Humanities desk
< March 7	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 9 >

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.

March 8

Marijuana Intoxication

Two questions:

Can one be arrested for being intoxicated on Cannabis within the confines of one's home in the United States? Note, the question deals only with intoxication and not possession.

Can one be arrested for being intoxicated on Cannabis within the confines of one's home in the State of Florida?

Wikipedia and/or non-Wikipedia references would be appreciated. 76.110.192.228 (talk) 00:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking for legal advice? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am not. This question is for personal knowledge. 76.110.192.228 (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK -- According to this, only possession, cultivation or sale of marijuana are punishable offenses in the state of Florida, and possession of paraphernalia is a misdemeanor. I don't think there can be a federal offense because it's a state issue. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 01:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have also read that the presence of Cannabis in the blood can also be considered "possession". Have any judicial rulings or appropriate statutes shed any light on the said matter? 76.110.192.228 (talk) 01:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It might "be considered possession" by the truly overzealous law enforcement official, but has anyone ever been convicted of possession in the US (or elsewhere) merely for having it in their bloodstream? People can "be arrested" for many specious reasons which lead to dismissals, nonprosecutions, or acquitals. Edison (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly any driver can be pulled over for driving erratically, and could be subjected to intoxication tests. Driving on public roads is a privilege, not a right. Within your home would be subject to a search warrant, and since intoxication is often a shared experience, all it would take is one blabbermouth telling someone who tells a cop, "Hey, this guy is growing cannabis in his house" or "This guy has quite a stash!" and then you're cooked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the term is "internal possession" - may be worth googling. DuncanHill (talk) 10:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The US Supreme Court cases Powell v. Texas and Robinson v. California are close but not exactly addressing the issue. In Robinson, the Court struck down a California law criminalizing drug addiction, mostly because, the Court said, drug addiction is a disease; while in Powell, the Court said it was OK to have arrested an alcoholic for being publicly intoxicated, because even if alcoholism is a disease, Powell had not been arrested for being diseased, but for being drunk in public in a particular circumstance. Comet Tuttle (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like they were drawing a civil-liberties-based distinction between personal failing and the potential endangerment of others. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do any records exist of a conviction of Cannabis possession based on evidence that proves you were "possessing Cannabis in your bloodstream" at the time of arrest? 76.110.192.228 (talk) 02:31, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried googling this particular hypothesis? I would think someone who's intoxicated would be charged with intoxication, as opposed to "possession", but I have no specific facts to back that up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per my understanding, intoxication of Cannabis isn't a crime unless it's in public. However, I've read that the presence of Marijuana in one's bloodstream may be used to justify possession; as you "posses it in your blood".

I'll see what I can find on Google and I'll get back to any of the interested parties here. 76.110.192.228 (talk) 02:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I found this interesting little link. Does it hold any merit? 76.110.192.228 (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're high, then you're intoxicated, and just as with alcohol, they could presumably do tests to determine the cause and degree of intoxication. But they would have to have probable cause to arrest in the first place, I should think - like smelling pot on your breath or otherwise showing classic signs of being high. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is no way to test if someone is intoxicated from Marijuana. The only tests are to see if you have used Marijuana in the last couple of days or weeks. Funny, though, because US law doesn't normally make this distinction. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 01:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That scenario holds in non-public instances as well? You can't be intoxicated within the privacy of your own home? 76.110.192.228 (talk) 03:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How would the police know? Unless someone tipped them off. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose someone did tip off the authorities. Would that scenario hold in private instances? 76.110.192.228 (talk) 03:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They would have to get a search warrant based on probable cause, and if they come in and catch you, you're busted. Alternatively, if the cops saw you smoking a joint out on your front porch, I suspect they would have the right to come bust down your door on the grounds that a crime was in progress. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So intoxication in private is a crime? 76.110.192.228 (talk) 03:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you get caught. :) Actually, that's a flippant answer, though practially true. Becoming drunk at home is not a crime by itself, unless you're underage, let's say, because there is typically no law against adults drinking in private, as such; while public drinking can be illegal. However, possession and/or use of marijuana is illegal in lots of states, regardless of where it occurs. So, yes, any use of marijuana at home could be illegal, if possession itself is illegal. But they can't walk into your house without cause. So you're not fully safe at home, but you're more safe than in public. That would apply to any type of criminal venture, by the way. So the obvious course to follow is, "Don't do the crime unless you're willing to do the time." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. These are just my observations. I am not a lawyer. If you want a definitive answer, you should go see a lawyer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Bugs! 76.110.192.228 (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know if I helped that much, but it's clear that it's certainly possible to be arrested for pot use at home, depending on the laws of the state. Probable is another question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This google search has some relevant links [1]. DuncanHill (talk) 11:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Novels, books and novella

Is there a difference between these terms? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tworiversflow (talk • contribs) 09:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This a homework question? If so, if you have to give it an attempt on your own before we'll help you. However, if you go to Wiktionary (or just google "dictionary" and click on any online dictionary) and look up the words, you'll surely find a useful definition for each.--Dpr (talk) 09:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can even use Google as a dictionary. Simply type "define:" (without the quotes) followed by the word that you want a definition for. Dismas|^(talk) 11:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I just try to plug Wiktionary, our sister project, when I can :) --Dpr (talk) 12:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Former Air France headquarters in Montparnasse

A user from Paris took a photo of the site of the former Air France headquarters in Montparnasse - a blue MGEN building stands there.

Air France moved into a new headquarters in 1996. Was the old headquarters demolished? The building in the French news that was the old Air France headquarters looks different. WhisperToMe (talk) 09:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is truth?

What is philosophy's standard answer to the question of what truth is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.121.167 (talk) 10:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Start with Truth#Theories of truth. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want theories I want the -- 82.113.121.167 (talk) 10:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want, then? ╟─Treasury Tag►Africa, Asia and the UN─╢ 13:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A theory is precisely what you'll get if you ask a philosopher what truth is, since it's not possible to empirically determine an answer to the question "what is truth?" That is, if the philosopher doesn't just say that the question is ill-posed. Paul Stansifer 13:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read this [2] -Pollinosisss (talk) 12:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are many sources of truth. [3], [4] are both experts in truth220.237.83.212 (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Truth is whatever reality is. The tricky part is determining just what that reality actually is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'd find any number of philosophers with a different take, Bugs. ;) The fact is that there are no "standard answers" in philosophy; any question with a "standard answer" is not philosophically interesting. FiggyBee (talk) 14:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to Kierkegaard, subjectivity is truth. That said, what is true for one person often works for another. Vranak (talk) 15:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably the source of the pseudo-philosophical line in Love and Death, "Subjectivity is objective". But I think I see what you're saying. You're talking about "relative" truth (i.e. what can be known to an individual), and I'm talking about "absolute" truth (i.e. what would be "known to God", or more generally, "the way the universe actually works"). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As the only things that humans can know are by way of human senses and experience, these questions of 'absolute truth' or 'in God's understanding' fall outside the scope of actual knowledge. Vranak (talk) 17:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the point I'm making. What we think is "the truth" today might be determined tomorrow to not be "the truth" after all. Or vice versa. Yet in such a circumstance, the "absolute truth" did not change - only our perception of it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty. DuncanHill (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmmm... So what about the term, "the ugly truth"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question "what is philosophy's standard answer to [fill in the blank]" is senseless because there is no such thing as monolithic "philosophy," nor is there a "standard" answer to anything within any philophical school (because invariably there are disagreements about the definitions of the rudimentary terms). But, for starters, within what's often called philosophy of language, stemming from Frege, Russell, etc., statements are said to have (or to lack) a truth value, which (if there is one) is "true" or "false". Essentially, the parts of speech in the statement are formalized and plugged into a symbolic logic system whose rules are based on accumulated consensus after years or decades of evaluating the papers that have contributed to the field. Look up Frege and Bertrand Russell for an introduction. 63.17.37.219 (talk) 05:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

is there a list anywhere of reasons to believe something?

Obviously one reason to believe something is if the belief corresponds to physical reality; then you can use it to model and make predictions, and so forth. However, I can think of at least two other great reasons to believe: 1. If you're being paid to do so. I would gladly believe something that did not strictly speaking correspond to physical reality, or model it, but for holding which believe I will receive millions of dollars.

2. Under duress of horrible torture. Obviously it is often a great reason to believe something if you are threatened with torture or death if you don't, as evidenced by The Inquisition. Likewise, I would probably choose to believe something inconsequential (for example, regarding God -- inconsequential because God doesn't affect any of my physical invironment, so it doesn't require changing my beliefs with respect to reality), rather than be horribly tortured.

My question now is other than the above two great reasons to believe something (being paid to; under duress if you don't) is there a list anywhere of other good reasons to believe something, ie other than the belief corresponding to physical reality, the actual state of affairs, or being the best possible model thereof. Thank you. 82.113.121.167 (talk) 11:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those two items do not represent belief, they represent "pretending to believe". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. Kingsfold (talk) 15:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belief is what you have when reason does not apply, or isn't sufficient to satisfy, or the subject matter cannot be tested empirically. Looking for "reasons to believe" seems an odd contradiction. Bielle (talk) 15:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something cannot be tested empirically doesn't mean that "reason" is completely out of the question. —Akrabbim^talk 16:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OP might or might not be leading up to the question of whether there are "reasons" to believe in a specific religion, or religion in general. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You guys are so totally, dearly wrong on a basic level, that it boggles the mind. 84.153.218.146 (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from personal attacks and try giving some reasons for why the answers given are wrong. You are being incredibly unhelpful. —Akrabbim^talk 16:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since he left-justified it, it's a little hard to tell who (if anyone) the IP is actually talking to. And since he has so far just the one entry, I wouldn't pay it no never-mind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(after ec) :::Bielle, I'm not sure I agree with your definition of belief. For example, scientists believe that the scientific method gives results which are accurate. They believe this because of their experience of the scientific method. Reason obviously applies here, and the subject matter is being tested empirically. So that's another reason to believe something: personal experience. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One should believe something if and only if its falsehood would be more extraordinary than its truth. --Tango (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By what standard, though? The idea that time is not absolute is pretty hard for the average citizen to swallow. However, the scientific method can yield evidence to support it. And that's the crux of the matter. The scientific method does not necessarily yield "the absolute truth", it merely yields "the best explanation we have". That's what drives religionists crazy about science. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@TammyMoet. You and I are using language differently, it would seem. I would say that scientists "know" that the scientific method works because of the empirical evidence. If they are wrong, in whole or in part, then they will know something different at the next step, because of the evidence. Belief is not required; it is testable and falsifiable. Belief is neither. (Of course, "know" and "belief" are constantly used as synonyms in common speech, but that would not be appropriate here, I think.) Bielle (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can the OP provide a little feedback or further guidance? Are we (those who've responded so far) shedding any meaningful light on the question asked? Would you like to further focus the question if the responses so far are not targeted well enough? Bus stop (talk) 17:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a difficult question in any case. the best breakdown I've seem (variations on this seem to appear in a number of sources) is as follows:

Functional/pragmatic - I believe X because it is useful or practical to believe X
Normative/conventional - I believe X because X is what people believe
Rhetorical/emotive - I believe X because X strikes me as 'right' or 'true'
Communicative/analytic - I believe X because the arguments in favor of X convince me

most philosophers prefer the last, of course, but most acknowledge that there is a mix of these reasons in most people's beliefs, and most note that there are pro-functional and dysfunctional aspects to each. --Ludwigs2 17:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How would you know if you "believed" something or didn't? Is there a difference between two mental states, of "believing" and "thinking you believe"? What evidence is appropriate to jusify holding a "belief"? Are evidence from outside, evidence from logic, thinking, memory, and other inside things, equivalent in weight? Is there a reason to believe that isn't one of those two, such as an "I just know"? If there is, then how can others verify whether to believe based on your "other means of knowing", and would it make sense that there can be things one believes that others cannot or should not? Who is the "I" in the statement "I believe that" and which is the "I" that is entitled to make a claim of that kind? Do different parts of you believe different contradictory things, and if so is there a single you that believes things which contradict? What is the relationship between belief and truth?

All these and many many more await you :) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 05:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery poem

I'm trying to remember a poem about spring and nature. It was written ages ago and it was sung in a film recently. I can't remember what it was called, something about spring and cows and nature coming back after winter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valikan (talk • contribs) 14:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like "Sumer is icumen in" to me. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AA Flight 11 passengers.

Hi, I have a question, considering it was the first hijacked plane they had no opportunity to know they were victims of a suicide mission. I want to know if, knowing where they were seated, is it possible that, i.e. 37G passenger never knew of the hijacking? --190.178.159.192 (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 9/11 Commission Report says that, according to telephone messages from a stewardess, at 8:41, about 27 minutes after the hijacking started, "passengers in coach were under the impression that there was a routine medical emergency in first class."[5] The plane crashed 5 minutes later. All the hijackers were in business class at the front of the plane. It's impossible to know what exactly happened in the last few minutes, but it seems for much of the time passengers at the back of the plane did not know about the hijack. For more information about the attacks, the commission report is an excellent source. --Normansmithy (talk) 15:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swear words

This might seem like a silly question but why are people offended by swear words. I can understand offense being caused with say the N word, but what is offensive about say the F word or the C word? Mo ainm~Talk 19:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are primarily offended because they sense that you are attempting to offend them. This would explain why use of minced oaths are sometimes taken just as personally and why use of the N word is not taken offensively when coming from a particular person or in a particular circumstance. Moreover, the use of an expletive indicates that the speaker may be past the point of thinking rationally, in that he or she is making off the cuff remarks and has lost objectivity. This means that the rational connection between the speakers has been lost, and this may be offensive to some, such as between spouses, roommates, etc. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 19:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) That's an interesting question. One aspect is that words from Latin sources are considered more formal and proper than others. Thus "piss" is considered obscene while "urinate" is not. Why should this be ? More educated and wealthier people tended to know Latin, and they looked down upon the language of the commoners. The word profanity can be literally taken to mean "common language". StuRat (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So it is not the actual word but the tone in which it is used. For instance, in Ireland it wouldn't be unusual to hear somebody greet someone with how the F are you? Mo ainm~Talk 19:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's inaccurate to say it's not the actual word, too; there are people who would be grossly offended to hear certain profanities even if they were lovingly pronounced. Have you read our Profanity article? (By the way, our Language reference desk might have regulars who have a better answer for you than the Humanities desk.) Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From a purely pragmatic standpoint it makes sense to reserve some words as 'off-limits' except under extreme circumstances. The prohibition on their casual use ensures that they won't lose their potency. Even the most proper people I know will curse, and not frown upon cursing, when something has seriously gone awry. For local reading material check out Profanity#Types of profanity. Vranak (talk) 19:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this has to do with 'vulgarity' more broadly put. words like 'fuck' and 'piss' are largely recognized as vulgar, and they are objected to because they lower the level of conversation from sophisticated to crude. for instance, I've used the words analytically above, which few people will object to, but if I were to continue by saying "it's a fucking shame that people use those words", it would instantly change the conversational dynamic. Bourgeois society insists on high-minded manners; c'est la vie. --Ludwigs2 19:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, parts of it do, sometimes; but sometimes it's a way, even among the very rich and well-brought-up, to communicate that you're one with a group and are confident enough to share a profanity. A great sequence from The Bonfire of the Vanities quoting bourgeois Wall Street bond brokers, feverishly selling their bonds over the phone:

"Strip fever in the twenty-year! That's all these jerks keep talking about!"

"— a hundred million July-nineties at the buck —"

"— naked short —"

"Jesus Christ, what's going on?"

"I don't fucking believe this!"

"Holy fucking shit!" shouted the Yale men and the Harvard men and the Stanford men. "Ho-lee fuc-king shit."

Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These words and phrases are acknowledgments of our separateness. We are individuals. We use these aspects of language to puncture the space between us. But there is a tension. We want acknowledgment of a "no-man's-land" between us, but we know at any time we can puncture the boundaries of it at will. Any puncturing of it is at least a faux pas. But specific breaking of the unspoken boundary can be an invocation of a particularly unbalanced relationship, and it is by this means that we attempt to offend by the use of language. Bus stop (talk) 20:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Context makes a significant difference. When people are terrified, like being in a fire or a collapsing building, most anything is liable to come out of their mouth, and they're not going to be faulted for it. When used with friends with whom vulgarity is acceptable, it's considered normal. When used with strangers, or with someone who is known not to like it, it can be impolite at the very least. When directed at someone, it's most offensive, and used to be called "fighting words", a concept with some degree of legal standing, i.e. "verbal assault". Where I come from, vulgarity was seldom used, because it was connected with being uneducated, or even with being a low-life. Times have changed, though. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The N word isn't always offensive, I have a close friend and we constnatly make joking rascist remarks to each other. On the other hand htere are many people who would be extremely insulted by idiot and stupid. And you have an Irish name, but nobody I know woluld say how the fuck are you?--92.251.221.135 (talk) 21:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A non-US person here (presume that's relevant) - what is the N word being discussed here? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reference to a term for African Americans that was used freely from slave years up through the 1960s. If you really don't know what it is, a 30 second google search will show you, but I suspect you're just trolling a bit. stop it. --Ludwigs2 22:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's Nigger (WP:NOTCENSORED anybody?) And before we go assume bad faith, could we at least do some rudimentry checking? From Palace Guard's user and talk pages, he certainly appears to not live in North America (China, perhaps?), where the "N-word" isn't exactly used in common discourse. Buddy431 (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PalaceGuard008 is a RD regular who lives in Australia [6] and I believe was born in China. I don't live there but expect the N word may come up on occassion and obviously on American TV, but is unlikely to be a part of regular discourse and it's entirely probable that a fair minority would have no idea what you're talking about particularly those who have no great interest in American culture or rap music, probably even more so among those who spent part of their early lives in Asian countries and not speaking English. Note that people may be aware of the word nigger and it's offensiveness without recognising that the N word usually refers to it. [7] [8] may be of interest as perhaps on a related issue The Jackson Jive. I also came across [9] where I noticed "there have been no official complaints about these names" which living in NZ hardly surprises me.

In fact although not concerning words, the swastika perhaps another example which I was reminded of here, and it's use something which perhaps PalaceGuard008 (I recall someone can't remember if it was him) and definitely I (not often, but I distinctly recall at one temple in Malaysia with it was used albeit left facing IIRC) can attest to, with some of the people almost definitely having no idea about its potential for offence as mentioned in the article as well.

Point being, things have different meanings in different cultures, don't assume everyone is going to recognise something as being offesive just because it's widely offensive where you live, even in the internet age and with the ubiquity of American culture (particularly with people who may not have English as their native language).

Even if PG008 was trying to make a point, that's perhaps ill-advised but not and far more likely then trolling (although I still doubt it).

P.S. While I'm usually a strong advocate of searching for people asking fresh questions, when an issue comes up I think it's entirely resonable to ask 'what on earth are you talking about' if insufficient context was provided without bothering to search.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nil Einne and Buddy431 and apologies for the confusion to all. As I noted in my post, I suspected this was a regional issue. While I am certainly aware of the word "nigger" and its usage in North America, the word does not have the same history or usage elsewhere in the world - as with Bernanrd McNally below, I would say it's simply not in the everyday vocabulary. I don't believe I've ever heard the word used in Australia to refer to an actual person, whether as a greeting or as a racist taunt. When I read the preceding posts, I was genuinely uncertain what commonly-used swear word started with "N" (couldn't think of any). I did have some suspicion that this might be the word after reading the post above mentioning racism, but was not sure. For one thing, I don't usually think of racist taunts as swear words. Hence the question. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The normal greeting in Ireland is: "Dia is Muire gut", and the response: "Dia is Muire is Parigh dutsa". Only if you know someone well can obsenities be used with impunity. But Irish society changes and what is OK in one County is not in another. A sense of humour is acceptabe in one County is absent in another. My Dublin friend has African parents and speaks with a pronounced Dublin acent, and we "pull oneanother's legs something awful", but dare anyone else do it! His name is Patrick, to booth. That "N-word" is a definite no-go area, no matter what the circumstances. When I first saw this entry I did not know what you meant by N-word, it is not in the vocabulary here, and I don't live in China!

MacOfJesus (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A good place to find history about how swear words originated and why which words are swear words (i.e. "fuck" rather than "sex"), as well as their presence around the world, try the chapter on swearing in this book:

Bryson, Bill (1990-07). The Mother Tongue. William Morrow & Company, Inc. ISBN 0-380-71543-0. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

We had to read the entirety of this book for a summer assignment, and it was very comprehensive on English, its origins, and its ties to other languages, including the chapter on swearing. Hope this helps. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 15:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@MacOfJesus, you are talking about the Irish language, and I assume you wrote them phonetically, the Irish language greeting is Dia dhuit, which means God be with you and the response is usually Dia's Muire dhuit which is God and Mary be with you. The language is not spoken regularly outside of Gealtacht areas. (An area which use Irish as their first language)Mo ainm~Talk 15:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For a deepre understanding of swearwords, may I recommend C U Next Tuesday: A Good Look at Bad Language(2005) by Ruth Wajnryb. The title, for those who might not understand at first glance, is a reference to the slang phrase spelling out cunt, still one of the strongest words in the English language. (Amazon.com also lists a book by her under the title of Expletive Deleted: A Good Look at Bad Language, presumably the same text.) BrainyBabe (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mo ainm, yes I was thinking of someone trying to read what I wrote. But even outside the Gealtacht areas basic greeting such as these are often used. However, have you noticed that it is a different logic in using the Gealic. One cannot think in English and speak in Irish. For instance, one in Gealic cannot say directly: "That is a clock". A great linguist said that all languages can be interchangable in word and thought. He was not aware of The Gealic.

MacOfJesus (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have some friends in New Zealand with whom I play online chess, and one of them enters the room saying "Hi homos". Is this a normal greeting in kiwiland, or is it as rude as it sounds ? StuRat (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a fine line between being offensive and being jockluar. (Often the overhearer in not atuned with the relationships).

Mo ainm, I am of the opinion that I would love for more people to speak my native language. But to do this I must make it easy for them to speak it. Like all children learning a language, you learn to speak it first, then write it. Slean.

MacOfJesus (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Name question

In regards to: http://www.houstonisd.org/HISDConnectEnglish/Images/PDF/howmaywehelpyou.pdf

I'm trying to get the name of the Houston Independent School District in Arabic and Urdu from this text, but I cannot directly copy and paste from the document. What are the names of the district in Arabic and Urdu? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you try the Language Desk. StuRat (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the page that you linked, the fifth language in the list is Farsi. The seventh language in the list is Arabic. The eighth language is Urdu. Unfortunately, I don't have Arabic or Urdu fonts, so I can't copy and paste or type the statements onto this page. Marco polo (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Arabic says "idara Houston al-ta'alimiyya al-mustaqala", if that helps. I also don't seem to have Arabic fonts on this computer (but I can do it from home later if no one else gets to it). Adam Bishop (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, I do have Arabic fonts, it says Arabic: إدارة هيوستون التعليمية المستقلة. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Persian one (which is almost entirely Arabic-derived words) is Persian: مدارس مستقل منطقة اي هيوستون. I'm not so confident about the Urdu - it does have "independent school" transliterated directly, which is easy enough, but I don't know which word means "district". Adam Bishop (talk) 06:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting the Arabic and Persian characters from it :) - I asked because I'm adding additional translations to the commons category Commons:Category:Houston Independent School District - The only language it needs now is Urdu. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:44, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Urdu name is in Page 12 of 19 of the document http://www.houstonisd.org/Multilingual/Home/Bilingual%20&%20ESL%20Programs/Program%20Guidelines%20Docs/NotificationofEnrollment.pdf - Would someone mind posting the actual text to this page? Thank you WhisperToMe (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That one says something different, the entirety of "Houston Independent School Disctrict" is transliterated. I wasn't sure what the first PDF you linked had, because it looked like it said "Boston" instead of "Houston", unless there is something about Urdu phonology that I don't understand (which is very possible). The second one definitely does say "Houston" though. Unfortunately if I try to paste it, it shows up in the wrong direction...I'll keep trying. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, this is mostly it, Urdu: ﮨيﻮﺳﭩﻦ اﻧﮉﭘﻨﮉﻧﭧ اﺳﮑﻮل ڈﺳﭩﺮﮐﭧ - but the first letter of "Houston" has a weird diacritic and I can't get the second letter to connect properly. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, got it, Urdu: ﮨيوﺳﭩﻦ اﻧﮉﭘﻨﮉﻧﭧ اﺳﮑﻮل ڈﺳﭩﺮﮐﭧ. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also I should note that the first document you linked to does say "Houston", not "Boston". It has the same squiggle under the H, which I originally thought was a B, sorry. So apparently "Houston" can be spelled "ﮨيوﺳﭩﻦ" or "ﮨوﺳﭩﻦ". The first document either doesn't have the word "district", or it's an Urdu word I don't know. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for getting the Urdu :) - I e-mailed HISD asking for any other official names for the district in other languages. WhisperToMe (talk) 11:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit

I heard during a chat programme on BBC radio this morning someone saying that the population of Detroit has declined from two million to 800,000 and that trees grow in abandoned skyscrapers. The Detroit article contradicts the population assertion. But is there any truth about the trees growing off abandoned skyscrapers? Thanks 78.146.208.26 (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems highly implausible. For one thing, that would constitute a safety hazard that the city would have to deal with. Also, why would a skyscraper (which should have some value) be abandoned? I think someone's been watching Life After People: The Series. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm writing this from Detroit, and I can tell you that's BS. Detroit has lost quite a bit of population, but not quite that much. The 2 million figure is a bit over the maximum in the 1950's, while 800,000 is a very low estimate for Detroit today. Note that most of that population loss was people moving out to the suburbs. There are neighborhoods in Detroit which are largely abandoned (as there are in many cities), but the downtown area, where the skyscrapers are, is just fine. The biggest building is the Renaissance Center, and that article should tell you about it's current status. StuRat (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC story sounds a bit exaggerated. Detroit's population is now about 900,000, which is about half of its peak population of 1.8 million in the 1950s. There are no trees growing from prime downtown skyscrapers, but you can see sights like this in Detroit. Marco polo (talk) 01:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Life after people included a car plant in Detroit which has been abandoned for decades, since WW2. I can't recall the once-famous brand. Edison (talk) 02:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Fisher Body Plant or the Packard plant or the Studebaker plant or the Ford Piquette plant. Detroitblog, Buildings of Detroit and Forgotten Detroit have good info on buildings and decay in Detroit. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 19:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not to gainsay StuRat, but as someone who grew up in Detroit (the city, not the suburbs) and returns frequently, "just fine" is as "just fine" does. A recent | New York Times article mentioned 200 abandoned buildings in downtown Detroit--and those are just the ones listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The article focused on the Michigan Central Station, where I worked in the early 1970s. It's possible hat there could be a tree or two on the roof or near a glassless window somewhere in the 18-story tower, but unlikely. I don't know whether today you'd consider a 230-foot building a skyscraper, but the MCS was the tallest building in Michigan until the Penobscot Building, more than twice its height, went up in 1923. --- OtherDave (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For instances: the 30-story Book-Cadillac, the tallest hotel in the world when it opened, sat empty and open to vandals for twenty years until just reopening, the 38-story Book Building is now completely empty. The 14-story Lafayette Building was just razed and is noted as having trees growing on it. See also Category:Abandoned buildings in Detroit, Michigan. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Postage Due

Any postal administration still use postage due stamps? These stamps seem to have died out during the 50s/60s? I'm tempted to send myself letters purposely with insufficient postage just to get these stamps. What is the common practice today? Return to sender or a cancel chop on the envelope? I'm in Canada btw, I'm not aware of any Canadian postage due stamps, ever. Thx. --Kvasir (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Use caution when accessing the link in the following comment. There have been no less than eleven reports against that site of viruses and malicious content [10]. Falconus^{p t c} 04:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I googled ["postage due" canada]. According to this,[removed due to virus concern expressed above] postage-due stamps were issued in Canada during 1906-1978 or some such. It's unclear what happens nowadays when there is postage due. My guess is it's returned to sender, but I don't know. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK the postman/woman leaves a card saying (something like) "your item couldn't be delivered because it had insufficient postage." You then have to collect it from from the sorting office and pay an excess fee there (or else it's returned to sender). I suppose it's part of the drive to make postmen get through their rounds as quickly as possible, and also to avoid the need of their dealing with cash. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or you can affix regular postage stamps to the card they leave and send it back and they'll deliver your letter. --Tango (talk) 23:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Canada, they stamp the envelope as not having sufficient postage and return it to sender. If there is no return address, it is sent to the addressee and payment plus an administration fee must be made prior to delivery. All from the Canada Post website under "Postage requirements". -- Flyguy649 ^talk 04:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks --Kvasir (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott says that the last new postage due stamp in the USA was issued in 1985. Today, post offices have a rubber handstamp that reads "Postage Due ___"; if the mail has no return address, the postal worker will use this handstamp and write in the postage due. I sent myself a letter some years ago with insufficient postage, hoping to get a postage due stamp that I didn't have (I'm a collector), but the postal workers never noticed that there was insufficient postage. Nyttend backup (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott also says that Canada issued forty different postage due stamps. Five different designs were issued between 1906 and 1978; values were always 1-10¢, except for the last set, which was 1-50¢. I own the 1¢ of the 1935 issue. Nyttend backup (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Good to hear from another philatelist. --Kvasir (talk) 17:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that Royal Mail in the UK, and An Post in Ireland were still issuing postage due stamps until the late 80s, which you could certainly buy from the respective philatelic bureaux, though I can't recall seeing any actually being used! The last Irish series of postage due stamps was issued in 1986, then for about a year in 1990-1 they trialled three different lots of postage due labels, where the value is selected at the time the label is printed - there was a Frama machine at the GPO in Dublin, a Klussendorf one at the Head Post Office in Limerick, and a Bowes machine at the HPO Cork. From 1993 they used a completely different style of machine to produce the labels (I've got 32p and 50p examples in my collection), printed on yellowish labels - they've got a circular Baile Atha Cliath datestamp on the left (20.9.93) and on the right a squarish design with "éire" on the top, and surrounding the value "postage" on the top, "due" along the bottom, "postas" down the left, and "lehioc" down the right. In the UK the Royal Mail was using Frama machines to produce postage due labels in the 80s. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]