Revision as of 02:13, 27 April 2007

Misplaced Pages:Reference desk/headercfg

April 24

Athenian Empire

What was the effect of moving the treasury of the Delian League from the Delos to Athens and How the Delian League came to be basis of the Athenian Empire? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.64.141.25 (talk) 01:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

Our article Delian League offers answers to both of your questions. Marco polo 02:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Peloponnesian War

How did the city of Corinth figure in the war and Why Athens went ahead with its plan to conquer Syracuse? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.64.141.25 (talk) 01:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC).

These questions are answered in our article Peloponnesian War. Marco polo 02:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It might also help you if you dipped into Thucydides' The Peloponnesian War, particularly Book Six, which deals at length with the expedition of 415 and the miscalculations of the Athenian generals. Clio the Muse 07:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Double first cousins half removed?

In the ancient sanskrit story of the "Twenty-Two Goblins", , the final unanswered riddle is, basically, if a father and son marry an (unrelated) daughter and mother (respectively, father with dauther, and son with mother), what is the relationship of the two couples' children to one another? I thought I had stumbled on an answer (in English anyway), at the wikipedia page Double first cousin... until I realized that double first cousins require the parents to be siblings of one another rather than parent and child. So now I'm wondering, is there a term in English for this? Pfly 03:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they're any kind of cousins, because they have no grandparents in common. Let's call the father and son F and S, the mother and daughter M and D, and assume the 2 children are a boy (B) and a girl (G) respectively. B and S are half-siblings, as are D and G. Since M is the mother of G via her 2nd husband, and the grand-mother of B via her 1st husband, that makes B the (half-)nephew of G. Alternatively, since F is the father of B via his 2nd wife and the grand-father of G via his 1st wife, this makes G the (half-)neice of B. They're each other's (half-)nephew/(half-)neice, and each other's (half-)uncle/(half-)aunt. I think the facts that M's 2nd husband is the son of her daughter's husband, and F's 2nd wife is the daughter of his son's wife, make no difference. I know of no term in English that covers this. Great question, though. JackofOz 04:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

(The original question says the father and son are unrelated to the daughter and mother, meaning F and M were never married, right? I think B and S, as well as D and G, would only be half-siblings if F and M were married.) Bavi H 17:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

(Wait, I was confused who gave birth to B and G. If F and D gave birth to B, and S and M gave birth to G, then your statement about half-siblings is correct. Below, Duomillia and I went the other way: F and D gave birth to G, and S and M gave birth to B.) Bavi H 17:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this question problematic, in that presumably the answer should be given in Sanskrit? I would guess that Sanskrit, like most languages, has idiosyncracies and differences from English in the way it describes relatives. (In Hebrew, for example, there's no word for "cousin" - it's described as being (e.g.) "son of uncle". Just because there's no term in English, perhaps there's one in Sanskrit? --Dweller 12:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In English, at least, there is no such relative term as "half removed". You can be "once removed", "twice removed", etc. Corvus cornix 20:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Aren't they aunt and nephew or uncle and niece, as JackofOz mentions? Let's look at some pictures!

Duomillia 03:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No, Duomillia, you didn't read the original question carefully. That's what would be the case if the father married the mother and the son married the daughter. But if the father marries the daughter and the mother marries the son, you have a different situation. Duomillia 03:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, now I think I have it figured out. On the one side, they are uncle and niece. On the other, they are (simultaneously) aunt and nephew. Wow! That's complicated.

Duomillia 04:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Except it should be half-niece/half-uncle and half-nephew/half aunt. - Nunh-huh 18:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Here are some alternative diagrams using equal signs to represent marriages and vertical lines to show offspring. The first diagram shows everything at once. The second diagram focuses on the S=M marriage, and shows that b is uncle to g (and g is neice to b). The third diagram focuses on the F=D marriage, and shows that g is aunt to b (and b is nephew to g).

Bavi H 09:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe nobody has brought up I'm my own grandpa yet...seems very appropriate to the question at hand :P -- Ferkelparade π 09:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Haha, that's great, love the song! Thanks. Pfly 22:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Who was the first person...

to use the penis and the vagina as an example of an irreducibly complex system? I've heard this argument quite a bit, how each one was "made" for the other, so it is impossible for them to have evolved. Was it Behe?--Kirby♥time 10:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Since the purported 'irreduciable complexity' of the P and V will undoubtably be used to bolster arguments for the existence of God... well let's just give you an answer you'll like. God first used them as an example. He just spoke through one of his vessels. The name isn't important, since it would detract from the glory of God. Praise be to Allah.

Seriously though, I don't know. But the 'irreduciable complexity' argument was used for the human eyeball back in the day, and that approach was overturned as flimsy. Not sure if the P and V are any more complex. Vranak

I can't help with your query, since I don't subscribe to Balderdash Weekly, but I would suggest reading the interesting article Evolution of the eye before again enduring such arguments on what is "impossible". Presumably if evolutionary forces could come up with such marvels as the eye of the mantis shrimp, a rudimentary "put stick in hole" setup wouldn't be much of a problem. --TotoBaggins 16:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is a really poor case to make for irreducible complexity. Fish don't have either, and just squirt in the water for external fertilization. The hole out of which the female squirts the eggs could be called a "vagina", I suppose. From this point, having the male and female squirt as close to each other as possible would naturally increase the proportion of fertilized eggs. Other animals then used existing body parts, like an arm in the case of an octopus and a tail in the case of a turtle, to do internal fertilization. From this point on it's just a series of subtle changes to get to the process that keeps sleazy motels in business to this day. :-) StuRat 17:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In the guppy, the male's anal fin is folded to form a gonopodium through which sperm is egected directly into the female, who bears live young. A penis-in-the-making? Wait and see. --Wetman 19:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Guys, don't waste my fucking time. You're preaching to the choir. Now, I have checked the talkorigins list. and it seems that most of the IC arguments come from Behe. I haven't read his book, nor do I plan on it, so I was wondering if he was the one that came up with the sexual organs IC idea. --Kirby♥time 08:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

found this--Kirby♥time 11:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Nursery Rhyme

I have what I presume to be the opening line of a nursery rhyme. I cannot find any info online or dictionaries of rhymes. It is alluded to by James Joyce in "Finnegans Wake" (257). Does anybody know the rest of the rhyme and any background details?

Old Daddy Dacon Bought a bit of bacon Put it on a chimney pot For fear it would be taken.

Debbie conway 11:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Debbie, I can find no reference to this rhyme other than in the pages of Finnegans Wake! The usage seems to be as obscure as so much else in that novel, if anything even more encyclopedic than Ulysses. All I can do is to refer you to Adaline Glasheen's Third Census on Finnegans Wake (1977), where you will find the following note on page 69: Deacon, Daddy-'Ohd Daddy Dacon/ Bought a bit of bacon/ Put it on a chimney pot/ For fear it would be taken.' See Cadenus? Lewis Carrol was a deacon. 257.14,21; 261.31; 339.3; 348.23.. Make of that what you will! The ambigious reference to Cadenus refers to Cadenus and Vanessa, Jonathan Swift's longish poem of 1713. Cadenus is an anagram of Decanus (Dean), which would seem to tie Swift to Lewis Carroll (Charles W. Dodgson), at least it does according to Glasheen. As far as the specific page references are concerned, you have already identified the first. If you check out the others you will find And what the decans is there about him... (261.31); Like old Doddy Icon when he cooked up his iggs in bicon. (339.3); ...old Djadja Uncken who was a great mark for jinking and junking...(348.23). This is what you get when you attempt to cut through the Gordian Knot of Joyce's complex and multi-layered world! We are no further forward on the origins of the rhyme itself-which may just be piece of casual doggerel-but at least you now have some of the literary context. Clio the Muse 18:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It's given as a "just for fun" children's rhyme (4 lines only), heard in Newcastle, in the Opies' Lore and Language of Schoolchildren, Chapter 2. They group it with other short verses where the "key rhyme-word is a proper name". --HJMG 20:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

1988 Shore Protection Act?

I have been researching this topic and am not coming up with any answers. I need to know the history of the 1988 Shore Protection Act in the United States. Who thought of it and how has it helped. Help! i have searched all over the web and cannot locate this information. Please someone help! Thanks 208.102.1.64 16:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Try to stay calm, someone will indeed help you. Your question is a little vague though. When you say "history" do you mean: 1) "how did it become a law from just an idea in someone's head"; or 2) after it became a law, how well did it work and who enforced it; or 3) all of the above; or 4) something else. If it is 1-3, then information is readily available from the EPA and the Federal Register. Just go to Google and type in:

   "Shore Protection Act" EPA "federal register"

Make sure you include the little quotemarks. You should find more than enough to get you started. dr.ef.tymac 16:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Any definite style guide information for single-line postal addresses?

I'm going crazy trying to find a source -- any offical source, like CP Style or Chicago Style or the Gregg Reference Manual, etc. -- for how to write a postal address on a single line of text.

i.e.

Joe Smith, 1234 Elm Street, Burlington, VT 18765 USA

Should there be commas after "Street?" After "City?" Should there be a single or double space between state and Zip codes? There's no shortage of style guides for multi-line addresses, but a dearth of information on how to write addresses on a single line. I know it sounds nitpicky, but it's easier to resolve disputes in graphic design if you can point at something and say "that is how to do it." --66.129.135.114 20:01, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

All the examples of proper addressing I can find in the US Postal Servivce manual, Here, do not use commas at all, and seem to use single spaces to separate elements. Additionally, multiple line addressing is generally the standard as this is how the OCR machines read mail for sorting (according to the USPS information). gorffy 20:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

My own common-sense rule is: arrange the elements (not counting zipcode) from least inclusive to most inclusive, and delimit the elements with commas. Note that this results in "Apartment 765, 1234 Elm Street" rather than "1234 Elm Street, Apartment 765" (which is how I'd write it if that were a separate line), because the apartment is a subset of the building rather than the reverse. As to multiple spaces before the zipcode (where did that rule come from?) unless you're using a monofont it's hard to tell the difference. HTML collapses any amount of whitespace to one space, so I couldn't tell that you had used a double space until I opened this editing window. —Tamfang 00:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Somewhat irrelevantly, I think it's particularly silly to write "Richards Corporation / Baxter Building / 314 Nth Avenue, Suite 121 / Anytown", as if the Baxter Building were in suite 121. When I process such an address I make it "Baxter Building, suite 121 / 314 Nth Avenue" or sometimes "121 Baxter Building / 314 Nth Avenue". But I'm a crank. —Tamfang 00:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just took the Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition off a co-worker's desk and looked in the back where it has a short style guide for uses of punctuation. One of the uses of a comma is given as:

5. To set off the main elements in an address; a title following a person's name; and the year if the month, day, and year are given.

He lived at 21 Baker Street, Elyria, Ohio, for twenty years.

Dr. Peter Haws, Director of Admissions, replied.

The letter was dated July 14, 1867, and was mailed from Paris.

However, the examples don't include one with a ZIP code and modern state abbreviation. "Elyria, OH 44035" or "Elyria, OH 44035, USA" looks right to my eye, but that's not what you asked for. --Anonymous, April 25, 2007, 00:07 (UTC).

Turns out there was a Chicago Manual on the next person's desk. Its example is "Please send all proofs to the author at 743 Olga Drive, Ashtabula, Ohio 44044, as soon as they arrive from the typesetter." --Anon, April 29, 04:30 (UTC).

How many local authorities are there in England and Wales?

Thanks for anyone who can give me some useful information on this. Capitalistroadster 20:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like 410 - of various kinds. Try this pdf on Local Government Structure. --HJMG 21:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, HJMG. Capitalistroadster 09:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Limbo vs. Purgatory

I was wondering if the concepts of Limbo and Purgartory are the same thing? Can they be used interchangeably? Can you use either one to refer to the second book of Dante's Comedy? Thanks. --kralahome 20:47, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

In Roman Catholic theology, which I presume Dante would have had in mind, they are not the same things at all. Limbo is a place, neither Heaven nor Hell, where the souls of those who were not baptized, but who were otherwise righteous, await the Final Judgment. Purgatory is where those souls who are fit for Heaven, but who still bear some sin, are purified before entering the divine presence. - Eron 21:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Except that the Church just this week announced that they are abandoning the concept of Limbo. Corvus cornix 22:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, Limbo's status has always been a bit questionable; doctrinally speaking, it was a "theological speculation that has never been defined as official Church dogma." Personally, I always viewed it as an attempt to fit a square peg into a round hole: how do we reconcile God's infinite mercy with the teaching that those who haven't accepted Jesus and live in Original Sin must be damned to Hell - even if they are blameless unbaptized infants? Like all such compromises, it worked best if left unscrutinized. - Eron 23:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

As for Dante, Il Limbo only occupies verses 1-63 of the Inferno's Canto IV, while Il Purgatorio is its own cantica, an entire set of 33 canti. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:43, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Kralahome, you will find some useful additional information in the Catholic Encyclopedia, which has articles on Limbo and Purgatory They are, indeed, quite different concepts, though Limbo is a little more complex than Eron suggests, one existing before the ascent of Christ into Heaven, and one after. The first is Limbus Patrum-the Limbo of the Fathers-a place of temporary refuge for the righteous who died before the advent of Christ, and were finally admitted to Heaven after He completed his mission on earth. The second, the Limbus Infantum-the Limbo of Children-was conceived of as a permanent refuge for unbaptized children, who had died free of personal sin, but could not be admitted to Heaven because of the collective burden of original sin. Neverthless, though denied the full presence of God, these souls were believed to exist in a condition of natural happiness. St. Augustine had originally argued that all of the unbaptized, even children, were bound for Hell, though this view was rejected by the early Middle Ages. In recent years the whole question has been studied by an International Theological Commission, set up by the Vatican, which has just published a document, saying that the whole notion presents an 'unduly restricted view of salvation', and that there are grounds for 'prayerful hope' that even the unbaptized are admitted into the presence of God. It should also be emphasised that limbo, though part of the Catholic tradition, was never Church dogma. It is not even mentioned in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which merely says that unbaptized infants are entrusted to the mercy of God.

Purgatary-meaning 'to purge' or 'make clean'-is a place of temporary punishment for those who died in the grace of God, but not entirely free from fault or transgression. The doctrine was given final shape by the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent. Souls in Purgatory are not separated from the Church, and Catholic prayers for the dead forms part of an ancient tradition. Clio the Muse 23:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Clio for expanding on my admittedly cursory explanation of Limbo. I'd add that Purgatory played a major role in the Protestant Reformation, which was inspired at least in part by abuses in the sales of indulgences. - Eron 23:48, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Clio the Muse 00:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

• The Limbo is a dance,purgatory is watching someone who can't dance,dance.hotclaws**== 11:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Weapons in the USA

Is it possible that in some states of the US, nunchaku are illegal whereas assault rifles are legal? --Taraborn 21:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

At first glance, no probably not. According to the article on nunchaku, "Legality in the United States varies at state level, e.g., personal possession of nunchaku is illegal in New York, Arizona, California and Massachusetts, but in other states possession is not criminalized." A look at Gun laws in the United States (by state) shows that three of those states - New York, California and Massachusetts - also ban assault weapons. Information on Arizona is not available, so perhaps in that state it is possible. - Eron 23:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And in fact, apparently it is. This link suggests that Arizona does not ban assault weapons. So if you want to make like Rambo while remaining safe from ninja, that's the place to be. - Eron 23:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Safe from ninja? If nunchaku are illegal, only criminal ninja will have nunchaku! Dismas| 12:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

April 25

Brave New World

What does "Suffer the Little Children" have to do with Brave New World? 71.97.15.175 00:44, 25 April 2007 (UTC)nicholassayshi

It's a small reference to be found towards the end of Chapter 3, Nick, where the Controller, Mustapha Mond, taking on a Christ-like role, says 'Suffer the little children', meaning to allow the children to come into his presence when attempts are made to chase them away. Clio the Muse 00:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

And in case you didn't know, Suffer the little children is a quote from the New Testament. Jesus was preaching, some children tried to come up to him and the disciples shooed them away. Jesus said "Suffer the little children to come unto me, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven". 217.43.138.193 18:09, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Afghanistan

Which ethnic groups of Afghanistan are Shi'a Muslims and which language do they speak? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.14.119.64 (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

See Islam in Afghanistan. Skimming that article, I find that the most numerous Shi'a groups are Hazara speaking Hazaragi and Farsiwan (ethnically Tajiks) speaking a dialect of Persian. Algebraist 08:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Hazaragi is also a dialect of Farsi (Persian). The ethnic Tajiks speak the Dari dialect of Farsi (Persian). The two dialects have a fair degree of mutual intelligibility, I believe. Marco polo 17:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Afghanistan 2

I noticed in the Afghanistan article, four provinces(#7, 19, 31 and 32) spoke the same language(Dari), but three ethnic groups speak this language: Pashtuns, Turkmen and Uzbeks. How come these groups speak Dari instead of their languages? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.14.119.64 (talk) 01:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

I gather that you are looking at the two maps of ethnic groups and languages. The picture is much more complex than this map shows. The map shows the predominant ethnic group and the predominant language in each province. However, most, if not all, provinces of Afghanistan are home to several groups speaking several languages. In the provinces you mention, Dari is the predominant language even though neither Tajiks nor Hazara (the groups that speak Dari natively) are the predominant ethnic group. However, these are provinces where no ethnic group forms a majority. It may be that in these provinces, the Hazara and Tajiks together have a larger population than the largest single ethnic group. It may also be that in these multi-ethnic, multilingual provinces, most people use Dari to communicate with strangers because it is simply the language that everyone knows (often as a second language). Marco polo 17:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

John F. Kennedy meets Nikita Khrushchev

In an interview with Anthony DePalma on Australia's A.B.C.radio (promoting his book 'The man who invented Fidel') he said that Kennedy asked Khruschev if Castro was a communist. The reply was 'Only if you make him one". I cannot find any referance to their meeting untill Kennedy had become president and Castro was allready known to be a communist. Did they meet prior to Kennedy becoming president?

220.237.96.87 01:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The hysteria in the US regarding communism is difficult to quantify, and not uniform. At the time, there was a distinction drawn, which still exists, between socialism and communism. JFK was a Democrat party member and needed to demonstrate to his constituent voters that he wasn't aligned with communists, but also not aligned with Republican Party conservatives.

Nikita Kruschev was caught in a vice. On the one hand, he was moderate to Leonid Breshnev. However, he was also the man who took Stalin's handgun from bedside and executed Beria. The result of the Cuban Missile Crisis had Russia take missiles from Cuba, and the US take missiles from Turkey. The fact the US could trumpet their success, but Soviet's were bound to silence over theirs, led Krushchev to be rolled by Breshnev. The reported warning was a Cassandra warning regarding the stakes, that the Australian Broadcasting Corporation wilfully mischaracterises. DDB 03:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's truer to say that wilful mischaracterisation, if any, was by Anthony DePalma, not the ABC. The broadcaster can't be held accountable for every opinion offered by people interviewed on-air. JackofOz 05:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, JFK was a member of the Democratic Party, not the Democrat Party. Bhumiya (said/done) 00:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet Anthony DePalma link doesn't mention any leanings or politics. The ABC's are well known, if not agreed upon. DDB 05:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet it was DePalma (apparently - I didn't hear the interview) who made the statement, not the ABC. I didn't think the questioner was asking about the political leanings of either DePalma or the ABC, but about whether Castro and JFK ever met before the latter became president. JackofOz 12:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Fidel Castro visited the United States in April 1959, not long after the overthrow of Batista, on the invitation of the American Society of Newspaper Editors. There were already suspicions in Washington about the general political direction of the Cuban Revolution, and the then President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, took steps to avoid him, though he had a meeting with Vice-President Nixon, who later said, with some degree of insight, that the Cuban dictator was "either incredibly naïve about communism or under communist discipline-my guess is the former." John F. Kennedy was a senator at the time of the visit, and I do not believe ever met Castro. Likewise, I have found nothing to indicate that he had a meeting with Kruschev prior to becoming President, in which Castro was the topic of conversation. De Palma's point is obviously broadly rhetorical, inaccurate or misremembered. Might it refer to a meeting between Nixon and Kruschev, or even Eisenhower and Kruschev?

DDB, I'm puzzled by some of what you have written above. Brezhnev was, in fact, one of Kruschev's protégées, and a loyal supporter against the Stalinist old-guard in the party. It was only when his mentor's behaviour became increasingly erratic that he turned against him, and this dates to 1963. It was only after he assumed power in 1964 that he began to move in a hard-line, neo-Stalinist direction. However, the more perplexing point you make concerns the death of Beria. Am I right in thinking that you believe that he was shot in person by Kruschev, using Stalin's own handgun? Did Stalin have a handgun? I think, perhaps, I must be misreading this. There is certainly some ambiguity surrounding the death of Beria, though the generally accepted story is that he was shot after a brief tribunal in December 1953. His executioner, General Batitsky, was later promoted to the rank of Marshall for his role in the affair. (Stalin:the Court of the Red Tsar, by Simon Sebag Montefiore, 2003 p. 579) Do you have any evidence to suggest the contrary? Clio the Muse 07:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Clio, I read an interview, some years ago, with a third party present with Kruschev and Brezhnev at the execution of Beria. Their phrasing was to the effect that the execution took place from the death bed of Stalin, and Kruschev's definite actions gave his cause credibility in hardline eyes. Reading accounts on wiki of Beria's death, and the timing, I believe that the account (a translation) was a metaphore .. not clever research on my part. No intent to be misleading. DDB 20:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not assume that for a moment. Clio the Muse 22:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hazara

When Arshad Warsi and John Abraham's movie came out, Hazaras protested the movie. Why the movie have affected them? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.14.119.64 (talk) 02:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

• See the article on the movie, Kabul Express. --Metropolitan90 06:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking for the name and author of a poem!

Hi, I'm looking for the name and author of a poem I read while taking the SAT II literature portion. I took the SAT IIs back in November, so I may have remembered some parts of it incorrectly..

Anyway, it was about a group of adults and children sitting around the living room on a Sunday afternoon. The adults kind of stare off into space, and eventually it gets darker and darker in the room. Finally, one of the adults snaps out of it and gets up and turns on the light. I think the point was that the coming darkness represented the darkness of knowledge and adulthood, and that the light represented innocence and childhood.

That's all I can remember. Any help is greatly appreciated! Paerra 05:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Saki mentions Allies marching into Paris before 1904

In Saki's short story Reginald, the first story of a 1904 collection by the same name, there is the quote, "With a little encouragement, they will inquire if I saw the Allies march into Paris." Since the work was published in 1904 and Saki died in 1916 it can't refer to the Paris liberation of either World War. Searching "Allies" didn't turn up anything beyond the WW Allies. Although within the same paragraph he mentions Victoria's Diamond Jubilee (1897) and the play San Toy (1899), he may be referring facetiously to something that occurred much earlier. So any knowledge as to who these pre-World War "Allies" who marched into Paris are? Tantei Kid 07:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've not read the poem and don't know the author, but have you looked at Paris? One possibility involved the Burgundians in the 1400's .. DDB 07:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read most of the story either, but I looked at the passage before posting. As the original poster says, the scene is clearly taking place in the 1890s or later; I don't think it can be referring a 15th century event.

I did a Google search on "marched into Paris" 1850..1904 -1940 -nazis. The Germans (Prussians) occupied Paris in 1871, but "allies" would not refer to that. My guess is that the answer is that the "allies" are the Sixth Coalition of 1814, and that he's talking about young women who've heard of a historic event and don't realize it was 85-90 years ago.

--Anonymous, April 25, 2007, 07:48, rewritten 07:53 (UTC).

Thank you, both. I can see Reginald being sarcastic enough to refer to the 15th century, but the Sixth Coalition does look the most promising. Tantei Kid 07:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Tantei Kid

I agree that this probably refers to the anti-Napoleon Allies who entered Paris in 1814. Have a look at Battle of Paris (1814) and . --HJMG 07:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Which Reginald story is it Tantei Kid? There are several. Knowing both the character in question, and the ironic and humorous style of Saki, the pen name of the brilliant H. H. Munro, I think it is intended as a sardonic reference to age, wisdom or experience-or a combination of all three. Anonymous and HJMG are almost certainly correct: it cannot refer to anything else but the Allies of the Sixth Coalition-Prussians, Austrians and Russians- entering Paris in 1814. Clio the Muse 08:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone, for confirming the answer. And I'm sorry if I wasn't clear, but the story is simply titled "Reginald"-- it's the first story in the collection called "Reginald", Anonymous linked to it above. Tantei Kid 20:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Tantei Kid

Bible -Needs to be Interpreted by a Pope?

According to the Roman Catholicism, althought the Bible is inerrant, we still have to listen to and believe in the teachings, ideas, and claims of the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope because we need them to interpret the Bible for us and tell us what it means. Why do we need some kind of special person like a Pope to interpret the Bible for us? Why can't we simply take what the Bible says literally? The Anonymous One 08:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

<Question edited and some answers removed. See talk. --Dweller 11:02, 25 April 2007 (UTC)>

We have an article on priesthood of all believers for the Lutheran rejection of authority. Protestant churches have their ministers interpret scripture, arguably on the basis that the minister will be more trained, more knowledgeable, and holy, and the episcopal churches do the same. Geogre 10:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Also understand that a literal interpretation of any text is still subject to dispute. For any given piece of scripture it is possible that two different people to have two different interpretations that both believe are literal interpretations. For this reason even fundamentalists expect their clergy to have attended some kind of Bible College / seminary so that they will have an educated ability to interpret scripture. That is not to say the you NEED a priest to interpret for you. Remember that all universities in the United States before the founding of the University of Virgina by Thomas Jefferson were essentially religious schools. The colonists believed that anyone should be capable of interpreting the bible, but that an education was needed to be able to do it competently. This is also another reason for the push for universal literacy in the early republic, so that anyone could read the bible for themselves. -Czmtzc 12:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

For instance take Matt 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Does this mean that Saint_Peter was literally a piece of stone and that Jesus built a church on top of him? That would be the Literal interpretation. Does that make sense to you? Maybe some interpretation is needed here to understand what Jesus meant. You just don't have to have the Pope do it for you. -Czmtzc 12:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is another thought to consider: don't be lazy! Instead of having someone else "interpret" it for you, what about just using your own common sense as to what the Bible is saying? What does your "gut feeling" tell you in a verse or scripture? Would not this be as good (if not better than) what someone else is telling you what it says? What about using your own judgment as to what the Bible says instead of someone's elses? Is ther judgment better somehow?? Personally I do not go on Biblical literalism, but more on "gut feeling" applying what I refer to as just plain everyday common sense (i.e. practical knowledge). Your thoughts on this?--Doug 18:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Too many ppl are lazy, dum, stupid, and simply don't like to think. It takes a lot of effort to think and it is way easier to let somebody else think for you and simply obey and follow his teachings. Common sense applies only for the few that think somewhat for themselves. Better the believers follow someone who is relativly moderate and responsable like the pope. I'm being completly serious. Compared to David Koresh, Jim Jones, and Shoko Asahara even the "venerable" Jerry Falwell is an inocent. I grant you that these three examples are the most extreme examples I can qickly remmeber but the fact is that believers followed them blindly to their doom. Flamarande 20:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note the shift in conversation. "Is it true" that the RCC has a hierarchical reading of the Bible is answerable. Even "is literalism viable/possible" is potentially a reference question. On the other hand, "why don't you people do X" is preaching and speculating. It is not something that can be answered with references and therefore is inappropriate to the Reference Desk. It invites, "Well, I think that people..." sorts of answers. Many people have opinions, but they're not a thing we can do on a reference desk. Geogre 10:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Are You Being Served?

I'm putting this here since it's more of a culture question than a television show question...

How accurate was the portrayal of British clothing stores in the television series Are You Being Served?? As an American, not only do I find the show hilarious, I think the formality of the characters interaction is out of this world. And I don't really understand why a store would have a "floorwalker". Was this an actual position? It seems terribly pointless to pay someone to just stand around and point customers towards the sales people. Or did the floorwalker have some duties that weren't really shown in the series? I'm only through most of the first season the second season or "series" as it seems to be called in British English, so maybe the later episodes would help me mentally justify Captain Peacock's position. Dismas| 08:48, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Are You Being Served? is about as accurate a portrayal of British department stores as Happy Days is of American teens, Dismas! The floorwalker was merely the department supervisor and manager, a role that is clearly much more 'hands on' today than it perhaps once was. The word itself, if not the position, is actually American, not British in origin, and you will find a definition in Webster's. Dictionary.com says it originated in the States in the late 1870s. Incidentally, how is the character of Mr. Humphries received 'over there'? I would have thought his camp caricature of homosexuality would have outraged the gay community? Clio the Muse 09:12, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

If the exclamation point at the end of that first sentence was supposed to imply that I was being daft by suggesting that AYBS? may have been accurate, please don't think that I thought that. I realize that it's just a television show so I was wondering just how much of a departure it actually is/was. As far as Mr. Humphries goes (went), I'm not certain how the gay community felt about it at all. Currently, I don't know any people, who I know to be gay, who I feel comfortable enough to strike up that conversation with. My wife and I think that he's funny, if that counts for anything. And as the article here says, his sexual preference isn't really stated outright. Dismas| 09:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

No, of course not; the exclamation mark was merely there for comic emphasis. Like all comedy, Are You Being Served is a parody and a simplification, much like Happy Days. British department stores were never run like that. Besides, it's now about twenty years into the past, and British comedy has a much harder edge now than in that more innocent age, if I can put it like that. I'm glad you enjoy it, but I am also slightly surprised. The humour is not only so British, but it represents a particular style of Britishness, full of double entendres of a rather silly kind. There is even a book on British taste in television entertainment, would you believe, with the title Mrs Slocombe's Pussy by Stuart Jeffries. You will, I think, understand the reference. I can only take so much of this myself, my own taste in antique comedy running to shows like Monty Python and Blackadder. Anyway, Dismas, are you free? Clio the Muse 11:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Brits tend to be horrified by which old shows American public broadcasting viewers see and enjoy. Are You Being Served, Keeping Up Appearances, and Waiting for God are on regular rotation around the US on the public stations. Of these, the most inexplicable is Are You Being Served, but it's also possibly the most popular. Some view it as camp, I assume. The humor is not so very British as one might assume, although the cultural references will be lost. If Americans can get 90% of the jokes on Monty Python (but not the local geography ones or the Harold Wilson ones, perhaps, or the Viv Stainshall ones), there are certainly cognates, so to speak, for many of the "types" being used. Anyway, I, personally, don't get any of those three, but I'm not sure that I'd regard things like The Young Ones as superio(u)r. Utgard Loki 12:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As Time Goes By is also played here in the States on the public stations. Dismas| 12:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I see, so the reality of it is quite like Happy Days indeed... as in, not much. Thanks for straightening me out. I do admit that we don't get all the jokes. It's mostly the ones having to do with British places and celebrities. Mrs. Slocombe once made a comment to a woman who was buying a veil for her wedding that we didn't get at all. Something about going to Beach End or something like that. It wasn't until we went through the trivia in the special features of the DVD that we got that joke. And I do like Monty Python as well as the one season of Blackadder that I've seen, the WWI season. *looks left, looks right* Yes, Clio, I'm free. Dismas| 12:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Well then, Dismas, here is a beauty for you, which I would be absolutely amazed, to put it mildly, if Americans understood. One of the elderly shop assistants, I forget which, was talking about going to Wales on a second honeymoon: "I'm taking my wife to Wales", he said, "to Bangor". This was followed by lots of studio laughs. Now, if you understand that you can have the-virtual-million dollar bonus. If not, please ask and I will try to explain! Clio the Muse 19:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thirteen of These United States have a Bangor, so some Americans should get the joke. —Tamfang 23:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the entire staff should have gone to India, to Bangalore. StuRat 23:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I wonder how many people reading this are now thinking ... "Oh crap, now I have that damn theme song from Happy Days stuck in my head :/" ... dr.ef.tymac 14:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

oh crap...:0 Perry-mankster 09:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Just two words regarding camp and double entendres (or triple or quadruple multi-lingual entendres): 'Allo 'Allo! Cheers --Geologyguy 14:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As for Mr. Humphries and the reaction of American gay men, I don't own a television but I have seen him once or twice while visiting gay friends. I am a gay American, but I can't speak for all of us. Some may be offended. However, my friends and I were just amused. It is a silly parody of a stupid stereotype. I don't see what there is to be offended about. Marco polo 17:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification, Marco. We live in such a PC world that one tends to assume, especially in the United States, that each and every stereotype will be subject to outrage and challenge. I'm pleased to note that it is not always the case. We take ourselves far too seriously. Clio the Muse 17:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

As another gay American, I'll just mention that upon the recent death of John Inman, the only person I personally know who expressed outrage at the Mr. Humphries character is a gay man from Brighton. That's my WP:NOR violation for the month. --LarryMac 17:53, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Now for my two cents (or is that two pence ?):

1) Happy Days had two theme songs, Happy Days in the later episodes and Rock Around the Clock early on.

2) Mr. Humpries was bisexual, not gay. I wouldn't think the homosexual community would be offended, because there are some homosexuals/bisexuals who do behave in an effeminate manner.

3) I believe AYBS? goes back some 30 years. There was also an Are You Being Served Again ? sequel, I believe: "I'll have you know there have been Moulterds in this house for generations !"..."Yes, that would explain the smell".

4) The type of comedy seems most closely related to the American Three's Company, particularly taking an overhead convo and interpreting it in a sexual (often homosexual) way.

5) I believe an overly formal manner (at least from an American perspective) is common to certain portions of English society. If you read responses here, you can often detect such formality in certain answers (like referring to people in the third person), and tell who is English.

StuRat 22:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That sequel was Grace & Favour, apparently known by the ridiculous title of 'Are You Being Served? Again!' in the US (presumably because it was assumed that Americans wouldn't understand the reference to grace and favour). Australia's been getting a dose of the old British sitcoms recently as well, in the form of Great Comedy Classics which includes AYBS, Some Mothers Do 'ave 'em, and The Benny Hill Show, which while being amusing probably do paint a rather unbalanced picture of "Classic" British comedy (and is also interesting in the fact that all the classics are British, despite there being no such restriction in the title of the show). Confusing Manifestation 05:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why American's in particular should be offended by a stereotypical camp man. I mean they have Will and Grace (personally I don't watch it, not because I am an offended gay man, but because I am a slightly homophobic straight man who finds campness annoying!). I would have thought if anything the Christian right would be more upset by showing homosexuality than gays themselves. After all there were complaints about Spongebob Squarepants! By the way did America ever get Rainbow (TV series)?137.138.46.155 07:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Blank ballots in Argentine elections

Are there statistics available showing a decline or rise in blank ballots during democratic elections in Argentina (1983-2007)?131.174.203.109 10:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)Paulina

Real estate question

Can you provide a definition to "tenant in possession" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.39.22.98 (talk) 11:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, but after looking at some documents found through Google I believe that a tenant in possesion is someone who rents and lives on a piece of property. Severeal of the documents listed in the above search refer to rights due to the owner or tenant in possesion. For instance in this article the right to shoot coyotes on a piece of property is given to the owner or tenant in possesion, or those given permission by the owner.--Czmtzc 12:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The precise definition depends on the context, the applicable law and what jurisdiction controls the transaction in question. Although Czmtzc gives one example and some conjecture, there are alternate definitions that may be relevant. If you need further details beyond the generalized examples given, see: Misplaced Pages:Legal_disclaimer, Real_property, Leasehold estate, Tenant farmer, Concurrent_estate#Tenancy_in_common. dr.ef.tymac 14:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Common sense and the Bible

Common sense can be defined as:

• that which people in general "sense" in common as their common natural understanding (i.e. obey the laws of the land).
• that in their opinion they consider would in most people's experience be prudent and of sound judgment (i.e. stay healthy).

Jesus taught common sense lessons (i.e. parables) in all four Gospels. There are other examples throughtout the New Testament given by elders. What is the closest term or word used in the Bible to "represent" the above definitions of common sense itself? --Doug 13:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

In Old Testament terms it'd be "Tzedek". That's difficult to translate. It's a melange of righteousness, justice and correct behaviour. It cuts across man/man and man/God relationships. However, the concept of common sense is alien to the Old Testament. The whole dang thing is about how people aren't very good at creating their own moral codes and therefore should accept one pre-packaged for them. Interested to see New Testament answer - I guess the term would be Greek? --Dweller 13:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that excellent answer as it pertains to the Old Testament. Most interested in the New Testament (especially as related to Jesus). What is this Greek term or word?--Doug 13:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't get a handle on this. Your description of common sense seems very close to conventional morality, and in the Gospels Jesus' teachings are presented as definitely unsettling to conventional morality. If you point to a particular example in the N.T. where the quality you mean is emphasized, I might be able to shed some light on the terms in which it is spoken of. Offhand, the closest I can offer is the parable of the virgins trimming their wicks (Matthew 25:1-13), where the ones who have the good sense (phronimoi) to prepare prudently come out better. You can see all N.T. usages of this word ("wise" KJV) by following this link. Wareh 19:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I do believe you have come up with a Greek word of what I am speaking about of that of Good sense being: phronimoi. Personally I am not looking at this from a morality viewpoint, however just took this definition straight off Misplaced Pages of common sense. Looking at it more from the viewpoint of Practical Knowledge. Your example is what I am refering to; others are:

• Parable of the Sower
• Parable of the Faithful Servant
• New Wine into Old Wineskins
• new cloth to patch old clothing Mark 2:21

Do you have the equivalent Latin or Italian word also? Are any of these words actually in the New Testament? --Doug 20:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"Prudentia", the source of our "prudence", can mean ";good sense" or "common sense" in Latin. According to this there are 63 occurences of prudentia in the Vulgate. Adam Bishop 22:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Is there another Latin word or Latin term (or even Italian) used in the New Testament that refers to that of what I am referring to of "practical knowledge" of the parables above other than the excellent example you gave me here? --Doug 22:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, beware this quest. In the case of parables, they were quite often misunderstood by their immediate audience, and Jesus upbraids his disciples and the crowd often enough for not understanding what He was saying. "Let those with ears, hear" and "You have ears but do not hear, eyes but do not see," as well as several instances where "the disciples took him aside privately and asked for the meaning of the parable" suggest that Jesus is appealing to a 'practical' understanding that He finds lacking at the particular moment. Therefore, it's unlikely that Christ would have used a long formulation for this complaint if there were a single word that conveyed all of the nuances of "common sense" in English. This is a separate question from whether the Romans and Greeks had a term for a) the sense that unites disparate concepts (the Lockean "common sense"), b) the sense of things that is inherent to sentience (the "common birthright sense of things"), or c) the sense of things established by human society (the "common person's sense of things"). They more or less did. Utgard Loki 12:26, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Forgotten quotation

Can anyone help me to trace a quotation, which I remember so dimly that I can't find it in any of the obvious dictionaries? The context is that someone about to enter a battle or a competition is fearfully contemplating the weaknesses of his own side, forgetting that the opposition will also have doubts. And the quotation is something on the lines of 'Remember, the enemy too is fearful', or 'Remember, the enemy too has doubts', or something like that. Sorry to be so vague, but this dim memory is tormenting me.Maid Marion 13:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Ulysses S. Grant said something like that (referring to one of his earliest contacts with Confederate troops), but I can't track it down... AnonMoos 17:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It's on page 213 of "Mask of Command" by John Keegan (probably quoting from Grant's memoirs:

• At the very start of the war, as Colonel of the 21st Illinois, he set out to engage a Confederate regiment operating in the vicinity. Expecting to find it waiting to engage him, he pressed forward only because he lacked the "moral courage to halt". When he found that the enemy had decamped, "my heart resumed its place. It occurred to me at once that had been afraid of me as I had been of him." -- AnonMoos 18:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Relatedly, I was behind someone in a marathon who had a funny shirt that read, "Whenever I race, my mind is filled with doubts: 'who will come in second? who will be third?'". :) --TotoBaggins 03:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• Someone has borrowed my "Art Of War" but it sounds like it might be from there.hotclaws**== 11:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like an excerpt from "Art of War" to me, but I'll take your word for it if you can find it. Here is an online copy. dr.ef.tymac 19:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• I doubt this is what you're looking for, but Shakespeare's Richard III expresses a similar sentiment:

The sun will not be seen to-day;

The sky doth frown and lour upon our army.

I would these dewy tears were from the ground.

Not shine to-day! Why, what is that to me

More than to Richmond? for the selfsame heaven

That frowns on me looks sadly upon him. AndyJones 19:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. None of this is quite what I had in mind, but I appreciate your efforts. Maid Marion 07:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages largest reference in what languages

Misplaced Pages is the largest singular work in the English language, as well as in Esperanto. Does anyone know what other languages it could hold this title? A reporter is wanting this info for their article. -- Zanimum 13:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Controlled Substances Act

Is the Controlled Substances Act Constitutional? It seems to overstep what Congress is allowed to do under Section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitution. The justification of the CSA that I've read seems to disagree with other "interstate commerce" policies such as fireworks and guns. Jolb 14:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

My cynical take on this is that Congress uses the Commerce Clause as a blank check to do whatever they want, whether it's Constitutional or not, and as long as that law suits the Supreme Court's political biases, they'll go along with it. Modern examples include striking down gun control and anti-domestic abuse legislation, while upholding anti-medical marijuana legislation. --TotoBaggins 16:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Cynical nothing. Cynical would be "the Constitution is irrelevant" ... could it be the OP was really just setting up someone for a rant? dr.ef.tymac 21:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to set anyone on a rant... I just want to know if any judge/legislator ever made a ruling on the constitutionality of the CSA. There should be some judicial opinion on it, given that the CSA must have been challenged in a few higher-court cases in the last forty years. Jolb 00:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

In 2004 or 2003, there was a challenge to California's ability to have medical marijuana, in light of the controlled substances act, but I believe that didn't examine the constitutionality of the Act itself and instead focused on whether state or federal law would control what is and is not illegal in drugs. The SC ruled, I think, that states had the right to change what was prosecutable, but the Bush administration has gone on to say that that doesn't matter, because the federal statute was not struck down. Geogre 10:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

In Gonzales v Raich the majority essentially said "this is really a question for the legislative branch"; Clarence Thomas's dissent (a thing of beauty imho) said, in part, "But the controversy here is which legislature it belongs to." Raich's position was not a direct challenge to CSA but an argument that Federal authority, even with the blank check of Wickard v Filburn, does not extend to activity entirely outside commerce. (The farmer in Wickard v Filburn maintained that since he wasn't selling his grain it was none of Washington's business; but he fed some of it to hogs, which he sold. I don't know whether the hogs aspect was decisive, or merely that by relieving him of the need to buy grain his crop had the effect of lowering the market price.) —Tamfang 21:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Transportation in the 1800s

How long would it take to sail (either by passenger sailing ship or early steamship) from France to New England in the mid 1810s? Also in the mid 1850s or so? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.100.122.32 (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Two or three weeks on average, depending on the weather conditions. It took Charles Dickens eighteen days in 1842, sailing from Liverpool to Boston. Sailing from, say, Cherbourg, may have taken a day longer. Clio the Muse 16:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The "mid 1810s" voyage could have been slower. The first steamship crossed the Atlantic in 1819. "The Savannah reached Liverpool in 29 days and 4 hours, a good but not exceptional time, due in part to bad weather." --HJMG 22:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The change came in the 1830s; the era of the competitive crossing times published in the newspapers was the era of the clipper ship. --Wetman 01:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Mysterious Force

Apparently there is a "mysterious force" that is emanated by a person when one is trying seriously to solve a problem. It then seems to attract (i.e. like a magnet) the answer from various "sources" and from other people. What would the term or word be for this phenomenon or "magnetic force"? --Doug 15:39, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Coincidence. - Nunh-huh 15:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Did I forget to mention, if you are really really serious on solving the problem you can "connect" to this force (i.e. like connecting to the internet). And I dare to say that only those that have experienced this "force" will know the answer.--Doug 15:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The latter experience was described by Madame Blavatsky as connecting to the Akashic record.. - Nunh-huh 16:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC) Thanks! --Doug 17:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

There, see what I mean. You found it for me! I was really really looking for this answer - and puff, there it came. Not only that, but I have sense found other answers for this. One being a Misplaced Pages article on Law of Attraction and similar "Laws" that have been written in various books by Brian Tracy, especially his book on The 100 Absolutely Unbreakable Laws of Business Success. I personally have experience this "force" many times. It works not only in finding research information like this, but in business as well. --Doug 17:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It didn't come to you, "puff"! It came because you asked on a reference desk. - Nunh-huh 18:38, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course it did. There is no magic here. Clio the Muse 18:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. You are absolutely correct in that I did ask for what this was and I received an excellent answer. However nobody came up with Law of Attraction which I did not know was on Misplaced Pages until after I asked this question. I was then "attracted" to this answer by some "force". Had I already known this was on Misplaced Pages I would not have asked what this was called, since the answer would have been Law of Attraction. However now I have several answers that I didn't have earlier today. Thanks again for your great answers and responses. --Doug 20:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It would seem easiest to assume that the "attraction" was a research interest and the "force" was clicking hyperlinks in relevant or related articles; otherwise, thinking of something and then hitting "Random article" a few times would seem to be superior to using the RD. I don't bring this up to mock but rather to point out that this has all the trappings of bad pseudoscience: untestable claims, answerable only by true believers, and the like. — Lomn 21:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

WTF? dr.ef.tymac 21:07, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The excellent answer given to me was of Akashic record which is referred to as "a collection of mystical knowledge" which is approximately what I asked, which I referred to as a "Mysterious Force". I never mentioned magic, but did say it was "mysterious". Didn't set anything up as "trappings", but just trying to figure it out. Sorry. --Doug 21:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I am just looking for answers, so please assume good faith. Not trying to make anyone believe anything (i.e. paranormal, religion, or otherwise), except for perhaps common sense "practical knowledge". However if you don't want to believe in that, its alright by me. I'll go by what works for me, you go by what works for you. My questions are just for finding out answers and are not any kind of "trappings". With that being said, I do believe that Brian Tracy has some excellent business common sense practical solutions that actually work. Not trying to make you believe them or even promoting any of his products (which most by the way you can get free at the library). He is about as far away from the paranormal as you can get and is about as close to practical applications as you can get. So when he talks of the Law of Attraction I pay attention. The book (ISBN 1-57675-126-0) I referred to above you can get at your local library free and it talks of this Law plus some 100 more. These mostly apply for business, however many apply to everyday applications. --Doug 22:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"Trappings" refers to the outward signs or appearances of a particular thing or idea. It seems like you're interpreting the word to mean something along the lines of "trap". It doesn't, so Lomn's answer was probably not as antagonistic as you first thought. GreatManTheory 00:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case, sorry. --Doug 00:40, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If memory serves, the core meaning of trappings is the equipment that goes on a horse, some of which may be purely ornamental. —Tamfang 21:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The Polish Question

Apparently half a million Poles have immigrated to the UK in the past few years with the intention to work and send a chunk of their pay back home. Will this damage the UK economy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Seans Potato Business (talk • contribs) 16:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

As far as I can determine, the presence of Polish people here is of enormous benefit to the British economy. The contribution they make, the money they spend and the taxes they pay, far outweighs that part of their income they send back home. Long may they remain, plumbers and all! Clio the Muse 16:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's say every one of them 1) displaces a UK worker who 2) makes the UK average of US$30,000 and 3) sends 100% of it home, paying no taxes and spending nothing to live or eat, and 4) provides no value to the UK economy. So that's 500,000 * $30,000 == $15,000,000,000, which is still less than 1% of the US$2 trillion UK economy. 1, 2, 3, and 4 are all *wildly* unlikely and even if true not too harmful, and Bob's your wujek.  :) --TotoBaggins 17:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

But how many Poles does it take to damage the UK economy? Azi Like a Fox 06:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Only one, if he's a clever saboteur. —Tamfang 20:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The Economist recently mentioned that EU expansion has been most beneficial to those countries with the most open labor markets, including Britain. —Tamfang 20:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

red state blue state

why did they change the colors or the election from red meaning dem. to meaning rep.? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.98.86.190 (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

I can't understand your question exactly but the article Red_states_and_blue_states#Origins_of_current_color_scheme might help. -- Diletante 21:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Which doesn't answer the question, Diletante. The reason 'why' is not known, but it might be helpful to know why, in Australia, the liberal party is caled 'Australian Labor Party' and the conservatives are named 'Liberal.' ALP was named that way in the nineteeenth century to attract conservative votes. Robert Menzies created the Liberal Party in thye 1940's in response to a collapse of the conservative vote, to claim liberal votes, and represent the hopes and aspirations of middle Australia. DDB 06:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

And of course because conservative and liberal mean different things outside America137.138.46.155 07:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This website provides some commentary on the red-blue thing. Apparently, before the 2000 election, the color associations were more fluid, with blue often being used for the Republicans, and red for the Democrats. For example, the author mentions that the term "Lake Reagan" was used to describe the NBC map of Reagan's landslide victory in 1980. It seems that by the time of the 2000 election, the big TV networks had developed a preference for Republican red and Democratic blue, and then newspapers like the New York Times followed suit. The 2000 election map was flashed at the US population on a daily basis, so it seems that these color associations stuck in people's minds, giving birth to the current "red state-blue state" rhetoric. --Lazar Taxon 06:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

• I can give anecdotal support for that. I certainly remember Red for Democrat in 1974 Congressionals, 1980 Presidential, and various by-elections throughout. In fact, I used to wish that the colors meant something and then believe they did and then wonder again. In non-partisan races, candidates will use a color on their yard signs, and, since 2000, that has been easy to figure. "This is a non-partisan judge's race, but Jimbo Jones and Kearney have red yard signs, so that means they're against the 4th amendment" is now more solidly encoded, but it sure as shootin' wasn't before. Utgard Loki 12:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Didn't Nancy Reagan have a coat or something that was described as "Republican Red"? —Tamfang 20:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

what were humans doing around 784,000 BCE?

what were humans doing around 783,993 BCE? Do we have an article that corresponds to that period in time? Did humans even exist yet?--Sonjaaa 21:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Evolving from Homo Erectus, I think. - Eron 21:56, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Take a look at our article Human evolution. Whether "humans" existed at your date depends on how you define "humans". Our species, Homo sapiens, did not yet exist, so there were no humans like us. Our likely ancestors, Homo erectus, did exist at that date. Bands of Homo erectus were hunting animals and collecting plant foods at the date you mention. They most likely did not have language. Marco polo 21:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

While it is the case that cave paintings and writing date back to 25k BCE, another livescience article, about a year ago, explored the issues of hairlessness and language acquisition. It is currently a theory that talking began as a result of mothers needing to put down their babies and work. The communication with the babies was sufficient to maintain security while concentrating elsewhere, noting that babies haven't the strength to hold on independantly of mother's help, as other primates may. Then, of course, mothers became aware, through evolution, of the ability to nag to produce work. The hairlessness is related to the study, but not language acquisition. Apparently we don't have as much hair as other primates so that we can visually check for insects. Homo Erectus had tools, but no writing, so language use is only conjecture. DDB 06:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Name of George Orwell's teacher

I am trying to determine the given name of one of George Orwell's teachers. The only things I know is that she was the wife of LC Vaughan Wilkes, headmaster of St Cyprian's School and that her nickname was "Flip." ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:36, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Flip and Sambo! Her maiden name, in full, was Cicely Ellen Philiadelphia Comyn, otherwise known as Mum or Flip to generations of little boys. Such, Such Were the Joys!

Anyone reading Orwell's early work will be aware of his hostility to all things Scottish, which takes various forms, most particularly his deliberate use of the word 'Scotch' instead of 'Scots', because he was fully aware of how much annoyance this caused. I used to believe that this dislike dated from his time in the Burmese Police, where he encountered a particular kind of Scotsman, once common in the Imperial service. It was only after reading his essay on St. Cyprian's that I became aware of the true cause. Flip deliberately encouraged a 'cult of Scottishness', in part derived from her pride in an assumed Scottish ancestry. The Comyns were one of the great nobel houses of Medieval Scotland, and one-time rivals to King Robert Bruce. But more than that the cult, brought out all of Flip's latent snobbery, and left poor Eric Blair with a deep sense of resentment: The School was pervaded by a curious cult of Scotland, which brought out a fundamental contradiction in our standard of values. Flip claimed Scottish ancestry, and she favoured the Scottish boys , encouraging them to wear kilts in their ancestral tartan instead of school uniform, and even christened her youngest child by a Gaelic name...But underlying this was something quite different. The real reason for the cult of Scotland was that only very rich people could spend their summers there...Flip's face always beamed with innocent snobbishness when she spoke of Scotland. Occasionaly she even attempted to trace a Scottish accent. Scotland was a private paradise which few initiates could talk about and make outsiders feel small. If anyone is puzzled by this (the Scots most of all!) I should make it clear that this 'Scotland' is not to be found in the backstreets of Glasgow, Edinburgh or Dundee, but on the grouse moors and by the salmon rivers, where the only Scots to be seen were beaters, game-keepers and ghillies! Such, indeed, were the joys. Clio the Muse 23:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

April 26

Who is the smartest man ever?

Who is the smartest man ever on record?

Sincerely Kevin —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.134.28.63 (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

I removed an email address. I hope I have not offended any rule, but the address had appeared on the screen. Bielle 03:35, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The smartest modern, English speakers I know of, as measured by less-than-perfect IQ tests, are Marilyn vos Savant and Bobby Fischer. The vos Savant article also deals with the problems of measuring IQ. Then there is the whole rest of the world, and all of human history before the 1900s. Bielle 03:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Pick one from the list: Take a look at Polymath and the associated list in the discussion page. No human being will ever conclusively answer your question. Perhaps a bird will whisper the answer into your ear. dr.ef.tymac 04:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

For all we know, the human with the potential to be the smartest ever died as a child at Chelmno extermination camp, in the Plague of Justinian, or on the African savannah 8,000 years ago. He or she may have lived a life of desperation as a slave on a Virginia plantation or as a prostitute in a 11th century Chinese brothel. The person who was able to use that potential to its highest level may never have been written about, or writings describing the individual may not have survived to the present day.

Intelligence tests are limited in scope and have only existed for a short period of time; what's more, the vast majority of intelligent people in the modern world never take an IQ test (they're not readily available outside the Anglophone world), and the vast majority that do don't publicize the results.

So any "smartest person ever" question that requires a definitive answer based on IQ is really asking, "who among modern anglophone Westerners (who have taken an IQ test and publicized the results) has the highest score?" There are so many variables that the answer to that question is, in my opinion, completely worthless.

Any other definition (polymathism, for instance - it would be considerably easier for an American manufacturing heir of above average intelligence to become a polymath than a supergenius growing up in a shanty in Bolivia) is unquantifiable and again, in my opinion, similarly worthless. --Charlene 06:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

A good answer, Charlene, though I personally feel that intellect has to be nurtured. Besides, I am hopeless at those dreadful Eysenck tests, I freely confess! Clio the Muse 06:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

But Knowledge to their eyes her ample page

Rich with the spoils of time did ne'er unroll;

Chill Penury repress'd their noble rage,

And froze the genial current of the soul.

- Thomas Gray, Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard. Gandalf61 13:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, the questioner asked for the "smartest man" and "on record". To be fair, that was the original question. It could be read as sexist and biased toward documented cases only (but that might have been unintentional); and yes, it gave no operational definition of "smartest".

Nevertheless, one might also fault re-framing the original question to include "documented or undocumented cases", and then choosing a definition for the questioner (i.e. 'highest IQ score' or 'polymathism' or 'cultivation through nurturing' or 'intrinsic ability' or ...) and then dismissing any posssible answer as "worthless."

Perhaps "greatest" and "smartest" truly is unquantifiable for those who have given it serious consideration, but then this very discussion demonstrates that reasonable people can have varying personal opinions on what "intellect" really is.

Most importantly, not everyone has given this serious consideration. Some people just like reading about noteworthy individuals who have done well in this or that academic field. Some people are happy with glib answers and collect names of intellectuals like others collect baseball cards. Although other, more "meticulous" thinkers may find such pursuits unfulfilling, it would seem rather uncharitable to categorically dismiss them as "worthless." dr.ef.tymac 15:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Beau Brummell is a good candidate, assuming one willfully misunderstands the American usage of the word "smart" in the question. --Dweller 08:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"State" vs. "state"

I'm curious if Misplaced Pages should adopt a style standard concerning the use of the word state and how it should appear based on its context. The word "state" with a lower-case s is usually used in a context to represent a meaning similar to that of country, government, or nation-state, a basic political science term. I agree with this usage. On the flip, "State" with a capital S should be used either when the first meaning is used to begin a sentence--as normal--or when the author is specifically referencing States as in the several States within the United States (e.g. CA, TX, VA, ND, etc.). Foofighter20x 03:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a discussion for the Misplaced Pages Manual of Style, not the Reference Desk. Anyway, most style guides would call for lower-case in all uses of the word except when stating the formal name of a state (as in "State of Kansas."). -- Mwalcoff 04:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Why are Liberals "Left" and Conservatives "Right"?

Why are Liberals "Left" and Conservatives "Right"? Why are Liberals called "Whigs" and Conservatives "Tory"? Why is one "Blue" and the other "Red"? CaitanyaCandra

The French Revolution of 1789 had a parlaiment or National Assembly (French Revolution) you should note the factions. I understand there was, at one stage, a meeting chamber, and the conservative groups tended to collect on the right side, and the radicals on the left.

In England, there were two major parties that were both tended to conservative politics, but the Torys more so than the Whigs.

I don't know about the colors, but they might have something to do with 1860's US politics, and the GOP (Republican) party being founded near that time, and trying to distinguish itself from the Democrat Party. DDB 05:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the name of the party is "Democratic Party" (unless you're talking about Thailand or Brazil). --TotoBaggins 13:47, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. The use of "Democrat Party" is a slur. Corvus cornix 17:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Consistent attachment of colors to parties is quite new in the USA (see Red states and blue states) but, I gather, much older in Britain. —Tamfang 20:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, CaitanyaCandra. To begin with look at Left-wing politics. The division between right and left dates to the French Revolution of 1789, when the practice grew up for the liberal and radical deputies in the various National Assemblies, from the Estates General onwards, to sit to the left of the chair of the presiding officer, and the less radical and the conservative to the right. The association between radical action and the colour red also dates to this time, as the red flag, denoting a state of emergency, was flown at times of acute political tension, usually prior to one of the many 'revolutions within the revolution', like that of August 1792. The labels Whig and Tory are even older, going back to English politics in the late seventeenth century. A faction grew up in Parliament opposed to the policies of Charles II, originally known as the 'Country Party' as a way of distingushing them from the supporters of the king, known as the 'Court Party'. The enemies of the Country Party started to call them 'Whigs', after the extreme Presbyterian rebels in Scotland. The Country Party responded by calling the King's men 'Tories', after a group of Irish bandits. Both labels stuck, and were adopted by the respective factions as their own. Clio the Muse 05:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I may be mistaken, but the fact that conservatives are to the right of the speaker of the Assembly in France is due to the fact that, originally, conservatives were from the nobility and the high clergy, who were at the place of honour — and this place is classically to the right of the speaker.

Witness how in classical depictions of the Last Supper, the elderly Peter stands to the right of Christ, because this is the place of honour. David.Monniaux 17:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is a good point. Throughout the Middle Ages those dining with monarchs, and considered worthy of particular honour, were always seated to the right of the royal chair. Clio the Muse 18:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

polygamy and adultery

This was originally posted on Science Reference Desk but it should be posted here instead.

I have a question. If an adult male marries Abigail and Brittany Hensel then will he be guilty of polygamy? If he marries just one of them then will he be commiting adultery? 202.168.50.40 05:51, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Past decisions about whether conjoined twins are allowed to marry have been ambiguous. The Hilton twins couldn't, but Chang and Eng Bunker could. I wonder if any lawyer could give a reasonable opinion because of this ambiguity. If either of them wants to marry, they might have to go to court to get a judge's ruling. --Charlene 05:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

They are legally two separate people with separate driving licenses. I don't see how it could be polygamy - but it can't really be anything other than adultery as they have only one set of genitalia. Secretlondon 06:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Adultery? More like awesome. --24.147.86.187 12:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

International school in Poland

Dear Sir/Madam; I am a teacher working in an international school in Poland and i would like to send information about our school to wikipedia. I already have an account: meridianwarsaw. I would like that our school,Meridian International school, Warsaw, be displayed under http://en.wikipedia.org/List_of_international_schools#Poland title.

Could you please tell me what I should do? Regards...

I have added your school to the list, however it has no page of its own as yet so you'll probably want to add one. See Misplaced Pages:How to edit a page and Help:Starting a new page for more information. Algebraist 13:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Where do "hunches" come from?

Hunch can be defined as:

• suspicion (an impression that something might be the case)
• a guess or feeling not based on known facts at that moment.
• an intutive reckoning that an "impossibe" is really possible.

Where do "hunches" come from? Is there a "storehouse" someplace full of Ideas and then a "hunch" is where we get a "connection" to an Idea (perhaps one that is unknown at the time: example being Edison and his electric lamp)? --Doug 12:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

For me it's a combination of intellect, judgement and instinct. It is not 'feminine intuition'; it is my intuition. Clio the Muse 12:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

In Lockean psychology (sorry for referring to John Locke twice in only a few minutes), these are 'rhymes' or 'harmonies' of disparate ideas that jingle with each other according to the fancy of the mind. Judgment then takes over to test whether these likenesses are valid, and then imagination works out how they can be real. Despite 300 years, this remains generally how intuition is understood: one idea jars with another, one bit of dormant memory kicks, and some similarity not apparent on the surface strikes one, and then one begins to weigh, assess, and project. The electric light isn't very much a random thought, but the safety pin might be, or the zipper. Most of these intuitions are described in memoirs as starting with an observation that "strikes" one a particular way and brings out other thoughts. These ties and connections can be at any level, from simple linguistic ones to shapes or colors or properties. Utgard Loki 12:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

You can mention John Locke as often as you wish, Utgard Loki, without apology! Clio the Muse 12:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Louis Pasteur is credited with saying "Fortune favors the prepared mind." . Thomas Edison and a team of assistants did thousands of experiments over many months to come up with the first practical light bulb in 1879: He perhaps had a hunch at the beginning of the work that he could make a successful incandescent lamp from a thin strip of platinum heated by electricity in open air with a regulator to prevent the temperature from reaching the melting point, but the eventual first practical lamp was notable for a carbon filament of very small cross section, to make it high resistance, so that it could be supplied with electricity from a distance, in a one piece glass bulb with an extremely high vacuum and with the metal leads well sealed where they passed through the glass. Hunches had surprisingly little to do with the successful research program, and exhaustive tireless empiricism had everythng to do with it. 10,000 hunches, 9,999 dead ends, one success. And in the proces, the invention of the vacuum tube in the form of the Edison effect, which was used a few years later to launch the field of electronics. Edison 16:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Edison answering this question, other editors answering questions on the nine Muses and on Marco Polo. I have a hunch that it's time to re-read WP:COI. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

In the case of the 10,000 experiments and the 9,999 dead ends, it looks to me that at least one was an intelligent "hunch" that it might work then. Somebody (one or more of Edison's assistants) had the "idea" that with this combination you described above, that it would produce an incandescent lamp that would work on electricity. It did not happen by accident! Initially it must have been Edison that had this "hunch" before he set in motion many of his assistants to perform thousands of experiments. This was not a casual decision and cost a lot of money. It must have been a "hunch" that ultimately it would pay back profits; since he was willing to pursue it to fruition. Or was it a darn good guess? To me it looks like these experiments were just the mechanics of bringing his "hunch" to fruition. Did he somehow "connect" to this "storehouse" of Ideas and already know that it would work and that it was then merely the mechanics of putting it together; since nobody else had ever done anything like this before him. How did he know it would work? --Doug 18:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

There were electric lighting apparatuses before Edison (just not as good as his). AnonMoos 18:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Then he must have had an intelligent "hunch" that he could make a superior long lasting incandescent lamp. Where did he get that Idea from? --Doug 18:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a good business idea? X is a nice thought, but it's impractical. I bet I could sell Improved-X for lots of money! Edison bought out older patents on primitive light bulbs and experimented until he produced a commercially viable one. You may find Occam's Razor of interest, as your suppositions seem to introduce lots of unneccessary and untestable notions to explaining the idea of invention. — Lomn 18:18, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding his work and inventions, Edison said "None of my inventions came by accident. I see a worthwhile need to be met and I make trial after trial until it comes. What it boils down to is one per cent inspiration and ninety-nine per cent perspiration.". - Eron 18:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! This is approximately what I am saying. In this quote it looks like to me he is able to "see" that it was doable, then it was just the mechanics = "make trial after trial until it comes." If he did not even have an intellegent inclination it would work he would not have invested this large amount of money and time to bring it to fruition. It looks like a "hunch" to me, being then some sort of inside information that ultimately it would work. Where did he get this "inside information"? This notion of an intelligent "hunch" could be brought over also to the Wright Brothers and their invention of a heavier-than-air controllable airplane. While many others invested much more money to make this come about, they failed. However apparently they were able to get better "hunches' and with a limited budget (a fraction of others) they were successful. Where did they get their "hunches". --Doug 18:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm seeing a parallel here with arguments regarding intelligent design and irreducible complexity. Just as there are those who argue that some natural systems are too complex to have arisen spontaneously, you seem to be arguing that some ideas are too good to have arisen spontaneously. I can't say as I am any more convinced by the latter argument than the former. Complex natural systems arise from millions upon millions of organisms living, dying, and evolving. For every human eyeball that arises, there are thousands of genetic and evolutionary dead ends. In the same way, for every Edison and every light bulb, there are a thousand toilers in a thousand basements, trying out other ideas that fall short of success. But we never see or hear of them; bad ideas (well, most of them) are lost to the ages. We see only an almost unbroken string of successful inspirations, not the undoubtedly larger number of failures. - Eron 18:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

A hunch can be a flash of holistic understanding in the prepared mind, an epiphany. Then the other half of the brain sets out to work the "hunch" through logically. See Charles Darwin's "hunch" during The Voyage of the Beagle. --Wetman 19:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

See also lateral thinking. --Wetman 20:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

In the sciences, hunches often come from analogies and symmetries. —Tamfang 20:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks all for these great answers....--Doug 22:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Price of oil in gold

I want to prove that the price of crude oil when measured in gold is that same today as it was 30 years ago. How would I find the price of gold today and 30 years ago. And the same for gold.

Today: oil is $64 and gold is $675 thus One barrel of oil is worth 0.0948 ounce of gold.

210.49.122.80 12:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

According to some rough figures , , thirty years ago the price of oil was about $10US a barrel and gold about $150US per ounce. So a barrel of oil was worth about 0.0667 ounces of gold. Thus the price of oil in gold has risen about 42% in the last 30 years. Algebraist 13:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, there are frivolous but fun things like this, but then there are actual economic analyses of "real dollar" costs, like the one by M. R. Darby in The American Economic Review from 1982. The search you want to perform is "real dollar" cost of oil and "real dollar" cost of gold, and then pick which standard you want. They used to calculate in 1972 dollars, but perhaps now they use 2000 dollars. Utgard Loki 15:06, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

globalism

to what extent has globalism been responsible for the rapid structural transformation undergone by western societies over the last 30 years? The-tokin-taxman 19:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If you'd like help with your homework, we'd be glad to do that. Though we aren't going to do it for you outright. Perhaps you'd like to explain what class this is for and such so that we can point you in the right direction. Though, looking through your notes from class as well as any textbooks that you have might be the best place to look. While you're here though, I might suggest the article on Globalization as well as History of globalization. Dismas| 19:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that my society had undergone a rapid structural transformation over the last 30 years. —Tamfang 20:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

How do I ?

How do I access Humanities 15 April? - Kittybrewster (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

If you mean the questions from this desk from 15 April, they are in the Archives. Dismas| 20:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. - Kittybrewster (talk) 22:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

incident in hyde park

This was the title of a poem I studied for GCE O level in the early sixties.I can't remember the name of the anthology,but it contained poems by people like Yeats,Auden,and Chesterton,so it's unlikely that the author was completely unheard of.The poem described an actual C19 event which was well recorded at the time.Two young officers(one Army,one Navy)argued while walking their dogs in Hyde Park,London.The men were named Montgomery and McNamara,and the poem relates how the argument led to a duel and a death.The general feeling of the poem was the folly of human aggression and I can remember vast chunks of it,but not the author's name.I've sought help from various internet sources,but nobody seems to believe that the poem ever existed.How can a poem that was considered good enough to be studied at national examination standard have disappeared so completely forty years later?Was the author somehow discredited?I was only a teenager,but I found it very powerful. Some lines: If your dog fight my dog,I warn you,I knock your dog down. Knock my dog down,and by God you'll go sprawling....later,the trial of the surviving duellist is described(a springtide of Admirals,almost Neptune in person),the two dogs"stretched at home in the firelight",and the poem ends with the words "and Honour rides on".Please,somebody,end my torment and remember this poem. By the way,the examining body was the Oxford Examinations Board,which no longer exists,and yes,I have tried libraries! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.13.211.218 (talk) 21:22, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

Edmund Blunden

--HJMG 21:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, according to this the real person was James MacNamara: "James MacNamara (1768 - 1826) from County Clare was in the British navy where he saw much service up to the Peace of Amiens. In a duel provoked by a fight between two dogs, he killed his opponent and, in 1803, was tried for murder. At his trial, Nelson, Hood and other distinguished officers testified to his character and service, so that he was acquitted. In 1814 he was appointed an admiral." Adam Bishop 22:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Currency - Store locator

I'm looking for a place that sells old dollar bills in Los Angeles, CA —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.151.59.5 (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

I googled "Yellow Pages" Los Angeles, then Coin Dealers, under which category I found this ]. The company also deals in paper money, according to their expanded listing. And, no, I don't know anything about the company or the industry; I don't even live in the US. Bielle 01:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

roger ebert

so is ebert's inability to talk due to surgery and illness permanent or temporary —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.98.86.190 (talk) 21:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC).

If you follow the correct link from his article, you get to this April 3 message from him, where he says his loss of voice is because he had a tracheostomy and will be repaired in his "upcoming completion surgery". --Anonymous Ebert fan, April 26, 23:47 (UTC).

Auditor of the Exchequer for Scotland

What is this position Is it notable? It is under afd at Robert Arbuthnot (auditor). Can anyone improve the article? - Kittybrewster (talk) 23:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was a reasonably important position in the old Scottish fiscal system. The Auditors of the Exchequer, answerable to the Court of Exchequer, were responsible for the management of crown revenues. Holders of the position included John Barbour, the author of an epic poem on Robert Bruce, who was an auditor for Robert II in the late fourteenth century. I'm not sure that there is an awful lot that can be done to improve that page-fairly lamentable in its prsent state-other than to carry out some more extensive research on Arbuthnot's life, particularly his relationship with Stair. I imagine you would be able to find some material on the subject in the National Library of Scotland. There is also a brief piece in Notes and Queries for 1918 (pp. 219-20), by one A. J. Arbuthnot, entitled Robert Arbuthnot, Auditor of the Exchequer. But to be perfectly honest with you, Kittybrewster, I have a feeling that the Auditor, has at best, minimal historical significance. Clio the Muse 00:19, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

April 27

origin of St. Peter at the pearly gates

I would lke to know where the origin of St. Peter being at the pearly gates to gain entrance to Heaven came from? Ďďŭçķ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.239.111.153 (talk) 00:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Read the article on St Peter. The image of Peter as guardian of the gates of heaven comes from the words of Jesus in Matthew, Chapter 16, Verses 18-19: And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shall bind in earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Clio the Muse 00:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

vietnam war

Why many historians view McNamara as the leading architect of the Vietnam war? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.185.188.59 (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Robert McNamara was the US Secretary of Defense from 1961 to 1968. In that role, he was the leading architect of US involvement in Vietnam. As Donald Rumsfeld is to Iraq, so McNamara is to Vietnam. - Eron 01:09, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Do many historians view Robert McNamara as the 'leading' architect of the Vietnam War? This would seem to overestimate his individual significance, on the assumption we are talking here about the political thinking behind the American military build-up in south-east Asia. As Secretary of Defence he was an important voice in the administrations of both Kennedy and Johnson; but the growing military commitment in Vietnam surely has to be seen against the background of the determination of first Eisenhower, then Kennedy and, above all, Johnson to make a stand against communism. McNamarra did no more than provide the means to allow this struggle to take place. If he was in favour of Kennedy's initial strategy so too were Johnson, Dean Rusk, McGeorge Bundy and other figures of influence in the administration. McNamara, moreover, was one of the first to express doubts over the efficacy of the military path in south-east Asia, and there was no man better placed, it might be argued, to draw such a judgement. In his book, In Retrospect, he writes: We of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations who participated in the decisions on Vietnam acted according to what we thought were the principles and traditions of this nation. We made our decisions in the light of these values. Yet we were wrong, terribly wrong. We owe it to future generations to explain why. I truly believe that we made an error not of values and intentions, but of judgements and capabilities. I supppose the most trenchant criticism that can be made of McNamara is that both his political and strategic vision were far too narrow to begin with. His war was fought with the tactics and tools best suited to great power conflicts, not to defeating an ideologically motivated, elusive and mobile peasant army. McNamara's belief in the value of bombing as an end in itself only made matters considerably worse. Anyway, you will get a lot of useful additional information on this subject in David Kaiser's book American Tragedy: Kennedy, Johnson and the Origins of the Vietnam War. Clio the Muse 01:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

SCOTUS opinions by justice

Does anybody know where I can find tabulated statistics on the SCOTUS opinions broken down by justice? I've googled it, but all I've found are links to the text of actual opinions. --JianLi 00:36, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Or, alternatively, tabulated statistics of US Senate votes broken down by senator? --JianLi 00:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I have a book in my office that may have good statistics on the Justices' opinions. I'll try to post the information about it when I'm at work tomorrow. If I forget, please remind me on my talkpage. Newyorkbrad 00:43, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'll be planning to do it tonight, so that won't be necessary. --JianLi 00:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I've found one possible candidate: --JianLi 00:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Burke and Romanticism

Given his opposition to the Enlightenment, would Burke be considered a Romantic? --66.214.21.91 01:06, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The four basic/fundamental types of democracy

I can find LOTS of different types of democracy, but I am trying to find more information on the basic four types of democracy. Does anyone know specifically the basic four types of democracy? --Doctorcherokee 01:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Catholics' Responses to their Criticisms

Since the Reformation, Catholics and and the Catholic Church have faced many criticisms from other Christians, such as Protestants. Many critics have said that many teachings, claims, beliefs, ideas, acts, and practices of the Catholic Church are wrong, false, un-Christian, or un-Biblical. Some claim that Catholics are not really Christians. Others go even even claim that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon in the Book of Revelation.

How have Catholics, the Catholic Church, and the Pope reacted and responded to its criticisms? How have they reacted and responded to the claims of the Catholic Church not being Christian? Has the Church accepted those criticisms and decided to change, or has it made arguments to logically, theologically, and ethically defend its beliefs, teachings, and practices? Has it made arguments about why it is Christian and why its beliefs, teachings, and practices are true, right, Christian, or Biblical?

Are there any websites, articles on Misplaced Pages, or sections of articles on Misplaced Pages that talk about the Catholic Church's reactions and respones to its critcisms, including the claims of it not being Christian or being the Whore of Babylon? If not, then can someone please write and make one?

The Anonymous One 02:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

• Non-talk pages automatically signed by HagermanBot
• Pages monitored by bots