Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 October 22

= October 22 =

Running dogs of capitalism
Who actually came up with the phrases "running dogs of capitalism" or "running dogs of imperialism"? That is, the phrase is commonly used in jest regarding Maoism, but is it actually from Mao? Or whom else? What's the origin? --Mr.98 (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "running dog" is a literal character-by-character translation of the Chinese 走狗, a literary phrase in classical Chinese meaning "hound", "hunting dog". From there it extended to mean someone who runs around, literally or figuratively, in service of a master. It can be used to refer to oneself as a mark of respect towards another, as it implies that the other person is one's master. The modern meaning has become a little more pejorative, though the main connotation is still a servant or lackey.
 * The English version became associated with Maoism because the Chinese phrase became a stock phrase in propaganda. Its use as an attack label, however, is not limited to Maoism or even Communism. Lu Xun, the famed left-wing writer but by no means a Maoist, famously called Liang Shih-chiu a "running dog of the capitalists" (not capitalism). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Exactly the sort of thing I wanted to know. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * A Google Book search suggests that the phrase first appeared in English in the late 1920s, when it was already associated with the communist movement in China. Warofdreams talk 12:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

why is copyright set in the future
I have noticed that newly published books often have a copyright date set for the year after the book is published (so a book published today will say it is copyright 2010). Why exactly is this? References would be ideal. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You can't claim copyright from a future date - copyright subsists from the date when the work or other material is reduced to material form. Could you describe in more detail how exactly this "future" copyright claim appears in your boo? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Pre-publication copies. Like previews of movies or theater. Books with a publishing date 2010 have often all been printed by the end of 2009. --Wetman (talk) 04:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I was gonna say what Wetman did, also adding that the date on the book is the anticipated publication date of the book, and there may be reasons why a book ends up coming out sooner. -- Jayron  32  04:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The question was about the copyright date, not the publication date. As PalaceGuard has already noted, a future copyright date makes no sense. Bielle  (talk) 05:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I remember hearing of a US rule to the effect that if the date of publication was in the last part of the year, then it was permissible for the copyright notice to show the following year. In the days when copyright ran for a fixed number of years, always ending at the end of a calendar year, that would make some sense since it would mean that the short fractional year would not count against the fixed term. However, I don't have a cite for this and I could be mistaken.

Of course, any business producing any sort of dated product tends to look for ways to give as late a date as possible, so it will look more fresh. Just in publishing, annual reference books published in late 2009 will bear the date 2010 on the grounds that you'll still be using them in 2010 until the next edition comes out. Magazines in North America similarly bear the last date when they are supposed to be on the shelves, which is the date the following issue will appear. Morning newspapers bear the date after their actual production because that's the day when they expect you'll read them. And so on. So if they can legally print a copyright date later than the actual year of publication, even if it doens't given any benefit copyright-wise today, they may want to do it on the same principle.

--Anonymous, 05:36 UTC, expanded 05:42, October 22, 2009.

It's a marketing ploy: a book bought in February 2010 dated 2009 might be over a year old, so if it was published in November or December 2009, it might have a 2010 publication (not copyright) date, so as to extend its sales. DOR (HK) (talk) 06:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * But that would mean that in theory someone could copy the book in 2009 and sell those legally, right? --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Legality presumes a publisher's contract with the original author, a thing that "someone" cannot obtain. NVO (talk) 09:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Copyright subsists regardless of notice. A notice is merely a warning. Once the work is reduced to material form - e.g. written down - it is protected by copyright. Copying the final manuscript before it goes to print, for example, is still copyright violation even if there is no copyright notice. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Copyright is asserted once published in a lasting form. The material in those books was copyrighted before they were printed, when it was a manuscript waiting to be printed, and to a lesser degree as earlier drafts.  At any rate, in America and most of the world, thanks to international regulation, you don't need to specifically note that a work is copyrighted. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 13:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I happen to work for a textbook publishing company. We have already completed work on a series of textbooks with a 2011 copyright date. The original plan was to print the books this year with that copyright date and begin distributing them to the sales force, though I don't think any actual sales could be made until 2010.  We are told that the date is permissible so long as the books are not used in classrooms before September 2010.  76.118.100.84 (talk) 13:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The worst case scenario in being "wrong" is that technically you might be violating the rules about making a false copyright claim, but even then, that's not entirely clear, and that isn't enforced whatsoever anyway. The actual legality of the copyright has nothing to do (anymore) with the copyright label on the book. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Ethical VS Aesthetic Free will argument (author? text?)
There exists an argument for the existence of free will that goes something like-

The mind, independent of a determined physical world, might face a situation where two equal motivations present. At this time, if the person is mature, and knowing reason, may decide between the ethical, or the aesthetic.

I think it was a response to d'Holbach; and I thought it was written by Kierkegaard. I'm having great difficulty finding this argument, or the author. I want to read the primary text from which this argument derives.

Please tell me the author, and the primary text.

Thanks, Alan


 * Arthur Schopenhauer's On the Freedom of the Will maybe? I cannot find that exact arguement, but Schopenhauer makes many similar styled arguements in that work.  -- Jayron  32  05:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Why are Kathmandu and the Chatham Islands not on the same hour as the other time zones?
I went to this site http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/ at 9:03 AM THU my local time and all the times had :03 in the minutes section except for the Chatham Islands and Kathmandu, which had times of 2:48 AM FRI and 6:48 PM THU respectively. Darwin was at 10:33 PM THU and Caracas was at 8:33 AM THU so I can see them being on the half hour from most of the others, but 15 minute-difference time zones? 20.137.18.50 (talk) 13:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? Because they can.  Our article on time zones has a fairly comprehensive list of the variations.  Note also cases like China, which uses only one time zone despite being comparable in size to the US. &mdash; Lomn 13:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What time zone is used at the North and South Poles? --rossb (talk) 17:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, according to time zone, stations in Antarctica use the time zone of their supply stations. --jpgordon:==( o ) 18:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The North Pole is in international waters, so there is no official time zone, and no residents, so there is no unofficial one either. At the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station they keep New Zealand time for the reason stated by J.P. (According to a comment in the tz database, which cites the man's book, the station's first commander would have liked to keep GMT (UTC) but decided it would be too inconvenient.) --Anonymous, 19:08 UTC, October 22, 2009.
 * This non-authoritative-looking page hints at two reasons for Nepal's odd time zone: 1) It lines up with the central part of the country and 2) They didn't want to share a time zone with India (+5:30) or with Bhutan and Bangladesh (+6). -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mwalcoff, the decisive reason behind Nepali timing is the wish to demarkate themselves from India. --Soman (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What's the name of he phenomenon?
Which I guess is semi-ironic that I always forget the name of.

What's it called when you hear a new thing/concept and then you see it again or similar to that. chandler 13:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * A marketing campaign.20.137.18.50 (talk) 13:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Reinventing the wheel? There is nothing new under the sun? Deja vu? Yes, a marketing campaign, or the proliferation of an idea whose time has come. Bus stop (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Na not Deja vu, this is more like "I see a funny video on youtube and my friend links it to me 10 minutes later" or "I just read a book about [obscure subject] and the next day I see a article about the subject in the newspaper" chandler 13:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Coincidence? Internet meme? Warofdreams talk 13:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sort of like "critical mass" has been reached? Bus stop (talk) 14:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It might happen because of a meme or similar, but there is a name of the phenomenon chandler 14:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it at all related to the idea of the collective unconscious? Bus stop (talk) 14:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Frequency illusion" is a name sometimes used, especially of newly learned words that seem to suddenly pop up everywhere.--Rallette (talk) 14:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Synchronicity. We used to have an article about it called Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon, but it got deleted for some reason.  See here.  --Sean 14:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's it, I just found my way back to the link where I remember reading about it. chandler 14:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What I find particularly interesting is that no explanation is known for how it came to be called the "Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon." Bus stop (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've made this edit. Bus stop (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Pure speculation, but the term Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon may refer to the fact that 4 members of the group (incarcerated in different cells of the same prison) attempted (1) / committed (3) suicide simultaneously (or, at least, in close temporal proximity). Andreas Bader was one of them.  Ulrike Meinhof had committed suicide earlier at the same location, the Stammheim Prison.  Not surprisingly, there is some doubt as to the coincidence of this synchronicity.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Priming. Your subconscious has been primed to see that pattern. Vranak (talk) 16:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Aha! Thanks.  --Anon, 19:12 UTC, October 22, 2009.
 * Welcome. :) Vranak (talk) 19:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Quote regarding Military Generals vs. Musicians
Some cartoonist or political commentator, I think during the Vietnam War, apparently said something like, "[The President] takes his advice from military generals, not one of whom has ever released a hit record." My understanding was that it was meant against all of the political commentary being offered up by folk singers and the so-called "hippies." I've Googled it and looked on Wikiquote with all sorts of combinations of key words, to no avail. I'm sure someone knows the quote verbatim. Who said it? This is driving me crazy. Thanks much! Kingsfold (talk) 17:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Origin and explanation of common definitions of Atheism
WASN'T THIS SAME QUESTION ASKED ON A REF DESK RECENTLY? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi bugs, why yes it was, you may also note that it wasn't answered. Please also note that this comes from a different perspective that is somewhat distinct from the one on the language ref desk. Sometimes it helps to read the full text before interjecting random uppercase bold in a position which is at odds with wikipedia norms. Love, Unomi (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fine, you can deal with this redundancy to your lovin' heart's content. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have been going through some sources and I came across this: The word 'atheism', however, has in this contention to be construed unusually. Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of 'atheist' in English is 'someone who asserts that there is no such being as God', I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively. I want the originally Greek prefix 'a' to be read in the same way in 'atheist' as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as 'amoral', 'atypical', and 'asymmetrical'. In this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels 'positive atheist' for the former and 'negative atheist' for the latter.

The introduction of this new interpretation of the word 'atheism' may appear to be a piece of perverse Humpty-Dumptyism, going arbitrarily against established common usage. ... But the atheist in my peculiar interpretation, unlike the atheist in the usual sense, has not as yet and as such conceded even this.

This has been taken from the 1984 print of Antony Flew's The Presumption of Atheism, the work was originally printed in 1976.

Is Antony Flew a RS in the context of Atheism? Is there any cause to dispute that at that time the common 'modern' interpretation of Atheist was 'someone who asserts that there is no such being as God', besides the position of the 'innocent'? Unomi (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * On positive/negative, strong/weak, seen Atheism. The distinction seems to be quite old.
 * "Atheist" was originally a pejorative (and still is for many!) and was probably always intended to be "strong". (This is partially why Huxley coined "agnostic" as an alternative in the 19th century.) The OED entry for "atheist" is entirely unhelpful in regards to such a distinction, merging both of them ("One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God."). The examples they give though make it clear that in the early usages of it, it did specifically mean "deny", the "strong"/"positive" atheism when used pejoratively. There is a nice 19th century quote from Gladstone though that recognizes the distinction: "By the Atheist I understand the man who not only holds off, like the sceptic, from the affirmative, but who drives himself, or is driven, to the negative assertion in regard to the whole Unseen, or to the existence of God." So in Gladstone's schema, the "weak"/"negative" atheist is really to be termed a "skeptic", while "atheist" is referred to specifically as the "strong" form.
 * I don't think Flew's argument that the understanding of atheism as generally referring to "strong" is a new thing is correct at all—it is much older than he lets on. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input and the quotes, that the more inclusive definition has been uncommon also seems supported by:
 * Drange 1998 In this essay, I shall use the term "atheist" in its (more common) narrow sense. Martin draws a distinction between "negative atheists," who are without any belief in God, and "positive atheists," who deny God's existence.[5]) Applying that distinction, it could be said that I (and most people) use the term "atheist" in the sense of "positive atheist."


 * Gordon Stein 1980 The average theologian (there are exceptions, of course) uses "atheist" to mean a person who denies the existence of a God.


 * Dan Baker 1992 Basic atheism is not a belief. It is the lack of belief. There is a difference between believing there is no god and not believing there is a god--both are atheistic, though popular usage has ignored the latter. 
 * http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-definitions.html Michael Martin 1990] If you look up "atheism" in the dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheism in this way.


 * Are there any sources that support that the broad, inclusive definition has much currency outside of Atheist circles? Unomi (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Oedipus the King (Sophocles)
How did Oedipus become king of Thebes?64.166.144.11 (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oedipus may help.  Grsz 11  20:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

What consumers and audiences like and want?
Marketing is too loose a term as it covers many other things apart from this. What textbooks and academic papers cover this specific area, and does it have a commonly accepted name? Thanks 92.29.50.51 (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * "Consumer demand"? (I'd link to it, but "consumer demand" is a redirect to "consumerism", which is different.)  Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The OP's questions are the subject of what is commonly called Market research. Another relevant article is Choice Modelling. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Market research is specific to particular products. Are there any theories textbooks or academic papers available about what consumers and audiences like and want in general? 92.24.69.180 (talk) 22:42, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You could start with the hierarchy of needs and see where it takes you. In general, everyone wants food and shelter. Even at that, people want different kinds of food and housing. The theories you mention would be covered in a broad array of sources. And it gets slippery, because even knowing what people bought is no guarantee that that's what they really wanted, as often people have to "settle for less" based on many factors. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There's an article called Consumer theory which is Econ 102, but which has a number of links to other articles. Maybe see where that takes you? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Economics - Consumer Theory. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 14:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I was expecting or hoping for something that would include things like News values, Aesthetics, Dramatic theory, products as badges of identity, Status symbols, Keeping up with the Joneses, Gadgets, Entertainment, The Theory of the Leisure Class, Fashion, Fads, Glamour, Kitsch, Taste, Style. and so on. Anything along those lines please? Preferably something derived from empirical research in psychology and sociology. Update: perhaps Consumer psychology is the correct name. 78.149.146.34 (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Is 78.149.146.34 the same person as 92.29.50.51? This is getting confusing. Bus stop (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Who were the earliest aethiests, going back in history?
Including those in the Christian realm. Did Darwin go to church? 92.29.50.51 (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * We have an article on Diagoras of Melos, which may be a starting point. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Charles Darwin was baptised in the Anglican Church, see the article Charles Darwin. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I would guess Ardi was an atheist. Googlemeister (talk) 21:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The article Atheism in Hinduism notes that Cārvāka, an atheistic school of Indian philosophy, traces its origins to 600 BCE. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Not only was DArwin baptised, he played an active part in the parish and even became a clergyman before making his great discoveries. According to the article, by 1849 he had stopped going to church even though his wife still went. Thre is even an article specifically about this subject Charles Darwin's views on religion . Vespine (talk) 21:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Darwin could not be realistically called an atheist, and even denied that he was. He described himself as an agnostic (to use a voting analogy, not a "yes there is" or a "no there isn't" but a "don't know). Grutness...wha?  22:10, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there have always been atheists but a particularly famous one is Hippocrates Dmcq (talk) 22:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

If we take 'atheist' to mean one who does not engage in theological discourse or speculation, then it becomes not a matter of who was the first atheist, but who was the first theist. Atheism is the default state of being, so there is no limit to how far back you can go to trace its origins. Of course you must mean who were the first group of people to conscientiously reject a God-fearing view of things -- and I see other people have answered that already. Vranak (talk) 22:46, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure atheism is the "default state of being." The human brain appears wired for religion, or at least spirituality. It appears to be part of our development as meaning-making creatures. It appears to me to take a LOT more work to get to a totally naturalistic state of understanding of the world than it does to have a spiritual understanding. (Why does the wind blow? "Because there is someone magical blowing it" is easier to come to than "because of really complicated weather cycles, relying on an understanding of pressure, geography, and etc.") This is not the same thing as ornate, organized religion (or philosophy), of course. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I should have looked. Of course there is an article on History of atheism Dmcq (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

correct income level of dominican republic?
the world bank say that the dominican republic is an upper middle income country, but in wikipedia say that is lower middle income. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.166.138.216 (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The World Bank has strange ideas. The CIA World Factbook estimates it has the country had a 2008 gross domestic product per capita of $8200, 118th in the world. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That $8200 number also sounds like a mean number, not a median, which is surely lower and gives a better picture of "average" income there. Tempshill (talk) 02:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

To quote the World Bank's website: [http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/DATASTATISTICS/0,,contentMDK:20420458~menuPK:64133156~pagePK:64133150~piPK:64133175~theSitePK:239419,00.html Economies are divided according to 2008 GNI per capita, calculated using the World Bank Atlas method. The groups are: low income, $975 or less; lower middle income, $976 - $3,855; upper middle income, $3,856 - $11,905; and high income, $11,906 or more.]   It's all relative, I suppose: Dominicans probably don't feel well-off compared to (USA) Americans, but they surely do compared to Haitians. --M @ r ē ino 04:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 118th is the upper middle? No wonder a lot of people think the World Bank is screwing the poor. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's 76 by PPP, a measure that is more relevant for the people living there. And the list is skewed because many of the smallest countries are very rich, from Lichtenstein and Luxembourg to the Arab emirates and Singapore. India and China have lower incomes than the DomRep, and have one third of the worlds population between them. The next biggest countries (excluding the US) are Indonesia, Brazil, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nigeria, all on the poorer side. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:39, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The Inter-American Development Bank (iadb.org) lists the Dominican Republic’s 2008 GDP as DOP1,576.16 billion, equal to US$45.63 billion at an exchange rate of DOP34.54:US$1. On a population of 10.09 million, that works out to DOP156,210 or US$4,324 per person. The $8,200 figure is based on an artificial exchange rate derived from the concept of purchasing power parity. DOR (HK) (talk) 07:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Travel time Bloomsbury to Southease railway station in the mid 1920s
Virginia Woolf apparantly bought a second home near Southease railway station after the success of her novel Mrs Dalloway published in 1925. How long then would the train journey between there and her other house in Bloomsbury have taken in the 1920s? I do not know what the appropiate London station would be. I'm trying to get a sense of how remote the country place would have seemed in those days. Thanks. 92.24.69.180 (talk) 23:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The appropriate London station would probably have been Victoria, as it is now. If Virginia was feeling successful, she probably would have traveled to the station by taxicab, or perhaps with her own car and driver, which probably wouldn't have taken much more than 20 minutes since traffic was much lighter in the 1920s.  The train from Victoria to Lewes today takes about an hour, at an average speed of 49 miles per hour.  This would have been an unremarkable speed during the 1920s, so the time was probably about the same.  In Lewes, she could have connected to a train to Southease, which takes 6 minutes today, and probably about the same in the 1920s.  Let's say she would have had to wait 20 minutes for the connection.  This yields a total travel time of something like 2 hours, allowing for time to buy a ticket at Victoria.  Marco polo (talk) 01:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't find a source, but I do wonder whether Victoria was the appropriate London terminus. Southease station is on the Seaford Branch Line and, according to our article, distances on that line are measured from London Bridge - suggesting that was probably the original terminus. Warofdreams talk 10:56, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The track alignment would certainly allow trains to travel from London Bridge to Lewes (and on to the Seaford Line, though direct traffic from London to the Seaford Line is not now and probably never was sufficient to justify a through train). London Bridge was the original terminus for trains on the Brighton Main Line (including the branch line to Lewes that connects to the Seaford Line).  The calculation of distances may have to do with the role of London Bridge as the original terminus, pre-1860.  In 1860, service was established to Victoria, which in time became the more important terminus of the Brighton Main Line trains.  There were certainly trains from Victoria to Brighton, and probably to Lewes, by the 1920s.  There may well have also been trains from London Bridge, or more conveniently for Virginia Woolf, Charing Cross.  We can only know for sure by finding train timetables from that period.  However, the travel time would not have been very different from Bloomsbury to London Bridge Station as compared with Victoria.  She could have cut her travel time to the London station in half (from maybe 20 minutes by taxi to maybe 10 minutes) if there were trains from Charing Cross, which would not have had a big impact on her total travel time.  Marco polo (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Are any railway timetables available from those days? 78.146.236.231 (talk) 11:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * there are. If anyone is in the vicinity of the The National Archives, they could look it up... Tevildo (talk) 12:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)