Maybe you're trolling him!

G'day folks...!

SB replied: See my reply above, regarding our definitions of evidence. I honestly think this is quibbling about nothing, and I'm happy to use Mark's definition, which I don't see as being opposed to my own. :)

SB replied: Such as?

Mark Haslett wrote: But you use your definition to arbitrarily determine that what other people think is evidence is not, indeed, evidence.

SB replied: I don't. See my reply regarding Hall. I'm not questioning that he harboured, indeed expressed, doubts about the authorship of Venus & Adonis. I disagree that it's conclusive.

Mark Haslett wrote: An argument that ignores inconvenient evidence is not as good as one which can account for it.

SB replied: I agree. 

SB replied: Surely it's salient that no-one else supported them, or reiterated their doubts?

Mark Haslett wrote: Were Hall and Marsten well-known? Ben Jonson collaborated with Marsten. So, yes.

SB replied: And Jonson didn't share those doubts, or not about Shakespeare's authorship in any case, even if he varied in his opinion of the quality of his writing. 

Mark Haslett wrote: I never said Hall's statements were conclusive. You cannot "disagree" with something that was never said.

Mark Haslett also wrote: I repeatedly corrected you that Hall stated affirmatively and clearly that he knew Shakespeare was a pen name.

SB replied: You've pretty much lost me here. Your first statement denies that Hall's statement is conclusive, but your second one says that it was.

Mark Haslett: He said "Dear true author, you and I both know you are using a pen name and I think you should stop."

SB replied: Is that a direct quote? :)

Mark Haslett wrote: Shakespeare's contemporaries called him out for using a pen name. It doesn't mean that it is "conclusive proof" - just that it happened.

SB replied: Hall and perhaps Marston seem to have genuinely believed that Shakespeare was not the author of Venus & Adonis. I'm not disputing this. I am disputing whether or not their belief was correct, and I don't believe that it was.

SB replied: You have statements from Shakespeare's contemporaries unequivocally stating that Will of Stratford isn't the author he purports to be, or is claimed as being?

Mark Haslett: If we only have two witnesses to something come forward, do we say their testimony doesn't count unless more witnesses also come forth?

SB replied: What testimony unequivocally stating that Will of Stratford wasn't the author of the plays do you have? You're being unusually coy in claiming to have it, rather than actually providing it.

Mark Haslett wrote: No, you are disputing whether or not Hall and Marsten's published works which declare Shakespeare is a pen name constitute evidence that Shakespeare's contemporaries accused "Shakespeare" of being a pen name.

SB replied: What published works declaring that Shakespeare is a pen name are you referring to? Are you able to provide an actual quote from Hall or Marston that directly says that the plays or poems attributed to Shakespeare weren't by him? 

And I mean an actual quote from Hall and Marston - not ambiguous remarks and unproven speculation about them.

Mark Haslett wrote: Did any of Shakespeare's contemporaries ever suggest in print that Shakespeare's works were written under a pen-name?

SB replied: To the best of my knowledge, no. I'm waiting for you to provide this unambiguous and direct evidence.

Mark Haslett wrote: This is a "yes or no" question. Please answer "Yes" or "No".

SB replied: See above.