Dear Sir or M-am:

Excuse me, I'm very sorry, do you have any material, even if not exclusively about that person, on Mihai Gheorghiu Bujor?

• He's mentioned once on Wikipedia, at Romanian Social Democratic Party (defunct). --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 20:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are synopsis of novels generally acceptable to add to Wikipedia, or are only novels with a significant social or cultural impacts permitted? There are several (dozen) novels that I would add a synopsis page for, if it is permissible. Faranya 21:19, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure why don't you have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Novels for ideas as to structure etc. Lisiate 03:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability criteria & Wikipedia:Spoiler warning.--Patchouli 03:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, but don't go copying back cover text. Write it in your own words. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched everywhere and cannot find which is the largest city in the world my metropolitan area, I can find land mass here and poputation statistics but it is still not the metropolitan area which includes other shires and towns that are included in a metropolitan area. Does anyone have or know where I can go to get the facts?

The Greater Los Angeles Area has 87,972 km^2, according to the List of metropolitan areas by population - none of the other top 100 metropolitan areas is larger.---Sluzzelin 22:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that depends on how you define the city boundaries. Mount Isa lays claim to the title and that got acknowledged by the Guinness book of world records. But it's size is 'just' 42.904 km², against 82.300 km² for Chongqing and 95.288.5 km² for Kalgoorlie, Western Australia. Or so the articles say. A government can easily get one of its cities at the top of the list by redefining the city boundaries. So the question is a bit pointless, unless you have a clear definition of what you want to know. Which starts with what you want to know it for in the first place. DirkvdM 09:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What type of architect style did Raphael use?

Have you read our article Raphael? JackofOz 23:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... it doesnt name a style that he used. I dont see why I want to know as the answer to the question. I want to know as it has been topic of discussion in certain circles lately. The largest city by metropolitan area was the question. Not population nor land mass or local government area. I just wanted to know given the definition of "metropolitan area" as given here at wikipedia. So i anyone knows could they answer it here. Many thanks to those of you who have tried.

??? 惑乱 分からん 21:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can I get in touch with Kosh the art director?

                                  Thank you, Art Vickner.

Try asking at his company. --Kainaw ^(talk) 23:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 19

82.57.231.34 21:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)== The first Christian response to the AIDS crisis ==[reply]

What Christian church (or denomination) was the first to respond positively to the AIDS crisis and when? Did secular agencies respond first?

The first Christian response was probably, "Praise Jesus! Them faggots got what they had a-coming to 'em." --Nelson Ricardo 03:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about your question, but I can give you a little backround. The thing you have to remember is that when AIDS was first discovered, it was called GRID (Gay Related Immune Disease). This had two major affects. First of all, there was a general negative reaction against it because it was a "gay" disease. The obvious second result was that many churches reacted negatively, due to their position on homosexuality. To many, it appeared God was striking back against the impure homosexuals. Also, many heterosexual couples thought they were safe, and didn't protect themselves. One must consider the fact that if the first case discovered was of a heterosexual man or woman, if AIDS would be such a prevailing problem today. --AstoVidatu 03:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Unitarian Universalist Association adopted a policy statement opposing AIDS discrimination in 1986.[3] I don't know whether this was the first denomination to take such a stand, but given their longstanding endorsement of LGBT rights they were probably among the first. Durova 17:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what is wrong with the comment from Nelson Ricardo above but he should know that 10% of heterosexual men have continuing sexual relationship with other men and hide it from their so called wives...jonica 82.57.231.34 21:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something which was never admited or accepted or even debated by the majority of Christian churches. I remember vaguely that the "venerable" Jerry Falwell told that "AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals.". Granted, Falwell is a "radical" example, but the trend is still there. Flamarande 13:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know what the first capital of the Ottoman Empire was. I saw a documentary, and remember it was "Borsa", but I could not find a city by that name near the area in Turkey where it seemed to be on the maps on TV. Does anybody know their history? | AndonicO 00:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Bursa. Actually I think there was one before that somewhere east of the Sea of Marmara but I cant remember the name. Jameswilson 01:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Söğüt, Osman I's native village, was the 'capital' until 1325/26. Then it became Bursa.---Sluzzelin 05:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template in the Ottoman Empire article lists all the capitals chronologically, with links to each. StuRat 06:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: If an atheist says "No religion is better than Islam", is he telling the truth?

Answer: He is only telling the truth if his religion is no religion. -- 202.168.50.40 05:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This raises the question of "what is truth?" It seems like the question is a bit ambigous or unanswerable. Go ask the person that said it if he is telling the truth. — [Mac Davis](talk) (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)05:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I read What is truth? in your post, I was reminded of John 18:37–38a: Then Pilate said to him, "So you are a king?" Jesus answered, "You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world—to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice." Pilate said to him, "What is truth?" —Wayward ^Talk 19:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It reminds me of a paradox by Raymond Smullyan asking which is better, eternal happiness or a ham sandwich? Since nothing is better than eternal happiness, and a ham sandwich is, after all, better than nothing, it follows that a ham sandwich is better than eternal happiness.---Sluzzelin 05:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unless he's a Muslim, of course. :) DirkvdM 11:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A jihadist strapped an atheist to a polygraph machine and demanded that the atheist makes a truthful statement regarding Islam. The atheist replied "No religion is better than Islam". Now what would the polygraph machine register? 210.49.155.134 11:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I get your point, but polygraph machines measure stress, not truths. — [Mac Davis](talk) (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)21:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After edit conflict:

What Sluzzelin probably means to say is that the statement "No religion is better than Islam" could be interpreted in two ways; "There is no religion better than Islam" or "Having no religion is better than being a Muslim", either of which could be applied to any other religion. The former could then be interpreted as "No religion is better than any other", which sounds like a basis for either pantheism (accept them all) or agnosticism (accept none). If we replace 'religion' with 'belief' (two different things) then the latter could be interpreted as "It is better not to belief in a god", which sounds pretty much like a basis for atheism. So if the atheist means the former, that could be the case (like MacDavis said, ask him). If he means the latter then that would make sense. But we don't know which he means and these are my interpretations anyway.

So is the atheist telling the truth? Beats me. :) DirkvdM 11:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But to get back to the point, of course, given the above, he could be telling the truth.

And what is a 'polygraph' anyway? A 'multidrawer'? Sounds like a cupboard. DirkvdM 11:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

<gasp> - you didn't think to try the "double square brackets" method of finding out the 'Truth' about what a polygraph is? :-) Carcharoth 16:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gasp to you too. Will anyone ever understand my sense of humour? Think about the word. Poly means 'more than one or many' and graph means some sort of drawing. Double square brackets to you too too (and that's not a funny skirt). :) DirkvdM 19:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Right. I got the 'multidrawer' comment in relation to poly-graph, but I thought you were serious in that you didn't know what a polygaph was. Double square brackets = red? Double square brackets is the next best thing. And I'm now trying to visualise double square brackets forming a skirt! Surreal. Carcharoth 19:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

double square brackets - that's better! :-) Carcharoth 19:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even a perfect polygraph could only detect whether the atheist thinks he's telling the truth. It cannot ascertain some kind of Platonic Truth (deliberately capitalised). --Dweller 11:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the "double square brackets" method of finding out the truth might not always work. Let's try it for the next question down: The meaning of life... Carcharoth 16:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It comes down to the belief that human logic is infallible. That is not remotely true. So, if you try to disprove some concept or belief by basing your argument on human logic, you are ignorantly professing an unfounded faith in something that is already known to be wrong. --Kainaw ^(talk) 16:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have to admit, atheist jokes aren't the best in the world... These are the best ones! -- the GREAT Gavini 12:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have a go at answering this  :¬)

See absurdism. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 08:22, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of life is 42.+

It's a movie by Monty Python.

This question has been asked many times before (e.g. Wikipedia:Reference_desk_archive/Humanities/November_2005), and will be asked many times again, however good the answer.--Shantavira 10:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Dutch, my standard answer is "De zin van het leven is de zin in het leven", but that doesn't translate well into English. 'Zin in het leven' means 'lust for life', but translating it into English like that wuold lose the pun. One option to bring it back would be "The meaning of life is to have a meaningful life", but that's lame in comparison. Then again, it's a lame question, so there you go. You asked for it. DirkvdM 11:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't the Dutch translate into "The meaning of life is to avoid all work and sponge off of society ?". :-) StuRat 12:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch StuRat, while I am well aware of why you wrote that, isn't that a bit of a personal attack :( ?Evilbu 16:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a running inside joke, Evilbu. StuRat 20:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I know what it's about, but I'm a little bit afraid (especially judging from DirkVDM's reactions) that he doesn't consider it a joke :(.Evilbu 23:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did he sign his post with a smiley ? StuRat 05:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, are you still on about this? Evilbu, whenever you see StuRat and me bickering, don't worry, it's a bit of a harmless juvenile pissing contest between us that's been going on for the better part of a year. Next time better steer clear if you don't want to get wet. :) Or join in if you can stomach it. DirkvdM 09:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's been trying to piss me off with such remarks for a while now, but I remain blissfully stoic under it. :) DirkvdM 19:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FOOLS!!!!! :-) You missed the obvious. Try putting [[ and ]] before and after the phrase in question. Click save. Click the blue link. Hey presto! Your answer. If there is a red link, write something to answer your own question, wait 100 years, and come back and see how much your answer has been "improved". ;-) ie. Meaning of life; Hey presto!; 42; The Meaning of Life. Carcharoth 16:44, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. 42 (number)#In_pop_culture and the disambiguation sentence at Presto - "Presto change-o, term coined for amateur stage magic" are what I was looking for. It seems the "double square bracket" method is not infallible yet. But it worked for this question. Carcharoth 16:49, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the previous time this question was asked (or at least the 28 November 2005 example pointed out above), no-one thought to point to the article meaning of life. This article was created waaaaay back in October 2001. Here is the original article... Carcharoth 16:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the lack of an apostrophe the question is gramatically malformed and therefore meaningless itself. DirkvdM 19:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"What is the meaning of live?" Easy: "To die, knowing our task is done!" Flamarande 23:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised no one has said "Wikipedia" yet... :) Dar-Ape (talk) 00:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FAQ??--Light current 23:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently trying to expand the list of historical time periods given at List_of_time_periods. See also the suggestions at Talk:List_of_time_periods#Page is still very incomplete. Can anyone here think of any more time periods to add to this, or find any other articles that treat this is a more organised manner? Thanks. Carcharoth 10:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "War on Terrorism" (2001-present) in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya, later Somalia, Iran, and more. "War against Islamists" (1979-present) driven by elite wealthy clerics with robes, their wives screaming with a headscarf; Islamist who wants to kill dissidents in the name of God, funnel taxes to their own bank accounts, force everyone to study Quran in schools, etc.--11:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Since when is an event a time period? Are you going to claim next that we need the "Opening Season of Survivor" time period. How about the "Twisted Sister's Nationwide Tour" time period? I know, I know... "That day I was driving home, but there was a gas truck that hit the median and spilled gas on the road, so the highway was shut down and I had to backtrack and go home on the side roads" time period. --Kainaw ^(talk) 13:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, wasnt history supposed to have ended sometime in the early 90's? Jameswilson 02:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The End of History - but doesn't anyone want to suggest more time periods? Periodization is a bit helpful, but not enough examples. I would like to have a comprehensive list. Carcharoth 13:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've found this 2 word term on wiki before, but I can't remember it now for the life of me.

The term refers to the act of altering another person's environment without telling her/him so that s/he gets paranoid or starts to think that s/he is losing her/his mind.

Examples would be moving her items when she is out of the room and acting like you didn't do anything, or dimming the lights while he is out of the room. I can remember reading an example on the wiki page where a man would pretend to leave the house and actually go to the attic or something and walk around up there, so that his wife would hear footsteps when she was supposedly alone in the house. To freak her out. What a guy, right?

It's actions like that where you manipulate the environment but act like nothing is out of the ordinary, making the other person think that it's "all in their head."

I would appreciate any help out there.... Thanks.

Gaslighting Durova 17:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU so much. You are my hero.

Aw, shucks... :) Durova 18:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I often hear about the "3rd Egyptian Army" being stranded on the Sinai during [Yom Kippur War]] and the "14th Russian Army" that sticked around in Moldova. However, I know next to nothing about military structures. Just how big is "one Army"... and much more importantly : just how many are there? (Is there a 35th Egyptian Army?) Who is in charge of one Army (Supreme General or something?) I have been going through Wikipedia, but the fact that Yom Kippur is more than three decades ago, and the formation of Transnistria more than a decade ago, doesn't make things easier... Thank you.Evilbu 17:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... you know roughly what a division is? A group of divisions is a Corps; a group of Corps is an Army (or "Field Army", sometimes, to reduce ambiguity). A group of armies would then be an Army Group, though that's somewhat larger than ever operates these days. Category:Field armies may be of some use. Shimgray | talk | 17:15, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, so "Army" is not the biggest subdivision of an army, Army Group is even above that. But how big are they and how many are there?

The size depends on a number of factors - anywhere from fifty thousand up? Soviet "armies" were historically smaller, the equivalent of a Western corps; don't know if modern ex=Soviet-bloc ones are still that way. Armies may also be administrative formaitions only controlling a small number of combat units - it's not unknown to declare a regional area to be under the control of a specific field army regardless of whether it has half the armed forces in it or twelve militiamen with shotguns.

As to how many exist... again, hard to say. Many are paper formations, which are just administrative bodies. Usually, anything of army-level only exists in wartime - people rarely need to handle units with that kind of broad scope in peacetime, unless you have a massive standing army. In many ways they're just bureaucratic conveniences until you have a major war, and don't bear much resemblance to the actual size of an army. Shimgray | talk | 18:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How many armies are currently in the US Army? How come a collection of armies is an army, and an air force is a colection of air forces (c.f the 8th Air Force in WW2) but a navy is a collection of fleets?Edison 04:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, the US Army has 6 field armies, mostly organized as regional HQs. 8th Army (Korea) is the only one specifically confined to a particular region. — Lomn 13:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last night while watching the pilot episode of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip, I heard serveral references to Patty Chayefsky. I'm hoping that you know who this person is and how s/he fits into the storyline of a network tv show about a network tv show. Thanks very much for your time. I appreciate it. Thanks, Kari

Paddy Chayefsky. Go rent Network - it's decades ahead of its time. Durova 17:16, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more that people don't know about Paddy Chayefsky. I want you to go to your windows and put your heads out and shout out his name. JackofOz 20:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was parodied in Mad Magazine in the 1950s or 1960'sas "Paddy Chafed-knee." Edison 04:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forget the nonsense. Go rent Marty. B00P 03:38, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I was studying history, they told us you weren't allowed to use encyclopedias as references. I think we also weren't allowed to use popular history books. I never got around to asking many of the professors why we couldn't do this, if we did it carefully. The one that I remember asking told me that encyclopedias were sometimes unreliable even for factual information, which I found surprising. So, can anyone tell me 1. Why would encyclopedias get things wrong when (presumably) they have scholars checking the facts? 2. Can you use popular history books as references in scholarly history papers/ books? and 3. If not, how reliable are popular history books, whether by historians or by lay people? The Mad Echidna 19:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedias are tertiary sources and, as such, don't really belong in a term paper. An encyclopedia can be a good starting point for research, but the practice of history is done by getting as close to original sources as possible. As an editor on Wikipedia's history articles, I've sometimes found myself in the position of wording a side issue very carefully within an article - one simply can't meander on endless tangents to discuss every possible scholarly dispute.

Here are a couple of examples from the FA Joan of Arc where I've worked extensively:

The future French king, Charles VII, assumed the title of dauphin as heir to the throne at the age of fourteen after all four of his older brothers had died. His first significant official act was to conclude a peace treaty with Burgundy in 1419. This ended in disaster when Armagnac partisans murdered John the Fearless during a meeting under Charles's guarantee of protection. The new Duke of Burgundy, Philip the Good, blamed Charles and entered an alliance with the English.

There's actually considerable debate over whether Charles VII conspired in this crime. Some scholars exonerate him as an innocent bystander, others consider him an accessory to murder. Since this discussion is background to Joan of Arc's career, the controversy is too much of a side issue to really discuss - so I worded this in terms of points where the opposing sides do agree: that the new duke blamed Charles VII.

In the aftermath of the unexpected victory, she persuaded Charles VII to grant her co-command of the army with Duke John II of Alençon and gained royal permission for her plan to recapture nearby bridges along the Loire as a prelude to an advance on Reims and a coronation.

The word bridges is carefully chosen. The French army captured three bridges, but only two of the three associated towns.

Compare the background discussion about the disputed French royal succession in Wikipedia's article to the comparable Encyclopedia Britannica article: Britannica mentions only that the English were attempting a military conquest in France, which in my opinion simplifies the issue to the point of inaccuracy: it's impossible to understand why some French people were loyal to the English government and persecuted Joan of Arc unless a reader understands how strong a claim the English monarch had to the throne of France.

Regarding the second part of your question, "popular" history books are often written by people who aren't historians. They might not be able to read the original languages of the source material, so they perpetuate errors in secondary sources or they support faulty conjecture through selection bias. Sometimes they introduce mistaken interpretations due to lack of background understanding. Joan of Arc facts and trivia outlines a few of the more famous fringe hypotheses. Durova 20:23, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Popular histories are usually highly synthetic and highly narrative driven. Academic historians usually prefer works which are more analytic and take more care to attending to the places where narratives are not clean. That's a very simplistic explanation, but as an academic historian I think it sums up the attitudes of the profession well. It is not that academics do not appreciate synthesis and narrative, but they generally find that popular histories flatten the past in order to make for a better story. Works which manage to be synthetic and narrative that do not do damage to the past are highly valued, but unfortunately relatively rare, both inside and outside of academia. --Fastfission 15:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who is Takao Aoki? What manga series has he made? Where did he learn how to draw manga like that? How old is he? I want a biography on him

Please be more polite. :) We're not robots. Type "Takao Aoki" into the find box on the left. — [Mac Davis](talk) (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)21:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is the name of the song in the Alpro Soya Milk adverts in the UK with the song line "that's what happy people do". Christopher x

I am doing a project for my History class. I need to find put how many people form my town went to the Boer War.

Country Canada. My Town name is Lindsay. Province Ontario.

My question. How many people from Lindsay, went to the Boer War.

I have searched the Web for about and Hour, and I have searched Wiki, and its Links.

And Thank you in Advance ^_^

Did you try your town library or Town Hall? I bet you that they have that sort of thing stored there. Ask the librarians, they like helping people find stuff; I'm not sure why. --AstoVidatu 22:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is closed, and my teacher gave us one day to do it -_-, so this is my last resort. Please help me. I also live out of town, and my parents wouldn't have been able to drive me into town in time because of there jobs.

Your teacher gives you 24 hours time to find the number of people in a lesser know town who went to fight in a lesser known war more than a century ago?Evilbu 23:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that other topic of yours. There is no problem with several people answering several times, in fact it happens all the time, making the craziest and fiercest degenerations possible too!:)Evilbu 00:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the answer is readily available in your town if think of the right place to check, like a memorial plaque or monument somewhere. Does that suggest anything to you? alteripse 03:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google "Boer War" Canadians and get http://www.afhs.ab.ca/publications/armstrong/boer/ "Canadians in the Boer War."

Lindsay has a cenotaph, which presumably has names from the Boer War on it...that would at least tell you how many people died there, if any (I mean, Lindsay is small enough that maybe no one died, or even went at all). Adam Bishop 13:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least one person went there: [4]. --Lambiam^Talk 17:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The name of that person is Sam Hughes. A bit more about him here. Wonder if... Sam Hughes? Carcharoth 21:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aaah. Isn't Wikipedia wonderful? :-) Carcharoth 21:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Sam Hughes is fifth on this Wikipedia search. I know it doesn't say how many people went to the Boer War, but it's something you can report back with. Is this Sam Hughes the most famous person to have lived in Lindsay, Canada? Carcharoth 21:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I was looking for Sam Hughes on that list of Canadians in the Boer War, but he is not there. A look at this biography of Hughes tells us why: "As the century came to a close, his business ventures were only sources of trouble. He found personal compensation in the militia where, in 1897, he had been given command of the 45th Battalion and promoted lieutenant-colonel. [Hughes then agitated to get a force sent to fight in the Boer War, but the higher-ups were having none of it, sending a force under someone else - Hughes was forced to join them as a civilian!] Once in South Africa, in the spring of 1900, he used his influence with British friends to gain command of a small force of irregulars fighting behind the main line of battle, under a British lieutenant-general, Sir Charles Warren. In two brief campaigns Hughes had some success clearing out pockets of Boer resistance. He was proud of his display of leadership. In a series of letters to newspapers at home and in the Cape Colony he boasted of his exploits, continued his fulminations against Hutton, and criticized the competence of the senior British command. Together with his refusal to carry out a crucial order from Warren, Hughes’s outrageous letters swiftly led to his dismissal by the British army with orders to return to Canada."

LOL! Sounds like a right character! :-) Carcharoth 21:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah...interestingly, I created that article! :) Adam Bishop 00:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 20

you know, its funny. i play san andreas from grand theft auto and for each population that adds up in the entire state, it doesnt ad up nearly to all the people i've killed so far, which is 20,500. yet there's still people all over the place. funny how games work.Jk31213 00:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a question? --AstoVidatu 01:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and this is a statement. Mufufufufufu. Hyenaste ^(tell) 02:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An exclamation! It must be!  ;-) -- the GREAT Gavini 11:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An observation, methinks. —Daniel (‽) 18:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a friken question. anybody with a brain stem can tell that. look, (only computer experts answer this question), why does it do that (refer to the question.)

Please be polite. You didn't ask the question "Why does it do that?" in the first comment. It wasn't at all obvious that you were even asking a question. --Charlene.fic 20:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

San Andreas (Grand Theft Auto) might help. Carcharoth 21:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the state gives special benefits to new people moving in, and the price for lots are quite low, considering there's a maniacal serial killer loose in the neighborhood. =S 惑乱 分からん 21:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When someone is appointed to the Privy Council of the United Kingdom, he or she receives the style The Rt. Hon. in front of his or her first name. If that someone is a man, does his wife receive the title as well? For example, is Cherie Blair's official style "The Rt. Hon. Mrs. Tony Blair"? I know it works that way for the wives of sons of earls, viscounts, and barons who are styled The Hon. (The Hon. John Smith's wife is "The Hon. Mrs. John Smith.") and for the wives of actual earls, viscounts, and barons. Do the same rules apply to Privy Counsellors? 04:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought only PC members themselves had the right to call themselves "Rt Hon". --Richardrj ^{talk email} 07:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. It stems from their personal membership of the Privy Council. Their spouses are not members, so don't get the style. JackofOz 08:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks muchly- I was pretty sure that was the case but I wasn't definite. TysK 02:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where can I get a pie chart of U.S. Government Spending in the year 2006 by category?

Kelly Jo Rome

• I had seen one in a Meet the Press Webcast recently. Based on my memory about 52% is Social Security and Medicare, 5% is defense, but I don't recall the rest. The source was the Government Accountability Office. If I weren't tied up with other tasks, then I would dig http://www.gao.gov/ for a pie chart.--Patchouli 05:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The Office of Management and Budget (http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/) has lots of data on the categories of US spending. According to the CIA Factbook page on the USA, though, 2005 military expenditures were 20% of the total budget expenditures; the 4-5% figure is relative to the GNP, a totally different number. --Fastfission 15:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, right the Soviet Union broke up and split up into different countries right; Russia and others impossible to spell or pronounce. So how come Estoina and Latvia, which were something like states of the Soviet Union, now speek Estonian and Latvien. Isn't that something like saying that Americans speek American rather than English.

thanx, --William dady 09:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert but I would imagine those languages were spoken in those countries even when they were part of the Soviet Union. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 09:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, they always spoke Estonian and Latvian. And Lithuania always spoke Lithuanian, and Ukraine always spoke Ukrainian, etc etc. But they had Russian forced on them from Moscow, so they were all bilingual (at least). When the USSR broke up, they didn't have to speak Russian any more. But many people still do, because it has become the lingua franca in those countries. JackofOz 10:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess an inhabitant of the Baltic states could give a more precise (and probably quite angry) answer...but the Baltic states were "eaten" by the Soviet Union during the Second World War. I once talked to a Lithuanian who claimed that they wanted to enforce Russian as much as possible (in schools etc...) but the language survived that half century. Maybe you can read Estonia? Evilbu 10:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe reading something like Russification or Ukrainization is more to the point. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They don't 'now' speak Estonian and Latvian - they always spoke them. Russia annexed them as part of the USSR, and forced Russian upon them. The problem that now arises is that as a result of the USSR, there are significant Russian minorities in all of the Baltic states, which only speak Russian, instead of the national language. In some cases, this means they can't even get citizenship, as that is only granted after passing a qualifying exam - in the national language. A comparable example would be if Scotland were to suddenly gain independence from the United Kingdom, and declare that Gaelic would be the national language, in which everything would be done - whilst some people would be okay, and it would be returning to the national language, many people who didn't speak it, yet were fully entitled to live there, would do so. --Mnemeson 12:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An extra question that pops up : what makes the Baltic states so important that they had to become a member of the Soviet Union. After World War II the Soviet Union "liberated" Poland, East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia,... but it did not become part of their country. They did kick some dust around like Prague. So why didn't they just do the same with the Baltic states? Keeping it under firm control but not absorbing it in their country?Evilbu 13:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To over simply rather: an important part of Russian policy for generations was about obtaining harbours which were not within the Arctic circle and therefore would not freeze up making them inaccessible during winter. It is much better to own a port rather then simply to have access to it as access could be denied at any time. See also The Great Game which also had an element of this. MeltBanana 13:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the Baltic States, they had only been independent for about 20 years prior to their annexation by the USSR, and had previously been part of the Russian Empire for at least a couple of centuries (in the case of Lithuania) and longer in the case of the others. -- Arwel (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not strictly related, but I also found Korenization, the Soviet policy that seemed to try and counter extreme Russification. Carcharoth 15:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Russian and Latvian are about as different (or moreso) as English and Spanish. Russian and Estonian about as different as English and Finnish. The languages are not mutually intelligible. 惑乱 分からん 10:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the following statement accurate? "All Jews are strictly banned from entering the country." From Der Spiegel online edition http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,druck-437017,00.html

Do Dubai/UAE authorities enforce an official ban on all people of ethnicity/heritage, how do they check all visitors if so or do they only apply a ban to Israeli nationals?

--Arri66 10:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to this Israeli nationals are banned from the UAE. I doubt non-Israeli Jews are banned from Dubai, unless they're very conspicuous. It's weird, though. -- the GREAT Gavini 12:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know about the UAE, but for a long time all Jews were in fact forbidden to enter Saudi Arabia, and one British ambassador to Saudi Arabia in the 1960's was declared persona non grata and told to leave when it emerged that his mother had been Jewish (though he was not Jewish himself). AnonMoos 14:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If his mother was Jewish, all Jewish authorities would consider him to be Jewish too (see Who is a Jew?). Just to clear that up. Batmanand | Talk 16:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does that also apply transitively if someone's greatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgreatgrandmother in the maternal line is Jewish? --Lambiam^Talk 18:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If none of your foremothers (is that a word?) converted, then they would all have been considered Jewish, and thus you would be considered Jewish. This only applies through the maternal line, however. —Daniel (‽) 18:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My cousin, who's Jewish, sometimes travels to Dubai for work, so I doubt they ban Jews from the country. She's American, though, not Israeli. -- Mwalcoff 23:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a question, if your mother is a jew and your father is the prophet Muhammad, then are you a jew? And would you be banned from the holy city of Mecca? 202.168.50.40 23:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As to how they would identify one as a Jew, well for males at least, the old "inspection routine" wouldn't be of any use, since both Jews and Muslims practice circumcision (as well as many secular non-Jews and non-Muslims over the past several decades, though the trend seems to be going back to the "natural look" these days). Personally, I'm against it. After I was circumcised I couldn't walk for over a year! :--) Loomis 01:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for Batmanand's comment on Who is a Jew, though all Jewish authorities would consider you a Jew as long as your mother is Jewish, I doubt that all too many other authorities would care too much about what the Jewish authorities think. In fact, I'm not even sure if the Jewish authorities would still consider an apostate to be a Jew, even if his/her mother was indeed a Jew. But I'd have to look into that one. In any case, the Saudi's probably didn't care whether it was the British ambassador's mother or father who was a Jew, and didn't care that he didn't consider himself a Jew either. As long as he had "Jewish blood", he was verboten. Remember that the Nazis didn't care much either about the position of the Jewish authorities on who is a Jew, nor did it matter to them much if a Jew coverted to Christianity. If s/he had Jewish blood, s/he was a Jew. Loomis 01:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ambassador's name was Horace Phillips -- we don't seem to have an article on him. It seems he was actually a practicing Jew (though it was widely reported in the media at the time that he wasn't). AnonMoos 04:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Starting article on him (not much yet): Sir Horace Phillips -- AnonMoos 05:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loomis states that he couldn't walk for a year after he was circumsized. If he was 8 days old when it was done, this is not as startling as he makes it appear. B00P 03:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

B00P. It was a joke. A bit of levity. Just an example of how my people have learned to use humour to maintain or sanity in the face of constant persecution. In this case, the particular persecution we're speaking of is the fact that for no other reason than the fact that we are who we are, now, in the 21st century, we're STILL forbidden to set foot in certain countries. How do we deal with this insanity? Anger? No, that's useless. It's having something of a dark sense of humour about the absurdity of it all that maintains us. Loomis 07:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im doing some reasearch on the populations of UK counties on wikipedia, but theres a problem. As well as the "proper" counties like Lincolnshire, Devon, Cheshire im finding the populations of the "non-proper" counties such as Leeds, Telford and Wrekin, Stockport (which are populous and urban enough to be kinda counties). The problem is that to ckeck for any mistakes i did some adding up. (by the way im doing it on ms excel). When i was adding up on Nottinhamshire it didnt quite add up properly. Wikipedia tells me that there are two parts to "proper" Nottinghamshire¹; the city of Nottingham (pop=278,700) and the rest of Nottinghamshire² (pop=726,600). Add them up and you get 1,005,300 which is fine but when i search for Nottinghamshire on Wikipedia i get the total for "proper" Nottinghamshire as 1,041,300. Is it just a typo or have i just lost 36,000 people???

¹ & ² (IMPORTANT!):

When you type in Nottinghamshire on wikipedia and you look at the information box/table thingy on the right hand side the population for the rest of Nottinghamshire is the bit where it says "- Admin. pop." and the bit for nottinghamshire including Nottingham itself is the population figure above it ( "- Total (2005 est.)" )

Thanx, --William dady 11:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've got the wrong figure for the rest of Nottinghamshire, it actually says 762,600 rather than 726,600. This is a classic example of a transposition error, i.e. one where you get two digits the wrong way round. The difference between two numbers in a transposition error is always divisible by 9, in this case 36,000. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 13:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "counties" or "proper counties," but the administrative subdivisions of England (and even more so those of Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland) have evolved away from the counties that existed before the 1960s. What now exist are a variety of types of subdivisions, from metropolitan boroughs to unitary authorities to metropolitan counties that (apart from Greater London) no longer have an administrative function but exist only as statistical units. The administrative counties that remain in England do not necessarily correspond to the counties whose names they carry. For example, adminstrative Cambridgeshire includes not only historical Cambridgeshire but also the historcial county of Huntingdonshire. Adminstrative Oxfordshire includes a large area that historically was part of Berkshire. Also, as you have found, many parts of historical counties have been split off as separate unitary authorities or metropolitan boroughs, such as the City of Nottingham that has been detached from the rest of Nottinghamshire. The unitary authority of Medway has been separated from Kent, not to mention those bits of historic Kent that are now part of Greater London. There are dozens of similar examples. The historic county of Middlesex has ceased to exist altogether even as a vestigial administrative unit. And as I've said, the administrative subdivisions of most parts of the UK outside of England bear little relation to counties. So, if you are looking for the populations of U.K. administrative units, you can find those. But you will have a hard time finding data on the populations of "proper counties". Marco polo 16:58, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When was the Aum symbol first used? I know that the Aum mantra dates back to the Vedas but I think the symbol may be much later. -- Chris Q 13:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be older than the alphabet it was based on... AnonMoos 14:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that that is true. Devanagari emerged out of earlier alphabets that could have included the symbol. -- Chris Q 15:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Aum article says that it's not based exclusively on modern Devanagari... AnonMoos 15:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Brāhmī & Indic first appeared in the 6th c. BC and Tibetan seperated in 7th century AD (the aum appears in Tibetan) (from History of the alphabet, I would imagine that it originated at some point between these dates. This is still a very large time period and only a guess. -- Chris Q 13:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My question centres around the age at which people in the US are encouraged to have sex.

It has become a trite subject in todays pop culture that the youth indulges in it very recklessly today.

What is the reason for the porn industry to flourish in the US? Why is porn viewed as a career choice in the US by many? Why is the encouragement given?

Kindly provide meaningful answers.

I don't think it's encouraged...I think it's just accepted... there's a difference between those things.. and it is accepted because the US is a free country, based on freedom of choice and of expression. many Americans would deny this 'land of the free' thing, saying that their country isn't fre at all, and that the media and blah blah blah, and even musical bands complain about this in their songs... but hey, if they can do it and survive, that means the US is indeed a free country...sorry , I got off topic, but yeah, to answer your question, I believe it's cause the US is one of the biggest 'empires' in human history that is such an advocate for human freedom. I also think the Roman empire was like that...but that may be just a missconception of mine.--Cosmic girl 19:16, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I kind of doubt that a career in pornography is considered by many Americans.--The Dark Side 20:36, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get these notions about the U.S.? Durova 21:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... such as that it's a free country. To stay close to the original topic, try having sex in the street in broad daylight and see how long it takes the police to pick you up and put you in jail. The obvious reply to this would be that that is immoral. Says who? Well, they do. In another culture it might be a perfectly normal thing to do. The US is as free as its own culture and morals allow, but then that goes for any country. So all countries are free. By their own standards.

That said, in reality the public sex is not ok in any existing culture I know of, but substitute that with bathing naked in full view of a village. In Borneo when I reached a village and had a bath in the river in my swimming shorts, the headman joined in, stripping down completely. Yet, when, later, during a week long forest trip, I stripped down in an all-guys situation, they were shocked (and Penan aren't easily shocked) because I didn't cover my groin - a detail I hadn't paid enough attention to in the village. Different strokes for different folks. To each their own freedom. DirkvdM 09:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So why could the headman join you? Shouldn't that have been shocking to them as well?: = Mgm|^(talk) 09:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wore a swimming short and he constantly kept his groin covered. DirkvdM 09:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it was the lack of cover that shocked them? Did you ask? --JohJak2 10:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was pretty obvious from the reaction. DirkvdM 09:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my reply was off topic. There are deep regional differences between different parts of the United States. While the original poster's assumptions don't really apply anywhere, some of the responses on this page have characterized the most permissive urban neighborhoods while overlooking vast regions of the country. If anyone asked that question in rural Virginia, they'd be answered with shocked silence. Durova 17:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After browsing through many of the responses I am still baffled regarding this issue. In the US A guy called Hugh Hefner has a playboy mansion & is scotfree & at the same time there are many americans who r obese , living below poverty & have to bear the brunt of taxes. On one side u r recognising every form of mental weakness & on the other side the law is convicting sex offenders & perverts. I fail to understand the concept of freedom. Its being overhyped by the mediaworld & people r gettng impatient for no reason.

Kindly clarify??

I'm not sure of what you're asking, to be honest, because your English is difficult to follow. I'm not trying to insult you here: I'm just trying to explain why I'm writing what I am. If it doesn't answer your questions, I apologize.

It's very common to believe that one's own morals and religion are somehow "the standard" against which the rest of the universe has to prove itself, and that anybody who has a different view or who acts contrary to your religion or morals is "evil" or "perverted". Generally, however, it's best to try to understand that people who think differently than you may be right, for them.

The same should go for those who take such positions as this--minus the "for them" clause which assumes that moral relativism is the only truth and that holding general standards is itself wrong (despite the fact that many religions do hold the same general standards (see Global ethic for example))--that is unless, of course, you want to admit that you are not being objective. The inquirer said nothing of others being evil. He or she has simply started an innocent dialogue which has been rather obnoxiously (and predictably) snubbed with patronizing or dismissive comments. The clash of civilizations going on in the world would benefit, I would say, by a little genuine humility and soul-searching from both sides (rather than platitudes--whether religious-based or not). 218.17.96.221 07:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For many younger people and less conservative people, any agreed-upon (or consensual) sex act between adults is acceptable; no exceptions, no discussion. For instance, watching pornography is extremely common among young men. They don't consider it in the least bit wrong because they use it as a masturbation aid, and they don't consider masturbation wrong in the least. They also don't care if you think it's wrong, because your morals don't matter to them any more than theirs do to you.

Most young people and less conservative people also don't consider Playboy pornography. They consider it extremely, extremely mild erotica. To them, pornography only encompasses graphic videos or photos of sexual intercourse of some sort. Playboy only shows pictures of heavily Photoshopped partially and fully naked women. Hugh Hefner doesn't show anything that, if painted, couldn't be hung in a major European art gallery. He's wealthy because at the time he began to publish his magazine he was the only one doing it in the mainstream. Men like to look at naked women, and he became rich.

People work in porn because it is extremely well-paying. You can Google "porn careers" and find discussions where women relate that they make more money working in porn for ten hours a week than they do working in regular jobs for 40 to 50 hours a week. If a person doesn't feel that casual sex is a bad thing and doesn't mind participating in pornography, then there may be an economic benefit for them to act in porn.

Remember, just because you believe or your culture/religion teaches that something is wrong, "perverted", nasty, evil, or bad, doesn't mean that other people agree. They may think that you're cruel or prejudiced, or that you're trying to impose your world view on the rest of humanity. A hundred years ago it was considered sick, wrong, and "perverted" in the Western World for a woman to admit she enjoyed sex with her husband, even to her doctor.

As for why people watch porn or have sex that perhaps you don't approve of: they like it. It's enjoyable. It's the same reason why people eat. I don't think that's so difficult to understand. --Charlene.fic 20:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After browsing through many of the responses I am still baffled regarding this issue. In the US A guy called Hugh Hefner has a playboy mansion & is scotfree & at the same time there are many americans who r obese , living below poverty & have to bear the brunt of taxes. On one side u r recognising every form of mental weakness & on the other side the law is convicting sex offenders & perverts. I fail to understand the concept of freedom. Its being overhyped by the mediaworld & people r gettng impatient for no reason.

Kindly clarify??

I would recommend you find a website that is set up as a discussion board. That is not the purpose of the Wikipedia reference desks. --LarryMac 13:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is your question, and why have you repeated exactly what you wrote further up this Reference Desk (even with the same heading of "Sex in the USA")? - Adrian Pingstone 14:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"living below poverty " I think the poster means that everyone in Mauritania, Somalia, Sudan, Iran, Myanmar, et cetera are wealthy because they have given up their Four freedoms.--Patchouli 14:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Except Saudia Arabia and Kuwait, anyone in the world who gave up the four freedoms essentially got screwed; they got nothing in return. These two oil rich countries are welfare states. However, neither accepts immigrants. You won't become a citizen even if you are born in these two countries.--Patchouli 15:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hefner is not a Scot, and he does not live free: Bunnies cost a lot of money, as do mansions. Edison 16:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this reference desk is capable of answering this poster's questions. Whatever sources of information this person has used, they've conveyed a profoundly distorted image. The best solution would be to travel and see the United States firsthand. Durova 15:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"on the other side the law is convicting sex offenders & perverts" — That's not exactly true. The United States has among the freest laws regarding sexual behavior in the world at the moment, though it has not always had such (i.e. sodomy laws were only wholly ruled unconstitutional three years ago). The only practices which are strongly prohibited in the United States is sex without consent (rape) and sex where consent is determined to be unable to be given (i.e. sex with children). Most Americans have what one could consider rather confused and conflicted views about sex (it is often valorized, esp. in the case of sexually active heterosexual men, while at the same time it is also condemned, esp. in the case of sexually active females and homosexuals), but the law has, over time, become extremely permissive from the point of view of how standards are elsewhere in the world. --Fastfission 15:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First poster, can you be a bit more specific. We have trouble understanding your question. You seem to be asking too many questions at the same time. Please, ask a specific question like for example: "Why are some people in America so rich and hedonistic while the vast majority are poor and obese?" or "Why America allows all forms of sexual pervertions (at least on video) and yet arrest those who commit them in public?". These question are much easier for people on this reference desk to answer than your confusing rant. 202.168.50.40 23:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a query for the original questioner: Why did pederasty not halt under the Taliban in Afghanistan? What exactly does Mullah Omar mean by calling non-Muslims "wrongdoers"?

Kindly clarify.--08:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I went thru all ur responses. Neither am i tryng to impose my view nor am i trying to prejudice someone. Everyone enjoys sex & watchng porn. But my feeling is that the value of women is deteriorating and sex is being over done for no reason at all. Every religion has its standard and different people have varying opinions about sexual orientation. But still the parallel world exists. How many people engage in unprotected sex before marriage & at what age? & how many believe in the institution of marriage in the west? What is the opinion of the west about religion & the values of faith?

Again you are asking numerous vague questions like "What is the opinion of the west about religion & the values of faith?". That question alone would take hundreds of pages to answer, with discussions of each religion and faith issue in each culture within each Western nation. A single specific question like "What is the average age of first sexual intercourse in the US" we could answer. StuRat 10:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alrite word it that way! My question centres around the same topic! What is the age & is there any moral standard of decency?

About 90% of the players in the NFL are black. Is this the result of affirmative action? How else to explain this over-representation? Is there an article in Wikipedia on this subject? As John Stossel explained on his special last week, maybe this topic is something Americans know, but just can't talk about in public: blacks are better athletes than whites. Carla B.

It's not affirmative action. At this point, though, I suspect a lot of it is societal expectation. The "black quarterback" stigma is still a subject of some debate at the pro level, for example. I'd be far more inclined to pin the discrepancies on such "nurture" factors as opposed to skin-color "nature" ones. — Lomn 15:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Part of this is socioeconomic: since African-Americans on average have less income than white Americans, there's more incentive for them to earn athletic scholarships to college. Middle class white parents are more likely to steer their athletically talented children toward law or medicine or engineering, which are perceived as more open and stable fields than professional sports. Statistically, an African-American college athlete is more likely to be the first person in their family to get a university education, so on average the sort of family and neighborhood career advice these young people get is probably different. It isn't wise to posit a racial difference when other factors play a substantial role. Durova 15:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is more of an over-representation of Samoans than blacks in the NFL. As for affirmative action, the NFL is all about winning games. No team is going to take on blacks to be nice. They take on players who win games. The same goes for the quarterback issue. They won't refuse a black quarterback if he will win more games. --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually about 70%, but it is quite apparent. It's almost assuredly both a natural and a social phenomenon. Speed is largely a physical characteristic, and there are of course differences in physical characteristics among ethnic groups. I read once that people from West Africa are, on average, the fastest in the world. Most African-Americans are of West African descent. The differences among ethnic groups in things like speed and strength are quite small, but are magnified when you're looking at the best of the best. If you were to chart average speed by race, blacks would have a bell curve very slightly to the right of a similar bell curve for whites. So on average, the difference would be small, but if you were to look at only the fastest 1% of people, most would be black.

But society plays a big role, too. Boxing was once dominated by Jews and Italians from their own ethnic ghettos. After WWII, blacks owned the heavyweight division. But now, white people from the former Soviet Union hold all of the heavyweight belts. Someone asked one of the defeated African-American champs what's happened, and he said there's just not enough black (or white) Americans who grow up wanting to get hit in the head for a living anymore. There are, however, a lot of African-Americans who see football or basketball as their way to success and are willing to work to make that happen. -- Mwalcoff 23:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was the subject of a John Stossel episode broadcast just recently. Rmhermen 01:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The black quarterback's time is here. Look at the starting QBs in the NFL who are black -- Donovan McNabb, Daunte Culpepper, Michael Vick, Steve McNair, Aaron Brooks, Byron Leftwich, Vince Young, Charlie Batch, David Garrard, Anthony Wright, etc. There will be more in the upcoming years. This is quite a change from a few years ago. It's only the Rush Limbaughs of the world who find it necessary to attack a quarterback merely because he's black. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you making reference to Rush's comment about a black quarterback being overly scrutinized because the press previously over-praised him simply because he was black? How is that an attack on the quarterback? It was an attack on the press' treatment of a black quarterback. There are many reasons to hate a pill-popping ass like Rush. We don't need to make up fake ones. --Kainaw ^(talk) 00:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The easyJet article says;

...easyJet has recently come under criticism in Germany for not observing EU-law 261/2004. In the case of annulment, passengers are granted the right of being reimbursed within one week. EasyJet does not return the money paid for a ticket unless massive pressure is exerted; e.g. by the media. So passengers regularly have to wait for months for reimbursement of their expenses.

If a company fails to follow law, couldn't a victim of the company sue for a whole bunch of money? I'm guessing not, 'cause then you wouldn't get companies ignoring laws, but then my question is why not? My basic human rights have been violated! --Username132 (talk) 15:04, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure which laws might apply and don't know the particulars of German civil law, but as a rule of thumb a basic fact of civil court cases in West European countries appears to be that you don't get awarded substantially more than actual economic damages suffered (including missing out on expected future income). --Lambiam^Talk 18:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In theory, you certainly can sue a company if you have suffered some financial loss as a result of something it has done wrong. But bear in mind that to show they had broken German law, you would probably need to hire a German lawyer and go to a courthouse in Germany - which would be expensive in itself. One might not approve of the approach Easyjet takes, but in purely commercial terms it can be defended - and they are well aware that some people who might be able to claim refunds decide that it's all too difficult and just don't bother. And as rightly pointed out above, even if you did sue them and win, you wouldn't get much more than a refund on your ticket.AndyofKent 23:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that because it says 'EU-law', the law covers all of the EU? In suing them wouldn't you also get the cost of the lawyer covered? And payment for the extra time you had to spend in order to get your refund? --Username132 (talk) 13:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Punitive damages are those awarded to punish a company for gross negligence leading to death or damage to the claimant. However, I doubt if punitive damages could be claimed in such a case. StuRat 10:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to find the scripture that states; "doing somethings in moderation." i have not been successful in find the particular passage of scripture. Can you help me.

"Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at hand". (Philippians 4:5 and Weight Watchers). -- DLL ^{.. T} 16:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or possibly "every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things" (1 Corinthians 9:25), which is often given as a citation for the common proverb "be moderate in all things". — Haeleth Talk 16:54, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"... including moderation". JackofOz 20:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure "somethings" is meant to be expressed as one word? Perhaps "somethings" is indeed a compound word I'm unfamiliar with, in which case please ignore the following. Otherwise, I'm pretty sure it would help in your search if you expressed "some things" as two separate words. I've just never heard of the word "somethings". Loomis 22:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm well known for my excessive moderation." :-) StuRat 10:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having visited NYC several times, I am struck by the sudden transition from super-priced real estate to slums in upper Manhattan. Why is this? It would seem that if Manhattan land is so valuable (second in the world to Tokyo), the development of super-expensive commercial and rental properties would continue its march northward. Could the reason be the racism which created slum conditions in Harlem? But that just begs the question. Developers would seem to have great incentive to clear slums to build on any Manhattan land. Craig

It appears that you are assuming there is an infinite supply of developers to turn the slums into expensive real estate. There is a limit on the number of investors who are willing to develop in NYC. There is still a lot of room for development potential south of central park (Hell's Kitchen). So, there's no need to march northward (yet). --Kainaw ^(talk) 15:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which side of upper Manhattan do you mean: east or west? Riverside Drive and Claremont Avenue remain middle to upper middle class a good way into Harlem, yet there are depressed pockets scattered through the Upper West Side. There's even a little cluster of projects just south of Lincoln Center. Those spots are holdovers from decades ago when most of the west side was depressed. Certainly there are developers who'd like to turn a profit. At the same time there are serious problems in some neighborhoods that drive people away and community residents often resist gentrification because they don't want to be driven out of their apartments. Generally when a neighborhood does improve it's the artists who lead the way: they come for cheap studio and theater space, then coffee shops open, then recent college grads move in. There are a finite number of multimillionaires, even in New York, and those people don't want to see crack vials on the sidewalk or people urinating on the stoop. Durova 16:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the answer to this question is the concentration of public housing in upper Manhattan. These housing projects are publicly owned and off-limits to developers. They tend to house the most impoverished New Yorkers and tend to be centers of various social ills and crime. As the previous person commented, nobody who can afford to spend a million dollars on a condominium is willing to live with gunshots ringing in the street or drug addicts urinating on their doorstep. So even the privately owned land in those neighborhoods cannot attract upscale development. Marco polo 17:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Public housing doesn't absolutely stop gentrification: the Lincoln Center area is one example. The larger the project, the more resistant the neighborhood becomes to gentrification, and the public housing projects in Harlem are very large. That said, it's rare to hear gunshots in New York City in any neighborhood. Violent crimes are more likely to be committed with knives. Durova 17:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, violent crimes are more likely to be committed in suburbs, honsetly, real life isn't a crime drama. If you can't find enough violent crimes in the burbs, keep going until you hit ruralality--152.163.100.72 18:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The statistics I've seen might be a little out of date, but most of the serious crime in New York City concentrates in a few of the poorest precincts. Overall it's far from the most dangerous city: Miami and Boston are much more dangerous in per capita terms. New York has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country. Durova 21:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the exaggeration about gunshots. But another issue that we haven't mentioned is distance. People pay premiums for Manhattan real estate so that they can be within walking distance or a short cab ride from high-paying jobs in Midtown or on Wall Street or from trendy restaurants and shops in Soho, Tribeca, the Village, or the Upper East or West Side. The neighborhoods in upper Manhattan that have resisted gentrification are well outside walking distance of these affluent destinations. Furthermore, affluent people will be targets for mugging if they walk down some upper Manhattan streets dressed for dinner at an upscale restaurant. Even a cab ride to an affluent destination could be long and tedious due to traffic. Affluent people are not going to pay anywhere near the premium to live in upper Manhattan that they would pay to live in Soho or Greenwich Village. If they can't quite afford lower or midtown Manhattan, they are more likely to consider someplace like Park Slope in Brooklyn, where at least they can walk to trendy places and meet people of a similar class while walking the dog, than to brave the scariest parts of Harlem. Marco polo 19:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sort of agree. That doesn't explain why Alphabet City and, to a lesser extent, Hell's Kitchen still exist or why Washington Heights (at Manhattan's extreme northern end) is middle class. Queens is poorly served by the subway system yet it has the highest per capita income of any borough (extreme poverty in parts of Manhattan cancels out some of the borough's wealth). Remember also how hard it is to catch a yellow cab in some parts of town. What tends to happen is that New Yorkers have strong neighborhood affiliations and those who change neighborhoods select from a few options where they feel comfortable. So a Park Slope resident who gets a raise and decides to move to Manhattan would probably choose the Upper West Side or Greenwich Village, while a Brooklyn Heights resident would be more likely to move into Tudor City or the Upper East Side and a Williamsburg resident might go for Tribeca or Soho. Durova 21:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 100% sure on this, but I've always assumed the whole thing was one big socio-political mess. At the heart of the mess is Manhattan's policy of rent control. The heavily (pretty much exclusively) black-populated residents of Harlem strongly favour these policies. That's reasonable, what tennant wouldn't? So they then elect city councillors that make sure that these rent-control policies stay in place. Unfortunately, in this case, rent-control is a double-edged sword. On the one hand it keeps housing costs down, but on the other, it inevitably turns all the property-owners in Harlem into slumlords. If the law won't allow property owners to collect in rent an amount that is sufficient to keep the property in decent condition, well you inevitably end up with slums. It only makes sense when you think of it.

I don't agree with the idea that lower and midtown Manhatten has "enough" land to meet demand. After all, Manhatten is pretty much the most valuable island on the planet for its size. I agree with the questioner that it doesn't seem to make sense that, for example, while the Upper East Side, one of the wealthiest neighbourhoods in the world ends somewhere between 96th and 110th St., anything beyond that is pretty much worthless. That just defies common sense. The problem has to be rent control.

Unfortunately, the most sensible answer is also the most highly racially sensitive. I'd say the most sensible answer would be to allow for a more economically realistic rent-control policy, one where the property-owner actually has an incentive to invest in his/her property, and legislate incentives for the building of affordable, decent, housing somewhere off the island, on any of the four other boroughs, where the land is far less valuable, and the economic factors leading to the whole "slumlord" phenomenon simply won't exist. Unfortunately, what I see as the most sensible answer, is as well the most racially sensitive. No city councillor would ever suggest it. In fact I can see the mere mention of it being regarded as a major faut-pas, and leapt upon by black politicians, who, being politicians first and black second, would be "enraged" at the "racist notion" of "moving the Black Man off the Great Island of Manhattan and pushing him into the periphery in order to make room for the White Man!" It's all bullshit. Everybody would be better off. Unfortunately, politics being politics, it'll never happen. Loomis 23:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi , I still need some help finding the painting by Leighton Sumner.

If the suggestions people made here six days ago have not been useful, it looks as though we can't help you any further. Have you tried a specialist forum? For example, there are thousands of art forums on Yahoo groups.--Shantavira 17:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Engraving by an Artist Ackerman #11325 1871. The back has a stamp from Paris. Is there anyone out there who knows anything about this piece......pinky 3

Hi ,I have recrently been having problems with youths who are shouting demeaning rubbish and has then escalated into stones being thrown and actually chipping my windows.I am becoming distracted and increasingly worried by the behavior.I am a 26 yr old woman who dresses alternatively and live with my long haired partner.Neither of us has ever knowingly distressed anyone and yet living in an area with many people wearing tracksuits and sovreigns it is getting increasingly difficult . I have already had a stand off with some of them and told a few white lies to try and make it easier on us . I would really appreciate some good advice on this matter. Thanks for taking the time . Love , Peace and Respect.xxx

• "having problems with youths who are shouting demeaning rubbish and has then escalated into stones being thrown and actually chipping my windows" So, it's like an undergrad lecture hall then?--152.163.100.72 18:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm personally opposed to its use, there is The Mosquito. --Allen 18:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good fix for lecture halls, of course driving away the entire class might have some consequences (: 152.163.100.72 18:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, have you tried the police? You sound like you're from Britain, and I don't know the law there, but you could probably get them on harrassment, assault, property damage. You might be worried that the police wouldn't take it seriously, and indeed they might not, but on the other hand they're often not real fond of mean teenagers either. You might also wonder what they could do to help if the kids are just yelling stuff and then running, but if they increase patrols they might well catch the same kids doing other illegal things nearby. --Allen 18:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There may be grounds for Anti-Social Behaviour Orders, if you feel comfortable with asking for such an action. Bwithh 01:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just how "alternatively" do you dress ? Perhaps it would be a good idea to tone it down a bit, while in public. StuRat 20:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you are having problems with chavs. Carcharoth 21:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Tone it down a bit", Stu? How un-American of you. She has the right to dress any way she wants! No? :) In any case, have you tried the cops? That would be my first suggestion (seems that lately I'll I'm suggesting people do is call the cops). And by the way, what's a sovreign? I'm feeling a bit embarassed to ask. Loomis 22:22, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, you both have a point. I oppose the criticism to the Muslim cartoons, but you won't find me with a Muhammed=Bomb T-Shirt in the immigrant's outskirts of Ghent either...Evilbu 22:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

here, Sovereign ring. hehe.Philc _T^E_C^I 22:31, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Phil. But it's just a ring. I was imagining it was something a bit dirtier. :) In any case, Evilbu, I think you're taking what I said too literally. I don't necessarily believe in what I just said, I just said it sarcastically to Stu, since he's American and I'm Canadian, and what he said about "toning it down a bit" sounded much more Canadian than American. Come to think of it...perhaps we were switched at birth by mistake...he's to the left of me politically, yet apparently believes that the way one should dress should take community standards into account first, and individuality second...very interesting...hmmmmm...I'll have to put some thought into this one....:-)

Well, there's two issues here:

• Dressing so as not to offend the community. I would say people should do this voluntarily, but am opposed to most laws FORCING people to do so. I suppose I would make exceptions for clothing with images and/or writings encouraging murder and terrorism, like the ubiquitous Che Guevara T-shirts: [5].

• Dressing so as not to get yourself assaulted or killed. I suppose if adults want to dress in a way that causes them to be victims of violence, that's their call, too. Parents shouldn't be allowed to dress their kids in such a way, however (sending their white kid to all-black school wear a KKK uniform, for example.) StuRat 04:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat, I think we should be careful when using the word "cause" in relation to violence and clothing. A lot of people feel that saying a person's clothing choices can cause them to be attacked shifts the blame from the attacker to the victim. I'm sure that's not what you meant, but it is a hot button for a lot of people. --Allen 05:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stu, I think that Allen was referring to rape in particular, and the whole "if she was dressed like a slut, she was asking for it" mentality. Loomis 23:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say clothing can be viewed as any portion of the blame for violence, from 0%, say, if someone inadvertently enters a gang territory wearing the colors of an opposing gang, to near 100%, say, if someone wears a KKK outfit into an all black area intentionally. StuRat 11:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Logically, I can only see 2 realistic choices. One is to keep a low profile and hope they go away (which is a passive solution) and the other is an active solution and involves getting help from your community to defend your rights. That may involve assistance from your neighbors (assuming you are on good terms) or requesting help from the police (which is, of course, stressfull, time consuming, and frankly a pain in the ass).

Many teachers should know (though most probably haven't realized yet) the futility of verbal corrective actions towards delinquent youths. The youths you've dealt with probably wouldn't even be classified as delinquent; they're more likely just ignorant and awkward, unknowingly giving in to what seems to be a natural human tendancy against change and originality. Getting angry or threatening these guys will not help you, it will probably only make the situation worse. They don't expect you to be able to protect yourself, and you shouldn't expect them assume that, either.

If you feel strongly about your alternative lifestyle, then you have to be prepared to stand up for it. That doesn't mean getting pissed off whenever you're faced with ignorance. It may be a bit late now, but you may have had more success if you had approached the youths at first, while they were still being just "insulting", and asked them what their problem was. At the very least, they would have laughed and walked away, but you would have taken the fun out of it for them, and they probably wouldn't have come back to throw rocks at you.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  06:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forget any kind of negotiation, these people are animals. Your culture and theirs are so different finding any common ground will be almost impossible. Forget the police, too. They'll only get involved if something serious happens, and then it'll be too late. Take sensible precautions while you have to live there, carry an alarm, be careful when you're alone, at night and when they may be drunk. And as soon as possible move into the most expensive place in the most affluent area you can afford. Rentwa 11:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You wouldn't be, by any chance, and old person?  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  17:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are in Britain, this is exactly the sort of thing ASBOs were meant to deal with. Try going to the police, seriously, before it gets worse. Skittle 12:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Practical advice

Whilst you try to ingnore them, both of you take a course in martial arts (I recommend ju-jutsu- cos its viscious!). THen when you are reasonably proficient (they wont be), give the leader a good kicking! (having tried to reason with him nicely first)--Light current 19:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Next time they shout any thing, just sa 'Yeah, yeah thats right!' Smile and wave and walk on (looking over your shoulder) In other words, let them think theve won the encounter. Keep doing this until you are confident you can take the bastards!--Light current 19:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, becuase you are dressing like hippies or something, these guys think youre soft. Go and buy some combat fatigues and big boots and go out in those a few times. THat'll get em wondering what the hell you really are!--Light current 19:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who or what is Bonnie Brae? I keep coming across the name: neighborhoods, churchs, treament centers, streets. I can't seem to find any historical information on the name though. Any info would be appreciated. Thanks.

--Doc311 18:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think "Bonnie Brae" just means "pretty hill" in the Scots language. --Allen 18:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... and Scotland does have pretty hills. 'Bonnie braes' also appear in the first line of the popular song (The Bonnie Banks O') Loch Lomond.---Sluzzelin 10:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty, and they'll make you pretty goddamn car-sick if you're sitting in the back seat.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  17:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how might the speed of the universe expanding be used in an argument about the existence of god? thanks--86.142.208.253 18:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean in favor or against god's existence? The only one I can think of is that the fact that we can see so many stars that are several million light years away proves that the earth is older than a few thousand years. A Clown in the Dark 19:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last I heard, measurements showed the density of the universe to be nearly "flat" (see Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe#Flat_universe); that is, the universe will neither re-collapse nor continue expanding without bound, but rather expand more and more slowly, approaching an asymptotic size. Of course, nearly flat isn't flat; the universe would have to be exactly flat to be flat, and our measurements aren't precise enough to tell yet. But some people argue that physics doesn't see any reason for the universe to have a one particular density or another, so the nearly-flat density is suspicious. They argue that it's more likely that either there is some unknown principle that makes the universe flat, or that the universe was designed to be flat -- otherwise, they argue, what are the chances that it would be very nearly, but not quite, flat? Arguing for the existence of God in this way is one facet of the Intelligent Design movement's version of Fine-tuned universe arguments. I can't find anything in Wikipedia about this particular (flat-universe) argument and its relation to ID; it might be tucked away in a corner or it might still need to be added to the encyclopedia. --Allen 20:18, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last I heard, the expansion of the universe is accelerating. See Lambda-CDM model and Big Rip. I'm not quite sure how this might be used as an argument for or against the existence of a deity, but much depends on your definitions. For example, if you define "god" to mean "a negative deceleration parameter", then the inferred acceleration could be used as strong evidence for the existence of god. --Lambiam^Talk 21:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the universe can be flat and expanding at an accelerating rate at the same time. The Lambda-CDM model actually assumes a flat universe - indeed, ΛCDM uses the flat universe assumption together with estimates of baryon and dark matter densities to calculate an implied dark energy density. Gandalf61 14:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Easy! Can god create a universe where the speed of the universe expanding is less than the speed of sound? 202.168.50.40 23:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If so, wouldn't we have heard of it already? - Nunh-huh 06:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since it isn't possible to measure the speed that space time is expanding (if it (still) is) you could use that as some sort of lame argument, as it is similar to the argument that it would be impossible to detect the existence of an omnipresent god. It's an attempted proof by means of falsifiability, and it works for the Invisible Pink Unicorn.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  06:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the Bible says in a couple of places that God "stretched out" the heavens (sky). But trying to prove God's existence scientifically is like trying to detect wood with an x-ray machine. If we could prove God's existence by scientific means, we wouldn't need faith. It would mean that the people of today's world would be able to approach God via a different means (i.e., on a scientific I-can-prove-God-exists level) to those who have lived previously, or to those who have limited scientific knowledge. But God has put us all on the same level; the only thing that will connect us with him is faith. BenC7 09:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is to say that we need faith in the first place? What is to say that approaching communication with god is a bad thing? These rules have been made by theologists to restrict our ability to understand the existance of god within a theological mindframe. I really don't go for explanations that only make sense if you assume they are true.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  17:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theo logical. Anyone find this word strange? I man theology is about the most illogical subject ever.--Light current 19:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can any one tell me the name of the recent Federal judge and the circumstances in which he wrote that the US Constitution was not a suicide pact. I believe it was related to the rights of the nation to defend itself against terrorism even if, in doing so, it placed minor limitations on civil rights. Thank you. Jerrells 19:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)Jerrells[reply]

See The Constitution is not a suicide pact. -- Mwalcoff 22:47, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be how much money a rich person is paid each year. Did you have any particular rich person in mind ? StuRat 20:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but I'd say it's a bit more pejorative than that. It tends to refer to a lazy corporate exec who's grossly overpaid in relation to his/her contribution to the company and in relation to what s/he actually contributes. For example, despite his immense wealth, and despite whatever personal opinions one has about him (I'm certainly no big fan), someone like Bill Gates just doesn't seem to fit into the category of a "fat cat". Loomis 21:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would "scrawny cat" work for William H. Gates III? --Lambiam^Talk 22:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, there is actually a term "thin cat" (meaning sort of the opposite to fat cat), which might catch on (or it might not). I discovered it at Talk:Fat cat, and a Google search found this article on "fat cat businessmen", and also a use of the term 'thin cat': [6]. Carcharoth 23:29, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fat cat? Carcharoth 21:33, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Carcharoth. That was so much easier. Why didn't I think of that? :) Loomis 22:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably cos dictionary definitions are usually in wiktionary. Which you can also link to from here rather neatly if someone asks what wikt:philosophy is, as opposed to the Wikipedia article on philosophy. Let's see if wikt:fat cat exists. Carcharoth 23:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A "fat cat" makes at least twice as much money as the person who is complaining, while doing no discernable work of value, other than saying "Work smarter, not harder," "Think outside the box," and other Bullshit Bingo phrases. see Buzzword bingo or http://www.companyculture.com/topics/BullshitBingo.htm The Pointy-Haired Bossin the Dilbert comic strip certainly qualifies. Edison 14:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This local body seems to be set up in many different ways. Is there a common definition? Are these boards unique to the US? Can anyone offer a translation into German? --LampshadeHH 20:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A possible translation might be Zulassungsbehörde für Baugenehmigungen, but it does not carry the esthetic aspect of "design review". The term occurs in untranslated form in two articles on the German Wikipedia: de:Ina Garten and de:Reston. A more literal translation is Entwurfüberprüfungskollegium. There is or used to be a similar institution in Dutch municipalities with the strange name of schoonheidscommissie ("beauty commission") which was the bane of modern architects. --Lambiam^Talk 22:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this up, I wasn't so sure anybody would... ..behörde may sound a bit too official, since these bodies seem to be made up in all kinds of ways, with experts, members of the public etc. Lacking an established translation the English term could of course be left untranslated, but a short definition or explanation would still be needed. What are, generally speaking, the powers of these boards? I love the Dutch term schoonheidscommissie. Wouldn't it be fun to introduce that into other fields as well? Thanks again. --LampshadeHH 04:27, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the Battle of Britain had been lost, would the Nazis have been able to invade. If so, how difficult would it have been for them and how long would it have taken to supress the country?--Light current 22:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any plausible German invasion fleet would have been carried in barges. Any plausible barge-borne invasion fleet could have been sunk by the use of half a dozen fast destroyers - not by actually sinking them, just by steaming up and down the channel at thirty knots, the wake from which would have swamped the barges!

In an actual invasion situation, where the Royal Navy would have been thrown into the Channel... the chances of an organised force making it to the shore in anything more than company strength or so would be trivial, aside from parachutists, and there'd be little to no chance of resupply. The British would have a nasty mopping-up job in Kent and Sussex for a while, but the outcome wouldn't be in doubt. Bear in mind that after Norway, the German navy had only a handful of heavy ships ready for action and was severely lacking in destroyers; the Home Fleet was at near full strength and the RN would have thrown everything it had into the Channel. Short of gross British incompetence, it's hard to see how else the naval battle would turn out.

One reason the Battle of Britain is seen as the critical point is because the Germans found it useful to consider it this way - with the Luftwaffe failing, the other forces were free to say "Oh, yes, we were ready and able to go, not our fault we couldn't manage it", without any real risk of anyone looking into the actual possibility of their operations. Shimgray | talk | 23:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with your analysis and it concurs with other historians' viewpoints. So we are being fed a load of BS about this on TV?--Light current 23:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See, here's the problem. It's a popular and interesting subject, and it's an interesting problem to consider if you can get past certain minor details at the beginning. A lot of these discussions of an invasion in 1940, when you look closely, turn out to start from the assumption that somehow three or four German divisions and a supply dump have wandered over to Dover one evening. Once you allow that, historically silly though it is, "Nazi conquest of the UK" looks a lot more plausible. Shimgray | talk | 23:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with the eminent sense of your statement 8-))--Light current 23:45, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK heres a rider: were we (Britain) justified in killing so many fighter pilots in defence of the airspace?--Light current 23:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the fighter pilots killed weren't exactly bullet-less, I for one tend to believe that in a kill-or-be-killed situation, when you haven't done anything 'wrong' (e.g. if you're a serial killer about to be taken out by what you hoped would be your next victim, this moral permission doesn't apply to you), you don't have a choice but to do all that's necessary to survive. It's certainly a darn sight easier to justify deaths of fighter pilots than the innocent civilians in Dresden--Mnemeson 00:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But how long would the Royal Navy have continued to exist with German control of the skies. I think you are missing the lessons of the Pacific War here. Rmhermen 01:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Luftwaffe had much less emphasis placed on antishipping operations than the Japanese and the Americans, and the RN had a lot of ships. The RN wouldn't need to survive in great strength for very long once it entered dangerous airspace, just enough to disrupt the invasion fleet... and if that meant throwing away heavy ships, they'd have thrown them away. Plus, the Germans wouldn't have wiped out the RAF; they'd have wiped out the RAF over south-east England; the groups in Scotland would remain essentially untouched and would be held in reserve for such an eventuality, and until the last minute the bulk of the RN would be under their protection.

Again, I have a really hard time seeing the plausibility of the Luftwaffe taking out the RN. Mauling it nastily - yes, this would have been expensive for them. But cutting it up to such an extent it couldn't scupper the invasion preparations... bearing in mind the three-destroyers comment above? Shimgray | talk | 10:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing of history, apart what Ive seen on TV. It just seenms to me that if we were not at serious risk of invasion, why did we kill so many fighter pilots?--Light current 02:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the Battle of Britain had been completely lost, then the Germans would have had pretty much unchallenged air supremacy over South Eastern England and the adjoining seas, with the ability to bomb British infrastructure and British ships in the area at their leisure over a number of months. It wouldn't necessarily have resulted in an imminent invasion, but it wouldn't have been at all good for the inhabitants of England either. AnonMoos 04:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we are underestimating the significance of paratroopers here. Germany had major capabilities in that regard, certainly enough to create a beachhead in England. They would eventually need to be resupplied by sea, however, and would need to have heavy equipment brought in, unless they could manage to steal supplies, tanks, etc. from the Brits. So, I think if the RAF was knocked out, Britain would have been in real danger. StuRat 04:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone clearly thought we were in real danger, otherwise why were all the pillboxes built along rivers and roads? You can still see many of them. Looks like someone in charge in Britain thought there was a real risk of invasion. Skittle 12:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is more a demonstration of how invincible Germany seemed in 1940 than anything else... the UK prepared extensively for invasion, but in hindsight it could have got away with a lot less. Shimgray | talk | 00:14, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Different invasion, different technology, different millennium - but let's not forget at least 2 other significant details 1) England/Britain was successfully invaded via the English Channel in 1066, the consequences of which exist to the present time and, 2) That invasion was ably and effectively assisted by supportive and sympathetic interested parties already in England/Britain, a situation that would have been similarly replicated had Hitler's invasion succeeded - per Mosley's Blackshirts and the Irish Faction et al. Hence the heavy defences and submarine petroleum pipes that were laid in anticipation of having to set the Channel on fire during any surface invasion.

For a novel about this, see "Ss/gb" by Len Deighton (1979).Had the Luftwaffe not inadvertently bombed London on an overcast night, resulting in a retaliatory bombing of Berlin, and the resulting all out bombing of London, the program of bombing British air bases and military installations into rubble would have continued and setup the planned invasion after achieving air supremacy. With German air supremacy, the British fleet would have been neutralized by airpower, so no "steaming up and down the channel and making waves" as if the channel were not already plenty wavy. Airpower trumps seapower. The Brits left behind much of their weapons in France after Dunkirk. Volunteers in England were patrolling at night with longbows to watch for German paratroopers, for lack of rifles. The Germans would have crossed the water as easily as the Vikings or the Normans did. The British forces, with the remaining artillery and tanks they did not lose in France, would have lost to the Wehrmacht as swiftly as they did in Belgium and France, if an invasion had come before the U.S. men and materiél arrived. Paratroops plus men and weapons ferried across the channel faster than you can say "Dunkirk" and it's over in weeks.Edison 14:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am delighted that you trust the vaguely sketched-out backstory of a Len Deighton novel - which was written to show the aftermath, not the event - as a reliable counterfactual source. Yes, the UK panicked at the time, and threw vast amounts of resources into anti-invasion preparation. Yes, those preparations were inspiredly useless at times. But that was 1940; we didn't know then what we do now, and what we know now is that it didn't matter. There is, simply put, no plausible way Germany could have got a militarily useful invasion force across the channel in late 1940 or early 1941 without long-term preparations they hadn't made. Oh, they could have landed some troops, and it would have been a horrible mess... but a sucess? No way.

The Germans had a badly mauled fleet. They had no transport methods more advanced than Rhine barges with tugs, dependent on an absolutely calm day and a completely unopposed crossing. They had very limited capability for air resupply. Their amphibious operations doctrine was "well, it's just a big river, isn't it?". Paratroops are all well and good, but you can't magically "ferry men and weapons across the channel" without something to put them on that won't get sunk, and that is capable of a reasonably quick turnaround. Towed barges are neither, and we discovered later in the war just how inefficient the Luftwaffe's air supply capacity was.

The British fleet would not have been neutralised by airpower; it was safe in anchorages at the other end of the country, a day's steaming away, protected by the fighter squadrons which weren't in southern England - because the RAF wouldn't have thrown them all away - and safe until the invasion began. And then what? They turn up in the Channel. Yes, they would take heavy losses from German aircraft... but this is 1940, not 1944. The Germans didn't have the weaponry or the training that would later appear in the Pacific; it's implausible they would wipe out the entire Home Fleet fast enough to prevent them wreaking havoc on the barges. And even the loss of every capital ship is a "tactical success" here if it's wrecked the invasion fleet - those barges would be the only way to get more than a trickle of men and supplies over.

As for the idea that blitzkrieg would work... well. France fell because of well-supplied, heavily concentrated, armoured attacks at a point no-one was expecting; damp infantrymen coming ashore where everyone expected them to, without tanks or heavy equipment or more than a couple of days of food? This is not the stuff of shock and awe.

To make a successful invasion would require proper landing craft, substantially more supply shipping, and a way to neutralise the Royal Navy well before the invasion begins... all of which simply weren't available to the Germans in 1940. Shimgray | talk | 18:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of interesting points in the above discussion. I have only one or two things to add. It is important not to make too much out of the ability of German paratroopers to create an effective and sustainable bridghead. Paratroopers are only effective when they can be backed up almost immediately by heavy infantry or armour; otherwise they risk being cut to pieces, as the British were at Arnhem in 1944. Only once did the Germans succeed with the use of paratroopers as an 'independent arm', and that was in Crete in May 1941. Then the losses were so heavy, both in planes and men, that the tactic was never employed again. In southern Britain paratroopers would have faced much more serious opposition than they had in Crete, and would likely have been destroyed within a few days, if not hours. By September 1940 the British Army had made a dramatic recovery from the chaos of May and June. Amongst other equipment the army had 500 anti-tank guns, 350 medium tanks and 500 light tanks. Even the unjustly maligned Home Guard was turning into a formidable fighting force, armed not with pitchforks and longbows but some of the 500,000 rifles that had arrived from the States in July. But this is all getting away from the point: any German invasion attempt would have been washed out of the water by the Royal Navy, the unsung heroes of the Battle of Britain. White Guard 23:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The British and their many admirers do not feel, retrospectively, that Hitler could have invaded their island. Similarly, they did not feel, prospectively, that he could defeat their expeditionary force in Belgium in France. Hitler only won because he CHEATED and invaded Belgium, just as the Germans did in World War 1. Who could ever have anticiated THAT move? And for an invasion, about all they would have needed is one harbor captured. As for the fleet and the reserve planes, the Germans were pretty well equipped with ships, Eboats, subs, dive bombers and other planes in 1940. Many feel there was a window of opportunity wherein he could have successfully mounted an invasion. In alternative history, the Germans could have limited the Dunkirk invasion to a far smaller extraction than was accomplished. Documents from the Germans planning for WW2 indicate that they may have spared the British expeditionary force for future use guarding Britain against any U.S. invasion after its anticipated conquest.Edison 23:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to your last sentence, you may wish to consider that any German plans revolving around "and, after we conquer half the planet..." were usually pretty conjectural to start with. I would suggest not putting too much weight on the ideas the BEF was reprieved to provide a German garrison! As to "many feel", sensationalistic popular conceptions of history can occasionally be wrong... and sexy-sounding alternate-history ideas can, sometimes, have a very shaky foundation.

You might, incidentally, find this study quite eye-opening; it's written by an ex-Marine officer, from the point of view of checking its plausibility as an alternate-history scenario. The conclusion really summarises the problem here...

We can choose to wave a magic wand, and wipe out the RN and the RAF, and examine how successful the invasion was likely to be in their absence. Sandhurst has done this on four occasions to my knowledge. Both sides were given the historical starting positions, with an invasion date of 24 September.

In each case, the details of the fighting varied, but by each analysis resulted in 27 September dawning with the Wehrmacht holding two isolated beachheads, one at roughly 2 divisions strength on Romney March, and one of 1 division at Pevensey. Each were opposed by more numerous forces, with growing numbers of tanks and artillery. German resupply was still across open beaches.

I think we can all see quite where the results of that will go. Shimgray | talk | 00:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We will fight them on the beaches, in the fields and in the trees, in the rivers and the streets, the hilltops and the valleys etc etc.......we will NEVER surrender. (apologies to W.S Churchills memory))--Light current 00:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't they say things like that the morning of October 14, 1066? Anyway the material about Nazi sparing of the Expeditionary Force at Dunkirk for garrison duty after the surrender of England came from a college course in history and political science, and was based on German documents during the war, so it is not mere speculation on my part. The course was decades ago, so I can't provide a handy reference. Wargaming at Sandhurst is good, but is it really more accurate than the planning which was such a muddle pre-war? They had expectations which did not pan out in practice, when the enemy did not do what they expected. The Battle of Dunkirk article lays out a scenario of armistice or British surrender if Hitler had not halted the Panzer advance for the 2 days necessary for the extraction of the British Expeditionary Force. Hitler may well have planned for Edward VIII, later The Prince Edward, Duke of Windsor, to reclaim the British throne and head a Vichy-like state.Edison 21:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if we had lost the B of B, it doesnt mean we wouldnt have been able to put more aircraft in the skies within a few weeks. In fact it was the lack of pilots not the lack of planes that was the problem. German fighters/bombers could not reach the western parts of Britain (esp Wales) and training of new pilots could easily have been carried on there. So Nazi 'air superiority' would not have lasted long and any beach heads would have been mercilessly strafed/bombed by the RAF as well as clobbered by the RN--Light current 21:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im a person who wants to become a manga-ka,and i would love to have some tips from Takao Aoki(my favorite manga-ka)that would help me become one.Or atleast if there is a way I can contact him to ask if he can give manga-lessons or anything like that.Thank you for your help.

I'm no expert, but as a manga-ka, I can't see anything particularly original about Takao Aoki's manga style. Your best bet would be to a) learn Japanese, and then b) get accepted to an animation school in Japan. I doubt he gives lessons.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  06:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could try writing a polite letter to Takao Aoki C/o Shogakukan, Japan. (Look up the correct address, yourself.) If you're lucky, you might get a personal response sooner or later. 惑乱 分からん 10:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to find chords to the song "Bluer Than Midnight" of The The thank u a lot. Tomas.

Can't find the tab anywhere- later today, I'll download the song and see if I can figure them out for you. --Evan Carlstrom 15:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just listened to it quickly, and figured it out (I think). I used a guitar, I don't play piano. The melody in the opening is based mainly on the notes C# and E, with octaves of the E thrown in with descending movement, i.e. high E, E one octave below and then a D. The chords for the verse, at least, are a Bm11 with no third (B,F#, Eb), C#m, Am, and E major. I didn't have time to listen to the rest as of now, but that should get you started- you can improvise or learn some of those passing tones between the chords as well. --Evan Carlstrom 15:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering, say someone uses my camera to take a picture. Do they own the copyright on that image or do I? Also, if they took the picture, can they legally force me to give them access to it? HighInBC 23:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They did the creative work that is the basis for copyright so the copyright would be theirs. Unless you paid them to take the picture, in which case the copyright may or may not be yours. Access to the image is another matter, I don't know how that would work. Rmhermen 01:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

English Copyright Law will recognise Intellectual Property Rights by the image taker of the image taken whilst also recognising quiet ownership of the camera/film/memory media by the owner thereof. If you buy a book, you own the cover and the paper and the ink, but the author/publisher have exclusive rights over the story/contents, and you may not reproduce it etc., without their express permission. So in the case of the picture question, the owner of the camera would need the picture taker's permission to use the picture, but any attempt by the picture taker to force the camera owner to surrender the image (without suitable reward being first agreed)would deny the camera owner his legal and quiet ownership of the camera/film/memory media. I am sure, however, that if the picture/image in question was of say, a site of national security, the Government's Law Officers would make short work of any protests emanating from the camera owners lawyers.

Thanks for the info. The photographer owns the image, but the camera owner owns the media. That is what I thought. Good to know next time my buddy lets me use his $2000 camera, hehe. HighInBC 14:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously HighInBC, if there is the faintest likelihood of a dispute developing between you and your friend over ownership of the copyright of any picture you might take on his camera, you should give careful prior thought to how you might establish such ownership. It is normal and wise practise for authors, recording artists, painters, patent developers, inventors etc., to carefully mark their work with a Copyright Logo and Copyright Warning and where appropriate to establish such Intellectual Property Ownership through a registered Copyright/Patent Office that will extend that Copyright Protection across the globe (for a fee). But you will not find that so easy to achieve when the subject matter is inside your friend's camera, unless you have a pre-registered agreement that any such images (suitably date-stamped and described in great detail)are in fact your own property, not to be used etc., by any other party (not just your friend). You should also include in your agreement the means by which you can legally and contractually extract/retrieve/recover the image/s from your friend's camera, and you should include a liquidated damages clause that would adequately recompense you should your friend accidentally or deliberately delete the image/s so protected. Probably better methinks to get your own camera. He might end up suing you for a replacement should you drop his! And do consult an IPR Lawyer if your photography is of such potential value to you.

Nah, just wondering really. HighInBC 22:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 21

I'm trying to find out if Hitler read or had any expossure to Kants writings and if this had any effect on hitlers philosophy?

He wouldn't have encountered Kant at school, since he quit school at an age too early to seriously have studied him. It is doubtful that Hitler ever read any of Kant's writings - small quotes perhaps, which he probably didn't understand. I don't know what you mean by Hitler's philosophy, since, unlike Kant, nothing he ever published can be considered philosophy in the scholarly sense. Mein Kampf is very badly written and a wild mix of half-baked ideas, ideologies and polemics by a number of people, none of which were philosophers. Antisemitic Austrian politicians such as Georg von Schönerer and Karl Lueger, writers of popular science rubbish such as Houston Stewart Chamberlain, ideologists such as Alfred Rosenberg, and fraud theologians writing about race such as Jörg Lanz von Liebenfels. Among the direct influences on Hitler, the only one who possibly comes close to being a scholar, was orientalist and antisemitic cultural 'philosopher' Paul de Lagarde.---Sluzzelin 05:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Influencing Hitler? It kant be! — [Mac Davis](talk) (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)05:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, we kant go down this road. --Fastfission 15:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kant? Surely you mean Karl May and Old Shatterhand; far more philosophical! White Guard 22:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adolf Eichmann, who was one of the key figures behind the Holocaust, professed to be an admirer of Kant at his trial for crimes against humanity. This surprised the court so much that they asked him to summarize the categorial imperative and he gave a reasonably accurate definition. A good account of the matter is in Eichmann in Jerusalem by Hannah Arendt. I don't know whether Hitler himself shared Eichmann's opinion, which I have to consider an example of cognitive dissonance. Durova 18:40, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I no longer see Laurie Dhu on Fox News. What's become of her?

She can be seen on Geraldo at Large. WP's article on Laurie Dhue also has a link to her blog site - her last blog entry was posted on Sep 15th, so she seems to be active. ---Sluzzelin 05:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my question about the 17th century toilette, in the article Groom of the Stool the French equivalent is mentioned - the porte-coton - there's a link, but it's in French. I'd love it if someone could give me more info about the porte-coton to Louis XIV, please. If someone could provide the pooor fellows name, I'd be very grateful. Thanks - Adambrowne666 01:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything specific online, but I remember a scene in the movie Vatel (about François Vatel) alluding to the French nobility's obsession with constipation. Because of its laxative effect, coffee was served during the King's sessions. The poor porte-coton was portrayed with a silver tablet and a cotton-wad.---Sluzzelin 06:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have links that claim he was Sir Henry Norris, but I think that's some sort of British joke.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  06:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both of you - what was the silver tablet for, Sluzzelin? Adambrowne666 07:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Etiquette? I cannot think of a more dignified manner of moving the wad carrying the royal material out of the King's sight.---Sluzzelin 08:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant a silver tray (not a silver pill). Please excuse my germanisms.---Sluzzelin 10:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, thank you, lovely detail - and you're quite the polymath, Sluzzelin - thanks for your answer to my question at the Language Desk. I'm still hoping for the name of any of the Porte-cotons, though - while I'm here, what does 'porte-coton' mean? 'Merde-bearer'? Adambrowne666 12:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cotton-bearer. Natgoo 17:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is it possible for a business to be audited by an independent and uninterested third party if the business being audited is, itself, an audit firm? In that case, the external auditor would have to be one of the firm's competitors, and therefore not neutral or independent. --NeonMerlin 03:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think many would stoop to intentionally faking the audit results to make their competitor look bad. That, when discovered, would make them look very bad and criminally liable. StuRat 03:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, the firm doing the audit would have good reason to conduct a particularly rigorous and searching audit, which in turn is an excellent incentive for the firm being audited to be squeaky clean in the conduct of its affairs. JackofOz 05:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, most companies stick with the same auditors, and many auditors specialize, e.g. in media businesses, manufacturing companies, or retail, so there is not much competition between the different types. No doubt there is fierce competition between the Big Four, however. It would be interesting to know how they are audited.--Shantavira 06:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK, Price Waterhouse Coopers are audited by Horwath Clark Whitehill, a much smaller firm [7], and KPMG are audited by Grant Thornton, who are also smaller. So there may not be as much competition there as you might imagine. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 07:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does the position of the treasury secretary resemble that of a chief financial officer or the chairman of the Federal Reserve Board and why?--Patchouli 06:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand what you mean. I think you are asking "Which is more like the CFO - the Secretary of the Treasury or the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board." Am I correct? (I can't answer it, I just want to clarify for people who can answer it) Viva La Vie Boheme!

You are correct.--Patchouli 21:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither position is really like a CFO. The Treasury Secretary is in charge in several departments, only some of which deal with the government's own finances. For example, he is in charge of regulating banks and printing money -- not really analogous to the job of a CFO. The chairman of the Fed's role in buying and selling bonds and changing interest rates isn't really something a CFO would do much of, either. (Corporations do issue bonds, of course, but not to affect the money supply.) Perhaps the best equivalent to a CFO in the federal government would be Rob Portman, director of the White House's Office of Management and Budget, or Donald Marron, acting director of the Congressional Budget Office. -- Mwalcoff 23:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have two questions:

1. if the company sponsors the m.v.v for an employee, can this employee under kennismigrant visa move companies in netherlands after sometime (doubt: does he / she need to come back to country of origin and apply fresh??) 2. the tax deducted: after 30% slab - will a portion of tax paid be refunded on return to origin country? I dont understand fully.

Sorry, i have problem in interpreting the words in their website.

Thanks 136.8.1.100 05:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC) kicki[reply]

I heard that Romans executed people by forcing them to eat nothing but meat for days. Is that true? If yes, can you tell me the details?

Not true. Any details are a fantasy. alteripse 10:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Roman times, as during most of our history, meat was one of the most expensive foods (not counting spices and other goods imported from far away). People forced into this diet would not have died immediately and would have had to be fed this expensive good for a (variably) long period of time, thus further increasing the costs of execution. I agree with alteripse.---Sluzzelin 10:51, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there were any truth to this at all, the Norwegians I worked with are doomed. On the northern tip of Norway in the middle of winter, you are pretty much cut off from the rest of the country. There's some frozen vegetables at the beginning of winter, but they don't last. It isn't long until the diet is meat, cheese, and beer for breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Sometimes they have bread, but not too often. Just wrap a hunk of reindeer meat in a few slices of cheese and grade a tall mug of beer. That's a meal. --Kainaw ^(talk) 14:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also think of the traditional Inuit diet of whale and seals, etc. but virtually never any vegetables. Rmhermen 01:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that they eat the raw liver of the animals because of that. Flamarande 21:03, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question regarding the conception of Christ. Was Mary impregnated by God before or after the Marriage ceremony of Joseph and Mary? Or was it during the actual ceremony itself?

The reason I'm asking is that if Mary is sinless all her life then

(1) isn't conception before marriage a sin?

(2) isn't adultery after marriage a sin?

(3) isn't impregnation by someone other than your spouse during the marriage ceremony a sin?

210.49.155.134 10:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you had misunderstood the meaning of the word sin. A sin is an activity that is displeasing to God. If God wants to butt fuck Mary and God did butt fuck Mary then butt fucking Mary would not be a sin. So in short, no matter what God does to Mary (as long as it is pleasing to God) , it would not be a sin. Ohanian 11:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crudely put, but accurate, I suppose. I believe it's sex outside of marriage which is considered to be a sin, not conception. For example, I would interpret artificial insemination by a man other than a woman's husband to be a sinless form of conception, although I'm sure some would disagree. My interpretation of the Bible is that no "sex" occurred when Mary was impregnated (or, at least that's what the Bible claims). I'm pretty confidant that, if we had DNA from Jesus and all the men in the village, we would find a human father quickly enough. I assume that Mary's hymen was intact, and they took that as a sign that she was a virgin. However, pregnancy can result from nonintercourse sex, if semen enters the hole in the hymen where menstrual flow occurs. StuRat 11:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though I don't think you'll ever hear a cardinal proposing that some of Joseph's sperm might have just happened to fly in there when they were messing around in a sack one day.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  17:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To answer some points made by 210.49.155.134: Mary was impregnated by the Holy Ghost (not by God directly) before her marriage to Joseph. "She asked how that would be, since she was not yet married to Joseph and was still a virgin. The angel replied that she would conceive through the Holy Spirit." I advise you to read the article Annunciation. Flamarande 13:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the Holy Ghost supposed to be part of the Godhead in Christian doctrine? It sounds like a weak defence: "Your Honour, the maiden was not impregnated by my client directly, but by his external Sexual Organ." Of course, the term "to impregnate" is our doing; no such thing is mentioned in the Bible. --Lambiam^Talk 20:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you define "to impregnate" as "to make someone pregnant" then ,yes, God did impregnate Mary. 202.168.50.40 21:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The person asking the question asks it as if we could supply a factual answer about what actually happened to the mother of Jesus. We cannot answer that question, because we do not have any impartial sources. We can only tell the person asking the question what the Christian scriptures report. The person asking the question has to decide whether he or she believes that the Christian scriptures report things as they actually happened. The scriptures state that Mary conceived, that is, became pregnant, but that she was a virgin, that is, had not had sex. The implication is that the Holy Ghost induced her to conceive by some means other than sex.

We do not know whether Christian scriptures report the facts as they actually happened, or whether the story of the virgin birth was a myth attributed to Jesus just as it was applied to other Near Eastern life-death-rebirth deities such as Adonis or Mithra. Marco polo 15:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you demanding real evidence, proof and the real truth ? Beware Marco, these are the words of the unbeliever, of the renegade, of the apostate, and of the atheist. Believe without any proof and you shall find faith. :) (this is a joke) Flamarande 20:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do educated people believe in this stuff?--Light current 21:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a 16 years old teenager and I'm french. I would like to know where to write to david bowie because I love him and it's my dream. thanks to help me ps: if you could write in an "aisy english".

The article on David Bowie has links to his official website and his page on myspace where you can send him a message. ---Sluzzelin 11:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer sluzzelin but the problem is I can't have informations without paying.

According to that MySpace page, it isn't his actual page so you can't send him a message that way. Skittle 12:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to this page, you can email him or post a letter to Isolar Enterprises Inc., 641 5th Avenue, Suite 22Q, New York, NY 10022, USA. I can't say how accurate this is. Skittle 12:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This supports the address, but reminds you to beware of those who claim to have his email. Skittle 12:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to suggest you check out limerence, but aisy English it is not!--Shantavira 14:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh, thank you, thank you very much skittle. I don't know what's this adress but i think it's realy interesting to write to bowie. I'm very happy are very nice. Bye and thank you again. Eliott ps: but could you explain to me what this adress...?

If you want to write to Bowie, I suggest you write a letter to

David Bowie,

Isolar Enterprises Inc.,

641 5th Avenue,

Suite 22Q,

New York,

NY 10022,

USA.

Then he might receive it. Good luck. Skittle 12:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i need 2 know the bio-data of philip bego and 2 also know about his jelly baby195.245.109.196 11:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)eniojukan tolulope <Email addy removed per advice at top of page>—[reply]

64.14.194.26 17:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)angeline tumang[reply]

i would like to ask is there any possibility that when i do soul travel i won't be able to go back to my body? thank you.

If you mean astral projection or out-of-body experience, no, it's perfectly safe. You go right ahead. Don't go too far at first though, and don't do anything I wouldn't do.--Shantavira 17:28, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While it looks like proponents of astral travel believe it is completely safe, there is at least one member of the Church of Christ who feels otherwise. He, she, or they caution that demons can enter the body during the travel. --Allen 17:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While there are others of us who would question whether it can ever be dangerous for a nonexistent thing to do something it cannot do by reason of it being fictitious.--Fuhghettaboutit 17:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I figured she needed to find that out for herself ;-) Better than turning to drugs anyway.--Shantavira 19:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If somebody had soul travelled, and not been able to return to their body, how would we know?  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  17:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know were i can find out about the NSWS, as all the sites i have tried dont seem to have it in them.

thanks

OK. Can you give us some sort of clue as to what this might stand for, in what context, and in which country?--Shantavira 19:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I keep hearing the song "It's a jungle out there". Who composed it? Who wrote the lyrics?? Who recorded it??? Help!!!! Paul.

Are you talking about the theme song to the Monk (TV series)? It is by Randy Newman. --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, Paul.

What is the German translation of the biblical character Joshua? Thank you.

Josua, as given in [:http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buch_Josua] the German version of the article "Book of Joshua". Flamarande 19:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Joshua and click on the Deutsch link on the "In Other Languages" box on the left. --Kainaw ^(talk) 19:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why is it that you have black history month, hispanic day, native american day, but there is no caucasian day? does that mean that the caucasians are the minority in this country?--71.223.24.173 19:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it means that they are the majority, and so feel no need to bond together in solidarity. —Daniel (‽) 20:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

so if the caucasians had a holiday all the other ethnic groups would not cry disrcimination?

Pretty much since the establishment of the English colonies in the 1600s, white people have been the dominant racial group in what is now the United States. Given that history of domination, the long history of mistreatment of other groups by dominant whites, and the ways in which mainstream American culture has favored white people, other groups have pushed for or claimed holidays to boost their group-esteem. Given this context, a holiday for whites would not have the same meaning. Since they are and have been the dominant racial group in the United States, a holiday devoted to this group would appear to be a celebration of that dominance rather than a celebration of worth despite another group's dominance. It is understandable that the dominated groups would protest a celebration of dominance by the dominating group. Marco polo 20:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

if you look in the bible you will see that god made everyone equal so there should not be anyone saying that they are being dominated by any other ethnic group. also the whites as you put it were not the ones who sold blacks into slavery it was the african people themselves that sold their own people. the israili people who are considered white were dominated long before anyone else. so if anyone should feel that they deserve to be celebrated its the hebrew people.

Hasn't about every ethnicity, if you go through history enough, been both victims or perpetrators at one time or another?... 惑乱 分からん 21:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said, "god made everyone equal so there should not be anyone saying that they are being dominated by any other ethnic group". Although I believe you are right to say that people should not "lord it over" others about their historically-discriminated status (especially if the majority takes steps to redress the effects of their historical discrimination), do you actually believe that if someone took you and put you in prison for no reason that you should not have the right to say you were being dominated by others? Just because people are equal in God's eyes, does not mean that everything that happens will be fair. The Bible also talks about the need for crimes to be punished (if you still believe that the Bible is the authority still relevant for today).

And although your argument about Africans selling other Africans may be a legitimate argument to present to radicals who think blacks can do no evil, do you really believe that some people of a group speak for all the others? So if a government in Africa now decides to take the land of its white minority (or something worse), and some white people help them to do this, then all the white people deserve it and they should not say they are being dominated by blacks? (some would say they do deserve some forced land redistribution for historical reasons, but I am saying this to see if you keep your same logic in this situation).

And, out of curiosity, do you think that "special" days are all offensive? If so, what about U.S. Independence day in which the American flag is waved around? Do you insist on waving the United Nations flag (since that represents all peoples including Americans and not everbody in America is a U.S. citizen--some are legal visitors, etc.). What if white U.S. citizens living in African countries wanted to celebrate July 4th (as U.S. expatriates often do bond together)? Would you say that they are being selfish? What if the African country started a "black" holiday as a result? With the majority of a country holding most of the power being so defensive about itself, how would you feel? The point is that if you really want to speak about a moral point of view, extra consideration needs to be given to the minority, to the foreign guest, etc. (though not to extremes, and taking into consideration historical issues, such as white oppression in South Africa, of course). Some believers in God and the Bible believe that minorities should be given special treatment (see Baha'i, for example). 218.17.96.221 08:33, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have a Black History Month because the contributions of African-Americans were not always recognized. If it weren't for Black History Month, few kids would learn about people like Garrett Morgan or Booker T. Washington. On the other hand, no "Caucasian History Month" is needed for Thomas Edison or Johnny Appleseed to be well-known. Hopefully, we won't need times like Black History Month in the future, because the contributions of all groups will be recognized throughout the year. -- Mwalcoff 23:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just wondering who the genius was who decided that February, of all months, should be Black History Month. Jeez! Why'd they have to pick the conspicuously shortest month of the year? Give it any other decent month with at least 30 days. Is it just me or does getting "February" seem like getting once again, at least symbolically, the short end of the stick? Loomis 23:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a Chris Rock routine or something. "They give us one month of the year, and it's the short one with 28 days!" Actually, it was originally "Negro History Week", and the week chosen was the week of Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass' birthdays. That's why it's February. [8] -- Mwalcoff 02:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reminded of this The Onion article: White History Year Resumes. --Maxamegalon2000 23:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering what public opinion is towards Salafsim . No particular reason other than internal curiosity. Also I'm slightly confused by the comment "Salafism is derogatorily named by outsiders as Wahhabism" on the when I have met a salaf before who called himself a wahabi (I could put this down to him just not knowing his own religion but I don't think that’s likely).

Also I am travelling to Turkey soon and I was wondering if anyone knew any Turkish greetings (I will be staying in the relatively "spoiled" European tourist trap Marmaris) and if anyone knows what the religious background is in that area.Also if anyone could tell me things to avoid doing that will offend the people-aside from the obvious silly things- that a young ignorant Westerner might do. I have been looking on the internet and have only come across how the Turkish language is put together.

Please back up answers/opinions to first question with reason & detail would be appreciated.

Thank you.

When you say "public opinion" what exactly do you mean? Public opinion in Turkey? Public opinion in Vietnam? Public opinion in USA? Public opinion amoung muslims? Public opinion among catholics? 202.168.50.40 23:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Please back up answers/opinions to first question with reason & detail"? We're all here as volunteers to help with polite genuine questions. We're not obedient little elves assigned to cater to your every need. In any case, if you'll be "staying in the relatively "spoiled" European tourist trap Marmaris", I don't see what use you'll have for any knowledge of actual Turkish culture. Loomis 02:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He said "please", "it would be appreciated", and "thank you". I think he was very polite, although his wording might not have been so natural. Please don't bite the non-English native speakers. "Pleave give me reasons and detail" is a perfectly acceptable way to ask questions in some languages.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  17:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 22

I live in Brisbane, Australia. It seems to me that over the past four years or so I've been seeing increasing numbers of black African people in the city. (I think they're from Africa because they appear darker than African-Americans or Australian Aboriginals.) I don't have a problem with this, I'm just curious about why they are here, and why now? Has the Australian government recently opened the doors to immigrants from a particular country for some reason? Are they refugees from a particular conflict?

Secondly, I'm puzzled by the way many of these people seem to dress in a way that seems "black American" to me. Many of the young men wear basketball shirts and baseball caps, and so on. I know next to nothing about popular culture in Africa - do they admire or identify with African-American culture? For some reason it surprises me that this would be so - any thoughts? (For one thing, how do they afford nice sneakers and stuff if they're refugees?) --Grace 00:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you approach them and ask them? Don't say "Hello? Where are you from?". Instead say some thing like "Hello, I'm always interested in different cuisine. Do you know where I can try out new types of cuisine?" Then play stupid and tell them you assumed that they are from Africa.202.168.50.40 01:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Australia is a country accepting quota-refugees, and for the past 15 - 20 years, refugees from sub-saharan Africa (for want of a better word) have been arriving in Australia from countries such as Somalia, Eritrea, Ethiopia and, most recently, Sudan. The articles on the various countries as well as those on the Darfur Conflict and on Refugees might give you some answers as to why they are there. As for your second question, I'm not sure this fashion preference is specifically limited to Africans. Youths all over the world identify with modern hip hop fashion and dress accordingly. Perhaps young Africans living in the western world have an additional motivation to identify with (African American) hip hop culture, as they might see no other acceptable model culture of similar global presence, but this is just speculation on my part. ---Sluzzelin 12:13, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to a young Tanzanian with whom I spent a week in Tanzania last year, young Africans do indeed identify with and idolize African Americans, and by extension hip hop. These are about the only people who look something like them who are also major celebrities in global culture (Internet, video, etc.). Moreover, a home-grown hip hop culture has emerged in South Africa, Tanzania, and probably other African countries. Marco polo 16:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

South African Hip Hop (or at least, a related musical style) is called Kwaito. 惑乱 分からん 17:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help, everyone! - Grace (not logged in)

Who was the last UK Monarch to have any true power?

What do you mean by "true power?" --AstoVidatu 01:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's hard to say, because there has been a gradual reduction in the power of the king/queen, since, say, the signing of the Charter of Liberties in 1100 or the Magna Carta in 1215. If you give us some standard, like "who was the last monarch who could have people executed at will", then we might be able to come up with an answer. StuRat 02:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

who was the last Monarch that was able to order war? is really what i meant

George II was the last king to declare war unilaterally in 1739 (the strangely named War of Jenkins' Ear against Spain). He did so against the advice of his ministers. Declaring war these days requires two things (as does any Act of Parliament): the consent of Parliament and the consent of the Queen. The Queen is only allowed to withhold consent to an act if it's a threat to Britain's democracy. --Charlene.fic 05:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly Charles II in the third english civil war.--Light current 03:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That superpower has not realy gone away but it would develop a bit of a crisis if ER decided she wanted to attack Latvia. Two other important events in the reduction of the British monarch's power are The Glorious Revolution when a king was effectively elected, who then went of to start a war in Ireland, and the illness of George III which meant parliament took even greater control. MeltBanana 04:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Anne was the last one to veto a parliamentary bill, ca. 300 years ago... AnonMoos 06:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and she did it at the urging of the Cabinet, for arcane procedural reasons. Who was the last to withhold the Royal Assent in defiance of the Ministers? —Tamfang 07:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well Royal assent suggests it was Charles II but history is full of "and the king ordered..." which when looked into are much more complicated and required the tacit consent of others. On the subject of royal powers Edward VII was quite involved in politics and is credited with delaying lords reform whilst George V was involved in the creation of governments rather then simply rubber-stamping the people choice. MeltBanana 14:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Elizabeth II and her George have, in the past, influenced which of the leaders of specific party would be appointed to the prime ministers office. In fact in the 1960's Elizabeth was influential in the appointment of lord Douglas-Holmes.

Specifically, Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom#Role in government says she has three times had to take a constitutional role regarding the formation of governments. One of them was in respect of Alec Douglas-Home (not 'Holmes', and not 'Lord Douglas-Home' either). ColinFine 11:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; 1974 was another example where Royal discretion may have been involved: the Queen could have refused Harold Wilson a dissolution, for instance. Other notable and relatively modern examples of monarchs involved in politics include King George V taking an active part in forming the National Government in 1931, King Edward VII negotiating his own foreign policy (the 'Triple Entente') without Ministers, and Queen Victoria's veto on many possible Liberal Prime Ministers in 1894 after Gladstone resigned. It is not really a case of when the monarch lost powers, more a case of progressively losing a role as it becomes inappropriate: the UK constitution is like that, and those of us who admire it think it one of its best aspects. David | Talk 12:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for answering my question before,and the letter writing suggestion was great wakuran,but how am i supposed to find his address? Like is there a website that will give me his mailing address? If so can you tell me one or atleast any site that has his e-mail address?

I don't know if he would respond to e-mail, anyway. Try writing to "Takao Aoki C/O Shogakukan Inc. 2-3-1, Hitotsubashi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 101-8001, Japan". 惑乱 分からん 10:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]