Shakespeare Speaks! (Again)

Yesterday’s posting, “Was John Paul II a Socialist?” excited a little comment.  After posting it, I began to have second thoughts about some of the things I said.  All were true, of course, and can be substantiated from independent, third party sources.  Members of the CESJ “core group,” however, pointed out that some of what I said was not entirely appropriate.

I was actually considering removing the posting and substituting something more innocuous.  I have done this before.  A while back, I posted something regarding the history of my high school in southern Indiana that other members of the core group thought was not of general interest.  I still disagree that it was something to make a fuss over, but I took it down.

Unfortunately, before I could make a decision, Mr. Chris Dorf forced my hand.  As readers of this blog will recall, especially those who have read the “Response to Shakespeare,” Mr. Dorf prefers to air his complaints in public without first going one-on-one with the person who has offended him to see if things can be straightened out.  Obviously, this leads to a great deal of otherwise avoidable misunderstanding and unnecessary acrimony, but it is his preferred method of operation. As he explains his motivations,


"chris dorf here,
Please do not cast me as anything more than a poor Catholic follower of Jesus Christ, educated by Polish Fransiscans.  I have NO TITLES, no prestige, no money, and no fame.  I don't know what worlds everyone here inhabits, but mine is one of NO INFLUECE and poverty.
chris dorf"

Mr. Dorf sent around a complaint to a significant number of people asserting that I had “smeared” and “maligned” Mark and Louise Zwick of the Houston Catholic Worker.  Mr. Dorf, of course, carefully ignored the fact that my own complaint originated in the fact that the Zwicks, without cause or warning, had themselves published an article containing defamatory statements about CESJ, and which can be found in the June 2005 issue of The Houston Catholic Worker.

Since one of my complaints against the Zwicks is that they had taken down the posting containing the article in question after ignoring all my attempts to communicate with them and straighten things out privately, you can understand the position Mr. Dorf’s public action forced me into.  I could not remove my posting without myself doing the very thing of which I had accused the Zwicks.  I had to leave the posting up so that readers could judge for themselves whether or not I had actually “smeared” or “maligned” the Zwicks, and not have to take Mr. Dorf’s somewhat emotional, unreliable, and usually unsubstantiated accusations at face value.

Still, I could apologize for the inappropriate nature of my comments about the Zwicks.  They are all true, and I am sure that they themselves will admit this.  My making the comments, however, had little to do with the subject on which I had posted, and, in justice, I felt I should state that.  Unfortunately, while I was in the process of composing my apology, Professor Rodney Shakespeare decided to weigh in.

The full story of Professor Shakespeare’s complaints can be found in the response we made to him, to which there is a link on the right, and in rebuttal of which (at one and the same time) Professor Shakespeare claims we did not respond to him and that the response was too long.  In any event, Professor Shakespeare’s e-mail was as follows, sent to a number of individuals and organizations.  This has been copied directly from Professor Shakespeare’s e-mail without alteration:

*          *          *

Dear All,

The cesj Exclusive Brethren are excelling themselves.  I quote from the article below:-

Faced with irrefutable evidence that they had published an article that contained obvious falsehoods, and that they had failed to correct the situation after repeated requests, the Zwicks took immediate action: they removed the article, sweeping the evidence of their lack of journalistic integrity under the rug.

 Heh, heh.  What a wonderful example of cowardly hypocrisy!

The Brethren  publish falsehoods against me and refuse to allow any response.   They are self-righteous, vicious, hypocritical cowards who are completely incapable of co-operating with anybody else.  Ho, Ho!

“......that contained obvious falsehoods, and that they had failed to correct the situation after repeated requests....!  Ha, ha ha!

TO THE EXCLUSIVE BRETHREN

Come on,  you scummy cowardy-cowardy–custards, you think you’re big, don’t  you?

But you daren’t debate with ME, do you?  You DAREN’T!!!

Ho, ho, ho, ho...ROTFL

Rodney Shakespeare.

*          *          *

After receiving Professor Shakespeare’s e-mail, I finished my apology and sent it out:

August 7, 2013

Today’s blog posting, “Was John Paul II a Socialist?” contains statements concerning the activities of Mark and Louise Zwick of Casa Juan Diego that publishes The Houston Catholic Worker toward CESJ and myself.  While every word I wrote and posted is true, and can be verified from independent sources, including the Zwicks in the posting was only marginally relevant and completely inappropriate.

For this, I sincerely apologize.  If the Zwicks or anyone else are willing to discuss this or any other matter relevant to the Just Third Way one-to-one in an atmosphere of mutual respect, solidarity and compassion, I remain open.  I attempted to initiate this process with the Zwicks several years ago, three times by letter and e-mail with the Zwicks directly, and once indirectly through Mr. Chris Dorf, who appears to be some sort of protégé of the Zwicks.

As can be seen in this “Response to Shakespeare” that came out of the controversies initiated earlier this year by Mr. Dorf’s unsubstantiated accusations against Dr. Norman G. Kurland, our responses are both complete and thorough, despite claims otherwise.  If the Zwicks or anyone else will just tell us why they object to:

·      The principles and logic the Just Third Way,

·      Kelso’s binary theory of economics,

·      The Kelso-Adler triad of the principles of economic justice, or

·      The blueprint for global system reforms under CESJ’s proposed Capital Homestead Act,

we are open to dialog.  If critics are prepared to state clearly what is wrong with what we are saying, or point out the flaws in our reasoning, I am sure a great deal of needless misunderstanding would be cleared up.  Those opposed to CESJ, if they are reasonable, have a responsibility to tell the world why they oppose our principles and proposed solutions to:

·      Global poverty,

·      Mass economic powerlessness, and

·      Class conflict.

Again, I apologize for the inappropriate nature of my comments.  I do not, however, apologize for the facts.

Michael D. Greaney

Within a short time I, and a number of others, received the following e-mail from Professor Shakespeare.  Again, this is copied directly from his e-mail.  Not one word has been changed or omitted:

*          *          *

Greaney,

You lie.

How dare you write this  -- “......one-to-one in an atmosphere of mutual respect, solidarity and compassion, I remain open.  I attempted to initiate this process with the Zwicks several years ago.....”

Ho, Ho, HO!  You smirking, hypocritical liar. Heh, heh!   You do nothing of the sort with anyone – immediately you start to lose the argument, you refuse to debate.

You’ve done it with me, you smelly coward.    You’ve just written this, for heaven’s sake –“As can be seen in this “Response to Shakespeare” that came out of the controversies initiated earlier this year by Mr. Dorf’s unsubstantiated accusations against Dr. Norman G. Kurland, our responses are both complete and thorough, despite claims otherwise.”

You refused to debate with me and, in particular,  play the dirty trick of writing long posts against me (one of about fifty/sixty pages, if I remember correctly) without giving me any chance to reply.

You are a scummy coward.

And everybody is laughing about your sanctimonious lecturing yet you refuse to debate.  (Plenty of people are putting out the word......Ho, ho, ho!)

You, Kurland and Brohawn will never regain your reputation unless you  practice what you preach – fair, open debate.

But you won’t do it  will you?  You’re scared.

Rodney Shakespeare

*          *          *

Not too long after, Professor Shakespeare sent yet another e-mail:

*          *          *

Dear All,

So let’s take Greaney at his word – he wants one-to-one discussion in an atmosphere of mutual respect.

OK .

Subject Number 1 – Interest-free loans for  housing

The Kelsos proposed it; they rightly and accurately defined a house as a very big productive asset and therefore eligible for interest-free loans.

If I remember correctly, Greaney, Kurland and Brohawn think that,  in binary economics, a productive asset is defined by whether or not it can be paid for out of after-tax income., or something.  However, this definition has nothing to do with binary economics because binary economics is concerned with the physical production of wealth  (and not present tax and accounting rules).

There!  I’ve been polite and, NB, concise (most certainly not taking 60-80 pages).

I await a focussed reply from either Greaney, Kurland or Brohawn.

Rodney Shakespeare

*          *          *

The full response to Professor Shakespeare has already been given, and can be found in the “Response to Shakespeare” that can be found on the right sidebar of this blog.

Addendum:

Professor Shakespeare followed up his demands with the following e-mail:

*          *          *

Dear All,

Heh, heh,  It’s impossible to make this up.  This is priceless.

 

As always,Greaney refuses to debate with me and puts his refusal in black and white (below, actually  in blue and white) to members of this thread.  Ho, ho, ho!

 

NB One or two thread members may not realise that, for perhaps five years or more, Greaney, Kurland and Brohawn have refused to allow me to respond to anything on the Louis Kelso Binary Economics Discussion Group list.

Scaredy-cats!    ROTFL

Rodney Shakespeare.

PS    NB  And it’s not as if Greaney has written (to himself) anything short and to the point! 

He likes  long waffles, preferably of 60-80 pages.  Ho, ho, ho!

All this comes from being a self-important, self-righteous, sanctimonious twerp.

#30#