Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2009 July 6

= July 6 =

Secular Humanism Under Attack!!!
I've heard that David Noebel and Tim LaHaye have written a book called Mind Seige: The Battle For Truth In The New Millenium and David Noebel alone another book called The Battle For Truth severely criticizing secular huymanism.

Here is another article criticizing secular humanism: Humanism: Wrong Values Taught In School, Media, And Education.

I want to ask you some questions:

1. Is secular humanism a religion?
 * 1. No. Secular humanism lacks a key attribute of religion, which is the reference to a "higher power" or "god". However where religion is used in a colloquial sense in which its meaning is reduced to "belief system", pretty much anything can be labelled a religion.

2. Do secular humanists worship humanity as God?
 * 2. No. Worship is not involved whatsoever in secular humanism.

3. Is it true that secular humanism comes from pagan polytheistic origins?
 * 3. No, but that does sound like a rather charming slur.

4. Is it true that secular humanists believe that humans are born good by nature but corrupted by corrupt society?
 * 4. I tend to think the secular humanist position is slightly more complex and nuanced than that.

5. Do secular humanists support socialism in economics? If not, then how come communism and Marxism originated from it?
 * 5. No. It's not prescriptive like that. As SH was coined only in the 20th century, it is highly unlikely that communism and Marxism originated from it. However it is the case that communism, marxism and secular humanism all have a common origin, which is of groups of humans seeking to think logically from first principles having discarded religious dogma.

6. Is it true that secular humanists want to establish world government? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.108.43.77 (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 6. No. They're simply not that highly organised nor motivated to do so. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * These sound like very specific evangelical Christian bullet points against any sort of thing that isn't evangelical Christianity. Isn't this also the plot of Left Behind? Adam Bishop (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * One of the funnier notions implied by the religionist point of view is that God and Jesus are apparently capitalists. I guess they forgot where Jesus admonished people not to store treasures on earth, but rather treasures of a spiritual nature. That, of course, leads to the other extreme I used to hear, "Jesus was a Communist!" Yeh, He used to read the works of Marx and Engels in breaks while studying the Talmud, for sure. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also funny how both books has "The battle for truth" in their titles, yet, judging from these questions, contain some very dubious claims (to put it mildly) that have very little to do with truth. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That is not exactly a new problem. As soon as someone says they know "the truth", it's a good idea to check and be sure you've still got your wallet on you. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems every time one group of people says something about another like this they say far more about themselves. Is there an article like that in wiki? Just go through each of the bullet points above and just think to yourself, does this sound more like a description of secular humanism or of evangelic christianity? About the only thing that doesn't describe themselves is the title 'The Battle for Truth", why don't they say the battle for faith? Dmcq (talk) 12:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Those questions reminds me of this dialogue from Love and Death, where a priest shows some alleged pictures of Jews to the young Boris (Woody Allen). He asks, "Do they all have those horns?" The priest says, "No, some have these stripes." Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Even from the Christian point of view, David Noebel and Tim LaHaye are not necessarily the best writers to be reading on this. May I recommend Francis Shaeffer as a rather more nuanced and scholarly Christian treatise on the same themes. Even Phillip E. Johnson is more thoughtful. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

We've already given you a thorough answer on your Q5 Q4, User:Bowei Huang, please see RD Archives, instead of asking the same question over and over again. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 17:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Now, now &mdash; it was obvious this is Bowei Huang, but the other times he seemed to be trying to pin observation #4 on several different philosophies. I am not sure why he keeps asking small variants of the same question, but personally I salute him for asking questions about these accusations in this book of his, rather than just believing everything he reads without trying to investigate counterpoints.  And in the answers in May, it's not like we handed him the easiest-to-digest articles on Wikipedia for background.  Tempshill (talk) 04:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right. I apologise for not WP:AGF. The repetition of questions made me feel frustrated, as if people put effort in writing answers that are never actually read by the OP. Follow up questions are great, but when they just repeat the wording of the earlier ones.../Coffeeshivers (talk) 11:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Construction Foreman Training Exercises/Games
I am looking for exercises to include in a non-profit training program for construction (specifically roofers) workers in the following areas; Plans and specifications, job setup, jobsite organization, leadership, motivation, manageing conflict and discipiline. Exercises that get students up from behind their desk and doing hands-on projects associated with the listed topics. Thank you. 71.164.13.96 (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You could split your group into two teams, cut out model workers from cardboard and build 2 reduced scale models of roofs. Then have the 2 teams run against each other in the parking lot or a warehouse. That should cover some of your requirements.  Be sure to do a follow up discussion on issues that came up.  You could video tape their efforts and do a quality analysis afterward.  Another idea would be contact your local OSHA office.  They have lots of material on work site safety including presentation material, videos and role-playing.  (If your local office doesn't have it they should be able to find something a level higher up in their organization.)  Professional organizations for your profession (e.g. local roofing contractor's association) might be able to help, too.  For motivation, again split your teams and set a task.  Team A has to find reasons and arguments why they don't want to do the task.  Team B has to find reasons and persuasive arguments for doing the task. Then have them battle it out.  Again make sure to discuss the results.  Conflicts: Give each member a profile and attitude description (e.g. eager, meticulous, slow - unmotivated, fast, sloppy - hierarchical, rule-bound, theoretical - chaotic, result oriented, practical).  Then set timed tasks for the team and have each member act according to their profile.  Set the times for the tasks ever tighter.  Observe conflicts arising and discuss how to resolve them.  Go though construction forums and copy out the most incensed complaints.  Then have your group find a response to placate the customer. (While keeping their boss happy who doesn't want to spend any money on this.)  If you want hands on here building models might again help.  Hope this helps. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 07:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Factory Outlets
Why are goods cheaper in Pantaloon Retail India's Factory Outlets than in the other Pantaloon outlets? As far as I know, the clothes aren't defective, yet they cost about half the price of what the usually cost in the regular malls. 117.194.231.136 (talk) 06:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don't feed the troll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.190.83 (talk) 07:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * EC (Only because I've already typed this up now anyway) Don't know about this particular case, but factory outlets cut out a lot of steps in the supply chain. The factory usually would sell to a wholesaler who has to maintain an organization - including ordering, accounting, advertising, sales, warehousing and distribution network - then to a local distributor and further down to the retailer selling to the public each step having to finance similar organizations.  Instead the factory will only invest into manpower for afixing price tags and running the cash register and a retail location which usually isn't in a high-rent area or is on the factory's own premises.  Advertising is commonly minimal and done at the least possible costs.  Sometimes the lots offered were unsold or returned.  (Remember there are many months between the factory offering their spring merchandise, the retailers ordering and you finding it in the store)  The resulting cost savings vs. the final price an ordinary retailer would charge are passed on to the consumer.  The consumer has to pass up shopping at a place where they can buy various goods at the same place (the idea behind malls and Wal-Marts), a pleasant shopping environment with trained shop attendants, outfits in co-ordinate colors and usually return policy, layaway, possibility of reordering, full range size spread, glossy advertising, TV ads and other amenities/information available through standard retail.  71.236.26.74 (talk) 08:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what 86.4.190.83 means by "Please don't feed the troll.". Anyway, the strange thing about these so called factory outlets is that they are also situated in malls (at least, that's the case in Kolkata), just like the other regular Pantaloon outlets. They are also situatued in really busy areas, right in the heart of the city, with the factory situated nowhere near them. 117.194.228.16 (talk) 08:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * They are still saving a lot on cutting out the middle men. You'd also be surprised what manufacturers are tossing out.  Particularly if they have a good brand name and charge a high price.  I used to work at a watch factory and quality control inspected watches with huge magnifying glasses and checked works for fraction of a second running precision.  Your ordinary consumer wouldn't notice any of the "defects" that got rejected and ended up in the outlet sales.  On the other hand if you shovel out oodles of money for a watch you don't want to find out it looses a second each week.  Competitors are just waiting for an opportunity to "alert the media" (anonymously of course :-).  Trainee products are also sold in outlets, even if they are perfectly fine and up to specs.  Not to mention that you have no way of knowing if the model you are buying was rejected by lots of buyers from wholesalers, returned because someone made a mistake in ordering, were reclaimed in an insurance settlement or payment default etc.  (Since the sale of goods for this season though their usual channels is long past they can't just sell such goods to another of their usual wholesalers.)  All these sources add up.  Factories used to sell all these goods to "salvage traders".  Then they found that they could make more if they ran their own outlet stores.  Apparently the brand in question has found that they can turn a (bigger) profit if they put their outlets in malls.  71.236.26.74 (talk) 08:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has an article Pantaloon Group. The "troll" comment may reflect someone's suspicion that the OP has an interest in advertising the enterprise. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not clear to me that factory outlets have lower quality goods than regular stores. No factory outlets near me advertise the fact, and the Wikipedia article doesn't say so. Why would the hypothetical watch manufacturer mentioned above be less embarrassed by a poor quality watch just because it was bought from a factory outlet? And if that's the case then the savings aren't nearly as great as the anon above would indicate. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If they sell rejects they often alter or remove the label. (e.g. FTL T-shirts are sold by salvage traders with the tag cut in half. The watches had a special mark on the case backs.) As I said B quality flaws are usually imperceptible to consumers.  I'm not saying this is what this store does, but I know many brands that include those as part of their outlet consignments.  As stated above even if they just cut out the supply chain middle men they could offer significant savings.  The only problem they might run into is that retailers might drop the brand because they can't compete.  For "exclusive" brands that threat is less because part of the price is the image you buy and people who buy it for that don't want to get caught coming out of an outlet store.  (I've met people who bought stuff at certain stores only to get the bag the stuff was packed in!) The one's who don't mind are unlikely to shop at the higher priced retailer to begin with. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 16:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * When I asked such questions to a factory outlet manager, he mentioned that all goods in his outlet have some kind of defect, and there is no "Exchange" policy once you buy anything (because customer may find defect after purchase and then try to exchange with excuse of garment size not fitting him/her). The "No Exchange" policy banner is clearly displayed in the mall, and when customers asks why, staff explains facts, and even tells where is company's retail outlet where one can buy goods with no defects and exchange possibility, and finally they mention that the price there may be almost double than offered at the factory outlet. manya (talk) 06:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

God
Is God really invisible or is it just a trick?--Quest09 (talk) 09:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the question - isn't invisibility a trick? --Dweller (talk) 09:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * When David Copperfield makes himself invisible, that's a trick. Quest09 wants to know, can you really see God, except that God is pulling a fast one on you to make you think you can't?
 * I do not think anyone at the RefDesk can answer this one definitively. On the face of it, it would seem odd behavior for God, but then not as odd as some other things that are ascribed to him.  In the Old Testament it is suggested that for a human to see God is dangerous, possibly fatal; in that case it wouldn't be so odd for him to keep us from seeing him. --Trovatore (talk) 09:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The Old Testament describes how God revealed Himself to Moses. The passage is understandably not very understandable. Commentators, philosophers and various scholars have had a thoroughly good time twisting themselves in knots* down the years to understand the passage, but ultimately, because we are human, assuming God exists, we can't understand Him because our frame of reference is so limited. There are countless parallels for this difficulty - I like Mao's parable from the Little red book about a frog - I'll dig out on an online version. Hang on. --Dweller (talk) 09:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Here it is, page 50 --Dweller (talk) 09:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way that (*) was a bad pun - a widely-held Jewish understanding of the passage is that God only showed Moses the knot of his Tefillin, as a human could not cope with "seeing" God Himself. --Dweller (talk) 10:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As hinted at in the film Oh God! in which God appears to John Denver in the form of George Burns, and tells Denver that he had to appear in a form that Denver could comprehend. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Another parable has to do with someone who wants to see God should first watch the sun all day. When he says he can't do that, he is told something like, "How can you see the face of God when you can't even look at merely one of His lights?" Said more eloquently, but hopefully you get the picture. All this assumes that God actually exists, of course, in the conventional way, i.e. a "personal" God. That's a whole other can of worms. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 10:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Why should God have an appearance that is incomprehensible/dangerous/etc.? Why should God have any intrinsic or natural appearance at all? And if God does have some natural appearance, why should it have the property that it makes human minds explode? The expanses of the Milky Way are already far beyond the limits of what human senses can adequately measure and comprehend, and yet it is pleasant to look upon, easy to identify, and doesn't cause heads to explode. I see no reason to assume that God is necessarily different. (He might in fact be very different, but never having seen him/her/it, I wouldn't want to prejudice myself by guessing.) Dragons flight (talk) 10:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Bible consistently portrays God as being essentially a super-human, the same kind of being as Zeus, "only more so". The early parts of the Bible also have God directly interacting with humans as if He were another human. The alleged nature of the alleged "God" has changed over time. The theologist would point out that man's perception of God has changed, while God Himself has not changed. (Note, for what it's worth, that the root for "theology" is the same as the root for "Zeus"). I once heard a minister ridicule Michaelangelo's depiction of God as "an old man sitting on a cloud", but that comes pretty close to both the Zeus concept and to the concept as seen by the average citizen. Except He's invisible, or at least we can't see Him. Only the ancients could - by some amazing coincidence. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * theo– and Zeus are from different PIE roots. —Tamfang (talk) 09:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

¶ Those who believe in the Trinity (at least nominally, the overwhelming majority of Christians) would ask which face of God are you asking about? One of the most important Christian mysteries is how God assumed a human, visible and tangible form (became flesh) as Jesus of Nazareth, called the Christ or the Son of Man, and suffered on the cross as other men did, before ascending into Heaven and assuming (I think) a more ethereal and invisible form. On the other hand, the Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost, another member of the Trinity, is always treated as invisible. As I recall, the Mass (or Holy Communion or the Lord's Supper) is called the "outward and manifest Sign of an inward and spiritual Grace". I'm no theologian, so I apologise for any clumsiness or inaccuracy above. —— Shakescene (talk) 11:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Shakescene, I'm no expert on Christian theology, but I think that sequential description is a "heresy", from memory, I think it was the Arian heresy. I'll speculatively link that - have we an article on it? IIRC, conventional / traditional church thinking is that the Trinity co-existed, but as Robbie Coltraine's character memorably put it in the otherwise dire Nuns on the run, "it's a bit of a bugger" to understand. --Dweller (talk) 11:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't trying to say that God the Father changed or transformed Himself into God the Son (is that the Monophysite heresy?), but I also wanted to avoid stating as common today the opposite early heresy (whose name I forget, 47 years after I took Sacred Studies in 7th or 8th grade), that Jesus didn't "really" suffer because he wasn't "really" flesh and blood. And if you recall the Apostles' Creed, that is cast in sequential form ("conceived of the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried; he descended into Hell; the third day he rose again from the deadl he ascended into Heaven, and sitteth on the the right hand of God the Father Almighty,..."). The Nicene Creed is also sequential in form, although maybe less so. —— Shakescene (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * True, he could just be one of us - just a slob like one of us, like a stranger on the bus, trying to make his way home. You know, back up to heaven all alone, nobody calling on the phone, except the Pope maybe in Rome. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 11:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What song is that line from? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ONE OF US
 * Words and Music by Eric Bazilian ,
 * (performed by Joan Osborne)
 * http://www.geocities.com/relishjoan/lyrics_relish.htm
 * I'd forgotten, but all I had to do was Google the lyrics. (And get them while they're hot, because Yahoo! is shutting down GeoCities. They won't be there next year.) —— Shakescene (talk) 11:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yahoo! presumably won't be shutting down our article, which is at One of Us (song) --Dweller (talk) 12:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, it sounded to me more like something written by Dr. Seuss. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * All this business about how dangerous it would be to look at God puts me in mind of an equivalent to hear. Dmcq (talk) 12:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell - working from what can actually be known (as opposed to guessed) - God is actually invisible. But not in the way that air is invisible, more like the way the invisible pink unicorn is invisible. Also not the way I'm invisible (in that I'm far away and fairly anonymous), more in the way my paternal aunt is invisible (in that there is no such person). I suggest you analyse your reasons for believing that there is such a being. --203.129.49.222 (talk) 12:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Humans invent a concept and then wage wars over the details of that concept. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Are we not confusing the word invisible with the word indivisible? Bus stop (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean like in the Pledge of Allegiance, "one nation under God invisible"? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (partial edit conflict) Yes, exactly, Baseball Bugs. I am just thinking that the original question may be meaning to refer to the concept of indivisibility, and not invisibility. Could the original questioner confirm or deny my hypothesis? Bus stop (talk) 12:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I took it as "invisible", but either way, if anyone can do tricks, it would be God. Maybe the original poster could get back to us, assuming he was actually asking a serious question. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess if you can see GOD you would be in heaven and there for dead; So it isnt that you die; it is that you are already dead :)- We as Humans like to glorify certain things-even in religious parabels ect...i would imagine these have grown from feeding 25 people with some fish and bread to 5000 and so on and so forth.- Moses/Mohamed/Jesus Blah Blah Blah if they are profits of God maybe they have special viewing rights off SKY tv;)Chromagnum (talk) 14:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Some interpreters of the 5-loaves-and-2-fishes story say that what Jesus actually did was to get everyone to open up their satchels and share with everyone else. As far as "profits" of God... see the section above, on Secular Humanism. Evangelicals claim God is a capitalist. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Like Stone Soup. 89.168.106.72 (talk) 03:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep. Same idea. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * When you read the account of that in the Bible, it really does sound exactly like a typical 'block party' situation. We're standing around chatting with the neighbours - someone has some nice bread and some anchovies, we start to nibble - but there isn't enough for everyone - so a couple of people pop back to their apartments and bring other 'left overs'...and some other people...who also bring food and a bottle of something - and before you know it you have more food than anyone is likely to eat - the booze is flowing - and there is a major party going on.  It's kinda "miraculous" - but it's happened to me a bunch of times.  The interesting question here is not what magic was involved - but instead how the more obviously true story came to be subtly distorted over the years and the many retellings.  The whole "water into wine" thing could easily be explained the same way.  SteveBaker (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Which God? DOR (HK) (talk) 05:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sky Chief. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Or gods for that matter. SteveBaker (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

in the ass
hello.does it hurt to have sex in the ass?becaus it sound good but seem like the ass is too small for the cock?Trebsic Greave (talk) 11:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This might answer your question.  The left orium  11:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That yahoo answer is pretty much right. --203.129.49.222 (talk) 12:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The user should give it a try, and get back to us with a report. There's always room for some original research on this page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The cited Yahoo answer promotes anal sex by phrases such as "it will feel great" and "it will be a gggrreat experience, orgasmic all the way". It is a POV how-to guide. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Remember that case a few years ago where the NYPD did this (with nightsticks or broomhandles or something) to some unfortunate arrestee? That's probably what they were telling him. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not relevant Baseball. The OP is asking about phallic not baton penetration. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Abner Louima--droptone (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeh, that's the one. And, yeh, I know what he's saying. I'm just saying he might want to practice on something first, before hitting the bars or inviting the cops over. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * First stop you should read the anal sex article, to get some info and background on it. But as with any form of sex, if it hurts stop immediately and seek medical attention from a qualified doctor. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.90.6 (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That Yahoo answer neglects to mention that it depends on the person. The real answer is: Maybe. Vimescarrot (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * For a detailed guide on this practice, read "Anal Pleasure and Health" by Jack Morin, Ph.D. (no relation), published by Down There Press, San Francisco. It basically says that, if done "right" (and it goes into chapter and verse about does and don'ts), it should be pleasurable and not painful.  --  JackofOz (talk) 21:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Powerpoint Presentation
Can anyone give me any tips(weblinks or otherwise) on giving a good Powerpoint Presentation. Thanks Shraktu (talk) 11:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's some good tips: . :)  The left orium  11:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A couple more not on there: If you use line graph charts try to limit them to 2 graphs per chart. 3 is getting confusing and 5 is overload and will let your audience either ignore the image or spend time trying to figure it out and not pay attention to the information you are giving. Treat slides as visual aid not a medium for transferring information.  Lots of people can't listen and read at the same time.  If your slide has more than key words on it, they'll have to chose between listening and reading and will lose track of what you are saying when they switch from one to the other.  Be sure to address all the points presented on the slide.  If you want to skip one point (e.g. you have to use s.o. else's slide for your presentation) make sure to inform your audience about it (e.g. "The production figures for Poland we shall skip at this time". or maybe as a joke: "At this time we won't look at the pathology report which I'm sure you were all eager to learn about. )  Ideally you should have a rhythm in how often you present a new slide, so your audience expects it.  Having one slide up for a quarter of an hour and then quickly going through 10 in the next 10 minutes is going to confuse a lot of listeners.  Be sure to adapt your presentation to your audience as much as possible.  (I've often had people ask me to "translate" their presentation.  Most of those ended up being entirely revamped.)  There are cultural differences in what information is expected and how much explanation is required.  Some cultures move from details to global information, others do it the other way round.  Some don't like to have "obvious" information pointed out, others don't want to play guessing games as to why you are presenting that particular piece of information etc.  Abbreviations, acronyms and jargon are another minefield.  Make sure your audience knows what they mean but watch out not to "dumb down" your presentation too much.  Hope this helps. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 12:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It is not clear whether the OP plans to make a stand-alone PP or to use a Powerpoint slideshow when addressing an audience. In the latter case, preparation of what you will say is all important. Know in advance what your purpose in showing each slide will be, and fit your words to that slide at that time. A common mistake is to rely on one's own slides to prompt one what to say. Suppose the projector lamp fails during the presentation: will you be able to continue? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Don McMillan made a helpful presentation about it. I have written some short notes about it on my blog, http://blog.mtjm.eu/2009/3/20/some-semi-technical-notes-on-writing . MTM (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Edward Tufte, who is probably smarter than all of us combined, has written a bit about PowerPoint. A 32-page essay on it is for sale at his website for US$7.  He wrote a very short article on Wired about it.  He wrote that a bad PowerPoint presentation contributed to the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster and wrote about how that presentation should have been improved (see the Tufte article for the link).  Tempshill (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Or see here 71.236.26.74 (talk) 17:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * PowerPoint is fine. Bullet points are fine. Bad public speakers can give bad talks in any medium. Good public speakers give good PowerPoint presentations. Is that Stalin cartoon Tufte's idea of a well presented argument? -- BenRG (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, the US$7 essay is his well presented argument. Tempshill (talk) 03:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You can often score brownie points by not using Powerpoint. It's dreadful. Death by Powerpoint? If you have to use the thing, my first, second and third piece of advice would be not to read the slides to the audience. The government forced them all to go to school for many years to make sure they can read for themselves. So devise the slides to prompt, not to hold every word you also want to say aloud. --Dweller (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh God, I worked somewhere that had the general policy that your slides should contain everything you said, so that people could study them later. All attempts at putting additional information in the notes or other documents and keeping the slides actually useful in the presentation were quashed. So many torturous meetings... Seriously, people will love you if you keep them brief, to the point, and useful. Pictures are good. 89.168.106.72 (talk) 03:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * ...you know it's going to be a long presentation when the speaker starts by reading the title slide to you. Ouch. -- Flyguy649 talk 07:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Another suggestion is to use sans-serif fonts for visual presentations as they are more readable from the back of the room. Further to user:Cuddlyable3, *know* your presentation, but don't memorize it (I watched someone flub a line on the second or third slide and have to restart the presentation several times). However, it is helpful if a question or sentence at the bottom of the slide gives a clue to the audience what is on the next slide. And it really is important that the presentation be tailored for the audience; it can affect which concepts require introduction, the depth of detail, etc. -- Flyguy649 talk 07:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Fighting Animals
When I have fights with animals I often fight to win. I will regularly fight with an animal such as a dog or small horse and will usually emerge the victor. Recently I had a wrestling match with an alligator which was one of the toughest I have ever had and he slashed at me on the arm with his teeth. But I was the victor, it was the greatest day of my life. In a fight with a small bear I got defeated and it was only because my friends held the bear back that he did not kill me. My questions are: What animals is it best to fight with? What gives the greatest challenge? What are the most interesting ones to fight with unexpected consequence?

Also why is it that fighting with humans is not as exciting? Please do not list any stupid animals like a mouse, they are actually VERY HARD to fight as they are so small and I do not want to accidentally kill any animals whilst fighting them - you can tell when they admit defeat and they know that you are the vinner. Some animals like a goat will never give up, they can be beaten and still they will try to come back for more. So these are my questions as far as I can tell but I can let you know if there will be any more Sandy Warhol (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Go fight a great white shark please let me know the out comeChromagnum (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Theres no need to be sarcastic - but in case you weren't, I don't think I could fight with a great white shark. We wouldnt have a fair contest - I am not suited to fighting on water, him not on land, so one of us would be in trouble. Sandy Warhol (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: User blocked indefinitely. decltype (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The best kind of animal to fight is the troll. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The thread is over; we have a winner. Tempshill (talk) 16:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Too bad he's blocked. I was hoping to hear about what animals he doesn't fight to win. I'm guessing sheep. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right. Now unblocked. decltype (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What sort of good faith are we assuming about a user who makes edits like this and this? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As much good faith as one can possibly allot. Here on Wikipedia, we should answer questions objectively regardless of the prior or current status of the answeree, because others may be interested in the same issue.--WaltCip (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the unblock and for having faith in me, the answer about the animals I do not want to fight are legion: here are some samples;

a) I would not want to fight a sheep as they are notably not agressive animals generally and not much of a challenge to fight - if I was against a sheep in a contest I would take it on but it is not the sort of battle i relish b) I would not like to fight (like I said earlier) an animal so small I could easily defeat it and/or actually kill it during the fight - I do not want to kill any animal during a fight - maybe if it was a very fast but small animal it might be a challenge but more a chase than a fight c) as I said above I would not like to fight a great white shark as this is a silly answer - if I could esqual our handicaps then perhaps. Sandy Warhol (talk) 09:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * (EC) Our psychology pages are a bit thin on the basic concepts. Challenge only has one sentence on the disambig. page: A challenge is a general term referring to things that are imbued with a sense of difficulty and victory.  We don't have a page on Superiority (psychology) only on Superiority complex. If you read a bit between the lines there and tone down the exaggerations that make it a complex, you should be able to get an idea of the basic concept involved.  What people consider challenging and what makes them feel superior or think of as exciting depends on individual tastes and circumstances.  (BTW: Have you ever gone hunting with a predator? Might be s.th. you'd enjoy and find educational pitting your own skills at finding and stalking prey against theirs. Even a dog or cat might do for that.) 71.236.26.74 (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

This sounds interesting actually - but as I said above I do not want to kill animal - perhaps if I was hunting a gazelle with a lion this sort of thing could work Sandy Warhol (talk) 09:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you tried cattle? They do that at some rodeos, so it is a somewhat legitimate sport.  65.121.141.34 (talk) 18:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have fought some cattle before, only ever one at a time. I think bullfighters are prety lame to be honest; that they need a blade to fight a bull is lame. Sandy Warhol (talk) 09:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * When would you not fight to win? Maybe if the match is fixed and you've been bribed? Or if you've got an overwhelming desire to be gored or eaten? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Wat you going on about? Sandy Warhol (talk) 09:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You say you "often fight to win". That means sometimes you do not fight to win. Under what circumstances would you not fight to win? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I see you answered it. So that gets us back to your original question, which is what animal would provide the greatest "challenge". I'm assuming you would not be carrying weapons. So I'm thinking offhand that one of the big cats, for example a tiger, would be a pretty good challenge. Another would be a large venomous snake such as a cobra. Or maybe an animal with an inherently chippy disposition, such as a grizzly bear, a wolverine, or maybe even a bison. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If you read about I did fight a bear and nearly was killed Sandy Warhol (talk) 12:29, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, so you can check that one off the list. You asked for the greatest challenges, and I've given you some. Are you saying they are too great a challenge? Then you want something comparable to your height and weight, but not human. So maybe an adult chimpanzee? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Suggesting possible opponents to the OP is unwise. We do not suggest ways for questioners to commit suicide, however innovative the methods may be. An adult chimp would be capable of killing him with little difficulty. Fouracross (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So would any of the other animals I had listed. The one with the wolverine should be especially interesting. Do you think closing this thread would be the best option at this point? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You really should fight humans, as they are craftier opponents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.121.141.34 (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A hungry constrictor would be a challenging opponent for a human, especially if large enough to swallow the OP. Edison (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no desire to encourage such fights for sport (on the human side only), but the current (July 2009) issue of Popular Mechanics (U.S.), page 76-81, has a brief guide to self-defense against wild animals that might cross one's path or encroach on one's property. The emphasis, however, is on avoidance and survival of such encounters, with a view to escape, not on confrontation or victory. —— Shakescene (talk) 19:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not about fighting, but outrunning animals: you could save up for a trip to the Running of the Bulls. Don't underestimate them. (Your comment on bull fighting above makes me think you do.)  They do weigh ard. 1,300 lbs. and got horns.  You won't get much love from animal activists for it either. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 12:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

So you are scared of fighting a great white shark - it seems you will only fight animals you can actually defeat; a tad cowardly but i must say sensible shame your question is not sensible- however assuming good faith and it was sensible then go fight a great white shark in water you can stand up in; thus shark will be swimming but you would have a firm footing. i await your report214.13.64.7 (talk) 08:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Using Cell phones in Fukuoka, Japan
Hello all,

I will be working in Japan for about 2 yrs. (or more), and I am searching for a cell phone plan similar to what I currently have in the USA. However, it is becoming difficult to find one even remotely similar. I currently use a Cricket wireless phone.

It costs ~$50 a month, and I get:


 * Unlimited local/long distance calls;
 * Unlimited text messages;
 * Voice mail;
 * Caller ID;
 * The phone has a 2 megapixel camera.

I really do not need anything else (i.e. Web brower, GPS, etc.).

I enjoy a plan like this because I do not have to worry about "running out" of minutes. I just charge the phone, use it, and pay the bill.

Does anyone know of such a plan, or resources which may guide me to one?

--161.45.106.251 (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is it so expensive to go from Norfolk International Airport to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport?
I checked prices and it costs around $700+ nonstop, but with stops it's still around $600+. Why the insane price for a 1 hour flight????--12.48.220.130 (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Economy of scale and Pricing should hold the answers. Your airline might even have a Monopoly on that route. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * For comparison, it costs only $80 by Amtrak - but it takes 5 1/2 hours with one transfer. Rmhermen (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So people would have to budget a $115.56 hourly wage to break even? Not a bad rate. (I know it's a bit off because I just calculated the flighttime without check in, boarding etc.) 71.236.26.74 (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Travelocity returns seem to all go through NYC or Philadelphia then back down to Washington, so it isn't necessarily a 1hr flight. A Greyhound bus would be cheaper ($50 vs. at least $500) and about the same time investment (especially with the layovers at NYC/Philly). In my experience, Greyhound buses don't have as many questionable folks as the smaller bus lines.--droptone (talk) 16:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Are there any non-stop flights between the two? They're sufficiently close to one another that running a regular shuttle between the two seem likely to be uneconomic.  Anyway, I poked around kayak.com and found: Continental $340 changing at Newark Liberty, or (if you're willing to go to BWI instead of Reagan) $191 on US Air changing at Philly. Because of the change, both are markedly slower than driving. 87.113.26.43 (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The Norfolk International Airport article doesn't mention any, but the airport may have small flying services &mdash; the sort that rent out 4-seater aircraft to private pilots &mdash; if you locate and call one up, you may be able to pay them to fly you out to Reagan on a Cessna or a Bonanza. This would be less than $700.  Tempshill (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * How much would a limo or cab be? Could that come cheaper? 71.236.26.74 (talk) 16:46, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I would think you could get a cabbie to do the trip for $500. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.121.141.34 (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Google maps indicates it is about 200 miles via I-64 and I-95. Perhaps you find a one-way rental for the 3-hour drive.  Perhaps you could hitchhike.  Perhaps you could get a ride from a friend for the gas money and a few beers.  Astronaut (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As a purely legal matter, it is most likely against the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia to consume said beers in the car. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Goverment question
Why does Texas have so many special districts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.81.248.6 (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Does Special-purpose district help answer your question?71.236.26.74 (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Being proud of what you are
If you are white and male, how can you express it without being attacked?--Quest09 (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Be more specific. What do you mean by "express it"? Because if you're white and male, it's pretty much obvious. Especially if your hanging out in, say, Bedford-Stuyvesant. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:39, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mean something like a white parallel to black pride? Because that kind of movement is centered on the history of humiliation from being black.  It is a statement of "look at me, I have risen above being ashamed of what I am".  In western culture, it has never been demeaning to be white or male, so any kind of "pride" would be taken as excessive, arrogant, and/or selfish.  &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 18:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that is the problem that the OP is driving at. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Is self expression formulaic, and if it is, is it self expression? Bus stop (talk) 19:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * My point was that I don't know how you would express it tactfully. I suppose we would have to come up with something to express, besides a history of superiority and privilege.  I suppose you could simply regale people with the accomplishments of western culture, as that has been dominated by white males, but most people would probably be of the opinion that there shouldn't be any pride in that respect, as it was to the exclusion of non-whites and women.  I speak as a white male myself, and I just don't think it is possible to be politically correct while pointing that out. Unless somebody else can come up with something, I would just quietly make the best out of being non-disadvantaged by birth. &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 19:36, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your responses are right on the money. So-called "white pride" is actually a sneer at minority pride. And being a white guy, I know what I'm talking about. I've had my fill over the years of hearing why white males are the supreme beings of the universe. White humility would be a much better stance to adopt. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, those terrible, privileged Scottish coal miners, and Irish potato farmers, and Welsh shepherds. How dare they! Wikivanda199 (talk) 19:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, your Brit-themed response reminded me of something. If you are British, expressing pride in being British would probably be the closest you could get to being pround of being white (as about 92% of Brits are white), without pissing people off.  If you are American, as I am, maybe you could play up your British ancestry (or whatever white ancestry you have), as "American pride" tries to embody ideals unrelated to race. &mdash;Akrabbimtalk 20:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * He's talking about Scottish pride or Irish pride, not "white pride" as such. "White pride" is actually code for "white supremacy". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * He could always get some CDs by that nitty-gritty, down-to-earth white bluesman, Blind Lemon Pledge. PhGustaf (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * White male pride. Bus stop (talk) 21:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A reasonable paraphrase of the OP might be: How can I express pride in my pallor and my penis without encouraging some jerk (who may have the same traits) to infer that I want to restore slavery? —Tamfang (talk) 09:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It isn't for nothing that White pride begins with White pride is a slogan used primarily in the United States and Canada to agitate for a white European racial identity. The slogan is widely used by white nationalists and white separatists movements.. And see the accompanying image.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:01, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I assume you meant "white, male and gay" - because the average white guy doesn't go around "expressing himself".. That is a truthful comment.83.100.250.79 (talk) 00:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sean Hannity does not express himself??? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 00:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You would seriously call Sean Hannity an average white guy?--WaltCip (talk) 01:53, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Only if bellowing asinine crap = expressing oneself. Rockpock  e  t  02:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What is it, exactly, that you want to express? Obviously if someone asks you "what gender and skin colour best describes you?", you could reply "I am a white man." This is very simple. I also assume it is not what you mean.

If you mean, how can you express it in the same way that people express being gay at Gay Pride marches, or people express pride in their ethnic background at themed festivals, or pride in their 'race' at marches and events, I would ask you why you feel you need this? Do you understand why people feel the need for these marches, events and festivals?

If you are a white, straight, able-bodied male, understand that the culture you are living in (I'm guessing you're from a western culture) is geared precisely to advantage you. Most media output is aimed at you. You are unlikely to find yourself in a situation where you feel people are judging an entire group based on how you act. You are unlikely to find it difficult to find people like yourself in TV programs you watch, or films, or games, or performing music you like. You probably learnt about a lot of people in history who resembled you. You will have seen a lot of people just like yourself on the news achieving great things, in all areas of human achievement. You will have had few to no conversations in which you are asked to explain how white, able-bodied, straight men view a topic. You have probably never watched an evening's television and seen no white men. You almost certainly have never watched an evening's television and seen no white men talk to each other.

In brief, your culture is everywhere all the time. It is 'expressed' and celebrated all over the TV, in films, in computer games, in magazines, in many internet pages. It is the dominant culture, and you can be surrounded by it all the time if you want. And everyone else is surrounded by it most of the time too.

I say this as someone who, until not so very long ago, would have thought you had a point. Even though I don't fall into the same demographic as you. What are all these people making a fuss about? They must be looking for offence to find... But once you have seen it, you can't unsee it. It's like the glasses in They Live, except you can't take them off. And people who don't see it think you are (one is) making a fuss about nothing, because they don't see anything. And often the point is that there is nothing to see.

You are privileged in many ways. This isn't your fault, and you can't avoid it, but you can avoid exploiting it. And you can avoid being an ass about it :P 89.168.106.72 (talk) 03:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What's with the idea of white people being privilidged and thus having to be humble - not all white people are John F. Kennedy.83.100.250.79 (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not sure how I view this. On the one hand, the OP has a point, why should straight white males be labeled as racist if they are proud of being straight white males.  89 also has a point however.  Around here there are things like Dutch days and whatnot.  That might be the answer if you know your ancestry, you can celebrate that.  65.121.141.34 (talk) 13:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you are British, then I would go with the traditional British approach. It's considered bad manners to puff yourself up, or and kind of self-aggrandisement. Instead be quietly self-deprecating. It's a great way to show your innate superiority, and demonstrates a high degree of self-confidence. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you look at the basis for "black pride", "feminine pride", "Irish pride", etc., the common thread is that these are folks who were once (and often still are) treated as second-class citizens in this country. These "pride" marches and such have to do with standing up and saying "we are first class". White males have never been second class citizens in the USA as a class. From what I've seen over the years, those whites that are individually "second class", are so because they're lowlifes, not because they're white. (Being a lowlife knows know racial or gender lines.) "White male pride" is the ruling class celebrating that they're the ruling class. Not good. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * thumb|white male pride
 * 83.100.250.79 (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "White" is pretty broad, and as a group, whites haven't had any special suffering unique to them that you can be proud about overcoming, either in the USA or in general.
 * I recommend finding something a little more specific to be proud of. Since you're trying to be proud in your heritage, I assume you know a good deal about it, so be more specific! Be proud of being Irish, Norwegian, or Polish, or whatever the heck you are. You don't have to go that far back either, Ancestors fought in the civil war? Worked their way up from nothing in the Lowell mills? Be proud of that! (On the other hand, if you don't know anything about your heritage, what right have you to be proud of it?)
 * At least in the USA, Just being proud of being "White" is a bit like being proud of being right handed. It's boring, and doesn't intrinsically imply that you, your ancestors, or your community has done or overcome anything particularly noteworthy.   (So people just assume you're a racist asshole, because they can't think of any other point you could possibly be making.) APL (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The difference between being white and being black in America is that "white" is just a "race," while "black" is both a race and an individual ethnicity ("African-American"). When someone talks about "black pride," he's really talking about pride in being an African-American. The equivalent for a white person would be to celebrate being Greek-American or Irish-American or whatever. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite catching the distinction between "race" and "ethnicity" there. If "Black" stands for "African-American", doesn't "White" just stand for "European-American"? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Expressing pride in being born white and male makes about as much sense as expressing pride in being born British, or American, or Somalian. You didn't choose it, you can't help it, and you, personally, don't get any brownie points for it.  Why not take the time you intended to use celebrating your whiteness and maleness, and spend it achieving something personally enriching or socially useful - preferably both.  You could then take a very understandable pride in your achievement.   Ka renjc 21:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't the minority of people who are white realise they are the scum of the earth and the job of every non-white is to wipe them out of existence?. since the end of world war two, in every single country in the world, every single one without exception the percentage of white people has dropped. not one country in the world, not a single one anywhere now has a greater percentage of whites than it did 60 years ago. these are facts, you cannnot deny them. try to name a single country where the percentage of white people has risen. you can't! as for being privileged in most of central and south america, in every country in africa, in the middle east, in asia i am reviled and stared at, disriminated again and mistrusted simply because I am white. to say that whites have privilege in the world is complete nonsense. they are slowly being outbred, and assimilated into extermination everywhere.

Getting to know local people as tourist
What is the best way of getting to know local people as tourist? I am specially against going to some place to visit its museums.--Quest09 (talk) 18:28, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean as if you were living there? Maybe something like a bed-and-breakfast, as opposed to a hotel. The best thing, of course, is if you know someone that already lives there, and would be willing to put up with you, er, put you up for a few days or weeks. Then you'll feel like a citizen instead of a tourist, and you'll get a different perspective. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Couchsurfing may be of interest. --Richardrj talkemail 18:37, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Odd, but I was just thinking about this the other day. If you are travelling and want to get to know local people, stay away from places that tourists go to. Local people don't go there. Eat at small cafés or diners, not at big restaurants and especially not at chains or franchises. For example, if you had been in the United States on the Fourth of July, I would have advised you to attend the festivities in a small rural town rather than a big city to get a flavor of what Americans are like. You would have seen a parade featuring a high school band, a couple of fire trucks and the local dairy princess. Then quite likely a local family would have invited you to join them for a backyard cookout or picnic, followed by a fireworks show at the local park. That, my friend, is how most Americans celebrate — not at the big concerts or fireworks extravaganzas you see on TV. ... Therefore, to know a people, know its small towns. — Michael J  20:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I dispute several things about this statement. "Most Americans"?  You know that most Americans eat at big restaurants and chains and franchises, yes?  Local dairy princess?  How many dairy princesses have you actually seen?  This article shows that you're espousing a dead dream &mdash; "the idea that we are a nation of small towns is fundamentally incorrect."  84% of Americans live in the top 363 metropolitan areas, and a full 55% are in suburbs of cities.  I don't disagree that you'd have a much more interesting experience by trying to have a "local" experience and not making your American trip a visit to a generic shopping mall full of homogenized, nationwide store chains and one of our 13,000 McDonald's &mdash; my point is that this has become who we are ... well, most of us, anyway.  Tempshill (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's really not true. Plenty of Texas towns still have that small-town/agricultural feel, there is a 4th July parade - and some high school kid is crowned as queen for the day and rides in the back of a big old convertible at the end of the parade.  That certainly happened last year in Cedar Hill at the annual "Holiday on the Hill" festival.  There are plenty of Mom & Pop restaurants in many small Texas towns - and judging by the "pickup-truck to MINI Cooper ratio" (a reliable measure of small-town redneck population) - these places are being frequented preferentially by the locals.  I'll admit it's not as common as it once must have been - but it certainly happens. SteveBaker (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * While I'm not an American, nor have I ever been to the US, I have to agree with Tempshill and APL here. I don't think they're trying to say mom and pop stores don't exist and the small-town/agricultural feel is non existant rather that since a very significant proportion doesn't really experience this or have this sort of stuff, to suggest that it's somehow not the real American experience or less American is a bit silly. While the numbers may be a bit iffy I suspect that he's right that it's a majority or close to it. This isn't to say that these things some call the 'real American experience' or 'real America' doesn't exist, but simply it doesn't actually represent the 'real American experience' for many people. Similar as they've said, this doesn't mean most tourists won't enjoy the 'traditional' experience more or you shouldn't recommend it or it's extremely hard to find. In NZ, the 'Kiwi' experience of includes a visiting or even staying at a farm, perhaps visiting a Marae for a Māori welcome ceremony, to eat a hāngi and watch a haka and other traditional Māori cultural performances but while this is undoutedly an important part of Kiwi culture, it isn't something most actually experience much. Although agriculture is a very important part of our economy, most people live in cities. Nil Einne (talk) 03:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Why would you avoid cities to learn what Americans are like? Most of us live in cities.  Here in New England about 51% of people live in either the Boston, Providence, or Hartford Metro areas. Very few of the remainder live in anything that could be considered "Rural". APL (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The noted travel author Rick Steves has several books on the subject, most recently his book titled Travel As a Political Act. An interview with the author talking about his book can be found here: . --Jayron32. talk . contribs 20:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * "stay away from places that tourists go to. Local people don't go there" isn't entirely accurate. I don't know why anyone goes to Fisherman's Wharf; but I used to go regularly to Haight Street, I occasionally have errands in Union Square, and sometimes there's a good reason to ride a cable car. —Tamfang (talk) 09:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There are sites that offer holiday swaps and accommodation swaps. Depending on the variety chosen you get to stay with a family, live in their apartment or their house.  They then in turn stay with you or live in your apartment or house at home.  Another possibility would be to join some organization that involves travel to partner organizations in other countries (e.g. choir, sports club, folk dancing etc.)  Also check what sister towns your hometown/city has.  Such things often involve several exchange programs or facilitate setting one up yourself.71.236.26.74 (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the best way to get to know the people of another country is to reserve 6 months and just live there &mdash; rent an apartment, arrange all the mundane stuff that the locals have to deal with (arrange the electric bill, do your laundry at the laundromat), and get a job and make friends with your co-workers like everyone else does who lives there. However, working without a work permit is of course illegal, so this advice is probably pretty bad, and if you don't work, you probably can't afford this anyway.  Tempshill (talk) 03:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Homeowners association bylaws
We have an association with bylaws. I believe the board is not following the bylaws correctly. What is the procedure to take this to circuit court? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.67.193 (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Consult a lawyer. Wikipedia cannot give professional advice. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 19:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Suicide again
Reading above thread got me thinking why is suicide illegal? Well it is in Ireland, also is it legal in any country? BigDunc Talk 19:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to note, suicide is no longer a crime in Ireland. The law was changed in 1993. . Fribbler (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * How odd. What kind of penalty could be used to enforce such a law?  65.121.141.34 (talk) 19:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it's illegal to die in the Houses of Parliament...the punishment is death. Vimescarrot (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You can probably find your answer in this article.  The left orium  19:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * People aren't generally charged with committing suicide, they may be charged with attempted suicide, conspiracy to commit suicide, aiding and abetting suicide, etc. --Tango (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * See History of suicide (a short article that's all over the place, but interesting), Cultural views of suicide (same comment applies), and, as Theleftorium suggested, Legal views of suicide (same comment applies). Hm, maybe our editors are getting interrupted by something while they're half-done with all these suicide articles.  Tempshill (talk) 03:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Basic laws, while officially secular nowadays, are rooted in religious beliefs. "Thou shalt not kill" is taken to mean thou shalt not unlawfully take human life, because human life is supposed to be sacred. That's part of the reason that murder is considered so horrific (along with the fact that murder unchecked is very damaging to a society), and is also the main "moral" reason opposing suicide - in effect, that only God (or the law) can take your life, and the latter only under certain severe circumstances. I'm not saying I totally buy into all that, but that would be the reason. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Selling Stories
I apologize in advance if this is an inappropriate place for this question, but I don't know where else to ask it. I've written a few short stories, of decent quality, and I need to find a means of selling them. But I don't have the slightest idea where to begin in the search for finding magazines or publications that would take short stories. (If it helps, they're memoiristic/fantastical stories, but I've also written numerous unpublished essays). Really, I just need some assistance knowing where to start.

Thank you for all of your help! MelancholyDanish (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)MelancholyDanish
 * The Writer's Digest is always a good resource. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Writer's Digest is a great resource about publishing stories and books. There are also many guides and books at bookstores and libraries that teach you how to publish and sell a book (a little ironic about books tell you to publish books). I'm also writing some stories often and trying to seek some opportunities to publish them (although I haven't publish any...) so I knew there are books about publishing. Anyways, good luck about selling and publishing your work! --98.154.26.247 (talk) 05:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * One way might be to contact your local newspaper. (They are currently dieing like flies, though.)  Some well-off associations and clubs might also be willing to shovel out some currency units to spruce up their association/club newsletter.  If you contact a publisher, the small ones are generally a better target than the big publishing houses.  71.236.26.74 (talk) 13:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You might try making contact with established writers in your area. A common way of doing this is to take a writing class, even if you don't think you actually need the training. It puts you in contact with others in a similar position, and at least one published writer (the instructor). DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Since you mention that your stories have 'fantastical' elements, you might consider attending a Science Fiction/Fantasy Convention - SF & Fantasy fans, authors and publishers are often the same people or associate closely: also, in the SF/F genre (which has very elastic boundaries), many if not most published authors started as and still are fans, and mingle very freely with unpublished writers and non-writer-aspiring fans. A useful starting nexus for finding out about the SF/F community, and about writing and publishing in general, is the blog | Making Light, which is run by two professional SF/Fantasy Editors, contains within its voluminous (but indexed) archives discussions about how to (and how NOT to) go about getting published, and which has a plethora of links to other useful and relevant sites. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * While Writer's Digest is suitable for an American market, for the UK (or Commonwealth) then you want Writers' and Artists' Yearbook. If you ask at your local library, they will have various volumes of writers' guides you can consult. The library staff should also be able to give you information about local writers' circles, who would be a good source of advice. Also, if you're searching the internet, a good rule of thumb is to avoid any magazine/agent/website/directory asking you to pay money to them for reading or listing fees, or for publishing it.  They are vanity publishers, fraudsters or incompetent agents; good literary agents operate to a code of ethics which involves payemnt by commission, not fees to authors; reputable publishers will pay you for the work (not necessarily much, of course!).  Gwinva (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A strong "seconded!" to Gwinva's advice. The rule in (honest) publishing is that "money always flows towards the writer": this is sometimes jocularly known as "Yog's Law." There are minor exceptions (occasional volumes of verse; some academic publishing; some up-front sharing of costs of pictures in heavily-illustrated non-fiction), but those aside, and always in the case of prose fiction, even legitimate costs (e.g. agent's fees) are only subtracted from the author's royalties once he/she has earned them through publication - a bit like "no-win no-fee" lawyers. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks! This helps a lot!MelancholyDanish (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)MelancholyDanish :)
 * You might also consider self-publishing, eg on Lulu. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If you literally only want a few copies to give to friends and relatives, or are prepared to put in long tedious hours for little profit by marketing such volumes via Amazon or the like, then Lulu and a few similar operations will indeed provide you with bound copies of your work for a proportionate cost, but be aware that this is not really "self-publishing", merely "self-funded printing." Publishing in the true sense not only includes professional-standard editing and design, it also includes the services of a genuine publicity, sales and marketing operation which 99% of "Self-Publishing" aka "Vanity Press" operations do not provide, even if they claim to. No professional bookseller will touch Vanity Press productions with a very long bargepole, even if they ever hear about them. Several hundred copies of an unmarketed book, without the kudos of a recognised publishing house behind it, sitting in finished state in your garage, or more likely in unbound or digital form in your "Self-publisher's" warehouse or server, does not make you a "published" author, merely a much poorer (in the $/£ sense) unpublished one. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's literally just a few copies that you want, www.cafepress.com will print quantities as low a one! It's not particularly cheap -  but if you aren't likely to sell hundreds of copies, it'll actually work out pretty cheap. SteveBaker (talk) 21:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)