- Sep 28, 2004
- It's a free country.
- Basic Beliefs
I think you misunderstand. Politesse wasn't ridiculing the whole authorship controversy; he was critiquing one specific argument: "How stupid is that, an author that writes not from his experiences but just invents whatever he needs to invent, nothing in his works reflecting his life's experiences?".I had applauded the open-mindedness exhibited in this thread, but it's not without exception. And from someone who started his participation by admitting he knew little about the matter! Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Ruth B. Ginsburg, several other S.C. Justices, Mark Twain, Sigmund Freud ...? Were they all gullible crackpots?Politesse said:Just wait til you see my theory that "Geoffrey Chaucer" was really "Dame Julian of Norwich", writing under a different pseudonym than usual so she could indulge in more secular topics without recrimination.
Because otherwise, How did he know so much about nuns???!
That's all very well for 19 weak arguments in the literature; but when somebody presents one of the weak arguments here, open-mindedness does not require the rest of us to refrain from pointing out that it's weak.If you find 20 anti-Stratfordian or pro-Oxfordian claims in the articles you read, and believe 19 of them to be outrageous or stupid, don't tell us about them. Tell us about the one fact that makes you stop and think; that you can't wave away as confusion or coincidence.