Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2007 October 28

= October 28 =

Entheogenic Religions
Can anyone give me list of religions that use entheogens? I am specifically interested to know if there are any that use LSD or magic mushrooms. 206.188.56.88 00:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at Entheogen? It lists several religions that use(d) them. -Elmer Clark 04:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

How do I tell the difference between Hard Paste and Soft Paste Porcelain ?
Hi Volunteers,

I have read wikipedia pages hundreds of times and find it most useful and so very interesting. > > I am a collector of all things ceramic especially German bisque and porcelains. I have over 400 figurines in my collection most of which are German / European bisque.

>What I would like to know is how can I tell the difference between my hard paste and soft paste porcelain figurines just by looking at / holding / feeling them? Some of the figurines I have feel very light, soft, smooth and warm to the touch, others feel heavier, slightly rougher and colder. I wonder if this is the difference or just the quality? > > I have read all the info I can find on how the two different porcelains are produced and what ingrediants are used, who first invented / used them etc, but I have been unable to find any reference as to how to tell which is which! No seems to have explained that.

>So how do I tell which is hard paste and soft paste when I am cataloging my collection? > > My great uncle was a fanatical collector he hoarded everything and anything! I loved visiting him he always gave me what are now antiques as a gift. When I was a child in the 1950s I seem to remember him telling me that "If you could clearly see your fingers through the bottom of an antique vase when held to the light then it was soft paste, if they were not so clear it was hard paste, if no fingers at all could be seen then it was china or pottery. > > Is this true? > > Pat 74.14.3.228 01:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.3.228 (talk) 00:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Donation Music
What are some common, heart-warming music/songs often used by commercials asking the viewer to donate money towards a cause? For example, Angel by Sarah McLachlan.... Thanks. Acceptable 01:48, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Happy Xmas (War is Over)" and "Give Peace a Chance" by John Lennon. Dismas |(talk) 01:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes! I've definitely heard Happy Xmas before. Thanks a lot Acceptable 02:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Most Featured Article
Which article is a featured article in the most wikipedias? Sseballos 01:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There only is one Wikipedia. There are other WikiMedia Project however, such as Wikitionary and WikiQuotes. Acceptable 01:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps s/he means in different languages. Is there any way (other than manually) of cross referencing featured article lists between the different language Wikipedias? Rockpock  e  t  02:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm a he, and I mean articles in a different language wikipedia. Rockpuppet is right and I was wondering if there was anyway to cross reference this.  I think an article has 3 FA's in different language wikipedias, but I'm not sure if an article has say, 5 or even 9. Sseballos 02:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * William Shakespeare has nine golden stars: Featured article on Afrikaans, Bosnian, English, French, Hebrew, Hungarian, Polish, Spanish, and Swedish Wikipedia. I don't claim this is the record though. ---Sluzzelin talk  10:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Moon has 10, and most Solar System articles have at least half-a-dozen or so FAs in various languages. Laïka  14:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Nice one! S. A. Andrée's Arctic balloon expedition of 1897 is interesting for existing on merely 7 wikipedias, 4 of which (over 50%!) present it as a featured article. (And it's also interesting for being interesting). ---Sluzzelin talk  14:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks everyone! Sseballos 00:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just found: Featured article in largest number of languages: Julius Caesar, featured in 8 languages but not English on Wikipedia records. Looks like it needs updating. Rmhermen 21:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Moon—10 featured articles. --— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  02:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Gun in movie poster question
Strange question but what gun is Jodie Foster holding in the poster for The Brave One (2007 film)? I guessed it was a P226 but I could be wrong. --Blue387 01:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like a Glock. --Milkbreath 02:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * With a metal on the top piece? I'm not a gun expert but I'm pretty sure Glocks are not like that—they're made out of polymer black or gray stuff. --24.147.86.187 02:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The slide ("top piece") on Glocks is metal. FiggyBee 05:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * though with a flat black coating. &mdash;Tamfang 02:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's a Kahr 9mm of some sort, says the internet. Google "Kahr The Brave One" and you'll find tons of references. Here's a relatively reliable one. --24.147.86.187 02:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hermit mathmatician
I thought about putting this on the math desk but it's not directly a math question. So before you wonder... That's why.

Every so often in various fictional works I hear/see references to some hermit who can barely read that is discovered to be a mathematical genius. I seem to recall this coming up in Good Will Hunting. Are these stories based on a real person? If so, whom? Dismas |(talk) 03:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Autistic savant might be what you're looking for. -Elmer Clark 05:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the guy in goodwill hunting was actually pretty good at many disciplines, not just math. Recall the scene at the bar where he teaches some preppy kid a history lesson! Brusegadi 06:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ted Kaczynski.&mdash;eric 06:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * All three of you need to re-read the question. I'm not talking about a whole set of people with a medical condition, I'm asking about a single person.  I'm not asking about Hunting himself, I just used that movie as an example.  And I'm not talking about Kaczynski.  He could read well enough to become a college professor.  Dismas |(talk) 08:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The article on Good Will Hunting mentions Srinivasa Ramanujan, but he could read. ---Sluzzelin talk  09:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It was such a brief mention in the movie, and I wasn't sure I had the right movie, that I didn't even think that the article here would mention it. I guess I had the "barely read" part wrong as I was just going from my swiss cheese memory.  Thanks,  Dismas |(talk) 14:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, Ramanujan was a well-educated Brahmin, and certainly does not fit the profile of a "hermit who can barely read". Although an illiterate hermit could have natural mathematical ability, it would be practically impossible for them to do original mathematical work in isolation. At best they might rediscover known results. Gandalf61 21:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Savants are not generally great mathematicians - they can be spookily good at arithmetic (but arithmetic has very little to do with mathematics) and they sometimes have prodigious memories for rote-learned facts - but that's not much use to a mathematician either. I don't think savants have that special spark of insight, innovation and drive towards discovery that a true mathematician needs.  An inability to read would lock you out of all of the work of previous mathematicians - and no matter how smart you were, without being able to stand on the shoulders of the giants that came before, you'd spend your entire life rediscovering things that a genius like Newton took an entire lifetime to figure out - but that the rest of us learned in high school.  Solving something like the proof of Fermat's last theorem required connecting together hugely complicated and disparate fields of mathematics that each, individually would be many lifetimes of work if you were working upwards from 1+1=2.  SteveBaker 22:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The big guy himself
Is there a name for believing that you are God (or a god)? --S.dedalus 06:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * GOD perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.139.103.15 (talk) 06:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sometimes they call people who believe they are God schizophrenics... Brusegadi 06:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha ha, but I was thinking more in terms of Atheism, Agnosticism, Theism, Monism, Dualism, etc. There must be an equivocal term for someone who believes in a god, but just thinks they are s/he? I’m thinking in particular of the fictional religion in Stranger in a Strange Land by Heinlein. In fact the article links to a real religion somebody created inspired by the fictional one. --S.dedalus 07:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Autotheism? --Masamage ♫ 07:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, and the autotheism link leads to self-deification (suitheism redirects there as well). God complex is close too. ---Sluzzelin talk  09:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Heinlein referenced Solipsism a lot in his later works, too; it's not quite a religion, but I (and I think he) found it fascinating anyway. Deltopia 11:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! autotheism is exactly what I was looking for. --S.dedalus 19:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The best part is that I thought I was making a neologism. Thanks, Greek language! --Masamage ♫ 07:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Buildings and religious organizations
Hello dear friends. I have been searching for some time now about the percent of buildings (in terms of value) that are owned by religious organizations. It could be in the world, or in a major US city. The best I have found so far is an estimate of the habitable land owned by religious institutions (about 7% of the world's habitable land!) Does anyone know of any literature on this? Thanks, Brusegadi 06:28, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Advice for a single man
I am a single man in collage right now, and I have a big crush on a girl there, but I am somewhat shy. At present we are friends, but I was wondering if there there any signs to tell if she is interested in making this friendship into a romantic thing. I do not want to take any unessicary risks for fear that I may end up harming the friendship, so I was wondering if anyone could offer advice or suggestions on this. 75.6.216.51 09:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would start by slowly just showing your more interested, Say she looks cute and so on. Ask your friends to ask her about you. reminds me of middle schoolBirthday sig-leave some love 15:51, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Be the best you can be so you're worthy of her (although no man ever really quite gets there), and she'll notice. Also, I'll give you one of the great secrets known only to initiates into the mysteries of what-the-hell's-up-with-women: When you're in a group, see who she looks at when everybody starts laughing about something. If it's not you, there's your rival. If it is you, you're golden. OK, two secrets: She knew in the first ten seconds whether you had a shot. --Milkbreath 16:43, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Having been in this situation before on numerous occasions, I can say with confidence that, unless you are an extremely good actor, she already knows you like her. She probably already has a good idea of whether she would go out with you as well, so there is nothing to lose. If you are smart about how you show her your crush it will not ruin you friendship, even if she doesn’t reciprocate the feeling. In fact the girl will be flattered you like her so much. At some point your going to have to be bold :) and tell her how you feel about her (not necessarily directly though, and don’t overdo it). Good luck! --S.dedalus 19:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Or, for extra points, somehow make sure she finds a link to this question.142.33.70.60 19:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

United States-Iran relations

 * I have restored this question here because only one person seemed to think it should be deleted. See Iran and the United States above. DirkvdM 12:34, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi all. There is presently a discussion going on the BBC website regarding Iran's nuclear programme and the new sanctions imposed by the United States. You can join the debate by going here. Looking at the most recommeded comments, there are certain statements being made there that I want some clarifications.

1. Jim McDermott, Daventry, United Kingdom is saying that Iran is '- just maybe, possibly - wanting to acquire 3 or 4 of what Israel's got 200+ of, and the USA's got 7000+ of'. Has far has Iran reached in building a nuclear weapon? Has any Iranian leader said explicitly that they want to build nuclear weapons? In acquiring Nuclear power, does that mean that Iran will automatically build nuclear weapons? I know that the Iranian president was condemned, internationally, for calling for Israel to be 'wiped off the map'. But hadn't George W. Bush said that Iran is part of the axis of evil? Did anyone condemn this statement outside the Islamic world?


 * Quite a few people condemned that statement as "unwise", in that it did nothing to help the situations with those countries. Bush himself stopped using those terms a short time later, so was apparently convinced that saying so publicly was unwise.  Note that this has nothing to do with whether the statement is true or not, and many still consider the governments of those nations (not the people) to be evil. StuRat 23:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You have to put such utterances in the cultural context. It might just be a more macho way of talking that is more common there, but I don't know if that is the case. There is also the risk of incorrect translation. Again, I don't know because I don't speak the lingo, but he may very well have meant just the country, not the people (in which case I'm inclined to agree with him). Also, saying something like that it is nothing compared to actually invading a country.
 * As for the intentions to build nuclear weapons, that has to do with the refinement of the material with centrifuges that make it more concentrated and more fit for nuclear weapons. It's not the building of the nuclear plants that the protests are against, but the centrifuges (at least in the Netherlands). There is considerable irony in there were hardly any protests against Israel not signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and building a huge amount of nuclear weapons and now Iran is heavily criticised for possibly creating the means to make some. If I were Iranian I'd be pretty pissed off too. DirkvdM 13:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

2. As far as I know, a country like France produces 80% of its electricity from nuclear reactors. If developing countries such as Iran increase their economic power by relying on nuclear power, will that not reduce the problem of poverty so prevalent in those countries? Or is it just a case of 'do as I say, not as I do'? With the price of oil reaching 90 USD, is it not developed countries rather than developing countries that can rely more on petroleum to develop their economy?


 * That would be true if Iran didn't have lots of petroleum. Thus, petroleum is cheap there, it's not like in Europe and North America.  I doubt if they can produce nuclear power much more cheaply, so don't expect electricity to become any less expensive inside a nuclear-powered Iran.  The main economic benefit to Iran would be in leaving them with more petroleum to export at inflated prices, but I'd only expect that money to benefit the ruling class, not the poor.  Also, Iran can get nuclear power without controlling the nuclear fuel cycle, which they only need if they want nuclear weapons. StuRat 23:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be a valid reasoning if that oil would never run out and/or nuclear plants could be built quick and cheap. But the opposite is true. It costs billions to build one plant and it takes about a decade. So if they want to have that as an alternative, it makes sense to start building now. That said, I'd prefer if they built and developed solar cells, but that's a different issue. Btw, the the US and Russia also have lots of oil, so what do they want with nuclear plants? Note that Iran has hugely exaggerated its reserves so they could sell more. In other words, they are running out of oil faster than most countries. DirkvdM 13:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Iran can pump oil at a rate which would supply all their energy needs, while the US can't (mainly due to the larger energy use in the US because of a larger population and heavy industrialization). StuRat 19:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Like I said, they don't have near as much oil as they claim to have and they're running out of it faster than anyone else. So if nuclear energy is the alternative they choose (now why doesn't anyone contest that?) then they should start building now. The cost of fission power is largely in the building of the plant, so you have to spread that over a large period to be able to afford it. Btw, "you can't have that, because we need more of it" is a pretty lame excuse. DirkvdM 10:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You have it backwards. Ths US isn't saying "you can't have oil, because we need more of it", they are saying "you CAN and DO have oil, so use it already".  I seriously doubt that Iran will run out of oil before it can develop other power sources, which would include nuclear power, with Russia or others providing the fuel. StuRat 14:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

3. Paul Butler, Reading, United Kingdom is saying that 'Iran has caused the deaths of many USA and UK soldiers in Iraq..' and Peter, Phoenix, US is asking 'Where is the proof?'. So have there been any concrete proof that it is the government of Iran that is supporting financially and militarily the Iraqi insurgency? I though the violence going on in Iraq is mostly sectarian between between Iraqi Sunni and Shi'a factions. How much connection is there between the Iranian governement and al-Qaeda operations in Iraq?


 * None. Al-Qaeda is a Sunni terrorist group, not only committed to executing all Christians and Jews, but also all Shia (as well as any other religion or sect).  Iran, being a Shiite country, only supports Shia terrorist groups, like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Shia terrorist groups within Iraq. StuRat 00:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

4. Julian, Houston is saying 'On behalf of Americans everywhere, I apologize for our government. We are trying our best to get them out before 2008, but things aren't going so well'. So if US Americans are dissatisfied with their leaders, can't there be any option to have an election before the time it is normally expected? For instance, here in Canada, in June 2004, we had a federal election, and due to the sponsorship scandal, less than 2 years later, we had another federal election since people were dissatisfied with the government at the time. Why no such flexibility exists in the USA? Does that mean that the parliamentary system is more democratic than the presidential system? Also, Iran is said to be a theocracy, which I agree since they based their politics on Islam. But I was wondering about something. QEII is at the head of the United Kingdom. I also note that QEII is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. Doesn't that mean that the UK is a bit theocratic in one sence. So why is it that this theocratic aspect in Iran considered 'bad' and in the UK, it is considered to be OK?


 * PART A: Yes, it's easier to change leaders in a parliamentary system, but that could be either good or bad. It's not always good to throw the leaders out when the opinion polls go down. StuRat 00:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Another alternative is to let parliament deal with that. I'm not sure about this, but as I understand it, in the Netherlands the government often falls because of the dualism in the system - parliament and government are separate, so if the government goes against the will of enough members of parliament (including of the same parties), then they can sack the government. DirkvdM 13:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * PART B: If the Queen had the level of political power that the Guardian Council has in Iran, that would be correct. While she retains substantial powers "on paper", the reality is that Parliament could strip her of these powers whenever they wanted.  It's quite the reverse in Iran, where the Guardian Council holds the real power.  Nobody can get elected without their approval. StuRat 00:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Khomeini was welcomed as an alternative to the shah, but Iran being a pretty 'modern' (western) country, there is now growing dissatisfaction with religious rule. I've heard someone say that we can expect a peaceful regime change in the near future, but I've forgotten the details on that. DirkvdM 13:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

5. Steve Day is saying that 'How many countries has Iran attacked in the last century and how many has the United states of haliburton attacked?'. I guess he is thinking that Iran has never invaded any country in the last century and the USA has invaded quite a lot. How much is that true? Had Iran really not invaded any country in the last century? Wasn't the Persian Empire imperialistic in nature?


 * They prefer to use terrorism to undermine their enemies rather than direct attacks, as they have been too weak to guarantee victory in an all-out war. However, with nuclear weapons, that would no longer be the case, and their neighbors would either need to get nuclear weapons or fear an attack from Iran. StuRat 00:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Get real. Iran attacking who? And with what? If they attacked Israel with just a few nuclear bombs they would get wiped off the face of the Earth, and the US need not even chip in. Actually, it is much more likely that Israel will attack first if they really start building nuclear weapons. Israel is the military force in the region (excluding invading forces). If they attacked Iraq with nuclear weapons, the US would attack to protect 'their' oil, with similar results. (In other words, it would be the cold war all over again.) And who else would they attack? DirkvdM 13:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In the long term, Iran is a Shia country surrounded by Sunni countries, so there is a great deal of potential conflict there. Iraq is likely to end up controlled by Shia, so another Iran-Iraq war might be less likely, but they still don't get along with other neighbors, like Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Quatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Oman.  Some of those countries are rich and not well defended.  In the past Iran wouldn't have attacked them for fear of US reprisals (possibly accompanied by the usual token force from Europe), but, once Iran has nuclear weapons, the US wouldn't risk a nuclear attack, so Iran would be free to invade. StuRat 19:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The Sunni Shia issue originated more than a milennium ago, so in comparison US involvement in the region is a recent blip. Albeit a pretty large one. Maybe that will be the fuse that blows the whole thing up, but before that, were there any conflicts of such magnitude? The article doesn't seem to mention any at all. DirkvdM 10:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The US does not support any one side in the split, and is just as opposed to Sunni terrorist organizations like al Queada as Shiite terrorist orgs like Hamas and Hezbollah. However, the invasion of Iraq did cause an unwanted change in the balance of power, since a democratic Iraq will put the majority Shia in charge, such that Iraq no longer provides a balancing force for the power of Iran.  The only force now restraining Iran from invading weaker neighbors is the threat of US intervention, which is only credible until Iran gets nuclear weapons.  At that point there would be no credible way to stop an Iranian invasion of it's neighbors, short of those neighbors each getting their own nuclear weapons. StuRat 14:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

6. xavier bloggz is saying that 'I think the sanctions of dumping the US dollar by Iran is really hurting the US and they don't like it, especially when so many more are going to do the same. They can hand it out, but they sure don't like when they get shafted, as they've done so many countries on this earth.' So is it the petroeuro used by Iran that is causing the recent fall in value of the USD on the world's foreign exchange markets? Is it not the cumulative force of the Iraq war and the economic powerhouse that China and India have gathered over the last decade that is causing that change in the USD value?


 * Iran dumping US dollars wouldn't have much effect, because they didn't have a very large percentage of the worldwide US dollar supply. I would blame the falling US dollar on trade imbalances, primarily with China. StuRat 00:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Another factor is that the US is living on borrowed money. The debts are huge, so the bubble may one day burst (not unlike the 1930s crash) and that is bound to have an effect on the trust people have in the USD and therefore its value on the market. So far, this has been countered by the fear in other countries that they themselves will also be adversely affected by such a crash (again, as in the 1930s). So they try to keep the US afloat, but that will only make the blow harder if (when?) it comes. DirkvdM 13:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I thank you all in advance for your answers and comments.

132.206.33.81 16:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * These questions don't really belong here, as they are too much an invitation for a political debate (soapbox rule or something) rather than asking us to provide empirical evidence for or against statements made. In reply to the third question though, 90% of Iran's population are Shias, or Shia, or however you phrase it. To imagine that the Iranian government is not supporting the Shiites (right? Sunnis and Shiites) would require one to be a bit naive. Many of the other questions are answered in Iran (no, they have not invaded any country as of late), or in articles dealing with the form of government and democracy in USA (whether or not the people can call for the administration to be replaced). 81.93.102.185 13:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as question 2 goes, Iran is an oil exporting country, so the high price of oil doesn't hurt them at all. It would be much more expensive for Iran to produce electricity from imported uranium than from local oil. FiggyBee 14:27, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Iran has been offered (on multiple occasions) the option of having nuclear power stations built and fuelled for them by outside governments (such as the Russians). If they truly wanted this nuclear refining capability solely for running power plants, that would have been an amazingly sweet deal.   They didn't accept it - and that speaks volumes for their intentions for this material.  So, they want the bomb - and given time, if left alone, they will have one.  In cultures where deterrence is effective, that would be no great concern.  But in a culture where suicide is considered a great and wonderful thing - allowing them to have nuclear weapons are a horrific risk.  We can be pretty confident that the governments of USA/UK/France/S.Africa/Isreal/India/Pakistan would not set off a bomb if they were clearly aware that the response to that would be to leave their entire country a smoking radioactive ruin.  But countries whose inhabitants believe that their god expects them to blow themselves up - or whose governments care nothing for their citizens (N.Korea for example) have much less to fear from retaliation.  This is why it's a fairly terrifying prospect that Arab countries might obtain nuclear weapons even though we are far less concerned about the likes of India and Pakistan having them.  Sadly, the technological genie is out of the bottle and one side or the other is going to be much worse off at the end of the day.  SteveBaker 22:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sweet deal? Personally I wouldn't care much for it. You don't have to be a raging nationalist to squirm a little at the idea of foreigners coming in and giving you the outputs from technology they won't trust you to run yourself.


 * That's not to say I believe Dr. Ahmedinejahd for one second when he claims Iran is not trying to get the bomb. I think they are. I probably would be, in their situation. And if they succeed it's not a happy scenario for the world. Nor does any attempt to stop them by force have any rosy outcome. I guess I'll just hope the diplomats can somehow accomplish something, and take what comfort I can from the historical fact that the worst disasters are usually the ones you never saw coming :-/ --Trovatore 22:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hold on, a culture where suicide is considered a great and wonderful thing? What do you base that on? If that were the case, then why aren't muslim countries invading 'pagan' countries all over the world, slaughtering the infidels to get into heaven? Because they don't have the weapons for it? What does that matter if the goal is to get yourself killed? And don't give me terrorism, because that's just a teeny handful dealing out relative pinpricks (the one on 11-9-2001 just being a relatively big one). Isn't it much more terrifying that the most belligerent country of the last half century has half the world's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction? DirkvdM 14:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "A relative handful" is still millions of people when you start with a population of a billion. While they would be quite happy to blow themselves up anywhere, their handlers aren't themselves suicidal, but use those martyrs to try to gain power for themselves.  Thus, they want to use the suicide bombers where they are likely to acheive results, rather than just waste them and acheive nothing. StuRat 15:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What you seem to mis undersatnd, is what different countries would do if they had them, France, wont do anything, Israel will protect themselves, USA already has so many that they can tell every one else what to do, and Iran will attack Israel. I does not matter if they have 10 or 10, 000. If Iran had a history of, and inclination to love all thier neighbours, includeing and especially Israel, (who have done nothing to them) no one would have a problem. The solution, is to make every one, EVERYONE get rid of ALL thier Nukes and then hold hands and sing. lol but that is just not gonna happen.12.191.136.3 17:16, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "If Iran had a history of, and inclination to love all thier neighbours, includeing and especially Israel, (who have done nothing to them) no one would have a problem." Did France? Did Britain? Had Iraq done anything to America? It doesn't look as simple as that. 79.65.100.239 01:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Iraq agents tried to assassinate the senior President Bush. Many think that's the real reason for the US invasion. StuRat 14:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

title of address
What is the proper title of address for a U.S. Army Warrant Officer that has an earned Doctorate and is not a medical doctor? Trombatromba 18:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * According to our article "Army Warrant Officers are officially addressed as either Mr. or Ms". However, someone with a doctorate should officially be referred to as "Dr.", so I would go with that to be on the safe side. Rockpock  e  t  19:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems relatively unlikely to come up. When someone with a doctorate or medical degree goes into the Army, my impression is, he's usually given some sort of courtesy commission, even if not one that places him into the chain of command as a practical matter. This is largely based on my extensive experience watching M*A*S*H, so if anyone has actual data points, please share. --Trovatore 19:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * When people join the army, they join as whatever they join as. The doctors in M*A*S*H are officers because they are army surgeons - had they been, for some reason, drafted as regular infantry, they would not have been given special rank.  I agree though that it would be very unusual for someone with a PhD to join the army as a WO, and I doubt that a doctorate would change how they are addressed.  For one thing, they're unlikely to go around informing every soldier they meet of their academic record. FiggyBee 20:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

In the U.S. Army, the only Soldier referred to as doctor is a practicing doctor. Warrant officers are properly referred to as mister or miss, and often colloquially as chief. --— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  21:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Concur with User:Gadget850. "Doctor" is only someone holding the MOS that entitles him to fix your broken or ill body.  Lots of other officers hold advanced degrees; I've known a few doctors, but you always use their military title to address them.  I've rarely heard a WO addressed as anything other than "Chief," but then, I am of lower rank; a general may call them "Mister" -- or "Buttnose" for all I know. :) Deltopia 21:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Summing up the previous answers, if you are addressing this person in a military context, you should call them mr/mrs/miss. In a civilian context, Dr is more appropriate, although many people with PhDs do not take the Dr title. Steewi 03:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

With regards to Talk:Jeff_Wayne
Does anyone know when Jeff Wayne was actually born? So far the article has claimed that he was born in 1952, 1947, and most recently 1950. -- VectorPotentialTalk 19:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The 63-year-old, who was born in Queens, New York, and has spent most of his adult life in Britain, has also written numerous advertising jingles as well as the theme tune to ITV's original breakfast TV show Good Morning Britain. From, which is in the references, would indicate before any of those dates, i.e., 1944 / 1943 depending on date, and cites it as 1 July, 1943.  Lanfear's Bane  |  t  10:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I found that last one too... on closer inspection though, it's plagarised from our article! Very poor form and I'm considering writing to the ABC about it. FiggyBee 17:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Teen Second Life
Where do you go in order to sign up? Does it cost any money? Is there any other info I should know about it? I looked it up on your article, but I can't find exactly what I'm looking for. Thanks in advance! -- 極地狼 (  我是一头死的狼  ) 20:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

The article links to the website; which prominently advertises a free basic account. --— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  21:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)