Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2017 20:44:06 GMT
If I'm wrong, show me where I'm wrong. This'll be good for a laugh. I haven't even touched on the plays, themselves, yet, and I've already destroyed the Anti-Stratfordian school of thought. You haven't destroyed anything. You've just made a handful of baseless assertions; the burden of proof isn't on me, it's on you as you're one claiming definitively that Shakespeare wrote all his plays. I just said there was doubt. And all you've done to the effect of proving it is to assert that it must've been Shakespeare because he's only person who ever lived before or since that could've possibly had intimate knowledge of a theater company in England. Seems like a gross oversimplification and no proof of anything. ...You're an idiot. These assertions aren't baseless, because my argument relies on the playwright being a part of the day-to-day operations of The King's Men theater company, and being familiar with the inner-workings and regular cast and crew members of a daily professional basis. I've actually worked in a theater that wrote some of it's own plays as a crew member. I've seen how it works. The playwright can't just waltz in with a script or send one in the mail. They actually have to work with the theater company/community to write a play that's functional by the capabilities and limitations of employees and budget. Sounds like a lot of people get involved, doesn't it? And you know what they say about secrets? The more people who are in it, the more likely it is to get out. In order for Shakespeare to have not written Shakespeare, the "true" author would still have to have been working with the crew and cast on a regular basis, which means basically EVERYONE in The King's Men would have had to be in on it. Nobody on the outside noticed? Give me a break, you Anti-Stratfordian freak. |
|
