Don't Study Shakespeare The Anti-Semite...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Asher

I don't think you comprehend the correct meaning of the word "proof", because it cannot apply here.

Of the two of us, I think I have the better grasp of the construction, derivation and meaning of words.

I'm simply asking you to back up your claim that Shakespeare is 'merely' entertainment and nothing else. If you believed it to be the case, one imagines you based this belief on something.

This is very clearly a value judgment and not something that can be proven.

Saying that 'Titus Andronicus' was a bad play or that a performance of 'Othello' was not well done are value judgments.

You're making a claim about Shakespeare's drama in its entirety, about its alleged function and its alleged limitations.

Simply excusing yourself by whingeing about not being able to provide proof for this stupid claim and wittering on about value judgments are lame copouts which only serve to highlight your fundamental lack of knowledge in this area. Waddashock.

In my world, by definition, Shakespeare is entertainment.

This will come as a shock, but it's not always just about you.

Whether you want to argue that Shakespeare surpasses being entertainment because he was so smart as to put "lack" and "luster" together, that's your call, but might I suggest you raise your standards...

Not my argument. Try rebutting an argument I've actually made.

That is, one that you don't have to excuse yourself from misrepresenting by saying it was just 'hyperbole' on your part.

It never occurred to you that this might've been intentional and for effect?

You overestimate my opinion of your supposed literary prowess and honesty.

You tell me...you're the one with his panties in a twist over my assertion that Shakespeare is entertainment.

Not in the slightest. You're confusing my opinion of your literary criticism (such as it is) with a desire on my part to see you expound on something you clearly know little about.

As for the panties- are you thinking of someone you were perhaps previously involved with? With transvestite tendencies, possibly ?

Because I've never worn them.

A quick google search shows that while "lackluster" in its current form as made popular by As You Like It, its origins date back to lackland (1594), of a landless man; lack-Latin (c.1534). Before As You Like It. Looks like our man Shakespeare was just following a trend.

So, as I said, Shakespeare was indeed responsible for 'lacklustre'. Thanks for confirming what we already knew, and for confirming that you were wrong when you said this:

FWIW, this word dates back to 1175

Yawn.

To my judgment

Wouldn't give you tuppence for it....

In fact, anyone who uses "multitudinous seas incarnadine" is no doubt an example of "supersad immense douchebaggery

....and that's why- you argue like a five year old.

The world is filled with world-changing idiots...if we use your definition.

Where's that 'definition' in my posts ? Do please quote me exactly, because your misrepresentations* of what I say or believe are getting dull with repetition.

(* lies to be 'terse')

BTW, read this article and thought of you Molly...

How very flattering. I read so many books and articles and yet never think of you.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Asher


It depends. I think several of the posters here who supposedly embody the arts at the highest levels are some of the most soul-sucking voids of dullness that I've ever seen.

Such praise, from someone who has inadvertently provided many of us with countless minutes of entertainment, and all for free.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Asher


To me, Shakespeare bores 90% of kids to death

Don't blame Shakespeare for your deficits- such as the ability to make ludicrous claims like this.

and teaches the other 10% of kids how to be pompous asses online by quoting it all the time to sound intelligent.

Fond of 'pompous' aren't you ?

There's that anorexic lexicon again.

It may be shocking news to you to know that people read and quote Shakespeare because they like his words, not to 'sound intelligent'.

How do you 'sound intelligent' by quoting Shakespeare ?

Idiot savants can 'sound intelligent' but they lack understanding of their abilities and the concepts behind words and calculations.

On the other hand, kids who learn computer science go on to transform society more in 10 years than Shakespeare has done in 400.

What an absurd comparison.

[Asher]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Of the two of us, I think I have the better grasp of the construction, derivation and meaning of words.

I'm simply asking you to back up your claim that Shakespeare is 'merely' entertainment and nothing else. If you believed it to be the case, one imagines you based this belief on something.

Yes, this is where you misuse the word. You cannot have a "proof" for something subjective such as this.

So get off your high horse and get thee to a dictionary.

Saying that 'Titus Andronicus' was a bad play or that a performance of 'Othello' was not well done are value judgments.

You're making a claim about Shakespeare's drama in its entirety, about its alleged function and its alleged limitations.

Here's a question. Why did Shakespeare write his plays? Was it for entertainment?

Not my argument. Try rebutting an argument I've actually made.

It is, you just don't see it. You actually spent quite a long time rambling about how Shakespeare has changed our language with such brilliant word inventions like "lackluster" and "laughable".

So, as I said, Shakespeare was indeed responsible for 'lacklustre'. Thanks for confirming what we already knew, and for confirming that you were wrong when you said this:



Yawn.

Oh, you are so right. I was referring to "lack" specifically, Shakespeare was the supersad douchebag-ish person who put the two words together.

On the same token, you are completely wrong about the origins of a real word, such as "premeditation".

1432, from L. præmeditationem (nom. præmeditatio) "consideration beforehand," from præmeditatus, pp. of præmeditari "to consider beforehand," from præ- "before" + meditari "to consider" (see meditation).

It is a common mistake simpletons make when trying to exaggerate the importance of Shakespeare...judging from online (and judging by the list of words you used, you copied them from these sites, even in the same order...)

....and that's why- you argue like a five year old.

You know, real men can argue without intentionally complicating language. Real men can convey intelligence without spending an hour with the thesaurus (mental or otherwise) to express what can be expressed more simply.

Where's that 'definition' in my posts ? Do please quote me exactly, because your misrepresentations* of what I say or believe are getting dull with repetition.

(* lies to be 'terse')

I don't care to waste any more time on you. If your memory is this bad, consider reading the thread yourself. You very clearly made the case that Shakespeare has transformed our language because he "invented" words like lackluster.

How very flattering. I read so many books and articles and yet never think of you.

I've clearly yet to reach the level of supersad douchebaggery to become as memorable as you.

[Asher]

Originally posted by molly bloom
Don't blame Shakespeare for your deficits- such as the ability to make ludicrous claims like this.

Multiple choice liberal arts question:

Is this an example of:
(a) Failed reading comprehension (who is even mentioning deficits)?
(b) Logical fallacy
(c) Supersad douchebaggery

Fond of 'pompous' aren't you ?

Never before have I met someone who so meets the definition of "pompous" and "haughty".

There's that anorexic lexicon again.

Here's the problem with you -- it is the perfect word, so why should I find synonyms? That's the kind of **** you do, you change up the language as much as possible when another word is a better fit, just because you want to show off how much time you spent reading a thesaurus as a kid.

It may be shocking news to you to know that people read and quote Shakespeare because they like his words, not to 'sound intelligent'.

How do you 'sound intelligent' by quoting Shakespeare ?

Why, what a great question. Shakespeare in modern society is largely used in an elitist, upper-class fashion. Many people with obvious self-esteem issues may employ quoting Shakespeare with alarming regularity because it conveys the image of a highly-educated, upper-class person who is "cultured".

Surely you've seen this phenomenon before? I know for a fact you have, you just aren't very introspective.

What an absurd comparison.

I agree with you that it is a bit more absurd how much more useful computer science is than entertainment.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Asher

Here's a question. Why did Shakespeare write his plays? Was it for entertainment?

To make money. Which he did.

So get off your high horse and get thee to a dictionary.

Why ? I'm not currently in need of one.

It is, you just don't see it.

I know my arguments rather better than you. That's why I don't have to use hyperbole or misrepresent them.

You actually spent quite a long time rambling about how Shakespeare has changed our language with such brilliant word inventions like "lackluster" and "laughable".

He did enrich the language with new words and phrases. And I didn't ramble, but as you're clearly addicted to your 'hyperbole', carry on...

I was referring to "lack" specifically

But you didn't say that. Attention Deficit Disorder ?

It is a common mistake simpletons make when trying to exaggerate the importance of Shakespeare...

Is an inability to distinguish 'lack' from 'lacklustre' a common mistake ignorant arseholes make, by the same coin ?

I don't need to 'exaggerate' Shakespeare's importance- his work stands on its own merits.

judging from online (and judging by the list of words you used, you copied them from these sites, even in the same order...)

No, I didn't. If I had used an online site, I would have posted its address. You're beginning to believe your own lies and assertions.

Note to those with A.D.D. - my words were:

Over 1500 English words or usages can be traced to Shakespeare- let alone the number of common phrases in modern English which his works either originated or helped popularise.

.... Many thanks to one William Shakespeare for the words:

Do I actually say he 'invented' premeditated ?

You know, real men can argue without intentionally complicating language.

Language is there to be used. Some people just have bigger vocabularies.

Don't be ashamed of your deficiency.

Real men can convey intelligence without spending an hour with the thesaurus (mental or otherwise) to express what can be expressed more simply.

What a charming subjective and unprovable opinion.

I don't care to waste any more time on you.

How haughty and insufferable of you!

If your memory is this bad,

Not as 'lacking' as yours.

I've clearly yet to reach the level of supersad douchebaggery to become as memorable as you.

There's only one thing worse than being talked about...

[Asher]

Originally posted by molly bloom
I know my arguments rather better than you.

Then perhaps you should work on your literary skills, as you do not communicate them very well.

He did enrich the language with new words and phrases. And I didn't ramble

an aimless amble on a winding course

Seems to me like the word fits like a glove?
^^^ See this, this is another literary device! I r cultured.

But you didn't say that. Attention Deficit Disorder ?

What is with your constant rambling (YES THIS IS CORRECT) about ADD? You seem to think ADD has something to do with memory problems, which it does not. Please do us the courtesy of making yourself less ignorant if you're going to talk about it once a post.

No, I didn't. If I had used an online site, I would have posted its address.

No, you certainly would not and you certainly did not. It's how you operate. You google and consult thesauruses to try to fool people into thinking you're intelligent. Every now and then you let your stupidity slip, like this ADD nonsense, but some of us here know how you operate. It's clear to me, anyway.

Note to those with A.D.D. - my words were:

Holy hell, Molly, ADD isn't a memory disorder!

Do I actually say he 'invented' premeditated ?

This must be your "A.D.D." acting up again.
You said:

Many thanks to one William Shakespeare for the words: ... premeditated.

What a charming subjective and unprovable opinion.

See, here's a great example of stupidity. It fails you because it required keenness of mind and it is not something you can easily google. All opinions are unprovable. By virtue that they are opinions on subjective subjects, and not something one can prove. That is why it is an opinion and not a hypothesis or fact.

[Kuciwalker]

FTR, I have ADD, and it's absolutely ridiculous to claim the supposed flaws in Asher's posts are symptoms of it.

If Asher were ADD he would have gone off and done something else by now, actually.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

It's not self-righteous. It's supposed to be a learning experience for you. You have no concept at all how pervasive computers are and how they impact our lives in many ways that are non-obvious. I've personally worked on code that is being used on BlueGene/L in search for a cure for cancer. I've personally worked on code that is being used by ASC Purple to figure out how to safely dispose of radioactive waste. What good is the "human condition" when we all die?

It's cute that you think you have anything to teach. I am completely aware of the amount of computers in today's society. In fact, using supercomputers for genetic research is one of the least surprising things you could have said. Heck, you might as well have spoken of computer chips in certain toasters.

You grossly overestimate the current amount of societal change computers have wrought, unless to you small things form big societal changes. The broadest social changes of the last 50 years happened in the late 60's and 70's. Computers have made certain changes that were already occuring greater in degree, but they are not the cause of them. You are jumping the gun on the effects of computers on society (as opposed to economics or warfare) - this generation, one raised entirely on computers, will be the start of real societal change once they have more influence on things.

None of which actually has diddly to do with my argument still.

You keep repeating this: We can't be human without art. Blah blah.

I disagree completely. We can be human without studying art.

So, I say to make art is human, and your counterarguement is that to be human one does not need to study art. Excuse me, but the later is not actually a counterarguement for the first statement. I hope you do realize that.

One does not need to study anything to be human. At the same time, to be well educated, one should study those things that are fundamental to being human.

Wait a second, you say...that wasn't what you said? But if you actually look at what I said, the point that set you guys off was my statement that literacy and mathematics are more important to study than art. The fact that you need to brush up on your literacy skills is now evident.

Actually, the statement by you that set me off is that Shakespeare is "entertainment" (you later compared him to a Chapelle show skit) and that art/entertainment is just "extra." Both are the kind of myopic statements I have come to expect from you.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
It's cute that you think you have anything to teach. I am completely aware of the amount of computers in today's society.

Demonstrably this is quite false...

You grossly overestimate the current amount of societal change computers have wrought, unless to you small things form big societal changes.

Let's see. Enabled globalization and real-time communications around the world? Check.
Transformed businesses completely? Check.
Transformed the media industry? Check.

I think it's quite clear you haven't the faintest clue how the information age has changed our world.

None of which actually has diddly to do with my argument still.

You keep repeating this: We can't be human without art. Blah blah.

I disagree completely. We can be human without studying art.

So, I say to make art is human, and your counterarguement is that to be human one does not need to study art. Excuse me, but the later is not actually a counterarguement for the first statement. I hope you do realize that.

What the hell, GePap?

You are the one providing the counter-argument to my statement that arts are not as important to study as literacy and mathematics. Not the other way around! I don't care what the hell you're ranting about when it's not directly related to your attempts to counter my argument.

Actually, the statement by you that set me off is that Shakespeare is "entertainment" (you later compared him to a Chapelle show skit) and that art/entertainment is just "extra." Both are the kind of myopic statements I have come to expect from you.

The fact that we can function in society without art, but cannot without literacy and math, simply proves you wrong.

You're trying to make this a filosofical argument about what it is to be human, and I will have none of that. Because it's artsy nonsense.

Simple fact: without basic math + literacy skills, life is hard.
Without art skills, life is just fine.

Simple as this, really. And Shakespeare is entertainment. It's classic entertainment, but it's entertainment. And entertainment can be influential, but it's still entertainment.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
FTR, I have ADD, and it's absolutely ridiculous to claim the supposed flaws in Asher's posts are symptoms of it.

If Asher were ADD he would have gone off and done something else by now, actually.

I was diagnosed with it too (though I no longer need the meds), and Asher doesn't show any signs of it. A lack of appreciation for the arts, maybe, but not ADD. Furthermore, I wish Molly and GePap would both shut up, as their snobbish attitude is forcing me into the uncomfortable position of sympathizing with Asher in a debate about the liberal arts. You both sound ridiculous, arguing repeatedly against points he never made.

Asher just doesn't appreciate Shakespeare--maybe doesn't appreciate Mozart or Kafka or Monet either, who knows--and all the horrified, plastic-monocled posturing in the world isn't going to make him suddenly convert to high culture like some idiot skeptic figure in a Jack Chick comic. If anything were to win him over, it would be a really good performance of Tartuffe or something.

[Asher]

I actually have a minor form of OCD, which I think is as far as you can get from ADD?

[Elok]

I don't see how.

[Asher]

Because you can obsess about something for longer durations than "normal" while ADD is the opposite?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Asher
Because you can obsess about something for longer durations than "normal" while ADD is the opposite?

I obsess too, but never went to a psychologist. I've learned to function with it.