And those who missed the joke, get’s a LlamaCat for free…
No I got it.
Like i said, it was a really, really clever argument that hasn’t been made before.
I’m sure that explains why you’re in the mundane babble section… Looking for original high-level super-duper jokes… That’s why you’re reading this section is it not?
Oh blimey…
LlamaCat slipped out of the cage again…
I think conspiracy theories are mostly just desperate attempts to find meaning in a largely meaningless world.
See, this man knows how to be funny.
Indeed then why are you peddling yours?
Who do you think wrote the Shakespearean canon and why?
Who? As I said, Edward de Vere. Why? Well, I quote again:
[size=95]“To the Greek the work of the artist falls just as much under the undignified conception of labour as any ignoble craft. But when the compelling force of the artistic impulse operates in him, then he must produce, and submit himself to that need of labour. And as a father admires the beauty and the gift of his child, but thinks of the act of procreation with shamefaced dislike, so it was with the Greek.” (Source: Nietzsche, “The Greek State”.)[/size]
Why did the father engage in the act of procreation? Because of his sexual drive. Why did Oxford engage in the act of artistic creation? Because of his artistic drive.—
So, despite dying in 1604, de Vere managed to write 12 more plays, including Macbeth which alludes to the Gunpowder Plot of 1605, and the Tempest, which was inspired by the wreck of the Sea Venture in 1609?
You mean those plays were published after his death?
“Alludes” is not very strong; it’s not “refers” by a long way. And how do you know what inspired The Tempest? Does it explicitly say what inspired it? Or does it imply it? If the latter, is it a strong or a weak implication? Etc.
I have an idea, maybe for another thread. Instead of trying to prove truths through obviously deeply ingrained childhood interests that are unlikely to change, it would be cool to give a couple options throughout history and allow people to answer:
Which traditionally accepted historical points do you happen to doubt?
Obviously no one is going to say, “None” just like if you put the question directly on them: “Conspiracies DO happen from time to time, right?” everyone is going to scoff and say, “Well, yeah. I’m not naive.”
In fact, I’m literally going to do this right now.
So de Vere wrote 12 more plays, to be published after his own death, one per year for the rest of the life of Shakespeare, but none at all after that? How did whoever released them know to eke them out at the appropriate rate?
With regard to the Tempest, here’s en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_tempes … ry_sources
+++In addition, William Strachey’s A True Reportory of the Wracke and Redemption of Sir Thomas Gates, Knight, an eyewitness report of the real-life shipwreck of the Sea Venture in 1609 on the island of Bermuda while sailing towards Virginia, is considered by most critics to be one of Shakespeare’s primary sources because of certain verbal, plot and thematic similarities.+++
No derailing the thread with LlamaCats please… your co-operation will be much appreciated on the matter.
Let’s calrify this ruling is it just llamacats, or are lolcats allowed? And what about orly owls? 
LlamaCats, and any other animal mineral or vegetable used to derail the thread is not allowed… no matter how humorous they may be. 
Got it. 
He existed. It just envy of others, arguing that no one person could produce so much works.
It seems the Shakespeareans have more staying power than those claiming impostors wrote his works.
…it means that some people got perma-banned and therefore won’t be getting back to yous anytime soon.
I think he could reply if he wished, if he could just get passed the five posts subject to review without giving himself away, such as in not telling someone that they were an apathetic-obsessed passive-aggressive stupid fuck… I mean stranger things have happened… they haven’t happened yet… but you never know.
That’s a great shame.