Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 October 20

=October 20=

Need information about translated novels of French author Nicolas des Escuteaux
There is a novel written by the French author Nicolas des Escuteaux in 1605 titled 'Les amours de Lydiam et Floriande'. I am looking to obtain that novel, since I bare the name of Lydiam, for I would love to read it. But I can't find it anywhere, not in French, English nor Spanish. If you could please help me with any information, I would truly appreciate it.

Thank you for your time.

Lydiam.


 * Apparently it is not offered over the internet. It probably has not been reprinted in quite some time.


 * Possible further research:
 * Post your question on the french Wikipedia and see if someone there can help.
 * Inquire here. It might even end up turning into a nice little trip to Paris or Montpelier.


 * I hope someone else here can help. -THB


 * According to the card catalogue at the BNF, there are original manuscripts in Paris and Tours. Surely there are reproductions available that you could check out or photocopy, or they could do it for you, for a research fee. -THB 03:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Where to find cost of food statistics for Rep. of Korea?
I'm working on a school project and I've been on the internet for 3 hours trying to figure this out. Where can I find the cost of food (groceries) in S. Korea? For example, cost of 1 pound of ground beef, 1lb of sugar, i unit peanut butter, 1 dozen eggs, etc. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you!

Here are some figures: small bottle of water 	 W500.00 litre of petrol 	W1,500.00 souvenir t-shirt 	W5,000.00 movie ticket 	W7,000.00 movie ticket 	W7,000.00 local newspaper 	W700.00 half litre of beer 	W1,000.00 litre of bottled water 	W1,100.00 loaf of bread 	W1,600.00 street snack (Tteobokki) 	W2,000.00 food court lunch 	W6,000.00 (Prices given in South Korean Won)

and you might have better luck posting your question here. -THB 02:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, remember they eat different food than you do. They may not buy ground beef or peanut butter, or buy eggs by the dozen. Check out Cuisine of Korea. And sign your questions!!! -THB 02:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * An interesting fact is that 90% of all peanut butter is consumed in the US. The rest probably doesn't go to South Korea. | A ndonic O  12:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, peanut butter seems to be an american thing, primarily. Doesn't appear to be much popular in Europe, either. Hmmm, aboutyour question, you could try to find out how much 500 gram of rice, and things like that costs. South Korea is metric, not imperial. They don't buy food by the pound... 惑乱 分からん 15:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Peanut butter may be expensive in South Korea, if it can be found at all, because it may be an exotic food for Korea made in expensive small batches or imported from the United States. The same may be true for ground beef.  These may not be the best items for assessing the cost of living in Korea.  Imagine a Korean student with a list of items common in Korea, like a 250-gram jar of kimchee.  This item might be important to the cost  of living in Korea, but it would be difficult to find in many parts of the United States, rather expensive, and not important to the average U.S. family's budget.  Marco polo 18:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, those figures are pretty useless if you want to get an accurate picture of NK life. An average North Korean citizen probably wouldn't be drinking bottled water, but instead would be boiling and attempting to purify the crap that runs alongside their village. The figures most relevant to the life of a NK commoner would probably be rice, vegetables, and (cheap domestic) beer. freshofftheufo  ΓΛĿЌ  05:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, he asked about South Korea... 惑乱 分からん 14:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Bradford Connection
Are William Bradford Gov of Plymouth Colony and William Bradford the printer related? If so how...need proof, please...


 * See: William Bradford. The printer is not related as all the generations are accounted for there.  They are all well-known figures, and if you read their articles you can see where they were born, lived, and died. Also look at the birth and death dates.
 * And sign your questions!!! -THB 02:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

science fiction books
I'm looking for some good scifi to read. I liked the foundation series, the ringworld series, the rama series, the odyssey series, that kind of thing. Does anybody have any suggestions for some really good scifi? I'm not interested in the star wars and star trek books. Also if you could make multiple suggestions that would be great because my access to books is kind of limited right now and I might not have it (I'm stuck with the couple thousand fiction ebooks I have on CD) --⁪froth T C  02:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried List of science fiction novels? I imagine you've read all the "old" stuff, Ray Bradbury, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Arthur C. Clarke, Jules Verne, etc. -THB 03:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ray Bradbury is laughable, Burroughs is OK, Clarke is good but I've read almost all of his stuff, and IMO verne just isn't that good. Thanks for the list, but do you have any suggestions for particularly good ones? I see 1984 and brave new world on the list, those are hardly science fiction --⁪froth T C  04:42, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, since it sounds like you're broke, try Project Gutenberg. -THB 03:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As their online catalog is a bit thin, you can jump right to H. Beam Piper or Andre Norton, for some classic SF. Cory Doctorow has released some more recent stuff there as well. grendel|khan 15:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm generally not a huge fan of scifi, but I love Robert A. Heinlein, especially Tunnel in the Sky, Stranger in a Strange Land, and The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. -Elmer Clark 04:57, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Heinlein looks fascinating. Turns out I have 101 stories/books by him on disk! I'll start with Tunnel in the Sky, The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress, and Starship Troopers... some of his work seems a little far out though... the incest erotica especially o_O --⁪froth T C  06:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Geez, Louise! You've read science fiction and only now got to Heinlein!? I recommend The Puppet Masters (ignore the lousy movie adaptation), Double Star, Orphans of the Sky, heck nearly all his early stuff. Clarityfiend 06:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * My personal hero is Stanisław Lem. Everything he wrote is worth reading, imho. ---Sluzzelin 04:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You seem to like Hard science fiction. Why not check out the list of authors there? I don't know that I agree that C.J. Cherryh belongs in that category, but you might like her Alliance-Union universe, starting with Downbelow Station (the article is incomplete). Vernor Vinge's books would probably appeal to you, e.g. The Peace War, Marooned in Realtime and A Fire Upon the Deep. And of course, there's the entire Cyberpunk genre, e.g. Neuromancer. Finally, have you read Joe Haldeman's The Forever War? Clarityfiend 06:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's not forget Isaac Asimov. http://www.dragonpage.com provides a podcast featuring interviews with SF and fantasy author and they have an extensive library on their site. - Mgm|(talk) 10:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The Dune series is moderately well written (remarkable for the genre, really), although not that science fiction-y and more about OPEC than future worlds. Roger Zelazny's Amber series is entertaining fantasy.  You might consider Neil Gaiman's Neverwhere science fiction or fantasy.  Little/Big is sort of fantasy/contemporary.  Don't forget, of course, the really wonderful A Canticle for Leibowitz, and all of the Philip K. Dick stuff (which varies from well written to hash).  Geogre 11:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ursula K. LeGuin,Sherri S. Tepper,John Varley,Harlan Ellison Neil Stephenson,Bruce Stirling,Larry Niven ,George R.R. Martin,should all be read.Also graphic novels are some of the best SF around.(hotclaws**== 13:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC))


 * I second A Fire Upon the Deep and A Deepness in the Sky; also try The Difference Engine for something a bit more historical. I'm in the process of reading David Brin's Uplift trilogy (Sundiver, Startide Rising, The Uplift War), and enjoying it. The Left Hand of Darkness is an oldie but goodie. I liked The Postman; please don't go see the movie, which was painful. Philip K. Dick's short stories are available collected in five volumes now; some of them are dreck, but some ("The Golden Man", "The Electric Ant") are very, very good. Oh, heck, just look at the Hugos and Nebulas to see what's considered the best of current SF. grendel|khan 15:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Kevin Costner is the Antichrist. I knew when he signed up for The Postman, it was in trouble. Clarityfiend 17:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, in addition to most of the above I strongly recommend the works of Iain M. Banks, a British writer of hard science fiction. Sandstein 19:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Phillip K. Dick, Gordon Dickson, and Arthur C. Clarke were good in their day. As for Heinlein, I think we are almost in the period of the reign of Rev. Scudder, "If This Goes On—" in which a backwoods preacher becomes president of the U.S, establishes a totalitarian theocracy, and cancels further elections. It takes place in the early 21st century. Edison 23:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Douglas Adams will always be my favourite sci-fi writer, basically because his ideas were never meant to be taken seriously in the first place, so they never feel old no matter how much time passes. freshofftheufo  ΓΛĿЌ  05:26, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

the sauna
Is it pedophila if a priest takes nude saunas with teenage boys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.162.102 (talk • contribs)


 * Not unless the priest is sexually attracted to the youngsters. And sign your posts!!! A dash and four tildes. That's all it takes!!! -THB 04:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Pedophilia is a sexual orientation not something someone does. It's probably not a good idea anyway, but it will only be a real problem if he commits some sexual act or forces those boys to do so. - Mgm|(talk) 10:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As MGM says, pedophilia is an orientation. Pederasty is an act.  If there is no pederasty, the priest's personal desires are probably irrelevant unless there is some form of harassment.  Geogre 11:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Pederasty and pedophilia is not completely the same thing. Pederasty is a relationship between an adolescent boy and a male, pedophilia is a sexual attraction to a prepubescent child of eitehr sex. 惑乱 分からん 15:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, pedophilia is an attraction to prepubescent people -- teenage boys wouldn't count. Even if the priest were sexually attracted to the boys, it wouldn't be pedophilia. Even if he took a sauna with a six year old, it wouldn't be pedophilia. Pesapluvo 12:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Teenage boys are often prepubescent, and if there was some measure of attraction, going with a six year old would most certianly be considered pedophilian. Maybe I misunderstood what you were trying to say? Regardless, pedophilia as a social taboo can often apply to pubescent young-adults, despite the legal definition of the word. freshofftheufo  ΓΛĿЌ  05:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think Pesapluvo meant that neither sexual attraction to teenage boys, nor nonsexual sauna-bathing with a 6 year old boy would constitute as pedophilia... 惑乱 分からん 14:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Nudity in commercials?
This hit me after reading the previous topic. There is this commercial that airs on TV for some baby product. There is a naked female toddler in the commercial. Is this child pornography? --Wirbelwind 04:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As long as it doesn't show her genatalia and it's not sexual, then it should be fine --⁪froth T C  04:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There is certainly no intent to sexually arouse in such a commercial, so it would not be pornography. However, there are those who would be sexually aroused nonetheless.  -THB 04:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Bewitched
Is bewiched not an allegory for interracial marriages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.162.102 (talk • contribs)


 * No, but "Bewitched" might be seen as one if you choose to see it that way. And sign your posts, por favor!!! -THB 04:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

United Nations Delegates
In the near future I'm going to be representing a country at the UCLA MUN conference, and I needed to know if UN delegates represent the countries president or their "congress" because for the country I represent the president is one political party and "congress" is mainly composed of the opposite party. RENTASTRAWBERRY  FOR LET?   röck  04:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As an ambassador to the UN, you represent the interests of your country as a whole, and her people, at least in theory. In practice, you espouse the policies of whichever has the power to appoint (and unappoint) ambassadors in your particular country. -THB 04:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Where the nation's parliamentary body and executive differ, the ambassador will usually take silence or great caution, unless the two bodies are in an actual power struggle, and then she or he will act in accord with the body that sets foreign policy (which is usually the executive). For example, John Bolton is at wide variance with the majority in the US Congress, but foreign policy is the president's job, and so he expresses the president's views (and his own) quite a bit.  Geogre 11:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, in some countries, the "president" is merely the head of state, a ceremonial figurehead who opens orphanages, christens warships, and greets foreign leaders before they head off to their important meetings with the prime minister or chancellor. If the president in your country is merely the head of state, then ambassadors will represent the policies of the prime minister, premier, or chancellor, who is usually the leader of the largest party in parliament/congress.  The ambassador, in effect, works for the head of government (not the head of state), whoever that is in your country. So it depends on how the government works in your country.  Marco polo 18:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Song Name
I was wondering if anyone new the name of the song played in the movie Appollo 13 where the announcer was commenting on the loss of the crew men of Apollo 1. Thanks! --Visiting guy
 * I haven't seen the film, but it will probably be one of the songs listed here, which might help. Is it a song with a lyric?  If so, what are some of the words? --Richardrj talkemail 08:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, there were no lyrics to the song. If I had to classify it I would place the song along side revisiting normandy from the movie Saving Private Ryan: Its a sad, reflective, kind of song, the sort that makes one stop and ponder on some deeper truth or meaning.
 * Could be some classical thing, or something composed directly for the movie... Which instruments did it contain? 惑乱 分からん 15:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I remember a trumpet and maybe a drum, but I am not sure about any other instroments. Its been a while since I saw the movie.

Ah, yes. The Apollo 13 film score. The original music for the film was composed by James Horner (a composer notorious for ripping off other works, which is a common thing in film composition). I'll look to see if I still have the music, as it contains the titles of the themes. --  ßott  e   siηi  (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Bush approval ratings in NYC
Are approval rating polls ever done by city? I've found state-wide ones but I'd like to see an NYC specific poll... --Tothebarricades 07:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I haven't answered, because I wanted to provide a link. However, the Leonard Lopate Show and Kurt Anderson shows both talk sometimes about popularity ratings inside the city.  I've been trying to remember the names of the polling services that they have on the radio, but I haven't come up with them yet.  You might want to check out www.wnyc.org on the web and their archives.  The New York Times on the web's state/city departments might have it.  Geogre 11:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Administrative law judges
Are the Judges of the U.S. Immigration court Administrative law judges?


 * I'm not sure I understand your question. There's no such thing as an "Administrative Law Judge". It's almost a contradiction in terms. Administrative law, being "administrative" is "adjudicated" by bureaucrats, not judges. Perhaps if you elaborated on your question I could be of more help. Loomis 22:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Surprise: http://www.oalj.dol.gov/--Nelson Ricardo 04:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Another: http://www.epa.gov/oalj/ --Nelson Ricardo 04:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Need I go on? http://www.usda.gov/da/oalj.htm --Nelson Ricardo 04:35, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * HA HA. Fair enough. I still maintain that an "administrative law judge" is a misnomer, at least in my jurisdiction. But then again, you guys down there call your lawyers doctors (Juris Doctor to be precise), while we maintain that a lawyer is simply a lawyer, not a doctor at all, and our law degrees are, in the humble English tradition, mere bachelors' degrees, not doctorates (BCL, LLB). If you want to call your bureaucrats "judges" then more power to you. All I know is that with a BCL/LLB, I'm NO doctor, just a mere lawyer. Loomis 04:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Guerilla New Network & libel
from the Guerrilla News Network (gnn.tv) editor: We've been under attack from a deranged group of netizens who continually post misinformation about our organization on Wikipedia and other places on the web. How do we keep libelous information from continually being posted on Wiki without monitoring it 24/7? We just don't have the time or money to be able to keep correcting our entry.  Anthony Lappe Editor, GNN.tv


 * If you really think it's a problem, you could request semi-protection... 惑乱 分からん 15:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * See also Contact us/Article problem/Factual error (from subject). --Lambiam Talk  21:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. The solution is not to engage in a revert war. If you think the issue may be resolved through civil and reasoned discourse with the editors involved, you can express your concern with the encyclopedic value of the contested information on the so-called talk page of the article. It may help to familiarize yourself first with the Wikipedia policies.  --Lambiam Talk  21:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Allegations surrounding George W. Bush's sexuality
I am gay, and I've seen these allegations before. This site seems to be obsessed with using seeming coincidences and circumstantial evidence to prove he is a homosexual. I personally, as a leftist, abhor the idea of Bush being gay, not because of him being gay, but him himself. I hate the man.

So here I am asking the well read well researched who know a bit more than the rest of us about George W. Bush to give me the straight (pun intended) facts on Bush's sexuality.

The article starts out emphasizing his use of the word "fabulous". So what? Man uses the word fabulous=gay?

One of the odd things I find is that the writer claims to be gay himself, but includes the alleged pedophilic tendencies of some people who have been close politically to Mr. Bush, as further evidence he is gay. This enrages me, as if pedophilia and homosexuality are in the least bit comparable?

Then it has allegations about his supposed homosexuality during college, which look doubtful. Allegations about Victor Ashe and him. Allegations he went, under the knowledge and advice of his mother Barbara, to become straight through an ex-gay ministry, but the date of his going there is listed as 1976, while the ministry was founded in 1986. Could be a typo, but still..

Another thing, the Gannon/Guckert scandal. The website claims, with no conclusive evidence, that Gannon had a sexual relationship with Bush or at least someone in the White House. However, Gannon has since come out as gay so I don't know if he has any need to keep any scandalous secrets hidden. Also, since Gannon is bald, numerous photographs of Mr. Bush with his hand on bald men's heads, have been used to imply that this is some sort of 'bald head fetish' of his, and they tie this to his alleged sexual relationship with Gannon.

Some suspiciously Photoshop-like images of him in near-kiss positions with Karl Rove, the Saudi King, Lieberman. I don't think Bush really kissed or tried to kiss Lieberman, it looked more like a whisper into his ear. Other pics of him with Putin and Blair meant to allege he is in relationships with or both of those two.

The Franklin Coverup Scandal conspiracy theory, which the people who love to talk about it can't seem to make up their mind about whether to call it a homosexual ring or a pedophile ring, sometimes they just call it both! The ring, which is alleged to have involved Bush Sr, has not been proven to be true, or at least proven to be true in regards to Bush Sr and Reagan having sex with "callboys".

Not to mention that he uses Abu Ghraib to argue that Bush is gay as well! Most Abu Ghraib incidents involved "pile ups", nudity, forced oral sex to other prisoners, as a way to humiliate the prisoners. There was also murder and extreme torture. there was some male-to-male rape, but there's also male to male rape in U.S. prisons, and the men who do them are usually straight men who in the absence of women, force their way sexually into other men. I think this would be the case here. Also there were plenty, if not more, male-to-female rapes but leave it to this guy to call it "gay S&M".

At the very least, Bush could be a bisexual, but I think it's safe to say that this website is damn not credible at all and Bush is most likely heterosexual. I simply can not believe the author of that outrageous webpage would be gay. Anyway, if you read through it, of course believing everything he says, the conclusion he wants everyone to make is that not only is Bush gay, but everyone he associates with! Rumours and gossip are thrown in as fact. Cheney must be gay, and so is his wife, she's a lesbian, so together they must've spawned Mary! It's that kind of ridiculousness that gets thrown about.

This post wasn't defending Bush from allegations of homosexuality, it was, to put it with some wit, defending homosexuality from Bush.


 * I agree that it's all total nonesense. However, I'm sure there have been many gay men who were truly evil (the one who shot the fashion guru comes to mind).  This does not reflect negatively on homosexuality any more than truly evil straight men reflects poorly on heterosexuality. StuRat 15:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course not. But an evil gay man is "an evil gay man", while an evil straight man is just "an evil man". The first is thought of as evil partly or completely because he's gay; the second is thought to be evil "just because some people are that way". --Charlene.fic 17:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Bush gay? Naah. The real Bush was kidnapped by aliens. The creature in the White House is softening us up for an invasion. Oh...and his military advisor is Elvis. Clarityfiend 17:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "Uh, hello, Secret Service? Someone done found me out. Got a pickup for y'all to make. Thankyewverrahmuch." Tony Fox (arf!) 20:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Get the selfish maniac out of power instead of questioning his sexuality!


 * It would be possible if there was some sort of limit to the number of terms a President can serve. Then, we can replace the President with some other self-serving idiot that Congress can hide behind and blame for everything they do. --Kainaw (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Kainaw, I see that once again you're trying to help make people aware of the legislative branch of the US Government (Congress). Don't get me wrong, I think it's great to educate people as to how the US Government really works, and I applaud you for that. I'm just very curious. Why is it that you seem to be so pissed off when people don't recognize that Congress has at least as much power as the President? I'm not asking to be sarcastic, this is a sincere question. Loomis 21:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't want to flood the RD, so I'll respond on your talk page. --Kainaw (talk) 17:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There is a limit to the number of terms - 2. So Bush is outta there by January 2009 at the latest.  He's bad enough, but get rid of him before then and you've got Dick Cheney (shudder) as your president.  JackofOz 21:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Did I get that right, Jack? It can't be! Do you actually have an opinion on something? And one that doesn't even involve any puns? But maybe I'm missing something...Bush...Dick Cheney...hmmm...nope, no puns come to mind. :) Loomis 04:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have many opinions on many subjects, my friend. Naturally, all my opinions are the right ones, but I like to allow the free exchange of alternative views in a forum such as this, so I give others the chance to have a say too. It's only fair.  In this respect - and only in this respect, I hasten to add - I'm a bit like Margaret Thatcher when she said "I am extraordinarily patient, provided I always get my own way in the end".   :)  JackofOz 13:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's a good thing Bush and Dick dumped their old buddy Colin long ago. People might be saying that when you Dick and Colin together... --Kainaw (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Mystery or Mystary?
Evanescence released a promo EP in January of 2003; the article is at Mystary EP, which states that it was purposely misspelled. However, in adding an album box, I added an image, and noticed that it was spelled "Mystery" on the cover. I've never actually seen a copy of the album, so I don't have any hard, canonical evidence here. What's a good way to settle this? grendel|khan 14:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I suggest you post this query at Talk:Evanescence where there are more likely to be folk who can check this properly.--Shantavira 17:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Will do; thanks. grendel|khan 16:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

plagerism in the family
guy has family guys producers been sued for the cutaways based on others work?
 * I think parody is considered satire and is considered a vital part of free speech. They don't seem to contain much copyrighted material, even, such as explicit use of other characters. (I.e. you're not allowed to include a flying superhero called Superman without permission, although you're allowed to include a flying character in a blue and red suit called "Stupidman" or whatever... I think that's how it works...) 惑乱 分からん 15:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but what is the family guy saying about the work it parodies. To be a parody you need to be making a critical statement about the work.
 * I just think it shows its silliness, mostly... 惑乱 分からん 16:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No you don't, actually. You don't have to be saying anything deep or critical about the subject. If you're making fun of it even with no intent to actually criticize or analyze it, that's still fair use. Also, please sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ) so we know who you are. Thanks! --Charlene.fic 17:05, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

US Branches of Military
I am producing a poster for a Veterans Day Event. In what order should the branches of military be listed? & Why?

By creation of the service. Army (existing in some form prior to revolution), navy ( created in 1775), Marines created later in 1775 to help the navy, airforce created in the 20th cetury.


 * It is common to list them as "Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines" - which follows the order of creation except for the Marines. I believe they list the Marines last because they are still part of the Navy, not a completely independent branch. --Kainaw (talk) 19:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe the Coast Guard is also considered a branch of the US military. Of course before 9/11 many didn't take the Coast Guard anywhere near as seriously as they do now, knowing that it's the Coast Guard that is the branch of the military most responsible for guarding the US from attacks from abroad. Loomis 21:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * According to the Department of Defense Directive 1005.8, the prescribed precedence of military flags is determined by service birthdays. The appropriate order is given below:


 * Army Birthday --14 June 1775
 * Marine Corps Birthday – 10 November 1775
 * Navy Birthday – 13 Oct 1775-Abolished Feb 1781-Reinstated 7 Sep 1781
 * Air Force Birthday – 18 September 1947
 * Coast Guard Birthday – 4 August 1790


 * According to the Institute of Heraldry, and in keeping with the order in which troops are listed in Department of Defense Directive 1005.8, during peacetime the Coast Guard falls under the Department of Homeland Security (before the creation of the DoHS, the CG fell under the Department of Commerce in peacetime). During wartime, if the Coast Guard comes under the control of the Department of Defense, then the Coast Guard flag would come before the Air Force flag in order of precedence.TomcatChick 16:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What about the United States National Guard? The article says they are components of the army and the air force, but should they be listed separatly? | A ndonic O   Talk  00:36, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In a broad sense no, in a narrow sense yes. Broadly speaking, all national guard units may be mobilized under there repsective service branch for large scale opertations. We have seen this with reguard to the army national guard, which when deployed overseas comes under the united states army, as would all the other branches. Narrowly speaking, the National Guard is responsible for assissting areas in states of emeragency and doing other things that their parent branches would not normally do. IMHO, they should be listed seperately.

Dates of specific events during Vietnam War
I need to know very specific information:

On what date in 1971 was Fire Base Charlie One and/or Fire Base Charlie Two overran by the North Vietnamese resulting in many ARVN casualties?

I need to know what decibel level a 5-ton flat-bed diesel truck ran at? (specifically, a truck called “The Eve of Destruction”).

I need to know if there’s any record of a Korean soldier shooting a Vietnamese bartender in the face in a bar in approximately June 1971.

Can you help? Thanks.

philosophy
'poverty trumps freedom and wealth does not creat happiness". Critically comment on the problems raised in attempts to understand freedom and happiness.72.27.82.192 18:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see the note at the top of this page which reads: Do your own homework. If you need help with a specific part or concept of your homework, feel free to ask, but please do not post entire homework questions and expect us to give you the answers. Sandstein 18:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, don't worry, I'd be pleased to offer my expertise on this one. How many words are expected and what's the deadline? Loomis 21:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler
What evidence is there to support the claim that Adolf Hitler authorised the Holocaust. I mean I have no doubt that he approved with the Final Solution; however, there are no laws that I know of which Hitler personally Final Solution. The only major discriminatory law I can think of Hitler signing is the Nuremburg Laws - although there were others. Just can someone find me a law that Hitler signed that authorised the Final Solution, or alternatively, tell me there isn't any. Ahadland 20:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * In general, see the relevant section of our Holocaust article, and in particular, see Wannsee Conference for the closest thing there is in the record for such an order. Anyway, given the totalitarian nature of the Nazi German system, it's inconceivable that a government activity on the scale of the Holocaust was not in some way ordered by the very top of the political leadership. Sandstein 19:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your help, however, neither of those things say whether he signed a law which authorised the holocaust. Does anyone know if he did or notAhadland 16:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please sign your post by typing four tildes ( ~ ) at the end. And no, there was no such law, because laws didn't matter in Nazi Germany. What mattered were the personal orders of Hitler. Sandstein 19:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So in theory, if Hitler survived World War II and was tried for orchestrating the Holocaust he could say that the claims were slanderous? Ahadland 16:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if you are joking or not. He could say that, but no one would believe it, because of the evidence (referred to in the previously quoted articles) that he indeed did in some way order the Holocaust, even though not by signing any particular law. Please do sign your posts before expecting more answers. Sandstein 20:44, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually this is an intelligent question and a rather interesting one. Bear in mind that the poster has not asked, "Was Hitler responsible for the holocaust?" or "Did the holocaust really happen?" but "What specific document authorized it?" Hannah Arendt devotes some space to the matter in Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil and her conclusion is, although Hitler undoubtedly ordered the holocaust, he probably never put the order in writing. This is somewhat surprising since the Nazis were generally meticulous about recordkeeping. Bear in mind that the holocaust itself began well after he had consolidated power: the democratic institutions of the Weimar Republic had long been dismantled. By the time of the holocaust, Hitler's word was law. There really wasn't any remaining distinction between his personal desire and government policy. The absence of such a signed document in no way absolves him or his regime, since his public statements and mountains of other documentary evidence attest that the holocaust did happen, that the Nazis perpetrated it, and the policy originated with Hitler.  Durova  01:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Durova, for taking the time to explain all this - and sorry if I came across as too curt. However, it's really mostly in these articles. Sandstein 15:46, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In neither of those articles does it mention Hitler legalizing the holocaust, and therefore does not relevantly meet the criterion required to answer my question sufficientlyAhadland 16:33, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please re-read Durova's reply carefully. Hitler didn't need to legalize the Holocaust by formally signing a law, because his orders were the law. And sign your posts. Sandstein 22:25, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Your arrogance blinds you Sandstein; I was merely stating that your arrogant confidence in your links was overestimated as it didn't answer my question


 * The Nuremberg Laws were, as far as I am aware, signed by Hess, not Hitler. Hitler signed very little, and committed very few of his thoughts to paper.  The Nazi State, moreover, did not operate in the same bureaucratic way as the Soviet Union, where you will find Stalin's signature on hundreds of death lists.  For the authorisation of the Holocaust you could do no better than read Hitler's anniversary speeches to the Reichstag on January 30, 1939-1942. Clio the Muse 06:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So from your knowledge, which is the most major discriminatory law signed by Hitler

Jesus after his resurrection
What happened to Jesus after he was resurrected - according to the Bible. Did he live a long and prosperous life of performing miracles, or did he die young? I can't seem to find anything that explains his life after the ressurrection. Ahadland 20:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Assuming this is not a troll question, according to the Bible, he ascended to Heaven. See Ascension. Sandstein 19:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't get it, I thought he came back to life? As in the mortal world


 * Please sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~ ) at the end. According to the Bible, Jesus did come back to life after being killed on the cross (the Resurrection), then he ascended to Heaven (the Ascension). Or just read the article on Jesus, please. Sandstein 19:55, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So, to be fair, why didn't he just stay in Heaven in the first place, I mean by waking up on earth, only one generation saw it, so there was no point really. Why didn't he just stay with G-d in heaven Ahadland 20:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Because, according to the Christian faith, "His death on a cross is understood as the redemptive sacrifice: the source of mankind's salvation and the atonement for sin, which had entered human history through the sin of Adam". For more, read Jesus or ask your pastor. Sandstein 20:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a fair question. There seemed to be many miracles that would be obvious to anyone lucky enough to be around during Jesus' time (or Moses' time).  Now, however, miracles have become exceedingly rare, just as science developed the ability to prove or disprove any such miracle.  So why did God decide to stop with the obvious miracles ? StuRat 23:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Because God finally and fully revealed his character and will through Jesus. "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world" (Heb 1:1–2). &mdash;Wayward Talk 02:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And why did God feel the need to keep his character and will hidden, until then ? StuRat 16:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's something like Elija (did I spell that right), unless it was Elias, in the Old Testament. According to the Bible, and the Jews too, he entered heaven on a chariot of flying (or flaming) horses. If I remember from another question you recently asked, you are Jewish, so you should know that story better. To tell you the truth, I'm surprised you didn't make the connection yourself. | A ndonic O   Talk  00:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think my question has been taken out of context. Surely, if he was the son of g-d he would have been for all of humankind, rather than a select group of people. I do understand the story - as you call it - just I just dont understand why he was so keen to be on his merry way. Seems pretty convenient for Christianity that Jesus went upto heaven, because now they down have to explain why he isn't around anymore


 * Please sign your posts. Why "surely"? That's a religious argument; some people think there's a God who is selective about who he is there for -- only some people (for example) will be saved (usually those who think God is selective), stuff like that. Anyway, this isn't really a reference desk question -- there's no factual answer, just different people's beliefs and appeals to scripture. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Because Jesus was sent to absolve all of humanities sins, still say its convenient for christiansAhadland 16:15, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I think I can answer this fairly systematically.

1. Jesus came to earth because the world was in need of a Saviour. A payment for people's sins was necessary to satisfy God's justice.


 * A payment ? So God, for some reason, was unwilling or unable to forgive mankind's sins until they executed his son ?  That doesn't make any sense at all.  If anything, that should have made God less willing to forgive sins. StuRat 10:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's my impression, too, but I guess religion doesn't have to make sense... 惑乱 分からん 14:56, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Any religion I would choose would have to make sense. :-) StuRat 16:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * God is perfectly just, as well as perfectly loving. In order for justice to be served, there needs to be a penalty for wrongs done. Think of it this way - if a person commits a large number of crimes, then suddenly decides, 'I'm not going to live that way any more', and subsequently gets caught for the previous crimes, does the judge go, 'Oh well, since you're sorry, you can go'? No. There would be public outcry if any judge did such a thing. Well, we have sinned against God; there needs to be a punishment for the things we have done, even if we are sorry. So, because God loves us, he sent his son to take the punishment in our place. That way, the justice of God is satisfied, and we can be restored to have relationship with him. BenC7 02:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That doesn't make sense for several reasons:


 * The guilty party has to make reparations. In this case the sinners of the world aren't punished, but rather Jesus is.


 * The guilty party doesn't necessarily have to be the one that makes the reparation. Do you think that when people are fined in court, that no-one can pay the fine for them? BenC7 10:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That type of "eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth" justice was contrary to the teachings of Jesus, who said that sinners should be forgiven without having to be punished.


 * Jesus never said such a thing at all. Jesus talked extensively about hell, and warned people again and again that there would be punishment for sin. BenC7 10:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We no longer believe in human sacrifices, and find them repulsive. Yet, this appears to be just such a case. StuRat 05:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Jesus was the only human sacrifice that God was ever pleased with. He repeatedly expressed his disgust through the Old Testament at human sacrifices. You may not believe in human sacrifices, but it was a human sacrifice that meant that I could have a relationship with God. BenC7 10:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

2. It was written in the books of Moses, the Psalms and the prophets that there would be a Messiah, and that there would come a time when God would make a new covenant with people - written not on stone, like the law of Moses, but on people's hearts. That was instituted through Jesus.

3. On the third day after Jesus was crucified, he was resurrected and ascended to heaven. He explained: "It is actually better for you that I go - because if I do not go, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you." In other words, it was better for Jesus, who could only be in one place at a time while he was on the earth, to ascend to heaven and to send the Holy Spirit, who can be in any number of people at the same time.

4. Anyone from any race or nation can come to Jesus. But his sacrifice for us (his death in our place; his taking the punishment for our sins) is offered as a free gift - we must accept it if it is to have any effect in us. BenC7 04:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thats all well and good except you seem to be forgetting that Jesus was alleged to be the son of G-d, which would surely have made him an incredibly powerful being, who would need not have ascended to heaven because he would have been omniscient, therefore all powerful and everywhere, so no need for him to go to heaven. The bible appears to be full of contradictions, which undermine its credibility


 * Don't worry, I haven't forgotten that Jesus was the son of God. Jesus, when he was on the earth, was not everywhere at once. He was bounded by a human body. The Bible makes this clear: "Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped. He made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross." (Phil. 2:5-8) If you look into any apparent "contradiction" that you think is there, you will always find a logical answer. You just need to be prepared to investigate. BenC7 02:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It would have been rather difficult for people to "come to Jesus" for most of human history, as they would have had no exposure to Christianity. In the Americas, for example, before European colonization, they would have had no clue who Jesus was. StuRat 10:52, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is true. But God judges people justly. Jesus said in a parable, "And that servant who knew his master's will but did not get ready or act according to his will, will receive a severe beating. But the one who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, will receive a light beating. Everyone to whom much was given, of him much will be required, and from him to whom they entrusted much, they will demand the more." (Luke 12:47-8) All people have a conscience, and are able at the least, even if they have not heard of Jesus, to be guided by that. BenC7 02:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So people who never even heard of Jesus will only be "lightly punished" for this misfortune ? Now that sounds fair, doesn't it ? StuRat 06:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As I said, people have a conscience, and can be guided by that at the least. BenC7 10:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * THere is school of thought that he didnt actually die on the cross, but just passed out and was taken down. Hence the resurrection didnt actually happen. But how he really died after that is still a mystery.--Light current 18:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not very well-supported at all. In fact, it's downright stupid once you consider all the circumstances involved: He was whipped before crucifixion, had nails through his hands and feet and a crown of thorns pushed into his head, a spear in his side, from which blood and water came (indicating death), put in a tomb with a large rock rolled in front of it, which in turn had a detachment of Roman guards in front of it who could be punished with death if they were found sleeping while they were on duty! Even ignoring the blood and water from the wound, Jesus, in that condition, could not have rolled a massive boulder from a tomb entrance, snuck past a detachment of guards, and then fully recovered within a couple of days. He would have been in desparate need of medical attention. It also have been very obvious to the disciples that he had indeed not died at all, and their faith and message would have been groundless. Ten of the eleven remaining disciples died martyr's deaths for proclaiming the message that Jesus had died and then was raised to life again - they would not all have given their lives for something that they knew wasn't true (especially when they would have nothing to gain by so doing). BenC7 02:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Put your belief aside for a moment, and look at the provable facts and probable events.--Light current 02:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you be more specific? BenC7 02:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Use scientific logic!--Light current 02:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You can't use scientific logic for any past event. You need to rely on legal-historical proofs, and the Bible has plenty of these. BenC7 05:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Many things written in the Bible are... disputed, to say the least. Flamarande 09:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So what? Anything of significance will be disputed by some. Are those disputes ("Rabbits don't chew the cud" is about the strongest) enough to keep me from faith in Christ? Absolutely not. I look at the arguments for, not just the arguments against. Most people who dispute the authority of the Bible etc. probably haven't bothered to look in any detail into arguments that support what the Bible says. They are often only interested in hearing what will make them comfortable. BenC7 10:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That rabbits chew cud isn't just disputed, it's absolutely, demonstrably, untrue. This, and many similar examples (like the absurdity of fitting a pair of every animal on Earth into Noah's ark), shows that the Bible is fallible, and therefore not written by God.  StuRat 06:07, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is a link to a short article which talks about the "rabbits chewing the cud". Here's one on fitting the animals into Noah's ark. It is hard to believe that something so obvious as rabbits not chewing the cud would be transferred by scribes for thousands of years if it was so clear that it was simply not true. BenC7 08:21, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If it helps, the Holy Spirit paid Christians a visit only a year after He went back up to Heaven. We call it Pentacost. The Holy Spirit is still with Christians today, so why would Jesus need to remain physically on Earth? And even if the HS weren’t here, Christians can always pray to Jesus. Personally, it wouldn’t make much sense to me if He were still here. Having a human body, he might have died within 50 yrs after rising from the dead, anyway. After all, the He told Christians that they would do greater things than Him.16:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)16:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)`
 * I don't think anyone has ever claimed that God wrote the Bible, Stu. Its authorship has been debated forever, but nobody disputes that some (fallible) humans wrote it.  Also, "God moves in a mysterious way, His wonders to perform" - science will NEVER explain religion, so expecting it to be amenable to scientific proof is folly.  Religion is all about faith in unknowable things.  Faith is only necessary where there is no logical, scientific explanation for something.  Where there is proof, faith has no place.  Either you believe a religious dogma, or you don't.  JackofOz 12:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

historical origin and date of "why did the chicken cross the road."
I want to know where and when, if only approximately, the beginning of the joke, "Why did the chicken cross the road." I am a children's author who is writing a historical middle-grade novel and I need to know if my main character can refer to this joke. The time of this novel is 1930 and the setting is the midwest of the US. Thank you,
 * Please see our article on this: Why did the chicken cross the road?. Sandstein 20:45, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

That doesn't answer the question. I am surprised at the explanation in the article. Anyone who has some experience with chickens running loose near a road will eventually notice that when a car approaches they tend to first sit and wait at the side of the road and then start running across at the worst possible moment. Loads of chickens get killed that way (I once flattened one on a motorbike in Thailand). So people all over the world will have wondered about this and asked the question. Some of those who didn't come up with the obvious answer (it's some sort of flight behaviour that doesn't work with the speed of cars) will have come up with this funny answer (to get to the other side). So the question is not really meant as a joke. The answer is, though. At least, this maked sense to me. And since chickens and roads will have been around for a long time before the middle ages, loads of people will have asked the question. Whether they came up with the 'funny' answer is a different matter. DirkvdM 07:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Guitar
How long would it take to teach yourself how to play guitar? --The Dark Side 20:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I would think it would vary greatly on your natural musical talent. Although, I don't know how to play guitar...  Or any other instrument... Dismas|(talk) 21:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * May I recommend bass guitar? It's easier and will take less time learning. Sorry I cannot answer your question though. &mdash;  Ed Gl  21:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If you were to try to play the bass guitar like a normal guitar, it would actually be harder. If you were to play the normal guitar like a bass guitar, that would be easier than the bass. THey are two differnt instruments and cannot really be compared in ease of playing.--Light current 09:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Why playing the (I assume) guitar? There are just so many people interetested in such instrument nowdays that in a random sample of 10 young people, at least 3 will have a guitar home. It's just THAT bad. Why not learning something else? If I could, I'd learn how to play the cello, piano, vibraphone and the theremin, but alas, I can't afford neither of them, and I can't even build a theremin of my own! It sucks to see everyone else getting their chances (like having pianos at home) and wasting with something as saturated as the guitar and a bass. Guess it's all part of the awfully boring musical trend of nowdays.... ☢  Ҡ i∊ ff   ⌇  ↯  22:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The guitar is a great instrument if you want to make music on your own - you can play chords and sing at the same time. You can do that with the piano, but the guitar is more portable, so you can just show up with your guitar and entertain people. You can also make recognisable, if basic, music with very limited skill - you can play a wide variety of songs with a handful of chords. With most other instruments you need to join a band or some other kind of ensemble, and have a reasonable level of proficiency before you can play in front of an audience. The guitar allows you to start small and actually achieve something straight away, which is probably why it's so popular. Find a book of popular songs for buskers, learn the basics, and off you go. If you want you can improve and expand your abilities from there. If you don't, you can still lead a singalong of I'm a Believer or Brown Eyed Girl at parties. Try doing that with a cello ;-) --Nicknack009 00:14, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Try doing that with a cello
 * Okay, give me one and I will see what I can do. ;) ☢  Ҡ i∊ ff   ⌇  ↯  00:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I started learning eight years ago and I'm still not satisfied with my ability. However, if you just want to be able to play Wonderwall, I'd say a few months. Phileas 23:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * AS with any other endeavor, it depends on talent, keenness and amount of practice. It also depends if you already play another instrument as far as the musical side (rather than technique) is concerned.
 * I taught myself to play the bass guitar from music (to a mediocre standard) in about 12 months. It was hard work. I taught myself to play the EUB recently to a medium standard. THat took about 12 months. It was not too difficult and I didnt play it every day. I am now trying to learn to busk at the piano. I am giving myself 12 months.--Light current 06:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The great thing about a guitar is that, if you are happy to strum rather than fingerpick, you can perform an acceptable accompaniment to hundreds of songs having learned just three of four chords, and a beginner should be able to do that within half an hour. After that, it's just a question of how far you want to take it.--Shantavira 08:23, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Disagree. Learning the position of 3 or 4 chords and changing between them smoothly takes more than half an hour. At least it does with our students. More like 3/4 wks --Light current 09:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * One can always use the Roy Clark Guitar Method, which is to employ an open tuning and then merely learn to lay a barre. If you do that, you can strum virtually any song in a single day.  Of course that's not learning to play the guitar, and you still won't learn what the notes are, still won't learn the intervals, won't learn any chords, won't learn any progressions, won't learn note bends, hammer ons, or virtually anything else.  (For the record, Roy Clark was a genius guitarist, but the Method was a TV merchandising gimmick.)  Geogre 11:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah. Im afraid theres no easy way to learn a musical instrument. Your body and mind needs training to do it. Of course most of the training you do yourself, and are just shown how/what to do by the teacher. But in the end its up to the student to put in the effort and practice--Light current 14:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is what I get from everyone's responses:


 * Learning time depends on innate musical ability, effort, and practice
 * Playing another instrument helps but not all that much
 * The Roy Clark Method does not help you in the long run
 * You can never perfect guitar technique

Is that it? --The Dark Side 01:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Perfection is impossible in any area, but especially with music. I once heard a pianist talk about how difficult it is play a chord with all the notes sounding exactly at the same time. At that moment I realised why his play sounded so boring. And this was supposed to be one of the best pianists in the world. Good music is music that sounds good. How difficult it is is totally irrelevant. The great advantage of a guitar is that it is one of the easiest instruments to play something nice sounding on, but still gives you the possibility to take it much further because there are so many different ways to play it - strum, pick, with your skin or nails or a pick, push up, pull off, strike the strings near the bridge for a sharper sound, play razgueados, tap the body and all sorts of combinations of these plus more. With a piano you can only play loud and soft and play different motes at the same time. And you can't carry it around with you. Another advantage of the guitar is that you can retune it. A disadvantage of the Roy Clark method is that you can't use (most of the) sheet music. And you won't be able to pick up someone else's guitar and strum along. The owner might not want you to retune it because that is bad on the strings - they are built for a certain tension and especialy retuning a lot will wear them out. In the long run, the cost of a (nylon string) guitar lies in the strings, that have to be replaced every few months with average use. DirkvdM 08:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think TheDarkSide has it more or less correct in a nutshell above. Except playing another instrument properly is about half the battle won actually IMO. And of course: perfection does not exist in anything.--Light current 18:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Fluent or near-fluent Russian/English speaker, please.
Hello. I've been looking through the user pages of people who speak Russian and English but I have been unable to find anyone who has been on wikipedia recently or lists a way to contact them. I am writing a novel and the main character uses a naming convention of Russian words for ideas like "peace," "hope," "courage," etc. for his ships. I would greatly appreciate someone able to provide me with some aesthetic sounding Russian names for ships. You could put them here or on my user page -- there are also ways to contact me through that. Thank you very much. :) --Demonesque 22:01, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "Nadia" or "Nadyezhda" means hope in Russian, I think peace is "mir" and courage is "muzkh", although I don't know any names based primarily on these words (although -mir is part of the name Vladimir). 惑乱 分からん 22:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, this question is better posed at the Language desk. 惑乱 分からん 22:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You might be able to find someone to help you at Translators available. &mdash; QuantumEleven 11:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Lithuanian liquor called Viritos
I am looking for a recipe of this rare rock-candy flavored whisky. I'm not positive about the spelling - it could be vititos, virithos...

Thank you for your help!

Viratos 23:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds like the Lithuanians are marketing alcohol to children. Do you get a free Pokemon doll with each bottle ? :-) StuRat 23:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This link gives a recipe. You can find more recipes if you search for krupnik, krupnikas or boilo. It all seems to be the same idea with variations in the amounts of the spices. --Lambiam Talk  01:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help! My family and I searched long and hard trying to find a recipe - that website was great!! 69.114.57.47 03:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)