richard-c34.bsky.social
109 posts
16 followers
11 following
Getting Started
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
With a mouth like that? Perfect for being on her knees
comment in response to
post
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.
comment in response to
post
Clearly bonkers.
comment in response to
post
I was not being insulting. I was giving you advice. As for The Shoemaker’s Holiday. I saw it years ago.
comment in response to
post
Bless you. Completely demented.
Peace on earth and take the tablets.
comment in response to
post
I have a feeling that i know a great deal more than you do about the works and the workings of the greatest playwright and poet that there has ever been. Please drop your pose and go after another “superficial” cause.
comment in response to
post
You are clearly not a fool. But remember De Vere’s words in the Merchant of Venice. “So may the outward shows be least themselves” I have a feeling that your puppet master has fled the field and left you to soldier on.
comment in response to
post
Bless you again. You don’t know the dating of the plays. Just what suits the Shaxperists. And you don’t even have a candidate. What you on about?
comment in response to
post
So what is the matter with you? If you don’t have a candidate, why are you SO vindictive towards De Vere? If Shaxper is not your candidate, I advise you to stop this invective. It is not good for your health. As a scientist, you have to prove things are wrong till you can do that no longer.
comment in response to
post
You mean all the plays? Even the ones that weren’t seen before. Silly, silly silly!
comment in response to
post
Hurling insults is all you are good for. You cannot prove anything despite the fact that you are “scholastic”. You have conjecture written all over your candidate. The clear use of an allonym is there for all to see. You just don’t want to find your job obsolete
comment in response to
post
I don’t have to give “evidence”. You would only and always refute anything, as you have done and any dialogue is pointless. I hope all your anger was worth it.
comment in response to
post
As Vicky Pollard said “no but yeah but” you have no case but huge anger and invective. You are clearly part of the block on investigative research to keep your paltry candidate relevant. My condolences.
comment in response to
post
Earth to Conjecture Central.
comment in response to
post
And? You cannot even prove the existence of the keepers of the manuscripts. Just quote some other
comment in response to
post
So angry now. What evidence that H&C had them. None. ZERO. Shax’s will a laugh and his son in law never mentioned him once in his diaries. Reading your “evidence” is a comedy worthy of the Sad wives if Windsor.
comment in response to
post
I never said that Emma. You are putting words on the page that I didn’t write. You certainly don’t have to prove my case. Proving your own is hard enough for you to do in the 21st Century
comment in response to
post
Oh Emma, calm down.
comment in response to
post
Again. Read the evidence and not your own made up angle.
comment in response to
post
So she left H&C out of it? No!
comment in response to
post
Who paid for the printing. A huge amount in those days. No Amazon Self-Print then
comment in response to
post
Oo er.
Are you Emma Smith/Stone?
Just calm down dear. Clearly you are someone who writes. They were honourable brethren and one was De Vere’s son in law. That is relevant. Are you suggesting that Hemmings and Condell kept the manuscripts for the works under their beds till ready to publish?
comment in response to
post
It just shows bias which is not a scholarly trait. Avoiding the issue is amateur.
comment in response to
post
And she admitted that she had « minimised » the brethren.
comment in response to
post
That is quite frankly insulting. You clearly have a small minded appreciation of the plays. There is so much more in them than the actions of the characters. SAD you are indeed.
comment in response to
post
We know where the plots came from. Often ancient texts in greek latin etc. Shakespeare gets much from Ovid. Oxford’s uncle and tutor translated the work.
comment in response to
post
That is why it is not Shax
comment in response to
post
That is just piffle. Shakes-speare wrote about the life around him. So many characteristics are drawn from those around him. Authors write about what they know or put their knowledge into the research they have done. Clever ones also speak latin, greek, french and english. Shax was illiterate
comment in response to
post
And let’s get this absolutely straight. Conjecture is not “superior knowledge”.
comment in response to
post
Give me the evidence. Not the conjecture.
comment in response to
post
Ask Emma Smith why she “minimised the “Honourable Brethren “. She could not detach their influence and their familial connections to Oxford. So just ignore. Honesty is the best policy with “scholars”. A complete lack of “scientific” examination.
comment in response to
post
Please don’t be silly. To dismiss autobiographical drama before the mid 19th C dismisses much of what was written before. Avoid your University for the third age syllabus.
comment in response to
post
Bless you musicmaniac. (Note to self. Stop writing Bless you. ) Clearly not. Silly suggestion. And stupid. A distraction from the fact that Shaxper made everything up if he wrote the plays
comment in response to
post
That’s a very narrow opinion. The Oxford case is in the forefront of new academic thinking. Just not amongst your Facebook group
comment in response to
post
No, no,no. Mother Conjecture airs her improbable linen in public
comment in response to
post
Untrue. The world is beginning to understand that Shax was not the writer and that the SAQ has become mainstream.
comment in response to
post
Where have you been in the last 10 years. This chart above is a schoolboy/girls humanities homework
comment in response to
post
A novel has fewer probabilities in it.
comment in response to
post
Oh no, not at all. You have got yourself into an unproductive whirlpool. Just spouting out the same old un corroborated tosh. Would have, should have, could have, probably, it is likely. Etc. so few FACTS known about Shax. The research about the man is so shoddy as to be laughable and we do laugh.
comment in response to
post
Sorry i see the thread now. Yes in answer. You just seem not to understand how a writer works
comment in response to
post
What?