In article , Bart Goddard says...
>
>
>
>Matthew Johnson wrote:
>
>>>"This was before Jesus' time, in fact, just a hair
>>>before Julius Ceasar changed the republic into an
>>>empire."
>> 
>> Why, thank you, Bart. Thank you for illustrating so clearly to every
>> reader that you dig your own hole all the more deeply, when you
>> _think_ you are digging it for me!
>
>Let's see who's point is illustrated:

In which case, you should prepare to be disappointed. And you would be, if you
could READ!

>
> 
>> You _still_ don't understand how wrong you are! The web-site I cited
>> covered the organization of the Roman Army for that _entire_ period:
>> it said "Late Republic and Early Empire". That covers the _entire_
>> reign of Julius Caesar AND Augustus. 
>
>So you keep citing something pertaining to the reign of Julius
>Ceasar, while I, very clearly, said "BEFORE Julius Ceasar."
>Typical, but then you've never shown yourself to be exactly
>a master of English.

So says the man who cannot READ. What I cite does NOT pertain only to the reign
of Julius Caesar. And BTW, I can spell his name right, which surely proves
something;)

Don't you know what "Late Republic" means? In case you have forgotten, that
includes the time Caesar was still general in Gaul, and used German tribes from
what is now Switzerland as allies against the other Germans.

>
> 
>> 'Outre'? What language are you trying to speak?
>
>That would be more of this "English" of which I spoke
>above.

Which isn't even English. As I already hinted.

>  I realize it's a two-syllable word, but still,
>one supposes you have access to a dictionary (that the
>big book holding up the corner of your sofa.)

This would be funny, Bart, if it wasn't coming from an arrogant ignoramus who
somehow got a PhD despite his ignorance, illustrating waht is so wrong with
academia today.

>>>"By Jesus' time, I'm not sure if the Roman army had
>>>expanded to include non-Italians.  Soldiers had to
>>>be citizens, and citizenship wasn't handed out lightly."
>> 
>> And this paragraph is WTILL wrong! 
>
>So you think I'm wrong about being "not sure"?

Why, yes. That _too_ is wrong. But that is not what I was referring to. Stop
trying to hide, it won't work.

>What a hoot.

Yeah, what a hoot it is that even after being given the _precise_ reference from
a _scholarly_ source (a web-page written by a history professor at a reasonably
good school), you _still_ cling to your laughable error that soldiers had to be
citizens.

What a hoot it is, Bart, that you repeat this error even after being corrected
TWICE, and the record of your stubborn ignorance is now in Google.

Finally, Bart, if you weren't so arrogant, if you did not _delight_ in your
forbidden arrogance, I would not be so merciless in hammering home your error.
For that really would be outrageous excess. But it is _you_, you who
pretentiously mis-spell the French word for 'outrageous excess' who are the real
culprit of it. Not me.


-- 
---------------------------
Subudcat se sibi ut haereat Deo
quidquid boni habet, tribuat illi a quo factus est.
(St. Augustine, Ser. 96)

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group.  All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
(((   Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post.   )))

--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 1/17/05 3:35:41 PM ---