10 reasons

neufer · Post by **neufer** » Thu Nov 24, 2011 6:57 am

Ann wrote:
But, as for the anti-Stratfordian side - yes, the 17th Earl of Oxford may have written the works of Shakespeare. I'm not convinced, however, because I think that there are very real arguments against him, such as his death in 1604.

It is not at all clear that:

1) Oxford actually did die in 1604 (e.g., no fanfare Earl's funeral, no will, no grave, etc.)

2) or that post 1604 Shakespeare wasn't edited/revised "by committee" a la the King James Bible.

Ann wrote:
And the idea of such a complete cover-up that remained hidden for two hundred years or more is a lot more than a mouthful for me to swallow.

The best conspiracies are the ones that succeed...but, perhaps somehow, you've never heard of them.

Ann wrote:
On the other hand, I can certainly see that there are arguments against Will Shaksper of Stratford as the author of these immortal works.

I can certainly see that there are arguments against Santa Claus bringing everyone presents
on Xmas eve but, then again, there is quite a lot of evidence & tradition in his favor
(; at least, as compared with that supporting the illiterate Stratford boob).

Ann wrote:
So my conclusion, Art, is that we don't know who wrote the works of Shakespeare, and we will probably never know. Like I said, that's what I think. But hey, who knows, some day the anti-Stratfordians may blow the world over with the most amazing proof of their point! It could happen, but I don't think it has happened yet.

People are convicted of capital crimes everyday on far less evidence than what anti-Stratfordians have provided.

And yet, all we are asking is that people sign the "The Declaration of Reasonable Doubt."

owlice · Post by **owlice** » Thu Nov 24, 2011 8:10 am

Art, you might help your case by dropping the fallacious arguments.

TNT · Post by **TNT** » Thu Nov 24, 2011 1:13 pm

Gotcha, Beyond. And I can say, they are not peeing off that bridge. I'm pretty sure that the artist didn't intend for that to be present.
But I just realized that I went to see a play that was Shakespeare-related (can't remember the title), and it was hard to understand. And I think Shakespeare was like that. He may have wanted his works to be vague, so that only the ones who were paying close attention throughout will fully realize what it may really mean. For example, in the book A Midsummer Night's Dream, the character Hippolyta isn't in most of the book, only for the beginning and the end. I think that means something - but what? I've read the book three times and I still can't figure out why he did that. He could've created another scene that explains what went on in the meantime, unless there wasn't anything for her to do, which some would assume to be a lack of creativity.
Art, I'm going to have to agree with Ann on this one. Mayhem Shakespeare wasn't what we thought he was.

Oh, and by the way, ten pages - ridiculous!

neufer · Post by **neufer** » Thu Nov 24, 2011 2:30 pm

TNT wrote:
But I just realized that I went to see a play that was Shakespeare-related (can't remember the title), and it was hard to understand. And I think Shakespeare was like that. He may have wanted his works to be vague, so that only the ones who were paying close attention throughout will fully realize what it may really mean.

Of course you don't understand them

How could you, really

The plays were written specifically for the Elizabethan Court
by a homosexual Earl and they are full of inside jokes:

[list][list]The Merry Wives of Windsor Act 1, Scene 1[/list]
SIMPLE: Book of Riddles! why, did you not lend it to Alice
[list] Shortcake upon All-hallowmas last, a fortnight
afore Michaelmas?[/list][/i][/color][/list]

TNT wrote:
Art, I'm going to have to agree with Ann on this one.

Mayhem Shakespeare wasn't what we thought he was.

Oh, and by the way, ten pages - ridiculous!

. http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php? ... 00#p163065

SIEH ALL, YT HE HATH WRITT,
LEAVES LIVING ART, BVT PAGE,
TO SERVE HIS WITT.

Beyond · Post by **Beyond** » Thu Nov 24, 2011 3:28 pm

neufer wrote:SIEH ALL, YT HE HATH WRITT,
LEAVES LIVING ART, BVT PAGE,
TO SERVE HIS WITT.

Yes, but is it a half - or is it a whole?
Just how the heck are we to know

neufer · Post by **neufer** » Thu Nov 24, 2011 4:23 pm

Beyond wrote:
neufer wrote:
SIEH ALL, YT HE HATH WRITT,
LEAVES LIVING ART, BVT PAGE,
TO SERVE HIS WITT.
Yes, but is it a half - or is it a whole?

NIT picking again

Ann · Post by **Ann** » Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:13 pm

To be...

or not to be...

...Shakespeare...

: Click to view full size image

...from Stratford...

...that is...

..the question!

Ann

Ann · Post by **Ann** » Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:37 pm

The Shaksper boy while at grammar school in Stratford.

The Shaksper boy having left grammar school, still an illiterate, having grown a fondness for quills, and having turned into a delinquent.

The Shaksper boy enjoying a good hair day.

The Shaksper boy afflicted by a bad hair day.

Oh Shaksper, Shaksper, wherefore Art thou so fascinating?

Ann

Beyond · Post by **Beyond** » Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:57 pm

Tis the nit of the wit, you see,
That's the Art of the subject that be.
If it be whole, or if it be half,
does maketh no difference to me.
To Be, or Not to Be, says it all.
Thus the arguments, in the Great hall.
What great fun all this is to be,
Whilst the Alien thus laughs with great glee.

owlice · Post by **owlice** » Thu Nov 24, 2011 6:08 pm

Beyond!!

Beyond · Post by **Beyond** » Fri Nov 25, 2011 12:40 am

owlice wrote:Beyond!!

Thanky, thanky, O' owl of Great wisdom.

neufer · Post by **neufer** » Fri Nov 25, 2011 4:34 am

Beyond wrote:
owlice wrote:
Beyond!!
Thanky, thanky, O' owl of Great wisdom.

ADRIANO DE ARMADO: The *OWL and the CUCKOO*

. It should have followed in the end of our show.

_____ - Love's Labour's Lost Act 5, Scene 2
-------------------------------------------------
_____ King Lear Act 2, Scene 4

KING LEAR: To be a comrade with the *WOLF and OWL*,
-------------------------------------------------
_____ Troilus and Cressida Act 2, Scene 1

AJAX: I bade the vile *OWL* go learn me the tenor
. of the proclamation, and she rails upon me.
-------------------------------------------------
_____ A Midsummer Night's Dream Act 2, Scene 2

TITANIA: The clamorous *OWL* that nightly hoots and wonders
. At our quaint spirits.
-------------------------------------------------
_____ Macbeth Act 2, Scene 4

Old Man: On Tuesday last,
. A falcon, towering in her pride of place,
. Was by a mousing *OWL* hawk'd at and kill'd.

_____ Act 4, Scene 2

LADY MACDUFF: The most diminutive of birds, will fight,
. Her young ones in her nest, against the *OWL*.
. All is the fear and nothing is the love;
. As little is the wisdom, where the flight
. So runs against all reason.
-------------------------------------------------
_____ King Henry VI, Part iii Act 2, Scene 6

EDWARD: Bring forth that fatal *screech-OWL* to our house,
. That nothing sung but death to us and ours:

_____ Act 5, Scene 6

KING HENRY VI: . The *OWL* shriek'd at thy birth,
-------------------------------------------------

owlice · Post by **owlice** » Fri Nov 25, 2011 5:02 am

neufer wrote: AJAX: I bade the vile *OWL* go learn me the tenor

Given some of the tenors I know, I'm not sure one can "learn the tenor" anything!

If the opening had been a soprano, this would have been a much better fit!

neufer · Post by **neufer** » Fri Nov 25, 2011 3:25 pm

owlice wrote:
neufer wrote:
AJAX: I bade the vile *OWL* go learn me the tenor
Given some of the tenors I know, I'm not sure one can "learn the tenor" anything!

Emil Ivanov (Mi Vile Nova )

___ As You Like It Act 4, Scene 3

SILVIUS: My gentle Phebe bid me give you this:
- I know not the contents; but, as I guess
  By the stern brow and waspish action
  Which she did use as she was writing of it,
  It bears an angry tenor: PARDON ME:
  I am but as a guiltless messenger.

Ann · Post by **Ann** » Fri Nov 25, 2011 4:46 pm

owlice wrote:
neufer wrote: AJAX: I bade the vile *OWL* go learn me the tenor
Given some of the tenors I know, I'm not sure one can "learn the tenor" anything!

If the opening had been a soprano, this would have been a much better fit!

English, learn: = Swedish, lära (sig)

English, teach: = Swedish, lära (ut)

Typical Swenglish question: Can you learn me that?

I bade the vile *OWL* go learn me the tenor

Ah!!! My Swedish heart beats merrily in recognition!

They knew how to speak Swenglish in Shakespeare's days!

Ann

owlice · Post by **owlice** » Fri Nov 25, 2011 5:14 pm

neufer wrote:
Emil Ivanov (Mi Vile Nova )

Of course, there are exceptions, and you have mentioned an excellent one!

owlice · Post by **owlice** » Fri Nov 25, 2011 5:18 pm

Ann wrote:Typical Swenglish question: Can you learn me that?

This is not as uncommon an error with native English speakers as one might wish, but now that I've typed that, I want to see whether it comes from Scots, as some language differences here do, because it has just occurred to me that where I hear this most often is in areas with Scots-influenced English. Must investigate!

Beyond · Post by **Beyond** » Fri Nov 25, 2011 6:47 pm

owlice wrote:
Ann wrote:Typical Swenglish question: Can you learn me that?
This is not as uncommon an error with native English speakers as one might wish, but now that I've typed that, I want to see whether it comes from Scots, as some language differences here do, because it has just occurred to me that where I hear this most often is in areas with Scots-influenced English. Must investigate!

Yes, Scotch does have it's influence over many languages.

owlice · Post by **owlice** » Fri Nov 25, 2011 7:39 pm

neufer · Post by **neufer** » Fri Nov 25, 2011 8:45 pm

Click to play embedded YouTube video.

Beyond wrote:
owlice wrote:
Ann wrote:
Typical Swenglish question: Can you learn me that?
This is not as uncommon an error with native English speakers as one might wish, but now that I've typed that, I want to see whether it comes from Scots, as some language differences here do, because it has just occurred to me that where I hear this most often is in areas with Scots-influenced English. Must investigate!
Yes, Scotch does have it's influence over many languages.

neufer · Post by **neufer** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 4:36 am

http://tinyurl.com/742ul4c wrote:
"Anonymous" Screenwriter John Orloff interview
Wednesday, November 23, 2011

<<... the other big point that anti-Oxfordians say is, "Conspiracy! Conspiracy! They never work!"

All I always say is "Mark Felt."  If Mark Felt didn't do what he did, I don't think any of us would have known about Watergate. One man decided to talk to Woodward and Bernstein. If that one man, Deep Throat, didn't go into the bowels of that garage, I think G. Gordon Liddy would still not-be-talking about Watergate. That's my personal opinion. I don't think [John] Ehrlichman would be talking about it. I don't think [H.R.] Haldeman would be talking about it. I don't think [Charles] Colson would be talking about. It would still be an unknown thing, except for one man. Mark Felt.

And that's not in a totalitarian state. That's with a free press. And they almost got away with it.

You're almost asking me to disprove a negative. How do I prove to you successful conspiracies that have existed? There's no way I can do it, because if they're successful I don't know about them.

All realpolitik is conspiracy. That's what realpolitik is. It is conspiracy. Sometimes it's successful. And most of the time it's not.>>

Beyond · Post by **Beyond** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 4:57 am

So... just what is it that Mark Felt? Gradification??

Ann · Post by **Ann** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 7:10 am

So, Art, you mean... that if Mark Felt hadn't been successful, people would still have said, after four hundred years, that Richard Nixon was the greatest President of American history?

My favorite successful super-conspiracy is the one that Robert A. Heinlein related in his sci-fi novel, Double Star. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Star wrote:

The story, which is told in the first person, centers on down-and-out actor Lawrence Smith (stage name Lorenzo Smythe, a.k.a. "The Great Lorenzo"). A brilliant actor and mimic, he is down to his last coin when a spaceman hires him to double for a public figure. It is only when he is on his way to Mars that he finds out how deeply he has been deceived: he will have to impersonate one of the most prominent politicians in the solar system (and one with whose views Smythe deeply disagrees): John Joseph Bonforte. Bonforte is the leader of the Expansionist coalition, currently out of office but with a good chance of changing that at the next general election. Bonforte has been kidnapped by his political opponents, and his aides want Smith to impersonate Bonforte while they try to find him.

How does it all work out? Oh, splendidly! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Star wrote:

Smith takes on not only Bonforte's appearance, but some aspects of his personality.

Wow, Smith takes on Bonforte's appearance! Piece of cake, right? You know, when Ronald Reagan started losing his mental capabilities due to Alzheimers, they could just have had another person replace him! Right? Right? They just had to give the impersonator the right plastic surgery, and hey presto, he would be Reagan! Oh, the impersonator would have to learn to speak"Reaganese" in a Reaganese voice, and he would have to learn to walk and move and carry himself like Reagan, and be as tall as Reagan, but hey, that's easy. Piece of cake. I wonder why no one has done it.

So how did the story about Laurence Smith (a.k.a. Lorenzo Smythe) end? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Star wrote:

At the moment of electoral victory, Bonforte dies of the aftereffects of his kidnapping, and Smythe realizes he has little choice but to assume the role for life. In a retrospective conclusion set twenty-five years later, Lorenzo has 'become' Bonforte, suppressing his own identity permanently. He has been generally successful and has carried forward Bonforte's ideals to the best of his ability.

Impressive! But for some reason, when I read the book, I didn't think this super-successful impersonation act could be done. I was unimpressed by the book's message. Maybe that is why I find it hard to believe in a conspiracy that could hide the identity of the greatest writer ever known for two hundred years, after which the house of cards would suddenly come tumbling down, so that Mark Twain, Sigmund Freud and others could see not only that Shakespeare was really the 17th Earl of Oxford, but also that Shakespeare's (and Oxford's) contemporaries and their descendants for the next two centuries had been completely and collectively fooled.

Ann

owlice · Post by **owlice** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 9:47 am

neufer wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/742ul4c wrote:
"Anonymous" Screenwriter John Orloff interview
Wednesday, November 23, 2011

<<... the other big point that anti-Oxfordians say is, "Conspiracy! Conspiracy! They never work!"

All I always say is "Mark Felt."  >>

Any fallacious argument to hawk one's product, I suppose. Mark Felt is proof as to how hard conspiracies are to pull off, not the other way around.

And Orloff definitely knows how to use language to manipulate his message.

neufer · Post by **neufer** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 3:49 pm

owlice wrote:
neufer wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/742ul4c wrote:
"Anonymous" Screenwriter John Orloff interview
Wednesday, November 23, 2011

<<... the other big point that anti-Oxfordians say is, "Conspiracy! Conspiracy! They never work!"

All I always say is "Mark Felt."  >>
Any fallacious argument to hawk one's product, I suppose.

owlice wrote:
Mark Felt is proof as to how hard conspiracies are to pull off, not the other way around.

And Orloff definitely knows how to use language to manipulate his message.

Click to play embedded YouTube video.

JOHN ORLOFF: I'm actually fourth-generation film business.
My great-grandparents were Fibber McGee and Molly.
(Jim Jordan and Marian Jordan.)

That's what I love about you, Owlice;
... you grasp things so quickly.

http://tinyurl.com/742ul4c wrote:
"Anonymous" Screenwriter John Orloff interview

<<  If Mark Felt didn't do what he did, I don't think any of us would have known about Watergate. One man decided to talk to Woodward and Bernstein. If that one man, Deep Throat, didn't go into the bowels of that garage, I think G. Gordon Liddy would still not-be-talking about Watergate. That's my personal opinion. I don't think [John] Ehrlichman would be talking about it. I don't think [H.R.] Haldeman would be talking about it. I don't think [Charles] Colson would be talking about. It would still be an unknown thing, except for one man. Mark Felt.

And that's not in a totalitarian state. That's with a free press. And they almost got away with it.>>

Starship Asterisk*

10 reasons

Re: 10 reasons

Re: 10 reasons

Re: 10 reasons

Re: 10 reasons

Re: 10 reasons

Re: 10 reasons

Re: 10 reasons

Re: 10 reasons

Re: 10 reasons

Re: 10 reasons

Re: 10 reasons

The OWL and the CUCKOO

Re: The OWL and the CUCKOO

Re: The OWL and the CUCKOO

Re: The OWL and the CUCKOO

Re: The OWL and the CUCKOO

Re: The OWL and the CUCKOO

Re: The OWL and the CUCKOO

Re: 10 reasons

Re: The OWL and the CUCKOO

Mark Felt

Re: 10 reasons

Re: 10 reasons

Re: Mark Felt

Re: Mark Felt