Wikipedia:Reference desk archive/Humanities/2006 August 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Humanities Science Mathematics Computing/IT Language Miscellaneous Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions at one of the pages linked to above.

< August 2 Humanities desk archive August 4 >


What is a Euroipod? I know it's a cliché but I am not familiar with the subject. Scienceman123 01:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yet another free-iPods pyramid scam. Strangely enough, the Uncyclopedia article has it pretty much spot on. EdC 03:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
See Europid. Bhumiya (said/done) 03:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, don't see Europid. Apparently. Bhumiya (said/done) 04:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

movie industry[edit]

Can you please tell me who was the very first country to make an acctual movie —Ruth mary Hubbard

Depends what you mean by an actual movie! See History of film. If you mean the first time a film was publically exhibited to a paying audience, that goes to the French film Workers Leaving the Lumiere Factory, from 1895, although a case could also be made for Blacksmith Scene, from 1893. Ziggurat 02:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
If you mean first experimental movie made, perhaps it was Monkeyshines, No. 1, produced in the US in 1890 ? [1] StuRat 04:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
If by 'actual movie' you mean with acting, the distinction with documentaries is rather blurred. I remember seeing a BBC documentary about som everuy old films that were found and restored, showing ordinary people, suggesting they were documentaries. But scenes were often choreographed and actors were put in the crowd to make themdo what they were supposed to or even to stirr thing up a bit. These were often made just for the poeple in the movies to see themsleves later that day in some nearby room (of course there weren't any movie theatres then). Alas I can't rememver the names of the two (British) filmers, so I can't look up when these films were made. But it certainly was in the very early years. DirkvdM 10:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The Story of the Kelly Gang was the first feature-length film, released in 1906. It was Australian. Natgoo 08:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Vitriolist? vitrioliste?[edit]

Hi - I've started a page on vitriolage, but am now wondering if there's a male equivalent to vitrioleuse... Clearly there should be, though the obvious choices for the word don't really come up with anything conclusive on Google. If I start a page called Vitriolist or Vitrioliste, would that be considered original research? Thanks --Adambrowne666 02:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's not supposed to be a dictionary (that's what Wiktionary is for!), so what I'd suggest you do is make vitrioleuse a redirect to vitriolage (as a related word that you can't really say much about outside of the main vitriolage article), and not worry about the male equivalent unless you can find a source that uses a word for it. Ziggurat 02:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Beauty, thanks Adambrowne666 02:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
No probs! I made an addition to the article myself as well. Ziggurat 02:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Vitrioleuse is clearly (originally) a French word, and as such the feminine form of vitrioleur. The English dictionaries I have within reach have neither word. --LambiamTalk 03:56, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Two-Face! Good one, would never have thought of that!

Roman Doctor[edit]

I recently watched a program on The History Channel about a Roman doctor who carried out operations in incredibly knowledgable ways. He practiced using sterile tools in his sterile hospital with rooms much like ones we have today. It is thought that he removed cataracts and attempted brain surgery. The doctors name escapes my mind and it would be very much appreciated if someone could provide me with his name. Thank you.

Galen. David Sneek 07:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you.

George Washington as a Mason[edit]

Does anybody know where the statue of George Washington wearing his Mason's apron and stuff is housed. I've seen the statue in a documentary or two but can't remember exactly where the thing sits?

Deb T

Could it be statue of George Washington at the George Washington Masonic National Memorial in Alexandria, VA? --LambiamTalk 17:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


I have an original colored lithograph signed and number.I just want to know anything about it,the arthur,how much,if any,it's worth.It's called "DEER FAMILY".The arthur is named Bender.The certificate of anthenticity registry # is 20203-140 This is the info that is on the back of it. Arthur Bender was born in 1940 in New Jersey.He attended the art students legue in New York.He later moved to Nebraska where he continued to paint western and americain scenes.His graphics and oils are in many museum collections. It also says 134/200. collier art corporations of Los Angeles California The sceen is 2 deer walking by some trees. Please give me any info you can find.Thank you so so so much!!! M

The author is really named Arthur : is it predestination ? --DLL 18:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

is darwins theory against Islam and christianity[edit]

Are Darwins theories on evolutions against Islam and Christianity. since Darwin correctly explains the evolution of Humans from other species, goin back from great Apes to fish. and he has archaelogical evidence in his support too. there are also vestiges in our bodies (like male mammaes, apendix etc.) to support his theories. And christianity and Islam, both say that God created earth around 3100 BC in 6 days. moreover, they claim that Adam was directly sent to earth for eating a fruit from tree of knowledge.

my second question relates to the answer that i got in 7.5 i.e.[2] of hen being Halal in certain circumstances. doesnt it mean that in case dogs and other canines if are fed non meat products throughout their life (dont worry u'll find plenty of such veg. dogs in India), and are slained according to Dabiha in the name of Allah facing quine Qibla. do they qualify of being halal in that case. nids 12:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The theory that men evolved from apes is not from Darwin. Darwin proposed that birds evolved their beaks over many generations to better get to their food. He attributed this to natural selection. In the Snopes Monkey Trial (it was Snopes, wasn't it?), a Christian lawyer argued that Darwin is wrong because men did not come from monkeys. That argument has stuck even though it isn't part of Darwin's theory of natural selection.
As for, "is it against Islam and Christianity", the direct answer is "no". Natural selection does not attempt to answer "who created the first life on Earth?" It only contemplates how life on Earth evolves over time. Also, there are scientific Christians who noticed that the order of the appearance of life in Genesis closely matches the order that evolutionists claim. So, what if God invented evolution as a tool to create all the animals from one starting point? Some Christians argue that it is impossible. God couldn't have invented evolution. He made the animals out of clay and they just appeared. A God who understands science is blasphemy. As for Islam, you will find highly similar arguments.
I should point out that my grandfather was a Southern Baptist preacher and I was raised in church - Sunday Morning, Sunday evening, Tuesday night, Wednesday night, Friday night potluck, Saturday bible camp - can't get enough religion in ya! --Kainaw (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Scopes, not Snopes. --LarryMac 14:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! No wonder I couldn't find it. I've evolved into having a very terrible memory. Wait, no - God made me with a very terrible memory. --Kainaw (talk) 14:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
There are lots of different kinds of Christianity and Islam, and some are more sensible than others. Fundamentalists, who take their scriptures literally, have enormous problems coming to terms not only with Darwin, but with a lot of scientific research, not to speak of the arts and most other areas of human endeavour.--Shantavira 14:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Evolution is not "against" religion. It just happens to be a fact that some but not all religious people find impossible to reconcile with their beliefs. There are many religious people who have no problem treating their holy books as allegorical, and can still believe in a religion and in evolution. Personally, I think they're compartmentalizing a bit much. In any case, you will see little of this in the media, at least in the U.S., where religion and evolution are often portayed as two warring camps, with all religious people being creationists, and scientists portrayed as being split on whether evolution is true when there is no such split in the scientific community (apparently this result of a desire to show "balance" by presenting "both sides", but actually having the opposite result giving much lipservice to an incredibly vocal fringe minority). See Project Steve.--Fuhghettaboutit 15:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Are Islam and Christianity against Darwin ? Then they're against themselves. God, by an act of pure benevolence and beauty, put evolution in the world instead of trying to imitate man, who would have desperately molded clay ... without putting any spirit in his creatures. Spirit is the real thing : sacred books are only for a time when people would not catch the evolution methods.

Learn how-tos and you'll grow a better faith. Teach how to read also : In the book, only Adam was made of clay, while beasts were just made. --DLL 18:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to add, Darwin did cover the evolution of humans from apes - not in The Origin of Species, but in a later book, The Descent of Man - and suggested, before the fossils that support this were discovered, that our earliest hominid ancestors arose in Africa. --Nicknack009 18:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

when i m asking about religion, i obviously mean the most fundamentalists of christians and muslims, for whom bible and quran are the words of god and allah respectively, (even when many have been proven to be false). as for User:Harvestman comments, they(read christians and muslims) may be against themselves, but they had openly denounced his theories on evolutions claiming it to blasphemy. and what about the differences in the birth of first human according to science(i.e. about 1.7 million years ago) and according to Bible and Quran(about 3100 B.C.)

Dear friend: Allah is the Årabic word for God, so you can't logically write "god and allah respectively" because they both mean the same thing. GeorgeLouis 06:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it's acceptable to use "God" for the Christian conception of a single god, and "Allah" as the Muslim conception of a single god. The two concepts aren't quite identical, but do have similarities. StuRat 07:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Ask any Christian Arab, Allah is the Arabic word for God. Period. As for religious differences; remember that the Muslims believe in Christianity and see no differences. Your view that there are differences is your view based on your particular brand of Christianity and should be qualified that way. A Muslim would consider that blasphemous. -LambaJan 03:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
"Muslims believe in Christianity and see no differences" ? No, there is a huge difference, in that all Christians believe Jesus is the son of God, and Muslims do not. Your view that Muslims believe all the same things as Christians is blasphemous, not mine. StuRat 18:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
You took my comment out of context. It meant that they see no differences between the Christian God and the Muslim one. They may have differing opinions of the exact station and/or mission of Jesus, as even many different forms of Christianity do, but that is not what the conversation was about. -LambaJan 20:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any Christian sect which doesn't believe Jesus is the son of God. Please provide examples. StuRat 01:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
That idea that the universe is only 5100 years old is wrong not only according to the Theory of Evolution, but just about every other branch of science as well. Geologists can point to radioactive decay, plate tectonics, deposition rates and erosion rates to tell that the Earth is much older. Astrophysicists can point to the red shift and stellar cycles to show the same thing. Archeologists and anthropologists can point to carbon dating of relics much older than this. Dinosaur experts would laugh at any such suggestion. The evidence just goes on and on and on. Those who think the universe started in 3100 BC are just plain wrong, no way around it. StuRat 20:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Also note that while compatible with a belief in God, science is incompatible with much of what's described in the Bible and Quran, like the biblical flood. StuRat 20:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

edit point 1[edit]

but i would also like to point out that my second question still remains unanswered.(about dog being halal). waitin for replies. nids 19:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As for your second question, it's almost totally unrelated, so should be posted separately StuRat 20:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The flood story could find an historical origin now that we found clear (not salty) water mud in the bottom of the Black sea. As for the historicity of the Bible : it was true when written. But our knowledge, if it is not greater today, is just different. Moses & Muhammad would write differently today! --DLL 21:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, there is evidence for a large flood, but not for one covering the entire planet, as the Bible claimed. They apparently just made that part up. StuRat 06:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Semantic headache: The Bible said it covered the "world". Modern Christians translate that to the planet. At the time it was written, the "world" did not include much of the planet. --Kainaw (talk) 16:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

fine, i shall post my second question separately. but is this the common consensus that Darwin's theory on evolution and various scientific theories are against Bible and Quran. nids 06:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It isn't "against" anything. That is an odd way to describe a theory. Put it this way: There are obviously certain elements in Darwin's theory of evolution that are at variance with the story of creation as literally described in the Bible. (I am not familiar with the Quran.) I would add that it's a rather fruitless to try to compare scientific theories with religion; they have completely different starting points.--Shantavira 07:47, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
if i m right, u r just using Euphemisms to appease the fundamentalists, and i m a bit direct in condemning them, as i feel what is wrong is wrong and it must be condemned.

nids 18:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Re science being incompatible with Noah / flood, that's not strictly accurate. See this Wikipedia entry. Fact is, because science doesn't know everything it cannot disprove everything. Inconvenient, isn't it? --Dweller 10:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

While nobody disputes that large floods have happened, a flood that covered all the land on Earth and killed off everyone and everything but Noah's family and animals most definitely did not happen. Such a flood would have left geological evidence all over the world, and in a lack of genetic diversity in every animal species on Earth. StuRat 01:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Errrr... "definitely"? --Dweller 10:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Yep, definitely ? StuRat 18:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I am speaking from a Christian perspective. This page might be of interest to you. See particularly the "Top 10" questions listed down the side. The answer to your question basically depends on who you ask. If you ask me, yes, they are incompatible, at least in their present form. There are a number of conflicts between Genesis and geo/bio evolution. In Genesis, the earth appears before the sun, for example. There are those who say that the Genesis story is "allegorical", however such a statement is not really defensible from a logical point of view. Would God have any reason to tell Moses to say something other than the way it was? (In other words, if God worked through evolution, would there be any reason to say otherwise?) Especially if the way it actually happened would be later "found out"? It's not really sensible. People who say it's allegorical also tend not to read the Bible very much... BenC7 01:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
You're putting our minds and knowledge into those people. You need to understand where they were and what was going on. If Sennacherib sacked Jerusalem, thereby conquering the kingdom of Judah, the Jews of the region would more than likely have embraced Assyrian pagan gods just like the majority of the citizens of the kingdom of Israel did two decades earlier; and this was six to nine centuries after Moses! With this paper-thin belief in God needing to be corrected why would God skew the focus of the people by delivering more than they could understand about such issues and have them waste their energies trying to understand something they had no framework for when their real important task was to solidify a group of believers to His monotheistic religion? Seems like allegory is a good option to me. -LambaJan 04:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
You've made two assumptions: that God was only writing for the people alive at the time, and didn't have the forethought to think of coming generations, and that God's goal is to get everyone to believe in Him. If that was the case, just showing Himself would do the trick, no need to lie about the origin of the universe. StuRat 18:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I did not make the assumption that God wrote only for those people and didn't think of the coming generations. That goal was essential. If it wasn't met the coming generations wouldn't even be reading or caring about His words, except for historical interest. This conversation wouldn't be happening. I also don't think that His only goal is for people to believe in Him, but even if it were, that would be a very temporary solution. He'd have to keep doing it every few generations for people to not discredit someone's account as superstition or fable. -LambaJan 20:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
And what's wrong with God making an appearance for every generation ? Is it too much work ? Does he just lack the energy ? Maybe some vitamin C would pick him up a bit. :-) StuRat 00:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You can deny the science, believe the science or try to reconcile the two (I recommend Aviezer's book for this approach, "In the Beginning: Biblical Creation and Science" (Hoboken, N.J.: KTAV, 1990). In this third methodology, most problems can be addressed by a more scholarly approach to the precise translation, paying attention to the inherent difficulties that could be raised by even a child looking at the standard KJV Genesis text.

Some issues of interest that an average child could ask: How do you have "days" of creation without a sun to measure a day by? How do you have light and dark before the sun is created? How do you get trees growing before the sun is created? and so on... Then there are more intriguing deeper questions like when was time created?

Every argument on either side of this issue has plenty of counter-arguments. There are no truly "winning" arguments; if there were, everyone would agree. --Dweller 10:24, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

how will u defend for the creation on 4004 BC. when it is commonly accepted in science community to be much older than that. nids 20:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

everyone who tried to reconcile the science and religion has failed. including muslim states which tried to find the bridge between reasoning and Islam. u cant have religion and science on the same side. if one is east other is west. nids 20:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I think i get the satisfactory answer to my question from stuRat and BenC7.nids 22:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

edit point 2[edit]

As a Jew, I can't speak for Islam or Christianity. I'm not even sure if the questioner is at all interested in my view as s/he specifically asked for only the views of Christians and Muslims. Nonetheless, I'll present my view (which is not necessarily a particuliarly "Jewish" perspective, just my own personal view).
In my view, once one believes in a truly "omnipotent" God, as I do, one seems to necessarily believe in a God that transcends all laws of physics, time, space and matter. An "omnipotent" God is, by definition, not constrained by such laws. If He was, He wouldn't be omnipotent.
Therefore the whole discussion seems to be moot. Reconciling evolution with creationism is moot. I actually find it particularly silly when religious people try to find "evidence", or "scientific explanations" for such biblical accounts as the great flood, or Moses' parting of the sea. "Religious scientists" seem to try there best to explain how if the wind was blowing this way or that way, at this or that particular point in time, theoretically, the splitting of the sea can be scientifically rationalized.
To me, the whole whole effort is a pure fool's errand. If you believe in a truly omnipotent God, the whole discussion is moot. A "truly" omnipotent God can simply split the sea at will. No need for "scientific" or "meteorological" explanations.
As for reconciling evolution with creationism, take a moment and think. According to the Bible God created trees in one day. He isn't said to have planted seeds and waited for them to grow into trees, He simply created full grown trees. Now, if on the day God supposedly created trees, one were to chop down one of those trees and count its rings, one would conclude that that tree was, say, 50 years old, as it clearly appears to have gone through 50 years of growth. Yet according to the Bible, that tree was created on that particular day, the day God created trees. So how old is the tree? Would that tree be 50 years old as science would explain, or is it merely a day old? Well, in a sense, both.
So if one believes that God created the Earth some 5766 years ago, He surely wouldn't have created an earth in its most primordial form and then wait a few billion years for it to develop. He would have created an Earth with trees and birds and fish and animals, all apparently evolved from previous species.
So does evolution contradict creation? In my opinion, not really. Did humans evolve from more primitive primates? In a sense yes, and in a sense no. Did dinosaurs once roam the Earth? Again, in a sense yes, and in a sense no. I know what I'm saying may be very difficult to grasp, but all I'm really saying is that I believe that God, being omnipotent, created an Earth with a past. Is this true? Maybe. Am I simply insane for having such a strange, difficult view to grasp? Probably! :) Loomis 01:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Not so hard to grasp. No-one envisages that Adam and Eve were created as babies. If you believe in Genesis then they were created as young adults. Similarly, a "young adult" world was created. --Dweller 08:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
But saying God created a world with skeletons of dinosaurs that never really existed is rather silly. Why we He do that ? Just to screw with future scientists ? We would also have to conclude, if God just creates false evidence like this right and left, that there is really little point in science at all, since we can no longer trust anything we see to be true. This also violates Occam's Razor, that the simplest explanation is the best. I would definitely argue that the simplest explanation for a skeleton is that it is left over from a dead animal. StuRat 09:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Did Adam have a bellybutton? --Dweller 09:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
And if not, where did he store his lint ? StuRat 18:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
To answer StuRat's question, I simply think God (or whatever power(s) may be) was giving humans something to hypothetically "play" with. He probably put dinosaur bones in the Earth as a joke to see what we'd make of it, and honestly, looking through time, I'd be laughing, what with the myths of cyclops and all sorts of weird explanations. I think about it sort of like getting a pet fish. We put in little fake rocks and all sorts of things, even though they aren't technically necessary for the fish to live, so it has something to swim around. Perhaps that's what all this stuff is - God knew we'd need something to exercise our puny little brains, and gave us science.
I've never believed that science and religion conflict. They're different, sure, but they can live in harmony. —Keakealani Poke Mecontribs 20:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

edit point 3[edit]

By religion in this post, i strongly mean abramical religions as they are the ones with the same faith and most different from science. i cant understand kaekealani views, as you cannot claim both science and christianity/islam to be right. either you accept that dinosaurs existed(as pointed out by science) or you believe that abrahmic god implanted the bones of dinausaurs in earth in around 5700 BC. how are you saying that abrahmic religions and science are in no conflict zone. what will you say for the scopes trial.nids 01:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I strongly believe in both an Abrahamic religion and science. I do not see them as being in conflict. I enjoy the term 'creation by evolution'. I like to think of Genisis as a rough outline, chapter titles perhaps, with no particular timeline or specifics filled in. Sure, it says what was done on which day, but it never really goes into how it was done or actually defines 'day'. Before the sun was created, what was a day? The rotation of the galaxy with respect to the center of the universe? lol. Somehow I think God is outside of time and was just relating the matter in a way that was helpful to the audience. -LambaJan 04:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Whatever length you choose for a "day", it's still wrong, as some of those events called "days" took many times as long as others. So, where Genesis isn't so vague as to make verification impossible, it's frequently just plain wrong. And why did God think it would be a good idea to give out misinformation, exactly ? StuRat 18:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I think that you think we're disagreeing a lot more than I think we are. If God is not limited by space and time, as would be the case considering His creating these things. He must've been around beforehand. What's the problem then? the order? Heaven, earth, light; the atmosphere; dry land, plants; sun, moon, stars; fish and birds; land animals, people. The only thing that seems out of sync is the sun, moon and stars; but from an earth perspective, that was probably when the atmosphere cleared up enough for the plants to see them. lol. You know, some scientists have proposed doing something similar to Mars. So, I don't see what the problem is. The important thing for the time was for people to know that God created these things. It all sounds really stoopid when you characterize it as 'misinformation'. I think there's really a lot more similarities than differences and the majority of the differences are semantic. It's actually pretty amazing that there's not more semantic differences between Genesis and science considering the history it went through to get here. -LambaJan 21:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Basically the only parts Genesis actually got right are the obvious ones, like that people couldn't have existed before the Earth, or they would have been just floating around in space. So, Genesis shows absolutely no evidence of having been written by anybody with any insight into the beginning of the universe. Rather, it looks like it was written by people, and people who weren't all that bright, either, or they would have figured out that plants can't exist without light, etc. StuRat 00:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Let's go through the order of creation day by day:
1) Heavens and Earth were created "in the beginning". The "heavens", meaning the universe, I assume, are at least 14 billion years old, while the Earth is only 4.3 billion years old. So, saying they were created on the same "day", both "in the beginning", isn't right. Formless "waters", and "light and dark" are also said to exist on the first day. How light and dark exist in the absence of the Sun and stars is a mystery. Apparently, whoever wrote Genesis didn't understand that all the light during the day comes from the Sun.

Ever heard of "Big Bang"? Imagine that happened without light? --Dweller 08:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I suppose some light came from the Big Bang for a while, but that light had long ago faded away by the time the Earth came into existence, which is what they called "the beginning". Also, the authors didn't envision a Big Bang, so where did they think all this light was coming from (before the Sun and stars were created) ? StuRat 17:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The Bible also doesn't say "all light during the day". Light comes from places other than the sun. BenC7 09:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

At night it comes from the stars and Moon (reflected from the Sun). And none of these things yet existed, according to Genesis. StuRat 17:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
2) The sky was then created, with the odd description of "the waters above the expanse". I'm guessing that the author was thinking "water is blue, and the sky is blue, so the sky must be made of water". This shows a lack of knowledge on the part of the author.

Ever heard of atmospheric vapour? They've even (apparently) found ice on Mars. But this nitpicking is ultimately fruitless. You won't convince a single Creationist and they won't convince you. --Dweller 08:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

There is some water vapor in the air, but air itself is definitely not "waters above the expanse", that's just a completely incorrect way to describe it. Imagine a science test where you listed the composition of air that way. I see an F in your future. StuRat 17:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You are making an assumption of what the author was thinking, then criticizing the assumption. You are criticizing yourself! BenC7 09:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, with the statements that it's all "allegory", that is also making an assumption as to what they were thinking, too. When you have things that make absolutely no sense when taken literally, you are then forced to try to figure out what the heck they were thinking. StuRat 17:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
3) Then land was created and land plants. Land would have existed before water, however, so the order is wrong here. Also, aquatic plants (which don't seem to be listed at all, a major oversight) would have predated land plants. Some land plants are also dependent on animals, such as flowering plants which need bees to pollinate them, and berries which require birds or animals to eat them in order to disperse their seeds. Also, as was already mentioned, you can't have plants without the Sun.
4) Then night and day, seasons, days, years, Sun, Moon, and stars. Stars have a variety of ages, from the beginning of the universe to quite recent, so weren't all created at one time. The Sun and Moon also are as old as the Earth, so that part is wrong. The Moon also seems to be described as giving off light, when it only reflects sunlight, a fact apparently not evident to the author.
5) Then fish and birds. Birds came after land animals however, not before. The author messed this one up.
6) Then land animals and man. Land animals probably predate man by a billion years, so saying they were all created on the same "day" is quite a stretch. At this point man is said to have been created in "our" image. The author apparently forgets that there is only supposed to be one god, they should have hired an editor. StuRat 05:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
You are assuming that current scientific thought is right, and thus anything else is not right. I'm sure that the science of any period in history was thought to be right at the time. You can't know with certainty something that you weren't there to observe, although you present it as though it is certain. But the evidence that we have today can be interpreted in more than one way. Not everyone who believes the Bible is ignorant of current scientific thought.
Remember that this question started with "are the Bible and science incompatible ?" (paraphrased). Thus, start by assuming either one is correct, and see if it then contradicts the other. We could do the reverse, and assume that the Bible is right (although this might be tricky where it contradicts itself). We would then end up with, "If the Bible is literally correct, then all of science is wrong, and all scientific evidence, such as dinosaur bones, was planted by God to confuse us." StuRat 17:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
That animals existed long before people is not just "current theory", it's well established by many different branches of science, from geographic strata layers, fossil records, radioactive dating, genetic studies, morphology, etc. There are always some "bleeding edge" theories which may be questioned, like string theory, for example, but not such basic facts as other land animals having existed before people. StuRat
I'll also mention that Jesus did not seem to have any problem with Genesis. He did miracles. He raised the dead. Have you done any of these things? No. Who will I believe? I wonder. BenC7 09:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I could certainly claim to do them, just as Jesus did. Note that at the time, it was common practice for religious leaders of all religions to "perform miracles". The naive public would fall for just about anything, then. Even now, a good portion of the public will fall for anything. An example of another religion using this technique is when the high priest of Egypt turned his staff into two snakes. Moses is then supposed to have tuned his into a bigger snake that ate the other two, but are we supposed to think that the Egyptian snakes were a trick while Moses' snake was a miracle ? Especially knowing that Moses was raised by the Egyptians, I see it as far more likely that he knew how to do the trick, and was just smart enough to get himself a bigger snake. Similarly, the arc of the covenant appears to have been a large lead-acid battery, suitable for making weak sparks, to convince people it contained the "power of God". It was apparently kept in total darkness so the sparks would look more impressive than they really were. This technology also came from the Egyptians, who had similar devices. StuRat 17:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
So, my whole point in debunking the order of creation is to point out that, contrary to what creationists claim, it does not include "incredible insight into the origin of the universe, proving only God could have written it". On the contrary, the only parts that are actually correct are common sense. Any info that people of the time would not have known is completely wrong. Sort of implies it was written by the people of the time, not God, doesn't it ? The same is true of the rest of the Bible, but I don't have time to discuss the whole thing here. StuRat 17:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

What's up with that giant heading ===Darwin continued starting with Loomis===? Wiki is starting to get a bit weird, and I don't particularly like the new "day by day" format that replaced the old weakly one.

In any case, photosynthesis is just another aspect of science that God, by definition, can transcend. As for God planting phoney dinosaur bones to screw up scientists, I don't see it that way at all. Quite the opposite. God gave us science as a tool to better ourselves (or perhaps worsen ourselves...He gave us the free will to choose). Science allows humans to develop cures for diseases, to invent light bulbs, even, in the simplest sense, to "know" that if we place our hand in a burning fireplace, it will hurt. We need the predictability that science provides in order to progress as a race, and to learn newer and better ways to live our lives. And God wants us to progress.

Of course science wouldn't make any sense at all if it weren't entirely coherent. Without those "phoney dinosaur bones", science would be incoherent. Without a coherent set of scientific principles, science would be worthless, and we'd all be living in an incoherent, chaotic, nonsensical world; and what use would it be for us or for God to have us living in an incoherent, chaotic, nonsensical world with not a smidgen of science to rely upon?

But I have to say this is all theory on my part. It may surprise you, but I don't even believe in God "100%". I really don't know what the REAL truth of it all is. For all I know Stu and all the rest could be right, and I could be just a naive believer in some non-existant "Supreme Being". But that's my story for now and I'm sticking to it. :) Loomis 01:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Loomis, I put that header in because it seemed like a good middle spot for an edit point for our convenience because this is a very long topic. Once you pointed that out I can now see how it may have seemed strange when done that way. I added a couple more and simply called them 'edit point #'. It seems like a good idea to me.
StuRat, I'm sorry but I don't feel like responding to your questions. I think you're trolling me and It's disheartening to write something and have someone who is obviously intelligent not take the time to read and actually understand what you're getting at, but instead argue over misinterpretations of what you've written that they wouldn't have gotten had they spent an extra minute to think about what they've read. I actually feel more than a little bit disrespected. -LambaJan 03:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if you feel disrespected, but you did start off by accusing me of blasphemy, and that's not a very respectful way to start a convo. The edit points are a good idea, although I think I'd try to list subtopics in the title. StuRat 04:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

LambaJan, now that I know who and why the header was put there, I really don't mind at all the way it was, or if you wish, keep it the new's up to you. I agree that it's a good idea, I was just really confused about it at first. Loomis 13:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Portrait rights[edit]

Under Dutch law, if a painter or photographer creates a portrait of someone he has the auteursrechten ("author rights") on that work, but the portraitee holds the portretrechten ("portrait rights"). In case of an non-commissioned work this gives the portraitee some protection against misuse of his face. In case of a commissioned work it gives the portraitee the unlimited right to multiply and distribute the portrait and takes away this right from the author.

Who would be the copyright holder in this case ("auteursrechten" is usually translated as copyright, but in this case it would be the portraitee who holds the rights to copy the work). Do similar rules apply in other countries (especially the U.S.)? If not, how would these rules interact if, for example, the author was American while the portraitee is Dutch? —Ruud 13:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The nationality of the sitter/author doesn't matter by itself; what matters is where the suit is prosecuted (Dutch law would apply in the Netherlands, U.S. law applies in the U.S.). There are probably more complicated ramifications for establishing standing in the U.S. (much less in Dutch law, which I know nothing about) but as a rule of thumb that's a good way to think about it, I think.
Anyway, in the U.S. you have personality rights, which allows you certain amounts of control of usage of your likeness. As the page explains, in the U.S. this can be very complicated (courts have interpretted using someone's portrait for artistic purposes as protected under the First Amendment). These are more like trademark rights than copyrights—the portraitee would not gain a copyright claim or the ability to distribute licenses, but they could prevent certain types of usages of the image, in the same way that a company can with its logo. --Fastfission 03:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
It is not necessarily correct to say "what matters is where the suit is prosecuted (Dutch law would apply in the Netherlands, U.S. law applies in the U.S.)". See choice of law. Also see Choice of Law in International Copyright or search Google. --Mathew5000 23:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Blue Paper/Envelopes For Airmail[edit]

At Woolworths, you can buy writing paper and matching envelopes in white or blue. Is it supposed to be traditional that air mail is sent written on blue paper with blue envelopes, or did I just make that up? If it is meant to be that way, why? If not, then why do blue paper/envelopes exist? -- 14:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Blue envelopes are not mentioned in airmail etiquette. --Kainaw (talk) 14:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
A more common type of airmail envelope is pictured here, although I don't believe that its use is mandatory. Of course, the specific requirements for sending airmail depend upon where you are located. And I would imagine that blue paper and envelopes exist because they look nice. --LarryMac 14:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Air mail envelopes are traditionally thinner and therefore lighter than "secruity envelopes" and other domestic envelopes. This is a matter of economics. They sometimes have bar codes and other postal indicators running along the side. This is merely to aid the postal services. As for the tint of the paper, that is sometimes to help a postal worker instantly recognize those missives that need to go by air from those that will go by surface. This all dates to when air mail was a rare thing, when airplanes were an exotic situation. These days, a lot of domestic mail will go by air, even in the EU nations, so it's a bit archaic to have special air mail paper, but I, personally, rather like the romance of the thing. Geogre 16:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
So did I ... before email came to use. Nice souvenir. --DLL 18:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Just a side question here, forgive me for the tangent: I hate to ask where people are from, because it's a purely private matter, so feel free to say so. I'm just curious as to what country you're in where Woolworth's still does business. This isn't a simple matter of trivia for me, I actually have a "real-life" reason for asking. In North America they were bought over by a certain "Venator Corp.", which later changed its name to "Foot Locker Corp.", as the "Foot Locker" chain of stores was and still is the corporation's central and most succesful chain. I understand that Woolworth's (aka 'Woolies' seems the Aussies have to diminutize everything!) is actually a rather successful chain in Australia, but that chain is actually owned by a completely different corporation, who just happened to seize upon the fact that the "Woolworth's" trade-mark was unused in Australia and therefore "up-for-grabs" (clever little Aussie devils!). I also understand that Foot Locker Corp. still has stores in parts of Europe, namely the UK and Germany (that I know of). On the other hand, I was under the impression that they no longer do business in Canada or the US. I would be extremely grateful if you would simply tell me whether or not the "Woolworth's" outlet you apparently bought these envelopes in is in North America or not. No need to tell me what country if you bought them outside North America (yet I'd still be curious if it's no matter to you). Thanks! Loomis 19:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Woolworth's is still a relatively popular store for cheap stationery, sweets (candy) etc.. —Daniel (‽) 20:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
To partially answer Loomis' question, the reply above is from a user in the UK. Since the original question came from an anon's IP address, I tried looking up the IP, and was told it's in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Of course that only means that there is a server located there, the user could be anywhere. --LarryMac 20:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
That's interesting. I'm a user from the UK, but I'm actually using a terminal in a University in the Netherlands. I still don't understand though, why we have blue paper and envelopes and white paper and envelopes. I don't think blue looks especially nice, why would they not have other colors and shades? -- 14:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, "Woolies" is the largest retail chain in Australia and New Zealand. In Victoria it goes by the name "Safeway", but it's the same company. JackofOz 02:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Larry! Your help is much appreciated. Loomis 22:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Woolworths is still a significant retailer in the UK & operate under their own name, though there are some foot lockers in the UK I don't believe they're run by the Woolworths Group. AllanHainey 08:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Allan and Jack. I think though that I may phrased my question a bit sloppily, leading Allan to read that I was wondering about whether there exist Foot Locker stores in Europe. Rather, I'm really mostly interested in "Woolworth's" outlets, and whether or not anybody's aware of any that still exist in North America.

As a tangent to a tangent, (sorry for really veering off course here but I'm very curious!) I've often heard members say that they can locate an anonymous contributor (or at least his/her IP provider) by that numerical ID that's seems to be given in lieu of a username when no username is provided. Can anyone do that or does it require rather sophisticated computer skills and/or software/hardware? (I know this question is much better suited for the IT section of the RefDesk, but since it was brought up here, I thought it might be ok to ask). Thanks anyway guys. Loomis 23:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I hope the original questioner will forgive me for "hijacking" his/her original question, which was on an entirely different topic (airmail stationery). I don't want to be rude, so out of consideration for the original questioner, I'll repeat the original question, which should have priority over any of my tangential queries: Loomis 23:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

At Woolworths, you can buy writing paper and matching envelopes in white or blue. Is it supposed to be traditional that air mail is sent written on blue paper with blue envelopes, or did I just make that up? If it is meant to be that way, why? If not, then why do blue paper/envelopes exist?

Was it an aerogram? I remember aerograms as being pretty much exclusively blue (eg [3]) in Australia growing up, and now associate blue envelopes with airmail as a matter of course. Natgoo 09:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
On the tangent to a tangent (is this an angle?) you can trace an anonymous users IP address using the third box on the left hand side on this site. Or just search google for IP tracker or similar as there are pleanty of programmes which do this. Bear in mind it locates the physical location of the server the user is using & not necessarily the actual computer being used. AllanHainey 10:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Allan, very interesting site! Just as a tiny follow-up (if you'll forgive me for my endless questions!) I'm from Montreal, Canada, and apparently, as my IP address shows, so is my IP. Of course I'm on dial-up so having an IP far away would involve unnecessary long distance charges, I would imagine. Would it not be fair to say that in 99% of cases (i.e. unless a person is deliberately trying to hide their location), the IP location would naturally be in close vicinity to the user? Or is it just as common for a person from, say, the UK, or even California, to have an IP in a place like Cambridge, Massachussets? Loomis 22:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Messianic prophecies of Jesus[edit]

I don't want to post this at Peer review since it's not a high-caliber issue, and it won't be a Featured Article, so I'll ask for your thoughts here.

It turns out that there are 3 articles on the same subject. They all explain certain passages in the Old Testament that have been interpreted by some Christians to predict the coming of Jesus. The three articles are Messianic prophecies of Jesus, List of Christian claims of fulfilled Old Testament prophecies, and Messianic prophecies (Christian view).

At this point, I don't want to ask if this is a valid topic for an article--I think it is, but that's another show. Nor do I want to ask if commentary is appropriate or if these are POV. That can all be dealt with later.

Here's what I do want to ask, however: As in Messianic prophecies of Jesus, several passages are explained as to how they are interpreted as messianic prophecies. Each passage recieves its own section, and the layout is very intuitive. However, this list has the potential to become very, very long (maybe over 200 sections), so I cannot see this continuing on in this fashion. Also, I can't see having a separate article for each passage, because naming it something like Psalm 35:2-5 would be strange, and to only comment on the christian interpretation would be POV. So, how should I proceed? Perhaps subpages? Messianic prophecies of Jesus/Isaiah 53? (slightly unorthodox) Or just a really, really long list? (way over 30kb) Maybe Messianic prophecies of Jesus/Part1? (difficult to find the desired passages)

I really appreciate anyone putting thought into this. Thanks, AdamBiswanger1 16:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be done in tabular form, with the prophecy on one side and a brief explanation of its fulfilment on the right hand side. The table could be divided into sections; one for the Torah, one for the Psalms, one for Is.-Ezek., etc. BenC7 00:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
In that case :
  • Create a short list of propheties, without details. Do not insert new ones, please.
  • Explain,in every Bible article, e.g. Isaiah, Psalms, where there are messianic or fulfilled (?) propheties ; create some articulets (stubs) if needed. Try to explain also why some books are void of propheties or hints ...
  • Create the appropriate links (and see to delete the three articles).
There should be a counterpart, which is : list of miracles and related facts applying not only to Jeez (but also to Osiris, Krishna, you and me.) --DLL 18:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

cartoon about raccoons stealing a garbage truck[edit]

I'm searching for a cartoon that I watched as a kid about raccoons stealing garbage to feed their families. They would steal a garbage truck at night and return it in the morning. Anyone know what this was? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spamfiltre (talkcontribs)

I believe your referring to a cartoon called The Raccoons here is the link with more information although the site is undergoing maintenace try viewing the cached page through google. Hiope this helps

Did you even follow the link to this page before posting a response? The link is broken. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spamfiltre (talkcontribs)

Did you even read the response? They said the site was under maintenance and to read the Google cache of the page. --Canley 03:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
In any case that's probably not the right cartoon. The raccoons on the The Raccoons did not eat garbage and there were no humans from whom to steal garbage trucks... Adam Bishop 06:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

WWII era hair oil[edit]

My poor ol' dad remembers useing glyco hair products as a young sailor on his distroyer in the s.pacific. He is going to a reunion with his few remaineing shipmates soon and I thought it would be a good joke for everybody if he could find some to take with him. Does anybody kmow anything about this stuff? Thanks 19:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)(hobgoblin)

Perhaps Vaseline would be just as nasty of an alternative ? StuRat 19:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Brylcreem? Rmhermen 19:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
"Californian Poppy" (which may have used an extract from the California Poppy) was another one. The best of them all was macassar oil - our article says it was used primarily in Victorian and Edwardian times, but my granddad was certainly still using it in the late 1960s. That stuff smells so great, they really should bring it back. Plus it would provide employment opportunities for manufacturers of antimacassars. JackofOz 02:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
That must have been a nice way to catch fire if something on the ship exploded during an attack.--Teutoberg 20:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
So countries that need to import all their petrol should just do without? JackofOz 20:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
No, but wearing something highly flammable on your head, when onboard a warship, in a current war zone, is pretty stupid. StuRat 20:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not aware that it's flammable at all, let alone highly so. If that were the case, surely this would have been a serious issue back when the stuff was widely used. JackofOz 10:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know, all oils are flammable. And back when that was in use, safety standards were almost nonexistent, such as no seat belts in cars. StuRat 18:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I've seen Bay Rum in chemists very recentlyhotclaws**==( 07:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC))

What does six figures mean?[edit]

I'm a little confused someone said they were making more than six figures? Logically I would assume they meant they were making a million or more, but when I asked someone about it they said it meant that they surpassed the 100k mark... If this is the case is it better to say I make in the low six figure range or mid six figure range or even in the high six figure range?

Thank you,

It means $100,000 - $999,999, and the "more" part is not normally there. I suspect that it's used as a way to say it's not right around $100,000, but significantly higher. Of course, you could also say you have an income in the six figures range if it's over $1000.00, counting cents, LOL. StuRat 19:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Since "making six figures" means somewhere in the range from 100000 to 999999 currency units, taken literally it should indeed mean a million or more. You have to guess: was the speaker lying, just sloppy, making way too much money, or from a country with a low-valued currency unit (like 1,000,000 Cuban Peso = 45,000.00 US Dollar). --LambiamTalk 22:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I have always heard the term used (in the US) to refer to someone making $100,000 or more. A million would be seven figures. Fan-1967 22:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Logically, more than six figures is seven figures (i.e. a million). On the other hand, I can see how some people could interpret "six figures" as meaning specifically around $100,000 as a kind of dialect alternative numbering system. I would certainly understand it in the first sense (i.e. seven figures), but a good websearch would probably establish whether this is an individual mistake or a general variation. And just for the record, I have several seven-figure banknotes at home, thanks to a visit to Turkey before the introduction of the Turkish new lira. Ca-ching! Ziggurat 22:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Clearly, a lot of BS goes on with regards to people's salaries. Generally speaking, I'd say that if you claim to make six figures, especially when not prompted by a question as to your salary, you're already pretty suspect of being a BS'er. In fact, the REAL high earners, from my experience, (those earning in the millions) are far more prone to keep quiet as to their income, as they don't have the insecurity required to brag. How do you expect such BS'ers to give you an even further accurate response such as "low" "medium" or "high" six figures? Loomis 22:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. It's probably sloppy language for "more than 100,000". --Dweller 10:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Suspect it comes from horse dealing when a "Three figure" horse,i.e. over a single hundred pounds was a very expensive animal(£25/75 being enough for a good road horse,or hack or moderate hunter) then inflation catches up and the price moves on up.

hotclaws**==( 07:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC))

Corporate Titles[edit]

If a person is waiting to be named to a position within a company or body of government until the person currently holding that position has retired, what would the person taking over the office be called.

My example would be for instance, person taking a position now as CEO while the other CEO is still in office. The person coming into that office would sort of be a CEO in waiting or incumbent but I know that is not the correct term. Can anyone help me? Thanks so much if you can! -- 19:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"Incumbent" is wrong: it refers to the person currently holding office. You can use "the CEO designate" ([4], [5], [6], [7]). --LambiamTalk 21:57, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Lambiam is right. CEO designate is probably the right word. I also know that from the time a US President is elected (in November) to the time s/he is sworn in (January 20th), s/he is known as the "President-Elect". But of course that would not apply to a CEO as a CEO is not "elected" per se. So CEO-designate would probably be the best term I can think of. Besides, in Parliamentary systems, where the Prime Minister is not directly elected, but is rather "designated" as PM by the fact that s/he is the leader of the winning party, the term "Prime Minister-designate" is used for "PMs-in-waiting". Loomis 22:19, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
You're probably looking for pro temp or ad hoc, depending upon whether it is an acting position or an interim position. Geogre 14:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
That's "pro tem", not "pro temp", but neither that, nor "ad hoc" is appropriate to this question. StuRat 20:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

"Resistance/Terrorist" organizations that provide social services?[edit]

Following events in the Middle East, I'm wondering if Hezbollah is unique in its existence as both an entaity labelled as "terrorist" in some Western countries, but providing services to the local populace as an integral part of its purpose. It's kind of a hard question to phrase, as whether or not "terrorist" applies is up for debate (and I DON'T want to debate that here). I'd appreciate any pointers on other resistance movements that actually provide infrastructure support to a significant degree to the local population.

I'm not aware of any other resistance/terrorist organizations that are involved in social services at an infrastructure level, but my knowledge of global politics is pretty dismal. Are there any other contemporary groups/movements comparable to Hezbollah in the "armed resistance/social support under one roof" sense?--MattShepherd 20:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hamas is a prime example. I think the Irish Republican Army might have done this, as well. Also, the Mafia and Colombian drug lords similarly provided social programs so they would have support in the population. (Of course, they also kill anyone who doesn't support them.) StuRat 20:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There are lots of groups which combine attritributes of terrorists/guerillas/insurgents and states, for example the Tamil Tigers, the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), the Shining Path (in its heyday), the Somalian warlords. There's a continuum from terrorist cells to insurgent groups like the above, to breakaway de-facto statelets like Transnistria, Abkhazia, Somaliland, and finally to universally recognized states like Eritrea. Hezbollah lies somewhere in the middle of this continuum; it's far from unique. Gdr 21:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As self-proclaimed "resistance organizations", neo-Nazi groups across the world provide a vast array of social services for poor, needy Aryans. I suppose then, if we insist on separating Hezbollah's "social-support wing" from its "anti-semitic militant wing", then it would only be fair to separate these neo-Nazi groups' "social-support wings" from their "racist militant wings". Makes sense, no? Loomis 02:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
No longer in existence, but resistance groups in WWII also helped Jews, shot down pilots and the like, anyone who was threatened by the Germans (with the possible exception of Gypsies and maybe even gays). Of course this touches on the question what is a terrorist, which you wanted to avoid, but can't. A 'terrorist' group usually has the purpose of achieving something for some group. So it makes sense for them to also support that group or its allies in other ways. To them they are not terrorists (but 'freedom fighters' or whatever). To the opponents they are terrorists. DirkvdM 06:56, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I go back to the def "terrorists try to maximize civilian casualties". If those groups blew up schoolbuses full of kids to try to get the Germans to do what they wanted, then yes, they were terrorists. If they stuck with military targets, then they were not. StuRat 06:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
This may be a Dutch complication. By your definition there has only been one terrorist attack in the Netherlands since WWII (an IRA bombing of an English bar in Venlo, I believe). But the present right-wing government wants to convince us that terrorism is a real threat, so they broaden the definition, to even include simple murders, like the ones on Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh. Then again, you forget to include something like 'not officially recognised forces'. By your definition most participating armies in WWII were terrorists (bombing of cities). As is the Israeli army right now. DirkvdM 08:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe most of the bombing of cities in WW2 by the Allies was to destroy defense industries and military facilities located in those cities. Unfortunately, the weapons of that era weren't very accurate, making carpet bombing necessary to have any chance of hitting the targets. While this resulted in many unintentional civilian casualties, this was not the goal. There were some exceptions, were civilians were intentionally targeted, such as Hiroshima and Nagasaki. However, as this was an alternative to a war of attrition where far more civilians would have died in Japan, this can still be seen as an attempt to "minimize civilian casualties". I can see no way to describe the Hezbollah missiles launched at Israel as being "an attempt to minimize civilian casualties", unless they really think the Jews will just pack up and leave, abolishing the state of Israel, ending the war and returning all the land to Palestine. If they really expect this to happen (which seems to be the case, if you believe their statements) then they are seriously delusional. StuRat 01:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Once again I try vainly. (Why do I do it? I really don't know.) Had the allied forces in WWII not "bombed cities" as you so simplistically put it, your dear Netherlands would never have been "liberated" from the Nazis. But then again, as you've also said, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". In that case, we should probably all have remained neutral when it came to the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands. After all, who are we to judge? What I, with all my bias, may call a Nazi occupation of the Netherlands, can just as easily be interpreted as a Nazi "liberation" of the Aryan Dutch people from the clutches of the "evil" allied empire bent on the establishment of the ultimately "terrorist" Zionist state.
Perhaps we were all wrong to kick the Germans out of the Netherlands after all. A thousand apologies. I especially apologize for all the terrorism the allies inflicted upon the axis powers. Stu, you're American, shame on you! Shame on you for taking the lead role in terrorizing and ultimatley defeating those Nazi freedom fighters! You, as an American, are the worst to blame for playing the lead role in frustrating the attempts of all those German and Dutch National Socialists, especially with all those terrorist atrocities it involved! Shame on you! Shame on ALL the Allies!
Fortunately not all Dutchmen are as deplorably ungrateful as you. For them I accept their gratitude, especially since my grandfather was among the few, (since we don't have much of a population to begin with,) but the brave Canadians who were shipped off to Europe, and for whatever reason assigned the task of liberating the Netherlands. I accept their gratitude, the gratitude which they display every November 11, wearing poppies and waving Canadian flags. The Dutch are mostly a good people.
But now that I've made an argument, don't bother with a counter-argument. Just repeat the same old cowardly routine. Scurry off to wherever your lair is. But don't forget, whenever the opportunity arises, make sure to point out that Israel is a terrorist state! Don't forget to mention that we absolutely LOVE killing civilians! Loomis 12:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Well said. StuRat 01:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
StuRat tricked me into reading this (shame on you from me too :) ), but all I can say is sigh. Again you seem to have a point but don't bring it across in a manner I manage to follow or that seems to have anything to do with what I said. This, plus your derogatory style (no sense of humour) and use of caps lock and bold type (not here, though) made me decide not to read your rants any more. Unless they are short, which is rare (then again, who am I to say that). As for family experiences (which are no argument), my mother almost got killed by the US bombers that mistook Nijmegen for some German city. So now I find myself using nonsense argumentation. Another reason not to read your posts anymore. I'm having a hard enough time with StuRat. :) (Who is of course going to point out that me using nonsense argumentation is not so unusual for me, but then I hereby beat him to that - ha! ) DirkvdM 07:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm sure even nonsense arguments make sense if you smoke enough of the right stuff. :-) StuRat 04:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Only one's own nonsense. :) DirkvdM 12:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Stu seems to have been able to follow what I said quite well, and the two of us generally find ourselves disagreeing at least as much as agreeing on many issues. I can't for the life of me understand what was so difficult about that post to follow. Your argument is basically that "terrorism" is too difficult a term to define, as it is a completely subjective term. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter". My argument was that I disagree. Terrorism, though admittedly difficult to define, and admittedly not completely objective (there are some borderline cases where I myself have difficulty deciding) is, nonethless, an objective enough term that, to paraphrase Potter Stewart's famous line on the definition of obscenity: "I may not be able to define it perfectly, but I know it when I see it".
This time, I used the staple reductio logical technique to argue that the "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" notion simply doesn't hold water, as if you follow it to its fullest extent, you couldn't logically conclude that there was anything objectively wrong with the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands, and that there was nothing objectively right in their liberation by the Allies. A simple logical argument. I don't see what's so hard to follow about it.
However you're right in one sense. I do tend to overuse bold type and CAPS. I admit that it's a terrible habit and I am trying my best to avoid it. As for being humourless and derogatory, here's a great big smiley for you and you alone: :-)). Loomis 11:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Like I said, we don't communicate well. It's worse than between StuRat and me, but at least with StuRat it's all very much tongue in cheek. I suppose we'd better try to avoid each other. I've had enough endless pointless discussions to know when to stop. Which is why I said I wouldn't read your posts any more. Except for this time (and I will probably sin again in the future, but I'll try to constrain myself then). DirkvdM 12:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
If what you're proposing is to simply and respectfully agree to disagree, and go our separate ways, I'm all for it. I agree that we seem to have a serious communication problem. I too am tired of the endless bickering over essentially nothing. Like you, I'll try my best to avoid responding to your posts. But just as you said, I'll probably find myself caving in to temptation on occasion and doing it again in the future, but like you, I'll try my best to restrain myself. Loomis 13:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I actually have one (hopefully) last thing to add. You're Dutch, and so naturally your home country is the Netherlands. I'm a Jew living in Canada, and though I'm proud to be Canadian, I really see myself more as an Israeli expatriate. Your home is the Netherlands and my home is Israel. You have every right to disagree with any particular Israeli government policy of the day, just as I have every right to disagree with any particular Dutch policy. Both countries are democracies, and that's how democracies work.
All that I ask is a very small favour. If you disagree with Israeli policy on whatever issue, such as for example the current conflict with the Hezbollah, I would have no issue at all if you would state it as such. Unfortunately your arguments seem entirely predetermined and therefore prejudiced. For example, Israel can decide on a certain policy sometime next week. Whereas I'll wait till next week to find out what that policy is, and only then decide whether or not I agree with it, your judgement would seem to be already made. Whatever the policy is, it's a guarantee that Dirk will be against it. You seem deny the legitimacy of absolutely anything and everything Israel does without exception. It's a fait accompli. Israel can do no right. If that's not prejudice, I don't know what is.
What I'm trying to say is that in doing so, you're being extremely hurtful to myself and my people. And it's not just about Israel. Even remarks such as: "the Jews and the Arabs are really just one ethnic group anyway" are extremely hurtful, as by speaking in this way, you're denying our very identity. Your message seems to be that we have no real identity as a people and that our home country has no right to exist. This hurts Dirk, it really hurts. All that I ask, therefore, is that before speaking your mind, (which you have every right to do,) please just take one small moment to think about whether your remark will be unnecessarily hurtful. And if you can foresee some unnecessary hurt being caused, please do the human thing and think twice before you make the remark. That's all that I ask. Loomis 22:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, Jews (the gene pool, not the religion) and Palestinians are definitely both ethnically Semites, there's no denying that. But why is your identity dependent on either a religion or an ethnic group ? Neither Canadians nor Americans have a unique ethnic group or religion, after all, and they have no difficulty finding an identity for themselves. StuRat 20:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
You probably saw this one coming: I get the impression you are prejudiced. And you have a reason to be if you consider yourself to be Israeli. I'm not involved in the conflict and can therefore take a step back (actually, I don't even have to, for that same reason). And here lies an essential difference between us. You say you look at this and next week's situation. I look at the last decades and even centuries and try to form an opinion on the bigger picture, the movements of people as a whole, not the details. For a quick overview of my stance on the matter: First there were the Palestinians. Then came the Israelis/Jews/Zionists (or what should I call them?). Of course the Palestinians didn't like that, so a war ensued. Although the Jews had a good reason to want their own country (even though it couldn't possibly hold all of them), the Palestinians were completely in their right to defend their home turf. Now, however, most Israelis (I thought, although I heard differently recently) have been born in Israel, so they have the same right to defend their home turf. Impossible situation. In matters like these, the only authority I accept is the UN (the only representation of all people on Earth, thereby guaranteeing neutrality, or the closest we can get to it). StuRat can attest to this (we've had fierce discussions over this). Israel, however, doesn't recognise anything the UN say and even rejected a ICJ decision before it was even made, clearly showing their unwillingness to reach an agreement. There you have my main gripe with Israel.
About other people's feelings, I will speak the truth (or whatever I think is the truth), irrespective of whether people will be hurt by that. I am very much not 'politically correct'. For me the truth is holy, whatever it may be (assuming there is such a thing). But I couldn't foresee someone being hurt by me pointing out that Jews and Palestinians are both Semites. Just like the Dutch and the Germans belonging to the same ethnic group doesn't rob them of their national identity. Having said that, I despise stuff like national pride. It is one of the three main causes of war (nationalism, money and religion - although religion is usually more an excuse than a reason). I consider myself human, a world citizen. That I happen to be Dutch is pure coincidence. How can I be proud of something I haven't done?
So much for ignoring each other. :) DirkvdM 07:56, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
You are incorrect when saying the Palestinians were there first. Ancient Israel existed at roughly the same time as the Roman Empire, which was before Mohammed was born, and therefore before Islam existed. There were people there before the Jews, however, such as the Philistines (and Palestinians may be descendent from them). So, you can dismiss the Israeli claim because it's too old, but you can't argue that the Palestinians were there first, unless you consider the Philistines to be the same as Palestinians. StuRat 09:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
What time frame are you talking about and what does Islam have to do with this? I meant that (the ancestors of) the people who are now called Palestinians lived there in the first half of this century, before the Zionists came. I think I covered everything this time. :) DirkvdM 05:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I told you the time frame, roughly the time of the Roman Empire. To be more specific, we could start with Abraham, at about 1800 BC, and end at 135 AD, when the last Jewish state was abolished by Rome. I am using Islam as a way of identifying Palestinians. While Palestinians certainly came from earlier pagans living in the area (possibly the Philistines), I don't consider those pagans to actually be Palestinians, any more than I consider the pagans from which the Jews arose to be Jews themselves. I also think you meant to say "the first half of the LAST century" (your terminology is 6 and a half years out of date). And while Palestinians did live there before 1950, so did many Jews. The Zionist Movement goes back much farther than that (1862 ?). And even before the Movement, many Jews had lived in the area since the time of ancient Israel. So, the idea you have that Jews have "no claim" to the region is just wrong. Now, whether their claim to the area is stronger than that of the Palestinians, that's an entirely different question. StuRat 19:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying that, Stu. Loomis 12:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I fully admit that I may be biased, but bias and prejudice are two separate (though similar) notions. Anybody with a brain and a position on any issue is biased. I meant prejudice in the most literal sense, not necessarily the commonly accepted sense (which is quite different). By prejudiced, I literally meant that you seem to pre-judge.

In any case, a strange thing seems to be happening here. Ever since we agreed to ignore each other, we seem to have suddenly and inexplicably begun a very respectful and productive discussion. Rather ironic. If you want to continue with our agreement to ignore each other, that's your choice. However it would seem like an awful shame now that we seem to be making such progress. Just one question. I know you meant it as a joke, since you actually took the trouble of pointing it out, and so I feel no ill will towards you for making it. But even as a joke, I don't understand the "Fuck off" remark you made in that other article. Was that directed at me? If so I don't understand it. It would be great if you explained what you meant, but again, since it was a joke, I'm not offended, just curious. So it's up to you, we can continue having a respectful and productive dialogue as is what's seemed to have happened, or we can go with the first plan to ignore each other. Your choice. :) Loomis 12:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this relates to the earlier convo on how the Dutch are notoriously rude, from an American/Canadian point of view, constantly swearing at each other, but not meaning anything by it, similar to how Aussies seem to use "bastard" as a term of affection for their friends. StuRat 18:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
As an until now disinterested (but not uninterested) observer of this evolving discussion, may I say it's good to see maturity prevail. Dirk, I'm curious about something. You regularly tell us that you're a Dutchman from the Netherlands, which doesn't seem to be pure coincidence, yet you now say you despise national pride. Why all the references to your home country if that latter statement is really true? I think Sir Walter Scott had a point in The Lay of the Last Minstrel:
Breathes there the man with soul so dead,
Who never to himself hath said,
This is my own, my native land!
Whose heart has ne'er within him burned,
As home his footsteps he has turned
From wandering on a foreign strand. JackofOz 13:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I think there's a language issue here. I assume Dirk is proud to be Dutch, but isn't an advocate of ultra-nationalism / blind patriotism, as in the expression "my country, right or wrong". If this is what he means, then I agree. However, I don't agree that the UN can ever be an effective "world government", because it's made of nations governed by evil people, and other nations unwilling to ever use force. This makes it about as effective as dealing with modern problems as the League of Nations was in preventing WW2. What is needed is the good nations which are willing to use force, when necessary, all in an alliance. I think NATO is good start, but should be expanded and redefine it's goals. It did a good job in the former Yugoslavia, and should be used for similar problems like the one in Lebanon (to destroy Hezbollah, not continue to allow the terrorist group to operate indefinitely, as the UN did). StuRat 18:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
And who is to say who is in the right? Us? And who do we say is in the right? Us? Gee, what a coincidence. :)
There are plenty of issues where there really isn't any question as to what is right. "Gee, is murdering a million people in Rwanda a good thing ? Let's have a huge, useless, international body (the UN) study the question for years, by which time the question will be moot, as everyone will be dead. Sounds like a plan !" StuRat 19:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
But look at how even we fight amongst ourselves. Bush declares war on anyone who doesn't wish to invade Iraq and France and Spain pick up the glove. And Dutch parliament only wanted tosend troops to Afghanistan if that was specifically under a UN flag and not associated with the US forces there, and under the strict privision that no captives would be handed over to the US (for fear of torture). DirkvdM 05:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Dear Sir, I didn't say I was ashamed of being Dutch. Where did I state my nationality when it wasn't relevant? DirkvdM 05:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
(I assume that was for me. If not, ignore the following) Maybe I phrased my query poorly. I wasn't suggesting there was any particular agenda in your mentioning your Dutch nationality, just that you've never been backward in doing so. If anything, you seem very keen to mention it. Not that there's anything wrong with that. You seem proud of being Dutch - and why shouldn't you be. I was simply contrasting that with your avowed despising of national pride. JackofOz 07:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
No, no, no, no! I am not proud of being Dutch. Why do people find this so hard to believe despite the fact that I keep on saying it? One can only be proud of things one has done and being Dutch is something that just happened to me. That said, I am glad to be Dutch, but that is of course because I am Dutch. I have grown accustomed to Dutch customs, so I feel most at home in the Netherlands, in which case it helps to be Dutch. Had I been an Aussie then I would have been happy with that for the same reasons. And had I been an Israeli ... not sure because that is basically a continuous war zone, but then people have a strong ability to adapt. DirkvdM 12:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, I get it now. Well, all I can say is that I'm proud to be an Aussie, for all our weird ways. Most people are proud of their country. But they don't have to be if they don't want to. Live and let live, I say. Thanks. JackofOz 12:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Loomis, about me pre-judging. My prejudice is for the UN. If Israel follows the suggestions of the UN and the rulings of the ICJ and still gets attacked, then you'll suddenly see me change sides.
About me saying "fuck off". You asked what 'take distance' means. It was a means of testing if you'd get my humour. Apparently you don't. StuRat does, which is why we get along despite our conflicting political views. DirkvdM 05:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't get what "take distance" meant, either. I just assumed that it's a Dutch phrase which doesn't translate into English well. StuRat 19:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Apparently I still don't get your humour, just as you don't seem to understand my particular method of presenting an argument. I just hope we won't treat these relatively irrelevant obstacles as a reason for not trying to continue communicating. Loomis 10:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the UN, I think I'm pretty much in agreement with Stu. I'd add that it has an incredibly dismal record when it comes to reacting to violent disputes. Take for example the way it dealt with the entirely preventable Rwandan Genocide. It was pathetic. With that in mind, who can blame Israel for not following the suggestions of the UN? "If Israel follows the suggestions of the UN and the rulings of the ICJ and still gets attacked"...well, I'm not even sure there'd be an Israel left for you to side with. Loomis 11:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Were things so much better before there was a UN? Is it a coincidence that has been less war since the founding of the UN? Impossible to tell (too many variables). But give the UN a break - it's a huge experiment in international politics that has existed for only half a century. Countries by themselves have had centuries of experience and the end result was two incredibly devastating wars. It is an experiment in democracy on a different scale. And democracy may be slow, but it's better than the alternatives. The UN don't perform perfectly, but what alternative is there? The mess we had before? DirkvdM 12:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The reasons for less war are: nuclear weapons (making all-out war between nuclear powers unthinkable) and pacts, like NATO (preventing wars within and between Western Europe and with the US) and the Warsaw Pact (preventing wars within and between Eastern Europe and Russia). Wars outside of Europe involving at least one non-nuclear power continued as always. So, yes, the UN is just a coincidence. Try naming some wars they prevented. StuRat 19:06, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not that I'm saying that the UN is all bad, in fact its goals are laudable. One of positive aspects of the UN is that it provides a forum for all the countries to at least get a chance to speak to each other and state their grievances before rushing to war. But as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Look at the UN's immediate predecessor, the League of Nations. This rather similar international body was formed with the same goal of preventing war. Yet many argue that it actually hurt more than helped in preventing WWII.

As for it being an experiment in democracy, I just can't seem to see it that way. I'm not entirely sure of the numbers, but at least a good chunk, if not a majority of its members are undemocratic. Is this really an experiment in democracy? Is the gathering together of the representatives of some democracies and many dictatorships to vote on this resolution or that really any sort of exercise in democracy in any sense of the word? I just can't see it.

Though I don't know the exact percentage of members that are democracies vs. dictatorships, I can say one thing for sure, just look at China and the fact that its people have no say in what their government does and right there you've already disenfranchised an entire fifth of the world's population at the UN. In fact, given the fact that democracies tend to be far less populous than dictatorships, its clear that the vast majority of the world's population is completely unrepresented at the UN. This, to me, makes the UN no more than a democracy of dictatorships. There's no real democracy going on here. It's a farce.

What I was specifically refering to though was its peace-keeping role, which as I said, is pathetic. If anything it gives the world a false sense of security, thereby increasing the potential for war, just as the League of Nations seems to have done. Take, for example the current Israel/Hezbollah/Lebanon tragedy. Apparently the UN had passed a resolution demanding that Lebanon remove the Hezbollah from its country, (and it would go without saying, at least prevent them from amassing thousands of rockets). Whether the Lebanese were unwilling, or whether they were unable to do it is really irrelevant to this discussion. What's relevant is that the UN apparently sent "observers" to Lebanon to see what's going on. What were these observers observing if not the vast rearmament of the Hezbollah? Again, a farce.

Just one thing for Stu: "Try naming some wars they prevented". Uhhh...don't you think it might be a bit difficult to name events that never occured? Then again, perhaps it's me who's not smoking the right stuff. :-) Loomis 20:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that is rather like the attacks that are said to have been prevented with the 'war on terrorism'.
Well, the terrorist attacks planned soon in the form of liquid explosives used to bomb airplanes flying from the UK to US appear to have been prevented by the "war on terrorism", unless you think that was all made up. I believe a second wave of bus and train bombings planned for London was also prevented. And some wars have been prevented, like the US-Soviet War (see Cuban Missile Crisis), but not by any action from the UN. Perhaps I should have said "name wars the UN has stopped", so as to include those prevented and those halted later. At best, the UN comes in after a war has stopped, as opposed to being the ones who actually stop it. StuRat 01:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
About the UN being democratic, I meant as a world democracy. The system is a bit like district systems nationally. People vote in their region and the national government is then formed out of the leaders of those regions. Which is not a proper democracy, if you ask me. But an added issue here is that the upper level cannot influence the way the leaders of the lower level are chosen. One has to work with what one has. The alternative would be to give up on the whole idea. But there is some logic behind it. A democracy is a way of letting people live together. The UN is about letting countries live together. What happens below that level is basically irrelevant.
Also, I can not know enough about everything (or even anything) to make a good judgement. So I go with the opinion of the UN. If they agree on something, then there must be a good basis for it (representing all cultures and therefore humanity as a whole) and I will accept that rather than anyone else's opinion. Of course, there's that if ... DirkvdM 10:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course, they never do agree on much of anything, except the blatantly obvious. And I don't accept a bunch of dictators as representing their countries, either. On the contrary, many, like Robert Mugabe, seem to be hell-bent on the destruction of their country. StuRat 01:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, your facts seem pretty accurate so I suppose it's just a matter of opinion at this point. On the one hand, it's true, the modern era of democracy, as it began in places like the US and the UK, began by restricting the vote to adult, white, male, property-holders. This was obviously but a small segment of the population. But it was a start, just as you say the UN is a start, even though only a small segment of the world population is actually represented. On the other hand, I just can't accept the legitimacy of the UN in the same way. As I said from the beginning, it all depends on what function of the UN we're talking about. As a forum for providing each country in the world with the opportunity to air their grievances and engage in dialogue before rushing to war, I think it's a great idea. As a legitimate representative institution of the human race, not so much, not much at all. As a "peace-keeping" organization, very, very poor. In fact so poor that I'd say it does more harm than good. Loomis 00:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Use of PIM in Navigation[edit]

When did the US Navy start navigating using PIM (Plan of intended movement or Path of intended movement)?