| Revision as of 23:42, 17 December 2010 editZweigenbaum (talk | contribs)129 edits Unexamined assumptions keep the parties in conflict | Latest revision as of 15:31, 29 March 2011 edit undoBenJonson (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users1,818 editsNo edit summary | ||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
| I look forward to substantive discussion on the basics of this controversy, namely do all agree that Shakspere and Shakespeare are one and the same person--I cannot; do all agree that autobiography has nothing to do with the Shakespeare canon--I do not; do all agree that the figure born in Stratford-upon-Avon was hugely famous in his own time and the recipient of numerous praises then and upon his death--I do not. The authorship discussion is skewed because the Oxfordian element and the Stratfordian element are speaking about two different entities, one real but not a writer, the other known to have masked his work under another name and that name by definition fictive. Until those favorable to the first of these realize that they have been hoodwinked, we may not communicate too well. But the effort is worth the prize, clarification of the issue. | I look forward to substantive discussion on the basics of this controversy, namely do all agree that Shakspere and Shakespeare are one and the same person--I cannot; do all agree that autobiography has nothing to do with the Shakespeare canon--I do not; do all agree that the figure born in Stratford-upon-Avon was hugely famous in his own time and the recipient of numerous praises then and upon his death--I do not. The authorship discussion is skewed because the Oxfordian element and the Stratfordian element are speaking about two different entities, one real but not a writer, the other known to have masked his work under another name and that name by definition fictive. Until those favorable to the first of these realize that they have been hoodwinked, we may not communicate too well. But the effort is worth the prize, clarification of the issue. | ||
| ==Zweigenbaum's Barnstar== | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" | |||
| |rowspan="2" valign="middle" | {{#ifeq:{{{2}}}|alt|]|]}} | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Congratulations, Zweigenbaum, on your banning! You are true defender of Misplaced Pages's intellectual honesty and integrity] (]) 15:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
Latest revision as of 15:31, 29 March 2011
Hello All,
I look forward to substantive discussion on the basics of this controversy, namely do all agree that Shakspere and Shakespeare are one and the same person--I cannot; do all agree that autobiography has nothing to do with the Shakespeare canon--I do not; do all agree that the figure born in Stratford-upon-Avon was hugely famous in his own time and the recipient of numerous praises then and upon his death--I do not. The authorship discussion is skewed because the Oxfordian element and the Stratfordian element are speaking about two different entities, one real but not a writer, the other known to have masked his work under another name and that name by definition fictive. Until those favorable to the first of these realize that they have been hoodwinked, we may not communicate too well. But the effort is worth the prize, clarification of the issue.
Zweigenbaum's Barnstar
|
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar | |
| Congratulations, Zweigenbaum, on your banning! You are true defender of Misplaced Pages's intellectual honesty and integrityBenJonson (talk) 15:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC) |