It has been pointed out to me by some aghast and fair-minded respondents that Terrance, who says I am moved only by spite, bile, professional jealousy and septuagenarian uselessness and that Mel should be buggered and hanged in Iran; and Bob, who says all my scripts are about young women going down on middle-aged men (eighty aren’t, one is) are two different people, and for the sins of both of them I have cast out both for life.
There is reason in this plea for mercy, and my uncertain, grudging, abashed and remorseful commutations are these.
Terrance is banned for three years; and Bob is banned for eighteen months. If at the end of their periods of exile, they apologize unreservedly, they will be let back in.
The ban on Frank and the others is till June 25. Jim is forgiven but urged to continue writing grammatically, with correct punctuation, spacing and spelling
GK Cole is allowed back, but only if he/she uses that name. If I find that ‘Greenblatt’ is him/her, or any other pseudonym, I will expunge him/her from world history for a year and a week; that is, until my seventy-first birthday on May 10, 2013 or my death, whichever comes first.
No more correspondence will be entered into after 2 p.m. today, Frday , May 4, 2012. These edicts should not have been necessary but lies, lies, lies, lies have given me no choice but to act for a while with brutality in the cause of truth.
Name:
Very amusing. This will be left up till 2 pm and then removed. After which you will keep silence until May 25.
I took the time to read thru all the Terrance and Bob stuff and I reckon you’re milking this. Terrance got a case -you’re restating his remarks over and over again and come up wityh this notion that saying Mel should make movies in Iran equals the death penalty.
Then you bang on about him forcing the man to suicide but never say how or why this differs fgrom every other thing on this site.
Hell’s bells, last 2 days youve banged on about 2 conservatives being homos as if that is wrong or a hanging offence. What;’s it matter if Romney man is Romney’s man, or Pyne has other issues.
You can do what you like with your own house, but I reckon you’re playing dictator here and just want to remove those who hold different views and positions.
And I reckon you owe Pyne an apology, as does Gillard. Just cause she said it don’t make it right.
Hence the problems here Dire?
For whatever reason, Terrance, while trying to prove he has empathy, showed nonethat he applied equally across the situation of Mel or himself. I don’t see it as a hanging offence, nor did Bob. Terrance made it an issue, and it was entertaining and done admittedly drunk.
You say Bob is harping, Dire, when I see Terrance does trying to justify his stand and has to scour out of the matter all over the shop in topic to hunting Bob’s personals down throughout the land skirting, stalking.
The point came down to Terrance’s ethics of empathy and his application of finer points of Mel’s hardships, which is where Terrance took the matter, not Bob. Conversation from him on a topic gets waylaid seemingly for the sake of it always tending towards Bob’s failings, misrepresentation and personals, and attempts at hosting instead of topic. And done from an anonymous stand.
It is no easy chore to manage a blog on politics and table talk. And who has the time to educate all on his view?
Nor has Bob banged on about something wrong with conservative homos or any homos. He does the opposite, across the range, calling for understanding of all matters where humans are concerned.
That is similar to Terrance’s tactics and arguments on matters. Some have mentioned tiring of him being argumentative for the hell of it. If you have to support a failed viewpoint with jumping to ten unrelated viewpoints, there has to be a point where it gets finished one way or another. For Bob it’s ignore or ban. For Terrance it is scour the community in hate and undermining under all manner of reason or excuse over what is supposed to be only matters of insignificance on a blog for entertainment and some education.
If Bob is so wrong and insignificant as a person, what’s the problem? Besides politics or personal perhaps.
I don’t think it’s anything a damn good karate chop wouldn’t fix.
Terrance has more than a fine flare with the pen but he doesn’t take on the crux of Bob’s points.
Do you think Pyne is not ‘mincing’? And not ‘sinister’?
Your reason, fair knight, your reason.
Six drops of the Essence of Terror,
Five drops of Sinister Sauce,
When the stirring’s done can I lick the spoon?
Of course ha ha, of course.
Now for a pinch of tenderness,
But I must use only a touch,
For without a touch of tenderness,
It might destroy me, oops, too much.
Better hold my hand,
It’s starting to tick.
Better hold my hand,
I’m feeling sick.
Hello Dad, I’m Milton, Australia’s new son!
I don’t follow it enough to pick up all on Chris.
But he has a staged, theatrical, mad-scientist droning ability to infect the public with discourse on matters. I can’t see him as a man of mercy to the populace more than a servant of heights.
Jim, I have made eighty-eight alterations to your copy to make it clearer and less repellent.
Please take note of what they are.
Once again, I am warning you.
I can’t find any. You win that one. Keep up the good work.
You’ve never been karate chopped have you?
What are you talking about?
You must speak in English.
You must.
I have – by my own dentist when I was a 10 year old who wouldn’t open his mouth!
Mum was not impressed . . .
The abasement of my Profound Disgust shall determine my return…and NOT your dispensation!
Apologise to Terrance for your deplorable suggestion.
Regain something…anything…from this tragedy, this atrocity, this Act of Cruelty.
Do it man!
Do it now!
Why do you feel the need to capitalise phrases? Do you hail from Dickensian times?
I confess I find it Rather Attractive, dawsonb.
Is there a term for mutual simultaneous Stockholm Syndrome?
Spleenblatt is Spleenblatt. As for this GK Cole your musty old coterie of conspiratorial nutters keep alluding to, j’en sais rien et je m’en fous.
Hmmm.
I don’t think Chris Pyne is “mincing” to be frank. Is is code for ‘poofta’? He isn’t manly like Tony A with his Christian muscle approach to orthodoxy, but I don’t know what this term implies execpt a wink-wink nudge nudge how’s your father.
Swan (or Swanny as you call him
) is as mincing as Pyne. Tony Burke more so.
Many in the gay community find this term odd. Chris Pyne has four children and’s been married for many years. Please clarify what ‘mincing’ stands for if you can, I am confused in the context it has been used.
You have been warned, and are now banned for three years.
It is hard to think of an adjective other than ‘mincing’ to describe the otherwise ruggedly heterosexual, gruffly baritone and hairy-chested Christopher Pyne.
It’s true, there is just enough dissonance caused in the observance of Mr Pyne’s mannerisms & speech relative to his status as an avowedly heterosexual husband and father, to lead one to possibly specious judgments that he might perhaps covet some level of erotic interaction with his fellow XY chromosomers. Be that as it may. It should be enough to denounce Pyne as a preppy, preening, supercilious ponce, Conniving Conservative Bunt, whose fawning ambitiousness within the Liberal Party knows no bounds.
Christopher Pyne’s “mincingness” is due more to the sound of his unfortunate voice which has a mincing resonance to its timbre.
Its not unlike that of the once “ladies nylons and high heels wearer” and fellow conservative Alexander Downer.
This is in no way to imply that they are both homosexual.
Both are virile manly men in that boyish Liberal tradition of ruggedly handsome independence that is so envied by socialists with no class.
Perhaps its their crinkled hair?
Alas no.
The answer to their mincingness can be summarized briefly.
They both happen to have been born in Adelaide.
Their accent is due to their plumb in mouth private school education.
Julia Gillard on the other hand was born in Wales where the best sonorous voice were raised. A land that produced sublime speaking and singing voices when one thinks of popular Welsh choirs.
Think of Richard Burton and his rich velvety speaking voice.
Gillard also lived in Adelaide. She had landed in the city of golden voices. So where did she go wrong and fail the mincing voice test?
Her voice could well be described as the last gasp gurgle of a chain toilet choking on a fat turd.
Compare her voice to Pyne and Downer and you are left with one thought alone. Unley High does in no way produce Australian Prime Ministers with quality vocals.
One should call on current and ex-Adelaidians to rise to her defence against your cruel allegation of her being a wellspring of mincing pantsy effeminate gaydom played out in public by grown men with crinkly hair and the occasional penchant for donning fine lingerie.
I had the dubious benefit of a private college education, third generation after pater & grand-papa, and in no way did this inflict mincingness or speech produced through a mouth full of prunes, err, plums, whatever.
Aside the lack of that, I hated every damn minute of the time spent incarcerated as a boarder, barring the jolly old what-oh stuff that’s so quintessentially character-forming; the beatings endured at the hands of headmaster, or a prefect or senior student, or indeed a friendly 30-minute thrashing by the sado-sexual housemaster, the only man in my life who I swore I’d happily beat to a pulp should he and I cross paths in later life. (sadly the jolly fellow died of a heart attack on the tennis court before we met again…)
Yes, private school education in Adelaide in the 60′s was a hoot, a lifetime of memories…
Funny you should mention Unley High… I served a bit of time there as well, before Gillard’s time I’m sure, and there wasn’t a coarse vowel to be heard, nor nasal sonority.
BTW, my father (born & bred in Adelaide as was his pater) had crinkly hair and I did see a photo of him, circa 1919, with tightly curled ringlets cascading to his shoulders and dressed in female garb, but that’s another story altogether and he wouldn’t have chosen to behave that way, instead being the unwitting stage upon which his grandmother projected her suffering following the loss of infants born after my father. But I digress…
Alex D & Chris P are clearly special cases, silver spooners, and I agree, they can be a bit up themselves. I’ve known a few other Adelaidians over the years, successful business people, influential, multi-millionaires all, who’ve been the very essence of down-to-earth no-bullshit unaffected Aussie sensibility.
“…upon which his grandmother…”, should read “…his mother“
I didn’t think words starting with “min” were allowed on this blog!! :
“O, it is excellent to have a giant’s strength; but it is tyrannous to use it like a giant. . . .
. . . Go to your bosom;
Knock there; and ask your heart what it doth know
That’s like my brother’s fault; if it confess a natural guiltiness such as is his,
Let it not sound a thought upon your tongue
Against my brother’s life.”
Shakespeare (De Vere) ‘Measure for Measure’, per Isabella
I read a critic recently who said that “Shakespeare probably never read Dante”
Now this disturbed me greatly; for if it is true that De Vere was Shakespeare, it would be inconceivable that he had never read the greatest Italian poet, in Italian, for he clearly understood the language, as sources for several plays came from Cinthio, and were not translated into English until the 1750s.
Reading the book ‘Shakespeare’s Language’ by Frank Kermode – Kermode is a committed Stratfordian – I came upon this passage :
“Claudio :
Ay, but to die, and go we know not where;
To lie in cold obstruction and to rot;
This sensible warm motion to become
A kneaded clod; and the delighted spirit
To bathe in fiery floods, or to reside
In thrilling region of thick-ribbed ice;
To be imprison’d in the viewless winds,
And blown with restless violence round about
The pendent world; or to be worse than worst
Of those that lawless and incertain thought
Imagine howling: ’tis too horrible!
The weariest and most loathed worldly life
That age, ache, penury and imprisonment
Can lay on nature is a paradise
To what we fear of death.”
Kermode goes on to say :
“To be blown around the earth in this way was considered the fate of those too fond of the pleasures of the body, so the guilty Claudio might think himself qualified for that fate, like Paolo and Francesca in Dante”
And there we have it – proof certain that ‘Shakespeare’ (De Vere) had read Dante.
De Vere did not use Dante as a source, for Dante did not write stories amenable to adaptation, and De Vere had other fish to fry : the plots in many plays examined the nature of the constancy, or lack of it of women, in particular. This was no accident; on De Vere’s return from overseas he was greeted by a rumour that his own wife Anne (Lord Burghley’s daughter) had been unfaithful. De Vere and Anne were estranged for years thereafter, before he took her back.
A poet mines his own life; De Vere certainly had plenty to mine, from Polonius (his own father-in-law Lord Burghley) to the long journeys he made through Italy in the 1570s and his knowledge of history and the Court of Elizabeth, and the advent of a Scotsman as King in 1603.
Doug, I read here somewhere that you were/are a student of Law; that it is your passion.
That passion, it seems, is unrequited.
“a critic”, “probably”, “for if it is”, and this outrageous and bombastic claim, “And there we have it – proof certain”.
“Proof certain”?!
Come now Doug. Speculation and circumstance are not even evidence let alone “proof certain”.
As long as chaps like Kermode, Bloom, Greenblatt (any connection there Spleenblatt?) and Shapiro are Stratfordians then I shall defer to their judgements.
Argue from authority if you like JG. The qualifiers I used are necessary in the dialectic process, but the conclusion I draw is a revelation to me, since I could find no proof positive until this passage was quoted and analysed by Kermode.
PS Why cannot you use one (1) pseudonym only? It doesn’t add anything to your credibility, especially when you agree with yourself under another pseudonym.
Doug,
Yes, I certainly do argue from authority.
The qualifiers you use possess an intrinsic ambiguity that I find deeply suspect; without interrogation these qualifiers of yours take on the appearance of evidence or truth.
When, in fact, they are not.
But you already know that….which is why, I contend, you use them so liberally.
It is an intellectual deceit that I have little patience for.
The dialectical process you speak of will be constantly retarded, robbed of its internal dynamic, if you pursue these kinds of deceits.
Re: pseudonyms – you of all people here know the reason for the initial pseudonym changes.
You took that confidence and twisted it into something not only absurd but erroneous.
I cannot forgive you for that breach of trust.
Or for this lie: “when you agree with yourself”.
Among other things…
You know me well enough by now – it has been over two years since my time at Drum/Unleashed – to understand both my approach and my position on a range of topics.
I shall not let you pass if you seek to travel the fallacious path.
Your Oxford thesis is flawed. I have read everything Kermode, Bloom and Greenblatt have published (admittedly on other matters) and have found no reason to doubt these men.
If you have evidence, provide it.
If you have speculation, circumstance and coincidence, provide that also…..with the qualification!
Hardly a breach of trust – it is on the public record.
And you do use other pseudonyms to agree with your own posts – often.
First intellectual deceit, now moral deceit.
“breach of trust”: no-one knew of the pseudonyms till YOU ran your mouth.
That, my Fabricating Foe, is a breach of trust.
Re: your other deception.
Do you have the courage to face me if I pick up this gauntlet?
Cite for me those examples.
Cite them.
Cite the constituents of “often”!
It appears, after this brief respite, you and I fated to battle further.
Try not to run to Bob this time Doug.
Hold firm…..they are your words…defend them!
Ready when you are.
Some others knew, fewer cared and I don’t either.
I have no interest in arguing with you, JG. But it was you who posted beneath my major post; the only times recently that I have posted beneath yours have been to agree.
Why do you insist on arguing?
Why reply to anyones’s post to criticise them?
Why bother?
Why?
We are political allies, and we see eye to eye on many issues.
Live and let live.
Doug,
Lie No.1
None knew but you.
Lie No.2
If you “don’t care” you would not have shouted it, endless and shrill, from the rooftops of several blogs in an effort to discredit my argument. I have witnessed no greater example of ad hom in all my days.
Argument No.1
You agreed with my posts because they made sense.
I questioned your post (above) because it did not.
Rationale No.1
My questions were, unbelievably, uncharacteristically, polite. More to the point, they were cardinal.
Correction No.1
Argument occurred ONLY with your PS.
It was provocative, deceitful and irrelevant.
Conclusion:
Take responsibility Doug.
I’m reminded of Helvi’s post on another article; where she states that she seeks “avoidance” from Reader1…..but only after she’s thrown a blind punch!
Awful Hypocrisy.
Awful Lies.
See below.
As for the Oxford thesis, there are of course difficulties; but it fits far better than that the illiterate actor and businessman “William Shakespeare” wrote all the glorious poetry and drama that he is credited with; the Stratfordian thesis is coming apart at the seams.
De Vere deserves true credit for his work, even if 400 years late.
“If you have evidence, provide it.
If you have speculation, circumstance and coincidence, provide that also…with the qualification!
For background on the authorship question please see :
http://www.authorshipstudies.org/articles/controversy.cfm
That’s not “background” Doug.
That’s the Warren Commission.
“It is generally accepted that Shakespeare never read Dante”
- Francis Fergusson
I think he has been shown to be wrong.
G’day DQ, speak to us of the De Vere fart, and explain Ben Jonson, I need Ben Jonson explained. I recently saw Anonymous and thought it a silly, silly film.
Start with Ben Jonson.
Jonson? A rogue, a fool, a playwright of satires and a very naughty boy. And nothing whatsover to do with the real Shakespeare. Anonymous is but one take, and not a very good one if taken as history. As for its merits as a work of fiction I leave for others to judge.
Ben Jonson was a would-be rival and competitor to the person he apparently thought was Shakespeare. Compare his take with that of Robert Greene in the early 1590s.
They both knew little and guessed awry.
(‘Scuse me – Just squeezing this in under Mr Coyote’s Address to the Nation above. Ooh – ouch!
):
Terrance! “They may take our lives, but they’ll never take… OUR FREEEEEEDOM!”
Read it if you like; it might do you some good.
Glinda, can you pass a message on from me?
Anything for you, Untitled
A message? For Terrance? Mel Gibson??
I don’t have forwarding address for either, so will need to ask you to provide the bottle, please. Sir.
Thank you Glinda,
Tell that HoneyBunchSugarPie of mine, my Brother-In-Buffoonery….the one who stole my heart, folded it carefully and put it in her breast pocket, that I am truly sorry for missing our Cafe Viola date.
I was unavoidably detained.
But am now resolute…and shall move Heaven and Earth, shall Forge a New Path toward that Promised Land, should she wish to meet again.
Ummm, Glinda? Why are you…..blushing?
“Tis just….me.
Confusion here. Confusion.
This Glynda doesn’t know everything.
U’66, you’re PM2026. Serious stuff.
The Cat missed no dates.
“I Got Rhythm” played, at the Cafe Viola, when that pair walked in.
Won’t stay around for Double Deletion. I’m happy – went the way of the Dissenters; Cole and gang T., Simon, last heard shouting “Intellectual Dishonesty”. Burn me at the stake, I say. Strike a Redhead.
To JG :
I assure you, others knew. And no I won’t name them.
Please do not continually say that I lie, because I do not.
I never have in any anonymous online blog. Never. There is no point in doing so.
Anyone who lies from behind an anonymous mask has sinister and nefarious intent, and I have none.
I repeat, I have never lied.
I really don’t care to argue with you, but I will take issue with someone who says that I lie.
Please withdraw the statement.
And look again at the definition of ad hominem. The identity and character of a witness are relevant issues when that witness purports to state facts, and, rather uniquely, to corroborate itself, all anonymously.
Saying that someone lies is not calculated to smooth discussion but to inflame matters further. Please desist.
Doug, you forfeited the right to ask for “withdrawals” some time ago.
No-one knew…..they suspected, and there exists a universe between the two terms.
Acknowledge that your “PS” was the first salvo.
That, for me, will signal the truth of your call for “live and let live”.
Do it.
Do not hide or distract or evade or neglect.
Do it.
I seek acknowledgement.
Do it.
I suggest that you re-read your May 5, 7.37 post and tell me then that it was not a first salvo!
Be that as it may, I acknowledge thay my PS was inflammatory, and irrelevant. We all say things which on reflection, we may wish to unsay.
Can we leave it at that, JG?
It most certainly was not provocative!
It addressed the issue raised by your suspect use of language.
The question it posed was absolutely legitimate and couched in a most restrained temper.
I thank you for your acknowledgement.
It soothes my febrile heart.
Yes, we can leave it there.
“…Yet must I not give nature all, thy art,
My Gentle Shakespeare, must enjoy part.
For though the poet’s matter nature be,
His art doth give the fashion; and that be,
Who casts to write a living line must sweat-
Such as thine are- and strike the second heat
Upon the muses’ anvil turn the same.
And himself with it that he thinks to frame;
Or for the laurel he may gain a scorn,
For a good poet’s made as well as born.
And such wert thou. Look how the father’s face
Lives in his issue, even so the race
Of Shakespeare’s mind and manners brightly shines
In his well-turned and true-filed lines,
In each of which he seems to shake a lance,\
As brandished at the eyes of ignorance.
Sweet swan of Avon! What a sight it were
To see thee in our water yet appear,
And make those flights upon the banks of Thames
So did take Eliza and our James!
But stay, I see thee in the hemisphere
Advances, and made a constellation there!
Shine forth, thou star of poets, and with rage
Or influence chide or cheer the drooping stage,
Which, since thy flight from hence, hath mourned like night
And despairs day, but for thy volumes’ light.”
Ben Jonson 1623 First Folio
I can never imagine that in the close quartered way in which these men lived, that such a hoax could be perpetrated. That lines weren’t shouted out from around a table of poets in order to finish a line to meet a deadline, or placate an actor who couldn’t get his mouth around an alliteration, seems to me a given. It would be like discovering that Ringo Starr wrote all of the Beatles’ songs and George Martin kept it quiet because of publishing royalties.
Conspiracy is the requirement for an ordered world, one that will not warrant suprise or genius. In order to support a conspiracy everything and everyone else must be diminished. Jonson may well have been a rogue, but rogue implies to my mind, cunning and falsity, but also the ability to measure a man for a fool in order to fool him. A rogue and a playwright, what a great combination of talents for a man to see through an “upstart crow” or a straw man as Shakespeare would have had to been.
Shakespeare’s abilities would have been a discussion at any table of actors and poets, theatre owners and their ilk. If your theory holds then at least we can recognize Will as the supreme master actor of his generation, and hence we diminish the reputation of Burbage or Condell. Do you see how this works? Everyone else must become a dupe or a pawn to support any other contender as the writer of the plays.
Not at all. We are talking of the early 1600s, with a decidedly jumpy James I on the throne.
The Gunpowder Plot of 1605 was the 9/11 of the day. There is no mention of it in any Shakespeare play, try as some might to scrub up an obscure reference. Why no mention? De Vere died in June 1604, that is why.
The Earl of Southampton was by this time a great nobleman in the kingdom, and not at all keen to have the Sonnets addressed to him by De Vere spread around. The Sonnets were published in 1609 without authorisation as being by “our ever-living poet”, William Shakespeare. The publication was suppressed that same year and they were not published again until 1640, long after Southampton’s death. He was still alive, and powerful, when the First Folio was published in 1623 with no mention of them.
see :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Wriothesley,_3rd_Earl_of_Southampton
The portraits of Southampton as a teenager and at 21 show just how attractive he was; if I were gay, I’d be stirred too.
“An Act to Restrain Abuses of Players, 1606″ was targeted at the stage actors themselves, and the
executive government was right onto the actors and the rumour mongers; it could cost you your life. Censorship then had real teeth.
United 93 was made in 2006 as was WTC in the same year, Farenheit 9/11 in 2004. There is a period after any great devestating catastrophe where one is best silent for fear of censorship or backlash, Shakespeare was being prudent.
Why rub James’ nose in it.
And your point is?
The Gunpowder Plot of 1605 was the 9/11 of the day. There is no mention of it in any Shakespeare play, try as some might to scrub up an obscure reference. Why no mention?
Because De Vere died in 1604.
It is inconceivable that there would be no mention of an event which changed the world if Shakespeare was alive and writing plays up until 1613 at least.
I ask anyone to read this article and then tell me that De Vere was not Shakespeare :
http://www.authorshipstudies.org/articles/oxford_shakespeare.cfm
Utterly convincing; even to me, a notional Stratfordian who tried to make sense in my latest (co-written) play Shakespeare In Italy of the ill-schooled glover’s son who knew so much of court matters.
Read it, everybody. It is superb.