humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

On Feb 22, 1:45 pm, Art Neuendorffer
wrote:
> > Art Neuendorffer wrote:
>
> > > Elizabeth caulks up another one:
>
> .
>
> Elizabeth wrote:
>
> > Thank you?
>
> CAULK, v.t. In some parts of America, to set upon an ox shoes armed
> with sharp points of iron, to prevent their slipping on ice; that is,
> to stop from slipping.
> .
>
> Elizabeth wrote:
>
> > Would you mind stating, in plain prose,
> > what your theory is on the 'True' series?
>
> > I would like to have a conversation
> > without having to wade through piles of
> > word debris.
>
> Well, that's your problem right there, Elizabeth.
>
> It's all about buzz words, code words, word games, etc.
> ABSOLUTELY nothing is to be taken at face value.

Yes, ARt, I know that but IN CONTEXT.

CONTEXT IS ALL.

You remove everything from context
and then expect us to gasp with
delight. We don't know what in hell
you're talkin' about.

The reason I am so intent on providing
the historical context (in my amateurish
sort of way) is because the problem of
Shakespeare authorship will not be
proven without the historical context .
On tiny stinkin' historical fact can make
all the difference between who did and
who did not write the Shakespeare works.

Francis Fukuyama was right, ideology
IS the end of history because with ideology
you can make any context you want.

This is what the Strats have done so
well for the past 400 years, they created
an 'authorial context' for Shacksper, that
context is now falling apart.

What's ahead for the Looney Lobby is
a CONTEXTUAL CORRECTION because
Looney was DREAMING, Art. I studied
the (boring as hell) Victorians (except for
the scientists) and I know what Looney
was up to. It isn't gonna stick, Art.