humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

On Mar 24, 4:52=A0am, "Paul Crowley"
wrote:
> wrote in message
>
> news:9b5f5af2-9162-4dfc-b36a-713d0b2feb34@b64g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> That humans commonly behave like
> >> sheep -- especially in matters of
> >> ideology -- is a commonplace. Read
> >> some history (or even the newspapers
> >> -- with intelligence).
>
> >> Your " . . Who cares . . -- since the
> >> herd or flock has not yet turned
> >> its collective head" -- is shameful,
> >> if predictable.
> > Hmmm, 4 plus 5 equals 37 plus a pint of lemonade, and the cross of
> > Jesus. =A0Do you agree? =A0No? =A0Does anyone else agree? =A0No. =A0Hmmm=
, must
> > be right.
>
> You have to be able to focus on the
> questions. =A0You are quite incapable
> of that -- as you effectively admit.
> As you can also see, the other
> sheep are in the same condition.
>
> > You know, Paul, you still haven't devulged how we know that you're
> > right about anything, except by giving you sole right to judge the
> > matter. =A0That's not science, Paul. =A0That's not sanity.
>
> Science and sanity face up to the
> questions. =A0You endless can be
> expressed as: "I am an unthinking
> sheep, quite incapable of thought,
> so how can I know whether or not
> something is true when the sheep
> around me do not react? "
>
> > One HAS to get
> > confirmation from outside oneself to qualify as a non-crank.
>
> Just try to deal with the questions.
> The sheep around you certainly
> don't care. =A0But you should.
>
> >>>>> Does it make a statement in the English
> >>>>> language?

No. It makes a partial statement.

>>>>> Can each syllable ( 'will',
>>>>> 'shake' and 'spear') be punned upon in
>>>>> numerous ways, many of them bawdy?

Yes.

> >>>>> Does it fit someone who had martial
> >>>>> ambitions,

Yes.

>>>>>> and who saw himself as the
>>>>>> poet of modern Pallas Athena?

No. The connection to Athena is very weak, and the connection to
poetry close to non-existent. But it doesn't matter, Paul, because
there is strong evidence that there were people named William
Shakespeare at the time. You dispute this, because of spelling, but
you CAN'T rule them out on that basis due to the irregularity of
spelling at the time. So you cannot rationally say that the name
knocks out the Stratford man, as you do.

How do I know I'm right that you cannot rationally say that the name
knocks out Shakespeare? Because I consider my facts and reasoning
valid AND because everyone else agrees with me. How do you know I'm
wrong? Because you consider your facts and reasoning valid PERIOD.
That's insanity.

--Bob G.