From: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org (chakram-refugees-digest)
To: chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org
Subject: chakram-refugees-digest V4 #3
Reply-To: chakram-refugees@smoe.org
Sender: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org
Errors-To: owner-chakram-refugees-digest@smoe.org
Precedence: bulk


chakram-refugees-digest   Wednesday, January 7 2004   Volume 04 : Number 003



                               Today's Subjects:
                               -----------------
  Re: [chakram-refugees] OT: Accents [was: Last Samurai--*Leetle SPOILER*]  [Lee Daley <leedaley@optonline.net]
  Re: [chakram-refugees] Season 5         ["Cheryl Ande" <cande@sunlink.net>]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2004 20:13:03 -0500
From: Lee Daley <leedaley@optonline.net>
Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] OT: Accents [was: Last Samurai--*Leetle SPOILER*]

At 09:33 PM 1/4/2004 -1000, Jackie wrote:
><snip>
>
>To me, an American, a "neutral" accent is one used by broadcasters,
>without a regional dialect, but more closely Californian than anything
>else.
>
>It's the one that LL tried to use on XWP, and was usually successful at,
>though not 100% of the time.
>

Years ago the "standard" American accent (or lack of accent) was called 
"Chicago East" since that regional dialect had no obvious regional 
characteristics.  But then again how would I know? I'm from Joisey (aka New 
Jersey), and I don't think we have any accent. :)

"America and Britain two cultures seperated by a common language"


LeeD 
=========================================================
This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with
"unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body.
Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems.
=========================================================

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2004 21:21:58 -0500
From: "Cheryl Ande" <cande@sunlink.net>
Subject: Re: [chakram-refugees] Season 5

  Boeotian  wrote:

  <<But Anthony wasn't honorable.  He was determined to destroy his political
  opponents, at least some of whom didn't deserve it.  That's why Xena had to
  kill him.  The fact that he was a sincere lover didn't mean that he was a
  good guy.>>

  I think in his own way Antony was honorable.  He was upfront about his
ambitions and what he was prepared to do to get what he wanted.  Yes he was
ruthless enough to want to kill Octavian but he wasn't deceitful about it.
Being honorable doesn't mean that someone is good or that the cause he fight
for is good.  It does mean that he adheres to a set of principles in which he
acts without lying or decieving people.  Antony is honest in his dealings with
Cleopatra (ie Xena).  Everyone knows what he is willing to do and they
understand his motives.  So yes I think Antony is honorable but it doesn't
mean he would be a good ruler for Rome.

  CherylA
=========================================================
This has been a message to the chakram-refugees list.
To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@smoe.org with
"unsubscribe chakram-refugees" in the message body.
Contact meth@smoe.org with any questions or problems.
=========================================================

------------------------------

End of chakram-refugees-digest V4 #3
************************************