Gwask an Orlewen

A new forum dedicated to Kernewek - the Cornish language, Cornish culture and the history of the Duchy of Cornwall
keanu1
Posts: 12
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 2:12 pm

Re: Gwask an Orlewen

Post by keanu1 » Sun Nov 14, 2010 11:10 pm

I told crumboy and you, to leave me alone but oh no, you had to continue the insults eh, even when I was banned and could not reply, so what did you think I would do go and hide and cry , ha ha.

pietercharles
Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 11:51 am

Re: Gwask an Orlewen

Post by pietercharles » Sun Nov 14, 2010 11:14 pm

This unrelenting negativity, born out of sheer spite, is disgraceful.
Marhak asked an irrelevant question on another thread:
...check to see how many other Cornish language (or Cornish subject) books have sought "endorsement" from an
outsider "celebrity". So why this one?
and here he observed:
The quick answer, of course, is that we don't seek out anyone to endorse our books.
This is another "I guessed, therefore it's fact" notion from Marhak. There is no evidence that the Kowethas "sought"
endorsements from anybody. None, as usual. Absolutely none whatsoever.
Marhak hasn't even seen the book - none of us has.
How does he think the Kowethas went about seeking endorsements? E-mails maybe...
Dear outsider "celebrity",
We're publishing a book and wondered if you'd like to endorse it.
Marhak will pour scorn on the endorsement, but fear not, nobody will take a blind bit of notice of his begrudging negativity except to wonder what nonsense he'll come up with next.
Yours sincerely,
etc.

That the Kowethas went out seeking an endorsement for the book is a stupid suggestion to make and I'm sure the circumstances will turn out to be completely different to the way in which Marhak, in complete ignorance, chooses to portray them in order to maintain a full flow of begrudging negativity.
Marhak also tried:
Why the Cowethas have to have an Englishman who doesn't know the first thing about Kernow endorse one of their
publications, only they know.
I've realised that on the flyer sent out by the Kowethas (it's not clear on the MAGA image) you can read something that Stephen Fry, this Englishman (according to Marhak) who doesn't know the first thing about Kernow (according to Marhak), has written about the book.

It says:
"Stevyn Colgan is doing the ancient kingdom a great service"

That sounds excellent to me. That is, for an Englishman that doesn't know the first thing about Kernow (according to Marhak).

User avatar
Marhak
Posts: 11075
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:46 am

Re: Gwask an Orlewen

Post by Marhak » Mon Nov 15, 2010 12:39 am

You put this on TWO threads???!!!! You really need to get out more, "Pieter".

OK - same responses, then. If Mr Fry's endorsement wasn't sought, how come he provided one before anyone locally had even heard of the publication? Hardly rocket-science to work out that answer. My horse could have worked that out. Perhaps I'll contact him and ask if he can relate a genuine Cornish legend to me off the top of his head. Oh, right - my horse says that he had worked it out. Brainy bugger.

pietercharles
Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 11:51 am

Re: Gwask an Orlewen

Post by pietercharles » Mon Nov 15, 2010 10:57 am

Marhak blathered:
You put this on TWO threads???!!!! You really need to get out more, "Pieter".
Indeed, Marhak. Tedious it is too, but given that you've taken to posting the same nonsense all over C24 I have little option but to follow you around trying to undo the damage.
Unfortunately you seem to have time enough to spend most of 24 hours a day on C24.
I don't.
As you've pointed out before, it's little wonder I can find time to come here at all given the number of things I'm involved in.
Ellery clearly did some research (on another thread), unlike some:
Ah I think what you are missing here is that Stevyn Colgan is friends with Fry.
Thank you for that, Ellery. It explains everything really. There was bound to be a simple explanation, even if it was way beyond both Marhak and his horse.
So the Kowethas didn't "seek out" endorsement for their book. They didn't send begging letters to Stephen Fry, Dot Cotton, Jonathan Woss or Anne Robinson. Who'd have thought it? Turns out it was just another Marhak fantasy, spread all over C24 in order to achieve maximum negativity.

Perhaps we can all now just look forward to getting a copy of the book and reading it.

User avatar
Marhak
Posts: 11075
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:46 am

Re: Gwask an Orlewen

Post by Marhak » Mon Nov 15, 2010 1:16 pm

Right. So he was approached. So much for "fantasy". And, like Incitatus, my horse is extremely astute.

User avatar
Marhak
Posts: 11075
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:46 am

Re: Gwask an Orlewen

Post by Marhak » Mon Nov 15, 2010 1:18 pm

I'll look forward to the book, though. Looks like a lot of fun and well done, Stevyn, for putting it together. How about you writing one, "Pieter"? Time you contributed something. Maybe Cameron will endorse it!

spelly
Posts: 19
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2010 1:33 pm

Re: Gwask an Orlewen

Post by spelly » Mon Nov 15, 2010 3:25 pm

Someone that rants and raves about a simple endorsement must have a few screws missing,now who want to endorse
Craigs books?

User avatar
Marhak
Posts: 11075
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:46 am

Re: Gwask an Orlewen

Post by Marhak » Mon Nov 15, 2010 3:32 pm

Not you, Napoleon, that's for certain.

User avatar
SalaciousCrumb
Posts: 106
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2008 2:33 pm

Re: Gwask an Orlewen

Post by SalaciousCrumb » Mon Nov 15, 2010 4:25 pm

Ahh, Gobblin' Boy....

"I told crumboy and you, to leave me alone but oh no, you had to continue the insults eh, even when I was banned and could not reply, so what did you think I would do go and hide and cry , ha ha."

The rapists defence... It was all the victims fault, they had it coming!

You poisonous little tuss. Do you think anyone but you and your imaginary friends are interested in your gay porn? Do you think it will put anyone off Cornish? Are you truly as stupid as you seem... hmmmm... I think you are.

Sad little worm. I'd pity you, but you aren't worth the effort.

Nyaaaaaaa, haaaa, haaaa, haaaa, haaaaaa!

User avatar
Marhak
Posts: 11075
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:46 am

Re: Gwask an Orlewen

Post by Marhak » Mon Nov 15, 2010 6:49 pm

:D . Nice to see you're on top form still, old friend.

WHY do sites like this attract so many total tossers and fruitcakes? As mentioned earlier, let's see if he has the balls (albeit undescended) to pick on someone in the Basque language movement. Oh, I'd love to see that!

pietercharles
Posts: 1182
Joined: Tue Jun 05, 2007 11:51 am

Re: Gwask an Orlewen

Post by pietercharles » Mon Nov 15, 2010 11:45 pm

Marhak concluded:
Right. So he was approached. So much for "fantasy".
No, Marhak. Not right. There's no evidence that he was approached. It's just guesswork or fantasy.
For crying out loud, will you please try to understand the difference between guesswork, or fantasy, and fact?

Is 'he was approached' the only explanation that you and the horse can come up with? Well, here's another.

It could easily be that absolutely nobody approached Stephen Fry, who thought the stories were so good that he told the author that he'd like to write a few words about them. And perhaps the author either didn't like to say 'no' or thought it was a good idea, so he accepted the offer.
Who knows? You certainly don't and nor does the horse.

Either way, Marhak, it's a far cry from the sheer rubbish you've been posting in three threads on C24 about how the Kowethas actively sought endorsement.
And a far cry from the complete garbage you've posted about how that leads you to suspect they might try to get endorsement from "English Heritage", Dot Cotton, Jonathan Woss or Anne Robinson next.

When Evertype and GanOw announce publications on C24 no reasonable person says anything in the least bit degrogatory.

When the Kowethas announces a publication on C24 you're in there within minutes making negative comments which become more and more snide as time wears on.
Of course, GanOw can't resist the feeding frenzy so in he comes too with his cringe-inducing brand of 'satire' and the pair of you give the world an impression of the revival which is totally unrepresentative but nevertheless damaging in the extreme.

And to think you've got the cheek to write on another thread:
I admit to holding some pretty strong views, and voicing them, too. That's really what forums like this are
for, in the hope that those opinions will spark (constructive) debate.
So you hoped that all that spiteful drivel you wrote about the Kowethas seeking endorsements, and Stephen Fry and Dot Cotton and "English Heritage" and Jonathan Woss and Anne Robinson would spark constructive debate, did you? You thought you were being constructive, did you?

That was the last thing on your mind.

Where the language is concerned you purposefully mislead and misinform. You are unjustifiably rude, snide and dismissive about individuals and organisations that you happen not to agree with, even though they are working flat out to further the revival.
And when I come here - only ever in reponse to some nonsense you've posted - to put the record straight, you accuse
me (on another thread) of stalking you.
What a joke.
But if you like to call it stalking when I won't let you get away with this appalling behaviour without comment then consider yourself stalked.

You think I'm obsessed with you, do you?
Wrong again, as usual.
I'm actually sick to death of having to come here every time you decide to mislead everyone or take more unwarranted potshots at individuals or organisations.

So you stop misrepresenting the revival and behaving in this negative, pugnacious, offensive and destructive fashion, and I'll stop 'stalking' you. At that point you won't hear from me again.

User avatar
Marhak
Posts: 11075
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:46 am

Re: Gwask an Orlewen

Post by Marhak » Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:09 am

Ye Gods, it's Reeves in drag again. Are you two related? If not obsessed, dear person, why a post of that length?

Tomorrow (as it's late), I might just point you to a post written by one of your brethren, making accusations against one of mine, and let us see what you have to say about that. Just to be sure of your even-handedness, you understand.

User avatar
Marhak
Posts: 11075
Joined: Thu Jun 08, 2006 7:46 am

Re: Gwask an Orlewen

Post by Marhak » Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:26 am

Alternatively, save yourself a lot of effort (and your blood pressure) and go now, because I'm going nowhere and am not about to change until your shower learns to behave. You people never learn. A new gerrymander - and 4 resignations, three of 'em as a direct result (and don't insult my intelligence by denying knowledge of this - it'll soon be public anyway).

User avatar
Evertype
Posts: 3167
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:29 am
Contact:

Re: Gwask an Orlewen

Post by Evertype » Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:42 am

pietercharles wrote:When Evertype and GanOw announce publications on C24 no reasonable person says anything in the least bit degrogatory.
There have certainly been derogatory comments made about Evertype publications on C24. Some of them made quite soon after the announcement of their availability. You can look it up. Whether you judge the commentators as "reasonable", well, I shouldn't try to guess.

User avatar
Evertype
Posts: 3167
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 1:29 am
Contact:

Re: Gwask an Orlewen

Post by Evertype » Tue Nov 16, 2010 12:57 am

Here they are, PC. These are Keith Bailey's comments on the publication of the first of Evertype's Cornish translations, Alys in Pow an Anethow.
Morvran wrote:With the price sensibly set just under £10 so as to undercut the existing Cornish language edition, this volume will no doubt like the UCR NT and probably Williams' Dictionary, be bought as a curiosity by many who know no Cornish. I would not recommend it to a beginner, if judging by the sample, many of the vowels are screwed up according to Njaw's crackpot theories. The text is, as we can only expect from the House of Neverlearn, defaced and pockmarked by many diacritics as unsightly as they are unnecessary. This is largely occasioned by the translators' antiquarian outlook, which causes him to reject the spelling used by almost all other modern Cornish language publications. Since a Cornish translation has existed for a number of years and is still in print, this I think counts simply as a pretty book turned out with minimum effort (the illustrations have been ripped-off from the original English edition). Once again Dr. Williams and Mr. Everson have laboured to produce an unncessary publication, presumably as a spoiling tactic, where they might have taken the opportunity to enlarge the resources of the language.
Isn't it a remarkable piece of abuse?

1. It's cheaper than the Kesva edition (which is produced to much a much lower standard, for whatever reason)

2. It won't be read, but bought as a curiosity (one wonders whether the Edwards translation would be bought as a curiosity)

3. It has vowels Keith doesn't agree with.

4. It has "too many" diacritical marks (though Keith recommends the use of some diacritical marks, and doesn't understand the use we make of them anyway.

5. It's "antiquarian"

6. It's not KK.

7. It's pretty.

8. It's nicely produced.

9. It uses the Tenniel illustrations, which have (unbeknownst to Keith, evidently) been used for as long as the book has been in print, in dozens if not scores of languages, and which are beloved by millions.

10. It's "unnecessary". (One notes that Keith has produced, well, nothing but some spurious diphthongs.)

But perhaps PC doesn't think Keith is "reasonable".

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests