Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 February 12

= February 12 =

Social advice - conversations
Hi. When I hear a group of peers, often friends engaging in a conversation, I often tend to eavesdrop even while working on another task. Since I often comment to the group while not officially in-conversation, this often creates conflict and temporary social rejection. My question is, what can I do to either join into the conversation in a socially-accepted manner as to not disrupt the flow of the conversation, or to defer my interest to a later time or solicit involvement in the conversation in advance? Thanks. ~ A H  1 (TCU) 02:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wait for a joke, laugh, then say a witty response. ¡Voíla! schyler (talk) 03:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And when it is a serious conversation...? ~ A H  1 (TCU) 03:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Eavesdropping is "is the act of secretly listening ... " (my emphasis). One partial solution is to make it obvious that you are listening (and interested), eg by looking at the group, turning your body toward them, physically approaching the group. Ie openly join the conversation as a listener first, then speak. Mitch Ames (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You normally have to be invited to join the conversation. Simply being near the group and jumping in won't work. Quest09 (talk) 11:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know about that... If you're in the same area, where you couldn't help but overhear, I don't see a problem with jumping in if you have a relevant point to make.  Although, when I do this, I usually start with something like "I couldn't help but overhear you talking about..."  Dismas |(talk) 11:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There are certain setting when that would be acceptable. And others when that would be the beginning of a quarrel. Quest09 (talk) 14:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. What I need here is to learn which situations this is acceptable and in which this is not. Even laughing at a joke, and making a comment, often the response will be something in the way of "why are you listening to our conversation?". ~ A H  1 (TCU) 17:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hell, in my work place, the only time a conversation does not include any and all comers is one held behind closed doors or one where the interlocutors are deliberately speaking softly so as not to be heard by others. Otherwise, anyone in earshot is welcome to join the conversation. It's even often assumed that others will hear the conversation and take whatever action may be appropriate if some change to policy or procedures is the topic of the conversation.  That's what often passes for "communication".  It's called "keeping one's finger on the pulse" or "keeping one's ear to the ground", apparently.  Which is bad news for those who like to be informed personally of things they're expected to be aware of, or who have a hearing issue.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  18:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Formalizing social rules can be quite challenging. Depending on how you are perceived - peer or enemy, what you say - contribution or criticism, when you say - expected or not, how high you are regarded - expert or know-it-all, you can be committing a faux pas or just taking part on the conversation. Quest09 (talk) 18:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is arguably a difference between a business conversation and a social conversation. However, it's like with those loudmouths on cellphones who get all huffy when they become aware that others are paying attention. If folks are yapping so loudly that others can hear them without trying, they have no right to get resentful about someone piping in. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * So we have five Wikipedians downplaying this social rule or referring to its intrinsic stupidity, and one who is keenly aware of it and warning about its dangers. Is there any way to predict what the response might be to commenting on such a conversation or is this all intuitive? Is there a specific age group for which this is more of a social concern, for example in the form of a bell curve, or is it more culture-dependant or demographically-trending? ~ A H  1 (TCU) 17:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is a cultural variable. I used to join in the conversations of strangers (on a bus or in other public places) and I noticed that the response varied from complete acceptance to very strange looks and an embarrassing silence, mainly depending on how far south I was in the country (UK), but also on the population density with densely populated areas being less accepting.  In most of Scotland and Northern England one can get away with this practice without creating embarrassment.  I seldom try it in London.    D b f i r s   14:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Fuad II of Egypt
Has there been any discussion of King Fuad II of Egypt returning to the throne of Egypt? Corvus cornix talk  03:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I rather doubt it. His father wasn't exactly popular during the latter stages of his reign, and the guy himself only lived in Egypt for about the first year of his life. I think Fudd I of Hollywood would have a better shot. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There's a reason why he's called the "pretender to the thrones of Egypt and Sudan", namely, that those thrones have ceased to exist. There are no thrones to return to.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]


 * Also, some of the hostility to Mubarak was because it was believed he was aiming for a hereditary presidency and was planning to have his son Gamal Mubarak succeed him.


 * Corvus cornix -- The Egyptian monarchy originated from an early 19th-century Albanian adventurer who took advantage of the chaos following Napoleon's invasion, and among Sunni Arabs any dynastic loyalty to a whole royal family in general (as opposed to respecting a specific charismatic or powerful individual) often tends to be rather weak, so that a restoration is exceedingly unlikely. However, the Cordwainer Smith quasi-novel "Quest of the Three Worlds" is kind of an elaborate science-fiction allegory about an heir to the overthrown Egyptian monarchy who tries to deal with the aftermath of the violent revolution there... AnonMoos (talk) 18:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The nadir of Smith's work IMO. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You might be interested in Abolished monarchy. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a Facebook page for Fuad, on which it states: "King Fouad II - Last King of Egypt - has announced clearly several times that he has no interests in politics or any efforts to restore his throne. We do respect the King wish and therefore would like to draw your attention that any discussions about this issue are just unrealistic hopes." Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Buddhism -- ok to feed a starving animal?
Forgive me if this seems a silly question; I ask it in all seriousness. In Buddhism, life is suffering, and the golden rule of sorts if to help when you can, and do no harm when you can't. I wonder at the Buddhist choice in the situation of a starving animal (let's say a cat). I come across a feral cat that is obviously starving. If it is true that I haven't the resources to adopt it (and we must assume I'm living in a country without a humane society, in this case China) but I know I can give it enough food for today only - would I be doing it harm in doing so? It seems at first glance an easy decision, but I cannot guarantee this animal's future comfort - only satiation of its present hunger. In doing so, I would prolong its life -- a life of slow starvation and much suffering, which would seem to violate the principle of doing no harm. By not feeding it I may be hastening its death through inaction, thereby increasing its present suffering but reducing its future suffering (it will die faster). Viewing this problem strictly through a Buddhist lens, I am not sure which approach would be most appropriate. For the compassionate, please note that I am not posting this from a mobile phone while a kitten is starving at my feet. Rather, I've begun reading introductory Buddhist texts and considering their potential applications to my life. There are a lot of stray animals in China and no place to take them, should your own home already be full. The Masked Booby (talk) 04:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Another Buddhist maxim is to give what you can; take what you need. Just because you can't feed the world doesn't mean you shouldn't help out a starving cat (or any other creature) if you can. Buddhism would suggest you encourage a compassionate attitude in other people (i.e. teach them Buddhism) so that more people will help starving creatures. The Buddhist view is that you have to decide on your priorities, based on your awareness and compassion, not blindly follow any rule.--Shantavira|feed me 08:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for contributing. While working to change the feelings of others would have a macro impact, I guess I'm hung up on whether it is "right" to feed our hypothetical starving cat, thus prolonging and worsening its suffering? The Masked Booby (talk) 08:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If you feed it, it should become stronger for a day or maybe for a few days; and maybe another compassionate person might then come along who would be able to help the cat further. If you don't feed it, you increase the chances it will starve to death, and decrease the chances that it will live long enough for someone else to help. Also, perhaps you could move the cat to an area that's known to be infested with rodents. That should provide the cat with a good supply of food for awhile. And if you really want to help on a broader scale, perhaps you could take steps towards creating a humane society organization. I don't know much about Buddhism, but I doubt very much it would take the position, "I don't know what to do, so I'll do nothing." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * A key point here is ones intent in action, in Buddhism one acts in a mindful way. The choice that one makes is informed by the intent.  I would avoid getting hung up on the concept of suffering as it's not particularly analogous to how we would normally use the term.
 * In a practical sense I don't see any context where making the choice to not feed the animal when one could, would be a choice that purified ones karma.
 * ALR (talk) 08:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * But if you feed a predator, you necessarily need to kill other animals to obtain food, or let others kill them for you. Wouldn't that also be against Buddhist principles? And, since life is suffering anyway, and everything is transient, why not let the feral cat starve anyway? Maybe it gets born as a better being the next time. Quest09 (talk) 11:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Beware of applying human moral standards to animals. Cats, hawks, eagles, sharks, etc., are not "evil", they are just doing what they have been programmed to do via the evolutionary process. The predator/prey thing is part of the balance of nature. It is the nature of cats to keep the rodent population in check, just as it is the nature of rodents to breed prolifically. If you remove predators, you end up with a population explosion of prey (as with deer in America), and you have to legalize hunting so as to keep the herds culled and prevent the prey from suffering mass starvation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What you describe is basically Samsara, the cycle of life. Different strands of Buddhist thought take different views on the issue of taking life.  Like I said, don't get hung up on the word suffering, it doesn't really capture the subtlety of the journey to enlightenment.
 * The reborn in a better life issue is pretty much a gross simplification of what is meant by transient.
 * As a student of Vajrayana Buddhism my tradition recognises that life is systemic.
 * ALR (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And where is your place in the system? Do you help the starving cat or the fleeing mice? Quest09 (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Recognising that one lives in the moment, makes decisions and takes responsibility for the outcomes of those decisions.
 * ALR (talk) 15:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's a non-answer. Anyway, I'll feed the cat, since I don't feel anything about mice, but cannot stand seeing a cat suffering (in the physical sense). Quest09 (talk) 15:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it a non answer, or a recognition that until one has to make the decision the discussion about it is moot?
 * ALR (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Then, it is a moot non-answer. We'll have to decide when the case arises. Quest09 (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's not a non-answer to say that you don't know until the circumstances arise. I suppose the best Western analogy would be that you decide on a case-by-case basis, rather than a set standard. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We should note here that koans come from Zen Buddhism. For some Buddhists, the best answers are those which are non-answers, and the best way to understand is with non-understanding. -- 174.24.195.38 (talk) 19:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You are obviously inclined to feed the cat. I think that is indicated by your posting the question. The pleasure that one derives from feeding an animal is the sensation that there is a relationship with the animal. Withholding food from the animal is the withholding of the entering into the relationship, which in turn is the depriving of oneself of an available pleasure. Bus stop (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * These are the sorts of conversations that make me exceedingly happy that I'm more inclined toward Carvaka and pragmatism; the answer to this question in both would be to do whatever the hell you feel like. I don't think there's a straight, definitive answer to this question in Buddhism. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 07:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If you are interested in reading Buddhist texts, Masked Booby, I would not recommend any book more highly than Zen Flesh, Zen Bones (compiled by Paul Reps and Nyogen Senzaki).
 * There is a koan included in that book about a cat. It is from the ancient Chinese text The Gateless Gate, and is called "Nansen cuts the cat in two":


 * Nansen cuts the cat in two
 * Nansen saw the monks of the eastern and western halls fighting over a cat. He seized the cat and told the monks: "If any of you say a good word, you can save the cat."
 * No one answered. So Nansen boldly cut the cat in two pieces.
 * That evening Joshu returned and Nansen told him about this. Joshu removed his sandals and, placing them on his head, walked out.
 * Nansen said: "If you had been there, you could have saved the cat."


 * Mumon's comment: Why did Joshu put his sandals on his head? If anyone answers this question, he will understand exactly how Nansen enforced the edict. If not, he should watch his own head.
 * Had Joshu been there,
 * He would have enforced the edict oppositely.
 * Joshu snatches the sword
 * And Nansen begs for his life.


 * These old-time monks, I should mention, devoted their entire lives to Buddha and his teachings. Both Nansen and Joshu were considered to be among the greatest Zen masters of their time.  So why did Nansen kill that cat?  WikiDao    &#9775;  03:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I second this recommendation; I read this for a Chinese and Japanese philosophy class in the fall, and I loved it. And it's fairly cheap. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 03:10, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And I agree with your remark above Blade that there's no way to answer the original question definitively on the terms it defines as "strictly through a Buddhist lens".
 * From my own personal point of view, btw, I would just genuinely not want to kill a cat or to harm any other creature in any way unless there was a really good reason for it. There may be some Buddhist school or tradition that has composed a complete list of such really good reasons -- if someone else could provide a link to that, would that answer your question?  If not, or if that doesn't happen, I would only want again to suggest that the previously mentioned book is worth looking into if you are really interested in questions like this one.  Regards,  WikiDao    &#9775;  03:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Vikings in Cornwall
I am curious as to whether or not the Vikings ever invaded Cornwall and did they have any settlements there? The article on Cornwall doesn't mention anything about them. I once read that Olaf Tryggvasson's alleged son, Tryggvi the Pretender left descendants in Cornwall. Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Viking expansion mentions that they initially fought off viking invasions, but around 1000 AD they succumbed to Sweyn Forkbeard. Nothing about settlements though. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:58, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I found this map showing the extent of Viking settlements in England. By doublechecking with a similar map in a Danish history of the Vikings in England I have, I can see that the information it contains is legit. The viking settlements were mostly concentrated in the Eastern part of England, and there were none southwest of Berkshire. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This page has some information about the Cornish-Danish alliance of 838 AD mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle; “There came a great ship army to the West Wealas where they were joined by the people who commenced war against Ecgberht, the West Saxon king. When he heard this, he proceeded with his army against them and fought with them at Hengestesdun where he put to flight both the Wealas and the Danes”. Nothing about settlements though. Alansplodge (talk) 13:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * There is a legend that the surname Trigg which is found in Cornwall derived from the descendants of Tryggvi the Pretender. Is it possible that the son of Olaf Tryggvasson could have gone to Cornwall and sired offspring prior to his attempt at claiming the Norwegian throne?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've never heard that legend. I would have thought a surname "Trigg" in Cornall (and it's not a surname that I would associate with Cornwall) would come from the Hundred of Trigg, which itself derives from the 7th Century Pagus Tricurius - land of three war-hosts. DuncanHill (talk) 15:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * One of my mother's ancestors came from Cornwall and his surname was Trigg. They were intermarried with the Johns family (also of Cornwall). I never thought it sounded Cornish either, yet we have original documents that give his birthplace as Cornwall.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We have an uncited statement in John Johns Trigg that the Triggs came from Cornwall. I also find one "Elizabeth Triggs" (note the terminal s) imprisoned in Bodmin Gaol in 1832 for stealing a poker, tongs and a fire shovel. DuncanHill (talk) 15:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * John Johns Trigg was my great-great-great-great-grandfather, and his ancestors did come from Cornwall in about the 1680s.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Triggs" appears on this list of Cornish surnames and this page gives its frequency in the 1881 Census, showing Cornwall to have the third highest occurence of the name "Triggs" after Hampshire and London. Alansplodge (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Alan, good stuff. DuncanHill (talk) 16:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. Back to the original question - this map has Cornwall in green, which "denotes areas subject to frequent Viking raids but with little or no Scandinavian settlement". Apparently this is good news if you're Cornish and worried about Multiple Sclerosis. Alansplodge (talk) 17:00, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * A marker for permanent influence of Danes and Norwegians in Britain is in hydronyms. Even large rivers in Cornwall have names with Celtic, rather than Saxon or Norse origins. Briefly sketched in Bruce Mitchell, An Invitation to Old English and Anglo-Saxon England--Wetman (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Who is an "eminent jurist"?
As asked, who is an "eminent jurist"? Thank you so much. --Aristitleism (talk) 13:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Every important jurist? Being jurist itself is rather dependable of your law degree. And being important is a question of prestige. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiweek (talk • contribs)  20:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I have found the term in a judgment of the ICJ and also found that, according to Wikipedia articles, several persons have held such position. --Aristitleism (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's a description, rather than a position. A jurist is someone involved professionally in law and justice, usually a judge. Eminent means well-respected. --Tango (talk) 14:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * There is (possibly was) an "Eminent Jurists Panel", an international group of senior judges and lawyers. Here is a link with additional information.  --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 18:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Two further identical questions: Who is a famous novelist? Who is a respected authority?--Wetman (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The term "eminent" means something that stands out. I would say it means "notable, only more so." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Charles Dickens (obviously) and the Pope (depending on context). Kittybrewster  &#9742;  10:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Eminent jurists" just means "eminent jurists". Jurists are scholars or experts of law, who are usually senior judges or respected professors of law, though in some countries and in other contexts a "jurist" means a person who is learned in law but is not a lawyer. In any case, "eminent jurists" has special significance in international law because they are (collectively) seen as a subsidiary source of international law. For example, international courts may refer to eminent jurists if they are held by consensus in the field to correctly describe a rule of international law. I am guessing the OP saw the term in such a context.
 * It's not a job, position or title to which a person is officially appointed or elected (no badges or certificates either), but rather a status which is accorded by consensus amongst lawyers and jurists in the field. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 20:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

"do you think people are against you" as a assessment question
Filling an assessment questionnaire, for assessing schizophrenia, I came across this question (or perhaps, the question came across me, trying to catch me, who knows?). Whatever, how can this question be reliable? If you are a member of persecuted minority, your realistic answer can be 'yes', and that is not a sign of schizophrenia. Wikiweek (talk) 13:17, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You are right, if you think that the question is not a reliable indicator. But, the problem is not the question per se, but the use of online tools to diagnose any illness. A physically present psychologist or psychiatrist will take into account such things as you being part of a minority, even if not explicitly told to do so. At least, that seems to be the best practice. Quest09 (talk) 13:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * In those sorts of questionnaires, no one particular question is a defining factor in determination. It's the responses as a whole that indicate your tendency toward (condition). While paranoia is a symptom of schizophrenia, you aren't going to be diagnosed a schizophrenic just from answering "yes" to that one question, nor are you a non-schizophrenic just because you answered "no". How you answered the other questions will help determine if your answer is an indication of (condition), or might be some other factor (member of a persecuted minority, had a bad day, etc.). Quest09 is also right in that such questionnaires, even taken as a whole, are not definitive, but rather serve as aides to professionals who can evaluate the responses, and further explore why you gave them. -- 174.24.195.38 (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

In fact minorities are often incorrectly diagnosed with schizophrenia/paranoia.http://www.cchrint.org/tag/over-diagnosis/..Hotclaws (talk) 21:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Correctly interpreting the results of a psychological screening or therapy interview is very difficult. That is why a psychiatrist is a trained medical doctor who has undergone several years of schooling, technical training, apprenticeship, and residency.  A psychiatrist is able to meaningfully interpret the entirety of a person's circumstance and situation, not just the response to a single question.  "Short questionnaires" should not be considered conclusive in any way; at best, they may help guide a trained professional by providing a wide set of indicators; but they are not a substitute for professional diagnosis.  Nimur (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

riddle: something rather heavy someone would always have with them, where-ever they go
what is the size of a hefty 15 inch laptop (in weight and bulk) that someone would always have with them (once havnig acquired) wherever they move? 109.128.173.201 (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * 15" is a screen size. The weight of a 15" laptop can easily be from a 1-15 pounds, depending on many options. It could even be more if you take into account bullet-proof military laptops. The idea that a person will always have the laptop with him/her is wrong. Who takes their laptop in the shower? -- k a i n a w &trade; 20:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * A human brain. -- ke4roh (talk) 20:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I mean from apartment to apartment and city to city as they move. Fine, imagine 7-11 pounds and about the volume of a typical dell or hp 15 inch laptop. 109.128.173.201 (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I use a 15 inch laptop, and according to specs it weighs 2.7 kilograms in it's basic incarnation (you can convert kilos into your quaintly archaic weighing unit if you need to, I can't be bothered). Add to that the various miscellanea you carry around with it (mouse, portable HD drive, cooling station, cables and stuff) and I'm guessing along with the bag it shouldn't come out more than five kilos, six at most. I carry the thing around every day, to work and back, and apart from having a bit of a problem with my right shoulder some time ago when I would walk quite some distance with it (about two or three kilometers every day) and which got better when I figured out the computer bag was to blame and started changing shoulders while I carried it and then switched over to a backpack completely, I never thought it was much work to carry the thing around. I should add, this is (or rather, was when I bought it) a fairly competent computer, fit for most work that doesn't include heavy duty graphics and can run just about any non-graphics-hog game. TomorrowTime (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Will you answer my question in terms of what else, other than a laptop, of that size would be with someone throughout their moves? 109.128.173.201 (talk) 22:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ke4oh had it. "Have with them" does not necessarily imply "carry".--Wetman (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * A friend of mine once carried a nearly full bottle of Goldschlager with him for four years. Not on him personally, but he moved it whenever he changed living situations which was often as it was during college.  We eventually drank it, but realized why we hadn't opened it in so many years. -- Daniel  00:06, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why don't laptops have carrying handles and how do you coil up neatly the cables on the battery charger (and external mouse if included)? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 01:07, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Some of the early portables / laptops did, in fact, have built-in handles. I'm thinking of the HP laptop in particular. The handle was necessary, as the machine weighed approximately a metric ton (or so it seemed) with its battery attached. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Even Apple did it in the late 90s with their g3 'clamshell' iBook. Had to find any photos online but they do exist if you search. ny156uk (talk) 18:37, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Giagantic clown shoes? Dialysis machine? Family Bible? Hotclaws (talk) 21:09, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I had some experience around people with spinal injuries in the 1980s. I'd say the answer is an artificial respirator, although I have no idea what size they'd be these days. We don't seem to have an article (that I can find) that clearly shows what I mean (box that can fit under the seat of a wheelchair) but see Artificial_respirator under "Transport ventilators". --Dweller (talk) 13:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Origin of the surname 'Lust'?
Reading a story I came across this unusual surname. A preliminary Google search didn't help so I thought I'd check in here. I'm thinking Polish or Belarussian -- anyone have more than just a hunch? Vranak (talk) 20:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It is a variant of Lustig - German and Jewish (Ashkenazic), nickname for a person of a cheerful disposition, from the German lustig (merry, carefree). DuncanHill (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Pronounce it Loost.--Wetman (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * "Lust" as an Old English / Germanic word once had a broader meaning, of any kind of desire or pleasure, as in the old expression "lust for life". As with terms like "intercourse", one specific usage has become the dominant meaning. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hah, speak for your own anglo-self! In modern standard German, "Lust" retains the old meaning. "Ich habe keine Lust" means "I don't feel like it", and before you mention migraines, "Ich habe keine Lust, die Steuererklärung auszufüllen" means "I don't feel like filling in my tax return form". ---Sluzzelin talk  01:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was speaking of English. Many German words adhere more closely to their roots than do their English cousins. Given the German pronunciation, I'm thinking another example would be the lyric, "He has lust the fateful lightning of his terrible, swift sword." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you trying to do here? Is that meant to be a pun? It doesn't make any sense with any meaning of the word, and isn't how the lyrics go. 86.164.25.178 (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Wetman said it's pronounced "loost" in German, which is a homophone of "loosed". I have now added italics to the previous comment for clarification. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:13, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. The pronunciation I was taught in school wasn't homophonous with loosed, but I imagine that's one of those things that varies. Or we were taught wrong :P 86.164.25.178 (talk) 14:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I was assuming that the vowel sounds in "loosed" and "loost" rhymed, but in thinking about it, the German "u" sound might rhyme with "look" or "book" rather than with "loop" ... or "loose". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Might? Well, it does, definitely.  And if I may say so, if you didn't know that, then you really have no business answering questions about German pronunciation on a Reference Desk.  That probably sounds terribly snappy and harsh, Buggsy, but we should stick to what we know, and not tangenticate into things we can only vaguely guess at. Because none of us knows everything.  Not even I, believe it or not.  :) --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  08:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Relationships in The Moonstone
The 1868 novel by Wilkie Collins has a plethora of confusing cousinly relationships. I have tried to piece them together at The_Moonstone but am not satisfied. There is the wealthy young heroine Rachel Verinder, and her two suitors, Franklin Blake and Godfrey Ablewhite, who are described as cousins. Neither can be the son of the wicked general who stole the moonstone. The small-minded Drusilla Clack calls Lady Verinder and also Mrs Ablewhite "aunt"; Rachel sometimes calls her "Clack", without honorific, and sometimes "Miss Clack" (FIRST NARRATIVE, Contributed by MISS CLACK, niece of the late SIR JOHN VERINDER- CHAPTER I); the heiress calls the poor relation "Drusilla" only when she is trying to make a good impression. How are they all related, and is Rachel's mode of address normal? BrainyBabe (talk) 21:44, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is a family tree. I don't think it is ever really specified who Drusilla is, but I think it would be common for even a petty heiress with her position to maintain to treat a poor relation, who is rather a hanger on, as little better than a housekeeper.  meltBanana  23:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That family tree is an intriguing find, but not entirely convincing -- e.g. it doesn't mention the honorifics of Lady Verinder (and her deceased husband, presumably a baronet). It posits that all of these cousins are the fruit of the marriages of many sisters, thus explaining the many surnames; but Franklin Blake and Godfrey Ablewhite do not, as far as I can recall, refer to one another as cousins, so that won't wash. Any Victorianists around? BrainyBabe (talk) 00:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure why you need a Victorianist, it is the same family tree, but without Drusilla, as in The Moonstone ed. Steve Farmer, Broadview Press (1999) ISBN 1551112434


 * I spoke, a little way back, of my lady's father, the old lord with the short temper and the long tongue. He had five children in all. Two sons to begin with; then, after a long time, his wife broke out breeding again, and the three young ladies came briskly one after the other... Of the two sons, the eldest, Arthur, inherited the title and estates. The second, the Honourable John


 * If you know anything of the fashionable world, you have heard tell of the three beautiful Miss Herncastles. Miss Adelaide; Miss Caroline; and Miss Julia--this last being the youngest and the best of the three sisters


 * came my lady's [Julia] nephew, Mr. Franklin Blake


 * Like Mr. Franklin, he was a cousin of hers. His name was Mr. Godfrey Ablewhite....Honourable Caroline insisted on marrying plain Mr. Ablewhite


 * etc. Also the character list you linked to calls John Herncastle a general when he is described as a colonel.  meltBanana  01:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's a good step forward. I had read the whole novel, but some time ago, and in listening to the Radio 4 adaptation grew confused. Drusilla Clack is introduced as "niece of the late Sir John Verinder", which allows her to call Lady V "aunt", but I don't see how that extends to Mrs Ablewhite (Lady V's sister). Nor why the two suitors don't seem cousinly. BrainyBabe (talk) 10:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If Drusilla is indeed Sir John V's niece, she'd be his sister's daughter and Lady V's niece by marriage. It's not stretching the imagination too far to regard the sister of your aunt by marriage as a sort of aunt too, particularly if you are a dependent member of a rich and important family who has to curry favour with your relatives (and hope the odd little legacy may come your way).  As regards Godfrey and Franklin's relationship, remember Franklin spent his schooldays and teenage years abroad, after a short time living with the Verinders after his mother died.  Remember also that Godfrey's mother's marriage angered her relations ("There was terrible work in the family when the Honourable Caroline insisted on marrying plain Mr Ablewhite ... he had presumed to raise himself from a low station in the world - and that was against him".) The rift healed eventually, but probably after the child Franklin had been sent abroad.  It's quite possible he has hardly, if ever, seen Godfrey in his life before they meet to celebrate Rachel's birthday.  Ka renjc 12:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Flipping through my copy I find this, too (the narrator at this point is Betteredge). "On my way back to my own part of the house I was encountered by Mr Franklin.  He wanted to know if I had seen anything of his cousin Rachel.  I had seen nothing of her. Could I tell him where his cousin Godfrey was?  I didn't know, but I began to suspect that Cousin Godfrey might not be far away from Cousin Rachel."  Ka renjc 12:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you - good points, all! Now I am searching the Gutenberg text (which lacks the notes of chaps such as Steve Farmer). Blake Franklin's father is "the wicked Colonel's executor" - a favour between brothers-in-law. Godfrey Ablewhite is flagged up right at the beginning as the product of "what they call a misalliance" - and we all know that no good can come of that.
 * But Drusilla Clack does seem very familiar with her uncle's wife's sister: "My Aunt Ablewhite is a large, silent, fair-complexioned woman, with one noteworthy point in her character. From the hour of her birth she has never been known to do anything for herself. She has gone through life, accepting everybody's help, and adopting everybody's opinions." BrainyBabe (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Jane-Anne Stamper be damned! --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Reverend Innes and dinosaur denial
At one point in the movie Creation, Reverend John Brodie-Innes makes Annie Darwin kneel on rock salt for saying dinosaurs existed. (The event isn't shown, just discussed.) As far as I can tell, this is completely fabricated, and Innes's relationship with Charles Darwin was only a positive one. I wonder: is there even any plausibility that an Anglican minister at that time would apply that particular form of corporal punishment in his Sunday school?

What I'm mainly curious about, though, is whether or not the denial of dinosaurs ever had currency during Darwin's day, when a lot of specimens were being discovered. I've run across the notion that fossils are the work of Satan, but mainly in contexts that satirize creationism, with the occasional way-out-there "crank". Of course, for almost any idea, one can always find at least one person who believes it. So: in concrete terms, are there any Wikipedia articles about a person or an organization that avowed/avows that dinosaurs never existed? Contemporary young-earth creationism doesn't hold this view, but maybe a few of its antecedents did?

Unless you can link to a Web page about someone, or answer my question about Victorian ministers, please don't respond (for example, with personal anecdotes). I don't want this to become a flamefest about creationism. Thanks!
 * There was no denial of the fossils. It was a matter of interpretation.--Wetman (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I know it would have been an extreme minority view both now and in the Victorian period; I'm just wondering if it ever had sufficient currency to be notable enough for Wikipedia, like, say, Time Cube or modern geocentrism. ± Lenoxus (" *** ") 01:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have known more than one fundamentalist Christian who theorize that Satan created the dinosaur fossils just to deceive us. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The book Omphalos (book) by Philip Henry Gosse was a fairly well-known book by a reputable author of the time which tried to reconcile fossils with the Biblical creation account, and it did not advocate a logically incoherent hypothesis or claim that God was trying to deceive us. However it was not received with great favor among mainstream Christians or scientists... AnonMoos (talk) 14:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point, I'd forgotten about that! That's exactly what I was after. And while something Omphalos-like is sometimes a part of modern creationism (it has been argued that God made the Earth "complete" and therefore old, and that he made "light in transit"), it never includes "instantly-made fossils", which are instead thought to be remnants of the Flood. ± Lenoxus (" *** ") 16:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Since the question is abut historical accuracy, I'd just like to point out that Brodie-Innes would not have been referred to as "Reverend Innes", "Reverend Brodie-Innes" or even "Reverend John Brodie-Innes" in the UK. See The Reverend. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that point. It's probably (another) error in Creation. (Emma says "Charles, Reverend Innes is a dear friend and neighbour.") ± Lenoxus (" *** ") 16:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

case law resource for self-representation
While it may be difficult or impossible to express statutes and code in the form of a polychotomous key because they are open ended, with the exception of tax law where statues statute are expressed in the form of a decision table in order to find loopholes, it is quite possible to express cases which have been decided in the form of a polychotomous key because they are not open ended. As a result would such keys make self-representation possible or would there still be some kind of unspoken taboo in regard to the warning that "Persons who represent themselves have a fool for a client."? --Inning (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this a question? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I have already seen this "polychotomous key" thing many times here in the RD. Some people might call this behavior obsessive, but I prefer to call it special. Quest09 (talk) 23:31, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You must understand that even though the RD is not a forum it is a source of information from presumably "learned" scholars. Anyone wishing to count themselves out of this definition can respond or not respond to any question asked. --Inning (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Because two times two is seven, is it an even number?" AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please add your example of an Oxymoron to that article. Thanks. --Inning (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it is even because it is a multiple of two: namely, two times one. The fact that two times two is seven has nothing to do with it. 109.128.173.201 (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you consider "…cases which have been decided…" to be "…not open ended…" and "…statutes and code…" to be "…open ended…"? I would think it would be the opposite. "Statutes and code" have to be stated clearly and crisply, but "cases which have been decided" can involve unique circumstances and ingredients—consequently might be more difficult to crisply characterize. I don't know if a polychotomous key could be made for "self-representation". Bus stop (talk) 00:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Statues statute and code can not encompass all possibilities. This is what the courts are for. But when the court reaches a final decision and the process stops in the last court to have jurisdiction no more possibilities for decision, hence new variables exist presuming no new evidence is found which might change the decision. Cases beyond the possibility of new evidence would certainly qualify as closed cases. --Inning (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "Statues"? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, don't worry. In my workplace, we sometimes need our clients to give us information about the hours they've worked and their income.  Where that data is not available from their employer, we hand out a form that's grandly and pompously headed "Statuary Declaration".  I've made the point numerous times that these forms purport to refer to statues, monuments, garden gnomes and the like, rather than to statutes, laws and regulations, but they just look blankly and ignore me.  I'm embarrassed to work in modern-day offices sometimes.  The spell checker is king, but sometimes a very stupid king.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  19:04, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My kudos for pointing this out. Sometimes I forget to change the "spell check before sending" option for email and words not added or updated in the dictionary screw any chance of my getting a reply. --Inning (talk) 06:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Self-representing yourself is often a very, very bad decision. That's not only in the case you don't know anything about law. It is in general, no matter how good you understand the laws, a bad idea. Simplifying the law doesn't change that. Quest09 (talk) 00:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you detail the reason it is a bad idea in cases where self-representation or being represented by an attorney is the only factor the case was won or lost. I.E., all of the facts and the law point to guilty or not guilty? --Inning (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Because the psychological illusion is that the other person, who is merely hired to do a job, is another person who genuinely believes in the "rightness" of your case? Bus stop (talk) 01:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Clear cases often do not go on trial, they end with a plea bargain, or no one gets indicted. The cases which go on trial are those where there are doubts. Quest09 (talk) 01:14, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the question the OP asked in the next section, I feel safe in giving the legal advice that UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should he attempt to be his own attorney. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:16, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The question is why no one should represent themselves versus only someone who asks a question regarding a possible reason for not doing so. --Inning (talk) 01:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * My point being that ignorance of the law and what it is, are very strong reasons for not representing yourself. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:29, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Pro se legal representation in the United States (We don't seem to have an article that covers the topic in other legal systems) has some decent info. Lawyers hire attorneys for some of the same reasons physicians go to doctors. -- Daniel  01:19, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure you need surgery on your back or innards under anesthesia and you have no choice but to hire a physician. I can think of lots of medical emergencies and calls for diagnosis and treatment that can be provided by medical flowchart. In fact I think they are currently used in places like Africa where doctors are few and far between. --Inning (talk) 05:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That was going to be my next observation. And its for similar reasons: "He who doctors/represents himself has a fool for a patient/client." And if you screw up, what are you going to do? Sue yourself? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I can agree on one point... with so much money going for pornography it is apparent that a lot of people like to screw themselves perhaps "Because the psychological illusion is that the other person, who is merely hired to do a job, is another person who genuinely believes..." they can also make some money. Unfortunately, in the case of pornography and the law they are apparently right. --Inning (talk) 01:30, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What has that got to do with anything? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems like a polychotomous key from what you are saying is judged to be like pornography, i.e., you buy either to help do the job yourself if for some reason the alternative is not as affordable or as available. Both are alternatives that provide options which allow attorneys and wives who benefit financially to a far greater degree to avoid the accusation of "arm twisting". --Inning (talk) 05:31, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As metaphors go, that one is pretty obscure. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:38, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you know of any wives who can hold sex over their husbands in absence of alternatives? What about attorneys? Know of any attorneys who do not charge a fee because the prospective client is indigent and no alternative to having an attorney is available? --Inning (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 05:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC).
 * Regardless, there are plenty of reasons not to be your own attorney (or doctor). One is that the one you hire can presumably be more logical and detached about the situation, compared with the plaintiff or defendant whose emotions could cloud their judgment. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * An attorney can also negotiate better with the prosecution, talk with witnesses, approach experts, than a suspected criminal. You need much more than law to solve a case. 212.169.190.82 (talk) 14:24, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I hope OP has realised after all these questions that this is not a forum of creative jurisprudence scholars who share his or her love of the term "polychotomous key". In fact, it would appear that most people who understand that term understand it in a different way to the OP. Perhaps the OP would consider taking a degree in jurisprudence or at least some night courses in jurisprudence, so that he or she can tie his or her understanding of jurisprudence to mainstream understanding. That would help the OP to communicate his or her ideas to others using a vocabulary which is more meaningful to those interested in the subject. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 20:11, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * One thing the OP does realize is that you have not followed this section from the beginning and are one who supports the idea of the psychological illusion which jurisprudence terminology allows. I have a better idea. Why don't you convert all that goobly gock Gobbledygook BS to a polychotomous key so that it makes sense to the rest of us? --Inning (talk) 05:12, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's rich coming from someone whose user name is "Inning", but who refers to himself as "innings" (no cap; extra s) on his user page. Maybe we can work out the discrepancy using a polychotomous key.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  07:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am quite certain that what I wrote above was not legalses. If the OP cannot understand it, then it is probably an even better sign that the OP should undertake some courses so that he or she may converse with other people interested in such such topics (be it polychotomous keys or jurisprudence) using a vocabulary that others can effectively engage with. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)