humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 04:45:35 -0800 (PST), "Ms. Mouse"
wrote:

>On Mar 2, 11:51 pm, bookb...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 19:00:07 -0800 (PST), Greg Reynolds
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> wrote:
>> >Authorial Voice Crack'd:
>> >Oxfordian Falsehood on Display
>>
>> >DAY SIX
>>
>> >BUNK,
>> >deBUNKing,
>> >and BUNKer mentality
>>
>> >I guess the Shakespeare Fellowship is really showing me who's boss:
>> >they will profess outright falsehood and there's nothing I can do
>> >about it.
>>
>> >On the Shakespeare Fellowship website
>> >http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/Reviews/StritmatterAppleton.htm
>> >the Oxfordian conclusion is based on a mistruth that defames
>> >Shakespeare but promotes Oxford as author of As You Like It.
>>
>> >That's right. By maliciously corrupting Shakespeare's masterpiece, and
>> >by redesigning the love affairs, and by ignoring one marriage and
>> >inventing another marriage to fit its own Oxfordian needs, this
>> >Oxfordian website pretends to educate us on Authorial Voice.
>>
>> >It is Oxfordian thinking/comprehending/communicating all in one:
>> >http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/Reviews/StritmatterAppleton.htm
>>
>> >Note the intent: propaganda to promote a prefabricated conclusion that
>> >Oxford wrote Shakespeare.
>>
>> >If there is any other intent, SF, do tell!
>>
>> >Though impossible in its content, this deceptive source is not even
>> >questioned by Oxfordians, and in fact has been available many years
>> >(copyright 1999) to mislead, to dumb down, to misinform, to distort,
>> >and to recruit the gullibly like-minded. How many Shakespeare lovers
>> >have already been cruelly misinformed by Roger's teachings?
>>
>> >(Am I really the first to catch this gaffe, Roger, or are you living
>> >like twenty lies?)
>>
>> >I have always treated Oxfordians better than they treat Shakespeare in
>> >that I have been honest.
>>
>> >O, I like Roger and Lynne personally.
>> >O, I love Shakespeare.
>> >O, I hate seeing Shakespeare victimized by Oxfordian mistruth.
>> >SO, I will not be dissuaded from seeking fairness from my friends.
>>
>> >Lynne and Roger need to take down their rotten website and thank me
>> >for keeping them honest on this one. They need not blame me for
>> >reading their contrivance and comprehending it as misleading and
>> >dangerous to the young. It is not a reliable understanding of
>> >Shakespeare's AYLI or of Authorial Voice. It is Oxfordian
>> >prevarication.
>>
>> >I dare SF to tell HLAS how they manufactered this piece and how they
>> >think it supports Roger on Authorial Voice when he uses only his own
>> >goofy, misguided rendition of the play to yield his own flawed
>> >understanding. So what's to learn? Why have such a website? Lynne?
>> >Roger?
>>
>> >Please just admit you (SF members who have read the site) never
>> >understood Touchstone anyway.
>>
>> >Is that asking too much?
>> >That SF either defend or retract Roger words?
>>
>> >Lynne said Roger is busy now.
>> >Too busy to stop deceiving his readers?
>> >That IS busy!!!
>>
>> >Read As You Like It and then read note 2 of
>> >http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/Reviews/StritmatterAppleton.htm
>> >and you'll see that Authorial Voice has eluded Roger, Lynne, and the
>> >entire Shakespeare Fellowship for many years.
>>
>> >And they intend to keep it that way.
>>
>> >Greg Reynolds [2]
>>
>> >2
>> >Greg's sobriquet accidentally furnishes the original for the Puritan
>> >bounty hunter Sir Perry d'Ox in 'Authorial Voice Crack'd' who performs
>> >the exorcism of the dastardly dishonest Shakespeare Fellowship over
>> >the vociferous objections of the authorial bullshit artist
>> >Stritmatter, a passage thought by Lynne Kositsky ("Believe Sweet
>> >Idiots and Children, We Must be Allowed our Falsehood, Or We Must Live
>> >in Reality," unpublished manuscript, presented whenever needed), among
>> >other SF members, to be a true repertory of their Oxfordian distortion
>> >of the Shakespeare play, symbolized in the figure of Lynne, gullibly
>> >gulling to the lulling of the doctor Roger.
>>
>> From the deceptions practiced on the public as authorship attribution
>> disinformation, we might deduce hard evidence of suppressed
>> information developed by advanced technology, I think.
>>
>> Consider the extent to which recent efforts by linguists using
>> styleometrics to analyze the canon has been sabotaged.  We should also
>> ask what other technologies have dropped off the scientific radar
>> screen for no known reason, such as holography and reverse speech.  No
>> telling what has been done to Stratman by conspirators, perhaps
>> including government military in the intelligence community.
>>
>> I predict that Dr. S and Ms Mouse will make a coordinated attempt to
>> revise edited the Wiki article on S written by the Shakespeare Trust.
>
>Well, I can see you're not prescient. ;) We're in the middle of
>editing two articles for journals, and researching and writing a
>third. Roger is working full time and writing other articles, and I've
>just finished one novel and am beginning research on another. I can't
>speak absolutely for Roger, but I won't be trying to revise the Wiki
>article any time soon. Not much point to it anyway, imo. It's like
>writing on sand.

It's neat that you can navigate between your fiction and non-fiction
interests. But maybe you're finding Tempest dating is a house built
on sand, too. Probably, the "sand" factor is at home in fiction, at
least as a handy metaphor for time's changes. In Shakespeare's time,
I think ink writers used sand to blot with, so I suppose sand has its
uses.