January 3

This is a political question. Our town council is made up of mostly business men from rich families. They were heard talking in private about how some of the best land near downtown was owned by poor people and because most of it was very old and unpainted that they might be able to get it cheap by having code enforcement step up inspections, prosecutions and confiscations. After this suceeded they began to find other ways to keep poor people away from town. Since many poor people road bicycles or walked and carried backpacks they got some kids to go into stores, stuff their back packs full of goodies and then run out the door. After awhile the council was able to get merchants, including food stores, to require anyone with a backpack to leave it at the door. The backpacks would then be stolen while its owner was shopping in the store. Needless to say this stopped anyone with a backpack (mostly poor people and kids) from coming in their stores. My question is whether such stores can be required by a higher political authority (county, state or federal) to require local stores with such a policy to provide lockers that can be locked and the key kept by the user like some bus stations, swimming pools and schools have? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.100.6.152 (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I would think so, sure. However, the loss of business is likely to cause the businesses to reverse their decision in time. Also, if this "secret conversation" was made public, I would expect most of the council to be recalled or voted out at the next election. StuRat 04:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately they were heard by people under them so it amounts to gossip as far as anyone else is concerned. The irony here is that since there is a lot of shoplifting from kids and transients the businesses that engage in this practice do so with the belief that they are exercising an effective form of loss prevention rather than loosing legitimate customers. People who have backpacks are being discriminated against for this reason as evidenced by the fact that the stores never check the record of whether the backpacker has ever stolen anything from them but instead just treat all backpackers as if they are thieves. 71.100.6.152 07:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the businesses are right in that the backpackers represent more loss than profit, then their policy will pay off for them. If, however, the reverse is true, they will notice the drop in sales in short order, and reverse their policy. StuRat 21:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't happen to be Family Dollar and Big Lots would it? Barringa 10:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on your jurisdiction, there may be legal prohibitions on elected officials meeting and discussing in private. Obviously this is not the case everywhere, but in some places officials can be fined, imprisoned and/or removed from office, and their actions nullified if it is proven they discussed them outside of public view. — Michael J 18:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reference or list of the names of Vestries listed from England around 1800? My great-great-great grandfather was either a Vestry in England or his name was actually Vestry Kee. In search of my genealogy I have decided to check the avenue that he may have been a Vestry and not named that. Is there any such resource to check?

Thank You Margaret Dawkins ^^^^ Oklahoma City, OK —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.137.1.43 (talk) 05:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

A vestry is not a single person, but a committee - a church council, if you will. I am not aware that "Vestry" was a particularly common given name, but it seems a more likely alternative. Carom 05:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A member of a vestry is a vestryman. Only knowing the town or city would make your search a possibility.--Wetman 06:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret, what he may have been is a vestry clerk. You might try contacting the Church of England directly [1], though, to be prefectly honest with you, I think this is probably not going to be that productive, unless you can give them some more specific information on possible locations. For names the main source of information in England is the Family Records Centre [2] Good luck! Clio the Muse 06:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was curious, so I read the article, which says that the current usage of Anal-retentive derives from a psychological term developed by Freud to explain childhood development. Personally, the idea of a stage of development in which the child is preoccupied with his his/her anus, as well as with the mouth and phallus, sounds a bit far-fetched -- not to mention Freud's idea that delays in this progression can somehow deeply affect the person's development and behavior. Has this theory been ratified by modern psychology? By empirical evidence? Is it still generally believed in? I don't really know whether this is a science or humanities question, so feel free to relocate it as you see fit. Thanks, Sashafklein 06:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common use of this term by pseudo-intellectuals suggests what they mean by it is "full of crap." 71.100.6.152 07:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've encountered that as a "clever" non-scatological euphemism. The term is sometimes used in a casual reference to a person exhibiting signs of obsessive-compulsive disorder. -- Deborahjay 10:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...or perhaps Constipation. Barringa 10:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lots can be learned by studying Freud's jargon. Behavioural Science is a science, and the Janus pairing of Anal Retentive/Anal Explosive is an apt description which identifies behaviours and suggests interpretations.

Oral fixations are understandable for a child. The first breath after birth allows oxygen to gather in the bloodstream in sufficient quantity that it is probably the first time the infant is 'awake' too. Feeding is an oral experience that lights up lots of sensations, smell, taste, touch. Infants are quick to put things in their mouths.

It is an observable fact that some adults, under stress, copy behaviours of infants. Fetal positions. Thumb sucking and so on. If the behaviours are socially constructed, or innate behaviours giveing security in times of stress has been debated and studied. The expression applied being 'regression.'

The Janus pairing of Retentive/Explosive gives a description that can be applied to observed behaviours. Such descriptions tend to be holistic and beggar analysis (pun intended).

The developmental stage of anal discovery, where the infant goes beyond oral, and discovers voluntary control of their bowels is observable too.

I'm no qualified psychologist, however You might enjoy exploring the expression "Collective Unconscious"DDB 11:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware none of Freud's theories have stood up to verification by scientific methods, but I do not remember the sources. Personally I think they are still attractive to many people as, like semiology, you can use them to do a lot of important-sounding armchair speculation without being required to check the facts. Myself I find social psychology to be much more interesting.

I was just struck by how completely the Bush administration, as well as most of the other recent ones (I'm youngish, so my political memory doesn't extend very long), has been in support of Israel. I will make no judgements on either side of the Israeli-Palestine issue, but it does seem to be much more two-sided than America's absolute support of Israel might lead an outsider to believe. Considering that the support of Palestinians, and through them much of the Islamic Middle East, is really crucial to the security of our future, it seems strange to me that we so unconditionally (within reasonable limits) support the other side. I understand this is partly because we felt we were in the same boat after 9/11, but we supported them before that too. I understand that Jews are probably a bigger voting block in America than Arabs, and that they also generally have more money to give to various political parties. I can see that our general revulsion of "terrorism" makes the Palestinians enemies to start with with some Americans, but then again, the Israelis are guilty of countless acts of terrorism--early on very similar to the stuff Al Quaeda and Hamas does. I just don't see how the group of, in my opinion, fairly minor factors can add up to produce such a powerfully pro-Israeli country. Even most "liberals" are strongly pro-Israel, and, most alarmingly, in my opinion, there seems to have never been much of a public debate in America about who is in the right in that corner of the world. It seems we've sort of transferred our general, oversimplified "they're terrorists; kill them and punish their families--no questions asked" policy to this terribly nuanced situation in Israel and Palestine. I can't see this being just a belief of Bush's, because he has no morals. And I think, in purely political terms, this goes strongly against our national interest. Humanitarian-ly, as well, it seems that Americans have a blind spot for every tank that rolls into Ramalla. There's rarely a discussion of the morality and political right of this, even on generally fair news show like The News Hour. Anybody have any ideas for why else this might be the case? Sashafklein 06:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The politicans reflect American popular opinion. The last poll I saw showed support for Israel somewhere around 60% and support for the Palestinian Authority around 30 percent. I forget the exact numbers. I guess Americans just simply have an easier time understanding Israel's point of view. Most nations are more sympathetic to the Palestinian point of view. It's just how it is.

The Bush administration supports a two-state solution, like most of the world, the Israelis, and most Palestinians. In fact, the administration seems to follow others on this issue. The Quartet decided to ban Hamas until the 3 conditions were accepted and Canada was the first to follow through.

I see plenty of debate in the mainstream media, especially in newsprint but also on TV. Some are more sympathetic with one side or the other but it's all there.

BTW, for someone lobbying for nuance your "Bush has no morals" spiel really hurts your case. It's difficult to take you seriously. - Pyro19 08:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Governments in general have no morality. To stay in power requires realpolitik, called realism by some. Morality only comes into play when an affectation of it furthers the purposes sought. The Prince is required reading here. US politicians who maintain a balanced position won't survive very long.  --Lambiam^Talk 08:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the public opinion thing, but that argument, I think, puts a bit too much of the blame, it there is to be any, on the general populace rather than on the government. Don't you think that that 60 or so % support is largely an effect of the government's prolongued stance? I suppose this could be a chicken-and-egg type scenario. I happen to be not old enough to remember, if it was ever clear, which came first.

And criticism taken, Pyro, although disagreed with. I was neither exactly making a case nor touting my own lack of bias. The issue is nuanced; you're being too generous to expect the same of my opinions. Sashafklein 08:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'd need polling data that goes way back. I doubt that would be easy to find out.

Also, just to add to Lambiam's point, America's close relationship to Israel was born out of realpolitik. Up until 1967, both nations had practically no relationship to speak of. Only after Israel quickly defeated the Soviet Union's Arab allies in the six day war was there recognition of Israel's usefulness as an ally. Since then though, it has grown beyond that. The exact tempo in the relationship depends on the President himself, for example, Bush sr. was more skeptical about Israel than his son is. Bush sr. also happened to be more realpolitik than his son as well. - Pyro19 09:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "recognition of Israel's usefulness" had a lot to do with the outburst of sympathy for Israel among the Jewish-American constituency, who thought that Israel had been attacked without provocation and had narrowly escaped annihilation.  --Lambiam^Talk 11:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What conflict are you referring to, Lambiam, when you speak of those Jews "who thought that Israel had been attacked without provocation and had narrowly escaped annihilation". When you use the word "thought", I can't help but take it that in your opinion, the "thought" was completely unfounded. As perhaps the best example, take a look at the Yom Kippur War. The possibility of Israel's annihilation in that conflict was no paranoid delusion. The War started off terribly for Israel. Were it not for a couple of lucky twists of fate, (plus of course some sheer genius "seat of the pants" tactical decisions,) Israel would have been annihilated then and there.

As for the influence of "Jewish-American" constituency, 2% of the American population is rather small, wouldn't you say? If any American consituency can be singled out as having the most pro-Israel influence, it would certainly be the far more numerous, staunchly pro-Israel Evangelical Christian "Bible Belt" American constituency, not American Jews. Just as an example, guys like Pat Robertson are so staunchly pro-Israel, that many American Jews actually have a tendency to cringe at some of his "over-the-top" pro-Israel remarks. Yes, the guy's sure one wacky old fool, but I'm certainly not complaining! Go Pat! Loomis 18:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a complex web of issues. Here's a few additional answers... I'm surprised none of the respondents has yet pointed out that Israel is a rare example of a Middle Eastern democracy and thus a natural US ally. It's also strategically very important, as its location is pretty much a gateway between continents (see its depiction in various Mappa Mundi for how medieval people saw it thematically) making it important to the USA to have a measure of influence or even control. Since 9/11, the USA has seen itself as a target for Islamic fundamentalism and this will have further bolstered support. --Dweller 10:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the Palestinians were smart enough to engage in peaceful resistance, in the mode of Ghandi or Martin Luther King, instead of terrorism, I believe they would have garnered US support and would be in a far better position than they are now. However, in the current climate, it's impossible for most Americans to support Palestine when so many Palestinians support terrorist organizations, like Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad. Also note the strategic importance of Israel is a result of their willingness to break all the rules, like when they bombed the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq, thus ending Saddam's nuclear program. The US may again need Israel to act against Iran's nuclear program. StuRat 12:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Political ignorance of the situation doesn't help. Interesting article by Brian Walden on the BBC website - [3] Jooler 16:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That article is mainly on Iraq. I think most Americans have a fair idea of what's going on in the conflict between Israel and Palestine, since it's gone on for generations now. StuRat 21:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another article that proves Stu's point so thoroughly and so convincingly, that after reading it, I can't see anyone possibly having any doubt in their mind whatsoever that he's 100% on the money: [4]. Seriously guys, read it, you'll be amazed at the extent it which it opens your eyes to the real, uncontrovertible TRUTH of the matter. :-) Loomis 18:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I think there certainly is a debate on this issue in the U.S. If you read the op-ed pages of any American newspaper (save maybe The Washington Times), you will find both pro- and anti-Israel columns run on occasion. I also disagree with any British perspective that Americans are somehow uninformed or misinformed on the issue. If you compare the way the American media covers the Israeli-Palestinian issue to the way the British media does, you'll find the U.S. media is much fairer. For example, I saw the BBC News the day after Rachel Corrie died. Unlike the American media reports, the BBC report did not say why the Israelis were bulldozing houses. They made it seem like the Israelis were knocking down houses for fun. Similarly, Reuters always refers to Israeli settlements as "considered illegal under international law," even though some people (especially the Israelis) disagree. Reuters also used to refer to the so-called Al-Aqsa Intifada as an "uprising for independence," when it's clear that simple independence is not the goal of the terrorist organizations.

Of course, it is hard to think about this question without showing one's bias. I'm a supporter of Israel, so I think that the more-accurate media portrayal of Israel in the American media leads to more support for Israel in the U.S. than in other countries. Americans realize that although Israel is far from perfect, Arab terrorists attack Israel no matter what it does, and they will continue to do so until either the last Jew is driven from the Middle East or until the terrorists realize there is nothing to be gained from terrorism. Unfortunately, the more people terrorists kill, the more sympathy they get from some types of people -- especially outside of the U.S. -- Mwalcoff 00:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre statement - "Reuters always refers to Israeli settlements as "considered illegal under international law," well it's true isn't it? - The establishment of settlements were publically opposed by Johnson, Nixon, Ford and publically declared illegal by Carter. But Reagan changed the script. However even Bush called them "an obstacle to peace". Of course Israel doesn't agree. As for Rachel Corrie, she just happens to be the American who got bulldozed, the demolition of houses or destruction of other private property of individuals residing in occupied territories is explicitly forbidden by the Fourth Geneva Convention (Article 53), as is collective punishment (Article 33). Is this explained aswell? See also James Millerand Tom Hurndall. Jooler 11:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may think the settlements are "illegal under international law," and so may Jimmy Carter. But not everyone does -- as our article on Israeli settlements makes clear. A responsible news service would not take sides in that manner. Similarly, you may disagree with the Israeli policies of bulldozing houses, but a responsible news organization would explain to its viewers why it's being done and let the viewers make up their own minds, rather than only tell one side of the story. -- Mwalcoff 14:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not what I think or what you think but what Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, to which Israel is a signatory, says i.e. - "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies" - As for the BBC nand Rachel Corrie - this report on here death seems to cover your concerns http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2856433.stm Jooler 16:49, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That article seems to say that Israel can't legally force anyone to move from Israel to Palestine, not that they must prevent everyone from doing so. In fact, I believe that preventing people from moving where they wish would itself be seen as a violation of human rights. I do agree, however, that the settlements are a very bad idea, since they are extremely difficult to defend against attacks. StuRat 00:38, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The legal status of the settlements is not nearly as cut and dry as you make it out to be, as is clear from our articles on the subject. If you were to write "The settlements are illegal under international law" in a Wikipedia article, you would be called out for violating WP:NPOV. Apparently the standard of neutrality is higher at Wikipedia than it is at Reuters. -- Mwalcoff 23:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. As a Jew, and a Canadian but NOT an Israeli citizen, apparently I wouldn't be violating any "Geneva Convention", and would have just as easy a time applying for citizenship in a newly formed Palestinian State as a my good Tunisian-Canadian friend. Yeah right... Loomis 18:22, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no idea how this hypothetical situation relates to anything previously said here. Jooler 18:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so I'll explain it, Jooler. As Jew, but not an Israeli citizen, I'm not a citizen of any occupying power in the West Bank. The above mentioned Geneva Convention wouldn't seem to apply to me. Yet if both myself and an Arab friend of mine were to ask for the PA's permission to live there, he would surely be far more welcome than I, despite the myth that "the Palestinians haven't got anything against Jews, only Israelis." Any clearer? Loomis 21:03, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. I understand what you said, but WTF has it got to do with the price of rice in China? It still has no bearing on the subject being discussed. It's a straw man. Israel is a signatory Geneva Convention and as such is expected nay obligated to respect it. It matter not whether certain individuals hate certain other individuals, but one expects the leaders democratic states to follow the principles of law and justice even if their enemies don't. Jooler 18:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh but they are illegal Mwalcoff! Haven't you heard? Apparently, Palestine is meant to be Jüdenrein ! How dare a Jew settle and make a home in "Palestinian" territory! (This discussion is just too silly, but gotta love a guy with a Jewish sounding name putting down Israel as a terrorist state akin to Hamas and Al Quaeda! Doesn't get any better than that, does it?) :-) Loomis 15:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you are referring to me. Jooler is a corrupted nickname/version of Julian. Jooler 18:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the respondants have answered this question well, I still feel compelled to give my thoughts.

I'm a little uncomfortable with assumptions underlying the question. In fact, I feel that the Bush administration is being fair and balanced, not favouring Israel, nor Palestine. I believe there to be an anti Israeli bias among liberals.

I don't think an administration can support terrorists. The sad truth is that the conservative, centrist poly's of Palestine have been eliminated by their compatriots over the years. Both Fatah and Hamas are led by known terrorists. Israel is victim of propaganda and perception. The PLO have circulated on the internet erronius claims regarding massacres and rights which confound school students trying to learn about the issue. I have read one PLO sponsored report that suggests Jews don't exist anymore and Israeli Jews are not related to those of Judae at the time of Christ.

The fact is, Israeli peoples want to live in peace with Palestine. The UN has failed in its responsibility to give Palestine a state that is secure for its peoples and their neighbors. However, neither Fatah, nor Hamas are willing to guarentee Israeli security, and no Israeli government is going to surrender its security. DDB 10:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely put, DDB. However, though I'll say it again that I'm clearly no fan of the UN, in all fairness, I don't think they should shoulder the blame for this one. (To be sure, in this respect, I'm confining by entire judgement to the actions it took in 1947, and NOT to its subsequent decay.) The UN proposed a two state solution way back in 1947. The Israelis accepted it, and the Palestinians rejected it. The UN may be a fundamentally flawed institution, yet in the spirit of intelectual honesty, I can't blame for for at least making a pretty decent effort back in '47 on the matter. Loomis 17:43, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

America's support for Israel stems as a result of the Cold War. Israel was a newly formed country, and the United States needed a strong ally in the Middle East in order to combat the Soviet Union's attempts to Communize the Middle East. Israel made perfect sense, since the Communists often demonized Jews in their propaganda. And of course, the Israeli lobby in the United States is not blameless either. --Ķĩřβȳ♥ŤįɱéØ 11:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the early days of the Israeli state, the USSR heavily courted Israel, believing that the Kibbutz movement and (at that time) strong socialist values of the Chalutzim made the country ripe for being a client state. They failed but had greater success with Arab clients. --Dweller 16:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting Israel might have made strategic sense for the United States during the Cold War (though I doubt this), but I agree with the original poster that it does not make strategic sense for the United States to support a tiny state of 6 million people that is despised by hundreds of millions in the vast region surrounding Israel, which includes most of the world's oil reserves. Putting aside the moral issues for a moment to focus on the strategic ones, US support for Israel puts the United States at risk of numerous costly military interventions like that in Iraq in order to secure access to oil in a hostile region that would not be hostile were it not for US support of Israel. (Is the Middle East hostile to China, for example?) US support for Israel and general insensitivity to non-Israeli Middle Easterners also allows Middle Eastern opponents of Israel (Iran's theocracy, for example) to muster popular support by adopting a hostile attitude toward the United States. Arguably, US support for nuclear-armed Israel drove Iran to develop nuclear technology.

As for popular support for Israel in the United States, apart from some (not all) Jews and a conservative Christian minority who are attached to Israel for sentimental or religious reasons, public support for Israel is shallow and can be explained by a US news media that is almost without exception presents events as Israel's right wing would like them presented. Every killing of an Israeli civilian is of course wrong and tragic, but so is every killing of a Palestinian Arab civilian. Yet the US media lavishes attention on every killing of an Israeli civilian and ignores the deaths of many Palestinian civilians, even though those deaths outnumber Israeli civilian deaths by about 7 to 1. It also ignores the privileges that Jewish settlers enjoy in the West Bank and Gaza strip and the grating hardships and economic ruin caused by the Israeli occupation, the "defensive" wall cutting Palestinian towns off from their hinterlands, the checkpoints that cause people to die in ambulances because they are delayed in reaching hospitals, the confiscation of dwellings and land, etc., etc. Most Americans are completely unaware of the injustices suffered by Palestinians and inundated with images of Israeli suffering, so of course they are sympathetic to Israel.

Marco polo 16:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Americans who pay any attention to the news are at all unaware of Palestinian suffering. One of the top "World News" stories on Yahoo-AP right now is "4 Palestinians killed in Israeli raid." Do you think the AP would pay any attention to the death of four people in Sri Lanka or Tajikistan? Issues like checkpoints, the wall/fence/security barrier/whatever, the desperate poverty in Gaza, are all discussed in the American media. But most Americans believe those depravations are the result of Palestinian terrorism, not the Israeli occupation. If you go back to before the first intifada, there was relatively little restriction on movement within the West Bank and between the West Bank and Israel. Even after the first intifada, there was no security wall and no (as far as I remember) Israeli-only roads in the West Bank. Those security precautions were taken after the rise of Hamas and the beginning of the so-called Oslo War. Israel would much rather have not had to put up barriers in the West Bank, if for no other reasons than because they cost a lot of money, limit Israeli access to cheap Palestinian labor and inhibit Israelis from visiting places like Jericho, which used to attract Israeli tourists.

To go back to the main point of this discussion, I agree that U.S. support for Israel is not based on strategy. It's based on most Americans, Jewish and non-Jewish, considering Israel to be mostly right and the Arabs to be mostly wrong. There is, fortunately, no major constituency for an anti-Israeli position, outside of some pockets of cities like Detroit. -- Mwalcoff 23:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason they don't have a problem with China is that China hasn't had much interaction with Muslims until recently (one exception is conflicts with the Uyghurs, which are mostly suppressed by the Chinese gov). Many Muslims despise Russia, as a result of Afghanistan, Chechnya, etc., so it's unfair to say that the US withdrawing support for Israel would cause Muslims to love the US. The main reason al Queda and Iran chose the US as the "great Satan" is that it's the sole surviving superpower. I suppose, if the US became isolationist, then the Muslim terrorists would no longer focus on the US, but would instead focus on Chechnya, Somalia, etc., at least in the short term. StuRat 00:19, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I ought to announce that I have decided to drop all attempts at "balance." However, a few statements need to be addressed. Loomis's statement that as a Jew he'd have a difficult time going to live in Palestine is thoughtless. That's not to say it's untrue, but rather tremendously one-sided. What about the publicly acknowledged policy Israel has of discriminating towards Jews in its immigration policy? All Jews around the world are given free transportation for a single trip into Israel, a clear example of the favoritism you just attacked Palestine for. Moreover, what reason at all do most Jewish people have to live in Palestine? Many Arabs in the region, however, have much reason to live and work in Israel, where job quality and quantity, education, healthcare, security etc., is better.

And, DDB, how is there a liberal bias against Israel? Perhaps you are talking about the minute percentage of "liberals" (socialists) who live in NYC, but for the most part, liberals are fairly equally pro-Israel. Jews are by a large majority Democrats, and if you haven't noticed from this chat, they are also by-and-large pro-Israel. Moreover, to call it a "bias" among liberals is to reveal a major blind spot of yours. Why don't you feel that pro-Israel newscasters, or republicans, have a "bias towards Israel?" Because you yourself agree with them. If you felt otherwise, this "bias" against Israel amoung liberals would not be a bias at all in your mind, but rather just the right notion.

And does nobody else notice how, while a terrorist bombing which kills perhaps 30 people would get mainstream coverage for a week and perhaps even a name of its own (ie "The Cafe Massacre"), the invasion of Ramalla, which killed inumerably (literally, because they're not counted) more people and crippled an entire city for weeks, hardly got more than one or two serious days of coverage and then little references on how it was "ongoing" for a couple days to follow. The fact is, Israel kills many, many more people--with its strategic missle strikes and tank attacks--then the "terrorists" do, and most of those Israel is killing are citizens as well. And sure. From time to time Israel is reported on, but most people would never dream of calling the Israeli army a terrorist army, even though that's exactly what they're doing--terrorizing a population that they have no certainty is supporting the small numbers of attackers. And it's just peurile of Israel to believe that anything in this situation would be sudden. Palestinian terrorists aren't going to stop attacking the second Israelis let their guns down, because the terrorists hate the Israelis. If Israel would just sit tight and wait out for a substantial time without retaliating and pissing more people off, then they'd eventually have a chance of engendering friendship and peace. The ball is really in Israel's court, and I find it ridiculous that, apart from basic coverage, few in the media ever condemn Israel's actions. And a "neutral" stance towards the subject is simply a green light for Israel to continue invading its neighbor without any universal condemnation. I think you're all kidding yourselves in disagreeing with what Marco Polo said about a pro-Israel media slant. 70.108.219.115

I'd like to know what media you get your news from if you think no one in the media ever condemns Israel. Almost every U.S. newspaper I see occasionally has columns against Israeli policies and quotes both Israeli and Palestinian sources. Palestinian representatives like Saeb Erekat and Hanan Ashrawi appear on U.S. TV all the time. It's not that Americans aren't getting both sides. It's that they choose to believe that blowing up a family dinner on purpose is worse than unintentionally killing civilians in an attempt to prevent the first kind of attacks. And if you were to look at the media coverage I've been mentioning, you'd find that the most terrorist attacks came when Israel was easing up on the Palestinians, and that the level of attacks only diminished with the imposition of tough policies such as the construction of the wall/fence/security barrier/whatever. -- Mwalcoff 03:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Organizations like Hamas aren't dedicated to a two state solution, but are dedicated to the destruction of Israel. As such, they will engage in terrorism whenever the opportunity arises. They may very well blame each attack on the latest "provocation" they can find, but I would guess the absence of such events would only change the timing of the terrorist attacks. And, at this point, any concessions made to the Palestinians simply look like a reward for terrorism, and are likely to encourage even more. StuRat 13:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly wouldn't call Bill Clinton biased in favor of Israel. After all, his Parameters said that the Palestinians should have sole sovereignty over the Temple Mount, which is an extremely pro-Palestinian position. Also, the strong U.S. support of Israel nowadays is partially due to the Israel lobby and partially due to Americans' perceptions and positive/negative attitudes towards the region. Israel is generally more popular in the U.S. than the Palestinians and other Arab countries, in large part due to the fact that Israel is a democracy and doesn't target civilians, while the Palestinians target civilians in terrorist attacks and also many Arab countries are dictatorships and anti-human rights (such as anti-women's and gay rights). Futurist110 (talk) 05:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve heard a story about a British preacher who gathered up a whole bunch of London prostitutes to start a new life in America and for awhile had established a settlement near Jacksonville or St. Augustine, Florida. But then some of the women grew tired of the settlement and departed for the Tampa, Florida area where they settled again in their old ways and where now their descendents are the main players in the illicit sex trade. Is this true and are their any records or history to back this up? 71.100.6.152 09:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to believe. This implies that prostitution is based on genetics, rather than economical plight. (Of course, poverty often is passed on to new generations, as well...) 惑乱 分からん 12:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This would only prove it was genetics if the daughters weren't raised by their mothers. If they were, it might be a simple case of emulating the behavior of their mothers, which is widely known to occur. StuRat 12:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although there may or may not be a genetic predisposition it is common to find prostitute mothers teaching and accompanying there teenage and younger daughters on the job. Some "Johns" admit frequenting the area for no other reason than its high number of mother/daughter "teems." 71.100.10.48 20:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Especially if they are teeming with "teams". StuRat 20:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If prostititute mothers are teaching there, where are "their" real mothers? Loomis 14:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't there good scientific testing of the Codex Vaticanus for determining its authenticity of dating? Or for that matter any other Codex, like Codex Sinaiticus, that is used as a basis that the New Testament text is some 2000 years old. What if scientific testing (i.e. radio carbon dating, Mass spectrometry), being mathematical and unbiased, proved these to be false and just another in the long line of Archaeological forgery? There are today less intrusive testing methods, like Mass spectrometry, that could prove this without destroying much material in the process. Since there is so much money (and other things) involved, then isn't there a very good chance of Archaeological forgery to gain the upper hand? Otherwise the "dating" of Codex Vaticanus or Codex Sinaiticus is just some people's opinion; especially those that will greatly benefit personally (i.e. financially, power, prestige, social status, etc). What if this testing proved the Codex Vaticanus to be of a time period around the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Century? I think this is quite possible, especially since it was not discovered until a library was established at the Vatican. According to the Wikipedia article, then it was then put into their first catalogs of 1475 and 1481. So where did it come from? The article even says it is pure speculation of its dating: Its place of origin and the history of the manuscript is uncertain. It doesn't seem logical to me to be floating around in various people's hands for over a 1000 years, then conveniently shows up in the Vatican Library (just when they could use something of 'authority' to gain some power). They had no idea of its "Dating" and were just guessing at it. Of course, the older it "appears" then the more value ("power") it has.--Doug 11:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although the Vatican did not have a catalogued library before the 15th century, it did possess a collection of manuscripts. As you can read in the article on the Vatican Library, Pope Nicholas V established the library in the Vatican in 1448 by combining some 350 Greek, Latin and Hebrew codices inherited from his predecessors with his own collection and extensive acquisitions, among them manuscripts from the imperial library of Constantinople. In the 15th century prospective forgerers simply did not have the knowledge to produce a forged 4th century manuscript that would stand up for a second against present expertise in philology, ancient handwriting, and so on. And what would have been the point? The various extant Greek codices are in good agreement with the Septuagint and each other, so do you think they are all later forgeries?  --Lambiam^Talk 12:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one is "just guessing," and the standard view of the date comes from the community of scholars, not from an interested party like the Vatican Library itself. Such scholars are careful to state that their conclusions are "uncertain," but these uncertainties are not as great as you assume, as much is known within a relatively narrow range (better than could be achieved by any presently available "scientific testing") and beyond any reasonable doubt. I don't think uninformed speculations or the WP Ref. Desk can substitute for a Ph.D. in paleography or papyrology, which would acquaint one with the basic knowledge and skills needed to make any credible criticism of well-accepted scholarly conclusions. Those with knowledge of these fields are not retailing "just some people's opinion" and are scholars who have not done anything to deserve your slur ("especially those that will greatly benefit personally"). Likewise, nothing about the state of papyrological studies or the evidence of the oldest witnesses to the text of the New Testament lends support to these conspiracy theories. Wareh 15:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an online popular introduction to get you started (with some further bibliography): Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts. Wareh 15:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's assuming it came from the imperial library of Constantinople. I tend to think it came from Avignon when that library was moved to Rome around 1400 +/- 20 years. What if instead it was written up in the Fourteenth Century in Greek as a method to hide from the powers to be in Avignon (not designed intentionally a fake manuscript, as you are saying in the second part of your argument). Totally agree with you that Pope Nicholas V established the library in the Vatican in 1448 by combining some 350 Greek, Latin and Hebrew codices inherited from his predecessors with his own collection and extensive acquisitions. His predecessors being the Popes in Avignon. I tend to think that it is an Archaeological forgery from the viewpoint that perhaps the Vatican would rather authenticate it themselves to be able to keep its value up; therefore "power" over the people. It has nothing to do with 15th century prospective forgerers of any forger person, but more of a political move on the part of the Vatican. So to settle the argument: Why isn't there good scientific testing of the Codex Vaticanus for determining its authenticity of dating? Otherwise we are still back to the fact "the dating" has been established by the powers that be since they (Vatican) are establishing where it came from. Scientific testing is mathematical and unbaised, where perhaps the Vatican could be biased (don't you think). --Doug 15:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit too much "what if". What if the popes are actually robots operated by the Illuminati, assisted by scientific knowledge provided by Greys, while Wikipedia was set up by them as a tool to deceive those who are about to find out the truth? If it was a forgery, that would have been discovered by now. As I wrote, prospective forgerers simply did not have the knowledge to produce a forged 4th century manuscript that would stand up for a second against present expertise. Also, several early codices, for example the Codex Alexandrinus, the Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, and the Codex Bezae, do not come from the Vatican collection. Others, like the Codex Amiatinus, ended up in the Vatican only centuries later. By the way, it may interest you that there is a 4th century translation of the Bible into the Gothic language; see Codex Argenteus.  --Lambiam^Talk 17:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very good points, especially of the additional Codexes. However these are based on the field of paleography. Perhaps I just view the Vatican as having a motive for establishing the date as being from the first few centuries. If anything this would possibly be a remark against the Vatican. However I am sure they have had such remarks like this before (probably even worse). Let me say I really do appreciate the information and the websites you noted. It so happens that I am in communication with the Vatican Library, the British Library, the British Museum, and Chester Beatty Library. So I didn't just make these comments off the spur of the moment without thinking first. I didn' just come up with "what if's", but have been working on this problem for some 2 years now. Let me point out in this website that towards the bottom it says in reference to Codex Sinaiticus: In 1933 it was sold to the British Museum in London for a mere 100,000 pounds. That was a very large sum of money in the Great Depression. Now as far as I can see in the field of paleography one still has to establish some reference points to establish this "dating" of these manuscripts. In all my communications with these many large Libraries and Museums, so far nobody has been able to show me how they reference these manuscripts to some well known standard. Then how was this standard verified as to its date? Perhaps you have much better knowledge on this? Bottomline what is needed is a standard to reference the dating. Show me this standard that I have not been able to find. I really do appreciate your answers. I think this is a great argument, don't you think? --Doug 17:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you've glanced at the article I linked, but please read it with more care. You may disagree with the balanced presentation of established facts there, but the rest of us, faced with believing either that Peter van Minnen is misinformed or corrupt, or that your views are totally uninformed conspiracy theory, have a very easy choice indeed. Also, you are totally mistaken about the Vatican's involvement, for the simple reason that virtually all of the important work in this field has been done by scholars from outside the Vatican.

If you are sincere (which I find difficult to believe) in your desire to learn more about the standards by which scholars know about these things, you will need access to a good research library and can begin with the bibliographies here and here. Obviously, you will eventually need to learn Greek.

This is not a great argument, and I am exasperated by your deaf pursuit of fantasy & refusal to see that you are trying to build on no foundation at all. I will try to restrain myself from continuing my fruitless efforts to obtrude upon you a respect for people who have bothered to learn about ancient languages and documents. The only further question from you I can imagine relishing the chance to answer is "I am in location X, and have some time and money/no money on my hands. What is the best way to acquire a basic reading knowledge of ancient Greek (or some other branch of historical or linguistic science)?" Wareh 18:10, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But don't give up now; we are getting to the Nity-Gritty. Hear me through and I would like to get an answer from you or anyone that would like to answer this very important question.
1) I am very sincere on this question. It turns out I have already asked this very same thing to the top scholars (over 1000) in these fields and related fields. Their ultimate answer is basicaly the same as your answer (very similar wording). They give up and send me off in different directions (pretty much as you have). If you would like I would be glad to forward a few dozen such e-mails of my communication to you on this (kept them all). FYI I have asked this to 1000's of clergy of the Christian faith as well. They also did not have a good answer.
2) Instead of sending me off in different directions (need to learn Greek) why not furnish this standard you obviously already know about as the reference for establishing the dating of these various Codexes. That would be easier in the long run. So far out of all these scholars and large Libraries and large Museums (i.e. British Museum) nobody has done this yet. You apparently can not also (if you can, just go ahead and put it righ here). I am betting 2 years hard research you can not (zero, nada, zipo) show this standard that is used for dating the supposed ancient Codexes (i.e. Codex Vaticanus). Please prove me wrong. I welcome anybody to answer this point. You will be 1 in a 1000. A very high honor. Go ahead, show me. Otherwise it is a mere opinion of a person (well paid I must say). I have been sent to hundreds of such scholars that have "supposedly" established this dating, so he is not the first (and I suspect not the last). Even the scholar you are pointing out has to have the ultimate standard for establishing these dates. You must agree and can not argue this point whatsoever.
3)Since all these scholars have (as you say) established that of the dating to some standard then there should be hundreds of scholars that have this standard. Could I get the names of just a few of them. Don't say I will have to find on my own. I've already done this research, you have not. So if you know of such, now is the time.... --Doug 20:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Talk about time, follow this argument. Gather together a dozen or so people that have wrist watches. Ask them what time it is. You will come up with a dozen answers. Now ask them who's is the correct time? Of course there will be a few that will say there's is the absolute correct time. Between them, their times each will be different. Ask them why they feel theirs is the correct time and it will only be a personal opinion (i.e. mine is an expensive Timex watch, all expensive Timex watches are accurate). Now would you say just because it is a Timex watch it is correct? Of course not, because it is just a person's opinion. So bottomline, who's watch has the correct time? Answer: the one that is synced to WWV, a scientific standard. The only other time that would be more accurate (could only be read with a digital clock with many digits) would be the Atomic Clock, another scientific standard. --Doug

Doug, remarks like "you must agree with this and can not argue what so ever" is perhaps not a good way to get information from people. Lambiam especially has provided some very specialized responses to many of your questions. A little politeness/calmness wouldn't hurt. It's also not necessary to wikilink words like 'library', 'standard' 'reference' and '14th century'. Excessive blue links are unnecessary, especially on the Ref Desk. BenC7 02:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with you on that. Thanks for the advice. --Doug 12:16, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep totally agreeing with people, and then ignoring everything they say? --ColinFine 16:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Partially agree with you. I take the answers they provide and use that information, which is a good chunk. Not at all ignoring what they say. If you follow my remarks, usually I remark on what they have said in that I appreciate their answer and am working with the material; however many of the Nitty Gritty questions I haven't received answers on yet. Some of the really good ones are just dodged. I am trying to get good answers on them. Example: still looking for the "standards" for the reference points as to how it is established in palaeography the dating of ancient Codexes. Nobody knows the answer to this. I have research this for 2 years and asked over 1000 scholars; nobody knows. Then how does one know the dates (even approximately) of the Codex Vaticanus. Many believe it is from the first few centuries, however there is no reference for this. Looking for this standard. It you will notice I asked this very specific question early today, however of as now (being 1800 hours EST) this is the only question not answered. So while I am not at all ignoring what they have to say, in fact really appreciate it and work with it, I am still looking for the real Nitty Gritty answers. I do not believe the Codex Vaticanus is from the first few centuries, however from the Fourteenth Century. I have shown my proof with the chain of custody, still looking for their answer. --Doug 23:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The standard is very simple. Some manuscripts are dated by their scribes. Their context & content show that there is nothing controversial or controvertible about their dating, and, when you dig up a papyrus scrap of boring business receipts that happens to be dated by a ruler's year (have a look in Colin H. Roberts, Greek Literary Hands, 350 B.C.-400 A.D., Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956), well, guess what, it was not planted in the ancient rubbish heap buried under the Egyptian desert by the Vatican! Only such dated manuscripts are used in the standard textbooks of paleography, like Ruth Barbour, Greek Literary Hands, A.D. 400-1600, (Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press, 1981). With many years of study, in careful reliance upon the most securely dated evidence available, you develop an expert understanding of the development of Greek writing, and its characteristics in a given time and place. From this, you arrive at a date for an undated manuscript. If you are good enough at this, you can get it down pretty specifically. The people who are good at this are not Vatican operatives, they are boring scholars with no crazed agenda. If you want to understand it better, take a course in paleography. Otherwise, you're like someone who has an English vocabulary of 400 words but claims to detect stylistic aberrations in some of Shakespeare's comedies that prove they're by Queen Elizabeth. Or, to use a more precise analogy, like someone who can't do long division, but just starts by assuming that the textbooks in the library on differential geometry and abstract algebra may be full of malicious or hoodwinked lies! It should be obvious why such a person would never arrive at a well-informed understanding of the subject. The definition of a scholar (say, a Ph.D.) is someone who can create new knowledge (say, date a MS) on a firm methodological foundation that goes all the way back to first principles. A good grasp of first principles will also allow the community of scholars to weed out any BS, conspiracies, etc. You are not a scholar (which is 100% of the reason why you do not have access to "the standard," and not because anyone is stonewalling you), but the perplexing thing is that you don't seem to believe that scholars exist and do this kind of work.

I have now given you the standard. Please read the two books on Greek Literary Hands mentioned above. They contain some of the standard you seek, and are even in English! Please do not tell me you are still in the dark about the standard. You may not understand the standard presented in these manuals (that is why people study with teachers in Ph.D. programs—it's not child's play), but since pursuing systematic learning is "sending you off in different directions," I will instead just cherish the thought of you poring over Roberts and Barbour at the library. The bibliographies I linked before have ample further discussion about methods and will give you some idea about the issues involved. Some of these books have fun titles like The Papyrologist at Work and The New Papyrological Primer. Wareh 04:12, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that some people are very inspired (i.e. Da Vince, Einstein, Edison), while most of the world seems mostly uninspired? A formal education does not seem a basis to get these "inspirations". Many very famous successful people did not have a formal education. Likewise many with Degrees now-a-days have trouble with what I call the "basics" (i.e. using common sense to solve simple problems). Having a 4 year College Degree today doesn't mean all that much. Those with a High School education and those with a College Degree both basically start many jobs at "entry level". The one that can use common sense to come up with great "ideas" then seems to get ahead faster (which could just as easily be the High School "Grad"). So is there some sort of "Universal Source" out there someplace that has a stock pile of Ideas. How does one "connect" to this "Universal Source" of Ideas?
It's certainly not via cyberspace (however maybe it helps). Would I need some sort of super Cable Modem or can I just "dial up" Ideas? --Doug 11:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creativity involves being able to combine different areas of expertise into a solution. The typical start of an invention is noticing something that doesn't work well. Next you need to come up with a solution, which may involve various technical fields of expertise, but not always. One of the simplest recent inventions was a paint filter, used to separate out clumps from paint powder. The old system used a horizontal filter, which would clogs with clumps of paint powder in short order. The invention was to put the filter at an angle so the clumps would roll off and the rest would continue to go through the filter. This didn't require much technical expertise. The final step is to figure out how to market an idea. In some cases it's best to patent it then sell it to a company, in others you may try to produce and sell the product yourself. Here is an observation I've made, which you're welcome to use to improve the product:

• The window shade mechanism doesn't work very well. They often go flying up when you try to pull them down. A version with a switch that only allows it to come down in one position and only go up in the other position might sell well. See if you can design a mechanism to do that. StuRat 12:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of common sense and informal education being better than all the university degrees in the world is one with great tradition. In reality common-sense has failing just like formalised education, not least because definining what is common-sense is particularly difficult. What makes someone an inventor or entrepreneur? Based on the rapid advancements made in the past 150 years...access to technology, education (though what level i'm not entirely sure), access to financial backing, a culture that promotes innovation would be a few. For all the great ideas in the world without access to the requirements to make it happen (or access to people who can) your creation is worthless. I would be weary of expecting too much of common-sense and too little of formal education. The innovators of history worked remarkably harder on inventions than many think: The light-bulb, the tv, the steam engine, the electronic chip. These things weren't developed at random they came about through use of formal (and i'm sure informal) knowledge. The Eureka moment, as they say, is really quite rare. ny156uk 17:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An excellently put point — much of the idea of "genius" is mythmaking, often perpetuated by the people who are themselves called the geniuses (Edison, it can be said, was a genius at self-promotion). The common stereotype of Edison as a lone worker who would hit upon brilliant ideas through sheer thought and elbow-grease alone is nonsense; he established a major research laboratory staffed with excellent scientists, devoted a huge amount of his time to maintaining a library of technical inventions which he might improve upon or combine in unique ways, and spent a lot of his time building upon ideas of others that seemed promising but not quite implemented yet. His genius with the light bulb was not the bulb itself but the creation of an electrification infrastructure — a social-governmental-economic innovation more than a technical one. One of the very difficult things in studying "creativity" and "genius" is that we wrap these terms up in a lot of mythmaking and moralizing; it is very hard to get at the base of it in practical terms, and why so many studies of it are shallow.

Einstein, by the way, fits into the above as well. He did not work in a totally isolated world, he was working on problems which were important in physics in his day, he drew heavily on the work of others. Many of the key theoretical "thought problems" he is so famous for (such as how to coordinate clocks using electrical signals) were actually important technical issues at the time he worked in the Swiss patent office (clock coordination was a major early 20th century technical difficulty). This is not to disparage Einstein's intelligence, for he was truly intelligent, but helps to re-frame the question a bit away from "how do these ideas come out of nowhere?", which is in almost all cases the product of a myth. The relation between an innovator, their context, and their work is a very complicated one. --140.247.242.85 18:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would call Einstein a genius, in that he was able to think about the world in completely novel ways (but only when young, in his later years he couldn't accept new concepts like quantum mechanics). Edison, on the other hand, was not a genius (he couldn't even grasp A/C electricity), but rather a "plugger". Everyone knew you could make a filament glow for a while by passing electricity through it, but he improved the design through trial and error until eventually it became a usable light bulb. StuRat 20:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein's ways of thinking about the world were not "completely novel." If you get outside of the hagiography you will have a better idea of appreciating in what ways he was novel and in what ways he was not. Edison also utilized much more theoretical understanding and research than the mythical version of him holds. I hate to say it StuRat but I think you're caught within the myths here! In any case whether one calls someone a "genius" or not again depends on your definition of "genius" — it is a term which needs to be unpacked before it is useful. --24.147.86.187 01:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we take the example of his choice of a light bulb filament, a theoretical physicist might have looked at the periodic table and decided that tungsten was likely to be the best choice, while Edison just tried every material he could think of until he found one that worked well. StuRat 23:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should definately read Creativity In Science by D K Simonton - it answers all your questions and mentions the individuals above. One point for example is that it has been found that the chance of any scientific paper being a 'hit' is equal for any scientist, but the people regarded as geniuses were actually extremely prolific and hence had more 'hits' than other people.

That sounds extremely dubious to me. Robert K. Merton's work on the Matthew effect would seem to go against that sort of explanation. --24.147.86.187 01:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eistien worked at a patent office, thats where he got his ideas from. --Delma1 07:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. Chickenflicker---♣ 23:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many years ago, I was privaleged to study the 'history and philosophy of science' at university. It's a worthy question, regarding inspiration. However, a few observations: We live in the information age. Many people are trained academically than ever before. You might think that with more people better equipped to make discoveries that more people would. They do.

In the US, in 1970, some 1000 (different, distinct) books were published each day. 1970's space technology has been superceded. In 1980, my wife wore the net in her hair.

Worth noting, someone who is inspired may be wrong, too. Also worth noting that many discoveries are made simultaneously and independantly, suggesting a role modern technique has with inspiration, and tradition has in obfuscating and confounding discovery. DDB 10:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pls tell me , if i 'll search our gowda community in north india , which caste this 'll be and what title (surname ) should be ??pls reply for both the question i.e. caste and surnames.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.195.14 (talk • contribs)

We have an article Gowda, but it is all about this name in Karnataka. Are you asking about people from Gowda communities who migrated from Karnataka to Northern India?  --Lambiam^Talk 16:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that in discussion of early 20th century U.S. suburbs developed primairly around streetcar lines they are most frequently called streetcar suburbs vs. the less frequently used term trolley suburb. Are there specific differences in these two terms or are they completely interchangeable?Shc100 17:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect they are interchangeable, and that usage may be based on geography. In the midwestern part of the United States, where I live, I think "streetcar" was more common, particularly in Saint Louis. I believe "trolley" was in greater usage on the west coast, but I am not certain. Carom 17:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The scientists suggested I should ask this question over here instead, so: I am not mad, really. If I take two identical cups of boiling water, and sit and look at one of them for a few minutes it gets colder faster. I also tried this with identical plants, watching one and not the other, and the one I watched grew much fastr. Why would this happen?172.159.156.28 18:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is Confirmation bias. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me exactly how that would work and I will try to disprove it.172.159.156.28 19:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use the scientific method. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So if I could show you complete documentation of data and methodology, and repeat the experiments, you might believe me.172.159.156.28 19:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to be rather systematic and have a large sample size to have any great persuasive value here. You would also have to make sure that the experiment was planned correctly in the beginning — you would have to make sure you chose which plant you decided to watch at random, rather than perhaps allowing your subconscious mind to pick the most healthy looking one, for example. In any case it sounds ridiculous at this point, either an indication of bad methodology, bad measurement, or a bad grasp on reality. A better experiment with the water, for example, might involve more than two cups: pick six cups of boiling water, made of the same material and the same size. Number them, roll a die and use that to determine which one you "watch". Then systematically see if there are any statistically signficant changes in the cooling rate of that cup against the others. Then repeat the entire experiment six times to cancel out the possibility of it just being random luck. If, after all that, you still find signficant results, it would be still time to make sure that the methodology was air-tight. Only if there was no other explanation should one leap towards very strange ideas, such as the act of your eyes receiving photons from a cup somehow affects the rate at which the cup cools. It is fairly unlikely, to say the least, within any current physical or physiological theories, and is more likely a methodological error. --24.147.86.187 01:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only do inanimate objects not know they are being watched, they don't know they are inanimate or objects. I asked a cup of boiling water 20 questions, and it only got one right. That involved the right to remain silent. DDB 09:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if one looks at the belief of animism, all things have a soul, wants needs feelings and emotions. I find that i get more emotional response from coins or metal objects than other substances. Also, it has been proven through scientific study that if one is to place two peti dishes of fungi next to each other and pray for one, the one prayed for will grow faster. As to WHY this is so is a matter of spectulation. Thanks.

There was something like this, actually, in a movie called What the Bleep Do We Know. I happen to think it's all idiocy, but there's this thing they talked about in the movie where some scientist taped words like "good" or "bad" onto various vases of water and then took microsopic pictures (this is a very inaccurate description), and the water looked different. The implication was that the happy-labeled water looked happier or something, but i think it's all rubish and in fact hated the movie. A friend liked it though, and if you're into learning a little bit about quantum mechanics and equal amounts about pseudo-scientific self-improvement stuff, then you might consider looking at it. 70.108.219.115 21:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to know about post-modern sublime ( Kant), what is it , who wrote about it, and where i can find examples of it in literature and the media?

thank you

81.155.134.69 18:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure exactly what you are asking for.. perhaps you could expand..

However Kant talks about the 'sublime' in Critique of Judgement.

As I understand it postmodernism is a modern idea.. I don't expect kant to touch on this but I don't know.

You could look at the linked articles to see if they're any help as well as checking your understanding of the term Sublime (philosophy) eg a sublime thing.

Apologies if I've just shown my ignorance.87.102.6.220 22:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I, too, I'm fiding it a little difficult to determine just exactly what you are looking for, 81.155, especially with regard to your reference to the 'post-modern', which seems to be a very hazy concept here. However, since you mention Kant in relation to notions of the sublime I was immediately reminded of my reading of the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer, who takes Kant as his point of departure. In the Critique of Judgement, Kant says that taste is not a cognitive but an aesthetic judgement, and therefore is subjective in nature. But for Schopenhauer aesthetic awareness does constitute a form of knowledge, giving insight into a reality beyond mere scientific inquiry. For him aesthetic consiousness possesses a special value, the highest expression of which is the notion of the sublime. Here is one of my favourite passages from volume two of The World as Will and Representation which touches on this very subject, and finds Schopenhauer at his most poetic: Why does the sight of the full moon have such a beneficient, soothing, and exalting effect? Because the moon is an object of perception...never of willing...Further, it is sublime, in other words, it induces in us a sublime mood, because without any reference to us, it moves along eternally foreign to earthly life and activity, and sees everything, but takes part in nothing. Therefore at the sight of it the will, with its constant care and sorrow, vanishes from consciousness. Possibly there is also mingled a feeling that we share this sight with millions whose individual differences are extinguished in it, so that in this perception they are one, and this likeness enhances the impression of the sublime. (Dover edition, p374) I'm not sure if this is of any use to you, but it is the best I can offer. I will say, though, as far as the contemporary mass-media is concerned, notions of the sublime have long given way to those of the ridiculous! Clio the Muse 23:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that 'googling' "post modern sublime" turns up various papers/books that may or may not mention kant - but are any of these of interest?87.102.23.89 04:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the first 'version' of the THERMOMETER came around 1500-1600.

During the middle-ages, about 1000-1400, -and before that for that matter-, what did they use to measure temperatures then ? Did they have any methods of figuring how cold it was on a cold winter-day or how warm on a hot summer-day?? Did they have any way of telling "today it is 'THIS' cold/warm, and yesterday it was 'THAT' cold/warm" ?

You hardly saw an medieval-person say "Today it is -10 minus degrees" or "Three days ago, it was 30 degrees in the shade"

So you guys have any idea ?

Krikkert7 19:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)Krikkert[reply]

tHe temperature is what it is, measuring it with a thermometer isn't going to cahnge that.172.159.156.28 19:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Fahrenheit scale wasn't introduced until 1724 and Celsius until 1742, there is no reason to think of them saying "degrees" at all. What scales did earlier thermometers use? Rmhermen 19:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Straight Dope calls Ole Romer's 1692 scale among the earliest so degrees of temperature probably weren't in use much before that date.[5] Rmhermen 19:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine they used various cues from nature, like "cold enough to freeze ocean water", "cold enough to freeze lake water", "warm enough for insects", etc. StuRat 20:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quantification, bringing with it the very concept of a "degree", is an essential part of the scientific method, which was developed in the seventeenth century. Students of the earlier history of climate use markers like the dates of grain or grape harvests to assess broad climate averages --Wetman 00:14, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link to "quantification", by the way, does not go to where you think it does... --24.147.86.187 01:48, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Wetman meant quantization. --Kjoonlee 13:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or possibly quantifiability? Chickenflicker---♣ 05:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The history of thermometry is actually quite interesting, getting aside the obvious periodization problems the questioner had. This book is quite good, for those who are interested. --24.147.86.187 01:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The modern fetish with temperature is related to the broad application of the 'scientific method.' It is similar in nature to the habit of measuring time. Town clocks came into Europe in the late middle ages, although China had working town clocks some thousand years earlier. There was no standard for time keeping. I understand 12pm was considered to start at dusk in some places, or dawn. Before Bacon's attempt to freeze poultry, the need to measure temperature wasn't substantial. Natural indicators sufficed for smelting and cooking. DDB 09:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Does the the Vatican operate any sort of formal intelligence office or service? Obviously there is a constant stream of informal intelligence coming in from all over the world, but is it collated and distributed through a single office? Is this staffed by clergy?

Thanks!

65.25.116.29 19:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)MH[reply]

They certainly did at one point, when they were a military power. However, since they are now under the protection of the Italian government, any such activities these days would likely do them more public relations harm than any good. I can't definitively say they don't do this, though. StuRat 20:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there. I think you might find some of the answers you are looking for in David Alvarez's book Spies in the Vatican, which deals with the subject from the time of Napoleon until the Second World War. I do not know of any source that suggests that the Papacy ever operated a military intelligence branch. Clio the Muse 21:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Catholic Church maintained an arm called "The Inquisition." Pope Benedict was the last Cardinal in charge. DDB 08:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You disappoint me Stu! The Vatican surely doesn't need the protection of the Italian government when they have the massive force that is the Swiss Guard armed to the teeth protecting them! And certainly such a formidable fighting force as the Swiss Guard has its own extremely sophisticated intelligence agency. Please get yourself better informed by thoroughly reading the following two articles: [6]and[7] and perhaps next time you'll think twice before putting your foot in your mouth!

Seriously, I have a great deal of respect for The Vatican, especially under the papacy of the late John Paul II, who was possibly, without exaggeration, the greatest Pope in the history of the Roman Catholic Church. His reforms, his attempts at reconciliation with other Christian and even non-Christian religious earn him the deepest of respect in my heart. I truly mourn this great man.

Nonetheless, I can't help but mention that he never corrected one of the most awful relics of the darkest period of Roman Catholicism: The religious discrimination of its "Catholics Only Policy". I can only dream of a day when this last vestige of religious dicrimination is finally done away with, and when a Muslim or a Jew is finally elected Pope. But I may be just a dreamer. :-) Loomis 01:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see still vestiges of discrimination here: these are all religious designations. Support Richard Dawkins for Pope!  --Lambiam^Talk 03:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point Lambiam! Sorry for the oversight! Loomis 03:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's right, the only qualification for high office in the Catholic Church should be a sincere desire to wear silly hats. StuRat 12:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, again, 65.25. If you are still around, and if you are still interested in this matter, I thought it necessary to try and rescue your useful question from drowning in a bog of irrelevance by expanding on the brief answer I gave above. The Papal States first became interested in intelligence gathering, in the sense we understand it today, in the wake of the political and revolutionary upheavals that beset Europe, and the rest of the Catholic world, between 1789 and 1815. After the Congress of Vienna in 1815, the Papal police service, based in Rome, set up an extensive network of spies and informants throughout their own territories, as well as elsewhere in Europe, prompted by fear of fresh revolutionary and nationalist movements, and by possible assassination plots against the Pope. The final loss of the Pope's remaining temporal power in 1870 effectively ended this formal security apparatus, and foreign intelligence gathering in general. In his book, Alvarez points out that few governments really understood the changing nature of the Vatican, believing that such a world-wide organization was also an important source for the collation of sensitive political and diplomatic information. In truth, the Popes were often more ignorant of temporal developments than even the least well-informed secular leaders. The church simply lacked the expertise and the desire to participate in any meaningful sense in clandestine operations. This did not stop the Vatican from becoming a centre of intrigue, especially during the Second World War. In addition to the book I have already mentioned you might also have a look at Nothing Sacred: Nazi Espionage against the Vatican, 1939-1945, Professor Alvarez's other important work touching on the subject. I hope this is all of some use; but please let me know if there is any further help I can give you. Clio the Muse 15:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading through the Merchant of Venice recently, and came across the "ducat". I am curious about the value of this monetary unit in comparison to today's currency; how much approximately can 3000 ducats be compared to? I appreciate any help in helping me bring this most excellent play into perspective. Thanks in advance Locofbo 21:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Locofbo, you will find most of the details on the page on the Ducat. It became part of the coinage of Venice in the thirteenth century, and continued in general circulation in Europe until the eve of the First World War. At that time a gold ducat was worth, in contemporary values, about one half of a pound sterling, or about two US dollars. A sum of 3000 ducats, in today's prices, would be enough for Antonio to mount a fresh merchant venture! Clio the Muse 21:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict) Using these three sites, I got the following:

1 Ducat = £1

3000 Ducat = £3000

£3000 in 1597 = £338,787.26 in 2005 (converter didn't accept 06 or 07)

£338,787.26 = $660,720.45 (USD)

Remember that these are rough conversions. The £ to $ conversion uses the latest exchange rate. --The Dark Side 21:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Ducat to £ conversion rate is from the 17th century, but I figured that 1597 is close enough that I could use it. --The Dark Side 21:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• [After edit conflict]: Moelwen Merchant says: "A ducat (literally, a gold piece coined by a duke or doge) is a Venetian gold piece, Ducatus Venetorum. Coryat estimated in 1608 that it was worth 4s. 8d. and Cotgrave in 1632 that 'they hold a rate much about 5 or 6 shillings sterling the piece'. By any calculation of values, therefore, three thousand ducats was a very large (a prodigal) sum. The six to eight hundred pounds sterling to which it amounted must be multiplied by at least twenty-five to reach a comparable sum today (i.e. about £20,000)." Note that he wrote this in 1967, so you have to add another forty years' or so inflation onto his figures to get a modern amount. AndyJones 21:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how come wikipedia's articles on iran and iraq don't mention the involvement each had in the 911 attacks against America? --PoliPhiNotic 22:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because there aren't any conclusive links between the two and 9/11? --The Dark Side 22:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea that they both were involved. You know, they were two countries which hated each others' guts, had totally different religious affiliations, and had been involved in horrible wars against each other, but once, just this once, they'd work together to get something done! --24.147.86.187 01:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Iraq is 60% Shi'ite Muslims and Iran is 90%. It's just that Saddam Hussein was a Sunni and he repressed the Shi'ites. --The Dark Side 01:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki is an excellent resource with tremendous depth, however, it is not free from the politics of the day. It would seriously undermine US Democrat propaganda were allegations regarding Iranian activity and Iraqi activity made public in Wiki. There doesn't need to be collusion for these terrorist states to have been similar goals. DDB 08:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, not exactly. Anyone is free to edit Wikipedia articles. There is nothing to stop people making such allegations public on Wikipedia, but they would probably be removed fairly swiftly - not because there is a conspiracy, but because everything on Wikipedia needs to be neutral and verifiable. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the modern form of revisionism?? How quickly people forget the facts in favour of allegations made by politicians with ulterior motives. Vespine 04:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Appian Way is commonly said to be the queen of the long roads and one of the most important of the Roman roads, being built in a straight line, could it have been nicknamed or called by the name of the "Straight Street"? Doug 23:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, the name Via Recta ("Straight Road") was applied to two roads, neither of them the Via Appia (Appian Way). One is in Damascus, and the other, in the Campus Martius, was originally called the Via Tecta ("Covered Road") but is now commonly known as the Via Recta because of a mistranscription.[8] Of course, some Romans no doubt used the words via recta to refer to the Via Appia, but only to describe it, not as a proper name. —Keenan Pepper 00:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I'd love to read a more thorough answer. —Keenan Pepper 00:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This of describing the Appian Way of the words via recta (as a description) could then be like a nickname refering to that of a Straight Street or Straight Road? --Doug 01:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's exactly my point: via recta isn't a nickname for the via Appia, just ordinary Latin words that mean "straight street" or "straight road". It would be accurate to describe the via Appia as a via recta, because it was indeed straight, but no more so that most other Roman roads. On the other hand, via Recta was used as a nickname, not for the via Appia, but for this street in Damascus, which is even described in the Vulgate (Acts 9:11) as vicum qui vocatur Rectus ("street which is called Straight", using a different Latin word for street). —Keenan Pepper 14:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking up Acts 9:11 I see your point of the street which is called Straight. In these multiple translations most do call it that while one says "Straight Street". I see your point of the ordinary Latin words meaning: "straight street". Latin says this, then why didn't the Greek that this supposedly came from say this? It appears that only the Latin says this. Perhaps it was only written in Latin. It also speaks of Tarsus, which I find interesting because the Appian Way (via Appia or via recta of a vey famous Roman road) goes to Taras. Taras looks a lot like Tarsus to me. That then would be a double coincidence in the same scripture verse. Did this section come straight from Naples, where it previously came straight from Rome? --Doug 23:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]