humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

On Feb 25, 8:50=A0pm, "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" but.net> wrote:
> > > 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. =A0I'm not sure they are. =A0It may be a pretty=

> good pr move =A0 What I find fascinating is that Egan agreed to take the
> position. =A0Does 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. =A0In other words, as not having
> the aristocratic outlook Lonney gives him. =A0My 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. =A0It's absurd to be
> bothered by it.

Sorry, Bob, but it gets on my nerves after a while. Especially since I
had nothing whatever to do with this. I did laugh at Tom's changing
the header from moron to idiot though, so you should credit this as a
move in the right direction. ;)
>
> --Bob G.