Alexandra

well gee sorry for defending my own opinion, look I don't care its a curse word the origin of it doesn't really matter to me this much so you win, it does not, could not, and never did mean "fornication under the concent of the king"

Alright now your just being argumentative look for zeus' sake if it'll end this argument then fine your right I was wrong. there done

I have to go to work but my evidence is based on logic and what I've been tought as to the pink unicorns I can photograph my self and prove there is no pink unicorn if I wanted to but I must go for now

not if the proof is based on bias, the idea is for the origin well that came from someone's own thought process and only they can know for sure what was going through there head at the time and I do have a mind of my own but all we're doing is going around in circles so since you can't admit theres even a chance you could be wrong I guess I'm waisting my time so if it makes you feel better you win, I'm wrong your right.

thats not my point I'm not even arguing that your wrong I'm simply saying without a primary source there is no 100% sure about it

first and for most I have no idea who or what the birthers are second primary sources are the only definative proof, snoopes article makes sense but it isn't definative thats all I'm saying

oh I've admitted its very possible I could be wrong your the one who refuses to consider that maybe snopes could be wrong but to put it bluntly we are all human and not all knowing so unless we were to somehow find the first person to say the word fuck and ask them what it meant to them then no evidence is indesputible

I didn't mean this site in particular was unrealiable just not iron clad and I was thinking more of a .edu type site than a .org site, as to the proof thats a matter of perspect in which case I say agree to disagree on whos right and whos wrong

first when I said definately possible I mean possible you could be right. secondnly I read the link it was interesting but as I said under a public domain so not exactly inron clad evidence and as for when I said lost to history I mean that theres no real definative proof one way or the other only educated guesses based on the evidence

Its definately possible, tracking down the true origin of any word is next to impossible but I'll also point out that ".com" type web sites aren't exactly word of law information web sites but who knows it's just one of thoose things lost to history I guess

I never said that they made the saying into the acronmy at the time that probably happened much later as you said and as to it being just an urban myth, I'd heard it from my history teacher

I know first hand its very very possible to never see it coming no matter how close or observant you my be

well that depends on the type dark comedy: Evil Dead 2 Classical: the Old Dark House exploitative: Pieces holiday themed: black christmas (the original) slasher: nightmare on elm street part 3 (dream warriors) deamoic: exoricist monster movie: the giant claw zombie: a tie between Night of the living dead, Dawn of the Dead, and Day of the Dead (all the originals) gross-out: Brain Dead pov: Paranomal activity true: the girl next door gritty: Texas Chain saw massacrar (original) suspence: Psycho and although I hate the genera as a whole tourture porn: Saw 1

"fornication under the concent of the king" its from back when couple need the kings blessing to be wed in England

Talking heads - Once in a Lifetime