Entertainment desk
< November 8	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 10 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Entertainment 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.

November 9

Some entirely different mystery songs

I need help with several song titles, Please, as well as the artist where none is specified.

What is the exact title of the 80's rock song with the chorus "Don't Tell Me You Love Me/I don't want to know",
A Def Leppard song with the line "I don't wanna touch you too much, baby/Making love to you might drive me crazy",
A southern rock song with an amazing opening harmonica solo with lyrics about a "midnight train to Memphis",
Another Def Leppard song with the chorus "And I want/and I need", something or other,
An 80's euro song with the lyric "I used to think that the day would never come/I'd see the light in the shape of the Morning sun",
A female-sung 80's song called "No More Words",
(I think I know this one, but does the famous PUSA song "Lump" include the title word stated frequently in the chorus?),
A modern humorous pop-punk song called "No Hablo Ingles",
An obsessive-sounding female-sung 80's(?) song called "Never Say Never", and
a Rush song with a lyric like "Just between us/we could do with some separation" or something like that?

So sorry for any laziness or inconvenience. And btw, I don't think most of them are too obscure, since they were all on mainstream radio. Finalius (Ecru?!) 02:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see here. #1's title is indeed "Don't Tell Me You Love Me", recorded by Night Ranger (lyric check here). #2 is "Love Bites". #3 appears to be just that, "Midnight Train to Memphis", by Kid Rock. #4 is "Animal". #5 looks like "True Faith" by New Order. #6 is by Berlin from their album Love Life. #9 may be the title song to the James Bond film Never Say Never Again Methinks Finalius is right about this one. --McDoob AU 93 02:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is 9 by Romeo Void? Finalius (Ecru?!) 02:41, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, PUSA's song Lump does say "lump" frequently in the chorus. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx yuu all! Whoever can answer the other ones, please do. Finalius (Ecru?!) 03:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have had more than enough detail to make short work of these questions with one of many search engines. #8 would appear to be No Hablo Inglés. #10 looks like it would be Entre Nous (song). I think the rest have been covered by now. --Onorem ♠Dil 03:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Number 8 could also be We No Speak Americano. --Zerozal (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What did Taub whisper near the end of the latest episode of House, M.D.?

The character Taub said something under his breath to the new female doctor character at nearly the end of the episode when he is standing in front of his locker. Did anyone reading this question catch what was said? 20.137.18.50 (talk) 15:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can hear, and according to the closed captioning on my DVR, he mumbled "Is this grandma's tea cozy?" - If there's a reference there, I'm not understanding it. -- 174.31.204.207 (talk) 16:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same question and would like to know also. The only word I could make out while watching the part is "cozy".10draftsdeep (talk) 16:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After stumbling across a (probably unauthorized) transcript of the show online, I think I understand it now. Earlier in the episode, when House and the new doctor were debating the ethics of lying to patients, House asked if her grandma gave her "a crappy tea cozy" for Christmas, would she lie and say she liked it. She says "Yes, but that's different [from lying to a patient]". Taub's comment is basically him wondering if she's lying so as not to hurt his feelings. -- 174.31.204.207 (talk) 17:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could also be that he was testing her memory. If she remembered the "tea cozy" comment from House making fun of her earlier, that would suggest that she just has an amazing memory and her remembering the interview is just because of that. Because she didn't remember that comment, it means that their interview was at least somewhat meaningful and memorable to her, ie. he matters.

NBC's secret Seung-Hui Cho videotape

Back in 2007, NBC made a point of not publishing the material that Seung-Hui Cho sent to them just before the Virginia Tech Massacre. They published two minutes of loopy-sounding rantings, saying that the rest was truly vulgar and violent. But to me, they always sounded like over-the-top snippets from someone with some sort of cause or grievance. Given that it was played out by shooting random people, I'm not suggesting it was a rational cause; nonetheless I was suspicious (for example) that he might have been a North Korean agent masquerading as a South Korean immigrant.

Is there any chink in the wall of secrecy around these tapes?

What does NBC do with all the news that doesn't fit? Do they have some sort of Secret Archives for all this stuff? If some employee there leaked it to Wikileaks (please?!), would they have no recourse but than a dubious claim of copyright over Seung's video, or do they have access to the corporate "classified trade secret" regime with 15-year prison terms for such disclosures?

Wnt (talk) 15:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your suspicion sounds like pure evidenceless, nonfalsifiable conspiracy theory to me; but I find your last questions interesting. I would liken the situation to when the Unabomer sent his manifesto to various newspapers, demanding that it be published by a major newspaper. The New York Times and Washington Post, both of which published it, certainly had no copyright claim on it. As our trade secret article states, in the US, a trade secret breach can get you sued but not thrown in prison; but I don't know whether the tapes could be considered a trade secret. This would depend on New York state law (I think he sent the tapes to NBC's office in New York). Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that I said "for example" North Korea. I don't want to group myself with conspiracy theorists per se, as it is a requirement of their profession that they take their theories from a central authority without question, ignoring all evidence, and above all forfeiting any right to adapt the story as they see fit. I don't know what his cause was, nor whether there was any element of reality to it, but my gut feeling is that if it had sounded trivial they wouldn't have gone to such lengths to keep people from finding out what it was. Wnt (talk) 03:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If any employ leaked it, they could certainly be fired (unless they had really, really good union representation). There probably wouldn't be any legal recourse, though, unlike when someone leaked classified military documents to Wikileaks. I kind of doubt that this would be a considered a trade secret protected by the Uniform Trade Secrets Act: the act requires that the secrets "derive independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known". NBC isn't withholding these for financial gain, so it's hard to see how it could be a trade secret under this definition (I'm not a lawyer, though). Buddy431 (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, NBC could argue that they could make a pay-per-view movie out of the tapes, or any number of profit schemes that would require that the tapes remain secret until the scheme takes place. Any such scheme would get shouted down by the public, but that's beside the point of my argument. Comet Tuttle (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your second question: I'm sure NBC has an extensive archive of footage it can use for future broadcasts, some of which may not have previously aired. However, some news organizations make a point of destroying anything that might become an issue in a future legal matter, such as reporters' notes, because once they become part of a legal matter, you can't mess with them. For example, some law enforcement organizations have tried to subpoena notes, photographs, etc., from news organizations as part of criminal investigations. Media do not like to be co-opted into that kind of thing. So they get rid of anything legally sensitive that they don't publish -- before the authorities can seek it -- as a matter of course. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]}. I do not believe this is the case. The retention of reporters' notes by the reporter or the news organization might allow for the possibility that sources will eventually be revealed; but their destruction allows for easier libel lawsuits and can be important months or years in the future when the veracity of a story is challenged. The reporter shows the notes to the editor and the editor vouches for the reporter. If the notes were destroyed then you'd be working off human memory which is a mistake. Comet Tuttle (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See this discussion from the Texas Press Association. There's more than one opinion on the matter in the profession. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 23:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Now that's what I call a "chilling effect", when reporters are afraid to keep primary historical documents for fear of legal persecution. I suppose that if they ever get Digital Rights Management working as consistently as they like, every reader's copy of a story will also self-destruct after ten days, and there will be no historical evidence left that the news report was ever made. Wnt (talk) 02:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Number 4, number 7 and number 11 here are relevant. Suicide prevention agencies, and psychologists, are always tyring to stop the media making a big deal about the 'grievances' of those who die by suicide, and this is even more important when it's murder-suicide (since more lives are at stake). It doesn't sound like NBC's handling of this was ideal, but maybe they were trying to avoid romanticising or glorifying him? 86.164.144.120 (talk) 11:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's one thing to try to report news softly in respect for grieving families at the moment of a tragedy, but another to destroy the news instead of reporting it. Wnt (talk) 18:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not actually about respect for grieving families, as the link I provided explains. 86.164.144.120 (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; but what I rejected above is what that link advocates: to allow potential suicides to dictate what news we can hear and what inconvenient facts have to be dumped in the shredder. Wnt (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

what are the mc mario cds of 2006?

that is all

204.112.104.172 (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]