Starship Asterisk*

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

• 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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacious wrote:
<<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.>>

Nitpicker wrote:
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.

Nitpicker wrote:
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.

Nitpicker wrote:
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.)

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

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

rstevenson wrote:

neufer wrote:
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

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

• them not handsomely.

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

• Wherefore that box?

• which none must know but the king;

rstevenson wrote:

neufer wrote: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

Beyond wrote:

rstevenson wrote:

neufer wrote: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 wrote:

Beyond wrote:
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

• That hugs his kicky-wicky here at home,

• Hamlet, Prince of Denmark Act 5, Scene 1

• Cymbeline Act 3, Scene 4

• 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

• 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.

neufer wrote:

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

owlice wrote:

neufer wrote:

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.

• Really

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

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

owlice wrote:
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.

Beyond wrote:
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:

http://www.archive.org/stream/historyofwarwick00timmuoft/historyofwarwick00timmuoft_djvu.txt wrote:
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 wrote:
Was his younger daughter illiterate also?

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

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

Nitpicker wrote:
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.

• 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).

owlice wrote:

Beyond wrote: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 wrote:

Nitpicker wrote:
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).

neufer wrote: 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).

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

• Nobody famous.

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

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