humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

On Feb 26, 9:18 pm, Tom Reedy wrote:
> On Feb 26, 6:08 pm, Elizabeth wrote:
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Well, yes, but your impression from reading Vickers is that he wrote
> "a thousand page attack on the Strats for destroying Bacon." So how
> much confidence are we to have in your "impressions?"

I think that you just answered your own question, Tom.

> TR
>
>
>
> > 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.
> > ;)