Re: Breton, Cornish & French

"John Briggs" <john.briggs4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:Goiyj.8694$6z2.1970@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Chess One wrote:
>> John, 3 minutes after my note to Renia, you write in to rubbish the
>> content of the message.
>
> No, Chess, *you* rubbished the content!

Please say what the content was, and how rubbished? Or do you not even 
remember said content enough to repeat it?

>
>> There are a couple of reasons why people do that on usenet - you feel
>> threatened, is the first and very /obvious/ reason, and the second is
>> that you like to create tensions among others since you get off on it
>> <-- also equally evident!
>
> Actually, insanity *does* make me feel uncomfortable.

And these are the cheapest responses on usenet by serial abusniks, often 
coupled with drug-abuse suggestions, and that the speaker is a non-native 
English speaker.

But utterly without content. Briggs, whose opinions sans any texture, are 
all over these groups, does not even want to address any subject - instead

he attacks people who would challenge his 'posture' here for its absense
of 
texture, since that is threatening to his own procedure.

>> OK?
>>
>> Indeed, in your own words below you do not have the faintest clue
>> what I am talking,
>> so perhaps reserve your comment? Otherwise your
>> abused 'virgin persona' will forever exclaim on all you do /not/
>> understand or have any experience of, rather than join with others to
>> discuss what they /do/ understand.
>
> No, it was an invitation for you to explain yourself.

Try a complete sentence in English - your clown! Subject, verb, object at
a 
minimum.

You understand?

Explain myself to whom about what?

See if you can do that? Ok?

You can't seem to manage it thus far in 50 messages, and sans-irony, think

this is my problem.

>> I simply wish Renia to understand something about the nature of
>> inquiry. Its a process thing. That is what I am writing about. I do
>> not insist Renia agrees with me on any issue, since I am hardly
>> stating any 'issue' or result of inquiry, but how we go about
>> acquiring inofrmation.
>
> Well, Renia can speak for herself, but the rest of us are more
interested 
> in content, results and information than in "process".

The rest of us? What are you, a psychic? At least own you own opinion,
man! 
Are you a man or a sort of group?

And if you all ain't interested in how you know things, then I presume you

are happy with what you read in books. And if you are happy with that,
then 
you have no curiosity about things yourself, since you already know the 
answer, no?

And if vicarious understanding is your bag, is it necessary for you to 
appear here and suppress any other opinion of how we know anything?

>> I cannot proceed further if these messages are intercepted by people
>> who do not wish any mutual understanding to occur. Which, sadly, is
>> all too typical newsgroup fare, and must discourage those who would
>> actually like to share their processes and explorations.
>
> "Processes" and "explorations" are futile if they do not result in 
> knowledge.

Briggs choses to believe things instead, such as cold-fusion in a
test-tube.

He has no use for looking at how we 'know' anything, and might as well be
a 
Saxon Imperial pragmatist.

Fat lot of good that did them.

Or us.

Phil Innes

> John Briggs
>
>