I'm unconvinced by your Beatles analogy, but it doesn't interest me one way
or another what you choose to believe.
I was just attempting to instill a little humor in the discussion, Feste--a hopeless task, I should have known.
You asked me a question and I
answered it, that's all. Generally, I've found that people are skeptical at first,
even derisive, when they first hear about the Oxfordian claims (although that
is your general style on this board anyway),
Um, weren't you one of the ones objecting to labels a while back?
but the more they investigate the
matter, the more convincing they find the Oxfordian case to be.
The same people who believe that Elvis lives or that Abraham Lincoln was reincarnated as Andy Rymer?
What I have always objected to about this theory (for lack of a better word) is its blatant mean-spiritedness, its smug elitism, its attempt to deny one of the greatest literary accomplishments in history to a mere commoner--based on the flimsiest of evidence, changing facts all over the place whenever they are inconvenient rather than actually dealing with them.
