17
   

During The American Revolutionary War, the state religion of Great Britain was Christianity?

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Tue 2 Sep, 2014 12:27 pm
@oristarA,
oristarA wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
I fail to see
how that is distinct in principle
from what I offered.

Perhaps your better in understanding German than I do.



What? Aren't you German? Do you really want to relinquish your advantage of the language before David?
It sounds you're not joking and self-effacing.
You changed my response: I didn't write in bold but you quoted me as doing so.

I won't respond to anything from you.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Sep, 2014 02:29 pm
@oristarA,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

U believe that he was of the vu
that NO times shud have any spirit?? any widely held beliefs ?
oristarA wrote:
If I were a lawyer, I would refuse to recognize U as you, and what is vu?
I have no idea. [I suspect that u DO.]

To narrate an event you sound like a well-educated gentleman; and all of a sudden,
your unique spellings look like a teenager trying to be cool, but it is not cool; he just acts like a hick.
Thay r not being "cool". Thay r being intelligently efficient,
better n smarter than their elders; smarter than I was.

U shud have taken my spelling to U as a compliment.
IF I thought that u were sufficiently ignorant as not to understand me,
then I 'd be FORCED to employ fully paradigmatic usages.
The fact that I did NOT, when addressing U,
resulted from my confidence that u r both sufficiently well informed
and sufficiently intelligent to understand, as well as a native American woud.
Did I fall into error in over-estimating your intelligence ?

Before my retirement from the practice of law, I was entirely committed
to completely paradigmatic use of English spelling. While delighting myself on the Internet,
I am no longer subject to those constraints. I am free.
I have repeatedly posted to my fellow natives that I intend
to demonstrate faster and easier, more efficient means of
expression of English, in the hope of leading by example.

I recognize merit in the counter-argument that I shud desist therefrom
insofar as E.S.L. students r concerned, but I have made an exception
for an E.S.L. student who is sufficiently advanced in knowledge of English.
I wish that my fellow native Americans had been sufficiently well educated
as to have been taught (tawt) to spell fully fonetically. I try to compensate.



oristarA wrote:
Any accurate expression needs strict spellings.
Competent logic, as expressed in efficiency,
requires that English be fully fonetic. It is mostly fonetic, as it stands.


oristarA wrote:
I read articles from Nature, Science, Hawking and Dawkins
and often was impressed by their accuracy and intelligence.
How much did that help Hawking and Dawkins??


oristarA wrote:
Your teenage-like spellings seriously damage your wise image, Dave.
Then deduct the discrepancy from my fee.


Be thay good, bad, or indifferent, I remain 1OO% fully IMMUNE
from your evaluations of merit. When u have me on the clock
at $4OO.OO an hour, THEN I will recognize your complaints
that I am not being sufficiently lawyerly in representing u.
I am not applying to u for a loan nor a job.

I feel guilty for perpetrating the perpetuation of paradigmatic spelling
insofar as it is not fully fonetic. It shud be.
Non-fonetic English spelling rapes logic.
It makes no sense to add "ugh" to the word tho.
It is inefficient & stupid to insert an L
into woud, coud or shud, merely because others do it.
Thay drive drunk and rob banks too,
but popularity of use does not make it right.

I eagerly support the lazy teenagers who r helping
to render English spelling more efficient. Thay deserve a gold prize for being efficient.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Sep, 2014 02:44 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
oristarA wrote:

Walter Hinteler wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
I fail to see
how that is distinct in principle
from what I offered.

Perhaps your better in understanding German than I do.



What? Aren't you German? Do you really want to relinquish your advantage of the language before David?
It sounds you're not joking and self-effacing.
Walter Hinteler wrote:
You changed my response: I didn't write in bold but you quoted me as doing so.

I won't respond to anything from you.
I take a different filosofy, so long as changes were not
done as acts of deception
.

Adjustments of that nature (e.g., bolding, coloring or magnifying)
can have the effect of efficiently or effectively bringing out a point
that respondent wishes to address, with the use of fewer words.





David
0 Replies
 
George
 
  3  
Reply Tue 2 Sep, 2014 04:09 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
David, I may disagree with you on the matter of fonetics, but I must applaud
this apologia. Well said!
OmSigDAVID
 
  2  
Reply Tue 2 Sep, 2014 04:10 pm
@George,
U r very kind, George.





David
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Sep, 2014 07:08 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
oristarA wrote:
Walter Hinteler wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
I fail to see how that is distinct in principle from what I offered.

Perhaps your better in understanding German than I do.

What? Aren't you German? Do you really want to relinquish your advantage of the language before David?
It sounds you're not joking and self-effacing.

You changed my response: I didn't write in bold but you quoted me as doing so.
I won't respond to anything from you.

I don't think his emphasizing your response really did anything to change it.

I took out the blank line between your two lines of text when I quoted it just now, in the interests in conserving space, but did not intend any offense by it.

However, I do have a confession to make. I have a compulsion to correct typos in text that I quote.

I only do it if I am really sure that it is an unintended typo, and I intend no offense when I do it. But quite often I can't resist doing it.

I don't remember if I've ever corrected any typos when quoting one of your posts. But if I did, it was not intended to give offense.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Note to oristarA, re: "It sounds you're not joking and self-effacing."

How about:

"It sounds like you're not joking and self-effacing."

"It sounds as if you're not joking and self-effacing."
0 Replies
 
G4Racer
 
  1  
Reply Tue 2 Sep, 2014 08:25 pm
@Foofie,
Oh, I thought it was great because of the sports cars of the 50's, 60's and 70's.
In Formula 1, the only engines made outside of GB are Renault and Ferrari.
MB and Porsche race engines are made in GB.
The Puritans and Pilgrims did not have it as bad as they said. They went to Holland for religious freedom, found it but returned to England. When in the New World the treatment of those outside their group was worse than they had received from the English. The history in our books leave much to be desired when it comes to the way things really were.
0 Replies
 
George
 
  2  
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2014 11:29 am
@oristarA,
oristarA wrote:

Let's quote the same definition from Cambridge and Oxford dictionaries,
so that our readers here will have a clearer impression:

Cambridge: an area of land that has its own government, army, etc.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/country

Oxford: A nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/country

So according to Webster and Cambridge, a country must have an area
of land and at the same time must have its own government, army,
etcetera (including but not limited to the governed - its people).

And a government and its army and the governed must be living-things,
and living things must have spiritual force because we've all agreed the
definition - "Spiritual force, or force of spirit, is the vital principle that is
animating in living things". That is, a government and its army and the
governed must have spiritual force.


Now, let us make it simple:

A country must have a government and its army and the governed,
and a government and its army and the governed must have spiritual force.

In other words: A country must have spiritual force.



Let's examine this.

A country, as here described, has these parts:
* an area of land
* a government
* an army (we've already agreed that this is not required)
* its people

Let's determine whether the parts of a country are living things.

An area of land -- obviously this is not a living thing.

A government -- this is not a living thing. Part of the government is the
collection of people who constitute the members of the government.
They indeed ar living things. The government is more than just people.
This is confusing the part for the whole.

An army -- this is not a living thing. Again, this is confusing the part for
the whole.

Its people -- taken individually, they are living things.

So of a country's parts only the people - taken indivually - are living things.
Each person has spiritual force.

The country, taken as a whole, does not have spiritual force. To say so is
to confuse the part for the whole.
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2014 10:49 pm
Quote:
America, at its best, is also courageous.


This resounding declaration has touched one and all.

The founding fathers' dedication is our inspiration.

They led people to build up the spiritual force of America.

A country without spiritual force can never be courageous.



0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2014 10:55 pm
Any countries must have many qualities.
Spiritual force is the fundamental quality shared by all of them.
Because it is the vital principle for a country to survive.
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Sep, 2014 11:10 pm
@oristarA,
America is a great experiment of political ideals.
America's courage, the courageous spiritual force of America, helps us stand tall.
I say "us" here, if only you hold democratic faith.


0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Sep, 2014 12:30 am
American Dream, or Dream of America, is more than a dream for a country; it is the inborn hope of our humanity.

This Dream is exactly one form of the spiritual forces of mankind: the Force of Dream.

The force of dream could break the chains of ignorance and tyranny, if only you dare.
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Thu 4 Sep, 2014 03:58 am

A successful American, not only proud of his own efforts, confident of his own wisdom, but also thankful to the spirit of his country. For without the spirit of his country, there is little he can do.

The spirit of his country, or the spiritual force of his country, is best presented in the Declaration of Independence, for which Jefferson worked as a leading writer.

Because the founding fathers have, ideologically, laid the foundation for his sucessful mind. So a real American is always celebrating the spirit of his country.
0 Replies
 
George
 
  2  
Reply Thu 4 Sep, 2014 05:49 am
In the previous five posts only these statements are relevant to the
discussion at hand.

1. A country without spiritual force can never be courageous.

2. Any countries must have many qualities.

3. Spiritual force is the fundamental quality shared by all of them.
Because it is the vital principle for a country to survive.

4. This Dream [the American Dream] is exactly one form of the spiritual
forces of mankind: the Force of Dream.

5. The spirit of his country, or the spiritual force of his country, is best
presented in the Declaration of Independence, for which Jefferson
worked as a leading writer.

Everything else is irrelevant.
George
 
  2  
Reply Thu 4 Sep, 2014 05:55 am
@George,
Let us examine each of these statements in turn.

1. A country without spiritual force can never be courageous.

I have clearly demonstrated that a country, as we have defined it,
is not a living thing.
Only living things have spiritual force -- as we have defined it.
So a country does not have spiritual force.

To say that a country is or is not courageous is to use the term "country"
in a way that does not match our definition. The statement is therefore
meaningless for this discussion.
0 Replies
 
George
 
  2  
Reply Thu 4 Sep, 2014 08:13 am
@George,
2. Any countries must have many qualities.

I will not address the grammatical errors in this sentence.

An instance of a country in this discussion must conform to the definition
of "country" that we have agree upon. That definition specifies some (not
many) qualities. The only qualities that are relevant are those called out in
the definition.
0 Replies
 
George
 
  2  
Reply Thu 4 Sep, 2014 09:38 am
@George,
3. Spiritual force is the fundamental quality shared by all of them.
Because it is the vital principle for a country to survive.

Spiritual force is a quality not shared by any of them. Spiritual force
animates living things. A country, as here defined, is not a living thing.
Spiritual force is vital for a citizen of a country to survive since the
citizen of a country is a living thing. But a citizen is not a country and a
country is not a citizen.
0 Replies
 
George
 
  2  
Reply Thu 4 Sep, 2014 11:26 am
@George,
4. This Dream [the American Dream] is exactly one form of the spiritual
forces of mankind: the Force of Dream.

"Spiritual force, or force of spirit, is the vital principle that is
animating in living things". As such, it is not a dream.
0 Replies
 
George
 
  2  
Reply Thu 4 Sep, 2014 11:29 am
@George,
5. The spirit of his country, or the spiritual force of his country, is best
presented in the Declaration of Independence, for which Jefferson
worked as a leading writer.

The Declaration of Independence presented the reasons why the
thirteen colonies declared themselves free and independent states.
It had nothing to do with animating living things.
0 Replies
 
oristarA
 
  1  
Reply Fri 5 Sep, 2014 02:02 am

I've ever pointed out: if you failed to fully grasp the definition offered by WM and Cambridge about "country", use Oxford:

Country:
A nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory.

Someone here doesn't understand why I've avoided to reply directly to his "analytical" posts. Because his so-called demonstration is not only too foolish, but rather morbid. I've sticked to my motto: Never mess with petty minds.

Dear readers, please use the above Oxford definition about "country" and combine it with FDR's profound analysis of "a nation":

Quote:
A nation, like a person, has a body—a body that must be fed and clothed and housed, invigorated and rested, in a manner that measures up to the objectives of our time.
A nation, like a person, has a mind—a mind that must be kept informed and alert, that must know itself, that understands the hopes and the needs of its neighbors—all the other nations that live within the narrowing circle of the world.
And a nation, like a person, has something deeper, something more permanent, something larger than the sum of all its parts. It is that something which matters most to its future—which calls forth the most sacred guarding of its present.
It is a thing for which we find it difficult—even impossible—to hit upon a single, simple word.
And yet we all understand what it is—the spirit—the faith of America. It is the product of centuries. It was born in the multitudes of those who came from many lands—some of high degree, but mostly plain people, who sought here, early and late, to find freedom more freely.


Now you may have an impression of what is a healthy, vigorous analysis.

A nation, or a country, must have its spirit, must have its spiritual force to stand tall in this world.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

HAPPY ANNIVERSARY, EVERYONE! - Discussion by OmSigDAVID
WIND AND WATER - Discussion by Setanta
Who ordered the construction of the Berlin Wall? - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
True version of Vlad Dracula, 15'th century - Discussion by gungasnake
ONE SMALL STEP . . . - Discussion by Setanta
History of Gun Control - Discussion by gungasnake
Where did our notion of a 'scholar' come from? - Discussion by TuringEquivalent
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/21/2024 at 11:08:04