humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare

On Apr 6, 2:29=A0pm, Jim KQKnave wrote:
> In article <6948ec6c-87ed-48d4-a22a-df3c0322a...@a5g2000prg.googlegroups.c=
om>
>
> Christian Lanciai wrote:
>
> > Jim has completely turned the HLAS into a worthless vomit by
> > corrupting it into a stratfordian propaganda site with himself as the
> > constant brainwasher hiding behind nonsense names, just to increase
> > the lying statistics of his vanity. I am afraid you partly inspired
> > him, Art, by submerging this forum in filibuster postings.
>
> > The only result of this has been that most of the posters worth
> > reading have left.
>
> > with sadness,
>
> This is a joke, right? You are the one who disguised himself
> as at least two other persons to back yourself up.

No. I always denied it and always will. I never backed myself up, only
ideas and theories I found reasonable.You jumped to conclusions and
stuck to them with no self-criticism at all, putting implicit faith in
a make-believe, living in illusions made firmer by your own self-
aggrandizement and erudition hubris, like all stratfordians do. You
have brought nothing interesting to this debate for at least the last
four years, although I repeatedly challenged you to come up with some
backing-up of the "Shakspere in Lancashire" theory (i.e. some evidence
of Shakspere living there under the pseudoname 'Shakeshafte'), which,
if made credible in any way, would actually bring me to consider the
Stratford theory seriously after all.

>
> Neuendorffer, Lyra and lackpurity were posting excessively
> long, long before I decided to fight back. I only post
> over their posts, so if they don't post, I don't.

They never fought you, so why do you fight them? Only because you
couldn't bear with their research affluence.



You are just
> upset because I have my posts deriding your idiotic point
> of view up front and center.
>

No one has more made an idiot of himself here than yourself the last
14 months.

Chris