10 reasons

[owlice]

Reliance on fallacious arguments (still) does not advance the position.

[neufer]

Reliance on fallacious arguments (still) does not advance the position.

Well I can't argue with that.
........................................................................................................
Fallacy, n. [OE. fallace, fallas, deception, F. fallace, fr. L. fallacia, fr. fallax deceitful, deceptive, fr. fallere to deceive.]

• 1. Deceptive or false appearance; deceitfulness; that which misleads the eye or the mind; deception.
  
  2. (Logic) An argument, or apparent argument, which professes to be decisive of the matter at issue, while in reality it is not.
  ........................................................................................................

Have you actually studied the arguments that favor Shakspere of Stratford as the author
promoted primarily by the well funded Stratford Birthplace Trust
which professes to be decisive of the matter at issue

<<A fallacy is an argument that uses poor reasoning. An argument can be fallacious whether or not its conclusion is true. A fallacy can be either formal or informal. An error that stems from a poor logical form is sometimes called a formal fallacy or simply an invalid argument. An informal fallacy is an error in reasoning that does not originate in improper logical form. Arguments committing informal fallacies may be formally valid, but still fallacious. Some fallacies are committed intentionally (to manipulate or persuade by deception), others unintentionally due to carelessness or ignorance.

Fallacies of presumption fail to prove the conclusion by assuming the conclusion in the proof. Fallacies of weak inference fail to prove the conclusion with insufficient evidence. Fallacies of distraction fail to prove the conclusion with irrelevant evidence, like emotion. Fallacies of ambiguity fail to prove the conclusion due to vagueness in words, phrases, or grammar.>>

[neufer]

Art, not that I'm a prominent person and not that being prominent is important here, but you may add me to the list of "middle grounders" with a reasonable doubt. As stated earlier, I think it's too late for this mystery to ever be resolved with certainty, and as such I really do think that such modern attempts fall into the category of pseudo-history. You don't have to go back more than a few generations before historical "facts" become extremely unclear.

Thanks, Nitpicker. Feel free to add your own name to the list of "middle grounders" with a reasonable doubt (... or not).

Personally, I prefer to think that the commoner, William Shakespeare, was the author, as I appreciate the works more this way. I find the works to be reflective of humanity in a universal sense, more so than in an elitist sense. But that is merely my preference and my opinion.

I'm pro-choice myself.

I understand you feel differently and passionately about this and I certainly think you have a superior knowledge of the authorship issue and the works as well. But I remain far more impressed with your superior knowledge of physics and astronomy. (And I'm ambivalent regarding your habit of reposting vast chunks of the interwebs which hold only tenuous connections to the topic at hand.)

I feel passionately about trying to understand many thing to the best of my ability; it's just that I have been studying math, physics and astronomy far longer than the twenty odd years I have spent on the authorship issue. And while I can't come close to doing cutting edge math, physics or astronomy (any more ) I still retain the capacity to do cutting edge research on authorship.

I'm ambivalent regarding your habit of reposting vast chunks of the interwebs which hold only tenuous connections to the topic at hand.

I do it mostly for myself but...
I also hold out the hope that it might amuse some others
and (most importantly) force them to think outside of the box.

[rstevenson]

I also hold out the hope that it might amuse some others
and (most importantly) force them to think outside of the box.

I, at least, respond to your voluminous quotes in exactly that fashion, Art. I think outside of the box which surrounds your quotes.

Rob

[neufer]

I also hold out the hope that it might amuse some others
and (most importantly) force them to think outside of the box.

I, at least, respond to your voluminous quotes in exactly that fashion, Art.
I think outside of the box which surrounds your quotes.

• _The Winter's Tale_ Act IV, scene IV

AUTOLYCUS: How blessed are we that are not simple men!

• Yet nature might have made me as these are,
  Therefore I will not disdain.

Clown: This cannot be but a great courtier.

Shepherd: His garments are rich, but he wears

• them not handsomely.

Clown: He seems to be the more noble in being fantastical:

• a great man, I'll warrant; I know by the picking on's teeth.

AUTOLYCUS: The fardel there? what's i' the fardel?

• Wherefore that box?

Shepherd: Sir, there lies such secrets in this fardel and box,

• which none must know but the king;

[Beyond]

I also hold out the hope that it might amuse some others
and (most importantly) force them to think outside of the box.

I, at least, respond to your voluminous quotes in exactly that fashion, Art. I think outside of the box which surrounds your quotes.

Rob

Box What box

[rstevenson]

I also hold out the hope that it might amuse some others
and (most importantly) force them to think outside of the box.

I, at least, respond to your voluminous quotes in exactly that fashion, Art. I think outside of the box which surrounds your quotes.

Rob

Box What box

Don't you see a box around each section of quote? There's one above around Art's quote, then one around mine, then a third box around your quote. They get nested as we include a quote in our answers, then nested again as they get included again in a reply. In my browser the posts are on a pale blue background, while the quotes are in alternating shades of pale yellowish tan -- but that may be a setting I made ages ago in the user control panel of this site.

Rob

[neufer]

Box What box

Don't you see a box around each section of quote? There's one above around Art's quote, then one around mine, then a third box around your quote. They get nested as we include a quote in our answers, then nested again as they get included again in a reply. In my browser the posts are on a pale blue background, while the quotes are in alternating shades of pale yellowish tan -- but that may be a setting I made ages ago in the user control panel of this site.

• All's Well That Ends Well Act 2, Scene 3

PAROLLES: He wears his honour in a box unseen,

• That hugs his kicky-wicky here at home,

• Hamlet, Prince of Denmark Act 5, Scene 1

HAMLET: The very conveyances of his lands will hardly lie in this box;

• Cymbeline Act 3, Scene 4

PISANIO: Here is a box; I had it from the queen:

• What's in't is precious; if you are sick at sea,
  Or stomach-qualm'd at land, a dram of this
  Will drive away distemper. To some shade,
  And fit you to your manhood. May the gods
  Direct you to the best!

• The Merry Wives of Windsor Act 1, Scene 4

DOCTOR CAIUS: Vat is you sing? I do not like des toys. Pray you,

• go and vetch me in my closet un boitier vert, a box,
  a green-a box: do intend vat I speak? a green-a box.

[Beyond]

haha, ok, there's two boxes. Rob's boxes are the post boxes. I have the same colors you do, Rob.
Neufer's boxes are actually inside out, so you're seeing the outside from with-in. But it's tooo much trouble to try and get out to see the inside, so mostly one just walks away wondering what he really means.

[owlice]

Have you actually studied the arguments that favor Shakspere of Stratford as the author
promoted primarily by the well funded Stratford Birthplace Trust
which professes to be decisive of the matter at issue

No, Art, I haven't. You know this. You also know that I was open to hearing your arguments, that I didn't have a pony in this race. Your insistence that his daughters' illiteracy is by itself proof that Shakespeare did not write the works attributed to him and other such fallacious arguments have not served your side well from my perspective.

[neufer]

Have you actually studied the arguments that favor Shakspere of Stratford as the author
promoted primarily by the well funded Stratford Birthplace Trust
which professes to be decisive of the matter at issue

No, Art, I haven't. You know this.

You know that I know that you don't know this stuff

• Really

You also know that I was open to hearing your arguments, that I didn't have a pony in this race.

I always allow Stratfordians the benefit of the doubt that they either:

• 1) do have a pony in this race or
  2) are simply ignorant of the facts.

(I consider it a courtesy.)

Your insistence that his daughters' illiteracy is by itself proof that Shakespeare did not write the works attributed to him
and other such fallacious arguments have not served your side well from my perspective.

But his daughters' illiteracy IS by itself proof that
Shakspere of Stratford did not write the works attributed to him

[Beyond]

Was the daughter illiterate all her life?

[neufer]

Was the daughter illiterate all her life?

• His older daughter Susanna Shakspere certainly was since
  she couldn't even recognize her own deceased husband's handwriting:

HISTORY OF WARWICKSHIRE. (1889)
BY SAM: TIMMINS, F.S.A.

<<James Cooke (died 1688) was, during all his later life, a resident at Warwick as a ' practitioner in physick and chirurgery,' and was successful and popular all round Warwick for many years. His principal claim to fame and honour, and to a record here, is that he had the good fortune to find some of the fast-perishing records relating to Stratford-on-Avon in the days of Shakespeare. Soon after the death of John Hall, M.D., the son-in-law of Shakespeare, James Cooke was surgeon to a detachment stationed near Stratford Bridge in the Civil War days. He was invited to see Mistress Hall (Shakespeare's daughter Susannah), and he gives the following account of his interview :

Being, in my art, an attendent to parts of some regiments to keep the pass at the Bridge of Stratford-on-Avon, there being then with me a mate allyed to the gentleman that writ the following observations in Latin, he invited me to the house of Mrs. Hall, wife to the deceased, to see the books left by Mr. Hall. After the view of them, she told me she had some books left, by one that professed physick, with her husband for some money. I told her, if I liked them, I would give her the money again. She brought them forth, among which was this, with another of the author's, both intended for the presse. I, being acquainted with Mr. Hall's hand, told her that one or two of them were her husband's, and showed them to her. She denyed ; I affirmed, till I perceived she began to be offended. At last I returned her the money.

The manuscript is written in a neat hand and in Latin, and Cooke published a translation of it into English under the title of

' Select Observations of English Bodies ; or, Cures both Empiricall and Historicall performed upon very Eminent Persons in Desperate Diseases. First written in Latin by Mr. John Hall, physician, living at Stratford-on-Avon in Warwickshire, where he was very famous, as also in the counties adjacent, as appeares by these Observations, drawn out of severall hundreds of his choicest

The importance and interest of this case-book, so remarkably saved from loss, can scarcely be overstated, and Cooke deserves all praise. Unfortunately there is no reference to the death of Shakespeare, nor even to his last illness, but the little volume is full of quaint and curious facts, professionally and popularly readable. Cooke also published ' Mellificium Chirurgiae ; or, The Marrow of Chirurgy ' (1662), and dedicated to Lord Brooke; and a later edition with a chapter on anatomy ; and another work entitled the * Marrow of Physic.' Cooke died in 1688, and was buried in St. Mary's, Warwick.>>

[Beyond]

Was his younger daughter illiterate also?

[neufer]

[img3="Shakspere of Stratford's daughter (age 26!) makes her "pigtail" mark (at left).
The given name and surname were added by a law clerk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Quiney"]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... re.svg.png[/img3]

Was his younger daughter illiterate also?

You tell me.

(I showed thus to Owlice.
She denyed it disqualified Shakspere of Stratford ;
I affirmed it, till I perceived she began to be offended.)

[Beyond]

Well, owls do have feathers that sometimes get ruffled when a contrary wind is in the area. As for me... I'm just Beyond it all.

Anyway, from what i understand about Shakespeare (in his many spellings of name), there was much portrayed in plays and things, that only an 'insider' would know. Therefore he either had a 'source', or, was used as a 'front' for an as yet undetermined writer, and might not have even realized it. Because of the different spellings of the name on various things, and lack of being able to tie any Shakespearian writings to the Shakespeare of Stratford, i lean heavily towards the Shakespeare with two daughters, as being completely uninvolved with the actual writings of Shakespeare, no matter how the name is spelled.

Of course, that does not rule out the possibility of the Shakespeare with two daughters actually being the said Shakespearian writer, and going to tremendous lengths to conceal the fact. But that just doesn't seem logical in any way.

Well, that's "my" two cents worth, not that it really matters.

[Nitpicker]

Susanna could have "denyed" things in an attempt to get the money. It could just as easily have been a misunderstanding by James Cooke. Or maybe Susanna was illiterate. It is not clear.

Judith sounds like the black sheep of the family. I'm quite sure she didn't write the works attributed to her father. But it is only a signature. Mine always looks especially shoddy when I have important documents to sign.

To me, it suggests William Shakespeare was more the poor father than the fraud. No shortage of poor fathers, then or now.

[owlice]

But his daughters' illiteracy IS by itself proof that Shakspere of Stratford did not write the works attributed to him.

You might want to run that by a logician, Art.

[owlice]

Well, owls do have feathers that sometimes get ruffled when a contrary wind is in the area.

Owls get their feathers ruffled when an intelligent man advances a non sequitur as a decent argument instead of the fallacy it is.

[neufer]

Susanna could have "denyed" things in an attempt to get the money. It could just as easily have been a misunderstanding by James Cooke. Or maybe Susanna was illiterate. It is not clear.

Judith sounds like the black sheep of the family. I'm quite sure she didn't write the works attributed to her father. But it is only a signature. Mine always looks especially shoddy when I have important documents to sign.

To me, it suggests William Shakespeare was more the poor father than the fraud. No shortage of poor fathers, then or now.

Being a dead-beat dad was one many things that Shakspere "just coincidentally" shared with Edward de Vere:

• 1) Both had daughters name Susan born on May 26.
  2) Both abandoned wives named Anne born in 1556.
  3) Both had fathers named John who (at some time) held the title of Chamberlain.
  4) Both leased the Blackfriars Theatre from one Henry Evans.
  5) Both were deemed "best in comedy" by Meres in 1598.
  6) Both are mentioned in John Manningham's 1602 diary.
  7) Both (as boys) were said to have mentors named Smith.
  8) Both were specifically connected with gloves.
  9) Both were specifically refered to as "sweet."
  10) Both lived with women who were patients of Dr. Simon Forman.
  11) Both were said to have been paid £1,000/year for about 18 years].
  12) Both died and were buried in places named Stratford
  • (to which their fathers were specifically connected).

[Beyond]

Well, owls do have feathers that sometimes get ruffled when a contrary wind is in the area.

Owls get their feathers ruffled when an intelligent man advances a non sequitur as a decent argument instead of the fallacy it is.

I would say that is pretty much a contrary wind.:)
I would also say that i pretty much agree with you as using it as a stand-alone proof. But then, we all have our own ways of seeing things.

[Beyond]

Susanna could have "denyed" things in an attempt to get the money. It could just as easily have been a misunderstanding by James Cooke. Or maybe Susanna was illiterate. It is not clear.

Judith sounds like the black sheep of the family. I'm quite sure she didn't write the works attributed to her father. But it is only a signature. Mine always looks especially shoddy when I have important documents to sign.

To me, it suggests William Shakespeare was more the poor father than the fraud. No shortage of poor fathers, then or now.

That's one of many things that Shakspere "just coincidentally" shared with Edward de Vere:

• 1) Both had daughters name Susan born on May 26.
  2) Both had wives named Anne born in 1556.
  3) Both had fathers named John who (at some time) held the title of Chamberlain.
  4) Both leased the Blackfriars Theatre from one Henry Evans.
  5) Both were deemed "best in comedy" by Meres in 1598.
  6) Both are mentioned in John Manningham's 1602 diary.
  7) Both (as boys) were said to have mentors named Smith.
  8) Both were specifically connected with gloves.
  9) Both were specifically refered to as "sweet."
  10) Both lived with women who were patients of Dr. Simon Forman.
  11) Both died and were buried in places named Stratford
  (to which their fathers were specifically connected).

Reminds me of a Columbo murder case where twins were involved. Columbo ended up proving (as only he could do) that both twins were guilty, because it was impossible for only one twin to have pulled it off.

[owlice]

That's one of many things that Shakspere "just coincidentally" shared with Edward de Vere:

• 1) Both had daughters name Susan born on May 26.
  2) Both abandoned wives named Anne born in 1556.
  3) Both had fathers named John who (at some time) held the title of Chamberlain.
  4) Both leased the Blackfriars Theatre from one Henry Evans.
  5) Both were deemed "best in comedy" by Meres in 1598.
  6) Both are mentioned in John Manningham's 1602 diary.
  7) Both (as boys) were said to have mentors named Smith.
  8) Both were specifically connected with gloves.
  9) Both were specifically refered to as "sweet."
  10) Both lived with women who were patients of Dr. Simon Forman.
  11) Both died and were buried in places named Stratford
  (to which their fathers were specifically connected).

Reminds me of another list of (so-called) amazing coincidences.

Neufer, has anyone ever refer to you as "sweet"?

[Beyond]

The first definition of "sweet" from the Urban Dictionary is, "awesome". Just thought I'd throw that out.

[neufer]

Neufer, has anyone ever refer to you as "sweet"?

• Nobody famous.

----------------------­------------------------------­--
. King Henry VI, Part iii Act 5, Scene 4 (Folio 1, 1623)
.
QUEEN MARGARET: Why, is not *Oxford HERE another ANCHOR* ?

• ...Thanks, gentle Somerset; *SWEET OXFORD* , thanks.

KING HENRY VI: *SWEET OXFORD* , and my loving Montague,
------------------------------­---------------------------
_Henry the Fourth, Part One_ Act 2, Scene 4 (1598 Quarto)

PRINCE HENRY: but *SWEETE NED* ,

• to *SWEETEn which name of NED*,
  I giue thee this peniworth of sugar,

-------------------­-------------------------------­--
'ObsERVE that the epithet for Shakespeare is always 'SWEET.'
-- _William Shakespeare_ by A.L. Rowse
-------------------­-------------------------------­--
Shake-speares Sonnet 135 (1609)

WHo EUER hath her wish, thou hast thy Will,
And Will. too boote,and Will. in OUER-plus,
More then enough am I that vexe thee still,
To thy *SWEETE WILL* making addition thus.
----------------------------------------------------------
- Mere's _Palladio Tamia, Wit's Treasury_(1598)

the SWEETE wittie soule of Ovid lives in MELLIFLUOUS
& HONY-tongued Shakespeare, witnes his Venus and Adonis,
his Lucrece, his sugred Sonnets among his private friends,
------------------------------­--------------­--
Ben Jonson's ode to Shakespeare (1623)

____ *SWEET SWAN of AVON*
-----------------------------------------
John Milton » L'Allegro (1631)

. Then to the well-trod stage anon,
. If Jonson's learned sock be on,
. Or *SWEETEst Shakespeare* , Fancy's child,
. Warble his native wood-notes wild.
------------------­------------------------------­--