, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 :::Paul writes," I don't have to prove Shakespeare's collaboration with Wilkins by complex, simple or any other evidence. Experts do that. We use the consensus of accredited scholars and editors of the text. See WP:RS.
 ::: Ah,but you said that you would.I am holding you to your word.If you want to chicken out now it's ok by me.You are claiming there is a consensus about a complex bit of proof which you refuse to reveal.
 ::: And we are not going to pay another one of those Comrade Stalin rules bit.There is no other discussion page on the entire Wickie where a rent a mob plays the games that are played on this subject.
 ::: Yes,I am always honored to have students write to me.I never had a letter from a post-Modernist University before, though I got quite a few from Duke students when the infamous gang of "88" Duke academics(the numbers actually varied from 134 to 40 something)were trying(quite literally) to lynch members of the the Lacrosse team.
That was a real  academic consensus,Paul!Much better than any evidence of a consensus about Pericles!It included(still does) Huston Baker former president of PMLA,and Karla Holloway,who was rewarded for her behavior by a temporary lectureship at Harvard. In fact it included the entire English department with the exception(of course) of the anti-Strat(horrors personal research).
 ::: No, this type of concensus doesn't disturb me or those for whom I write and,I am ever enheartened to find new proof,that such a Marxist view of concensus it isn't intimidating the young.The reasons why William Shakspere is ,in all probability, a fraud are exactly the same type of reasons that Crystal Mangum was raped by thee,five,fifteen or thirty members of the Duke Lacrosse team.Forstarters you can't fit a thosand pounds of flesh(Crystal's minimum figure) into a nineteen forty, two by four,john.
 ::: Nevertheless,the overwhelming concensus of the Duke English faculty,one lone anti-Strat dissenting,is that it did happen.And I see no reason why if the Wickie rules which you invoke are consistently applied,that the Duke Lacrosse Hoax should not be revised accordingly.
 :::Or let's take another example here:Wickie's admirable treatment of the Alger Hiss case,a trial which I have followed, blow by blow, since the 1950's.It states correctly that there is almost a consensus as to Hiss's guilt among the present generation of American historians.(Not I suspect true of British or Eastern bloc historians)
But it, admirably, goes on to list some twenty reasons(with footnotes)demostrating why there are the most serious reasons(some of them physical as in the Duke case) for disbelieving that "consensus".This constitutes a minimum of what both the young aand the old have a right to expect of the Shakespeare discussions.
I would further suggest that you take your Ashbourne argument over to the main board where others can criticize it.This is the first time you have attempted a reasoned argument to sustain your position since I came here.You should write more of them.
No matter how fouly you behave nothing could get you kicked off this web site.And you know darn well who I am I use the monicker here to keep up continuity with a number of discussions which I am penning.One of them involves an Alaister Crowley style magician who claims to be majoring in iconography at Sussex University.Not one of your boys by any chance?  22:55