No not like I wouldn’t after all as a science fiction writer he was well appreciated, as far as religion goes, well I think I wouldn’t want to read them books. 
Ahh but his sense of drugged out humor started a " religion". The followers have no clue. Now that is art.
Lol ok but Elrond Hubbard really Scientology? It’s a religion that is never going to be, it just isn’t a religion and perhaps it deserves to be, perhaps those Thetans blown up by nuclear weapons in a volcano are real. but trying that on in modern times, I don’t think we are as clueless as we were when the first religions started, and now I am going to get into trouble with the Jews and the Christians. So be it. 
Nothing personally against an imaginative guy, but Scientology is for chumps.
You are definitely right though, art, ok demonstrating how art can do some funny things to dumb people. But it is art. Worrying art. But art.
It only goes to show that we are quite easily lead as people, and ever have been and society has thrived on it, and so has religion, nothing wrong with that but it is the 21st century, we should now know what idiocy we are now programmed to do, maybe? And perhaps resist it? Who knows we may do it, stranger things have happened.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ikk2DlEKQCw[/youtube]
Someone who can play on this easy to manipulate human condition. Not magic, not anything new, just very good at playing on our human weaknesses, we are easily manipulated and just so easy to predict. People have been doing this for thousands of years. Ok none were quite so talented, or were they, but if you believe in magic… Watch an artist who can play you like a harp string at work, watch a person who can literally read everything you say, every move you make, because we have become nothing if not predictable. And it’s not camera tricks he does not edit it if he gets it wrong, he can do this to you, because of how easy we as a race are now to lead. It’s clever stuff because he uses very simple tricks into leading people into saying what they don’t want to consciously say, touch, misdirection, simple phrases that will reveal your thoughts use them again touch misdirect move your hand, your features will then give away if his guess was right. Clever stuff, but no more magic than magic is.
I don’t get this I think he should be burned as a witch but then he asks the guy what he wants to really do he drops his shoulder and leans in and then advances his other arm, I picked up on that it looked like a golf swing, I think he knew almost straight away. But damned if I could so easily pick that up usually, I saw it for once. Lifetime of just making people give away things, it’s a kind of magic but not magic, psychology.
This is a clear case of telepathy
We tend to forget that following and believing is survival instinct for species propagation. We just use more imagination than brute strength. Manipulation of words is domination and art. If a painting triggers emotions that too is domination, leader /follower. Who is less important than how.
Hubbard did Scientology based on his series, Mission Earth. Damn good read especially if you keep in mind the mindset of the author. Humans are insane.
Well I for one lost my marbles long time ago.
I think in ways we all have. Think about it. what is sane on this world?
From someone who admits all he uses is common or garden tricks and means to confuse and lead people? I think not, and he does go out of his way to explain how he does it when people ask, and then it just becomes mundane. It’s rather like watching Secrets of the Magicians Circle or whatever that crap is called, once he explains it, you just go oh yeah, that’s damned clever but it’s not magic or psychic.
Give Derren Brown a double blind scientific test where he cannot see or read people, and he will fail, as he himself admits, you put him in front of people he can read and manipulate and he will play you like a fiddle.
I must admit when he explains it it is fascinating, and you can try it yourself, simply certain phrasing, body actions, and misdirection really will make the likelihood of people doing and saying things much more likely. It’s an art, but it’s certainly not tele anything. It’s simply a skill anyone can learn given enough practice, although undoubtedly he is a master.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1_eItnW6xyc[/youtube]
We all do that to certain extents. We can read the people we know. Telltale signs we all give off. That someone can do it like he
can is not surprising. Think Gypsies. Masters of reading.
Your objection is irrelevant and holds no weight.
There is nothing to support a view that anyone but he who is attributed with the rhyme. The fact that is in WS’s dialect simply makes it more unlikely to have been any of the long list of people claimed to have been the “real writers”.
My understanding is that he copied Cervantes. Just before he died he was working on a Cervantes play.
I don’t know where you get your crazy ideas from.
Problem: Cervantes did not speak English.
Shakespeare did not speak Spanish.
Were there any translations available to Shakespeare?
I can tell you that the first translation of Cervantes was not available to Shakespeare until after he died.
Dear Hobbes,
I can assure you that, do I love winding you up! as soon as I realised the opportunity I fell to the temptation 
I’m not wound up. You just make yourself look stupid. Why should that bother me?
You should know that flaming is not allowed on this Forum- I’d hate to see you banned.
Good. Actually on a serious note I did read once that just before his death Shakespeare was working on Cervantes play. I do not have the reference to such story so as to back up what I have just said. Whether Shakespeare could speak Spanish, or Cervantes English is neither here or there, communications in those days were sufficiently good so that they could have read each other’s work.
Well tbh I read some conjecture somewhere that says Shakespeare didn’t write all of his plays is about the extent of the so called reasoned evidence here. So you can either accept that even in history assertions need good evidence or you can accept that some guy saying something at some time, that didn’t really have the evidence warrants further examination. The claim made was specifically saying he did not do his own work (I am willing to accept he plagiarised, everyone does to some extent no man is an island, and still does, although these days it’s good form to reveal your sources, either by saying I was a huge fan of x as a child and drew a lot of inspiration from x, or crediting them directly). This whole thread is nothing but idle speculation, sure it’s great meat for a conspiracy theory, but none of the arguments so far hold any weight in academic circles, and I doubt if they continue to claim much but prove little, that they ever will.
One day someone will claim a 20th century author could not of been so fecund in his authorship, I have no doubt, and this argument will be had by our counterparts in that glorious 30th century, and it will be as much crap as it is now, then, but again riddled with more conjecture due to the passage of time. Fact is as time goes by and sources fail all things become doubted, but then they still need a source of conflict to be doubted, not a God of the gaps argument, or some crap about how no man can be that creative in the face of much more voluminous authors throughout all periods of history doing that. I as I said before think it is just some people cannot fathom that some people are supremely creative, because they think such a skill is magic. It is not, you could learn it yourself, creativity is a muscle not a preset condition of your birth, sure some may have a tendency to be more muscular than others but if you are uncreative, it means only that you choose to be, not that you cannot be, just like an 8 stone weakling can choose to be muscled like an athlete, so can any man develop a keen creative mind. We know Shakespeare did that, what we don’t know is exactly how and when his whole life happened, so we make up things to fit preconceived notions, often as not due to our own inadequacies. We like to mock genius, because it scares us, get enough scared people together and any wildly imagined idea is necessary, if only they chose to use that creative speculative power for good instead of backbiting eh?
I find that conclusion staggering.
Do I need to SPELL IT OUT.
Cervantes was not made available in ENGLISH until after Shakespeare died.
Communications might have been ‘good’, but as Cervantes was not available to WS, he was not able to work on a Cervantes play, unless you think they cracked telepathy.
Do you have any proof of this?
The first translation was in English, made by Thomas Shelton in 1608, but not published until 1612.
My understanding is that Shakespeare did not die until 1616.