Virtual Grub Street: Easing Oxfrauds into the World of Legitimate Shakespeare Authorship Debate.

Allowing Oxfrauds to debate in the Edward de Vere was Shakespeare Facebook group had been a positive choice, at first, but has since taken a turn very much for the worse. Moderately long Oxfraudian comments have grown monstrously so and so numerous as to make it clear that flooding the group with claims of insuperable expertise on multiple items per comment is an intentional strategy to overwhelm and intimidate rather than to debate.

Oxfraudian commentators have been requiring hours worth of opposition research by their interlocutors before they might deign to hear their rebuttals. It is utterly clear that for what little they may ever be heard they absolutely never will be credited. Similar numbers of hours are required in order to mine information demanded by Oxfraudian commenters who assign themselves the roles of Ph.D. Supervisors to primary schoolers. On the rare occasion that an attempt is made to research the required information it is uniformly rejected and quietly settled in the “Supervisor's” virtual brief case for future use. Isn't it fun to have de facto research assistants.

While I make it a point in my own work to anchor my claims in primary source material — original, transcribed, etc. — it is neither desirable nor possible to base every word upon a specific cited source. For this reason, it seems, Oxfraudians have upped the ante to require that every claim be based upon primary source material and fail to the exent that any of part it uses other means. Primary source material is the necessary anchor. Educated interpretation and the use of such absolutely essential tools as probability and rational analysis are never properly rejected for not being themsleves primary source material. They are the valuable cargo that source material anchors. Without it one just has ships carrying anchors and empty holds.

Requiring virtually every word be individually supported by primary source material makes it impossible to rise to the level of “a preponderance of the evidence”. It is difficult to believe that this isn't yet another Oxfraudian strategy. If we have reached the post-evidence stage of Shakespeare Authorship debate then the Stratford man cannot be effectively challenged as the playwright.

This is heavily supported by a persistent behavior of the Oxfrauds. Traditional (pre-post-evidence) scholars were quite naive. They often felt the obligation to scrupulously report their findings regardless the implications. They admitted to running up against anomalies time and again. Against seemingly irresolvable conflicts between the works and the requirements of Stratford authorship. Nary a word of this in Oxfraudia.

Oxfraudia is little if at all concerned that vast swathes of the so-called traditional Shakespeare scholarship is free of connection to any primary source material at all. Almost every alleged biographical fact is conjecture, sourced from hearsay recounted decades or longer after the fact, from people who never knew the man from Stratford about whom they told the stories, make unsubstantiated claims, etc. Every reference to flora, fauna, dialect in the works has been declared somehow particularly local to Stratford however much naturalists, linguists, etc., do not confirm. When primary source material is brought-in the interpretations are often so distorted that they would be laughed out of any other legitimate scholarly field. There being so little factual material at hand, the traditional Shakespeare himself became and remains a fictional character.

All of this said, I still feel that the Edward de Vere was Shakespeare group is better served to be actively involved in debating the various aspects of Shakespeare Authorship. When all parties are honorably engaged in genuine debate, each learns how their ideas hold up in a challenging arena. Hopefully, they accept the weaknesses of their arguments and go back to the books, manuscripts, etc., in order to strengthen them. Perhaps they even have the integrity and self-confidence to change them.

The Oxfraudian way, however, is to give blatant partisanship a thin patina of scholarship. It makes a mortal weakness of admitting to (re)assessing anything thus making their arguments rigid, and, where they are wrong, willfully, unalterably wrong. It creates a situation where incorrect arguments must be supported not by facts, for they are not convenient, but by troll tactics. It sucks all but the hardiest non-Oxfraudians into that same mortal black hole.

So, having described the situation, I will try again while installing what safeguards Facebook supplies. Two of the Oxfraudians most given to flooding the group with claims of superior expertise, reams of vague assertions and demands that massive hours of homework be presented before any rebuttal will be entertained, have been put on limited participation until after the holidays.

Unfortunately, the most stringent limitation provided by Fb would seem to be a limit of one comment per hour. I would like to have limited their comments to 2 or 3 per day. More important, however, is the warning that it gives. Oxfraudian comments during the last 48 hours indicate that the warning may have been understood.

Even with reduced ability to comment I call upon the Oxfraudians to use the debate as an exercise in concision. Expressing oneself both precisely and concisely is a skill we should all be working to improve.

Another Oxfraudian who had silently been watching requested to make comments immediately after the above limitations were effected. For whatever reason his status appeared as “member” when I gave permission. His status now shows “visitor” and I have suspended him until after the holidays unless he will deign to become a member.

Only members are invited to post or comment in the group henceforward. This rule has been in effect for a couple of months now. If you don't respect the group enough to join you don't respect it enough to participate.

I leave perhaps the most important point until last. The Edward de Vere was Shakespeare group is only a Facebook group. Not every member joins prepared to participate in blood sport. Most, in fact, likely just want to interject their intuitive take now and again or participate in general conversation on a topic which interests them. These members are also highly valued. We each are called upon to recognize they exist and to alter our tone and demeanor when addressing them. Should they be harassed or disrespected by another member there needs to be a price to pay.

While Oxfraud is the Provisional Wing of the Stratfordians, I believe they can be convinced to leave their trash-talk and smoke grenades back in their club house when they come to this group. I will be easing them back into full status as they give signs that they get the message.