Group: humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare
From: "Ms. Mouse"
Date: Monday, February 25, 2008 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: Are Oxfordians idiots or what?

On Feb 25, 7:54=A0pm, Tom Reedy wrote:
> On Feb 25, 6:39=A0pm, "Ms. Mouse" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 25, 5:55=A0pm, Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 25, 4:48=A0pm, "Ms. Mouse" wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 25, 3:35=A0pm, Tom Reedy wrote:
>
> > > > > The Shakespeare-Oxford Society (http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/=
) is
> > > > > apparently so full of morons they can't even find a member literat=
e
> > > > > enough to edit their own "journal," The Oxfordian. Instead, they'v=
e
> > > > > chosen Dr. Michael Egan to do the job and take Stephanie Hughes' p=
lace
> > > > > (can anyone *really* replace Stephanie Hughes?).
>
> > > > > Egan, who I suppose would be termed a quasi-Oxfordian by Crowley, =
was
> > > > > lionized by Oxfordians on the Fellowship boards last year for his =
not-
> > > > > very-original theory that Thomas of Woodstock was written by
> > > > > Shakespeare. (Seehttp://www.shakespearefellowship.org/Reviews/jime=
nez.woodstock.htm).
> > > > > He is Scholar in Residence at Brigham Young University, Hawaii.
>
> > > > > Question: is this an upward academic move for someone from Brigham=

> > > > > Young University? If Egan is *not* an Oxfordian, can they still cl=
aim
> > > > > to be a peer-reviewed journal?
>
> > > > > Enquiring minds want to know!
>
> > > > > TR
>
> > > > By the way, Tom, I just noticed the thread's subject heading. It's
> > > > very offensive and I think you should change it. For sure I'm not a
> > > > moron, but I'm beginning to worry whether you might be one.
>
> > > > Mouse- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > I want to be stern, but I couldn't manage it.
>
> > Mouse, laughing like an idiot.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> 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.
>
> TR- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -