Re: Uncomprehensible! was Re: Breton, Cornish & French

"allan connochie" <conncohies@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:gaszj.33572$d62.27073@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Chess One" <OneChess@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
> news:1qKdnQdjJYSZWFDanZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> "Robert Peffers" <peffers50@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
>> news:LaKdnWs0Z9Gga1TanZ2dnUVZ8q2dnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>>>>> In other words, you confound your Mote with your Mottel [Old
French].
>>>>>
>>>>> Just the faintest clue as to what you are talking about?
>>>>
>>>> I mentioend to Renia a while back that this poster does this. His
posts 
>>>> go all uncomprehensible. I don't know whether he's taking the piss
and 
>>>> trying to make people feel dim because they can't follow him, or is
he 
>>>> genuinely trying to communicate. I suspect it's the former but who 
>>>> knows :-)
>>>>
>>>> Allan
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, Allan, I think, perhaps, that you know.
>>
>> Well, you 2 wags, I wonder if you can get over jerking each other off, 
>> and try a topic? That would be a test wouldn't it? Or is that too 
>> "uncomprehensible"?
>
> Aye well there is a difference between getting one word wrong, which 
> didn't really make any difference to the total comprehension of the 
> sentence, and your postings which baffle many people!

Many people, you suggest, though without any evidence evidently, struggle 
with uncomprehension of some thing you cannot repeat?

We are, you may note, some distance from what is uncomprehended, and if 
indeed what I said is merely novel to the 'many people' you [psychically?]

reference, or if it is merely to the dislike of you and your web-wench 
de-jour, what is that to any truth of the matter?

> Basically if I am uncomprehending something (that is not comperhending 
> from the COD) then it is not too huge a blunder to say uncomprehensible 
> rather than incomprehensible. Hardly makes one illiterate and kind of 
> shows that it is you who is 'jerking off' over one word. Let's face it 
> there are people here having problems working out whole sentences and 
> paragraphs of your scribbling.

But you cannot state what 'they' cannot understand, and by all evidence, 
'these people' do not complain themselves! Can it be that you
personallyhave 
a problem in comprehension? Or is it that you make the cheap complaint on 
this basis yet the truth is that you do not like what is said? Your 
responses are often of one word extent, which cannot recomend you
overmuch. 
You see the problem I have with your postings?

If there is a content issue, by all means let us bash it out if it comes
to 
that, but you avoid actual content so quickly that I rather feel that you 
are all at sea with your critique, and seek the sup****t of the [invisible]

many to make any response at all.

This is the cheapest response of a newbie to usenet - often coupled with 
mental illness, drug abuse and such flung-****.

> I was wondering are you doing it on purpose - or do you really think 
> everyone else is too thick to follow your great literary wanderings?

I think you are too thick, since you insist on the question. Not only too 
thick, but someone who hides in a crowd which is not present!

Pray, return to any issue you contest and let us have it out, or desist in

your other behaviors which you here make public! Its really your choice.

> Footnote.............I haven't read over every single word, run a 
> spellcheck, or searched for grammatical errors. So if there is a mistake

> there have your bit pleasure and clean up after yourself!

Relax a bit! It is merely novel to be critised for one's English by
someone 
who is no better than oneself - is this a conversation after all about the

grandness of usenet anecdote?

What were we discussing that was so offensive to you that you wished to 
observe [however well] that did not jell with yer beans?

I have to ask this since a previous correspondent once took me to task
over 
Anglo Saxon - here are his own words:-

    Old English is dead

he said, quoting some 'authority' but [ROFL]

utilising 4 words of 'old english' to say so.

This is some new form of wit, no? Or is this person merely an idiot?

---

Now, I don't really mind whatever you say, since I feel adequate to make
an 
explanation of what I write, and suspect you have another orientation to 
writing to which you are unable to 'campel' with such as me, but that is 
just for showing off, and methinks if you went a bit deeper you would not
be 
so reactive a person, but be able to present your own points as alternate 
ideas.

Do not sink, Sir, into net-lethargy in correspondence. There is hardly any

standard here, and that not much.

It serves you well for but a moment's shout, but sets you apart from the 
very thing, the instinct, from which you shout, so that your opinion is
not 
even received by others - instead they read of your resentments only - and

weigh them accordingly.

Cordially, Phil Innes


>
> Allan
>