Miscellaneous desk
< July 27	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 29 >

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.

July 28

jim and mary mccartney article

I am writing to inquire whether Sir Paul's father was one of the witnesses in the case of R v Wallace, the famous Liverpool murder case from 1931; I had heard this many years ago, but neither the Wallace nor James McCartney articles mention this information. It is basically a sidelight to both stories, but interesting from a "who'da thunk it" standpoint. Has SPM ever referenced this?Kleegish (talk) 07:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of Wallace's chess league friends was called McCartney, whom Wallace beat on the fatal night. However unless Google Books is hiding it, he doesn't seem to have been called as a witness at the trial and none of the books about the case make a link with Jim McCartney father of Paul. It may just be a coincidence of a surname and a city. Also note that Jim McCartney was a working class man in the cotton trade and that in 1931 social class divisions would not usually have led him to socialise with the middle class insurance salesman William Herbert Wallace. Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I didn't know about his mate at the chess club; I was referring to having heard that when the Old Bill canvassed the tram stops between Wallace's home and Menlove Av, James McCartney verified that he had spoken to Wallace, who had asked him the quickest route to Menlove Av. Of course, this tended to corroborate Wallace's alibi, so of course the prosecution didn't call McCartney to give evidence; I didn't mean to imply that he had done. It was the fact that Wallace had appeared to ask several people for directions that raised greater suspicion of him than the coppers already had; they thought he was trying to be too conspicuously establishing the alibi. Of course, this implies that either Mrs Wallace was dead when he left, or Wallace had a confederate. The police went with the former because they couldn't turn up anything on the latter. Say-- do you think we can get UCOS on the case?Kleegish (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WBC and the Norway attacks

The Westboro Baptist Church surpassed my expectations with its reaction to the 2011 Norway attacks, claiming that the killings were justified because God was avenging an entirely unrelated event in the US Army: [1]. Are these people for real? Have they no shame? Has there ever been a tragedy so horrific that the WBC would express their condolence instead of celebrating it? 194.100.223.164 (talk) 12:32, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are for real. Their beliefs are on the extreme edges of Christianity, promoting God as jealous, vengeful and random above loving his creation (Disclaimer I am not a Christian) -- Q Chris (talk) 12:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no disagreement with this characterisation of their version of Christianity (to which I, too, do not adhere). In addition, however, some have put forward evidence and arguments to suggest that, aside from their religious beliefs, the family at the centre of the WBC are primarily engaging in a deliberate legal strategy, in which by being outrageously but legally provocative, they goad their targets into understandable but illegal retaliation, and then profit from sueing them. More specific details can doubtless be found via the usual search engines. 90.201.110.2 (talk) 13:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the WBC is a Christian group at all, then they are probably toward the extreme edge of fundamentalism, spewing hate over countries and world events. The Norway terror attacks themselves remind me of the Oklahoma City bombing, or the 2010 Austin plane crash. Extremism, violent or otherwise, is present in all religious and ideological belief systems. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 20:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The WBC's and the Glen Becks of the world serve the purpose of making most of the rest of us feel reasonable and sane in our viewpoints. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pricing antique car, in pieces.

Hello, I'm trying to roughly asses the value of a car that I've inherited. It is a 1939 Chevrolet coupe, consisting at minimum of full body, full frame, four wheels, all in good condition (maybe good end of 'fair'). I may have engine, seats, etc, but not sure until I can investigate in person. Can anyone help me find a baseline price for the body, frame and wheels? Estimates for a complete car in pieces are also welcome. I've done some searching and only found people selling small parts of this car, not all/most of it in pieces. Thanks in advance, SemanticMantis (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With something that unique, you will almost certainly need a professional appraisal from an appraiser specialising in that market. You have something that has almost no value to the vast majority of people, but probably a great deal of value to a few. You're essentially paying the appraiser to find "the few."12.186.80.1 (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can see a variety of '39 Chevys on eBay. Complete running examples run from $10k-35k. I'd say a restoration project like the one you describe would be worth about $2-3k, depending the condition of the parts. --Daniel 17:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this is the kind of educated guess I was hoping for. Further thoughts still appreciated! SemanticMantis (talk) 18:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

saltires in Japan

Watching Kurosawa's Drunken Angel I noticed, not for the first time, that one panel of a paper door was marked with a saltire. Why? —Tamfang (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some shōji do not have catches on both sides of the frame. These shoji have catches, but these don't. One side of the door is entirely covered by paper and you cannot use the mutins to slide the door from the covered side. See this. I think this is what you watched in the film. It's a catch to slide the door from the covered side. This might be more understandable, but beware of the music. The catch uses two sheets of paper, so it's more durable. The covered side paper should be cut X and paste the four triangles to the paper on the other side. Oda Mari (talk) 09:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Government Spending

Does anyone in the Government keep tract of the value, success, worth and accomplishments all of the official “Entitlement” programs the Government fosters and supports? Does anyone actually ever summarize these programs with published results that people can view and understand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 001Gberg (talk • contribs) 18:38, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the highest paid (individual’s) hourly salary amount that is paid in the US? Could the Fed Trade Commission enter the arena to dictate certain salaries are excessive in light of money & value, compared to hourly worth of services provided? Compensation and benefits packages over 300K seem excessive. Could such salaries ever be outlawed here in the US? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 001Gberg (talk • contribs) 18:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can't respond usefully to a barrage of questions like this. Which one is the most important to you? Looie496 (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How much is the cost to the American public for the unresolved massive US Immigration Problem? How much is the cost of Public Assistance and Public Welfare costing the American Public? How much will this cost increase should the economy continue to stagger along without sufficient growth? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 001Gberg (talk • contribs) 18:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote above, there is no way to give a useful response to a barrage of questions, especially when they are so broad. I wonder, though, if you are really even interested in an answer, or are just soapboxing. Looie496 (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these questions call for opinion and/or speculation, and are therefore inappropriate here. —Tamfang (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States should answer one question. United States welfare state may also be useful. As to whether the US could impose a maximum salary cap, if a minimum wage is deemed constitutional, maybe a maximum would be too, but as far as I know this has never been implemented or seriously discussed, so there is unlikely to be a clear answer. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As an occasional visitor to American shores (but obviously no expert on the economy), one cannot help observing the massive number of people of probably Mexican background in the worst paid service jobs. Who would do those jobs if the financially desperate immigrants (legal or illegal) weren't there? HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in this website (http://www.deathandtaxesposter.com/). In terms of some of your questions it will show the vast difference in budgets made available between the various departments - in particular - and trying not to too political - how different the budget is for public assistance/welfare compared to departments such as Defense. ny156uk (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and obviously there are huge amounts of research into the effectiveness of different welfare programmes, but as others have noted it's a huge area so you'd need to be more specific. As a start of 10,000 here's a google scholar search http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=effectiveness+of+US+welfare+system&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart ny156uk (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Connecting TV, VCR, and STB with SCART

Here in the UK I have a TV, a VCR, and a set top box. The TV has two SCART sockets and one coaxial socket. The VCR has two SCART sockets and two coaxial sockets. The set top box has one SCART socket and two coaxial sockets.

Does anyone have any idea of the best way to connect them? I would like to use the VCR to play or record. Bear in mind that analogue is being switched off soon. 92.24.133.177 (talk) 18:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the VCR to be able to record digital TV, it needs to be connected to the set top box. That means your only option is to connect the set top box to connect the coaxial cable from your aerial to the set top box, then connect the set top box to the VCR by SCART and then the VCR to the TV by SCART. --Tango (talk) 21:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. This is a common set-up and it works fine for me. Unfortunately scart connectors have design flaws so it's worth ensuring you get good quality connectors and that they are perfectly aligned horizontally (I have a deck of cards supporting the cable) and pushed firmly home.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 07:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This connection diagram (from Sony) shows a typical recommended connection layout similar to your situation (just ignore the DVD). Those connections will let you record and watch different things so long as one is on analogue and the other is the output from the set top box. After analogue is switched off, you will only be able to record what you are watching from the set top box. VCR playback will be through the SCART channel (often called AV1) or through the analogue signal as output by the VCR (often channel 39). Astronaut (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, despite your link giving every combination you can think of, all the STBs have two SCART sockets, while mine only has one. I have to keep changing the SCART plug when I want to watch TV or the VCR. I've tried using a two-to-one socket, but the VCR intereferes with the STB signal even when I'm not playing a tape. 92.29.124.70 (talk) 12:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you connect aerial to STB to VCR to TV in one long chain, as I described, you should be able to record and watch TV at the same time (although, you'll have to record and watch the same channel). The VCR will pass the signal through to the TV. --Tango (talk) 18:05, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've written down what the various SCART sockets say: for the STB its "SCART out", for the VCR its "Euro AV1" and "Euro AV2", for the TV "AV SCART" and "DVD SCART". The TV has a built in DVD.

I'm not convinced that the VCR can take SCART as input. That may be the break in the chain. However I will try tinkering with it again. Update: I have done everything I can think of to connect them in a chain as suggested, including retuning the VCR, but I cannot get them to work. The VCR instructions included a couple of pages on using a STB, but I still couldnt get them to work. The SCART signal does not seem to pass through the VCR. Perhaps it will work if I use coaxial cables between the TV and VCR instead of SCART. I wonder if the STB encodes the digital outpuit for its coaxial output socket? 92.29.124.70 (talk) 19:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Declaration of war

Why was Austria-Hungary's declaration of war against Serbia written in French rather than German or Hungarian? --134.10.113.198 (talk) 19:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

French was the language of international diplomacy in Europe at that time. thx1138 (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Declaration of war is the ultimate act of non-diplomacy, but the forms of these things are still often considered important. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zhou Enlai said that "All diplomacy is a continuation of war by other means." Saturday Evening Post (March 27, 1954) (A play upon the famous maxim of Clausewitz: "War is the continuation of politics by other means.") From Wikiquote. Rmhermen (talk) 02:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Along with that, it's often safer to translate such things into others' languages, to avoid ambiguity. There are a number of cases where ambiguity about translating into another's language has led to diplomatic issues — notably the interpretation of Japan's mokusatsu. Translating into a "neutral" language can resolve some of these sorts of questions. --Mr.98 (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

French language#Current situation mentions its use in diplomacy briefly, but I'm not sure if there's a better article somewhere. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An equally brief mention at Lingua Franca. Alansplodge (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zhou Enlai was correct, and JackofOz is wrong--surprise attack is the ultimate act of non-diplomacy. μηδείς (talk) 22:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 09:01, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible Jesus wasn't real?

Is it possible Jesus wasn't real? I mean, they never found his body or his grave. And I don;t bewlive everything the bible says. 20:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's possible. thx1138 (talk) 20:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, we're only certain about the existence of a small smattering of people from that time period. There don't appear to be any written documents from his lifetime endorsing his existence. Early bibles as we know them didn't really appear for about 3 centuries. But then, what are you going to do with a body that supposedly just vanished into thin air? i kan reed (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be picky, none of the biblical accounts have Jesus vanishing into thin air. Luke is the only gospel that's very specific about it, and has him rising bodily to heaven. Not that that changes the evidentiary point that the accounts are not subject to falsification by failing to find his body, no matter how thoroughly you look. (On the other hand they could be falsified, at least in their most literal meaning, by finding his body.) --Trovatore (talk) 21:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article about this issue, Historical Jesus. Looie496 (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Jesus myth theory. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, that Historical Jesus article is full of really really bad sources. The evidence is not nearly as credible as that article would have you believe. There's a lot of things stated as historical facts there that are more like "likely interpretations assuming Jesus was real". i kan reed (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to summarize, the overwhelming consensus opinion (you'll see at those articles) is that he did exist. Staecker (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, they haven't found the body or grave of Jimmy Hoffa or Amelia Earhart either. That in itself is not a valid reason to doubt someone's existence. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'd say it's a valid reason to doubt. It's relevant, at least. It's just not terribly compelling in and of itself. — Lomn 21:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of a body is valid reason to doubt they're dead, it's not valid reason to doubt they never existed at all. There's abundant evidence of the at least onetime existence of both Earhart and Hoffa. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 21:17, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, given that one of the fundamental claims of Christianity is that Jesus is not dead, and his body left his tomb permanently on Easter Sunday, this is a pretty important distinction! 86.164.73.187 (talk) 23:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably also link to Church of the Holy Sepulchre, for completeness. 86.164.73.187 (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is important. While the lack of his body does not in itself disprove his existence, equally it can never be used to prove any parts of "he lived, died, was resurrected and ascended to heaven". It's essentially irrelevant, because there are millions of people who were known to exist but whose bodies are no longer locatable; the presence of a body is not what we use to verify their life and works. Finding Jesus's bones now would more than upset 2,000 years of Christian teaching, but failure to find them neither proves anything about him nor disproves anything about him. It's all down to faith, as the churches have always said. On that score, at least, they're dead right. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Tacitus on Christ for independant evidence written less than a century after the Crucifixion. This recent thread which discusses the same issue, has some other thoughts. Alansplodge (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no credible evidence his existence was a hoax. He used language whose meaning we have recovered from such things as the Dead Sea Scrolls which no second century faker would have known to insert in the Gospels as proof of authenticity. The gospels suggest Jesus' Jewish humanity far too strongly to support some Greco-Roman conspiracy theory. That a hoaxer would record such things as Eli, Eli, lama sabaqtani and "I thirst" as Jesus' last words is beyond crediting. μηδείς (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation is a bit misguided. We're talking about religion, which is based on faith not proof. Discussing whether any aspect of any religion is possible is more or less pointless. I seem to recall that it is in the Bible somewhere that God said "proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." To the adherents of any particular religion, what their holy book or other philosophy says is the truth. To everyone else it isn't. You can believe that an undead savior can remove the evil force inside you if you just believe in him, or you can believe that a blue guy with a couple extra limbs is the leader of a whole group of gods, or you can even believe they were both messengers from the same God. This thread is essentially asking if Christianity is the one true religion or not. There is no answer to that question. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm pretty sure that quote about faith is from one of the Hitchhiker's books, about the argument that the Babelfish refutes the existence of God. (Man went on to prove black is white, and got himself killed in the next zebra crossing.) --Trovatore (talk) 23:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that Jesus really existed because, were somebody to invent the Son of God, they would have invented a more powerful figure. That is, one who could have performed more impressive miracles and couldn't be crucified. Most of the "miracles" attributed to Jesus are things that would be relatively easy to fake, at the time. Had these been invented centuries later, after all the witnesses were dead, why not attribute miracles to him which couldn't possible be faked, like moving an entire city ? StuRat (talk) 00:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat along those lines, Christopher Hitchens has written that the strongest argument in support the historical existence of the Nazarene is the unbelievability of the nativity story. Had the character been created from whole cloth then he could have been from Bethlehem, whereas a nonexistent census had to be invented to match the birth of a Nazareth born charismatic rabbi with the prophecies. -- 203.82.93.27 (talk) 13:02, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hitchens discuss it midway thought this video. -- 203.82.93.27 (talk) 13:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the best way to answer this question is to ask back which parts of The Bible the OP does put faith in. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 02:44, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm*

No serious scholar has supported the theory that Jesus didn't exist in over 50 years.AerobicFox (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about, for example, George Albert Wells. Or would you claim that anyone who supports the theory is by definition not a serious scholar? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.201.110.81 (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's little question that Jesus existed. That part doesn't require faith, other than faith in what any ancient writings have to say about anything factual. It's the "supernatural" stuff that requires faith, most notably the Resurrection. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry, I guess the short answer is yes, it is pretty darn likely that a guy named Jesus existed and that he had followers during his life who believed he was the son of God. Believing in what it says in the Bible is a whole other question that each of us must answer for themselves, there is no way the Wikipedia refdesk can help you with issues of spirituality. However you may find this [2] an interesting read. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:14, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to leverage a disability to get my student loans canceled?

Having Asperger's/Schizotypal Personality Disorder, it would be harder for me to land a job as recruiters are trained to pick-up all the telltale signs of mental disorders.

This way, I could be left high-and-dry on student loans. However, could I possibly use my disability to make a successful case of canceling my loans? --70.179.165.67 (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that your IP geolocates to the United States. Federal student loans can be discharged for "total and permanent disability"[3] but it would be extremely unlikely that you would qualify. It means you would not be able to find gainful employment in any field whatsoever. As I'm sure you know, many people with Asperger's can be successful professionally, and the disability standard seems to mean that you wouldn't even be able to work at McDonald's (and I'm sure low-end recruiters are not trained to pick up on these things). I don't know anything about Schizotypal Personality Disorder, so I can't really comment about that, but it sounds like you could do some sort of work. Considering it sounds like you have managed through college, I think it would be impossible to make the case that you're totally unemployable. (As a side note, I think you have more faith in HR folks' abilities than is probably warranted.) I imagine that any private loans you may have do not even have this very narrow exemption, but it would depend on the terms of the loan agreement. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is also worth noting that student loans are among the most difficult loans to discharge in the US. They are the only loan category that cannot be discharged by bankruptcy, for example. I find it really fairly impossible to believe that someone who graduated college could have been considered to be completely unemployable from a legal standpoint. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well for a pre-existing condition. I imagine there are some possibilities for injuries or other medical conditions causing total and permanent disability after graduation although it would probably have to be rather bad (i.e. even Asperger's/Schizotypal Personality Disorder arising after graduation is unlikely to be sufficient) Nil Einne (talk) 02:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even death doesn't necessarily guarantee you'll be rid of a student loan; I don't remember the exact details, but I've heard of people's estates paying off loans. My contract basically says I'd have to be in a permanent coma before they'd even consider discharging my loan. My only consolation is that, if many depictions of heaven, purgatory, and hell are correct, usurers get sent to the 8th level of hell. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 prohibits discrimination by disability in employment in many situations, and it includes mental as well as physical conditions. So if you can't get a job you could try suing companies and get a cash windfall that way. --Colapeninsula (talk) 08:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the same thing at all, but there was an interesting article on "student loan insurance" in the NY Times a few days ago, which pointed out that mental conditions are usually not covered under them (which is different than a lot of other insurance, and potentially discriminatory).

I'm sure there are plenty of workshops, online resources and books to help people gain employment and/or deal with specific mental conditions, especially when it is not particularly debilitating. Try some online practice Psychometric Tests. I'm sure Temple Grandin would have some books, particularly for Aspies. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 20:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do collections for the U.S. Dept. of Justice on federally guaranteed student loans. I was surprised to see a question in my specialty area just glaring at me. I would suggest you try to pay these off. They are generally non-dischargeable, they last forever, and it is not likely you would be successful upon a discharge exemption claim, at least based on what you have stated, though I can't discount that your disability could be much more severe than it appears.

There is no statute of limitations. The 1991 amendments to the Higher Education Act of 1965 (Higher Education Technical Amendments of 1991, Pub. L. No. 102-026, § 3, 105 Stat. 123, 124 (codified at 20 USCS §1091a) eliminated the statute of limitations as to federally insured student loans, retroactively abrogated prior applicable statute of limitations, and even served to revive expired actions. See generally Lockhart v. United States, 546 U.S. 142 (2005);
As to dischargeability, 11 USCS § 523(a)(8) provides that student-loan debts guaranteed by a governmental unit are not included in a federal bankruptcy court's general discharge order unless excepting the debt from the order would impose an "undue hardship" on the debtor. Despite the hardship carve out, very few cases in front of the Bankruptcy Court have ever successfully invoked this exception for dischargeability effect; and
As to disability, 20 U.S.C. § 1087dd(c)(1)(F) allows for discharge of a loan where the student borrower "becomes permanently and totally disabled, as determined in accordance with regulations of the Secretary" which is a standard I don't think you can meet with aspergers. In any event, the administrative procedures for seeking a discharge of a federal student loan on the basis of permanent disability are outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations, at 34 C.F.R. § 674.61(b), which section in turn refers you to § 674.51 for the definition of "permanently and totally disabled", which provides:

The condition of an individual who--

(1) Is unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment that--

(i) Can be expected to result in death;

(ii) Has lasted for a continuous period of not less than 60 months; or

(iii) Can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 60 months; or

(2) Has been determined by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to be unemployable due to a service-connected disability.--108.27.102.61 (talk) 22:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delay, delay, and negotiate. Once hyperinflation hits, the debt will be meaningless. μηδείς (talk) 22:59, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]