Re: Breton, Cornish & French

Chess One wrote:
> "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.

No, no - don't thank me, it's no trouble :-)

> 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.

Well, we seem to be making progress - you now accept his author****p of the

narrative poems.  But now that you have done that, why re you baulking at 
accepting the plays?  Let's approach it from the other end: why do you not

accept the First Folio, and the various testimonies prefixed to it?  Do
you 
similarly doubt the Works of Ben Jonson?  Or the Beaumont & Fletcher
Folio? 
And if not, why not?

> 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.

Could I have a translation, please?

> 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.

I know an awful lot - perhaps it would be better if we started with a 
subject that you think you know?

> 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.

Which subject?

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

Actually, I'm not aiming at conversation - with you, I just aim to stamp
on 
nonsense.
-- 
John Briggs