Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 September 12

=September 12=

Statue Conundrum
I recently heard that there is a statue that caused much controversy in it's time. The statue is of a ballerina in a normal dance position with dance attire, however her face was sculpted to resmeble that of a monkey/ape. It had something to do with the belief/theory that those who commit crimes or belong to lower castes are primitive and less evolved. I cannot find the name/sculpter of the stature nor can I identify the belief system or thoery base that supported such views. Any help in this regard is greatly appreciated. --216.8.141.223 01:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Mike
 * The idea of caste/social status and evolution is social darwinism. You may find the statue in its history. — [ Mac Davis ] (talk) ( Desk | Help me improve )
 * I believe you're thinking of La Petite Danseuse de Quatorze Ans by Edgar Degas. The National Gallery of Artsmentions the history of its reception.---Sluzzelin 10:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you both, the philosophy is exacty what I had in mind and the name of the statue allowed me to access the info I needed. Thanks again. --Mike 216.8.141.223 04:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Another odd question -.-
Okay-- i've heard it said you can tell that someone is a Jew if their chin is tilted towards the left, of the left 'side' of the chin is bigger (longer, lower). This is partly why i asked the 'first' odd question. I'm sure this is another one of those things that is completely false =P


 * So am I. StuRat 04:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur. That is actually kind of funny. — [ Mac Davis ] (talk) ( Desk | Help me improve )


 * Asymetrical faces are generally considered ungainly, so maybe someone came up with this to discredit Jews, although that seems a bit farfetched. Then again, a totally symmetrical face doesn't look right either. Just take a perfectly frontal photo of face and mirror one half to the other side. It will look unnatural. Also, I wonder if asymmetry could be hereditary. I don't see why not, but are there any peoples who have this? A species that has an extreme version of this is the Flounder. That's a weird animal! DirkvdM 08:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Tell that to all those women who drool over Harrison Ford. Pretty much everything on his face is crooked; his nose is twisted to one side, his chin is asymetrical, and he's even got something of a scar. Yet to many ladies he's the hottest thing around. (Come to think of it though...he is half-Jewish...hmmmmmmm) :--) Loomis 19:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

History
Which state is sometimes called "The APPLE Island"


 * NY? ._. --Proficient 06:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Tasmania. JackofOz 06:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The bigger apple. DirkvdM 08:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Correction. Tassie is called "The apple isle", not "The apple island".   Maybe you're thinking of somewhere else.  JackofOz 10:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Googling "apple island" suggests it's Tasmania. In any case, there are very few "states" that are also islands, and Tasmania is shaped like an apple.--Shantavira 12:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, in a way, although that's not why it's called that. Ask any red-blooded Aussie guy what the map of Tassie reminds him of, and you'll be told something quite, quite different (more related to cherries than applies).  :--)  JackofOz 12:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you saying you're not a red-blooded Aussie, Jack? I'm quite sure you are! Never figured you to be a bigot! However I'm figuring your particular red-blood would prefer that other "Big Apple"...you know the one I'm talking about...the one connected to Long Island? Ok that one was bad! But I'm only human! I'm allowed to have my low-brow moments just like the rest of you, no? :--) Loomis 19:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * My blood is just as red as that of other Australian men. If I prefer to allude to certain things rather than blatantly spell them out, that simply means I'm a gentleman (or if you like, a blue-blood).  I forgive you for your low-brow moment (we've all had them). :)  JackofOz 20:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

A snare and a delusion
What is the origin of the phrase "such-and-such is a snare and a delusion"? Is it a quote from something (the Bible, Shakespeare, ...)? When I was little and visiting my grandmother, we wanted pancakes for breakfast one morning and she replied that pancakes are a snare and a delusion. Since then, I have often heard it said of many other things. Googling "snare and a delusion" gets lots of hits, but no indication of the original source. Angr 09:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Never heard of it myself but Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable has:
 * Something that raises hopes only to dash them. Lord Denman's judgement in O'Connell v the Crown (September 1844) has: 'Trial by jury itself, instead of being a security to persons who are not accused, will be a delusion, a mockery and a snare.'
 * possibly related to Bait and switch. MeltBanana  12:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

My first thought is Shakespeare or the King James Bible. Didn't find the phrase in either.

The earliest I found was http://www.bartleby.com/100/pages/page527.html "Lord Denman. (1779–1854) 5482:   "A delusion, a mockery, and a snare." O’ Connell v. The Queen, 11 Clark and Finnelly Reports.

But wait: later in 1902 there is Lord Kelvin "The air-ship of the Santos-Dumont style is a snare and a delusion. A balloon with paddle wheels is an old idea and can never be of any practical use." [BDE 1902-04-19, pg. 20, "Lord Kelvin Here"] cited at http://zapatopi.net/kelvin/quotes/

Also:"A certain degree of physical harmony and comfort is necessary, but above a certain level it becomes a hindrance instead of a help. Therefore the ideal of creating an unlimited number of wants and satisfying them seems to be a delusion and a snare." Mohandas Gandhi (1869-1948). Found at http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/with/keyword/snare/ Edison 17:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help, although I have trouble imagining my grandmother (not to mention all those other people whose Google hits I found) quoting Lord Denman, Lord Kelvin, or Gandhi. Perhaps Lord Denman's quote introduced the saying into the popular consciousness and it became a common figure of speech, without implying that people who used it necessarily knew that's who they were quoting (or that they were quoting anyone). Angr 18:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Addition, July 2016: I found this entry when searching for the earliest source of this phrase, which was used in an ancestor's letter to his brother in July, 1883. Disgusted with the patronage system, he wrote, "A curse I say upon all politicians & political favors & promises. They are only a delusion & a snare." This lifelong resident of small-town Illinois had slightly more than a common-school education, was a good writer and a newspaper editor. But it's hard to imagine he had heard of or read Lord Denman. Newspapers in the Library of Congress database have Denman's speech in the House of Lords widely reported in America, and in three Illinois papers the phrase "delusion and a snare" turns up fairly often from 1849 to 1883, having cut loose from Lord Denman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.200.229 (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

9/11 - how many Jews died?
Apparently, 2,973 people died on 9/11. How many of those were Jews? --81.79.168.18 10:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This figure is not known. However, the figure is believed to be between 10 and 15%, equating to c.300-450 people. The source for this is the excellent Wikipedia article [].


 * The question is usually raised following someone hearing the conspiracy theory that Israel/the Jews/the Elders of Zion/Marxists/Groucho Marx/Marks and Spencer was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. --Dweller 12:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have been told by members of the political party that I am a member of that the security forces of Zionist-Occupied Palestine knew of the attacks in advance but kept it quiet because they knew that if the terrorists managed to pull it off, the US would be much more sympathetic to their cause. I wanted to research this further. --81.79.168.18 13:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This is covered by the same Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories#4.2C000_Jewish_employees_did_not_attend_work_at_the_WTC_on_9.2F11).
 * Our article reads:
 * According to a 16 September, 2001 story in The Daily Telegraph, Israel had sent two Mossad agents to Washington in August to warn both the FBI and CIA in August of an imminent large-scale attack involving a large cell of up to 200 terrorists. An unnamed senior Israeli security official was quoted as saying "They had no specific information about what was being planned but linked the plot to Osama bin Laden and told the Americans that there were strong grounds for suspecting Iraqi involvement."
 * In short, I'd be more inclined to look at what all this reveals about your "political party" and how they're trying to influence you, than what it reveals about global politics. P.S. I would assume that if the story were true, they were agents of the Israeli government, rather than dealing just with Gaza and the West Bank. --Dweller 13:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Why couldn't they use the telephone? Awfully inefficient to send people 15000 miles to warn the US.    --Bmk 15:47, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yea, is this a neo-Nazi party ? Do they also deny the existence of the Holocaust ? StuRat 14:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it's a far-left party. I'm not going to go into details as I'm not trying to turn the ref desk into a soapbox. It's not anti Jew, but it is anti-Zionist. The matter I commented on is not the official party line anyway, just something that a small group were discussing at the last meeting as the anniversary of 9/11 came up. --84.65.8.183 14:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * ...and some people wonder why some of us are concerned with anti-semitism in the contemporary far Left. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Dweller, I think you may have made an honest mistake about something the questioner said. S/he didn't mention "the Isreali occupied West Bank (and Gaza, that place that Israel withdrew from over a year or so ago but for the oddest reason is still considered "occupied" ... but let's not get into that)", but rather "Zionist occupied Palestine". It's an honest mistake, but I think you overlooked the subtle implications of the statement. I'm sure you already know this, but "Palestine" = the occupied territory(ies) PLUS Israel. Of course the Israelis chose to rename their portion of "Palestine" as Israel. Yet the questioner speaks of "Zionist" (note, not "Israeli") occupied "Palestine". Those who do not recognize Israel as a legitimate state most often refer to it as "the Zionist entity". Put this all together, and, when referring to "Zionist occupied Palestine", the questioner is obviously referring to what we would recognize as not only the occupied territories, but Israel proper as well.

As for the questioner, you may say you "don't want to turn the RefDesk into a soapbox", yet rather disingenuously, that's exactly what you've done through your comments. Worse actually, you've turned it into a forum for discussing disgraceful anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. "Not anti-Jew, but anti-Zionist" Bullshit! That's the official party-line of every anti-Semitic regime and terrorist "NGO" in the region, even that Iranian midget talks about how he's not anti-Semitic, just anti-Zionist...the Jews should have been given a country back in Europe rather than in the middle east. If you're not "anti-Jewish, just anti-Zionist", then why would it matter how many Jews died on 9/11? Jews and Zionists are two separate and distinct (yet obviously largely overlapping) groups. As an "anti-Zionist", but not an "anti-semite", surely you're aware of the fact that not all Jews are Zionists, and not all Zionists are Jews. Shouldn't you be far more interested in how many Zionists died on 9/11? For example, the evangelical Christian US "Bible-belt" is staunchly Zionist, for they see the creation of the State of Israel as the fulfilment of Bible prophesy, hastening the second coming of Christ. In many cases, these people actually support Israel far more ferociously than many liberal Jews. If you're truly "anti-Zionist" but not the least bit "anti-Jewish", shouldn't you be at least as intersted in the number of evangelical Christians that died on 9/11 as you are with totally assimilated, hook-nosed, beady-eyed, swarthy American stockbrokers named Goldberg or Schwartz?

Using the RefDesk as a soap-box may be irritating and discouraged, but we've all discussed our views here, sometimes crossing the thin and difficult-to-detect line between a RefDesk and a soap-box (I fully admit I'm probably one of the worst culprits!), but in my opinion, if the discussion is kept civil and the respectful, I see nothing wrong with the airing of various perspectives here. If anything it gives Wikipedia a bit of "colour". Sort of like the editorial and op-ed pages of a newspaper. However what you've done here is deplorable and a disgrace to Wikipedia. Loomis 18:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, get a grip of yourself and get off your high horse. I didn't say that I believed the story I was told. I thought it sounded dodgy myself, which is why I mentioned it here - I asked about Jews becuase the story told to me was about Jews. I don't hate Jewish people, so stop making sweeping assumptions and trying to put words into my mouth. Yes, I'm anti-Zionist but playing the antisemitism card is nothing but the cheapest of cheap shots. --81.76.44.142 20:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Mr. Anonymous User: Regardless of how you categorize yourself, your use of language (referring to Israel as "Zionist Occupied Palestine") violates Wikipedia etiquette. The reference desk is for getting answers to questions, not for use as a soapbox. Your language is also bound to be considered by some people to be offensive. You appear to be writing from around London; imagine if some bigot referred to that city as "Paki-occupied Londonistan" or something. You are welcome to use Wikipedia, but please do so in a cordial manner. By the way, anyone want to guess what political party has people spouting the Mossad conspiracy theory? RESPECT, maybe? -- Mwalcoff 23:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Loomis, I have read many wise comments from you in the past but now i disagree. The user brought up a controversial subject but is in fact showing a lot less bias than your comments :"Not anti-Jew, but anti-Zionist. Bullshit! That's the official party-line of every anti-Semitic regime","that Iranian midget"(is his size of importance, I wouldn't dream of calling Golda Meir that "ugly Jewish lady", while in fact she was Jewish, a lady, and less appealing in a physical way in my opinion). And this sentence,  "I have been told by members of the political party that I am a member of that the security forces of Zionist-Occupied Palestine knew of the attacks in advance ", has a weird, possibly incorrect, structure, maybe the user isn't that good at English and copied the term from a website?Evilbu 13:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Evilbu, you seem to have the best of intentions, and I sincerely hope you're right and that I'm wrong. Honestly. Unfortunately I just can't possibly see it that way. As for the "Iranian midget" comment, that man is evil, yet commands a great deal of respect among his supporters. I see nothing wrong in ridiculing the physical characteristics of evil people, even if they bear no relation to their diabolical nature, (short of ridiculing their group affiliations of course, that would be insulting to the entire group...note I didn't call him "that Iranian Muslim midget,) if anything to bring them down a peg or two. Would you object if I referred to Hitler as "that ranting little clown with the ridiculous mustache"? Or Mussolini as that "insane bald oaf"? I'm sure you'd never refer to Golda Meir as "that ugly Jewish lady" for one because she wasn't evil, and second, because referring to her Jewishness would be an obvious insult to an entire group. (I suppose you could argue that "midgets" form an identifiable group, as do bald people, but I doubt any good people of unusually small stature or suffering from male-pattern baldness would be offend by those remarks, yet if any of them are, I apologize). But I thank you for your criticism and welcome more of it in the future. Loomis 09:13, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

tarrant co. Tx. parol officer misconduct?
My PO is threatening me with a noshow arrest because I was not able to go to her office for a normal schedualed meeting. My rides car broke down and it was impossable for me to go. I called her that morning and told her it was impossable for me to be there, she said she was going to list me as a noshow and have me picked up. There is no public transportation here and I would have had to walk 15 miles in heavy traffic to get there. Can anybody out there give me any ideas? Thanks a lot I have not missed any other meetings and have paied all of my fees.


 * Well she just flat out doesn't believe you because she deals with liars, druggies, and other criminals all day long. You can't really change that. I guess if you got run over in the heavy traffic, that might change her mind. schyler 01:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It sounds like you need to move much closer the PO's office, if your only reliable form of transportation is walking. Meanwhile, can't you take a taxi ? StuRat 04:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd recommend talking to her. You should explain your problems; lack of accessibility etc and ask for her advice/help to prevent a recurrence. By focussing on your genuine desire to avoid a future problem, you should be able to make her see the problem you just had, in a conversation where neither of you needs to be defensive or aggressive (as you're both trying to solve a situation that hasn't occurred yet). Maybe she'll then believe you and not cite you. Even if she does cite you, you've still hopefully found a good solution for future problems, so it's a win-win. Best advice is to have this conversation face-to-face, but that might be tricky. --Dweller 09:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Write her a letter. Be very apologetic and with the greatest politeness explain the facts of what happened, however annoyed you may be feeling. Then she will have a piece of paper she has to deal with. What should clinch this would be enclosing a photocopy of some evidence that you really did have a breakdown - eg a receipt, bill, or invoice for the repair of your car. Failing that, perhaps you have some reliable person like an employer or mature neighbour who is willing to write and sign a letter saying that they witnessed that you did have a breakdown. Don't send the original evidence and keep a copy of your letter in case in case the one you send becomes lost.

Copyright on works placed in publicly available places
A computer programmer creates software which he uploads and lists on a publicly-accessible website. He does not include copyright or licensing information relating to the software. What is the copyright status of the software? What rights (e.g. download, use, modify, redistribute) do others have on this software? Does it matter what the intent of the programmer is? For example, is there a difference between if he wants others to download and use the software but doesn't explicitly say so versus if he intends the website to be for his own personal use, like being able to access his software from other places?--Nonpareility 17:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You haven't mentioned what jurisdiction you live in, so naturally I'll assume it's China. In your case then, although there may be intricately detailed copyright laws on the books, none of them are enforced. Any possible copyright held by the programmer is therefore meaningless and anyone can download the programme for free, no matter what the programmer's wishes. Loomis 17:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Does it matter what jurisdiction I (the website viewer) lives in, or does it matter what jurisdiction the programmer is in, or what jurisdiction the files are hosted in? In any case, assume the US for all.--Nonpareility 18:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It matters on both ends. Assume the programmer is in Norway and the web surfer is in Ethiopia.  Norwegian law has no authority over an Ethiopian citizen.  But, Ethiopian law may apply to the web surfer.  So, by ignoring the locale of both parties, you are sidestepping the problem of international law.  However, if both are in the U.S., it is clear that you can show your work to anyone and everyone and still have a copyright on it.  You are not required to put a copyright notice on the work - that is just a practice that people do because they don't know any better.  Now, a registered copyright is a completely different animal.  You have to go to the U.S. Library of Congress for that.  If you are really interested in this topic, perhaps you should use Wikipedia as an encylopedia and see copyright. --Kainaw (talk) 18:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I understand that one can show others their work and maintain copyright. I'm wondering whether the fact that the programmer put it on a publicly-accessible (i.e. not password protected) website means that others are allowed to view it, and what "view" means in the context of software. (If he puts up a program with no copyright or licensing info, am I free to download and install it?)--Nonpareility 19:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * By coincidence the same thing happened to me. I wrote a program which did some financial calculations, had it displayed on the web, didnt put any copyright on it, and was later shocked to see it had been copied by the Financial Times website. I had definately not given them or anyone else permission to copy or use it. I remember hearing that you cannot copyright an algorithmn (not sure if this is indeed true or not) so I'm not sure what my position is in law, particularly since they can afford expensive lawyers, I cannot. 80.1.185.211 20:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that's a slightly different matter. They are essentially providing the program you wrote without your expressed consent, which I'm pretty sure is not allowed under copyright law (redistribution). I'm talking about simply using (downloading, installing, executing) the program without expressed consent.--Nonpareility 20:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * There isn't any difference. Copyright exists by default nowdays and unless the programmer licenses it as open-content you violate the copyright by using it without permission. Granted you have only damaged the programmer's potential sales by one unit - but the RIAA has made some pretty good money off similar lawsuits concerning music. Rmhermen 14:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * So you're telling me if Band X put music on their official website for the purpose of having people download it but didn't explicitly say "you can download this", the RIAA can come and get me?--Nonpareility 16:03, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I've Got The Banking Blues
I have a bank account in England that includes a VISA DEBIT (cf. credit) card. Since many websites wont accept anything less than VISA or Mastercard, it simply wont do to be stuck with Maestro card. Here in Holland they tell me that I can only get VISA or Mastercard in a credit card which annoys me oh-so-much because not only do they charge you over here just for having an account (Rabobank doesn't even pay interest on the current account!) but they'll charge me even more for having a credit card (even if I didn't use it). It seems utterly backward to me, to have to pay for something with a credit card if I've got perfectly good money sitting in my bank account.

a) what is with Holland's backward banking system (you get charged for everything) - especially, why wont they put VISA or Mastercard on my debit card when we're perfectly capable of doing that in the UK?

b) why wont all websites accept Maestro? --Username132 (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I use my Visa debit card on websites frequently - when you pick the type of card just pick Visa, you don't have to specify that it is a debit card. I haven't been knocked back yet. I can't help you reform the Dutch banking system - sorry :) Natgoo 18:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think you understand. In England, I did use my Visa debit card on websites and never expected to be knocked back. I don't want to use a British card on Dutch websites because that attracts unwelcome charges. My Dutch bankcard is Maestro which is the same thing they give to kids in the UK and is not accepted by Paypal. --Username132 (talk) 18:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah I see, sorry. You could still order from UK websites without attracting the overseas transaction charge, or you could change to a different UK bank with no such charge - my boyfriend's Nationwide debit card doesn't have one (I understand that you're looking for a better Dutch account, but if it's an option it's worth looking into...). Natgoo 19:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Also - this report has some interesting information - have you checked out iDEAL? Or is the Dutch system similar to that in France, where you have to pay a fee in order to get Visa added to your regular card? Or maybe we need DirkvdM...Natgoo 21:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * DirkvdM is of no use here because he doesn't use credit cards for payments (only when travelling and then only to collect money). And he hopes that one day the banks of the world will unite and come up with one system. He doesn't care which, as long as it is standardised. And why is he talking about himself in the third person? DirkvdM 06:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

George Orwell
I printed out the information about George Orwell off of your website and I need to know which encyclopedia it came from?
 * It came from Wikipedia. The articles here, unless otherwise footnoted, are (or at least should be) the original work of Wikipedia's editors. Loomis 20:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * To cite it, click the "cite this article" link in teh toolbox on the left side of the page. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 20:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * What made you think it came from another encyclopedia? - Mgm|(talk) 08:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * They clearly don't understand what Wikipedia is.

Wire making
How did metalsmiths back when create barbed wire, telegraph wire, any kind of metal wire? Surely not heating-hammering! — [ Mac Davis ] (talk) ( Desk | Help me improve )


 * See Wire or wire drawing GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 20:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * For barbed wire, you start with a wire, then add barbs. The actual mechanism used depends on the type of barb, and there are several thousand patents for different mechanisms.  A few of those do indeed involve hot hammering of wire. --Serie 00:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Copper wiring originated when two thrifty Scotsmen found the same penny at the same time. :-) StuRat 04:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Wire is drawn,it starts as a bar of metal streached(sp?) out through rollers which get thinner and thinner until the right guage is reached.Other sorts are thin wire twisted like rope,The barbs on barbed wire were twisted on seperatly.I believe there is a barbed wire museum in Texas.Also http://www.barbwiremuseum.com/barbedwirehistory.htm(hotclaws**== 17:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC))


 * The word is stretched. StuRat 17:56, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Do men become more masogynistic as they age?
I've noticed that many men dislike women as they get older. This is in a social, not sexual, context. They just don't like dealing with them.

Maybe the novelty has worn off. There is only so much pleasure you can get out of a women before they start repeating themselves.


 * I suppose that meeting up with young women on a regular basis that you'd still readily have sex with, whilst they see you as either 'old enough to know better' or 'a dirty old man' (depending on your age) could get a guy down after a while... :) --Kurt Shaped Box 22:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. While the negatives stay constant or even get worse ("If you loved me, you'd know what I was thinking !"), the positives, like romantic attention from an attractive female, tend to reduce over time.  So, at some point, the costs of associating with women no longer justify the benefits. StuRat 04:31, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that people get grumpier as they get older. Gross generalisation, I know. But heck, the old people I know have plenty to be grumpy about, like bad health, money trouble, disrespect from the community, 'things changing' etc. Cut them some slack. --Dweller 09:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree - I think it's general misanthropy increasing as much as misogyny, it's easier to just not be bothered. Get off my lawn! Natgoo 16:19, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Hitler as a good leader
OK bods,in our debating team we are doing a devil's advocate-putting forward an unpopular or controversial statement to defend.I have for my sins opted for 'Hitler was an excellent leader for Germany'.I've checked out the Hitler article amongst other sources and have already got some points- He reduced unemployment and crime,launched widespread building projects such as the Autobahns. He increased national pride and restored the economy. He provided a good standard of living-a middle class Nazi family could expect good pay,a comfortable house and there were organized Party activities such as summer holidays or ski trips.

Any other areas that would be useful to look at or ideas to build upon? Vielen Dank! Lemon martini 22:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * He was all for healthy, natural, additive-free food and people giving up smoking? --Kurt Shaped Box 22:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't forget about his part in the Volkswagen Beetle, the fourth most influential car of the 20th century. --The Dark Side 23:55, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I heard he was a dog-lover. And I'm pretty sure he brushed his teeth regularly. Loomis 23:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Plus, he hated jews! schyler 01:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you still "maintain a policy of neutrality on controversial issues", Schyler? You've just unnecessarily offended a lot of people.   JackofOz 02:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Call me completely inconsistent, but I tend to get far more concerned and suspect when bigoted or racist statements are snuck in subtly and surreptitiously, (as what I strongly believe was happening with the 9/11 question,) than in such an obvious and straightforward manner as Schyler has apparently done. Surreptitious bigotry is the worst of all, as it easily disguises itself as valid theory or perspective, and disseminates itself as such. Surely Schyler must have been trying to make some sort of tongue-in-cheek point, as I can't imagine anyone with a brain would spout something so offensive in such a straightforward manner. In any case, even if it was a dumb racist statement, I'm still far less bothered by it, as anyone else with even half a brain would see it as such and quickly dismiss it as the bigoted rantings of a lunatic. Perhaps counterintuitively, I'm simply not nearly as offended, bothered or worried by such bold racist statements anywhere near as much as those far more sophisticatedly crafted, those that have the true danger of causing a great deal of harm. To sum up, either Schyler made a pretty pathetic attempt at a tongue-in-cheek statement expressing a valid point, or he's a blatant but harmless racist, as no one could possibly be influenced or harmed by reading that sort of thing. At least that's my take. Though I'm curious as to what Schyler meant, and would invite him to explain himself, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Loomis 15:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * His government produced the first television broadcast and was the first to identify health risks to tobacco smoking. He was also a vegetarian (if that counts as a virtue). Durova 02:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Speaking of health risks, he also reinforced the medical community's understanding of the health risks of Zyklon B! Loomis 00:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The autobahn superhighway system was developed during his reign. He encouraged scientific and technical development, even if for evil ends.Edison 04:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * You sure got the losing side in this debate. None of those things are significant relative to the level of death and destruction his actions brought to Germany and the rest of the world. StuRat 04:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not really the point. Debates are highly biased towards the speaker with the most well-prepared language, as frustratingly illogical as that can be sometimes, so while he doesn't have a chance of being right (the truth will always be the truth), he does stand a chance (although a small one) at winning a debate. freshofftheufo  ΓΛĿЌ  06:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * He lost. DirkvdM 07:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, that wasn't so good for Germany, so I take that back. :) DirkvdM 07:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the useful suggestions guys.That's the point of these debates.Each speaker has a difficult topic to defend-other ones I believe were things like 'There is nothing objectionable about racism' or 'Criminals are a great benefit to society'.It's then up to your skill as a speaker to persuade the audience that there is merit in your argument.For my topic,it looks like I can do it well if I disregard Hitler's political views and concentrate solely on the economic factors and the strength of his leadership. Lemon martini 08:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Economic factors, the strength of his leadership, and what a lovely man he was, opposing vivisection and stuff (he wasn't vegetarian).... If challenged on his human rights record, you'll have to lie, unfortunately, or play word games.... it's fair to say that whether the holocaust ever happened is a subject of much debate.... you don't need to mention that most of the people who say that it didn't happen are crazy nazi scumbags. And don't let anyone tell you that Hitler murdered people. The nazis made the law, and none of those killings were illegal under their law, so they weren't technically murder.... well, actually, I think they probably were, but I'd hate to have to prove it on the spot.... still, I don't think that Hitler was in the habit of killing people himself, personally.... hmmm.... you're going to lose.... TheMadBaron 10:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If I knew where my old GCSE History book was... I remember reading in there that in hindsight, the Nazi government was pretty flawed: unemployment and dissent was high, etc. Sum0 11:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've always been led to believe that they inherited mass unemployment, and brought it right down. (They took jobs off people, and shot them.) TheMadBaron 15:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I once made the mistake of mentioning some of the above points (for example his vegetarianism and abstention from tobacco and alcohol) in an Internet discussion. The result was that I offended people, who claimed I was trying to justify the Holocaust. Nice to see that not everyone is like that. J I P | Talk 12:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Slightly off topic, but there is a popular story that when Mussolini took over, he made the trains run on time. Several sources claim that that is just an urban legend.Evilbu 12:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Not as far off topic as you might think.... I've heard the same thing about Hitler. It's a good point - a reliable train service can be indicative of the state of a nation's bureaucracy in general. The story goes that if a train was late, they shot the driver. Trains were rarely late. TheMadBaron 15:54, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "Hitler was an excellent leader for Germany." An excellent leader takes the best of his country and people and brings them to something better. I'm OK with StuRat, he lost. -- DLL .. T 18:51, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I said that. How can anyone ever confuse me with StuRat? :) DirkvdM 08:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Another comparison. Some old people in Spain still claim that things were better under Franco, with less crime (if you discount the cromes he himself committed). And that is something the (ultra)right always focus on - safety in the streets, law and order, that sort of thing. Of course this only goes for those who don't oppose the ruling class. DirkvdM 08:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Guys, don't forget that 1) The history books are written by the winners and WWII is no exception. 2) The Allies weren't angels. They had policies that were similar enough to Holocaust. For example, the British were severely oppressing the natives of India, in USSR there were concentration camps for political opposition. US was racist as usual and did what it wanted in Latin America. By the way, remember the story about a ship full of Jews that was turned away? 3) It was the Allies that declared war on Germany. Hitler repeatedly offered peace, so the war cannot be entirely blamed on him. I had read that in one of his speeches. I don't know how reliable it is as an information source, I am hoping someone will tell me. 4) All above-mentioned things considered, maybe he should be judged not only by how he treated Jews and the enemies of his country, but by what he has done for his country as well.

P.S. No, I am not racist and I don't think it's ok to kill people because of factors they don't control (race, etc). However, if we are going to judge Hitler's regime, I suggest we put its crimes in context.


 * That's just plain absurd and I'll leave it at that. Loomis 11:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Dog breed try 2
I asked this question before but none of the guesses were right (atleast didnt look right) so this time I got a picture. So here we go again, does someone know this dog breeds name? Here's picture from Madonna - frozen video (watch). Thank you very, very much for your help. - Tutmosis 22:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The pic is so dark, I'm not even sure that's a dog! Could just as easily be a dark coloured boar from all I can tell. Loomis 23:53, 12 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It looks OK to me, I think you need a better monitor (or just need to turn the brightness up). StuRat 04:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks like a Dobermann with a black muzzle.---Sluzzelin 05:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Stu...with the brightness turned all the way up I can see that it's definitely a dog. However the way the pic was shot still makes it very difficult to identify the breed. I wouldn't say it's a Dobermann though, every Dobermann I've ever seen has at least some tan in it along with black. But it could be. Of course it could also very well be a mutt, making it anyone's guess what its lineage could be. Ok time to turn down my monitor, my eyes are starting to hurt. Loomis 18:52, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Totally black dobermenn are quite popular. They look slighly more intimidating. freshofftheufo  ΓΛĿЌ  06:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Is it really: One Dobermann, many Dobermenn? :-) Loomis 22:31, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Could it be a Grey Hound? I think the last comment should be erased, as it belongs directly above. Are we allowed to do it ourselves? |AndonicO 16:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I am just new to Wikipedia, and was having some technical problems. I erased my comment.


 * Not sure if anyone still cares, but according to the director of the video (Chris Cunningham), it's a Dobermann. Orpheus82 00:14, 15 January 2007 (UTC)