i was kinda thinking, not supporting can be worse than choosing the wrong side. mainly, you can never tell which is truly the wrong side till its all over, but you know you're wrong in advance if you fail to chose. :/
/me bows out before i get into more hot water.
[addsig]
Says he coming from Arkansas... "Hey maw! Let's cook us some vittles! Guh-huk!" 
i do not have a native Arkansan accent lep. in fact i have little that would define an origin in my speech at all. i think that stems from my constant moving as a child maybe. i grew up in the west as a child, but spent may winters in the east in the same time period. accents are acquired in your young years i think.
far easterner notice i am not from local, but so do far westerners. but mostly its speech choices of wording. for instance. when i delivered to California, i told them "i have the bus out on the road, i need to move it" apparently they do not use the word "road" in that context. they asked me where i was from, when i told them all they could say was "figures, from the woods" 
any who's ask TB, my accent, if i have one is not Arkansan.
I don't know what an Arkansan accent sounds like... You sound like a midwesterner, Orph. I think the closest thing I've heard to it that I could identify with a specific locality would be rural Ohio. Come to that however, most people east of the mountains in Oregon and Washington have a more moderate version of your speech. Call it heartland-speak, and leave it at that.
I guess I must have a west-coast accent (if there is such a thing) because people here sounded "normal" to me when I moved here. I don't know how that happened though since my parents were from the Midwest and I grew up in New England.
[addsig]
I don't know what an Arkansan accent sounds like... You sound like a midwesterner, Orph. I think the closest thing I've heard to it that I could identify with a specific locality would be rural Ohio. Come to that however, most people east of the mountains in Oregon and Washington have a more moderate version of your speech. Call it heartland-speak, and leave it at that.
good call, you know that east place i spent my time? it was indeed Ohio. my vocabulary has taken on an Arkansan slur over the years, but i do not "fit in" around here. my pronunciations are to precise for Arkansas.
as for your accent, you prolly picked yours up from your parents as a child, not so much your location at the time.
[addsig]
i was kinda thinking, not supporting can be worse than choosing the wrong side. mainly, you can never tell which is truly the wrong side till its all over, but you know you're wrong in advance if you fail to chose. :/
/me bows out before i get into more hot water.
i think you have a point gorby, but i also think that as a 3rd action, inactivity is not an option. by its very definition it defies the reasons.
as for the neutral countries, i wasn't alive in WW2, despite what you all may think about my advanced years. it was my understanding that those countries did not chose to be neutral, they opted for neutrality in favor of getting the s**t beat out of them. i have seen similar instances in cases like muggings. people chose to not act, in favor of not getting shot by the mugger.
may not be a fair representation, but it is accurate enough.
i do not think inaction is reason enough. sorry.
no offense intended of course.
[addsig]
i though London was on the bit of an island to the right of Australia?
[addsig]i though London was on the bit of an island to the right of Australia?
)as for the neutral countries, i wasn't alive in WW2, despite what you all may think about my advanced years. it was my understanding that those countries did not chose to be neutral, they opted for neutrality in favor of getting the s**t beat out of them. i have seen similar instances in cases like muggings. people chose to not act, in favor of not getting shot by the mugger.
may not be a fair representation, but it is accurate enough.
i do not think inaction is reason enough. sorry.
no offense intended of course.
This may have been true for some countries, but I think Switzerland truly was neutral out of principal rather than fear. The Swiss used to export the most feared mercenary armies in the world, until they were banned from doing so by international treaty. I think the Vatican is the only "country" that still employs them. I don't think anyone would want to attack the Swiss if only for purely historical reasons. Plus there is that mandatory military service thing (I think) so every man in the country has military training.
In the case of Canada, they have the luxury of living to the north of the U.S. As such they don't have any imaginable national security issues. I'm sure the Mexicans would eat them for lunch if it weren't for us.
as for the neutral countries, i wasn't alive in WW2, despite what you all may think about my advanced years. it was my understanding that those countries did not chose to be neutral, they opted for neutrality in favor of getting the s**t beat out of them. i have seen similar instances in cases like muggings. people chose to not act, in favor of not getting shot by the mugger.
may not be a fair representation, but it is accurate enough.
i do not think inaction is reason enough. sorry.
no offense intended of course.
sorry, i mean't south
.
) when I finish uni, assuming I can
save up the doe, which is looking less and less likely in my current
job. Good thing is Australian's are pretty much loved universaly, and
I'd like to see some corrupt eastern European cops try to fleece some
one who may or may not catch, kill and skin crocodiles with nothing but
a knife .
Or, if mistaken for American.
