Groups | Search | Server Info | Login | Register
Show key headers only | View raw
On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 11:39:33 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote: > On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 11:20:58 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote: > > On Sunday, July 2, 2023 at 10:42:53 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote: > > > On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 6:46:54 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote: > > > > On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 2:33:14 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote: > > > > > On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 2:31:35 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote: > > > > > > On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 2:27:56 PM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > > On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 1:31:40 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote: > > > > > > > > On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 1:30:52 PM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 9:37:43 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 9:07:15 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 9:00:05 AM UTC-7, Ross Finlayson wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 8:31:45 AM UTC-7, Jeffrey Rubard wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, June 11, 2023 at 3:34:51 PM UTC-7, Mild Shock wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But I doubt you will write Shakespeare once via your nonsense: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "More Republican brain-rot. Just go to your neurologist and keep your hands off strangers, okay?" > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey, if we're touching, we're not strangers anymore. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "You mean you criminally pursued someone, then 'feigned' you were friends?" > > > > > > > > > > > > You mean reach out and punch someone? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Not based on 'blood libels', no. It's traditional advice, really." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Me thinks thouest stinks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Do you think the Boston Marathon bomber looked like that guy in the news 'SBF', too?" > > > > > > > > > > It seems a waste of ink - > > > > > > > > > > in the sands of time it will sink. > > > > > > > > > > I don't know your kink - > > > > > > > > > > it just seems a fink. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now whether Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare > > > > > > > > > > or it was sometimes Francis Bacon, > > > > > > > > > > most anything one need hear, > > > > > > > > > > it was Roger that was making. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Maybe stay in your depth, dude." > > > > > > > > For the Audience: With respect to Shakespeare, "...or maybe it was Roger Bacon" conventionally "indicates" they are lying about > > > > > > > > publication details. > > > > > > > No, the point is that Roger Bacon and Francis Bacon are two different > > > > > > > people, and that Roger had a lot already going on, and that sometimes > > > > > > > the authorship of Shakespeare's works is questioned, about Francis. > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's "famously" tantamount to an acknowledgment you're engaging in "publishing libel". > > > > > > Your stupider-than-average version of it doesn't "improve the looking", either. > > > > > Meanwhile: Yeah, people, I still "wrote all the words I wrote". > > > > > "So? Why should we believe you?" > > > > > Because my photograph is on the book as the "author's photograph"? > > > > > "Hmm. Plausible, actually. But don't quote me on that." > > > > > The Scammers: "NOOOOOOOO!" > > > > > The Knowledgeable: "Yeah, that's what that is. But you know what? You wouldn't want to live like him, etc." > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baconian_theory_of_Shakespeare_authorship > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespeare_authorship_question > > > > > > > > Hmm, doesn't mention libel, or slander, maybe you should add it to the Wiki. > > > > > > > > > > > > So, it's not so unbelievable that Francis Bacon and William Shakespeare, > > > > shared a printer, where Shakespeare was a well-known rude carouser, > > > > and Bacon one of the most reknowned heads, of the time. > > > > > > > > > > > > "Much of the learning with which he has been credited > > > > and the omnivorous reading imputed to Shakespeare > > > > by critics in later years is exaggerated, and he may well > > > > have absorbed much learning from conversations." > > "Actually smart", so of course you don't know that. (Like in 80s movies, people.) > > It was once thought an actually plausible hypothesis that Francis Bacon had written > > the works of Shakespeare, based on the high esteem Bacon's natural philosophy > > was held in. But... and this is a very interesting point... Bacon was indeed a > > Viscount, and the language of Shakespeare is really -- no, it is -- plebeian, as > > this passage suggests. (So no, he wasn't Edward de Vere either.) > > > > Otherwise, "About Shakespeare..." telegraphs your IP fraud goals IRL. > > Maybe 'change the approach' next time. > > > Yeah, reading this Cohen's book on Victorian mathematics, it has long sections > > > on Boole and De Morgan and their surrounds, for example De Morgan's anticipation > > > of word frequency analysis, in terms of authors and their apocryphal output. > > Any mention of the similar works of "Joseph Carroll"? > They were kind of set against Comte, .... > Oh, the "select tid-bit". It's no "super-secret" than when you are musing in your stupid fashion about Shakespeare, you are trying to screw an author out of recognition. It's "conventional wisdom" of the issue. > > There's talk about Spinoza, but just like Roger was way before Francis, > Bacon, there was old Spinoza and his integer continuum, hundreds > of years different. Baruch Spinoza did not write the works of Shakespeare. (Gosh, that sounds a little anti-Semitic, sorry.)
Back to sci.logic | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
Re: Why is model theory needed? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 10:42 -0700
Re: Why is model theory needed? Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 11:20 -0700
Re: Why is model theory needed? Ross Finlayson <ross.a.finlayson@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 11:39 -0700
Re: Why is model theory needed? Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-02 14:37 -0700
Re: Why is model theory needed? Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-04 08:29 -0700
Re: Why is model theory needed? Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-05 08:32 -0700
Re: Why is model theory needed? Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-06 08:26 -0700
Re: Why is model theory needed? Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-06 13:09 -0700
Re: Why is model theory needed? Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-07 08:27 -0700
Re: Why is model theory needed? Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-07 13:56 -0700
Re: Why is model theory needed? Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-08 08:57 -0700
Re: Why is model theory needed? Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-09 08:26 -0700
Re: Why is model theory needed? Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-14 08:28 -0700
Re: Why is model theory needed? Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-15 08:40 -0700
Re: Why is model theory needed? Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 08:29 -0700
Re: Why is model theory needed? Jeffrey Rubard <jeffreydanielrubard@gmail.com> - 2023-07-17 14:21 -0700
Re: Why is model theory needed? Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-19 11:32 -0700
Re: Why is model theory needed? Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-21 14:38 -0700
Re: Why is model theory needed? Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 08:19 -0700
Re: Why is model theory needed? Jeffrey Rubard <jeffreydanielrubard@gmail.com> - 2023-07-22 14:44 -0700
Re: Why is model theory needed? Jeffrey Rubard <theleasthappyfella@gmail.com> - 2023-07-24 12:40 -0700
csiph-web