Re: Breton, Cornish & French

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:3Levj.4720$d62.3843@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Westprog wrote:
>> John Briggs wrote:
>>> 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 'normal rules of evidence' do you
>>> think apply?  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 nonsense  you have read,
>>> without thinking about it.
>>
>> If we don't have any evidence that Shakespeare wrote the plays, then
>> we've no evidence that Dickens wrote the novels.
>
> Don't talk sense, you'll only confuse him :-)

O please, don't be so gratuitously slighting.

If you actually think you have some proof of any kind that Shakespeare
wrote 
the plays, please inform us, since for 400 years no one else has managed
to 
do so - and all because I raised the point of /how/ we know what we know 
based on much earlier references, then you think this is a subject for
your 
wit.

But it does illustrate what is 'belief' [right or wrong, but
uncritically], 
what else can you do than repeat opinion? The process of investigation is 
far mor im****tant than particular result, since the process qualifies that

result, and indeed, is not the only possible result.

Please return here on something you know - and if other opinion is
offensive 
to you on principal, then I must assume you know very little indeed, 
including what any epistemiology is.

If you are the first to write on that subject in these newsgroups - there 
seems precious little of it - then I should wish to congratulate you more 
than contest anything.

But if not, then you rather abandon any basis for any opinion, and ipso 
facto, that is not even an engageable form of conversation.

Phil Innes


> John Briggs
>
>