Re: Breton, Cornish & French

Chess One wrote:
> "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> news:obFAj.8993$%N1.7640@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Chess One wrote:
>>> "John Briggs" <john.briggs4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>> news:o6kzj.32165$St5.11477@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>> Chess One wrote:
>>>>> Sir, what I am asking is 'how we know', and if that knowledge is
>>>>> inferential - you say nothing else below - then let it be so! Let
>>>>> it be on an inferential basis, all things considered, and so on.
>>>>> Did you understand this as the nature of my inquiry? Or are you
>>>>> content to not notice that as if I proposed he was a Spaceman
>>>>> walk-in, and besides, I am some moon-landing denier? Even raising
>>>>> the question is somehow to be a nutter? A kook?
>>>>
>>>> You're beginning to catch on.
>>>
>>> To NOT raise a question of how we know something is for "John
>>> Briggs" to catch on?
>>>
>>> This indeed qualifies the level of appreciation of John Briggs to
>>> any possible topic. I rather doubt he can remember the original
>>> cause of his resentment of method, not the instance of it.
>>>
>>>>> Did you understand the nature of my question, which, for the 100th
>>>>> time, is to qualify the /means/ by which anything is known? This
>>>>> exampling of Shakespeare being an exercise for this group [!]
>>>>
>>>> The English language is not suited to such theoretical exercises.
>>>> They
>>>
>>> They? Cannot "you" name the pronouns?
>>
>> "exercises" is plural.
>
> yes it is. and thank you for //demonstrating// that you do not know
> what you are even arguing about, neither do you have the slightest
> intention of do so
> now go away and amuse other contentless blokes, who, i see, band
> together <yikes> but that's okay these days
>
> and it is okay! you can make jokes about the people walking around
> outside the windows, past the safety bars, and how foolish they all
> appear to tread their own paths as if they actually knew what they
> were doing

I would point out that your message lacks content.
-- 
John Briggs