It's also interesting to note that while you're making so much of a quibble you're unwilling - unable? - to address a point. If Hall knew the truth behind the supposed authorship of Shakespeare (or "Shakespeare", if you'd prefer), why did he make it so cryptically when both De Vere and Will were alive, but say nothing at all in the years, decades, even, after both men had died?

SB replied: "Entirety"? You gave two names. So essentially, while some Alternative Authorship theorists argue that Hall was hinting at "Shakespeare's" true identity, it is not widely accepted. Correct?

Mark Haslett wrote: But you lie, misrepresent, quote mine, ignore my arguments, and just keep repeating your arguments no matter how many times they get refuted. Over and over again, with massive word-walls that just don’t address what I’m talking about. 

SB replied: That is one astonishingly black pot. :)

Why did Hall cryptically allude to the true identity of Shakespeare rather than simply say it? 

Why did he say nothing at all decades after both men had died?

If the plays were written in collaboration - as you've earlier conceded they were - why did none of De Vere's collaborators, or their heirs, tell the truth about the real author after he was dead, and any supposed danger in revealing the truth had died with him?

It's a shame that couldn't have been the case here.