Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 October 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Humanities desk
< October 15 << Sep | October | Nov >> October 17 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk 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 on one of the current reference desk pages.


Contents

[edit] October 16

[edit] Bass Set

Which of these is best for an aspiring Bass player. I can already KIND OF play guitar but I want to play Bass. Which is best from this list? Thank you very much. schyler 00:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

As a longtime former bassist, I would hope you had a chance to play them first, but if you're just getting started it's not quite as big a deal. I think both the Washburn Taurus and the Dean Playmate are probably good picks, although I add the Dean based on an affinity for the old Baby Dean guitars of the 80s, and not on the bass perse. Wolfgangus 12:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I would second Wolfgangus' recommendation to play them first. Especially at the low end, you need to actually try the bass you're going to buy since the quality can vary so widely. Go to your local music store and try bunches. You may also want to look at shops which have second-hand instruments since that'll give you more quality for less money (or at the least protect you from depreciation). Finding someone locally who already plays bass can also help you in selecting an instrument. Donald Hosek 18:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Women Guitarist

Hi. I have an interesting question that no one seems to know the answer. It's probably a bit of a stupid question but here it goes: Are there any hard rock women guitarists out there? I can't think of any. Obviously there are known women to play guitar and even electric guitar but they seem to reside towards the side of country. Any women rock guitarists?Jk31213 02:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Category:Female guitarists would be a good place to start. I'd particularly call to your attention Carrie Brownstein, Brody Dalle, Mary Kaye, Lori Linstruth, and others. Those were just the first ones I checked that seemed to fufil your criteria. --YbborTalk 03:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Depending on where you draw the line between rock and pop, Emma Chaplin (of The Long Blondes), Kate Turley (The Fight), Betty Cisneros (Go Betty Go) Molly Lorenne and Toy Valentine (The Faders) all play guitar, although they are mostly alternative rock rather than hard rock. Courtney Love played guitar, and her band Hole had a number of female bass guitarists as well. Laïka 16:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
All of those are alt-rock or indie guitarists. The questioner specifically asked for hard rock, which is a completely different genre. The one that comes to my mind is Marnie Stern. --Richardrj talk email 22:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

How about Joan Jett? She's hard rock isn't she? You see I'm an author and I'm thinking of writing a book about a woman hard rock guitarist and I just thought that was so original but now I guess not. But then again, Joen Jett is not really known other than her song I Love Rock and Roll.Jk31213 23:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Well, we do have a problem in that hard rock is poorly defined -- the Wikipedia article on the subject basically says it ended in the 1970s. Personally, I'd say that hard rock is an umbrella that includes metal, punk, and grunge. For some reason, though, everyone who comes to mind is a bass guitar player:
Chrissie Hynde? —Tamfang 02:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slum fiction

What do social realist novels, like Morrison's A Child of the Jago, reveal about Victorian attitudes towards poverty? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.86.116 (talk) 07:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Your best approach is really to read the book and answer this question for yourself, but I'll say a few words. As a journalist born in the East End of London, Arthur Morrison was better placed than most people to write about an underworld area of the East End. One strand you will see in the book is that Victorian society drew a clear distinction between the 'deserving poor' (those thrown into poverty through no fault of their own) and the 'undeserving poor' (such as those ruined by the evils of drink). Also remember that A Child of the Jago is a work of fiction and can't necessarily be treated as if it were a sociological study. You will see some 'Victorian attitudes towards poverty' in the book, but at least as revealing is the controversy over it. Middle class readers were astonished and disbelieving about what was depicted, and critics claimed that Morrison had exaggerated the truth for dramatic effect. In a preface to the third edition, he replied that he had understated the problems of the area rather than exaggerating them. Xn4 09:29, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

What they reveal is poverty as a source of prurient entertainment; the shocking for those who enjoyed being shocked! I cannot think of any better judgement on this whole literary trend than that passed by G. K. Chesterton-"The missionary comes to tell the poor man that he is in the same condition with all men. The journalist comes comes to tell other people how different the poor man is from everybody else." It's the literary version of the traditional 'good works' of the rich parish family, who dip into the poor homes with the obligatory 'basket' and just as quickly dip out again, with one important difference: the middle class readers of A Child of the Jago or Edwin Pugh's Tony Drum, a Cockney Boy, or Richard Whiteing's No. 5 John Street, bring no basket and do not dip, at least not in any practical sense. They read, they are shocked, they may even sympathise; but in the end they leave things pretty much as they are. Morrison is Dickens without the moral message, just as slum fiction is voyeurism without social purpose. So, I leave Chesterton with the last word on the whole slum fiction oeuvre, "They are not a description of the state of the slums. They are only a very dark and dreadful description of the state of the slummers." Clio the Muse 01:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History

When was constitution formed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.82.48.171 (talk) 12:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Whose constitution? Stockmann 13:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Your IP and contributions suggest you are in Pakistan. The present constitution of Pakistan was promulgated in 1973, with a significant amendment in 1985. Algebraist 13:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
If you're referring to constitutions in general, have a look at Constitution#History_and_development. -Elmer Clark 03:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural pessimism

In "The Great Gatsby" Fitzgerald makes an oblique reference, in the character of Tom Buchanan, to the theories of Lothrop Stoddard on the decline of the white race. Is there a background, a la Spengler, to this kind of cultural pessimism? Stockmann 13:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a background but I'm not sure Spengler is the source in this case—Stoddard is very different from Spengler on the whole, and American racial alarmism has its own rich and independent path which in many ways is different from Spengler. We have an article on Lothrop Stoddard, but you might also look at the page on his mentor, Madison Grant. The two are very different in the specifics of their theories and the focus of them, but the general alarm is quite the same. Those two fit very well into the history of American scientific racism (Cf. Samuel George Morton, Josiah Nott, George Gliddon, much less those in the early eugenics movement), though they are rather extreme cases (and always a little bit more fringe than the rest of their contemporaries).
But as for larger cultural causes, there are indeed many. World War I was one of them, in a similarity to Spengler, but obviously the situation between a writer in the US and a writer in defeated Germany is a bit different. Grant's beliefs were rooted in the European immigration movements in the late 19th century (which he effectively lobbied to stop by the 1920s), whereas Stoddard's specific beliefs were heavily informed by the Great Migration. In any case, their feelings on cultural decline are linked inextricably to theories of racial decline; for them the decline of the white (Nordic) races was simply the decline of culture, since all culture game from that race in particular under their views. --24.147.86.187 14:23, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
There is also, it might be said, wider concerns of sexual anxiety here, fears at one and the same time of miscegenation and inadequacy. I'm thinking specifically here of Henry Champley, one time foreign editor of Le Temps, and his wonderfully eccentric White Women, Couloured Men, his bizarre and salacious travel book, published in 1936. In this he urges white women to beware of the dark races; for his travels in the USA and the Far East have convinced him that "The coloured people have discovered the White woman as an idol worthy of being desired above all else." The problem for Mr. Champley is that the white woman has also discovered the coloured races. She is therefore urged to resist the tempations of racial mixing and promiscuity in favour of 'heroic humility', which, I assume, means being at the disposal of dear old Mr. Champley!
Actually this whole cultural trend has a wider resonance than Stoddard's specifically American concerns. It's already evident before the First World War, in work like The Conflict of Colour, where Putnam Weale warns his fellow Britons against the perils of the Japanese alliance. In the mid-1920s, independently of the American school, the poet Leo Chiozza Money published The Peril of the White, saying that "The whites of Europe and elsewhere are set upon race suicide and internecine war." Is it surprising that Fitzgerald allows the ridiculous Buchanan to voice such views? Always remember Nick's thought in Gatsby "I was tempted to laugh whenever he opened his mouth." I dare say Tom and Mr Champley would have got on well, though. Clio the Muse 02:20, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] British Identity Cards

The debates surrounding the issue of identity cards in the UK little mention seems to be made of the previous system, abandoned in 1952. Why was this given up and what does this tell us about recent proposals? 81.129.83.132 13:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

British national identity card may help. It refers to the identity card system introduced during the First World War (quickly abandoned after the war), and the case of Clarence Henry Willcock, prosecuted in 1951 for failing to produce an identity card issued under the National Registration Act 1939. In dismissing an appeal against his conviction, the Lord Chief Justice Lord Goddard was moved to say that the the cards were an annoyance, and tended to make people resentful of the acts of the police and turn law-abiding subjects into law breakers.
The old cards were little more than a bit of paper with your name and address written upon it and an official stamp (generally without a photograph). In addition to the problems highlighted by the Lord Chief Justice, they were relatively expensive to administer, and not much of a help to the police. The proposed new cards are a different beast entirely, of course. -- !! ?? 14:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The whole thing was just so profoundly un-English, the kind of challenge to native liberties that only sat well with benighted Continentals. If you want a good contemporary view of these cards you could do no better than watch the 1949 Ealing comedy Passport to Pimlico, a perfect barometer of the times. Clio the Muse 02:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

More generally, it was one of those things (like rationing) which was brought in to help the war effort, but then proved hard to shake. Once you have something like this, it's hard to get rid of it (even when it was introduced for a specific reason that has now gone). There was a general feeling among the public (so I understand) that the government was trying to hold on to the powers it had gained in the war. 79.65.86.14 08:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On the Marble Cliffs

This book is considered by many to be a parable of Nazi tyranny-your own page says that it is remarkable that it was not censored during the Third Reich-but how true is this and what do we know of Junger's real attitudes towards the regime? Captainhardy 14:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ernst Jünger wasn´t exactly a friend of them. He refused a seat on behalf of the Nazis in the Reichstag. The Gestapo even searched his house and he was loosely in contact with the plot to kill Hitler however he was against the republic of Weimar and a nationalist. I guess he wasn´t censored because of Jünger´s high standing (he held the Pour le Merite and had written In Stahlgewittern). So he was kind of a posterboy of the right. His son died in Italy fighting in a penal unit due to antinazi sentiments.--Tresckow 16:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually printing was stopped in 1940, though existing editions were not withdrawn. To be perfectly honest I think the anti-Nazi message of this little novel can be overstated, and Jünger himself never made any direct claim of the kind. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the book reflects the character of the author in more ways than he might have cared to allow. It is detached, abstract and coldly intellectual; a work of aristocratic condescension; of a man who would never soil his hands in the dirty business of politics. For each and every contemporary analogy, On the Marble Cliffs is balanced, and more than balanced, by forms of Teutonic mysticism; of Blut und Boden images and ideas that would just as easily have been appreciated and understood by the likes of Alfred Rosenberg. In the end the message is one of despair, of vindictive despair; that the humane values are not worth preserving. The book, for all of its lyricism and beauty, is cold and inert; the work of a man who merely watched while others acted. As much as I admire Jünger, and I do admire him, in the end his intellectual detachment comes dangerously close to an absence of true moral courage. Clio the Muse 00:38, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Austro-Hungary

A-H was the only great power that didn´t try to secure colonies. While that was a wise decision for the ailing empire I wonder if the Jingoism of that time didn´t at least cause public discussions. However I never found something about it. Does anybody have informations?--Tresckow 15:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You might take a look at the article Austrian colonial policy, though I can't vouch for the article's reliability. It does look as though there were a few attempts at colonialism during the 18th century but that Vienna abandoned colonial aspirations during the 19th. I will look a little further, but, having lost Belgium in the Napoleonic Wars, the Habsburg monarchy was reduced to a small coastal strip in Italy and Dalmatia. Landlocked Austria and Hungary themselves of course had no seafaring tradition or know-how, which were essential to a successful colonial enterprise. I suspect that perpetual unrest in the Italian possessions may have discouraged Vienna from using Venice or Trieste as a base for colonizing efforts. Marco polo 17:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
According to this source, Admiral Wilhelm von Tegetthoff was an advocate for Austro-Hungarian colonialism, but the government remained opposed to a colonial enterprise. Of course, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, dominated as it was by Austrians and secondarily Hungarians, had its own internal colonies, such as its Italian possessions, Galicia, arguably the Czech and Slovak lands, Ruthenia, arguably Transsylvania, and its South Slavic possessions. During the late 19th century when the rest of Europe was scrambling for Africa, Austria-Hungary was occupying Bosnia. Marco polo 17:54, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
It's a pity that page on Austrian colonial policy is devoid of references. It might have been something worthy of deeper investigation. As it stands it does not fill me with that much confidence.
Anyway, Marco, I know you will not mind me saying so, but you seem to be looking at Austria and Hungary here from the standpoint of the treaties of St. Germain and Trianon, which reshaped them as land-locked countries. Remember the pre-war Austro-Hungarian Empire, and the Austrian Empire before that, was not so much a nation state as a collection of territories that owed alliegiance to the Habsburgs. Of the two states that emerged after the Ausgleich of 1867 Hungary was by far the more 'national'; but Austria still preserved its old supra-national character. It should not therefore be viewed as an exclusively German state. By this measure the Dalmation coast, with its Slav majority, was still Austria (there is still a Slav minority in the present day Republic of Austria). In fact the polyglot character of the Empire was a source of frustration to many of the German speakers, who in The Linz Program of 1882 called for the complete Germanisation of the Austrian state. One of the signatories, Georg Schönerer, went on to form the Pan-German Party, an early source of inspiration for Adolf Hitler.
So, Tresckow, why no Austrian colonial enterprise? Perhaps you have already gone most of the way towards an answer in your use of the word 'Jingoism', though 'Nationalism' would probably have been better. For it was these things, the emotions these forces engendered, that represented the greatest danger to the old Austrian Empire, the one thing that it had to avoid if was to survive as a system of dynastic loyalty, and nothing but a system of dynastic loyalty. Such national passions that did exist within the Empire were not directed towards the Habsburgs, but towards Pan-Germanism or Pan-Slavism. In other words, there was no specifically 'national constituency', the very thing that elsewhere gave rise to the demand for overseas possessions. Besides, in attempting to contain all of the centrifugal forces that threatened to tear it apart, the Empire, of necessity, had to confine its ambitions to Europe. Locked out of Germany and Italy in 1866 it looked more and more towards the Balkans, from where the greatest threat to its security and integrity seemed to come. Who could have thought of distant colonies with the Serbs and the Russians knocking at the gates? Colonies, moreover, would only have made the national tensions and conflicts even more acute. So, Austria, more a state of mind than a nation, marched on the Balkans, annexing Bosnia Herzegovina in 1908 in the last gasp of decrepit imperial ambition of the old kind. Overseas empires were for young nations. Clio the Muse 23:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
Clio is of course quite right that Austria and Hungary, as then defined, technically had seacoasts before 1918. What I meant was that their ethnic heartlands, the areas we now know as Austria and Hungary, have never had seacoasts. Since the empire's ruling elite largely came from those heartlands, the empire's elite lacked a strong naval tradition. The coastal parts of greater Austria and greater Hungary were home to subordinate peoples whom the ruling Germans and Hungarians might not have trusted with a colonial effort. I appreciate Clio's point that a colonial effort might have aggravated national tensions, though it need not have, if each of the peoples had been given a stake in the colonies. British imperialism did not, it seems to me, aggravate tensions among the English, Welsh, and Scots. If anything, by opening up military careers and opportunities for trade or emigration, the empire may have given the different British peoples a common cause. An Austro-Hungarian colonial empire might have done the same. Marco polo 15:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
That's an interesting conjecture, Marco. I'm not sure that the British example is a good one, though. Let me just take the case of England and Scotland. Well before the Scots were admitted to the English imperial club in 1707 there had been a steady process of convergence between the two nations, which shared the same language and, since the Reformation, the same Protestant outlook. The Parliamentary Union of 1707, in removing the disabilities previously applied under the Navigation Acts, ended the last obstacle to Scottish commercial development by allowing them access to all of the established English markets, to begin with mostly in North America. The Scots did not create the Empire but they were well placed to take full advantage of its opportunities, and to aid in its future expansion.
Now, contrast this with the Austrian Empire. There was no common language; there was no common culture; there was no common religion; there was no common outlook. There is, in other words, no basis for convergence, a convergence that would have had to make way for at least a dozen differing national communities. I can see issues arising about opportunity of access; about imperial strategies; about the need for degrees of capital investment, about the kind of investment required; about the location and the administration of colonies; about naval and shipping priorities; about imperial security; about the language to be used; about this, about this and about this! In other words, more tensions, more pressures; more than a weak and weakening empire would have been able to withstand. But, in the end, this is all speculation. None of what I have said here can be put to any meaningful empirical test. It cannot be known; it did not happen. And as a great Austrian once wrote-Die Welt ist alles, was der Fall ist! Clio the Muse 22:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Both of you make interesting points. I think Clio is right about the possible problems caused by colonies. However I am not sure about this as a reason: Since the empire's ruling elite largely came from those heartlands, the empire's elite lacked a strong naval tradition. As did Germany despite a tradition of naval trade in old Hanse cities like Hamburg. Germany totally lacked serious experience and yet created a strong and capable fleet to protect it its colonies and too, foolishly, endanger British naval supremacy. I wonder about the Act of Union. It seems similar to the Ausgleich. I guess the language induced cultural differences in A-H made it impossible to work as well. The Nicobar information was really interesting.--85.180.30.218 22:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
If anything, 85.180, the Union of the Crowns of 1603 was closer to the Ausgleich, in that two states owed allegiance to a single monarch, who retained control of the foreign policy and the army. The Act of Union of 1707, on the other hand, had the effect of creating a unitary British state with a single parliament, closer in political structure to the Austrian Empire as it existed prior to 1867! Clio the Muse 02:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Voting

Could someone explain to me the exact difference between a single member and group constituency? If a constituency is the body of voters in one area I don't understand how only one single peson can be involved. (I'm pretty new to poly-sci)

Thanks so much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.244.22 (talk) 17:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It would be helpful to know which nation(s) you are considering, but this terminology might distinguish between electoral districts that return a single member to a parliament and those that return several members, allocated from party lists according to a system of proportional representation. Marco polo 17:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
You can also have a group constituency even without proportional representation. For example, the City Council might have five members elected at large; anyone can run, and the top five vote-getters citywide are elected. Arrangements of this type were popular in the South (in the U.S.) during the Jim Crow era. Geographic districts, each returning a single member, would have meant that, despite the disenfranchisement of most blacks, one or more districts would have elected black officeholders, because almost no whites lived there. To exclude blacks from office, many town, city, or county legislatures were elected entirely at large, so that the comparative handful of black voters couldn't influence the election.
Less common is a system combining single member and group constituencies. I'm on the board of a nonprofit where some members are chosen by geographic districts and others are elected at large, by all the members of the organization. Something simlar was in effect in New York City at one point (though now discontinued). There were geographic City Council districts, each electing one member. In addition, each borough (a broader unit encompassing multiple districts) elected two Councilmembers, with the top two vote-getters being seated. The system had a tinge of proportional representation, however, in that the two candidates seated from a borough couldn't be from the same political party. This was an artificial measure to lessen the Democratic Party's dominance. It meant that there were generally at least four Republicans on the Council, because four of the five boroughs would elect one Republican and one Democrat. The borough of Manhattan sometimes elected one Democrat and one candidate from the now-defunct Liberal Party. It's most common, however, for a legislative body to have either single-member districts with plurality election or what you've termed "group constituency". JamesMLane t c 20:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

To summarize: A single-member constituency is a district that elects one person to a legislature, city council or whatever. A "group constituency" presumably refers to a district that elects more than one. -- Mwalcoff 23:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Would a city council with members elected "at large" (with no defined districts) be considered a single group constituency? Corvus cornix 20:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I suppose so, although people would probably just say they elect members on an at-large basis. -- Mwalcoff 02:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
They might even omit "on a basis". —Tamfang 02:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diplomacy: ways of not answerering a question

Can someone out there suggest ways of not answering question like "how much do you earn?" "what is your religion?" or "where do you come from?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.0.101.106 (talk) 19:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There are virtually infinite ways of evading questions, but the questoner will know that you are evading the question. You can respond with your own question, or with a dismissive remark, or with deflecting humor. Examples for each of your three questions: 1) Isn't it a little crass to be concerned with others' income? I make a decent living. I'd rather not give specific numbers. I don't want to embarass you by asking the same question. 2) Who cares about religion any more? Religion is such a dull topic, I'd rather not get into it. Religion bores me. Why are you so interested in religion? 3) I don't come from anywhere really; I think of myself as a world citizen. I've lived so many places I don't think of myself as "from" any of them. What does it matter where a person has lived? And so on. Marco polo 20:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it's perfectly proper to say, nonbelligerently, "I'd rather not say," when someone asks you about your income or your religion. (It would be an unusual response to a question about where you come from, but if you don't want to answer it, you're still entitled to decline to do so.)
If you don't want to be so obvious, you can answer with a lie, one that's so outlandish it's obviously not true, and turn the exchange into a joke. "How much do you earn?" "I get paid seventeen cents an hour. Someone told me there might be some sort of law that says the company has to pay me more. I've been meaning to look into that." "What's your religion?" "I worship Britney Spears. We're now in the period of the Great Tribulation, as foretold in Scripture."
As a catchall nonresponsive response: "If I tell you that, I have to kill you."
I generally agree with Marco polo's examples, except that "Isn't it a little crass to be concerned with others' income?" is distinctly hostile. I wouldn't normally respond that way without good reason, i.e., a desire to put down the questioner because of his or her past conduct. JamesMLane t c 20:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
And, generally, you can just be vague or use 'social humour' which isn't necessarily actually funny. Unless the person asking is blind to your social clues, or really doesn't care. Things like 1)"Enough" or "Not as much as I'd like" 2)"Something religiousy" or "It's my set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." 3)"Just down the corridor. Didn't you see?" or something vague like "The South". Generally give people clues that you don't want to answer and you're fine, except in a few circumstances. Skittle 21:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I've had good luck with simply ignoring the question and changing the subject with a vague expression on your face. "How much money do you make?" "Hmm? I love your shoes, do you know if they make them in red?" -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:00, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

A diplomatic formula I have often used is "I'm afraid I can't help you". If pressed, you say "I just can't help you". It works for almost any awkward question. You can even use it in a formal context like a public inquiry. Xn4 23:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

For some people, it comes naturally: [1]. risk 23:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

One approach would be to say "A gentleman/lady doesn't ask questions like that". They'll either:

  • agree that they've overstepped the bounds of decorum, apologise, and withdraw to a nether place
  • admit boast that they're not a gentleman/lady, in which case you have the absolute right to have nothing further to do with them, or
  • argue that they are a gentleman/lady, but that it's ok for such a person to ask questions like this. In that case, you would politely disagree, bid your adieux, turn, and leave. -- JackofOz —Preceding comment was added at 02:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
A handy retort is "It all depends what you mean by...." This can lead to a rather more interesting conversation anyway.--Shantavira|feed me 07:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
What a select variety of approaches! Except for the occasions you may choose to answer, FisherQueen's non sequitur solution has the advantage of completely ignoring any perceived faux-pas and of preventing further irritation or embarassment. Both can just move on as if it never happened. ---Sluzzelin talk 10:46, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
JackofOz makes a good point. I can remember being told off as a child for asking people what was called 'the question direct' - that is, almost anything about themselves. I still don't do it much, unless there's a very good reason, and I don't feel awkward about not answering such questions if I don't want to. Xn4 13:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Just a note on Marco polo's answer way up at the top there... I wouldn't use those for the religion question, because if the other person is religious, to say something like, "Religion is such a dull topic; I'd rather not get into it" or "Who cares about religion anymore?" could be construed as offensive. I'd use one of the other evasive answers above that just doesn't mention relgion at all. 16:57, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pirates of the Early 20th Century

Does anyone have information regarding Atlantic Ocean pirates in the early 1900's. I realize privateering was pretty much dissolved by the late 1800's but I was hoping there was something going on during this time. Anything at all? Thanks Beekone 20:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have it in my mind that in the early twentieth century traditional piracy was more likely in the Pacific and the Far East than in the Atlantic. See, for instance, The Black Flag: True Tales of Twentieth-Century Piracy by James Hepburn (Headline, 1994) ISBN 9780747210177 Xn4 22:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I think piracy has historically been mostly confined to the marginal seas, rather than the oceans themselves. Trinidadian Boysie Singh was a Caribbean pirate of the mid-20th century.--Pharos 19:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transference of a soul from body to body

I don't remember where this idea came from; I believe I either watched a documentary on TV or read it online, but for all I remember about it, it could be a dream; but I recall a theory that certain human bodies (possibly the majority of them) are actually empty husks. It also contends that a fully developed soul can move from body to body at will, thereby gaining hundreds of years of human experience. I find this to be an interesting idea, and have been pondering about it, here and there, for over a year now. The vast amount of information on the soul, religion, and mysticism has made it difficult to find a point of reference for this, and any information about it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Tom 68.58.186.184 21:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

  • I think this was the plot of Child's Play. --Sean 21:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
See reincarnation. --24.147.86.187 23:12, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Have you read the Wikipedia entries on Soul and Spirit? It gives a lot of data from various traditions. It seems, from your question, that you're already aware of the vast amount of information on this concept, or at least that a lot of information exists, so points of reference can be hard to come by without a more specific question :) ◄Zahakiel► 15:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
See also Metempsychosis.--Wetman 19:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Who says that there is such a 'thing' as soul. I go for the 'empty husk' theory myself, especially when dead!--88.110.33.229 15:20, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Low Income and Equity

Hi there, I am not sure if this the right place to ask but I have 2 questions.

I am a single parent with a high school education and i am relying on government subsidies for survival. I have two children, 6 and 4 years old that must be cared for.

My questions are:

What monthly payments can i expect from my municipal, provincial and federal? I mean in Canada and What kinds of social programs are available to my family? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.55.32 (talk) 23:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I mean In Toronto, Ontario and financially. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.118.155 (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The answers will depend on exactly where you live in Canada, and on familial, medical and financial information that it would not be wise to put on the Ref Desk. Each municipality and each province has different guidleines, different budgets and different attitudes. The subsidies for Toronto, for example, are generally higher than for, say, Chatham, because the cost of living in Toronto is higher than almost anywhere else in that province.Check the Blue Pages (Government Listings) in your local telephone directory for Family Services, or Social Services (the names also vary) or call the general inquiries number for any of the three levels of government and ask for the relevant department. Wherever you start, that level will likely be able to tell you about the other two and how they interact in your area. Bielle 01:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Is there a Canadian equivalent of the Citizen's Advice Bureau? This link doesn't seem to think so, but if it had a different name and was not linked to the UK system, it wouldn't necessarily feature there. If such a thing exists, that would be the place to ask this question... Skittle 23:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)