humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

On Apr 7, 1:05 am, Greg Reynolds wrote:
> On Apr 5, 3:09 pm, Greg Reynolds wrote:
>
> > Michael, are you game?
>
> > i will present your own words tomorrow.
>
> > You will either verify them
> > OR
> > you will retract them
> > OR
> > you will skulk off.
>
> > Are you game?
> > i will be using YOUR words, so there will be no surprises, no tricks.
>
> > Sincerely,
> > Greg Reynolds
>
> Well, Michael, you didn't say if you were Game for the challenge of
> substantiating your own words.
>
> You might be in persecution mode again, a great contrast to just two
> days ago when you were begging for a fight; you bragged you could
> "defeat" JWK and I quote...
> "Is there no end to your pigeonholing, hit and run tactics?
> You need to make yourself clear. Define what is Satanic
> and what is not, for a start, according to you. I suspect
> that I can defeat you. Game? LOL Here's your chance."
> -Michael Martin
>
> It isn't clear how you could "defeat" a person when it is you taunting
> him to give the yet unknown definition, but I see you fully understand
> the Game. Now you will play. And unlike when you picked that fight,
> there will be no taunting here--you only need explain your own words!
>
> As a special feature for you Michael who has never truly argued your
> positions, you can select the skill level you feel is most appropriate
> to your own credibility!
>
> If you mean what you say but only once in a while, try the Beginner
> question.
>
> If you know what you are talking about and are always available
> elaborate, go for Intermediate.
>
> If you are prepared to actually defend your viewpoint, Michael, select
> Expert.
>
> If you find that you cannot substantiate your words, Michael, simply
> retract them. Be honest with us and you will make sense!
>
>
> BEGINNER QUESTION
> In a single post, Michael, you made these conflicting statements:
> "I guess we have different POVs. To me, it seems that
> Oxfordianism has been defeated rather soundly."
> AND
> "That's nice, because I doubt if there will be any
> winners in our lifetime."
>
> Which of these POVs then is the prevailing MM POV and why?
>
> INTERMEDIATE QUESTION
> Michael, you tell us that:
> "Some of us like to give credence to evidence,
> and others like to have a free reign to fantasize
> to their heart's content."
>
> Can you provide examples of each and tell us
> which category includes you?
>
> EXPERT QUESTION
> Michael, you claim
> "Shakespeare was Socrates."
>
> Why do you believe this and what evidence supports your belief?
>
> That's it!
> What you may lack in purity, you can certainly make up in clarity just
> by verifying or retracting. What's it going to be?
>
> Your reader,
> Greg Reynolds

Of course, Curiosity (f/k/a lacksanity) won't discuss these questions,
and one might wonder why? The Cat Guru walks around with a big chip
on his shoulder, but if you knock it off, then he goes into reticent
mode. Let the readers cogitate that one. Since he refuses to discuss
things like a man, then his speculations go out the window, IMO.

Since he thinks his crazy beliefs are gospel truth, then I think the
thing to do in a discussion group like this, is for him to analyze and
explain his own beliefs. I wonder if he will continue to hide in
reticent mode now and never choose to answer one of your questions.
Will he ever go over his own beliefs with a fine-tooth comb. Ha!
That should be very interesting. I think you'll be waiting a very
long time for his reply.

Dom

...Helter skelter, hang sorrow, care will kill a cat, up-tails all,
and a pox on the hangman.
Ben Jonson in Every Man in His Humour