View Single Post
  #22   Report Post  
Posted to rec.audio.pro
Don Pearce[_3_] Don Pearce[_3_] is offline
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,417
Default Will everyone stop saying tic

On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 12:46:11 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Wed, 29 Jun 2011 11:42:59 -0700, "Bill Graham"
wrote:

Gareth Magennis wrote:
"Tom McCreadie" wrote in message
...
A tic is a spasm of the facial muscles. A short sharp sound is a
TICK - like what a clock does.

And while we're on a roll, could the whole usenet/web-forum world
now please stop saying "revert back" instead of "revert" and
"loose" when they mean "lose" .
--
Tom McCreadie

Live at The London Palindrome - ABBA


And PLEASE learn the difference between "their", "there" and
"they're". It will only take 2 minutes. Really.

Is that 2 minutes, to minutes, too minutes or two minutes?

You are fighting a losing battle. Mrs Hughes, my fifth grade English
teacher is long gone, (I am 75) and very few people have learned
much real English since then. Even the Supreme Court thinks the
second amendment says, "Only the
Army can keep and bear arms."

Whereas it actually says that the people can bear arms for the
purposes of maintaining a militia. No other reason is offered. Nothing
about defending oneself or simply looking hard.

d


But the law doesn't say "for the purpose of maintaining a militia", and even
if it did, that wouldn't be a part of the law. The law says, "the right of
the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", which tells me
that the right to keep and bear arms has always been there, and the law
simply guarantees that it won't be changed. It all seems pretty obvious to
me, but then, I had Mrs. Hughes, and most peoplke didn't. At 75, I am
getting very tired of trying to teach English to all those who didn't have
a, Mrs. Hughes.

Also, why do people keep adding, "itself" to, "We have nothing to fear but
fear?"


No, it most certainly does not say that. The exact wording is:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.

So the right to bear arms exists solely in the context of maintaining
a well-regulated militia. If you are simply going to pretend that the
bits you don't like aren't there you may as well throw the
constitution out right now.

d