1 Paul All my information derives from reliable sources You have yet to cite even one either here or on the authorship page or on your home page Even if you have one the fact that you continue to fill up someone else s page for six weeks without either bothering to excuse yourself or explain yourself constitutes harassment All you do is snip at an established scholar I can t snip at an established scholar because after weeks of verbal regurgitation you haven t named one And if you ever do the proper place to place that name on the Pericles section of the authorship discussion Do you have difficulty in remembering what you have been writing Paul I AM NOT VERY INTERESTED in whether Nelson makes some possibly poor translations from Latin He is a reliable source for Wikipedia Paul Nelson has apparently made over four hundred poor translations all on the most merciful interpretation due to the initial fact that he has never bothered to learn Latin before publishing his biography Due to one of these four hundred mistranslations he has brought a false accusation of murder But you are not interested because malicious defamatory information according to your interpretation of the laws of evidence can still be a reliable source for Wickipedia This may be true this be false but why don t you have the guts to come right out and say what you mean man Your pal Nishidamia did This is not about the truth he wrote and for him as apparently for you it isn t Never has been may be never will be You claim the view that Shakspere wrote Shakespeare is undermined because an American woman falsely claimed she was raped a few years ago No we are discussing an English department that knowingly aided and abetted a false rape claim and used every effort in its considerable power to pressure other academics to join them in a knowing and conscious fraud which nearly lead to the deaths of more than one falsely accused students One of these individuals is former head of the PMLA and claims to be an expert on Shakespeare You are claiming whether or not you are deliberately faking your readers on this point that all these murderous creeps are reliable sources under the rules of Wikipedia and if they publish their evidence on this blog whether on Crystal Mangum or Swilly Shakspere it must be accepted under the rules of Wikipedia and that you are not very interested if they are any more or less truthful than the other crank Strats who obfuscate rational discussion here I see the charge brought against me is that I correctly and charitably described you comments here as ignorant By the way you keep ducking my question here as to the identity of a black magician who keeps addressing me and claims to be majoring in iconography at the University of Sussex Now get off my page and take all your crappy posts with you I get one more ignorant letter from you and I am with the permission of the editorship going to dump them all right back on your site where your fellow lunatics if any can doubtless better savor the fruits of your accumulated wisdom