Peculiarly used in a sentence

Peculiarly in a sentence as an adverb

His one and only AMA seems peculiarly timed with the book launch then.

[1] I don't know if "news agenda" is a peculiarly UK term.

You'll find yourself jarring as you try to look up at ledges or peek down through windows, feeling peculiarly constrained, almost as if you're wearing a neck brace. The Rift is at least as big a difference.

And what is it about my chauvinism that is peculiarly masculine?

But his is a peculiarly deep, sensitive and beautiful mind. I tend to love everything he writes, and most things written about him.

This is crazy, but I'll note that it isn't a peculiarly Italian form of crazy. People rush to find scapegoats after every disaster.

I do find the aviation industry to be sometimes peculiarly behind the times. For example, a few years ago, I wondered online why airports did not have constant video recording of the runway and taxiways.

We have become peculiarly vulnerable. The year of the establishment of the commercial telegraph in America, 1844, was also the year Kierkegaard published The Concept of Dread.

Seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, ... incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation.

Underneath, Unix lurks with all its idiosyncrasies\nand peculiarly half-hearted assumptions and informs all of the\ninterfaces and paradigms above. No one who ever saw a Genera machine at work or appreciated fully the\ndepth of Smalltalk's world view, will be able to dive into Unix and come\nback with the same deep sense of enlightenment.

We must be peculiarly self-obsessed to imagine we have the power to drive tens of millions of people on the other side of the world to migrate and suffer in terrible ways. China produces goods for markets all over the world, including for its own consumers, thanks to low costs, a large and educated workforce, and a flexible manufacturing system that responds rapidly to market demands.

It makes you wonder if those of us in wealthy democracies are actually experiencing a peculiarly 21st century form of passive aggressive oppression where we may be "free" but monitored and essentially feel helpless and the fact that these unknown hackers are able to duck and evade the same forces that can hunt and **** terrorists with disregard of sovereignty makes them look like folk heroes. We'll see how this saga unfolds.

I realize that in some parts of the American political spectrum this sort of thing is hard to grasp, and I don't want to get into what is a peculiarly American political argument, but you should know that in most democratic countries people often view their own government very differently from Americans. They demand certain things of their government and can trust it to behave a certain way, and if it doesn't - they punish it.

That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.

That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.

That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.

That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property."

That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.

Now, as a general principle, just because the Supreme Court has said something it doesn't mean they're not wrong, but the 4th amendment's use of the word "unreasonable" which is historically a signal indicating the need for judicial line drawing, puts this particular bit of line drawing peculiarly within their purview.

Here is what he wrote to Isaac McPherson in 1813: "That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property.