Miscellaneous desk
< January 3	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 5 >

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.

January 4

place in connecticut

I'm going to connecticut in 8 days, and am told to go to some multy purpose building, 3 floors tall and about the size of a mall called Pod View Place. Does anyone here know where i might find such a building? I was also told a description of the place: there is a busy dot matrix printer in the lobby on the 2nd floor, and a bank machine with a coin machine and a vending machine next to it. It has a few tables and a small balcony overlooking the 1st floor, and has a vary nice elevator. The 1st floor is a large hallway and a few offices, and in the basement is a small place where you can buy food, then take it up to the 2nd floor lobby to eat it, and there is also a boaling alley and a shuffleboard table on the 3rd floor, with an emty space with a balcony overlooking the 2nd floor. Does anyone know of such a place in connecticut if it exists? Remember, i was told it is called "Pod view Place", don't know why, what i gave you was all that i was told about it. Oh, and another thing, the said printer is the only one they told me was in the building, and there's one bank machine (see above). Please don't quote me on this stuff, i'm just asking if such a place exists, and where in connecticut? N.I.M. (talk) (redacted) 04:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google turns up absolutely nothing on any place named "pod view place", so perhaps you have the name slightly wrong. Could you reconfirm the spelling? Also, where in Connecticut? It may be a small state, but there are several major cities there, so narrowing down where such a building was would help. --Jayron32 04:26, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They don't know, only that it was in southern connecticut, i just contacted them and they said they haven't been there for 4 months. Even if it's not the name, is there a place similar to what i described? — Preceding unsigned comment added by N.I.M. (talk • contribs) 04:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you described sounds like any common business building, I would posit there are likely hundreds of them spread around Connecticut. Aside from Hartford, most of Connecticut's population lies in the Southeastern corner, so "Southern Connecticut" doesn't really narrow it down much. I tried some google variations on the name, and found that there's only TWO places in Connecticut that contain the phrase "view place", one is Harbour View Place in Stratford and the other is View Place in Guilford, and I looked at them in Google Street View; they are both residential complexes and don't match at ALL what you described. I would ask again about the name and address, and get them to spell it, just to be sure. --Jayron32 04:35, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Maybe found it. Could it be Pond View Corporate Center in Farmington? Farmington isn't really in Southern Connecticut, it's a suburb of Hartford near Bristol, but from the pictures I see at this page it looks like it might be three stories. --Jayron32 04:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're pritty close, the 3 floors is right. They admit that they don't remember the name, they thought it was pod view place because they remember hearing the name down there. But she says that the description is pritty much acurate, and remember, it is 3 storries tall, she says it might be in hartford, i don't believe what she says about a town near hartford called Poddleville, so i would assume she is refering to hartford. Remember, nearly the size of mall, 3 floors and basement, and is a multi-purpose building. It was in a city so i believe Hartford might be it. Is there something similar to the building i mention? and if anyone's been to connecticut and saw a building with those features or similar to what i described (both inside and out), then let me know. I'd really like to hang out there when i go to Connecticut. Remember a few features i mention, just to recap:

basement has a minni restoraunt and boaling alley and i'm sure other stuff
first floor is mainly hallways and offices, with a big open area.
2nd floor is another open lobby with a balcony, a busy dot matrix printer in the far corner of the lobby, by the elevators is a bank machine, bill coin exchanger and a drink vending machine, as well as a few tables and chairs. *3rd floor has a shuffleboard table, as well as an open area with a balcony.

Even if a building that you know of near or in connecticut is vary similar to the building that i described, that will be good enough. remember, that's just what my friend remembers about when she was in connecticut, and i have permission to give her name, Kerri. N.I.M. (talk) (redacted) 04:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, looking at the interior shots at the webpage I linked above, it roughly matches your description; it has a two-story open lobby with a second floor balcony. I have no idea from the pictures provided if there is indeed a dot-matrix printer on the second floor anywhere. The complex appears to have two roughly identical buildings, I have no idea either about the layout or occupants of the building. But its the closest match to your description I can find using Google. --Jayron32 05:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, hopefully there's a bank machine there, i'll need some money for the restoraunt in the basement. if you have anymore ideas on the said building, just let me know, i'm gone in 8 days for a 4 day trip, as well as my plans turn out right. N.I.M. (talk) (redacted) 05:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kerri remembers more about the building: Just off the lobby on the 2nd floor is an arkade with a few pinball machines. Supposing that's why they have that bill to coin exchange machine. There is a bingo room down in the basement, assuming that older people go an play bingo down there. There's a small fountain on the 1st floor that creates a watterfall, and where people drop pennies into it. The 3rd floor has a few offices, a lounge, and next to the shuffleboard room is a room with a pool table, and there is more offices after that, which is why Kerri and I describe it as a multi-purpose building. Yes the 2nd floor has a few offices, one right in the lobby, which i guess is why that dot matrix printer is in the lobby. Maybe the Pond View Corporate Center is what i'm looking for, possibly. If Kerri remembers more, i'll let you guys know to help narrow down this building. Has anyone on the ref desk been to Pond View Corporate Center ? or have they been to a building with features (inside features) that i mention? Thanks for helping by the way, and sorry if i appear to be annoying in any way. N.I.M. (talk) (redacted) 05:17, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would someone tell you to go to this place? It looks like it is just some random office building. 68.170.179.65 (talk) 07:51, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They said it is a great place to hang out, and i can see why, judging by the description. N.I.M. (talk) (redacted) 09:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who hear lives in or has recently been to connecticut, maybe they have an idea. Just tried Kerri adain, she can't remember anymore. N.I.M. (talk) (redacted) 00:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean we are going to get a 4-day respite from NIM?? Adam Bishop (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, i'm just looking for a place i heard about from Kerri, and by the way, after trying to google descriptions such as the ones i gave, i found nothing, which is annoying. N.I.M. (talk) (redacted) 10:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So lets get this straight... you've agreed to meet Kerri in a place you have never been to and where she has only the haziest recollections of what it looks like, and she can't remember the address or even the city - just "somewhere in southern Connecticut"? Can I suggest you meet somewhere easier to find, the train station, the airport, city hall? Astronaut (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

She says that it's just a cool place to hang out, i'm not saying it exists, which was my original question, does such a place exist? Maybe Kerri like Jayron says, is refering to the pondview building in Hartford. That's all I know, and I'm telling her what he finds out. I was asking where i could hang out and just enjoy myself when i go, (plans changed, now in march), and she said that this place is awesome, and that i'd enjoy it. I'm not saying i believe her, which is why i'm checking here. N.I.M. (talk) (redacted) 00:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC) She also says that her mom, my aunt (not the one who reads credits for me, a different one), found that place with Kerri when they were in Connecticut. N.I.M. (talk) (redacted) 00:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like a GREAT place to hang out... Mmm... shuffleboard on third floor? If you're hanging out with Kerri, you must trust her to a degree, so why then the need to check if the building she suggests hanging out in, actually exists? 87.114.82.131 (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is the possibility that she could be remembering it wrong, like she and i said, don't quote me on that, i don't remember exactly. The description is the best she could remember, and i am only repeating what she said. She also says that if she isn't remembering correctly, when we go (remember it changed to march), we're going to look around for such a place, we'll be gone for 8 days. Thanks for trying though all of you and god bless. N.I.M. (talk) (redacted) 11:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worse to be a 9/11 Truther or an Obama Birther?

which people have the weakest arguments? which people are more likely to do HARM TO AMERICA?--Voluptuous Nature (talk) 08:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

12 of one, a dozen of the other. Is "harming America" a positive good or something to be avoided? And how do you harm a continent? Take a dig at the plate boundary? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:43, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To a non-American, looking into the causes of a major national/international incident like 9/11 seems a reasonable thing to do, even if it can lead to preposterous conclusions based on no plausible evidence. Questioning the origins of your own elected president, despite the overwhelming and conclusive evidence, just comes across as primitive and utterly reprehensible racism. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with that. I suspect that the USA is the only country in the world with such a weird law about their elected leader having to be born in the country, especially when it claims to have welcomed so many immigrants. (Can anyone confirm that?) Obama is clearly not a blatant non-American, like someone from, for example, Australia. (Now, that WOULD be a mistake!) Those playing that card really do look like racists. As for 911, I doubt if there was any massive internal conspiracy. It's very hard to manage such things. But it sure looks like there was a fair bit of incompetence. Worth digging into that as much as you can. HiLo48 (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's not about having to be born in the country per se. It's about having to be born an American citizen, which derives from having an American citizen parent, no matter where in the world one is born. (Or so the theory goes; it awaits a court to rule on this interpretation of the law, and they're not going to do that until a live case crops up.) But even that is asking too much, as it instantly presidentially disenfranchises all the people born citizens of other countries who come to the US, get naturalised, and strive to get to the top in the land of the free as they're promised they can. That promise holds true in every field - except for the biggest one of all. That's reserved for people who through an accident of birth were born American citizens, and who had no more say about it than those born citizens of anywhere else. -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 18:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So first let me say that

I see no reason to doubt that Obama was born in Hawaii.
Even if he had been born in Kenya to an American mother, my understanding is that he would still be eligible, though as Jack says the point has never been tested.
I am in favor of repealing the requirement that the president be a native-born citizen; whatever justification it might have had at the time is long gone.

Just the same, to impute racist motives to people, you need strong proof. I don't see that proof here. If Obama had been born in Kenya, then even if he were nevertheless eligible on the basis of his mother's citizenship, it would mean that he had lied about it. That would be a legitimate gripe against him, if it were true. Therefore people who think they have evidence of it are entitled to present it, and should not be assumed to be objecting merely to Obama's phenotype, unless that motivation is independently demonstrated. --Trovatore (talk) 21:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence of where he was born is now pretty strong. Birthers still exist. Are they racist or stupid? (Suggest another option if there is one.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of other possibilities. For example they might strongly dislike Obama's policies, and be clinging to any reason that might suffice to get rid of him. Wishful thinking maybe, not the same thing as being stupid. --Trovatore (talk) 01:01, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for arguments: I would say Birthers. It is basically a bald attempt to say "this guy is illegitimate" in a way that is tied to his origins, which looks a lot like racism at the very least. To be unsatisfied with the account of the 9/11 attacks given is, well, a lot more understandable by comparison, given the complexity of the whole thing. The 9/11 truther arguments are at least a matter of interpretation in some cases; the Birthers are basically just convinced of the existence of things that there is no proof for, and they are convinced entirely on their basis of not wanting to believe that a President who was rather solidly elected is actually who he says he is.

As for harm to America: I think it's kind of a toss-up, but I lean toward Birthers. The Birthers fundamentally believe there is a Pretender in the Oval Office, part of a larger cosmology of crazy that makes white America under siege by hostile outside forces. The larger cosmology is pretty dangerous, in my opinion; it's fuel for all sorts of real difficulties, not to mention ridiculous politics. But of course, believing that your own government would happily sacrifice a few thousand people in order to start a war or get oil or whatever the 9/11ers believe is pretty crazy too. But on the whole, ten years after, I think that movement has faded, so it's hard to consider it dangerous in the present tense. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"the Birthers are basically just convinced of the existence of things that there is no proof for, and they are convinced entirely on their basis of not wanting to believe that a President who was rather solidly elected is actually who he says he is."

I suspect there is a fair amount of overlap between birthers and IDers - change a couple of words in the sentence above and you have a perfect description for your regular ID follower... TomorrowTime (talk) 16:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I disagree. I think ID is pretty silly, too, but it's fundamentally rooted in something more rich than the Birther movement, which is really just rooted in this nutty "white America is under attack!" ideology. The Birther thing is entirely intellectually shallow — there's absolutely no "there" there. ID doesn't have to be, even if it is wrong — and arguing against ID has actually produced some interesting results, unlike the Birthers (because there is nothing there other than "these people are nuts"). --Mr.98 (talk) 17:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question (and end this forum-like thread), I would suggest that the original poster read the articles on the specific subjects, notably Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories and 9/11 conspiracy theories, and to judge which arguments hold water (if any) for themselves. As to "doing harm to America," that's rather subjective and not something I believe either article cited above can answer. --McDoob AU 93 19:15, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "doing harm to America" bit was what I was partly trying to address when I spoke of the "natural born citizen" thing being unique to the USA. It means that anything done around that issue relates directly and exclusively to America, and hence America's image. An event like 9/11 would create conspiracy theories wherever it happened.

It depends what you mean by "unique". In the 2000 presidential election in the Ivory Coast, Alassane Ouattara (whom the international community recognizes as the winner of last year's election) was constitutionally disqualified from running because, with a mother from Burkina Faso (the former Upper Volta), he wasn't a "true Ivoirien". —— Shakescene (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for that. Happy to withdraw the unique. I did ask in my first post above if anyone knew if it was just the USA that felt so strongly about those evil foreigners. Now I know. HiLo48 (talk) 00:44, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no definitive answer to this, of course, but I think the 9/11 conspiracy theorists "do more harm to America." It can't help America if the conspiracy theorists convince foreigners that the U.S. government is evil enough to commit a massive act of terrorism against its own citizens. And it's no good for the fight against al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups if people think they aren't responsible for 9/11. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's reasonable enough, apart from the fact that the US administration used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq, a place where al-Qaeda was unlikely to be active because of Saddam's nasty regime. Had they just gone after real terrorists, rather than creating more, there would have been greater credibility in the move. Mind you, I still don't go along with the 9//11 Truthers. They seem to be your regular nutcases. HiLo48 (talk) 07:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've revised my opinion a bit. In the short term, the Birther thing strikes me as more pernicious, because it becomes a means of discrediting anything the current President proposes, no matter how good or bad or what have you. That's political kryptonite. In the longer term, though, I think the Birther thing will be just another stupid political fad with little consequence (like most scurrilous political accusations without merit) and will probably not become part of the long-term legacy of this period. On the other hand, if the 9/11 truth conspiracy theories gain any traction, they could easily become part of a longer, generation-shaping mindset comparable to the Kennedy assassination theories (which really became widespread in the 1970s, not the 1960s, and became part of a generalize lack of trust in the government). In other words, I think the Birther thing has a nasty short-term effect on political discourse in the US, but the 9/11 theories will probably have a nastier long-term effect. All of my response, of course, presumes that the Birthers and the 9/11 theorists are wrong. (If you suspect they are correct, then what's bad for me is good for you, etc.) --Mr.98 (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

general secretaries of communist party of india marxist

can you list the names of all general secretaries of cpi-m —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.130.238 (talk) 08:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Puchalapalli Sundaraiah, E. M. S. Namboodiripad, Harkishan Singh Surjeet and Prakash Karat. We have articles on all of them. Warofdreams talk 09:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.cpimkerala.org/eng/conferences-6.php?n=1 has a list of the congresses of the party, and who has been general secretary and politburo members of the party. The list also includes CPI congresses prior to the split. --Soman (talk) 21:53, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

who are some famous people from the war-torn region of Darfur?

are there any famos celebrities from this region? I would also like to know if the names of any war criminals who did all the raping and the killing have been released and if there are wikipedia articles about these war criminals?--Voluptuous Nature (talk) 09:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't appear to be anybody internationally very well known from this region, but see Category:People from North Darfur, Category:People from South Darfur and Category:People from West Darfur for people we have article on. Warofdreams talk 09:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While not strictly from Darfur, the former NBA star and recently deceased Manute Bol was Sudanese, and born very near to Darfur; he was personally touched by the conflict and worked as a humanitarian to help those hurt by the war. --Jayron32 05:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph

Missing: Photo of Ronald Reagan shaking John Wayne Gacy's hand at a fundraiser. Is that available? It did not appear in the article. This image does exist. (H8dogma (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]

If the photo exists (I assume you're right, but have no idea), it's likely not licensed in such a way that Wikipedia can make proper use of it. We can make limited use of copyrighted materials, but a case would have to be made that the material is necessary for having a decent article - which is probably unlikely. Related to that is the point that the picture may have limited encyclopedic value - their meeting each other briefly was not a major feature of either's life story. Compare that with the Elvis-Nixon picture which is somewhat famous in its own right, is free of copyright, and was a reasonably notable meeting. Matt Deres (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who is that guy in the photo? I mean the shifty-looking one. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To C3: what guy and what photo are you talking about? To H8dogma: it wasn't Ronald Reagan who shook Gacy's hand, it was First Lady Rosalynn Carter. The photo of that meeting appears in the article John Wayne Gacy. --Viennese Waltz 15:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked about the alleged missing photo. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:18, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think Viennese Waltz is right -- Gacy met Mrs. Carter, not Mr. Reagan. Are you sure you're not thinking of John Wayne the actor? He and Reagan were good friends. --M @r ē ino 21:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Themed days such as National No Smoking Day - who registers them?

I have tried on many occasions to search for the answer to this question, but have never satisfactorily phrased the question to receive an answer. Is there a general body whose job it is to register specific themed days and check they don't double-up with one another?

There are the obvious ones like National No Smoking Day but how was it possible to register National Talk Like a Pirate day which was reported on the BBC Radio 4 Today programme last year and have it recognised nationally?

Many thanks,

M Ewing UK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.186.235.123 (talk) 23:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no registration process, merely a need to get the press to bite. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To make it official you can get the US Congress (or other government bodies in other nations) to vote for it. That's one of the few things they can do that won't hurt anything, and maybe debating whether one week should be rutabaga week or scallion week might keep them from doing something worse to us. :-) StuRat (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is some smart thinking! HiLo48 (talk) 03:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you can get enough people to call it "National Talk Like a Pirate day", then it is Talk Like a Pirate day. Actually, I suspect that Tuesday got its name for the same reason... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but to get them to declare such a day, you would need a strong ARGGGGGGument. :-) StuRat (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or as Winnie-the-Pooh might say..."Twosday". Buster Seven Talk 05:54, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which should be the day after Onesday, not before, but that's what we're stuck with. :) -- Jack of Oz [your turn] 10:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IIRW every day would be International No Smoking Day. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suits me fine, that. Having to go outside the house to smoke is bad enough. I'd hate to have to go abroad to do it. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 03:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

International Talk Like a Pirate Day discusses how they created that. --ColinFine (talk) 19:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]