humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

On Feb 26, 3:53 pm, "Ms. Mouse" wrote:
> On Feb 26, 5:53 pm, Elizabeth wrote:


> > > > Elizabeth, please be careful what you say about people. Neither Egan
> > > > nor Lindley are Oxfordians.
>
> > I said 'probably.' It is my personal opinion,
> > based on reading Lindley, that he leans
> > Oxfordian.
>
> > I don't think my opinion is libelous.
>
> You actually didn't use the word probably when describing Professor
> Lindley.

Just to clarify, my impression from reading
Lindley, was that he is an Oxfordian.

Neither of he nor Michael Egan is an Oxfordian or even
> "probably" an Oxfordian. Whether what you're saying is libellous is
> beside the point.

It's not libelous because it's my own opinion,
I'm not advocating that everyone believe that
Lindley and 'possibly' Egan are Oxfordians.

Anyway, it's no crime to be an Oxfordian.
It just isn't a sound theory.


> I can't speak for Egan, because if he's going to
> edit The Oxfordian he must realise that this kind of labelling will
> come with the territory, but I believe Professor Lindley would be
> quite upset to hear himself described as an Oxfordian, and more
> particularly "an Oxfordian in Strat clothing."

Since I haven't libeled him Lindley will just
have to live with it. And as I said, it's no
crime to be an Oxfordian, the theory just
doesn't hold up.

I've hardly called Lindley an 'idiot,' 'moron,'
or whatever the third slur was.

> I have found nothing in the work of either that would suggest to me
> that they're Oxfordians.
> Mouse

Maybe it takes NOT ONE to
know one. I mean, why would Vickers
edit a Baconian work that attacks Strats
(however civilly). I will add a caveat here,
Vickers is not attacking Strats on authorship
but on principle, however, all the Strats
that eviscerated Bacon were Strats. Prolly
only a coincidence, eh?

Ok, I just checked the clock, it's time to
start having fun again.
;)