Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 October 5

First Christian Church
Good Afternoon,

Can you please confirm if the Roman Catholic Church was the first Christian Church??

If is was not, could you please advise which Church was historically the first.

Wowser


 * Nope. Read the Bible. The first church was formed in Antioch. -- Ghirla -трёп-  07:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The word "Christian" was coined in Antioch, but that's not quite the same thing as saying that the first church was formed in Antioch. AnonMoos 10:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The Christianity and Christian church were born in Antioch. I find it difficult to dispute this assertion. -- Ghirla -трёп-  14:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The word "Christian" was coined in Antioch, but that's not quite the same thing as saying that "the Christianity and Christian church were born in Antioch". AnonMoos 16:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not an easy question to answer. See History of Christianity to see what we know about the evolution of Christianity (sorry about the bad pun...).  The Roman Catholic Church claims to trace its ancestry all the way back to the twelve apostles in an unbroken line.  But whether you accept that or not, given the disorganisation of the early Christians, is another question. --Robert Merkel 07:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, each major church claims an apostolic succession. No claim may be documented properly. -- Ghirla -трёп-  07:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course not. What good would faith be if all this stuff could actually be proven? freshofftheufo  ΓΛĿЌ  12:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW that's why Roman Catholics call themselves "Catholic", whereas non-Roman Catholic Christians add the qualifier "Roman" to Roman Catholicism. The term "Catholic" is greek for "whole" or "universal", and therefore non-Roman Catholics find it innacurate to simply call Roman Catholics "Catholic" without the qualifier Roman, just to point out that they're just as Catholic as the "Roman Catholics", just they're not "Roman" Catholics. Loomis 12:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The Orthodox people also call themselves "Orthodox *and* Catholic", whereas non-Eastern Orthodox add the qualifier "Eastern". Your argument may be easily reverted, you see. Unlike four major patriarchates, the bishopric of Rome seceded from true faith by 1054 and cannot claim any sort of apostolic succession (except a succession to Judas). -- Ghirla -трёп-  14:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you're mistaken. I have no "argument" concerning the issue! I'm neither pro nor anti "Roman Catholic" or "Catholic". I just thought I was adding an interesting piece of information concerning the terminology. Loomis 23:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Not all "major churches" claim apostolic sucession. The Roman Catholic church does, as do churches which split away, including the Eastern Orthodox churches who split away by 1054 AD in the Great Schism . The Anglicans and Episcopals likewise started as Roman Catholic bishops, so maintaining apostolic succession, although a 19th century Pope claimed they were not using all the correct ceremonies, so they had lost the historic episcopate. Their reply was that prior Popes had not had all the supposedly required words, so the Papal succession would have been likewise broken; that the extra words were not required. Some Lutheran churches have bishops in the historic episcopate, and the ELCA went the extra step since 1999 of having bishops of the Episcopal church and Lutheran branches in the historic episcopate participate in ELCA bishop ordinations. Methodist John Wesley ordained bishops without being a bishop, except that he may have been secretly ordained a bishop by Erasmus, an Eastern Orthodox bisjhop, at a time when he would have been prosecuted for treason in England for him to have publicly done so, because of the established Anglican church. Manu mainstream protestant churches do not claim any apostolic succession in the sense of their bishops having been ordained with the laying on of hands of bishops who could trace their ordination back to the apostles. It was more like, someone decided to start a church and started ordaining bishops without the benefit of an apostolic succession bishop. An excommunicated bishop retains the sacramental power to ordain priests and bishops, under Catholic theory, although those receiving the extra-canonical ordinations would be excommuicated as well.Edison 13:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You say that the Eastern Orthodox churches broke away from the Roman Catholic Church in AD 1054. However, from the perspective of the Eastern Orthodox churches, it was the Roman Catholic Church that broke away. As our article Eastern Orthodox Church states:  "The Orthodox Church considers itself to be the original Church founded by Christ and His apostles."  Marco polo 22:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Part of the problem with answering this question is the extreme shortage of original documents from this era. See List of illuminated manuscripts for a sample. Nearly all of what we know comes from copies of documents made centuries later, which means it may be possible that the copies altered key facts of the originals. Putative arguments that this happened usually hinge on dialectical differences - a later alteration would have been made in a later dialect than the original. From a purely historiograpical perspective it's hard to make a definitive statement on the earliest era of Christian worship. Many people do have strong opinions on this topic because it touches close to the heart of their particular faith.  Durova  16:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * First, let me echo Durova's last sentence. We are dealing with a touchy subject where even simple statements of historical truth easily offend people.


 * Getting to the heart of the matter, we start by examining the Greek word "ekklesia." Translated as "church" in your New Testament, it actually means "association." Whether you would, therefore, consider the earliest church to actually be a church becomes problematic. In the 40s and 50s of the first century, Paul (very grudgingly) acknowledges some leadership role to the "church" in Jersualem under James the Just. In all Christian dogma that must be considered the first church. All other sects claim to be the successors to, and gain their authority from, them. (The Roman claim, for instance, is that James sent Peter to Rome where he became the first bishop, the Popes - "Bishops of Rome" - being his successors.)


 * One difficulty is that the Jerusalem church disappeared during the First Jewish Revolt (66-70) against the Roman Empire, and everybody claims that their church follows in a straight line from them. They, however, are not around to dispute the issue. The best we can do is to examine the Epistle of James and to see how Paul regards James and Peter in his epistles. (Be aware that Acts is a secondary source and cannot rationally be accorded as much validity regarding Paul's opinions as Paul's own letters.)


 * Now, the Epistle of James displays a very different attitude toward some fundamental issues than does just about any modern sect. Designed to refute Paul's elevation of Faith as the ultimate demand of God, it implies that Pauline doctrine was not the original belief of the first Christians. It is, therefore, not surprising that Luther wanted to chop the Epistle of James out of the New Testament.


 * It is very difficult to even present historical facts in the face of Confessional Beliefs without stirring up instant anger. Let me point out something that was tossed off earlier in Edison's remarks. He mentions "the Eastern Orthodox churches who split away by 1054." (I am NOT picking on him, just using this as an example.) Considering that it was Rome that changed the credo after a thousand years, it might, with some justice, be stated that it was the Roman Catholic Church that split away. (I see that Marco polo picked up on the same point while I was writing this.)


 * The situation is much more complicated than it is presented to be in most church accounts. For instance, Paul mentions other wandering apostles, like himself, who are teaching quite different gospels (Apollos of Alexandria for one). Paul admits that they are valid Christians, even though their doctrines are different from his. Who sent them out? Was, in fact, the Jerusalem Church under James, Peter, and John the only "first church?" And if not, then where did these others come from?


 * For a very different "take" on the entire subject, you might try here. Just don't blame me if it upsets you. B00P 23:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Poor phrasing on my part if it sounds like there was an implication that the Roman church was the True one and the Eastern church was not. There is an old oak tree near my house, about 90 feet tall. I do not see one branch as being the True Tree; no more do I see the Roman church being more truly catholic and apostolic than the Eastern or the Anglican or the Lutheran.Edison 13:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

social work
hello there Could you please assist me in finding out what the western social work models are?

yours sincerely

Sarah193.220.67.61 10:32, 5 October 2006 (UTC)←


 * Have you taken a look at Social work? Natgoo 10:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Left-handed protagonist named "Dexter"
Hi! I've been trying to remember the title of a book I read long ago, where the protagonist was named Dexter. Unfortunately his parents chose the name before realizing their son was left-handed, and rather than changing his name to "Sinister" tried to force him to become right-handed, which merely resulted in making him extremely clumsy and still having the name Dexter... Anyone recognize this? I tried a few web searches and the List of fictional left-handed characters with no luck. Many thanks! 85.226.124.201 11:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The Dexter in Podkayne of Mars is not a main character, but does match your description, except he only claimed to be clumsy. Clarityfiend 16:06, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much! This came up in a recent conversation about predjudice against left-handers etc., and I remembered that scene so clearly but just couldn't place it at all. Time to go reread Podkayne, its been some 15 years since I last traveled with her!85.226.124.201 16:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Drag 'n Drop

 * Hello, I'd like to know if all of these confusing licences on Wikipedia allow me to drag and drop images into a folder, which is just for private use (e.g. screensaver). I'm not planning to publish them anywhere, or to claim they were taken by me. If only certain licenses allow me to do this, could you explain which ones and why? Thank You. | AndonicO 12:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That would probably count as "fair use" no matter what, so I wouldn't worry about it. --Fastfission 12:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm amazed that you actually ask about private use. Personally, I would never have had any second qualms about just downloading in that case... 惑乱 分からん 12:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, just checking I hope the publisher likes the photos :-). AndonicO 13:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Game in cognitive sciences
I am trying to find the source of a game in cognitive sciences.

The game is about a magazine with 50.000 unique readers that proposes a game to them. The reader should submit one number bigger than 0. The reader who submits the smaller non-repeated number is the winner of the game.

The article were I read it was about strategies of how to improve de chances. Submit 10.000 was clearly chanceless, submit 88 has much better chances. So there was a way to improve the chances of winning.

Any hint about the author or source is welcome. Mr.K. 15:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That game sounds very much like (a variation of?) the Luring Lottery, proposed by Douglas Hofstader in his Scientific American column "Metamagical Themas", June 198385.226.124.201 14:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, sorry... looking at your question again it's not the same game, though I highly recommend that column and several others in the series (collected in a book, Metamagical Themas, ISBN 0-553-34279-7) for interesting discussion of several similar games.85.226.124.201 14:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yews, the games of Hofstadter have some similarity with my question. Thanks for the suggestion.

See-through Shirt
I can see the pattern of my ironing board right through my white shirt (more so than through a piece of standard office paper). Is this a trait of cheap shirts or common amongst most white shirts? Also my shirt label advises the use of an iron set to one dot but this wasn't removing any creases at all so I turned up to two dots to enable steaming and the creases came right out with no obvious adverse effect on the shirt - why would the label lie to me? --Username132 (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Try dampening the shirt before you iron it 8-)--Light current 16:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Cheapness can be a factor determining how thin the material is that makes the shirt, but the truth is that some types of fabric are less opaque than others, and even some very expensive white shirts can be quite see through. Most summer shirts are quite see-through, something that nobody but I seem to notice at the uniform JHS that I work part-time at. The label "lies" because they don't want to have to deal with customers claiming that their labels don't give enough warning when they crank their irons to the max and burn their shirts. There is a necessary amount of redundancy. freshofftheufo  ΓΛĿЌ  11:29, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

British Medieval Gilt Plate
I have been reading several books about the British Medieval period. In these books, the authors refer to "gifts of plate" and "gilt plate" which were given as gifts, some noble women were dowered with them and on occasion they were used as money (or sold to get money). Are these actual plates, resembling what I would think of as dinner plates? One author refers to them being displayed on a buffet or china cabinet of sorts. One author also refers to Margaret of Anjou having to sell her plate and replace it with cheaper plate on her way from France to England. Any light you can shed on these ornaments would be greatly appreciated. Thank YouLMONC2004 15:20, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Silver, in particular silverware. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * According to my dictionary (American Heritage), "plate" can mean "household articles, such as hollowware, covered with a precious metal, such as gold." Silverware (or eating utensils) is not one of the possible meanings, although silverware could be a subset of the broader category of "plate," which would also include cups, bowls, and what we know today as plates.  Marco polo 22:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hm. At least one source includes silverware in that -- plate. And it says it means sterling silver. I've always wondered precisely what it meant as well. I imagine there could be some ambiguity, since plate is derived from "flat", and flatware...*scratching head* --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, my wording wasn't clear. I think you are right, JPGordon, that silverware is included in "plate," I just don't think that plate is limited to silverware.  By the way, "gilt plate" means golden plate. Marco polo 01:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It is perhaps worth clarifying that when a Briton says "silverware" (things made of silver), he probably means something much more akin to the actual meaning of "plate" than what an American means by "silverware" (cutlery). Shimgray | talk | 18:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

In the Middle Ages and later 'plate' was often used to mean household items - bowls, salt cellars, spoons etc. etc. - made of silver or occasionally gold, useful and/or ornamental. As a collection of family valuables you will find plate featured in wills as well as dowries! (But mostly for the élite before approx 1600)  'Gilt plate' is the same as 'silver-gilt': items made of silver which had been gilded: covered in a thin layer of gold. (By the way, in this context I don't think 'plate' means plated metal. It doesn't here) --HJMG 10:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Many Thanks to everyone who responded - it is appreciated!LMONC2004 15:29, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

SIGHTILL CEMETARY
HOW OLD IS SIGHTHILL CEMETARY IN GLASGOW?


 * Have you searched for "Sighthill Cemetary"? If Wikipedia has an article on it, said article will almost certainly give the year of establishment. Please do not write in all caps, and remember sign your posts. Thanks. -Fsotrain09 17:44, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It's spelled "Cemetery" in any case. 66.146.62.39 20:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Dickens
What is the proper name for the ghost of Christmas Yet to Come in A Christmas Carol by Dickens? I have heard it is Mormacurial, or some such version, although I have just sounded it out from memory, I do not have the correct spelling and cannot find any such referance to that name in my searches. Thank you


 * He does not seem to have had a name. You can see the text at . Could you possibly be thinking of Marley's ghost, another apparition in the story? - Nunh-huh 19:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

White Guard 23:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Of the four ghosts only that of Marley has a name; the rest are simply the spirits of time. Scrooge also refers to the Spirit of Christmas Yet to Come as the Ghost of the Future.


 * In the George C. Scott rendition of A Christmas Carol, the ghost of Marley does refer to the third spirit saying, "...and the third spirit, Morta Curial*, will appear in his own good time." *With only the audio to go off of I can't be sure either. Looking up the root definitions though makes it a good possibility.  'Morta' could be drawn from the Roman goddess of death and the third fate of the Greeks, the one bearing the scissors to cut the thread of life.  'Curial' seeming to be a derivative of 'curia', a position of high standing or power and councilship/leadership within ancient Roman society and the Roman Church.  So a 'high councilor of your mortal fate' if you will.  Have yet to find any direct reference to Dicken's character though.--Zk942 (talk) 03:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This is actually just a miss hearing of the audio, what is being said is "the third spirit, more mercurial, will appear in his own good time" this is a description, not a name, with mercurial referring to something fickle, erratic, or volatile.  Marley's ghost is just pointing out that the third ghost doesn't follow a particular timing or pattern, and will be there, in modern language, "whenever".  Hope this answers your question, and I apologize that it took the internet 8 years to answer it :)  --Memige (talk) 23:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

road traffic signs- London local authority obligations.
I would like to know if a local authority is required to give prior and/or post-procedure warnings of change to prohibiting signs on the public highway.Many thanks.DanDangeo 19:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. As best I can tell, major roads in London are managed by Transport for London, and local streets by the local borough councils under the auspices of the Traffic Management Act 2004, which give s local authorities fairly broad discretion to manage things as they see fit, until HMG decides that they're not managing with enough fitness and can make them do what they want.  So, therefore, policies about changes to street signs appear to be a matter for TfL and the boroughs.  So go take it up with your local council.  Also, contacting your local member of parliament may be helpful.  If it's related to some kind of traffic incident, you may wish to consult a solicitor. --Robert Merkel 07:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not clear what sort of signs you mean. Do you mean prohibition signs, e.g. parking restrictions? These require prior notice in a local newspaper, and these are generally tucked away somewhere with other legal notices.--Shantavira 08:31, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Dangeo

Moe Kauffman
I don't know much about Moe, but I thought I'd propose a new article about him here at Wikipedia. Maybe there are music scholars out there who might be able to add him to your data base. :)

I hope this is the right place for a suggestion like this; I've never used Wikipedia before, I know that usually when I Google something up, there's *always* a link to Wiki somewhere. ;) So when I didn't see a Wiki link for Moe, I decided to see if a Wiki user might like to take on the challenge of writing up a page about him. :)

All I know about Moe is that the three vinyls I have of his are great. :) Swinging Shephard Blues is an especially wonderful song. :)

Take care, Jennifer
 * Is this the same person as Moe Koffman? - SimonP 22:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this the same person as Moe Koffman? - SimonP 22:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

School Year Calendars for Latin American Countries
Hey- I'm considering studying for a year abroad next year. I am trying to find out the school year for a couple Latin American countries. (ex= USA is sept. to june) anyone know the following countries' school year calendars?

Mexico Costa Rica Dominican Republic Argentina Bolivia Chile Ecuador Venezuela Peru Paraguay

Thanks!
 * You really ought to investigate particular schools. Many schools in the US do not adhere to the Sept-June approximation, why would schools elsewhere adhere any better? &mdash; Lomn 20:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a good point. However, I have no way of knowing which schools to look for :( Most of our schools have our summer months off, and I was just wondering which countries have their summer months off- like january to february. Lamava 20:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Westboro picketing at Amish funerals
Okay, so we have freedom of speech and everything, and the KKK is allowed to obtain permits for parades through urban streets etc. (right to assemble; and though I have to wonder if the shops along the street would appreciate being closed down for a KKK parade that's a discussion for another time). But why is it legal for Westboro to picket funerals? Freedom of speech is only allowed insofar as it does not violate the rights of other citizens, and doesn't picketing funerals violate the right of people to mourn in peace and in private? 24.154.169.193 21:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, this was my post; I forgot to log in. =) Corporal 21:02, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The "right to mourn in peace" isn't a legal or constitutional right. "Insofar as it does not violate the rights of others..." is a nebulous concept (and again, not specifically constitutional as best I recall) and is only narrowly enforced, such as in the case of libel. &mdash; Lomn 21:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Westboro is picketing the Amish?! Yet another reason why I hate Westboro...  Anyway, Lomn has a point.  In most places the "right to mourn in peace" is not a legal right.  In most jurisdictions Westboro would still have to obtain a permit to stage a protest or rally.  They are normally granted because of the right to assemble peacably.  Though many states right now are drafting laws to keep protests a certain distance away from funerals.  This is mainly due to their protests at soldier's funerals.  Dismas|(talk) 03:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There has been a proposal to ban them from picketing at military funerals. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:09, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Aren't there laws against disturbing the peace and such? Making noise during a quiet funeral could be interpreted as such. I have no idea how ambiguous the laws around that are though. You'd think they'd be able to pull some obscure law or by-law out to nail these idiots. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 03:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, it's actually true (, , among numerous others). Not that I'm surprised.  When hate becomes that malignant it tries to propagate itself.  Maybe they were offended because the Amish showed they had the capacity to forgive.  Antandrus  (talk) 03:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it's even more disgusting than that. They're saying that that nutcase murdered those children because the governor of Pennsylvania criticized the hate group on television. I'm not sure who is sicker, the murderer or the "church". --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 17:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * They picket the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq because, according to them, they deserve to die for fighting for a country which allows homosexuals to live. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Just as a follow-up to this question, it turns out that Westboro did not end up picketing the Amish funerals, because a local radio show host made them an offer, that he would invite them on his show for an hour if they agreed not to picket the funerals. See the second link above. DJ Clayworth 21:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Underage Drinking
Let's say that I go to a party where there is underage drinking (and I am underage). If I personally don't drink, can I be arrested if the party gets busted by the Police? --AstoVidatu 23:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Kinda depends what jurisdiction you're in. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 00:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You'll probably get arrested, but you didn't break any laws (depending on where you are) unless you did other things? ;) — X [ Mac Davis ] ( SUPERDESK | Help me improve  )03:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * If requesting medical, dental, or legal advice, please consider asking a doctor, dentist, or lawyer instead. If you have zero blood alcohol level, and you were not seen in posession of booze, and you admit NOTHING and demand a lawyer, and your old man can afford a good lawyer, and you claim you did not even see anyone drinking, and the others will swear you didn't drink or supply the booze, common sense would say the lawyer might well get you off.Such things have happened.Edison 04:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Why is it that while so many people ask for medical and legal advice, from my experience here, no one has ever asked for dental advice? (Well, see, I've got this pain in my lower left bicuspid and I need your guys' help...) Poor dentists, they must feel so left out. :( Seriously though, I'm the furthest thing from a crim-law expert, and so I really won't pretend to know the answer to this question. All I'd like to say is that, though s/he never even asked you what jurisdiction you're in, while Edison's advice may be right, to be sure I'd look further than the wiki RefDesk for answers for such questions. To be honest, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest that their may be jurisdictions where such innocent behaviour is in fact deemed criminal. Loomis 04:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * for the pain in your lower left bicuspid I suggest taking a short break from any strong flavoured objects and seeing a dentist/dentalhygienist. also I can suggest to brush your teeth every day! three times a day! and if the pain becomes imbearable you should not try to rip of your jaw. Graendal 05:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

as for the real question, the law can't do nothing if you uphold your witness and Ifyou didn't drink/supply/have in possesion booze you can always say that you did not know it and therefore are not liable to the law.


 * Dentists might advise you to see your dentist after every meal and brush your teeth twice a year!Edison 14:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Being around people who break the law can be seen as being an accesory (if that is the right term). But that's very iffy lawmaking, so depends very much on the country and the specific law that is being broken. Here in the Netherlands, a new law was introduced a few years ago to make it possible to arrest people for 'being part of a criminal organisation'. This means you don't have to have done actually done anything wrong, just hang around people who may have done some illegal things. It is open to a all sorts of interpretations and therefore to loads of criticism. And justly so, because it gives the police a means to arrest whoever they wish. Of course the 'righteous citizens' think this will never happen to them. Just what they thought in Germany in the 1930's. DirkvdM 19:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll just give an example to illustrate my point that you really never know how far the government will go in trying to pre-empt potentially dangerous activity, even before anything wrong has really been done. In my jurisdiction, it's illegal to have an opened bottle of any sort of alcoholic beverage in a vehicle, even if the vehicle is parked and motionless. Note I said opened not simply open, meaning that if the bottle had been open, and its seal broken, even if it was then shut tight, it would still be illegal to keep it anywhere in the passenger compartment of even a motionless vehicle. To transport it by car, you'd have to store it in the trunk (boot). This is obviously a measure to go as far as possible to pre-empt any possibilty of driving while intoxicated, as there's obviously nothing specifically dangerous about having an opened bottle of liquor in a car, if the driver of that car hasn't actually consumed any of it. The same goes for the underage person at a party where alcohol is served. I wouldn't be surprised if that were illegal, even if the minor hadn't had one bit of alcohol. Think about bars. Minors aren't simply forbidden from consuming alcohol at a bar, but are forbidden from entering one altogether. Loomis 13:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"Owner's equity" in non-profit organizations
On a balance sheet, what is the difference between assets and liabilities called, in a non-profit organization that has no owners? Neon   Merlin   23:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * (Jeez, you've put a lot of work into your signature!) I'd first (as always) have to know what jurisdiction you're in, but besides that, I'd have to know the legal status of the organization. Is it a corporation? Loomis 23:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Suppose (a) that it is, and (b) that it's a club or something that's not a corporation. I'm talking about Canada.  Neon    Merlin   01:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok great! I'm from Canada too, and as such, I'm most familiar with Canadian law. Yet I'm still not sure what your (a) and (b) points mean. Is it a corporation or not? Loomis 03:15, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about two separate situations. In (a) it is a corporation; in (b) it's not. Need any more clarification?  Neon    Merlin   03:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, I'm trying to help you out here. Be nice. If it's a corporation, by definition, it has "owners" (though corporate law purists would likely argue about the term "owner"). Whatever you want to call them, these would be the shareholders. Profit or non-profit, the situation is the same. I'm therefore unclear about what you mean by a "non-profit corporation" without owners (shareholders), as that would seem to me to be a legal impossibilty. As for (b), I still have no clue what you're talking about. Loomis 03:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Near-monopoly
In business/economics theory, is there any theoretical limit to how close a company with a near-monopoly can eventually get to a permanent monopoly on its industry, absent government interference? Neon   Merlin   23:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say, when the company can freely set prices without fear of competition, you've got a monopoly. Loomis 23:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * By a permanent monopoly, I mean an absolute 100% market share, where the only alternative to buying from the company is not buying at all, and this situation will never change. Can this state be even theoretically reached? If not, how close can one theoretically get? That's my question.  Neon    Merlin   01:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd say that of course it's theoretically possible, and it's just then that the government comes in to break up the monopoly, as it inevitably will lead to abusive practices by the monopoly company. I'm still not sure what your question is. Whenever any industry even approaches a near monopoly, the government steps in to break it up.


 * But your hypothesis, about "no government interference" is not totally naive. Look at cartels such as OPEC. As a "multinational" cartel, they're not subject to any "national" law. As such they do their best to "set" the price of oil on the market. But of course not all oil exporting nations are members of OPEC. So their power to "set" the price is somewhat attenuated. Perhaps a better example might be the DeBeers control of the diamond market. From what I understand, this multinational has so much control of the diamond market, and actually holds back supply to such an extent, that it actually has a great deal of control over the worldwide "price" of diamonds. But don't quote me on that one! I'll have to do a bit more research into it to give you a definitive answer. Loomis 03:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)