Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 November 1

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.

November 1

colors

what do the colors of the spain flag repersent?

Flag of Spain... AnonMoos 02:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Egyptian expansion

I was just wondering... why did the ancient Egyptians never expand their empire very far? Sure, they conquored Nubia and the Sinai Peninsula, but why did they stop there? Яussiaп F 03:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Egypt had a strong sense of itself as a nation. Conquering other territory and incorporating it into Egypt would be like watering down the motherland. They did take other countries as subject nations. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

They didn't have much of a navy (and even less of an air force !), so were pretty much stopped by the deserts. Depending on the era, there were also powerful enemies in Mesopotamia, as well, like the Bablyonians, Assyrians, Akkadians, etc. StuRat 05:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The Empire did expand far beyond Sinai during the period of the New Kingdom, from the eighteenth dynasty onwards. Its territory extended northwards to the kingdom of the Hittites and east towards the Euphrates, giving them control of all of or part of modern day Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and southern Turkey. Clio the Muse 06:20, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but they took Nubia, and weren't the Nubians also considered inferior? Яussiaп F 13:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You also have to take into consideration the technology of the time. It wouldn't be fair to compare with the Roman empire. That was massive by the standards of its time. Yet the Romans didn't make much inroads into Germania, even though the German tribes were considered inferior. And the Egyptian empire predated that by a few thousand years. Very simply put, the Egyptians were to the Romans as the Romans are to us. The main technological goodie they hadn't yet developed was the wheel, which must have severely limited their mobility. And I believe they didn't even have horse, but I'm not sure aout that. If you're talking about expansion south over the Nile, that may have been limited by the unpredictable nature of that river, but I'm not sure about that either. DirkvdM 13:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Eh? Im sure they had chariots in Ben Hur--Light current 14:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think Dirk is confused, it was Native Americans who lacked the wheel and horse. Perhaps the confusion comes from the Mayans, who also built pyramids. StuRat 15:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes the Myans had no wheels. A bit of a drag I know! 8-)

Ben Hur is fictional and was supposed to have lived during the decline of Ancient Egypt, so that has no bearing on this. DirkvdM 10:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

re-DirkvdM's post. Not to be rude, but I think most of the points in your post are incorrect. Egyptians had wheels and horses at least since the Second Intermediate Period when the Hyksos introduced horse-drawn chariots and that was circa 1700 BC. The Nile was certainly not unpredictable and did nothing to limit the Egyptians, except perhaps in the sense that it was so good to them, they may have had trouble adapting to other places. The Nile provided access to much of Egypt's kingdom, so mass transit by land was never an issue until they tried expanding the empire outwards (i.e. away from the river). I would also take issue with the idea that the Romans were as far ahead of the Egyptians as we are of them - a better analog might be one of the empire builders of the 15-16th centuries like the Dutch or British. We've got planes and nukes and lasers and stuff - not really on the same playing field at all. Matt Deres 16:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I just meant the distance in time, because people might think they were both 'long ago' and therefore comparable. Sorry about all the wrong assumptions. And don't worry, the truth is never rude. How you say something can be, but that was certainly not the case here. Mind you, I did say I wasn't sure. DirkvdM 10:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

According to a book I read a while ago, a big barrier was that, while the ruling classes were very intellectual and inventive (they apparently invented a steam engine), because of their societal values (particularly their feelings about the working and slave classes), there was no motivation to implement any of their inventions. It was actually considered gauche to build any of the things they invented - it was all an intellectual exercise. It never occurred to them to actually use their inventions to expand their empire or, Ra forbid, make life easier for the rabble. Anchoress 16:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the original question again, it's mostly an issue of force projection. Since the Egyptians lacked a powerful navy capable of sailing the Mediterranean, that meant they had to walk where they wanted to go (there wouldn't have been enough horses for everyone). Supply lines then became a problem. If they were traveling through a fertile, populated area, they could just buy (or take) food and supplies from them. This isn't an option for traveling through a desert, however. There you need to provide your own supplies. However, each person can't carry sufficient supplies for themselves for the whole time they will be in the desert. This then necessitates setting up a series of supply depots along the path, similar to the system used for climbing Mt. Everest. For example, supplies for a million man-days worth of supplies could be put at the first depot at the edge of the desert. Those million could then be moved into the next depot one day's march into the desert. However, many of those supplies will be consumed in the effort, let's say 10%. So, now we have only 900K supply units at that depot. There will then be gradually fewer and fewer supplies at every depot. By the time they reach the far edge of the desert, the supplies can only support a fraction of the original force, leaving the Egyptians unable to field an army large enough to defeat their enemies at the other side. This type of logistics problem is why most empires of the time expanded by sea more than by land. StuRat 16:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Anybody know how much of their GNP was used putting up the pyramids? It probably wouldn't have cost as much as a war of expansion on a yearly basis, but it went on continuously for decades. Clarityfiend 20:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm still intrigued by the wheel-thing. I thought the pyramids were built without the help of wheels, which required the large work force to drag sleds. I suppose the wheels weren't stong enough to support the weight. Neither the egyptian pyramid not the wheel aricle seems to say anything about it. Ancient Egypt spanned thousands of years, starting around the time when the wheel come into existence, first in present-day Iraq. Of course the wheel itself would have made sure that the invention could easily spread, but that is no guarantee it reached Egypt. Does anyone know when wheels first appeared in Egypt? That is a rather essential bit of info for this question and I am surprised it is missing in Wikipedia. Same for the construction of the pyramids. DirkvdM 10:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Matt already answered my question when wheels first appeared in Egypt, at the latest 1700 BC. But it was already an established civilisation then and given the surrounding desert there would have been a lack of tradition to expand. As long as they were not under attack from the outside there would have been no reason to change that. Old cultures that function well and get no external incentive to change have a tendency to remain the same until they are superceded by new cultures that do adapt. I suppose Egypt had the perfect isolation to guarantee their civilisation to last for thousands of years. Only China rivals that (right?). DirkvdM 10:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Egypt was not isolated and it did expand, as I have already said. It was variously at war with the Hittites, Assyrians, Babylonians and others. Clio the Muse 23:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Egypt expanded of course, but not really to the extent that we might expect. For centuries, Egypt was seen as the birthplace of history and culture, in large part because they left behind those cool buildings and pieces of art. Historians have a habit (or had, anyway) of judging a person or society by how much land they conquered - which raises the question of how the supposed first superpower could possibly have been kept from conquering Africa or the Near East.

My feeling is that there are a variety of forces at work. The Egyptians were great at architecture, practical geometry (probably borrowing some of that from the Babylonians), and art, etc., but that didn't necessarily make them so good at other things - the kinds of things you need if you want to over-run the world. For example, mass transportation was done on the Nile, which could be done with barges, so they didn't need to learn about sailed craft or warships. Most of the towns and cities were within the floodplain of the Nile, so long distance travel was never an issue, so they never learned about caravaning or road building (compare to the Romans, that for a sea-based empire well understood the value of a good road). They were fixated on life after death and expended a huge amount of time and effort to build elaborate tombs and centres of worship, and that drained away both money and manpower. It also meant that they were less fixated on achieving greatness in *this* life. The Nile nurtured them with regular floods of extremely fertile dirty water, so while they learned about calendars they never really had to learn much about farming and otherwise exploiting the land for food (compare with the various goups in the so-called Fertile Crescent.) Matt Deres 02:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Matt. Yes, of course; much of this is true. But at the risk of repeating myself I stress once again that the Egyptians, especially from the eighteenth dynasty onwards, did advance their borders, with patterns of expansion that were comparable to similar civilizations in the area and at the time. Conquest in Africa itself would have been limited by the deserts to the south and west. I'm not quite sure what your definition of the near east is, but by 1450BC the Pharohs controlled a good bit of the Levant, including what is now Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and as far north as the lands of the Hittites in southern Turkey. Clio the Muse 03:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of legacies, I saw a documentary on tv last night on Spartans. Being rather spartan, they had very simple houses and temples that disappeared shortly after they did. Quite the opposite of Athens. It seems that at the time someone said that centuries later, people would probably think that Athens was ten times bigger than it actually was and that Sparta was ten times smaller than it actually was. So maybe, like Matt suggests, we're just too impressed by the pyramids. Oh, and Clio, the Levant is roughly the size of Egypt (or Italy). So they more or less doubled their territory. That is not all that hefty an expansion. DirkvdM 08:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I made no comment about the size of Egyptian expansion: I merely countered the mistaken contention that their empire remained bound by the Nile. But proportionally the rate of Egyptian expansion was in keeping with that of other contemporary empires, including the Hittite, Babylonian and Assyrian. And on the other point you raise, I'm not quite sure what basis of comparison was being drawn in your documentary: but at the time of the Delian League Athenian territorial power was far greater than that of Sparta. Clio the Muse 08:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Dirk, as for your question on why wheels aren't thought to have been used on the pyramids, the problem is that a cart carrying one of the pyramid blocks with 4 wooden or stone wheels would put so much pressure on the ground it would just sink into the ground at the wheels. Thus, at a minimum, roads paved with stones would be needed from the quarry to the pyramids, and there's no sign of this. One thought is that instead of traditional wheels, they may have used a series of rollers, such as bamboo sticks, under the blocks. They would need to be continually fed under the leading edge and removing from the trailing edge, but this system would reduce friction enough to allow the blocks to be moved without putting so much pressure on any one spot on the ground. Also note that these rollers were a much simpler technology likely in use long before the invention of the "wheel" (which really means the axle. StuRat 18:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Trying to attribute a quotation to a philosopher

I have searched (in vain) for the philosopher who said (in so many words) "if you don't expect anything, you are never disappointed". I'm sure that is not a verbatim quote but can anyone shed some light on who that might be? Thank you very much.

Hmm, sounds like the converse of The Power of Positive Thinking by Norman Vincent Peale. StuRat 05:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like something a stoic would say, so perhaps you are thinking of Stoicism and its founding father Zeno of Citium – although I think he used many more words to say what he had to say.  --Lambiam^Talk 05:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Postscriptum. The article on Stoicism contains this quotation from Epictetus: "If you would not fail of what you seek, or incur what you shun, desire nothing that belongs to others; shun nothing that lies beyond your own control; otherwise you must necessarily be disappointed in what you seek, and incur what you shun."  --Lambiam^Talk 05:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that the quote can be taken in two quite opposite ways:

"If you don't expect anything, whenever anything good happens it will be a happy surprise".

"If you expect nothing good to happen, that just exactly what will happen".

I took it the second way, which explains my answer above. StuRat 06:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

So you're more of a cynic than a stoic? DirkvdM 14:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"Everything looks orange to me, because I view the world with a jaundiced eye through rose-colored glasses." StuRat 21:42, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's intended either way. As Lambiam notes, it sounds Stoic. It also sounds like Buddhism: desire is the cause of suffering; so, to avoid suffering, cease desiring. Cheers, Sam Clark 09:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm familiar with it as: "Expect nothing and you won't be disappointed.", and google returned THIS, which attributes it to 'unknown', and THIS, which calls it a Chinese proverb. Anchoress 09:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

You may also attribute it to me. Or millions of other people, the first of which was probably a caveman. DirkvdM 14:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest you post the question on Wikiquote's equivalent to the RefDesk, but from my experience, that would be an excercise in futility. It's pathetic. I think about six months ago I once posted a quote and asked if anyone new the source of it, and not only did I get no response, but even after six months, my query was still something like the second or third most recent. Loomis 00:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

"Blessed is he who expects nothing; for he shall not be disappointed." – Jonathan Swift Hope that helps. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 08:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I wonder where Johnathan Swift got that from... And by the way Dirk, don't insult cavemen like that, I heard they're still around. :-) | AndonicO Talk 16:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Frere Jacques Origins

I have slowly been compiling Frere Jacques origin theories, when I was told that the "Dictionnaire, Langue française, encyclopédié, noms propres" gives a date of 1080 for creation of this song. Does anyone have access to this text and can verify this? --Filll 04:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Good Friday

Why is Good Friday often treated like a holiday? (For example, we don't need to attend school on that day.) Our article on Good Friday even says "Good Friday is a holy day celebrated by most Christians...". What's so wonderful about Jesus being executed? --Bowlhover 05:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Good question, I wish I'd thought to ask it. :-) StuRat 06:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• I'm going to top-post a bit because of the degeneration into petulant complaints about religion, below. The holiest day on the Christian calendar is Easter, with Good Friday second. (By the way, Christmas is fairly low, as it's not news to any church that no one on earth knows when Christ was born.) "Holiday" = "holy day," and the resurrection is the most important holy commemoration, but the passion is next to it. "Good/God" do come from different roots, but they had an identical pronunciation from roughly the development of Middle English until the Great Vowel Shift, so "God be with ye" can become "goodby'e," but Good Friday is good because it is the Friday marking the revocation of the Fall of Man and the release from death. That's pretty good. Christians celebrate the day somberly, remembering the sacrifice and give thanks. It is not wholly sad, not wholly happy, and yet it is at the core of Christianity. Geogre 14:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I think that perhaps "commemorated" might be a better choice of words, like Pearl Harbor Day in the US. StuRat 06:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

"Celebrate" doesn't only mean "rejoice" or "have fun". It also means "to perform a religious ceremony" as in celebrating Mass. Observing Good Friday could I suppose fall under that definition. Also, standard Christian doctrine teaches that Christ's execution was necessary for Christians to be redeemed and reach heaven. If he hadn't been executed, Christians would not get to heaven. That might be something Christians would want to rejoice about. --Charlene 06:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What does "Mass." mean? --Bowlhover 17:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

See etymology for mass here! No connection to the other sense of mass. 惑乱 分からん 17:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little surprised by the misunderstanding here. The sacrifice of Jesus on the cross lies at the core of Christianity. Without Good Friday there would be no Easter Sunday. Clio the Muse 06:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICTS:::

Stu, I am afraid that I have to disagree with you. The Christians DO celebrate Jesus his execution. although this might sound cruel and evil it is far from, this is because Jesus SACRIFICED his life to wash out the primal sin(eve hers) and thereby opening paradise for humans once more. that is also why it is called "good" friday . and the OP 1st question answer is (to my knowledge): it marks the end of the fasting period just as ash wednesday starts it. so it was actually quite an important day until recently when a great deal of people stopped fasting. Graendal 06:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's not why it's called Good Friday. It's called Good Friday because in 1290 "Good" (or really "guode") also meant "Holy". See [1], [2], [3], and [4]. Interestingly, "good" and "god" come from different roots. --Charlene 06:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute, Jesus sacrificed himself? I just read the Jesus article, and it seems that the Romans simply arrested and executed him for his religious views. (He claimed to be the son of God and the king of the jews, but I wouldn't consider that as a sacrifice.) --Bowlhover 06:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah cos he didnt have to come here, he didnt have to be arrested, he could have jumped down from that cross any time. But he chose not to do so. Thats the believers version. there is a very good book covering this-- its called the Bible--Light current 13:57, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Like Graendal said, Christians consider Jesus' death as a sacrifice because his death supposedly grants them forgiveness for their own sins...that's why they say things like "Jesus died for you". To me, this leads to a frankly bizarre paradox where an all-powerful God felt like he had to sacrifice himself to himself just so that he could forgive us. Not sure why that would please Him. But that's what they believe, anyway. --Grace 07:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

That's what I find so odd about it. Clio and Grace are right that Jesus' crucifixion is at the core of Christianity, as without it, mankind wouldn't have its sins washed away. So you'd think that Christians would honour those who (some of them hold responsible for having) killed him. Yet it isn't quite the honour one would expect... Loomis 10:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

As an ex-Catholic, that disjunct always stumped me too, Loomis. JackofOz 10:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

If good friday was not a holiday, with extra allotted eating time, the pernicious hot cross bun would take over. For other murder mysteries, who-dunnits and whether we should feel guilty about celebrating it see life-death-rebirth deity. MeltBanana 14:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I can explain the sacrifice thing in more scientific terms. There had been two traditions which were still strong at that time, but which we now almost totally reject:

1) The "sacrifice". This is where something of value to you is somehow destroyed, and thus "given to the gods", for their use. The method of destruction frequently was chosen for a specific god. For example, the sacrifice could be burnt so the smoke would go to a god that dwells in the sky, or sunk in the ocean to appease a water god. Offerings could be anything of value, but the more valuable, the better. As such, human sacrifices were particularly valued.

2) The "scapegoat". Here an animal (often a goat) was magically infused with all the sins of the people, then killed to destroy those sins. This method absolved people of their sins.

Now, when Jesus was executed by the Romans, that created a problem for the Christians, as it's difficult to explain why their god wouldn't save his son from such humiliation and death (especially since the Old Testament God had no problem with wiping out entire civilizations, if they displeased him). So, they applied those old traditions, and said he "sacrificed himself to cleanse the sins of the world". To the people of the time, based on their traditions, that made a certain amount of sense. However, to modern people who believe that human sacrifices and scapegoats are absurd superstitions of primitive people, it makes no sense at all. However, most people never think about it objectively, they just hear "Jesus died for our sins", and never consider why exactly God would have been unable or unwilling to forgive sins of people thousands of years in the future, unless people first executed his son.

The "resurrection" similarly needs an explanation. Again, it was difficult to explain why the son of God could be killed by man, as certainly God could have prevented it. So, they had to make the death of Jesus into the will of God, somehow. To make it appear that the death was the will of God, not man, they had to have him come back to life, then quickly die again (so nobody would ask why they didn't see him around much anymore). Thus, the "resurrection" followed quickly by the "ascension". StuRat 15:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the scapegoat was never killed. Rather, it was driven into the wilderness. Loomis 16:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll remember that, along with my rather bris knowledge of other Jewish traditions. :-) StuRat 20:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, you know plenty...don't sell yourself short. And as I've said previously, you're just a Michiganer, and a proud one at that. :-) Loomis 21:56, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Since I'm male, shouldn't I be a Michigander ? :-) StuRat 02:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No really StuRat you should have ducked that question. 8-|--Light current 02:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to cry fowl on that one. :-) StuRat 19:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It rather annoys me when people think they know about the Bible and get things wrong when trying to explain it. I explained the concept of Jesus dying as a sacrifice in answer to a recent question, along with the whole "He wasn't really dead" garbage.

The things that StuRat brought up as being "difficult to explain" are not really difficult to explain at all. "It's difficult to explain why their god wouldn't save his son from such humiliation and death (especially since the Old Testament God had no problem with wiping out entire civilizations, if they displeased him)" If Jesus, in a miraculous display of power, escaped from the cross, the world would still be lost in sin. There would be no sacrifice - no punishment to satisfy God's anger at sin. So people would need to die for their own sins, because Jesus wouldn't have done it for them. (Jesus also predicted numerous times before his death that he was going to die, and why, and how, and at whose hands it would be done.)

Also: "To make it appear that the death was the will of God, not man, they had to have him come back to life, then quickly die again (so nobody would ask why they didn't see him around much anymore). Thus, the "resurrection" followed quickly by the "ascension"." Jesus died once, not twice, and his resurrection was predicted in the Scriptures. Jesus also appeared to many people after his resurrection - at one stage, to more than 500 people at one time (I Cor 15:6). Paul, who wrote that this happened, even said after this that "many of them are still alive, although some have died by now". In other words, "you can go and ask them yourself if you want". Finally, the ascension did not occur until 40 days after Jesus' resurrection. Not exactly "quickly". BenC7 08:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You base your whole argument of the assumption that Jesus had to be killed to forgive the world's sins (past, present, and future). However, this really makes no sense. Why, exactly, would God have been unable or unwilling to forgive man's sins until they executed his son ? About the only "explanation" for this is "nobody knows the mind of God", which is equivalent to saying "nobody understands this, so stop asking me". Also, if Jesus had to be killed, why couldn't God kill him directly ? Of course, the usual sacrifice logic was that the people doing the "sacrifice" had to be giving up something valuable to them, but Jesus was of no value whatsoever to the Romans and Jewish leaders, at the time, he was actually a danger. So, killing him was like killing the enemy during war, not a sacrifice at all, to them. StuRat 19:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The "only explanation" you suggest is not the only one. I referred to the answer I gave in response to a previous question where I explained (fairly clearly, I thought) that Jesus had to die to satisfy God's justice; for God to let sin go unpunished would be unjust. In no way did I imply "stop asking me" - otherwise I wouldn't have said anything in the first place! There also seems to be some confusion about the nature of the "sacrifice" - the Romans and Jews did not sacrifice Jesus to God (why would they; they didn't believe in him); Jesus sacrificed himself (He said, "I have the power to lay my life down, and to take it back up again"). He could easily have escaped; he escaped at least three times previously that the New Testament records (Luke 4:30, John 8:59, John 10:39). BenC7 10:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

While I'm always game for a juicy political debate, I just don't understand why some feel so compelled to debate the logic of one religious position over another. Religion is by definition "alogical" (i.e. neither logical nor illogical). I personally don't believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ, and I have a million and one reasons for it, but I keep them to myself, or discuss them with like minded individuals. I similarly have a million and one reasons why I don't believe that Atheism is the way to go either. I try to keep those to myself as well. I just don't see the sense in "debating" these most intimate of thoughts. I can see the sense in debating politics, economics, the merits of one psychological or sociological school of thought over another, etc, because these are things of great public import. But one's religion, to me, is, (or at least should be,) a strictly private matter. Ben is a Christian and I respect that. Stu (correct me if I'm wrong!) seems to be an Atheist, and I respect that as well. Yet both of you (not just Stu, but yes, you too Ben) seem to be dead-set on converting each other, in one sense or another. For goodness sake, why? They often say that religion is the cause of all war. I don't buy that. I say that "lack of respect for another's religion", so long one keeps it private as it should be, is the true cause of all war. That said, God bless you both. :) Loomis 00:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I would describe myself as agnostic, not an atheist. However, some religions seem more plausible to me, like Eastern religions which state that there is a balance of good and evil forces in the universe, than the Abrahamic religions, which seem to me to be invented to control the local populations, and get them to kill the enemies of the rulers (Christian Crusades, Muslim suicide bombers, etc.). And why do I debate such matters ? I consider nothing less than the future of humanity to be dependent on us moving away from ancient superstitions and embracing logic and science. StuRat 18:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

• Why do I say anything? Because it's important to. When people present arguments as though they are factual and without dispute, and there is no response, they have no reason than to go on in their beliefs as they are. Their mindset is not challenged. I say things so that people don't get carried off into thinking that the atheistic arguments that are often presented are the only ones, or that everyone believes them. BenC7 10:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Why can't we debate religion? If you believe in something, you shouldn't be afraid to argue your opinion. Believing in God, while refusing to discuss why, is simply a denial. --Bowlhover 04:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I really must say that I find it quite fascinating, to say the least, to witness a Christian, an Agnostic, and an Atheist, all basically arguing the same point! The three of you may be far more like-minded than may think. You all seem to be of the opinion that one's intimate relationship with the universe, how it works, and the forces that drive it are mere matters of "logic", subject to proof or disproof by means of "logical" debate. As I've asserted above, this "relationship", to me, is "alogical", and as such, beyond the limitions of logical debate. I think the whole notion of such debate is, at best, just one collossal waste of time, and at worst, making these types of disagreements the topic of public debate and rivalry, can actually lead to much bloodshed, warfare and suffering.

Consider this analogy: What I'd consider another "alogical" relationship is one that is bound by what we call "love". To take a common point of analysis, I'm sure that all three of you love each of your respective mothers deeply. Yet this love obviously does not lend itself very well to logical analysis, unless you're one of the coldest of Atheists, and would describe the whole thing as either a relationship of reciprocity ("Yes, I "love" my mother because I quite logically appreciate the fact that she helped to bring me into existence, raised me, cared for me, and provided me with a comfortable home"), by means of anthropological principles ("My "love" for my mother is nothing more than another evolutionary adaptation of the human species") or a mere biochemical phenomenon, easily explainable with references to hormones, neurotransmitters, epinephrine, serotonin, &c. Can any one of you explain to me, in a simple logical manner, "why" you love your mother? Would there be any sense at all in a logical debate into whether or not one's love for one's mother is well founded in logic, and therefore a positive thing, or rather based on "illogical" nonsense, and should therefore be rejected as an unscientific relic of man's pre-enlightened past?

I'd argue that the nature of how one perceives his relationship with the universe is just as alogical as one's love for one's mother. They're both notions beyond the limitations of simple logical analysis. They're both extremely personal, extremely intimate matters.

Bowlhover, I don't see how my considering it a waste of time to engage in debate as to the logic of my faith would be any more of a case of what you call "denial" than if you would consider it similarly ridiculous to debate whether your love for your mother is "logical" or not.

Stu, first off, sorry for mistaking you for an Atheist. What I can't understand about you is why you choose to debate the "logic" of Ben's faith, and, in particular, the rationality of this or that particular aspect of the life of Jesus as related in the Christian Bible. Ben's particular understanding of his intimate, personal relationship with the universe involve notions of a Supreme Being, and the Divinity of Jesus Christ. Picking away, here and there, at whether this or that personal account of the life of Jesus is "realistic" or not, is akin to failing to see the forest for the trees. The Supreme Being that Ben believes in is, by His very nature, capable of trascending the laws of physics and logic. Pick away all you will. The two of you aren't even speaking the same language, as far as I'm concerned. As to your concern for the progress of the human race, as I pointed out quite a while back, the vast majority of the greatest minds, those responsible for human progress in the field of science, men such as Newton, Einstein, and even Hawking, are/were all believers in a Supreme Being. With these intellectual giants in mind, I'm not all too worried about humanity being held back by "religious superstition".

Finally, Ben, having read all that I've written above, why do you bother defending your faith, point for point, against those who simply don't share your belief? You apparently believe that Christianity is capable of "logical, rational proof", and your detractors believe the opposite, that your faith is capable of "logical, rational disproof". You're both wrong. You love God, just as you love your own mother. If Bowlhover or Stu were to challenge your love for your mother as being "illogical" and "irrational", would you even bother to respond to such nonsense? Why then do you bother to defend the logic and rationality of your faith in and love for God? You worry too much about the words of Atheists. Let them say what they will. Yes, they'll convince some weak-minded individuals to be Atheists, but I have to say, with no offence intended, that I see it as being no different than those Christian missionaries who likewise deceived all those weak-minded or ignorant individuals into believing that Christianity was a matter of fact, when in reality it's a matter of faith. All the best to all of you...and your mothers! :) Loomis 00:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

There's a name for things that are considered unprovable, or beyond the realm of "logic". It's called pseudoscience.

So should I take it that your love for your mother is a matter of pseudoscience? Loomis 09:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

No, because I don't consider my love to be "alogical" or unprovable. I also don't consider the existence of my mother to be unprovable. --Bowlhover 16:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

You keep speaking of the "existence of your mother". If you understood my point in the slightest, you'd realize that I was making absolutely no reference to her "existence". What I was referring to was your love for her. Loomis 12:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"any more of a case of what you call "denial" than if you would consider it similarly ridiculous to debate whether your love for your mother is "logical" or not." If my mother abused me, or if she commited a horrible crime, or if I have doubt that she ever existed (perhaps I was cloned), then I won't consider debating my love to be "illogical".

Should I take it that you only love your mother for purely "logical" reasons? Is "love" a mere excercise of logic to you? Loomis 09:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you should. I do love my mother for purely logical reasons. And I'll be more than happy to explain those reasons. (She gave birth to me, took care of me, helped me a lot...) --Bowlhover 16:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

You're quite the romantic, aren't you! I don't know if you're married, or have a girlfriend/boyfriend, but I'd love to be a fly on the wall to hear you tell that "special" person in your life: "I love you for three very logical reasons: Number one:..." Is there no "magic" to love for you? That invisible, untouchable, inexplicable something?

"If Bowlhover or Stu were to challenge your love for your mother as being "illogical" and "irrational"..." You can see your mother. You can hear her and touch her. On the other hand, you can't see, hear, or touch God.

Again, I'm not talking about the logic concerning the mere existence of your mother, I'm talking about the logic of "loving" her. Loomis 09:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Loving someone that exists is logical (see above for 3 reasons why I love my mother). Loving someone that doesn't exist isn't. --Bowlhover 16:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I seen then, that for you, love is a mere matter of reciprocity, as I described above. The funny thing is that my own mother is in fact an Atheist too. Yet she always tells me that her love for me is unconditional. Do you reject the notion of unconditional love? Loomis 20:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

You worry too much about the words of Atheists. Let them say what they will. Yes, they'll convince some weak-minded individuals to be Atheists... Yes, and I might as well say that your parents converted you into Christianity because you're "weak-minded". --Bowlhover 05:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

First, that's an uncalled for insult. Second, I'm not even a Christian. Do your homework before you go about wildly insulting others as "weak-minded". Loomis 09:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I know it's an insult. And I used the same words that you used to insult me ("Yes, they'll convince some weak-minded individuals to be Atheists..."). Also, when did I ask you to do my homework? --Bowlhover 16:50, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I asked you to do YOUR homework, not mine. On at least two occasions, in this discusson when I mentioned that "I personally don't believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ", and further down in a discussion we were both involved in concerning requests for prayer from Atheists, I mentioned as well, "I'm no Christian". Yet in your response you made reference to how my parents "converted [me] into Christianity". The insult I was referring to was not the "weak-minded" part, but the fact that you don't even bother to even read my posts before responding. Quite insulting. Is this single mindedness and lack of attention to detail what brought you to your Atheist conclusions? This isn't meant as a slight to Atheists, not at all. Rather as another Atheist put it in that other discussion, just another way by which you give Atheists a bad name. Loomis 09:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that all aspects of Christianity are provable. At the same time, I also don't believe that you need to take leave of a logical mind in order to be a person of faith. (See also my response above, which I've marked with a bullet-point). BenC7 03:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad, Ben, that at least one of you has given my post some respectful thought. I'm also happy to hear you state: "I don't believe that all aspects of Christianity are provable". In fact, I'd say precisely the same thing with regard to my particular variety of faith in God. I can't prove it, and I'd consider it silly to debate the "logic" of it, similarly to how I'd find it silly to debate the "logic" of my love for my mother. That's the crux of my entire point. But I've never said in the slightest way "that you need to take leave of a logical mind to be a person of faith". All that I'm trying to say is that your faith transcends logic, because you believe in a Supreme Being who can transcend logic, just as love transcends logic.

Please don't get me wrong though! I consider myself to be dedicated to logic, in all matters where logic has a part to play. Without the tools that logic provides, believers in God such as Newton, Einstein and Hawking would never have been able to have accomplished what they have. Let me be clear, I'm absolutely, entirely devoted to logic in all temporal aspects of my life. Without it I'd be lost. Yet when it comes to my faith, to my spirituality, to my belief in a Supreme Being who is capable of transcending logic, I throw logic out the window, just as I throw logic out the window when I consider the "alogical" love I have for my mother.

I realize that my point is turning out to be far more dificult to make than I had originally thought, yet I have confidence that at least you, Ben, and very likely Stu as well, have the intelligence to at least get a handle at what I've driving at. Loomis 09:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes; I think when you explain it this way (logic for logical things, faith where logic has no capacity) it is a little clearer. BenC7 02:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly! Faith, like love, is alogical. I could never adequately explain to you why I believe in God, I just do. Similarly, I could never adequately explain to you why I love my mother, I just do. Loomis 12:20, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Some observations are made, and 'questions' posed, with what seems to me a deliberately provocative intent. Some people also, and rather sadly, seem to take pleasure in making distasteful and inaccurate remarks about deeply held beliefs. I understand your frustration, but might I suggest that it is best not to attempt to rise to this kind of challenge? Answer where answer is appropriate, and where answer is desired. Those in genuine search of enlightenment are not so easily misled. Clio the Muse 08:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

There are also times, though, when polemicists such as myself bring up certain perspectives that we ourselves don't necessarily believe, or at least wild exagerations of what we do believe. Indeed, I fully admit that many of my statements are VERY "deliberately provocative". However I can't say that I take any pleasure whatsoever "in making distasteful and inaccurate remarks about deeply held beliefs". I've said it before and I'll say it again: To me, the polemic, adversarial, Socratic Method is by far the most effective method to draw out the closest possible approximation of the truth in any given matter. After all, how can a proposition be held out to be true if it cannot withstand the most thorough of scrutiny? Up until as recently as 1983, even the Roman Catholic Church ascribed to this notion of polemicism by appointing a true, "real-life" Devil's Advocate to argue against the canonization of a canditate for sainthood.

My affinity for polemics could be ascribed to my culture or my training. Culturally, polemicism would seem to be a core principle of Talmudic discourse. In terms of training, polemicism through what is termed the "adversarial process" lies at the heart of western legal systems.

All that being said, as a person of faith, I welcome civil debate over issues relating to my faith. Unfortunately, though, the debate can become uncivil and insulting, at which point I simply withdraw. But as an admitted polemicist, I can't resist but tell you, Ben, that I admire the fact that when faced with insults to your faith and to an incredibly important figure within it, you do nothing more than peacefully object. Others would actually decend into homicidal rages had it been their most revered holy figure who was being mocked. Loomis 13:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Hmm, what's the debate about? The etymology of the English "Good friday" has been explained, but I'd like to add that in most languages it's not "good" friday, E.g. German "Karfreitag" ("grief friday"), "holy friday" in Romance languages, "long friday" in Norse ones, "Great friday" in Polish and Hungarian, and so on. Anyhow, it's hasn't historically been a holiday intended for silent contemplation of Christ's suffering and sacrifice. What's meant by "celebration" here is "observation" and not the festive sense. Although 'festive' can be equally ambiguous - for instance, many places have held various forms of reenactments of the Passion on Good Friday, which is certainly a form of festival - but not a happy one. --BluePlatypus 16:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Alternative theory

There is one theory that says he wasnt dead (just unconscious) when they took him down. After all he hadn't been up there as long as it normally takes. Then into the tomb. Wakes up and hey presto!. What really happened after that of course no one is saying (or knows). Did he ascend or just move away? Or (I just saw it above) move into the wilderness?--Light current 15:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

There is one doctor (American I think) who continues to do research on crucifixion. He uses his son as a guinea pig and measures all the body responses. Apparently you eventually die of asphixiation--Light current 15:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Does he operate out of his garage? I remember seeing someone just like that on Bullshit!.

No he operates out of his dining room I think. He has a big cross set up there with all the medical instrumentation etc. He doesnt use nails though (as that might be a bit painful for his son). He uses ropes round the wrists (same effect) 8-)--Light current 23:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait a minute, are you saying the Romans didn't know how to crucify people? I think that's ridiculous. They had, what, about 300 years of experience (estimate)! | AndonicO Talk 16:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I know what the confusion is here. Renaissance painters had the nails driven thru the palms of victims, which wouldn't work, the person's palms would tear and they would fall off. However, the Romans actually did it the correct way, which is through the wrists, the painters just didn't know how it was done, so guessed. StuRat 02:12, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Speeling

Sounds like child abuse to me, although not quite as bad as your spelling abuse with the word "wanst". :-) StuRat 20:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

No his son is about 35 yo--Light current 23:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that's not fair, Stu. Why pick on that error when you could just as easily have mentioned "uncoscious", "gineau", "respones", "Appaerntly", and "asphixiation". Must be having a bad day, Light current. Chin up, we all have them. :) JackofOz 22:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah my mind is working faster than my fingers can move. But at 200 wpm what do you expect? (BTW how do you spell asphixiation?)--Light current 22:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Asphyxiation. howcheng {chat} 22:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Since you asked, we generally expect nothing less than perfection. But on a bad day we'll tolerate mere magnificence.  :) JackofOz 23:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! That reply leaves me quite breathless 8-)--Light current 02:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

---

It sounds like a myth, old hearsay... Is there any sources? 惑乱 分からん 21:58, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

But, of course, the Bible is also hearsay, I dare say. StuRat 22:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Although it has become such a big part of the global cultural heritage that it sort of has become a source in itself... =S 惑乱 分からん 22:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

But that's from a religious perspective. Scientifically, it shouldn't be viewed as any more reliable than other contemporary documents, and perhaps less so, as it has been so extensively re-edited over the years. The Dead Sea scrolls, by contrast, have been preserved intact. StuRat 02:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Id agree with you: here and there.--Light current 23:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

OK guys, please tell me if my understanding is correct (according to the Christians' point of view):

1. Jesus was God's son. People decided to blame everything on him and then sacrifice him, to satisfy God's twisted concept of justice.
2. When Jesus was executed, God forgave humanity for its sins.
3. Therefore, Christians celebrate (as in, be happy, eat good food, relax, have fun) on Good Friday because their sins have been forgiven.
4. If Christians consider Jesus to be a hero, why celebrate his death? Just because God forgave them for the wrong things they did? That seems very selfish.
5. Light current, I still don't understand how Jesus sacrificed himself. How could he have jumped off the cross if his hands were nailed to it? How could he avoid being arrested? Also, I thought that he came "here" (to Jerusalem) for the Passover festival, not because he wanted to die. --Bowlhover 17:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, both the Jewish religious authorities and Romans gave Jesus ample warning that he was not permitted to promote a new religion (or new interpretation, at any rate). He had only to heed their warnings to avoid execution. Thus, it was his choice to be executed. StuRat 19:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, Jesus was supposed to have had the power to perform miracles, like turning water into wine, walking on water, raising the dead, etc., so magically pulling out a few nails shouldn't have been a problem. StuRat 23:30, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

How could he have jumped off the cross if his hands were nailed to it? Jesus was God's son. Your words. God is all powerful Omnipotent). God gave the power to Jesus (who is also God in another form BTW) to perform miracles. He could have performed another miracle by jumping of the cross. Miracles do not need an explanation because they are miracles. THe point is though because he was also God, jumping down at that point would have defeated the whole object of him coming to earth in the first place. The point, of course, was that he had to be sacrificed in order to get redemption for the peoples' sins. 8-| --Light current 23:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

So Jesus was brought onto the Earth, by God, because God wanted people to use him as a scapegoat. (From the Bible: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son..."). Jesus then deliberately got himself executed. Why does God need his own son to be killed in order to forgive humanity's sins? Why couldn't he just forgive humans directly? --Bowlhover 04:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Because a perfectly just God can't let sin go unpunished. As I said in the page that I referred to before (but I may as well put it here as well), even in an earthly court a judge that didn't punish people for crimes they have committed would be branded by everyone as unjust - even if a person says, "I'm sorry, I won't do it again". You do the crime, you do the time, as the saying goes. God loves us and wants to be with us; by sending his son to die in our place, he was able to be perfectly just (in punishing sin) and perfectly loving (in making a way for us to have personal relationship with him).

Also, to answer one of the points you made above, Good Friday isn't necessarily "celebrated" in the "chuck a party" type sense of the word. For most Christians - well, certainly for myself - I cannot help but be a little saddened as I remember Jesus dying, and what it cost him... but then, it was the thing that allowed me to have a relationship with God. I know how the story ends too. So there are mixed emotions. BenC7 10:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, you do the crime and you do the time. You don't do the crime and let somebody else do the time. --Bowlhover 13:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, you have to go back to ancient ways of thinking for this to make sense. At that time, it wasn't considered necessary for justice that you punish the person who actually committed the crime, but just punish anyone in their group or family. Even God is said to believe in this type of collective punishment, when he threatened to punish coming generations for the activities of their ancestors, such as how we all are "guilty" of "original sin" because Adam and Eve ate an apple, and thus we are sentenced to death. Modern people find such collective punishment to be highly immoral, however, and it is banned under many UN conventions. Collective punishment does still occur, however, as when, in Pakistan, the village elders decided the best way to punish a boy for dating a girl was for them to gang-rape his most attractive female relative. Back to the example of Jesus' execution, they thought that "humanity" was being punished by "losing Jesus", and this somehow made up for all sins (past, present, and future) committed by "humanity". This logic applies even though those who were deprived of the presence of Jesus are almost totally unrelated to those forgiven. StuRat 18:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Jesus did it of His own will, and He redeemed us, not paid for the crime. It's kind of like bailing someone out of jail. | AndonicO Talk 17:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, redeeming us and paying for the crime is essentially the same concept. But you're right in saying that it's like bailing someone out of jail. BenC7 03:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Spelling cont

In LightCurrent's defense, perhaps, as I have, s/he's just upgraded to Version 7 of Internet Explorer. My computer isn't even that old, and I'm not even such a fast typer, but my computer still can't keep up with my typing. I'm left with typos and missing letters all over the place. I'm seriously thinking of "downgrading". Of course this one's prettier. Of course as well, this is just babbling on my part, and has absolutely nothing to do with Good Friday. Sorry for the tagent...I mean taNgent dammit! I should probably bring this up at the computing RefDesk. Loomis 00:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No actually Ive got Firefox 1.5.0.7 or something and it still hasnt got a spellchecker! 8-(--Light current 02:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

US Midterm elections - what time?

I'm in Brisbane, Australia, and I'm interested in seeing televised coverage of the US midterm elections. At what local time will election news be available over there, and how does this translate to Australian time? I suppose it will just be a 5-minute item on the news here, and I don't have cable with "news channels", so as an alternative, do you know of an online site where I could get comprehensive coverage as-it-happens? Thanks in advance! --Grace 07:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

CNN.com usually has fairly up to date coverage of the races. Normally they have them each broken down by state and such. Dismas|^(talk) 08:36, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

If my geography is correct, I'd imagine that you're probably in the same time zone as Sydney. I believe that Sydney is 16 hours ahead of my time (EST) this time of year. Here I'd start watching it at about 8pm Tuesday, (you could start a bit earlier, but I doubt much results would be in,) which would therefore be noon on Wednesday, Sydney time. If your timezone is not exactly that of Sydney, or if you'd like to start a bit earlier/later than 8pm EST, adjust accordingly. Have fun! Loomis 10:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It's the same as Sydney except during daylight saving, which started on the mainland last weekend (Tasmania always starts DS on the first weekend of October, and those mainland states and territories that change, do so on the last weekend of October. We really are a crazy country when it comes to things like this). NSW has DS, but Queensland doesn't. During these 5 months, it is often said that when one crosses the border into Queensland, one puts one's watch back an hour but one's attitudes back a century. But that's obviously an exaggeration. :) JackofOz 10:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well hey, at least your states are consistent. I believe some states in the US have two or more timezones (and sometimes different rules on DST). They are bigger of course, but still sounds like a recipe for disaster IMHO. Although I did read some businesses in Qland are considering independently observing DST, sounds like an even worse recipe for disaster but I guess if it really does force the state government to change their minds, might be worth the hassle. Nil Einne 18:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Note that some elections can be called before the first vote is cast, while others may be contested, with recounts, and such, for weeks after the election. However, most of the results should be in by around midnight EST, or 4 PM Wednesday, Sydney time. StuRat 15:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The first polls that close are Kentucky and Indiana, which are done at 11pm GMT (about 7am Australian time). You're actually really well placed to watch the elections, because the good stuff will be coming out around lunchtime for you, while the rest of us have to either stay up all night or get up really early in the am to see it.. --Mnemeson 16:52, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I remember the 2004 Presidential elections in NZ. Was in the early evening AFAIK that real info began to be known. Not that I was watching much, exams. In any case, it wasn't particularly interesting and was rather saddening so I guess it doesn't matter, but let's not go there :-P Nil Einne 18:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm amazed that people in Australia and New Zealand watch the US elections with such interest. I doubt if most Americans can even identify the leaders of Aussieland and Kiwiland. StuRat 21:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Forget the leaders of Australia and New Zealand, most Americans couldn't name the Prime Minister of Canada. (On a recent trip: "So yer Canadian, huh? Can you drive here or do you have to come by plane?") In any case everyone knows that Ron Howard, after plying Opie on "The Andy Griffith Show", Richie Cunningham on "Happy Days", then after producing a few films in Hollywood later on emigrated to Australia, entered politics and managed to become PM. :) Loomis 21:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the USA having the dominant position and influence it does in the world today, it's not too surprising that most everybody else in the world is interested on what goes on there. On the other side of the coin, we regularly note Americans' apparent general lack of awareness of other countries, eg. how often is Australia confused with Austria - I kid you not. The Sydney 2000 Olympics were "the best games ever", held in what is a world class city by any standards, yet we still get asked by Americans about kangaroos hopping down the main street of Sydney. This is an absurd proposition - that only happens in Canberra (also true; but not an everyday occurrence). Americans, your education begins now! JackofOz 22:02, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I might be more interested than most people in this election outcome because I'm actually American by birth - I've barely spent any time there but I have dual citizenship. But there's also the fact that what the US does will have an impact on the rest of the world, like Jack says. Thanks for the help everyone! I'll try CNN.com, are there any other websites you could suggest? --Grace 22:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you vote by absentee ballot ? StuRat 22:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I wish, but it's too late for me to register. I think my district is a safe Democrat seat anyway. --Grace 23:46, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What happens in American politics will have a direct impact on Australia in several ways: for instance, if the Democrats regain control of Congress, the already stalled progress in the WTO negotiations has less chance of being unstalled. Furthermore, the continued presence of Australian troops in Iraq is to a large extent dependant on what the US does, and a Democrat landslide will mean that a withdrawal from Iraq is more likely. Not to mention the big global issue of the day - global warming. Ultimately, the US Congress holds the fate of a global treaty on reducing carbon emissions in its hands. --Robert Merkel 02:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Is John Kirkby/John of Kirkby/John De Kirkeby the same person as John Le Franceis?

The Bishop of Ely who obtained the license to build St. Etheldreda's Church is called

• John Kirkby on Wikipedia,
• John of Kirkby in the list of bishops of Ely,
• John De Kirkeby on the churches' official website[5],

and

• John Le Franceis in the Pitkin Guide to St. Etheldreda's[6].

Does anyone know whether John Kirkby was ever called John Le Franceis?

The first search option here http://books.google.com/books?spell=1&num=30&q=Etheldreda+1250+John&btnG=Search+Books&as_brr=0 suggests Franceis was an earlier treasurer but he is not in List of Lord High Treasurers. MeltBanana 20:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This book (Google Book Search again) calls someone named John le Franceis "king's clerk" to Henry III. --21:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

How did my sig get messed up? What are these red lines doing here? Help! --Cam 21:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a pure guess, but like most senior clerics of this time he probably spoke Norman-French in preference to English. John 'the Frenchman' may simply have been a colloquial reference to him at St. Ethedreda; always assuming, of course, that this reference is not an error in the guide book. Clio the Muse 00:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No comment on Jean the Frenchman, but all of the Kirkby references are certainly the same. "Kirkby" is "church side," and it would have been both "Kirkby" and "of Kirkby," while de Kirkeby is simply an honorific, and these are normal variations. There is something a little troubling about "John le Franceis," though, because it combines Anglo-Saxon ("John") with a French particle and then an older/Latinate genitive, so it could be of France or of Frances, or, most interestingly, a double genitive "of France's." Geogre 14:01, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

What was the cause of Yugoslavia's unrest during the War in Bosnia and Herzegovina...

...That caused them to commit the "Bosnian Genocide" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bosnian_Genocide) I can't find a clear answer of why Yugoslavia wanted to kill the innocent croats and Bosniaks in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Can anyone help?

You could view it as a reaction to the perceived insult to the national pride of the Serbs. They had been the dominant power in Yugoslavia for decades, and then were rapidly losing control as each ethnic group declared independence. They wanted to stop the process by making it so horrible for any region that declared independence that nobody would dare. They also had the goal of wiping out all other ethnic groups and replacing them with Serbs. These are typical goals of genocide, as in Rwanda, or in Darfur, right now. Also note that many of those other ethnic groups had similar goals, to exterminate all the Serbs and replace them with their ethnic group. Ultimately, you can blame it on the lack of democracy in the 20th century there, which would have forced the groups to learn to work together. StuRat 22:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Study the history of the Balkans and you will discover that all these ethnik groups hate each other since God knows when. The Croats are Catholics (having been a part of the Austrian empire), the Serbs are Christian Orthodox, the Bosnians are mainly Muslims (I might be wrong there) and the Albanians are also mainly Muslims (I know about Albania but there were also a lot of them in the former Yugoslavia and they are 90% in Kosovo; which considered the sacred homeland by the Serbs). The Muslims are kind of leftovers of the Ottoman empire. Many Croats (Ustasha organization) allied themselves with the Germans during WWII and massacred the Serbs (I heard that Himmler wrote a letter asking them to be less brutal - It might be just a story though). The Serbs (Chetniks partisans) naturally retaliated in the same fashion. It is roughly the same problem as in Iraq or Somalia. All of them hate and blame each other to a varied degree. Massacres, retaliations, gang-rapes, concentration camps, ethnic cleasings were "normal" methods of warfare in the region and Religion is just another excuse to hate each other. To be honest if the Balkans weren't in Europe nobody would truly give a damn, but being in Europe the refugees fled to Italy, Austria, Germany, etc. Therefore Nato intervened and through heavy bombings "convinced" Serbia to stop its ethnic cleasings and accept the seccesion of most of the states from Yugoslavia (inside of which Serbia was calling the shots). Kosovo is sole remaining trouble-spot but it will declare its independence eventually. Now all these countries want to join the EU because of all dubious reasons (or does anyone truly believe that they have stopped hating each other?). Flamarande 22:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The above contribution is largely correct in its central thrust, though there are one or two factual inaccuracies. The Bosnians are of mixed religious background; and the worst atrocities of the war here were in fact prepetrated by Bosnians against their fellow Bosnians. Moreover, most of the people of the former Yugoslavia are Slavs: the Muslims, in large part, are simply the descendants of people converted during the time of the Ottomans. Kosovo is important for the Serbs not because it is considered the 'sacred homeland', but because it was the site of one of the heroic battles of their history, fought against the Turks in 1389. Nato intervened not to force Serbia to recognize the sucession of the other states of the old federation (which for the most part it already had), but to stop a campaign of terror against the Albanians of Kosovo.

The origins of the problem go right back to the creation of Yugoslavia in the wake of World War I. People with different backgrounds, traditions and religions were thrust together for no better reason than they belonged to the same 'race'. This arrangement might have worked if it had been based on a loose federation; but fairly early on it became clear that Yugoslavia was no more than a Greater Serbia, especially after King Alexander I established his dictatorship in 1929. World War II brought out all of the cultural and ethnic resentments that had built up during the inter-war period. Tito's dictatorship sublimated these tensions once again, though, unlike Alexander, he at least created a federation of equal states. His death saw the rise of a new Serbian nationalism, expressed most clearly in the politics of Slobodan Milošević. It was from this point that things fell apart. Clio the Muse 00:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Clio is on the right track. The old "they've hated eachother for centuries" bit is IMHO, a bad explaination - they've also lived together for centuries, without the kind of genocide and ethnical cleansing we've been witness to. There are lots of peoples in Europe that fought for centuries who are now quite friendly. But anyway, I'd say the historical "mythologization" is far more the product of modern nationalism than the cause. Historically, the mixed ethnic makeup of the Balkans predates the idea of ethnic nationalism itself - which is quite recent by comparison. And Milošević himself played no small part in promoting this revisionism. Not least with regards to Kosovo and 1389. If you look at the area in the middle ages, you had rulers who were Serbs, Bosnians, Croats, Magyars, Albanians and Wallachs (even some Germans and Venetians) ruling a population that was just as mixed. Judging from how they allied themselves and intermarried, there's really no evidence that ethnicity was an important factor. At the very least it was nowhere as significant as the social difference between nobility and non-nobility. I don't see how religion was a major factor either, given Christian rulers like Zápolya allying themselves with the Ottomans. The way I see it, it's a tragic irony that the medieval history of the Balkans has been misused so much for promoting nationalist causes, when it requires ignoring so many obvious facts to interpret it as anything other than a purely political struggle. On the other hand, in practical terms, it doesn't really matter though whether the myth was created 100 or 700 years ago as long as people believe it, in which case it's served its nationalist purpose. --BluePlatypus 17:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

How Many genres have Wikipedia?

Thanks.--WikiSpeak 23:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Genres of what? NeonMerlin 23:21, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I think he means wikicities --The Dark Side 01:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Escapism and intelligence

Have there been any studies into whether escapism is correlated with intelligence? NeonMerlin 23:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What extent of excapism, most of the entertainement industry provides a level of escapism to an extent, this being coupled with richer countries having better accesability to the entertainment industry, and also better education systems, would cause a weak correlation, but no cause and effect, only coincedence. Philc _T^E_C^I 23:26, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Um, I am willing to hazard a guess: there would be a correlation of about 0.60. Prove me wrong, people! -- Chris 16:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Is that among the 95% of statistics that are made up on the spot? NeonMerlin 02:40, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by escapism? What do you mean by intelligence? Not being awkward, it's just that I don't think the question is answerable as it stands. Cheers, Sam Clark 00:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try and simplify the definitions of both terms into something readily measurable. Here's a rough attempt: Intelligence is score on a standard IQ test, preferably one that relies as little as possible on education or cultural exposure. Escapism is the proportion of one's leisure media-consumption time (i.e. that not spent for a work-related purpose) that is spent on fiction with substantially and deliberately unrealistic characters (e.g. superhero comics) and/or settings (e.g. science fiction or fantasy), or critical commentary on such fiction. Media, for my purposes, includes print, TV, film, websites, board games, card games, tabletop RPGs and computer and video games (although probably not music, since (a) the meaning and fictionality of many songs is undecidable, and (b) one often does other things while listening to music). NeonMerlin 02:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

It's correlated to intelligence and negatively correlated to age. -THB 04:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

C'mon, people, can you say "adolescent self-indulgence"? The correlation of intelligence is with variety and differentness and challenge to values and experience. A steady diet of sword & sorcery fantasy or comic books reflects intelligence as much as a steady diet of Harlequin Romances does. The aspect of escapism which correlates with intellignence is an interest in other kinds of people, in other ways of living, in literature that poses ideas (like SF), in writing that doesn't deal in familiar cliches. If you don't live there, reading about France is "escapist" (I hear their heads are strangely tall and cone-shaped...) Read a book that wasn't like the last one you read and it shows intelligence, read your 51st comic book and it isn't likely to change what you know and think in the slightest. alteripse 11:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I can certainly say 'adolescent self-indulgence'! I can also say 'stodgy old fart'! -- Chris 18:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Or a comic book that wasn't like the last one you read. 惑乱 分からん 12:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Then how about modifying the definition of escapism to involve simply "characters or settings far removed from one's actual experience?" By that definition, plenty non-escapist fiction still exists; there seem to be plenty of novels in my local libraries and bookstores about fairly realistic people (the exhausted working mom, the teen looking for love or self-identity, the middle-aged man beginning to doubt the career ambitions he's sacrificed everything else to) in fairly realistic urban and suburban settings (although sometimes with exaggeration for comedic effect). NeonMerlin 02:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Precisely the point the stodgy old fart was trying to make. alteripse 10:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Can't speak for any studies or anything, but the vast majority of reading material and films (etc.) I actively seek out are escapist in nature, and I've taken a ton of IQ tests and score in the low 130s most of the time, so I'd consider myself to be toward the high end of average in intelligence. Non-fiction distances the frame of reference to the point the audience must willingly suspend disbelief and engage it more abstractly, using the imagination. I think the desire to digest abstract concepts and exercise the imagination does correlate to some degree with intelligence. Incidentally, I also subscribe to the philosophy that authors of fiction use lies to tell the truth, and I think fictional subject matter provides a wider stage for those moments of truth- which we identify with precisely because the concepts are WITHIN our frame of reference- to resonate all the more loudly. Personally, I've identified more with certain fictional characters than I have with any nonfiction ones.

Having said that: who hasn't had the urge to drop out of the world for a while? I would hazard a guess that intelligence and stress are probably somewhat related, and escapism and stress too. Lrpelkey 09:07, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

UN Peacekeepers

According to an excerpt from the article on peacekeepers,

...

Structure

A United Nations peacekeeping mission has three power centers. The first is the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, the official leader of the mission. This person is responsible for all political and diplomatic activity, overseeing relations with both the parties to the peace treaty and the UN member-states in general. They are often a senior member of the Secretariat. The second is the Force Commander, who is responsible for the military forces deployed. They are a senior officer of their nation's armed services, and are often from the nation committing the highest number of troops to the project. Finally, the Chief Administrative Officer oversees supplies and logistics, and coordinated the procurement of any supplies needed.

...

How are the Chief Administrative Officers chosen for these missions?

Thanks!