Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 January 4

= January 4 =

Moral boundary
I am obsessivly in love with someone; it started as limerence a while ago and rapidly grew. I haven't seen them in quite a long time but I do write to them - when I do they write back for a bit and then intentionally don't log in so they don't have to talk to me. They've never explicitly said anything about their feelings for me, so although the love is unrequited they may actually like me back but just don't know if they should act upon their feelings. I know one of their close friends works with an aquaintance of mine, and this could be a window of opportunity that lets me into their life. I think it wouldn't be very difficult to befrend their friend, but I'm not sure if it is morally correct. I could ensure it wouldn't be immoral to the person I'd befriend by being a real and good friend to them, but I'm not sure if it would be immoral to the object of my affections as they seem to not want me in their life. So, is it morally OK?

Thank you for reading and for any help/information you can provide.

P.S. I don't see this as a question that relies upon opinions for answers, but more a question whose answer is subjective. If you still believe it goes against the Reference Desk's guidelines, then I change the question to What would society's general stance be on this - moral or immoral? and also What would you, personally, do in this situation? Neither being questions needing answers based on opinion.

Once again, thanks. Threewords,eightletters... (talk) 05:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is not an appropriate question for the ref desk. Ask yourself this, though: Is stalking morally acceptable? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, firstly, I wouldn't consider it stalking, as such, as I'd be openly putting myself into their life and doing it without threat or intimidation but, instead, with love. Also, the fact that I happen to become friends with one of their close friends could just be a likely coincidence seeing as we're all the same age, and live and work in relative proximity. But, food for thought nonetheless, thank you. I take it from your phrasing your against it and you, yourself, wouldn't in this situation, so I think unless anyone says anything to oppose that view I shall workout other, moral ways of obtaining the attention, and preferably love, of this person.

On your question, though, I personally find it difficult to understand morals and where generally-understood boundries lie, hence I often find I have crossed one social boundary or another. Social protocol bewilders me and seems to, on occasion, contradict itsself, but I try to observe the actions of others and use them to help me cleave to convention. As far as I've observed, society sees nothing wrong with stalking if this merely involves following them and observing their actions - hence so many people "Facebook-stalk" others. As I, personally, see nothing wrong with it, I have both Facebook-stalked them (and still do) and driven to locations where they are in an attempt to observe their actions to further understand their mentality. Though, in all honesty, the real-life stalking I regret to some extent, as it could be concidered a invasion of their privacy, but it was also, in a way, beneficial to them as they had a gaurdian-angel-esque person looking out for them. So, no, I don't see anything wrong with stalking - as long as it doesn't lead to crimes against them such as rape, murder, etc.

I've just noticed you have answered my question perfectly as in my above paragraph I state stalking is OK if it is merely following them, meaning not harassing them or, as I wanted to do, interfering in their life. So, thank you, that was pure genius leading me down the the right path but allowing me to come to my own conclusions.

Threewords,eightletters... (talk) 08:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Truth to tell, if I knew where you lived and who you were stalking, I would contact the local police. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And to other readers, I recommend you take a look at the user page. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not therapy. The OP needs professional help as soon as possible. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That made me laugh. I've checked and stalking isn't illegal, and I did say I regretted it; it was a moment of intense obsession, now I merely Facebook-stalk, which more people than not do. Everyone makes mistakes.

Professional help? I don't smoke. I don't do drugs. I don't drink (anymore). I'm even vegetarian. See, I'm a nice person! I never would harm anyone, particularly not the object of my affection - I would, in fact, do everything to protect them. I didn't do anything wrong; I just wanted to see them as I haven't in an awfully long time (is that so wrong?), and glimse their activities so I could understand them better. Personally I see it as romantic that someone would spend their time trying to understand someone better so they can build a better and stronger relationship.

Oh, and I have way bigger "mental problems" than obsessive love according to all that psychology rubbish, but none of it is actually bad, everything is labeled as some kind of disorder or another meaning that everyone has atleast one "mental disorder" but that is why psychology is just all wrong. 302.83? 302.84? etc. - Actually, the most hilarious one: 303.00, drunkeness is now a disorder!? - See, everything is a mental disorder. It's all lies to keep control over the general public. But I'd kill before I'd let one of these "professionals" try drugging me or locking me up somewhere.

I'm thankful for Wikipedia's intrinsic anonimity though. Threewords,eightletters... (talk) 10:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * And to other readers, I recommend you take a look at his user page. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but he makes it entertaining. Baseball Bugs needs no professional help; he seems to have it all under control - his page kept me entertained for ages. Threewords,eightletters... (talk) 12:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Stalking is illegal in every jurisdiction I'm familiar with... (although it is sometimes classified as harassment, rather than being an separate offence). I'm not sure what you describe would actually constitute stalking, though - if you are purely watching them and don't have any contact with them, it would be difficult to consider that harassment. Facebook-stalking is very different - that is just reading information they have chosen to make public. The name is hyperbole. --Tango (talk)
 * Are you merely asking whether it is moral for you to intentionally go to a place that you suspect the person you are attracted to will be with the hope of meeting them properly and convincing them to go out with you? Yes, it can be moral. Don't be a creep about it. Swing by once or twice. If they don't want to talk to you then move on. Don't constantly hang around whilst not taking steps to talk to them. If you are asking whether it is immoral to befriend someone with the hope of them falling in love with you, then you may want to read up on the concept of a friend zone. Also, this is more tricky, morally. I'd wager in most cases you are acting immorally.--152.2.62.27 (talk) 16:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The OP has been indefinitely blocked. Tevildo (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Tango, thank's for the response, watching someone I'm sure can't be harassment as it doesn't affect them in any way. I see it as similar to Facebook-stalking in a sense; Facebook-stalking, as you point out, is merely reading something they chose to write in public, and this type of "stalking" is merely watching something they chose to do in public. Though, nonetheless, I regret doing it because, although done in public, I, personally, if it were to happen to me, would concider it an invasion of privacy.

152.2.62.27, also thanks for the response. I was asking whether it was immoral to befriend a friend of the object of my affections in an attempt to gain an intimate relationship.

Either way, to everyone, I've been informed that the question (and, I guess, the alternate questions) I asked was inappropriate to be placed here so I shan't further respond, though I am greatful for the responses recieved and for any others that may continue to come. Threewords,eightletters... (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Specialty wood supplies
Brief background: I like to do woodworking as a hobby and after completing a continental U.S. map puzzle in oak, I thought that I would like to do another in which each state is cut from wood of the state's official state tree. So...

I've been searching online and I cannot find suppliers of rather unusual woods. Has anyone seen or heard of one? For example, where can I order a small Sabal Palmetto board to cut a tiny shape of South Carolina from? -- k a i n a w &trade; 05:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The craft of Marquetry often makes use of MANY different sorts of woodstocks, a google search of marquetry supplies may turn up some fruitful leads. -- Jayron  32  06:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There are many companies that sell small pieces of various specialty woods to woodworkers, a number are on the internet. However, for some species with no commercial value, you may need to talk to local tree removal companies directly and dry the wood yourself. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you contacted your regular supply lines to let them know of your project? They may have some leads or suggestions on where to look. If all else fails, I would suggest contacting the State Parks & Forestry Dept. in the states you're having problems finding. They may have some suggestions on who to talk to.--76.123.193.254 (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

TV special on DVD
In the fall of 1985, CBS aired a special. It was called We Are the World: A Year of Giving. Harry Belafonte served as the host. Remarkable stories were told. The first one was about Band Aid. The second one was about We Are the World. In between those two stories, there was also footage of artists in other supergroups doing their famine relief charity singles. Then there were the stories of Live Aid and Farm Aid. The final footage was of starving people finally getting something to eat. I've been trying to find a copy of this special on DVD for quite a while. Who knows what I'm talking about? Can anyone help me?24.90.204.234 (talk) 06:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like it's on the 20th anniversary edition 2-disc set "We Are the World - The Story Behind the Song", on sale at amazon.com and other places. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Did it mention how Dan Aykroyd snuck in there? Livewireo (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Danny Boy takes work wherever he can get it. He had a reasonably serious supporting role in Driving Miss Daisy, fer cryin' out loud. That's a long road from doing an add for the Bass-a-matic. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * He was on a mission from God. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

oldest languages with grammar book
I am looking at least 1000 year old, still-alive languages, with grammar books written. Basically, I am searching for a language which has grammar book as old as Tamil (Tolkappiyam). --V4vijayakumar (talk) 17:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Icelandic language is close to 1000 years old. Staecker (talk) 18:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (ec) Your question does not really have an answer, as there is no clear criterion by which one can claim that a language is 1000 years old, and still alive. Greek and Icelandic are cases where the same name is used for an ancient and a modern language, but it is not clear that the case of Greek is really that different from Latin, where the modern version is called Italian. Latin certainly has grammars well over 1000 years old. I don't know how much Tamil has changed in the last thousand years. --ColinFine (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Old Norse and modern Icelandic are not the same languages either. --Saddhiyama (talk) 19:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * They're really close though, right? Old Norse says that modern Icelanders can read Old Norse and understand it. (I don't know either myself, so I can't say for sure.) Staecker (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "A language is a dialect with an Army and a Navy". There are lots of languages which are mutually intelligible but which are considered seperate languages.  For a long time, Occitan was considered a "dialect" of French, while Spanish and Portuguese have long been considered seperate languages; and yet one could argue that French and Occitan are about as mutually intelligible as Spanish and Portugese are.  It isn't as simple as "People who speak this language can understand this other language" as to whether or not two modes of communication are "the same language, but different dialects" or "different languages".  -- Jayron  32  20:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is still debate - even here on Wikipedia - about Flemish and Dutch. Grutness...wha?  00:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps Arabic. See Islamic_grammatical_tradition--agr (talk) 21:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Mahmud al-Kashgari wrote several dictionaries and grammars for Turkic languages back around 1000 CE. But, as ColinFine points out, no language that was spoken that long ago can really be said to be the same language today. For example, English spoken that long ago (late Old English or early Middle English) is incomprehensible to English speakers today. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 23:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Arabic is kind of artificial; the written standard is essentially classical, but the spoken languages are completely different. At least for Latin, people still use it regularly, but it is clearly differentiated from Italian or other descendants, so does that count as alive? In that case the grammar has been the same for about 2200 years, or more. (I guess in that case, Modern Standard Arabic also works.) Adam Bishop (talk) 01:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Sanskrit, though in decline, still has some claim to be a living language, and it has a grammar dating to the fourth century B.C., so it's probably the strongest candidate. John M Baker (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Classical Hebrew --Dweller (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Coptic language? --Dmcq (talk) 12:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I just looked at Grammar and it gives a history referring to the earliest grammarian as Yāska for Sanskrit in about the 6th century BC. So it think that wins fairly well. Dmcq (talk) 12:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And I see that article refers to Śākaṭāyana who was even earlier Dmcq (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting that the Sanskrit article doesn't mention either Yāska or Śākaṭāyana, though it does discuss Pāṇini. John M Baker (talk) 15:46, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your responses. When I started to looking for old languages (at least a variant, or, dialect is still-spoken), with grammar books (still-available, still-applicable) written in that language, I had few languages in my mind, like, Sanscrit, Chinese, Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Arabic; but, finding out whether they have proper written grammar books, when they were written, and what they have to say about letters, words, meaning of words, how to tie words together, how to write poems, etc. is really difficult task. --V4vijayakumar (talk) 13:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I may be a bit late to the party, but since you mentioned Sanskrit then maybe you consider other liturgical languages to be alive? Some good examples are the above-mentioned Classical Arabic and Hebrew, which both differ from their modern forms. For something less well-known in the west, there's Ge'ez (used used as a liturgical language by Ethiopian Jews and Christians) or Coptic (used by the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Coptic Catholic Church). Hope this helps! – ClockworkSoul 17:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sanskrit also has (limited) nonliturgical use. Perhaps more to the point, do any of these languages have grammars that are older than Sanskrit's?  John M Baker (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Of course, historical linguists have to some extent (and with disputed reliability) reconstructed Proto-Indo-European through study of Sanscrit and its other descendents, and published papers or books on its hypothetical grammar: new stories have been written in it, and someone has even proposed making it an official language of the European Union to reduce that organisation's translating costs (by using it as an intermediate -- this might work on paper but not, I suspect, in reality). If acceptable under V4vijayakumar's criteria, this would have to trump any other claim. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)