Re: Breton, Cornish & French

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:o6kzj.32165$St5.11477@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Chess One wrote:
>> Sir, what I am asking is 'how we know', and if that knowledge is
>> inferential - you say nothing else below - then let it be so! Let it
>> be on an inferential basis, all things considered, and so on. Did you
>> understand this as the nature of my inquiry? Or are you content to
>> not notice that as if I proposed he was a Spaceman walk-in, and
>> besides, I am some moon-landing denier? Even raising the question is
>> somehow to be a nutter? A kook?
>
> You're beginning to catch on.

To NOT raise a question of how we know something is for "John Briggs" to 
catch on?

This indeed qualifies the level of appreciation of John Briggs to any 
possible topic. I rather doubt he can remember the original cause of his 
resentment of method, not the instance of it.

>> Did you understand the nature of my question, which, for the 100th
>> time, is to qualify the /means/ by which anything is known? This
>> exampling of Shakespeare being an exercise for this group [!]
>
> The English language is not suited to such theoretical exercises.  They

They? Cannot "you" name the pronouns?

> only make sense in the context of a genuine question (that is, a
question 
> of genuine interest.)

A tautology, which again is not any fullsome sentence, since; make sense
to 
whom? By what means make sense? Is this the forum of demogogues who rant 
about English usage, who cannot manage subject, verb, object,  in their
own 
expression. Or are we rather on the metaphysical-wanker side of the
balnket?

These sophistications pass by our John's comprehension, who has not the 
slightest expressed interest in how anything is known, the very idea seems

novel to him, and least of all to his own uncited certainties, as I have
and 
shall continue to pass by.

    O thrush,
    Is that is really you, behind the leaf-screen,
    Who is this --?

Phil Innes

> John Briggs
>
>