10 reasons

owlice · Post by **owlice** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 4:40 pm

Except they didn't get away with it, and that is what is demonstrated by the "Mark Felt" argument.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skep ... s_the_rule

Trying to assert "Mark Felt" as an argument for Oxford doesn't work. Sorry, but you'd be better off coming up with evidence which supports your case for Oxford. For example, screaming "Shakespeare couldn't have written these plays because his daughters were illiterate!" is not evidence nor a logical argument; it's just screaming and fallacious assertion. Please do better.

geckzilla · Post by **geckzilla** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 5:27 pm

Uh oh, Wally's back on Art's chopping block again...

Beyond · Post by **Beyond** » Sat Nov 26, 2011 5:45 pm

Pardon my ignorance...... but who's Wally??

neufer · Post by **neufer** » Sun Nov 27, 2011 9:51 pm

Beyond wrote:
geckzilla wrote:
Uh oh, Wally's back on Art's chopping block again...
Pardon my ignorance...... but who's Wally??

APOD's poster-child:

http://astropics.com/about1.html wrote:
<<Wally Pacholka was an accountant by day, but it's his moonlighting "job" where he's always shined. He's aglow in winning national awards for his pictures, lofty kudos for being in the right place in the middle of nowhere in the dead of night. Pacholka shoots celestial events comets, close visits by other planets, meteor showers and the occasional Milky Way cluster with our national parks and other down-to-earth scenery gracing the foregrounds of his frames.

NASA has shown more than two dozen of his images, including 22 of them as the "Astronomy Picture of the Day" on its Web site.

The 57-year-old Long Beach resident left accounting three years ago and now focuses full time on his passion: sayonara book ledgers and hello rocky ledges, the kind on which he can mount his camera tripod and await the majesty of the heavens. His current project is blazing around the West's bevy of beautiful national parks for some late-night sky collaborations with the stars. He's done the Grand Canyon, Joshua Tree, Arches and others. Next up are Yosemite and Yellowstone. "I feel like I'm on a life's purpose," says Pacholka.

Pacholka's nocturnal wanderlust began as a kid growing up in a small town outside Montreal. "I just love the night sky," he said. "Even as a teenager, I'd be out all hours of the night searching. My friends and family would ask me, Why?' So I started taking pictures of the night sky to show them what they were missing." He lost the night sky after his father moved the family to Los Angeles when Pacholka was 16. But a couple of years later, he got his wheels and fell in love with the desert, where the stars shine brightly away from the city lights. He later discovered Joshua Tree.

As his hobby developed, Pacholka hit upon the idea of using his work to combine the celestial wonder in the lens with the beauty of the landscapes in front of him. Zooming in on an object in the sky can mean great shots, he said, but they offer little or no perspective. By getting earthly scenery and surroundings in the frame, Pacholka opined, "it's more real to the average person."

Pacholka said he employs simple techniques and does nothing extraordinary to get his shots. He uses a standard 50mm lens mounted on a tripod, and points a small flashlight on nearby desirable rocks and other land features he wants to stand out in the photo. He allowed that his digital camera has a light-gathering power that is in some instances more than 50,000 times greater than a typical daylight camera setting. Pacholka runs his exposures anywhere from a few seconds to a minute. But he doesn't consider himself a guru.

The work can mean a great deal of tedium in the inky wilds waiting for the right moment to occur and also can force some odd habits. Such as hiking alone out to Delicate Arch, the signature landmark in Arches National Park in remote eastern Utah, in the wee hours of the night. "It's always interesting to hike somewhere in the dark," he recalled. It was uphill; Pacholka also was lugging 50 pounds of photography equipment. Of hiking solo at that hour, he said, "No one was crazy enough to follow me."

He estimated he took more than 4,000 images of the close Mars approach in 2003 from various parks, and some 2,500-plus shots of Comet Hale-Bopp above Joshua Tree in 1997. That type of devotion and patience can wear on some people. One of them was the lab tech of a one-hour photo shop in Yucca Valley near Joshua Tree. After about 800 images, the guy looked at Pacholka and said, "Don't you have enough pictures of that comet?" While the answer to that is debatable, the fact is that Pacholka didn't have his winning shot yet. "If I had listened to that guy," he noted, "I wouldn't have gotten that picture. He just thought I was this nutcase who was taking all these pictures of a comet, worse than someone with pictures of their grandkids."

In addition to selling his work to various publications, Pacholka is a fixture in gift shops at some national parks. Pacholka said he plans to train his camera on the infinite night sky "forever." He hopes people gain an appreciation for natural wonders and become aware of the issue of light pollution. "We're losing our night skies," he said. "They say 90 percent of the younger generation has never seen the Milky Way. That's because most of them live in cities." But he's seen the Milky Way, first as a kid in wide-eyed fascination and then in a wide-open lens as a cool talent. Now he frames it and other heavenly attractions as eye candy for stargazers and park lovers alike.>>

neufer · Post by **neufer** » Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:31 pm

owlice wrote:
Except they didn't get away with it,

But they almost got away with it in spite of the existence of:

1) Mark Felt
2) Bob Woodward & Carl Bernstein
3) Freedom of the press.

owlice wrote:
Trying to assert "Mark Felt" as an argument for Oxford doesn't work.

Orloff is trying to assert "Mark Felt" as an argument for the real existence of political conspiracies.

Just because one can never permanently get away with scientific conspiracies (e.g., Lysenkoism, Aristotelian cosmology, etc.)
doesn't mean that successful political conspiracies don't occur every day that will never be revealed.

owlice wrote:
For example, screaming "Shakespeare couldn't have written these plays because his daughters were illiterate!"
is not evidence nor a logical argument;

"Shakspere could NOT have written these plays for no other reason
than the fact that his daughters were illiterate

"

Of course, there are hundreds of other excellent reasons to dethrone the Stratman but
this one really should be sufficient for anyone with a modicum of common sense.

- The Merchant of Venice Act 1, Scene 2
PORTIA: You know I say nothing to him, for he understands
- not me, nor I him: he hath neither Latin, French,
  nor Italian, and you will come into the court and
  swear that I have a poor pennyworth in the English.
  He is a proper man's picture, but, alas, who can
  converse with a dumb-show? How oddly he is suited!
  I think he bought his doublet in Italy, his round
  hose in France, his bonnet in Germany and his
  behavior every where.

owlice · Post by **owlice** » Sun Nov 27, 2011 11:23 pm

neufer wrote:Orloff is trying to assert "Mark Felt" as an argument for the real existence of political conspiracies.

Who has said political conspiracies have not existed? Oh, right... Orloff claims his opponents have, which is the straw man argument. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skep ... html#straw

neufer wrote:Just because one can never permanently get away with scientific conspiracies (e.g., Lysenkoism, Aristotelian cosmology, etc.) doesn't mean that successful political conspiracies don't occur every day that will never be revealed.

Mark Felt demonstrates how hard it is to get away with political conspiracies.

neufer wrote:
"Shakspere could NOT have written these plays for no other reason
than the fact that his daughters were illiterate "

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skep ... #vehemence
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skep ... ml#begging

Evidence, Art. Facts. Please. Thanks.

Beyond · Post by **Beyond** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 12:23 am

It's a good thing that "Wally" is an accountant, or it would be hard to keep track of all the awards, kudos and APODs to his credit. No wonder i didn't know who he was. He's too well known

neufer · Post by **neufer** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 12:45 am

owlice wrote:
neufer wrote:
Orloff is trying to assert "Mark Felt" as an argument for the real existence of political conspiracies.
Who has said political conspiracies have not existed? Oh, right... Orloff claims his opponents have, which is the straw man argument.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skep ... html#straw

Two can play that game:

. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skep ... l#needling
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skep ... #authority
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skep ... #bandwagon
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skep ... #dismissal
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skep ... l#laziness
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skep ... html#charm
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skep ... tml#dogged
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skep ... s.html#age
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skep ... tml#burden

Beyond · Post by **Beyond** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 1:05 am

Heh-heh, IF Shakespeare could read this thread... He'd write another play - much more ado about nothing.

i wonder if the alien has access to the internet?

owlice · Post by **owlice** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 2:10 am

lol, Beyond!

neufer, I'm not the one making the extraordinary claim... you are. Right now, your posts read remarkably like... well, pretty much any conspiracy theorist's. I don't know if you can't make a logical argument for your case, or you just don't want to. At this point, I suppose it doesn't matter.

neufer · Post by **neufer** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 5:58 am

owlice wrote:
neufer, I'm not the one making the extraordinary claim... you are.

Nothing could possibly be more extraordinary than the claim that the author of Shakespeare spent the last years of his life living in the boondocks with his illiterate family suing his neighbors for shillings & pence (which is essentially what every honest Stratfordian bio admits).

owlice wrote:
Right now, your posts read remarkably like... well, pretty much any conspiracy theorist's.

owlice wrote:
I don't know if you can't make a logical argument for your case, or you just don't want to.

I have made quite a few logical arguments;
I think that even Ann would agree about that.

owlice · Post by **owlice** » Mon Nov 28, 2011 12:17 pm

http://asterisk.apod.com/viewtopic.php? ... 19#p160491

Ann · Post by **Ann** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 5:04 am

Art wrote:

I have made quite a few logical arguments;
I think that even Ann would agree about that.

You have, Art. But more than that, you have made me think about two questions:

1) Does it matter if the works of Shakespeare were written by the man from Stratford or by the man from Oxford?

2) Why are so many people (myself included) so attached to the idea of Shakespeare that we have grown up with?

3) What did that video by Roland Emmerich, "10 Reasons", really try to tell us?

Let me start by the second question. Why are many of us so fond of the following people (or "people")?

Personally, I think that very many of us like the above "people" so much because they are icons belonging to a large international cultural heritage. These icons are far more than characters. They are caricatures, and still more, they are symbols. We can navigate through the wilderness of reality by finding our position in relation to these cultural lighthouses. These symbols are complete with a perfectly well-known appearance and a set of well-defined characteristics, which may or may not have had much to to with the actual person who once bore their names. Please note that four of the five persons here are dead, and the fifth was never alive. Therefore their appearances and their characteristics are set in stone. They are unchanging and "safe" in a stormy and uncertain reality.

Shakespeare, too, is one of these immortal cultural icons. We know his name, William Shakespeare, his appearance - he looked like that, didn't he? - and we know when he lived and died and where he was born, which was in Stratford. And we know that he was the greatest writer ever known because he made Hamlet say "To be or not to be", and he created Romeo and Juliet, too. And we know that if we quote Shakespeare when we say something, our words will seem to be "more true" because we are quoting Shakespeare. Do we need to know more about Shakespeare? No, this is exactly how much we need to know in order to make Shakespeare one of those unchanging bastions of reality with whose help we navigate through our own uncertain existence.

But two of the cultural symbols here have produced works that should be regarded as more important than even their own symbolic importance, or so I think anyway. Isn't the theory of general relativity worth more than Einstein? Isn't the fact that our understanding of the universe has increased so enormously through general relativity worth more than the fact that Einstein has become a shaggy-haired symbol of absolute genius?

Similarly, aren't the works of Shakespeare worth more, to us at least, than the man who actually wrote them? What does it really matter if their author was actually the 17th Earl of Oxford? Does that add or detract from the value of the fantastic plays themselves?

I have an amazing colleague, Anna, whose grasp of the English language is at least twice as good as my own. She is also generally a source of fantastic knowledge, and she once took part in one of those TV shows, "Who Knows Most?", or whatever those shows might be called in English. She didn't win, but she came in second.

Anyway, I asked Anna about her opinion about Shakespeare and the 17th Earl of Oxford. "Oh, I always start off by telling my students that some people believe that the works of Shakespeare were written by Edward de Vere!" she said. "I tell them about Edward de Vere, and then I tell them about William Shakespeare from Stratford, and then we concentrate on discussing the plays. I guess I believe that the plays were written by William Stratford rather than Edward de Vere... or rather, no, I don't know what I believe. Frankly, I don't care who wrote them."

I agree with Anna. The plays are very important, but the identity of their author doesn't matter that much. The plays are here, and much of what is in them can still speak to us, but whoever wrote them has been dead for about four hundred years.

So what was Roland Emmerich trying to do with his "10 Reasons"?

First of all, he was trying to advertise his movie. That was most definitely his primary purpose.

But I also think he was saying..."Hey people, I'm going to destroy one of your most beloved icons. I'm going to smear and degrade one of those bastions of reality that you use to navigate through your own stormy existence. One of the symbols that helps you think about reality and formulate ideas. I'm going to destroy that symbol. And I'm going to laugh as I'm doing it."

That is what I think Roland Emmerich was saying to us in his video, "10 Reasons". And that is certainly one of the reasons why he got off on the wrong foot with me, and perhaps with a lot of other people too.

Art, it has been interesting. Really and truly. I have enjoyed myself very, very much. But I think that, in the long run, we will never know who wrote the works of Shakespeare, and, bottom line, it doesn't matter to most of us who really wrote them.

But we do like our unchanging comfortable symbols, our Einstein, Elvis, Marilyn, Mickey Mouse, Tutankhamen and Shakespeare. So, Art, you may remember that I said that I "sort of believe" that the man from Stratford wrote the works of Shakespeare. Perhaps I was really saying that I don't know who wrote the works of Shakespeare, but that I like my well-known "Shakespeare icon", the picture of the man with the receding hairline, a ring in his ear and a ridiculous collar, quietly mumbling to himself, To be or not to be, that is the question, a mental image of one of the greatest writers in the history of humanity which is as comfortable to me as an extremely old pair of shoes. Yes, I think that is what I was saying.

But I was saying, too, that I don't deny that conspiracies happen, but that I need a lot of explaining and a lot of good logic and compelling arguments before I will believe in one. And you haven't provided what I need in the case of Shakespeare and Edward de Vere, Art.

Ann

neufer · Post by **neufer** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:45 pm

Ann wrote:
I have an amazing colleague, Anna, whose grasp of the English language is at least twice as good as my own. She is also generally a source of fantastic knowledge, and she once took part in one of those TV shows, "Who Knows Most?", or whatever those shows might be called in English. She didn't win, but she came in second.

Anyway, I asked Anna about her opinion about Shakespeare and the 17th Earl of Oxford. "Oh, I always start off by telling my students that some people believe that the works of Shakespeare were written by Edward de Vere!" she said. "I tell them about Edward de Vere, and then I tell them about William Shakespeare from Stratford, and then we concentrate on discussing the plays. I guess I believe that the plays were written by William Stratford rather than Edward de Vere... or rather, no, I don't know what I believe. Frankly, I don't care who wrote them."

I agree with Anna. The plays are very important, but the identity of their author doesn't matter that much. The plays are here, and much of what is in them can still speak to us, but whoever wrote them has been dead for about four hundred years.

But, fundamentally, it does matter who wrote Shakespeare.

Just as it does matter , fundamentally, who wrote the works of Louisa May Alcott, L. Frank Baum, Samuel Beckett, Saul Bellow, Charlotte Bronte, Lewis Carroll, Cervantes, Joseph Conrad, Daniel Defoe, Charles Dickens, Ralph Ellison, William Faulkner, F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ian Fleming, Graham Greene, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Ernest Hemingway, Aldous Huxley, Rudyard Kipling, Harper Lee, C.S. Lewis, Norman Mailer, Herman Melville, Margaret Mitchell, Toni Morrison, George Orwell, Sylvia Plath, Edgar Allan Poe, Salman Rushdie, John Steinbeck, Mark Twain, Kurt Vonnegut and Oscar Wilde.

If one is a Shakespearean actor (like Derek Jacobi) or Shakespearean director it is particularly critical to know who wrote Shakespeare.

geckzilla · Post by **geckzilla** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:02 pm

What are they going to call these Shakespearean actors and directors if everyone suddenly decides Mr. Boob the Illiterate didn't actually write them?

neufer · Post by **neufer** » Tue Nov 29, 2011 7:35 pm

geckzilla wrote:
What are they going to call these Shakespearean actors and directors if everyone suddenly decides Mr. Boob the Illiterate didn't actually write them?

Shakespearean actors and directors, of course.

Caravaggio (Michelangelo Merisi)
Donatello (Donato di Niccolò di Betto Bardi)
El Greco (Dominikos Theotokópulos)
Marc Chagall (Moishe Shagal)
Raphael (Raffaello Sanzio da Urbino)
Tintoretto (Jacopo Robusti)
Titian {Tiziano Vecelli)
Ann Landers (Esther "Eppie" Pauline Friedman Lederer)
Anatole France (Jacques Anatole François Thibault)
Anne Rice (Howard Allen O'Brien, Anne Rampling and A.N. Roquelaure)
Ayn Rand (Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum)
Daniel Defoe (Daniel Foe)
Dear Abby (Pauline Esther Friedman Phillips)
Dr. Seuss (Theodor Seuss Geisel)
George Eliot (Mary Ann Evans)
George Orwell (Eric Arthur Blair)
George Sand (Amandine Dupin)
Hergé (Georges Remi)
John le Carré (David John Moore Cornwell)
Joseph Conrad (Józef Teodor Nałęcz Konrad Korzeniowski)
Lemony Snicket (Daniel Handler)
Lewis Carroll (Charles Lutwidge Dodgson)
Mark Twain (Samuel Langhorne Clemens)
Molière (Jean-Baptiste Poquelin)
O. Henry (William Sydney Porter)
Toni Morrison (Chloe Anthony Wofford)
Voltaire (François-Marie Arouet)
Woody Allen (Allen Stewart Konigsberg)

neufer · Post by **neufer** » Wed Nov 30, 2011 10:20 pm

Chris Peterson wrote:
IthinkImSumbuddy wrote:
I had a chuckle at the Wiki link for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Science_Laboratory in the explanation. At the bottom of the page is a photo of Curiosity's tires - they have "JPL" imprinted in the treads in Morse code! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Curio ... e_code.png Dit dit dit Daaahhh!
You'd be amazed how many little Easter eggs referencing JPL or Caltech culture are printed,
stamped, molded, or otherwise present in various spacecraft.

http://www.drjsferris.com/ wrote:
[list]SONNET 76 by EDWARD DE VERE[/list]
Why write I still all one, EVER the same,
And keep invention in a notED WEED,
That EVERY WORD doth almost tell MY NAME,
Showing their birth, and where they did proceed?
----------------------------------------------------------
[list] (Full 14 line) 1609 QUARTO VERSION: [/list]
WHy is my verse so barren of new pride?
So far from variation or quicke change?
Why with the time do I not glance aside
To new found methods,and to compounds strange?
Why write I still all one, euer the same,
And keepe inuention in a noted weed,
That euery word doth almost fel my name,
Shewing their birth,and where they did proceed?
O know sweet loue I alwaies write of you,
And you and loue are still my argument:
So all my best is dressing old words new,
Spending againe what is already spent:
For as the Sun is daily new and old,
So is my loue still telling what is told,

[c]Presented as a perfect 14 x 32 Array [/c][/b]

neufer · Post by **neufer** » Sat Dec 03, 2011 2:33 pm

----------------------------------------------------------------------
April 23, 1616: Miguel de Cervantes dies
April 23, 1616: William Shakspere dies on his 52th birthday
..............................................................
April 6, 1520 Good Friday: RAPHAEL dies on his 37th birthday
April 6, 1928 Good Friday: Start of Faulkner's _The SOUND & the FURY_
..............................................................
April 6, 648 BC Friday: ARCHILOCHUS solar eclipse
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archilochus wrote:
[size=150][color=#0000FF]April 6, 648 BC Friday: ARCHILOCHUS solar eclipse[/color][/size]
<<Archilochus (Greek: Ἀρχίλοχος) (c. 680 BC – c. 645 BC) is a poet who lived on the island of Paros in the Archaic period in Greece whose innovative poetry, in various meters, was the first to focus upon personal experiences and emotions.

Information about the life of Archilochus derives from his surviving work, the testimony of other authors, and inscriptions upon monuments. The vivid language and intimate details of the poems suggest that they are autobiographical but it is known, on the authority of Aristotle, that Archilochus sometimes role-played — and the philosopher quotes two fragments as examples of an author speaking in somebody else's voice. In one as a carpenter named Charon, expressing his indifference to the wealth of Gyges, the king of Lydia, and in the other Archilochus is said to be speaking in the voice of an unnamed father, commenting on a recent eclipse of the sun:

"Nothing can be surprising any more or impossible or miraculous, now that Zeus, father of the Olympians has made night out of noonday, hiding the bright sunlight, and . . . fear has come upon mankind. After this, men can believe anything, expect anything. Don't any of you be surprised in future if land beasts change places with dolphins and go to live in their salty pastures, and get to like the sounding waves of the sea more than the land, while the dolphins prefer the mountains."

One modern scholar has suggested that imaginary characters and situations might have been a feature of the "iambus" poetic tradition within which Archilochus composed. If we assume that Charon and the unnamed father were speaking about events that Archilochus had experienced himself, they give us some clues about the chronology of his life. Gyges reigned 687 BC — 652 BC, and the date of the eclipse must have been 6 April 648 BC. The dates are consistent with other evidence of the poet's chronology and reported history, such as the discovery at Thasos of a cenotaph, dated around the end of the seventh century, dedicated to a friend who is named in several fragments: Glaucus, son of Leptines.

Although his work only survives in fragments, he was revered by the ancient Greeks as one of their most brilliant authors, and mentioned in the same breath as Homer and Hesiod. He was also censured by them as the archetypal poet of blame — his invective was said to have driven his former fiancee and her father to suicide. He presented himself as a man of few illusions, either in love or war, such as in the following elegy, where discretion is taken to be the better part of valour:

"One of the tribesmen in Thrace now delights in the shield I discarded
Unwillingly near a bush, for it was perfectly good,
But at least I got myself safely out. Why should I care for that shield?
Let it go. Some other time I'll find another no worse."
Archilochus was much imitated, by Latin as well as Greek poets, and three other distinguished poets claimed to have also thrown away their shields — Alcaeus, Anacreon and Horace. Sometime in the third century BC a sanctuary to Archilochus was established on his home island of Paros, where his admirers could sacrifice to him, and Apollo, Dionysus, and the Muses. Inscriptions found on orthostats from the sanctuary include quoted verses and historical references. In one, we are told that his father Telesicles once sent Archilochus to fetch a cow from the fields, but that he chanced to meet a group of women who vanished with the animal, leaving him a lyre in its place — they were the Muses and they had selected him as a protégé. According to the same inscription, this omen was later confirmed by the oracle at Delphi.>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
________ References to Archilochus by other poets

Pindar: "But I must shun the deep bite of slander. For at a far remove I have seen fault-finding Archilochus many times in his helplessness fattening himself on the harsh words of hate."

Callimachus: "Archilochus drew in the dog's pungent bile and the wasp's sharp sting, and he has his mouth's venom from both"

Theocritus: "Stop and look upon Archilochus, the iambic poet of old, whose vast fame has spread from the sun's rising to its setting. In truth the Muses and Delian Apollo loved him, so musical was he and skilful in composing verses and singing them to the lyre."

Horace: "I was the first to show Latium the iambics of Paros, following the rhythms and spirit of Archilochus, but not the subject matter and words that assailed Lycambes"

"Beware, beware, for with the utmost ferocity I lift my ready horns against evildoers, just like the scorned son-in-law of treacherous Lycambes..."

Ovid: "Afterwards, if you continue, my unrestrained iambics will launch against you shafts tinged with the blood of Lycambes"

Martial: "What does it avail me when certain people wish to pass off as mine whatever shafts drip with the blood of Lycambes...?"

Ruby-throated: Archilochus colubris ______ Black-chinned: Archilochus alexandri
[list]----------------------------------------------------------------------
April 6, _610 Monday: Koran descends to Earth
April 6, 1327 Monday: Petrarch meets LAURA
April 6, 1528 Monday: DURER dies
April 6, 1584 Monday: Edward de Vere's daughter BRIDGET born
April 6, 1590 Monday: Sir Francis Walsingham dies
-------------------------------------------------------------------------[/list]

neufer · Post by **neufer** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 5:21 am

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/2011/11/21/111121sh_shouts_idle wrote:
The New Yorker (Shouts & Murmurs)

Who Wrote Shakespeare?
by Eric Idle* November 21, 2011

* (Most likely Michael Palin, really.)
ILLUSTRATION: Jim Stoten
<<While it is perfectly obvious to everyone that Ben Jonson wrote all of Shakespeare’s plays, it is less known that Ben Jonson’s plays were written by a teen-age girl in Sunderland, who mysteriously disappeared, leaving no trace of her existence, which is clear proof that she wrote them. The plays of Marlowe were actually written by a chambermaid named Marlene, who faked her own orgasm, and then her own death in a Deptford tavern brawl. Queen Elizabeth, who was obviously a man, conspired to have Shakespeare named as the author of his plays, because how could a man who had only a grammar-school education and spoke Latin and a little Greek possibly have written something as bad as “All’s Well That Ends Well”? It makes no sense. It was obviously an upper-class twit who wished to disguise his identity so that Vanessa Redgrave could get a job in her old age.

Many people believe that Richard III not only was a good man who would never hurt a fly but actually wrote “She Stoops to Conquer,” and that the so-called author, Oliver Goldsmith, found the play under a tree in 1773 while visiting Bosworth Field, now a multistory car park (clearly an attempt to cover up the evidence of the ruse). Oscar Wilde’s plays were written by a stable boy named Simon, though Wilde gave them both a good polish. Chaucer was written by a Frenchman on holiday, while Simone de Beauvoir wrote all of Balzac and a good deal of “Les Misérables,” despite the fact that she was not yet born when she did so. Beau Brummell wrote nearly all of Jane Austen, and two men and a cat wrote most of Charles Dickens, with the exception of “A Tale of Two Cities,” which Napoleon wrote while visiting St. Helena. Incidentally, Napoleon was not Napoleon but a man named Trevor Francis, who later turned up playing for Birmingham City.

Thomas Jefferson produced the Declaration with the aid of a ghostwriter, a woman of color named Betty Mae, who was a non-voluntary worker. “Moby-Dick” was written not by Herman Melville but by Herman Melbrooks, who wrote most of it in Yiddish on the boat over from Coney Island. “The Shorter Pepys,” a Penguin paperback, was actually written by the taller Pepys, a man named Doris Pepys, who was no relation but worked as a candle cleaner in Wapping (home of the Liar). Henry James did write all of his own works, because nobody else could be that boring, and, more significant, no one else has ever bothered to claim them.

Mere lack of evidence, of course, is no reason to denounce a theory. Look at intelligent design. The fact that it is bollocks hasn’t stopped a good many people from believing in it. Darwinism itself is only supported by tons of evidence, which is a clear indication that Darwin didn’t write his books himself. They were most likely written by Jack the Ripper, who was probably King Edward VII, since all evidence concerning this has been destroyed.

Paranoia? Of course not. It’s alternative scholarship. What’s wrong with teaching alternative theories in our schools? What are liberals so afraid of? Can’t children make up their own minds about things like killing and carrying automatic weapons on the playground? Bush was right: no child left unarmed. Why this dictatorial approach to learning, anyway? What gives teachers the right to say what things are? Who’s to say that flat-earthers are wrong? Or that the Church wasn’t right to silence Galileo, with his absurd theory (actually written by his proctologist) that the earth moves around the sun. Citing “evidence” is so snobbish and élitist. I think we all know what lawyers can do with evidence. Look at Shakespeare. Poor bloke. Wrote thirty-seven plays, none of them his.>>

Ann · Post by **Ann** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 5:45 am

Thanks, Art, I loved that one. I was laughing several body parts off, until the stuff got serious in the end and I could collect missing pieces of myself and put myself together.

Ann

neptunium · Post by **neptunium** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 4:02 am

I just read somewhere that Shakespeare wrote using iambic pentameter. Which makes me wonder:

owlice wrote:
neufer wrote:
owlice wrote:Must go feed my meter; have fun!
Is it by any chance an iambic penta-meter
No, just parking.

Neufer, why did you think that owlice was feeding, of all things, an iambic penta-meter

starstruck · Post by **starstruck** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 7:42 am

Click to play embedded YouTube video.

er . . . is this the right room for an argument?

Ann · Post by **Ann** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 1:57 pm

That was just so funny, Starstruck! Of course, my favorite is the Silly Walks. Or perhaps it is the Olympic Games, and the 100 meter dash for people with no sense of direction. Or the marathon for incontinent people... or...

Ann

rstevenson · Post by **rstevenson** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 3:17 pm

... Upper Class Twit of The Year (aka Edward de Vere) ...

Rob

neufer · Post by **neufer** » Tue Feb 07, 2012 5:18 pm

Psnarf wrote:--
Obquote:

"Good friend, for Jesus' sake, forbeare
To dig the dust enclosed heare!
Blest be ye man that spares thes stones
And curst be he that moves my bones."
-William Shakespeare, Holy Trinity Church, Stratford-upon-Avon, England.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14662/14 ... 4662-h.htm
http://www.presscom.co.uk/halliwell/newboke.html pg. 65.
http://www.project-hamlet.info/playwright.html
http://lightnincharlie.com/Page4.html
http://oreald.com/b4/ch148.html

http://shakespeareauthorship.com/monrefs.html wrote:
_Seventeenth-century References to Shakespeare's Stratford Monument_ by David Kathman

<<In 1631, a year before his death, John Weever published Ancient Funerall Monuments. Shakespeare's monument does not appear in the published book, but two of Weever's notebooks, containing his drafts for most of the book as well as many unpublished notes, survive as Society of Antiquaries MSS. 127 and 128. In one of these notebooks, under the heading "Stratford upon Avon," Weever recorded the poems from
Shakespeare's monument and his gravestone, as follows:

Good frend for Iesus sake forbeare
To digg the dust enclosed heare
Blest bee ye man that spares these stones
And curst bee hee that moves my bones.

Code: Select all

______   <= 18 =>
.
. G o o  d  f r e n d f o R I e s u s s
. a k e  f  o r b e a r E T o d i g g t
. h{E D [U] s t e n c L o s e d h e a r
. e B l [E] s t b e E y e m a n t h a t
. s p a [R] e s t H e s e s t o n e s A
. n d c [U] r s t b e e h e e t h a t m
. o v e [S] M y b o n e s

. Shakespeare's *PHOENIX AND TURTLE*
.

LET the bird of loudest lay,
On the sole Arabian tree,
Herald sad and trumpet be,
To whose sound chate wings obey.
But tho shrieking harbinge,
Foul precurrer of th[E] fiend,
Augur of the fe[V]er's end,
To this troop {COME} thou not near!

Code: Select all

______   <= 18 =>   {Prob. of *VERUS* ~ 1 in 1600  (any skip)}
.
.  L e t t h e b i r d o f l o u d e s
.  t l a y O n t h e s o l e A r a b i
.  a n t r e e H e r a l d s a d a n d
.  t r u m p e t b e T o w h o s e s o
.  u n d c h a[S]t e w i n g s o b e y
_- B u t t h o[U]s h r i e k i n g h a
_- r b i n g e[R]F o u l p r e c u r r
__-e r o f t h[E]f i e n d A u g u r o
___f t h e f e[V]E R{S}e n d T o t h i
_  s t r o o p{C O M E}t h o u n o t n e a r

Edouardus *VERUS , COMES* Oxoniae, etc.
.
= Edward *DE VERE, EARL* of Oxford, etc. (in Latin):
http://comp.uark.edu/~mreynold/aulicus.html

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

Re: 10 reasons

Re: 10 reasons

Re: 10 reasons

Re: 10 reasons

Re: 10 reasons

de Vere was Here

Archilochus eclipse

Re: 10 reasons

Re: 10 reasons

Re: 10 reasons

Re: 10 reasons

Re: 10 reasons

Re: 10 reasons

Re: 10 reasons