> On Jul 12, 8:55?am, spinoza1111 yahoo.com> wrote:
>

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

>

>>> ________________________________________

>

>>> I wrote:

>>>>> My dear woman, you don't need this stress
>>>>> in your life, just post a signup sheet and we'll all pledge (for your
>>>>> sake) to put this provocateur on IGNORE.- Hide quoted text -

>>> Lynne wrote:

>>>> Thanks, Elizabeth. Everyone is welcome to sign up. :)

>

>>>> Mouse

>

>>>>> - Show quoted text -

>

>>> I write:

>

>>> Thank you, because you are clearly being
>>> harassed in this forum and it really hurts me
>>> to see it.

>

>> 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, ...

>

>> read more

>
> MM:
> I think you've made a lot of good points, Spinoza. I'm afraid you
> will burn yourself out, writing such long messages. Try to conserve
> some energy, otherwise, if you get tired they might jump on you with
> both feet, in your moment of weakness. Maybe pacing yourself would
> work better?
>
> I like you and Ms. Kositsky, although I don't agree with her Anti-
> Stratfordian views. Why don't you two draw a truce, and then we can
> move forward to try again? She made her point. You made your point.
> I think we've seen enough rehashing of what happened. Maybe, just
> maybe, both of you could learn something from these events? I think
> the solution is really simple. It's okay to be very opinionated, but
> let's try to be ladies and gentlemen.
>
> Michael Martin