http://www.shakespeare-oxford.com/may.htm
A very long, but apparently even handed discussion.
First it becomes clear he was despicable though brilliant.
It does seem quite significant that he was never chosen
for any important military or ambassadorial assignments.
The scholarship of the Oxfordians is severely criticized.

Meanwhile, a person associated with Oxford University is called an Oxonian.

I thought JFK's ghost writer wrote most of Shagsberd's plays. There's a good book covering most of the "controversy" and rebutting the Oxfordians.

There's also an excellent close linguistic study of (very local) dialectal words that corroborates the extreme implausibility of any candidate other than Bilbo having encountered the required vocabulary.

Even if the con-theorists even read this stuff, they'd just move onto some other freaky madness... let 'em be, I guess!

After all, a rose by any other name or names...does it really matter? To some, I guess.

[applause] Good one, dixbie.

Dear dxb: Are you saying robbing Shakespeare doesn't matter?
He apparently got only peanuts for almost unparalleled artistic creation, and it took a couple hundred years before he was properly appreciated. To attempt rob him of his fame seems monstrous to me.