Talk:Dick Emery/Archive 1

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Francis Bacon. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. --Stephen Burnett 09:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of warnings

You have removed several user warning templates from your user or user talk page. These warnings are not put on your talk page to annoy you; they were placed here because other editors have noticed an issue with your behaviour that may require improvement. They are a method of communication and user talk pages stand as a record of communication with you. If you do not believe the warning was valid or have a question about improving your behaviour you can respond here or visit the help desk. If your talk page is becoming long, you can archive it in accordance with the guidelines laid out here How to archive a talk page. Thank you. --Stephen Burnett 20:36, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Bacon

I was surprised by your edit on his page. I thought that you would open the discussion setting out your objections, rather than just throwing out a great deal of carefully sourced material. Haiduc 02:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you're not wright and certainly not "neutral". Anyway, all people who write that Bacon was heterosexual are less neutral than those who say that he was gay because of evidences and clues, inexistant in the case of heterosexuality. To write that there was "no public controversy about Bacon involving sexuality during his lifetime" is wrong. There was no trial, but there was a controversy :

"It was thought by some, that hee should have been tried at the barre of justice for it", wrote d'Ewes.

Don't you think your statements are not correct ? It is, because there was a controversy, that's the good word. D'Ewes wouldn't write this if it wasn't so. It was Haiduc's wright to mention it, but he was censured. And really, it is enough with these people who censure historical evidences when they're not comfortable with it. It should be possible to write that all historical evidences and clues are in the way of Bacon's homosexuality, not of Bacon's heterosexuality. But is there a honest man to admit that here ? I don't think so. Anyway, that would be correct to say that there was a controversy during his lifetime and the section "posthumous reputation" is not correct. And think about that : what Aubrey is not at all posthumous, because he collected informations thank to older people, who were contemporaries of Bacon. With d'Ewes, we have at last two different evidences. And if all the letter of Bacon's mother didn't deal with his sexuality, there is a paragraph about it. It isn't honest to hidd this fact because it was not Ann Bacon's only preoccupation ; it is a part of his preoccupations. She alludes that his son had homosexual infatuations thirty years before d'Ewes and a lot of year before John Aubrey. I don't know how it is possible to say the contrary. Candid 20:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The probleme is that there is no proof of his heterosexuality. Simon d'Ewes, John Aubrey and Bacon's mother knew what they said. The bad faith of these homophobic people is disguting. You can say all that you want, disdain all historical evidences and clues because you don't like what it, make all diversion that you wan't : everythink say to us that Francis Bacon was homosexual and nothing that he was heterosexual. That's easy to say that both Simon d'Ewes and John Aubrey are not valuable sources. They were like ancient historians, you know : their statements is based on other -today destroyed- evidences and testimonies. And there is a problem with you : there is absolutely, absolutely no proof of his -by you alleged- heterosexuality. If you can proof that he was heterosexual, OK. But I could say to you that your level of speculation that has led you to state that he was heterosexual is 0. You don't know the notion of the servant loves ? Samuel Pepys knew that with his girls and Francis Bacon too with his lads. But I think I understand your way : in France our penal right is based on the presumption of innocence. Your mind must be based on the presumption of heterosexuality. You don't need proofs of heterosexuality, presumption is enough for you. So, you think to allow yourself to state that Bacon was heterosexual. You know why we think that he was homosexual. I am curious to know the concret evidences you have to stated that he was heterosexual. Obviously, I wouldn't considere your answer valuable if it is : "There is no proof that he was homosexual." That would be the proof that your claims of Bacon's heterosexuality would be unsubstantiated. Candid 19:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not enough to claim things about Bacon's heterosexuality, my dear little Emery. You have to proove it. If you can't, other people have the right to write that there is evidences of his homosexuality but not of his heterosexuality. But I trust you : what are the evidences of Bacon's heterosexuality ? Name them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.198.75.232 (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

LISTEN, EVERYBODY, I didn't realize, but there's even no need to wonder if "coach companion" had a sexual meaning : the meaning of "bed companion" is sexual too : Bacon's mother is not alone to use these words : D'Ewes wrote : "yet would he not relinquish the practice of his most horrible and secret sinne of sodomie, keeping still one Godrick, a verie effeminate faced youth, to bee his catamite and BEDFELLOW." So Nieves Mathews looks clever claiming that it is a "misrepresentation" to state that words such as "bed companion and coach companion" are not evidences of Bacon's homosexuality, because that's not sexual. Now, it is very clear to me that all her argumentation is false : she is just one of these biographers of homosexual personnalities who tries desperately to link them to heterosexuality, because homosexuality is a very bad thing. So it is very not disturbing to quote Mathews in the article : everybody can see that "coach companion" as well as "bed companion" are evidences of sexual activities and deny that, like NM is a perfect example of bad faith. The only thing to do is to read the texts to see that NM is not only weak -no formal proof of Bacon's heterosexuality- but false. The only thing she is able to provide to proove Bacon's heterosexuality is her intimate conviction. I am definitely convinced that all the primary sources in question deal indeed with homosexuality. I am very happy : I now know without possible doubt that NM argumentation is insubstantiated. Is anybody still able to pretend that "bedfellow" had no sexual meaning in mind of Bacon's contemporary ? I guess not. 90.3.151.138 17:37, 27 October 2007 (UTC)