Miscellaneous desk
< November 1	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 3 >

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.

November 2

airline canada Saudi Arabia and Arab gulf nations

Which airline(s) should I take when I visit Riyadh, Saudi Arabia from Pearson International Airport? Then, which airline(s) should I take when I go to Manama, Bahrain from Riyadh? Which airline(s) should I take when I go to Kuwait, Kuwait from Manama? Which airline(s) should I take when I go to Abu Dhabi from Kuwait? Which airline(s) should I take when I go to Doha from Abu Dhabi? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.34.178 (talk) 00:52, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can check any number of travel websites to help you make those plans, or consult with a local travel agent. The options all depend on when you are going, what you are willing to pay and any other number of conditions, including the level of comfort you require when flying. Mingmingla (talk) 01:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No airline flies direct from Toronto to Riyadh, so you will have to change planes. Etihad Airways offers direct service to Abu Dhabi, with connecting flights to Riyadh and every other city you plan to visit, though no direct flights serving routes that don't begin or end in Abu Dhabi. Other airlines serving Toronto that also connect to Riyadh with one change of plane (not including airlines requiring a long trans-Pacific flight) are Air France, British Airways, Emirates, Ethiopian Airlines, Lufthansa, and Turkish Airlines. As for your shorter flights in the Gulf region, if you want to fly nonstop, your only option is typically to use one of the national carriers serving either your starting point or destination, such as Saudia, Gulf Air, Kuwait Airways, or Qatar Airways. Marco polo (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Quary for airbaltic,u.k

Today itself I got an Visa as well as confirmation letter statting that I have been selected for an Air baltic,bathroad ,u.k,I would like to enquire about wheather its genuine or scam. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.125.202.69 (talk) 08:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot tell you whether this is or is not a scam. However, if you have not applied for a visa through Air Baltic, you should be very suspicious of this. If you have applied for a visa through them, consider contacting the company (see [1]). Do not reply to the letter, and especially do not provide any personal information, until you have checked that it is legitimate. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 09:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of query turns up on Yahoo! Answers a lot. Let us be absolutely plain: if you did not yourself apply for a British visa in person at the British embassy/consulate in your home country, were not photographed and fingerprinted there, and did not pay all the necessary fees yourself, then your so-called "visa" is a scam. British visas can NOT under any circumstances be issued by any third party such as a potential employer or travel agency. See this page from the UK Border Agency, which is the definitive source of information about visas and immigration to the UK. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Immigration agents can do most of the legwork on your behalf and you definitely don't need to, for example, hand in the form yourself or pay the fees yourself. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the US, Visa is also a credit card company. Are they in the UK as well ? If this is what the OP means, then it's no surprise to me if they get a letter saying they are pre-qualified for a credit card; I get those all the time. It is a bit of a scam, in that "pre-qualified" really doesn't meaning anything, you still have to go through the same application process as everyone else. However, they really do want to sell you their credit card, so in that sense, at least, it's legit. StuRat (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have Visa here; they notoriously sponsored the London Olympics this year so heavily that it was forbidden to use (well, technically, to accept) Mastercard anywhere on site. But do Air Baltic really issue either credit cards or travel visas? AlexTiefling (talk) 00:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of big companies issue Visa cards, or rather, have an arrangement with some lender to put their logo on a card. If the "issuer" is an airline, typically you get Frequent Flier credit for most purchases on such a card. —Tamfang (talk) 04:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Visa Europe is the equivalent organisation to Visa Inc. that operates in the UK - they are not a conventional company. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:22, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Almost can't believe that's a redlink given how many people across Europe are holding cards bearing their logo in their wallets... --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 16:23, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it is the same letter as at http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100816224423AAEFrgU then it looks like some sort of job offer scam, just ignore it. MilborneOne (talk) 16:35, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alitalia and the number 18

While using Alitalia over the summer I noticed the plane's seats had no row 18, and there was no Gate 18 at whichever Milan airport we transferred through (memory fails me). Is there a special reason, for I can see no disaster etc on their wiki pages referring to a reason to cancel the use of the number? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theediscerning (talk • contribs) 10:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of original research at http://www.seatplans.com/airlines/Alitalia/seatplans appears to show Row 18 in use but not 13 or 17 (or 1 on some types). MilborneOne (talk) 12:10, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With quick googling I find three airports in Milan. As far as I can see, Linate does have a gate 18, and Malpensa 1 and Malpensa 2 don't because they don't have that many gates (M1: two terminals, gates A1-A13 and B1-B13; M2: A1-A16). Are there any other airports to check? 88.112.36.91 (talk) 17:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Forgiveness

According to this page, it looks like forgiveness "can lead you down the path of physical, emotional and spiritual well-being." OK. I understand the physical and emotional parts, but what in the world is "spiritual"? Does that mean "religious"? I am not a religious person, but I do know what it feels like to be wronged, and no matter how much the perpetrator wrongs another person, perhaps the best strategy is to embrace forgiveness and unconditional love; it's not the same thing as forgetting the wrongdoings or blaming the wrongdoer or forcing the wrongdoer to confess his/her wrongdoing. Practically, I think the wrongdoer would recognize his/her wrongdoing on his/her own accord, understand, and change. And with change may come physical and emotional health and social cooperation. At least, that's what forgiveness means in my opinion. Perhaps, MayoClinic is referring to "spirituality" in a generic sense - one that means the state of the soul or spirit of "inner human nature" to cooperate well with others. 140.254.121.33 (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would define spirituality as respect for the value and values of one's self and others. Ayn Rand was an atheist who was very concerned with spirituality. Here's a quote on her view of the sacred:

I will ask you to project the look on a child’s face when he grasps the answer to some problem he has been striving to understand. It is a radiant look of joy, of liberation, almost of triumph, which is unself-conscious, yet self-assertive, and its radiance seems to spread in two directions: outward, as an illumination of the world—inward, as the first spark of what is to become the fire of an earned pride. If you have seen this look, or experienced it, you know that if there is such a concept as “sacred”—meaning: the best, the highest possible to man—this look is the sacred, the not-to-be-betrayed, the not-to-be-sacrificed for anything or anyone.

Here is a rather good essay by Rick Bateman comparing Buddhism and Ayn Rand. Nietzsche, Spinoza, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius are also essentially atheistic (in the Judaeo-Christian sense) writers who are big on spirituality. You can also sense a profound sense of spirituality in some science writers, especially Stephen Jay Gould and the incomparable Carl Sagan. With them it is a combination of a sense of awe for the Universe and man's comprehension of and place in it. The communication of values one gets from great art is also highly spiritual, dealing with man's experience as a being that has a spirit. This applies even to good pop culture, like the first Star Wars movie, or the way you feel after watching this. The way you feel after forgiveness is spiritually unburdened, which is the essence of the message in that video. μηδείς (talk) 18:41, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I agree with the OP. It's not my definition of spirituality, but it'll do. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spirituality is a kind of sense, not a material sense like seeing or smelling, but an intuitive sense of one's inner connection to other beings and the universe. By giving up anger and the sense of having been wronged, forgiveness repairs one's connection to other beings and the universe. Forgiveness allows for a sense of contentment and peace that is arguably deeper than mere emotional happiness. Marco polo (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether or not those mentioned authors above are going to do any good for an irreligious atheist. Although it's perfectly legitimate to be irreligious for an atheist, it's not legitimate for an atheist to be unspiritual in the sense that one completely devalues human life and concern for others. The problem is, whether or not the atheist perpetrator will recognize his/her wrongdoing and repent. 140.254.121.33 (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be conflating irreligious atheist and sociopath. If you had read Epictetus or Spinoza you wouldn't make such a comment. Here's a link to Epictetus' main work, of which here is the first chapter:

The Enchiridion, By Epictetus, Written 135 A.C.E., Translated by Elizabeth Carter

1. Some things are in our control and others not. Things in our control are opinion, pursuit, desire, aversion, and, in a word, whatever are our own actions. Things not in our control are body, property, reputation, command, and, in one word, whatever are not our own actions.

The things in our control are by nature free, unrestrained, unhindered; but those not in our control are weak, slavish, restrained, belonging to others. Remember, then, that if you suppose that things which are slavish by nature are also free, and that what belongs to others is your own, then you will be hindered. You will lament, you will be disturbed, and you will find fault both with gods and men. But if you suppose that only to be your own which is your own, and what belongs to others such as it really is, then no one will ever compel you or restrain you. Further, you will find fault with no one or accuse no one. You will do nothing against your will. No one will hurt you, you will have no enemies, and you not be harmed.

Aiming therefore at such great things, remember that you must not allow yourself to be carried, even with a slight tendency, towards the attainment of lesser things. Instead, you must entirely quit some things and for the present postpone the rest. But if you would both have these great things, along with power and riches, then you will not gain even the latter, because you aim at the former too: but you will absolutely fail of the former, by which alone happiness and freedom are achieved.

Work, therefore to be able to say to every harsh appearance, "You are but an appearance, and not absolutely the thing you appear to be." And then examine it by those rules which you have, and first, and chiefly, by this: whether it concerns the things which are in our own control, or those which are not; and, if it concerns anything not in our control, be prepared to say that it is nothing to you.

μηδείς (talk) 20:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be looking at people in terms of groups rather than as individuals. I referred "an irreligious atheist" who "devalues human life". In other words, I was referring to those people like a sociopath. You want to help them, but somehow you can't. With a Christian, at least you have something to base your message on. With an irreligious atheist, you have to resort to something else they may trust, so you can provide treatment. In any case, it sounds like I have an irreligious atheistic mother who just happens to be sociopathic. That's whom I was referring to. I wasn't referring to all irreligious atheists. Sorry for the misunderstanding. 140.254.121.33 (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, I was just misunderstanding what you meant to communicate. The philosophers I mentioned are among the most individualist ever. μηδείς (talk) 21:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The OP asks what in the world is "spiritual"? Does that mean "religious"? That's been a matter of continuous debate in the secular humanist magazine Free Inquiry. One view is that spiritual means, along the lines of Carl Sagan's view, in awe of the majesty of the universe, in which case an atheist can indeed be spiritual even though irreligious. The other view, held by the magazine's editor Tom Flynn, is that "spiritual" can only mean enthralled with the supernatural, which is inconsistent with atheism. In any event, concepts that you mention like forgiveness, unconditional love, etc. are not confined to religion. Duoduoduo (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give an example of enthrallment with the supernatural? Given we never perceive it, I am confused as to how to be enthralled with it. μηδείς (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue we can perceive the supernatural,not directly but by it's manifestations.Hotclaws (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that this definition of "supernatural" is simply a name you call something you can't understand and hence ascribe a "supernatural" cause to it. May as well just say "God did it", because functionally the two are equally useful. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:15, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

i.e., God of the gaps —Tamfang (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]