` I should like to respectfully disagree in no uncertain terms with Paul's assertion that ``this is pointless`` as well as the implication of his further claim that ``the first phrase is concise and clear.`` Clarity is no virtue when content deceives. And, indeed, the case against the present wording is far worse than even Rogala seems to be aware. Per Nishidani ``it is always best to examine the sources behind statements.``  This is indeed true and one generic failing of the present document is that it so often depends on the kind of secondary or tertiary sources such as those cited in order to make a point when consultation with original documents will put the matter beyond dispute. It is beyond reasonable dispute that the single most important anti-Stratfordian of the twentieth century (possibly excepting Looney) did not support any definitive alternative candidate. That person was Sir George Greenwood.  Greenwood's reticence to follow the Baconian path was anticipated by BOTH Twain and Whitman, with Whitman for his part explicitly disavowing Bacon and telling Horace Trauble, ``we shall see, we shall see``  intimating a belief that the real author had not yet been named as well as making crystal clear that he opposed the Stratfordian interpretation but was unwilling to offer a definitive alternative (See http://www.shakespearefellowship.org/virtualclassroom/whitman.htm). Greenwood's agnosticism frustrated  Andrew Lang, who in one of the most important anti-anti-Stratfordian books ever written, Shakespeare, Bacon and the Great Unknown, mocked him as an advocate of the ``great unknown.``  Note the title of Lang's book. In 1912 ``the great unknown`` was still a major player, and many of the best minds like Greenwood's not only did not make claims for an alternative author but refused to endorse any of those then in existence. It therefore seems to me that not only is the point a substantive one, but that Rogala's insistence on defending accuracy in wording in this case rest on an absolutely correct view of the history of the dispute, however one reconstructs the view of the contemporary DRD document. It is simply not historically accurate to claim otherwise, end of subject.     ::`