The plural form for the words would be
Thief=Thieves
Knife=Knives
Wife=Wives
Calf=Calves
Half=Halves
Elf=Elves
Leaf=Leaves
Answer:
I came face to face with a dog in the wild it sat there staring at me. I had my other dog with me but I had him on a leash. Suddenly my dog starts to bark. I tell him to shush. The dog stands there with his head tilted to the side. I tell my dog to go back to the house. Even though i thought the dog could not understand me. It ran to the house and went inside. I approached the dog slowly with my fist balled. The dog starts to back away but it stops.
I had a bag of doggy treats in my pocket so I took them out and gave the dog a treat. It looked like it hadn't eaten in days so i patted my leg for the dog to follow me to the house. He followed me to the house and I put him on the leash in the back of my house and went inside to get dog food for him. But when I came back out he was gone. I left my gate open and left the food in a bowl on the grass.
Later that night I heard my gate move so I got up and put my shoes on. When I went outside the same dog was there eating the food. When the dog saw me he wagged his tail and jumped on me. I ended up adopting him and giving him a name. Copper
Explanation:
I'll just post the text where the statement "note an irony in my argument" is found.
The dissenters in the flag-burning case and their supporters might at this juncture note an irony in my argument. My point is that freedom of conscience and expression is at the core of our self-conception and that commitment to it requires the rejection of official dogma. But how is that admittedly dogmatic belief different from any other dogma, such as the one inferring that freedom of expression stops at the border of the flag?
The crucial distinction is that the commitment to freedom of conscience and expression states the simplest and least self-contradictory principle that seems to capture our aspirations. Any other principle is hopelessly at odds with our commitment to freedom of conscience. The controversy surrounding the flag-burning case makes the case well.
The controversy will rage precisely because burning the flag is such a powerful form of communication. Were it not, who would care? Thus were we to embrace a prohibiton on such communication, we would be saying that the 1st Amendment protects expression only when no one is offended. That would mean that this aspect of the 1st Amendment would be of virtually no consequence. It would protect a person only when no protection was needed. Thus, we do have one official dogma-each American may think and express anything he wants. The exception is expression that involves the risk of injury to others and the destruction of someone else`s property. Neither was present in this case.
the answer is "AND YET I ADDRESS HIM, WHISPERING..." (APEX)
The slim model walked gracefully down the ramp
