humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

> > Well, what would *YOU* call it? It's kind of like the Republican Party
> > hiring Michelle Obama to be their press agent.
>
> I'm not sure what to call it, to be honest with you. I'll say more
> when I know more.
>
>
>
> > And if you read closely, you can see I'm not calling anybody any
> > names; I'm merely asking a question.
>
> The implication is there. though, for those of us who aren't morons or
> idiots.

The implication, in context is, that the Oxfordians letting Egan edit
their magazine are idiots. I'm not sure they are. It may be a pretty
good pr move What I find fascinating is that Egan agreed to take the
position. Does he feel more comfortable with full-scale radicals than
with traditionalists?

On a related note, Stritmatter recently featured a piece by Egan in
the Fellowship newsletter that seemed to me very anti-Oxfordianism--
because, for one thing, it pushes the man Egan thinks was Shakespeare
as extremely sympathetic to commoners. In other words, as not having
the aristocratic outlook Lonney gives him. My impression is that
Stritmatter had the piece in because it is vehemently against the
Stratford establishment.

Looks to me like Oxfordians are mainly concerned with being taken
seriously (not called idiots or morons, for example) much more than
with presenting arguments for their cause.

P.S., Mouse: "moron" and "idiot" only mean "person who is very wrong
about something" in contexts like this one. It's absurd to be
bothered by it.

--Bob G.