author: Starblade Darkstar

text:
"Tom S." <[email]> wrote in message news:<ubSB9.17590$XF5.2984981@new
s2.west.cox.net>...

A difference in location, probably. One would have to look into the
details most likely, but yeah, it's there.

Oh, really, how does a CULTURE rely on bailouts. How is it that you
hold the beleif that something so abstract as a set of collective
values, practices, beleifs, etc. can RELY on bailouts? This is an
absurdity. A thing existing in the abstract and only by concept is not
a physical, concrete thing which is capable of relying on other
concrete (as in, existing in the physical world) things such as
bailouts. The same reasoning goes for the rest of your statement on
how the 'culture' does this and the 'culture' does that. For one who
(supposedly) beleives in individual responsibility, I fail to see how
you justify this position.

Wisdom in some areas does not neceesarily translate to wisdom in
others. Wisdom comes from experience. Furthermore, the amount of
wisdom depends upon (at least to a great extent) the amount of
experience. Having some wisdom does not necessarily make you wise.

Wait, what is this about this vague allusion to 'your people' when you
speak to this person? How is it that this "Don Matt" allegedly owns
all the rest of these people? Further, how is it that effort and
'dilegence', as you so put it, are lacking in the third world? Doesn't
it take real effort to maintain one's own existence? Surely, if it was
truly lacking, these people would be dying much quicker than is
evidenced by their continual existence. How do you maintain this
position?

First off, trade can't be war. Trade is a voulentary act between
individuals (or in some instances, groups) and the usage of the word
'war' here is either downright improper, or at the very least,
ambiguous. How is it, though, that this person, one single person by
the way, is to be taken representative of a much larger group? Not
only is this unreasonable, but this method has been disprooven by
mathematics, or statistics in particular, as well as various
philosophies.

I find no reason to disagree with you. However, I find that, at the
very least, democracy is the least of evils. If it is to be taken that
SOME government is actually necessary (since anarchy is supposedly not
an option) then it at least ensures that all people who will be
influenced by the government have an assurance of influence over their
government, even though this influence is on the collective level
mostly, the only individual acts being leaders of demonstrations,
which is sufficient for our purposes as an indication that a TRUE
democracy actually does work. I prefer a democratic republic, where
the basic principles are set in stone and are ones of respect for
individual rights, and the only elections are to elect PEOPLE into
office, people bound by these same principles and to do their job
properly. Merely the concept of 'democracy' is not sufficient to
ensure protection of individual rights, but in some sense, it may very
well be necessary.

See, that's more specific than 'the people'. The NATIONS, and thus
their main institutions (IE goevernment) are authoritarian, not 'the
people', whoever these people are and whatever considerations of
individuals this misleading terminology happens to replace.

Of course. Now it wouldn't be Objectivism if it weren't filled with
party-line-touting Rand-worshipping buffons like you, would it? And it
wouldn't be Objetivism without (the presumption of) being completely
dispassionate, either. This neceesarily precludes any considerations
of actual sympathy.

And _Tom_ is a word (Though not necessarily in the dictionary) between
_Tetanus_ and _Trash_.

(...Starblade Darkstar...)


author: Don Matt

subject: Re: The College Student Anti-War Mentality

text:
"Tom S." <[email]> wrote in message news:<NBlB9.13443$XF5.2071738@new
s2.west.cox.net>...
between Buenos Aires and Rio de Janeiro, which is not the only
brasilian city. So, do you really think you are able to talk about the
culture of any country different from your own? But, I must admit,
even a man like you can sometimes express some wisdon, even if it
happens by chance. It is really our foult, not yours or the IMF that
put our economy into such situation. Our biggest foult is that our
intelectual trusted too much in our friend nations, and did not
realize that trade, in reality, is nothing more than a different kind
of war. Many corrupt governments helped to put our country into
failure, it is true.
 But, please try to read something about brasilian and south america
culture before you put all togeter with the expression "their
culture".


author: Tom S.

text:
"Don Matt" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
news:<93e33db9.
before
in a

And the difference is...what?

The distinction I make is any culture that relies on bailouts while
entrenching the problems that got then in trouble in the first place.

It's not chance, it's understanding history and how the world works.

Sure it is; your people demanded bailouts but will not enact the means of
solving the problem long term. these solutions are well established but they
require effort and dilegence, something rather lacking in the third world.

And right here you show emphatically why your countiry(s) will always be poor,
destitute and at the behest of htose who'll have to baill you out.

And just about everyone of them was established democratically. He, democracy
only means you get to shoot yourselves in the testicles instead of someone
else doing it for you.

I know enough to see that South America is rift with Marxist and Fascist
nations that are completely wrapped in socialism/collectivism.

If you want sympathy, you've come to the wrong group. If you think you can BS
us with "it's not our fault" (a common refrain in _Atlas Shrugged_) you've
come to the wrong group

You see, Don, _sympathy_ is a word in the dictionary between _shit_ and
_syphilis_.

Tom


text:
Ryan Jamieson <[email]> wrote in message news:<93e33db9.
[email]>...
--many of whom were adamantly waving and displaying Iraqi,

 I am a Brasilian student and I think it is a pity that you call these
people "mindless pigs". I dont know your college and maybe these
leftist people do behave like pigs, maybe... But I would like to call
your atention for the reasons (I think) these people complain about.
And I get very happy to know that people in the US and Canada dont
think all the same way.
 Sometimes seems that US people just dont care with what happens
around the world unless it affects their own interest or, in more
recent days, emmerge as a threat from a distant country, where live
crazy people who like to kill themselves claiming for God. But the
fact is that the US has not been a target of terrorists because US
defends democracy, freedom and free market. US is a target because the
US has spread a sea of fear all over the world. Many of you simple
dont remember that many dictators all over the world have been
suported by US, MR Saddan is a quite good example as is MR Osama, both
murderers who used to work for the US. And now the globalization and
the rules of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) have been
responsible for more and more poverty in many southern countries. I
can say that all the southern american countries who followed the
guidelines of IMF and globalization are today in a completelly
desperate economic situation.
 So MR Jamieson, these people are not what you can call "mindless
pigs". They have reasons to complain since they are people that seem
not to wory only with their own needs. And I dont think they must be
called anti-american (neither do I) only because they disagree with
some points of view... By far as I know, these people are using the
best of North America democracy, exposing peacifully their different
point of view.

 I admit I am happy too, since I know that in the colleges there is an
organized opposition against some aspects of the US. For people like
me, that are against any kind of violence, these "quite loud drums"
are a good way to make people think...

  I think this last paragraph only expresss your angry with people
that think different of you. Instead of thinkin (and imaginig) of
using force why dont you simple let them express themselves or try to
think a little about the reasons that move these kind of people all
over the world.


author: Jeff Evans

text:
"Don Matt" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

What is this "sea of fear" you speak of?  What exactly has the U.S. done to
cause other countries to fear us?  Attacking our enemies?  And the fact is -
we are attacked because of what we stand for.  Most of these so called
"interventions" which are routinely blamed for foreign hatred of us are just
the U.S. exercising its free market economy on a global scale.  Have we no
right to stand up for our own interests?

I'm not quite sure where your first bit comes from.  By the way,
Objectivists oppose the IMF.  That is definately NOT affiliated with
capitalism.

I believe the point was that the protests in question were interfering with
the functions of the university (whose purpose is to disseminate knowledge
to its students), which is unacceptable.  That's probably what caused Mr.
Jamieson to feel angry.

Personally, I'm more convinced by good logical arguments (and I'm even a
percussionist)!

I agree that violence is an inappropriate way to respond to student
protests, but bad ideas are always dangerous, regardless of their methods of
presentation.  Some ideas should not be expressed (welcome to Objectivism).


text:
"Don Matt" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

The reasons for their tantrums are touted all over the media every day.

Like any process, some do it correctly and efficiently, and other don't.

Which is exactly how it should be.

Sounds like the "own interest mentioned earlier, no?

Fear by tyrants. Fear of freedom, of free thinking people that can't be
bamboozled...

And we freely admit that and carry on, we live in the present and the future,
we don't dwell in the past beyond the lessons its provides.

And those "Southern countires" have throw tantrums when the other funding (via
private sources) was denied. Recall the shrill refrains when the sectores that
had to account for risk declined to bail out the "souther countries".

They were up shit creek long before the IMF bailed the, out, or even before
the IMF existed. It was predominintly their culture that got their asses in a
bind. Now, they wish to def;lect responsibilty by blaming the IMF, the
USA...anyone but themselves....

No, they could not meet their own needs wthout a dole; they just don't want
others to prosper either.

They ahte democracy if the are on the losing side. Look, Don, don't be
hoodwinked by these pretentious slobs; they are some of the biggest phonies in
history.

Do you know why other than what the academic/media propaganda machines trowl
out?

Any violence? Can you distinguish between initiated vs retailiatory violence?

_Thinking_ is the one thing they DON'T do. These are tantrums, not thinking.

Tom Scheeler


author: Dave O'Hearn

text:
DANIEL MARX <[email]> wrote:

Oh, I goofed and simply read over the Canada part. That is good to
hear. I can come up with less psychological excuses, though. Leftist
political beliefs are more popular in Canada than the US, and the
protests may be genuine.

I still am unimpressed by any form of student activism. I do not care
for the opinion of anyone who hasn't worked a full time job and
supported himself. Some students have, sure, but not nearly enough of
them.


author: DANIEL MARX

text:
Dave O'Hearn <[email]> wrote:
So, if you found an opinion that fit your point of view perfectly, but
later found out that it was given by a student, you would find it invalid?


text:
Ryan Jamieson <[email]> wrote:

They don't want to be drafted. Maybe they wouldn't resort to such
idiocy if we simply got rid of the draft.

Also, to some extent they are just getting off on the seemingly
unlimitted freedom that comes with being away from their parents for
the first time. It would be nice if universities realized that a good
portion of the motivation behind protests is petty and psychological,
and take efforts to make sure they don't harass anyone else who has
better things to do.

I really think that tenure simply corrupts people. I don't know or
care what is in the mind of the average Humanities or Social Sciences
professor.

You would need a legal expert to say how the courts *would* handle the
matter. I would hope you would get charged with at least aggrivated
assault. Someone "running into you" is an initiation of force, but it
is not very threatening, and the right to retaliate is derivative to
the right to self-defense. It is not an excuse to beat up anyone who
trips and stumbles into you. At most, you could complain to some or
another authority about assault or harassment by the protesters.


author: Ryan David Jamieson

text:
"Dave O'Hearn" <[email]> wrote:

Oh, so they are radicals for individual liberty?  And how do you know that?

Interesting that you immediately try to find some psychological
rationalization for these student's adamant *ideological* opposition to
America.  The complexities of freshman psychology, eh?

Given that I didn't initiate force--and had no plans to--I find it curious
that you don't at least sympathize with my *emotional* reaction.  Do you
know which side you're on?

=-Ryan Jamieson-=


text:
Dave O'Hearn <[email]> wrote:
This is taking place in Canada. There is no draft there.


author: Mike

text:
Civic society over here is dying a slow death, largely because of the
similar slow declines in individual liberties, independence of mind
and a liberal education.


author: John Alway

text:
"T. Chan" <[email]> wrote in message news:<7eb6tu0odbpjh13l
[email]>...

   [...]

  Don't be so sure of that.  I find that even ideas I've disagreed
with in the distant past can suddenly make sense to me in a new
context.

  Often you don't convince someone here and now of your ideas.

  ...John


author: Fred Weiss

text:
"John Alway" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
news:<7eb6tu0odbpjh13l

I've had that experience also, but it's also important to let your
intellectual enemies know they will not go unopposed and to challenge the
notion that the "conventional wisdom" should be taken for granted. You also
want to encourage those who agree with you and give them a voice.

Don't be intimidated by being a minority, even a very small one. You have
one invaluable weapon on your side: you're right and they're wrong.....and
today's minorities are tomorrow's majorities.

Fred Weiss


text:
"Ryan David Jamieson" <[email]> wrote in message
news:aqv0k2$p9s$[email]...
These
to

I know the feeling.

math/science

There was supposedly some gov't funded military research going on in it.

I'm not entirely sure it's going anywhere, certainly not long-term.
Multi-culturalism and environmentalism are deeply entrenched in academia and
among the intelligentsia and it will take a long time to counter them. But I
don't have the impression that anyone outside - in the "real world" if you
will, much listens to the left anymore - and the left knows it. The anti-WTO
protests don't seem to be "catching fire" at least in this country. Phil
Donahue, the left wing Bill O'Reilly, has been trying to re-launch his
formerly very popular talk show. His ratings have been dismal. At any given
time it seems there are several "conservative" books on the NY Times best
seller list, books from the left much less so. Academia is their last
stronghold. They will fight as best they can to keep it but in the end will
fail. Victor Hugo once said something to the effect of, "All the armies of
the world cannot stop an idea once its time has come".

chasm

No, but there is that chasm and it's existed for a long time. A civil war
presupposes that both sides have the inclination to fight. Unfortunately
businessmen are mostly anti or non intellectual. They don't take ideas
seriously. Some of them may even be afraid because of the possibility of
gov't retaliation via regulations or tax audits or whatever.

One of the best and I would urge you to take advantage of it because these
clubs come and go, wax and wane, depending on specific students who are
motivated to lead them.

Fred Weiss


author: T. Chan

text:
On Thu, 14 Nov 2002 01:27:39 +0000 (UTC), Fred Weiss
<[email]> wrote:

Great suggestion.  This is exactly what I did in my last year of
university (on the topic of tuition increases).  And my essay was
indeed published.  I attended high school with the editor of the paper
(who is a Marxist, btw) so maybe that had something to do with it.

The amusement from the backlash alone
(http://www.peak.sfu.ca/the-peak/2002-2/issue7/index.html) was almost
worth the effort, even if there was not a single person who was in the
least influenced by what I wrote.


author: Robert Kolker

text:
Ryan Jamieson wrote:

You would end up in the slammer. You may not like what these yahoos are
saying, but you can not rightly interfere. Ignore them and go on your
way. As far as blocking exits, that is something your local police
should be handling, not you. The are not YOUR exits and entrances, after
all. If you value  your liberty, hold your nose and ignore these
bumpkins as best you can. If you could stop them from expressing
themselves, what is to stop a bunch of 6 foot  2 inch goons from
stopping YOU?

Bob Kolker


author: David Odden

text:
"Ryan Jamieson" wrote:

I've had similar problems trying to get past crowds of inconsiderate people
at campus bus stops, where they spread out like fungi and obstruct traffic;
or gaggles of idiots walking 6 abreast on a sidewalk wide enough for 5, and
how am I supposed to get around them? I find that a suitable pointed "EXCUSE
ME" with an assertive and audible but not belligerent tone is almost always
enough to create a passage way. Rather than bop these jerks in the face, I
go around, although I often nurse a brief grudge against them as I go out of
my way. Football days are so horrid that I stay at least 2 miles from
campus.

The essential principle is the same in all of these cases. Miss Manners,
were she dead, would be turning over in her grave.


author: Mark Sieving

text:
"Ryan Jamieson" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

If someone accidentally bumped into you, and you responded with physical
force and seriously injured him, you would probably be charged with a
misdemeanor battery.  If you are significantly bigger than the victim, or
used some sort of weapon (e.g., hit him with your backpack) the charge would
probably be a felony.  If some of his friends "ganged up" on you to restrain
you, causing an injury to you, they would probably have a pretty good case
for self defense.  If they came after you later on, in revenge, they would
also be charged with battery.

You might want to consider therapy before you end up in jail.


text:
"Ryan Jamieson" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Chill out. Curiously enough that's exactly what they want you to do. These
protestors are trained provocateurs and they will do whatever it takes to
incite violence - preferably in such a way that they can be seen as the
victim.

I sympathize with your reaction. I was at the University of Wisconsin in the
late 60's/early 70's during the height of the student riots over the Vietnam
War. I was there - and actually heard the explosion - when they blew up the
Math/Science building killing a student (that and other similar incidents
are forgotten but Kent State is remembered).

If you are genuinely pissed at what you are seeing and want to oppose it,
it's not that difficult to channel your energies into an effective
direction. Form a group in opposition to them. That's what we did. You're
probably asking how can you and maybe a few others oppose this huge mob,
particularly since probably most of the other students side with them. You
can and you'd be amazed how few it takes. It's not numbers. It's how
effective you are. There were about a dozen of us - with maybe half a dozen
of my Objectivist friends at the core - and I can tell you we took on the
1,000 plus SDS without blinking an eye and often got as much press exposure
as they did. No, we didn't "win" in the sense of swinging large numbers of
students to our side, but what we did do is give a voice to the students who
opposed them and we served notice on the SDS that they were no longer
unopposed and that there was a group around capable of naming what they
really were and what they really were attempting to accomplish. I learned a
lot from the experience as I can assure you so would you.

Fred Weiss


text:
"Robert Kolker" <[email]> wrote:

You're probably right about the altercation, depending on details and
severity of the fight.

But the question comes down to property rights, and the University is a
public institution that is predicated partly on the idea that free speech
means supplying people with the necessary resources to deliver their message
on the public dole, which makes things problematic.
  It is not exagerated to say that the vast majority of the contemporary
educational establishment, particulary at York University, is on the side of
these protestors, precisely because the estbalishment is fundamentally
opposed to individual rights.  If the campus security is told by the
administration to let these people do whatever they want save committing
outright violence against me, why do you think the police would effectively
remove these people from the University grounds?

So who, then, do the entrances belong to who, if not the radical
anti-American protestors?  I pay tuition like everybody else.  How does the
concept of public property work here--do we apply some utilitarian calculus?

People routinely attempt to stop me from expressing myself.  But that wasn't
my point.  Notice that I said I would only retaliate and not initiate the
violence (though I did suggest that my physical attack would be
extreme--that just reflected my emotional state at the time).  If it was
proved that the force was initiated by another party, the court would
presumably want to determine how excessive--if at all--my retaliation was.

Anyways, I'm not very serious about beating these people up--I have cooled
down a bit since--at least not until the situation escalates somewhat; that
is, I won't do anything physical unless in self-defence.


author: dave odden

text:
Fred Weiss wrote:

Well, now that you mention it, it's not so curious. I think a fundamental
goal of leftist demonstrations is to generate just the right amount of
violence. It draws more media attention than a equal-sized orderly gathering
does. With violence, their political message becomes part of the nightly
news (along with the temporary inconvenient fact that somebody broke
something, in the long run all too forgettable). Tonight, we learn that
people oppose war with Iraq (or Vietnam), and somebody blocked the exits or
broke some windows. The former sticks in people's minds, and is important
because it informs the public what they should think (most people want to
fit in and think what everybody else thinks, so if the news makes you think
that most people have the leftist view, then maybe you too should adopt that
view in order to conform to what everybody else seems to be thinking).
Unless things get wildly out of hand (like the Seattle riots -- which has
been blamed on drunks) there is little cost to them by way of bad publicity
associated with a bit of violence. What's the worst thing you can say? "I
don't like their method, but they have a point".


text:
"dave odden" <[email]> wrote in message
news:kaBA9.12225$[email]...

It depends. On campuses it gets college administrators quaking in their
boots and eager to appease them. With the general public it can backfire.
The student riots eventually contributed to moving the country to "the
right". You know, the hardhats, the vaunted workers who allegedly they were
speaking for used to literally beat the shit out of them. With the defeats
of Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern I think the left finally got the
message. The landslide of Ronald Reagan was the coup de grace.

I used to laugh. In my corporate days I'd look at the young people we were
hiring who were the younger brothers and sisters of the ex-hippies and
SDS'ers. They were all Reaganites. All of them with virtually no exception.

I'm not sure though how this plays out in Europe where they'd just as soon
kill you over a soccer game as your political views. :-)

Fred Weiss


text:
Why don't you organize all these thoughts and get them on paper? You could
try and get them published in the student paper. You might be surprised.
They might feel obliged to publish you to demonstrate how "fair and
open-minded" they are.

Fred Weiss

"Ryan David Jamieson" <[email]> wrote in message
news:aqujkt$nem$[email]...
message
of
effectively
the
calculus?
wasn't
that


text:
"Fred Weiss" <[email]> wrote:

Good observation.  It seems like I'm in a foreign country--multiculturalism
has taken over much of what once was a respectable educational environment.
Nobody around me seems to care--and if someone does take a stand on any
particular issue it's almost always in compliance with the most vocal and
vicious tribe.

the
Vietnam
the

Was there any particular reason why they decided to blow up the math/science
building?  It's not quite that frightening here, but I wonder where this is
going.  I was talking this over with a friend in business the other night
and his impression is that most people he deals with in business are
market-oriented, and otherwise good people.  If there is a substantial chasm
between academia and the general public, are we heading for a civil war?

There is a good Objectivist club at the University of Toronto.  I was
attending meetings and events from time to time last year.  The students
there are quite resourceful, motivated and passionate.  A couple years ago,
when John Ridpath taught at York University, there was an Objectivist club
here.

As for starting a club, I am taking too many courses right now to organize
and manage a club.  To be honest, it's not something I want to do.  I would
be interested, however, in determining who at this school are good
people--not limiting my definition of good people to Objectivists
only--perhaps directing them to the existing student Objectivist Club
downtown.

=-Ryan Jamieson-=


text:
Lord of Terror wrote:

Not intelligence. Wisdom. Up to a point wisdom is a function of
experience which it takes years to acquire. I don't expect a six year
old or a sixteen year old to make the kind of nuanced judgements I
expect from a 30 or 40  year old person. We are all born ignorant and
unwise. It takes time to fix that.

Bob Kolker


author: Lord of Terror

text:
Robert Kolker <[email]> wrote in message news:<3E025138.2060505
@attbi.com>...

FALSE.

I remember a memorable passage in La Nausee, when Sartre's alter-ego,
Roquentin, is analyzing the weakness and demise which rests beneath
those approaching extinction ALMOST aware they did nothing in their
pitiful lives, which in order to feel good about themselves claim
respect for the mere fact they're old. As always, people are racing
through countless excuses, animated by the hope NOBODY WILL NOTICE
their lack of even the most remote form of essence.

Age fixes nothing. It's just a reminder we ALL spend pitifully
ignorable lives.


text:
Robert Kolker <[email]> wrote in message news:<3DD3C080.9080703
@attbi.com>...

Disaggree. Your saying is inflamatory. I would appreciate a young man
to realise the outright lie behind the beautiful colored flag of
"equality and fairness". By making him heartless, you give credit to
the idea acording to which YOU OWE something to people lower than you.
Only IDIOTS believe this thing, thus you exclude any possibility from
a teen being more than a mass culture idiot.

Your saying also implies the CRETINOUS idea that intelligence is
acquired by getting older. Capacity of reason is unevenly distributed
and becomes apparent from late childhood onward. Rational people,
getting older, become more intelligent. Subhumans, getting older, they
only become more EXPERIENCED. A rational 13 years old kid simply
cannot be compared to an experienced 120 years old man. It's like
comparing a magnificent renaissance monument with a hunter-gatherer
ground shelter.


author: Don Watkins III

text:
Fred Weiss writes:

You know what really drives me nuts about all this?  While these vile children
spew hatred towards the U.S. because they think it's fun to be rebels, there
are thousands of kids in Iran speaking out against their totalitarian leaders
in favor of freedom, secularism, and individual rights.

These kids are putting their lives at risk fighting for the freedoms these
Canadian and American college students think we should sacrifice to terrorists.

Seriously, I can't even explain how brave I think those young people in Iran
are and how much I would like to see them tear down the Iranian government.
And it makes me sick to think that right here in American that kind of bravery
in the face of tyranny is attacked by ill-informed anti-Americans who thinking
hating America shows people how smart they are.

Let them all rot in hell.

Don Watkins
http://www.don-watkins.com


text:
Don Watkins III wrote:

That is what they think, all right, but punching them out will not
change their minds. Experience might. There is an old saying. If a young
man is not a socialist by the age of 20 he has no heart, and if he is
still one at the age of 40 he has no brains. These child-rebels will
cure themselves (most of the will, anyway) so hold your peace as long as
these bumpkins and urchins are not doing any physical harm to life or
property.

Bob Kolker


author: Starblade Darkstar

text:
Ryan Jamieson <[email]> wrote in message news:<93e33db9.
[email]>...

No, but one can pretend to, and this is usually accomplished by
suggesting that "She was FORCED to go to the supermarket by those evil
capitalistic social and economic pressures!" or some other evasion of
personal responsibility in these matters.

Of course, your requirement that it be an EXCUSABLE defense seems to
be a standard that has not as of yet been met by the left on this
topic.

The only thing more hypocritical than a devout anticapitalist engaging
in voulentary trade is child molestation from Catholic priests (or
some other form of church athority) who proclaim to be carrying the
word of God, like some big guy upstairs would actually approve of it,
and go say "It's A O K to molest children. Just don't have sex with
your wives". You know, sometimes I feel that the absurdity of
Socialism is nothing compared to the absurdity of Christianity and its
various subgroups. In this case, Catholicism and the assumption of the
'infalliability of the Pope', which is stupid, because according to
Christianity, God is the only one that's supposed to be infalliable. I
guess the law of noncontradiction just hasn't entered into these
people's heads, has it?

The hatred of logic is prevelant in both the left and the right. Maybe
one day people will think killing themselves will lead to a better
life?

Whoops, too late. We've allready got that: Terrorists willing to
sacrifice their lives and destroy the lives of thousands of others so
they can have a dozen women have sex with them in Muslim heaven. Boy,
it doesn't get any worse than that, does it?

(...Starblade Darkstar...)


author: Ryan Jamieson

text:
Mike <[email]> wrote:

You just stated the point: she purchases, quite cheaply and
conveniently, I might add, the food on in a marketplace.  As well as
her phone, her computer, her clothes, her car, her books, etc., etc.
So you're saying that she--a well read academic--is so naive as to
believe socialism or some variant thereof would bring everybody
prosperity of the kind capitalism has?

To provide some more context; the woman has openly stated her hatred
for technology.

To never have thought about, or even considered for a moment, what
makes such benefits possible to virtually everybody on such a vast
scale is such an avoidance of responsibility and conscience on the
part of an academic today as to be almost unforgivable.


text:
I admit that most leftists are hypocritical, self-righteous and with a
poor grasp of individual liberties (except their own of course).
However, I don't think that buying your food at a supermarket is a
sign of that hypocrisy.  Unless she is to grow her own, or steal,
where else would your professor obtain food except by the free
exchange of money/goods/services for goods/services?  Of course, even
if she were to grow her own food she would still have to make that
initial exchange for the land, tools, breeding livestock and seeds.
This is, of course, different when we talk about non-essential items.
When it comes to these, one's integrity can be assessed.  A friend of
mine told me of his amusement at the apparent contradiction between
Sting, the pop icon who uses his music to voice support for
environmental issues, and Sting, the pop icon whose music was used in
a recent car ad to advertise cars which guzzle petrol at 6-15mpg.

There are many, oft diverse causes for such inconsistency.  Here in
the UK these include the self-contradictory feelings that many in the
middle class have towards themselves.  It is a curious mixture of
self-loathing and aspiration.  They do not wish to be working class as
they aspire to comfort and prosperity, yet they wish to convey the
impression of having a working class background for the social cudos
of not-being-a-snob and to give the impression of caring for those
less well off.  What results is a kind of loud-mouthed do-gooderism
and a false coarseness/vulgarity which is meant to reflect the
'chippiness' of the 'working class man of the people'.  In fact, the
working class find this very patronising as they, in general, aspire
not to be working class and would rather be middle class.  This
behaviour is one source of the hypocritical leftism you describe.

I don't know if you in the US (or in Canada for that matter) have the
same problem, as I always thought that the US and the ex-UK colonies
had fewer problems with the notion of class than we do here in the UK.

Should we try?


text:
Don Watkins III <[email]> wrote:

Or, in my case a present, a "cultural studies" professor who decries
the evils of capitalism all day and then gets in her car to drive
home, stopping at the supermarket along the way.  What is fundamental
personal cause of the hypocritical behaviour of such people?  Can
anyone provide an excusable defence for these academics?

Ryan Jamieson


text:
Ryan Jamieson wrote:

Has anyone pointed out to her, in the course of one of these anti-capitalist
rants, that she is being extremely hypocritical? I'm not chastising you, but
I am gently chiding you to consider the role of silence in all this. After
class, do you and your classmates sit around and say "God, what a load of
bullshit that was. I wish she would get a serious clue"? I'm puzzled,
because I don't know where the problem really lies. Maybe the first step is
for you to work on your fellow students. You know, this kind of leftist
bullshit really took off when it got popular with students in the '60s
(blame the 'rents). It may take time, but it would be nice to detect at
least a micron of support out there in the masses.


text:
"dave odden" <[email]> wrote:

I've thought about the question deeply and I think the answer is that she
hates herself and, instead of killing herself, she has chosen to project
that hatred outwardly.

anti-capitalist

It would be futile.  I have tried this with similar professors in the past
and it has gotten me nowhere.  I think the best advice I received on this
point came from John Ridpath, who said: "Don't teach your teachers."

I have tried sayying things like, "there are some really sick people at this
insititution," to people around me, who basically don't have an opinion
either way.  One guy who I'm particularly friendly with has told me, after
he heard me criticizing the professor, that he hates the whole field of
politics as such, which wasn't too pleasing to hear.

The problem lies with individuals.  This particular one has chosen to
embrace and promulgate--perhaps blindly at first, but doubtful today--a
particularly bad set of ideas that she more than likely picked up during the
course of her education.

I hoping to get my degree and get the hell out of here.

=-Ryan Jamieson-=


text:
Dave Odden writes:

Well, they're not doing that great of a job on the latter point, never mind the
former.

Quite the oppossite.  What you hear is an outcry from the establishment,
professors and administration alike: "Education freedom, diversity of
viewpoints, no censorship!"

You're right, there have been exceptions but only in extreme cases.  In
Flordia, you'll remember, it took them years to actually fire a professor who
gave aid and comfort to terrorist organizations.  Even after all the facts came
out, teachers were shouting foul.

Now, see how far you'll get when the crimes are less -- for instance, the
average political science teacher who spends his Poli Sci 101 class drilling
the idea of class warfare into the mind's of his students -- as was the case my
first year of college (less than 3 years ago).

You have to make them accountable, but you can't do it through public means --
for the reasons you described.  People either don't care, don't know, or don't
believe the stories they hear concerning the state of "higher" education.

But I can't yell any louder!

Don Watkins
http://www.don-watkins.com


text:
Don Watkins III wrote:

I hear both. The public hears the "Academic Freedom" line with a certain
regularity, but that doesn't determine the conduct of the university. I'm
saying that the administration actually does say these things on a regular
basis, and you just don't notice (because they speak quietly, and not
outdoors). I think you're underestimating the power of subtle intimidation
and inference -- when the administration "urges faculty to be mindful of the
vulnerability of the university in terms of funding blah blah blah" and at
the same time say "Oh, by the way you need to come up with plans to
implement 3%, 6% and 12% budget cuts" it doesn't take much intellect to make
the connection. Now, you may wish that they would take stronger actions
against leftists, and while you are not alone in this, you (and I) are in a
distinct minority in this respect because the electorate does not care
enough. If there were persistent large-scale public demonstrations against
leftist views on campus, something would happen, in direct proportion to the
popular opposition.

means --
don't

Maybe you're talking to the wrong people. And maybe you shouldn't yell, you
should ask pointed questions.

I'll tell you what I think is the root, and rot, of the problem, and it
stems from the late 60's (damn hippies); maybe this is an extremist
viewpoint. But I think it's true. The entirety of academe has shifted, in
every respect imagineable, from the idea that there are truths and that is
what we're after, to crass populism: if 10 billion flies think it's true,
that's good enough for me. It's democracy in its worst form. Tenure
decisions are based not on an objective evaluation of the merits of a
person's research and teaching, it is based on the opinions of other people.
Most relevant to this discussion, it is based on numerical popularity values
such as enrollments and evaluation forms: our administration is very
obliging about telling you how man sd's you are from the norm in your
college and the university.

Ryan pointed out, in an earlier thread, that he couldn't really afford to
risk the wrath of the instructor by hassling him on some typical English
department leftist crap. You don't know that the instructor will take
vengeance, but there's a reasonable chance he will, and so silence -- and
enabling -- is the safest course of action in the short run. There's a
faculty analog of this, that speaking out against leftist views can also
have a negative consequence (not so swift and immediate as receiving a D) in
terms of the important principle of maintaining high popularity. You pretty
much have to be at the point where you decide you have nothing of value left
to lose; either that, or you really have to know your audience, and most
people can't read minds.


text:
Bob Kolker writes:

Agreed.  I just think it should be pointed out how pathetic they are.  The
worst part is, my girlfriend is roomates with one of them -- she (the roomate)
even attended the anti-Iraq protests the other week.

We were playing a game of cards the other night and I mentioned in passing that
the protesters were "self-righteous anti-Americans."  "So you think I'm a
self-righteous anti-American?" she asked.  "Of course you are," I said.

Needless to say, she doesn't like discussing politics when I'm around.

In any case, the important point wasn't that the American students are so evil
-- it's that I'd like to hear more support for the Iranians.

May God be with them, even if he doesn't exist.

Don Watkins
http://www.don-watkins.com


text:
Dave Odden writes:

I remember how my less-experienced Objectivist friend had an athropology class
with a professor just like the one described.  My friend would run back from
class each day fuming, telling me about the awful things she had to listen to,
and how -- when she pointed out the hypocracy of her professor -- the professor
would laugh condesendingly and say, "Someday, dear, you'll get over this notion
that what you say and what you do should be the same.  That's just petty
thinking."

I'll tell you, I was ready to take that class myself, just to take on that
blather.

Don Watkins
http://www.don-watkins.com


author: Mark Alexander

subject: The Geography of Italy in Shakespearean Drama

text:
Here is another complete chapter from Ernesto Grillo's book "Shakespeare
and Italy."

In this chapter, this Italian Stratfordian scholar refutes the common
claims made by other Stratfordians, including some on this newsgroup,
that Shakespeare made mistakes in Italian geography.

Since this argument is clear and well-supported, some of you may want to
follow Robert G.'s example and level argument-free ridicule rather than
attempt to refute the argument.

Furthermore, it must be discomforting for Stratfordians that Grillo's
itinerary reflects a significant portion of Oxford's. See Alan Nelson's
web site with Oxford's itinerary for his Italian reavels at

http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~ahnelson/ITALY/Itinerary.html

but here it is in brief:

Oxford first arrived in Venice in May 1575, made it the base of his
operations, and interrupted his stay on at least three different
occasions:

1) Between May and 23 September, when he visited Genoa and Milan (also
Palermo, Sicily?) Oxford was back in Venice on 23 September.

2) On 27 November, when he visited Padua. Oxford was in back Venice on
11 December.

3) Between 12 December and 26 February 1576, when he visited Florence
and Siena (he was in the latter city on 3 January). Oxford was back in
Venice by 26 February and remained until 6 March.

4) Oxford left Venice for Paris on March, travelling via Milan and Lyon.

Shakespeare plays with locations in or excessive references to:

Venice:  The Merchant of Venice, Othello
Genoa:  The Merchant of Venice
Milan:  Two Gentleman of Verona, The Tempest
Padua:  The Taming of the Shrew
Florence:  Allï¿½s Well That Endï¿½s Well
Verona:  Romeo and Juliet, Two Gentleman of Verona
(Verona lies midway between Venice and Milan, near Padua.)
Messina:  Much Ado About Nothing
Sicily:  The Winterï¿½s Tale

____________

THE GEOGRAPHY OF ITALY IN SHAKESPEAREAN DRAMA

Notwithstanding the fact that his Italian scenes are depicted in colours
faithfully reproduced from the originals, the majority of commentators
tell us that Shakespeare knew nothing of conditions in northern Italy,
and that he was totally ignorant of the geography of these provinces.
Three well-known passages are  quoted in support of their assertion: the
first in The Tempest, the second in The Two Gentlemen of Verona and the
third in The Taming of the Shrew. Sidney Lee, our dramatistï¿½s
biographer, never tires of reiterating this argument to prove
Shakespeare guilty of saying things which in fact he neither said nor
thought. It is erroneously repeated that Shakespeare described Verona as
a city on the sea coast, and Bergamo as a place where canvas was woven
for the making of sails, without considering that Shakespeare in his
allusions to Verona was careful to mention not the sea but the very
river--the Adige--which flows though the city; and that if he asserts
that Tranioï¿½s father followed the trade of sail-maker in Bergamo he
cannot have been famous for that industry until recent times. Indeed,
Manzoni, in his I Promessi Sposi, describing the flight of Renzo, speaks
of the sail-making industry which flourished in that district. But
perhaps it will be better to give here some further examples to
illustrate our argument. I The Tempest, Prospero relates how he had been
taken out of the gates of Milan, put upon a ship and dispatched some
leagues to the sea. The poet's sole error here is in making the voyage
too short; but even this is explained in the line,

'In few, they hurried us aboard a bark.'

The words 'in few' indicate that he has much else to say and cannot
waste time on useless descriptions. 'In few' corresponds to the Italian
'in breve', which is sufficiently significant. In those days it was
quite possible to embark at- the gates of Milan for ports on the
Adriatic Sea, and since, in the sixteenth century, there were no
railways, a journey by water was often preferable to one by road because
of its greater safety and comfort.

But if Shakespeare is to be accused of inexactitude what shall we say of
other writers: Goldoni, for instance, who in his Memoirs describes at
length a voyage which he made, in company with a Dominican Friar, from
Pavia to Chioggia? Montaigne, Coryat and others tell us that in their
wanderings from one city to another in northern Italy they were in the
habit of travelling by boat. In The Two Gentlemen of Verona Shakespeare
describes Valentine as sailing from Verona to Milan. This is another
passage quoted by critics to prove that Shakespeare's information was
not the result of personal observation; but here also the accusation of
ignorance is wholly unjustified. In Romeo and Juliet the city of Verona
has no harbour and is said to be situated in the midst of the Venetian
Plain, as in reality it is. From a superficial reading of The Two
Gentlemen of Verona one might think that the city was on the coast,
since the word 'road' is used for the place of Valentine's embarkation,
and several allusions are made to the ebb and flow of the tide. But such
expressions do not necessarily indicate that the city was a seaport. It
is true that 'road' is now only used of the sea, but in the sixteenth
century and even much later it merely signified a place where large
ships could be anchored. Hundreds of examples from English authors prove
that Shakespeare did not err, for the word is freely used in
descriptions of towns on the River Thames. As, for the ebb and flow of
the waves, it is well known that the effects of the tide can be seen
more than a hundred miles from the mouth of a river.

But all these discussions seem of little consequence when we read the
drama more diligently and ponder carefully the words of the poet, who,
at the end of his description of the journey by water, speaks not of the
sea but of the river:

'Tut, man, I mean thou'lt lose the flood, and, in losing the flood, lose
thy voyage, and, in losing thy voyage,ï¿½

The reply to this apostrophe which has been overlooked by commentators
proves the dramatist to have been more accurate than he has generally
been given credit for.

'Lose the tide' and the voyage, and the master, and the service, and the
tied! Why, man, if the river were dry, I am able to fill it with my
tears; if the wind were down, I could drive the boat with my sighs.'

'If the river were dry'--what is this river? Without doubt the Adige, on
whose banks Verona was built, a river which in the sixteenth century had
communications with many of the cities of northern Italy, including
Milan. The River Adige which comes from the direction of Milan and flows
through Verona was a navigable river; and Milan itself was situated on
several canals, by means of which it was possible to travel from city to
city. Three administrators were appointed by the Venetian Republic to
supervise commerce on the River Adige and these canals. Verona appears
to have been a port of some consequence, often visited by the galleys of
the Republic of St. Mark, stationed in Lake Garda a few miles from the
city. It seems as if critics wish to judge Shakespeare by
twentieth-century conditions, forgetting that journeys on foot or by
coach in earlier centuries, and especially in the time of Shakespeare,
were neither comfortable nor safe. Therefore all the rivers and canals
of northern Italy were utilised for commerce and travel, these means of
communication playing an important part in the history of Italy long
before The Tempest or The Two Gentlemen of Ferona were written or
published. We have chronicles, letters, and numerous documents of
merchants, diplomatists and historians in which they are mentioned; and
it is impossible to write the history of Venetian commerce and of the
Galleys of the Republic without giving prominence to their usefulness
both in peace and war.

The River Po, with its thirty main tributaries and many smaller ones,
was in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, as in earlier times, the
principal means of transport for the inhabitants of northern Italy; and
one cannot read the history of its cities without noting the numerous
allusions to the commerce carried on by these waterways. Even Polibius,
tells us that the river was navigable for 250 miles from the sea;
Straboni speaks of Roman navigation from Piacenza to Ravenna, and Pliny
alludes to the trading ships which sailed up the Po to the place where
Turin now stands. From the twelfth century onwards the Po and its
tributaries became still more important. Italian chroniclers assert that
Milan in the fourteenth century enjoyed all the advantages that were to
be gained through the possession of a canal which communicated with the
Po, and that later, for the transport of the marble which was to be used
in building the Duomo, the city constructed other canals leading to the
Ticino, the Po and to Lake Maggiore. All this justifies Carlo Pagano's
assertion in 1520 that Milan, though far from the sea, might easily be
reckoned a seaport. English travellers mention that many of their
compatriots travelled by boat down the Po from Turin to Venice. Coryat
speaking of Milan declares that the city was surrounded by a network of
canals whose waters flowed into the river.

When we come to consider the aspect presented by the Adige and Po in
time of war, the amount of traffic along their courses is nothing less
than marvellous and a source of astonishment to those who doubt the
possibility of a voyage from Milan to the sea. The historian
Guicciardini writes that in 1509 the Po was the scene of bitter naval
battles between the galleys of Milan and Venice. We may add that in 1431
Niccolb Trevisano, an Admiral of the Venetian Republic, had his fleet
destroyed by the Milanese, under the command of Ambrogio Spinola, not
far from Cremona. This was a serious blow for the Venetians, who lost no
time in building a powerful fleet to humiliate the proud Duke of Milan
and the Marquis of Mantua. In August, 1438, a fleet of a hundred
galleons, thirty barques, six galleys and many other vessels loaded with
provisions and munitions sailed up the Po from Venice to attack the
region of Milan.

Shakespeare's accurate knowledge of the geography of Italy is all the
more noteworthy as it contrasts strikingly with his ignorance of that of
other European countries, France, for example. In his allusions to
French towns we find nothing to indicate that he knew them well. In the
three plays of which the scenes are laid in France--Love's Labour's
Lost, As You Like It and Alls Well That Ends Well--local colour and
topographical realism are entirely absent. The scene is for the most
part set in districts far removed from the direct route to Italy; but
all the cities where a traveller on his way to Italy would stop to
change horses or coaches are accurately named by our dramatist, e.g.
Calais, Amiens, Longueville, Troyes, Marseilles and Genoa. When we
consider that in the north of Italy he reveals a more profound knowledge
of Milan, Bergamo, Verona, Mantua, Padua and Venice, the very limitation
of the poet's notions of geography proves that he derived his
information from an actual journey through Italy and not from books. All
that he says about our country is marvellously accurate, and this
precision is manifest not only in the passages already cited but in all
those adduced by the critics to prove his ignorance of the geography of
Italy. A German critic asserted that he could not have known Padua and
Venice because in The Merchant of Venice he describes these two cities
as ï¿½neighbouring'. Since Padua is only about twenty miles from Venice
one can hardly deny the proximity of the two cities. A statement such as
Shakespeare's, besides being correct to-day, seems all the more exact
when one remembers that he wrote it towards the end of the sixteenth
century.

Another critic based his accusation of ignorance on the fact that
Shakespeare had alluded in The Two Gentlemen of Verona to a forest in
the Province of Milan, extending in the direction of Bergamo, where
robbers had taken refuge. If Shakespeare is in error here, then so too
is Manzoni, who describes the Gran Macchia into which Renzo plunged on
the night of his flight from Milan to the territory of St. Mark. Here
too Shakespeare is correct, because he places the forest in the only
locality where it ever existed or could have existed. Still another
writer accuses Shakespeare of ignorance because in one of his plays he
alludes to a small island in the River Po. This argument seems
superficial and ridiculous when one thinks that, in reality, small
pieces of land surrounded by water and called isolotti are by no means
rare in the rivers and lakes of north Italy. It will suffice to mention
the famous island of Belvedere, formed by the Po not far from Ferrara,
where the Este family in the sixteenth century built a magnificent
palace, and the isolotti on the Piave, of which so much was heard during
the last phase of the fighting against the Austrians in 1918.

 Thus all these arguments fail to prove Shakespeareï¿½s ignorance of the
geography of Italy. Apart from a few trifling errors, the topographical
details of the Italian cities with all their individual characteristics
are surprisingly accurate in his plays: far more exact than in the works
of many other writers who have visited Italy. Even Byron who travelled
map in hand through Europe, and who earned such unstinted praise for the
fidelity of his descriptions, made a considerable number of errors in
his Childe Harold; Walter Scott, who knew Edinburgh as the Romans know
their own city, made some unpardonable mistakes in his novel, The
antiquary; Chaucer, who made at least three journeys to Italy, in the
Prologue to his Clerkes Tale makes the River Po flow beyond Venice; and
of Browning, who loved and lived in Italy, one could cite many instances
of errors in the description of scenes often visited and admired. But no
one would dream of suggesting that Scott had never been in Edinburgh or
that Chaucer and Browning had never visited Italy.

In conclusion we may affirm that of all the English poets who visited
Italy, with the possible exception of Shelley and Byron, no one has
depicted our scenes, our life, our character and our nature better than
Shakespeare. The portrayer of the spirit of humanity, the genius of the
English Renaissance, in whose works we find not only true life and
passion, but all European institutions with their chivalry, courtesy and
ambitions, could not have sung the praises of the classical yet ever
romantic land of Italy without having paid her at least a fleeting
visit. It need occasion no surprise therefore if we imagine the great
lover of our country travelling through many Lombardian and Venetian
cities 'waving friendly together the British and the Italian flag, and
talking of the Alps, the Apennines and the River Po'. These words of the
dramatist proved truly prophetic, for the Anglo-Italian flags waved
victoriously together in the Crimea, in Sicily on Garibaldi's
disembarkation in 1859 and on the sacred battlefields of more recent
wars for the defence of that civilisation which is the glory of the
Latin peoples.
_______


author: Trent Annetts

subject: Re: The Geography of Italy in Shakespearean Drama

text:
Mark Alexander wrote:

Grillo is now a mind reader.

    I did a quick bit of internet research and this seems simply not to
be true.  By the time of Shakespeare's supposed visit, around 1592-93
according to the Mr. Alexander's first Grillo post, there was indeed a
large and complex canal (naviglio in the singular and navigli in the
plural) system in place around Milan.  This system did, in fact, connect
the waters of the Ticino R. to the west of Milan with the waters of Adda
R. to the east.  It is also true that each of these rivers drain into
the Po R., which is south of Milan, and that the Po drains into the
Adriatic. So, on first blush, it looks as though one could leave Milan
by boat, travel the canal system to either the Ticino or Adda, travel
down to the Po, and then carry on to the Adriatic. But is this really
the case?  Of course not.  When the navigli system was finally
completed, around 1816, with a link south to the Po, it had a total
navigable length of 232 km: 50 km Naviglio Grande, 101 km other navigli,
and 81 km usable river stretches.  That's it.  Three rivers but only 81
navigable km.

http://www.navigliogrande.mi.it/history.htm

 No, it is totally justified.  Verona is about 100 km (rough estimate
using an atlas) upstream from the mouth of the Adige.  Now, the Adige
doesn't connect with the Po or any of its tributaries and drains
directly into the adriatic sea.  In order to travel from Verona to Milan
by boat, one would have to travel down the Adige to the Adriatic and up
the Po to Milan..  As shown earlier, that was just not possible.

Actually, it is situated at the foot of the alps.

This is not true.  The River Adige had no communication with many of the
cities of northern Italy.  Also, there is absolutely no way one could
lose the tide at Verona.  While Grillo is correct in stating that the
effects of tides can be seen upstream on some rivers, this phenomenon
occurs only where the coastal tidal range is large.  The problem for
Grillo is that the adriatic sea has insignificant tides.  In fact,
Adriatic coastal areas generally experience tidal ranges less than 2 m.
It may be of interest to point out that the eastern coast of Britain has
relatively large tides and that the northern coast of France has the
highest tides in Europe.  If you are seeking places where you may "lose
the flood," you'll find them here, not in the Adriatic.

Wrong again.  It flows from the Alps in the north.  Milan is to the west
of Verona.

At least Grillo got that right.

That too is correct

Completely false!!

Wrong again.  Lake Garda has only one effluent and that is the Mincio
River which leaves the lake at Preschiera in the south and drains into,
you guessed it, the Po.

Here I quote from the first chapter of Grillo posted by Mr. Alexander:

"Italy was the magic land where the joys of life abounded. With even the
slenderest resources it was possible to undertake the pilgrimage, for
one could travel at little expense on foot, on horseback, by boat or
even in a carriage. Living in those days was very inexpensive--lodgings
were obtainable for a few coppers at an inn or tavern, while the very
poor could always find hospitality in the monasteries or colleges."

Now, which is it?  Is it the land of milk and honey or the land danger
and misery?
It is an interesting contradiction.

Again, Grillo is misrepresenting the facts.

<snipped much nonsense about ones ability to get from Milan to Verona
including a misrepresentation of the structure of the Milan canal system
circa 1600.>

Complete nonsense.  Anyway, I have endured all I can of Grillo's shoddy
(pathetic is more like it) scholarship.  Why Mr. Alexander would post
this as a "clear and well supported" argument is beyond me.


author: John W. Kennedy

text:
I'm sorry, but this whole thing just reeks of "Shakespeare in the
original Klingon".


author: [redacted]

text:
You have misrepresented me, Mark.  I told you why I wasn't up
to wading through Grillo's gush, only.  How could I attempt to refute
his argument when I didn't feel I had time to give it any kind of
proper attention.  I did say why I wasn't going out of my way to
make time, though: I presented an example of his point of view.  Do
you deny that Grillo said something to the effect that every line of
Shakespeare's work shows an intimate familiarity with Italy?  Do you
not agree that if he did so, he was exaggerating ridiculously?  I
wouldn't expect you to agree that just about all he said in his opening
paragraph sounded similarly over-stated, but I can't see why you can't
accept that I might feel I have better things to do than read some
enthusiast-for-Italy's paean to Shakespeare's knowledge of Italy
(particularly considering how much more value I put on objective
evidence of authorship like names on title-pages than I do on
subjective speculation about what kind of person an author HAD to
have been for determining authorship).

I'm still Bob G., by the way, as I almost always sign myself.  The
Robert in my new address is only due to a mix-up I had with deja.com,
though I am not entirely not Robert.

                                                        --Bob G.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.


subject: comments on articles are fun

text:
Geeze, guys. If me harping on nuclear and enviro-whackos
gets irritating, do let me know and I'll stop.

Oh, sure, it's USA Today. But just wait.

blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/05/post_20.html?csp=34

Franky puts up her little article. Then she gets a new one ripped.
It's instant democracy. Who will guard the guardians? The web.

Who is this Frances person? Here's who.

www.activistcash.com/biography.cfm/bid/1391

Do you folks remember the alar scare? That's when the
"greenies" told us that alar on apples was going to turn
us all into gibbering mutated piles of putrid death. Then
when it was shown that alar is a wax, that it does pretty
much nothing to humans, what did they say?

Nevermind.

Now these same folks are lining up to tell us how bad
nukes are. I dunno. I think there ought to be some
attention paid to track record.
Socks


author: David Buchner

subject: Re: comments on articles are fun

text:
Puppet_Sock <[email]> wrote:

But it seems the whackos were the ones demanding the CFC ban. And
simultaneously insisting that it was a runaway problem that was going to
be burning our skins off and causing extinctions for hundreds of years.
Maybe I'm not remembering right.

That's interesting, about the "...only when it's cold and dark" part. I
only ever heard the mainstream press version, but I'm pretty sure they
left out that little detail.


subject: Re: comments on articles are fun

text:
On May 18, 9:52 am, David Buchner <[email]> wrote:
[snip]

This is referring to where the flap over ozone holes went.

When I was at U of Toronto, a guy came and gave us a seminar on ozone
and how it
gets destroyed by CFCs. He spent a couple years flying around the ant-
arctic, measuring
stuff. His conclusion was:
- Yes it is CFCs that are making the hole.
- They only do it in certain specific conditions: Air has to be very
cold (I don't recall the actual
  number but it was colder than you usually find even in Winnipeg), it
has to be dark, and the
  air has to be still. These conditions apply over the antarctic for
some months every year.
  They do not apply much anywhere else.
- Ozone is generated by ultraviolet light from the sun. The hole goes
away a few minutes
  after local dawn.
- There is a small effect in conditions other than the cold, dark,
still situation. It amounts
  to the equivalent to moving a few 100 km to the south.
- HCFCs, the new propellent, produce about 1/20th of the effect and
are nearly as good for
  the uses CFCs used to be put. The CFC content of the atmosphere is
falling.

In other words, it's one that capitalists won. A real problem, though
not that big a deal,
and a solution was found. The solution was put in place with
relatively painless phase
in, replacing old equipment as it needed replacing. No hysteria was
required, and so
the enviro-whackos are not interested.
Socks


subject: Re: comments on articles are fun

text:
Puppet_Sock <[email]> wrote:

Never!

Yes, and lately I've also been wondering about "The Hole In The Ozone
Layer!!!" Not so much about the truth-or-hype of it, or the science of
it, or anything like that -- but just why I don't hear about it ...at
all, anymore. I remember when all the frogs were going to die and
massive skin cancer increases, the tropics would become uninhabitable,
and it would have been a good time to invest in sunscreen companies.

What happened?

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?


author: Ray

subject: Re: comments on articles are fun

text:
I very much appreciate your harping on nuclear stuff.
Of the 10 comments posted in reply, only 1 agreed with her.
I'm waiting for this cartoon to fulfill itself.
http://tinyurl.com/2pbo2s
http://ray-of-light.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/03/14/cartoon1.gif

Ray

"Puppet_Sock" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...


author: Malrassic Park

subject: Re: comments on articles are fun

text:
On Wed, 16 May 2007 12:34:36 -0500, Puppet_Sock
<[email]> wrote:

I remember much of that incident. The Wikipedia article on Daminozide
refreshed the rest of my memory.

Alar is not a wax, it is a plant growth regulator.
According to Wiki, "While Alar has been verified as a human
carcinogen, the amount necessary for it to be dangerous may well be
extremely high. While the lab tests that prompted the scare required
an amount of Alar equal to over 5000 gallons (20,000 L) of apple juice
per day, Consumers Union ran its own studies and estimated the human
lifetime cancer risk to be between 5 - 50 per million (1 case per
million is the threshold at which the government considers a
carcinogen a significant public health concern."

Just follow the money trail, paranoia is a big money-maker. Ask any
lawyer.


author: John Baker

text:
On Baker's Masters In International Affairs and Other Such Nonsense

Recently I have been taking heavy flak from Professor David Webb
about my academic credentials or lack of them.

It all began when Grumman said he'd commit suicide if I could prove I
have an intellectual history.

I don't think most of my credentials have anything to do with these
discussions and like my privacy.

But I did challenge Bob to a put up or shut up.  (Half hoping he'd
kill himself in the process.)

Meanwhile Webb did dig up a Masters thesis in International Affairs
from a Florida university, Florida Atlantic I think it was.  One under
my name.

Now I could easily say, " yes David that's my Thesis," but it wasn't.

Did you get that Webb?

That WAS NOT my thesis.

It doesn't have anything to do with our subject.

I've always said My thesis had something to do with our topic.  Which
is why on occasion I've mentioned it.

That's guy's name was Harry or something.

Mine is Christopher or Charles.  John C.C. Baker.

In any case Webb's cries have forced me to reveal here that my Masters
Thesis, which was in International Affairs, was on a subject of great
importance to our discussion, just as I have hinted in the past.

So I now, for the public record, shall hereby divulge the title of
this great tomb which I think all of you should be reading tonight.

But first let me tell you what it was all about.

And stay tuned here for my Dissertation, which I shall post later this
week and which has even MORE to do with this discussion than Kathman's
does. (It is either at the top of a tall tree or back on my farm in
the mid-west, so it will take me a while to get to it.)

My Thesis was about how English "philosophic" ideas effect
international politics.

That's what makes it ON TOPIC!!!

English philosophic ideas do effect international politics.

And I am one of a group of scholars who like Leo Strauss and Howard
White believe that Shakespeare was a political philosopher in
the mold of Plato.

Bloom may become a member of this group, once he learns more about
Plato.

(For what it is worth I also have degrees in Political Science and
Political Philosophy.  Not that I give rip.)

Now I didn't know back in 1970 that I would one day be working on how
the philosophic ideas of Shakespeare influenced Western civilization.

Or that it would have become a major stream in my life's intellectual
work.  Apart from nucleation and BSE.  And Fermat. And hydrogen
bombs.

So it is just an ACCIDENT that my MSS thesis was on a subject that has
some relevance to our discussions.

But just for the record, so there will be no doubt in your minds, here
is the title key:

"Humanity and Demography, Malthus verus Marx...." 112 pages.  I still
have the draft and my original in a box of Eaton's Berkshire Bond C
20-1.  I just dusted it off and checked the number of pages: 112.

Now Webb lets see if you can find it.

And my question for Grumman is will he now commit suicide?

If Webb is acting as Bob's second, I think the etiquette is that he
will have to shoot him if he chickens out.

John Baker

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

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


author: David Kathman

subject:
Re: On Baker's Masters In International Affairs and Other Such
	 Nonsense

text:
I don't recall saying that I had learned you had a Ph.D.,
though I suppose it's possible that I saw one of your
claims about having one, and saw no reason at the time
to doubt the claim.  Now that I know you better, and
have seen the results when others have searched in
vain for evidence of this alleged Ph.D., I very much
doubt that you do have one.  I've asked very directly
for evidence, as have many others here, and you have
not provided it.  The natural conclusion is that you're
lying and trying to cover your tracks.  Not that it
makes much difference to me, since I haven't believed
a word you've said here for a long time, and I usually
just ignore your posts.

Dave Kathman
[email]


text:
In article <[email]>, John Baker wrote:

But if you really do have a Ph.D., it is a matter of public
record.  Why is there no sign in the usual places
(i.e. UMI) of this supposed degree of yours?

What a splendidly appropriate typo!  You're a rich
source of amusement, Baker, even when you're not trying
to be.

"The top of a tall tree"?  What on earth are you talking
about?  Are you deliberately trying to act like a looney-tune?

What kinds of degrees?  From what universities, in what years?

What university granted you this MSS?  What professor(s) did you
study under?

And I can't tell for sure, but you appear to still be claiming
to have a Ph.D.  If that's so, I'd appreciate it if you could
answer these questions:

1) What university granted this Ph.D.?
2) In what year?
3) Who was your committee chair?
4) Why has nobody been able to find any record of your dissertation
in the UMI database?

Thanks,
Dave Kathman
[email]


subject: Re: On Baker's Masters In International Affairs and Other Such Nonsense

text:
Hi Gang,

I realized after I posted this that I had slighted Bacon.

I wrote that it was a thousand times more obvious to me that Oxford
and Bacon was Shakespeare
than the Rustic.

I should have said, "in my opinion Oxford's claim is a thousand times
more likely than the Rustic's, Bacon's is at least 10,000 times more
likely and Marlowe's a million or more likely."

Meanwhile I'll be on my farm for the next few days , back in
Minnesota, looking for my dissertation, which I am looking forward to
posting a chapter of this week, likely next Thursday.

I'm hoping that Webb, Kathman, and Ross will read it carefully and
take it to heart.

John Baker

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

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


author: Tom Reedy

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

Who cares about what a liar and a fraud says about anything, "Doctor" Baker?


author: Elizabeth Weir

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

The caps and exclamation marks are not reassuring.

Plato [like Marx] was a dialectician, not a grammarian.

Malthus was not a dialectician.  I hope you are not going to suggest
that
Malthus was a Platonist. Malthus is the Baconian/Shakespearean in your
little
equasion.

I would love to correct some of Bloom's notions but I assume you're
jesting.

Too bad you didn't read Bacon in the 1960s.

Sigh.

My modest degree is in "things Baconian" so we'll see how relevant
your thesis is to our discussion.

Who's "humanity" and who's "demography?"  You have to read past the
first
ten pages of "Capital" to see that Marx is not going to be an Adam
Smith Baconian.

No.  We're fond of Bob and would hide his means.

Hahaha!!!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"Noe man can foresee the dangers and inconueniences that may arise
and multiply there-vpon."
         --The Charge of Sir Francis Bacon Touching Duells. 1614.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=


author: David L. Webb

text:
In article <[email]>, John Baker wrote:

   No, the real question, investigated chiefly by Thomas Larque and
others, has been about your candor or lack thereof.

   Then why did *YOU* bring up the matter in the first place?!

   We're still waiting for *you* to put up -- you apparently claim to
have a Ph.D., yet your doctoral thesis, if any, appears to be absent
from the UMI archive.

   I believe you.  In fact, Thomas Larque and Tom Lay effectively
established that already.

   Apparently you have also said that you had a Ph.D.  From what
institution, in what year, and where is your doctoral thesis?

   What at least fout of us have asked about -- repeatedly -- is your
*DOCTORAL* thesis (if any), not your Masters thesis.  I was already
quite prepared to believe that you had a Masters (hence my conjecture
about your thesis); indeed, even community colleges rarely hire people
without at least a Masters degree.

   Fermat's Last Theorem is "a major stream in [your] life's
intellectual work"??!!  Are you *serious*?

   Hydrogen bombs were "a major stream in [your] life's intellectual
work"?!  I thought that you just disassembled them.  Did you design
them as well?

   We were all asking about your *DOCTORAL* thesis, not your Masters
thesis.

   Excellent.  Now what about that *DOCTORAL* thesis?

   I've never doubted that you had a Masters degree; what I asked was:
(1) Do you have a Ph.D., as you apparently claim?
(2) If so, from what institution, in what year, and where is your
*doctoral* thesis?

[...]

         David Webb


subject: Re: On Baker's Masters In International Affairs and Other Such   Nonsense

text:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 17:59:29 -0600, "David Kathman"
<[email]> wrote:

Well David Webb remembered this post!!

And I'm happy to see that you don't remember every thing you've
done...makes me feel almost human!

Anyhow it was you that first gave me a Ph.D. here.  I just say that
I've taken one...which I have....

And I know you don't give any weight to my posts anyhow....so it's ok
by me.

I have, on the other hand, always appreciated your corrections and
factual answers and even some of your jokes!  And I wish you had
been in Rubbo's film with me!

John

John Baker

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

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


subject: Re: On Baker's Masters In International Affairs and Other Such  Nonsense

text:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2002 20:37:20 -0600, "David Kathman"
<[email]> wrote:

Dave,

Answers are on the way!!!

Just for the record, do you recall when we first met that you wrote
here that you had checked me out and learned that I did have a
Ph.D., was a radio talk show host and wrote for the paper, I think
you said I was a strange bird....

I wrote back something like "well you know more about me than I
know about myself..."

Remember that exchange?

Meanwhile I hope you don't mind waiting for the meat of my
dissertation...but it will be worth the wait....

I want you to read every word of it.

So just hang in there....

john

John Baker

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

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


author: Bob Grumman

text:
I'd advise against publishing, John: if you publish your chapters, I'll
have to start publishing my poems, and I don't think anyone wants that
(although each of them will show at least twice as much intelligence
as each of your chapters, I'm sure.)

                                               --Bob G.


text:
On Thu, 03 Jan 2002 18:59:23 GMT, "Tom Reedy" <[email]>
wrote:

That's what I want to know.  Glad we are on the same page here Tommy.

John Baker

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

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


text:
On 3 Jan 2002 17:34:38 -0800, [email] (Elizabeth Weir)
wrote:

Thank you Elizabeth, lets get married.

You are quite right about Malthus and Marx...one of the things that
I liked thinking about as I wrote this thesis was the fact that Marx
and Mills worked desk to desk at the British Library...the two men
must have passed each other a thousand times in the hall ways...
and so much of our world would become the result of their thinking,
if you can call it thinking....

Happy new year!

John Baker

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

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


text:
On Thu, 03 Jan 2002 13:54:46 -0500, "David L. Webb"
<[email]> wrote:

Lack of candor!!! Me!!!  The most candid guy on the
net!!

So stay tuned.  As I've promised I'll be posting a chapter of my
Ph.D. disseration within the week.

And it will be on topic!!

You are going to shoot Bob right?

john
John Baker

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

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


author: Alisa Beaton

text:
John Baker to David Kathman:  Answers are on the way!!!

Aha! I think I understand now! Do you mean to say, John, that you
completed course work toward a Ph.D.?  You stated in other threads
that your dissertation was "given full credit". And for some reason
you did not continue toward attainment of the degree, failing to
defend your dissertation? Am I correct?

Could you answer clearly--a simple "Yes to all the above" will serve,
if "yes" is indeed the answer.  If it is not, then just let things be,
for God's sake.  I would imagine I speak for just about everyone in
this newsgroup in voicing a wish that the endless discussion of
your education or lack of same be put to rest.


text:
In article <[email]>, John Baker wrote:

   I recall Dave Kathman's post, and your reply.  You said in the same
post:

   "no mock humility here, right dave?  And for the record, I don't
   have any credentials to point to...I dig graves."

Was that a rare moment of candor, Baker?  And did you reply "Then you
know more about me than I do...." because you do not in fact have a
Ph.D.?  If that's not the explanation, then what institution awarded
your Ph.D., in what year and in what field, and why is there no trace
of your doctoral thesis in the UMI archive?

[...]

            David Webb


subject: Re: On Faker's Masters In International Affairs and Other Such  Nonsense

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

Somebody needs to contact the newspaper in Faker's hometown and the junior
college he used to teach at and see if they have any proof that Faker has a
PhD.

I think I'll look into that.

TR


author: KQKnave

text:
In article <[email]>, John Baker writes:

You don't have a Ph.D., otherwise it would be available via UMI,
and it's not. You are a strange bird.

See for yourself that the Droeshout portrait is not unusual at all!
http://hometown.aol.com/kqknave/shakenbake.html

Agent Jim


text:
On Fri, 4 Jan 2002 23:40:53 +0000 (UTC), "Bob Grumman"
<[email]> wrote:

Ok...a truce...but promise me if you kill yourself you'll send your
body to my cemetery!

john

John Baker

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

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


text:
In article <[email]>, John Baker writes:

Why can't you tell us how to find it on microfilm? The transparent
attempt to create a chapter of a "Ph.D. dissertation" on the fly
won't work. You don't have one. You are a fraud.

baker is a certified loon, but even certified loons have Ph.D.'s.
(And we all know of one example....) In this case he appears not to
have one, but so what? His views are insane. He believes that
King Lear is a comedy, that the moon landings were faked, that
Shakespeare was a "hempen homespun" despite proof of his
father's wealth, and god knows what else. His editorials
on his web page espouse such views as, for example, in
a piece he had intended to title "On Ridding ourselves of Wasps"
but which instead reads "On Riding ourselves of Waps", he
says:

"Our trump card is that because this is a Holly [sic] War
and a racial war, we can hold both Allah and their kin hostage."

He also posts voluminously
on newsgroups using many pseudonyms, some of which are:

Arbella Stuart ([email])
Bacon ([email])
John Padden ([email])
Telemachos <[email])
[email] (google)
[email]
Alcibiades <[email]
john_the-baker <[email]>
Prospero <[email]>
Ophelia <[email]>
Shimur Taniyama <[email]>
Shylock <[email]>
Skylock <[email]>
Socrates/Falstaff <Socrates/[email]>
Alkibiades <[email]>
[email]
[email]
Alckibiades <>
Ebenezer ([email])
Alcibiades [no email at all]
[email]
Alcibiades@
[email]
Alkibiades ([email]),
[email],
[email],
John Baker ([email]),
Alcibiades([email])
[email] (signed his email "John Baker" on Feb 9 2001)
[email]

Here is why Shakespeare is the author of the works attributed to him:

His name on over forty title pages; his monument in Stratford;
Robert Greene's attack on Shakespeare in Greene's Groatsworth
of Wit (1592), where he paraphrases a play by Shakespeare; the
Parnassus plays (1598-1601), where Shakespeare is mentioned by name
and Venus and Adonis and Romeo & Juliet are parodied, and
where Shakespeare is said to have "put them [university playwrights]
all down, aye, and Ben Jonson too"; Gabriel Harvey (nlt 1603), who said
"The younger sort takes much delight in Shakespeares Venus, &
Adonis: but his Lucrece, & his tragedie of Hamlet, Prince of
Denmarke, have it in them, to please the wiser sort," and who
called Shakespeare "one of our florishing metricians;" and
Francis Meres (1598), who said "...so the English tongue is mightily
enriched, and gorgeously invested in rare ornaments and
resplendent abiliments by sir Philip Sidney, Spencer, Daniel,
Drayton, Warner, Shakespeare, Marlow and Chapman...."
[notice that he distinguishes between Marlowe and Shakespeare
and mentions Oxenforde separately in another section as well]
and who also said that Shakespeare was one of England's
"best Lyrick Poets" and "our best for tragedie" and among the
"best Poets for Comedy" and "the most passionate among us
to bewaile and bemoane the perplexities of Love;" and
Francis Beaumont (1608), who said "...here I would let slippe/
(If I had any in mee) schollershippe,/ And from all Learning keepe
these lines as cleere/ as Shakespeare's best are, which our
heires shall heare/ Preachers apte to their auditors to showe/
how farre sometimes a mortall man may goe/ by the dimme
light of Nature...,"

In addition:

   That Jonson was acquainted with Shakespeare
personally is indisputable: Shakespeare's name
appears on the list of players who acted in
"Every Man in His Humour", and Jonson's
extended comments upon Shakespeare in his
"Timber" (see below) are proof of that: he
says that Shakespeare was "(indeed) honest,
and of an open, and free nature:" and that
he "loved the man".
     Jonson's comments on his contemporaries were
typically a mix of praise and censure. Here
are some examples from "Conversations with
William Drummond":

"Samuel Daniel was a good honest man, had no
children: but no poet."

"That Michael Drayton's Poly-Olbion (if he had
performed what he promised to write, the deeds
of all the worthies) had been excellent: his
long verses pleased him not."

"He esteemeth John Donne the first poet in the
world, in some things: his verses of the lost
chain he hath by heart; and that passage of
'The Calm', that dust and feathers do not stir,
all was so quiet. Affirmeth Donne to have written
all his best pieces ere he was twenty-five
years old."

And many more. His comment on Shakespeare in
these conversations is quite typical:

"Shakespeare, in a play, brought in a number of men
saying they had suffered shipwreck in Bohemia, where there
is no sea near by some 100 miles."

In "Timber: or Discoveries", Jonson again mixes
criticism with praise:

"De Shakespeare Nostrat

I remember, the players have often
mentioned it as an honour to Shakespeare, that
in his writing (whatsoever he penned) he never
blotted out line. My answer hath been, would
he had blotted a thousand. Which they thought
a malevolent speech. I had not told posterity
this, but for their ignorance, who choose that
circumstance to commend their friend by,
wherein he most faulted. And to justify mine
own candour (for I loved the man, and do honour
his memory - on this side idolatry - as
much as any). He was (indeed) honest, and of
an open, and free nature: had an excellent
fancy; brave notions, and gentle expressions:
wherein he flowed with that facility, that
sometime it was necessary he should be
stopped: sufflaminandus erat; as Augustus said
of Haterius. His wit was in his own power;
would the rule of it had been so too. Many
times he fell into those things, could not escape
laughter: as when he said in the person of
Caesar, one speaking to him; "Caesar, thou
dost me wrong'. He replied: 'Caesar did never
wrong, but with just cause': and such like;
which were ridiculous. But he redeemed his
vices, with his virtues. There was ever more in
him to be praised, than to be pardoned."

Jonson clearly doesn't feel that the portrait
in the Folio does Shakespeare any justice
as far as portraying his wit, as his little poem
show:

"This Figure, that thou here seest put,
It was for gentle Shakespeare cut,
Wherein the Graver had a strife
with Nature, to out-doo the life :
O, could he but have drawne his wit
As well in brasse, as he hath hit
His face ; the Print would then surpasse
All, that was ever writ in brasse.
But, since he cannot, Reader, looke
Not on his Picture, but his Booke."

And finally, Jonson's masterful eulogy
for Shakespeare, where he seems to be
quite convinced that the man who acted in
his plays was a better playwright than
Marlowe, and worthy of Euripides and
Sophocles. Notice that he calls Shakespeare
the "sweet swan of Avon", not the "tempestuous
tin-miner of tuxbury" or some such.

"TO THE MEMORY OF MY BELOVED THE AUTHOR,
MR. WILLIAM SHAKESPEARE, AND WHAT HE
HATH LEFT US.

To draw no envy, Shakespeare, on thy name,
Am I thus ample to thy book and fame;
While I confess thy writings to be such
As neither man nor muse can praise too much;
'Tis true, and all men's suffrage. But these ways
Were not the paths I meant unto thy praise;
For seeliest ignorance on these may light,
Which, when it sounds at best, but echoes right;
Or blind affection, which doth ne'er advance
The truth, but gropes, and urgeth all by chance;
Or crafty malice might pretend this praise,
And think to ruin, where it seem'd to raise.
These are, as some infamous bawd or whore
Should praise a matron; what could hurt her more?
But thou art proof against them, and indeed,
Above th' ill fortune of them, or the need.
I therefore will begin. Soul of the age!
The applause, delight, the wonder of our stage!
My Shakespeare, rise! I will not lodge thee by
Chaucer, or Spenser, or bid Beaumont lie
A little further, to make thee a room:
Thou art a monument without a tomb,
And art alive still while thy book doth live
And we have wits to read and praise to give.
That I not mix thee so, my brain excuses,
I mean with great, but disproportion'd Muses,
For if I thought my judgment were of years,
I should commit thee surely with thy peers,
And tell how far thou didst our Lyly outshine,
Or sporting Kyd, or Marlowe's mighty line.
And though thou hadst small Latin and less Greek,


text:
On 16 Jan 2002 18:44:29 -0800, [email] (Alisa
Beaton) wrote:

I agree.  But tell it to Webb, Kathman and the rest of the clique.

Actually I think Webb had gotten it on his own earlier, since he
used the right words...I took a PhD in the areas I have spoken about
and wrote a dissertation on the subject noted, but I didn't defend it.
So I don't have that particular Ph.D.

So what?

I've also stated that I have other degrees.

Now I'm with you, let's get back to the issues!!

Cheers!

John Baker

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

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


text:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 13:31:25 -0500, "David L. Webb"
<[email]> wrote:

Thanks David for recalling this.

And wouldn't you like to know!!

john
John Baker

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

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


author: Thomas Larque

text:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 06:05:44 GMT, "Tom Reedy" <[email]>
wrote:

Don't forget to check with Florida State University, where Baker
apparently claims to have studied and taught at the University level
and which is likely therefore to be the place where he supposedly
tried to get a Ph.D (Ph.D students often teach at the same time as
studying).

I would guess that if Baker did study for a Ph.D then he studied,
taught while studying, submitted his Ph.D and failed, or got told that
he couldn't possibly submit what he had written since it was so poor -
not to mention probably delusional -  (hence the non-appearance of the
supposed Ph.D on UMI, despite the fact that Florida State University
unquestionably published their dissertations there at the time that
Baker claims to have got his Ph.D) which would cover all of the claims
that Baker has made on this group (except for the claim that he made
to be "Rev. Dr. John Baker, Bishop" in his submission for the Hoffman
prize, reprinted on his website - which is probably fraudulent).

Afterwards, by this scenario, Baker went on to either purchase a fake
Ph.D or simply lied about having received one from FSU.  I am sure
that Florida State University would be most concerned to hear that
somebody was falsely claiming to have received a Doctorate, and
hinting heavily that it was from them.  If Baker isn't suggesting that
he got his Ph.D at FSU, then he is making the equally broad claim that
they employed him to teach at University level after he received a
Ph.D from another institution, a claim which FSU would probably also
be interested in if it wasn't true.

Thomas Larque.

"Shakespeare and His Critics"
http://shakespearean.org.uk


text:
On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 06:05:44 GMT, "Tom Reedy" <[email]>
wrote:

You do that, Tom.  But the question is what town is my home town?  Who
am I?    Where do I really live?

john

John Baker

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

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


text:
Let's be specific: John Baker is an intellectual psychopath bent
on disrupting the search for reliable data and surmises regarding
the Shakespeare Authorship Question with lies, irrelevancies and
mere quantity of repetitious tangled idiocies (e.g., see his latest
27 or 28 posts).  There are people who believe, as he says he does,
that Marlowe was Shakespeare who would agree with this assessment.

                                                   --Bob G.


text:
On 10 Jan 2002 05:08:49 GMT, [email] (KQKnave) wrote:

not so.

True.

John Baker

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

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


text:
No chance of my killing myself, John.  So far you haven't even
established that you have ANY academic credentials, and I was not
after academice credentials, but evidence of a functioning mind,
which you have failed utterly to provide.
--Bob G.

                                                 --Bob G.


text:
[email] (KQKnave) wrote in message news:<[email]>...

I'm not Baker.

I suppose I could send an e-mail from
my IP proving that the trace route is not the same as
Baker's.  I use a local IP that doesn't reach
Baker's area code.

I don't think it's worth it.

I also think this rant on Baker is killing HLAS.

Good people like Peter Farey are leaving.

Also, for every poster there are at least ten lurkers--
it's like talk radio where there are a hundred listeners
for every caller.

This Baker fixation is driving people away.  I know for sure
Baker loves the attention but let him get a sixth wife or
something.


text:
On 04 Jan 2002 18:53:06 GMT, [email] (KQKnave) wrote:

On the fly!  That's a good joke.  All thing in time Jimbo.  All things
in time.  I hope you'll be reading it soon.

john

John Baker

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

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


text:
"That particular Ph.D."? Which particular Ph.D.(s) DO you have?

As others have asked you:
  1. What are your degrees?
  2. From what institutions did you receive them?
You understand, I would hope, that I am not interested in hearing
about any course work you took.

I'm afraid you are not "with me" at all, having failed, once again, to
make even a feeble attempt at honestly addressing the questions put to
you.  While nobody has asked any other HLAS contributor for such
information, nobody but you has ever made the sort of ludicrous claims
to scholarship that you have made. Your wild flights of fancy are
entertaining only up to a point.


text:
In article <[email]>, John Baker wrote:

[...]
[...]

   Do you have any *other* Ph.D.s, Baker?  If so, in what field(s),
from what institution(s), and in what year(s)?  If not, what did you
have in mind when, at
<http://iubio.bio.indiana.edu/R10919-11813-/news/bionet/biology/symbiosi

s/10002.newsm>, you signed yourself

   "john baker, phd.
   [email]"?

The question now becomes: how many of your *other* qualifications have
you lied about or simply made up?

   Yes, you've stated it, but you have already squandered what little
credibility you may have possessed by lying about your qualifications,
so your having stated it doesn't count for very much.

   However, I'm more intrigued by your offer to prove a citation to the
appearance of your "work" in _Scientitic American_.  What did you do --
write a letter to the editor or something?  What's the precise
reference?

         David Webb


text:
On Tue, 15 Jan 2002 20:18:52 +0000, Thomas Larque
<[email]> wrote:

OK.  Scrap the speculation.  In the Elizabethan Review there is a
categorical statement: "John Baker, who received his PhD from Florida
State University, has published widely on the Elizabethan period and
the works of Shakespeare".  See
http://www.jmucci.com/ER/articles/erlett.htm .

This means that a letter or E-Mail to Florida State University
pointing out that Baker has made this claim despite the fact that his
Doctorate has not been published on UMI (as it would have been had he
received one), giving his middle names "John Charles Baker" or "John
Charles Christopher Baker" (I think) and the approximate time that he
claimed to have "taken" his Ph.D (early 70s, as I remember - whoever
does this task should check name and dates on the various threads) and
enclosing the quote from the Elizabethan Review website as evidence
that he has made this claim should receive a reply that will end our
speculation about whether Baker is lying.  I believe that awards of
Degrees are public information, and that Florida State University will
not need permission from Baker before giving us this information.

Since Tom Reedy has volunteered to seek out this information, I
suggest that Reedy send the letter or E-Mail.  If he doesn't, and
nobody else wants to, I suppose that I am quite happy to do so myself.
It might be better for an American to do this, however, since they
will be able to enter into a physical correspondence if this proves
necessary.

Thomas Larque.

"Shakespeare and His Critics"
http://shakespearean.org.uk


text:
<John Baker> wrote in message news:[email]...
news:[email]...
junior
a

Gosh, that's hard!

1822 Van Wormer St.?
Centralia, WA 98531?

Right near Blakeslee Junction?

Need your phone number? Or do you have that tattooed on your arm so the cops
know where to call when you wander off?

TR