Re: Breton, Cornish & French

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:h_gyj.20034$d62.4202@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Chess One wrote:
>> "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:3Levj.4720$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.

Mr. Briggs, you are a wag, no? You commit my opinion with quotation,
except 
if it was the preceeding paragarph, which I think does not accord with
your 
conclusion on it.


 >But now that you have done that, why re you baulking at
> accepting the plays?

Mr. Briggs is not very bright this day, since I never challenged the 
author****p of Shakespeare - have I not said this 7 times, a doxen times? -

but ask HOW we know of it.

Mr. Briggs cannot accept that this is a valid question. He does not even 
acknowledge what the question is. He instead makes utterly unwarranted 
inferences, AS IF I had said something other.

Is Mr. Briggs playing the Basil Fawlty of Lit. Crit?

>  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?

Mr. Briggs cannot say what he knows for sure, instead asks me to prove 
something to him. But to what is he responding?

The question is simply; how /you/ know. That's it! Nothing else at all. So

how does Mr. Briggs know, and how, dear reader, do you?

>> 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?

Certainly not. You must say what you do not understand in that paragraph
to 
request clarification. And if you cannot understand that paragraph, just 
possibly, you should not contest it, nor contest Shakespeare either, which

is tolerably more complex.

Mr. Briggs intends, he says below, to 'stamp' on my nonsense, and I
believe 
him! It must be so uncomfortable to actually enertain the idea of
discussing 
an issue with anyone since that would require some degree of personal 
declaration of what the person [Briggs] knows, which is maybe not the
style 
of Mr. Briggs.

Mr. Briggs is a net-idiot, and in a dozen reponses has not risen to any 
issue, nor substantiated any opinion he holds, nor even encourages others
to 
do the same of their own expression.

The correspondance ration of idiocy-to-surety is here approaching 100%

Phil Innes

>> 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
>
>