humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

On Apr 10, 2:38=C2=A0pm, lackpurity wrote:
> On Apr 7, 12:05=EF=BF=BDam, Greg Reynolds wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 5, 3:09=EF=BF=BDpm, 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...
> > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD"Is there no end to your pigeonholing, hit =
and run tactics?
> > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDYou need to make yourself clear. =
=EF=BF=BDDefine what is Satanic
> > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDand what is not, for a start, acc=
ording to you. =EF=BF=BDI suspect
> > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDthat I can defeat you. =EF=BF=BDG=
ame? =EF=BF=BDLOL =EF=BF=BDHere's your chance."
> > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =
=EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD-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!
>
> MM:
> Are these the three questions which Dominic thinks I should answer?
> I'll answer them.
> =C2=A0=EF=BF=BD
>
> > BEGINNER QUESTION
> > In a single post, Michael, you made these conflicting statements:
> > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD"I guess we have different POVs. =EF=BF=BDTo me, it s=
eems that
> > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDOxfordianism has been defeated rather sound=
ly."
> > AND
> > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD"That's nice, because I doubt if there will be any
> > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDwinners in our lifetime."
> > Which of these POVs then is the prevailing MM POV and why?
>
> MM:
> They are both prevailing POVs of mine. =C2=A0The first I qualifed with "to=

> me." =C2=A0"To me," means only to me, as I'm not speaking for others, and
> I'm certainly not speaking for Oxfordians.
>
> The second statement of mine, I made because the fantasizers, i.e the
> Anti-Strats, simply deny the evidence, and they don't believe Sat
> Gurus. =C2=A0Therefore, to them there would be no winners. =C2=A0To me, a =
clear-
> cut winner would be declared the winner, as in a boxing match, you
> see?
>
> > INTERMEDIATE QUESTION
> > Michael, you tell us that:
> > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD"Some of us like to give credence to evidence,
> > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDand others like to have a free reign to fan=
tasize
> > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BDto their heart's content."
>
> > Can you provide examples of each and tell us
> > which category includes you?
>
> MM:
> You don't know which category I'm in? =C2=A0I'm in the evidence category.
> Neuendorffer, thinking that Oxford lived to the year 1612 is in the
> fantasy category. =C2=A0Got that? =C2=A0It's my opinion. =C2=A0There are l=
ots of
> similar examples. =C2=A0For example, Mr. Farey thinks Mr. W. H. is a
> misprint. =C2=A0I consider it as evidence, STRONG evidence, in fact.
>
> > EXPERT QUESTION
> > Michael, you claim
> > =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD =EF=BF=BD"Shakespeare was Socrates."
>
> > Why do you believe this and what evidence supports your belief?
>
> MM:
> That's according to my meditation. =C2=A0I never said there was evidence o=
f
> it, but we do have this:
>
> The inscription on the church monument to Shakespeare, erected in
> 1621, reads:
>
> Judicio Pylium, genio Socratem, arte Maronem
> Terra tegit, populus moeret, Olympus habet.
>
> Stay, passenger, why goest thou by so fast?
> Read, if thou canst, whom envious death hath placed
> Within this monument: Shakespeare, with whom
> Quick nature died; whose name doth deck his tomb
> Far more than cost; sith all that he had writ
> Leaves living art but page to serve his wit.
> Obiit ano doi [anno domini] 1616. Aetatis 53. Die 23 Ap.
>
> MM:
> Genio Socratem. =C2=A0Shakespeare must have told his close disciples the
> truth.
>
> > 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
>
> MM:
> Maybe this will be good enough for you and Dominic?
>
> Michael Martin



Simply ducky! Thanks for the effort.
I see I'll never need to read any more.

Greg Reynolds