Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 December 6

= December 6 =

CS Lewis- ethics and philosophy
Is there a link between CS Lewis's influences and philosophers tackling ethics/morality, such as Kierkgaard, Aristotle or Kant?81.132.198.16 01:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you will really have to read through his apologetics to discover the specfic links you have in mind, particularly Mere Christianity, The Problem of Pain and Miracles. I assume you have already glanced over the page on C. S. Lewis for a general introduction?  Clio the Muse 02:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also look at Sehnsucht if you really want to begin to understand his philosophy. 69.40.249.27 05:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's also fairly impossible for Lewis not to have been influenced by Kantian and Aristotelian ethics. As for Kierkegaard, he would have to deal with the radical individualism and anticlericism of Kierkegaard's Christianity, one way or another, but not necessarily directly.  (Kierkegaard's popularity waxed late in Lewis's life.)  Geogre 11:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

And you can always ask Aslan, he knows everything. StuRat 21:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Interview as Stalin
A couple of months ago, I was in a group doing a report on Soviet Russia and the republics. My part was to "be" Stalin and do an interview. I was asked about Leon Trotsky and about his death and how I interacted with him. Trying to stay in character, I said he died of a Heart attack while vacationing in Mexico, becasue I knew that the Soviets hid a lot from everybody. What I was wondering was if this was correct of me while trying to stay in character. If Stalin were to be in an interview, would he have responded with the truth, that he was asassinated on the orders of himself, or would he say something more along lines like I did?schyler 02:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I remember I once spoke to an ancient Maoist on this very subject, and he said that Trotsky had been murdered by the husband of his mistress! I think you were quite right to evade any direct answer on the subject, and I do not believe that Stalin would have 'dirtied his hands', so to speak, in this fashion.  In fact, it was many years after the event that Ramon Mercader, Trotsky's assassin, was formally acknowledged as an agent of the NKVD.  Well done, Vozhd!  Clio the Muse 02:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hah! If any interviewer had dared to ask such a question, that person would mysteriously have become an unperson. Clarityfiend 02:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You are overlooking the possibility, Clarityfiend, that the interviewer may have belonged to a nation outwith the Great Leader's control. He gave interviews to foreign journalists, including, I believe, Americans, though I doubt any would have posed this question in quite such a direct fashion! Clio the Muse 02:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A nation like England maybe? Clarityfiend 04:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Covert operations were always a feature of the Soviet secret services. However there would be little point in granting an interview then killing the interviewer. As far as the example you have in mind, do you not think, like most of the western media, you are leaping into a conclusion? Clio the Muse 06:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe we should ask Georgi Markov or Pope John Paul II. Besides, who but a government would have access to polonium-210? Can you think of anyone else with the motive and wherewithal to do it? I didn't leap - I was pushed! Clarityfiend 07:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What? Like feigning ignorance is a Stalin thing, or even a dictator thing? It's a politician thing, still happens today, in every country. How many politicians have ulterior monetary interests that they neglect to mention?..Vespine 04:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think your response was fine and in character. Stalin would have at worst said that certain hardships had had to occur but he'd never have taken credit for an assassination directly. --140.247.251.173 20:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. To show that you know the truth, but still stay in character, you could say something like "You must be one of those capitalist propaganda liars who claims I had him killed. This is a total fabrication, he died of entirely natural causes." StuRat 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

story of a giraffe with shrunken neck
I have heard of a book called "story of a giraffe with shrunken neck" by Ben Wilson.

But, I am having a bit of trouble finding it. Oddly enough, when seached for on Amazon, it redirects me to some neuroscience book!

Does this book even exist?

Thanks.

THIS SUCKS!!!!!!! FREAKIN English Project!! Grmassknfsknflakfnskafjakslhrenfklasfiurekfnafskldruu

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH Hi Mom and dad!!

--69.138.61.168 02:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Is it this? Not the same author but the title is similar. --Richardrj talkemail 06:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Answer: This book is fictional. It appears in episode # 10 and for a brief appearence in episode # 11 of the anime series R.O.D the TV. It is stated on an anime website, that despite the fact most books that appear on the show are real, the giraffe book is fictional.

Marx and the individual
What was Karl Marx's view on individualism? Did he support it at any time during his life? Did he believe that society was useful to humans, or only a "community" was useful, and not a complete society? 69.40.249.27 03:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Consider what Marx once wrote to Engels, "And it is certainly true that we must first make a cause our own, egoistic cause, before we can do anything to further it – and hence that in this sense, irrespective of any eventual material aspirations, we are communists out of egoism also, and it is out of egoism that we wish to be human beings, not mere individuals." Marx was against individualism in capitalism because in this state, the only relationship between human beings is that which is provided by the market. But as you can see, he did admit that communism must be an egoistic cause before it can be furthered. As individuals, people must see the significance of it and work towards the achievement of this goal (although at the same time, it is not a goal, because it is inevitable). So for me, Marx was never in favor of individualism, for this is an inherent characteristic of capitalism, but of a kind of communist egoism - an egoism that draws from the will to be "human beings," to be social beings, rather than simply being "individuals." - Moonwalkerwiz 04:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. So would you say that he supported the act of "being your own person" characteristically, emotionally, etc. while still working to improve society?  Specifically when he was younger and more of a humanist. 69.40.249.27 04:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, would you consider Sartre a good authority on the mix of Marxism and individualism? 69.40.249.27 04:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If by "being your own person" you mean working within the confines of capitalism - believing in private property, protecting private property, maintaining class differences - then Marx is against that. However, I do not remember Marx saying that we need to be homogenized or become the copy of each other's personality in order for us to work for society. Communism is basically the movement that abolishes private property. I do not think that when private property is abolished, people will lose their sense of self. But here's the clincher, can we really advance the social without hurting the individual? Aren't you lying to yourself when you're protesting on the streets for workers' rights, and then you would go inside a McDonald's to buy a hamburger from workers restricted by the division of labor? It's a debate really, about public and private affairs that Richard Rorty tackles. But as for Marx, human beings are not complete beings, not yet unified with their essence, that is, they are not yet species-being, until they have become social beings and freed from their individualism. -- Moonwalkerwiz 06:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * To be perfectly honest, guys, Marx was against 'individualism' for everyone but himself. And as I take this question to be about more than his theoretical work, let me see if I can push the horizon out a little further, beyond the perspective taken by Moonwalkerwiz.  He was once asked rhetorically who would clean the toilets under socialism; You should!, came the rapid reply.  One thing was certain: it would not have been dear old Moor, who regularly sponged off his friend Engels, who, of course, made his profits from the forms of capitalist exploitation Marx spent so much time denouncing!  He was so individual that, in the style of a true Victorian pater familias, he even seduced and impregnated the maid!  And as for free market speculation, here is an extract from a letter he wrote to Lion Phiips in 1864;


 * I have, which will surprise you not a little, been speculating partly in American funds, but more especially in English stocks...in this way I have made over £400 and, now that the complexity of the political situation affords greater scope, I shall begin all over again.


 * His life goes on like this, sponging, speculation and horrendous forms of bourgeois respectability. Please, please ignore the message and focus on the man.  Marx, as he said himself, was not a Marxist.  And as for Sartre?  Well, that is a road that will really take me beyond the age of reason.  Clio the Muse 09:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What Clio says is true, if one-sided: Marx wasn't a particularly nice man, although he does seem to have inspired considerable devotion in his friends. But there's a further question to be asked here: what does 'individualism' mean? If it means the libertarian vision of 'everyone for herself, and devil take the hindmost', then no, Marx was not an individualist. He thought that humans flourished and were most fully themselves in a richly communal life (in this, he was basically an Aristotelian). However, one of the things Marx loathed about capitalism was precisely its tendency to turn individual human beings into machines, mindlessly repeating simple tasks and alienated from their own creative activity. In that sense, he was certainly an individualist, and wanted to defend the rich particularity of individual human beings against homogenisation. As a final point: Sartre is not a good source on Marx, no. Whatever the (dubious) value of his own work, he read Marx in a pretty... individual way. Cheers, Sam Clark 09:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I would just like to contend that one shouldn't "ignore the message and focus on the man." What Marx presented wasn't his autobiography, he wrote his ideas. Obviously, he's got reasons why he didn't write the former. Moonwalkerwiz 00:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Marking students for artistic ability in other subjects?
In subjects other than art, what's the justification for marking students' assignments according to aesthetics? I know this doesn't matter for most people, since they're good at art. However, I'm horrible at anything involving artistic creativity. In French class, I get 20% lower on assignments involving drawing, then on tests (70% vs. 90%). That's a huge difference, so I really care about this. --Bowlhover 04:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well first, aesthetics and art are two different things; if your French teacher is having you do actual art projects in French class and including the results of those projects in final marks, that's probably unfair (without further info). However, presentation is a valid aspect of schoolwork, and I think it's completely fair for teachers to include that criteria in marking strategy. Maybe you should say more about what's actually happening? Anchoress 04:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm talking about creating a poster, and then having it marked according to its content and how good it looks. Of course it isn't purely an art project, but there is an art aspect to it.  --Bowlhover 20:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I had a similar problem in my mandatory high school gym classes. I was maintaining a perfect 4.0 average, but the gym teacher went and gave me a "C", not because I didn't do everything asked of me, but just because I had an "average" athletic ability. I didn't much appreciate the reduction in my GPA and therefore scholarship and admissions chances, based on the opinion of a gym teacher.

I had better luck in my Humanities class, where we were to do sculptures made of alabaster. Every time I dared to touch it, it shattered into many pieces. So, I submitted my final sculpture entitled "small white shard atop large white lump" and got an "A" for my nonrepresentational artistic impression.:-) StuRat 21:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I hated this in elementary and high school as well. Since when is "draw a picture of a scene in your chosen book" an English assignment? University solves all. Find a good college/university and all silliness of high school just melts away. I believe the justification is a bit of egalitarianism. While you and I may do badly at drawing, other students have drawing skills better than their language skills. In order for them to not be constantly discouraged in their humanities classes, the teacher mixes up the assignments and the grading a little. moink 22:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

What was the name in the Beslan school hostage event in Russia?
I'd like to know the name and story of the girl in Beslan schoole hostage  event in Russian,who was awarded as European hero in 2004. Thank you
 * Have you checked the Beslan school hostage crisis article? Anchoress 06:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You might be thinking of Vika Kallagova. TIME Europe has an article on her story.

us/soviet casualties during post wwii occupation
Im just trying to find some kind of clear estimate of the strength of resistance from nazi guerrilas to us and soviet forces respectively pnewbegin
 * Try Werwolf. Clarityfiend 05:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The answer is weak, even weaker in the east against the Soviets than in the west against the Allies. Clio the Muse 05:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That is the appropriate article. It may lack specifics, but that appears to be because the extent of the guerilla operation is unknown, as Allied deaths from regular German troops and accidents were included in Nazi propaganda claims.  StuRat 13:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think by "weak" he/she was referring to the strength of the resistence, not the article posted. The positioning of the reply makes it unclear though.


 * I see, I took it from the indentation that this was a criticism of the previous answer, but perhaps I was mistaken. StuRat 21:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That was my first impression too, but I think Clio meant The answer to the question is: Weak, even weaker .... JackofOz 02:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * She did indeed. Clio the Muse 03:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sunni vs. Shi'a
What is the basic difference between Sunni and Shi'a and why are they at odds with each other if they are both Islam?

Jonylie


 * Hi Jonylie. Read through Sunni and Shia. They have widely different views on the devolution of authority after the death of the Prophet.  There are also important differences in forms of worship and ritual.  The division between the two might be compared to that between the Catholics and Protestants during the Reformation.  Clio the Muse 06:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * See Historical Shi'a-Sunni relations.

Shipping Corporation of India
'I was wondering if someone could help me find this information: Does the Shipping Corporation of India provides services for exporting Indian goods to Canada? If so, how much does it cost to ship 1 ton of goods to Canada? And which port in Canada, do they provide the services to? Would some contact below to help me find my information please?'

Thanks in advance if you help me. --Poorman1 08:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the personal info (e-mail, tel. no., etc.) for the nine employees for protection of their privacy. Even if the information is publicly available, this is the not the place for it.  The easiest way to get answer your questions is simply to call them and ask.  Wikipedia doesn't have that info and if we did, it would be subject to change.  Thanks. -THB 09:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * In complete agreement with the above. This kind of commercial question does not really belong here. Might I suggest, Poorman, that you approach the relevant trading body or chamber of commerce?  You are bound to get a more accurate response by doing this rather than free floating.  Clio the Muse 09:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks I will email them and see if they reply. If they don't reply, I will try to pose the same question again. :) --Poorman1 10:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's possible that you may be contacting the wrong people - the website http://www.shipindia.com/newsite/default.asp shows that they ship bulk liquids and containers - the minimum container is approx 20ft long I think. 1 tonne may be just too small a cargo. I may be wrong. If I am not wrong you should contact a firm that operates containers or maybe a parcel / international delivery firm. ie a middle man.83.100.138.168 10:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Most shipping corporations will ship to anywhere in the world provided their vessels are suitable and there is a reason to do so, I'm sure the India Shipping Corporation is no exception. I think the choice of port depends on it's capacity and handling capabilities. Whether or not they do so depends on having enough volume to ship. I doubt you could get a price for one tonne - more likely a price per tonne, which could vary depending on the type of cargo.83.100.138.168 10:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "The Bulk Carrier and Tanker Division of SCI is the largest Operating Division of SCI. It operates a diversified fleet of vessels designed to carry bulk liquids and dry bulk cargoes . I am confused now. But thank you for your help 83.100.138.168, really appreciated it. Thnx.--Poorman1 11:27, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

(Also this page http://www.shipindia.com/newsite/DisplayContent.asp?CategoryID=1&ContentID=132 shows that they do indeed ship to Canada and have representatives in Baei Comeau, Halifax, Hamilton, Montreal, Port Cartier, Quebec city, Thunder bay, Toronto and Windsor.83.100.138.168 11:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There is more specific info on containers here http://www.shipindia.com/newsite/DisplayContent.asp?ContentID=107&CategoryID=3 giving container volumes and types etc.
 * Note if you are an Indian citizen you can request information, see: http://www.shipindia.com/newsite/DisplayContent.asp?CategoryID=1&ContentID=130
 * The request form is here:http://www.shipindia.com/newsite/DisplayContent.asp?CategoryID=1&ContentID=132


 * The webpage that shows they ship to canada is the same as the request information one? I am not an Indian citizen by the way (Canadian Citizen). I was wondering if they ship to Vancouver Port?--Poorman1 11:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My mistake the agency page should have been http://www.shipindia.com/newsite/AgencyNetwork_Cities.asp


 * Shipping just one ton? That's very little! What you are looking for is a freight forwarder, a broker that handles container space. Another keyword is LCL, "less than a container load", a container load being 39 m³, the volume of a standard twenty-foot container. 72.153.70.114 15:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also note that moving freight by truck is comparatively expensive and that when importing things you will have to deal with customs. The freight forwarder of your choice will be able to help you out. Those that I had had to deal with in several moves were invariably courteous and competent. 72.153.70.114 16:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Consider this, I have a very small start up capital funds. Less than $50,000 CAD. I was able to save this much money from 5 years of hard work. I am planning to ship materials from India so I can make a profit. I will not be able to use a freight forwarder because they are mostly Air Cargo, which is expensive right? I can't even afford to pay insurance on my car because then it will deplete the funds I have; I use public transit; --Poorman1 22:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it is common for them to deal in sea freight as well. (They also do Customs broking at your end.) Ocean freight tends to be cheap; customs charges can be expensive, though. Your local Chamber of Commerce might be able to advise with those questions. 72.153.70.114 23:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

fernando emmanuel pelez de cordova posters of saltimbanque
i have searched the net but found no posters or prints of this. any idea where i could find one? thanks --68.35.11.212 10:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * See our article Fernand Pelez. --Lambiam Talk  10:42, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

i know the article and thanks for the info, but where could i get a poster or print???? --72.177.237.125 20:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

28 Billon Dollars Net Worth
Ingvar Kamprad the founder of IKEA has a net worth of 28 billion dollars. From the article on Wikipedia it states "Kamprad was born in the south of Sweden in 1926 and raised on a farm called Elmtaryd, near the small village of Agunnaryd. When Kamprad was 17, his father gave him a reward for succeeding in his studies. He used this gift to establish what has grown into IKEA. At first, Kamprad sold his goods out of his home and by mail order, but eventually a store was opened in the nearby town of Älmhult. It was also the location for the first IKEA "warehouse" store which came to serve as a model for IKEA establishments elsewhere and on March 23, 1963, the first store outside Sweden was opened in Asker, a Norwegian municipality outside Oslo."

How did he expand to so many stores? I know about Franchising but this is different. You don't see McDonalds founders with billion dollars because they used Franchising. And even if someone tried Franchising it would be very hard to convince a small person in the begin to put up money for the store just due to the brand name, when they can make their own store with different brand name. --Poorman1 10:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * After the first store is up and running and returning money the founder could employ other people ie managers to open new stores under the IKEA name using his guidelines (Possibly taking out a bank loan to pay for start up costs). If each store is successful then the company expands (and the bank loans can be paid off). Provided that his employees are well paid for their work he does not need to provide share options in the company. Therefore company control stays in his hands. As the value of the company increases so does his personal wealth.83.100.138.168 11:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Note also that if each store is successfull growth is exponential uptil the saturation point- say it takes 10years to produce sufficient 'cash' to open a second store, but then with two stores it only takes 5 years to open a third, 3.3 years to the fourth, 2.5 years to the fifth, 2 years to the sixth etc - eventually IKEA's are opening every few weeks..83.100.138.168 11:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe the US documentary series Frontline has a full hour or two documentary on IKEA and its growth. I am having to rely on my memory of that, but he never franchised.  Instead, the company remained privately held, and most of the growth occurred as mail order.  The walk-in stores were (and are) second choice from the company's own perspective, and his innovation was the flat pack.  All the things you ordered from IKEA were sent in a flat package, which made it easier and less expensive to ship (and more efficient to store in the warehouses).  Once sufficient demand and capital came from mail order, he opened the store.  Unlike franchises, IKEA is very tightly controlled so that each store is identical to the others.  Additionally, like Wal*Mart, profits moved toward the central company.  Imagine Amazon.com opening a store.  It could be very picky about how many stores and which locations it chose.  That was and remains IKEA's advantage.  I think the documentary To Moscow with Ikea also has some decent history on the company's unique business model.  Geogre 11:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you 83.100.138.168 & George; My question is solved.--Poorman1 11:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * McDonald's founder was a half-billionaire by his death in 1984 (so about a billion in constant dollars). His third wife still is a billionaire (worth $1.2 billion in 2003) despite giving away 100s of millions.[phttp://www.forbes.com/finance/lists/10/2003/LIR.jhtml?passListId=10&passYear=2003&passListType=Person&uniqueId=0DAC&datatype=Person] Looks like franchising does work! Rmhermen 19:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also as an aside I remember watching a show with one of the McDonalds Director's on and he said he didn't think of McDonalds as being in the "food industry" rather they are in the property industry - the food being merely an incentive to ensure the franchisee's paid rent. Can't remember if i've got that exactly right, but thought you might find it of use. ny156uk 20:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ny156uk I requested to become a franchisee of McDonalds, and they said you have to put $300,000 up front. I mean comon, who has that kind of money to invest in a franchise, in which half the profits go back to McDonalds & McDonalds own the lands? On the side note if McDonalds used the same exponential strategy for the real estate portion of McDonalds, it certainly couldn't have grown this big, so fast; How? --Poorman1 21:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Trafalgar Square, London
I am trying to date an old postcard of Trafalgar Square. The postcard shows Nelsons Column. There is a statue of a horseman in front on the column, with roadway between the two. In front of the horseman is a light pole with four lights on it on separate arms. The roads are not made. There are also horse drawn buses. Could someone possibly tell me when the square looked like this? Or is there a history of when the roads were sealed? Looking forward to hearing from you. Thanks. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.246.249.172 (talk)


 * It would really help if you could scan the picture and post it to a free image hosting website (of which there are several) so that we can have a look at it. Thanks. --Richardrj talkemail 13:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * According to our article, horse drawn buses put it between 1829 and 1911, which may not be terribly helpful, but hey. Scan would help, yes.  Morwen - Talk 15:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The article Trafalgar Square has some historical images as well as history about its development. -THB 15:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

First, check Buses in London again: 1911 is only correct if they are L.G.O.C. horse-buses. Other companies continued to operate them as late as 1914. See also A History of London Transport by T.C. Barker and Michael Robbins, volume 2 (published 1974, ISBN 0-04-385063-4), page 170. The L.G.O.C. was the largest company and would certainly have served Trafalgar Square, but I don't know if other companies also did. Also, if the photo includes several horse-drawn buses but no motor buses, then this suggests a date at least several years earlier than that. Motor buses first got going in a big way starting in 1905, but in 1907 they made up 32% of all buses in London, and in 1910, 52%. (ibid.)

Let's also not forget the fact that it's a picture postcard. According to Patrick Robertson in The Book of Firsts (1974, ISBN 0-517-51577-6), the mailing of picture postcards in Britain was first authorized in 1894. And then the messag had to be written on the picture side with the other side reserved for the address, so the picture occupied only part of one side. It was 1902 when the message was first allowed to be written on the address side, allowing the picture to fill a whole side as usual now -- so if yours is in the modern style, and shows several horse-drawn buses and no motor buses, then we've got the probable period pinned down to just a few years, say 1902-07.

Other traffic on the road, any signs, and the publisher of the postcard, might all be of further assistance, but I don't know anything about those things, or about the road surface. Have you considered contacting someone at the Museum of London? Their web site must have a contact address on it.

--Anonymous, 08:05 UTC, revised 08:10, December 7, 2006.

One thing that could possibly nail it down within five years is women's clothing styles. Churchh 14:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Islam
What are the major differences between the Sunni and Shiite factions of Islasm. I am trying to better understand the civil strife between these two branches of the relgion vis-a-vie Iraq. thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iron Mouser (talk • contribs)


 * Sunnis are radical muslims who dont like Shiites and kill thereof. Shiites are radical muslims who dont like Sunnis and kill them thereof. No thanks at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.231.54.1 (talk • contribs)


 * Sunni believe that Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali are all successors to Muhammad. Shia believe that only Ali is a successor.  This is a big issue because Sunni accept the teachings of three caliphs that are not accepted by the Shia.  An example from Christianity is the non-Pauline Christian movement.  Most Christians accept the teachings of Paul as equal (or more important) than the teachings of Jesus.  The non-Pauline Christians reject the teachings of Paul.  As a result, mainstream Christianity has labeled all forms of non-Pauline Christianity as cults and worked heavily at spreading many lies about them.  If you dropped them in the middle of the desert with very little food and a lot of cheap guns, I'm sure they will start shooting each other on a daily basis. --Kainaw (talk) 16:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that religious differences per se are not the main reason for strife between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq. It is more about historical prejudice and access to income and power.  For centuries, at least since the Ottoman conquest in the 16th century, Sunnis dominated political and economic life in Iraq even though they comprised a minority of the population.  They dominated Iraq during the Ottoman period because the Ottoman (Turkish) ruling class were Sunnis and favored Sunnis throughout their empire.  Sunni Arabs dominated Iraq after it was created by the victorious European allies after World War I because the British saw Sunni Arabs, who live in central Iraq, as the core of a state that included Sunni Kurds in the north and Shiite Arabs in the south.  Sunnis entrenched their control in independent Iraq by monopolizing most high-level positions in the military and government.  The American invasion upset the entrenched privilege of the Sunni minority.  Now Shiites are determined to wield the power and reap the rewards that they have been denied for centuries and to which they feel entitled as the majority of Iraqi people.  There is strife because, by and large, Sunnis have come to feel superior to Shiites and to feel that they are therefore entitled to the privilege that they have enjoyed for centuries.  Many Sunnis are not prepared to give up that privilege without an earnest fight.  Marco polo 01:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A useful summary. I just wish our politicians had a better grasp of history.  Clio the Muse 00:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Mount Rushmore update
When do you believe Mount Rushmore will be updated? Not necessarily till Bill Clinton or George W. Bush.Mr.K. 16:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Doing so will require a lot of tax money. Look back at the controversy about using tax money for restoring the Statue of Liberty.  Considering Mt. Rushmore was never finished in the first place, adding to it is highly unlikely.  Also, no President has been nearly as popular as the ones on Mt. Rushmore.  Perhaps, long after we're all dead, Kennedy will be remembered as a great President and, possibly, someone will ask for him to be added.  Right now, he is credited for just about every good thing Johnson did.  If we continue to attribute all his mistakes to other people and give him credit for good things other people did (as we did with Washington and Lincoln), it just may work. --Kainaw (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The only possible addition would be FDR, not JFK. The latter didn't have time to show whether he was great or not. Clarityfiend 17:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * But, he looks too much like The Penguin. Next, they'd be adding Batman. --Kainaw (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm...is it possible the Penguin was a caricature of FDR? Clarityfiend 01:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't believe it will be updated until there is a serious change in government and the current sculptures are blasted from the face of the mountain like all of the statues of Stalin were wasted after the dissolution of the U.S.S.R. It's doubtful a figure would be added to it in the meantime, no one has the patience these days to do a carving like that or the one on Stone Mountain. -THB 16:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not entirely true - for all it's problems, this would seem to indicate that someone still has the patience for this kind of project... Carom 17:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Cool, I remember reading about that many many years ago, but had forgotten about it. -THB 18:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Mostly unrelated to the original question...

Is not Mount Rushmore the crowning achievement of America(ns)? Insomuch as the living rock of a mountainside has been turned into a tourist-attracting business venture. Having not seen it myself, this is not a criticism.Theavatar3 18:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think most Americans think about it unless North by Northwest is on television (which it rarely is) and certainly not in that manner. I'll bet 99% of Americans can't name all four figures on the mountain and that 98% don't know how many figures there are.  -THB 19:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you 100% sure of these figures? Just imagine how many American have watched Superman II and seen it being reshaped.Mr.K. 20:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm 73% sure that he made that statistic up... Carom 21:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * North by Northwest comes on TV in Australia regularly. I've seen it about 20 times.  I doubt FDR would make it as there's already a Roosevelt on Rushmore, and people would assume nepotism.  But I agree he's a serious candidate.  Any attempt to blow up the existing faces would be met with the same outrage as occurred with the Taliban's destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan.  JackofOz 02:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Woodrow Wilson anyone? --The Dark Side 03:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ronald Reagan, for preference. Clio the Muse 03:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Considering it was created to honor the first 150 years of U.S. history, I doubt that any president from the last few decades will be added to it. :-P  Dismas|(talk) 08:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be most appropriate to carve Bill Clinton. The sculpture, being only a bust, of course, would not be wearing any pants. I can think of no better way to a dress memorializing his administration than with a pantsless Clinton/big bust. StuRat 21:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

North by Northwest
That last post reminded me of a question I've always had, why that title for the Alfred Hitchcock classic ? I believe that the first phase of travel is from New York City to Chicago, which is essentially due west, and the continuation on to Mount Rushmore is, perhaps, WNW (West by Northwest). Had they actually gone NWN from NYC that distance, they would have been in Canada. So, did they mess up the title ? Was it meant to be West by Northwest ? StuRat 20:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * According to this site, it's a reflection of the complicated and confused plot of the movie, stating that there's no delineated 'north by northwest' on a compass, and suggesting that it's reflective of the main character's searches within the movie. Or, it suggests, it could be that he flew north on Northwest Airlines. Classic Hitchcock messing-with-the-mind. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I had considered the possibility of it meaning flying north on Northwest Airlines, but I don't believe they ever flew north, so that confused me, too. StuRat 08:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's discussed on the Talk page. Clarityfiend 01:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added the above template primarily to show it to users, who are then free to add it themselves, if they wish, as:

StuRat 09:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Propaganda In The Cold War
I am making a thesis about Propaganda in the cold war and in particular the development of methods of propaganda, and as a result I have been busy researching several elements but It seems I can not find specific information about:


 * 1) Propaganda In Africa and Southern America--
 * 2) Specific Propaganda in the Netherlands--
 * 3) The Usage of Subliminal Messaging in propaganda--
 * 4) The antipropaganda in the opposite forces (Soviet propaganda in America and American Propaganda in the USSR)--
 * 5) The inter(propaganda)relations between the Publics republic of China and the Soviet Union (which I know wasn't good but that is about all I can find) --
 * 6) The influence of the radio<->television war on propaganda (early 50's it was cold, end 60's begin 70's it became rather enheated)--

Thanks In Advance,

ps. please state what exact question you are answering if you will, It would make things easier for me. sources are not mandatory but it would be enjoyable.


 * Wikified the numbering style. DirkvdM 08:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Graendal 13:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 5 — there was a lot of anti-Soviet propaganda created by the PRC after the Sino-Soviet split. The WP page on that has an example of some of that. Also I am not sure where one draws the line between "propaganda" and "normal public political discourse" in countries like the PRC and USSR. --24.147.86.187 14:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Try to get a copy of this book . I have one, but I haven't really read it. It sounds so much like pure propaganda by an American to make Communism look bad. But I'm sure there is something there about how Communists invite Americans to their ideology. Moonwalkerwiz 07:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 6: It's indirect propaganda, but still, the US military helps movie makers that make the US army look good by lending them the real stuff, which can make a huge difference in cost. Also, the US government sponsors movies it considers 'good' in some way, such as those in which smoking is made to look bad. Most probably somehting similar was done for movies that made the commies look bad, but that's just an educated guess.
 * Oh, and of course the space race was one big propaganda thing, saying "look we're superior". During the first decade this boasting evolved from a simple 'bleep' from Sputnik I to moving pictures. The earliest I can think of were the images sent from the Apollo 11 mission to the Moon. Or were there any earlier ones? Moving pictures only make sense if there is something moving (on a human scale, so excluding time lapse photography), and that would be living things, like humans. Or animals. Was Laika televised? DirkvdM 08:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * 2: The magazine of the Communist Party of the Netherlands, de Waarheid (the Truth), was probably pretty pro-USSR. All of the rest of the magazines and newspapers were pretty much anti-USSR, but I don't suppose that qualifies as specific propaganda. Of course the strong participation of communists in the resistance (we have no article on communist resistance?!) ,in the Netherlands and elsewhere, had a propagandist effect, but I don't know in how far that was the intention - it was probably more because the nazis were the diagonal opposites of the communists. DirkvdM 09:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * sorry: sorry for reposting this, but unfortunately not all questions were answered, even though I liked the answers I have received and am very grateful for them.that is why I reposted the entire piece with all given answers. sorry again! Graendal 18:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Silly Organisations Locating Themselves In London
Why should such organisations as the European Medicines Agency decide to set up in London? Since everything is much more expensive there, would it not have made sense to locate it elsewhere? What with the advent of cheap, high-speed communication technologies, what need is there for physical proximity to anything else in London? --Username132 (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There was an article in the NY Times not too long ago discussing that question. They argued that with today's communication technology support services can be moved elsewhere, thus cutting costs on office space and allowing the higher echelons to live in a nice place with culture. 72.153.70.114 18:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a fair point you have there, but pointless as asking "why does the queen have a crown - wouldn't a paper hat do?" I think they locate themselves in capitals as a statement of their importance.87.102.6.143 18:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * London is also one of the most populous cities in the world with one of the world's biggest (and busiest) airports, it is a 'transport hub' between Europe and America, it is the capital of one of the world's wealthiest nations. All these factors help make it an appealing place to do business both in terms of 'image' and in terms of 'quality'.


 * On a personal level i would note that as much as advanced communications help, many prefer the option of face-to-face contact and a city like London has a big transportation network to the whole globe. I would also guess that there is an abudance of highly qualified, high worth individuals in the city/area which makes it a good place to base if you are looking to employ high quality staff. I imagine it has as much (if not more) office space as any major city in the world and thus as a firm you will have an option over a variety of places. I do agree, however, that the reasons for paying 'over the odds' for places are quickly evaporating with the advent of distance-working, instant communication, mass-data transit, global networking...heaven knows what it has done to the sales of briefcases - nobody carries paperwork anymore just pen-drives! ny156uk 19:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The issue is not recruiting qualified local stuff but convincing qualified non-local staff to move somewhere. That's why Google has set up shop in places like Dublin and Zürich and not in Bangalore or Beijing - it's easier for them to convince an Indian or Chinese to Europe than the other way round. 72.153.70.114 23:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That makes no sense: It is not economical to convince non-local staff to move to you from another nation because you rely on the immigration policies/emmigration policies/ability for non-local staff to see the vacancies/overseas interviewing/difficulties of families move nation for a job to name but a few of the hurdles. It is, however, sensible that educated foreign-nationals will move from poorer nations to richer nations in pursuit of high-paid/higher-quality work - this is a world apart from the firm setting up in Dublin/Zurich in order to entice non-locals to move to that nation and work for them. ny156uk 00:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a tradeoff. If the the talent pool is small and difference in productivity between individuals large then you can recover what is spent in the hiring process and higher wages and benefits quickly. 72.153.70.114 18:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the Ministry of Silly Walks in London ? :-) StuRat 21:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Riverboat gambling
In the U.S. numerous states decided some years ago to use gambling revenue to supplement taxes. It was a common practice for a state to create a small number of riverboat gambling licenses rather than building casinos on dry land. In many cases, the "riverboat" never leaves the dock. In extreme cases, a hole in the ground was dug to hold a "riverboat" which lacked engines or rudder. See and scroll down to "Illinois." (Note: that site worked from Google, found with illinois riverboat gambling rosemont, but the link as copied does not open. It said that when the Illinois governor signed legislation that no longer required riverboat casinos to cruise, they all immediately stayed at the dock, and the boats were expected to be replaced by larger "boats in a moat" incapable of river cruising.)See also a state report from Illinois which says everything about riverboat gambling except "Why?" This smacks of Old Testament ritual bathing, as if "sin" is washed away by the water under the "boat". Is there a point to the water requirement other than such a ritualistic one? Why would a state legislature have the operators waste money by building a pretend "boat?" Edison 21:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I unfortunately don't have the time to really research this right now, but I'd be willing to bet (hah!) that these states want to ensure that they differentiate between brick-and-mortar casinos and riverboat casinos so they can regulate them more strictly. I found one discussion of the history of riverboat gambling in Missouri that has some interesting points, namely that the potential public safety issues of having a riverboat full of gamblers suddenly sink on the Mississippi with no Coast Guard around to help out was one reason for the dockside gaming. It also discusses the construction of a "boat in a basin" casino. Hope this helps! Tony Fox (arf!) 21:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * According to this report from the California State Research Bureau, confining gambling to riverboats made gambling politically saleable to voters by creating the impression that gambling could be contained and controlled.


 * Presumably (this is my own conjecture), voters had qualms about connections between gambling and organized crime, the dangers of gambling addictions, or religious concerns, and confining gambling to riverboats, where gambling would not take place on state soil, somehow eased those qualms. Marco polo 01:04, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Also if the political or local economic climate changes, the boat can at least be towed away even if it can't move under its own power. Boats in some towns have come and gone - East Dubuque, Illinois (or come and gone and come back again - Dubuque, Iowa). Deciding to allow it doesn't seem as permanent a decision as allowing a land based casino. Rmhermen 06:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In a Kentucky/Illinois dispute it was asserted that "state soil" of Kentucky extends to the Illinois shore of the Ohio River, under the provisions under which Kentucky was admitted to the U.S., with respect to where Illinois gambling boats could do their business. The Rosemont casion which was ultimately not completed, was, I believe, supposed to be a distance away from any river, and the river was far too small for any riverboat. It was a dry land "boat in a moat."Edison 14:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

locations
what is the nearest international airport to Yamoussoukro, Ivory Coast? And the nearest one to Jakarta, Indonesia?Jk31213 22:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * See Abidjan and Jakarta Airport. There is also an airport in Yamoussoukro but it is not nearly as large. -THB 22:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The UK Times newspaper
Hi, I'm doing a history project for school on the RMS Titanic and wondered if The Times, UK edition would have an issue of their newspaper from that date, to use in my history project. Would they have one and if so how would I go about finding it. I know finding a newspaper from 1912 is a bit of a stretch, but I need to get a primary source from the period.


 * You can access the Times Online Archive with your county/city library card. Look up your county library's website and poke around until you find online reference (eg this for Oxfordshire), then follow the link and put the number in. Shimgray | talk | 22:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also remember you will need to look at editions printed a day or two after the sinking, allowing for news of the event to be received and absorbed. Clio the Muse 03:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Could be more than a day or two on that occasion. Also, later reports of the two inquiries into the sinking (one in the US, one in Britain) might be of interest. --Anonymous, 08:19 UTC, December 7. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.96.28.244 (talk) 08:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

How are political borders defined
How do map makers know the definitive answer to Where does the border between two nations lie? Is there a place that lists the geographical way points of all the worlds political borders for reference? I want to make a perl script to read such information and output a svg based off of it. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, where the map is made and who pays the cartographer may cetaintly have an effect. One of my Geography teachers last year said she was in Taiwan and bought some maps of the island and then went to mainland China. The maps were then promptly confiscated due to the fact that Taiwan on the map was not considered part of the PRC. schyler 00:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Huh? PRC has always claimed Taiwan is part of its territory, which is why when China was admitted to the UN, a precondition was that Taiwan's membership had to be nullified.  JackofOz 02:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Unless I made a huge mistake and would be thusly hugely embarassed, I believe that Taiwan does not consider itself part of the PRC. The maps she bought had on them that Taiwan was not part of the PRC, which is why they confiscated them.schyler 02:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Yah. Taiwan is part of the ROC according to the ROC, but part of the PRC according to the PRC. The Taiwan maps said it was part of the ROC and that was contradictory to what the PRC says. schyler 02:40, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. I see what you mean now.  "Not considered" confused me because you didn't specify who was doing the non-considering, and the previous actors were those doing the confiscating (the PRC). :)  JackofOz 02:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, so no place that actually describes in detail where borders lie? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 03:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you looked at the page on Cartography? There are some additional links that might be useful here.  I'm not sure, though, if you will find the kind of detailed answer you may be looking for.  Political boundaries can be determined by convention, as much as by surveying; and can often be highly volatile in nature.  Clio the Muse 04:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Borders generally arise from treaties signed by the neighboring countries. For example, the Webster-Ashburton Treaty defines the border between Maine and New Brunswick. You get situations like Kashmir, where there is no treaty, just an armistice and de facto control by one side or the other. That's where you see dotted lines and such on maps. -- Mwalcoff 05:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You also quite often see little disclaimers written in small print at the bottom of maps these days, put there by the map-makers because they are scared of being held to account by some party or other. The disclaimer states, effectively, that "the position of a border on this map does not imply any belief on our part as to the legality or otherwise of that border." --Richardrj talkemail 08:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Boundaries of things like states and provinces, or colonies of one country, may be defined by an act of the relevant higher-level legislature, and may turn into international borders at a later date if places become independent. The Quebec-Labrador border was defined by an act of the British government in 1825, but became an international border between Canada and Newfoundland.  (And in this particular case, still later it stopped being an international border.)


 * The defining treaty or act may just be the beginning. Surprisingly often they contain specifications that prove insufficiently clear or are even impossible (as with the boundary of US territory defined by the Treaty of Paris (1783), due to the negotiators using an incorrect map). Then there may be a further treaty to settle the issue, or the disputants may agree to refer to the issue to a suitable court (the Canada-Newfoundland boundary was litigated in 1927 in Britain's equivalent of a supreme court), or it may be left unsettled. In the last case either a de facto boundary will develop, or if the area is unpopulated and lacking in resources, maybe nobody will care. (As in Labrador in the 19th century.) If there is a court ruling, that will define the border.


 * Finally, once a border is defined by act or treaty, surveyors are typically sent out to mark it on the ground. In some cases the surveyed boundary is then declared to be the official one, superseding the act or treaty.  Thus the part of the US-Canada border that's defined by treaty to be at latitude 49° actually isn't there any more.  But for mapmaking purposes this sort of deviation is usually too small to matter.


 * --Anonymous, 08:59 UTC, December 7, 2006. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.96.28.244 (talk) 09:00, 7 December 2006 (UTC).


 * Thanks for the info. I guess the answer is variable and scattered. So much for my plan of making a perl script to create an SVG based off of this info. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Some borders are related to physical features (the center of or south bank of or high water mark of such and such body of water) while others are related to latitude and longitude, or others are Metes and bounds (from a stone set in the ground to another stone set in the ground.) In the Middle East, the European powers sometimes just drew a line on a map: List of national border changes since World War I. Once a point on such a line is determined and marked via GPS coordinates, it may be reestablished acurately at any future time without regard to landmarks. If a border is defined in terms of some part of a river, such as the United States–Mexico border being the deepest channel of the Rio Grande per the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, then when the river gradually changes by accretion, the border moves with it, but if it suddenly changes by Avulsion (legal term)  the border stays where it was. Deciding which of these applies in a given case can lead to disputes, such as the Rio Grande border disputes. Edison 16:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sometimes borders are purposely depicted as vague on maps, where the exact border is not defined. Much of the border between Yemen and Saudia Arabia is not specifically defined, for example, and is often drawn with a dotted line for that reason. --24.147.86.187 00:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And sometimes borders were defined quite specifically, but surveyors weren't too precise when it came to marking the borders with benchmarks. So the actual border isn't quite what it is written down to be. This doesn't happen much these days because of high-tech surveying equipment, but it did occur in centuries past. For example, in the United States, much of the border between Pennsylvania and New York was defined as being at 42° north latitude. However, due to sloppy surveying, the actual line zig-zags a little along the parallel, as can be seen on a USGS topographic map here. — Michael J  16:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Twelve Olympians
i was wondering if you could tell me who wrote this? I want to use it in a paper and i need to site it. if you could tell me that would be much appreciated. Thank you, Thomas Kerwin


 * See Citing Wikipedia 72.153.70.114 23:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Omni curious
If a being were omnipotent, wouldn't it follow that they would also be omniscient since they would have the power to change their own mind to instantly just know everything? Dismas|(talk) 23:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The answer to the question Can a being who can do anything do x? is always yes. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * But consider the omnipotence paradox - can an omnipotent being create an object so heavy that said being cannot move the object? (Or, as Homer Simpson put it, "Can God microwave a burrito so hot that he himself cannot hold it?") -- AJR | Talk 23:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a false paradoxe. By asking, “can an omnipotent being create an object so heavy that said being cannot move the object?” we are actually asking “Can that being strip himself of his own omnipotence” which a omnipotent being could of course do. The real question is does a omniscient being have freewill. The answer is no because a omniscient being would know exactly what the future has in store and so will be unable to change even his or her own actions. S.dedalus


 * That assumes that an omniscient being can know the future. That may not be a reasonable assumption.  Knowing the past and the present is a tough enough ask.  Even I have trouble keeping up sometimes.  JackofOz 02:25, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Doesn't omniscience mean knowing everything? -THB 02:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * From our article "Omniscience is the capacity to know everything infinitely, or at least everything that can be known about a character's including thoughts, feelings, life and the universe etc". Whether the future can be known, even by an omniscient being, is something that nobody has an answer to.  God supposedly gave Man free will, which would have been a rather hollow gesture if He had known all along what we were going to do.  Since the existence of an omniscient being is in the realm of conjecture, speculation, hypothesis and religious belief, we could easily just define such a being as knowing all things including all future things, then argue interminably whether such a being exists.  Philosophers and theologians have had a hard enough time for millennia in coming to grips with a being who knows all past and present things, let alone all future things.  JackofOz 03:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I suppose it must be a little like Borges concept of labyrinths, particularly The Garden of Forking Paths. Omniscience is not really incompatible with free will.  Outcomes may always be known, though different routes may be followed, evil chosen over good, or good over evil.  Clio the Muse 03:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I thouhgt it ment you do it with animals as wellas people.

Wow. No, it doesn't. From my limited Latin/Greek roots knowledge, that may be a zoohomophile, are something along those lines. schyler 03:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ehhh, "zooanthropophile", in that case, although it's a clumsy word. 惑乱 分からん 22:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the poster is possibly confusing omniscient with omnnivorous. JackofOz 01:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)