Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 October 8

Humanities Science Mathematics Computing/IT Language Miscellaneous 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 at one of the pages linked to above.

Phone Q

On my cell phone, there is an option for a 2 second hard pause and a 5 second soft...what do these mean? Thanks, ChowderInopa 00:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

A pause tells your phone to wait when dialling a stored number, rather than sending off all of the numbers in one continuous stream. It's useful for dialling phone extensions, or for navigating phone trees if there's something you usually do frequently. For instance, you can store a friend's work number as 123-4567p#890 (where the p is a 5 second soft pause) and you'll dial their main switchboard (123-4567), wait for the automated system to pick up and say "Hello, welcome to XYZ Corp. If you know the extension of the party you wish to call, press pound now.", then press pound and dial your friend's extension (890). Normally, a hard pause requires you to press a button to continue, whereas a soft pause just waits the number of seconds indicated and then goes ahead. --ByeByeBaby 04:40, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

"Thank you for calling the Last National Bank. Warning, our menu system has just been changed..."

"Beep !"

"You have selected to donate all your assets held with the bank to St. Periwinkle's Home for Wayward Hedgehogs. That transfer is now complete. Thank you. Have a nice day." :-) StuRat 22:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Your Characterization of the Oxford Philosopher J.L. Austin's work

I believe that your characterizations of Austin's How To Do Things With Words is very misleading. All of the terms which Austin introduced are germane only because Austin projected extant speech situations and all possible (especially educational) speech situations in How To Do Things With Words. If you formulated your posting in consideration of Professor Searle's publications you err. Parliaments, Congressional functions, concerted and cooperative endeavors (note the well-organized intelligence work on the Normandy Invasion.. he was fluent in nine languages ...if I remember correctly too)

I went cover to cover on Collegiate dictionaries and lived with the O.E.D itself when I did my graduate paper on How To Do Things With Words.

Austin wasn't throwing the baby out with the bathwater when he featured the much vaunted Illocutionary Act.

I do not wish to wedge my comprehension of How To Do Things With Words here. Suffice it to say Austin craced the crib of the reality of speech in the world. Searle shows no appreciation of the universality of How To Do Things With Words.

I look forward to any questions or probes on this from your quite valuable and much honored work at Wikipedia. Oh I did get copyright usage clearance on How To Do Things With Words.. (many years ago when doing the graduate research thesis work on this.

Robert J. Myers, (street address removed to prevent mail bombs) [email address removed to stop spamming] thank you for the time here.

It is not quite clear what "your characterizations" refers to and in what way they are deemed misleading. There are references to How To Do Things With Words in our articles Carlo Penco, Illocutionary act, J. L. Austin, Jacques Derrida, Logical argument, Meaning (linguistics), Performative, Performativity, Philosophy of language, Pragmatics, and Speech act. Is it claimed somewhere that Austin introduced germane terms (germane to what?) for the wrong reasons, or that he performed ejection on infants in state of ablution? Could you be more specific?  --Lambiam^Talk 05:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

There is only one article on Wikipedia that includes the word "germane" and a reference to J L Austin: Analytic Philosophy#Ordinary language philosophy. Note the cleanup tag.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  05:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Mr Myers, you are addressing your comments to Wikipedians at large (or rather, those who look at the Reference Desk), most of whom have probably never looked at J. L. Austin, much less contributed to it. Please improve the article yourself, or if you think discussion is required, a posting to the article's talk page Talk:J. L. Austin will engage the people who are most interested in the topic. --ColinFine 17:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

No age limit for drinking alcohol in Australia

Is it true that there is NO AGE LIMIT to consuming alcohol in Australia.

I was told that there are alcohol laws in Australia but they only talk about buying/selling alcohol and road laws. Anyone of any age can consume any amount of alcohol provided they are not doing it on public land.

Is it true? If so I'm flying down to down under for a very alcoholic holiday.

No it is not. The age limit for legal drinking in Austalia is 18. See Legal drinking age. You might, however, want to book a trip to Armenia, Azerbaijan, China, Nigeria, Portugal, Soviet Georgia, Thailand or Vietnam. See here--thunderboltz^(Deepu) 07:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Soviet Georgia? You're assuming he has a time machine? DirkvdM 07:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't he? Too bad then. In present day Georgia, you can drink, but not buy alcohol legally. --thunderboltz^(Deepu) 08:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Na. Na. Na. You are wrong. Minors can legally drink alcohol in Australia. To paraphase:

Laws Relating to Minors

There are several provisions in the Liquor Licensing Act which protect minors, primarily in Part 7. The Licensing Court can take disciplinary action against a licensee who breaches the Act and can fine or reprimand the licensee, change the licence conditions, suspend or revoke the licence.

Under section 107 of the Act, a licensee is guilty of an offence if they employ a minor to sell, supply, or to serve liquor on the premises, unless the minor is a child of the licensee or responsible person and is aged 16 years or more, who is resident on the premises, otherwise licensing authority approval is required.

Where can a minor legally drink alcohol?*

1. At their own home or someone else's - regardless of whether an adult legal guardian or spouse is present.

2. In public places that are neither licensed premises, regulated premises nor dry areas (e.g. a family barbecue in a public area such as a park) provided they are in the company of an adult legal guardian or spouse.

Where can a minor NOT legally drink alcohol?*

1. In regulated premises including licensed premises (e.g. a restaurant, hotel, premises with a limited licence or reception centre) - a minor may be present at these venues (before midnight, or before 9.00 p.m. at premises with an entertainment venue licence), but may not buy or drink alcohol.

2. In a public place unless in the company of an adult legal guardian or spouse.

In summary, minors:

• can consume alcohol provided it is not in a public place or regulated premises
• can consume alcohol in a public place under the supervision of an adult legal guardian or spouse provided that it is not a dry area, regulated premises or in or near to prescribed entertainment such as a dance
• can generally be on licensed premises before midnight (before 9.00 p.m. in an entertainment venue) but cannot obtain or consume alcohol
• are not allowed in areas of licensed premises declared out of bounds to minors, or in gaming areas
• are not allowed on licensed premises between the hours of midnight and 5.00 a.m. unless in a designated dining area, a bedroom or an area approved for minors

Examples:

1. If at the clubrooms, a football coach gives the team some beers to celebrate a win, and some of the team are under 18, that is an offence (supplying liquor to a minor in regulated premises, section 110 & 114 of the Act). However, it would not be illegal for the coach to invite the team to his home for drinks.

2. At a wedding reception held in a licensed restaurant, a hotel, a wedding reception centre or public hall, it is illegal if a minor drinks a toast containing alcohol to the bride and groom (selling/supplying alcohol to minors, sections 110 & 114 of the Act).

URL: http://www.dassa.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=124

URL: http://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/main1.cfm?categoryid=3&topicid=252&infopageid=517

URL: http://www.health.vic.gov.au/drugs/alcohol/youth/law.htm

If you go through the expense of flying to Australia, don't waste your time there being drunk all the time. Like the people who visit Amsterdam, are stoned all the time and can't remember a thing of the city or its people. Being drunk or stoned can be nice, but visiting another coutry and broadening your horizons will in ht eend be much more rewarding. DirkvdM 07:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If you are American kids, you may think that "Cool! Aussie kids can legally drink alcohol in the comfort of their own home. They must be living in paradise." Please think again. The reality is quite different.

If you drink alcohol in your home without your parent's permission, you will get a whack from your dad for stealing his alcohol. If you insists on your legal right to drink, he will tell you to do it outside his property.

If you are outside your home, you have two problems.

1. If you drink on public land, the police will arrest you.

2. Eh? You do not have any alcohol. And it is illegal for anyone to sell alcohol to minors.

So you go to your friend's house right? Opps, same problem. Your friend's parents will NOT let your drink their alcohol. So you sit there in your friend's house while your friend is drinking alcohol but you can't. Your friend's parent will not give you alcohol for fear of "Giving alcohol to a minor". They are happy to provide their own children with alcohol, just not to you. Ohanian 10:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The situation is much the same in the UK. We have an age limit for drinking alcohol - of five years [[1]]. In practice I was lucky to get more than a sip of sherry at Christmas and then only when I was about 12 years old! -- Chris Q 12:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is it called mizuhiki (water pulling)? history? process?

I know that mizuhiki is the Japanese art of knot tying using several strands of wire-like paper that has been covered with tiny ribbons of metallic foil & that it is used widely for decorating gifts. What I don't understand is why it is called literally "water pulling". Does this have to do with the process by which the paper strands are made? Is it describing the process of tying the knots using the material or is it just arbitrary? The last possibility seems unlikely in light of words like "origami" (literally 'folding paper') & "kirigami" (literally 'cutting paper'). I would also like to know more about the history of mizuhiki & the process by which the strands are made. Please help me answer these questions. Thanks.

jaWiki isn't very helpful on this. It basically says that mizuhiki originated as a type of gift in the days of Ononoimoko, but not where the actual name comes from. Try asking the jaWiki users on chatsubo.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  17:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Metallic blue ribbon may look like water. StuRat 22:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't think they had that in the 7th century CE!  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  09:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

women having sex

when women have sex, I assume their breasts become enlarged. What I want to know is that whether their nipples also enlarge? I also would like to know whether breasts harden while in erection or remain soft. Since I am 23 years and no experience in touching a women, I am interested in asking this. Thankyou

You will be disappointed to learn that there's no significant change in breast size regardless of level of excitement. In the nipples, you may expect a change, generally a hardening and constriction rather than enlargement, analagous to "gooseflesh" in the rest of the skin - the same change that occurs in response to a cold environment. Men's nipples do pretty much the same thing, so it shouldn't be that far outside your realm of experience. - Nunh-huh 09:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you were thinking of the pupil... ;) The clitoris gets somewhat of an erection though... 惑乱 分からん 11:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

for some reason, our sexual arousal article has "increase in breast size". that article may be in need of some fact-checking. dab (ᛏ) 14:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a pity that personal research is banned... ;) —Daniel (‽) 14:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You'd need to have performed enough field research for sufficient statistical data. Could you honestly claim that? ;) 惑乱 分からん 15:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

As a 14-year-old male, I'd have to say... no. ;) —Daniel (‽) 17:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

In studies they use heat vision to see that blood flow increases to the chest and pelvis during arousal (as well as the lips, face and neck). I would assume the increase in blood flow would cause a small increase in size. Though the change would probably be less that what is normally experienced during the course of a menstrual cycle and definitely much less that the changes that the breasts go through during pregnancy. Nowimnthing 18:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually the size of a womens breasts do increase when they aroused but the degree in which they grow differs per individual case and how far they are aroused. in some cases they may swell up by approx. 25%. oh and I could claim that wakuran. as a 17-year old male with a lot of holidays :) though actual measuring didn't really occur to me at those times . I get my intel from a book i once read about breasts.(NO NOT THE PLAYBOY BUT AN ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC ONE! *mumbles* damn those boilogy teachers*mumbles*) it is even possible for women to climax through only touching the breasts in the right way. but every women has their own thrills.Graendal 08:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

What scientific book would that be? Can you link to any other sources? Boilogy sounds like fun too, but I don't see what that has to do with boobs.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  09:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, Biology hereabouts also has the subject of the human body, as for the book it was simply called breasts and in it there were lots of close-ups, explanations etc. etc. the book was in dutch though. and through personal experience I can confirm the growth and climax of the breasts. Graendal 15:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Nazi Germany military achievements

I used to be quite impressed with Germany conquering all of Europe (and then even having the 'spares' to fight in Africa). Later I learned that they didn't quite conquer all of Europe. And last week I did some more reading and I now get the impression they didn't achieve much at all. Here's how I understand it now:

• Vichy (southern France), Italy, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia and Finland were allies (of sorts - not entirely fair on the Finns).
• Turkey, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Ireland and Sweden were neutral
• Austria welcomed the German armies
• Czechia was prettty much handed to the Germans by the international community (not too sure about that one)
• Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands and Belgium thought they could remain neutral, didn't mobilise and were therefore easy conquests (also because they're small countries)
• The invasion of the USSR was a complete disaster
• The UK was never even invaded

Which leaves Northern France, which had an outdated defence system, Poland and Yugoslavia, which didn't have much of an army (and Poland was simultaneously attacked by the USSR) and Greece. I am no longer impressed. Actually, it looks rather pathetic for a country that acted like it could conquer half the world. Am I missing something? DirkvdM 11:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the Blitzkrieg tactics were quite shocking at that time. It seems Hitler more and more got into a state of hubris, but after the failure of the USSR invasion, and US joining the allies, things turned bad for the Nazis rather quickly... 惑乱 分からん 11:55, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That only makes it worse. They ignored the 'gentlemanlike' custom of 'properly' announcing when you attack someone, which gave them an important edge. And still they didn't conquer much - just four countries, none of which put up much of a fight. DirkvdM 14:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

DirkVDM, I thought of this too when discussing the movie "Der Untergang". In fact, you could even add some more elements to that, weakening their accomplishments :

- they conquered a lot while they were still respecting an agreement with the USSR. Note that in a sense they conquered some parts of Europe "together" with the USSR. There are pictures of Soviet and German soldiers happily chatting. - they had a pretty big population! - they had a huge ally in the East : Japan (and Japan sort of had Thailand as an ally as well). While Japan is quite far away, Japan didn't keep lots of USA soldiers busy.~ Evilbu 14:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

About the German and USSR soldiers happily chatting, I read a short story by a USSR soldier that ever now and then they would stop fighting to have a 'smoking break', sitting donw close to each other. Maybe that is what you saw on those photographs. I'm pretty sure the two armies never fought side by side. They just happened to both attack Poland. DirkvdM 07:36, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, although they perhaps didn't conquer much, at least they had huge parts of Europe under their command... 惑乱 分からん 15:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Dirk, you simply decided to ignore the fact that the German army attacked with fewer troops and fewer tanks two of the (then) Superpowers (the large British empire and France and all its colonies) and crushed them in northern France (and they were prepared and ready for the Germans). You also simply added Vichy as an ally of the Axis, but in fact it was simply a puppet regime under German rule like the puppet-governments in Denmark, Belgium, and the Netherlands, etc. (besides handing all the French Jews over to the Germans they did almost nothing). The invasion of the Soviet Union ended in a complete disaster, but the initial achievements were considerable (more than a 1 million Russian POW's at the end of the 1st year, and the German armies were mere 50 (even closer?) KMs from Moskou). You have forgotten that almost all of the German European allies were mostly useless (except the Finns, but these were very few) and that the Japanese were simply too far away to help the Germans, and vice-versa.

Let me put the whole issue in another perspective: How incompetent were the Allies, that it took them 6 full years to crush the Axis powers (and they had to ally themselves with Stalin to pull it off) ?

They could decode almost all the German orders sent through the Enigma machine (read:Cryptanalysis of the Enigma, and in the case of the Japanase it was something quite simlar (read JN-25. They controlled almost all the Sea trade (despite the best efforts of the German U-boots), with all the resulting war material, and supplies lines (like Petrol and Gas, but also Coal and Iron) and were from the start heavily supported by the USA (despite all initial claims of "neutrality"). They had simply a better technology than the Germans (better Radar, Sonar, planes, the first computers, and they were even making the A-bomb). The "big" German population was around 60 millions (I am not very sure of this figure and am ignorant of the Japanese numbers) while their opponents had how many? 400 million (adding the USA and the USSR), perhaps even more? You are also ignoring that Hitler in order to help the incompetent Mussolini and his secondrate Italian troops from another trashing (the 1st being North Africa), this time from the Greeks, had to quickly invade Yugoslavia and Greece and the Germans did it in only two months despite all British and Greek opposition. Put all the Allied countries (counting the population, and please notice the war production figures) next to your list and then ask something smart. Notice that everything seems very predictable, simple, and easy to an amateur, but solely in hindsight. Flamarande 17:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, reading about Vichy started me thinking. It seems they had a government that was of the same mind as the nazis. This is where the word collaboration came from. Of course, this is why the Germans didn't need to push through in France. The French themselves were doing their job for them. And about the UK, like I said, they never conquered that. They didn't even try. And they won some battles in the USSR, but lost all that in the same year, with the campaign never conquering any of its major goals (Leningrad, Stalingrad and Moscow), so that wasn't much of a military success. Quite the opposite. The goal of war is to conquer and hold, so you can reap the harvest of your investment. That their allies weren't much of a help is not relevant to what I meant. They never conquered those countries. The only serious opponents they conquered were Northern France and, to a lesser extent, Greece (who put up a bit of a fight because they had help from the Brits).

You do seem to have a good point concerning the achievements of the Allies. But as I understand it, the principal goal of the military conquests was economic, through the Arbeitseinsatz. This assured that they could manufacture loads of weapons on the spot (in stead of importing them from across the Atlantic). And they were pretty good at inventing new technology too, such as the V1 and 2 and the nuclear bomb, although they never managed to finish it. (The USSR used Germans to develop it further, just like the US used a German to develop their space rockets.)

The Germans also invented the Blitzkrieg, thus totally changing the way wars were fought. Part of the lack of success of the allies lay in the supply lines becoming too long, a problem the Germans also suffered from. The distance from Stalingrad (the furthest the Germans came) to Berlin is about 2500 km. The USSR army covered that distance in less than a year. That is roughly 10 km per day on average. Pretty fast for an advancing army. The Germans had done it in stages, but did the last push in less time. Come to think if it, the achievements in terms of speed were pretty impressive on both sides, considering they had to invent this type of warfare as they went. The western Allies were doing a worse job of it, though.

But my point is that the Germans didn't do all that much impressive stuff militarily, espcially considering they had all these advantages. Such as not even needign to conquer many countries because they had no desire to fight them and even partly fought at their side. It seems the lack of opposition to the Germans was caused at least partly because nazism and similar ideologies were pretty popular at the time, probably largely as a reaction to the rise of socialism and especially communism. That is also why the pope never really condemned the Germans. He didn't like Hitler, but he hated the commies even more and Hitler was helping him in that respect. Another case of one extreme leading to the opposite extreme. DirkvdM 19:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

That's what happens when you have an idiot at the helm, somebody who thinks he's right all the time, considers dissent to be traitorous, and won't admit he can make mistakes. Wait a sec... Clarityfiend 19:29, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me you're not serious, Clarity, please. Right or left, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, if you actually believe there's shred of reality in that comparison, well, you've basically just destroyed all that remains of your reputation. Loomis 21:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

He didn't make any comparison at all. If, despite that, you see a similarity to someone else, then therre must be some truth in it. :) DirkvdM 07:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The first part seems to me to be a fairly accurate description of Bush. And yes, I do believe there is a "shred of reality" there. The two have the serious character flaws I listed in common. I forgot to mention his willingness to distort the truth for his own ends (dozens of Nobel laureates have condemned the Bush administration's politicization of science; the WMD's; Saddam's "connection" to al-Quaida). Show me where I'm wrong.

Although, come to think of it, he's so incompetent, he's more like Mussolini than Hitler. Clarityfiend 00:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I know many (most!) people here who aren't fans of Bush, and I respect their views. At the very worst, from what I've heard here so far, Bush may be an incompetent moron. Or worse, that he's a greedy oilman who ran for president only to enrich his family (and friends') fortune. I find these accusations ridiculous, but I'm offended by none of them.

But none of them would EVER compare Bush to Hitler, as you have. Bush=Hitler has got to be the most disgusting comment I've ever heard here on Wikipedia, EVER. I've lost family to Hitler. Bush, even if you consider him an idiot (which is your prerogative), is no Hitler. Your comment is disgusting. Please don't backtrack and compare him "more to Mussolini". Even Bush=Mussolini is a disgusting remark. It's ok not to like Bush, but remember, it wasn't ok not to like Hitler or Mussolini! Your comments are disgusting to myself and the memory of the family that I lost.

Have you lost family to Bush's gas chambers? Have any of your family been cooked in any of Bush's ovens? Be a man and apologize. Loomis 04:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I was not trying to equate Bush with Hitler. That would be stupid. If I gave you that impression, certainly I apologize. I was merely pointing out that they share certain personality flaws. If I had noted that Charlie Chaplin had the same moustache, would that mean that I think the comedian and the dictator were equally bad? Please do not put words in my mouth. Clarityfiend 05:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"I was not trying to equate Bush with Hitler. That would be stupid. If I gave you that impression, certainly I apologize". Apology accepted. I'm not one to hold grudges. :-) Loomis 09:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Loomis, you're not suggesting no-one lost their families to Bush? In Iraq alone over 100 000 dead. Surely, they had family? DirkvdM 07:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Given: if A then B; if B then C

Correct conclusion: if A then C

Faulty conclusion: if C then A

Bush's conclusion: if C then D Clarityfiend 17:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Every premature death is a tragedy of equal proportion. Yet not every premature death is the result of the same degree of inhumanity. As I've said below, yes, innocent civilians are dying in Iraq due to the war (yet mostly by anti-US insurgents). Would the same number of innocent civilians be killed without the war? Hard to say, but probably less. I believe that during Saddam's reign at least a good half a million or more were killed (my figures may be wrong, I'm not sure if that takes into account the Iranians, the Kuwaitis and/or the Kurds). In any case, as I said below with regards to Clinton in Serbia as well, Bush never wished these folks to die. As moronic as you believe he is, do you actually believe that he's actually evil enough to wish the death of innocent Iraqis? Hitler not only wished the Jews of Europe to be killed, but he METICULOUSLY PLANNED FOR IT. Loomis 14:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well all those countries that are allies, they're not goin to invade them just to prove a point to you are they, plus they reached stalingrad on the USSR campaign, given the huge expanse of Russia, that's a loooong way. I mean the area they invaded was about the size of Sweden, and the casualties they inflicted were horrendous, the article says somewhere around 2million people were killed in stalingrad, and the axis only suffered 750,000 people killed or wounded. So i think it is fair to say a lot of those casualties were Russian. And since you pointed out a lot of these invasion were submissive or walkthroughs, what are the Germans meant to do? Demand they fight in order for the Germans to be looked back on as having invaded Europe. The countries military might is not only reflected in the countries it managed to forcefully invade, but in any which the country wields any power due to military might (i.e. its allies were allies because they thought Germany would win, because of its huge armies, and the countries that didn't resist, in order to minimise casualties, due to the inevitable loss, thos are all victories because of the countries military might. ) Philc _T^E_C^I 20:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Dirk, read Machiavelli. The object is to avoid combat, whenever possible, to preserve your fighting force, by conquering with treaties and intimidation. Any country which tried to fight all the other countries in the world would be guaranteed to fail, so a more subtle approach to world conquest is needed. One exception was when only the US had atomic bombs. It could have conquered the world, had it been sufficiently evil, in that short period. StuRat 22:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hold on, I'm not saying they should have waged more war (that would be silly). All I mean is that I got the impression the military achievement wasn't as great as I thought it was and was now wondering if I got that right. DirkvdM 07:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

About the ability of the US to conquer the world with nuclear bombs. The two it dropped on Japan was pretty much it and no facilities to make many more fast. Mass production would have been out of the question. DirkvdM 07:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The US had 4 years until the Soviets got the bomb (by espionage from the US). This was more than enough time to mass produce enough bombs to defeat them, then move on to the rest of the world, if this had been the US goal. StuRat 00:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, consider that the economy of Germany was in ruins, and it suffered from massive reparation payments and hyperinflation prior to the Nazi era. They also had restrictions on the size of their military placed on them by the WW1 victors. Given these limitations, it's amazing they could conquer anything. StuRat 22:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course, starting at the very latest, on August 2nd, 1934, the date Hitler became "Fuhrer", until September 1, 1939, the day WWII broke out, Hitler had just over 5 years to violate the Treaty of Versailles. Thanks to the gullibility and blindness of guys like MacDonald, Baldwin and Chamberlain, and despite the rantings of some pudgy, drunk back-bencher MP from Kent, some war-mongering, WWI has-been fool, Hitler managed to make good use of those 5 years to rebuild the German military to the point where it was just about able to conquer Europe, and in doing so, take the lives of 50 million. Loomis 23:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Part of my point is that they didn't conquer all of Europe. And, as StuRat pointed out, they couldn't have. DirkvdM 07:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Some of the above contributors might actually benefit from doing a spot of reading on the subject, instead of speculating in such an endless and uninformed fashion. In 1939 Germany went to war with Poland and France, whose combined military force was at least twice the size of her own army. If the French had gone on the offensive Hitler could conceivably have found himself in serious trouble, having only five or six divisions in the west to face almost one hundred in the French army, with the addition later in the year of ten British divisions. The Poles-who incidentally were not attacked simultaneously by the Soviet Union-put up a strong fight, but were overwhelmed by the Nazi Blitzkrieg, most of their air force being destroyed on the ground in the initial days. The Norwegian campaign was a considerable gamble on the German side, because of the overwhelming Allied naval superiority, but one that nontheless paid off. The greatest gamble of all was the attack in the west, because the French army was still considered to be the best of its day and because-unlike the Poles-they could more than match the Germans in both armour and air power. The problem was the French were locked into a defensive mentality, and failed to anticipate the audacity of the German battle plan, which allowed them to slice across the north of the country in an advance to the sea. The French armour was also used in penny packages, rather than concentrated in the German fashion. The speed of the German advance, and the success in overwhelming all opposition, was an astonishing contrast to the campaign of 1914. France was forced to agree to an early armistice, while badly mauled British forces were forced off the continent. Incidentally, the Germans did not just conquer northern France but were well on the way to overwhelming the whole country by the time the armistice was signed. The conquest of Yugoslavia and Greece were also rapid and overwhelming, so much so that even Stalin was badly unsettled. But the greatest successes of the Wermacht came in the early months of the war against Russia. In terms of numbers alone the Soviets were superior in every military department, but by the end of September 1941 the Germans had won several huge enveloping battles that no other nation on earth could have survived. Those who are interested may care to examine the Battle of Kiev, in which the Germans took over 600,000 prisoners alone. The problem for Hitler was that, unlike his other opponents, Russia had both the space to absorb the impact of the Blitzkrieg and, more important, the reserves to make good its terrible losses. Even so, by the close of 1941, Germany and its allies controlled virtually all of continental Europe; quite an achievment for a power that in 1933 had only a 100000 man army, no aircraft and no tanks.

To conclude on a different point, I do not quite understand the intention of some of the last contributor's remarks, obviously directed at Winston Churchill. I assume some irony was intended?White Guard 01:18, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

You assume correctly. I'm obviously a GREAT fan of Sir Winnie, the "old fool". I'd only hope more would learn from his "foolishness" today. I'm sure many regard me as a "fool" for my beliefs, but I'll stick to'em. What interests me about you, WHITE guard, is your unabashed pride concerning the military achievements of Nazi Germany. Curious. Loomis 01:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification: I share your folly. To rush to my defence, I take no pride whatsoever in German military achievments. I do take some pride-if that's the right word-in achieving historical accuracy, and some of the remarks above are hopelessly ill-informed. And please do not try to read the wrong message into my nom de guerre. I admire the work of Mikhail Bulgakov. Beyond that I will not go. White Guard 01:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough! Don't bother rushing to your defence. My inference was likely offensive enough! Just watch my posts. I tend to be a bit of a hot-head. But when I'm wrong, I'm wrong. And I admit that my inference was quite wrong here. I apologize for that.

But you've got me interested. You say that you share my folly. I'm just curious as to what exactly you mean by that. All the best. Loomis 03:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I really do admire Winston Churchill-the old fool. White Guard 04:36, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, White Guard. About France, I didn't know the Germans faced such superior forces there. I suppose their succes indeed resulted largely from the unanounced (!) Blitzkrieg and other innovations in warfare (did you mean that they used more bombs in stead of bullets?). So it was more cunning than brute force (or rather the combination). But the invasion of the USSR wasn't much of a military success. Like I said, the goal of an invasion is to keep what you gain, and they didn't do that, so ultimaltely it was a failure (and an obvious and therefore stupid one, so they weren't so clever there, but I believe that was specifically Hitler's doing).

So I have to adapt my assumptions a bit. France was stronger than I thought and only became a partial ally when they were losing (although I already said that that was one of the bigger achievements). And Norway wasn't as easy either because of the international forces there (much like with Greece). And Germany wasn't as powerful as one might think based on its size. But other than that what I said still stands, or doesn't it? I mean, are my assumptions about the various countries correct? DirkvdM 08:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Blitzkrieg (Lightning War) was a strategy developed by the Germans, allowing them to use limited resources to maximum effect. It means using air, artillery tanks and infantry in close support and to maximum effect, with attacks focused at a particular point-Schwerepunkt, in German. Holes are then punched through enemy defences, and units left to the rear of the attack enveloped and destroyed. It relies upon mobility as the key element, by-passing and avoiding heavily defended positions. Tanks, moreover, are deployed in heavy concentrations, rather than widely spread as a secondary support for the infantry. Have a look at the page on Blitzkrieg for further information on the subject. The point is that most armies in 1939-40, particularly the French, were looking for a repeat of 1914, and were thus completely unable to deal with German tactics. In attacking France the Wehrmacht advanced through the Belgian Ardennes, thought to be impassible to tanks, then concentrated their attacks on Sedan before advancing westwrds to the sea, cutting off the BEF and northern French forces from the main French army in the south. The invasion of the USSR was a short-term success but a long term failure for the reasons I have given: the Russians had both reserves of space and reserves of manpower which no other country had, and Blitzkrieg was never intended for 'long-haul' warfare. However, this should not deflect from the simple fact that by the autumn of 1941 the country was on its knees; and if it had not been for Zukhov and the Siberian divisions it may very well have gone under. The conquest of Norway was in fact far easier than might have been anticipated; and that of Greece was a 'walk-over', despite the British presence. Germany was immensley powerful in 1939; and few armies today would be willing to take on the range of tasks faced by the Wehrmacht between 1939 and 1941. As far as your assessments of the various countries is concerned you are partly wrong in both detail and interpretation. The neutral countries certainly hoped not to be attacked, but they were still fully mobilised. Austria strictly speaking only 'welcomed' the Germans after her government, diplomatically isolated, was forced to give way to Hitler's demands under threat of force. The Sudetenland was handed to the Germans by the 'international community', as you put it, but not the rest of the Czech territory. After Hitler occupied Bohemia and Moravia in March 1939 the British extended a diplomatic guarantee to Poland, hoping to arrest further German expansion. Northern France should not be separated from Vichy France. The whole of France was defeated by the Germans. Poland was not 'attacked' by the Soviet Union until 17 September, by which time most of its army had been destroyed by the Germans. On paper the Yugoslavs had an impressive army, as did the Greeks. Both were destroyed in a matter of days. And as I have suggested above you may wish to look at the details of the Battle of Kiev to get some insight to German successes in the east. White Guard 00:39, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

The Germans were clever in obtaining Austria and Czechoslovakia without fighting. They obtained the Skoda Arms works in Czechoslovakia along with soldiers from the surrendered countries, thereby multiplying their military capabilities. Much of their army was conscripts and volunteers from the conquered countries. The last SS soldiers defending Berlin were foreign. The beaches assaulted on D-Day were defended by non-German troops in some cases. Russia had as allies their brutal winter weather and the vast geography of the country, along with a philosophy that did not shirk at losing lives to hold ground as in Stalingrad. Hitler's maniacal "Victory or Deat-No Retreat" orders and his strategic brainstorms handicapped the professional generals of the Wehrmacht. The Russians could relocate factories to the far East out of reach of German bombers. At the same time, they were at peace with Japan (until the American A bombs came along)so they did not have to fight both Axis superpowers. If Hitler could have waited , say 5 years to launch the war, he would have had a navy to fight with Instead of pocket battleships and subs, he would have the carriers and battleships which were in the pipeline. But he might have also faced US atomic bombing. There were probably several reasons he felt he had to to go to war before the nation was fully prepared. I am sure he would have been brutal (like 19th century Europe was: read how Belgium treated the Congo) in using slave labor in former European colonies to ship raw materials to plants for war preparations.Edison 17:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure five years would be enough time to build a navy to challenge the USN. According to Kriegsmarine, he had only one full and five auxiliary carriers under construction. That was far less than the Japanese, and they got whupped. Clarityfiend 18:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

USN? DirkvdM 07:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Afaik, the Netherlands were barely mobilised (or is that just an excuse we are told here in the Netherlands?)and Denmark didn't have much of an army to speak of. And all those wannabe neutral countries in the North West are small countries (Norway has a small population). Still, the combination of these and all the other conquered countries adds up, I suppose. But the big fish were the UK (not conquered), Spain (neutral), Italy (ally), Turkey (neutral), France and especially the USSR. Concerning the USSR 'if only' and 'they came close' just don't count. They never consolidated what they conquered. And France surrendered when they were only halfway. Whether this was because of the enormous military blow the French recieved or the willingness to collaborate (or a combination, more likely) I don't know.

So, if I may add that up, the greatest military nazi achievements were diplomacy (of sorts - although that was nothing new), the speed at which Northern France was conquered (which was totally new) and the sum of all the other conquered countries (and holding them). Is that about right? DirkvdM 07:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Halfway with no Allied armies in the rest of France to speak off. And 'if only' and 'they came close' just don't count. Sure, Right.

The greatest military achievement of Nazi Germany was the new use of tanks and airplanes. The effective combination of everything: Infantry, Tanks (concentrated in their own Tank divisons), Artilary, and Air force. It changed the whole concept of war; as before (not always, but almost all the time) armies tried to engage each other and to "slug it out". With the arrival of the machinegun and massive artilary these tactics were completly outdated, but fiercely clung on by traditional old generals during WWI (of both sides). Despite some battles which showed their potential Tanks were mostly dispersed, and supported the Infantry.

It was the same in the Naval warfare: the arrival of the submarine undermined the value of the battleship, the old warhorse of the Sea.

Heinz Guderian and Erwin Rommel (who had studied the books written by British generals, and developed many aspects of the Blitzkrieg, always defending the potential of the Tank gainst the Old Guard) and other fine young Geman generals offered a complete novel way of fighting. Never engage a heavily entrenched army, attack the soft spot, break through the enemy lines, and surround them cutting their supply lines. They must surrender eventually because they will lack their vital supplies. They might counter-attack, but then they will have to leave their entrenchments, and will engage you on your chosen ground. Avoid hard Urban combat as Tanks will always be vulnerable to properly equipped Infantry. City = enormous Trench. Tanks no longer suported the Infantry, it was the other way around: Infantry supported the Tanks. All these tactics were tried and refined by German officers in the Spanish civil war. Hitler liked his new Generals and this whole concept; it was bold, effective, and quick. Initially the allies (with all their traditonal generals and their whole "these traditional tacticts which served us soo well in the WWI" attitude were easy opponents. But they did something which Hitler did not: They learned and adapted themselves quickly. (copying the Germans, but also developing their own tactics). In the end Hitler was too obsessed in conquering and entrenching his troops inside of cities like Stalingrad and Leningrad; these were not the tactics of the Blitzkrieg anymore. He also micromanaged way too many things (he was the only person who could send some Tank divisions to reinforce Rommel at the 1st day of Normandy, but he was sleeping and noone had the guts to wake him...the rest is history.) and didn't allowed his generals to follow their own plans. Eisenhower and Churhill were the opposite: they choose their generals and told them the big target but then they gave them a relativly loose leash.

Dirk, this was really a great achievement. You seem to be obsessed with the whole issue of territory and always return to the same conclusion: They could not hold large territories . What do you want? The Nazis lost the World War II! Of course they did't held their conquests. You are ignoring the massive opposition and most importantly: the shere speed of the conquests. A couple of weeks for the whole of France. You can't compare this with the conquest of Gaul by Ceasar (widely recognized as a military strategist of the highest caliber). Ceasar took years to achieve it. Flamarande 14:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Like Flamarande I too am perplexed by Dirk's continuing contention, which seems to be that Nazi Germany lost the war, so it 'could not have amounted to much'. The point is that large-scale wars of conquest have been generally unsuccessful throughout modern history, where they have involved nation states, unlike the ancient wars against tribal regions. Consider Napoleon: he too subdued much of Europe but he too ultimately failed. So should we conclude that Napoleon 'did not amount to much'? And as far as consolidation is concerned, where today is the Roman Empire? Quite frankly this whole line of argument is becoming absurd. White Guard 00:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

All I was saying is that the notion I had most of my life that Germany conquered all of Europe (with some help from the Italians) was completely wrong. Compared to that, what they conquered isn't much, whic is not to say they didn't achieve anything. I just wanted to check if I got it straight about what they did achieve. I suppose I should have worded my remarks a little differntly. DirkvdM 07:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Btw, another misconception I used to have is that the German defeat was largely due to Operation Overlord (and that that was a US thing). Only later did I learn that the eastern front was at least as important if not more important and only last week did I read that Operation Bagration was the biggest military campaign mankind has ever amassed. I had never even heard of it! DirkvdM 07:29, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

In that case you might want to have a closer look at the whole campaign on the Eastern front and, in partcular, the Battle of Kursk, to date still the largest tank battle in all of history. It may be an uncomfortable idea for British and American people, but even before Overlord the Germans were in full-scale retreat in the east. To put things in perspective, in the spring of 1943, just before the Kursk operation, the Germans deployed close on 200 hundred divisions in Russia. To this you have to add another 30 or so provided by their various allies. In contrast the British and Americans were faced in Tunisia-the only point of contact with the Axis at the time-roughly 25 German and Italian divisions. Try to find a map of German occupied Europe on the eve of the Battle of Stalingrad in the late summer of 1942. That would probably give you the best idea of the German 'achievment'. Incidentally, the Italians were less of a help and more of a hindrance.White Guard 23:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Jean Stretchers

In the 1950s there was a tool used to place inside wet, laundered jeans that kept the jeans from stretching and formed a crease down the jeans leg as they dried on the form. Are these still available anywhere?

Googling "pants stretcher" provides many links like this. --hydnjo talk 15:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

World War One

Why was the "race for the sea" inconclusive in the First World War?

--Dabc 14:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

• Race to the Sea explains it pretty well. Neither side was able to outflank the other side and gain an offensive advantage. Hence, stalemate. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Does anyone know what the balance of power was like at the time, on the western front? --Dabc 17:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Balance of power is a political term. By late 1914 the balance of forces was roughly equal, in terms of the number of divisions deployed-hence the stalemate. White Guard 00:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

law

Hi i am looking for information on supreme law in the united kingdom and i am having a bit of trouble with finding anything. I was just wondering whether you could give me some information on supreme law and whether the government is the supreme law maker? Thankyou very much and i hope to hear from you soon!!

That's an ENORMOUS question! For starters I'd check out the articles on the UK Constitution, Constitutional convention, and A.V. Dicey. That should give you a good start. Once you're done, feel free to come back and ask any more particular questions you may have. Loomis 15:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

In Britain, Parliament is considered of ultimate sovereignty. It is the only body capable of enacting laws. Governments - made up of the largest party in terms of seats in Parliament - propose legislation, but it must be ratified by Parliament. There is no written British constitution which specifically lays this out, but the uncodified constitution is made up of convention, common & statute law and "works of authority." See the Constitution of the United Kingdom and Parliamentary sovereignty articles. This is a very complex topic, and I'd personally suggest a standard Government & Politics textbook like Coxall & Robbins "Contemporary British Politics," or "Politics UK" by Jones, Kavanagh, Moran & Norton. JF Mephisto 16:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Not forgetting that there's no such thing as "United Kingdom law". There's English law (including Wales), Scots law, and Northern Ireland law. European Union law takes precedence over local laws, but normally has to be incorporated into local law (usually by means of Statutory Instruments) in order to take effect. Most laws are passed by the UK Parliament, but the Scottish Parliament can also pass laws, as indeed can the General Synod of the Church of England for church-related matters. From next year the Welsh National Assembly will be able to pass laws, subject to veto by the UK Parliament. -- Arwel (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Although I have to disagree with Mephisto on some of the subtleties of his/her take on UK Constitutional Law, this very topic was discussed just recently here on September 22, so I won't go over it all once again. Although I would suggest looking it over, it was an interesting discussion.

However, I feel that I must take issue with Arwel's comment that "there's no such thing as "United Kingdom law"". There certainly is! Though many powers have been or soon will be devolved to the Parliaments of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, the Parliament at Westminster in London is certainly more than a parliament for England alone. First off, it's made up of representatives from not only England, but from all of the UK. The Scots, the Welsh, and the Northern Irish all send MPs to London. But more importantly, the UK Parliament routinely passes laws that affect all of the United Kingdom, not simply England. Laws that come to mind would be laws concerning British citizenship, laws involving British monetary and fiscal policy, laws concerning international affairs, etc... Yes, certain powers involving more local matters are being devolved unto the respective Parliaments of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, but the UK is still one sovereign unitary state, with only one "sovereign" Parliament, in London. Loomis 20:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

What specifically is your disagreement with my take on the UK Constitution (I think it would be misleading to refer to "constitutional law", as the British constitution isn't made up simply of law but also convention and works of authority)? I think it's pretty pertinent, as the person above is requesting help and it would be advisable to make it as unmuddled as possible. "Contemporary British Politics: Third Edition," Coxall & Robbins, 1998, states that the main characteristics of the UK Constitution are unitary government (a state that despite some constituent country powers is fundamentally unitary and not federal) and parliamentary sovereignty (the idea that Parliament's powers are fundamentally unlimited and supreme). It states that the main sources of the uncodified constitution are common and statute law, convention, the law and custom of Parliament, works of authority and more recently European Union law. Are you in disagreement with the broad thrust of this description of the UK Constitution, and, if so, in what way? JF Mephisto 23:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

My disagreement with you was very subtle compared to my disagreement with Arwell. By that I mean that I think that s/he was REALLY wrong, compared to some subtle disagreements I may have with you. I agree with everything you've said above, except the part that Common and Statute Law form part of the UK Constitution. There are basically three "levels" of law in any Constitutional Democracy: Constitutional Law, "Regular" Law, and Regulatory or Administrative Law. The third is irrelevant to this discussion so I'll ignore it. What we're left with is 1) Constitutional Law and 2) "Regular" (i.e. Statute and Common) Law.

My main point of disagreement is the characterization of "Constitutional law" as being derived from "Statute and Common Law". Rather, with regards to "Statute Law", UK "Constitutional Law" is that very "Over-Arching" principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty. After all, what is it that gives those buildings at Westminster permission to pass Statutory Law? In the US, Article I of the Constitution grants that law unto Congress. Likewise, in the UK, that law is "granted" by the unwritten law of the UK Constitution. In other words, while I see ordinary "Statute Law" as "Regular Law", that over-arching principle that gives Parliament its sovereign authority to pass such law in the first place is what I'd call "Constitutional Law".

Likewise, I can't see UK Constitutional Law as being derived in any way from "Common Law". Rather, with regards to "Common Law" there is that "Over-Arching" principle of Stare Decisis. After all, what is it that compels the courts to pay any respect at all to precedent? I'd say that Stare Decisis is a major component of UK Constitutional Law. The Common Law, on the other hand, like Statute Law, is, to me, subordinate to that "Over-Arching" Constitutional principle of Stare Decisis.

In sum, the way I'd put it is that UK Constitutional Law is composed (amongst other things) of Parliamentary Sovereignty and Stare Decisis. These are the "Over-Arching", "Unwritten" principles of UK Constitutional Law. Statute and Common Law are merely the "regular" law that is permitted by the Supreme, Constitutional Law of the UK. Loomis 01:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Err, just throwing it in, but there's also all this.Hornplease 10:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Is neopaganism really a religion?

I wonder if so-called neopagans really ascribe to a religion per se or just take part in ancient rituals (or what they believe are ancient rituals) because they think they are cool. I mean, do they really believe in the existence of Odin, or whatever, the same way Christians believe (or are supposed to believe) in God and Jesus or Zoroastrians believe in Ahura Mazda? -- Mwalcoff 15:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I would have thought believing in the efficacy of those rituals means it counts as religion, in the generally accepted use of the term. Most definitions of religion are quite broad.--Shantavira 17:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Do all Christians believe in god the same way? Do some of them think of an old man with a beard, do others think in more general terms, "god is love"? I think it would depend on the pagan. Everyone has different beliefs. Nowimnthing 18:26, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Some neopagans probably do just think it is cool, certainly half the Goths wearing pentagrams just see it as a fashion accessory, the same as those who wear crosses and crucifixes. On the other hand some definitely do believe in it as a religion. God calls to many people in different ways. David Frawley has an interesting section on neopagans in his book "How I became a Hindu". -- Chris Q 07:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Ban of veil in UK Jack Straw's remarks about the veil

Why is so much row created on the ban of veils in Britain? It is against the practice of religious freedom. It clearly goes against the principles of Democracy. The females from the west are allowed to bare all in the sun in places like Dubai & Middle East, they are allowed even to wear skirts in workplaces. There is racism in the west against the browns & blacks. Is it double standards?? Whats the purpose behind lobbying against the use of veil? [kj_venus]

Veils are not barred in the United Kingdom. I don't know where you got that impression from. A Cabinet minister, Jack Straw, simply stated that he did not like women wearing the full face veil in his constituency office, and that he thought that the full face veil was a visible sign of seperation and not helpful towards harmonious commnunity relations. Other members of the Cabinet, such as John Prescott, disagreed. Furthermore, requesting the removal of a face veil is not racism - the portion of the Muslim community that wear the full face veil do not constitute a race (and most British Muslims do not wear full face veils). The purpose of opposing the use of a full face veil is because it is considered necessary in most cultures to see the facial expressions of the person one is talking to, and to oppose visible signs of seperation. JF Mephisto 16:49, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it is considered necessary in most cultures to see the facial expressions of the person one is talking to, and to oppose visible signs of separation is obvious.Places like Dubai & others are progressing and accepting the western culture and insane ways of life. The tolerance is there for every culture to sustain. The same thing is not followed in the west. There is abuse of freedom in the west. Many students from the Arab world & east face diifficulties in European universities including racist remarks. While the east tolerates all acts of sexual freedom & vulgarity of the west. There is no mutual reciprocity in that respect.[kj_venus]

I think Jack Straw's statement is unfortunate, because some people will assume that his opinion somehow represents official policy - as in the original title of this item. Nobody has said whether Muslim women are allowed to wear the veil - one minister has said that he prefers that people who come to consult him do not hide their faces.

I think your comments about 'reciprocity' are misguided. Everywhere, some people mistruct and mistreat strangers, some people do not tolerate strangers' ways, and some strangers are not willing to respect local sensibilities.

Please sign your postings with ~~~~.--ColinFine 18:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the veil is that it makes identification impossible. For example, there have been cases in the US where these women wanted their driver's license (the primary form of identification in the US) photos to be taken wearing a veil, which would make it absolutely useless for identification. To accept this would mean to give up on being able to identify anyone, which would cause a massive security hole. Male terrorists have been known to dress as veiled women to bypass security. StuRat 22:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Check your facts, [kj_venus], "females from the west" have to cover their hair in many Moslem countries, let alone "baring all" sunbathing. Perhaps you refer to what goes on behind a wall in a Western enclave? Moslems are allowed to build mosques in the west, but Christian churches are forbidden in many moslem countries. No reciprocity asa Pope Benedicat has demanded.Edison 17:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

plodweaver

Question moved to language desk

Question about the movie Bend it like Beckham

Does anybody know what neighbourhood of London the movie took place in? Anchoress 20:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and if anybody knows how to fix titles and redirects, the BiLB entries on WP are totally f****d up. Anchoress 20:16, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hounslow, I believe. Natgoo 22:13, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Woo Hoo, thank you! Anchoress 00:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice movie, by the way. DirkvdM 08:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Question about Germany

·I know that Hitler,Goebels,Himmler,Romel,Gering and other killed them selves.My question is:What is the highest Nazi official that didn't commit suicide?I doubt that it was Albert Speer,because he was just a minister,but it might be him?

Thank you very much

My best guess would be Adolph Eichmann. Also, quite a few were executed at Nuremberg, so among those may be someone who outranked Eichmann, but I doubt it. Loomis 20:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I would go with Wilhelm Canaris. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you both very much.Eichmann was in the rank of Colonel and Canaris was Admiral,so it was probably Canaris.

I don't want to be boring,but just another question,because it seems like you know quite a lot about this subject:So if we take out those who committed suicide and those who got killed(like Eichmann,Ribentrop,Canaris...) who was the highest official that died in a natural way? (I believe that there were many,but I wonder who was the highest...I thought it was Hess,but he killed him self in the prison,so it wasn't him.)

Don't worry about being boring, these are important questions. By highest Nazi official I assumed you meant most prominent. Of course an admiral outranks a colonel, but I was going with most prominent and influential over highest ranking (I'm embarrassed to even say it by I've never even heard of Canaris). As for the next question, I'd say Josef Mengele, who drowned accidentally in 1979. He's certainly, once again, the most "prominent" Nazi (though I'm not sure of his actual "rank") to die in a (somewhat) natural way (neither homicide nor suicide). Loomis 21:33, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Karl Donitz was officially president of Germany at the time of the Nazi surrender; he served 10 years in prison and died in 1980. Rudolf Hess was number 2 in the Nazi party before fleeing to England; he died in prison in 1987. Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop was hanged in 1946, as were Alfred Rosenberg and Julius Streicher. Hans Lammers, Hitler's chief of staff, died in 1962. Hans Frank and Wilhelm Frick, Nazi chiefs in Poland and Bohemia & Moravia, respectively, were hanged. So-called Justice Minister Franz Schlegelberger lived until 1970. Economics Minister Walther Funk lived until 1960. -- Mwalcoff 21:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Great,that's about it.As for Mengele,he died in kind of natural way,but not quite.Hess would be number one choice,but he committed suicide in 1987(or he was killed,as his family claims). But,anyway,it surely is Karl Dönitz,I cant believe that I forgot him as a leader,that's probably because he wasn't so prominent as others mentioned,but it was surely him.

So having listed almost all top Nazis,it seems like none of them escaped one or another form of punishment(being killed,suicide,prison sentence,or strange deaths like Mengele and Hess).

Correct me if Im wrong,but it seems like that's the case??

Anyway,once again,thank you very much,searching for all of this would take me days,so thanks to everyone.

Doenitz wasn't a Nazi, and many of the other military officials might not have been either. They just happened to be in the military while the Nazis were in power (although of course they must have supported them, otherwise they wouldn't have remained so long, but Doenitz was never a party member). Adam Bishop 22:12, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I'd say it was a pleasure, but that would sound kind of weird.:) Still, it's a fascinating topic and a great question to ask.

I'd just like to add a comment though. To me, Hitler's suicide (and the suicides of all the rest) were the furthest thing from the punishment they deserved. To me, I see Hitler's suicide as one of the gravest of injustices. Unlike Eichmann, who got what he deserved, (that being seeing scores of Holocaust survivors recount his attrocities in front of his face, and in front of the world,) Hitler never faced that sort of justice. He never faced the shame of the world. He died at a time and in a method of his own choosing, without ever having to face his accusers. To me, that's one of the worst injustices of WWII. Loomis 22:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

It certainly wasn't justice but to call injustice? I see Hitler's suicide as a proof of his utter cowardice and irresponsability (of not having the balls of facing the consequences of his orders and actions). Flamarande 19:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

A good reason not to join the army. You can never know what idiot you might have to serve. DirkvdM 08:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

As if in real wartime you have any reasonable choice, but to join the army. It is called a draft you know? Flamarande 16:39, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

If you live in a country that might do that, you might think about emigrating. Ok, not usuallly a reasonable ooption. :) DirkvdM 07:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hitler should have been subjected to an incredibly long and boring trial like Saddam's. Edison 17:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Saddams' trial in which two of his laywers were murdered, the first judge resigned, and the second judge was removed by the "American puppets" because he was "too nice" to the accused? The Nuremberg trials were more or less fair, but Saddam's trial is a bloody nightmare. Flamarande 17:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Saddams trial is a poor excuse for USA to get him killed(or as they call it "executed",like its not the same thing).No wonder that death penalty still exsits only in USA,China,Muslim countries and Lukashenkos Belorus.Another pathetic excuse for a trial was Milosevic trial,which ended in his death after four years of trial,as a result of Hagues refuse to let him get the medical care.Another example is Vojisav Seselj,who is at Hague tribunal for more than 3 and a half years,but the trail didn't started just yet!?!

If I could make a comment about Mengele - he has become very well-known outside of Germany, but he was in no way AT ALL a prominent or important Nazi. He was just one camp doctor out of hundreds. He was also only one of hundreds of thousands of men and women who actively and willingly contributed to the Nazi killing and torture machine.

I think this is important to say because so many of us forget (or have never been taught) that hundreds of thousands of people actively and willingly worked to create the horrors of the Holocaust. It's nice to think that only a few like Mengele were really 'bad people', but in reality Mengele's cruelty and evil were not unusual. There were hundreds of camps - hundreds. Each had on average a dozen or more doctors. Each doctor had assistants. Each camp had hundreds of guards. They were almost ALL were as cruel as Mengele in their own way. Anybody who wasn't cruel was sent to do other work, plain and simple.

We know so much about Mengele not because he did things that other doctors didn't or because he was more cruel than the others; we know about him because he worked at Auschwitz. Auschwitz was an enormous work camp, and many of its inmates survived to tell their stories. The same (or equally cruel) horrors went on at Sobibor, Mathausen, Chelmno, and a hundred other camps, but few if any victims from those camps survived to testify.

Mengele was evil and deserved to be convicted, but he wasn't an extremely unusual exception to the rule. Thinking that he was unusually cruel might make people feel better about the human condition, but it isn't fair to the victims of the other torturers and killers. There were myriads of men and women who acted as cruelly as he did. Charlene.fic 23:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

A good point. but also note that this is not specifically a German treat. If you look at what happened then from our world it looks incrdible, but if people grow up in a surrounding that considers certain things acceptable then they will find that normal and will in turn find worse things acceptable, which others will interprete as that being normal, so they will start finding even worse things aceptable, etc, in a potentially never ending downward spiral. The atrocities of nazi germany didn't come falling vrom the sky. It developed over decades, with the humiliation of WWI being probably the biggest incentive. But the big lesson is that this can happen anywhere anytime. And some of it is happening right now, with human rights being officially abolished. Bit by bit. Step by step. Give Bush cum sui enough time and you'll be surprised at what we will find acceptable or even normal 30 years from now. DirkvdM 07:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I never studied the issue (concentration camps and the anhilation of the Jews during WWII) to a very high degree, but I think I know the basics of it. You write that there were hundreds of camps, yet in the Wiki-article List of concentration camps of Nazi Germany they are only 47 (I know that even 1 was 1 too many). Could you please explain me this big diffrence? Where you exagerating? Is the list lacking any camp? Do you want to correct your statement? Flamarande 12:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes,just look at Guatanamo and the torture of Iraqi and Afganistani people.But,to be honest,it is a German treat,because if you look at the World War I,you will find that Germany also did the worst crimes in it,to.So many thousands civilians got killed just because they were not German.Now its usually to say it was Hasburg Monarhy,while in fact,all the crimes were committed by Germans...Same Germans that upgraded their cruelty (mixed with the revenge for the 1918 defeat) 20 years later.

Of course, we all know that the Germans are by nature cruel, inhuman, and absolutly war-like. The Germans are different from everbody else. The Germans are guilty of starting WWI and they were the only ones who commited serious warcrimes during that war, also. Are you for real or something? All the main protagonists of WWI are guilty of starting it and commited Warcrimes. Both sides used Gas during WWI. At end as Germany had quit the fighting and was negotiating the terms of its defeat the Allies kept their Naval blockade while the German ppl was starving. Isn't that also a Warcrime? The rise of Hitler was immensly facilitated by the harsh terms of the treaty of Versallies and shows us "how do we prepare the next war".

How about the millions that were killed by order of Stalin in the Great Purge? The Armenian Genocide ordered by the Turkish goverment, the Belgian atrocities in the Congo Free State, the millions that were killed in the The Killing Fields by Khmer Rouge by order of Pol Pot, Japanese Warcrimes during WWII like the Rape of Nanking, the Indians which were slaughtered by the American troops at the Wounded Knee Massacre? The recent Rwandan Genocide? Everyone of us is capable of participating in a Warcrime (of every nation, in all armies, from any culture, and following any religion whatsoever); it only depends on the right circumstances, and most importantly, on our leaders. Flamarande 12:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)PS: please, SIGN YOUR STATEMENTS

Whatever,all I know is about Germans and my country...They killed more than 500.000. civilians(including only woman and children,not man),just in my country 1914-1918.

Off course they started World War I when they attacked my country.They were pretty bad warriors though,since they lost on Kolubara,Cer and Suvobor and their General Oskar Potjorek got expelled from the Army.So they lost couple of battle from such a tiny country as mine. But in 1915,they came back,this time with Bulgarians and they won.Since our army was forced to flee to Greece,there was no one defending civilians...They hanged,burned and butchedred more than 500.000. just in 1915-1918 time.

Now don't get me started on WW2,when they killed more than 7000 school boys in Kragujevac,IN JUST ONE DAY,as a revenge for the killing of 35 Germans.German Army alone cleaned my country of Jews.Before WW2 there was about 50.000. Jews here.After it there was no more than 1000.Not to mention great WW2 concentration camps like BANJICA,JAJCI and so on and so on...

Talking about the 1999. aggression and more than 1000. civilians killed,off course Germany was part of that,to.Who can explain this to the parents of 3 year old Milica Rakic,that was killed in her home while being in a bathroom? Who can explain to them that it is not a war crime?

There is not a single country that did so many war crimes during last 100 years as Germany.

XXXXXXX 13:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Look I won't start a fight over "which is the more evil nation in the last 100 years". Hitler with his Nazi regime and the German ppl under their command was without a doubt the most shameful chapter of Human history. But what you are forgetting is the same combination with another country whatsoever would produce similar results. Somebody like Hitler + a fanatical party + a desperate country = a big nightmare. Like Serbia (your comments seem to indicate that you are a Serb, but we can dig in the history of any nation whatsoever. You only have to dig deep enough) do you really want to start a discussion about Serbian Warcrimes? Begin with the Chetniks, then carry on to the the more recent (1990's) Serbian concentration camps and Serbian Gang rapes of female prisoners? How about the Srebrenica Massacre or the Battle of Vukovar? I certainly won't open this Pandora's box, it's not that I am personaly guilty of anything, but I am simply way too wise to fall in that obvious trap. Every nation is guilty of something. Flamarande 15:20, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Chetniks?? Are you kidding me?? Harry Truman,president of USA awarded Draza Mihalovic,the Cetniks leader the golden cross in 1948...TIME magazine had CHETNIKS on their first page as the FIRST EUROPE FREEDOM FIGHTERS...Hollywood movie from 1942. called CHETNIKS was about the fight of Chetniks against Germans and Communists...Cetniks never committed no crimes,and they were not even accused of doing so(except for Communist false charges)...My Grandfather was a Chetnik,and Im extremly proud of it,we are going to the RAVNA GORA every May 13. to commemorate the first uprising in Europe against Germans(13.May 1941)...There are over 100.000. people on it every year,celebrating Chetnik values...Not to mention that Serbian officials are commemorating it to...You can only be jelaous because no other country ever had such a brave and upstanding soldiers like Chetniks were.

Never commited any warcrimes? Never ever? How about the Bleiburg massacre (something I found in 1 min)? Ask you grand-father what he really did if he caught an unarmed and/or surrendering Ustasha or German. Did he give him a fair trail perchance? Flamarande 21:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

As for Battle of Vukovar,how can you even list that as a war crime,40 officiers were killed,that's the whole crime,everyone else died in the battle...You can only say that you wish we didn't win,but that's it,we win and now we are considered guilty for it?!?

"We"? Did I say that? Unlike too many ppl I believe that only the ppl responsable for a crime (those who gave the orders) should be prosecuted in a fair trail in a proper court of law and only if found guilty punished in accordance of their crime. BTW, I didn't write any of these articles. And you don't like if someone uses Vulovar against the Serbs but you find it fair to blame the "modern" Germans for WWII, a war which just ended in 1945! Nothing is forgotten, and nothing is ever forgiven, and we must blame the children for the crimes of the parents,hey? Actually I believe that we should remeber the crimes but not use them against ppl who didn't commit them (and most of Germans today were born after WWII). Flamarande 21:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

As for Srebrenica,there are no excuses,but that's the only time in history that crimes were committed by someone from my country(but when you talk about Srebrenica,you should forget this:KRAVICE;BRATUNAC;MULJARE and other villages whose people were burned down...more than 2500 people died in the Christamas Day 1992. killed by Muslim forces...Srebrenica was a revenge for 4 years of torture and killings done by Muslims)

The only time? Right, do you really want me to search for more articles? BTW: If the someone rapes my sister it is somehow allright if I rape his sister in return? An eye for an eye and all that? Is that true Justice? Flamarande 21:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

One more thing,from 8000 people killed in Srebrenica,NONE were woman,NONE were kids below the age of 16(and those are Hague War Crimes Tribunal numbers...)

So if someone is a male civilian over 16 he is a valid military target? Are you male? How old are you? (don't answer these questions, they are rethorical and I only made them to show that following that logic you (or your nearest male relative) would have been killed. Flamarande 21:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

So,how can you even compare that,to what Germans have done...Germans bombed my city 3 times in last century: 1915,1941 and 1999...Every time they killd bunch of civilians...Not to mention all the other crimes in WWI and WWII(and Im talking just about in my country committed by Germans)...How can you even compare that,to Srebrenica,which was a few days event(and like I said A REVENGE,not that it is a good excuse,but its explanation....1914,1915,1916,1917,1918,1941,1942,1943,1944,1945,1999...for all those years of German crime,there is no excuse or no possible explanation...Only that its just the way they do it...German way)

 XXXXXXX 20:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

HAHAHAHAHA you know so little that it is funnny....BLEIBURG WAS A CRIME COMMITED BY COMMUNIST CROATS ON USTASHA CROATS....Theres no mentioning of Serbs there,how can there be,WHEN MORE THEN 700.000. SERBS CIVILIANS DIED IN JASENOVAC(the biggest concentration camp in Balkans ever).

As for other issues,Im not into arguing,Im just stating that fact that "modern germany"(as you called it) is resposable for the 1999. war crimes,even thought it was Shreder who made those moves.

And your question hehe, i can ask my grandfather if it will make you happy,but I don't see your point,do you want to say that he would have been wrong if he killed the captured German????????????????????(Mind you,Chetniks were operating strictly in their own homeland)How it is wrong to kill someone who came to you country and is killing your people every day??? How is it wrong,THEY CAME HERE,SO HOW IS IT WRONG TO KILL THEM WHEN THEY ARE AGRESSIORS....Even when they are captured XXXXXXX 14:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

And the Germans have kept their nose clean since 1945 (despite your innuendo of 1990's - I honestly don't know what you are talking about. The bombings of Nato? It was a legal military action in order to stop the local war, and as in all wars the innocents are sometimes killed - simply stating a fact). I am not excusing the Germans and blaming somebody (e.g. the Serbs) else here. I am just saying that every nations military have commited Warcrimes at some point. War is Hell! Soldiers and officers will be exposed to extremely severe circumstances (like seing your comrades blown to bits in front of your eyes, or finding a fellow soldier's tortured and mutilated corpse left by the enemy). You will slowly be brutalized and in order to cope and to survive you will adapt yourself. You will turn into a hardened killer and if you are not restrained by your officers you will avenge yourself and your comrades on the nearest "enemy" civilian population (and God helps them if the officers order it). In all wars civilians have been caught by explosions, murdered, raped, and tortured. We can and we must understand how this happens in order to prevent as far as possible and not cry out: "The other guys are all a bunch of violent warcriminals. My own ppl is completly innocent off all charges. We NEVER ever hurt an innocent.". We must establish laws preventing this and enforce them as best as possible (especialy our own side) so that hopefully at next time (in the next war) the soldiers and their officers think twice. Flamarande 21:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I mostly agree with you,but one thing you said is off the mark: Nato aggression wasn't "legal military action",because it wasn't approved by the Security Councel of UN(because Russia was against it). So,it wasn't just a bombing,it was an AGRESSION...It wasn't ment to stop the "local war",because it cant be a local war when it is happening in just one country...It was ment to help the Albanian terrorist to get independence of Kosovo...Nato and Al Qaida really did helped them a lot on their way...

So,you cant possibly say that Germans "kept their nose clean",because not in thousend years will 1999. aggression be forgotten.By supporting Muslim terrorists on Kosovo(which is part of Serbia),and by bombing INNOCENT CHILDREN("every war has civilians dying" hahaha TELL THAT TO THE PARENTS OF 3 YEARS OLD MILICA RAKIC THAT GERMAN BOMBS KILLED IN HER HOUSE),so by doing that,Germany bombed my City and my Country for the third time in just one century,without declaring a war(similar like in 1941). No other country did so much wrong to us and killed so many of us like Germany.

But as for other thing you said,as for preventing monsters like Franz Josif,Hitler,Shreder or Clinton to come to power ever again,I agree.

"We must establish laws preventing this and enforce them as best as possible (especialy our own side) so that hopefully at next time (in the next war) the soldiers and their officers think twice."

XXXXXXX 09:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Someone recently likened Bush to Hitler, which I believe was a grotesque analogy. But that whole argument was cleared up, and I bear no ill will. Now I'm no Democrat (capital "D"), and obviously no big fan of Clinton, but to mention his name in the same breath as Hitler is equally grotesque. Mentioning the phrase "monsters like Franz Josif, Hitler, Shreder or Clinton" is equally deplorable to equating Bush with Hitler. Though I may disagree with his politics, and though I believe he possesses some serious character flaws, Clinton is ultimately a good man, with only, ultimately, the best of intentions. To equate him in any way to Hitler is disgusting. Yes, innocent civilians were killed in Serbia, and now Iraq. Yet neither Clinton in Serbia, nor Bush in Iraq actually wished the death of any innocent civilian. Hitler not only wished the death of innocent civilians, but meticulously ARRANGED FOR IT. Equating Clinton with Hitler is equally deplorable to equating Bush with Hitler. Though I expect, nay, DEMAND an apology for that remark, I doubt I'll get one. Loomis 14:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I will apologise when I hear you apologising for Nato aggression,for over 2000 dead civilians,for over 80 dead kids,for 78 days and nights of bombing of innocent people,for THREE HUNDRED THOUSAND(300.000) Serbs that were forced to live Kosovo since Nato Bombing in 1999.,for over 2000 Serb churches burned since 1999. on Kosovo(Let me just mention that some of those churches are as old as 1000 years...Long before USA,UK or Germany as we know it even existed)....When you apologise for that I will apologise for what I said...

One more thing,I don't know where you got that about Bush.I HAVE NEVER SAID SOMETHING LIKE THAT,how can you possibly compare Bush to Clinton???? Clinton was helping Muslim terrorists,he was(alongside Shreder) their biggest helper in Kosovo,he supported their crimes over innocent people,he supported their fight for independence(Independence of Kosovo,which was a Serbian land since the beginning of time)!!! I wonder why he didn't support Chechenia Muslim terrorists...Because it was Russia,not Serbia huh....He supported people that made more than 300.000. Serbs leave Kosovo,terrorist animals that burned down more than 2000 churches...

On the other side,Bush is fighting the terrorism...While Clinton and Al Qaida were fighting side by side in Kosovo,Bush is doing everything he can to stop the Muslim beastes all over the world.You cant compare Clinton who bombed EUROPIAN CHRISTIAN country to support Muslim terrorists,with Bush who is doing everything he can to stop them(same terrorists that Clintons administration supported so much). If it was up to Clinton,if he was still in office,Kosovo would have been independent already,and Saddam and Talibans would have been in power to this day....

XXXXXXX 14:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Have I just been accused of being anti-Bush? That's a first! How bizarre! It's also a clear indication that you have no clue what I'm talking about and that it would be fruitless to further respond. Loomis 00:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Im glad that you saw that being Anti-Bush is nonsense,and is as same as being Pro-Terror.Im glad I helped you in realizing that. XXXXXXX 11:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so, so much XXXXXXX! I really don't know how to repay you. I'd just like to express my infinite gratitude in finally convincing me to be pro-Bush. I've been a Democrat my entire life, but you've finally helped me to see the light. I'm tearing up my Democratic Party membership as we speak! I think I may actually become a Republican! And all due to you! Nobody here, as intelligent as they may be, has ever been able to convince me that Bush is not the awful moron that I always thought him to be. But you have. You definitely have an incredible talent for expressing a truth that so far no one else has been able to. I'm eternally grateful to you. A million thanks. You've truly enlightened me, and I'm overwhelmed with gratitude. Huh? What the hell? Can anyone explain this one to me?  :--) Loomis 00:17, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Help linking an article

Today I found the article about the Kanawha County textbook controversy. It's quite interesting, but I'm disappointed to see that it isn't really mentioned in any other article (see its What links here). Which articles could this be mentioned in, or at least listed under "See also"? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 21:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

About great tragedies(in both war and peace)

After getting such a great resposes to the other question,i got another one,because I was thinking about this for some time:

Is the Hiroshima bombing the event that took most human lives at the time?My English isn't the best,so I apologise for that,but I think you understand me:Was there any other event that killed more people(I mean in the whole world history,not just WW2).

Thank you

Are you limiting to events that took place in one instant or events that could have taken many years, suich as Black Death? --Kainaw ^(talk) 22:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Well,I was aiming on events that took place in one day(not neceserly one instant,for example 9/11 attacks would be the example,but it happened in one day time).

That's a hard question to answer as I'm not sure. While an estimated 80,000 Japanese died instantly in Hiroshima, I wouldn't at all be surprised if there was a particular day during WWII where more than that were killed, whether they were executed at concentration camps or killed on the battlefield. Remember that 50 million died in WWII. A vast majority of those towards the end.

I'm not an expert on the subject but I believe that in the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, more people actually died after the fact from radiation and what not. RENTASTRAWBERRY ^{FOR LET?} röck 01:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course you never mentioned natural catastrophes. The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake killed approximately 230,000. Though I'm not sure what portion of that were killed on the actual day of the Tsunami. Loomis 22:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Almost all of them. StuRat 23:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure Stu? I was figuring that a good portion of the deaths were due to the inevitable diseases that spread in the water supply due to decaying corpses etc. (Sorry to be so gruesome). Loomis 00:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

no they weren't. Diseases were kept well in check by a massive international response. Rmhermen 00:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

More people died in the one-day conventional firebombing of Tokyo in World War II than died at Hiroshima. Rmhermen 00:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

The Death toll article also lists the Sack of Baghdad in 1258 with over 90,000 casualties in one day. Rmhermen 00:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

830,000 died in the Shaanxi earthquake of 1556. Most probably died on the day of the quake. Nobody's quite sure how many people died in the 1976 Tangshan earthquake; I've seen estimates that top one million, all on the same day, but the official toll is just over 240,000. Charlene.fic 23:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Flaming and regular

In my marching band here are many people who help us with our steps and technique etc. The two men who help with the color guard are homosexual. One of them is really "flaming" i.e. he says stuff like "girlfriend" and likes to snap his fingers a lot. The other man, however, you wouldn't think about it twice if you met him. He acts just like any other man out there. I was wondering why some homosexual men are "regular" and others are really open about their sexual preference. schyler 22:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not a person is 'flaming' often has very little to do with their sexual preference. Some gay guys, and some straight guys like to act in a very camp manner. Others, both gay and straight, do not. You may want to read Metrosexual for information on the way many men act. --Mnemeson 22:27, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

You do not prefer to sleep with men or women, 'regular' is subjective; it is only YOUR opinion that you define what is 'regular' and what is not, and he is not a Flamer; it is in YOUR EYES that you see him as a flamer.100110100 01:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, not really. "Regular" isn't really subjective; it means "conforming to a standard or pattern"[2], and surely you'd agree that people who act in a "flaming" manner do not "conform to the standard" behavior pattern for a male in our society. I think that "regular" is an accurate, if somewhat potentially offensive, way to describe non-"flaming" people. -Elmer Clark 05:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Ja, really. 'Regular' is what you've been socialized to think; everyone has been socialized differently. Also, and especially, some cultures do not see see don't see that behavior as flaming, as irregular, if they even have the term. It is VERY offensive. Please shut up, to put it bluntly. Just do it.100110100 07:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

No need to bite! What if this is a high school student, or someone with English as a second language? In any case it sounds like they don't know very many gay people closely, so I wouldn't blame them for being a little insensitive with terminology. It seemed like an innocent question to me. --Grace 09:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I realize it's offensive, but only because of social stigma against being considered "abnormal," not because it's untrue - very few people, I would imagine, have more experience with "flaming" (there must be a better word for this) people than with "non-flaming," so much so as to make it seem like the "general pattern" for people in society. It really confuses me that "abnormality" has become such an undesirable trait... -Elmer Clark 22:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

It might help you to think of it as a personality difference. You probably know some people who are quiet and shy and others who are outgoing and friendly - these are all normal variations in personality, and most people, shy or outgoing, would probably say that they can't control the way they behave. Likewise, some gay men behave the way you describe, and others don't, just because they're different people. It's an individual thing - homosexuality isn't like a disease, where everyone with the same disease will have the same symptoms. --Grace 06:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Homosexuality is not a disease.100110100 07:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

That's what I said. "Homosexuality isn't like a disease": ie. it is not a disease. --Grace 09:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your ANSWER Grace, about it being a personality trait. That makes sense. On another note, if you aren't going to even try and answer the qustion, don't even press the edit button. schyler 14:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, your question was based on false precedents, or IGNORANCE, in the first place.100110100 01:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that it's a bad thing to ask questions about a field you're ignorant of? Makes me wonder what exactly you're doing looking at an encyclopedic website. GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 12:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've asked a gay friend of mine about how he got his lisp, and he said he hadn't really thought about it; it was just something he'd picked up along the way because he felt he should act like that (to fit in which a stereotype of what gay men act like, I suppose), and he'd have to work pretty hard to turn it back off. The lisp and swishy affect are almost certainly just a cultural thing. grendel|khan 14:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)