[Spellyans] KK ha'n SWF

Craig Weatherhill weatherhill at freenet.co.uk
Mon Aug 4 20:15:01 IST 2008

Once again, they go for Nicholas's detailed arguments against Kemmyn 
theory, and offer nothing in response except to say that he is wrong (of 
course, they try to brainwash people into thinking that C21 fully 
addresses icholas's p[oints, but it does not even begin to do so, which 
they know as well as we do, but they're trapped in their own lie). It is 
time, after all these years, for them to PROVE him wrong.

Hit 'em, guys.


Daniel Prohaska wrote:
> Dhewgh whei lowena oll!
> Along with this month’s issue of “An Gannas” came this little pamphlet 
> (author remains anonymous) which argues against features of the SWF. 
> Please read it and I think this shouldn’t go unanswered following the 
> accusations that certain people made claims that UFS and others were 
> working “outside the process”. This tries to undermine the SWF and 
> argues in favour of replacing it with KK.
> Dan
> PS: In scanning and proof-reading I have removed some typographical 
> inconsistencies of the original such as mixed use of SAMPA and IPA 
> etc. Anyone interested in a criticising the typographical features can 
> let me know and I’ll send the scans.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Spellyans mailing list
> Spellyans at kernowek.net
> http://kernowek.net/mailman/listinfo/spellyans_kernowek.net

More information about the Spellyans mailing list