Subject:
|
Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 15 Mar 2000 17:12:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1889 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Bliss writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> > Steve's wrong, I feel.
>
> 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 intent. Then again, I'm occasionally
> wood, so I could have missed it.
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
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| 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. (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
|
| (...) 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 (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
541 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
