OpenLLM-France/wikimedia huggingface dataset:
# Nine Inch Will Please a Lady

* related portals: Erotic poetry.
* sister projects: Wikidata item.
Come rede me, dame, come tell me, dame, My dame, come tell me truly, What length o' graith, when weel ca'd hame, Will ser'e a woman duly? The carlin clew her wanton tail, Her wanton tail sae ready; I learn't a sang in Annandale, Nine inch will please a lady.
But for a countrie cunt like mine, In sooth we're nae sae gentle; We'll tak' twa thumb-bread to the nine, And that's a sonsie pintle. O leeze me on my Charlie lad! I'll ne'er forget my Charlie! Twa roarin' handfu' and a daud, He nidg't it in fu' rarely.
But weary fa' the laithern doup, And may it ne'er ken thrivin'; It's no the length that gars me loup, But it's the double drivin'. Come nidge me Tam, come nodge me Tam, Come nidge me o'er the nyvle; Come louse and lug your batterin' ram, And thrash him at my gyvel.
This work was published before January 1, 1929, and is in the public domain worldwide because the author died at least 100 years ago.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Nine-Banded Armadillo

​Nine-­Banded Armadillo
Dasypus novemcinctus
Armadillos are found throughout the southeastern United States and get their name from their distinctive body armor. Armadillo means “little armored one” in Spanish. While they are typically more active at night, armadillos are frequently seen during the day. Armadillos are omnivorous and eat a wide variety of invertebrates from insects to snails. They also eat eggs and small reptiles when they can get them! Armadillos do eat plant matter, but it is not as large a part of their diet as small animals are.
Armadillos' natural predators can include coyotes, bobcats, and alligators. However, the biggest threats to armadillos are vehicles. Armadillos' eyes don’t shine in the dark the way a deer’s eyes do and are frequently impossible to spot at night. They also have a defense mechanism of jumping up to three feet in the air when they feel threatened, which puts them directly in the way of most vehicles' bumpers. Despite this, armadillos are not threatened or endangered and continue to thrive throughout Texas and many other southern states. Armadillos are about the size of a large house cat and can live 7-10 years.
Did You Know? ​
* Armadillos are excellent swimmers who can hold their breath for up to six minutes underwater, when crossing narrow streams, they will often walk across the bottom of the stream by digging their claws into the soil instead of swimming across. For wider bodies of water, they are able to inflate their intestines to increase buoyancy and swim across!
* Armadillos get a bad reputation for carrying the bacteria that causes Hansen’s disease (commonly known as leprosy). While it’s true that some armadillos do carry the bacteria, it is extremely uncommon for it to be passed on to people. Hansen’s disease is typically spread through prolonged contact with the infected and cannot be passed on from casual contact.
* Armadillos generally give birth to identical quadruplets every year! When an armadillo gets pregnant, a single fertilized egg develops into four separate embryos which all have the same DNA.
Sources
Bagatto, B., Crossley, D. A., & Burggren, W. W. (2000). Physiological variability in neonatal armadillo quadruplets: within-and between-litter differences. Journal of Experimental Biology, 203(11), 1733-1740.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Hansen's Disease (Leprosy) Transmission.
Taber, F. W. (1945). Contribution on the life history and ecology of the nine-banded armadillo. Journal of Mammalogy, 26(3), 211-226.
Last updated: February 8, 2021
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Nine Cardinal Principles of the rule of the English Rajah

APPENDIX C CARDINAL PRINCIPLES OF THE RULE OF THE ENGLISH RAJAHS
* That Sarawak is the heritage of Our Subjects and is held in trust by Ourselves for them.
* That social and education services shall be developed and improved and the standard of living of the people of Sarawak shall steadily be raised.
* That never shall any person or persons be granted rights inconsistent with those of the people of this country or be in any way permitted to exploit Our Subjects or those who have sought Our protection and care.
* That justice shall be freely obtainable and that the Rajah and every public servant shall be easily accessible to the public.
* That freedom of expression both in speech and in writing shall be permitted and encouraged and that everyone shall be entitled to worship as he pleases.
* That public servants shall ever remember that they are but the servants of the people on whose goodwill and co-operation they are entirely dependent.
* That so far as may be Our Subjects of whatever race or creed shall be freely and impartially admitted to offices in Our Service, the duties of which they may be qualified by their education, ability and integrity duly to discharge.
* That the goal of self-government shall always be kept in mind, that the people of Sarawak shall be entrusted in due course with the governance of themselves, and that continuous efforts shall be made to hasten the reaching of this goal by educating them in the obligations, the responsibilities, and the privileges of citizenship.
* That the general policy of Our predecessors and Ourselves whereby the various races of the State have been enabled to live in happiness and harmony together shall be adhered to by Our successors and Our servants and all who may follow them hereafter.
# Nine Unlikely Tales

A free audiobook is available at [Librivox]
NINE UNLIKELY TALES
By
E. NESBIT
Illustrated by
H. R. MILLAR AND CLAUDE A. SHEPPERSON
ERNEST BENN LIMITED LONDON
COWARD—McCANN INC NEW YORK
First re-issued in this edition 1960 Published by Ernest Benn Limited Bouverie House • Fleet Street • London • EC 4 and Coward-McCann Inc 210 Madison Avenue • New York 16 • NY
Printed in Great Britain
IRIDI MEAE HOC ET COR MEUM
CONTENTS
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1929.
The longest-living author of this work died in 1924, so this work is in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 99 years or less. This work may be in the public domain in countries and areas with longer native copyright terms that apply the rule of the shorter term to foreign works.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Nimick v. Coleman/Opinion of the Court

* Court Documents
* Case Syllabus
* Opinion of the Court
United States Supreme Court
95 U.S. 266
Nimick v. Coleman
We think the motion to dismiss in this case must be granted. The record shows affirmatively that the Circuit Court refused to take jurisdiction upon the appeal, and did proceed under its supervisory jurisdiction alone. The case is thus brought directly within our decision in Stickney v. Wilt, 23 Wall. 150; and, as the order of the District Court has been affirmed, we are not called upon to determine whether we should set aside the action of the Circuit Court for want of jurisdiction, as we did in that case, because there was a reversal. If, as is claimed, the District Court acted without jurisdiction, or in a manner not to bind the parties, its decree as made was void; and the aggrieved partnership creditors may very properly consider whether they cannot proceed in equity to call the trustees to a proper accounting and distribution. Upon that question, however, we express no opinion. We are clear that no appeal lies to this court from the action of the Circuit Court in respect to what has been done; and the suit is accordingly
Dismissed.

## Notes

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Nina's Adventures

Nina's Adventures was a regular comic strip about the title character and her friends.
This work is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported license, which allows free use, distribution, and creation of derivatives, so long as the license is unchanged and clearly noted, and the original author is attributed.
Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants/Book III/Chapter 1

Chapter 1 [I.]—Pelagius Esteemed a Holy Man; His Expositions on Saint Paul.
The questions which you proposed that I should write to you about, in opposition to those persons who say that Adam would have died even if he had not sinned, and that nothing of his sin has passed to his posterity by natural transmission; and especially on the subject of the baptism of infants, which the universal Church, with most pious and maternal care, maintains in constant celebration; and whether in this life there are, or have been, or ever will be, children of men without any sin at all—I have already discussed in two lengthy books. And I venture to think that if in them I have not met all the points which perplex all men’s minds on such matters (an achievement which, I apprehend,—nay, which I have no doubt,—lies beyond the power either of myself, or of any other person), I have at all events prepared something in the shape of a firm ground on which those who defend the faith delivered to us by our fathers, against the novel opinions of its opponents, may at any time take their stand, not unarmed for the contest. However, within the last few days I have read some writings by Pelagius,—a holy man, as I am told, who has made no small progress in the Christian life,—containing some very brief expository notes on the epistles of the Apostle Paul; and therein I found, on coming to the passage where the apostle says, “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so it passed upon all men,” an argument which is used by those who say that infants are not burdened with original sin. Now I confess that I have not refuted this argument in my lengthy treatise, because it did not indeed once occur to me that anybody was capable of thinking such sentiments. Being, however, unwilling to add to that work, which I had concluded, I have thought it right to insert in this epistle both the argument itself in the very words in which I read it, and the answer which it seems to me proper to give to it.

## Footnotes

* ↑ [This commentary is also made known to us by Marius Mercator’s Commonitoria, cap. 2, and has been preserved for us among the works of Jerome (Vallarsius’ ed., tom. xi.), although probably not without alterations. It seems to have been composed before A.D. 410, at Rome.—W.]
* ↑ Rom. v. 12.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants/Book III/Chapter 14

Chapter 14.—The Opinions of All Controversialists Whatever are Not, However, Canonical Authority; Original Sin, How Another’s; We Were All One Man in Adam.
I have not quoted these words as if we might rely upon the opinions of every disputant as on canonical authority; but I have done it, that it may be seen how, from the beginning down to the present age, which has given birth to this novel opinion, the doctrine of original sin has been guarded with the utmost constancy as a part of the Church’s faith, so that it is usually adduced as most certain ground whereon to refute other opinions when false, instead of being itself exposed to refutation by any one as false. Moreover, in the sacred books of the canon, the authority of this doctrine is vigorously asserted in the clearest and fullest way. The apostle exclaims: “By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so it passed upon all men, in which all have sinned. Now from these words it cannot certainly be said, that Adam’s sin has injured even those who commit no sin, for the Scripture says, “In which all have sinned.” Nor, indeed, are those sins of infancy so said to be another’s, as if they did not belong to the infants at all, inasmuch as all then sinned in Adam, when in his nature, by virtue of that innate power whereby he was able to produce them, they were all as yet the one Adam; but they are called another’s, because as yet they were not living their own lives, but the life of the one man contained whatsoever was in his future posterity.

## Footnotes

* ↑ Rom. v. 12.
* ↑ Aliena.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants/Book III/Chapter 16

Chapter 16.—Origin of Errors; A Simile Sought from the Foreskin of the Circumcised, and from the Chaff of Wheat.
“But surely,” say they, “if baptism cleanses the primeval sin, they who are born of two baptized parents ought to be free from this sin; for these could not have transmitted to their children that thing which they did not themselves possess.” Now observe whence error usually thrives: it is when persons are able to start subjects which they are not able to understand. For before what audience, and in what words, can I explain how it is that sinful mortal beginnings bring no obstacle to those who have inaugurated other, immortal, beginnings, and at the same time prove an obstacle to those whom those very persons, against whom it was not an obstacle, have begotten out of the self-same sinful beginnings? How can a man understand these things, whose labouring mind is impeded both by its own prejudiced opinions and by the chain of its own stolid obstinacy? If indeed I had undertaken my cause in opposition to those who either altogether forbid the baptism of infants, or else contend that it is superfluous to baptize them alleging that as they are born of believing parents, they must needs enjoy the merit of their parents; then it would have been my duty to have roused myself perhaps to greater labour and effort for the purpose of refuting their opinion. In that case, if I encountered a difficulty before obtuse and contentious men in refuting error and inculcating truth, owing to the obscurity which besets the nature of the subject, I should probably resort to such illustrations as were palpable and at hand; and I should in my turn ask them some questions,—how, for instance, if they were puzzled to know in what way sin, after being cleansed by baptism, still remained in those who were begotten of baptized parents, they would explain how it is that the foreskin, after being removed by circumcision, should still remain in the sons of the circumcised? or again, how it happens that the chaff which is winnowed off so carefully by human labour still keeps its place in the grain which springs from the winnowed wheat?
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants/Book III/Chapter 11

Chapter 11.—The Ancients Assumed Original Sin.
You see with what confidence this great man expresses himself after the ancient and undoubted rule of faith. In advancing such very certain statements, his object was by help of these firm conclusions to prove the uncertain point which had been submitted to him by his correspondent, and concerning which he informs him that a decree of a council had been passed, to the effect that, if an infant were brought even before the eighth day after his birth, no one should hesitate to baptize him. Now it was not then determined or confirmed by the council that infants were held bound by original sin as if it were new, or as if it were attacked by the opposition of some one; but when another controversy was being conducted, and the question was discussed, in reference to the law of the circumcision of the flesh, whether they ought to be baptized before the eighth day. None agreed with the person who denied this; because it was not an open question admitting of discussion, but was fixed and unassailable, that the soul would forfeit eternal salvation if it ended this life without obtaining the sacrament of baptism: but at the same time infants fresh from the womb were held to be affected only by the guilt of original sin. On this account, although remission of sins was easier in their case, because the sins were derived from another, it was nevertheless indispensable. It was on sure grounds like these that the uncertain question of the eighth day was solved, and the council decided that after a man was born, not a day ought to be lost in rendering him that succour which should prevent his perishing for ever. When also a reason was given for the circumcision of the flesh as being itself a shadow of what was to be, its purport was not that we should understand that baptism ought to be administered on the eighth day after birth, but rather that we are spiritually circumcised in the resurrection of Christ, who rose from the dead on the third day, indeed, after His passion, but among the days of the week, by which time is counted, on the eighth, that is, on the first day after the Sabbath.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants/Book III/Chapter 15

Chapter 15 [VIII.]—We All Sinned Adam’s Sin.
“It is,” they say, “by no means conceded that God who remits to a man his own sins imputes to him another’s.” He remits, indeed, but it is to those regenerated by the Spirit, not to those generated by the flesh; but He imputes to a man no longer the sins of another, but only his own. They were no doubt the sins of another, whilst as yet they were not in existence who bore them when propagated; but now the sins belong to them by carnal generation, to whom they have not yet been remitted by spiritual regeneration.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants/Book III/Chapter 13

Chapter 13 [VII.]—The Error of Jovinianus Did Not Extend So Far.
A few years ago there lived at Rome one Jovinian, who is said to have persuaded nuns of even advanced age to marry,—not, indeed, by seduction, as if he wanted to make any of them his wife, but by contending that virgins who dedicated themselves to the ascetic life had no more merit before God than believing wives. It never entered his mind, however, along with this conceit, to venture to affirm that children of men are born without original sin. If, indeed, he had added such an opinion, the women might have more readily consented to marry, to give birth to such pure offspring. When this man’s writings (for he dared to write) were by the brethren forwarded to Jerome to refute, he not only discovered no such error in them, but, while looking out his conceits for refutation, he found among other passages this very clear testimony to the doctrine of man’s original sin, from which Jerome indeed felt satisfied of the man’s belief of that doctrine. These are his words when treating of it: “He who says that he abides in Christ, ought himself also to walk even as He walked. We give our opponent the option to choose which alternative he likes. Does he abide in Christ, or does he not? If he does, then, let him walk like Christ. If, however, it is a rash thing to undertake to resemble the excellences of Christ, he abides not in Christ, because he walks not as Christ did. He did no sin, neither was any guile found in His mouth; who, when He was reviled, reviled not again; and as a lamb before its shearer is dumb, so He opened not His mouth; to whom the prince of this world came, and found nothing in Him; whom, though He had done no sin, God made sin for us. We, however, according to the Epistle of James, all commit many sins; and none of us is pure from uncleanness, even if his life should be but of one day. For who shall boast that he has a clean heart? Or who shall be confident that he is pure from sins? We are held guilty according to the likeness of Adam’s transgression. Accordingly David also says: ‘Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.’”

## Footnotes

* ↑ [This “Christian Epicurus,” as he is called by the intemperate zeal of the asceticism of his day, was condemned as a heretic by councils at Rome and Milan in 390. According to Jerome, who wrote a book against him, he not only opposed asceticism, but also contended for the essential equality of all sins and of the punishments and rewards of the next world, and for the sinlessness of those baptized by the Spirit.—W.]
* ↑ See Jerome’s work Against Jovinian, ii. near the beginning.
* ↑ John ii. 6.
* ↑ Isa. liii. 9.
* ↑ Isa. liii. 7.
* ↑ John xiv. 30.
* ↑ 2 Cor. v. 21.
* ↑ Jas. iii. 2.
* ↑ Job xiv. 5.
* ↑ Ps. li. 5.
# Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants/Book III/Chapter 18

Chapter 18 [X.]—Is the Soul Derived by Natural Propagation?
Well, but “if the soul is not propagated, but the flesh alone, then the latter alone has propagation of sin, and it alone deserves punishment:” this is what they think, saying “that it is unjust that the soul which is only recently produced, and that not out of Adam’s substance, should bear the sin of another committed so long ago.” Now observe, I pray you, how the circumspect Pelagius felt the question about the soul to be a very difficult one, and acted accordingly,—for the words which I have just quoted are copied from his book. He does not say absolutely, “Because the soul is not propagated,” but hypothetically, If the soul is not propagated, rightly determining on so obscure a subject (on which we can find in Holy Scriptures no certain and obvious testimonies, or with very great difficulty discover any) to speak with hesitation rather than with confidence. Wherefore I too, on my side, answer this proposition with no hasty assertion: If the soul is not propagated, where is the justice that, what has been but recently created and is quite free from the contagion of sin, should be compelled in infants to endure the passions and other torments of the flesh, and, what is more terrible still, even the attacks of evil spirits? For never does the flesh so suffer anything of this kind that the living and feeling soul does not rather undergo the punishment. If this, indeed, is shown to be just, it may be shown, on the same terms, with what justice original sin comes to exist in our sinful flesh, to be subsequently cleansed by the sacrament of baptism and God’s gracious mercy. If the former point cannot be shown, I imagine that the latter point is equally incapable of demonstration. We must therefore either bear with both positions in silence, and remember that we are human, or else we must prepare, at some other time, another work on the soul, if it shall appear necessary, discussing the whole question with caution and sobriety.