Bonkers to want to reread Thomas Dekker? Are you even TRYING to communicate now or is this some eternal driveling Muzak that I've got to learn to put up with? Because I don't really have to put up with it. There is always the block.
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
Yes do block me. You are clearly bonkers (not T Dekker) and have no clue as to the authorship question. Just random drivel about other sources. Perhaps you yourself have produced a scholarly paper on the subject, but I doubt it.
Of course I haven't produced a scholarly paper on the so-called authorship question because it's not a fit subject for scholarship. I also haven't written a scholarly paper rebutting creationism or the flat earth for the same reason. If your position cannot even stand up to the scrutiny of laypeople
then it's definitely not ready for scholarly consideration.
And far from having no clue about the authorship question, I've been aware of it for 30 years, having cut my teeth on the subject at humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare, where I saw every authorship argument that was advanced get demolished
by the superior scholarship of the Shakespearians. Nothing has materially changed since. Anti-Shakespearians are still the ones to go to for ignorance, irrelevancies, refusal to provide proper evidence, wholly unwarranted arrogance and stupidity, just as I'm getting from you right now. You were even
unaware of the existence of the colophon saying who funded the First Folio until I pointed it out to you. So ask yourself whether I take your posturing as evidence of any REAL knowledge or whether I regard it as just whistling past the graveyard of dead and buried alternative authorship candidates.
Comments
And far from having no clue about the authorship question, I've been aware of it for 30 years, having cut my teeth on the subject at humanities.lit.authors.shakespeare, where I saw every authorship argument that was advanced get demolished