Simon has been banned for life. Tiny Dancer for three years. G.K Cole for three years. Jim for a month in the hope he learns English, and paragraphing, and punctuation. Those who wish to continue appearing and hate the Government must say which eight policies they abhor. For want of this (he offered eight push-ups) Simon was forever silenced. I would appreciate it if Marilyn used the word ‘fucking’ less frequently.
And so it goes.
Name:
Keep Simon, we could all benefit from sit-ups…
How am I faring, Bob?
I really hate you as I recall.
I forgot you in the excitement of the beheadings.
Bob, I do not wish to appear to be some anonymous grub, despite the nature of some of my comments. It’s just that this is one of the only forums in which some of the inside knowledge I obtain can be dispelled in an environment I would regard as relatively hospitable to it.
Please, please do not hate me, Bob.
You were the one who cited a knocked-up ministerial staffer you would not name.
Banned for a year.
How dare you do that? What are you, Channel 7?
Fuck you.
I cannot name the staffer as the name was not provided to me, but the information came from a member of the Prime Minister’s media strategy team a week before rumours of this affair were alluded to in the papers. I am not a liar, Bob, or one who relishes smearing.
Thanks for your support Doug.
No, you don’t hate him. He’s ok.
yeah, yeah, swearing is so much more awful than killing people.
Marilyn should be allowed to swear because she is a good person…and she cares passionately about asylum seekers…
Helvi if you are still around Adelaide Hannahh Moore is screening a film about Ali the Iranian runner that she has made.
I would love to invite you to a screening of ‘Ali 707′ at the Mercury Cinema in Adelaide, on Sunday June 4th at 4pm.
The address is 13 Morphett Street Adelaide SA, 5000.
Bob and I are related through our one small family.
Thank you Marilyn, I have been to Sydney the last three days, back home to Bowral…sweet home, we got heaters here, it was unpleasant in Sydney today…
(Not sure where to put this, Bob – I have tried to post it to your Drum Article, where it may or may not escape moderation.)
This is a vast subject, and one I have dealt with at length in Bob Ellis’ blogsite.
I have studied the authorship question intensively for several months now, between jobs; sadly my leisure is now gone, but the upshot is as follows :
Edward De Vere was one of the best educated men in the world. Born in 1550, he had all the best tutors and gained degrees from Oxford and Cambridge, was the nephew of the translator of Ovid, William Golding, and in the mid 1570s he travelled extensively through Italy.
But before all that he faced being declared a bastard, as his then-deceased parents marriage was challenged. At 13 years of age, he stood to lose his lands, his title and his income, as well as his legitimacy.
He was a great nobleman at Elizabeth I’s Court, a favourite and one who wrote and caused plays to be performed at Court. He also wrote poetry.(!)
In the next decade or so, he had cause to set aside his wife for apparent infidelity. He eventually took her back. By the by, his father in law was William Cecil, Lord Burghley. (Burghley is widely acknowledged as the model for Polonius in Hamlet.)
De Vere was lamed in a duel in the early 1590s. Two epic poems were published in the mid 1590s under the name ‘William Shakespeare’ and any scholar who was asked in 1596 would have said “Shakespeare is a poet”(full stop).
At about this time or a little earlier ‘Shakespeare’ wrote over 50 sonnets addressed to the Earl of Southampton, then a handsome youth/young man, urging him to marry and procreate and addressing him as an equal and as ‘my lovely boy.’ Is that conceivable for the man from Stratford?
At the end of the 1590s, my theory is that De Vere rewrote and rejigged the plays he had written for the Court, mostly in the 1580s, and as artists and composers do, destroyed the earlier versions.
The great plays emerged at a frightening speed, so close together that it beggars belief; unless that is they were already largely written over the previous 20 years.
De Vere died in June 1604, and Macbeth written to celebrate the arrival of James I, shows many signs of being incomplete.
Over the next 10 years, plays kept appearing, with other hands more or less apparent, giving the impression that there were co-writers. In fact, I think, they were merely trying to make the dead Bard’s work in progress performable.
The sonnets were published as being by “our ever-living poet” in 1609 and immediately suppressed, not to reappear until 1640. The Earl of Southampton was then a great nobleman at Court, and wanted no reminders of his youthful indiscretions.
Southampton died in 1624, after the First Folio (1623) which made no mention of poetry (!)
A poet mines his own life, it has been said; De Vere had plenty to mine. What did the man from Stratford have?
Looks like A Current Affair producer Ben Fordham has located the escort of Craig Thomson and has interviewed and grillied Thomson in his parliament offices for 90 minutes over fresh allegations.
https://mobile.twitter.com/#!/benfordham
Well, no doubt we’ll see if she passes the lie detector, and how much she is paid.
And if she gets the dates right.
Bob, I really enjoy reading and contributing to your blog; but if that fishwife keeps using her gutter language, I’ll take my leave.
That is a little precious, is it not?
Freedom of speech allows one to say things others may not like, and may not agree with; certainly I would prefer civil discussions, but each to his own.
(If others question my own record, I reserve the right to respond in kind to vituperation and insults, as and how I see fit.)
No, it’s not being “precious.” (What a smarmy little putdown that is.)
I have a right to object to the trashing of the society I live in.
Your society is trashed by someone using the words fuck, fucking and/or cunt?
I don’t think much of the resilience of your society.
DQ, you have told a lie. That you did so parenthetically only compounds the deceit.
Glinda (below) has rightfully and truthfully exposed it.
In one simple line.
Appalling.
Bullshit – see below.
Doug, I’m going to have to jump in here as well.
Tell me what it was exactly that ME and Glinda said to you that warranted your “in kind” response of c..t?
…and why is Reader’s ‘cunt’ not as offensive as ME’s or Glinda’s ?
I’m not sure what you mean Helvi.
I”ve never read M-E or Glinda use anything like that term.
Have you?
Please clarify.
My apologies to Glinda and AM…thanks Eleanor for pointing it out..
Why is my cunt more offensive than Doug and Bob’s? Why is my fuck more offensive than Marilyn’s fuck? I’ll tell you why. Politics. The politics of cunt and fuck.
You better watch out Helvi, your lack of political astuteness is leading you into a very interesting new political bloc formation. The MTR phonebox wowser conspirateurs and the Amazonian, Sheepish porn pushers appear to be conglomerating, right here, through you.
It is the end times.
R1,
It looks nice there, don’t you think…I’m sure I saw you there?
The apocalypse is nice? That’s reassuring to know on a profound level.
Not at all. I say that if I am insulted I will respond in kind : ie by insulting, in whatever fashion I choose. I chose that word because she had previously revealed he utter abhorence of it – as if that made any sense.
A word is a word is a word, not a bomb or a stake through the heart.
Get over it.
Not so fast Doug,
Allow me to state what is obvious to all:
You say that they are just words, and not bombs or stakes
But that is exactly how you have chosen to use the word :c…t.”
You say as much yourself – “I chose that word because she had previously revealed he utter abhorence of it”.
I’m right about you too; more law clerk or retired public servant with a Rumpole fantasy.
Choose Your Own Adventure -
You come across a fervent Campbell Newman supporter in the street who starts beating you around the head with a smiling, beaming placard. You know this person dissolves into a puff of air at the mere mention of the word “chair”…
Option 1 –
To not employ the word “chair” in such circumstances would be like winning immunity on Survivor and then giving it away to the dodgy plumber from New Jersey.
Option 2 – Start an anti-chair saying league and espouse the righteous moral qualities of your placard bearing oppressor.
Sorry Reader, no cigar. The exemplary Eleanor wins again.
Do you seriously suggest that all words are equal in significance and power? Seriously?
If words are nothing but “letters strung together” then what are we doing here?
The Vile One reacted so violently to – not a physical attack with a placard, but – a little word: “m-i-n-i-o-n”.
He can’t have it both ways.
And
nor
can
you.
Please learn to live with your loss.
Wins what? What are the rules? Who makes them? Why did they make them? What was the original purpose behind the rules? How effective are they at fulfilling that purpose? What is the worth of this purpose? What other possible purposes can be imagined and what set of rules might best propitiate these new purposes?
It’s the only thing there is to talk about. As Nietzsche said, the rest is crap.
And why oh why do you appoint yourself cigar doler outer-er? What is this font of knowledge you claim lends you such authority? Is it The Mormon Principle?
The rules?
How about: have a conversation, swap thoughts, clarify things, add an insight where possible, be civil, try and halt the spread of hypocrisy and evasion?
They’ll do me just fine.
For starters.
It’s funny, Reader1, how you never seem to ask those questions listed in your first paragraph when YOU are declaring something.
Now why is that?
If everyone were to just declare themselves, there would be no need for these snake-eating-itself, circle-of-insanity scenarios.
Don’t talk about it. Do it.
Only 2 options Reader????
It’s no wonder you behave the way you do if you can only see two, those two options.
Spread your arms a little Reader1.
This, scrawled on a Precious Petal:
“No need question a record that speaks for itself.
Where “in kind” equals “as and how I see fit”.
A boorish, borish nonsense.
Hard-laboured knowledge on sleeve
Faux-cultured words dripping from
Vulgar tongue.”
Get over it.
It’s just letters strung together, people. Get the fuck over it. What is really of interest is the meaning of the words, what they refer to and how they tie in to greater meanings. Keep it universal or context specific, the rest is cunt-arsery.
Which is this Reader1?
Is it “meaning”?
Is it “greater meaning”?
Is it “universal”?
Is it “context specific”?
“Just because you want it to be Shakespeare for your own narrative purposes doesn’t make it any more or less likely true. Occam’s Razor in reverse. Moreover, I would contest your narrative purpose as being lacking in roundedness.”
Or is it, as you would have us believe, “c…-arsery”?
Any day now.
Any day now.
Any day now what? Are the cult coming after me? Are they going to do terrible things to my Vectra? All in the name of moral principle?
I am an innocent.
“Any day now” you will say something commensurate with your 38 years.
There, I’ve answered your question, now you have a go at mine.
Or was your post just a “piece of fluff”?
I asked you to give warning Reader!
Otherwise I might mistake you for a “core/non-core”, or a “scripted only”, kind of poster.
It’s hard climbing out of that hole isn’t it?
Don’t worry though, I’m not the kind to rub your face in it.
Here, take my hand.
Mistake me for whatever you like. It’s ok. I don’t mind. Shake it up a little. Interpretation can be fun. It doesn’t always have to be so freaking painful.
Is that your answer?
Talk about “painful”!
Reader1, if you can’t defend or explain or add to or clarify your own stated position could you please refrain from stating anything at all.
Muzak.
You lot just stick to stating and clarifying your own positions and leave others to attend to their own moral fibre. It never, ever, ever gets out of the realm of the personal as far as youse lot are concerned. Some objective truth as the basis for which others are to be judged is always alluded to, never clarified, and this truth is to be found in, and only in, can only be found in, your possession. I don’t see how you are philosophically any different to a Christian missionary.
I have a different value system to you and a different set of experiences. I am a savage and proud of it. I care not for your red coats and tea parties, and if you were to get me drunk on kava and wring the truth out of me, I’d tell you I suspected you of being a demon that lives in a volcano. I just don’t see how you patronising one person, albeit in a public context, has any great relevance when there are wild boar to be hunted down. I really don’t.
I’m with you Reader1 – Illegitimi Non Carborundum.
DQ, it all depends on who you do see as a bastard.
Reader1, see below.
You’re right, it’s just letters strung together, symbolic shapes on the screen thanks to some smart electronics that now serves as one of the foundations of what we term our lives, immersed and enmeshed in information exchange to an extent unthinkable to recent generations. Digital wizardry shunting data around the planet… stupendously enormous gobs of information like some invisible etheric influence that’s captured the minds and emotions of the audiences.
How impotent we are without our umbilical attachment to the keyboard. Almost invisible.
But with fingers engaged on the keyboard, locked in to the swirly moments of ejaculating the declarative statements and making the points and putting the dumb fucks their place and abusing them…damm, that feels good… visceral, emotional. Damn, I’m the man.
Just noughts and ones, disguised as thought bombs.
The only reason I come here is for the comedy, not for Marilyn’s insight. Three years, wow.
Pearls before swine, TD. Hold my hand – we are about be liquidated again by the “TOLERANT” LEFTISTS…
That all you got, SoloMan?
Tua stultitia erit olim mors tui.
So glad Glinda you swear in style, in Latin,…only kidding, i know what you are saying, had to do it for three yeas at high school…loved it..
Helvz, the teacher doesn’t swear in first year.
Calpi to Julius?
Serpens.
Vero nihil verius.
For Reader1,
What on earth are you talking about?!
I haven’t seen so many words employed in the service of evasion since, well since J.G.Cole gave Doug Q the thumping of his life!
Reader1, please listen carefully:
I’m simply asking you a question about a statement that you had made.
Your efforts to avoid responding to that statement by employing every evasive trick known to man – allusions to moral fibre, defense of the personal, the complications of objective truth and judgement, the philosophical perspective, the theological view, differing values, Rousseauean conceits, demonology, even volcanology, goodness, even the dreaded sus scrofa manoeuvre – brought tears to my eyes!
All of this began when you evaded a direct question with some silly nonsense, with some silly off the cuff quip.
And that’s fine. it really is. Each to their own.
You should have just left it at that.
But when you start fobbing it off your evasions as the other persons fault, or their problem, then you’ve really crossed the line.
I was right about you.
The descent continues.
Ask the question again if I missed it. What the fuck are all these most recent words for? You tell me to listen carefully but it’s all just padding, the premise has not been fully rounded out or even remotely addressed. If you feel this strongly about some point or issue, repetition is a valid literary trick when dealing with someone who doesn’t take you as seriously as you would like. You were right about me in your own mind, sure, but not objectively because that’s not possible. And if you are objectively right about me, say in what way you were right, not “I was right”, to make it a bit more content laden for others.
But you are philosophically so wrong about the nature of truth. Life is not an episode of “Big Love” unless you are Mitt Romney. There is no “The Principle” written by a conman involving magic underwear. There is evidence, there is interpretation, and there are the personal personalities of me and Doug. The last is great and the world should come together in order to ponder it, but the first two are more practical.
Descent into what, evasion of what. Who, what, when, where, how. Names. Semiotics.
Motive.
Ok Reader1, I’ll play your little game.
You ask me to ask the question again: well, here it is, again;
“Just because you want it to be Shakespeare for your own narrative purposes doesn’t make it any more or less likely true. Occam’s Razor in reverse. Moreover, I would contest your narrative purpose as being lacking in roundedness.”
And my question?
What exactly is my (or allthumbs, the other conversant) “narrative agenda” in wanting Shakespeare to be the chap from Stratford as opposed to De Vere?
Be SPECIFIC Reader. I like specifics. I’ve read somewhere that you do too.
There it is Reader1.
Now, let’s address your other concerns – more evasion, I’m afraid – quickly.
1. All those words you call “padding” are just me mocking your attempts at evasion. They are lifted directly from your post of this morning – 9.13am.
2. The premise has been fully rounded out – rounded out enough to warrant a response anyway.
3. Repetition is certainly a valuable conversational strategy; that’s why I’ve asked you the same question on 4, perhaps 5, separate occasions. You’ve avoided them all, so I guess repetition isn’t that valuable.
4. I don’t claim to be “objectively” right about you in all things. Of course you’re right there. What I do claim to be right about however, objectively, is this; that from the evidence before me, the strong black marks on a white ground that constitute this medium, you seek to avoid direct questioning of your statements. The evidence (there’s another word that figures large in your list of important things) is there.
5. You presume too much if you think you know enough about me to know my philosophical position on “truth”. I have neither given it, nor has there been opportunity to express it. You and I are still up to the “will you answer a question“ stage. Uncovering personal “philosophical truths” is a bit beyond us at the moment.
6. I’ve never seen “Big Love” nor care for Romney.
7. I believe very much in interpretation – in certain areas qualified – but for the most part, interpretation.
8. Yes, descent into evasion; evasion of direct questions. You already know the who, what, where, when. Don’t employ semiotics to criticise semiotics.
9. Finally, motive. The most interesting one of all perhaps.
I’ll tell you what I’ll do Reader1. You have a shot at addressing my points – specifically, you did after all ask for them – and I will outline my “motive” for you.
How’s that?
Deal?
Good!
You seem to be mistaking me for someone who gives a shit. I don’t find you scintillating enough to go foraging in the far reaches with you. Allthumbs, to whom I had been referring, I find sufficiently scintillating to explore any crevice that need be. I long to fix him. He was telling us the reasons why he wanted it to be Shakespeare, which is fine in and of itself, but not in the context of evidence, and I was gently pulling my long time pupil up on it. Also, he was wrong in his reasons for wanting it to be Shakespeare. It’s the most boring scenario.
Ca c’est tout. It was over before it began, but for this strangely familiar niggling campaign you appear to be waging.
Dear me!
You couldn’t do it, could you?
After all the bluff, and the words, you just couldn’t do it.
You just don’t know your stuff.
Do what? What stuff?
Don’t let it worry you Reader1, JG Cole is in one of its moods again.
Get help Cole. Seriously.
Bullshit, Cole.
Gorrrd, Eleanor, you can write, ten out of ten for this one!
She is good, isn’t she, Helvz.
Wow! thanks to both you!
I must confess, it wasn’t very hard. She was ripe. I just blew on the tree a little, and PLOP! down she came!
Stick around though – who knows where this is going. From experience it could mean a banning for me!
Especially if I upset Doug!!!
What’s the premise? State it.
I have.
5 times.
But you’ve taken the ball and ran home.
Oh well,
What’s the premise?
They are both JG Cole. It needs help.
Don’t feed the troll.
Don’t like my peaches?
Dontcha shake my tree
Get outta my orchard
Let my peaches be
4 R1
M-E x
Here’s a tip. If you don’t want you peaches shaken, go to Gerard’s blog. This ain’t your orchard.
JG Cole in all your pseudonyms: You really do need psychiatric help.
To Bob : Ban it, and ban it now.
Don’t you dare Doug Quixote,don’t you bloody well dare!
You’ve done this too many times before; starting your little campaign of innuendo and smear and ugly accusations.
How dare you!
You little, ugly, man.
Puffed up like some obese toady just because Bob indulges your Shakespearean suspicions, the ones that you hope will insinuate you into his favours, the one’s brewing now for what, a few months?? tossing around your cringing sycophantic “me and Bob” this, “me and Bob” that.
What are you? A rat in his pocket?
Well I’m not going to stand for it!
I am not JG.Cole. The others can speak for themselves.
I’ve been reading here since December 2011 and know every regular contributor, past and present.
I have read every single word that passed between you and Cole and found your behavior utterly contemptible.
That’s my opinion, and that’s the opinion of my husband – whose statement, I’m not ashamed to say, was that he would take you into the backyard and knock some sense into you!
To be completely frank, I liked Cole enormously. I enjoyed her comments and thought she was a great addition to this blog.
I certainly liked her much more than you, and if that means I take a stand to protect her now, then I bloody well will!
She took the time to help me with my studies; she offered advice on authors and perspectives, she asked about my family, my children.
So you had better believe I’m going to defend her against your cowardly and ugly innuendos.
Why should Bob ban her?
Why?
Because you say so?
Because you don’t like to answer hard questions?
Because you don’t like to be intellectually challenged?
Because the comparison exposes you as the cowardly little shit you are?
So, I’ll be damned if I sit idle while you, an ugly and miserable and simple little man of 55, pretending to be a lawyer, pouring over old literary conspiracies in the vain hope that it will secure you relevance to a bunch of anonymous bloggers, rubbish the name of someone I hold in high regard.
So sit in the corner and wail to Bob, hold your breath till your face turns blue, throw whatever tanty you want, but I’m going to take a stand, today, right now! 6.37am!
I’ve kept my mouth shut all for all these months (damn hubby’s advice!) when you were pulling the same tactic on anyone and everyone that you suspected of being J.G.
Well no more Doug.
No more staying quiet.
You’ve caused enough damage.
Time for someone to call a stop.
As long as I feel like commenting on this blog, I will.
And if you and your pathological fear of a “question” don’t like it, well, you know where the door is.
I doubt you”ll be missed.
Even by Bob.
Someone prove me wrong.
I am so cranky!!
Get help – ‘United States of Tara’ is not healthy.
Get “help” yourself, you miserable and cowardly little man.
You know where the door is.
Top right hand corner.
Small red box with a white cross.
Click on it.
No, seriously, I fear for your mental well-being. There are many times when your posts show great style and good sense, but at other times . . . and the urge you seem to have to stalk Ellis, Reader1 and myself cannot be healthy. Get help.