humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

On Mar 3, 6:13=A0pm, bookb...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Mar 2008 04:45:35 -0800 (PST), "Ms. Mouse"
>
>
>
>
>
> wrote:
> >On Mar 2, 11:51=A0pm, 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. =A0We should als=
o
> >> ask what other technologies have dropped off the scientific radar
> >> screen for no known reason, such as holography and reverse speech. =A0N=
o
> >> 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.

Yep. Makes life interesting. :)
Lynne

>=A0But maybe you're finding Tempest dating is a house built
> on sand, too. =A0Probably, the "sand" factor is at home in fiction, at
> least as a handy metaphor for time's changes. =A0In Shakespeare's time,
> I think ink writers used sand to blot with, so I suppose sand has its
> uses.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -