Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2010 October 18

= October 18 =

A study of the use of water for irrigation in the Rio Grande del Norte
I'm looking for this report, apparently in Senate Document No. 229 (1898). Is it anywhere online? 149.169.125.146 (talk) 02:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Google Books seems to have it online, but from here in Canada it won't give full view, so you can't just read it. Perhaps it's different if you are in the US.  --Anonymous, 03:56 UTC, October 18, 2010.

Authentic?
http://eil.com/shop/moreinfo.asp?catalogid=469058 24.189.87.160 (talk) 03:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The sales blurb says yes, plus EIL is a reputable online music store and I think they would be careful not to sell fakes. --Viennese Waltz 07:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * To dispel your doubt about the provenance of the Freddie Mercury document there are three questions: 1) Who received the document as a gift from FM ? 2) Is there a Jacky Smith who will explain how she verifies the document ? 3) Does JS stand to profit from the sale ? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The second and third of those questions are red herrings. Jacky Smith is a well known name in the Queen fan community and it is entirely reasonable that she should be the one to authenticate the item. --Viennese Waltz 08:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, I only asked about the authenticity of the site just out of sheer curiosity, since I tripped upon it by accident. I figured that if those handwritten lyrics were genuinely Freddie's that there would be at least a big deal about it in the media, and they wouldn't just go onsale on some random website. I mean, imagine (no pun intended) if it was handwritten lyrics from John Lennon, you'd hear about it on the news, you wouldn't discover them for the first time on a website that you had never heard of before, right? I'm just suspicious as to how those items, if they are indeed genuine, ended up for sale with no fanfare. It's not like it's an autograph, which is far more common to find than handwritten lyrics. 24.189.87.160 (talk) 09:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not that big of a deal, really. It's not something you would expect CNN to clear their schedules for, put it that way.  There is a large and well established secondary market in rock and pop memorabilia and this is just part of that.  As for the website, as I said before EIL is a reputable and well known dealer in second hand music and related ephemera who have been trading for many years. --Viennese Waltz 09:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * @Viennese Waltz, none of my 3 questions are red herrings. I expect you are right when you (whoever you really are) confirm that Jacky Smith is a name known to Queen fans, but that was not my question. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason I called them red herrings is because, as she is a name known to Queen fans, there is no need for her to explain how she verifies the document. The fact that she has attached her name to it is sufficient verification. --Viennese Waltz 14:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It is sufficient for you. It does not explain who is making money out of something alleged to have been a gift. Provenance (see article) of an object is established by tracing the whole history of the object. Do you know where it has been for 32 years, 14 of them while FM was alive? If it were my money, I would settle for nothing less than seeing a signed statement from Jacky Smith confirming how she came to know about the document, and what is her part, if any, in the sale. (The seller claims to have a letter but I haven't seen it.) Sorry but "someone on Wikipedia says JS is a really cool fan of Queen so someone mentioning her name proves it's true" doesn't cut it for me. Please check the meaning of a Red herring (idiom) which has a connotation of intention to mislead. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ninjas being farmers or what
Everyone at school (and the public in general) always say that ninjas were farmers who assassinate their feudal samurai lords out of hatred of them, for revenge, etcetera. But then my history teacher says that ninjas are more likely to be former samurai or a coveted samurai class trained to be skilled assassins, rather than rebelling farmers. The website http://www.tvtropes.org clarifies this as well. I know that "former samurai" would be Ronins, so what would ninjas be? Are the extreme assassin extremists of the feudal era former farmers or a secretive samurai class? You tell me. 64.75.158.195 (talk) 09:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Um have you read ninja? It seems to be a decent article with plenty of references. It looks like the simple answer would be no one really knows since there aren't really that many good contempory sources, somewhat reflecting their secretive nature, but a whole lot of myth and legend. Nil Einne (talk) 10:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Terms associated with London
Can you guys help me come up with any more terms and names related to London, England, Great Britain/the United Kingdom, and just British speech in general? The reason being because my comic story has the protagonist and antagonist heading toward London in order to find and fight each other, and they'll be spending quite a bit of time doing the finding part.

So far, the list of terms that I have are the following:

For places: Parliament (British government), Big Ben (the clock tower), Palace of Westminster (where Big Ben is), Scotland Yard (police force), Court of King's Bench (royal court?), Piccadily Circus (downtown), Scarisbrick Hall (?), House of Commons (?), St. Paul's Cathedral.

For speech: bobbits (cops), barister (lawyer), greetings young fellow/old chap, have a spot of tea, curfew, care for some [food item]?, I say, do tell - is it?, no dawdling now. If there are names for those double-decker buses and black taxicabs, please tell me. 64.75.158.195 (talk) 10:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Big Ben is the bell, not the tower. I believe that Westminster clock tower is the correct term.  Googlemeister (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * St Stephen's Tower is also used, and it is bobbies not 'bobbits', and barrister, not 'barister',
 * Give us a clue as to era/time period, please. The speech you've given is really dated. Modern London speech seems to be a cross between Jamaican patois and New York street gangs. Really, whenever I go to London these days I hardly ever hear native English spoken. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I was about to suggest the same thing, Tammy. Granted, I've never been to England but I doubt many people say things like "greetings young fellow" much anymore.  Others I would add to the list would be The Tube, London Eye, that big gherkin looking building, and doddle.  Dismas |(talk) 10:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Is "doddle" particularly British? If so, someone should add it here.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As a US American, I had never heard it before I started watching Top Gear. Additionally, they use "rubbish" quite a bit and I hear that very rarely here in the US.  Dismas |(talk) 08:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've added "doddle" to this list. "Rubbish!", for "nonsense!", seems to be mentioned in the Dictionary of American Slang and Colloquial Expressions, cited here.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Rubbish", as used on Top Gear, is more likely to be an adjective, meaning "very bad" : "this car is rubbish", "women are rubbish drivers". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Never watch it. Don't know.  "Rubbish" doesn't go a zillionth of the way towards describing it.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The British slang for a police officer is booby, not bobbit. And we Cockneys call a bus a bus and a taxi a taxi. Note also that the type of language used will depend on the characters' social standing, especially if it's set pre-20th century. As Dismas points out, many of the expression you cite are very dated. And Scarisbrick Hall (which I had never heard of) is about 200 miles from London. I suggest you read some books set in London to get more of a feel for the place.--Shantavira|feed me 11:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * You mean bobby, of course, and this is dated as well. If it was ever commonly used, it certainly isn't now. --Viennese Waltz 11:28, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking Big Ben is the largest bell in the tower (the one that strikes the hours), not the tower itself, nor (a more common misconception) the clock. (Though of course it wouldn't necessarily be wrong for fictional characters to use the name in these ways.) AndrewWTaylor (talk) 11:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * And Parliament is certainly not the same thing as the Government. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Assuming your setting is contemporary, you could mention bendy buses, Boris bikes, Oyster cards and the DLR. Modern landmarks include Docklands and Canary Wharf tube station, the Olympic Stadium, the new Wembley Stadium, St Pancras railway station, the Queen Elizabeth II Great Court at the British Museum, Tate Modern, Shakespeare's Globe - see Architecture of London for more. Our articles on British slang and rhyming slang may also help you. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A Londoner here: "Bobby" is very rarely used now; "copper", "plod", "the Old Bill" or just "the Bill" are more common slang terms. A Barrister is a lawyer who argues a case in court, a soliciter does the background work but can't speak in court. The most famous criminal court is The Old Bailey. Sorry, I've never heard of Scarisbrick Hall. Have a look at this for more famous places. A proper London taxi is often called a Black Cab, regardless of what colour it is. A bus IS called a bus UNLESS it's a long-distance one, which is called a "coach". Alansplodge (talk) 12:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * For background on London speak, I'd strongly recomend the complete works of Euston Films, such as The Sweeny and Minder!. Film-wise, The Long Good Friday might also be a good source . The term 'The Sweeny' is itself slang for the Flying Squad a specialist unit who operate from Scotland Yard amongst other places. Older slang usage for the police sometimes includes the expression 'the filth' or terms borrowed from America.  If contemporary, you also know have PCSO.  In terms of a London setting, you also have Parking Attendants (Not now police but used to be Traffic Wardens).  In terms of Solicitors and Barristers, another slang term used is a 'brief'. As an example,  ' I don't give a **** what you coppers have fitted-me up with, my brief will have me walking in no time' in London-speak would translate into ' I do not care what evidence you the police may have come up and tried to link me with, my legal advisors will have me leaving the police station and custody without charge rapidly' in more refined English. For further explanation, 'walking' refers to leaving police custody without (criminal) charge, 'fit-up' refers to an alleged (corrupt) practice of creating or minipulating evidence to implicate a specfic indvidual rather than letting the evidence speak for itself.
 * In my experience taxies in London where 'cabs' ( either black cabs complete with opionated drivers, or 'mini-cabs' which until recently were rather dicey. Not suprisingly proper black cab drivers have VERY negative views about minicab operators.).
 * Buses were buses, but I've heard some people in the UK often refer to buses by the route, for example : "The No 19 was busy this morning..". London also has a metro transit system, called the 'Underground' or 'tube'. The term Underground or tube doesn't however normally include suburban rail or the DLR, despite in some cases the simmilar role. 62.56.92.238 (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * What you say about Barristers was once true, but the Barrister/Solicitor distinction is more blurred now. -- Q Chris (talk) 13:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * D'oh! However, if one was ever arrested (not speaking from experience you understand), one would ask to see a soliciter and not a barrister. Have I got that right? Alansplodge (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Except for the spelling of 'solicitor'. --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   19:05, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and barista. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:07, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a confusing post, Ghmyrtle, unless you're having a little joke. You are aware of the difference between a barista and a barrister, are you not?  Alan did not mispell 'barrister', and did not use the word 'barista' at all.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   08:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ! Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Small text. Small joke. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your idea of London speech seems to be firmly rooted in the 1930s. To get yourself up to speed, can I suggest listening to some modern British films. For underworld London speech, you can't do better than Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. For middle-of-the-road folk, a good one is Shaun of the Dead. For the speech of more affluent Londoners, try Four Weddings and a Funeral, Notting Hill (film) or Bridget Jones's Diary (film). Or get on a plane and see for yourself! Alansplodge (talk) 12:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Cor blimey, me old chinas! Aincha never been learned to tawk proper? A right carry on and no mistake! DuncanHill (talk) 15:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned this guide to modern London. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * As a more general answer (and the original question related to Britain as a whole, not just London), the questioner may find useful information in the articles on British English, American and British English differences, List of British words not widely used in the United States, various articles linked from those pages, and indeed Category:American and British English differences. (Not that I necessarily assume that the questioner is from the US, but the differences may still be illuminating.)  Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, you could forget all the above advice and stick with your original fantasy version of London and the UK - it would be a hoot. Alansplodge (talk) 16:57, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, it would be hilarious. It would also pour with rain every day and there would be constant pea souper fogs. Why are Americans views of Britain seemingly derived from old black and white Sherlock Holmers films? 92.29.124.202 (talk) 09:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In addition to British English, referred to above, see also Mockney and Estuary English for more terms actually used in London. BrainyBabe (talk) 19:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * When Gregory Benford published a short story set in Cambridge (I believe it was later expanded into Timescape), he had never been the city. The result was laughable to anybody who knew Cambridge: putting things in all the wrong places, and referring to them in terms which didn't make sense. If you wish your story to be taken at all seriously on this side of the pond than that was, you are going to have to do a lot more homework than asking some random people on the internet for suggestions. --ColinFine (talk) 21:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not just Americans who get Cambridge wrong: it's a long time since I read P D James's An Unsuitable Job for a Woman, which is partly set there, but I remember wincing at some of the lines, e.g. having an undergraduate refer to a "tutorial" instead of a "supervision", or walking through the "quad" (= "court" in Cambridge-ish). AndrewWTaylor (talk) 16:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The OP put a question mark after House of Commons. That's the lower house of our legislature, roughly equivalent to the US House of Representatives.  Just make sure you don't have skunks and raccoons running around the English countryside. Rojomoke (talk) 23:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It will (I opine) be close to impossible for you to achieve authenticity without actually visiting the UK for an extended period - I've known US authors who have lived for months or years in the UK to make occasional howlers, let alone long-time professional non-residents such as Martha Grimes and Connie Willis. A far easier method (and one frequently adopted by other writers) would be for you to produce a 1st draft and then have at least one UK native and current resident (two, unrelated, would be better) run through it in detail and suggest amendments (which might well be extensive). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * And to put a hint of Scottishishness on the UK aspect, here in Edinburgh (Edinburra) - NOT Edinbro - you would first consult a Solicitor or Lawyer - the two are interchangeable - but never a Barrister which is an English/Irish/Wesh term for an Advocate who is called to the Bar of the Supreme Courts of Scotland and who can only be retained indirectly via your Solicitor - never directly by yourself. An advocate may represent you in any Scottish Court whether Magistrate/District or Sheriff or Court of Session/High Court of Justiciary or indeed at the UK Supreme Court on civil matters (criminal matters are not appealable to the UK Supreme Court, previously referred to as The House of Lords (Judicial business only - not legislative)). And just to muddy the waters a bit, Solicitors/Lawyers in Scotland do not have rights of audience in the Supreme Courts unless they have been admitted as Solicitor Advocates, which is a relatively recent (and not currently common) practice.

As to Court of the King's Bench being a Royal Court, it was historically one of the Divisions of the English High Court but not commonly known in recent centuries as a Royal Court, merely King's or Queen's Bench.

OH, and in all 4 constituent nations of The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, senior Advocates or Barristers are eligible after serving about 14 years as an advocate ot barrister to be appointed by the reigning Monarch as a King's Counsel or Queen's Counsel which allows them to append the initials KC or QC after their name - and when a new Monarch, also called the Sovereign, is created on the death of his or her predecessor, and depending on the gender of the new Monarch, all KC's or QC's amend their suffixes accordingly, so there will never be a mix of both simultaneously. 92.30.178.149 (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You guys are fun to read. @ColinFine: No, I don't intend for my comic to be taken that seriously. It's just for entertainment and a way to express my imagination, but I do like to make things accurate. @ Tammy and Dismas: As for the timeline of my comic, I don't know what you're going to think, as it takes place in 2087. Yes, complete with flying cars. And in Japan, big effing robots (who needs a 1:1 scale model when you have the real thing?). Yet traditional things such as international landmarks and speech accents have been well preserved, so yes Alan, I guess you could say the speech I posted is remiscent of stereotypical 1930s-1950s English talk. As my characters started in the U.S.A. before moving to Japan, Hong Kong, Russia (Siberia to Moscow), Germany, and took a commercial flight from Italy which crash-landed in France before ending up in London, my entire story is filled with classic accent stereotypes as jokes. Which include Japanese people unable to say the letter L ("I wirr make sure that you won't foor around with your stupid rittle toys. No go on and rerease the bots you razy boy"), German people speaking with Z's and V's ("Zhis vill be enough, zhank you"), Chinese people with something I like to call 'simple English' (Ah, American people! I hear they very nice and generous), Italians and French with zhe grande flamboyance and all that, and Russians sounding a bit like emo Arnolds. For extra fun, did I mention that my characters are made out of Pokemon? So I guess it's a bit more like a manga series.


 * (In a London masouleum, having killed someone) Gengar: "What do you do if a Machamp is split in half?" Banette: "Why, put him in four coffins, of course! Everyone knows that!" (Manical laughter as Sableye and Duskull stuff the body parts into caskets!)(Meanwhile, driving out of a superstore lot...) Giratina: "How are we supposed to find those psychos before they find us?" Dialga: "Don't bother me I'm driving!!!!" Random driver: "Bloody hell! those hooligans be driving on the wrong side of the road!" Palkia: "Is he rightabout that? I mean, I am seeing the signs correctly." (Fails to realize that the street signs are multifaced)


 * So I should replace "bobbits" with "coppers". Too bad "panda cars" won't work, because I'm sure that British police cars are blue and orange. "Black cab"... so if a cab was orange, it's still called that? Millenium Wheel is the other name for the London Eye, am I right? Finally, I managed to find another place for my story: Raynham Hall. Cue Scooby Doo antics. I don't know if Stonehenge is found in Ireland or the actual island of Britain, though.

Stonehenge is in southern England. An orange taxi would still be a "Black cab". Alansplodge (talk) 21:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I know I should only ask this in a forum, but what do you guys think our cities wiuld be like in 2087? Would we have flying cars by then? For fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas, most of my teachers predict that we would be using them for quite some time, at least until nuclear fusion has been mastered. 64.75.158.196 (talk) 03:21, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A few comments: It would probably make more sense to have Russians sound like Bond villains than Austrian-born Arnold Schwarzenegger. British police cars are not normally orange Lamborghinis; the first result on Google images is an exception. Stonehenge is in south-west England but there are other stone circles in Ireland. A "superstore lot" in England is a "supermarket car park". Random London driver would probably say "are" instead of "be" unless he was also a pirate. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 08:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

If you're interested in accuracy, you're going to get this wrong. Even the short example you give above is problematic - "mausoleum" is not a word commonly used by Brits. We rarely talk of "superstores" (although that is changing) but definitely never talk about parking "lots" - they're "car parks". And I might be wrong, but to my ear, "don't bother me" doesn't sound too British either - "leave me alone" would be far more likely. That's if you're interested in accuracy. If you're not interested in accuracy, you wouldn't have posted here, would you? So, I suggest you just write your piece and then ask a friendly Brit or two to help make it sound more authentic. --Dweller (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Convincing someone they shouldn't listen to a psychic
Hello. This weekend my girlfriend, her mother and aunt saw a psychic. The psychic told them several major things (some good, some bad) and the group took these news items to heart. They believe what the psychic said whole-heartedly and in some cases are worried about when her prediction will come to fruition (as in family illnesses and a death). When they told me about what was predicted by the psychic, like any rational person I rolled my eyes and told them to move away from the television because the game was on. Now they are upset with me. So how do I convince them that psychics are phoneys? Is there perhaps a good analogy that I can give my girlfriend? I've tried 'a fool and her money are soon parted' but that only made her more upset... But seriously - what's a good angle, analogy or reasoning that can help them screw their heads on a little tighter? If not fully convincing them, at least having them think twice that maybe this is all a bit silly. Thank you in advance. --Endlessdan (talk) 12:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It depends. How much money is at stake? (Is the psychic charging an enormous fee?) How specific are the predictions? If they are mere possibilities, can the consideration of those possibilities have any value? Bus stop (talk) 12:39, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * They've just spent about $80 this past Sunday. I don't believe they have any follow up sessions scheduled but still. The main predictions involved a family member passing soon and a member of the family and the aunt having a health scare. There was also more vague and general predictions (someone being pregnant, change of job, etc) but none they have taken as seriously as the health predictions. --Endlessdan (talk) 12:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Get a book on bunko schemes. That said, there are people who truly believe - but know enough to avoid financial schemes (which is where the serious money changes hands). Collect (talk) 13:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There's a handy list of arguments here albeit in the context of a site providing arguments against the skeptics. Your question and comment makes me wonder: why is it so important to you to have them believe whatever it is you happen to believe? And boy does your technique suck. You have "rolled my eyes and told them to move away from the television" and deployed the "fool and her money" argument. Did you stop even for a second and think before you tried those two. You have in a literal sense said to them "you are stupid, you should believe what I believe, your opinion is of less concern than that I get to see the next ball game on TV". And this to a bunch of people who, for better or worse reasons, are occupied with thinking about illness and death. Sadly you come across as some sort of conceited pig, and for that reason, unlikely to convince anyone of anything. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * But it's the MLB playoffs! Googlemeister (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Tell them you went to a different psychic and they told you to ignore the first one because they must have had a migraine. Matt Deres (talk) 13:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds like good advice. Another approach would be to pull a Groucho Marx on her and ask, "What's the capital of South Dakota?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:23, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Buy a copy of Derren Brown's book Tricks of the Mind if it's available in the States, and lend it to them. It has a useful summary of the techniques and tricks used by self-styled psychics to produce their readings, and the mechanisms by which people convince themselves that what they are being told is special and relevant to them.  (He is also comfortingly rude about the sort of person who takes money from grieving relatives in exchange for "messages from their loved ones" from the great beyond, which pleases me.) At the very least, get your girlfriend to read Confirmation bias, and refer her back to it each time she tries to link an event to what she was told by this person.  If no money was involved I would agree with Tagishsimon - people are entitled to believe in anything they like without harassment, so long as it doesn't harm them or inspire them to harm others, and telling them their beliefs are stupid and irrational is neither tactful nor effective.  However, it is frustrating to watch people you love being frightened unnecessarily by doom-laden ramblings for which there is not a scrap of hard evidence, and being relieved of hard cash for the privilege.  Ka renjc 14:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * One of the main techniques used is Cold reading. If you can persuade them that this is how psychics really do it, I suspect (hope) that explanation will be better than an analogy. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

She loves you, doesn't she? Use that love as your leverage. Explain, forcefully and without apology, that the concept of fortune-telling is offensive to your "belief system" and that it is not to be discussed in your presence ever again, "for the good of the relationship". She must be convinced that you are deadly serious, and why shouldn't you be? You have every right to make this request. It will put the ball squarely in her court. Two things will happen. First, she will stop offending you with the spectacle of her credulity. Second, she will begin to worry that her expensive new habit is endangering her relationship, and she will reassess the wisdom of her priorities. She may possibly do her own research and confirm what a part of her mind has no doubt suspected all along: that fortune-telling is a crock. But more likely, she will just lose interest gradually. To repeat: The best you can do here is stand your ground, push this nonsense out of your field of vision, leave the relationship intact, and provide your girlfriend with an incentive to seek her own enlightenment. L ANTZY T ALK 12:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Whilst you're at it, you might as well chain her to the kitchen sink and have done with it. Clearly it is not her place to have an opinion of her own. FFS. Which century are we in? Whereas we can probably all agree that psychics are charlatans, all this alpha male stuff cannot be allowed to pass without censure. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You're reading way more into this than what's being said. First you got on the OP's case because he knows psychics are are nothing but crooks preying on the confused and ignorant and doesn't like the people he cares for getting taken by swindlers. Now you're on Lantzy for being misogynistic without him/her ever having said anything about the sex of the people being responsible for the credulity. Try a little WP:AGF, please. Nobody has said that only women are stupid enough to fall for this crap; there are plenty of guys just as gullible - and for that matter, plenty of these so-called psychics are women preying on people of either sex. People are using feminine pronouns here because it happened to be three women in this case. Matt Deres (talk) 13:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps also worth pointing out we don't know for sure Endlessdan is male Nil Einne (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Despite all that, any notion of using love as a "leverage" is pretty offensive to me and may well be to the girlfriend. If Endlessdan is an adult, they will be prepared to let their girlfriend have their own opinions without it affecting whether or not there's a relationship. Telling them you're going to end the relationship if they don't change their belief in psychics - what does that say?  If you're lying, it's just crude manipulation, and assumes she's weak-willed.  If you're telling the truth, you don't love her unconditionally to start with.  With respect, Lantzy, that was the worst advice I've seen here in a long time.    --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   19:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I am constantly amazed by people who can't see the distinction between being rational and being a self-righteous d%ck (and in case anyone is confused, that is not 'duck', though a self-righteous duck would be bad enough). As Socrates was fond of demonstrating, reason involves working with another person's beliefs until you reach a new mutual understanding (which may or may not be the understanding either of you started with).  When one simply decides ab initio that A is correct and B is wrong and then uses logic solely to dominate the conversation, one is engaged in rhetoric, not reason. Accommodate her beliefs and she will accommodate yours, and over time you will both grow up a bit.  Either that, or you'll both eventually move on and get relationships with people who accept you without so many conditions.


 * In other words, don't be penny-wise and pound-foolish. Forestalling forays into psychic realms is probably not worth trashing an entire relationship over, which is likely what will happen if you press this issue ham-handedly.  -- Ludwigs 2  21:03, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If you want to be more subtle, and your g/f knows of all your family members, then offer to go to a personal psychic reading with her. Get yourself read, but subtly steer the reader up the garden path, so (s)he pronounces about people who do not exist. Just be careful tho, if the reader figures out what is going on (s)he'll probably say something like "My spirit guide thinks you're lying...". CS Miller (talk) 22:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Notable Skeptic James Randi has a youtube channel with quite a few excellent videos debunking psycics, I suggest you show these people a few of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.167.165.2 (talk) 03:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe you should consider finding a different girlfriend. That sounds harsh, but you and she don't appear to have a lot in common, not even a belief that you live in a rational, scientifically understandable, cause-and-effect universe.  As such this relationship seems doomed, and life is too short to spend time and effort on lost cases.  Find someone with whom you have more in common to spend time with, and let her find someone who shares her, shall we say, enthusiasms.  Remember what Ben Goldacre said:  "You cannot reason people out of a position they did not reason themselves into."

Teen Runaways?
When children run away from home, they do it for a reason. Why do so many children and young people run away? Also, why to runaways on soap operas always bolt out the door without preparation? It does't make sense. Surely the people who write the scripts must know that they would find it very, very difficult to survive on the streets without any food, water, money, means of shelter, blankets etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TearStainedCowgirl (talk • contribs) 13:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Children and teenagers are given to impulsive behaviour. They may be even less likely to consider the difficulties of living on the street than scriptwriters. --Tagishsimon (talk) 13:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Our article on this, Runaway (dependent), is shamefully short. Comet Tuttle (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Lots of unbelievable things happen on soap operas and the like.  My favourite unbelievable thing is on cop shows, where two or more detectives are in the police station, standing in a group talking about the state of play of a particular case, when suddenly out of nowhere some member of the public walks up and joins in the conversation.  The response ought to be "How did you get in here, sir/ma'am?".  But no, they're engaged in conversation about the case, as if they have a perfect right to be there.  And when they've had their say, they turn and walk away, still unescorted.  Remember, this is inside a police station where they're investigating homicide, rape, fraud, and other heinous crimes, and where the public cannot just walk in and wander around willy-nilly like it was a department store.  They have security doors.  You have to know the combination, which you don't know because you're not a police officer based at that station.  You have to be escorted by someone in authority if you're going to get inside at all; and once inside, you still don't get to wander around all by yourself, looking at whatever you want to.  Everyone knows this.  Yet, we're all supposed to pretend we don't know this while watching these shows.  It really makes a mockery of all the technical advisers they have for these shows.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   19:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. There's got to be some reason you just said all that, Jack, I just know there's got to be.  Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  19:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a response to the original poster questioning the veracity of a fictional script. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That much seems clear. Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  20:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I've seen old kinescope footage of the Dallas, Texas, police station from late November of 1963, in which Oswald's eventual murderer, Jack Ruby, was captured on camera wandering around the station unescorted. He was kind of a "police groupie", they knew who he was and thought nothing of it. Needless to say, police station security is a lot tighter now. But that handicaps the scriptwriters, so they pretend that it's still possible for someone to wander in off the street and provide crucial evidence out of the blue. It's always funny to see someone ask why a fictional story doesn't match reality. Like with Superman, where people will say, "Yeh, I'll accept that a man can fly; but how come nobody recognizes him when he wears glasses?" College students used to ask Noel Neill that question, and her answer was, "Because I wanted to keep my job!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A lot of kids have good reasons for running away. There's a lot of people out there who shouldn't have had kids. Violent, paranoid, drug-addicted, mentally unstable, etc. people. You'd run away too if you had to live with one of those people. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No doubt. The OP's question seemed to be more about fictional runaways, as in soap operas. But I wouldn't be surprised if a significant number of runaways actually do just take off without any preparation, as Tagish suggests. And they run no small risk of something bad happening to them. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There are two parts to this question. The first is: "When children run away from home, they do it for a reason. Why do so many children and young people run away?"
 * The Runaway (dependent) article, linked to by Comet above, has this (sourced) answer to that question: "Current studies suggest that the primary cause of youth homelessness is family dysfunction in the form of parental neglect, physical or sexual abuse, family substance abuse, and family violence."  Wiki Dao  &#9775;  (talk)  23:16, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As to why children and teenagers run from home without making any preparations, that can often be attributed to the impulsiveness of youth, combined with the fact that most runaway kids do so due to a sudden instigating event (trigger/crisis) such as an argument with parents or friends, physical violence or other stress like unexpected pregnancy. (Sources: here, here and here).-- Kateshortforbob talk  14:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

ummm, I would guess that real life runaways are usually tired of their current life, however silly that may be. As for soap-operas, the decision to run-away followed by immediately hurrying out the door as far as I can tell is just for drama. 70.241.18.130 (talk) 13:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Title for head of small company
What are some titles for the head of a company with say, less than 5 employees? I think titles like "CEO" or even "President" can sound overblown for a small operation. (I am asking generally, not for a particular company or role I have in mind) 198.161.238.19 (talk) 14:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * President sounds overblown for anything less than the Board of Trade. DuncanHill (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Director? --TammyMoet (talk) 14:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I was thinking Managing director, though that seems to be more UK English. "Managing director" suggests a shop-floor role, which is, to my mind, less overblown for a small company. The US English equivalent is CEO, so if 198.161 is in the US they'll need to keep searching...! TFOWR 14:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * e/c Can depend also if they're the owner, or running it for someone else. In the former case Director is common, in the latter case it would tend to be something like General Manager. I think there's a lot of variation though. --jjron (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * If the company builds bridges, you can declare yourself Pontifex Maximus Googlemeister (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2010 (UTC).
 * I've known of companies with as few as 2 or 3 employees in which the guy running it calls himself the "President", the presumed purpose being to hide the small size of the company. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * HR guy here. First thing to note is that there really isn't any sort of regulations for job titles. Industry conventions exist so that people from different companies can have an idea of what the other guy does when they meet, but there's a huge amount of latitude between industries. (The old joke about "Director of Sanitation" - aka "janitor" - comes to mind) For a small business it's most common to just start with "Owner" and then title the rest according to duty. So whereas a larger operation might have a Sales & Marketing Manager, a Key Accounts Specialist, a Market Researcher, etc. your small business would just have "John Smith - Sales" and perhaps "Jane Doe - Inventory (or Supply or Warehouse, etc)." Anyone under them would be the "(Duty) Assistant". That gives you a 3 level organization structure, which is going to be enough for pretty much anything under 50 employees. The Masked Booby (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I've worked for more than one small company in Canada, including one with under 5 employees. In each case the person in charge was called the president. To me it seems like the normal title in such cases. --Anonymous, 11:10 UTC, October 19, 2010.


 * I too have worked for a small company before (~20 employees) and the owners titled themselves President and Vice President. They never really mentioned these titles though since it was a small town and everyone who was doing business with them, already knew that they both co-owned it.  They also paid themselves the same salary.  The only differences were in the titles.  Dismas |(talk) 11:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Did they alternate their titles? Nil Einne (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No. There was something in the past where one company bought the other.  It wasn't so much a buy out as much as they realized that they'd do better together than apart.  I don't know how they decided on the titles.  That was the only thing that was different between their positions within the company.  Everything else was even and 50/50.  Dismas |(talk) 16:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * HR guy returns. Dismas jogged my memory. In some cases there will be legal requirements for certain positions to be filled. For example, I'm aware of a small environmental non-profit in Florida that has a board of directors, including a chairman of the board, and these 5~7 people constitute the entire membership of the non-profit. Creating such positions was part of the process of becoming a recognized entity, and thereby able to accept donations. The Masked Booby (talk) 21:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Principal works good instead of CEO or President. Co-president, Founder, Co-founder, and Partner also work.  Managing partner might work if you do more of the business development and administrative tasks.  Director might be OK, although in my experience this is typically the second level down from C-level and President level.  For what its worth I don't think calling yourself the president of a small company is pretensious or otherwise disagreeable, thats what I call myself at my company, and my wife and I are the only employees.  CoolMike (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Also in reply to The Masked Booby just above: In the US if you want to incorporate you have to have a board of directors and a chairman of the board.  In addition you need to create articles of incorporation and do some other paperwork.  I think for LLCs and LLPs you wouldn't have to do this.  For non-profits I think you would have to do this only if you want tax-exempt status, such as 501c3. CoolMike (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Submarine trains
Why don't we have submarine trains? They require no tunnels nor tracks, and can give a smooth ride unaffected by surface storms. The port facilities could be either an elevator with a water-lock seal or a winch and ramp to the surface. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry but if you're not using a track how is your train a train and what makes it different from a submarine? Are you thinking of some sort underwater multiple occupant cablecar? Or a bus which drives along the sea/river/whatever bed? Nil Einne (talk) 16:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It's hard to imagine that submarines have similar fuel efficiency to surface boats. --Sean 16:20, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Here are several reasons why submarine trains would not be cost-effective:
 * 1. These would be submarines similar in many ways to any other submarine.  They are very expensive to build because of the need for the hull to withstand water pressure beneath the surface.  They would be much more expensive if designed to carry a given number of passengers than a surface vessel designed to carry the same number of passengers.
 * 2. Because water exerts drag on entire exterior of a submarine but only on the part of the hull of a surface vessel that is below water, a submarine requires more fuel to travel at a comparable speed than a surface vessel of the same volume and is therefore considerably more expensive to propel.  The complexities of submarine ventilation would add further to the cost of operation.
 * 3. Submarines would require considerably more fuel than a surface vessel of the same size in order to cover the same distance.  Submarines are slower than surface vessels of the same volume at the same rate of fuel consumption.  So submarines will take longer than surface vessels of the same volume to reach their destination at a given rate of fuel consumption.  Why would passengers pay more for a longer journey?
 * 4. As it is, surface vessels generally cannot compete with air carriers on price.  How could submarines, if they are even more expensive than surface vessels and have the added unpleasantness of no fresh air or daylight?
 * 5. If your idea is for an object that is heavier than water (despite the air inside the "train") that would travel along the ocean floor, then you are mistaken that it would not need tracks or some kind of roadway.  In fact, the ocean surface can be just as rocky, steep, and otherwise unsuitable for passage as a terrestrial wilderness.  A vehicle traveling along the ocean floor would require the creation of an expensive track.  This would add further to the cost-prohibitiveness of such a mode of transport.
 * Marco polo (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps because it's a bit tricky if they break down. Alansplodge (talk) 16:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of submarine trains, just not submersible trains. For the reasons given above, running a train through water is one or maybe two orders of magnitude more expensive than running one on land. It is, however, practical and affordable to run a dry railway system through a body of water by running it through an immersed tube (which mostly sits on top of the sea floor or river floor).  Consider for example the Drogden Tunnel, the Marmaray system, and the Transbay Tube (better info here). Constructing these isn't outrageously expensive (build big concrete things, drop them on the sea floor, join them up, pump out the water) and with that done you can run a regular electric railway through them, with very little special equipment. When something breaks, a man with a spanner walks down to it and whacks it. Keeping a big dumb still concrete thing watertight is fairly easy. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 16:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but if you want to move passengers significant distances, you are still going to need an expensive ventilation system. Googlemeister (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Immersed tubes make economic sense when they will carry a high volume of traffic a relatively short distance (say, less than 50 km). However, their cost is considerable. In current dollars, the Transbay Tube cost about $830 million to build. At 5.7 km, that works out to nearly $150 million per km.  Let's say we wanted to build an immersible tube from North America to Europe.  Assuming that construction costs per km will be similar (probably a bad assumption considering that building an immersible tube at such great depths and so far from land would probably be many times greater per km), the cost of such a tube from easternmost Newfoundland to westernmost France would be around $540 billion.  However, immersible tubes that are structurally sound at depths of 80 meters below the surface would probably not be sound at 3000 meters below the surface, requiring much more expensive tube segments, and a much greater expense involved in immersing and connecting the segments at great depth thousands of kilometers from land.  Then there is the expensive ventilation system mentioned by Googlemeister. These added costs would push the cost of such an immersible tube easily into the trillions of dollars.  And a train running through such a tunnel, even a high-speed train, would involve at least 14 hours of travel in a dark tunnel, plus 7 additional hours to the tunnel from New York, and 2 more hours from the tunnel to Paris, for a total journey of 23 hours.  It's hard to imagine that the costs of operating the train and paying off construction of the tube would permit a fare that could compete with a much faster flight. (Not to mention that the United States can't seem to build a true high-speed train line from New York to Boston, much less to Newfoundland or across the Atlantic.)  Marco polo (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

We have an article on merchant submarines. Their primary advantage is either blockade running or diving under arctic ice. -- 119.31.121.84 (talk) 00:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

OP here. Thank you for some answers.
 * @Nil Einne, by "train" I mean a variable number of carriages chained together. They would have cylindrical cross section and not run on a track nor touch the sea bed. I envisage the train as self powered diesel-electric with a locomotive at the front.
 * @Sean, I suggest that fuel efficiency would be better than a surface boat because of less turbulence due to streamlined shape. When a fish or a marine mammal wishes to travel a long distance it doesn't swim on the surface, does it?
 * @Marco polo, 1) I do not propose that the train should submerge to great depth. The hull design and cost would be similar to that of an aeroplane. 2) & 3) See my answer to Sean about streamlined shaping that I believe can be very efficient. The train cross-section and consequent drag is virtually constant while the capacity can be varied by the number of carriages, unlike a surface ship. I agree that there is the complication of supplying air to passengers which I envisage to be stored under pressure and refilled via snorkel. The train is quickly adaptable to transport freight and/or passengers in comfort by selecting carriages, unlike ships or aeroplanes. There is no reason passenger amenities and ticket price cannot compete with aeroplanes. 5) See my answer to Nil Einne.
 * @Alansplodge, safety measures can include fail-safe flotation devices, double hull wall, and a standby tow train for rescue.
 * @Finlay McWalter & Marco polo, I made clear that I am not considering tunnel installations or anything that would need sea-bed infrastructure.
 * @Googlemeister, see my comment above about air supply. The cost of a compressor, air tank, snorkel and regulators doesn't seem insurmountable, and would not be necessary for freight carriages.
 * @119.31.121.84, it seems that merchant submarines have been seriously considered but not yet submarine trains. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * From Merchant_submarine under "World War II": A first project (Project 605) envisaged a sub that would be basically a towed barge, connected to a standard sub. This idea was discarded due to difficulties with the towing. The closest thing to a "train at sea" is an ocean going tugboat, and they typically tow their barge a long distance behind them so that the thrust from the propellers doesn't impinge on the tow.  So the cars of your "submarine train" will have to have independent buoyancy control, and, if carrying passengers, life support. -- 124.157.218.5 (talk) 12:49, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Peripheral to your question, but you might be interested to know that Frank Herbert's science-fiction novel The Dragon in the Sea (aka Under Pressure and 21st Century Sub) features a submarine-towed submarine barge, and discusses some of the ramifications of such technology. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 13:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * @124.157.218.5, I agree about buoyancy control and passenger life support. Propulsion can be by contra-rotating puller propellers on the nose of the locomotive. I would like to know more about the towing difficulties because I envisage eliminating them by rigid coupling of the cylindrical carriages. This raises the question of what is the maximum length/diameter ratio mechanically viable in ocean cross-currents. Pipefish are a natural example which is not a snake. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not aware of any water vehicles which use "puller" or "tractor" style propellers. Why are "pusher" propellers the rule for watercraft when the majority of propeller driven aircraft use pullers? -- 124.157.218.5 (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)


 * at a guess, I'd say it's at least partly path dependency. push-type propellers on aquatic vessels are probably a result of ship-designers' concerns about turbulence (which creates much more drag in water than in air).  pull-type propellers on aircraft were probably due to early designs envisioning generating lift by 'pushing' air over the lift surfaces (rather than merely pushing the craft forward and letting the movement of the wing through static air generate lift).  -- Ludwigs 2  23:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Early pusher planes were very dangerous. For balance reasons the engine had to be more or less on top of the pilot. If the structure of the plane collapsed in a hard landing, the pilot could be crushed, burned, etc. Presumably that's not a concern for boats. APL (talk) 03:18, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Ship propellers are conventionally push-type close to the Rudder, see picture. This arrangement is good for low-speed maneuvering. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 07:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

BILL BOOK
WHAT IS A BILL BOOK ??__ COULDN'T FINT IT NEWHER AND THIS IS MY TERM PAPER PROJECT SO PLZ HELP ME OUT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raul 91devil (talk • contribs) 15:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Raul 91, please use capitals and bold sparingly. "A book in which a person keeps an account of his notes, bills, bills of exchange, etc., thus showing all that he issues and receives." 1 Second result on a google search.--84.13.201.22 (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Please help "connect"
Hi everyone. i think this was asked probably many a times earlier.From a callcenter background applying for a job in telecom,how do i convince that i was managing people who served people and foresee doing the same and so the job is no different but just the product we sell.. does this answer somehow make sence, if asked or checked for relevance or qualifying criteria. can anyone help me with this please.? any suggestion would be helpful and i thank you in anticipation  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.36.6 (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the way to present this is that on your CV, when listing the previous job, you focus on what your tasks and responsibilities were, rather than on the product you sell. (You should be doing this anyway.)  The new hiring manager will see that you managed X people and achieved Y, and will be able to draw their own conclusions.  Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:31, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In your job application provide names and telephone numbers of former workmates who can vouch for you. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 08:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

State of Michigan - Transportation addition needed....
As I was reading an WIKI article about the State of Michigan I came across a subcategory listing "Ferries" under Transporation. Please note that there is a ferry system of transportation that is not listed. The "Lake Express" now travels from Milwaukee to Muskegon. It is a high speed ferry that will carry passengers & their vehicles. It ruins from early Spring through late Fall. I believe it is actually owned by the Lubar Company based out of Milwaukee. it has been running this ferry service since 2004. You can look up Lake Express on any search engine. Let me know if you need additional information.

Kurt Lundgren Sailinalong (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Myrtle Beach, SC


 * Note: Message reformatted and email address removed for editor's protection from possible spam. Looie496 (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anybody can edit, even you; so feel free to add this information to the article (with a reference). Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The Michigan article only lists international border-crossing ferries. So it doesn't include Lake Express or the S.S. Badger (inter-state ferries) or the intra-state ferries to various islands (Mackinaw, Drummond, Bois Blanc, Beaver, Harsens, etc.). 75.41.110.200 (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

arts and crafts architecture
What is the difference between an arts and crafts home and a craftsman bungalow? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.27.13 (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * According to Wikipedia's article on American Craftsman, they are very closely related: the Arts and Crafts Movement has its origins in Britain, and American Craftsman movement grew from that. One difference the article mentions is that while Arts and Crafts tended to be for the very wealthy in Britain, the American Craftsman movement was also concerned with the middle class, especially in the Bungalow style you mention.  Thanks for asking this question!  I recognize the picture; I learned several things I didn't know while reading those articles. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)