humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

On Apr 11, 4:39=EF=BF=BDpm, "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" but.net> wrote:
> On Apr 11, 4:25=EF=BF=BDpm, "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" >
>
>
>
>
> but.net> wrote:
> > > > MM:
> > > > J. W. Kennedy, are you still stuck in reticent mode? I was hoping yo=
u
> > > > would be brave enough to discuss what is Satanic, and what is not,
> > > > IMO. Tsk. Tsk. You've had FIVE DAYS to respond to this, and not a
> > > > peep out of you. I wonder what the readers might think?
>
> > > They think you're a moron. They're right.
>
> > > TR
>
> > > In fact I'd be interested to hear from anyone -- anyone at all -- who
> > > DOESN'T =EF=BF=BDthink he's a moron (apart from Lackbrain himself, tha=
t =EF=BF=BDit).
>
> > > --
> > > Peter G.
>
> > Interestingly, I could be described similarly, my rigidniplex being
> > concerned with rigidnikry. =EF=BF=BDUnlike most Anti-Stratfordians, I
> > understand this, and can joke about it, and genuinely agree that I
> > could be wrong, and that I am far from having anything like conclusive
> > evidence for my beliefs. =EF=BF=BDMM also, I have to give him credit, is=

> > sometimes willing to admit that he may be wrong about his
> > reincarnation beliefs. =EF=BF=BDAs I've said before, while "pigeonholing=
" him,
> > his problem here at HLAS is that he forces his possibly invalid
> > beliefs constantly into coversations with people for whom they are
> > hokum, whereas I keep mine out of them most of the time--though I do
> > feel it proper to advertise them here and there, as now.
>
> > --Bob G.
>
> I got told by stupid Google that I'd exceeded my time limit and
> couldn't post, then failed to copy all I wrote. =EF=BF=BD

MM:
I, sometimes, get a message saying I've exceed my posting limit (a
certain number, I guess,) but never one on a time limit.

(Then I tried to
> leave the newsgroup, and Google asked me if I really wanted to leave
> without posting the message it had told me it wouldn't let me post.)
>
> I can't remember exactly what I wrote but I compared MM to most Anti-
> Stratfordians in having a rigidniplex whose gravitational pull inhales
> anything remotely connected to it and warps it into further
> confirmation of the rigidniplex. =EF=BF=BD

MM:
Truth is rigid, so they you're up against truth, which would mean your
truth vs. mine. I don't think flip-flopping will cut it with most
people. Maybe you do?

For instance, MM's characterizing
> "Genio Socratem" as evidence that Shakespeare was Socrates.

MM:
I didn't specifically say that it was evidence. I said, "But, we have
this." It's up to readers, whether to consider it as evidence, or
not. If you see smoke, there might be a fire around, as the old
cliche goes. To me, it is obviously corroboration of what I've seen
to be the truth. Others are welcome to form their own opinions.

> SImilarly, many Anti-Stratfordians' characterization of the same thing
> as proof Shakespeare was not a playwright because Socrates wasn't.
>
> I consider him a para-rigidink. =EF=BF=BD

MM:
Truth is rigid. I'd rather be one of them, I guess, than a flip-
flopper.

Outside his rigidniplex he can see
> through anti-Stratfordianism fairly well, just as Anti-Stratfordians
> can get far enough outside their rigidniplexes to see through his
> reincarnation bunk.

MM:
Why don't you back up this allegation? Lay your beliefs on the table,
and I'll be happy to rip them to shreds. Your beliefs are bunk, if
you don't include karma and reincarnation. It would be impossible to
justify LIFE as we know it without them. If you think you're brave
enough, then go for it. Explain why you were born at all. Explain
why you were born at a particular place with particular parents and a
particular family. Christ said, "Even the hairs on your head are
numbered."

Michael Martin

> --Prof. Bob