Re: Breton, Cornish & French

Chess One wrote:
> "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?

You included nonsense - including the repeated assertion that Joseph 
Wright's "English Dialect Dictionary" "halted at the letter 'c' " (or
'd'). 
That is complete rubbish. Along with misspellings and riddles - Mote and 
Mottel.

>>> 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.

Well, if the cap fits - wear it.  Why do you suppose people keep doing
this 
to you?

> 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.

You are obviously impervious to irony :-) Do you live in America, by any 
chance?

>>> 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.

Now what?  That is a perfectly grammatical sentence!  You write 
stream-of-consciousness gibberish and then criticise my syntax! (My clown,

indeed...)

> You understand?

No.

> Explain myself to whom about what?

You were invited to turn "In other words, you confound your Mote with your

Mottel [Old French]" into intelligible English.  Stick to the exoteric, 
there's a good chap...

> See if you can do that? Ok?

See above.

> You can't seem to manage it thus far in 50 messages, and sans-irony,
> think this is my problem.

It's not just me - there's a current poll...

>>> 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?

Spokesman.

> 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?

You really don't get the hang of scholar****p, do you?

> 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?

Do many people ask you what you smoked in the '60s?

>>> 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.

You wouldn't believe the cold-fusion fiasco if I explained it to you...

> 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.

Again - could you help with just the faintest of clues as to your meaning?
-- 
John Briggs