2007-01-31 11:28:54 · 19 answers · asked by Circlometry™³ 6 in Entertainment & Music ➔ Polls & Surveys
No, silly. They would just stare at the fish all of the time, because it is said to be relaxing.
2007-01-31 20:18:27 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
What's wrong with the Post Office? Everybody wants to put down the Post Office. I've never had much trouble with the Post Office. 99.99 per cent of the time they get the mail delivered on time. And it sure is a lot cheaper than FedEx. What's your beef with the post office?
2007-01-31 19:34:53 · answer #2 · answered by sal 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I wouldn't mind a tank. I'd never have to stop at traffic lights again and parking would be a snap! I'm not sure though if my customers would appreciate me ripping up their access roads with a tank. But it is a funny idea to toy with. BTW although its illegal to drive a tank on US streets its not illegal in Britain.
2007-02-01 18:58:36 · answer #3 · answered by MJ 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
yes, tanks are known to hit on targets so accurately, so it would help the post office to sort their mail more efficiently so no mail is lost!!
2007-01-31 19:56:01 · answer #4 · answered by they're savages 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
efficient yes
consistent?
HELLS YEAH!
Imagine the scene;
sunny morning, birds JUST starting to chirp, grass still a bit wet
and an effing Sherman comes tearing through the thickets!
2007-01-31 19:32:58 · answer #5 · answered by Keyser S 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
TAnks of oxygen? Perhaps
2007-01-31 19:32:40 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Each office already has a "loading zone"
2007-01-31 19:32:01 · answer #7 · answered by ©2009 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
They would probably be even slower than they where before but it would cut down on mail theft.
2007-01-31 19:40:29 · answer #8 · answered by ♫That'll be the Day♫ 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
How would tanks help they don't go very fast.
2007-01-31 19:32:02 · answer #9 · answered by CctbOh 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I've felt for a long time they need more days off, they only have 38 holidays you know.
2007-01-31 19:33:42 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋