🚀 go-pugleaf

Panu wrote:
> On Mar 1, 12:10 am, Harlan Messinger
> <hm.usenetremovert...@gavelcade.com> wrote:
>> Panu wrote:
>>> On Feb 28, 9:01 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> On Feb 28, 12:00 pm, Panu <craoibhi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Feb 28, 5:00 pm, "Peter T. Daniels" <gramma...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Feb 28, 9:55 am, Panu <craoibhi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Feb 28, 3:47 pm, "Peter Farey" <pete...@rey.prestel.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Panu" wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Franz Gnaedinger wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Proof that 'Shakespeare' was Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford
>>>>>>>>> Who the hell is interested in Shakespeare anyway?
>>>>>>>> Rather more than those who are interested in Na'vi or Dnghe I suspect?
>>>>>>> I'm not talking about quantity, but quality. Besides, Shakespeare
>>>>>>> would not interest anyone if he wasn't so heavily subsidized.
>>>>>> What _are_ you talking about? (Both points.)
>>>>> You know perfectly well that Shakespeare is just a minor, obscure
>>>>> dramatist from the dark dungeons of literary history writing in an
>>>>> English which is only partly intelligible to the speakers of the
>>>>> modern language. If he weren't force-fed to millions of poor
>>>>> schoolchildren in that benighted part of the world inhabited by
>>>>> monolingual speakers of English, he would already have been consigned,
>>>>> if not to merciful oblivion, so at least to the limbo that is the fate
>>>>> of all linguistically and culturally uninteresting writers meriting
>>>>> only second-rate academic interest.-
>>>> And of the crowds of Elizabethan playwrights, why is he the only one
>>>> whose works are regularly produced, even though they received no
>>>> special attention during his lifetime?
>>> You tell me. The Shakespeare cult has been around for so long that it
>>> is self-sustaining by now. Everybody sees it as their duty to praise
>>> the Emperor's new clothes.
>> This is like the line, "The Odyssey wasn't written by Homer but by
>> another man of that name." You're arguing that Shakespeare's work isn't
>> beloved, and that the people who love his work are a "cult" and
>> therefore something different.
> 
> Most people who profess to "love" him were taught, indoctrinated,
> inculcated to do so. They were initiated to the cult at school. As I
> was brought up outside the cult community, i.e. the English-speaking
> world, I am able to see Shakespeare for what he is, i.e. the run-of-
> the-mill author of moderately successful plays, who, because of a
> quirk of literary history, was canonized into a secular saint. Of
> course, his genre pieces are probably slightly above average, but I
> staunchly refuse to join the cult.

Or you could just be a person with an opinion who assumes arrogantly 
that anyone else under the same circumstances would agree with him.