testing

123

I can hear you!

Ditto!

Did you pass?

So, who to be the Grüpp Hauptsturmfürher here?

No doubt, a member of the "SS"---

"Stratfordischer Sturmführer" Grüppen, ja?

>5 proximity1: I'm not sure what you mean by that? If you're concerned about how group admins will use the new moderation powers, I share those concerns. But I'm hoping to be proven wrong! And I don't know if making jokes about Nazism will help other people listen to our concerns.

>6 JacobHolt:

Jacob,

thanks, but it's late in the day to start worrying about how my comments here do or might affect others' in this group "listening to my concerns."

They never listened. From the start, my "concerns," as far as this group's topics are concerned, were never given any fair, serious consideration. They were mocked, ridiculed, dismissed--without ever touching the substance of arguments--from the very first.

To be very clear: "what I mean by that" is that, in this group, there's a herd-mentality and that herd is squarely opposed to giving any room to thinking which questions this herd's orthodoxies about what's called the "Shakespeare authorship question." Their first objection is that there even exists any such "question." In their view, William Shaksper of Stratford on Avon wrote the "Shakespeare" opus and this is settled.

Serious consideration of anything else isn't treated with any respect here and those who try to change that are made as unwelcome as possible.

In the new dispensation, I don't see what's going to stop the herd here from simply having them prohibited from posting at all. They choose the "moderator" and the "moderator" can "moderate" such unwelcome opinion--however well-founded--right off the reservation.

The argument shall be that "Oxfordians" can start their own group.

So, then, everyone to his and her own "Safe-spaces" in which they can talk to themselves in banal little echo-chambers.

This, in our time, is called progress.

_________________________

P.S. So, here's my answer:

Your admin. : Crypto-Willobie:

utterly and unalterably opposed to the Oxfordian view on the Authorship Question and the very last person one could look to for a fair hearing on the controversies which arise from that.

Was there any prior discussion in this group as to who to select? None that I saw. Was any such even proposed here? Not that I saw. Did Spalding or Meg announce anywhere---prior to appointing C-W--- the names of those who'd proposed themselves or been proposed by others in the group? Not that I saw.

When, in this group, was there EVER posted here an announcement such as this, found at the "Pro & Con" group's page:

" This group is looking for an admin.
Submissions: 2"

?
as far as I'm aware, the answer is,


"No, Thursday's out. How about never—is never good for you?"

(Mankoff, 1993, The New Yorker)
_________________________________________

Q.E.D.

This, I suppose, is the kind of result which Spalding intended when he put through this scheme.

_________________________________________

Like topsy, growing in our midst, the same dynamics are seen over and over in myriad topics. E.g. in the following cited essay, John McWhorter describes how this infects views on race.

John McWhorter: The Neoracists
from the periodical Persuasion | John McWhorter: The Neoracists | A new religion is preached across America. It's nonsense posing as wisdom.

I come here from time to time looking for literary discussions of the works of Shakespeare or editions or performances thereof. I am thankful to all who post such things. Personally I am almost entirely uninterested in the identity question that seems to dominate this group and is occasionally discussed here without decorum. When I visit the group it quite often causes me to sigh and sign off in short order. I write this not as a plea for censorship but in case those posting at length on topics they obviously feel strongly about are somehow under the impression that this group has no users/visitors like myself - not passionate Stratfordians, not opponents of free thought or discourse, but ordinary readers of works I imagine we all consider great and... rather weary.

"I come here from time to time looking for literary discussions of the works of Shakespeare or editions or performances thereof. I am thankful to all who post such things."

____________________

You do?

There's no evidence of any participation on your part in any such discussions. Indeed, there's no evidence of your having any library. Since joining in 2019, you haven't seen fit to catalog a single work. No books, no comments, no participation of any kind in any discussion here.

Fine. No one can and no one does require you to take any interest in what's called "the authorship 'question'".

But that matter remains the single most engrossing aspect of contemporary interest in "Shakespeare" whether that is from a "literary" point of view or any other point of view -- a fact that has been true for more than a century.

Many writers, most, in fact, René Girard among them, couldn't avoid it. Despite their own claim of having, like you, "no interest" in the matter, they find or they found themselves incapable of leaving aside this matter in the rest of their interest in and work on "Shakespeare." In fact, so central is this to any useful or interesting look at the author's work that one has to strain to avoid it and many writers' work on "Shakespeare" show them doing just that.

The call to avoid it is a call to ignore what's still vital in understanding "Shakespeare's" writing.

ANY other writer's identity, if in doubt, would be just as important a matter.

The idea that readers of James Joyce could get just as much out of a reading of Ulysses with no idea at all of the author's identity and life-story as those who are correctly informed on these is just utterly absurd.

Ignorance is nothing to celebrate or recommend. And even those who disingenuously claim not to care at all about "who wrote 'Shakespeare'" are claiming that not because they don't in fact bother about it but rather because they have indeed an interest in it and they've subscribed to the partisan Stratfordian views and are opposed to seeing/hearing anything about any alternatives discussed.

So they claim to think what so manifestly isn't true: that they're not interested in it.

That's not just a load of baloney.

It's a load of 'tough' baloney.

>8 GusLogan: Regarding 9's comment, "There's no evidence ...", Yada, yada, yada.

I hope you aren't turned off by the abusive troll to the point that you stop visiting from time to time. Though there is little activity here that is legitimately about Shakespeare, there is some. You might see if there is some way to block its posts. If you learn of one, please let me know. In the meantime, checking the name before reading is a good way to filter out the garbage. Nothing of value has yet been offered by it.

>10 Podras.:

You might see if there is some way to block its posts. If you learn of one, please let me know.

There is.

If you go to a member's profile, on the bottom right hand side you will see the option to "Block this member". If you click that, the content of that person's posts will be hidden from your view. The header will be there, and you will see "Message hidden because you blocked the member (show)". "(show)" is there just in case you want to torture yourself by seeing the content.

>10 Podras.:
Thanks - I’ll stick around. Though >9 proximity1: has a fair implicit point: by posting myself I could of course influence the balance of posts here. So far I’ve posted in other groups instead partly for the reasons given, though I actually didn’t think my above post was my very first here. My point stands, of course - while I cannot make any claim to be part of a silent majority, there may well be many who feel the same way. I thought it was time to make a small statement, though I did so without much optimism.

>11 lilithcat:
That is indeed what I have done.

>11 lilithcat: Thanks.

>14 proximity1:
I think I see. The Oxfordians are so despised you are working to strengthen their ranks by... being rude on the internet. Good luck with that! I’m going to look for some advice on the order in which to read the history plays. That’s the level I’m at - though I’ve also read a few of your posts.

Edit: That’s A LOT of books on Shakespeare and related topics! I can’t say I’m not impressed.

>15 GusLogan: I’m going to look for some advice on the order in which to read the history plays.

Would you like an opinion here? :) Or do you plan to start a separate topic for this?