SB replied: Fair enough. How about:

George Buck, Master Of The Revels, stated in 1607 that King Lear was the work of William Shakespeare.

Michael Penn wrote: What you then further added in your changed statement...

SB replied: It wasn't a changed statement, it was a new one. I posted the original, which you felt to be strong, and proposed a second one, which you're not content with either. 

Here's hoping that third time's the charm. :)

You go on to raise a series of questions, or requests for clarifications. With hope springing eternal...

In 1603, a royal patent is issued confirming the creation of The King's Men. Among the people named are William Shakespeare, Richard Burbage, Henry Condell and John Heminges.

In the same year, George Buck is appointed Master Of The Revels, making him responsible for supervising entertainments presented to the sovereign, and for censoring plays performed in public theatres. 

In 1606, Buck stated that William Shakespeare had confirmed the authorship of George-A-Greene, the Pinner of Wakefield.

In 1607, Buck stated that Shakespeare was the author of King Lear.

In 1616, William Shakespeare dies in Stratford-Upon-Avon. In his will, he leaves small bequests to Burbage, Heminges and Condell.

In 1619, Burbage dies.

In 1623, the First Folio is published, comprised of 36 plays, which Heminges and Condell state to have been the work of William Shakespeare, the man they had known for decades. King Lear is included among them.

Michael Penn wrote: It's truly amazing that this one register entry has survived when so much else from that time has been lost.

SB replied: Are you suggesting that the register entry is a forgery? If so, why, and by whom? 

If it were that case that Will of Stratford wasn't William Shakespeare, wouldn't the people who were trying to maintain the fiction that he was have forged something more substantial, like a letter or a diary entry?

Michael Penn wrote: Do any would be author’s of the time have a debatable career as a playwright, but a verified career dealing in wool?

Michael Penn earlier wrote: I'm not advocating for any alternative authors, or even doubt. As a Stratfordian...

SB replied: Michael, it's apparent that you are an Alternative Authorship theorist. Wouldn't it be better to just be open about it? I don't agree with the position, but I do enjoy the thrust and parry of debating it. :)

Your own words: "If I amend this to say..." Anyway, you now have provided a good example of quibbling.

***

I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about or how you drew this conclusion from anything I said.

***

There's no point discussing this further since you think I'm a liar.