On Jul 12, 4:19 am, Elizabeth gmail.com> wrote:

The facts are that Lynne "Ms Mouse" Kositsky initiated reverse sexual
harassment in May by inserting a limerick that inappropriately and
with malice made reference to my sexual privacy, in a non-hyperbolic
and therefore meant to be serious way. This initiated a chain of posts
in which I repeatedly had to ask Lynne "Ms. Mouse" Kositsky to remove
the post. In what I took to be an implicit admission that she was at
fault, but without explicitly admitting fault, this poster withdrew
the post in another post that discourtesly objectified me by speaking
of me to others in the third person. She did not apologise per se,
instead posed as a person whose delicacy of feeling is such that she
cannot hurt another, even if he's a crazy man who should take sexual
harassment like a man, and suck it up.

However, I accepted this as an implicit admission of some wrongdoing
and accepted it. I undertook at that point, to spare Ms. Mouse further
stress and myself a waste of time and my own stress, not to post
anymore on Google Groups, and I confirmed this decision in a moderated
post on my moderated blog site, developerdotstar.

However, when I followed up this month, I discovered posters,
including Ms. Mouse, replicating what I believe to be a lie, and this
was that I was "banned" from Google. Her participation was a message
"look at his [my] profile" posted June 9th, implying that at that
date, I was marked as banned, although this is not Google practice to
the best of my knowledge, and, I received no notice from Google
concerning a ban. This week she compounded the lie by denying the
clear import of what she had said.

Encouraged by messages from some posters, I decided to return to set
the record straight by replying to posters including Bob Grumman who
were claiming that I had been permanently banned. I decided that I was
ready to return to constructive criticism of the weird practice, here,
of "Shakespeare denial" and explicating its social-psychological
roots.

Since Lynne "Ms Mouse" Kositsky initiated a hate-fueled mob action in
May with an inappropriate, off-topic, malicious and non-hyperbolic
reference to my sexual privacy, I conclude that she is not here the
victim of harassment.

One example of "harassment" about which she has complained was the use
of her name. However, this was outed by her last April in describing
her authorship activities, and she certainly had no compunction
whatsover in using my unprefixed patronymic in the sexually harassing
post, which potentially at least brought shame and embarassment on all
members of my extended family, including minor children.

Her behavior, and that of other posters who self-identify as female,
indicates that they unfairly discriminate between the sexual rights of
a male poster versus those of a female poster. The sympathy expressed
here for Elizabeth, and the rather knee-jerk description of my conduct
as in any way "harassment", indicates that the unwritten rules are
that "a male poster's sexual privacy is of considerably less value
than that of a female poster", "the name including patronymic of a
female poster may not be used, to spare her the consequences of
surveillance EVEN WHEN she without compunction uses the broadest
possible name, the patronymic, in a context of malicious sexual
harassment", and that in general women have delicate feelings, whereas
men, like black men in the age of Dred Scott, have no rights a woman
may respect.

Indeed, Ms. Mouse's behavior directly fostered a climate of
metaphorical "Uncle Tomming" in which male posters, anxious themselves
to avoid the vicious and soul-destroying bullying meted out with a
nasty sexual undertone from the self-appointed thought leaders of this
community (including Messrs. Kennedy and Farey), join an electronic
Lynch mob, resulting in a cybernetic hounding which caused me
considerable time, and stress.

I am however encouraged by this putative pledge, because I entered
this newsgroup in January of this year to exchange information and
opinion concerning the teaching of Shakespeare, one of my educational
tasks. I was almost immediately sprayed with a foul and toxic brew of
bullying and the discredited "opinion" that despite the documentary
record, Shakespeare didn't write the corpus, an opinion without
certiorari amongst professional Shakespeare scholars.

I went to work, and I appear to have cleansed this group of a poster,
one Mark Houlsby, who was according to most others using the ng to
harass and "troll" (their word, not mine: I have found that word
problematic) by confronting Houlsby without the usual cowardice
evinced by most posters. My reward? To be classed by people who don't
read posts for the most part, and for this reason are ignorant on the
facts, with Houlsby.

I was surprised to discover that despite the high levels of mob
action, Lynch law, and bullying on technical groups, this behavior
here was far more egregious, and I also was shocked to discover that
the self-appointed thought leaders of this group, including Kositsky,
Kennedy, and Farey, actually had considerable theater and scholarly
chops. Although in most cases the self-appointed thought leaders
necessarily showed even in their professional views elements of
professional pathology (such as Shakespeare denial in Ms. Mouse's
case), most of their views and thoughts on high culture seemed to
betray the ability to appreciate high culture.

However, I've also come to believe that Fascism works this way.
Members of elites and thought leaders learn to selectively brutalize
parts of their personality in response to Fascist pressures in
society, and to seek out evidence of a vulnerability or enthusiasm
coded as retrograde by a culture which, far from being Fascist,
celebrates a Bohemian or "alternative" style.

Strategic and goal-seeking brutality emerges in such a surprising way
and in such pear-shaped tones that it's dangerous not to analyze this
phenomenon. It is hard to distinguish from hyperbolic satire and
mockery, so over the top as to be meant in jest, and one discovers,
often after the fact, that the brutality was there for a purpose.

Indeed, the thought leader is using the newsgroup to further
professional ends and can be expected for this reason to be
strategically brutal and to make jokes with a purpose, not as any kind
of Happy Warrior.

I'm going to stay here until this shit stops. I'm going to post until
the thought leaders, working in part through their Brownshirts, cease
using this ng as their own personal fiefdom in which they can inflate
what seem to be distinctly provincial accomplishment into something
more, by abusing Michael, Phil Innes, myself, and indeed any entrant
who enters here thinking that this ng is for the discussion of
Shakespeare in a collegial atmosphere.

Shakespeare denial, in and of itself, as a central theme of this ng,
is used to exclude the work of scholars since 1708 and Nicholas Rowe
as at best the work of naifs, and at worst a "conspiracy so immense"
and it sends a message to the outside real world that this ng isn't
for discussing "Shakespeare" at all, and that the lonely and isolated
"Shakespeare nerd" best keep the fuck out of this sinister compound,
decorated as it is with skulls. It's for DENYING Shakespeare with
superficial and unprofessional sourcing so as to have the cake and eat
it to, to destroy a zone of "alles schon undt gute", to remind men
that they are scum without rights that women need respect, and to trip
up, undercut, harass, tease and bully anyone who doesn't defer, toady,
and kow-tow to, flatter, inflate, congratulate and in general suck off
the dogs obeyed in office.

"The great image of Authority" in other word looms over this group.
When actual creativity occurs *ex nihilo* and from either a newbie, or
a person with an inner motor like Innes or like Michael, is used to
place these people, like Kent, into the stocks and if necessary the
eye gouging starts.

The modal personality knows exactly where his bread is buttered and is
Oswald in Lear who smirks at Kent, knowing that within a diseased
community, a serving man can be superior to a duke in disgrace and in
hiding. Don't bother reading the Histree plays, they don't have to be
your fortay. Stumble on a line from Sonnet 129, misrecognize it, and
then tell people you knew it all along. Mock a compound sentence as
ungrammatical.

If this doesn't work, you can ascend to the register of moral advice-
giving, and preach to people about being a "mensch", even as Israel
tells the increasingly diminished crowd of people who believe them
that it represents justice and mercy and Tikkun...while children
starve on the Gaza strip as Israel gangs up with its former enemies to
confront, not a superior power, not the Assyrians, but starving
children and their stone-throwing older siblings. The hypocrisy in
both registers is world-historical and gives a whole new meaning to
*chutzpah*.

A fundamental, and pre-Abrahamite, crime is committed, because default
assumption of good faith, in a word hospitality, is missing. Hamlet
encouraged Horatio, when Horatio thought the Ghost strange, to "as a
stranger give it welcome". But increasingly today, people in the
developed world, terrorised by their governments' use of terrorism to
marshal loyalty, conclude from any outlier phenomenon that they are
under threat, and they reason from an inflated sense of self-
importance that it's better safe to be sorry, and tease, bully, and if
necessary crucify the outlier, the Scholastic Aptitude Test or SAT
Guru, the Chosen One.

Nobody aspires to be anything more than comfortable, to kick back, and
to read a maximum of one book, and after reading Edna St. Vincent
Millay (quite an accessible poet who I read to kick back), they need
to watch someone being tormented, oh so "politically incorrectly", on
Extras, because *alles schon undt gute* isn't really about their
world. Howls of dismay and absurd charges of ungrammaticality are
hurled at simple complex sentence. Nobody's curious and nobody as a
stranger gives much of a welcome. Narcissistic feelings trump, but are
not configured with compassion.

It's a grim fucking spectacle.