Miscellaneous desk
< March 21	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 23 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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 22

Meeting celebrities

Why do most regular people tend to freak out or make a fool of themselves if they meet their favourite celebrity? --124.254.77.148 (talk) 06:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because they're nervous. They know it's probably their only chance to meet the person and they understandably want to tell the person how important their music/acting/whatever is to them. I, on the other hand, do not freak out when I meet my favourite musicians. Instead I attempt to engage them in conversation about things that might be of interest to them. The last thing they want to hear is "I really love your work" or "what did you mean by that lyric" or "when are you going to play my town". --Richardrj ^talk ^email 08:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have any proof that "most regular people" do in fact freak out? Vimescarrot (talk) 09:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking personally here, the last time I met a favourite celebrity, I was overwhelmed and couldn't say anything! Luckily the guitarist of the band struck up a conversation with me and spared my blushes. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have to try and maintain your cool, and remember that every celebrity was a "nobody" once, and that basically they're just doing a job like anyone else except it's in the field of the arts. Unless their egos are hopelessly overinflated, they would probably be pleasantly surprised to be treated like a normal guy and not be fawned over. It also helps to get some experience rubbing shoulders with celebrities. One reason Barbara Walters has been so successful at interviewing is that her father ran a night club and she got used to being around celebrities. Ask yourself this: If you ran into Paul McCartney, and had only a vague sense of what he did for a living, i.e. that he was a musician, how would you treat him? Or if you did know of him and admired his work, I don't agree that he wouldn't want to hear, "I love your work." Nobody but the worst cynic dislikes being complimented, and he doesn't have to do anything except say, "Thank you." Asking probing questions, though, would be a turn-off, as Richard said. Only if you were granted an extended audience, might such details be appropriate to bring up. For a comical approach to this question, here's Mel Brooks on the Carson show talking about his encounter with Cary Grant (and being George Castanza before there was a George Castanza):[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the worst cynic! Nooo! Vimescarrot (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You dislike being complimented??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes? Vimescarrot (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So if someone told you, "I like your work", unless they were your supervisor you might well respond, "What's that supposed to mean?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd generally respond politely. I just wouldn't like it. Vimescarrot (talk) 06:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you would like it if someone said they didn't like your work? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Vimescarrot (talk) 16:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I googled ["how to meet a celebrity"] and a number of "helpful hints" pages turned up. I expect there could be various ways to say that and find additional sites. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I met Wil Wheaton once. He was seated at my right at the first table of a private poker tournament. I briefly considered asking for his autograph and even more briefly considered standing up, pointing at him, and saying "Die, evil ensign!". I compromised on saying "hi", and we got on fine. PhGustaf (talk) 04:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC) [reply]

That squares with my theory about not treating them like celebrities. I haven't had a random encounter like that, but the two occasions where I met Bob Feller were good. At one of them he signed a photo for me (a photo like this one: [2]) and talked casually about pitching to Joe Dimaggio and such stuff as that. A very pleasant guy, and a Baseball Hall of Famer. From what I've heard, it's probably good I didn't bring up politics or modern players. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:46, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

when I met Roger Federer ( whos is my fav celebrity) he was more than sweet and courteous, we laughed took pictures and he spoke about his family, asked me questions about me and we discussed tennis for a few minutes, found him to be very normal and down to earth, neither did i freak out nor did he give me a chance to ;)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.130.123.12 (talk) 10:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's the "You look like..." introduction as well. Just today, Kerrin Jeromin who is an acquaintance of mine and a local weather forecaster, was told "You look like Kerrin Jeromin!" Dismas|^(talk) 20:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That, of course, could prove embarassing if you get the name wrong. "Hey, you look like Richard Herd!" "Well, I'm Karl Malden, but thanks anyway." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're meeting Karl Malden, you've got more to think about than how to react to a celeb! Dismas|^(talk) 06:10, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Selleck Biography

It says that in 2006 Tom, alongside Richard Rowley, started a charity. When you click on Richard Rowley it says he died in 1947. Is that the biography for the wrong Richard Rowley? Lady Sherwood (talk) 06:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's the wrong Richard Rowley, and I unlinked it. The right Richard Rowley might be the one at[3], and he might be deserving of an article.

The better place to bring up matters like this is the article's talk page. PhGustaf (talk) 07:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or it might be this Richard Rowley. It seems that Selleck has had, at least, casual associations with multiple "Richard Rowley"s. Dismas|^(talk) 07:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, this sort of thing is best posted at Talk:Tom Selleck. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passenger lifts without inner doors

Why are passenger lifts without inner doors illegal in Germany? --84.61.146.104 (talk) 10:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are less safe. --Tango (talk) 11:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Presumably because they are dangerous. Public elevators in most countries have inner doors in order that things do not get snagged against the outer walls of the elevator and get dragged either up or down by the motion. Getting an item of clothing hooked up somewhere could easily cause someones arm or leg to get pulled down into the gap between elevator floor or roof and outer wall - with predictably nasty consequences. Having a law to prevent such dangerous things makes a certain amount of sense. SteveBaker (talk) 11:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In which European countries are passenger lifts without inner doors illegal? --84.61.146.104 (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the UK with its extreme Health And Safety rules, so I imagine, but dont really know, that they would be illegal here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artjo (talk • contribs) 11:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But the Health and Safety climate has only come about by the greedy, litigious nature of UK residents who complain that they are government controlled but whine and sue if they don't take care to look after themselves. I am a UK native and resident. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 14:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You still see them in Austria. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 12:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware that much of the reputation of Health and Safety legislation in the UK owes more to urban myth than fact [4][5]. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 13:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why too, given that the paternoster (which has no doors) is apparently not illegal to operate (although apparently they don't build them any more). FiggyBee (talk) 12:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they go much much slower than regular elevators, which compensates for the added risk of having no doors and not stopping to let people on and off. --Tango (talk) 12:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The paternoster at Sheffield's Arts Tower had a tripwire at the top of each floor's opening, if anything was sticking out of the lift car it would trip the wire and stop the whole lift. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roydisco (talk • contribs) 12:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; although it would conceivably be possible to get something trapped on a paternoster, the ones still in existence have a number of safety features, including tripwires and flaps at the outer edge of the bottom of each car. Warofdreams talk 13:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about Finland, Sweden, or Switzerland? --84.61.146.104 (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lifts without any doors are apparently legal in the UK, though only if they go up less than 2m.148.197.114.158 (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does this question include lifts that have gates instead of doors? I find it hard to imagine operating elevators/lifts these day have not any sort of barrier. --Kvasir (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any passenger lifts without inner doors in Germany? --84.61.146.104 (talk) 19:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I live in central Scotland and used a lift without internal doors only yesterday in a modern 2 storey shopping complex. It was restricted to a maximum of 2 persons and only moved up or down (very slowly) when the operating button was kept depressed. If I lifted my finger the lift stopped immediately. But it is unnerving if you unwittingly lean against what you think is the wall when the lift begins to move and you feel the surrounding "box" dragging at your clothing. 92.30.6.21 (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since other people are interested, when I first noticed this question I came across [6] which appears to be the situation in the UK Nil Einne (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been told this is an EU regulation. Inner doors appeared all over Prague in the middle of the last decade, which was kind of annoying, because lots of Czech elevators were already barely large enough to fit a turkey. With the addition of folding inner doors, elevator occupants had to squeeze in even further to avoid getting pinched. (And if you think elevators without inner doors are dangerous, wait until you get on a paternoster) -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've used a sliding gate type door in passenger lifts in Paris, New York and elsewhere. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the source for the claim that such lifts are illegal in Germany? Commons:Category:Paternosters shows a few. This "Paternoster im Rathaus Bochum" video shows one in operation from 2007 and there are others in Germany. -84user (talk) 22:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What vegetable plants like water the most?

I live in central MD, where we've had crazy amounts of snow and rain this year. I expect it to continue throughout the summer, but want to plant a vegetable garden as I do every year. I'm not too picky about the vegetables I eat, so I was hoping to find a list or something of what vegetables most tolerate high levels of moisture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.169.70.126 (talk) 11:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anecdotally only, I would say tomatoes can tolerate lots of water. The more water, the juicier the tomatoes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Providing the veg don’t have their roots in stagnate water, most plants should be OK. Dig a narrow hole 2 ft deep. If the watertable is 18 inches or lower than ground level I think there wont be a any problem. Don’t guess, dig. --Aspro (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For those who don't live in the US, MD stands for Maryland. Dismas|^(talk) 13:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Bugs, unfortunately it doesn't work like that. If the tomatoes (and most other plants) have more water than they need then they are prone to rot. The saturated soil inhibits gaseous uptake. Also, if you do water your tomatoes to the limit they may be juicy but they will have less flavour. But then you pays your money . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.186.107 (talk) 14:44, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The University of Maryland has some great information on plants of all kinds. Try here [7]. Cheers and good luck! 10draftsdeep (talk) 15:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Off the top of my head, all members of the squash family love water, so plant these. Cucumbers, butternut squashes, melons, marrows, courgettes,pumpkins. However, if your predicted deluge doesn't materialise, either be prepared to water them yourself or lose them! All vegetables respond well to regular, copious watering. Don't just sprinkle the surface: puddle them in. (Caveat: that depends on whether the soil's the correct type for the plant, whether it's poor quality or well cultivated. I just speak from 40 years experience of growing my own) Also watch out for botrytis. --TammyMoet (talk) 16:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's gotta say it, so here goes....... watercress! DuncanHill (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Raised beds can help prevent vegetables from getting waterlogged. The raised beds tend to have dryer soil because they are raised up above the surrounding soil and thus drain more quickly. With a raised bed, you should be able to grow almost any vegetable even in a rainier-than-usual year. Normally, raised beds require more watering than flat beds. In a very wet year, you might get away without watering your raised beds much. However, unlike flat beds, your plants are less likely to suffer from rot or fungus. Marco polo (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Watercress, seaweed. 92.24.91.12 (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on hydroponics suggests a 460% increase in yield from peas, and up to 32,000% for tomatoes. DOR (HK) (talk) 08:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

U.S._Army_Field_Manuals about grooming, racks, etc

I am searching for a U.S._Army_Field_Manuals about shaving, hair cut, such things. So far no luck. The strange thing is that you can find much more critical information (regarding security, weapons and such). So, I believe somewhere there is a manual regarding the above.--ProteanEd (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google search suggests that Army Regulation 670-1 is what you're looking for -- it's not a field manual; perhaps that's what tripped you up? — Lomn 13:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a step in the right direction, even if it is not the official guide. It does not cover all the topics that I wanted, but the site has some nice additional information. And I still find it strange that such a trivial matter is not in any list of manuals that I skimmed through. ProteanEd (talk) 16:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AR 670-1 is what you want. Section 1-8 covers shaving and hair cuts. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 16:40, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Field manuals are "how-to" guides on complex military subjects; I guess the army assumes their soldiers know how to shave, so no field manual. The complete, official Army Regulation 670-1 is here. FiggyBee (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: and why are they freely available? Isn't that a huge risk?--ProteanEd (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Realistically, if you hand it out to thousands of soldiers to study, you aren't going to be able to keep it secret. The same is true, incidentally, of jihadi training manuals. StuRat (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting material for historians of the future. In the British Army of Wellington's time, the length of a soldier's sideboards (sideburns) was decided by a piece of string held in the mouth and passed over the ears. In Frederick the Great's Prussian Army, soldier's hair had to be powdered white and pulled into a queue so tightly that (allegedly) they were unable to close their eyes properly. Alansplodge (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't post such unreferenced urban legends. ^{[citation needed]}. Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard the sideburns anecdote from Regency historians, though it was written as a common practice rather than a regulation. I can't find the citation anymore though. Dangit! Steewi (talk) 02:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to move a business process geographically

Moved from Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) --Cybercobra (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My work is about monitoring the compliance of service contracts (i.e. supply of parts, freight forwarding, food catering, construction, etc). My office is being moved to another city, and I have been asked to explain how we intend to do our work from the new location. This should include ways to keep under control the additional costs that working remotely appears to involve.

My Unit has 3 individuals. While costs must be kept under control, there is one asset that we may request more of: human resources. We must keep other costs under control in planning (airfare, lodging, video conferences) but we can request more personnel, that is not a problem.

My work is usually done by way of meetings with stakeholders. The Contractor, a project manager from our business and a contract compliance observer, from my office, sit to discuss what the contract says, and the problems that are being encountered. Agreements for improvement are reached, and then my office monitors that this is done.

First thought is that we will travel often to the location where the contractor and the Project Manager work in order to meet them. This is fine for planned meetings, but some times crisis occur and immediate meetings are needed. The cost of traveling must be kept under control.

Then, video conference may be considered but the cost may be high, although I suppose still less than traveling (i.e. paying tickets and hotel costs etc)

A third but not very attractive option is to conduct meetings by phone. The Contractor and Project Manager sit at one location, and someone from my office calls in from the city were we relocate to.

I need ideas to do our work in a new way and would much appreciate any suggestions. Ideas must take into control that we may hire more contract observers, but we should keep travel and administrative costs under control.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.167.201.201 (talk) 20:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia, a free encyclopaedia (and this page is for discussing internal topics), not a management consultancy. You might like to try the Wikipedia:Reference desk instead. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 20:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just off the top of my head here, have you considered using Skype, or tools such as Google Calendar? --TammyMoet (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be specific, I think TammyMoet is recommending considering Skype videoconferencing, which is free. You just need a PC with a webcam on both sides of the 'call'. I understand that large companies often operate under weird and baffling budget constraints, like "go ahead and hire more people but GODDAMNIT NOT A DIME FOR HOTEL ROOMS!". You are not specific about whether the meetings take place in many different locations or primarily a single location. If hiring additional people is indeed possible, what about hiring 1 additional person at each site that has these meetings, and they all work from home and attend the meetings when they take place? Alice lives in St. Louis and only attends the St. Louis meetings; Bob lives in Philadelphia and only attends the Philadelphia meetings, etc. This way your group has face time in all the meetings without spending any money on plane fare. It sounds horribly inefficient to me, but it complies with your bizarre budget constraints. Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that this type of an audit function does require at least one person on site, to verify that the contractor actually did what was promised, instead of just lying about it. So, I agree with CT here, that you should hire people at the contractor location(s) to limit travel. Teleconferencing with them via Skype is also a logical way to communicate. It might also help us if you'd explain why you are moving in the first place. StuRat (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, video conferences are overrated. Regular voice conference calls are just as effective in most cases. StuRat's suggestion that you hire people at each location where you have contractors makes sense. The way your request is worded, it sounds as though your contractors are all in the location that you are leaving. (Otherwise you would have faced the same issues around travel expenses for remote contractors at that location, too.) So the logical thing is to train someone in your present location before you move—or perhaps better yet, find a volunteer who's already on staff and doesn't want to move—and then have that person work from home and/or your contractors' offices via phone conference. The other thing to do would be to set up a password-protected file-sharing website so that your remote staff can share large files without burdening your e-mail system and without the hassle of the FTP process. Marco polo (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just agreed with CT's suggestion. StuRat (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Only animals should wear fur"

I happened to see a protest where two nice-looking young women were protesting against the fur trade by standing in the centre of Helsinki for about fifteen minutes, painted to look like foxes, wearing little more than underpants and shoes. While I entirely agree with their ideas and feel disgust towards the fur trade myself, I can't help but think that if the fur trade would stop, so would the protests against it, and we wouldn't get to see things like this any more. Surely there's an obvious conflict of interest here? Am I being overly egoistical in thinking like this?

This whole question is not meant very seriously, but I feel it's interesting enough to mention anwyay. JIP | Talk 20:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That may fall into the category of "unintended consequences". Though I doubt it. If they sent grandmotherly types in neck-to-toe coverings, how much publicity do you think it would get? In any kind of political action, you need to draw the largest market possible. For example, when folks protest the fast food industry, they are far more likely to attack McDonald's than White Castle. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:47, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want naked women dressed in body paint, there are other places to find them. Eliminating the fur trade won't eliminate naked painted bodies, have no fear! --Tango (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeppir! Sports Illustrated, for starters. Google ["sports illustrated" "body paint"] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:06, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't find a link just now, but some years ago there were some PETA babes posing in bikinis made out of lettuce. That's when a lot of us were in our salad days. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Jayde Nicole and you can see the images here. Dismas|^(talk) 23:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. And the babe there with her is apparently Jo Garcia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As is right and proper, The Onion has its own unique perspective: Advocacy Group Decries PETA's Inhumane Treatment of Women. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Onion always peels away the layers of deceit to expose the bare facts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You could say this about anything. "If there were no abuses of human rights, Amnesty International would go bankrupt! Therefore, Amnesty doesn't really want abuses of human rights to end! It's all a big conspiracy". The fact is, I think the people that run PETA would be absolutely delighted if tomorrow the fur trade ended and everyone suddenly became a vegetarian, even if it meant the end for their organization. The people that work at these kinds of non-profits don't do it for the money (they would make more money doing pretty much anything else), they do it because they are passionate about what they do. Agree or disagree with them, lets not accuse them of being dishonest in their work. Belisarius (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And even if the fur industry went away, there would be other PETA issues. They are not single-issue. If the ended up in a situation where their organization lost its purpose (as sometimes happens), they'd probably either disperse into different organizations doing different things. The world will never be in a situation where everybody is happy all of the time, where there is nothing to complain about. Utopias do not exist. --Mr.98 (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original post contains two question marks but no sensible question. The sentence "Surely there's an obvious conflict of interest here?" is not a question, it's a statement. As for "Am I being overly egoistical in thinking like this?" the answer is No, just shallow. I would be surprised if one or more of the following were not taken from a dead creature: your shoes, your watchstrap or what you ate recently. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Organizations becoming outdated because their cause was solved/fixed/whatever has happened before. The March of Dimes was originally started to find a cure for polio. Mission accomplished. But they re-tasked and now just work on several pediatric afflictions. Dismas|^(talk) 23:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is a sizeable internet community of people who are interested in the potential fetish of dressing as animals if it helps. I'm (really) not into it, but they certainly exist. I don't think that PETA's demise would ruin their fun. Steewi (talk) 02:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an animal. Is it OK for me to wear fur? (Damn those fur-wearing vegetables!) SteveBaker (talk) 02:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PETA has obviously been taken over by people who hate PETA and have turned it into a joke. Very clever actually! Adam Bishop (talk) 04:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be surprised if one or more of the following were not taken from a dead creature: your shoes, your watchstrap or what you ate recently.

Yes, indeed, all three, but little or no more. I have some leather items, like my shoes and my watchstrap, which I wear because they're comfortable, not because they're the hottest thing in fashion or because they make me look sexy. I don't have any fur items. In regards to what I share with PETA's viewpoints, what I oppose is killing animals cruelly, not killing them in the first place. I read a PETA pamphlet about some of the things the fur industry does to animals, and what I felt disgust towards was the pain that they make the animals feel before they die. JIP | Talk 21:22, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, how would leather be any better then fur? (As I recline on my leather couch) Googlemeister (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's like protesting against medical treatment altogether because some medical treatments from some hospitals are bad and/or dangerous. Do you eat meat?--92.251.201.60 (talk) 01:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not believe everything they say in PETA pamphlets. They've been fined for false advertisement in the past, and caught exaggerating numerous times. (Not that I'm claiming that the fur trade is a happy business for the animals, of course, but you should treat their advertisement material no more seriously than you do The Pepsi Challenge or any other advertising material. )APL (talk)

I've often wondered about the motivation behind PETA's naked women protests. (Why aren't they ever near me, btw?) Essentially, in order to punish us for eating meat and/or wearing fur, they're going to show us naked ladies, and they're not going to stop showing us naked ladies until we change our ways?

Well played, PETA, well played. Do your worst.

More seriously, are the women exhibitionists who would enjoy being publicly naked, or nearly so, whether or not they had a cause? Or have PETA officials recruited attractive young ladies and convinced them that these protests are a good idea? The former is all in good fun, but the latter is pretty creepy, if you ask me. APL (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]