User talk:Charles Darnay

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Charles Darnay (talk | contribs) at 20:43, 15 January 2011. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

The Wikipedia Tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome! Nikkimaria (talk) 00:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Wilkins

Can't you get anything straight,Paul? You undoubtedly came over here with this balderdash in hopes that your readers(if any) won't know what was originally said on the other thread at Shakespeare Authorship discussion:subhead Wilkins.The discussion was supposed to be about how a manuscript containing Shakespeare matteer came to be adulterated by a third rate hack named Wilkins who was never to appear in an authorial capaciity again.

Two documents were cited,as a preliminary thereto.The second document was discovered by a man(previously unknown to you and Reedy) called Hotson who incorporated it into a book(equally unknown to you and Reedy).It is that document which is pertinent-- not Hotson's(whom you,as late as yesterday believed to be somebody named Hodson) failure to incorporate any coherent interpretation of said document in his book(which Reedy may still believe to be a pamphlet.

As to your further misconceptions about available source material I'll try to reply to them where they belong.I mean the Wilkins section,not the sand box.

"I'm sure Shakespeare scholars are as interested in 20th century writing as anyone else who likes literature, but professionally, I can't imagine that they would derive much benefit from such people," Such people! Paul,do you actually know who Ernst Robert Curtius is? It is one thing not to know Leslie Hotson but not to know Curtius shows an equal ignorance of expertise in Modern,Renaissance and Medieval Literature.Try googling "Curtius James Joyce" or "Curtius,Literature and the Latin Middle Ages".The latter was,may still be,a standard Columbia graduate text for many generations.Too bad that Shapiro was too dellinquent in his studies to consult it.

I know Sussex isn't in the same league as the Ox-Cam circuit but this is unbelievable. Though I agree that Dave and Stanley's style expertise would render them impervious to whatever Curtius will continue to offer.Now let's get back on topic,the life of Oxford(which seeing that Nina trounced you guys,you are understandably reluctant to do}. No one except Alden Brooks of Harvard and copycat Alan Nelson(Berkeley,1967)is known to have believed the Arundel charges in the past four hundred years.This definitely meets the Wikipedia definition of Fringe theory.In so far as they seek to relate themselves to the life of Edward de Vere they are fringe theorists,by definition on this blog (whether or not this is a desirable definition you claiim to be outside the purview oof mortal man). Further,as you have had your free daily lessons in remediable Shakespeare 0002,remediable World Literature 0001, and Edward de Vere 0000,I trust that you may eventually come to understand why you are not qualified to describe yourself as mainstream.Charles Darnay (talk) 22:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, your arguments and comments are now becoming completely childish. I did not "come over" to the De Vere page. I replied to your comments, which were written there. However, I will not continue to add material unrelated to the page's topic, so I am replying here. I not recall any discussion of the circumstances in which "Shakespeare matter" was "adulterated by a third rate hack named Wilkins who was never to appear in an authorial capaciity again." I recall you obessing irrelevantly about brothels. If you want to recall what you wrote here it is: Talk:Shakespeare_authorship_question#George_Wilkins. We both know that Wilkins had already written a play, so there's nothing surprising about his then getting involved in a collaborative venture with WS. His other activities have no relevance to his ability to write, such as it was. Hotson was not unknown to me at all. Indeed I read his rather unconvincing book on the Hilliard portrait years ago. I just mistyped his name, then quickly corrected the typo. That's all. As I have already said, you have shown yourself capable of typing wholly incoherent sentences, so why do you think you can crow over one letter? I rather doubt he was unknown to Tom either. Again you are making things up. I knew nothing about Curtius, nor do I see why it is remotely relevant. I'm willing to acknowledge that I have not heard over every 20th century scholar in all areas. I doubt that you are willing to admit to even your most glaring inadequacies. You show no evicdence of any meaningful knowledge at all. Almost everything of substance you have said is riddled with basic errors, as has been pointed out repeatedly. I am 'mainstream' in this context because I defend the mainstream view, that's all. Paul B (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Paul,I just saw this or would,for the final time,have replied sooner.This" he said,-no.I didn't say(knowwing full well what that you did say and do) is standard practice among the Kathman,Reedy,Kennedey  rent-a-mob culture over at HLAS.They have exported it to Wickie.You have apparently drafted to play the role  formerly  alloted to  David "tangled "Webb
 "We both know that Wilkins had already written a play, so there's nothing surprising about his then getting involved in a collaborative venture with WS. His other activities have no relevance to his ability to write, such as it was." 
  Where did you take your 001 in logic ,man? 
 Actually Wilkins had written in two produced plays but even then,IF Wilkins collaborated on the Globe version of "Pericles" (and there is no contemporary evidence that he,unlike Bacon, was regarded as a collaborator of Shakespeare)there is no way he could have got the job short of his old breakfast companion Will's active intervention.
 Haven't you read Charles Nichols or Peter Ackroyd on Nichols yet?You'll a lot better finding a mainstream than by hanging in there with Kathman,Reedy and Donald Foster.The former  say Shakespeare is redolent of the brothel .Here's the biographical link you guys have been looking for these past hundred years and you don't even thank me.Just yap,yap,yap.
 Come back when you've read Curtius.

Posting of personal information

Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has a right if they wish to remain completely anonymous. Wikipedia policy on that issue is strictly enforced. Posting private information about a user with the intent to annoy, threaten or harass, specifically their (alleged) name and/or personal details, is strictly prohibited as harassment, and users who do that are often immediately blocked from editing Wikipedia. Such posting can cause offense or embarrassment to the victim of the posting, not least because it means that their name, and any personal criticism or allegations made against them can then appear on web searches.

The information you posted has been removed and suppressed by a member of the Oversight team. Do not make any further attempt to publish private or personal information about other users, or you will be blocked. Remember: Wikipedia's privacy policy is there to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Happy‑melon 00:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is absurd as we posted no personal information about anyone except George Wilkins. Paul's identity is all too well known and if he has not earned any independent respect here,it is certainly not our doing.The more he indulges in romantic self-revelation the better it is for the cause of objective truth .By all means, yak on. Paul
Do you think you should learn some basic skills of formatting so that I don't have to keep editing your semi-literate postings to make them readable? I've left the one in the section above in its raw state so that you can see what a mess you make on the pages you edit. Look at it. If I wanted to conceal my identity I'd use a pseudonym. I am completely open about my area of expertise on my user page. I have nothing to hide, so I don't hide anything, unlike Charlie boy here. Paul B (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Odd I never chose to edit your posts.You do such a great job of exposing yourself.There are some highly appreciative mail coming in from students at the University of Sussex. And since you have blocked me to avoid further self exposure. I will again point out that on the only two occasions in two months on which you have promised to produce evidence of anything you chickened out completely. 1)You are going to prove by "complex" evidence that Shakspere collaborated with Wilkins in the first three acts of "Pericles" as distinct from having his earlier work incorporated by Wilkins. 2)You were going to prove that are more errors in Mark Anderson's two pages on the Ashbourne portrait than in the whole of Nelson's error clogged "Fearful Adversary".Please specify the complete list of errors which you admit occur in Nelson's(presumably far less than the four hundred odd pointed out by those who can read more Latin than Alan) and than run the alleged errors on Mark's page beside them.

Please do not rewrite another editor's contributions. I have not edited the content of any of your posts, just inset them properly so that they are readable. You, in contrast, have just rewritten mine. That's not acceptable. Also please learn not to put spaces at the beginning of paragraphs. It makes the text unreadable on the page. Use a colon to inset. What on earth are you mentioning Sussex University for? It's as irrelevant here as the opinions about me held by my next-door neighbour or my bank manager. I don't have to prove Shakespeare's collaboration with Wilkins by complex, simple or any other evidence. Experts do that. We use the consensus of accredited scholars and editors of the text. See WP:RS. I don't 'admit' errors in Nelson, not because I believe the book is free of them. I'm sure there are mistakes. All projects of that complexity will have them. But it is not for me or you to declare they exist. See WP:OR. As for Anderson, his errors are legion, but it's his leaps from speculation to certainty that are the main problem. So, here are some comments on his assertions about the Ashbourne painting. He correctly quotes Pressly stating that there is no CK monogram, then counters this by refering to another article in which Pressly says that one can, if one tries, see something like a CK that's "faintly visible". He is merely conceding the possibility. Of course imagining one can find letters in X-Rays of art is a notoriously easy thing to do. Anderson then takes this slight contradiction as evidence that the monogram is a fact! He makes the uncertain certain, despite the preponderance of evidence in the very sources he quotes that there is no such monogram. He then asserts that "if it's Hamersley the artist is unknown and the "CK" monogram was painted onto the canvas (and then inexplicably hidden beneath another layer of paint) by a schoolmaster who bought the painting in the mid nineteenth century. If it's de Vere, the artist is, on solid historical and scientific evidence, Cornelius Ketel". This is so full of preposterous non-sequiturs I could write an entire novel about it. He's just quoted the expert on the topic saying "one can confidently state that Ketel never touched this canvas" on stylistic grounds, and yet Anderson, with no expertise at all, delares the opposite as fact. The same expert has declared that there is probably no "CK" at all, but is now presented as fact that there is, and the ludicrous deduction is made that it must have been added in the 19th century by a "schoolmaster"? Why? Even if it were there, why couldn't Hamersley have been painted by an artist who had the initials CK? Why couldn't it have been added at any time between then and the nineteenth century? Does Anderson know nothing about how people who owned paintings often added initials and other such marks to them for various reasons to do with ownership, attribution, cataloguing, etc? There's absolutely no rationale at all for the statement that it must have been painted in and then painted over by the same person. It's just wholly illogical. He creates an utterly absurd scenario and then criticises it for being absurd, all to justify an alternative that has just been disproved by the very expert he quotes! This is the logic of W.S. Gilbert. And that's just one page and a half from Anderson's book. Paul B (talk) 20:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Paul writes," I don't have to prove Shakespeare's collaboration with Wilkins by complex, simple or any other evidence. Experts do that. We use the consensus of accredited scholars and editors of the text. See WP:RS.
Ah,but you said that you would.I am holding you to your word.If you want to chicken out now it's ok by me.You are claiming there is a consensus about a complex bit of proof which you refuse to reveal.
And we are not going to pay another one of those Comrade Stalin rules bit.There is no other discussion page on the entire Wickie where a rent a mob plays the games that are played on this subject.
Yes,I am always honored to have students write to me.I never had a letter from a post-Modernist University before, though I got quite a few from Duke students when the infamous gang of "88" Duke academics(the numbers actually varied from 134 to 40 something)were trying(quite literally) to lynch members of the the Lacrosse team.
That was a real academic consensus,Paul!Much better than any evidence of a consensus about Pericles!It included(still does) Huston Baker former president of PMLA,and Karla Holloway,who was rewarded for her behavior by a temporary lectureship at Harvard. In fact it included the entire English department with the exception(of course) of the anti-Strat(horrors personal research).
No, this type of concensus doesn't disturb me or those for whom I write and,I am ever enheartened to find new proof,that such a Marxist view of concensus it isn't intimidating the young.The reasons why William Shakspere is ,in all probability, a fraud are exactly the same type of reasons that Crystal Mangum was raped by thee,five,fifteen or thirty members of the Duke Lacrosse team.Forstarters you can't fit a thosand pounds of flesh(Crystal's minimum figure) into a nineteen forty, two by four,john.
Nevertheless,the overwhelming concensus of the Duke English faculty,one lone anti-Strat dissenting,is that it did happen.And I see no reason why if the Wickie rules which you invoke are consistently applied,that the Duke Lacrosse Hoax should not be revised accordingly.
Or let's take another example here:Wickie's admirable treatment of the Alger Hiss case,a trial which I have followed, blow by blow, since the 1950's.It states correctly that there is almost a consensus as to Hiss's guilt among the present generation of American historians.(Not I suspect true of British or Eastern bloc historians)
But it, admirably, goes on to list some twenty reasons(with footnotes)demonstrating why there are the most serious reasons(some of them physical as in the Duke case) for disbelieving that "consensus".This constitutes a minimum of what both the young and the old have a right to expect of the Shakespeare discussions.
I would further suggest that you take your Ashbourne argument over to the main board where others can criticize it.This is the first time you have attempted a reasoned argument to sustain your position since I came here.You should write more of them.
No matter how vilely you behave nothing could get you kicked off this web site.And you know darn well who I am I use the moniker here to keep up continuity with a number of discussions which I am penning.One of them involves an Crowley style magician who claims to be majoring in iconography at Sussex University.Not one of your boys by any chance?Charles Darnay (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You asked me to comment on Anderson's views regarding the Ashbourne portrait, so I did. I don't know what "main board" you are talking about. Anderson is not a reliable source as far as Wikipedia is concerned, so detailed criticisms of his arguments are rather irrelevant on article talk pages. I note your silence on the topic. Instead you fill paragraphs with irrelevant gobbledegook about Marxism, the Duke rape case and whatever else comes into your head. By the way, you seem to think I engineered your block ("you have blocked me to avoid further self exposure"). I had nothing to do with it. I didn't even see the post that led to it. If I was worried about 'exposure' I would not use my real name would I? Paul B (talk) 17:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"You asked me to comment on Anderson's views regarding the Ashbourne portrait" No I didn't,Paul. I challenged you, several times around, to make good on your claims repeated several times over months (1)that you held "complex" evidence that Shakspere collaborated with rather than supplied materials to the panderer Wilkins(2)that Mark Anderson's two pages on the Ashbourne portrait contained more errors than the whole of Alan Nelson's error logged book.350 being a minimal number according to critiques by Latinists who are much more accomplished than Alan..This was inevitable as Nelson can imperfectly read Latin after years of trying. These are the only examples I could use as these are the only two times which you have mentioned the words evidence or proof.
You failed both challenges completely."I note your silence on the topic".You heard quite well what I most considerately advised you.Take your argument to the main discussion and see if it stands factual analysis.If I ever want to discuss the Ashbourne portrait I'll go after Nick Nishidami whoppers on the Ashbourne portrait page.Has the man no shame?
"I note your silence on the topic.(Huh?) Instead you fill paragraphs with irrelevant gobbledegook about Marxism, the Duke rape case and whatever else comes into your head." No,Paul,it's what comes into your head that we are interested in seeing "self-exposed" here.Just keep up the good work.
:::: "If I was worried about 'exposure' I would not use my real name would I?". Yet another example of the logical fallacies with which you constantly regale the readership.Many people find it better to be derided than to be ignored.Consider the case of the Duke 88.And I repeat why do you regard your logically and factually unsupportable views on Shakespearean authorship in any way superior to the views of the Stratfordian Duke English department on the Nifong Mangum Hoax.They,and you,Reedy and Nishidami,are all alike incapable of making a rational defence of your positions based on concrete evidence,instead you'll fall back on the "just look what great authorities we are" bit.
 ::::If you are still to thick to get it.Consider the case of Donald Foster.He has nearly killed four people(see the Foster page here) applying the identical techniques in courts which he previously  applied in equally spurious literary analysis.I keep throwing them and you keep missing them,Paul.
Reedy constantly makes the same kind of logical mistakes(I've tabulated scores of them over my ten years oof Reedy-Kathman spotting) because of his profession in as a PR man requires it.And, if he wants to constitute that a personal attack,he simply doesn't know the difference between the general and the particular,neither do you or Nishidami.Should any of the three you want to take them as personal attacks and file complaints with boards .That,my child,is your,not my misfortune.



"



Your editing privileges have been indefinitely suspended

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

You appear to not have understood the purpose of Wikipedia - which is to provide a freely accessible encyclopedia, using the best sources and references available, by means of a collegiate and consensual editing ethos. It is not a soapbox by which a favoured theory or viewpoint may be promoted, and nor is it an arena within which other editors supposed motives, shortcomings, character and actions are ridiculed and held in apparent contempt. When you have become conversant with the appropriate methods and practices of contributing to the project you might then appeal your block and attempt to convince a reviewing admin of the case. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Less Heard :Would you please provide alleged examples of any of the above,all of which are unknown to me or any other intelligent and honest reader.Charles Darnay (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC) Checking back on your page ,Less Heard,I find the plot was originally(late December) to set up another commentator and you were mouthing off big time on what you do to anti-Strats.Thanks for the compliment.Now you are back after the first victim.Once more will you please print the passages on which you are setting up these maliciously false accusations.[reply]

Request for Arbitration

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Shakespeare authorship question and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, and if you wish to be unblocked so you may participate in the request and any subsequent case please use the template in the block notice. I shall watch this page for any request. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Charles_Darnay&oldid=408080376"