Humanities desk
< November 27	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 29 >

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 28

I Have a riddle

This riddle refers to a place within the west midlands, i was wondering if anybody had any suggestions as to where it could be? thanks Thanks, Hadseys 00:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are many places in the west midlands. We'll have a better chance if you tell us the riddle. Algebraist 00:36, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lol sorry i got, here goes

Where the Gas and water meet the basin. A big pit in times gone by. Broaden your horizons and you will seek what you find,
Help beth to dig, The IR and innovations was the circle, but beware the wolf if you are to
find the key you are looking for.

It may be an anagram of "Help beth to dig, The IR and" ? Xn4 (talk) 00:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont follow? Are you saying help beth to dig is an anagram?

At first glance I would say the "IR and innovations" would refer to the Industrial Revolution and "beware the wolf" means "it's not Wolverhampton. So, one of the other Black Country towns. My guess would be Tipton as it was considered the centre of the Black Country, used to be a big pit town (with the coal) and the "Gas and water" bit may refer to both the canals and one of James Watt's steam engines, which was built close to the town. I love cryptic crosswords and riddles :D Nanonic (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and on second look - the word Tipton itself can be read as "top of the hill", hence "broaden your horizons".. maybe. Nanonic (talk) 01:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps airing my ignorance, I see that tip can mean 'top', but how ton can stand for "of the hill" is escaping me. And can we see how "Help beth to dig" fits in? Xn4 (talk) 01:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "ton" is "town" and the meaning is "town at the tip". I not only can't solve cryptics, but I also seldom understand the answers even when carefully explained. ៛ Bielle (talk) 03:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be references to Digbeth and Gas Street Basin, which are both in central Birmingham.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, also broaden, could refer to the nearby Broad_Street,_Birmingham, which could be used to take you from Gas Street Basin towards Digbeth. At first I though circle migh be the Bull Ring, but the Rotunda was considered innovative when build. Key could be an homophone for quay. Is the riddle supposed to give you a city/town, because it seems to be to be giving you a route.83.100.232.150 (talk)

This is for one of the ISIS puzzle cash prizes. As with the ISIS itself, this clue is damn sneaky and just a big red-herring but it's easy to work out the true location using the sonicwarp forum ;) I've found Pyramid 17 but I still haven't worked out the PASSWORD from the clue - could someone please work this puzzle out and post the PASSWORD. It's driving me and nearly 100 other ISIS players insane!!

explain my spam

Is an election coming up in Romania? —Tamfang (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Algebraist 01:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radar Base in the Czech Republic

They approved it, but surveys show that two thirds of the Czech population don't want it. What now? Vltava 68 (contribs)) 01:44, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PRAGUE, Nov. 27: Czech Senate passes both treaties on planned U.S. radar base. That's representative democracy. The people elect the politicians, and the politicians ignore what the people want until they are thrown out. They nearly always are, in the end. Xn4 (talk) 01:55, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what's known as a system of Czechs and balances. StuRat (talk) 05:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NB, the report I linked above says that the treaties approved by the Czech Senate will take effect if also passed by the Chamber of Deputies and signed by President Klaus, and that Klaus favours them. However, the centre-right government coalition has no majority in the Chamber of Deputies, so the result there is uncertain. Xn4 (talk) 02:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) It'll either go ahead or it will not. If it does, there will be protests. As the ballot box is a blunt instrument, those who approved it will probably escape the disapprobation of the population because this is just one of very many issues on which they're elected. However I should point out that the RefDesk is not very useful for crystal ball type questions, and they are discouraged. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just wanted to know whether doing this was even legitimate. Vltava 68 (contribs)) 02:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By legitimate, I think you mean 'lawful'? The Czech Senate and Chamber of Deputies, subject to the approval of the President, are evidently the Czech Republic's legislative bodies. In many countries it's possible for law-makers to act unlawfully – for instance, if what they do is forbidden by a constitution which they are bound to comply with – and in that event their acts can generally be struck down by some other body, such as a Constitutional or Supreme Court. Someone may be able to tell us about the constitutional law of the Czech Republic, but I can't. We do have an article on the Constitution of the Czech Republic, with a link to an English version of it. Xn4 (talk) 02:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the basis of being "legitimate" is just a question of popular opinion (as represented by certain polls), then the answer is clearly "yes" in any sane system. Again, that's what representative democracy is about—you elect people, not polls. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 02:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

Was the result of that case in favour of creationists or otherwise? The conclusion seems to say that it was unconstitutional but the judge was a churchgoer and rated high by ID, so it's confusing. -- Menti sock 13:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The decision was unfavorable to the creationist position, in that it bars the school district from ordering teachers to criticize the theory of evolution and bars the district from requiring the teaching of intelligent design. "To preserve the separation of church and state mandated by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Art. I, § 3 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, we will enter an order permanently enjoining Defendants from maintaining the ID Policy in any school within the Dover Area School District, from requiring teachers to denigrate or disparage the scientific theory of evolution, and from requiring teachers to refer to a religious, alternative theory known as ID." 400 F. Supp. 2d 707 (M.D. Pa. 2005), at 766.

Thus the practices are unconstitutional both under the federal and the Pennsylvania constitutions. --- OtherDave (talk) 14:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ruling was anti-ID — it essentially said that ID was religion and not a science (where ID proponents want to argue that ID is a scientific alternative to evolution). The fact that the judge was a churchgoer and rated high by ID is just meant to bolster the idea that the opinion was objective, as the judge wasn't prejudiced against it from the beginning. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems strange to me that the social and political forces favoring the teaching of Intelligent Design, would accept the decision of a solitary federal trial judge. I don't have ready access to Lexis/Nexis or WestLaw. If someone could research and report the subsequent procedural history, more insight on Dover school case may be provided.75Janice (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC) 75Janice[reply]

It wasn't the first ruling on the matter and it will surely not be the last. But it was very high profile and very recent (only 2005), and is one of the more sweeping rulings against ID (e.g. it wasn't ruled on some minor point or technicality, but on the substantive issue of whether or not ID was or was not science). The ruling was not appealed because the ID members of the school board were removed in the next election and the new school board chose not to appeal. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last night I watched the C-Span broadcast of Associate Justice Scalia speaking before the most recent meeting of the Federalist Society in D.C. He states all judges worthy of the name frequently rule according to precedent and not where they would personally like the law to develop. He even suggested that law students active in the Federalist Society should just repeat what their law professors want to hear on final exams rather than arguing the "truth" and receive a bad grade. 75Janice (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)75Janice[reply]

I'm not sure I see what that has to do with the above (the question of whether ID is or is not a science is a fact-finding exercise, and is in the hands of the judge for scientific and technical matters—see Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals). But if Scalia is going to be lecturing people on the importance of precedent, he ought to be reminded that he took part in the only Supreme Court ruling to date that explicitly disavowed its own ability to set precedent (Bush v. Gore). --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly disagree with Scalia's constitutional jurisprudence, particularly his notions of originalism and disdain for the "living constitution." I admire the work of Larry Tribe, a Harvard constitutinal professor considered the leading scholar in the field. I cited Justice Scalia's remarks, not to endorse his entire body of thought, but to illustrate that judges, such as the one in Dover who was believed to be personally favorable to intelligent design, not infrequently rule against their personal inclinations. I can respect Justice Scalia despite disagreeing with his judicial philosophy. 75Janice (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)75Janice[reply]

Literary "cycles"

Why do we refer to a series of connected works as a "cycle" (e.g. Schubert's song cycles) when they have a very distinct beginning and end? 69.177.191.60 (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most simply, because they tell a story in many songs. Die schöne Müllerin and Winterreise are about, respectively, a young man who falls in love with the Miller's daughter, and what happens between then and his suicide; and a young man, rejected by his lover, who departs from her and travels through a snowy landscape until he freezes to death. It's not happy stuff unless you are listening to it, because it is astonishingly beautiful. In Schubert the songs are more unified by the telling of the story than by musical material. Antandrus (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case I misunderstood your question -- if you mean the use of the word "cycle" itself -- one of the definitions of the word is "a group of poems or songs around a theme" -- you don't have to go back to the beginning in a circular fashion in that definition. Antandrus (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that does not get us very far. The etymology of the work points at rings & wheels and such, and so the question remains, why is one use of the word to describe what is in reality a serial set of works? We know the dicdef is there: How did it arise?

The production of a set of works is a cycle. The author starts a new set, works on it, finishes it, and then starts the cycle over again. This is a very common use of the word. For example, I could say that Tyler Thigpen starts training for a football game on Monday. He practices all week. He usually has Saturday off for travel and/or relaxation. On Sunday, he plays (and loses) a football game. He goes and tells the press his opinions about the game. Then, on Monday, he starts the cycle over again. Note that he trains for and plays a different game each week. But, the concept of the beginning, middle, and end of his work week is considered a cycle. -- kainaw ™ 17:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec) I wonder if the questioner is not asking about why the word used is "cycle" rather than, say, "series" or, in the case of the story-in-music, "chapters". A "cycle" suggests that things resolve back to where they started, whereas a story can do that, but the more usual map of a story would be a line, perhaps with a branch or two, but not anything that turns back on itself to the beginning. Perhaps the song cycles do that in musical terms, but that I could not identify. I looked at Song cycle and found the following:

A song cycle is a group of songs designed to be performed in a sequence as a single entity. As a rule, all of the songs are by the same composer and often use words from the same poet. Unification can be achieved by a narrative or a persona common to the songs, or even, as in Schumann's second Liederkreis, by the atmospheric setting of the forest. The unity of the cycle is often underlined by musical means, famously in the return in the last song of the opening music in An die ferne Geliebte. ៛ Bielle (talk) 17:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That works for a collection of songs that were conceived as a group rather than as independent songs (although, they can be sung independently as "excerpts from the cycle"). But sometimes "cycle" is also used for works that were most definitely not conceived as a group by their creator. We hear about "Maestro Winkelstein will next year be recording the complete cycle of Mahler symphonies with the Tierra del Fuego Philharmonic Orchestra". That to me has always seemed a misuse of the word "cycle". "Set" or "series" would seem better choices. -- JackofOz (talk) 19:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I always understood it to mean that it is a cycle in that, you start from the beginning, and you're supposed to go all the way through to the end before you start again. That is, it's not meant to be performed/recited/etc. in a chop and change sort of manner. You start at the beginning, and go through them sequentially. Only then can you get back to the beginning. Steewi (talk) 02:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First human - according to Bible

In Luke there's a note about lineage of Jesus, which goes through to Adam. There are 75 generations from Jesus to Adam, therefore we could guess when the first human created. Is there any one of you know about any research to when the first human is created? A source from any religion could suffice. Thanks for your answer. roscoe_x (talk) 17:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dating Creation has some useful information. Warofdreams talk 17:25, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop James Ussher, Anglican Primate of Ireland, ( famously quoted in the Scopes Monkey Trial), in the 1600's calculated that the world was created 22 October, 4004 BC. Now on which day did God get around to creating Adam after He created the world? ~~

If he was going to bullshit everyone to that extent, why not say that creation started at 1:13:37.45756735737589645 AM on that day (assuming God need some time to think about it first) ? StuRat (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the days of the creation of course begin at dusk, as days do in Hebrew. Algebraist 19:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then, let's calculate when dusk began on that day to 20 decimal places. (Or would have begun, if there was light, darkness, etc.) :-) StuRat (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

StuRat -- In most of the ancient middle east (excluding Egypt), the year was generally considered to begin either on the day of the new moon near the vernal equinox, or on the day of the new moon near the autumnal equinox. Ussher also adopted the scheme of history apparently invented by Sextus Julius Africanus, according to which the history of the world is 7,000 years long, divided into seven millennial (thousand-year) periods from Creation to Final Judgement (the last millennium being Jesus' reign as described in Revelations).

So Ussher basically derived his date by deciding that the birth of Jesus marked the beginning of the 5th millennium out of the total seven, reconstructing Jesus' birthdate as 4 B.C. (based mainly on the probable date of the death of Herod), then subtracting 4,000 years to get 4004 B.C., and deciding that he was going to use a year whose beginning was determined with respect to the autumnal equinox (instead of the vernal equinox) -- and voilà, when he looked up the sunset of the day of the first visible new moon after the autumnal equinox of 4004 B.C., the date October 22nd, 4004 B.C. was the result. Of course, there was also a lot of technical fiddling with the ages of Biblical patriarchs, lengths of reigns of Israelite kings etc. to get everything in the Bible to seem to add up so that the Creation fell 4,000 years before the birth of Jesus (that was actually the difficult part...). AnonMoos (talk) 20:42, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either on the sixth day, or at some indeterminate point after the seventh, depending on whether you believe chapter 1 or chapter 2 of Genesis. Algebraist 17:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was the 1600s, and they weren't aware time could be measured so precisely? Wrad (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but what was the Greenwich Mean Time?75Janice —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75Janice (talk • contribs) 18:34, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that didn't exist yet. Wrad (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the Julian calendar did? --Tango (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GMT didn't exist until the late 1800s. This is all in good fun, though, since the whole idea is ludicrous. Wrad (talk) 20:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it did, it was only used in Greenwich, and only in spring and autumn, but it existed! --Tango (talk) 21:08, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Wrad (talk) 21:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From a science-based perspective, there has been research into the origin of humans and when the 'first humans' might have been around. From that perspective, of course, there's no way to pinpoint "these are humans - their ancestors were all not". Steewi (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do American universities really give credits for appearing in porn?

Is this really true? Do American universities really give you marks for appearing in porn films? The thought of middle-aged professors coercing teenagers into this kind of thing is disturbing. "Judging by the number of student-slash-adult film actresses I met at the WPC, it's clearly becoming easier to get college students to do it. Some gender studies departments have added school credit to the list of incentives for participating in porn films. Annabel Chong, a USC fine art and gender studies major, who attended the WPC, had sex with two women and two dildos in class for credit." http://www.salon.com/it/feature/1998/10/cov_05feature2.html 78.146.5.17 (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since you used the plural, "universities", I'd say no, unless there is proof that at least two do this. You have a source that claims that one did, but I'd like to have some corroborating evidence before I accept even that. StuRat (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are two possibilities here, either a university is giving out credit for people having sex in class or a rather questionable looking website is talking complete nonsense. Which do you think is more likely? I think unless there is more evidence than that one webpage, we can dismiss this. --Tango (talk) 20:56, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are classes at a few universities which teach how to film or write porn. Obviously they would offer credit if a person could show equivalent experience in that area. I don't really think that sort of thing belongs at a University, but it does exist. Wrad (talk) 21:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filming and writing, maybe, but appearing in? --Tango (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that takes it a step further into "huh?" territory. Wrad (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think appearing in a movie, even a porn movie will give you resonably experience as how they are filmed and written. I believe many directors did appear in porn at one time. It would seem to me entirely normal if it were some drama class even if it was concentrated on filming or writing you'd still get credit for appearing in a play, TV show or movie Nil Einne (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been popular for some time for some universities to feature as part of their "gender studies" programs classes that investigate pornography as a serious source of information about contemporary (or historical) sexual attitudes. In my experience these courses exist outside of the main curricula for fear of parents going nuts (at Berkeley they had student-taught courses on subjects like this, which you could indeed get real credit for). But rest assured courses of this sort are never required and nobody is "coerced" into doing anything they don't want to do. In fact in most courses of any sort of controversial nature the student is told about 10 million times that this is totally optional and forced to sign all sorts of releases explaining that they know this is optional and etc. (I took a course on forensic pathology, a very different sort of thing, that required this sort of thing, before they could show us photos of corpses). So don't get your knickers twisted up with the ~~fantasy~~ nightmare about coed college kids getting forced into making pornography. It's extremely unlikely to be the way you have portrayed it. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anywhere on here where anyone has said anything about students being forced into this. The thing people seem upset about is the fact that students can receive college credit for having sex in front of a camera. Even if it is unforced, it hardly seems academic. Wrad (talk) 00:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, the OP discusses teachers "coercing" students to do this and this being what was disturbing him/her. I took that to mean "forced". As for whether it is academic, it would depend on how it was done. There many academic things to be said about pornography, just as there are many academic things that could be said about popular culture. There have been academic papers written about the philosophy of the Matrix movies, there are many papers written about the imagery in gangster rap. I hardly see why pornography would be exempt from this. There is a plausible argument that something could be gained in understanding it if one was a participant as well. What is "academic" is not a question of content but context; in how things are discussed, not what is discussed. (See, for example, the work of Judith Butler, to name just one very famous example of someone who is very well respected and has said quite a lot about pornography, if I recall correctly.) Just watching the Matrix because it is cool is not academic. Watching it as a cultural expression of certain ideas about existentialist philosophy (a la Hubert Dreyfus) is. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the two compare. We aren't talking about just critiquing something, we're talking about doing it. Hopefully, as you say, the OP is wrong or exaggerating. I wouldn't approve of sex acts in class for credit when studying porn any more than I would approve of attempting to fly off of a building to better understand The Matrix. Wrad (talk) 02:02, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're simplying talking about critiquing perhaps. But if you're studying filming porn then it seems plausible that experience in filming a porn, including as an actor may give you credit, just having a part in the Matrix may give you credit in a class about filming movies or SF. I'm not saying I don't find it unusual but really if consider it there's little difference beyond the fact that a lot of people don't think porn is worthy of studying Nil Einne (talk) 13:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Years ago when I was an art student, we were forced to take nude pictures of ourselves. Most people found it disturbing. I recall someone who objected to this was given a much lower final grading than I think he deserved, so yes, we were coerced. I was also shocked that tax payers money was spent on hard-core pornography. And I recall that when President Clinton and his wife were at university, they and the rest of the students were required to have photos of themselves taken in the nude - I forget the crackpot idea behind it - which were destroyed at around the time he was president. So such gross violations of privacy have happened. 78.144.244.16 (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When was taxpayers' money spent on hard-core pornography? You've only mentioned nude photos, which is not hard-core. If I'd been an art student being forced to pose nude I would have gone through the formal complaints procedure (I don't have any real problem with posing nude, just with being forced to) - did you try that? While I think it's completely unacceptable, if you don't complain about it, nothing is going to improve. --Tango (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like if its a state school it's harder to get away with. In my state, a professor was fired for showing porn videos in his (equivalent of a) sex-ed class. Wrad (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say we need more information before we start judging. This does seem a little disgusting to me but if it was made clear that part of the course would involve you photographing yourself nude before people signed up for the course, and it was not compulsory then I don't see how your could say it's wrong for people to be given lower marks for not fulfilling the requirements of the course. Should such a course exist? Perhaps not, but really if you sign up for a course which clearly states it requires you to photograph yourself nude and then I wouldn't call it coercion if you were given lower grades when you didn't fulfill what was a clear requirement for the course Nil Einne (talk) 13:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Herbert Sheldon is the person behind the nude photos of Ivy League students.--droptone (talk) 00:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Salon article in the OP is ten years old. BrainyBabe (talk) 01:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In which historical period did Orlando and Marmaduke marry?

When reading Orlando: A Biography, in my ignorance of history, I can't tell what period she and Marmaduke get married in. It's at the end of Chapter 5. Can anyone help?

Thanks Adambrowne666 (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was sometime in the 19th century during the reign of Queen Victoria (so between 1837 and 1900). That doesn't pin it down much. I would infer a date between 1840 and 1870. Marco polo (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite close enough for my purposes, thanks Marco Polo Adambrowne666 (talk) 03:34, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another history question - inns in 16th Century Venice

Was there the equivalent of restaurants in Venice in 1582? - what were inns called by the Venetians of the time? - I'm especially interested in ones catering to the aristos.

Thanks again Adambrowne666 (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article on restaurants, they did not come into existence as such until the 18th century. During the 16th century, the closest thing would have been taverns or inns that served food. Instead of sitting at one's own table and ordering from a menu, one would likely have shared a table with other patrons and eaten whatever the hosts happened to cook that evening. The Italian word for "inn" is locanda. I have not been able to confirm whether this word would have been used for this type of establishment in 16th-century Venice, though such establishments would certainly have existed. Whether they catered to aristos is questionable. Typically, they catered to traveling merchants. Of course the wealthiest merchants of Venice were the republic's virtual aristocracy, but they were not technically nobles. There just might have been some luxury inns in 16th-century Venice, but I suspect that traveling aristocrats would more likely have been guests at the houses of rich merchants who hoped to gain their business. Marco polo (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although the rowdy sons of the aristos would likely have caroused in cheap stews. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a cheap Stu myself, I resent that remark. :-) StuRat (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Residents of the city often used a euphemism for an inn to throw the cops off the scent -- this was a well-known Venetian blind. (If the cops found out, the guests would try to rapidly get out of Doge.) --- OtherDave (talk) 13:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But wouldn't the Doge be able to track the scent ? :-) StuRat (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There have been inns in Europe that boasted not only aristocratic, but even royal guests in their history. This list, for instance, of people who stayed in Hôtel du Corbeau (Raven Hotel) in Strasbourg (dating back at least as far as 16th century) is quite impressive, including kings of Prussia and Poland, and even an emperor! — Kpalion^(talk) 13:29, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all, extremely useful Adambrowne666 (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]