Re: Breton, Cornish & French

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:hoevj.2274$g81.1293@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Chess One wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> That is arrant nonsense -

What is?

> what 'normal rules of evidence' do you think apply?

Surely! What social rules of acceptance do we have?

>  For "Venus and Adonis" and "The Rape of Lucrece", Shakespeare has
written 
> his own letter of dedication for the publication! You are just
parrotting 
> some nonesense  you have read, without thinking about it.

There is no evidence whatever that Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare. Nothing 
and de nada. A written dedication does not authenicate who wrote it. Are
you 
chancing some argument otherwise? I am adrift in whatever you say, except
to 
understand a contention.

>> 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.
>
> Try writing plain English - and don't use words you don't understand. 
> "Contextuality" indeed!

I have suspected you would have difficulty with a compound sentence, and 
would skip the issue to divert your /noted/ inability to follow what
others 
write.

Do you not understand me plain enough? I say you willfully are engaged
with 
yourself not me, and this has nothing to do with any objective measure.
You 
argue something with yourself.

>> Without more substantial response on your part, eg, you may win
>> whatever your point may be.
>
> Fine - you leave linguistics and onomastics alone, and I will leave you 
> alone. And don't talk nonsense about Shakespeare.

I am not your boy Briggs. **** off yourself! Get it?

How subtle does one have to be to contradict a pedant who declares he 
doesn't understand others... while insisting his own [absent] issue

zzzzzzzzz

Instead there is a possibility that should you not give others advice on 
semiological basies, then you would attain your own statement or point of 
view. This possibility remains. Whatever that is, I will not salute it as 
much as note it as similar or different to my own. Other reactions on your

or my part being fascist.

Phil Innes


> John Briggs
>
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>
>