you know about that then???... but quite apart from all that filth, i was looking to nurse a bottle of bleach if the truth be known... thankfully, i didn't find any... not even one drop.... if i don't get that cup of tea soon, i'll die in here.... maybe it's for the best... mankind won't be the same, but hey, sacrifices must be made.... atriot:
I can't believe this thread is still going. I'm glad it hasn't been invaded yet...this is the longest standing piece of British soil. Let's keep it that way.
We are trying to keep it quiet but it's difficult. People aren't taking the threat of invasion seriously enough.
Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more; Or close the wall up with our English dead. In peace there's nothing so becomes a man As modest stillness and humility: But when the blast of war blows in our ears, Then imitate the action of the tiger( but not in a sexy..."hey up tiger kind of way!)
By that you mean they've written something unrelated to Shakespeare?! Not that I've got a similar writing style to the late master of word putting together genius!
no... they're a bunch of scholars who argued that Shakespeare didn't infact write everything attributed to him...
That's my point! He's a bloody plagiariser. I've actually written a few words about... Many books and articles have been written arguing that someone other than William Shakespeare, the glover's son from Stratford-upon-Avon, wrote the plays and poems published under his name. There exist sincere and intelligent people who believe there is strong evidence that Edward de Vere, Seventeenth Earl of Oxford, was the author of these plays and poems. Yet professional Shakespeare scholars -- those whose job it is to study, write, and teach about Shakespeare -- generally find Oxfordian claims to be groundless, often not even worth discussing. Why is this? Oxfordians claim that these scholars are blinded to the evidence by a vested self-interest in preserving the authorship of "the Stratford Man," and some more extreme Oxfordians claim that there is an active conspiracy among orthodox scholars to suppress pro-Oxford evidence and keep it from the attention of the general public. The truth, however, is far more prosaic. Oxfordians are not taken seriously by the Shakespeare establishment because (with few exceptions) they do not follow basic standards of scholarship, and the "evidence" they present for their fantastic scenarios is either distorted, taken out of context, or flat-out false. This web site is for the intelligent nonspecialist who doesn't know what to make of these challenges to Shakespeare's authorship. Oxfordian books can be deceptively convincing to a reader who is unaware of the relevant historical background and unused to the rhetorical tricks used by Oxfordians. Our aim is to provide context where needed, expose misinformation passed off by Oxfordians as fact, and in general show the nonspecialist reader why professional Shakespeare scholars have so little regard for Oxfordian claims. We know from experience that we are not likely to convince any Oxfordians to change their views, but we hope that other readers will find something of value here. We will be updating and adding new material as time permits, and we welcome any comments or suggestions. This page is managed by David Kathman and Terry Ross. We thank all our visitors, and we invite your comments.
It's widely believed now that Shakespeare was in fact Christopher Marlowe. I've read both of their works, and it could make a lot of sense- the work is so similar plus the dates of when Marlow stopped writing and Shakespeare started are very, very close.
That reminds me of rapper Marky Marks disappearance, then out of the blue Mark Robert Michael Wahlberg, an Academy Award-nominated, BAFTA-winning American actor appeared onscreen. Coincidence? I think not.