To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 4968
4967  |  4969
Subject: 
Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Thu, 16 Mar 2000 17:21:44 GMT
Viewed: 
1932 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Todd Lehman wrote:

[about 'the exception which proves the rule']

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!  :)

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.

Maybe we could PC it, and have it changed to "the exception which
illustrates the guideline".

Steve



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Does God have a monopoly on gods?
 
(...) 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 (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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR