Re: Breton, Cornish & French

John, I think we have what is called a failure of communication.

First you kite the thing I reference, then you do not answer what I asked 
you, then you gnomically put into quotation marks something referenced by
me 
to do with the provenance of Shakespeare without quite illustrating any 
thought of your own, and then do not understand the good Saxon word 
'campel' - which means something like; to vigorously question what is the 
truth of anything, as if to establish how we know what we know.

Since you seem continuously shy of actually saying aught of your own which

is other than demonstrative opinion, should you really continue to
question 
the idea of questioning things, while appearing open to other ideas? I 
simply do not understand why newsgroups sponsor such rhetorical 
nothingnessess as if to negate real inquiry. Though I do understand why 
people who do have some sense of the /process/ of inquiry, in these cases 
being social scientists, do not write here overmuch.

You should, btw, not assert that I say that 'Shakespeare' did not write
his 
Work, but that I say that it is unprovable that he did by normal rules of 
evidence. This is not a dispute about the author****p of Shakespeare, but 
about how we know anything.

Should you not acknowledge these points then I feel as though you tangle 
with some phantom, and not what I have written, nor its contextuality. I 
thereby leave you the offer to win something, or to converse on something.

Without more substantial response on your part, eg, you may win whatever 
your point may be.

Phil Innes




"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:bTtsj.4060$875.3232@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Chess One wrote:
>> Not to campel unnecessarily, but these lines are whose? By what
>> proof? The second factor being the all of it.
>
> Well, not by your own account - you only asked for "a scintilla of 
> evidence". Don't you think that counts as a scintilla?
> -- 
> John Briggs
>
>>> Chess One wrote:
>>>>
>>>> should you wish to regress 400 years further, there is not the
>>>> slightest /evidence/ that Will Shakespeare wrote his own Works. And
>>>> I do mean nothing evident whatever! This is not to intrigue on
>>>> alternate authors, but for the most famous and studied person in
>>>> the literary history of the world to not possess a scintilla of
>>>> evidence of his author****p... shall we take some pause here?
>>>
>>> I suppose it rather depends what you mean by "evidence", or "Works"
>>> - or "nothing"...
>>>
>>> To the Right Honourable Henry Wriothesley,
>>> Earl of Southampton and Baron of Titchfield
>>>
>>> Right Honourable
>>>
>>> I know not how I shall offend in dedicating my unpolished lines to
>>> your lord****p, nor how the world will censure me for choosing so
>>> strong a prop to sup****t so weak a burden: only if you honour seem
>>> but pleased, I account myself highly praised, and vow to take
>>> advantage of all idle hours, till I have honoured you with some
>>> graver labour. But if the first heir of my invention prove deformed,
>>> I shall be sorry it had so noble a godfather, and never after ear so
>>> barren a land, for fear it yield me still so bad a harvest. I leave
>>> it to your honourable survey, and your honour to your heart's
>>> content; which I wish may always answer your own wish and the
>>> world's hopeful expectation. Your honour's in all duty,
>>>                                           William Shakespeare
>>> --
>>> John Briggs
>
>
>
> -- 
> John Briggs
>
>