 | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Steve Bliss
|
| | | (...) Hey! I'm willing to admit to making mistakes, but in this case, I'm being misunderstood. I was just disagreeing with Todd's understanding of the implications of 'exception which proves the rule'. I've never heard that phrase used with ironic (...) (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Todd Lehman
|
| | | | (...) I could be wrong about its primary use these days... I've never heard it used in any was _but_ with ironic (or sarcastic) intent, but I'll buy into the old English grammar etymology of it! :) --Todd (24 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods? —Steve Bliss
|
| | | | In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Todd Lehman wrote: [about 'the exception which proves the rule'] (...) Thinking about it, I can't remember the last time I've actually heard this expression used. So the 'primary use these days' doesn't really apply. (...) (24 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
