"Charlie Wilkes" <charlie_wilkes@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.03.19.15.54.19@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Snap poll: What do people think Phil has been smoking?
>
> Hmmm. Good question.
>
> At one time alt.usenet.kooks bestowed an award called "Illucidious
> Maximus," to recognize individuals with a flair for incomprehensible
> writing.
>
> From what I have seen, Prof. Innes is without peer in this regard and
> would be an excellent candidate for this award, if it still exists.
>
> Charlie
I suppose one benefit of being an abusenik is that you are free to be free
of wit and wits. I wonder if other net-stalkers will join you in your
content-free abuse campaign. If you are too thick to understand content,
consider that it might not be other people's fault, and you might go join
Eyeore and in the 100 acre wood where you can be bi-polar together.
OTOH - if you wanted to leave the 'Old English is Dead' school of thought,
then its necessary to not only understand the 4 words /are/ old English,
but
that this has a bearing on the intelligence of the person who wrote them.
That is to say, not attempting content is, to use a psychological word,
daft.
Formerly there were 2 areas of discussion here - the amount of Celtic
language absorbed or adopted or migrated into English, and the other to do
with County name suffixes. It is insufficient in either case to say what
you
'believe' or even what others believe, or even what whole groups of people
conspire together to warm themselves with, from the shelter of the 100
acre
wood.
Instead you have to make a reasonable try to say how you know what you
propose. You don't have to be right, but you do need to adequately state
your perspective.
Otherwise, sadly, it moo moo moo for you [unless you prefer donkey noises]
or even frogs!~
WILKY; a frog or toad [West]
Phil Innes
|
