|
Grex > Agora41 > #188: Gun Control and posting the 10 Commandments. | |
|
| Author |
Message |
bdh3
|
|
Gun Control and posting the 10 Commandments.
| 
May 16 08:03 UTC 2002 |
In 1623, Virginia forbade colonists to travel unless they were
"well armed." In 1631, Virginians were required to engage in
target practice on Sunday and "bring their peeces (sic) to church."
By 1658, every Virginian was to have a firearm at home, and in
1673 state law said that a citizen who claimed he was too
poor to buy a gun "could have one purchased for him by the
government, which would then require him to pay a reasonable
price when able to do so."
|
| 37 responses total. |
oval
|
|
response 1 of 37:
|
May 16 08:13 UTC 2002 |
"peecees"
|
bdh3
|
|
response 2 of 37:
|
May 16 08:27 UTC 2002 |
You know what (sic) means?
|
oval
|
|
response 3 of 37:
|
May 16 08:41 UTC 2002 |
yew no whutta PC is?
|
remmers
|
|
response 4 of 37:
|
May 16 10:44 UTC 2002 |
Shouldn't there have been a (sic) after "state law" as well?
|
edina
|
|
response 5 of 37:
|
May 16 13:23 UTC 2002 |
Hah!! The question is: has time changed?
|
bdh3
|
|
response 6 of 37:
|
May 16 13:27 UTC 2002 |
Has the intent of the framers of the Constitution?
|
jp2
|
|
response 7 of 37:
|
May 16 15:34 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
remmers
|
|
response 8 of 37:
|
May 16 17:42 UTC 2002 |
What does this item have to do with posting the Ten Commandments?
|
baluxp
|
|
response 9 of 37:
|
May 16 17:44 UTC 2002 |
nice, i can respond but how do i create my own.
|
jp2
|
|
response 10 of 37:
|
May 16 17:48 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
baluxp
|
|
response 11 of 37:
|
May 16 17:53 UTC 2002 |
oh thanx
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 12 of 37:
|
May 16 18:02 UTC 2002 |
jp2, How so? It never stopped anyone before.
|
jp2
|
|
response 13 of 37:
|
May 16 18:07 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
remmers
|
|
response 14 of 37:
|
May 16 18:10 UTC 2002 |
#10 is a good example of that.
|
jp2
|
|
response 15 of 37:
|
May 16 18:19 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
gull
|
|
response 16 of 37:
|
May 16 18:21 UTC 2002 |
And the Alabama state constitution forbids racially integrated education.
Your point is?
|
other
|
|
response 17 of 37:
|
May 16 18:25 UTC 2002 |
re #s 10,13 & 15:
In your pathetic attempt to display your own imagined superiority, you
have consistently misspelled deity, heightening to epic proportions the
irony of #7.
|
jp2
|
|
response 18 of 37:
|
May 16 18:30 UTC 2002 |
This response has been erased.
|
other
|
|
response 19 of 37:
|
May 16 18:33 UTC 2002 |
That the irony has played you, rather than the other way around.
|
bhelliom
|
|
response 20 of 37:
|
May 16 19:04 UTC 2002 |
Well, I guess I don't have to answer #13.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 21 of 37:
|
May 16 19:55 UTC 2002 |
Here's a diety commandment: "Thou shall eat broccoli."
|
utv
|
|
response 22 of 37:
|
May 17 00:26 UTC 2002 |
this item, specifically its sequelae, is sick (sic).
|
md
|
|
response 23 of 37:
|
May 17 11:18 UTC 2002 |
Watch for this pattern:
Jamie is a subliterate poser. Somebody notices. Jamie says, "Just
kidding."
Quiz next week.
|
md
|
|
response 24 of 37:
|
May 17 11:40 UTC 2002 |
[btw, sic = "thus" in Latin. You use it to inform your editor and your
readers that "that's the way it is in the original" -- that is, please
don't change it, it's an accurate quote, it isn't an error (on my
part)." In the hands of amateurs, it is often used as shorthand
for "error." I've seen it used to signal an error of fact in a passage
being quoted, or even just an opinion the writer doesn't agree with,
something clearly not the writer's own error or opinion. In the case
of "peeces" in #0, you could make the case that no antique usage needs
to be so marked, and that consequently Brian's sic deserves a sic of
its own. On the other hand, Brian is such a sloppy, self-indulgent
writer that it *is* reasonable of him to fear that we'd think "peeces"
was his own misspelling, so maybe the sic is appropriate after all.]
|