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

Please decide which definition of "country" to use.
State your choice plainly.

This Oxford definition: "Country: A nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory" basically shares the same meaning with the definition given by another dictionary that I have formerly quoted: "Country: A politically organized body of people under a single government". So I could use either of them.

For the convenience of our dear readers: You may think that I only use the Oxford definition.

FDR, with his remarkable insight, has expounded it crystal clear: A nation, or a country, is not a person (or a living thing) of course; rather, it is like a person (or like a living thing. A person or a human is the most advanced form of a living thing in the evolutionary tree), so a nation has spiritual force.

If you are dumb enough to fail to get this. Well, go back to your primary school and learn there! It is not proper for you to fool around here.

"A nation, or a country, is not a person (or a living thing) of course"
"it is like a person (or like a living thing."

This is a figure of speech. Specifically, it is a simile. If you are only
speaking figuratively, then by all means say that a country has spiritual
force. It makes for an interesting poem or speech. It is not a logical
argument.

Please continue with your poetry. But if you would like to argue logically,
let me know.

Y did u choose to split your sentence into a full sentence followed by a sentence fragment,
beginning with a conjunction, rather than render it as one complete sentence
(i.e.: Please continue with your poetry, but if you would like to argue logically, let me know.) ?
By what reasoning did u decide to do that ?





David

I liked the flow better.

My choice was not whether to split the sentence, but whether to begin
the the next sentence with "however" or "but". I find that in most
contemporary prose, especially informal prose, the rule of not beginning
a sentence with a conjunction is often ignored.

Having conceded the argument to oristarA, I have relaxed the formality
of my prose. You might almost say I am waxing poetic.

You'd love one of these.

Logic? Do you know what is real logic? Real logic, especially when involving state and world affairs, is reality-based. Do you know that when FDR said "a nation, like a person" he had been leading the United States for eight years? He was not only the leader of America, but also a leader of the world. Four times American people elected him as their President. He deserved respects and his ideas treated prudently. The man surely understood, profoundly I believe, what is a nation. He had put his reality-based logic in a poetic way.

But it is not the core of your question. I've indicated that your views are "not only too foolish, but rather morbid". Your voices have been like from a sepulchre, dreary, gloomy and death-guiding. You need a psychologist to help you out.

I've been shocked by your stunning narrow-mindedness. Your ignorance to scientific common sense has led you astray. Yet you are unaware of this problem of yours. I will further analyse your problem only at readers' request. Because the main topic of this thread is How Thomas Jefferson Directly Links to the Decline of Christianity in Great Britain. You've disturbed us and diverted it with your lacking common sense too long.

A check on your background reveals something about the source of your morbid narrow-mindedness and self-conceitedness. Luckily, you haven't joined ISIS yet; you're still staying in the United States:

First, look at George's self depiction:



Second, look at his enlarged avatar:


It's like a sore at the Free World, isn't it? The avatar is sepulchral, isn't it?

Why not tell us your inmost thoughts? Among them is that you will deny any American values and American ideals until you live in a big nice house (free of charge) rather than the current cubical one?

Well, that film really might be seen as sepulchral - "too dark, and scary for kids" some critics said. But at least, it's about a great American tradition.

And it might be a sore to the Free World - who needs 3-D or even 4-D films of a Top 10 Animated Film???

Wow, such invective!
I'm quite flattered.

Tip o' the hat, George.

Thank you.

This thread -- one of the silliest in the history of a2k -- has gone totally ballistic, hasn't it?

Welcome, dotard.

Good word, that -- dotard. Not heard much, but certainly expressive and impressive as well. Keep swingin', O, keep swingin'!

I don t get the point, Andy.

ballistics
[buh-lis-tiks]
noun, ( usually used with a singular verb)

1. the science or study of the motion of projectiles,
as bullets, shells, or bombs.

2. the art or science of designing projectiles
for maximum flight performance.

Is it better to be LESS than total
concerning ballistics in threads ?

What 's your best advice ?





David

David, 'going ballistic' is a very common slang term meaning the same thing that in your day 'going haywire' would have meant. It has absolutely nothing to do with firearms or ballistic forensics. Virtually nobody says 'haywire' any more these days as, in a largely urban culture, the word itself is largely meaningless. 'Ballistic', on the other hand, resonates in today's street-savvy society.

Facially, it seems to relate to balls.
Haywire meant confused or crazy.

Just out of curiosity Oristar,
do u believe that the success of the American Revolution
had an effect upon the attendance of Church in England??

IF so, then will u explain HOW
Church attendance was affected by the American Revolution ?





David

If Oristar is anything to go by we don't have to worry about the growth of China, looks like they'll be doing menial work for the forseeable future.