Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 November 10

= November 10 =

Frederick Jackson Turner
How did US Imperialism respond to Frederick J. Turners challenge and restore democracy to the US?


 * There seems to be some deep confusion here. Could you please rephrase your question, because I do not understand what you are driving at.  Do you mean the American historian? Clio the Muse 00:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Restore US democracy ? When exactly did it collapse ? StuRat 01:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This question, it seems clear, was posted with malicious intent. Either that or it simply displays some profound intellectual confusion.  Clio the Muse 01:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Being imperialistic and a "democracy" aren't mutually exclusive. Let's see what happens in the next two years. The U.S. may be able to save its form of government after all. -THB 03:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Come on people, the United States of America is a Federal Republic, see democracy and republic. Vespine 05:06, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Old song: "The Voice of Love"
Who (male singer) sang the oldie "the voice of love," in the 50s' or the 60s'?

How were we created?
I know how catholicism says that we were created by Adam and Eve, but do the other religions have different stories? or do they go with the scientific view?

147.64.182.222 00:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Origin belief is a good place to start. MeltBanana  00:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * (after edit conflict) Actually, the last Pope issued a statement that Catholics were allowed to believe in evolution. Catholics don't necessarily take the bible literally, though many fundamentalist Christians do. The Origin belief article has a lot of information about different creation stories from various religions. Read up on Creation according to Genesis as well - it doesn't say we were created by Adam and Eve. :) --Grace 00:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Here in the Philippines, there is an old tale, I think among the Tagalog people, that we were created by Bathala, the God of the Tagalog people, by a process of - cooking. As the story goes, Bathala first cooked the first human for a very short period of time, and so the skin turned out white for it was still half-raw. The next one, he over cooked, so the skin became very dark. The last one, he perfected his cooking and so the skin turned out to be brown, thus, the Tagalogs or the Filipinos were created.Moonwalkerwiz 04:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well I think it's turtles all the way down.--Shantavira 10:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But how did the human race originate? Turtle sperm? 惑乱 分からん 11:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A long time ago, I read a book, "Maybe I will do something", about a coyote who created almost everything (exeptions include his friend the wolf, and the ocean). I think it's mythology from the plains indians. | A ndonic O   Talk  00:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

UN and Women's Rights in Religion
What are specific resolutions that have been passed by the UN to improve women's rights? What are the names of them and do they have anything to do with religion? For the solutions, i am looking for solutions that can improve women's rights within religion throughout the world, not just in specific places? What things can be done to improve women's rights while still respecting ancient traditions of religion?


 * Most of the "religious" reasons for denying women rights aren't really based on religion, at all, but are actually older tribal or ethnic practices, such as female genital mutilation, "honor" killings, and denying women equal rights to their kids, an education, the right to work, the right to go out in public, etc. Unfortunately, religious authorities in those cultures (almost always men) claim those practices are ordered by God, even though none of the original holy books say anything of the sort.  In short, the religious authorities intentionally misinterpret the religion to favor their own prejudices and personal interests.  StuRat 01:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me pre-empt all the Atheists who'll no doubt be drooling over the opportunity to misinform you that the only path to true equality of the sexes is through the all-out abandonment of "backward" man-made religion. Don't be fooled into believing that religion and sexism necessarily go hand in hand. Loomis 00:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess I’d better stop drooling then! Seriously though, one of the biggest things that can be done to improve, not just women's rights but many aspects of society, is to improve education. There are many groups such as The Peace Corp that are working to bring education to people who would otherwise not have that opportunity. S.dedalus 01:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not disputed that there are many religions that treat men a women equally. My comment “I guess I’d better stop drooling then!” was only meant to point out that must atheists are would not be “drooling over the opportunity to misinform you. . .etc.” My intent was only to point this out in as lighthearted a way as possible. Sorry about any confusion it caused. S.dedalus 02:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Which atheist would be ignorant enough to say that? There are religions that don't respect women's rights, but they can be changed.  --Bowlhover 03:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Apparently not you, Bowlhover. Apparently you recognize that religion doesn't equal sexism, and I applaud you for that. Loomis 04:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I will take up the challenge to drool (although I'm agnostic, not an atheist). The religions I'm familiar with, the Abrahamic religions, most definitely put women in a subservient role.  God is referred to as male, all the top saviors and prophets are male (Abraham, Moses, Jesus, Mohammed), and there are specific rules about how women should be obedient and subservient to men.  The only way for those religions to treat women equally is if people ignore the history and holy books and invent their own religion, but retain the old name.  StuRat 10:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok I just had to rush to get that part in. I'll respond to your second question first. Yes and No. Yes, the UN has passed a tonne of resolutions meant to improve and protect women's rights. But unfortunately, no, they haven't really done anything to actually make that goal a reality. As for the first question, it's difficult to answer, because I'm not sure what perspective you're asking from. Are you speaking from within or without the religious community? Are you speaking, for example, of ways to prevent backward "Taliban-like" regimes from oppressing women in other faraway places? If that's the case, then I wouldn't hold my breath and wait for the UN to come to the rescue. After all, what did they do (besides, no doubt, passing some very sternly worded resolutions) to actually relieve the women of Afghanistan from their torment? For that matter, what did the Americans do? Nothing. Nothing that is until they elected that idiotic cowboy from Texas who made sure to "give them Taliban a lickin'!" Loomis 00:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, it had more to do with 9-11 than the President, as any US Pres who left the Taliban and Al Queda in Afghanistan after that would have been thrown out of office. StuRat 01:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I know, I know. You're absolutely right. Just a bit of over-the-top rhetoric on my part. But when you think about it, must we wait for 9/11s to uproot tyranny? Is it all about us? Had there been no 9/11, would America be wrong to invade Afghanistan, and free its women from the Taliban? I suppose so. After all, such unprovoked operations are "against international law". Loomis 01:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Had there been no 9/11 America would never had invaded Afghanistan for it (and the world) couldn't care less, and wouldn't have used the: "We are here to liberate you" - excuse. Therefore your point is moot. Flamarande 03:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And if Afghanistan wasn't suspected to be protecting terrorists, America also couldn't have cared less. Loomis, yes, it is "all about us".  There are many repressive governments around the world, so it's absurd to invade a country to "uproot tyranny".  Who cares about the women?  Sure, they've lost some freedoms, but people in other places (including the U.S.) are being tortured.  If anything, we should free those people first.  --Bowlhover 03:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I care, Flamarande. I care, Bowlhover. Maybe you don't, but I care about the oppressed. Just as I cared about the million Rwandans who were massacred while the rest of us turned away. Just as I cared about the millions brutalized and tortured and gassed by Saddam, the tyrant whose "uprooting" is obviously so unpopular today. Just as I care about those being massacred in Darfur, for which the rest of us don't seem to give enough of a shit about to do something. Call me bleeding heart liberal, but I care. Don't you? Loomis 04:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I care too. But we were talking about whether the U.S. government cares, and whether trying to rid the world of tyranny (which the American government isn't trying to do) is a reasonable goal.  Also, when I said "who cares about the women", I was saying that we should care about the tortured political prisoners more than the women in Taliban.  I didn't mean that I really don't care.  --Bowlhover 04:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Loomis, most of us do care (a tiny winsy bit); but almost all of us are unwilling to do something about it. Have you done something as the Tutsi massacred the Hutus and vice-versa? Did you grab a gun and went to Rwanda to impose peace at gunpoint, or are you planing to do something similar this time for Darfur? Or did you perchance give a financial contribution (5 bucks or more) to some humanist organization (money which certainly won't dissapear somewhere along the way)? You say you care, but do you care enough to do something about it? Are you truly willing to fight and to kill for peace in Africa and if needed to die for it? Let's be completly honest here: I care a bit, but I am unwilling to sacrifice my live for it, and so does the overwhelming majority everywhere. Most of us don't truly care if ppl die in Africa and many of us use the old saying: "let them kill each other". It doesn't affect us too much, and we have grown jaded to the images in TV. So ppl are starving and being massacred in Africa? PPL are always starving and being massacred in Africa. Noone is willing to send troops there to impose peace at gunpoint. As noone truly cares, any casualities whatsoever will lead to the popular outcry: "get our troops (sons) back home." And as politicians are interrested in getting themselves re-elected...


 * Why don't you study what happend in Operation Restore Hope in Somalia? As soon as troopers died noone was willing to let the troops remain there to protect and to feed the Somali ppl. And now as a local Somali faction (Supreme Islamic Courts Council) seems to be able to win and to finally end the civil war that has continued for over 15 years, we begin to scream: "They are Islamic fanatics who are going to oppress the Somali ppl." Whereas before we couldn't care less now we don't want to accept it. Well, we didn't care enough to impose peace and suffer the inevitable casualities did we? I don't like them too, but I would work and negotiate with them for a single reason: they seem to able to win and mantain the peace and the rest is bull... I am not defending repressive regimes or something but you have to face the fact these oppresive regimes impose and mantain peace, law, and order in many countries (law being a relative here). I don't like them too, but I honestly think that invading these countries to impose "democracy" and then get surprised and amazed as these countries slip into the caos of civil war, as we look by and do nothing, is not helping anyone at all and is simply being naive. I despise Sadam, but he mantained peace in Iraq whereas today Iraq is on the brink of civil war. Tell me honesty, what state was better for the Iraqi ppl: now or before? So please get down of your high horse of "Democracy at all costs" and study history and try to understand how the world really works; and don't be blinded by a magnificent vision while you advert your eyes from the ugly stuff. Flamarande 12:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What would you have me do, Flamarande? Are you suggesting that I "grab a gun and go to Darfur?" That's not how these things are solved. First off, I'm no Rambo. I wouldn't know the first thing what to do with a plane ticket and a gun. What I do know is 1) how to vote for those political forces in my country who are themselves most willing to send organized armed forces to stop these attrocities, (but let's be serious, the Canadian Armed Forces?) and 2) how to write and write, not just here, but everywhere, to first of all, criticise the UN (and the powers that be that control it) for doing nothing in Rwanda, in the hopes that maybe they'll get it right this time, 3) to keep reminding everyone everywhere of what's going on, especially those who are so eager to turn a blid eye, 4) to fight (with words, the only way I know how) as best I can that defeatest attitude that you seem to be displaying, that "nobody cares, so it's useless to bother even thinking about", and "Iraq isn't going as well as we'd hoped, so might as well bring all the troops home EVERYWHERE, as this whole "help the world through military force thing is a waste of time and money"". Can you believe that in Canada, public opinion is starting to wane concerning our mission in AFGHANISTAN? Not Iraq (since our now defuct Liberal government decided not to get involved) but AFGHANISTAN itself? What Canadian in their right mind could actually oppose the validity of the Afghanistan mission? Public opinion is truly bizarre when it comes to certain things. At the very least I do my best to fight the good fight, and remind people of what's going on. I may be no Rambo, but at least I'm unrelentless in my attempt to do good in the best way I'm capable of. Loomis 12:16, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Assuming from your previous posts that you're talking about the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay... First, they aren't political prisoners, they are there for trying to kill civilians. Second, there aren't very many of them, perhaps a few hundred.  Third, the "torture" is pretty mild, it's not like they are being burned with cigarettes or anything.  When you compare this to the number of people killed, wounded, and tortured each year by terrorists, it's a pretty small price, if it can reduce that amount even a bit with the info gathered. StuRat 06:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again I break my rule of dealing only with matters empirical, but I cannot allow the above to pass without comment, for the simple reason that I consider this whole position to be dangerously misinformed. The prisoners at Guantanamo are not there 'for trying to kill civilians.'  Indeed, if they were guilty of such a crime they could be placed before an open court, and all charges tested in public, which would serve the whole purpose of fighting terrorism much more effectively.  They are there because they are 'suspects', no more than that; and they are there, above all, because they are beyond the reach of civil courts.  At Guantanamo the United States has effectively reversed centuries of progress in civil and criminal law: we have gone back to the days before King Charles II accepted Habeas Corpus; before King John signed Magna Carta.  To hold people indefinitely and without trial-without even knowing what they are charged with-is to return to the Ancien Regime and the Bastille.  They are not being tortured?  Well, that is a matter of opinion.  Some of those who have been held there have certainly claimed to have been tortured.  But let's put the question of physical torture aside. Just imagine being held without charge, without knowing when you will be released, without knowing if you will ever be released.  Can you conceive, can anyone conceive of a form of torture worse than that?  I certainly can't. It is life without hope.  But the worst thing of all is that Guantanamo is a victory, yes, a victory, for terrorism.  What hypocrisy it is to preach to the world about freedom, democracy, and equality before the law and then stand all this on its head by the loathsome spectacle of Guantanamo Bay.  Do you really understand how these images of men shambling along in fetters in orange jump suits appears to the rest of the world?  I suspect not.  And therin lies the real tragedy.  Yes, I know Wikipedia is not a 'soap box', and I apologize for this whole intervention.  But there are some things that need to be said notwithstanding.  Clio the Muse 09:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No need to apologize for presenting your views, Clio. But should I take your position as being that the greatest power on earth MUST clean up its act at Gitmo, concerning several hundred detainees, (assuming there's indeed an act to be cleaned up,) before it has the "moral authority" to actually use its might to go about preventing the slaughter and repression of millions? By that logic, the Americans and Canadians had no right to free Europe from Nazi tyranny until we finally sorted out the fact that our illegal internment of Japanese-Americans and Canadians was indeed wrong (which it of course was). We were indeed hypocrites. Perhaps you're right and we should have tended to our own affairs before so arrogantly and so hypocritically sending our youth over to fight and die in Europe. Loomis 11:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Loomis: I always respect your views, but these are not comparable examples. Above all, one cannot fight tyranny with the methods of tyranny, a cliche, I know, but one that conveys a fundamental truth.  And if the war against terror is a war of hearts and minds (and how else can it be defined?) then the fight is being lost.  Internment of the Japanese was a 'hidden' injustice.  The whole world can see the open injustice of Guantanamo Bay.  But I now have said all I want to on this subject.  Clio the Muse 00:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your above assertions, Clio, but I respect the fact that you feel you've said all you wish too. With that in mind I won't goad you with any further argument. I just felt that I had to register my disagreement. Loomis 01:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Gitmo (and the ilegal internment during WWII) should have never happened first place Loomis, and dozens of suspected terrorists were found to be innocent and were released (I wonder if would had happened if the Human Rights organizations hadn't protested though). And spare me: Americans didn't simply decide to liberate Europe and South-East Asia, they were fighting mainly because of Pearl Harbor. The majority of the American ppl were against sending its youth into Europe and Asia until that. You are somehow using and comparing a bad mistake (Japanese American internment) to somehow excuse another bad mistake (Guantanamo Bay detainment camp). Excuse me if I fail to comprehend your point, we are supposed not to care about GITMO because of what happened during WWII? I am actually gratefull for the American intervention in WWII, but that doesn't mean I am bound to accept Gitmo. And the USA isn't using its might to prevent the slaughter and repression of millions. It is using its power to protect its citizens and the citizens of its allies and to kill or aprehend the guilty parties of 9/11 (something which is Ok by me) but are using the wrong means (torture) and are simply hitting the wrong targets (something I fear is going to hurt everybody a lot more at the end). Flamarande 13:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Clio is right, the current US administration (and the USA as a whole) has lost imense prestige with all their double-standarts. First Guantanamo, then the Patriot Act (notice how lying politicians took care to give a "patriotic" name for one of the most controversial document in US history), and now the CIA kidnaps citizens of other countries (suspecting them of being terrorists which is now the standart excuse to deprive someone of all his legal rights) and then hands many suspects to Syria and other countries where they are tortured, while the CIA is washing its hands like Pilate (hey it was in 60 minutes, and you can read here too: Extraordinary rendition). The US gov is using exactly the same regimes and methods they loudly proclaim as imoral, wrong, bad, and simply evil.


 * You know what rights you have if the CIA suspects you of being a terrorist: none whatsoever. What is someone supposed to do if they torture you? Deny it? No, you are am going to tell them exactly what they want to hear, knowing that after they have have found out that you are really inocent, you will be released with the usual bullshi* excuse: "some mistakes are bound to happen". They certainly are, but following proper procedure a judge decides if there is enough evidence and reasons to warant your arrest. The US "lack of" intelligence agencies are bypassing such a step and then they are amazed as they are making serious blunders. But hey, it is "just" to protect American freedom and security; therefore it can't be wrong to arrest and torture ppl at will, right? Flamarande 12:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * My position:


 * Torture should be rarely used, only when we are certain we have a terrorist, not just a "suspect".


 * Proven terrorists are not entitled to Geneva Convention protection, because they reject those rules of war, themselves.
 * One wonders if the Imperial Japanese and German Nazi leadership had recieved a fair trial under your watch. Flamarande 21:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Terrorists should not be treated merely as criminals, as those penalties are way too lenient, allowing them to be released after only a few years even if convicted of murder. They should never be released.


 * Rather than call them "unlawful combatants", I would classify them as POWs, however. Thus, they would be entitled to be returned as soon as the war is over, which, of course, will be never.
 * POW's are protected from torture. You are contradicting yourself. Flamarande 21:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The US is not using the same methods as the terrorists, which include intentionally blowing up random groups of civilians, sawing off the heads of live prisoners and posting the video online, etc. To equate the US actions in Guantanamo with those is giving aide and comfort to the enemy.
 * Please Stu don't sell me off to the CIA. Did anyone notice this? I am defending that American torture is as evil as torture anywhere else, thereby I am "Giving aide and comfort to the enemy". I never compared American blunders with chopping off heads, you are reading false statements somewhere else; you are jumping to false conclusions (or perhaps spicing up the debate). Flamarande 21:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I couldn't disagree any more with Bowlover's statement "If anything, we should free those people first" (referring to Guantanamo prisoners). The position that only morally perfect countries can work to prevent genocide (as in Darfur) is absurd.  Since no country has a perfect record, that means we would always ignore genocide.


 * StuRat 17:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Here are my opinions (I'm responding to StuRat's post, point by point):


 * Torture should never be used. Terrorists are also humans.
 * If I rob a bank, I'm breaking the law. Does that mean I'm not entitled to the rights granted to criminals by the law?  Does that deprieve me of my human rights, which are based on important morals?
 * That depends on what they've done.
 * First, there is no declaration of war, and therefore no war. Second, if the organization that the terrorist is part of disbands, wouldn't the "war" be over?
 * Who says they're using the same methods as the terrorists? Just because the terrorists treated people inhumanely, does that make it O.K. for the U.S. to do the same?
 * Actually, that wasn't my opinion, and I wasn't specifically referring to Guantanamo prisoners. I was saying that first, we should help the people whose human rights have been severely violated.  The Taliban women "only" lost a few freedoms; they weren't tortured or massacred.  I consider genocide to be a severe violation of human rights, by the way. --Bowlhover 21:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) I doubt if you would feel that way if you could save the life of a loved one by doing so. In order to be given human rights, you need to demonstrate some humanity.  Otherwise, you're just an animal, as far as I'm concerned.


 * 2) Enemy soldiers are not entitled to trials, and these terrorist are even worse than enemy soldiers.


 * 3) Intent to murder civilians is enough for me to lock them up, you would let them go, so they can do just that ?


 * 4) Al Queda did declare war, many times, and the US has declared war on terrorism.


 * 5) Flamarande said that: "The US gov is using exactly the same regimes and methods...".
 * As in using Syria (a member of "the axis of evil") or Egypt to torture suspects. Nothing else. Flamarande 21:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) You are gravely mistaken on the Taliban. They publicly executed women for "adultery", which really just meant some man wanted them dead, as any man's testimony was taken over any woman's.  They also massacred their enemies, destroyed anything from any other culture they encountered, etc.  See this site for a partial accounting of Taliban crimes against women: . StuRat 23:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't use the appeal to emotion fallacy. Sometimes, the victims are too involved in the situation to see the truth. And the truth is, revenge is immoral; torture is even more so. Every human is a human, and nobody has to "demonstrate some humanity" to have human rights. (It's interesting that you should mention animals, because even animals have to right not to be tortured.) I really don't see the justification for torture.
 * Enemy soldiers are entitled to trials (see military tribunal). I don't care how "bad" terrorists are. Everybody (and I mean everybody) has the right to protest their innocence before being locked up in a jail for years.
 * If they can somehow be rehabillitated, yes. I must admit, though, that in most cases terrorists should be locked up. But I still don't get why terrorists shouldn't be treated as criminals. The criminal law is "lenient" because the "lenient" punishments are fair. (By the way, which law allows murders to be released after only a few years?)
 * Is a "war on terrorism" a war on Al Qaeda? (I wonder how you can fight something as abstract as "terrorism".) Also, Al Qaeda is not a nation; can it really formally declare war?
 * Please respond to my second, and more important, point.
 * OK, I admit I was wrong about the Taliban. But are the Taliban human rights violations worse than genocide, or torture? --Bowlhover 05:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Only the people actually involved have "standing" to decide what the fate of the terrorist should be.
 * I thought that fair courts of law and judges should decide that. Do you seriously trust the wisdom and fairness of the mob? Most of us don't. Flamarande 21:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) I agree that a determination should be made as to whether they are members of Al Queda or some other terrorist organization. Once they are determined to be a member, however, there is no point in determining which specific acts each one is responsible for.  They all accept the goals of the organization, which is to murder civilians.  They should therefore all be locked up, for life, or executed, to prevent them from resuming their mission to murder civilians.


 * 3) In the US murderers can often plea bargain down to a minimal sentence, then get time off for "good behavior" in jail, and get out after just a few years. I consider this to be obscene, but, at least some of them may not pose much of a risk of future murders, such as a husband who killed his wife for sleeping around.  Chances are, any woman he marries won't do that, at least if they know how he reacts.  Terrorists on the other hand, have the goal of murdering civilians, and will do just that when released.


 * 4) The war on terrorism includes Al Queda and many other terrorist organizations. The US gov maintains a list.  Officially they can't declare war, but when they tell you their goal is to kill civilians, then they do just that, you have to take it seriously.  The best treatment they can hope to ask for is as POWs, I would argue they should be treated as NAZI war criminals and executed for the same type of violations of the rules of war.


 * Nazi war criminals were not tortured and recieved a fair public trial and some of the accused were actuallly found innocent and released, others found guilty of lesser crimes recieved relativly lighter sentences. This is impossible whithout a fair trial. Flamarande 21:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But that was after the war had ended. There is absolutely no chance that Nazi officers would have been released during the war, as they would have gone back to killing the Allies.  Similarly, there is no reason to release terrorists until the war on terrorism has ended, which, will likely be never. StuRat 02:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 5) All moral codes should be symmetrical, if they don't grant you any human rights, they don't earn any for themselves.


 * 6) They include genocide and torture.


 * StuRat 10:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's how it used to be done, centuries ago. But the law has been written and re-written to make it more fair, and judges are the only people trained to understand the law.  The victims don't know the law well, and even if they do, their proposed punishment will be based on revenge instead of what is morally right.
 * Why should anybody be punished for a crime they didn't commit? How do you know that everybody in a terrorist organization is willing to torture civillians, if only a few individuals did so?  Maybe the terrorist has only been "hired" to plan an attack, and in that case they should be tried for just that, not for murder, and not for "sawing off the heads of live prisoners and posting the video online".
 * You're wrong about the U.S. legal system. The judge and jury will take into account not only the crime, but the circumstances surrounding it.  So the judge can decide to lock the terrorists up for life, if he decides the terrorist will be too great a danger if released.  The parole board can also decide whether criminals should get time off for good behaviour.  If it decides the criminal isn't dangerous anymore, than, well, maybe he isn't dangerous anymore.
 * If they commited their crime within U.S. borders, why can't they be tried as regular criminals, and have the benefit of a fair & public trial? You said the penalties are too lenient, but I'm sure the judge will think about everything you're thinking about (that they may murder civilians if released, etc.), and act accordingly.  And about the Nazi war criminals, why should they be tried as Nazi war criminals if they didn't commit the same crimes?
 * Human rights are not "earned". They're granted to all humans, from the moment they're born until the time they die.  I don't know why you've never respond to this argument:  Just because the terrorists did something inhumane, does that make it O.K. for the U.S. to stoop down to their level and also do something inhumane?  Torture is inhumane, and that is true no matter what the will-be torture victim has done.
 * OK then, I was completely wrong about the Taliban. --Bowlhover 20:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 2) Your idea of individually trying everyone within a terrorist organization is absurd. When a division of Nazi soldiers was captured, would you have proposed we try each one individually, and, if we don't have any evidence on each individual soldier, we just let them go, while the war was ongoing ?  That would be a quick way to lose the war.  When they join the terrorist organization, they know it's goal is to murder civilians, and they are committed to that goal.  Whether they have already done so or were captured while still in the training or planning phase makes no difference, either way, they are just as dangerous. StuRat 02:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You must remember that one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. Jesus was regarded as a terrorist when he was alive, and, to be fair he was tortured and murdered, but they didn't have the geneva protacol. Also from what I understant, people illegaly kept in guantanamo bay by the immoral, and un-democratic hypocracy, commonly called the US government, are 'suspected' of commiting terrorism, and have no trial. How would you like to be arrested, and tortured with no hope of trial or release? would you think that a country dropping two nuclear bombs on ammerica in responce to their war on terrorism were terrorists. I think that I've heard of another country doing that?! Englishnerd 22:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

"You must remember that one man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter". You state that as if it's an irrefutable aphorism. It most definitely is not! A freedom fighter is one who fights for freedom, and avoids harm to civilians at all reasonable costs. A terrorist is the opposite: a monster who targets and kills civilians for shock value alone. When will this distinction finally sink in? When will the above mentioned absurdity of an aphorism finally be put to rest? Loomis 01:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no trouble at all distinguishing between terrorists and freedom fighters. Those who intentionally murder civilians are terrorists.  Those who only attack military targets, don't execute prisoners, and are actually trying to achieve freedom for their country are freedom fighters.  Al Queda does not want freedom, they want a global caliphate under which nobody has any freedom (except the freedom to do as they are told).  StuRat 05:40, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Then, since the English have oppressed the Irish, it must be justifiable to drop nuclear bombs on you, never paying any attention to the fact that far more people would be killed that way than were ever killed in Ireland, just like you pay no attention to that fact in your Guantanamo example. StuRat 23:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is justifiable to drop an atom bomb on the English if it would end the war. (Without dropping the bomb and ending the war, more people would be killed as the war progressed.) However, I don't think the atom bomb should be aimed at a big city with millions of civilians in it. It should be aimed at an area where there are many military forts/airports, but few civilians.


 * About the Guantanamo example: I see why the terrorists should be locked up, but what's the justification for torturing them, or jailing suspected terrorists without trial? You're not going to save anybody if you jail a non-terrorist. --Bowlhover 05:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A - I'm catholic; I oppose how them darned puritants treated the Irish


 * And I'm opposed to the Iraq war, but that won't save me from those nuclear bombs, any more than your positions will save you. StuRat 23:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just stay away from military forts and you won't be targeted. (When did the editor say his catholic position would save him from the nuclear bombs? He didn't; you made it up.) --Bowlhover 05:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I was just saying that it wasn't a battle between the english and Irish; It was against the puritants who helpped in bringing down the crown, and the catholics in Ireland. Englishnerd 10:20, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * B - Cromwell never droped nuclear bombs on Ireland


 * That's because he didn't have them. StuRat 23:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * C - I am in no way justifying the use of nuclear weapons by anyone, I'm just pointing out the the US Government are, as viewed by some, a terrorist organisation.


 * And are you suggesting that the widespread carpet bombing by the British on the Germans during WW2 is somehow more justified, because the bombs, even though they killed far more people, weren't nuclear (because the Brits lacked that technology) ? StuRat 23:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Huh? When did the editor say non-nuclear bombs are more justifiable than nuclear ones? --Bowlhover 05:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That is the implication every time someone claims the US is evil "because they are the only ones to drop an atomic bomb". StuRat 10:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not what makes the U.S. evil. What makes it evil is the fact that they dropped atomic bombs on two large cities, killing way more civilians than soldiers.  --Bowlhover 20:23, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Your history is astonishingly poor, Bowlhover. Every country did that during WW2, although most dropped conventional bombs, killing way more civilians than soldiers (and way more than the two nuclear weapons killed, as well).  The technology simply did not exist at that time to target military installations specifically.  That requires a level of accuracy which was not achieved until the 1990s and "smart weapons".  If you consider the US evil, then England, Germany, Japan, Russia, etc. are also permanently "evil", because they were involved in WW2. StuRat 02:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * D - wow, debates can get heated round here can't they! I feel another stress-induced wikibreak coming on! Englishnerd 23:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You have to recognize that suggesting dropping nuclear bombs on the US is going to make things rather heated. StuRat 23:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not suggesting that, you're reading that into it; I'm just saying that the US government shouldn't have one standard for them and another for the rest of the world. Englishnerd 10:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Flag of York Ontario
Was there a flag for the city of York which was amalgamated with Toronto?


 * The Flags of the World web site says on its Toronto page that there was one (actually that there is one; that part was obviously written before the amalgamation), but it doesn't actually show it. (To avoid confusion: the York that we're being asked about is the former York, Ontario; it is not the same as Regional Municipality of York, otherwise called York Region, which still exists.) --Anonymous, 03:05 UTC, November 10.

I was asking about the former York, Ont. not the York Region.

Cadet programs
Are they just a tool for various armies to indoctrinate youth into a military culture? --The Dark Side 02:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well if they are, they certainly aren't very effective here in Canada. Many of my classmates are cadets, yet none of them express a desire to join the army.  --Bowlhover 03:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, they are. -THB 03:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I thought you joined them on a voluntary basis? The Air Cadets and Navy cadets are part of early training to join the army so I guess there is a part of indocrination. What about boy/girl scouts? Keria 08:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The programs I'm familiar with from goig to High School in the US (ROTC comes to mind) were extra-curricular and purely voluntary. They did confer advantages to participants going on to military service. Military service was not a requirment - registering for Selective Service was required of all us male teens ROTC or no (I chose Navy) in case the draft were to be re-instated. Robovski 05:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

My daughter is in the air cadets here in Canada - and I myself have been a member of the military for over 25 years. I wondered for the first year that she was involved what the actual point the cadets training was trying to teach. Less than 1% of the cadets (from her squadron) moved on to the regular force and it seemed like a lot of money was expended if this was to be used a recruiting tool. The equipment, supplies, personnel, clothing, facilities etc. far eclipsed what would be considered a reasonable investment in attracting 19-25 year olds for service. What it has produced however is a confident band of citizens who are emering into their adult years, ready to tackle challenges - both as a group and as individuals. The military aspects of it provide just a structure to measure progress. It is easily measureable (through rank changes) and like most things - each cadet can participate as much or as little as they desire. I wish that all cadets continued on into the regular force (it would make my job easier) - but until the profile of a military lifestyle is elevated to a higher plateau - the military will need to compete with all the other employment options that are avaiable to youth these days. At least that is the way I see it here in Canada.

Pinochet
Isnt it unhuman not to trial him? He could live 20 more years,to be 110 years old.......So should he be left to live like a free man? That doesnt sound fair...

But,if he get senteced,it could also be unhuman,because more then 15 years passed...Should someone really pay for something that happend 15 years ago??? And is it even fair to punish someone whos over 90 years old....Even in North Korea,USA or China or other countries that still have capital punishment,even in those countries no one whos older then 90 is being sentenced to death....Whats the point of sentencing someone more then 15 years after his crimes??

So which one is right thing to do?

YXYX 03:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just let him stay a free man. He can't possibly "do" anything when he's 90+ years old.  --Bowlhover 03:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The point of justice isn't just to put someone in jail to protect the public; it's also to punish someone for misdeeds. Pinochet certainly isn't a threat to anyone now, but fairness demands that he be held responsible for his crimes, no matter how old he is. -- Mwalcoff 03:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the point of justice is (or at least should be) to protect the public. Two wrongs don't make a right, and a wrong isn't corrected by revenge. It's immoral to make someone suffer just for the sake of it. --Bowlhover 03:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * So people should only go to jail if they are a threat to the public? I doubt Hans Frank was much of a threat to anyone after 1945. Does that mean he should have gotten off scot-free? -- Mwalcoff 04:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And it also serves as a message for would-be coup-leaders elsewhere — if you're going to seize power illegally and kill a lot of people, just make sure you don't lose power, because you will not be regarded fondly. --24.147.86.187 03:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "Should someone really pay for something that happend 15 years ago???" — Why shouldn't they? It wasn't like he was 10 at the time. He knew what he was doing. I see no reason to have any sympathy for a monster like Pinochet — his age does not excuse him from having to face up to his crimes. --24.147.86.187 03:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * His views might have changed in those 15 years. I'm not saying that they did in this case, though. --Bowlhover 03:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Who cares if his views changed? He oversaw the killing, raping, and torturing of thousands of people simply because they held different political views than his self-appointed government! Would you excuse a serial killer if he was caught 15 years after the fact? In the United States at least there is no statute of limitations for murder and there should not be for political murder either. --24.147.86.187 03:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I tend to agree, as would the families of most of the victims. Do you think they'd say, "Well, since he's old and he can't hurt anyone now, just let that guy who brutally murdered my family enjoy his golden years" ?  I don't really see how it's anybody else's business to decide what should be done with Pinochet. StuRat 03:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Why should it be the business of the victims to decide the fate of Pinochet? All the victims want is revenge.   It's the courts' business to decide Pinochet's punishment, because the courts know the law well, and the law was written to be fair.  --Bowlhover 03:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In any case, if this is a debate question or the topic of an essay you might consider reading the book of or watching the movie/play of Death and the Maiden, which is about memory, revenge, and reconciliation in post-Pinochet Chile (well, it isn't stated where it exactly is, but it is pretty clearly Chile). --24.147.86.187 03:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify the question, nothing that humans have ever done or will ever do is "unhuman". Sprouting wings and flying like a bird is unhuman, because it's not possible for a human to do that.  But many acts committed by humans (eg. Nazi atrocities) are considered "inhuman", ie. not fitting to be done by humans (although it was obviously possible for them to do such things).  I think you were referring to the latter word.  JackofOz 03:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

StuRat,I just love how you had nothing to say after i mentioned Noam Chomsky and Mr. Clark: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Language/2006_November_1

It would be nice to get your apology though.

YXYX 03:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't respond because you took 3.5 days to respond, by which time it had been archived. And I don't like being sent off to read other people's opinions, in any case.  If you have an argument to make, you can make it yourself. StuRat 05:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a large philosophical literature about this general issue. See Punishment and Justice for some starting-places. Cheers, Sam Clark 11:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There's another point that hasn't been discussed yet; whether somebody that ill can humanely be imprisoned. If we are to try someone for inhumane actions, it would be hypocritical to act inhumanely towards him. Most prisons are also not set up to handle seriously ill individuals (and Pinochet by all reports is not a well man, and may have Alzheimer's); imprisoning the seriously ill (and especially those not likely to get better) puts a lot of stress on the corrections staff, who are not paid to be nurses.


 * In many countries including the UK (I don't know about Chile) it's not possible to try someone if they can't understand the nature of the charges against them. If Pinochet has Alzheimer's, it may not be possible to even put him into the dock. -- Charlene 12:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

IPC
viewing any adult sites on net is a violation of IPC ?


 * I don't think so, but it depends which IPC you had in mind. Please clarify your question.--Shantavira 10:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A look at the disambiguation page leads me to guess that the anon. user is refering to the Indian Penal Code, as it is really the only "option" on that list which is really capable of being "violated". -Fsotrain09 00:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Why did Russia withdraw from world war one?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe4.0 (talk • contribs)

See World War I and Russian Revolution of 1917 for a start. Cheers, Sam Clark 11:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not convinced that the pages highlighted by Sam cover all of the relevant information. Perhaps the most important factor in explaining Russian withdrawal from the Great War was the primitive nature of the Tsarist state compared with the other great combatants.  Although Russia since the 1890s had made considerable economic progress, it was still decades behind Germany in this regard.  The railway system, in particular, could not cope with the demands of modern warfare; and the First World War, before all else, was the war of the railway.  In the war with Japan of 1904-5 the Russian army was dependant on the single track of the Trans-Siberian railway for both reinforcements and supplies; and even here there was a two-hundred mile gap in the middle.  Problems in transport and distribution also led to serious food shortages in the cities; and the February Revolution of 1917 began, in essence, as a protest against hunger.  When you add to this the incompetence of the Tsaritsa Alexandra, left to manage domestic affairs after Nicholas left for Stavka in the autumn of 1915, and her undue reliance on the advice of Rasputin, then the mixture became highly volatile.  The process of Revolution itself undermined what was left of the morale of the Russian army, particularly after the Petrograd Soviet introduced Order Number One, which all but destroyed the authority of the officer core.  Finally, the Bolsheviks, once in control, withdrew from the war as the only way of consolidating their hold on power.  Clio the Muse 23:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, the Russians lost 10 million men during the Great War. | A ndonic O   Talk  00:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Really? Russia lost ten million men in World War I?  Can you source your claim?  User:Zoe|(talk) 05:29, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Zoe. Given the circumstances of Russia's exit from the war, and the chaos that followed in the wake of the Revolution and the ensuing Civil War, no official statistics were ever gathered.  However, in the 1930s, Nicholas Golovine, a former general in the Imperial Army, published an account giving some estimated figures.  According to his calculations 1,300,000 men were killed in action; 4,200,000 wounded, of whom 350,000 later died; and 2,400,000 taken prisoner.  Ths gives a total of 7,900,000, more than half of the total number of men mobilized bewtween 1914 and 1917.  You can check the figures in Golovine, Lieutenant-General Nicholas, The Russian Army in the World War, Yale and Oxford University Presses, 1931.  Clio the Muse 08:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the correction Clio. I saw that on tv about three years ago, my memorie must have blurred. They probably said 8 million; I guess I rounded up. | A ndonic O  Talk 13:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Forgot my signature. | A ndonic O  Talk 13:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

bolton's renomination
Bolton's recess period nomination lasts until the current congress ends, presumably in December 2006. Could Bush do another recess period nomination before the next congress convenes in January 2006? --80.213.135.187 13:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but not at the same position. He could reappoint him as a volunteer or part-time person, so Bolton can stay, if he agrees to work for free or part-time.  This, at least, is what the BBC WorldService said.  Geogre 15:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Correct. The Constitution imposes no limits on successive recess appointments, but the appropriations statute prohibits compensation for a recess appointee after the Senate has refused to confirm him over the course of a full session. There are some who claim this provision raises a constitutional issue, but to my knowledge, it's never been tested. I've thought that the President could appoint Bolton to a different ambassadorship, however, and then have him also serve as "acting" U.N. ambassador, or something like that, if he wants to get around a refusal to confirm. Newyorkbrad 15:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If John R. Bolton couldn't get appointed when the Republicans controlled Congress, it will be even harder now that the Democrats are taking over. On the other hand, he has been on his best behavior, being careful not to lie, assault any women, or try to get people fired for having an opinion different from his, preferring to delay this type of abuse until he gets a permanent appointment. StuRat 20:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Getting appointed was not the problem: getting confirmed was. With Chaffee (R) now turned against the confirmation, it will probably not make it out of committee while the republicans have control, and has less chance after the democrats take control in January. Edison 20:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * So much for Bush's promise to work with the Democrats. Clarityfiend 07:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, and pushing extra hard for the illegal wire taps to be made legal with the creation of a hole in the FISA law is not really "working with the Democrats," either. Basically, Carl has run on wedge issues, and one popular theory is that each of the issues will be pounded extra hard to get the Democrats to stop them, thereby allowing the '08 elections to be "we tried to protect you and protect America's sovereignty, but [your elected official here] was against all the good things we wanted."  This is in addition to each element of the Democrat agenda being campaigned as "[Your official here] voted to raise taxes and spend money out of control by pushing for [law] (because it costs money when combined with what we want, even though it was revenue neutral after taking away the things we want)."  For the next two years, it will be a battle of poison pills and names of laws.  Watch for the next piece of legislation having a backonymn (an acronym created after the thing itself) of MOTHERLY LOVE Act or something similar.  There will be no telling what the bill will be about.  Geogre 14:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Politics
Who had control of the Senate in 2000 after the 2000 election. Thanks
 * That was a confusing year. After the 2000 election, the Senate had 50 Democrats and 50 Republicans. That meant that the Vice President's tie-breaking vote would dictate control. Therefore, the Democrats were in control from January 3 to January 20 (when Al Gore was Vice President) and the Republicans took control after January 20 (when Dick Cheney became Vice President). There was a long series of negotiations that led to a complicated power-sharing arrangement.
 * However, in May 2001, Senator Jim Jeffords of Vermont switched his party affiliation from Republican to Independent caucusing with the Democrats. That tipped the balance to 51-49 in favor of the Democrats and the Democrats took control for the balance of the 107th Congress. Newyorkbrad 16:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * In which country? DirkvdM 07:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Dirk, were you really, honestly unsure of which country the questioner was asking about? Even in wiki's articles, when a term searched is almost surely referring to the US, it directs you to the US application. Take a simple example: Say I want to learn about the 1st Amendment to the Constitution of Ireland. Click on the link and look at where it brings you. Loomis 14:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Loomis, I believe you might have made the same point, Dirk was trying to make. (Though you may value it differently.)---Sluzzelin 15:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Impossible! :) Loomis 21:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Delay for Profanity
When a "live" event is broadcast on TV, such as a speech or comedy monologue, often there is a delay of a few seconds, to guard against something improper. How exactly is this done? Is the event recorded to a tape or disc and then played? Thanks.66.213.33.2 17:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * TV now has digital delay. There is no real excuse for profanity making it to the transmitter, when someone has a few seconds to kill the audio or video. When Kyra Phillips was broadcast live on CNN for a minute or so chatting to someone in the restroom because her wireless mike was accidentally left on, it was surmised that at someone in the control room was not attending to the outgoing broadcast, which was coverage of President Bush speaking. Edison 20:24, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * But before digital methods were invented, it must have been tape. --Anon, 06:03 UTC, Nov. 11

What is a "digital delay"? How are the picture and sound "suspended" for a few seconds? 66.213.33.2 15:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * One could just buffer them in memory on a computer, using something like a circular buffer if you're interested in implementation details. digfarenough (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Marquis de Sade quotation- from what work?
Hi- I am trying to find the source of the quotation "Never lose sight of the fact that all human felicity lies in man's imagination, and that he cannot think to attain it unless he heeds all his caprices. The most fortunate of persons is he who has the most means to satisfy his vagaries".

I know it is by Marquis de Sade, but what work?

Any help would be great! thanks! 129.59.249.148 18:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's from L'Histoire de Juliette. Natgoo 19:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

History
There is no reference to "Natural History" in the "History" entry - why not? I don't know why the word 'History' is associated with the study of living plants and animals etc as in Natural History.


 * As I understand it, "history" means written records. This explains the word "prehistoric", meaning before written records.  The phrase "natural history" is thus absurd, leading to "prehistoric history". StuRat 19:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The term Natural History refers to the study of plants and animals, and therefore comes under the general heading of biology, which is, of course, part of the discipline of science. History in this context does not mean 'written record' but the study of life cycles.  Please also remember that the term history itself comes from the ancient Greek word historia, which simply means research.  Clio the Muse 23:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The article says it's from the ancient Greek ἱστορία, historía, meaning "a learning or knowing by inquiry, history, record, narrative", from the verb ἱστορεῖν, historeîn, "to inquire", which led to the Latin historia "narrative, account", which in turn via French led to the English meaning of "relation of incidents, story". So it's not that simple. I also usually go for the original meaning of a word, but it's a bit too far in the past here and the 'real' meaning of an ancient Greek word is often a bit difficult to assess.
 * But to solve the questioner's issue, at the top of the article there is a link to History (disambiguation), so I added Natural History there. However, that is a disambiguation page itself and I'm not sure if a disambiguation page may link to another disambiguation page. DirkvdM 07:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Dirk, please forgive me for saying so, but you have a rather bizarre tendency to over complicate simple issues: in colloquial English you have, it might be said, a tendency ot 'over egg the pudding'. What is not that simple?  Research means a systematic inquiry or investigation into a subject, which, I think, incorporates all of your rather unecessary subdivisons. I was really only attempting to end the obvious confusion over the meaning of Natural History.   Might I suggest that you investigate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?  An ancient and legitimate debate never satisfactorily resolved.  It would clearly take a man of your talents to bring this to a conclusion.  My apologies if this sounds a bit grumpy. Clio the Muse 10:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not grumpy, but appropriately sarcastic! But then again, as you've said "sarcasm is the lowest form of wit". I say this as a friend, Clio, loosen up! Your sarcasm was not only appropriate, but well received. (And by the way, sorry to both of you, Clio and to you, the master punster, Jack, but the pun, not sarcasm, is indeed the lowest form of wit). Quite the diplomat I am! I've just insulted TWO good friends at once! :--) Loomis 01:21, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Alas, yes, I suppose you are right, Loomis. I try too hard, I suppose, to treat all with simplicity and sincerity, and really do dislike revealing my moods, good or bad. Ah, well: human, all too human.  Clio the Muse 02:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sincere, you are, simple, you're not, and neither are your posts. How can you possibly consider a subtle reference to Nietzche as an excercize in simplicity? Your moods are what make you who you are, or at least that's how I look at it. I'm no android, and neither are you. When faced with a truly disgusting remark, I react with disgust. Similarly, when something warms my heart, though I used to despise internet "smiley faces", I've learned to grudgingly accept them as the only way to convey my mood of good humour. :--) Loomis 02:26, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm impressed, and I do say that with complete sincerity! To recognize a reference to a work by Nietzsche and yet claim never to have read him; that really is something! Clio the Muse 02:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, with all the Nietzche-talk, I couldn't help but at least read wiki's article on him. Loomis 14:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You have Our permission. There are plenty of dab pages linking to other dab pages; for example, Phillips and Philips (disambiguation) link to each other. --Lambiam Talk  09:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The "master punster", eh, Loomis? Thanks for the compliment, but I must defer to StuRat on that score.  Not sure why you included me in this discussion.  Was it a Wiki-birthday present?   JackofOz 04:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you pass on a compliment, you'll score more points if you do it to someone who is actually listening in. :) DirkvdM 08:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I was too busy partying - hard - to be "listening in" (whatever that means). :)  JackofOz 23:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I'll say it simple: There is no such thing as 'the original meaning of a word' because that totally depends on how far you are willing to go back into history. Of course any explanation of that in a specific case will be complicated, but that in itself is the point being made. DirkvdM 08:28, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Is it your birthday Jack? If so I wish you all the best on this day (as on all others). As for referring to you as the master-punster, you needn't be involved in a particular discussion to be on my mind. All the best. Loomis 11:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, and thank you. ("He was always on my mind, he was ...").  Cheers.  JackofOz 23:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, then, congratulations from me too. Loomis, does 'all the best to all' include me? :) Ah, what the hell, why not. Let's make this be-nice-to-everyone-day. I know that you would appreciate that as a birthday present, Jack. (btw, my birthday is on the 21st) DirkvdM 08:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Dirk. Hey, I have a truly original idea - let's make every day be-nice-to-everyone-day.  It can't hurt, and might just work.  :)  JackofOz 23:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright, Dirk. I'll try my best to be nice to you on the 21st of November of each year. Loomis 14:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Happy B-day, Jack, but please, no pics of you in your birthday suit. And Dirk, where will the Dutch government be sending you for your B-day present ? StuRat 09:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * To the voting booth the next day. I'm hoping for a real nice present, even if it comes a day or two too late. DirkvdM 12:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks StuRat. But you can rest easy, I've already forsworn any such pics.  I have far too much respect for my Wiki-colleagues for that - even you. :)  :)  JackofOz 23:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Connie Chung on cover of Newsweek or Time magazine
When was Connie Chung on the cover of Newsweek or Time magazine? It was somtime between 1987 and 1993. I searched both magazines' websites, but found nothing. THank you. 71.36.212.154 19:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Cindy


 * I can't find that either, are you sure you don't mean TV Guide ? She was on that: . StuRat 02:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

broadcast jourmalism
I am trying to find out if ever in television history two sisters have reported for the same tv news station at the same time?


 * Probably, at least globally, although I don't know any examples... 惑乱 分からん 20:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about TV, but, if we move to radio, I can beat your two-of-a-kind with the five-of-a-kind Satellite Sisters. StuRat 21:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Heheh, poor sore mom... ;) Nice example, although it doesn't seem to be specifically news journalism... 惑乱 分からん 22:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)