The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 15.0160  Thursday, 22 January 2004

From:           Thomas Larque <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.>
Date:           Thursday, 22 Jan 2004 08:31:28 -0000
Subject: 15.0152 Marlowe Inquest
Comment:        Re: SHK 15.0152 Marlowe Inquest

 >Then Thomas Larque writes, "Bill's entire posting seems little more than
 >a personal attack (or more accurately an outburst of sneering).  Do I
 >notice a touch of  bitterness?"
 >My entire post was meant as repartee, tongue-in-cheek, mild,
 >pleasant, kindly, good-humored fun, and your response was a tome of
 >bitterness and bile par excellence.  Yes, I have found my *delete*
 >button, it is right [<g> or :)] h

Interesting double standards, Bill.  So apparently accusing somebody of
being long-winded and suggesting that their postings aren't worth
reading - which you admit you wouldn't have done if they hadn't earlier
"crossed swords" with you and dared to counter one of your much-loved
arguments with hard facts - is just "pleasant, kindly, good-humoured
fun", but a very similar response pointing out that you only seem to
have posted your complaints because you can't take your arguments being
questioned is "a tome of bitterness and bile".

Of course emotional tone can be very hard to spot in E-Mails, so I don't
know whether you - consciously or subconsciously - actually wrote your
posting with your face set in a grimace of hatred.  And you couldn't see
me laughing cheerfully when I noticed the rather obvious undertone of
in your supposedly good-humoured attack.  Your constant harking back to
the "ghost" thread, which had nothing to do with the posting that you
were replying to, and which just about everybody else will have
forgotten by now, seems a fairly clear hint at your real motivations.

I see that you still have no intentions of supporting your supposedly
academic arguments in the traditional style of an academic debate (that
is, your opponent produces evidence which he thinks proves you to be
wrong, and you produce evidence that counters his evidence), but then
you rather obviously prefer using the debating tactics of your days as a
journalist (make a series of unsupported generalisations; if your
opponent counters with evidence which shows you to be wrong and asks you
to respond, accuse him of being a lawyer and attacking your
constitutional right to silence, imply thereby that he doesn't believe
in human rights).  Again, although you may not be able to tell, I'm
writing this with a broad smile and a feeling of great good-humour.  I
think your evasions and self-justifications are hilarious, Bill! - but
of course, since this time I'm attacking you, I'm sure you will have
decided that this is just "bitterness and bile", while your own attacks
on other people are of course evidence of your great sense of humour and
winning personality.

I guess others might be able to judge the real tone of your postings,
and what they say about your state of mind, a bit more objectively than
you  can yourself.  I am quite happy to let them make the same objective
judgements about me, whether they ultimately support me or not.

Thomas Larque.

[Editor's Note: Enough said. Now let us return to the Inquest thread or
new topics. -Hardy]

S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

Subscribe to Our Feeds


Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.