humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

In article
,
The Historian wrote:

[...]
> > > > - Show quoted text -
> > > Have we had an anti-Stratfodian as nuts as Lackpurity? I'm trying to
> > > remember. Ken Kaplan believed in John Edwards. I don't know if he
> > > still does. All the others seem merely to have warped views of
> > > reality, but no (announced) belief in meta-realities like
> > > Lackpurity's. It isn't their reality that is delusional but their
> > > understanding of it; but Lackpurity's reality is what's delusional.

> > It's a debatable point. My candidates for runner-up (or perhaps
> > stumbler-up would be more apt) would be:
> >
> > (1) Elizabeth Weird, whose connection with objective reality is so
> > feeble that she can "read" authors like Akrigg or Wang, Kuzmich, and
> > Dogariu, then claim that her supposed "sources" said exactly the
> > opposite of what is written there -- if that isn't delusional, it is
> > hard to imagine what is.
> >
> > (2) "Dr." Faker, whose belief that the Apollo lunar landings were a
> > hoax made one wonder just how tenuous his connection with objective
> > reality was; moreover, his inability to understand alphabetical order
> > made one wonder how on earth he could possibly function in the real
> > world even if he inhabited it.
> >
> > (3) Stephanie Caruana, whose labor of love on the so-called "Gemstone
> > file" qualifies her for consideration. Granted, Stephanie is vastly
> > more intelligent than lacksanity (although it certainly is unfair to
> > damn her with such faint praise -- Stephanie is clearly quite
> > intelligent, despite the alternative reality that she inhabits), and
> > her command of English is overwhelmingly superior to his (although
> > again, one dislikes damning Stephanie with such faint praise -- all
> > that is required to surpass lacksanity in that regard is a repertoire
> > of phrases more extensive than "spinning, skating, and dodging,"
> > "pigeonholers," "dime a dozen," "knee-high to a grasshopper," etc.);
> > however, if you haven't already done so, you can get a sense of why
> > Stephanie is a worthy contender by visiting
> >
> > ;
> >
> > you can hear an interview with Stephanie at
> >
> > .
> >
> > (4) If I thought that he was serious, I would also nominate Art.
> >
> > > --HLAS Only True Sat Goober.

> An interesting list, David, but I would add P Innes as a contender

You and Tom are both right, Neil; I had forgotten gangleri, and I
only omitted Innes because his posts are generally so unintelligible
that it is hard to ascertain whether he is a true anti-Stratfordian or
(like lacksanity) merely an honorary one.

> for
> his various statements about Old English,

Yes, those were priceless. Even his statements about Modern
English are amusing -- e.g., his contention that the tongue possesses
a "negative case," by which he apparently meant a double negative.

> Andean,

His notion that Andean speakers of Spanish don't know how to
conjugate stem-changing verbs like "cerrar" is indeed amusing. It's
plain that either he has not traveled in the Andes or he simply cannot
hear the language.

> his self-described "nearly an IM"

That one I have never understood -- either one is an International
Master or one is not; as I said at the time, being "almost an IM" is
like being "almost pregnant."

> and "2450" playing strength

Surely his rating is published, and hence is a matter of public
record? What is even more perplexing is that one would think that he
would realize this. The online database has his rating listed as
2044, which is at the low end of the expert category, but that's a far
cry from what he's apparently claiming.

> - now grown to include an
> alleged GM norm in correspondence chess, his "British Language"
> "tropes", mangled Latin,

"Non secuter"?

> Russian,

His Russian is, if anything, more inept than his Spanish.

> and other tongues, and his fixation
> on Hughes and Fowles (probably the only books he's ever read.) True, P
> Innes has never claimed anyone wrote the canon other than Shakespeare,
> but then again, he's never stated Shakespeare wrote it either.

As I said above, that's the only reason to omit him from the list;
otherwise he would be an exemplary candidate for Bob to consider.