10 reasons

[rstevenson]

Anyone capable of carrying on this discussion at this length automatically qualifies as a kookie. Ann's certification document is in the mail.

Rob

[neufer]

If you have a case, try making it rationally in your own words without the rabidness.
Or don't; you don't really have the patience to do so anyway, right? Right.

I have already made a case in my own words and you act as if you can't hear me. (It is like talking to a brick wall.)

This thread started with a video of Roland Emmerich trying to make a rational case in his own words and you dismissed it as a movie ad.

I then posted a video of Keir Cutler trying to make a rational case in his own words and you ignored it.

Then I point to some very gutsy English professors and actors along with many ordinary Shakespeare lovers who are fascinated by this mystery but are treated with scorn and derision and you fail to recognize their plight.

1) Tradition and a strict literal interpretation of the evidence vaguely suggest that William Shaksper of Stratford was the author.

2) A pilgrimage mecca & mega-tourist trap in Stratford demands that everyone believe that William Shaksper of Stratford was the author.

3) However, common sense and tons of circumstantial evidence all point to William Shaksper NOT being the author.

We have all seen this sort of scenario play out before and we all recognize that eventually common sense and circumstantial evidence will prevail (in spite of how tenaciously the establishment holds out).

All I ask is that anyone interested please go and listen to the Declaration of Reasonable Doubt and consider signing the petition. Thank you.

[owlice]

I have already made a case in my own words and you act as if you can't hear me. (It is like talking to a brick wall.)

You haven't done so here. You have, as you have pointed out, started the thread with a movie ad, and then continued posting other people's words.

Please keep in mind that just because someone disagrees with your conclusions doesn't mean your argument hasn't been heard. That said, you have not laid out your argument here. Appealing to those who hope to make money from their own thoughts on the matter does not help your own argument. If you're going to appeal to authority, then at the very least apply the same rigor you demand of science; peer-reviewed articles by professionals in the field would be an excellent start.

[neufer]

If you're going to appeal to authority, then at the very least apply the same rigor you demand of science; peer-reviewed articles by professionals in the field would be an excellent start.

Science encourages the testing, modification and occasional overturning of old ideas.

Shakespeare studies demand strict allegiance to old ideas that on their face are quite ludicrous.

One cannot publish authorship issues in peer-reviewed articles...PERIOD (Many have tried.)

Shakespeare studies are corrupted by a small self-serving influential vocal minority who professionally intimidate any academic or actor who dares to bring up the issue. Equating such "Shakespeare scholars" with actual scientists is obscene.

It is sad to see normally common sense people (especially those who don't have to survive as a Shakespearean academic or actor) placing any stamp of approval upon this farcical ivory tower.

[bystander]

The above rant sounds just like any alternative/conspiracy theory advocate. Just because people disagree with you doesn't necessarily make them wrong.

[owlice]

The above rant sounds just like any alternative/conspiracy theory advocate. Just because people disagree with you doesn't necessarily make them wrong.

Bingo.

One cannot publish authorship issues in peer-reviewed articles...PERIOD (Many have tried.)

Then lay out your own arguments without appealing to authority! Sheesh, neufer, how many more ways are you going to employ to avoid doing so?!? On with it, man! Present your case!

[neufer]

The above rant sounds just like any alternative/conspiracy theory advocate.
Just because people disagree with you doesn't necessarily make them wrong.

Bingo.

I actually respect the efficiency of the Stratford Birthplace Trust conspiracy.
(Just do a Google News search on "Edward de Vere" to see what their army of lackeys has achieved lately.)

It's rather the naive amateurs who blindly accept everything that they read in Wikipedia for whom I have no respect.

(I post a lot of Wikipedia stuff myself but I generally edit it first for mistakes.)

One cannot publish authorship issues in peer-reviewed articles...PERIOD (Many have tried.)

Then lay out your own arguments without appealing to authority! Sheesh, neufer, how many more ways are you going to employ to avoid doing so?!? On with it, man! Present your case!

Sheesh, Owlie, how many more times are you going to use the word sheesh (i.e., a religious euphemism that bystander shouldn't allow).

I have already made my case but it is apparently way over your head; besides which it is time that this thread came to an end.

[owlice]

You haven't made your case here for de Vere. You keep saying you have, but where? Where? Elsewhere, yes, but this is not elsewhere.

Or let the thread die, but then... you (sorry) look like a conspiracy theorist. I would not have taken you for one who is scared off so easily; I am very disappointed.

[neufer]

You haven't made your case here for de Vere. You keep saying you have, but where? Where? Elsewhere, yes, but this is not elsewhere.

My case for de Vere is way too long to fit in the margins of the Asterisk*.

But the issue here is not about Edward de Vere
and it is certainly not about the silly Oxfordian premise of _Anonymous_.

The issue here is that the traditional myth of William of Stratford upon Avon
is no more real than the myths of Santa Claus & the Easter Bunny.

Every year pilgrims go to Stratford upon Avon and NORAD tracks Santa Claus.

Or let the thread die, but then... you (sorry) look like a conspiracy theorist.
I would not have taken you for one who is scared off so easily; I am very disappointed.

But I AM a conspiracy theorist; conspiracies make the world go round ... or were you born yesterday?

[owlice]

My case for de Vere is way too long to fit in the margins of the Asterisk*.

So you haven't bothered to make your case. Good. Thank you for (finally!) saying so.

But the issue here is not about Edward de Vere
and it is certainly not about the silly Oxfordian premise of _Anonymous_.

Yeah, it is, for that is how you started the thread.

But I AM a conspiracy theorist

That's too bad, Art.

What a waste. I am very disappointed.

[neufer]

My case for de Vere is way too long to fit in the margins of the Asterisk*.

So you haven't bothered to make your case. Good. Thank you for (finally!) saying so.

It wasn't my original case to begin with.

<<One of my favourite mottoes is from the Sackville coat of arms. It advises “Aut nunquam tentes, aut perfice”
which translates as Yoda’s advice to Luke Skywalker in “Star Wars” (Do or do not. There is no try).>>

"Either do not attempt, or complete."
"Either do it perfectly or do not attempt it at all"

But the issue here is not about Edward de Vere
and it is certainly not about the silly Oxfordian premise of _Anonymous_.

Yeah, it is, for that is how you started the thread.

Listen carefully to how I started the thread:

Click to play embedded YouTube video.

There is absolutely NO mention of Oxford or _Anonymous_

But I AM a conspiracy theorist

That's too bad, Art.

What a waste. I am very disappointed.

The feeling is mutual, Owlie.

(Do you still believe in the tooth fairy )

[TNT]

You guys should consider doing debate. Many replies with quotes and evidence-this would make a great debate! And owlice, you've been like a judge this whole time, criticizing statements and everything.
Who knows; this could work!

[Beyond]

Sheesh, Owlie, how many more times are you going to use the word sheesh (i.e., a religious euphemism that bystander shouldn't allow).

According to Websters New College Dictionary, the definition of -sheesh-, is-->used to express mild annoyance, surprise, or disgust.

Every other place that i found also has the same definition. However... some places also include this-->[an alteration of Jesus]. This alteration comes from someone called Trebek. Trebeck says that he uses it in place of the word Jesus. Why he would this is anyone's guess. But all the refferences that have [alteration of Jesus], list it as coming from Trebek.

So i googled -->author of Trebeck<--, and discovered that he has something to do with the-->Democratic Underground<--. Then i stopped. I got tired of getting No information, except that Trebeck seems to be the only source of any kind of religious connection what-so-ever, to the word "sheesh". Therefore, as far as i am concerned, the only definition for the word sheesh, is that it is used to express mild annoyance, surprise, or disgust. Which seems to be just how owlice used it.
I am Not taking any sides about anything. I have only found that our Wise old, er, Young owl has used the word -sheesh- correctly, as defined by reputable sources.

[neufer]

I got tired of getting No information, except that Trebeck seems to be the only source of any kind of religious connection what-so-ever, to the word "sheesh". Therefore, as far as i am concerned, the only definition for the word sheesh, is that it is used to express mild annoyance, surprise, or disgust. Which seems to be just how owlice used it.

• Jesus: Gee Whiz, Geez (O Pete), Jeesh, Sheesh, Jeepers
  Christ: Crime, Cripes, Criminy, Crud, Creepers, Christopher Columbus
  Jesu Domine: Jimini
  Jesus Christ: Jiminy Cricket, Jeepers creepers
  God: Golly, Gosh, Goodness
  God Damn: Gol dang, Good Grief
  God's wounds: Zounds
  God's hooks (i.e., nails): Gadzooks
  Holy Spirit: Holy Smokes, Holy Smuggletuggles, Holy Cow, Holy Moly

[owlice]

It wasn't my original case to begin with.

http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php? ... 19#p160476

So your intent was just to shill for the movie. Got it. So there was no need for this, then.

Beyond, thanks for looking into the origin and meaning of sheesh. "mild annoyance, surprise, or disgust" Yuppers, that's definitely fits; I'm glad my usage is clear!

[Beyond]

Yuppers

Yuppers

[Beyond]

Gads, neufer, you do get into some very strange stuff. Ok, i give up. Is --Oh, my gosh!-- profanity

[owlice]

Yuppers

Means the same thing as "yup!" !!

[neufer]

It wasn't my original case to begin with.

http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php? ... 19#p160476

So your intent was just to shill for the movie.

No more than your intent is to shill for Anne Hathaway's Cottage.

• Get it

Got it.

• Good.

So there was no need for this, then.

• O, reason not the need

Click to play embedded YouTube video.

Click to play embedded YouTube video.

[bystander]

Alternative Literature

[size=150][i]The Complete Works of William Shakespeare[/i][/size]

---

[rstevenson]

I will not sully the issue of who actually authored the works attributed to Will by offering my worthless opinion. However, I wish to offer these three points for consideration...

1. I am a published author. No, really, I am. I wrote an article for Popular Mechanics magazine, June 1990, pgs. 90 to 99. (Actually I only wrote pg 90 and pg 99; all the intervening space was a fold-out illustration.) At that time and for several years after I could prove, to a standard no doubt acceptable in a court of law, that I actually wrote those words. But could I do so now, a mere 21 years later? I doubt it. I no longer have any of the correspondence that may have contained my handwriting or signature, and I doubt that PM could lay their hands on any of it either. So what exists now, after only 21 years, is an article with my name on it, but no proof that I actually wrote the words.

2. I take care of a web site written by a retired English professor of some small reknown. In this site he has written, among many other things, a nearly book-length exploration of a particular author who wrote "thrillers" in the late 1940s through to the late 1950s, one Harold Ernest Kelly. Kelly wrote many dozens, perhaps hundreds, of books under a number of pseudonyms, and then essentially dropped out of sight. It is now almost impossible to find any solid evidence of who he was, what his life was outside of his identified works, or what became of him. Yet he worked in an era we might reasonably call modern, with modern record keeping, contracts, and so on. In just 70 years or so he's almost gone from any "provable" existence or connection to his works.

3. A test of sorts...

Proposal A: A person named William Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to William Shakespeare.

Proposal B: A person or persons unknown wrote the works attributed to William Shakespeare, but for reasons unknown did not want or need fame or profit from those works and conspired with several others to ensure that one William Shakespeare became known as the author and received all profit from their publication and performance. And no evidence of this fraud has ever come to light.

Occam's Razor suggests Proposal A is the one to believe, short of hard evidence to the contrary.

Rob

[neufer]

Proposal A: A person named William Shakespeare wrote the works attributed to William Shakespeare.

Proposal B: A person or persons unknown wrote the works attributed to William Shakespeare, but for reasons unknown did not want or need fame or profit from those works and conspired with several others to ensure that one William Shakespeare became known as the author and received all profit from their publication and performance. And no evidence of this fraud has ever come to light.

Occam's Razor suggests Proposal A is the one to believe, short of hard evidence to the contrary.

Proposal A: A person named William Shaksper wrote the works attributed to William Shakespeare and then retired to live out the rest of his life with his illiterate family while suing his neighbors for shillings and pence as others profited from publishing his works.

Proposal B: A person or persons unknown in the courts of Elizabeth & James wrote the works attributed to William Shakespeare, but did not want or need fame or profit from those works so he conspired with several others to ensure that the works were published under the pseudonym William Shake-speare.

[owlice]

My understanding is that 1.) de Vere was published under his own name (so was not shy about having his name attached to published poetry); 2.) he needed money.

I personally have known people who have chosen to live with an illiterate spouse for a significant portion of their lives. I'm sure this happened in the Western world even more often in Elizabethan times than it does today.

[neufer]

I personally have known people who have chosen to live with an illiterate spouse for a significant portion of their lives.

Have you personally known Shake-speare?

I'm sure this happened in the Western world even more often in Elizabethan times than it does today.

Not to Shake-speare.

[geckzilla]

I'm completely open to the idea that Shakespeare's works could have been written by someone with a name other than Shakespeare. I only meant to criticize the way the arguments were presented. When you constantly refer to the person in question as an illiterate boob, it doesn't give you any credit. I linked that "Don't be a dick" article for a reason... You could be completely right but if you carry yourself like a dick, no one will listen to you except the people who already agree with you, which just ends up a metaphorical circle jerk.