Lady Asphyxia Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 [size=1][color=darkred]I myself really like Mythology, although I'm not a History buff, by any means. I also really like Medieval history. Otherwise, I'm happy to repeat mistakes already made...[/size][/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rain Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 [size=1]Ooh, I like History. Especially modern history, like WWII and Political history. Most teenagers I know find it boring, but it interests me for some reason.[/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sara Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Juuthena [/i] [B][color=ff00cc] [size=1]Fantasy relates to Medival, and Medival relates to Middle-Earth, and Middle Earth relates to LoTR, and LoTR relates to Legolas! ^ .^-...[/color] [/size][/B][/QUOTE] [size=1]Okay, that was funny. I like history, it's just fun to learn about. Full of random trivia facts. ^_^ I like random trivia facts.[/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan L Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 I always hated history.. so much to learn.. I always prefferred subjects where I could just learn a general pattern (ie. the equations and stuff in sciences) as opposed to a load of individual facts.. but that's just the way I am.. (I haven't done history since I was like.. 14, though.. with the way that english high schools work, so I dunno if I still am that way or what.. heh..) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KittyLynn Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 [COLOR=deeppink][SIZE=1]No offense, but I hate history. I find it stupid for me to learn, because I'm becoming a vet or a pet psycologist....History doesn't mix.[/SIZE] [/COLOR] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rain Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 [size=1]Yea, but a bit of History is always good to know. Makes it sound like you know what you're talking about in debates :p[/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan L Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Rain [/i] [B][size=1]Yea, but a bit of History is always good to know. Makes it sound like you know what you're talking about in debates :p[/size] [/B][/QUOTE] Same with science, cos half the time no-one else knows what you're on about so they assume you do ;p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kent Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Rain [/i] [B][size=1]Yea, but a bit of History is always good to know. Makes it sound like you know what you're talking about in debates :p[/size] [/B][/QUOTE] Actually, there is a very simple reason for that... Its because you do know what you are talking about. (contextually speaking.) If your debating something like the politics of the world and your just speaking from your own idealistic philosophy, your not going to be able to continue a legetimate debate with another person who is basing their argument on the facts of history. Just look at the situations we have found ourselves in on these boards dozens of times. We will always get into the current events of the world and eventually one party that is speaking out of personal opinion alone will have to yeild to the facts that another person knows based on their knowledge of history. With that knowledge of history you will know how we got into a situation, and what others have already tried to solve the same problem. History is the study of the past, and the past is what led us to the place we are today. Without understanding the past, we will never be able to truely progress. This is even true with subjects like science and math... Formulas and set patterns are all history that was established long ago so that the people of today who are seeking answers to similar problems will not have to go through the same experimentation that great minds of the past had to go through. Plus, its not like I have to repeat the most famous of all qoutes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LostProphet Posted March 12, 2003 Author Share Posted March 12, 2003 G.I. initially stood for 'General Issue'. It stood for the things soldiers were issued, and eventually became a nickname for the soldiers. It stuck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kent Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Ahh Haaa! It is a trick question. Notice I put ORIGINALLY in all caps to draw attention to it. The actual answer is galvanized iron. The term g.i./ galvanized iron was stamped onto the iron canteens and eating equipment that calvalry soldiers let dangle from their saddles. It was on history channel, the show mail call, with R. Lee Ermy. I trust them, plus, the term as used above, pre-dates the General Issue usage of the word which was picked up at the being of ww1 or ww2. (not sure) So remember that little piece of trivial knowledge. I also want to ask you if you know what was the city that Archduke Francis Ferdinand was assasinated in? and what was the first country to declare war as a result... and who did they declare war on? These aren't tricks but they are history questions any self proclaimed genious should know off the top of their head... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heaven's Cloud Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by gokents [/i] [B]Ahh Haaa! It is a trick question. Notice I put ORIGINALLY in all caps to draw attention to it. The actual answer is galvanized iron. The term g.i./ galvanized iron was stamped onto the iron canteens and eating equipment that calvalry soldiers let dangle from their saddles. It was on history channel, the show mail call, with R. Lee Ermy. I trust them, plus, the term as used above, pre-dates the General Issue usage of the word which was picked up at the being of ww1 or ww2. (not sure) So remember that little piece of trivial knowledge. I also want to ask you if you know what was the city that Archduke Francis Ferdinand was assasinated in? and what was the first country to declare war as a result... and who did they declare war on? These aren't tricks but they are history questions any self proclaimed genious should know off the top of their head... [/B][/QUOTE] [color=indigo]I always find it funny how little I am noticed...considering that I posted the awnser last night on the previous page...Lost Prophet, I gave you a cheat sheet, but you failed to use it...[/color] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transtic Nerve Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 This is obviously debatable, the question I'm about to ask I mean. Why do you think the US went to Northen Africa when they first entered WWII instead of going right into Europe? Be sure to take in account all information and "secret" agreements (thats a hint). I'm curious to know what you all think about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sara Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by gokents [/i] [B]I also want to ask you if you know what was the city that Archduke Francis Ferdinand was assasinated in? and what was the first country to declare war as a result... and who did they declare war on?[/B][/QUOTE] [SIZE=1]It's been a long time... I'm going to say Sarajevo. With support from Germany, Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia. Russia supported Serbia, Germany wanted Russia to back down... ::laughs:: With my luck, I've got 'em all mixed up.[/SIZE] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kent Posted March 12, 2003 Share Posted March 12, 2003 Well actually sara, you got them right. Unfortunatly I was trying to stick it to the "genious." I want to say to the question trans nerve posted that I believe it had not to do with secret agreements, but simple strategy. Why would you waste your time on an all out offensive and then leave you southern flank open to attack. That would make no sense. But you have sparked my interest with the idea that there is a secret agreement driving the strategic importance to attack from the south. Im not saying there were no agreements behind the scenes, Im just saying that when looking at the situation strategically, attacking from the south is without a doubt the best angle of attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonstar Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 :D I'm more into medieval history thatn anything else, that and ancient history like the greeks, romans, etc. I'm really into the mythology side of it, I love learning about other religions, especially the ancient ones.. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transtic Nerve Posted March 13, 2003 Share Posted March 13, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by gokents [/i] [B]Well actually sara, you got them right. Unfortunatly I was trying to stick it to the "genious." I want to say to the question trans nerve posted that I believe it had not to do with secret agreements, but simple strategy. Why would you waste your time on an all out offensive and then leave you southern flank open to attack. That would make no sense. But you have sparked my interest with the idea that there is a secret agreement driving the strategic importance to attack from the south. Im not saying there were no agreements behind the scenes, Im just saying that when looking at the situation strategically, attacking from the south is without a doubt the best angle of attack. [/B][/QUOTE] Here what I heard, and tend to see as my own opinion as well. Before America even entered the war, before Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt and Churchhill had a secret meeting, which they discussed the stratagies of war because it was enevitable that the US was going to be entered into this war some how. They decided that the liberation of Europe was going to be taken first, Asia later. They also decided the UN would be in place, as well as an uncondistional surrender by the enemy. By the time America officially got into war, it was right after Pearl Harbor. Which was in December of 1941. We didn't even invade Europe (our first proposition stated by FDR and Churchhill) till 2 and a half years later, on D-Day in 1944. But we were in the war so we had to do something. By this time, there was pretty much only an eastern front. Germany and Russia. Germany already had France and most of Eastern Europe. They had fought the British but the Royal Airforce was kicking the German's butts. So there wasn't much a western front, besides bombing raids in England and dog fights. America took a look at this and said "Hey... The Nazis, our enemy now and the Commie, our enemy 10 years ago and future enemy, are killing each other. Why should we do anything?" Just let them mow each other over, because hey, The more dead Nazis the better, the more dead Commies, the better. So we attack North Africa. Where Rommel is, but whopty do. We chased him around a while and did a bunch of nothing. We could have taken North Africa and then moved up through Italy, which we did do, but not right away. But that wouldn't politically correct. France was our ally before they gave up in 2 month or whatever. SO we should liberate France first, instead of taking the easy way through Italy. Thats where D-Day comes into fact. Thats why we didn't storm the beaches of Sicily lol. We went through France to liberate France and then the Soviets and us met half way, albeit, they took a little longer to get there, in Berlin. War in Europe over. It was all a political move to "attack" North Africa. I'm sure there's evidence to point otherwise, but you certainly can't rule out that thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest postbagboy Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 the problem with you Americans, is that you only teach/get taught about the history of your own country 95% of the time. what about the rest of the world?! that early Hitler Chinese queen that killed off missionaries by characterizing them as "demons"?! how the English had a war with the the Maoris after a damn treaty was signed?! i mean, jeez! don't you AMericans think of anyone else?! oh yeah, i am a history freak BTW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transtic Nerve Posted March 14, 2003 Share Posted March 14, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by postbagboy [/i] [B]the problem with you Americans, is that you only teach/get taught about the history of your own country 95% of the time. what about the rest of the world?! that early Hitler Chinese queen that killed off missionaries by characterizing them as "demons"?! how the English had a war with the the Maoris after a damn treaty was signed?! i mean, jeez! don't you AMericans think of anyone else?! oh yeah, i am a history freak BTW. [/B][/QUOTE] Well when refering to US history, it tends to be it's own course here. Also History is written by the winners. I mean, its the same reason the US thinks of George Washington as the hero and the Biritish think of him as a traitor... All hstory is taught from the viewpoint of the winner and thus certain things are left out. Like the killing of many Native Americans on the trail of tears. You won't hear much about that in history books. As far as what you said goes. What does not appeal to us will not be written by us. Different books have different things. They certianly aren't going to put a non-significant thing in a High School history book. The worlds history is much much more than can be fit in one little text book. I know that if you get more in depth history books, focusing on certain time periods, countries, or wars, you'll get those minor details that the HS history books almost always leave out. The same also applys to the rest of the world. English get taught English history, The Spanish, Spain's history... so ona dn son on... it's probably, logically more important, to know yourown countries hostory than that of the other countries. I mean, it's also important to know the history of others but not so much as your own. I'm sure you can say you learn more about your own country's history than you do about America's history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest postbagboy Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 yes, but, y'see. you Americans have to spell everything differently, all because you decided to not be under the British Crown does'nt mean it THAT far. like, mom, color, favorite. it's really spelt mum, colour, favourite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transtic Nerve Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by postbagboy [/i] [B]yes, but, y'see. you Americans have to spell everything differently, all because you decided to not be under the British Crown does'nt mean it THAT far. like, mom, color, favorite. it's really spelt mum, colour, favourite. [/B][/QUOTE] American is a different dialect of English. I don't call what Americans speak English, I call it American. Also, if you notice, I do tend to spell in English. Everytime I make refrence to my mother, I always type mum. It makes my friends go crazy. You'll notice to I'll type words with "ou" in them as well. You can't really expect a different dialect to be spelled the same. The Australians have done the same thing. They were once British, but they changed some of their language. My ex-boyfriend was from England so I got used to his accent, I have a pretty good one myself, and I know the difference between American and English. As well as some Auatralian. Many Americans can't pick out the differences between Aussie and English, but I tend to be pretty accurate. Anyway, I don't see what the language has to do with my post at all... or this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cora Jane 2 Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 [font=arial][size=1] Ah... History. I love it. Although I don't like my American Government class. Ah well. I am decent at it. I wouldn't exaclty call me a history freak, just some one who enjoys it.[/font][/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest postbagboy Posted March 21, 2003 Share Posted March 21, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Transtic Nerve [/i] [B] You can't really expect a different dialect to be spelled the same. The Australians have done the same thing. [/B][/QUOTE] that is'nt a dialect! that's called "slang". i mean, geez. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zemekis_ Posted March 24, 2003 Share Posted March 24, 2003 the north africa move was supposedly for airbases, petrol, to neutralize Rommel, and to have at it with Italy. From what I remember, the feeling was that the Italians would cave in a lot quicker than they did, and that Germans wouldn't bother defending the whole stinkin book (which they did) My grandad was a machine gunner in the infantry then, and he still doesn't like spaghetti :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Transtic Nerve Posted March 24, 2003 Share Posted March 24, 2003 [QUOTE][i]Originally posted by postbagboy [/i] [B]that is'nt a dialect! that's called "slang". i mean, geez. [/B][/QUOTE] No... American is a different dialect of English than propor english. Same as Australian is a different dialect than propor English. Hence why it's still called English and not a slang term like "ebonics" is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yu Law Posted March 24, 2003 Share Posted March 24, 2003 see you learn something new everyday lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now