Buh, Wha...Huh?

For your enlightenment and enjoyment, I present some excerpts from one of my epistemology textbooks:

"Before I proceed, I should make it clear that it is not Foley's view that a condition of its being rational for some person to adopt some plan for achieving some goal is that the person actually have the belief that that plan is sufficiently likely to be successful."

"My own view, which here I can only state and not develop, is that what brings it about that a person is not entitled to some feature of his belief- or knowledge-system is that either: (i) there is some practice of discovery or retention that he failed to employ but ought to have employed with a seriousness and competence such that, had he done so, the presence of that feature would have been forestalled or eliminated; or (ii) there is some practice of discovery or retention that he employed with a certain seriousness and competence but ought not to have (thus) employed, and which is such that, had he not employed it thus, the presence of that feature would have been forestalled or eliminated."

And those are two of the most comprehensible sentences I have come across in said book.

Apparently, all the nice rules about clear and meaningful writing no longer apply when one is a well-known and highly-published philosopher. Or perhaps such rules must be disregarded if one wishes to become such a philosopher.