Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2008 November 5

= November 5 =

Bondage rope
Where can I buy bondage rope? I have three nylon bondage ropes from 5 to 7 m, but I would like to have a longer rope too (about 10 m). Sex shops here in Finland tend to focus more on handcuffs and gags than rope. Hardware stores only sell hemp rope, which chafes the skin, and nylon rope that is too thin and gets stuck in folds and knots too easily. J I P | Talk 00:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well it appears that ebay has some silk rope and Google seems to have a few as well. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 03:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Generally try some online retailers. European ones are probably willing to ship anywhere in Europe. -mattbuck (Talk) 03:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want to improvise, any sewing/upholstery section of a department store, interior design store or shop that sells dressmaking/sewing trimming items would have twisted "silk" cords by the metre in a range of colours I believe. (Tassels are separate.) ;) Julia Rossi (talk) 08:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Btw, what is bondage rope when it's not being sold as bondage rope? Is it some kind of marine cord or textile trim? Julia Rossi (talk) 08:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's just regular nylon rope, I think. But it needs to be soft.  Have a look at the first picture in Hogtie bondage (note: link extremely NSFW).  That is the stuff you want and it is not true to say that hardware stores do not sell it.  They do, I know because I have bought it from hardware stores myself (original research, sue me). And you can get it from online retailers like this one (although that particular website doesn't ship outside the UK). --Richardrj talkemail 11:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with hemp rope? Edison (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Like the OP said, it's scratchy and itchy against the skin. --Richardrj talkemail 17:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Is sadism and masochism supposed to be completely free of discomfort? Seems ironic. Edison (talk) 04:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, no, but it's supposed to be comfortable for all people infolved. Avnas Ishtaroth drop me a line  07:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not supposed to be comfortable exactly; that's the whole point! But the type of discomfort that scratchy rope brings is not one that most S&M practitioners would seek to bring about. You could shut your hand in a car door as well, it would hurt a whole lot for sure, but a masochist probably wouldn't enjoy it very much. --Richardrj talkemail 07:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless the car was a sadist. Julia Rossi (talk) 07:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Aha!(the right cars) Julia Rossi (talk) 10:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Correct way to run?
What is the correct way to run? I recently read online that when running, your foot should roll heel to toe, but I've always run on my toes (sort of like kicking off with every step). Does proper form depend on whether one is running for distance or time? Please respond soon. Thanks in advance, --AtTheAbyss (talk) 04:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it is better to use the heel-ball-toe method in any type of running since the heel can absorb more impact since it has Calcaneus to support it. Our toes are not really suited for impact. Even in kicking, you should use the heel or the ball of the feet, not the toes.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 05:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It depends entirely on what style of running you are doing. Sprinters, for example, run exclusively on the balls of their feet; while marathoners tend to roll their feet as you describe.  It really comes down to what race you are running, be it a sprint, middle distance, or long distance run.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  17:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I injured my knee running on my high school cross-country team, my physical therapist noticed that I run on my toes and believed that could have caused it. The heel is made to take the impact. -- Mad031683  (talk) 17:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But I agree with Jayron, for sprints you should stay on your toes, since impact is less of a factor. -- Mad031683  (talk) 17:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Gordon Pirie had a lot to say about natural running being more forefoot/midfoot striking. 205.206.170.1 (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Or the Pose method of running or Chi running or any of those trendy things. The new barefoot footwear wave also tends to be associated with forefoot walking/running rather than heelstriking, and has studies to support it. 205.206.170.1 (talk) 17:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm...alot of opinions. What do you guys think would work best for the US Marine Corps?--AtTheAbyss (talk) 00:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, it depends on the style of running. Both sprint-style and marathon-style running have a place in the military.  Of course, the USMC may elect to impose its style on you, rendering all this moot.  If there's not a formal "how to run in the USMC" style, though, I would expect they don't much care at all how you run provided you can meet the physical requirements. &mdash; Lomn 14:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You may wish to read United States Marine Corps Physical Fitness Test. Your minimum goal would be three miles within 28 minutes. This is probably mid-length for most track-and-field runners: longer than sprints, dashes, and relays, but much shorter than a marathon. Lomn is correct, nobody really cares what form you use, as long as you meet the minimum. However, I would recommend you use the rolling heel toe methond, as well as stretching out your stride, to prevent injury and the get maximum distance for the minimum energy.  bahamut0013 ♠  ♣   11:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you all for your time and effort. I really appreciate it. If any of you ever need any help with an article, I'll do what I can. --AtTheAbyss (talk) 19:02, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Church Offertory Procession.
What is the tradition in the Offertory Procession as far as whether the man or the woman (assuming that there's one of each) should carry the bread (wafers)? Indications of any other Offertory Procession traditions, many of which are dying out, would be appreciated. 80.189.126.235 (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You appear to be confusing the "offertory procession" with the procession of the communion elements. Offertory refers to the giving of alms, today more commonly known as the "collection". The procession is usually symbolic of the giving of the alms (money) to God. The collection is taken and the monies moved towards the back of the church, and then symbollically brought forward to represent the congregation "offering" the money to God.
 * The communion elements are also frequently processed in a similar way, and often immediately after the offertory, or even at the same time (which may explain the understandable confusion). In general there is certainly nothing to say that this should be done by "one man and one woman", let alone who should do which part. Many churches use men only for this, and many use people without considering their gender. Of course your church may have a tradition of doing it this way: I would recommend asking your minister why it is done like this. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Identify the denomination, and better guidance can be provided, unless you want to know the historic practice in the Roman Catholic church and the liturgical churches whose rituals sprung from that one during the Reformation. Edison (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The offertory procession and communion procession are often combined in the Roman Catholic tradition. In the Catholic tradition I grew up with, there was no gender difference made between men and women. It was often a man and a woman, but there wasn't a particular 'division of labour' for them. I don't know of any official policy. This article says nothing about gender practices, although it seems that they were traditionally performed by deacons, who until recently (post Vatican II?) would have all been men. Steewi (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Grammar Mistake?
I am an English learner. I noticed that the Wikibook slogan is claimed as wrong in grammar. Really? 百家姓之四  討論 (Discussion)  12:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * What is the slogan? Who says it is wrong? --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The slogan of the Wikibook project is "Think free. Learn free.". I'll leave it to someone more qualified to say if that contains an error. APL (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, strictly speaking, it should be 'freely', as it would be an adverb modifying the verb 'think', but 'Learn freely' sounds strange, and the original people who thought of it probably meant 'learn for free', for which 'learn free' would be OK. But, then, 'Think freely' would not have the same word, so I guess they just went with the original idea, however wrong it may be.--ChokinBako (talk) 14:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say the slogan is colloquial rather than grammatically incorrect. Purists might argue that it would be more 'correct' to say "Think freely, Learn for free". But most English speakers understand what the phrase means and this is surely the point, together with it's catchyness, which might be lost with a 'correct' rendering. Richard Avery (talk) 14:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, "think adj." and "verb free" are both rather common idiomatic patterns in English (as in e.g. "think big" or "run free"). The implied meaning of "think free" is somewhat different depending on which pattern you interpret it as following, but the difference is quite subtle, and such double meanings are in any case common in slogans.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Apple famously exhorted us to Think Different. --Richardrj talkemail 15:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Which was, of course, a dig on IBM, whose motto has always been simply "Think". --Jayron32. talk . contribs  16:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It could also imply "free thinking" and "free learning" (along the lines of think big = big thinking; as well as "be" free applications). See imperative mood and command language. Exhortations work like this too, urging the reader/hearer to do something related to "higher" or common goals. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "Learn for free" is wrong. Kittybrewster  &#9742;  23:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In what way? It strikes me as fully grammatical and idiomatic, and usable in almost any register except perhaps the very highest ones. --Trovatore (talk) 01:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe we've become Benson & Hedges writers: When only the best will do ... and isn't that all the time? (For the uninitiates, that was the tag line in their long-running Australian TV ads - back in the days when smokes were allowed to be advertised on TV - spoken by Stuart Wagstaff. Ah, such memories ...)  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem is that the slogan is intended to be ambiguous - "Free as in free beer" versus "Free as in freedom" - to use a phrase that the OpenSource software world is fond of. Free (as in zero cost) requires something like "Learn for free", free (as in freedom) requires "Learn freely".  So if you fix the grammar - you spoil the intentional double-meaning.  "Free learning. Free thinking" might have been a better way to phrase it and keep the double meaning...but they didn't ask me!  SteveBaker (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * When I lived in Italy there was a book in the stores called Dio ci ha creato gratis about children's pronouncements about God. When I saw the title I thought it was sort of a pun, that the child in question had heard Dio ci ha creati liberi ("God created us free") and had reconstructed it as the above phrase (which means "God created us for free"). But a native speaker told me that no such interference would be heard between libero and gratis.  It does sort of raise the question, supposing God had wanted money in exchange for creating us, where would we have gotten it? --Trovatore (talk) 01:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've a feeling at some level, we're all paying... Julia Rossi (talk) 05:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * And more interestingly...what would he/she/it spend it on? When you're omnipotent and easily able to create an entire universe with a snap of your fingers/hooves/tentacles - why would you be saving up for that flat-screen TV? SteveBaker (talk) 18:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Do tithes count? AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 12:42, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow! I've got so many interesting answers, thank you all! What does "Think free. Learn free." literally mean? I mean, what synonymous sentence has the nearst mood? 百家姓之四   討論 (Discussion)  09:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * My guess is it's a positive command to be free-thinking (broaden your mind and abilities) and you can learn without payment (fees) expressed in a catch-phrase. Julia Rossi (talk) 09:48, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Sandals and feet
Where can I find photos of white, Asian, Indian, Persian, Arab girls feet with sandals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.225 (talk) 13:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Try Commons:Category:Sandals. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Alright, you have piqued my curiosity. What is this about?  Plasticup  T / C  01:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Foot fetishism? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 06:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Office Plants
What plant(s) can I purchase that needs minimal care and can survive in a cubicle with only flouresecent lighting? It seems whenever I purchase one, it dies in a matter of weeks. --Emyn ned (talk) 14:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Cacti maybe? -mattbuck (Talk) 14:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I would second that. Cacti live for ages and you don't need to do anything for them. I used to have in my office (in the house - I was working from home) what I thought in Japanese was a 'potosu', but as it turned out, it was something else. Anyway, it was a tree stump with leaves on it. I didn't have to do anything for that (except add water occasionally) and it lived for 3 years until I got divorced and moved out. It might still be alive.--ChokinBako (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I thought desert plants need lots of natural light, something I do not have in my cube... --Emyn ned (talk) 14:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes. Cacti will survive but not thrive. You might like to try the following:- African Violets. This plant will bloom with small dark purple or lavender flowers over dark green leaves. Peace Lily. Leafy foliage and pale white flowers make the Peace Lily an excellent office plant. Provide plenty of water to promote blooms. Caladium. This variety is a native of the tropics, and also called "elephant ears." Large, rounded leaves provide a colourful show in shades from white to dark pink and red. Most leaves have light centres and darker, thickly veined edges.Ivy. Hedera helix is a popular variety suited to office conditions. The dark and sometimes variegated leaves grow on thin vines. Ivy can tolerate dark corners as well as brighter areas. Richard Avery (talk) 14:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've got one of these in my office. It's very attractive.  I do have natural light, admittedly, but the article says they can survive indoors albeit with bright light. --Richardrj talkemail 14:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've found Epipremnum aureum (Pothos / Silver Vine / Money Plant / Devil's Ivy / etc.) to be pretty much impossible to kill, as long as you remember to water it at least every few months or so. As the article says, "this is a robust plant that can stand a very high degree of abuse."  It's also dead easy to propagate, since the vines naturally take root in any soil they come in contact with.  If you know someone who has one, just ask for a piece and plant it in a pot.  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have two random catci I picked up at the local SuperMegaDynoHardwareHomeAndGardenCenterLumberYard Store for something like $2.00 each. I water them randomly; sometimes once a month, sometimes once every 6 months.  I have had them 3-4 years, and they are still quite alive... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  16:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There's maybe "lucky bamboo" from florists that undemandingly just sits in water; and the historic Aspidistra – ("cast-iron plant") is a popular foliage houseplant, grown for its ability to survive neglect and very shady indoor conditions.  Another neglect candidate is the spider plant. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Spider plants are indeed nice, though in my experience not quite as tolerant of shade and neglect as the silver vine. Very easy to propagate, though — and cats love them, particularly the variegated kind. :-)  —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 06:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I kept my Yucca plant (probably a Yucca glauca) in the office for a long time. It needed little watering, a shady spot, and warm conditions.  It eventually grew to over 8 feet in height.  Sadly, I had to cut it down when I recently changed jobs.  Astronaut (talk) 17:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've had some success with having several similar plants and rotating them through the office for a week or two each. So buy (say) three similar plants - leave two of them outdoors to get the sun and the rain - keep one in the office.  As soon as it starts to look like it's suffering, take it home and bring in one of the others.  Each plant gets to spend a week or two in the office and have several weeks outdoors to recover.  SteveBaker (talk) 20:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama's Law License became inactive in 2002 - Why?
I copy below a reference I stumbled upon in a Wiki article. So does that mean he is currently a lawyer - or not? Reference follows - He also, in 1993, joined Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland, a twelve-attorney law firm specializing in civil rights litigation and neighborhood economic development, where he was an associate for three years from 1993 to 1996, then of counsel from 1996 to 2004, with his law license becoming inactive in 2002 92.8.197.197 (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * He began public life in 1996, when he won the election for the State Senate seat. The "of counsel" business is, in my experience, something some law firms do when one of their members becomes a judge, something like that—it looks like that firm decided it covered a legislative career.  I'm not sure if, as a matter of course, the firm would have compensated Obama or not during those years, but he certainly was not actively practicing law for them after the election in 1996.  In 2002 he got reelected to the State Senate, so one imagines he let his law license lapse when he realized he wasn't going back to the firm anytime soon.  Then, obviously, after he won the U.S. Senate race he ended his ties with the law firm.  I don't know any of the back story, it very well may have been covered in the media, but his biography makes perfect sense in and of itself.  Making law isn't practicing law, and many legislators have no legal background.  Darkspots (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The simple answer to your question is that no, he is not currently a lawyer in the sense of being licensed to practice. And just in case there was any hidden agenda to the question all it means is that he stopped practicing. A friend of mine recently allowed his law license to become inactive because he moved from practicing law to lecturing in law. That's all it means. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I answered the question in the header, not the question in the body.... Darkspots (talk) 16:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Rest easy friend Clayworth - I have no hidden agenda. Perhaps my question was inspired by the wording of the reference viz. "became inactive". It aroused curiosity, nothing more. I too am a qualified professional who has the choice now that I am retired, to cease paying annual subscriptions to my professional body. But I choose to continue to pay, and also to enjoy the resultant benefits of membership, despite there being no chance of me practising again any time soon. Some people here on Wiki appear to be terribly paranoid about the unspoken agenda in OP questions - it's awfully off-putting you know. 92.8.197.197 (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that a lot of lawyers lack the sense of vocation that, just as an example, the vast majority of doctors seem to have. Darkspots (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Whether he serves one or two terms as President, he will be a young man to be retired to a life of quiet contemplation, and will have 2 daughters to put through college and to pay for weddings for, so he might desire professional work after the presidency. Clinton and Bush, Sr. has made motivational speeches for handsome fees, and ex-Presidents like Nixon have written books. Have any ex-presidents who were once lawyers returned to the practice of law? Ex-governors and ex-senators are often hired by big law firms as "rain-makers," to bring in big accounts, where they are not there to be legal technicians skilled in the latest revisions of the tax code. So the question is, what have been the principal employments of ex-presidents? Edison (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Presidents get a pretty hefty pension, $150,000 a year plus expenses according to this. Enough to pay a couple college tuitions. Darkspots (talk) 18:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * One might think so, but one might be surprised. Edison (talk) 19:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * One would hope that someone in charge of the biggest economy in the world would be good enough with money to have saved up a bit while they were earning the full presidential salary (while being provided with accommodation and probably whatever else they need). --Tango (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Besides, who's to say they would want to go to university? Perhaps they'll decide to take up a trade instead? They could become plumbers for example. No shame in that, provided you're actually licensed to do the work or at least complete your apprenticeship. Nil Einne (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Just as a note, Ex-Vice-President Nixon did return to law, though he found it terribly boring in comparison to politics (and thus wormed his way back into the latter). Ex-President Taft returned to law, in a sense, as a judge on the Supreme Court. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama said that an income up to $250,000 still leaves one in the middle class. Edison (talk) 04:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but pretty much everyone is middle class in the US. They use a very strange definition... --Tango (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Shaver and bodygroom 2 in 1
Can anyone recommend a good shaver that also has the ability to shave body hair? Preferably a shaver that's main funtion is still to shave the face! :) --217.227.85.111 (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Google "precision shaver" presents a brand that allows you to do all kinds of off-road styles and things, apparently. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Staten Island in Presidential Election
In looking at the results of the 2008 Presidential election, I noticed that all NYC boroughs heavily favored Obama (no surprise), but Staten Island favored McCain by 5%. What is the reason/best possible explanation for this?  ~EdGl (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The article on Staten Island provides this information: "Staten Island's politics differ considerably from New York City's other boroughs. Although in 2005 44.7% of the borough's registered voters were registered Democrats and 30.6% were registered Republicans, the Republican Party holds a small majority of local public offices. Staten Island is the base of New York City's Republican Party in citywide elections ... In national elections Staten Island is not the Republican stronghold it is in local elections, but it is also not the a Democratic stronghold the rest of New York City is. The borough is a Republican-leaning swing county, though like the New York suburbs in Long Island and Westchester County it has become increasingly Democratic since the 1990s." The article also states that it is the most suburban of the five boroughs and that it also has a significantly higher population of whites. Tomdobb (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It is not just a matter of race. Suffolk County, a suburban county of New York, has a higher percentage of whites and a lower percentage of blacks than Staten Island, but Obama won Suffolk County.  It is also a matter of class and education.  Staten Island has a lower percentage of people who have completed a university degree than Suffolk County or than the New York State average, according to this Census source.  According to this source, Obama did better among whites with university educations, whereas McCain did better among whites without university educations.  Marco polo (talk) 20:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You might be interested in reading this, from conservative analyst Daniel Finkelstein. I'm not sure how right it is, but it goes into the sort of issues that I think are in play in your question. 81.154.63.225 (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, my analysis is that less educated whites, who make up a (bare) majority of Staten Island's population, are feeling deeply insecure in these economically troubled times and afraid that their jobs will be taken away by darker-skinned people and/or foreigners. For this reason, many of them are uncomfortable with Obama, who is both darker-skinned and partly foreign and who moreover has the mannerisms of an educated sophisticate.  Many preferred McCain's reassuring ordinary-white-guy demeanor and his cultivated reputation of being tough and stalwart.  On the other hand, non-whites and educated whites are prepared to look beyond color and are drawn in this economic crisis to Obama's obvious intelligence and effectiveness, at least at building a groundbreaking campaign organization.  Marco polo (talk) 21:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Goalkeeping in soccer
Assuming a six foot tall goalkeeper standing in the middle of the goal, one foot off of his line, where is the hardest place for him to save the ball? Similarly, will a right-footed goalkeeper be able to jump further to his left or right, or will the difference be negligible? And how fast would a ball have to travel from 20 yards out in order to render the goalkeeper unable to react in time? Thanks in advance. 81.154.63.225 (talk) 20:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) Depends on where the kicker is, but assuming he is in line with the middle of the goal, the hardest place for the goalie to save the ball would be near the four corners of the goal, but preferably the lower corners because it's harder to save balls near your feet.
 * 2) I think it would be negligible.
 * 3) Assuming a .5 second reaction time (reaction and jumping), it would have to be ~90mph. A ridiculous allowance of around 1 second and the shooter could get away with a ~50mph shot.

Hope this helps; I'm sure there are better answers out there.  ~EdGl (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is why a straight-line kick isn't much use. You can't get the ball going fast enough to beat his reaction time.  The trick is to make the ball curve in mid-flight to either reduce his reaction time (if he waits to see if it's going to swerve before he reacts) - or give yourself a 50-50-ish chance if he guesses which way it's going to curve before it actually does.  This makes solving the question mathematically a bit tricky. SteveBaker (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * IMO, a right-footed keeper would be slightly better at diving left since they would be pushing off with their stronger right leg. Recury (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Medical related question but not asking for advice as such
I have broken a vertebra. The doctor told me which one it was, but it was all numbers to me, so I can't specify. Anyway, I am experiencing severe chest pain, on both sides of my chest, so my doctor says it is part and parcel of breaking your back as that is where the nerve centre is. Now, is this right? I have no reason to doubt the doctor (other than the fact it took 3 months for her to refer me for an X-Ray), but I have had this problem for 5 months now (I went to her after 2 months).--ChokinBako (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ask a doctor instead of unqualified strangers on the internet. Friday (talk) 21:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I have asked a doctor (see above).--ChokinBako (talk) 21:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Then find another doctor and be more persistent / insistent. We do not give medical advice. You are asking for medical advice. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah ChokinBako, getting a second opinion means getting a second doctor's medical opinion. Julia Rossi (talk) 22:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is definitely a request for medical advice. If you don't trust your doctor, ask another doctor. --Tango (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * With all due respect to preceding responses, this is also a matter of patient education and patient/physician communication. Starting with the knowledge you already have—the diagnosis of a broken vertebra—here are some ideas of how you can prepare for your next visit to a doctor: by reading about the structure and function of that bone and its place in the spinal column, especially in relation to the spinal cord and discs. Then consider asking your doctor (preferably an orthopedic specialist) about how this applies to your personal case:
 * What is the exact nature of the fracture? Which part of the vertebra was damaged?
 * How does it heal? What treatment, if any, is recommended?
 * To promote healing, are there recommendations for changes in diet, activity, etc.?
 * Can you expect complete healing? What is the likelihood of permanent residual damage?
 * Is there likely to be future deterioration after the initial fracture and healing?
 * What pain or limitations are associated with this type of injury? * Might this change over time? What developing symptoms would require medical attention?
 * Don't hesitate to ask about what you can expect now and in the future. Bring a list of questions with you, take notes on the responses, and if possible, bring along a friend or family member with whom you can discuss this afterwards so you won't be anxious about having to remember everything. And if the suggested Wikipedia pages are too detailed, check the Web for healthcare sites explaining "fractured vertebra." Hope this helps! -- Deborahjay (talk) 16:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Personel Question
Who is the oldest continously active wikipedian? I assume Jimbo Wales, but I thought I would ask first. Also, is there a list somewhere of the longest editting people on wikipedia by year of registration?


 * Without even checking, I can guarantee that there are many active Wikipedians who are older than Jimbo. I myself am almost certainly older than him, judging from the photos I've seen of him.  He's probably been editing WP longer than anyone else, though, because he created it.  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the op meant longest active wikipedian. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it was ambiguous. The first question was about "oldest", and the second was about "longest", so I played a dead bat and responded on the basis they really were different questions.  --  JackofOz (talk) 01:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The longest continuously active Wikipedian would most likely be found on the list of Wikipedians by edit count...  ~EdGl (talk) 01:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably not. There are numerous people there who are "younger" Wikipedians than me but have more edits. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You could try looking through List of Wikipedians in order of arrival and seeing which early joiners are still active. I see three or four who joined in January 2001 with recent edits. Rmhermen (talk) 03:19, 6 November 2008 (UTC)