 |
| Dogberry Asserting his Credentials |
He even repeated his appreciation once or twice more when he worried that I might be reconsidering my decision in light of their behavior. It is no secret that the 'Frauds are short on class and long on clash.
Here we are, a few months later, and appreciation would come off as pretty ridiculous. Most of the dismissiveness of the 'Frauds for any persons outside of the Stratfordian circle have fallen on me so I am not all that much concerned. Or I wouldn't be if third-party onlookers, unaware that I quash any attempts to treat others in the group in the same manner, might not understand as much and be intimidated into silence (one of the main reasons, of course, for the 'Frauds' behavior).
More than a few people have wondered out loud why I continue to allow the 'Frauds. I certainly will not once I have satisfied myself that they are absolutely intractable. I do not refer to their allegiance to Sogliardo of Stratford, which suits present purposes quite well, but rather their shameless use of many unscrupulous and egregious tactics of debate.
So then, the title to this piece is “I am rubber, you are glue.” The devastating old Middle School retort: “Whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you!” Back in the sixth grade it was the height of wit and intellect. To be fair, Donald Trump and the American Republican Party have since brought variations of it back into vogue. From their perspective, it at least assures that they break even in the sound-bites on the evening news.
The following is a preliminary list of the egregious tactics habitually indulged by the 'Frauds. It is more or less the Oxfraudian Debate Playbook, as it were. It may well undergo some revision as I learn how better to wield it to encourage them to replace the schemes that presently populate it with legitimate means.
Employs “I am rubber, you are glue.”
Replies to the argument(s) of others by reducing the matter to semantics / bafflegab.
Supports semantics / bafflegab with claims of superior credentials.
Makes ipse dixit pronouncements.
Supports ipse dixit pronouncements with claims of superior credentials.
Asserts ipse dixit pronouncements and/or bafflegab are unchallenged because no one has wasted their time refuting them.
Alleges motivations to others, claiming they make valid comments or arguments invalid. [Added 3/3/23]
Asserts false equivalence / invalid analogy.
Engages in one or more non-sequitur(s).
Uses bait and switch tactics.
Uses the term “strawman” where it does not apply.
Makes claims of superior credentials while the member's personal page shows no verifiable credential information.
Claims “I have already explained this. Or “I've already proved this to be true/false [so many times]” without restating purported proof or providing link to the purported previous proof(s).
Demands levels of evidence to which the member does not hold themself.
States that another group member is wrong “because they don't know what they are talking about”.
Provides no citation(s) with link and sample quote.
Asserts allegations of nefarious motivation.
Includes ad hominem attack.
I intend, henceforward, to copy-and-paste the items listed into the threads in which the 'Frauds post their comments, as the items apply, in a given comment, thus putting aside most if not all of the endless 'Fraudian bafflegab. If anything is left after this process, I may well choose to reply to it. If not, I will have done what little can constructively be done.
From time to time it may also prove useful to attach the items to comments by other members. The only intention in attaching them to any comment will be to clarify the issues that attach to the methods we apply in our discourse, to detach them from what content might survive them, and to expend precious time only on the latter.
Also at Virtual Grub Street:
Ben Jonson and the Dedication to the Shakespeare First Folio. December 12, 2022. “Country hands reach foorth milke, creame, fruites, or what they have:...”.
Labeo and Shakespeare on the Ladies' Toilette. November 13, 2022. “What woman would be anything but offended to be described in such a way?”
The Gossip from Queen Elizabeth's Court, May 11, 1573. November 5, 2022. “My Lord of Oxford is lately grown into great credit; for the Queen's Majesty delighteth more in his personage, and his dancing, and valiantness, than any other.”
Edward de Vere and Marlowe’s Dido of Carthage. July 5, 2022. “It was an historical effort and an historical two years for Elizabethan theater.”
- How Shakespeare gave Ben Jonson the Infamous Purge. November 7, 2021. “Of course, De Vere could not openly accuse Jonson of having outed him as Shakespeare.”
- Check out the Shakespeare Authorship Article Index for many more articles and reviews about this fascinating time and about the Shakespeare Authorship Question.
- Check out the Letters Index: Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford for many letters from this fascinating time, some related to the Shakespeare Authorship Question.
4 comments:
>> GWP: "More recently, my use of the phrase “amateur mistakes” received the devastating reply '[Um...! Um...!] The only person making amateur mistakes here is you.'"
For anyone interested, here's the actual quotation, spelling out just a few of the many mistakes you have made.
"The only person making amateur mistakes here is you. You can't even correctly read the federal case that was provided to you, even after I summarized its holdings for you. You simply ignore the terms of the Statute ("condition") that don't fit your opinion. You have stated, incorrectly, that authentication of evidence has to do with proving that evidence, when it actually only goes to the issue of admissibility You appear to sincerely believe that jurors are involved in authenticating evidence in their deliberations after trial, which is a notion so wrong as to be a hilarious pratfall. There's more, but that should be sufficient to show that you simply don't know what you're talking about when it comes to legal matters, substantive and/or procedural."
On the other side, you can search far and wide but you will never find anything from Mr. Purdy providing any specifics whatsoever in support of his claim that Philip and I have made any "amateur mistakes" as to any of the legal matters discussed here.
Sadly it appears that GWP has fallen back on attacking his opponents in the argument personally. An entire ad hominem post seems like a symptom of desperation.
I can understand his frustration at his inability to provide what I've asked for-- primary source evidence that refutes the prima facie case we've proposed. It seemed like after years of studying Oxford and promoting his authorship, to the point that he titled his book "Edward De Vere was Shake-speare: at long last, the proof," he'd actually have the proof. I've purchased the book and have worked my way through part of it, though I have lots of notes about inaccuracies or statements that seem inconsistent with reliable evidence. But so far I haven't found "the proof," and was hopeful that Gilbert may have it somewhere.
I've been disappointed.
I see from the facebook page that Mr. Purdy is having health problems. I hope you feel better soon.
Purdy must be confusing the fact that jurors have the freedom to decide what weight to give the evidence they've heard in their deliberations with the principle of deciding on its legal admissibility, which is a point of law solely within the purview of the judge. But he could figure it out if he'd just spend more than two seconds put together thinking about the word "admissibility". Given that the question is what evidence may be admitted into a trial, then that issue must be settled before or during the trial, not during the judgment phase when the jury has already heard all of the evidence! That's just common sense.
Post a Comment