We are on different frequencies, Jack. I have not even taken a position on the authorship, yet you are reflexively attacking me and thus trying to maneuver me into taking one.
Anyone with internet access can explore the authorship question and the powerful arguments I referred to. I haven't the time or inclination to enlighten anyone on this issue; I mentioned the arguments in order to encourage others to investigate.
When I do write to instruct, I get paid for it very well. Furthermore, your tone is obnoxious, and I don't engage in discussions on that level at any price.
You may have the last word. Noblesse oblige. ;)
Whatever, Graymatter. You claimed there are "powerful arguments" for Oxford's candidacy and I'd be delighted to know what you think they are. I'm well familiar with the huddled mass of tin foil out there claiming Shakespeare was somebody else, and I know perfectly well that there is no evidence for any of it, which is why I ask. Maybe you have some new discovery.
When I do write to instruct, I get paid for it very well. Furthermore, your tone is obnoxious, and I don't engage in discussions on that level at any price.
What's obnoxious are people trying to steal credit for another man's lifetime of achievements and give it to someone else, without a single piece of evidence to warrant it.