Marc Anthony is an internationally-popular singer mentioned on innumerable websites.
While technically the roman name Antonius can be translated with an unpronounced h, for centuries the name has normally been spelled without it.
If you look closely, Google includes websites with the correct spelling when you search with the misspelling. Note entry # 2:
Furt, Wikipedia also said that former Assistant Attorney General John Seigenthaller was once a suspect in the assassination of President Kennedy and had lived for a while in the USSR after the Kennedy’s death. It took months and a lot of work for Seigenthaller to get them to retract those accusations.
They were traced to a young man living here in Nashville who did it as a prank.
Mr. Seigenthaller is the founder of Freedom Forum and the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University.
I have been a vocal advocate against using Wikipedia as a cite for almost a year now – although I don’t expect everyone to know that.
Do you have another cite. I am open to being corrected.
For all the disagreements we’ve had (and will have since you’re so often wrong) we’ll always have this in common. 
I never take our disagreements seriously.
(That’s one of the joys of being forgetful!)
John and Furt, I did further searching on Yahoo! and this is what I found:
Brutus Mark Anthony – 281,000 Brutus “Mark Anthony” 8,610
Brutus Mark Antony – 220,000 Brutus “Mark Antony” 59,800
Brutus Marc Antony – 97,800 Brutus “Marc Antony” 31,000
Brutus Marc Anthony – 173,000 Brutus “Marc Anthony” 13,800
So the numbers seem a little contradictory to me. With the quotation marks, Mark Anthony is the least frequently used spelling when coupled with Brutus. Without them, it is the most frequently used spelling when coupled with Brutus.
I have seen and heard it spelled and pronounced both ways. I was taught in one of my linguistics classes that proper names may be spelled or pronounced in more than one way correctly – depending upon the “owner” of the name. Example: Katharine, Katherine, Catherine, Catharine, etc.
The owner of the particular name that we speak of would have spelled his name in the Latin. Translations to English may vary. That’s why I am interested only in what Shakespeare used in his final draft.
I know what was used “centuries ago” 
in my high school textbook; it was **Anthony ** with the Th pronounced by my teacher. When I was at Peabody, and reference was made, only the T was pronounced. Textbooks varied the years that I taught Julius Caesar.
I don’t think that I am consistent in the way that I pronounce it. A name in my family begins with a Th and the h is silent – so that is something that I am accustomed to.
Wow, I didn’t mean to spark a spelling controversy. Me, of all people (a terrible speller). I was just thinking of the way The Bard himself spelled it, which I always thought was Antony. The original point was made about Antony’s speech in the play.
Anyway, that was a cheap shot, so consider it a throw-away line. The issue of the logic in Zoe’s original argument is what I think is important. If you want to infer anything from the two speeches, it would be that Cheney was mocking the “terrorists” by talking about their delicate sensibilities-- an obvious reference to the fact that their sensibilities are anything but delicate (witness: beheading captives and posting videos). And it is quite likely that our guys will be fighting someone like that in Iraq or Afghanistan, rather than fighting a regular soldier trained in the rules of war.
Now, we know that Cheney has a less than favorable view of the GC wrt the “War on Terror”. He’s said so explicitly in the past. He has no need to dance around the bush (pardon the pun) on that subject.
Fortunately, I’ve never let the size of the crowd dissuade me from saying what’s right.
The point is fuck off, twit, and don’t dare ever make a typo here yourself. 
Welcome to the world of irrationality, then.
There’s your “context”. You do still claim that’s important, don’t you? :dubious:
That is not a reasonable position, based on the context you’ve already stipulated, and consistent with a full command of the English language. It is consistent with simple, stubborn, argumentativeness, however. And you’re welcome to that.
Or even from knowing what it is.
Now, how are you coming with your studies on propaganda methods?
By that logic, Elvis, if Dick Cheney walked in Burger King and said “I’ll have a Whopper with large fries,” then he’s really promoting torture. Because he has a history of promoting torture and therefore every word he says at any time exists within the context of him supporting torture and is evidence of it.
As for how this speech fits in the context of Dick Cheney’s other public statements, consider this: who did Dick Cheney specifically say didn’t follow the Geneva Conventions? Islamic terrorists. Now are you guys trying to convince us that Dick Cheney would hold up Islamic terrorists as role model figures? Because the context I’ve gathered from Cheney’s past speechs is that he holds negative feelings about them. Dick Cheney saying that terrorists don’t follow the Geneva Conventions is like Dick Cheney saying the terrorists promote gay marriage or seek drug legalization or vote for Democrats. When Dick Cheney says terrorists are doing something he means it’s a bad thing.
Exactly. That’s what we have been saying all along. He’s suggesting maybe it’s not good that the terrorists can demand their rights under the GC, but the West Point Cadets can’t.
John Mace, no hard feelings on this side. I’ve known you too long for that. You’re a very reasonable person and I’m not behind a desk with a ruler anymore. I’ll just do it your way which does seem to be quite reasonable.
If my audience and I are aware of a business technique one can use, and the only mention I make of it is to say that it can assist your competitors, what impression would, say, the least mentally able 30% of my audience get?
What percentage of a West Point graduation class would describe themselves as having “delicate sensibilities”?
Thanks. I really try not to make things personal here, even in the Pit. But I don’t react very well when someone insults my intelligence or education. Let’s just say we disagree in our analysis and leave it at that. And the reality is we both think Cheney = bad. I tend to think even more poorly of him than Bush because I think he’s a lot more intelligent than Bush, and has less excuse for the things he’s done.
What he said was “Capture one of these killers, and he’ll be quick to demand the protections of the Geneva Convention and the Constitution of the United States. Yet when they wage attacks or take captives, their delicate sensibilities seem to fall away.” So are we in agreement that he said that terrorists turn their support for the Geneva Conventions off or on depending on whether it benefits them? And your interpretation of this was that he was holding the terrorists up as positive role models for Army officers to imitate? Because as I wrote, I have extreme difficulty in the idea that Dick Cheney would advocate anything by saying that terrorists do so it must be a good idea.
But can you explain why, if Dick Cheney wanted our officers to act like terrorists, he spoke approvingly of the “deepest and most fundamental differences” between our officers and terrorists? Would he have said “you will now face enemies who oppose and despise everything you know to be right, every notion of upright conduct and character, and every belief you consider worth fighting for and living for” if he was encouraging his listeners to abandon those beliefs?
No, you miss the point. He’s implying a problem with the GC, namely that the bad guys can use it against you but not apply it in your favour. He only mentions the GC in the context of a problem with it.
False dichotomy. He is neither wanting them to act like terrorists nor encouraging them to think positively of the GC.
But what you’re claiming is that the CEO stood in front of all his managers and said, “Let’s talk about our company. Our employees have always used Spacely Sprockets because we’ve always know sprockets are the best parts for our product and we know that the best parts make the best products. But our competitors don’t think like we do. They’ll use Spacely Sprockets or Cogswell Cogs or whatever part they can buy the cheapest because they don’t care about the quality of their product.”
And if you were one of those managers, the message you would taken away from that speech was “The CEO mentioned how other company’s are buying cheaper parts. He must want us to stop using Spacely Sprockets.”? Because I have to feel you missed the point he was trying to make.
It appears Princhester that we have simultaneously accused each other of missing the point. Maybe we just need to agree there’s no point to continuing to argue about something we’re obviously going to differ on.
OK, this is good. We should keep working on this. Now, go back to my post #153, note what word I specifically highlighted. Now, note your Spacely Sprockets example. What have you *pointedly * changed, from my analogy?
Plus answer my question about “delicate sensibilities” if you don’t mind.