Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 March 6

= March 6 =

Plato
This is not homework question. What is the major ethical problem that Plato attempted to solve and what is his solution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.119.130 (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed this question does present an ethical problem... --84.221.69.16 (talk) 00:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * A tongue-in-cheek answer would be:


 * The problem? How do we make ourselves as a society and as individuals reach the highest good we possibly can?
 * Plato's answer: By putting a philosopher like me in charge of everything. Wrad (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For the details, read The Republic. Algebraist 00:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * For the summary, read The Republic (Plato). --Fullobeans (talk) 01:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Plato's problem was of course a major question in ethics that stumped every ancient Greek philosopher until Plato published his famous 255-page solution that filled the entire issue of the Athenian Journal of Philosophy for Fall, 396 BC . 76.195.10.34 (talk) 02:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * His major ethical problem was "How can I call these books 'Dialogs' when one guy does all the talking?" His answer was to insert phrases like "Apparantly so, Socrates" and "Tell me more, Socrates" every twenty pages or so. :-) B00P (talk) 06:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Have to wonder about Plato's own ethics, maybe they are the same as lawyers where the best argument wins, making him like the Sophists he attacked. He essentially, beat them at their own game by having the better argument and pulling-power, and as above using Socrates' name as authority. Now whether it was his game or he was doing parody, is still up for argument. See Sophists.  Julia Rossi (talk) 09:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Bob was there, too. —Tamfang (talk) 06:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Attack against Sri Lankan cricket team
Please, after reading the article I don't understand some points. If the security was presidential-style, why did it happen?. And another question, why does Pakistan fight terrorists with the ordinary police and not with the Army? Police officers only have an AK-47 (I guess). With respect I say that Musharraf was totally right, if it was the Elite Force of Pakistani Police... then, poor people those who are protected by them. --190.49.110.4 (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The people being protected all survived, didn't they? So it seems the protection was successful (although at a high price). Terrorists are usually fought by police - police handle domestic security, the army handles foreign security. --Tango (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Some are saying that the fact they survived is more due to the bus-driver keeping his cool than to the official protection... AnonMoos (talk) 11:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * While the Sri Lankans were (reportedly) offered "presidential style" security, it is apparent they were not given it. The article indeed discusses the security criticisms, where a number of individuals state that the number and quality of the escort was inadequate. (Although to temper the criticism, one might say that the escort did their job: the cricketers and officials survived the attack with moinor injuries; 6 policemen gave their lives.) While many countries use army units in planned encounters with terrorists, most escorts of civilians are provided by the police. Generally, the police used for such escorts are highly trained and well armed. Gwinva (talk) 01:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly... for example Mexico fights drug dealers with the Army in the North. --190.49.110.4 (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The obvious answers are that some significant part of the Pakistani military is out of the control of the government, and is supportive of certain groups called terrorists. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Didn't some police play dead? Whatever the reasons, real fear, commonsense or collusion, it brought a human quality to the situation, for me anyway. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at the section, the biggest (there were others) problem appears to have been that umpires were abandoned. So even if the players were given Presidential style security, the umpires weren't... I guess the umpires were just taken as the Presidents entourage. The other issue to remember is I think being attacked by people with "AK-47 assault rifles, hand grenades, RPG/LAW launchers, claymores and explosive charges" in a urban domestic situation is always going to be problematic Nil Einne (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Meaning of John Donne's Holy Sonnet #8
Could anyone please explain John Donne's 8th Holy Sonnet? Reproduced here (public domain):

If faithful souls be alike glorified As angels, then my father's soul doth see, And adds this even to full felicity, That valiantly I hell's wide mouth o'erstride. But if our minds to these souls be descried By circumstances, and by signs that be Apparent in us not immediately, How shall my mind's white truth by them be tried? They see idolatrous lovers weep and mourn, And stile blasphemous conjurers to call On Jesu's name, and pharisaical Dissemblers feign devotion. Then turn, O pensive soul, to God, for He knows best Thy grief, for He put it into my breast.

Thank you very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkleg (talk • contribs) 01:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * My reading is that it's a poem of atonement, saying (lines 1-4) that the narrator is basically faithful and has done valiant stuff in the world, and if that's enough to get him glorified as an angel (i.e. if it gets him admitted into heaven after his death), then his father's soul will be happy. I don't know whether "father" means God, or literally the narrator's earthly biological dad (who may be deceased, perhaps recently, which would make this a poem of grief).  If, on the other hand, those angelic souls can see the various forms of human sin present in people even when it's not readily apparent, he asks how he will be judged (lines 5-8).  The narrator lists various forms of hypocrisy present in fallible humans (9-12) and decides to turn to God for understanding (12-13), and expects to get the understanding since that same God is the one who created human fallibility in the first place (13-14).  I had to look up "descried", which I interpret in this context as meaning "perceived". 76.195.10.34 (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've never read this one before, and there's nothing about it on Google Books. But my reading goes: The narrator is a faithful, religious guy who sees himself as living in a sinful world, and he's worried about whether he'll be judged on the basis of his own merits or the merits of the world in which he lives. So, translated: "If all faithfully religious people go to heaven when they die, then my dad's up there smiling, because he sees how I rise above this cesspool of humanity and he knows I'll get into heaven. But what if nobody's watching me, and when I die, I become just another soul fresh from a corrupt world? What if nobody sees my perfect life and clean conscience, just my twitchy eye and habit of looking at my shoes when I talk? There I'll be, standing at the pearly gates with a crowd of slutty hippies, foulmouthed Wiccans, and Hollywood press agents who converted on their death beds. *headdesk* Well, ol' soul of mine, better take it up with God, because he's the one that had you born into this mess in the first place." --Fullobeans (talk) 09:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * That's beautiful. Have it printed on your heavenly t-shirt Fullofbeans, er, Donne, and you"ll be shown in on the strength of such heart-felt prose. Just don't mention my name, because it's probably mud in that precinct ;) Julia Rossi (talk) 09:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I read it in a similar way to 86. Donne's father died when he was small, so it's not a poem of grief so much as a musing on what his father might think.  It begins in lines 1-3 assuming that all faithful souls are glorified like angels, and thus his father (a faithful man) must be one of those looking down. So what does he see?  A son who valiantly straddles hell's mouth: a victory which must delight (bring felicity) But (in 5/6) Donne stops and reflects that these watchers must judge a man's mind (or inner being) by other circumstances and appearance.  And what does that display of the sincerity of a man? (How shall my mind's truth be judged?).  From above, they have  a good view of profane devotion: lovers who think so much of each other that it is idolatry, and  ungodly people (vile conjurors, not stile) who seek the protection of God's name when it suits, and those Pharisees - or religious types - who appear devoted only because they're good at obeying rules.  So, pensive soul (his father?) if you can't judge what's going on in my life, then turn to God: he made my soul, and he knows it, and can judge it.  Gwinva (talk) 22:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Private music lessons vs. university course
What is considered superior education, private instrument lessons with an instructor or a university performance course? Voyaging(talk) 02:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If both are taught by great teachers, it depends entirely on your skill level and what you hope to accomplish. You probably won't benefit from a college course if you're lousy at your instrument. You'd be much better off with a private instructor who can gauge your progress, help you with your weak points, and introduce new knowledge as you're ready for it. If you're already proficient at your instrument, though, it could be immensely beneficial for you to buckle down and learn all of the technical aspects of performance, all at once. To get the same knowledge from private instruction, you'd have to do some research (and probably pay more money) to find a teacher who actually knows what they're talking about, and then you'd have to design a course of study to make sure you covered everything. Additionally, if you're talking about a university program that includes multiple classes with multiple instructors, well, there are obvious benefits to learning from multiple people. Every teacher's got their quirks and hangups, so it's good to get a second, third, fourth, and seventeenth opinion. If you spend a long time with one private instructor exclusively, you're putting a lot of faith in their ability to give you a well-rounded education.


 * It's also important to know what you're going to do with your education. If you'd potentially like to teach or apply for music industry jobs, then "I have a degree in performance from _____" sounds a lot better than "I play the guitar." If you just want to make music on your own or play in a band, then all that matters is that you sound good. If you want to make a living as a studio musician or concert cellist, you should probably be enrolling in a performance program and taking private lessons, because you'll need the knowledge and versatility guaranteed by your college credentials, as well as the fine-tuned sound and skill set attained through good private instruction. And if you're on the fence, take into consideration your own musical interests and learning style. I've known a slightly terrifying number of talented musicians who dropped out of Berklee because they knew what they wanted to play and how they wanted to play it, and they didn't see the merit of working their butts of to get better at doing things musically that didn't interest them. Of those who did graduate, most of them were in love with their instrument (heh heh), its versatility, and its possibilities, and their drive was to master it as fully as possible.


 * As for what's "considered superior," there are musicians who will laugh at you for going to school for music, there are musicians who will bow at your feet, and there are musicians who will say, "You mean some people don't go to school for music?" Depends largely on what genre of music you're playing. Most instrumentalists, though, will have had private lessons at some point in their lives, because it's a surefire way to take up music and make some progress even if you're an angry antisocial death metal drummer. But most people will care exponentially less about where you got your skills than they will about how skilled you are. So "superior," in this case, is "whatever type of education inspires you, pushes you, and challenges you to continue becoming better than you are." --Fullobeans (talk) 10:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

trying to find this book.
I am trying to find a particular book I don't know the title or author. The subject of the book is about a man who had a grocery cart in the streets of London and built it up to the largest Department Store in England. It goes from around 1900 to 1990. It tells his and his families story. It is a work of fiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandra2009 (talk • contribs) 02:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * As the Crow Flies? Oda Mari (talk) 04:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Top Ten Classical Music pieces
What are the top ten classical music pieces (is pieces the right noun? I know I can't call them songs) that every educated person should know? With my extremely limited knowledge of this, my favorite is Beethoven's 9th symphony and some pieces that I can't identify from Mozart. Your answers will help me jumpstart my new collection of classical music. --Emyn ned (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What are the ten best pop songs? Or the ten best foods? There is no answer, it's subjective. But if you are just looking for well-know pieces to try out, here's a few suggestions. I'm not saying that they are better than anything else, but they give you an idea of what's out there.


 * Mozart Eine Kleine Nachtmusik
 * Bach Toccata and Fugue in D minor
 * Tchaikovsky 1812 overture
 * Vivaldi The Four Seasons
 * Stravinsky The Firebird
 * Mendelssohn Violin Concerto
 * Any opera by Wagner
 * Faure Requiem Mass
 * DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Classic FM's annual "Hall of Fame" poll (next one due in a couple of weeks time, at Easter) currently has (brackets = 2007 positions):
 * (1) Vaughan Williams: The Lark Ascending
 * (3) Rachmaninov: Piano Concerto No. 2
 * (10) Vaughan Williams: Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis
 * (5) Beethoven: Piano Concerto No. 5 'Emperor'
 * (8) Beethoven:Symphony No. 6 'Pastoral'
 * (4) Mozart: Clarinet Concerto
 * (2) Elgar: Cello Concerto
 * (7) Bruch: Violin Concerto No. 1
 * (6) Elgar: Enigma Variations
 * (9) Beethoven: Symphony No. 9 'Choral'
 * Enjoy! - Jarry1250 (t, c) 17:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You might be interested in this list or this (rather avant-garde) list, which contain mostly more modern classical music (where "modern" means 1900 on) rather than the (generally rather older, but still very fine) works listed above. 87.115.143.223 (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're mostly looking to increase your knowledge of classical music and find some stuff you like, I'd say sign up for a Pandora account and create a station that plays music like Beethoven's 9th. As for a classical "top ten," I suspect it would be a bit overloaded with Mozart and Beethoven. If you're not sure how much Beethoven you know, sit through Immortal Beloved; it's two hours of thinking, "Oh, right, he wrote that one, too." Some other household names that haven't been mentioned are: Chopin, Rossini, Lizst, Handel, Haydn, and Schumann. And 20th century classical has its own all-star cast. --Fullobeans (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all! --Emyn ned (talk) 12:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you sign a "gag order" promising not to write bad reviews?
Apparently some doctors have started asking patients to sign gag order-like agreements that prevent them from writing negative reviews about them on websites.

Leaving aside the morality of this and whether or not a doctor can actually make you sign one, if you did sign one, wouldn't you be signing away your first amendment rights? Would the contract be legal?

I know gag orders made by a court probably have different standards, but this isn't from a court, this is just a contract between two individuals.

Thanks! &mdash; Sam 63.138.152.238 (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The article you linked quotes one 'attorney Jim Speta, a Northwestern University Internet law specialist' as questioning the enforcability of these waivers. Algebraist 15:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The First Amendment does not apply to private actors, only the government. Free speech only exists in the public sphere. Private individuals and/or actors can contract not to have what we regard as free speech. An example is nondisclosure agreements in lawsuit settlments. Nevertheless, I can't fathom how any court in the U.S. would enforce such a contract because it is unconsciousable. A patient seek medical treatment are not in equal bargaining positions. So I see a brake on the practice from general contract law and ethical rules governing physicians. Such agreements are adhesion contracts, typically. Take it or leave it without any negotiation. Courts may enforce such contracts but the contract is scrutizined much more closely. Personally, it infuriates me b/c patients may refrain from reviews believing in the validity of the contract. There may be circumstances where such a waiver is valid but they will be few and far between. How many consumers, though, are expertise in contract law. It has a chilling effect.75Janice (talk) 15:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC) 75Janice


 * If such contracts are valid then you could well get into the situation where all doctors use them, giving patients no choice but to sign one in order to get treatment. That suggests to me that they probably aren't valid - once everyone was using them, they almost certainly wouldn't be, so I can't see why they would be valid now. There are already defamation laws that protect doctors, as well as anyone else, from false criticisms, that should be enough. --Tango (talk) 15:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Although not directly about medical issues, NDAs are pretty standard in the IT industry. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * An NDA, however, protects trade secrets. I don't think that if I signed an NDA with company X, it could forbid me from posting on a public forum "Company X is downright rude and unprofessional." It seems to be a whole different sphere. &mdash; Sam 63.138.152.238 (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Such an agreement may founder due to the legal idea of consideration; that is, the patient has given up something of value (their opportunity to speak) - for a contract to be lawful, they have to have received something of some value in exchange (not necessarily "fair" value). If, for example a physician formerly offered a given procedure for $500 without the "no talk" clause, and now offers the same procedure for $500 but with the "no talk" clause, then the physician has sought to deprive the patient of something of value without making a consideration in return. So a court may find the contract, or that part of it, to be invalid.  A similar (although admittedly more watertight) example is a "no compete" agreement, wherein a departing employee agrees not to work for his former employers competitors for a given period. Such an agreement deprives the employee of the capacity to fully earn their living (they can't pick any job they want; they may find it difficult to find any job that they're qualified for which isn't covered by the no-compete); for this reason no-compete agreements often specify a terminating benefit to compensate for this loss.  If they don't, the employee has given up something of value, but hasn't received a consideration in exchange, and so the contract is likely to be held to be invalid. 87.115.143.223 (talk) 17:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely the doctor is giving consideration in that, in return for the signing of the waiver, he agrees to treat the patient? Algebraist 17:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If, before the waiver, he charged $500 for the procedure, then that $500 is the cost of the procedure alone. If he now charges $500 for the procedure and the waiver, he's getting the waiver for free, and so there's no consideration. If, however, he were to give a $50 discount for the waiver, then there is a consideration, and his case for enforcing the waiver is much stronger. Of course he may choose to structure his billing such that this difference is obscured (and he's under no obligation to offer the waiver-free service, at least to patients beginning a new course of treatment); whether a court agrees that a consideration has been made in such circumstances is uncertain. 87.115.143.223 (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See Contract of adhesion, which Wikipedi has chosen to call by the milder term Standard form contract. It is a "take it or leave it" contract entered into by parties with unequal bargaining power. "If the good which is being sold using a contract of adhesion is one which is essential or very important for the purchaser to buy (such as a rental property or a needed medical item) then the purchaser might have no choice but to accept the terms. This problem may be mitigated if there are many suppliers of the good who can potentially offer different terms." The consumer might have to sign away some valuable right to the other side. The side with the standard form contract may be in solidarity with all of his peers, so that the consumer cannot get the needed services from others. One response is for the legislature or congress to pass legislation outlawing such contracts of adhesion as being against societal interests or "public policy." In the case of a doctor refusing to treat you unless you sign an agreement never to criticize his work, courts or legislatures might see it as "unconscionable" or contrary to the interests of society to be informed about doctors whose services are seen as lacking. Time will tell. This certainly does not constitute legal advice. Edison (talk) 18:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * This is all looking like legal advice to me. I think that 63.138.152.238 should be reminded that it would be inadvisable, to put it gently, to take action or fail to take action based on the opinions of strangers on an open forum such as this one. // BL \\ (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Of course, the uncertain legalities aside, there are plenty of avenues for consumer advocates (and the very ratings sites targetting by these measures), can do about this. It seems the doctors' strategy in the first place is to use the waivers as a means of getting the review sites to takedown the offending reviews. But as the review sites aren't parties to the waivers, they're not subject to them. So they may feel legally strong enough to decline the doctors' takedowns, which means the doctor has to go to court to get the review removed (which brings all that legal uncertainty, above, into play). Bar an unlikely gag order, the first doctor who does that will find himself on CNN, which won't be comfortable. Secondly the review site can post a list of doctors with this kind of clause in their contract, and (on the review page for a given physician) say "this physician imposes a gag on their patients"); and lastly they can do what Google does when it gets a takedown (e.g. from the Church of Scientology) - it doesn't just remove the item, but it replaces it with a "this item removed due to a legal notice by XYZ".  Frankly a lot of negative online reviews (such as those at Amazon) can be put down to churlishness; if the review is missing but the implication that it was negative remains, that's probably worse than the actual negative review ("he's a mean doctor with cold hands") would have been. 87.115.143.223 (talk) 23:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I do not know the answer because I am not the judge, appellate judges, jury, legislalture or executive. One additional concern became clear to me reading these posts. The doctor-patient relationship is pretty sancrosanct at law. Privilege exists. Courts state that privacy rights, particularly bodily autonomy, are constitutional concerns. This tradition makes this scenario difference from trademarks and commercial contracts. The Uniform Commercial Code uses the word "unconscionable" as the cases used the same term. They are not standard form contracts when they oveturned. Something more is present. Terms that shock the human conscience and unequal baragaining positions are present. Standard form contracts are enforced everyday. Commercial and trademark cases may present unconscionability and money may be involved. When doctors ask patients to sign such forms, patients are being asked to give up autonomy regarding their bodies. The legal and political battles will be interesting. Until there is a resolution, the legal factors can be discussed but no one can know the answer in a particular case.75Janice (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC) 75Janice

Where did all the Open University programming go?
During the 1970s and 1980s, one could watch quite a lot of Open University course material broadcasts on BBC1 and BBC2 (generally stuffed into early morning or late night slots). I enjoyed watching a wide range of material; even though much of it went above my head, or depended on prior or ancillary materials that I didn't have, I still got a lot of interesting value from it. It was proper undergrad material presented with full academic rigour - culture and belief in the 16th century, introduction to oceanography, non-Euclidean geometry with kipper ties and cardboard diagrams. But that stuff is all gone now, with much of the late/early slots being filled with material for high schools. What's left of OU broadcasts on BBC-TV (and listed on http://open2.net) is regular factual programming co-produced with the BBC: popular, lightweight, non-academic stuff that (I guess) has some relationship to OU courses but that is accessible and unchallenging to pretty much any BBC2/BBC4 viewer. So my question is twofold: firstly, where do OU students get proper academic OU programs now (on DVD? over the internet?); secondly, can a non-student such as myself access this programming without enrolling for, or auditing, an OU course? Thanks. 87.115.143.223 (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, yes, I'm aware that a lot of universities put their lectures on Youtube and the like; the OU material I'm talking about wasn't just videos of a lecturer talking in front of a whiteboard, but rather proper (well, if rather cheaply, made) documentaries about academic subjects. 87.115.143.223 (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If you want lots and lots of lectures for absolutely nothing, many US universities put out video lectures and study material of entire courses for free (for instance, MIT has something called OpenCourseWare, but they are hardly the only ones). This material can also be found on iTunes U (it's a section in the iTunes store) and on the website Academic Earth, which collects these. It doesn't cost a dime, you don't even have to register for anything. Belisarius (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a partial answer to your question here, half way down the page. --Richardrj talkemail 20:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sic transit gloria kippertie. Thanks for finding that.  87.115.143.223 (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

As a student of the OU I can confirm that I get my course material in book/dvd/audio-cd form, but there is also a lot of content avaialble through the online 'studenthome' site (you need a login to get to the course materials). I'm not sure about archived stuff, but certainly current ou course material is heavily delivered through dvd based on the literally boxes full of dvds i've received over my OU studies. ny156uk (talk) 20:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Nachlassen durch technik ;(  And I guess that your login doesn't let you see all the material for every course, either, but you're stuck in a little ghetto of the course you've paid for?  Anyway, thanks for your informative answer. 87.115.143.223 (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I wish someone would create a tv channel for all the OU stuff, then I'd get a channel that I'd want to watch. Currently I seldom watch tv as its all so slow and unintelligent. The top 25% of the country's ability range is a large audience. 89.241.34.62 (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Any particular reason why Flag of Tenerife was modelled on the Flag of Scotland?
They're shockingly similar. Other than that, Tenerife is a reasonably good holiday destination... god damn I'd like to go there again... I mean seriously that sort of climate is just perfect.

Which leads me on to ask... why did people ever decide to inhabit Northern Europe in the first place, anyway? The weather sucks really, really hard and the days are too short most of the year, except in summer when they're too long.--Night of Islands (talk) 21:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Flags: the Flag of Tenerife and the Flag of Scotland both show the Saltire cross of Saint Andrew; Andy is the patron saint of Scotland, and this page explains his connections to Tenerife. 87.115.143.223 (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Andy is also patron saint of Russia (and a bunch of other places); his flag is still the insignia of the Russian Navy. -- 87.115.143.223 (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps when Northern Europe was first settled the weather was better, or perhaps it was simply a case of other places already being occupied. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you seen how hard it is to get anything to grow in Tenerife? Great as a holiday destination, not so great if you have to feed yourself. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Why does Robert Mugabe appear to have blue eyes?
I've noticed in several photographs that he does appear to have this trait... not seen in Africans unless of mixed European ancestry.

Also, why does he have a moustache like Hitler?

Thanks,

--Get &#39;Em Out By Friday (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * See look here:


 * Also, there is [ http://www.stormfront.org /forum/showthread.php?t=90605 this thread], but it's on... THAT website.--Get &#39;Em Out By Friday (talk) 23:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm colour deficient, but to me they don't seem to be that blue. In any case I'm keen to know what colour they are Rfwoolf (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * They don't seem to be at all blue to me, and I am not colour deficient. If you take a look at this photo of Desmond Tutu, for example, you will see the same, or similar, colour. I believe it to be a lighter brown that merely comes with aging. As for the moustache, Hitler's went further out to the side; Mugabe's is limited to the nose-to-lip channel. // BL \\ (talk) 00:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't help but say that this reminds me of Sycorax. Wrad (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * According to The Independent, he grew the moustache to annoy a warder when he was in gaol. That doesn't explain why he kept it when he was released, though. Warofdreams talk 02:05, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe he has a relatively common condition in older people called arcus senilis, it might also be what Desmond Tutu has. The nose lip channel previously referred to is called the philtrum Richard Avery (talk) 11:10, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * His eyes would appear to be, in RGB terms, grey rather than blue (which would fit with Richard Avery's diagnosis). - Jarry1250 (t, c) 12:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I knew I remembered this question cropping up before. Fribbler (talk) 13:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)