest level there was no difference between the
two.  This is the reason that their canons are very similar with many
mind-boggling parallels.  One could almost, but not quite, argue that
they were the same person.  Marlowe was guiding Shakespeare with
"voices in his head," as Turner keeps harping.  So, the works are a
hybrid, but mostly influenced by Marlowe from above.  Sri Aurobindo
called this, "the descent of the Supramental.  Marlowe and Shakespeare
were, both, ONE with the Supreme Being.  So, we can say that both
canons were the work of God.

Michael Martin


subject: Re: Lyra, Come Back And Be Neutral

text:
On Aug 3, 2:37 pm, lackpurity <[email]> wrote:

HLAS is not your chat box, Michael Martin. You are unsanitary, you
stinkin' freak -- using this place as your toilet.

THAT is the only problem--you, MICHAEL MARTIN!
You drove off Lyra with your cheapshots. You know that.
Your uncontrollable diary-a about your past lives is a disgrace.
Way off target, here. If you don't have plumbing, go to a public
restroom somewhere and leave us alone.

You bully HLAS and drive away our women. Lyra's the most recent you
willfully offended.
Don't play dumb about Lyra--why does she need a thug like you forcing
yourself on her?
How dare you date rape her here and then pretend you're really worthy
of her.

NO MORE HEADERS ABOUT MEMBERS HERE, got it, you miserable dunce?

Apologize to Lyra and stay out of here. It is the only civilized move
you have left.

(What you really lack is a loving upbringing. Someone hurt you and you
now publicly want us to watch you take it out on Lyra. She doesn't
deserve your foul treatment. Quit it.)

Greg Reynolds


subject: Re: Lyra, Come Back And Be Neutral

text:
On Aug 3, 3:30?pm, Greg Reynolds <[email]> wrote:

MM:
Here is an option for those who don't like flame-throwers.  Join my
groups:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/michaelmartinwesternsatguru
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/radhasoamisatsangworld
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lightfromsoundoasis

There you can post in peace, without any flaming from this guy.  I
will ban him from the groups.

This guy has the unmitigated audacity and gall to pretend that he
speaks for many people.  I don't agree.  He speaks for himself.  It
seems that he lives in his own particular fantasy world.  Anybody with
half a brain knows that HE HAS NO POWER.  He couldn't stop KQKNAVE,
and it was obvious that he had no power.

Michael Martin


subject: Re: Lyra, Come Back And Be Neutral

text:
On Aug 3, 5:06 pm, lackpurity <[email]> wrote:

Yes, leave, stalker/thug.

You will never be able to ban me. I won't be there!
You're the stalker!

Name them 'cause I'd really like to know.

You got that right.

Whose do you live in, curry-breath?

Only you could speak for those with half a brain.

Knave is my brother and I will save him, not stop him.

We'll send your things.

Greg Reynolds


subject: Re: Lyra, Come Back And Be Neutral

text:
On Aug 3, 5:18?pm, Greg Reynolds <[email]> wrote:

MM:
The women.  I don't think you speak for all of them.

You changed KQKnave's headers, but you couldn't stop him.  Now, you
say he's your brother?  Whatever.  It sure didn't look like you were
trying to save him.  I'm sure it's in the archives.

Michael Martin


subject: end of discussion

text:
Leave Lyra alone.

Don't pal around with me.

That is all.

Greg Reynolds


subject: Re: end of discussion

text:
On Aug 3, 5:53?pm, Greg Reynolds <[email]> wrote:

MM:
You don't tell me what to do, you powerless wimp.

Michael Martin


subject: Re: Lyra, Come Back And Be Neutral

text:
On Aug 3, 2:37?pm, lackpurity <[email]> wrote:

MM:
Now, let's get back to Shakespeare, Marlowe, and company.  What do you
say, Lyra?

Michael Martin


subject: Re: end of discussion

text:
On Aug 3, 3:55 pm, lackpurity <[email]> wrote:

Mr. Martin is being disengenous about the "peaceful" nature of his
groups' discussions.  As long as you pay him sycophantic obeisance you
are fine.  If you dare to question his infallibility, he will threaten
to sick God's wrath on you.

Mr. Martin, you need to quit stalking women, and making public
statements about the voices inside your head telling you who your
"consort" is and that you should fly across the ocean to meet her.

One rule of thumb I was taught by my teachers, and which I teach my
students, is that if one's "inner guidance" directs one to do things
which are socially inappropriate, then that "guidance" is coming from
a negative source, not a positive one, and should not be listened to.


subject: Re: end of discussion

text:
On Aug 3, 5:55 pm, lackpurity <[email]> wrote:

That's real funny!

Read your own constructed header. Your stupefying ego is ordering Lyra
around.

As the imp you are, you order Lyra to respond to you and to be neutral
on you.

Who the hell are you to IMPose yourself on her?
See what a probvlem you are to call out a poster and tell her how to
behave?

You don't command her, you goon.
So stop with the offensive headers telling her what to do.

You are the Jim Bakker of HLAS--Sorry, but Lyra is not your Tammy
Faye.

It is simple: go away.
We're trying to have a Shakespeare forum.
Your bullying headers/ideas/behavior is abhorrent.

GO AWAY MICHAEL MARTIN AND BE NEUTERED
(how do you like it?)

Greg Reynolds


author: Dan Lind

subject: The Face of Evil

text:
I thought twice about my choice of words titling this post.  They're
strong words.  Check this out and judge for yourself.

Pay special attention to the closing sentence of the article, which
quotes Barney Frank.

"You know, adversity seems to be concentrating the mind in a very good
way."

I thought of burning heretics at the stake, of prisons in Siberia, of
the Galt torture scene.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2009/20090311152821.aspx
http://tinylink.com/?CHiNdJwQwa

MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell Pleads 'Guilty' to Barney Frank for Media
Scrutiny of Obama Appointees
By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
3/11/2009 3:42:10 PM


author: David Buchner

subject: Re: The Face of Evil - Our Secretary of State

text:
<[email]> wrote:

Does anyone remember the name of the main bad guy in the first season or
two of Miami Vice?

I was going to respond better, but it keeps getting later and I still
ain't done it.


author: [redacted]

text:
http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2009a/03/120952.htm
http://tinylink.com/?hTC4aNtB1k

Remarks At The Simeprode/Benlesa Biogas Plant
Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Monterrey, , Mexico
March 26, 2009

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you very much for the honor of participating
in this occasion. And I appreciate the very informative remarks that
the governor just gave us. I know very well that we are witnessing
here a partnership for the future. This is a partnership of people, of
institutions, of the private sector and the government all working
together.
[...]

This partnership is an effort to find solutions to an urgent 21st
century challenge. And this memorandum of understanding expands an
already strong effort underway to bring together the best talent,
ideas and research available on both sides of our border. Addressing
climate change and clean energy is not only a building block of
economic recovery; I believe and President Obama believes that this
will be an engine of economic growth for the 21st century.

Yesterday in my meetings in Mexico City with President Calderon, with
the foreign secretary, and with other members of the government, we
talked at length about a competitiveness agenda that both of our
nations can pursue. This would be a collaboration on a range of
issues, and none would be more important than clean energy. That is
how we will create the jobs of the 21st century, not only through
biogas, which is what you do here, but across the spectrum of clean
energy from solar to wind to ethanol to geothermal power.

This will advance our mutual goal of expanding renewable energy and
reducing carbon-based emissions. It is also a form of security. We
have spoken a lot in the last two days about security. And of course,
we know we're talking about the threat from lawlessness and violence
when we say security. But energy security is also important. Being
self-sufficient insofar as possible, creating energy from the earth,
ensuring it is green energy is something that both of our countries
are committed to achieving. Right here, we see clean energy being
created from solid waste, clean energy that powers street lights and
offices, that powers the metro rail and so much else.

[and then this...]

This goes beyond anything we have in the United States, Governor. And
this partnership that you have created here between the public and the
private sector is a model that we and others will look towards.
Mexico's goal for emission reduction and for meeting a sizeable
portion of your electricity needs through renewable energy is another
model of how nations can move toward a low-carbon energy future, clean
energy jobs as well.
[End of excerpt]

In other words, the Secretary of State of the United States is stating
that Mexcio is further along the road to a Command and Control Economy
than the US, the US has some catching up to do, and, by emulating the
example of Mexico, the US intends to so catch up.

Mrs. Clinton goes on to say,

"Yesterday, President Obama sent a letter to President Calderon
inviting him to participate in a major economies forum to pave the way
to Copenhagen so we can have the greatest possible success there.
These negotiations provide a crucial opportunity to create a global
framework. And when those meetings are held, Mexico will be a leader
because of the steps you have already taken and the commitment that
your government has made. And there's no better example than the plant
we are seeing in action here today."

Couple this with Mr. Frank's statement quoted at the beginning of this
thread, "... adversity seems to be concentrating the mind in a very
good way."

The United States is getting its mind right.

At the risk of excessive melodrama, this is hell with the lid ripped
off.  It's Mallory's beast in _The Fountainhead_.

Dan Lind


subject: Re: The Face of Evil

text:
Charles Bell <[email]> wrote:

Huh?

I got it just fine.

Are you nuts, or somethin'?


author: Charles Bell

subject: Re: The Face of Evil

text:
On Mar 13, 5:22ï¿½pm, David Buchner <[email]> wrote:

What?

Really?

Somethin'.


subject: Re: The Face of Evil

text:
On Mar 13, 10:19ï¿½pm, David Buchner <[email]> wrote:

Huh?


author: Ray

subject: Re: The Face of Evil

text:
"Charles Bell" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Stop it you too already.
Yup, huh, - ?
That kind of dialogue don't belong on HPO.
Yeah!

RoL


subject: Re: The Face of Evil

text:
On Mar 14, 12:10ï¿½pm, Ray <[email]> wrote:

S'up, dood?!


author: Acar

subject: Re: The Face of Evil

text:
On Mar 12, 3:09ï¿½am, Dan Lind <[email]> wrote:

The face of evil?

"Get thou behind me", said Barney. Of course, it's up to you. :-)

Your post made me remember the unpleasantness between the pot and the
kettle.
Suffering is a kiln. Nobody wants adversity; it is not a good thing;
but when it comes, and it will always come, those who handle it
rationally come out the better for it. Self-indulgence is more likely
to breed complacency, paranoia, and other forms of delusional thinking
(irrationality).

Humans have been trying to turn suffering into a positive for a long
time. Christianity did not discover the purifying (educational) effect
of adversity (experience). Christianity is actually a *result" of that
dimension of reality. It emerged as one way to deal with that
paradoxical aspect of the human condition.

Good ole Barney may be a lot of things, but he seems to be an OK
articulator the obvious.

You went far a-field. The fact that adversity REALLY tempers the mind
has nothing to do with any of that. But if I also missed the point ...
never mind.


subject: Re: The Face of Evil

text:
On Mar 12, 12:08ï¿½pm, [email] wrote:

I provided the translation from Democrat to English.

Why did you choose the only sentence in the entire article that was
unspun and straightforward to find fault with and/or have a problem
with and/or whatever it is you expected people to read your mind on?


subject: Re: The Face of Evil

text:
On Mar 12, 4:09ï¿½am, Dan Lind <[email]> wrote:

New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman that too many appointees were
being held up for what he deemed insignificant reasons [like tax
evasion].

Frank:
 "It is the over-focus on part of people in the media to relatively
minor infractions [like tax evasion] that causes this. I guarantee you
my colleagues would not on their own be doing this. So I do think we
are in a culture now where a lack of perfection [like tax evasion]
exacts too strong a toll, but that's the politicians reacting to the
media."

Andrea Mitchell: "You're right and we plead guilty because this is
this culture right now of `gotcha'[like passing along false
accusations and innuendo about Sarah Palin] has gotten completely out
of control [over maintaining the propaganda machinery  for Obama]."

Yes, these are the same Democrats who excused Pres. Clinton's perjury
as just a lot of stuff about nothing.

Putting a criminal in charge of enforcing the law is par for the
course for Democrats.


subject: Re: The Face of Evil

text:
On Mar 12, 6:53ï¿½am, Charles Bell <[email]> wrote:

If this is a response to my post you missed the point.

Dan Lind


subject: Re: The Face of Evil

text:
On Mar 12, 7:55ï¿½am, [email] wrote:

Or another way of saying that whatever point you wished to make, until
elaborated upon by you [it's interesting to you? oh, really, how? my
guess is that you are wrong, but who knows because you have not
actually said anything other to say you have something rolling around
in your head], is unimportant in light of the entirety of what Frank
said in that last paragraph -- being nothing more than gobbledy-gook
to rationalize immoral behavior. That last sentence, in the context of
the entire paragraph, is:

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit and more bullshit . . . but isn't it true
that the weather is lovely today?


subject: Re: The Face of Evil

text:
On Mar 12, 8:33ï¿½am, Charles Bell <[email]> wrote:

Well, Mr. Frank's words are more coherent than these.

Dan Lind


author: Stephen Speicher

subject: Ken Gardner -- A spectacle

text:
In the past week Ken Gardner has become quite a spectacle, and
there is no sign of that spectacle letting up any time soon.
Many people have written to me wondering what caused such an
apparently mild-mannered man to transform into an abusive
emtionalist in such a short period of time. Since Gardner has
chosen to delve into the psychologies and motivations of his
opponents (albeit with even such gross anti-intellectualities
such as, quote: "they are fucked up in the head"), I will offer a
little insight and speculate on what might explain Gardner's
behavior.

Previously I discussed the insidious nature of altruism, and how
it can infect one's views if it is not rooted out entirely, not
just from one's conscious convictions but also from those
subconsciously held.  The failure to do this can explain why
certain premises exist in Gardner's mind, but the question is
what accounts for his actions.

There are many reasons why different people value similar things,
not all of them psychologically healthy. What motivates a person
to seek a value -- what purpose it serves -- can vary greatly,
and a rational value can be held for an irrational reason. People
who lack a true sense of self-esteem seek that sense elsewhere; a
pseudo-self-esteem serves to alleviate the underlying anxiety
caused by a poor psycho-epistemology. Values chosen to serve the
purpose of propping up this sense of pseudo-self-esteem are known
as defense-values, and these defense-values are anxiety-reducing
choices.

Strange as it may seem (indeed, strange because Objectivism is so
fiercely a philosophy of independence) Objectivism itelf can be
held as a defense value, i.e., it is chosen to serve the purpose
of propping up a pseudo-self-esteem.  I am not a psychologist by
profession, but I have observed and analyzed the behavior of many
over a long time. One rather clear indication of defense values
in people is how they respond to situations where their value may
not be seen by others as they hold it themselves.

For instance, a rational person who values productive work, and
who knows his work is in accord with rational activity, will not
feel metaphysically crushed if someone does not see the value of
his work, and perhaps fires him from a job. The person may feel
disappointed, annoyed, inconvenienced, etc., but it is not
experienced as a disaster of metaphysical proportions, because
his own sense of self-esteem is not threatened by the judgment of
others.

By contrast, a person who holds his work as a defense-value, will
indeed feel metaphysically crushed if others do not see him as he
sees himself, and losing his job will likely result in anxiety on
a grand scale. The defense value which was propping up the sense
of pseudo-self-esteem is no  longer working to alleviate the
underlying sense of anxiety.

Notice Gardner's actions in the past week. He is busily involved
in a multitude of posts putting people on and off lists,
speculating on who will defect from a list, and actively
campaigning to make it appear that others _really_ do not think
as they do. He has gone so far as to try to interpret my
willingness to discuss the issue with Richard Lawrence as an
indication of my backing down. He constantly interprets every
little statement by others as an indication that support is
waning, and that the house of Speicher is starting to fall.

Why such a concern about what others think, and why is it
apparently so important to Gardner to recruit his own support
wherever he can, even with people who a week ago he held no
respect for at all? Why also has the mild-mannered man of h.p.o.
turned himself into an abusive lout?  Is it really others who
have changed in this past week to cause them to be, in Gardner's
own filthy words, "fucked up in the head"?

I strongly suspect this behavior is the expression of acute
anxiety, brought on because Gardner has held Objectivism as his
defense value, and suddenly the threat of how others think about
an issue -- in conflict with his own -- is a threat to his
pseudo-self-esteem. Notice in his posts how others cannot just
reasonably disagree, but rather they are evil evaders, enemies of
Objectivism, and other such demonizing talk.  This is a mind
trying to gain back some control over what he has lost -- his
balance between his underlying anxiety, and living his life.

A man of true self-esteem is not so concerned with what other
people think, and certainly does not try to manipulate others
into being on his 'side', or even just characterizing  every
little event as being indicative that his 'side' is winning. A
man of true self-esteem knows he is right because of how he has
used what he values -- his rationality -- and is willing to stand
on his own regardless of how many others think what they do. It
is always nice to have someone on your side -- and I am glad for
those who have spoken out in my support on this issue -- but the
difference between something which is nice, and something which
is desperately _needed_, is the difference between true and
pseudo-self-esteem.

And this last is the single word which most characterizes, and
explains, the acts of Ken Gardner this past week -- desperation.
His acts are the acts of someone experiencing extreme need and
anxiety, and he demonizes those who oppose him in order to try to
recapture his threatened sense of pseudo-self esteem.

I would like to make a prediction regarding Ken Gardner. Based on
things
which I saw in Gardner, I knew that
this was a man who would either have to exert an enormous effort
to actually integrate Objectivism into his full self, or he would
slowly and eventually drift away over a period of time. The
events of this week have accelerated this choice, and it is clear
to me where Ken Gardner is headed.  I would not at all be
surprised to soon see Gardner joining the tolerationists, not
because he wants to tolerate them, but because he himself wants to
be tolerated. I suspect we will be hearing from Gardner, over a
period of time, about the various things which he will eventually
admit to about disagreements with Objectivism.

Stephen
[email]

You can always tell a pioneer by the arrows in his back.

Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
--------------------------------------------------------


subject: Re: Ken Gardner -- A spectacle

text:
In article <Pine.LNX.4.10.10005151256050.25005-
[email]>,
  Stephen Speicher <[email]> wrote:

What desperation?  K.G. has always come across as a reasonable and
decent person who is * appalled * with the conclusions that presumably
rational and reasonable people have reached (that's you baby). You have
advocated destruction on a massive scale done in such a way as to make
the outcome worse than it is by not taking action. You are projecting
your arrogance and close mindedness to probable outcomes on Ken. And
you have the gall to complain about Ken psychologizing?

Gardener and I have disagreed on several issues but I never thought of
him as anyone but a reasonable a decent person who is trying to make
sense out of some important issues, such as how we defend ourselves in
a hostile world in which we do not control all of the factors that
impinge on our well being.

Leave him alone. He is one of the Good Guys.

Bob Kolker

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.


author: David Friedman

subject: Re: Ken Gardner -- A spectacle

text:
In article
<[email]>,
Stephen Speicher <[email]> wrote:

I would never have guessed it.

It looks as though Stephen has finally started engaging in introspection.

[long attempt top psycholanalyze Ken along imaginary philosophical lines
snipped]


author: Ken Gardner

subject: Re: Stephen Speicher -- an indictment

text:
Stephen Speicher says...

In the past week I have come to see the exact nature of what you are --
and stated my conclusions in this thread.

I'll be happy to answer any questions that they have.  My email address
is [email], or they can post their questions right here.

[Insert "Duck....INCOMING!!!!" here.]

I suggest you check your premises.

As you should know.

You seem to be an expert on the subject.

Correct.

But by all means don't stop now, you are just warming up....

I don't know if I would call it "observed" and "analyzed," but don't let
that stop you either....

Correct.

Wouldn't know.  I've never had this experience. Sounds like you have and
you didn't like it very much.

Again, I wouldn't know.  But it seems like you have had such experiences
-- or at least enough to write about them.

One difference between you and me is that you think that what I am doing
is "speculating."  Maybe I have a certain understanding of what actually
motivates rational people to act in a certain way, which you clearly
lack.

I think it is, but I know you will never admit it publicly.  You lack the
guts to do it.

The House of Speicher?  What's that?  A religious order or something?

My dog in the fight, as I made clear in my indictment of you,  is to do
everything I can to disassociate Objectivism from your evil, nihilistic
proposal to engage in the mass murder of millions of people, purportedly
because you FEEL that you will then be safe from terrorists -- but
actually because you are, in essence, a nihilist.

I don't think that I have been abusive or unfair at all, given that I am
responding to a proposal to murder ten million people.

I suggest you think again, although I know you won't.

You should be much more concerned about the facts that my words are
identifying rather than my particular choice of words to express these
facts.  I know I would be if I was in your shoes -- but, then again, I
would never be in your shoes in the first place.

Also, I gave you and every other person every chance to grasp and correct
your mistake.  Many of them did, a few of them didn't, and still others
are trying desparately to find a way to disassociate themselves from the
list without also incurring your wrath and your retribution.

As for myself, I didn't form any judgment of you or anyone else based on
your proposal to nuke Tehran until I had conclusive evidence that the
judgment was warranted and I had given you every reasonable chance to
retract, repudiate, or correct your proposal -- which you lacked the
class, the grace, the decency, and the courage to take.  By contrast, I
was called an altruist, an evader, and a context-dropper virtually from
the very first posts from you and members of your mob.

Those are the facts, Stephen -- and the posts are here to prove it.
That, and the fact that I am more proud of what I have done over the last
week than anything else that I have ever done in my six active years of
participating on newsgroups and bulletin boards just like this one.

No.  This is a mind that has received a wakeup call about who the real
friends and enemies of Objectivism are.

I disagree, although it begs the question of why you post here if you
genuinely believe this statement.  I certainly have a rational self-
interest in persuading people that, for example, Objectivism is true.  I
have a rational self-interest in exchanging ideas with others.  I have a
rational self-interest in discussing and debating ideas with rational
people with whom I disagree; one of us will eventually learn new
knowledge, but both of us will profit from the discussion.  What counts
for me is not whether an idea is my idea versus someone else's idea, but
whether the idea is TRUE.

As for my comments about "winning," you will note that I made them only
in response to posts from people who indicated that they were no longer
in agreement with your proposal.  In other words, I don't say that I am
"winning" until I see OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE that, in fact, the person has
been persuaded that I am correct, or has accepted every premise that
leads to this conclusion even if he doesn't want to accept the conclusion
itself -- a person such as your wife, for example.

Yep.  I know all about that, Stephen.  I've knonw about it since before
the age of 12 years old, when I read Anthem for the first time and became
interested in Objectivism.  And it is a feeling that you will never know,
or one that you have lost somewhere along the way -- lost it so badly and
so thorougly that you could even THINK about nuking 10 million people as
a moral act, much less support such madness in public.

I'm sure you know much more about this than I do.

I don't think so -- but I'm glad you seem to think so.

My acts here are my posts, and I am happy and proud to let them speak for
themselves.

[Insert "Duck....INCOMING!!!!"]

You did?  Based on which things?  When did you form this conclusion?
What year?  What month?  With whom did you discuss it?  Can you supply
evidence, or is this just more self-serving bullshit?

As for drifting away over a period of time, I first accepted Objectivism
over 25 years ago and have since been studying it all my life.  I would
think that if I was as screwed up as you are suggesting here, I would
have drifted away from Objectivism long ago.

So you are going to have to wish up some other scenario.  Sorry.

More wishful thinking on your part.  I'm not going to join the
"tolerationists" for reasons that I have posted here many times.

You seem to be suspicious about a great many things.

Ken


author: Julian Morrison

subject: Re: Ken Gardner -- A spectacle

text:
Stephen Speicher wrote:

Ironically nearly anything can, it seems to me - since all that's
required is to assert some dogma and hang onto it despite "attacks"
from "enemies". It's another form of suffering-worship: we're
persecuted, so we're the good guys.

You can see this in any situation where someone goes illogical,
repeats ad-nauseam, mind-reads opponents without evidence, or starts
organising "us and them" rosters.

Myself I'm saddened by this mess, it shows how few out there have
self-integrity.

(NB: I disagree with you on nuking, I think it's disproportionate and
unnecessary, but that doesn't mean I want to conduct the debate any
way but with logic)


author: Carmichael

subject: Re: Ken Gardner -- A spectacle

text:
Stephen Speicher wrote in message ...

It is interesting that you were seen desperately trying to avert Gardner's
disagreemnets with you and, after Gardner had already made himself clear,
you were still writing about how much you still respected him. It was not
after Gardner rebuffed you _personally_ that he instantly transformed into
some kind of crazed and irrational  pariah not worthy of your respect. You
were also seen desperately trying to avert Lawrence's ideological defection
and your wife went to the point of removing him by fiat from a count of
those who had expressed an opinion different from yours, in effect denying
him the right to represent himself. (Not that he has protested loudly. :))

Your dismay over the filthy mouth of one Objectivist is pure histrionics
since you know that Objectivists sport a filthy mouth on principle; it is
one of their most endearing eccenticities. I fear that your psychologizing
will be seen as an attempt to discredit an idea with a personal attack on
the person that holds it, another example of the Speicher style of
argumentation. No one outside of Objectivism believes that Gardner's
syndrome is anything but a systemic Objectivist malady.


author: John T. Kennedy

subject: Re: Ken Gardner -- A spectacle

text:
Shortly after Stephen Speicher proposed the incineration of the entire
population of Tehran, Stephen Speicher <[email]> broke
the awkward silence:

"Oh this just keeps getting better and better!"
                        - from _The Mummy_

-

John Kennedy
The Wild Shall Wild Remain!
http://members.xoom.com/rational1/wild/
Updated 4/22/00

ARIan Nation's Final Solution:

"Teheran has some ten million people or so. About eight hours
 from my time now it will be noon on Thursday in Teheran. At
 that time I say we issue an ultimatum.  We tell Iran that they
 have forty-eight hours to give up their terrorists -- all of
 them -- and completely cease all terrorist activities.
 If they do not comply by noon on Saturday, we will destroy
 Teheran with a nuclear bomb."

 Stephen Speicher 5/4/00 in humanities.philosophy.objectivism

As of 5/12/00 nineteen contributors to h.p.o have endorsed
Speichers proposal to destroy Tehran with a nuclear bomb.


author: Jim Klein

subject: Re: Stephen Speicher -- an indictment

text:
In article <MPG.138ab22758d4756c9897c8@news>,
	Ken Gardner <[email]> wrote:

"The virtue of _Pride_ is the recognition of the fact 'that as man must
produce the physical values he needs to sustain his life, so he must acquire
the values of character that make his life worth sustaining---that as a man
is a being of self-made wealth, so he is a being of self-made soul.' (_Atlas
Shrugged_.)"

                          Rand, _The Objectivist Ethics_

You want predictions?  Check out this one made April 2, 2000, long before
Speicher stripped bare his moral nature, by yours truly:

As you can see, I'm a much better predictor of philosophical issues than the
Stanley Cup Playoffs!

jk


author: Steve Reed

subject: Re: Stephen Speicher -- an indictment

text:
Ken Gardner wrote:

Gardner is correct to use the quote marks, in the sense of connoting
"so-called." If I'd ever met someone who actually -fit- the description given
-- most viciously in here by Speicher and Donadio -- of "tolerationist," I'd
have been bored silly, or revolted, or probably both, with his or her lack of
moral and rational backbone.

Fortunately, neither of these lacks genuinely applies, at least in my own
experience, to the actual people against whom Speicher and the more rabid
ARIans have applied this particular neologism or slur.

To benefit latecomers to all these fireworks: They -say- that they're denoting
by "tolerationist" those who support, agree with, or even find discussable
value in what David Kelley of The Objectivist Center has written about over
many years. Especially in regard to parameters of moral judgment, ethical
measurement, and proper intellectual exchange.

Or the word is applied to people who merely support the TOC organization. Or
to those who do not apply a reflex moral condemnation of those holding
"inherently dishonest ideas." Or it's almost anyone who doesn't support
the particular actions or rhetoric of the ARI. Or any and all of the above.
But that's most of the shifting targets.

What Kelley and others have actually written is nearly immaterial to such
attacks. Betsy Speicher, in particular, has been blatant in these precincts in
misrepresenting what he has plainly said and done.

If you want to get to the core of the differences, and are willing to judge
for yourself, you are invited to get the original statements. They'll also
give you an excellent, practical education in two ways of approaching the
useful -application- of moral philosophy.

You can find Peikoff's essay "Fact and Value" in the section of writings on
Objectivism at www.aynrand.org. You can find the introduction and fifth
chapter of Kelley's "Truth and Toleration" in the text-excerpts section at
www.objectivistcenter.org, and can order the full monograph.

I need hardly add, but will (again for newcomers), that I see Kelley as being
correct on all of these applied issues. And that Peikoff's own contradictions
and religious, Papist bearing do his case in, even without an interpretive
gloss. But I've learned almost as much from Peikoff's fuming mistakes as I
have from Kelley's calm reasoning.

I'll also add this public prediction, since he's been offering some of his
own: If Ken Gardner uses the independent thinking he's shown on this
most recent HPO brouhaha to -revisit- some of Kelley's arguments directly,
he'll be surprised at what he finds, and pleasantly so.

For every one of Gardner's operative principles about the making of moral
judgments follows one or more of the broader principles that Kelley talks
about in the second chapter of his "Truth and Toleration." And every one of
Speicher's evasions, psychologizings, and acts of methodological collectivism
follows one or more of Peikoff's tactics as used in his "Fact and Value."


author: Nigel Davies

subject: Re: In his own words

text:
Let me elaborate on the main grammatical factors that render this statement
false:

ARTICLES
In English, there is one definite article: "The". Whether you're talking about a
chair, a table, a lamp, a woman, a man, a space rocket, the definite article is
always "The".

In French, matters are more complex. The definite article is gender-specific. A
table is grammatically feminine. You have to say "La table", you cannot say "Le
table". It conveys no greater meaning - it's just a grammatic rule that must be
observed. Consequently, to speak French you have to learn the grammatically
correct gender-specific definite article for EVERY noun that exists in the
language. The same is true in Spanish, with "El" and "La". In English, it's just
"The". Determiners are also gender-specific: "Un" and "Une" instead of just "A".
Possessive articles are also gender-specific: "Mon", "Ma" and "Mes" in French
instead of just "My" in English. French and Spanish are more complex in these
grammatical respects.

In German, it's even more complex. There is gender and neutral: "Der", "Die" and
"Das". And "Ein", "Eine" and "Einer". Again, the grammatically correct definite
article and determiner has to be learned for EVERY noun. No greater meaning is
conveyed, it's just an even more complex grammatical rule. And the grammatical
gender can't be guessed either, it has to be learned. In German, a girl has no
gender: "Das Madchen", whilst a turnip is feminine: "Die Steckrube". And
depending which word you use for the sea it is male, female and neutral: "Der
Ozean", "Das Meer", "Die See"!

ADJECTIVES
In English are always placed before the noun. A simple grammatical rule. In
French, the adjective has to precede or succeed the noun depending on the
adjective. Whether you say "A fast car" or "A big car" in English, the adjective
always precedes the noun. But in French, these sentences would be "Une voiture
rapide" and "Une grande voiture". One adjective must go in front of the noun;
the other has to go after. And, of course, adjectives are also gender-specific.

NOUNS
In English, nouns are nouns. In French, Spanish, German, nouns again have
genders. The principle of gender in languages completely affects the grammatical
complexity of the sentence. If you're multi-lingual then you have great fun
learning that in Spanish the sun is masculine ("El sol") but feminine in German
("Die Sonne"). Conversely, a German moon is masculine ("Der Mond"), while a
Spanish moon is feminine ("La luna"). In German also, there are the most
extraordinary compound nouns you can come across. The German government last
year tried to reform the German language to diminish the volume of compound
nouns and simplify the German language generally because of its acknowledged
complexity.

VERBS
In German are subject to esoteric grammatical rules. "The weather is nice" and
"I go swimming because the weather is nice" become the equivalent of "The
weather is nice" and "I go swimming because the weather nice is" because verbs
must be placed at the end of a sentence if there is a dependency. Latin has some
good esoteric rules on verb lacement to.

VOCABULARY
English has over 1,000,000 words and growing daily as a living language, while
French has less than 100,000 including franglais words like "le rugby-man", "le
car-park" and "le pique-nique". But English is nothing compared to ideogrammatic
languages like Mandarin and Cantonese.

Conversely, ancient languages are primitive in comparison. Greek has just 4
punctuation marks (comma, full stop, colon, question mark) rendering precise
translation of the New Testament a precarious task, hence the phrase "It's all
Greek to me". If we believe the Bible that God created languages then we also
have to believe that he invented one inferior to English that couldn't convey
exactly what was meant. Aramaic of the Old Testament, still spoken today in the
Middle East, is an unsophisticated language that simply doesn't come close to
the grammatic complexity of modern languages.

Whilst any language has form and structure to convey intelligent meaning,
grammatical complexity varies enormously between different languages and are
certainly inferior or superior to others in their ability to convey meaning.
I've only referred to 6 different languages above and believe me, in the 2,700
languages that do exist, the grammatical complexities cover an even greater
spectrum.
______________________________________________________________________
[email]


author: david joseph kathman

subject: Re: In his own words

text:
Nigel Davies wrote:

Nigel, I really enjoy reading most of your postings and greatly appreciate
the pains you've taken in responding to Crowley's ravings.  But I'm afraid
that you're very, very confused when it comes to language and linguistics.
The statement made by Crowley which you've quoted above is true, basically;
every linguist I know would agree with it.  Most of what you've written below
in response is simplistic and irrelevant to the issue at hand.  I feel
qualified to comment because, although I'm not active as a linguist any more,
I studied the subject for ten years and got three degree in it, including
a Ph.D.

This kind of stuff is covered in the first week of introductory linguistics
courses.  I could go into much more esoteric stuff if I wanted to.  In some
languages, verbs agree with objects as well as subjects; in fact, I wrote my
dissertation on such languages.  Georgian verbs are fiendishly complex; my
Georgian prof used to say that "All Georgian verbs are irregular", which is only
a slight exaggeration.  We're talking about morphological complexity here, with
some syntax mixed in for the agreement phenomena.  Nobody, least of all
linguists, will deny that languages differ greatly in the complexity of
their morphology.  But that's only tangentially relevant to the statement
that "All languages possess immensely complex rules of grammar."  You seem
to be equating "grammar" with morphology and agreement, as in traditional
prescriptive grammar books, but that's not the way linguists use the word,
and not the way it's used in the quote you're responding to.  Linguists
use "grammar" to refer to all the systems which make up a language, primarily
syntax but also including morphology and (in a broader sense of the word)
such things as phonology, semantics and pragmatics.  Every language, even
those dismissed by non-linguists as "primitive", consists of an immensely
complex group of interlocking systems, such that an outsider can spend years
studying any given language and only scratch the surface of its complexities.
In fact, many so-called "primitive" languages have complexities that
confound outsiders.  I myself figured out the system underlying the stress
system of Abkhaz, even though a linguist who had studied the language for
years and was married to an Abkhaz woman had declared that no system was
apparent.

I've addressed this in another post on this thread.  You seem to be confusing
writing systems with spoken vocabulary, something nobody who has taken
an introductory course in linguistics would do.

Huh?  Now you're bringing in punctuation?  That's part of a language's
writing system, and it's completely irrelevant to the issue of grammatical
complexity.

Huh?  Where on earth did you get this idea?  Aramaic is an incredibly complex
language, fully capable of expressing whatever its speakers need to say.  I have
an acquaintance who is a Semitic specialist, and I'm sure he would get a huge
kick out of this statement of yours.

Yes, the *morphological* complexity does vary enormously, as we've already
discussed, but the second part of your sentence is a non sequitur which no
linguist would agree with.  Languages do trivially differ in their ability
to convey meaning in the sense that their vocabularies differ; a language
only spoken in an agrarian culture on some remote Pacific island will not
have the vocabulary for talking about, say, computers in the same way that
an English speaker can.  But if you introduced computers into that society,
then that language would very quickly develop a vocabulary for talking about
computers.  Case in point: during World War II, the U.S. Navy recruited native
speakers of Navajo for its Signal Corps.  The idea was that messages could
be translated into Navajo, sent over the radio, and translated back into
English on the other end, and the Japanese wouldn't be able to crack the "code".
And it worked; the Japanese never figured out what was going on.  But the
Navajo speakers found that their language didn't have words for a lot of
things they had to talk about in messages, such as aircraft carriers or
fighter planes.  So they just adapted other words from the language to refer
to these new things, and it worked perfectly; they were able to understand
each other with no problem.  They were able to talk about aircraft carriers
and fighter planes in Navajo without any miscommunication.

Nigel, as I said before, I enjoy your posts, but I'm afraid you've got some
very confused ideas about language.  I hope my tone hasn't been too harsh;
I just dislike seeing misinformation spread about any subject where I know better.
Most linguists I know are similarly sensitive to such things.  I hope you
can reflect on all this and consider the possibility that you may not know
as much as you think you do about some of it.  I'm sure you're better than
Crowley in that regard.

Dave Kathman
[email]


author: Caius Marcius

subject: Re: In his own words

text:
In <[email]> david joseph kathman
<[email]> writes:

could
into
the "code".
the
of
or
refer
understand
carriers

I saw an article a few years ago about a reunion of the Navajo Signal
Corpsman - their messages were not sent in the Navajo tongue, but in a
complex code that they themselves worked out in Navajo.  So even a
native speaker of Navajo would not have understood their messages if
they did not know the code.

    - CMC


subject: Bookmark Peikoff

text:
Credit where credit is due, this latest shipment of fresh meat has
been generously provided by the Founder of the current feast, Stephen
Speicher.

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


author: Tim Starr

subject: Re: Bookmark Peikoff

text:
[email] (John T. Kennedy) wrote in
<[email]>:

[snip]

The first modern terrorist group in the world was the 19th-century Russian
populist group "People's Will."  It wasn't "governmental," it wasn't sponsored
by any State, it was a purely private organization.  Lenin drew heavily on
its methods when he developed his own cell system.  The Russian Socialist
Revolutionary party also engaged in lots of terrorism on its own without any
State sponsorship.

Terrorism may be an act of war (unconventional war), but that doesn't mean
that "there is no answer to an act of war but a massive military response."
To say that massive retaliation is the only response is to exhibit tactical
ignorance.  Discriminate targeting of the terrorists themselves is a better
tactical option.  The Okhrana, the Tsarist political police, dealt with the
terrorism of the People's Will & the Social Revolutionaries discriminately,
compared to nuking capital cities.  So do the best counter-terrorist forces
in the world today, the IDF & the SAS.

As Bob Kolker has already pointed out, the IRA was also a terrorist group
that enjoyed no State sponsorship.  So was the Irgun, the Zionist terrorist
group & predecessor to the Likud party, & the Stern gang.  They still made
a big contribution to the end of British rule in Palestine.


subject: Re: Bookmark Peikoff

text:
Kennedy quoted Speicher quoting Peikoff, from a 1998 radio show:

"The sins of their government." Outright collectivism of method matched with
imagery of religion. And last month, Peikoff wrote at repeated length about it
"being a sin" to not keep Elian Gonzalez on U.S. soil.

Why do some people protest when the metaphor of being an Objectivist Pope
wannabee is applied to Peikoff?

"Annihilate," by the way, -means- either city-busting nukes or indiscriminate
mass use of bio or chem weapons. Wherein it's impossible to spare any
innocents. Not even the "real" Pope, or his predecessors back to the Borgias,
have been this irrational.

That really explains Timothy McVeigh, now, doesn't it?

Ken Gardner, why, -why,- WHY are you giving this madman the benefit of the
doubt? If such collectivism on top of advocating mass murder is not enough to
cut him off from one's regard, then what IS enough?

You were THIRTEEN when Japan was A-bombed, Peikoff, you imbicile. Just try to
name one person from that time, let alone since, who was at all "proud" of
that act. That's the kind of obscene slander of one's forebears, and their
hard dilemmas, that is typical of an adolescent's mind. One that you (and your
students, such as Speicher) have never outgrown.

I am ashamed to even own any books that are written by a man capable of these
depths of depravity. They will soon be sold privately or on eBay. I would keep
"The Marx-Engels Reader" from a college course before I will keep anything
more of his (unless it's primarily a Rand anthology) on my shelves.

This has horrified even me, someone who has -- as Speicher has accurately
reported, he being one of the biggest "fans" of my writing on the Atlantis
list -- never been hesitant to pummel Peikoff for his mistakes. I never
thought I would say this.


author: Phil Roberts, Jr.

subject: Re: Bookmark Peikoff

text:
"John T. Kennedy" wrote:

Yep.  And since we are talking moral principles here, the citizenry
of Tehran should view it in exactly the same fashion.

Oops!  There goes New York.

Oh well.  At least they stuck to their principles.   :)


author: George Dance

subject: Re: Owl's Obvious Circularity

text:
In article <[email]>,

  [email] wrote:

Definitely it is realism.  If I want to believe the correspondence
theory of truth, it appears that I have to believe in realism as well.
But it is not "moral realism", in that "psychological reality" (as I
understand the way the term's being used) refers to the beliefs that
people actually have and act on, including moral beliefs; whereas "moral
reality" refers to "moral facts," which are not proven or disproven by
the fact of belief.

That would be my tentative conclusion - moral statements are not
propositions, as they do not refer to a moral reality, but only express
beliefs (which can then be the subject of propositions, of course)

I have heard of this position, but read nothing on it, so I don't
understand it enough to comment.

A true statement about psychological reality would be like Mr. Jones'
example:  "Most people disapprove of stealing."  That is a proposition,
but not a moral one.  One can infer further propositions from it, like
"most people would agree that stealing is wrong."  But that in turn is
not a moral proposition.  Inferring one of the latter requires a further
premise, along the lines of:

1. Most people disapprove of stealing.
2. Whatever most people disapprove of is morally wrong in fact.
3. .`. stealing is morally wrong in fact.

Premise 2 is hardly non-controversial, though, as it seems to be the
basic premise of normative cultural or collective relativism.  Nor does
it sound correct: one can easily imagine "most people" disapproving of
something that is not morally wrong.  200 years ago, most people
undoubtedly thought that taking the Lord's name in vain was morally
wrong; now most appear not to; neither fact leads to an obvious moral
truth.

for
that
no
what

Hey, I'm a sensitive guy! 8)  I understand why "I enjoy typing" would
fail in that state of affairs.  But "Typing is enjoyable" as a
proposition would /not/ fail, as it refers not to these descriptive
facts but to a purported fact of enjoyment or hedonic reality - the fact
that typing would be enjoyable if it were discovered, at least by those
hedonically reasonable or not hedonically corrupt.

as a
not

You are right; I stand corrected.  (You aren't the only one who's
corrected me on this, BTW - my wife has argued a similar point.) "Typing
is enjoyable" could mean:  I enjoy typing even though no one else does -
I do not enjoy typing, but everyone else who types does - typing is
something that can be enjoyed, while many (few/none/all) people actually
enjoy it - enjoyment depends on will, so if you have to type, you might
as well enjoy it (or, you should enjoy it).

But (and this is why I do not admit being wrong, as I get to be right
anyway 8) if "Typing is enjoyable" can have any number of meanings, it
cannot be a proposition.  A proposition - like "my typewriter is on my
desk" - clearly refers to one possible fact, and so is true or false
depending on whether the fact pertains.  "Typing is enjoyable" may refer
to a fact of hedonic reality - but it can just as easily mean
something else.  The fact that people make hedonic statements is no
proof of hedonic propositions, and therefore no proof of the
existence of hedonic reality.

Not that I think that you, or anyone else, believes in "hedonic
reality."  My whole point was to show, by analogy, that Owl's argument -
that the fact that people make moral statements proves the existence of
moral propositions, and therefore the existence of moral reality -
similarly fails.


subject: Re: Owl's Obvious Circularity

text:
In article <[email]>,
  [email] wrote:
at

Perhaps; if this were a decided point, there would be little point in
debating it.  I believe in the atomic theory, on the grounds
of noncontroversial authority, so I guess I believe in that sort of
"supervenience" - that physical objects are how we necessarily perceive,
due to our senses, as solid objects what is really only warped space.
Similarly moral "facts" could be how we necessarily (due to our
"intuition, our reasoning process, or something else) perceive as
morally significant actions that really are just a physical processes.

But that reminds me of J.L. Mackie's point, that these would be queer
"facts" indeed, unlike no others.  (I tried to show that "queerness"
previously, in my account of the Farfnagels.)  Furthermore, they do not
seem to be necessary, except as ideas that individuals may or may not
believe, to account for or to explain the actions.

them

I would attempt to distinguish between the concepts.  "The Callatians
believed that it was right to dispose of their fathers' bodies by eating
them" is a true statement about morality, but it is not a moral
proposition - it tells me nothing about how I, or anyone else, should
act.  Or, in my previous example:

Right.  My objection would be refuted by one counter-example: a true
statement about morality that is a moral proposition.  That may sound
easy, but remember:  we have previously agreed that belief or
disbelief in a proposition is no evidence of its truth or falsity.

fact
those

enjoyable"
finding

That is a proposition, admittedly; a person either has a reason or does
not.

by
you

This is a good argument - well presented, logical, and VERY patiently
explained (as it is the argument you have been calmly and reasonably
presenting over and over again).  BUT, I see two problems with it.
First, it conflates "objectivity" with "intersubjectivity" - it argues
from the fact that reasons exist in human minds, and the same reasons
can exist in more than one mind, to the conclusion that the reasons are
mind-independent: i.e.,  that they would still exist even if they did
not exist in any minds.

Second, understanding moral propositions in this way would mean
disregarding how they are actually used.  When a moralist says "stealing
is wrong," I do not see that as equivalent to the proposition "people
have reasons to think that stealing is wrong."  I see it as an
imperative - "Thou shalt not steal!" - that contains no appeal to reason
at all.

as
any

I believe the fact you want to explain is the fact of moral agreement.
If we agree on a proposition "X", our agreement is sufficiently
explained if X is a fact.  However, our agreement is not proof of the
fact of X; nor should it be, as the fact is not /necessary/ for our
agreement.


author: Gordon G. Sollars

subject: Re: Owl's Obvious Circularity

text:
In article <8odtk3$8om$[email]>, George Dance writes...
...

Yet elsewhere you show you are aware of the idea of "supervenience".
Chemical facts can be said to supervene on physics facts, although
perhaps you might argue that all chemistry has been reduced to physics at
this point.  I don't know enough to argue this.  But do you think that
all biological facts have be reduced to chemical facts?  Perhaps moral
facts supervene on psychological (and other biological) facts.

...

OK, but this is only one example of a psychological fact.  This objection
hardly secures moral realism, but it shows you can't write it off yet.
...

Unless, for example, it refers in the way I suggested:

And yet Mark's wife (and Mark, of course) did not support me on this!  I
conclude that the Dance's are a more reasonable couple than the Young's.
;-)

I think this is wrong.  Rather, it means that the sentence needs some
additional stuff to tie it down (you see I am fond of really technical
terms!).  This can happen to any sentence.  When it does, the speakers
step back and try to get clear about what stuff is needed.

Assuming that we both, for example, understand "typewriter" and "desk" in
the same way.  If we didn't, the sentence wouldn't "clearly refer..."  We
would need more "stuff".  I have explained how "Typing is enjoyable" can
be true or false.  If you want to hold that that is not what you mean by
"Typing is enjoyable", that's fine.  But, so far, it seems to me that you
are only holding this /because/ of your assumption that assuming it had a
truth value would commit you to a strange metaphysics.  I think I have
shown that this is not the case.

...

As I have said, I only take the fact that people make such statements as
some evidence of moral reality.  I do not think that the existence of any
reality can be "proven", but an independent reality is the best
explanation I can give for why things are the way they are.


author: [redacted]

subject: Unreasonable doubt

text:
[I'm concerned about some of the allegations and unqualified (!)
declarations made by the "reasonable doubters" of The Shakespeare
Authorship Coalition at www.DoubtAboutWill.org .

Here's my reaction to their manifesto in following brackets.  I
exercise a lot of discretion about snipping without excuse the bland
quiddities, cavils, quibbles, and chicanes that academic middle-brows
grasp at as rhetorical foibles.]

(quote)
 Declaration of Reasonable Doubt

Dedicated to legitimizing the Shakespeare authorship issue by
increasing awareness of reasonable doubt about the identity of William
Shakespeare.

[I especially want to apply "reasonable" as the test of what the
writer propounds in the following, because I'm sure too much liberty
is taken with our willing suspension of disbelief .  My review of the
essay is to reasonably doubt the reasonable doubters.]

About the Identity of William Shakespeare
ï¿½ Shakespeare Authorship Coalition (SAC) ï¿½ www.DoubtAboutWill.org
Download a copy of the declaration

"Time's glory is to calm contending kings,
To unmask falsehood and bring truth to light."
ï¿½ William Shakespeare, The Rape of Lucrece

["contending kings" is not apt, because during Stratman's lifetime,
and after, no other author has claimed to be Shakespeare.]

To Shakespeare lovers everywhere, as well as to those who are
encountering him for the first time: know that a great mystery lies
before you. How could William "Shakspere" of Stratford have been the
author, William Shakespeare, and leave no definitive evidence of it
that dates from his lifetime?

[[Not true there is "no definitive evidence", but the arbitrary dating
scheme insinuates that evidence such as the will, the FF, and the
Moniment--don't count, for some reason.  But the truth is that the
will and FF were in evidence while he was alive; and by the way, the
will and FF are legal documents with multiple signatories which in
evidence are lock-tight proof that Stratman is Shakespeare.]

 And why is there an enormous gulf between the alleged author's life
and the contents of his works?

[The content of the canon does square with Stratman's life, doesn't
square with anyone else.  But no doubt the studies programs at the two
colleges will continue to deny Stratman, mainly.]

In the annals of world literature, William Shakespeare is an icon of
towering greatness. But who was he? The following are among the many
outstanding writers, thinkers, actors, directors and statesmen of the
past who have expressed doubt that Mr. "Shakspere" wrote the works of
William Shakespeare:

Snip.

[Yes, there are many "expressions of doubt" concerning S's identity,
and much of it comes from comparing the "icon of towering greatness"
to S's presumed humble origins, as grim as Dickens's; but are these
"reasonable"?,  I wonder.  Mark Twain, for instance, in joking about
Stratman in terms of Delia Bacon's angle of vision, uses his own
identity as a backwoods, semi-literate original in comparison;
laughing at/with a public so duplicitously taken in while he sells a
book.

But notice that we are not talking about "evidence", just "doubt" on
the part of some commentators pretending to take the place of "no
evidence" and denial.]

Present-day doubters include many more prominent individuals, numerous
leading Shakespearean actors, and growing numbers of English
professors. Brunel University in West London, and Concordia University
in Portland, Oregon, now offer degree programs in authorship studies.
Yet orthodox scholars claim that there is no room for doubt that Mr.
Shakspere wrote the plays and poems traditionally attributed to him.
Some say that it is not even an important question.

[The device of naming  a group of "orthodox scholars" is playing
dog-in-the-manger in an attempt to set up a "straw man" argument,
particularly that the villains here take extreme positions and are
unwilling to compromise.]

We, the undersigned, hereby declare our view that there is room for
reasonable doubt about the identity of William Shakespeare, and that
it is an important question for anyone seeking to understand the
works, the formative literary culture in which they were produced, or
the nature of literary creativity and genius.

[Asking questions is different than beginning with supposed lack of
evidence and doubt that are assumed to attend a great mystery about
Stratman.  It would appear that asking questions is a cosmetic
disguise for what is to follow, which I suspect is an ideologically
oriented agenda, probably Marxian.  They'll likely be teaching
structuralism and deconstructionist versions of literary theory,
relying on "the coalition" for cover.  Hey, maybe they'll advocate
forming a conspiracy such as anti-Strats require to be believed.

Snipping the rest, bookburn]


author: Greg Reynolds

subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

text:
On Jan 13, 5:10 pm, [email] posted:

This is trademark antistratfordian lulling and gulling.
There is no mystery to behold, but antis believe their readers are so
lulled and gullible as to just eat it up as served. (That's because
these antis found the "arguments" of Looney and Ogburns to be
persuasive themselves.) Let me tell you that if you ever read those
books you'd want to wash your hands they are so filthy with wholesale
denial of history and outright contrived, inconclusive conjecture.

They need to make a case and not spend their lives destroying one.

Why is Shakespeare the only one who needs evidence?

Of the hundred connected facts for Shakespeare, no other poser has
even one, so evidence can't be a requirement of the
antistratfordianistically challenged. They have to forgo evidence and
manufacture winsome supposition. They form cultures of acceptance to
mutually and methodically ignore the 800 lb. body of evidence in the
room. They strive to make sense to each other.

The entire idea of desecrating Shakespeare requires negative thinking,
not quite the stuff Shakespeare is made of.

Anti are just vandals, hurting something beautiful.

Greg Reynolds


subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

text:
On Jan 13, 5:10 pm, [email] wrote:

This would mislead a weak mind which doesn't know there are millions
of actors and professors who accept the historical account as reliable
and unquestioned.

This would mislead a weak mind which doesn't know there are thousands
of programs and universities which accept the historical account as
reliable and unquestioned.

In fact, Cambridge University sent my daughter a brochure to their
Shakespeare studies which included a trip to Shakespeare's birthplace
Stratford upon Avon, and I'm guessing if Marlowe were Shakespeare,
Cambridge would be smart enough to promote it.

Same question, why doesn't Oxford claim Shakespeare (de Vere) as alum?
Hmmm, Oxfordians? Notice any universities opposed to your whimsy?

It's just that you forgot the big picture.

I bet that by sheer honesty I could be expelled from
Concordia's"program." I would just ask my twenty questions that could
choke an ox(fordian professor).

William Shakespeare's father John spelled his name 'Shakespeare" so it
is very silly for these so-called reasonable doubters to deface the
name with what they consider to be rustic.

Oxford spelled his name Oxenford so he is equally illiterate.

Again, shabby stabs instead of a legitimate case.

I tried to sign up as "Gladys Overwith" but they busted me. I guess
pseudonyms aren't what they used to be.

Really, antis, your disrespect of Shakespeare is unfounded and my
evidence is your lack of evidence. You are sentenced to continue your
maddening misadventure rendering nothing.

For every unreasonable doubtor of Shakespeare, there are millions of
satisfied readers who don't need to sign petitions of eliist snobbery.
thanks, bb.

Greg Reynolds


author: Christian Lanciai

subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

text:
On 1 Feb, 19:12, nordicskiv2 <[email]> wrote:

Apparently you know nothing about nobility, especially not Italian
nobility, probably because you never had any nobility in America.

C.


subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

text:
In article <Jqllj.5928$[email]>,
 "Peter Groves" <[email]> wrote:

[...]

   Remarkably, Crowley's is not the only recent anti-Stratfordian
stupidity regarding Dante: Christian Lanciai recently wrote:

   "...he [Shakespeare] is still even more aristocratic than even
Dante,
   who came directly from the highest aristocracy class,..."

One scarcely knows which to marvel at more: their ignorance of
Shakespeare or their ignorance of Dante.  In any case, stupidities
regarding Dante seem to be in vogue at present among anti-
Stratfordians.

[...]


subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

text:
On Jan 24, 5:31 am, "Paul Crowley"
<[email]> wrote:

You continually say they attribute the flowering of Elizabethan poetry
and drama exclusively to something in the air.  I gave other
explanations they have.  Therefore, you are misrepresenting my side
whan you say that.

Literary renaissances ARE reasonably common.

Write the book that shows why and become famous, Paul.

They were suddenly much more available than they had been.

There were.  See below.

Let's reverse your idiocy: do you think a person can learn nothing
from books without schools and universities?  That is what you are
claiming and I am countering.

His reading and experience of life, Paul.  And discussions with, gasp,
non-readers.

I don't well know that, Paul.  Lots of famous writers came from
provincial towns.

Wrong, of course.  They look down on the provinces not because the
level of literary discussion was close to zero but because it wasn't
as high, in their view, as the level in the big cities.  Many great
writers has little respect for the level of big city discussions,
too.  It's not zero where Shakespeare was and a hundred where Oxford
was, Paul--except for rigidniks.

Every village has its intellectual elite.  Just because they may not
have been as bright as the elites of the big cities doesn't mean they
were dolts.

No, he didn't.

You have never heard of reflection, Paul?

If it's finsihed, how come all you can do is deride my arguments?

It is probable that a neighbor of Shakespeare's was literary enough to
have a book published by Field shortly after Field published Venus and
Adonis.  Thomas Greene was known to have written some poems, and he
lived in Stratford for a while.  It's hard to believe there were no
hobbyist writers in Stratford--people who wrote simple poems from time
to time.  Such people seem to exist everywhere.

Oh, but I do: the absence of an absolute monarch decreeing that one be
started.

So you say.  Others might disagree.  Even if we agree the Elizabethan
flowering was tops, so what.  SOME country has to be tops.

Ah, the telling snip.  I give you a fairly detailed history of the
development of drama in England up to Shakespeare you can't deny, but
it contradicts your delusions as to how it happened, so you snip it.

Right, don't show why Lope de Vega and Spanish drama was trivial
compared to Shakespeare and English Drama, just say I'm ignorant.

 [..]

Are you denying that England in Shakespeare's time was a wealthier
nation than it had been?

The middle classes were not mostly Puritan, and the money they made
circulated to non-Puritans, who spent it on the theatre, among other
things.

Right.  Only someone who had personally known Yorick could have
written a play about his skull.

Exactly.

What's interesting is that you declare me wrong without saying where
or why I'm wrong.

The performance of Henry VIII when the Globe Theatre burned down.

If I were writing in 1600, yes.

We're back to your notion of "decent evidence" as what you accept as
such, which is meaningless.  You can never tell me why I should accept
your verdict, or your method of arriving at it, based only on your
belief that you are the Pope here.

How would I know whether I meet them or not?

Why not, if he were also intelligent?  Once I learned to read--once
how to read, that is, clicked for me, and it doesn't take much--you
couldn't stop me from reading.  Many of my firends and relatives were
the same.  And it wasn't because we were brainwashed to do that, it
was because reading is a wonderful experience.

What was new was reading.

No more from me on this, Paul.  You simply reject anything that fails
to harmonize with your delusional system.

--Bob G.


subject: Re: Unreasonable doubt

text:
You're much too stupid to argue with, Paul, though the broadness of
your ignorance is amusing to try to reason against at times.  I said I
was through with this exchange and meant it.  You just belittle all my
arguments as non-arguments.  Great way to come out on top.  And
everyone who counts agrees that you always come out on top, you being
the only one who counts in your opinion.  I do have to straighten you
out about one thing; sorry, make that I have to set point out your
error.  It's impossible to set you straight.  I did not say that some
country's having to be tops in a field was an explanation for the
Elizabethan flowering.  I said that one country's having to be tops in
a field (or generally IS tops, though sometimes another country may be
tied with it) explained why England, in the opinion of most people,
outdid other European countries of the time, give or take a century or
two, in literary achievement.  As I didn't say, that was because every
group of poets generally has one who is better than the others.  That
was the case in England--due mostly to chance, although protestanism
may have had something to do with it,  Nuts, I'm going on longer than
I really ought to, but what I just said reminds me that I left out the
fact that England's protestantism gave it a cultural advantage in
many
ways over Catholic countries like France, Spain and Italy--by favoring
self-reliance, for instance.  But why tell you that?  You not only
have The Truth, you have the only view of the matter that is not utter
rubbish.  Making you possibly the first human being to have an
understanding of a significant field that was fifteen orders of
magnitude superior to any other person's.

--Bob G.