Thank you. Anderson’s book is a very detailed, readable, and well documented biography of Edward de Vere which shows much (not all) of the huge circumstantial evidence linking De Vere to the authorship. Much of his scholarship appears new. It was there that I first learned of “Fisher’s Folly”, a London house owned by De Vere which became a boarding-house for many young writers. Anderson doesn’t discuss my “collaboration hypothesis” but Fisher’s Folly might have helped De Vere hone his writing skill or find collaborators.
I asked Dopers to read that book before debating the authorship because in these discussions it is very obvious that many participants have made little effort to understand the case for De Vere. Indeed, they get much of their information about the case from “debunking” works like Shapiro’s, which is more about inventing motives for Oxfordians than examining their case.
I agree with the comment you included about the Sonnets. Some of them have an almost uncanny appropriateness if one assumes De Vere wrote them anonymously, but seem bizarre when related to what is known about the man from Stratford. One of the first threads I started at SDMB listed some specific sonnets and asked for a discussion of their bearing on the authorship controversy. The thread got long but there was ZERO interest in even looking at any Sonnet; they were dismissed with comments like
Doper interest in that thread revolved around insulting septimus, e.g.
I don’t argue with truthers or birthers because I’ve never looked at their “evidence.” If I did argue with them I’m sure I’d be very dismissive despite my ignorance. The authorship controversy gives me a reverse sympathy for conspiracy theorists. 
I’m far from certain that Oxford wrote the Sonnets and plays – I regard it as an intriguing mystery. But anyone who lumps “Oxfordians” with birthers and truthers is showing their own ignorance.