January 12

Is it generally true that women are not so keen on sexual jokes or jokes with sexual innuedndo, or comments including sexual innuendo? For bonus points, can anyone say why they are not keen (if indeed that is so).--Light current 00:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's my experience that women respond to risque jokes pretty much as men do, but often pretend not to. That's probably down to social expectation - it's not considered "ladylike". They might tut and sniff if a dirty joke is made in mixed company, but they'll talk unmitigated filth in private with the girls. And have you ever looked at the kind of novels women like to read? --Nicknack009 00:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm! Well isnt that pretty hypocritical?--Light current 00:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Cultural context is important here. Sniffing at a joke in mixed company is not setting down a general principle against such jokes. Religion and politics are also topics which are generally frowned upon as discussion topics in mixed company, but are fine to talk about in known company. --24.147.86.187 02:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have it on good authority that many women tell risque jokes exclusively when amongst other women. --24.147.86.187 02:27, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why do they pretend to be offended when men tell them?--Light current 02:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who said they pretend? Listen, if two Jewish guys make a joke about Jewish mothers, they know that they aren't trying to spread around anti-Semitic sentiments. If a Christian or Muslim guy makes a joke about Jewish mothers, it's going to be potentially interpretted in a very different way (or at least be very uncomfortable). Telling jokes of certain types requires a lot of trust in the feelings and intentions of the joke-teller. --24.147.86.187 02:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK but the risque joke may not be anti-woman or anti-man, just a bit naughty. So why should ladies be offended?--Light current 03:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of anti-woman or anti-man, it's a matter of a person finding a joke inappropriate because it creates an impression that one "group" is demeaned by a person who is not a member of that "group" and may therefore be percieved as insensitive. This perception may not actually be justifiable, the 'outsider' may not have bad intentions, but that doesn't make the perceptions go away. Some people are sensitive in that way, sometimes for very good reasons. NoClutter 03:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK so what about a one man, one woman situation?--Light current 03:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is not necessarily "generally true" that women are offended by sexual jokes. Some are and some aren't. Of those who are offended, in many cases it is because they sense an undercurrent of sexual intimidation, especially if the joker is male. This may or may not be a false perception, but it does explain their discomfort. In other cases, it may be because many women are socialized to be "ladylike" and crude jokes are not ladylike. --Ginkgo100 ^talk 04:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And some women must feel that responding to a sexy joke from a man is like responding to a sexual overture -- inappropriate unless you actually have designs on him. Or that it incurs the risk that the man will feel that way, and then when she turns out not to be interested, he'll complain that she led him on. (For purposes of discussion I'm assuming everyone's heterosexual.) --Anonymous, January 12, 06:20 (UTC).

Oh please. Hasn't anyone ever overheard a group of women (unaware that there may be men within earshot) discussing their sex-lives or the relative size of their boyfriends' penises in far more graphic detail than many men would discuss similar subjects? That silly Victorian myth that women are any less psychologically focussed on sex and sexuality is just that, a myth. Loomis 06:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's a response to my item above ("And some women must..."), I suggest reading it again. I'm suggesting that some women fear that talking about sex with men, including responding to sexual humor, is likely to be misread as indicating receptivity.. --Anon, Jan. 13, 01:25 (UTC).

Perception is everything. I think some males use jokes to 'test the water' with females. It is good policy for females not wanting to advertise availability to fools not to respond to the jokes. DDB 13:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I for one never make risque jokes in mixed company, much less laugh at them. [[1]]NinaOdell | Talk 13:23, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

women just want to be proper, but they are laughing inside. come on, we all know what they talk about on Sex and the City.

Good point, o anonymous contributor. (Just try to sign your posts in the future). As for never making risque jokes in mixed company, I completely disagree. Regardless of the audience, if a joke is tasteless and offensive, it's tasteless and offensive. If, though being risque, it's clever and funny, likewise, regardless of the audience, it's risque, yet clever and funny. I'm no prude. Many jokes involving sexual matters can indeed be hilarious. However if the joke is sexist, it's offensive, regardless of the gender makeup of the audience. For example, would a racist joke, offensive to all green skinned people, be any less inappropriate if no green skinned people were present to hear it? Loomis 23:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it's true that some men may take a woman laughing at their sexual jokes as indicating that the woman likes them, the same applies to non-sexual jokes. For that matter, a woman smiling is also seen as a sexual come-on, as is a woman breathing. StuRat 20:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many Islamic political party are there in Bangladesh? I tried the article on Political Parties in Bangladesh and it didn't help me with my question. How many Communist parties are there in Bangladesh?

Hypothetical issue: A Muslim works as a forklift operator and cannot safely perform his duties while fasting. He is not a diabetic, and is generally healthy enough to fast, but he becomes light-headed when doing so. Would Islamic law allow such a person to eat in order to carry out his job? Would his problem be regarded as a medical exemption? Or would he be encouraged to find a new job? Bhumiya (said/done) 03:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Islam has a similar concept to the Judaic "pikuach nefesh": an exemption from the commandments when a human life is at stake. In such (i.e. preemptive, non-emergency) cases, the authoritative clergy would be consulted as to whether this extends to cover a serious risk to livelihood, such as for an individual with few or no alternatives for employment, urgent need to provide for dependents, and similar possibly extenuating considerations. Presumably a Muslim concerned about the consequences of the possible transgression would take care to personally consult a clergyman. Meanwhile, it would be enlightening to check Web Q&A sites or message boards, several of which I've indicated. -- Deborahjay 00:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the full answer, but I can tell you that if you're exempted from fasting for such a reason, you'll be expected to make up the missed fast as soon as you can. Like, say, for the next 14 weekends, when you don't have any excuse. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for historical citations to criminal codes that include exemptions from the definition of homicide (murder) for certain classes of people. This is not a joke or trolling, and discussion on the merits or propriety of such laws is not wanted at all. All I need are some cites so I can review the text of the codes. For example, I know the state of Texas had a statute that exempted white males from homicide if they could show the decedent was a black male accused of raping a white female. Looking for any such statute from any state. Does anyone have a cite for that so I can look at the actual statute(s)? NoClutter 03:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be surprised if you have read the law properly on that one. There are 'jokes' about outback Australia and 'Shooting Aborigines without a license' but no civil adminsitration from England would ever have phrased things that way. The case of the lynch mob that got Leo Frank? That wasn't legal. I may also be wrong .. DDB 13:02, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although the 'exact interpretation' of a statute is always debatable, the *existence* (in this instance) is unfortunately not. I've held historical code from U.S. state criminal statutes in my own hands that plainly stated as much. The only issue is whether the exemption was based on the definition of homicide, or included as an affirmative defense, that part I don't remember. That's why I am asking for a cite. Any state code will do. NoClutter 15:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One state (I think it was a northern Great Plains state) had a law that permitted you to shoot a wanted felon if they refused to accompany you to a police station. --Carnildo 22:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most widespread and long-lasting of such laws were those, in many different legal jurisdictions, which basically allowed a man to murder his wife if he found her "in flagrante" (in the act of committing adultery with another man). Some Latin American countries had such in flagrante exemptions (in some form) until rather recently.. AnonMoos

The ruling king or queen was often "above the law", and could not be charged with any crime. The theory behind this was that the regent was the state, and the state couldn't try itself. Even today, you still hear of charges being brought "by the crown", in the UK and elsewhere. StuRat 16:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wives, children, and slaves were often considered to be purely the property of the master, to do with as he pleased, including killing them, if he wished. StuRat 16:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do millionaires think that having money entitles them to be the focal point or the superior personality in a neighborhood, gathering, etc. or regarded as holding a higher political status than others with less or no money versus only having a greater ability to purchase and enjoy higher priced merchandise and services for themselves or others... in other words why do people with money think that there is nothing that money can’t buy? -- 71.100.10.48 03:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you assume that's the case? - Mgm|^(talk) 11:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to review our article on utility. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to review envy and the association of money with status symbols. NoClutter 03:58, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A read through of tall poppy syndrome may not be amiss either. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 02:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the real question is why do those with less money focus their attention on those with more? Paris Hilton - need I say any more? JackofOz 05:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Money is a means of allocating resources. It is not a perfect means, or fair, but it is better than some other ways of allocating resources. DDB 13:04, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not exactly correct. Money is simply a medium of exchange, which can (sometimes) be used to avoid barter. Money does not represent an "entitlement" to resources, nor does it reflect ownership. The "rules" of resource allocation have little or nothing to do with money, and can change in an instant. If you don't believe that, try spending some Iraqi dinar with pictures of Saddam Hussein on it, and see how much "resource allocation" you can get from that. NoClutter 16:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares what millionaires think? Just ignore them when they expect adulation and try not to let them take advantage of you. Marco polo 16:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would be considered the most brutal race, throughout the world, in Ancient times? I know there probably isn't a perfect answer for this and there are alot of factors invovled, but I would just like to know, in general, who would be considered the most ruthless, brutal and barbaric race/s (not necessarily the biggest or most efficient) from the first known existance of man to around the year 400? Thankyou

I would guess the Human race. If you are looking for a more specific answer, you probably need to ask about which tribe, kingdom, civilization, or society was the most brutal. - Eron ^Talk 04:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Humans are all part of the same species not race. Keria 16:10, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you're right, I'm sorry I've used the wrong word. I was referring to which tribe, civilization, kingdom, etc... Thanks

• You'd probably want to read our article on the martial races theory, which explains that most scholars today regard the idea of inherently "passive" tribes and "aggressive" tribes as pseudoscientific.--Pharos 04:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No question in my mind. The most brutal race would have to be the triathlon. Loomis 06:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Romans considered the German tribes to be ruthless barbarians, as well as the Celts. The Vikings weren't really ancient, but they'd fall under the heading of brutal by most people's accounts. -Elmer Clark 08:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the most brutal tribes would be either the needyest or the wealthyest. There are lots who complain about Great Britain or USA, but for my money, the tribes in Indonesia that met some Christian Missionaries and decided to worship the devil are pretty close to top. That South American group who cut the hearts out of prisoners get a high listing too. DDB 12:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Met Christian missionaries and decided on Devil worshipping? Sounds quite chutzpa-like to me... ;) 惑乱 分からん 12:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like Chutzpah, but the Borneo tribe of Iban, for the Dutch and English between 1886 and 1902 proved difficult to 'pacify.' I can't find the direct reference .. but it isn't something I made up :D DDB 13:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it is possible to answer this question. The potential for brutality is inherent in human nature and has occurred at some times or places in virtually every cultural context. All that it takes is an ethic that justifies brutality, which has popped up at some point in nearly every culture. From what I know, for example, the Romans were every bit as brutal as their "barbarian" opponents. Look at what they did to Carthage. Marco polo 16:15, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a basic problem with the three attributes you are demanding: Ruthless, brutal and barbaric; the first two are easy enough but the third (barbaric) is largely dependent upon one's POV. Let me give you a good example with the Romans.

They were certainly completly ruthless; in War they destroyed whole cities. Most of the time they slaughtered the inhabitants, raping anyone they wished to (womans, girls, boys, men) and pillaged everything they could, and if they wanted it, burned what was left. You might excuse (or rationalize) them with the argument that this was done to force the surrender of the other cities but noone can deny it was a ruthless mode of waging war.

The Romans were also brutal (some might say even plain "evil" - which is basicly a social cliche largely depending upon the current morality-values). The overwhelming majority (OK it some time to get there) of the Roman workforce were slaves who basicly were POW's, i.e. captured enemies who had been captured and were put to work. They could be sold like cattle, beaten till death, raped, etc, and basicly their whole Humanity (not that the concept Human rights existed at that time) was simply denied. The Romans forced many slaves to fight each other till the death as gladiators for simple entertainment (yes there was a religious origin but it was quickly lost). Their legal penalties were brutal; i.e. crucifixion, enslavement upon failure to pay debts.

But barbaric? "Barbaric" is not easily defined (originaly it only meant "those who don't speak Greek"). The term "barbaric" is these days largely useless. IMHO Barbaric truly means: "Foreigners who have a diffrent inferior culture/civilization in contrast to our own advanced one" and that is completly dependent upon ones POV (thats why almost noone uses it these days). You can easily defend that the Romans were barbaric: Pick all the above examples and then a few others (e.g.: Roman newborns were presented to the the head-of-the-family who could reject the newborn. Women are very few rights. etc) stir a bit (cut, edit, and spin) and viola: you have a "truly barbaric ppl". If you disagree and/or think that that is unfair let me point out that exactly that process was done with the Mayans, Aztec, Blacks (a whole "barbaric race"), Mongols, Huns, Japanese, Chinese, Vikings, and yes even Christians, etc. Today most of us (but not all) realize that these descriptions aren't fair and modern scholars are careful enough to point out that the values of Human cultures are dependent upon the circumstances (normally they use the phrase: He was a product of his time or something like that). Human morality and all its values change with the passing of time, mostly through debate, protests, and simple struggle. Normally it was like this: They did this because of the reason X. But with the passing of time the reason X ceased to be. Therefore they didn't accept it anymore and ceased to do it.

Its the same problem with "civilized". Nowadays Civilization means: a organized Human society with the ability to built cities Fullstop. All these terms: Barbaric, Civilized, Savage, Noble etc are basicly simple words who truly don't mean a lot. We try use these words to imagine something (usually reality) but get we sometimes (as we really see it, or as we understand another one's POV) get amazed that reality isn't as (simple) we thought it to be. We have to be really careful. Words lose their original meaning, and they largely depend upon ones POV.

Let's use a few examples: Cannibals are barbaric, but the guys of the airplane aren't. Mongols were barbaric (because they destroyed whole cities, killing lots of ppl) but Spanish Conqistadors (who did the same) weren't. Flamarande 17:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC) PS to answer the original question: I vote for the Mayans because of a simple reason: AFAIK they sacrificed lots of ppl to please the gods. I know of very few Human civilizations/societies who did or allowed that, and the Mayans did it in a enormous scale.[reply]

John Keegan's A History of Warfare is a very fun read which covers a lot of the groups mentioned by others above, discussing the different types of battle, mentality, and technologies that they brought to war which made their reputations. As for most brutal, who can say — is it more brutal to kill someone by spear or by fire from the sky? Is it less brutal to die by machine gun or arrow? As Sherman said, "War is, at its best, barbarism." --140.247.249.100 21:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all, your insights has been very valuable.

Good Evening.

Could you, please, tell me where/when the phrase "God helps those who helps themselves" first showed up? I'm certain it's not the Bible. I'd like more details on the phrase though, like: who's the author? What play, story, poem, or whatever was it from? And when was it written?

Also, like its overly misused sibling phrase, "separation of church and state," if you can offer any insight of your own on how this one got so out of control, I'd sure like to see what you have. If that's asking for too much, I totally understand.

Thank you,

Amsaario 06:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This weblog gives an answer to the origin question[2]. Thylacoleo 06:50, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Separation of church and state explains what you need to know. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 09:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"...but God help those who get caught helping themselves," as my old Gran used to say. :-) --Shantavira 11:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My Mom always says "God helps those that help themselves". NinaOdell | Talk 13:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New article

I have recently created an article on the phrase here: God helps those who help themselves. Cheers, Colin MacLaurin (talk) 02:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I need book or web sources for this article that are truly encyclopedic. The richest source we've found has been a collection of primary sources. We need secondary sources. I'm willing to actually go out and buy some books for this. If anyone can be of assistance, I would appreciate it. It is currently the eensiest of stubs. NinaOdell | Talk 13:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The Smeal Collection - [3] - at the Mitchell Library in Glasgow.
• Bingham, Robert LeBaron, 'The Glasgow Emancipation Society 1833 - 76'. M.Litt thesis submitted to the University of Glasgow, 1973.

Any help? Proto::► 14:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do I get the paper, though? That's really what I need - the second one. The first one is a bunch of primary sources, that are pretty much inaccessible to me anyway. That's the main problem here. Where did you find the Bingham document? Thanks, NinaOdell | Talk 15:55, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try Scotland And the Abolition of Black Slavery, 1756-1838 by Ian Whyte (esp. chap 7), and perhaps The Culture of English Antislavery by David Turley. Both are 'search inside' books on Amazon, and parts are available at Google Books.--HJMG 22:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having read these, it would seem to me that they are a collection of spells, hard to do, but spells, that could theoretically be done. What I wish to know, is has any one tried to do these in modern times, and if so, what were the out comes?

• Yes,Aleister Crowley has claimed to use them and succeeded when he was at Boleskin but he's not a very reliable source.I think members of the Golden Dawn also used them.The results as usual are ambiguous ,depending who's reporting it.The books are available today and I guess lots of people still try them, but Crowley and the Golden Dawn certainly left written evidence behind.(hotclaws**== 15:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you Hotclaws, can anyone else shed light on the results of these experiments Did these people acctually conjure up demons? I highly doubt it, but if so, what did they look like? what did they have to say ect?

• The maxim "Don't call up what you can't put down" is very important if attempting such experiments. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It looks like I need to point out that any "spells to summon demons" are patently absurd. StuRat 16:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The article bogeyman might give you some context. --Wetman 16:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

here is the latest in fad-related questions: Are the "we Sell Your Stuff on eBay" quik drop stores a fad? They have been featured in some popular media lately such as the "40 Year Old Virgin".--Technofreak90 17:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Fad"? We won't know until they lose popularity. They could just be a successful new business concept. Are coffeeshops a fad? -_jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 02:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They've been around for a few years now though frankly I wonder how they can stay in business. Selling stuff on ebay doesn't exactly take a MBA. --24.147.86.187 03:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It helps those who don't have computer skills and/or a digital camera to have somebody else deal with it. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah they are all over the place. Arjun 18:27, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One more important point. A seller's reputation on eBay is important. If you've got something of any value to sell, and you don't have any feedback, a lot of people simply won't buy from you. The storefronts overcome that problem for the first time or infrequent seller. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 18:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a bit of debate at the Pakistan article about whether Pakistan is in the Greater Middle East or not. We seem to be getting some way towards sorting it out, but that's not what I'm here for. The user who is anti- Pakistan being in the GME has also made edits to various other articles involving the separation of Pakistan and South Asia area and the Middle East area.

Anyway, to cut a long story short, I'm wondering if there is some sort of cultural or religious issue prompting this behaviour. I thought that Pakistan was a Muslim country and would therefore have more in common with the Middle East than India. Although, Pakistan was once part of India, so who knows. I look forward to your thoughts! →Ollie (talk • contribs) 02:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I should probably clarify: I'm not asking for evidence for/against the editor I mentioned, the debate has just prompted a genuine curiosity in the matter! →Ollie (talk • contribs) 02:31, 13 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Just being Muslim doesn't make you part of the Middle East — Pakistan was originally part of India, as you probably know. In any case, Pakistan sits at a very crucial intersection between a number of regions, which is the reason for its geopolitical situation as well as probably the reason behind your difficulty in categorizing it unambiguously. --24.147.86.187 04:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Religion and geography are distinct. There are many who believe Pakistan is still part of India. The indigenous peoples have many Indian customs and generally directly descend from India. When India was split along Hindustani/Islam lines, after World War 2, The Islamic state fractured by Kashmir, became Pakistan and Bangladesh. Bangladesh is definitely not GME, and their people closely identify with Pakistan. You are probably being well intentioned, but there are many that would feel the classification attempt hamfisted, insensitive and insulting. DDB 04:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The regions "Middle East" and "South Asia" are defined historically and geographically. Historically, there has been considerable interaction among the peoples of the Persian and Anatolian Plateaus and those of Mesopotamia, so it makes sense to group these regions despite their very different physical geographies. It was really only the Arab conquest of these regions (not including the Anatolian plateau), as well as Egypt and the Maghreb, that created the "Middle East" as we know it today. The historic ties between the Anatolian plateau and the later conquest of most of the rest of the Middle East by the Ottoman Empire strengthen the case for including the Anatolian Plateau in the Middle East. The historic ties between the Iranian Plateau and neighboring parts of Central Asia could make a case for including Central Asia in a "greater Middle East", but the two regions are often seen as distinct.

South Asia is clearly a distinct region geographically and historically. It has clear geographic borders in the series of mountain ranges that fringe the Indo-Gangetic and Brahmaputran plains to the west, north, and east. It has an ancient civilization rooted in the Indo-Gangetic plain and in the river valleys of the Deccan. Although there have been periodic influxes of (mostly nomadic) groups from present-day Afghanistan, these groups have largely been assimilated by the South Asian civilization over centuries.

The position of Pakistan is complicated. Part of Pakistan lies to the west of the Indus valley. It includes some of the mountains that are the borderlands of South Asia and even a bit of the Iranian Plateau. These areas might be considered part of a "greater Middle East". However, the bulk of Pakistan's population lives in the Indus valley. Like many other South Asians and virtually no Middle Easterners, these people speak languages in the Indic subgroup of the Indo-Aryan languages. Their material culture (cuisine, architecture, agricultural practices) is basically South Asian. Even their ideas of social status have been influenced by the concept of caste that is uniquely South Asian. It is true that the vast majority of Pakistanis are Muslim, but so is a large minority of Indians, and I don't think that most people would argue that Indian Muslims are Middle Easterners. In fact, Pakistan's Muslims share very strong ties, even family ties, with India's Muslims. For all of these reasons, I would argue that Pakistan should not be considered part of the Middle East, or at least not the provinces of Punjab or Sindh, where most Pakistanis live. Marco polo 14:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I live in the US, last week all the flags where at half mast. That gesture was not done for Saddam, was it? Ben Gurion

• Of course the half-masting is for the death of Gerald Ford.--Pharos 04:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A more fitting tribute to Saddam would be these pics of one of his statues with the pants at "half-mast": [4], [5]. StuRat 16:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How much of a pension does someone who spends one year in congress get? Does the pension increase based on terms or is it based on state? If by state which has the lowest, which the highest, and how can I find out what my state has? if by terms how much is the increase? How about those who have terms of six years compared to those with terms of two? Is there a difference between what the House and Senate gives out?

I had found a timeline of fictional future events late one night, several weeks ago, and never bookmarked it. It's now been 2 days of research and I still cannot find anything about it except for this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Timeline_of_fictional_future_events

When I search for this I am redirected to a page named "List of Fictional Timelines." I, for one, found the timeline of fictional future events to be exceptionally researched, written and organized. Does anybody know anything about this article? Has it been deleted or did the vast sea of Wiki articles simply swallow it whole? Any information on it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks... 71.206.94.48 05:18, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you try to go to the page and you get a "Redirected from..." line sending you to the new one, that line is a link. Follow the link and you'll get a page that just says "Redirect page -> List of fictional timelines", but it has the usual history tab. Click on that and look at the first (newest) item: you'll see a comment explaining that the discussion and vote on deleting the page and making it a redirect was at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of fictional historical events. Click on the date of of the second (second-newest) item and you'll see it's a link to the last version of the page before it was deleted. --Anonymous, in the present at January 13, 2007, 00:43 (UTC).

Hey does anyone know what countries ship weapons or weapon equipment to North Korea? Thanks!-I choose to remain anonymous

Please, anyone? I'd really appreciate it!

I know the US intercepted a shipment of arms to Syria from North Korea prior to Lebanon's kidnapping and murder of Israeli defence persons, in '06. Iran would supply oil. Wherever there is trade to, there will be trade from. I don't know about Russia or France, who are traditionally arms dealers, along with US and UK. DDB 11:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

China is by far the largest trading partner of North Korea. If there is any shipment of weaponry to North Korea, it would most likely come from China. However, North Korea probably produces most of its own armaments. While its industrial base has deteriorated over the decades, this is partly because resources have been concentrated in the armaments sector, which the government has prioritized. I'm not sure that North Korea needs to import armaments. Marco polo 14:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, NK is a net exporter of weapons, that being one of the few things they actually manage to produce. StuRat 15:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this site will address (but not answer) your question. CIA Factbook on Korea DDB 02:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

France has no diplomatic relationships with North Korea and it does not seem conceivable that any weapon deal could take place. David.Monniaux 23:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

I just want to ask a short simple question, but yet, difficult for me to answer. What are the different type of Managers that exist in this world of business and what are their tasks? I have heard of General Manager, Financial Manager and so on...but i barely have any idea on what exactly are their tasks?

So, basically, my questions are? 1. What are the different type of business Managers? 2. What are their tasks/roles/duties/jobs?

Thank You202.160.42.73 07:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Manager" can be a bit of a generic term, and can mean different things in different organizations. If I was to simplify it, I would say that there are managers that manage money, managers that manage people, managers that manage operations, and managers that manage some combination of these. Higher level managers are generally said to "plan, lead, organize and control". Lower level managers probably participate in these tasks to some degree. BenC7 08:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how it is elsewhere, but in the UK the term "manager" is applied to any role that involves oversight of other staff. So you have probably hundreds of different "types" of managers - buildings managers, post room managers, help desk managers, project managers, office managers etc. etc. At a higher level of abstraction, our management article lists six different areas of management: human resource management; operations management; strategic management; marketing management; financial management; information technology management. Gandalf61 10:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]