User:Fangz/Reference Desk Craziness

This is a list of silly questions asked at the Wikipedia:Reference Desk.

If you happen to come across this page, do help me append to it! Insanity should be preserved and venerated!

Elijah Wood sickness!

Do i have Elijah Woodtitis? Because i get a fever when i see him! Really, is there any way ican stop thinking about him?

How can I destroy Sumatra?

I want to destroy the island of Sumatra in Indonesia. What is the best and quickest way to do this, with cost as low as possibble? Thanks.

Do you mean "destroy" as in "kill all the people", "level all the buildings", or "submerge the entire island into the sea"? —Keenan Pepper 07:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Do your own homework. Students from Supervillian Colleges are also included on our Reference Desk rules. ☢ Ҡieff⌇↯ 07:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, you might start on our page on Sumatra? --ParkerHiggins ^{( talk contribs )} 07:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course the cheapest (though stiil astronomically expensive) and most humanitarian (though still environmentally disastrous) method is to landfill the Strait of Malacca, which would forever destroy the island of Sumatra, making it instead a peninsula of continental Asia. One would, though, want to dig the Thai Canal first, as the consequences for international shipping would also be pretty serious.--Pharos 07:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

You need a secret base hidden in a hollow volcano, loyal henchstaff, and a hugeass laser weapon. And most important: pump a dozen bullets into the hero first, and only then expound your diabolical plans at great length to his still-warm twitching corpse. -- Curps 08:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

It actually came very close to happening 73,000 years ago - look at Lake Toba and the Toba catastrophe theory. And don't forget the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, either, which hit Sumatra hardest of all - MPF 09:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Dude! You have foiled all my carefully laid plans. Top Job is going to make short work of you. Artoftransformation 12:18, 25 December 2005 (UTC)--

Some suggestions are in How to destroy the Earth.

Trade them Paris Hilton for rice. 67.161.14.104 22:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)--

You could always try the British approach, and blow the island up. GeeJo _{(t) (c)} 12:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Buy all the fossil fuels in the world, burn them, and wait for the meltwater from the icecaps to sink the island. Or, alternatively, make God very angry. smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 16:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

help me please (urgent)

I must be knowing any effect or dangers that would be coming if someone (not being me!) were to be ingesting 5 heroin filled game rabbits. please be helping. Should I be going to the hospitle after doing that? This is urgent!

5 heroin filled game rabbits? What the heck is a heroin filled game rabbit?--Aolanonawanabe 21:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I still want to know what a heroin filled game rabit is--Aolanaonwaswronglyaccused 03:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, probably. Heroin overdose can be extremely dangerous. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 21:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Are we to assume the rabbits have been cooked? And did the rabbits ingest the heroine or were they injected with it? If injection, before or after their death?

my suggestion is

immediately without delay to get the victim to a hospital to have their stomache pumped out.

be prepared to give a statement to the police in which the cross examination may last XXX hours.

AlMac|[[User talk:AlMac|^(talk)]] 22:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

• Why would you need to be able to give a statement to the police? Wouldn't the doctors reporting that be a violation of medical privacy? -- Creidieki 04:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Depending on nation state etc. there are often laws requiring medical personnel to inform the police when a person's medical condition implies that some reportable crime may have occurred, such as

• gunshot
• illegal drugs consumed
• rape
• child abuse

User:AlMac|^(talk) 17:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

• Interesting stuff about medical privacy. Heroin filled game rabbits are still kind of confusing me however.

Apart from the obvious oddities already mentioned - ingesting five rabbits? Were they baby rabbits? DirkvdM 10:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

health

Hi, i am 25 yr old(male).My problem is that i am very sensitive to sex subject.Whenever i saw girl , i just think about sex.Its not normal i know but i can't control myself.I masterbate 7-8 times in one day within perion of 15 days.I would like to know that how can i control my emotions and dirty mind? also what should the frequency for my edge for masterbate.I supposed to get married within one yr.Help me.Don't answer general thing.Give specific direction.Thank you.

Conclusion of a lesbian porn scene

Hi there. While heterosexual/bisexual porn scenes usually conclude with the male ejaculating on the females' faces, what is the traditional conclusion of a lesbian porn scene?

--Reperire 21:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

The Matrix trilogy

What is the significance of the sunglasses? It seems like most of the main characters are wearing them, even when fighting, and they rarely come off accidentally.

On a side note, how do Morpheus's sunglasses stay on? They have no arms to loop around the ears.

For the most part, they simply increase the mystery around the main characters, the agents etc. They also help viewers distinguish bluepills from redpills and in the Agents' cases, they also make the agents look like the men in black. Agent Smith's sunglasses also gradually change in form as he becomes more of a rogue program to look less like those of other agents and more like Neo. (Why do I know loads about sunglasses in the Matrix and nothing about useful stuff? :) )smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 20:23, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Morpheus's sunglasses are "pince-nez" (French for "pinch nose") glasses, meaning they stay on by pinching the bridge of the nose. The good guys (Neo, Morpheus, etc.) wear round or curved sunglasses. The baddies (Agents, Cypher, The Twins) wear sunglasses with corners. When Smith returns in Reloaded his sunglasses are the same shape as Neo's, but with sharp corners like an Agent's. --Canley 01:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

They're also good product placement. --Robert Merkel 03:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

To be good product placement, the brand name must be clearly visible. StuRat 14:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Plus they help to hide Keanu Reeves' perpetually glazed, mindless and expressionless eyes. And sunglasses look cool. Proto t c 11:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Anthropology Question

1)What kind of saw cuts best through human bones?

2)Where on the internet can I find plans for a small bomb that can kill 10-20 people?

3)Where is the best place to dispose of human bodies so that the police won't find them?

Thanks --ericder

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.172.164.85 (talk • contribs) 23:27, February 15, 2006 (UTC).

1) A bone saw, of course.

2) Read pipe bomb.

3) The bottom of the ocean.

4) Let us know when you are accessing Wikipedia from prison so we can laugh at you.

--Kainaw ^(talk) 00:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This leaves us with the question, what does this have to do with anthropology? and does this make Kainaw an accomplice? ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 01:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Helping out a terrorist? Oh yes, it's straight to Guantanamo Bay for Kainaw. Which would give us an insider for that article (let's not forget the bright side of things). Just two problems (no reason for blind optimism): 1) It would be original research 2) How does he get the info out? I don't suppose the prisoners get internet-access. DirkvdM 10:42, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

1. A circular saw would be quite handy.
2. Various home-made explosive sites exist on the internet, including Megalomania and The Big Book of Mischief.
3. I'd say a better idea to dispose of the bodies would be a nice big barrel of sulfuric acid, as per the Acid bath killer, and then dump the remains into the ocean. Just make sure to remove any dentures first. GeeJo _{(t) (c)} • 10:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

3: A graveyard

If I convert to Judaism and become a Jew, I'm still Asian and Thai American or not?

I don't want to convert to Judaism now. I'm Asian American, Thai American, and a Shia Muslim. If I convert to Judaism and become a Jew, I'm still Asian and Thai American or not? I know if I'm born Asian and Thai American, I will be Asian and Thai American forever in my life. Jet (talk) 00:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

How to save worlds power crisis

Take an Extension cord and plug it into itself. The powr shud then go round and round and come ot of the other sockets. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.38.213.226 (talk) 10:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Erasing Bad Relationship

Just like in the movie Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, is it possible in the future to remove a bad memory from your brain? I am experiencing a horrible heartbreak and I would like to know if anything remotely exists right now --Jonasmanohar (talk) 14:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC):

Answer:

--Sean 14:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

how about other than that? --Jonasmanohar (talk) 14:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Euclidean prime numbers do not exist and euclid must should himself know it.

In 1996 Torsten Jensen was awarded the Millennium Leibniz Prize in logic, mathematics, physics, chemistry and medicine by providing a beautifully crafted very short proof that showed that all natural numbers can be divided by 3 and therefore Euclides theorem is false, invalid and worthless.

My question is this: 1. Do you know his ultra simple proof? 2. Why Euclides himself did not think of it? 3. Why did it take about 2300 years before a man saw the error in Euclid's theorem and destroyed about 12,000 rubbish theorems in number theory including Andrew Wiles's attempt at finding a proof for Fermat's last theorem?

Signed: T. Hansen, Lans, German Lutheran Church <email removed>

I do not mind at all if people read and steal my thoughts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.51.207 (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Mass/Weight of a Pokemon in a Pokeball

OK so we all know how it goes, Pokemon magically appear from their pokeballs and fight it out, but when they re-enter Pokemon trainers seem to have no trouble lifting the balls up (I mean some Pokemon are pretty heavy; Charizard for example is a right burger biffer). So where does the weight, and therefore mass, of the Pokemon go? In search for an answe myself and an equally socially challenged friend have come up with two possible theories, which continue a longstanding tradition of debate and hate towards each other:

1. Inside the pokeball is void of Higgs Bosons, therefore the Pokemon does not experience mass as it has no interaction with the Higgs Field. I'm assuming the pokemon turns into a strange radiative state which is regenerated on expulsion from its resting place.

2. (In what is quite franky a rediculious explanation..) The Pokeball acts as a gateway to a different dimension which stores the Pokemon until needed (I know, down right retarded).

So, Wikipedians, Discuss. -Benbread (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a theory: pokemon aren't real, so they go to the place in your brain other cartoons go when you suspend your disblief. Try our cartoon physics article on for size. --Shaggorama (talk) 22:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Your question invokes a discussion on an idea that has appeared in video games for years. See magic satchel. I don't think anyone can come up with a reasonable explanation for such things.--Russoc4 (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

From Poké Ball - "In the Pokémon world, scientists have been using various, highly developed techniques of converting matter into energy and back for years." "The conversion of a Pokémon into energy when inside a Poké Ball explains how some Pokémon can be many times the Trainer's height and weight, yet still fit in a Poké Ball and not make it any heavier." Digger3000 (talk) 22:25, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Which is great in fiction, but in the real world even when you "convert" matter into energy if you measure it you'll still find it has the same mass. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Shhhh... --Tango (talk) 22:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Forget Pokemon. I now want to use Poke balls for energy storage. If it can really store an entire animal converted to energy as energy, then it could power every electrical device I'll ever own in my entire life. If extracting this energy requires a one-time sacrafice of a pokemon then that's a price I can live with. APL (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I smell a really bad fanfic coming on... --Eagle (Eagle) 23:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Two dimensional objects do not possess any mass. It is a non (or poker none) question. SpinningSpark 23:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Hammer space, of course. Rmhermen (talk) 23:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Is this space governed by Hammer time?--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

How about if each Pokeball has miniaturized shrink ray technology, something akin to Honey, I Shrunk the Kids? The process would then be reversed when the Pokeball is opened. Compared to other theories presented (with the exception of the alternate dimension theory), this one has the advantage of allowing said Pokemon to retain previous training, since the subjects in said movie had no memory loss; the same might not be true if you converted matter into energy and back again. Eric (EWS23) 09:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This problem goes even further when you realize that may Pokémon can create many times their weight in whatever they can shoot out. For example, a Poké ball the size of a tennis ball holds a Blastoize the size of a van, which can shoot out enough water to fill an Olympic-sized swimming pool in a few seconds. Maybe we should just assume that Pokémon takes place in another universe, and things we take for granted in our own, such as the law of conservation of energy, simply don't apply. — DanielLC 14:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Gumby and Pokey

I wasn't able to determine the mass of Pokey balls, and couldn't even spot them in pics like this:

StuRat (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

That was the first time I burst out laughing at something on the reference desk in months. Kudos! --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Now the pic has been removed. I guess Pokey's privates will remain private. :-) StuRat (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add another dimension to this problem. When a pokemon evolves, many of its properties change instantaneously, like mass, size and even biological properties(consider charmaleon developing into charizard). This change often takes only few seconds.Perhaps the assertion is correct that in the universe of pokemons the conservation laws don't apply.shanu 08:22, 17 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rohit max (talk • contribs)

To add even another dimension to this, how would said pokeballs be able to expand and shrink they way the do for use and then for compact storage on a belt? They just seem to grow instantly or shrink instantly when the front button is pushed. How could they do that? It is adding more matter to it from nowhere. If it is metal, how does it expand and contract at will so easily? --Eagle (Eagle) 12:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Can someone help me in my own noble pursuit of all the world's (scientific) knowledge?

What would be the proper order to read your science articles so I can become a scientific personality with a steel trap mind? I mean someone says " .... my milkman, 1846, berylium, and the tenth law of thermodynamics?" I would immediately reply "My good man, your statement about the nonexistant 10th law of thermodynamics strikes I, a well known intellectual powerhouse in the esteemed scientific community, as peplexing and oddly prophetic. For it has been determined, by a barrage of outside the box labrotory research, that the math, using a newly, sometimes controversial property discovered by a still top secret learning facility, is indeed correct. Your milkman will discover 6 more laws of thermodynamics! ]:)

It would sound rediculous to the layman, but that's just the point, I want to be resprected by scientists, not necessarily people in general. --Hey, I'm Just Curious (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You can read them in any order. Science does not have a starting point. You study. If you find something that you do not understand, you study that. If that leads to something you do not understand, you study that. You continue until you understand the first thing you were reading. As for being respected... you will need a PhD. Make a list of the top 100 scientists of all time. You will have a handful that lived before the invention of the PhD (so they don't have one). You will have a couple that didn't get a PhD for one reason or another. Then, the majority will have a PhD. Why? If you are too stuck up or lazy to get a PhD, why should all those who got theirs want to spend their time listening to you? -- kainaw™ 19:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

PhD is certainly the qualifier. All those man-hours put into achieving a doctorate, shows that you are a dedicated scientist in your field, and worth listening to. No one would care about what Miss Teen South Carolina thinks of blackholes or general relativity, but lots of people listen when Carl Sagan or Michio Kaku talk about them, because they know what they are talking about. ScienceApe (talk) 20:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's true at all. A PhD is nearly a requirement if you want a career in academia, but respect in academia is almost entirely a function of what you publish. Anyone who does look at your educational history will be more interested in the schools—a BA from Berkeley is worth a lot more than a PhD from Columbia Pacific University. I think professional astronomers appreciate Sagan's popularization of astronomy, but I don't think they'd rate his scientific work as especially memorable. Kaku I think is little short of a crackpot. Jack Sarfatti is an outright crackpot, and he has a PhD in theoretical physics from UC Riverside. There's a popular perception that anyone who can get a PhD must know what they're talking about, but sadly it isn't true. Anyone can get a PhD if they try hard enough; most people are just smart enough not to bother. -- BenRG (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It strikes me that brushing up on grammar would enhance your intellectual powerhouse reputation (even among scientists). Clarityfiend (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want my, totally biased advice: a great way to get a very generalist understanding of science is not to study science itself, but to study the history of science. If you read through the article on History of physics and took the time to look into the sub-articles linked to there, you'd have a great, great understanding of physics for practical, conversational purposes. Could you set up an experiment yourself? No. That takes formal training for the most part. Could you carry on a conversation about the relevance of the expanding universe? Yes indeed. Could you probably find yourself with a lot to say on the topic of string theory, relativity, and the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics? Yes you could—and frankly, if you aren't actually going to be whipping out your calculator right there, I'm not sure trying to parse through all the equations is going to get you very far anyway. Just my two cents. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Having a PhD is not a requirement for being smart, or a good scientist. To be a good scientist, it is all about the mindset and philosophy you are in. A PhD is merely a good sign of one. Freeman Dyson is a famous physicist and Planck Medal winner who hates PhDs. Just wanted to get that in there. Mac Davis (talk) 03:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You're only going to read (with dedication) if you're interested, and you'll talk more about subjects you're interested in as well. I'd suggest focusing your study on areas that fascinate you and follow tangents as they arise. You might also want to start brushing up on lay-science magazines; it sounds like you're interested in physics, so I'd suggest something like Scientific American or Popular Mechanics. --Shaggorama (talk) 06:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I for one don't like popular science magazines at all. They just leave you "OK, black holes are like vacuum cleaners of space, but how does it really work.". Reading Wikipedia, for example, is much better. —Bromskloss (talk) 15:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget to regularly read the Wikipedia Science reference desk (like you are now), I learn lots of new things everyday in just a 5 minute visit to this place. --Mark PEA (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

CAN YOU HELP ME WITH A SONNET?????

by help i mean do one for me in the next ten minutes if possible. PLEASE, its a life or death situation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.157.21.71 (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Is somebody holding a gun to your head saying "A sonnet or your life"? Yeah, happens to me all the time. Wikipedia does not do peoples homework...--Cameron (t|p|c) 21:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't even know anybody, who can knit a Bonnet. GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Pinch one from Petracha,John Milton or the Bard / Edward de Vere (Good morning, Jack). Even from Robert Frost, Rainer Maria Rilke or Seamus Heaney.

Looking at our article on sonnet is all you need to knit one for yourself and save your life...--Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It's afternoon here now, but hi anyway, Cookatoo.ergo.Zoom. It's good to see not everyone believes the impossible is impossible to believe.  :) -- JackofOz (talk) 04:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The first step is deciding what to write it about. Sonnets should be about something. Once you decide that, and whether you're going to do the 4-4-4-2 kind of the other kind, and pick your rhyme scheme, and choose a couple of conceits to develop, then the sonnet pretty much writes itself. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:35, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

A man with a gun to my head wants a sonnet
And if I don't write one he'll blow me away
I better start writing. I'd better get on it
If I want to live till the end of the day.
Poetry's tricky. Perhaps I should steal one.
From Milton or Shakespeare, Frost or de Vere
But maybe the man with the gun wants a real one
By me, and not copied from somewhere like here.
So maybe it's best if I do my own writing
Not ask other people to do it for me.
I'll do it myself. It's kind of exciting
Not knowing a word of my poem-to-be.
He looks impatient. Time's running out fast.

Each word, each line, each breath may be my last.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.148.158 (talk) 19:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC) 

Nice, but much past our poor questioner's deadline. Still, it's there and ready for the next desperate student. --LarryMacTalk 19:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Applause (clap clap clap). And with a message, too. Do sonnets have a message or is this a new genre as well? Julia Rossi (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

lost fish -- I need a more plausible story!

I am in really big trouble and none of its my fault. I very kindly offered to look after my girlfriends fish whilst she went on holiday to Teneriffe with some of her friends from work, one of who is getting married soon to frankly a very boring bloke from Sales called Darren. We don't live together despite having been in a relationship for the past five and half years. To be honest the crux of our lack of commitment to a long term relationship, marriage and kids is due to her obsessive need to love her goldfish named Kenny after the late DJ and comedian Kenny Everett. When she's had a couple of pints of Merlot she insists on recounting the tale of how she won Kenny at a fair on the Downs just after the erstwhile entertainer passed away in 1995. Her deep held belief is that Kenny the Goldfish is the reincarnated soul of Mr Everett. Sadly after only two days of looking after every whim of the ageing fish he decided to move on to having a bit of a laugh with me after I had smoked a scoobie or two. Lying with barely a movement at the top of his tank - I thought he was a gonner. I thought perhaps the kiss of life would save the fish but the slippery little sod wriggled out of my hands when I got him out of the tank - and to cut a long story short exited the seventh floor flat via the window. Please send me some help as to a more plausible story of how the fish dissapeared - as I will be accused of murder and dumped and I love her and don't want to lose her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Copy of a copy cat (talk • contribs) 15:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Buy a new one, she will never know, and if she does and you get dumped, then a woman that loves her fish more than you is not the woman for you any way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.175.247 (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is that you lost the dead fish. The fish dying on you, that's not a problem, that could happen to anyone. But dropping it out the window, well, that's the slapstick aspect you need to get away from. The answer, as I see it, is to produce a new dead fish, not a new live one, and to treat it in a matter of respect, rather than dropping it out the window. Getting a new live fish will invite a variety of potential problems based around a BIG lie, whereas getting a new dead fish is a much SMALLER lie, as you are only covering up the aspect of your story that is totally unacceptable and also, coincidentally, quite improbable. She might think something is, err, fishy, but she'll never suspect you got high and dropped him out of the window, because that's just absurd. Additionally, she will never believe the story as you tell it: she will think you killed the fish by dropping it out of the window. She will never believe that it was dead first and you took it out to perform CPR on it. So you can't go with the actual truth, as she will never believe it to be the truth anyway. So you might as well be a liar in a way that makes her feel better about this ridiculous situation. So, I advise...:

Buy a new one of similar size. Take it out of the tank and let it die. (Sad, I guess, but I don't consider goldfish to be very high on the chain of being.) Then put it in some sort of ornate box. When she gets back, explain that the fish died on your watch, and that you didn't want it to get all nasty and bloated and whatever in the water, so you put it in a suitable burial device. Then you two can go bury it in a matter she would find fitting. She'll think it is sweet, in the end, and she won't be able to tell one dried fish from another (they all look pretty similar in that state). --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 17:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, you are not satisfied with your own lie so you want someone to invent a lie for you. It's a f***ing fish for Christ's sake. Get over it, tell the truth and sleep in peace for evermore (maybe alone, but you're young!). 1 lie is the first step to a slippery slope. If a dead fish is all that stands between you and an ex-girlfriend you'll be well rid (and I don't mean the fish). Richard Avery (talk) 17:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not about whether she likes the fish more than him. If she thinks he killed her fish in a crazy fashion it's about whether he's reliable, whether he's trustworthy, whether he's careful to understand what she appreciates. Think of it this way: if your spouse purposefully killed your pet, and you were upset by this, would it be because you loved the pet more than the spouse, or because what the killing of the pet symbolized? --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You got a phone number, telegram address, telegraph wire? Just give her a ring and tell her the fish died due to old age and would it be o.k. if you gave it a decent burial. Find a nice spot in a park or friend's (her?) back yard dedicated to piscine memory. (See if you can find a picture of Kenny to mark the spot or look around at "odds and ends" places for a little ceramic deco fish.) If she's going to be back tomorrow you may have to produce a dead fish for her to be present at the ceremony. Also buying a replacement would show you care for her feelings. --71.236.23.111 (talk) 18:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not about it being a "fish". It's about him being trusted with something. And in the end, it will be about him lying, whether he lies or not. Maybe it will work if he claims he flushed it, but it sounds like she is emotionally attached to it and will want more closure than that. If you don't lie, you'll still be thought to be lying: she'll just think the fish was not already dead when you tried to do CPR on it and threw it out the window. To believe that you really thought you could bring a dead fish back to life and then accidentally dropped it out the window would be to assume you are a total moron—it'll be easier, I bet, for her just to assume you are lying and you killed her fish. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Good day sir. Many people have given you good advice for lying. I do not particularly care for lies. Just tell her what happened. Maybe not the high part. That you got high. You could leave that out of the story. But tell her what happened. And if she dumps then she wasn't in love with you enough. A fish is a fish you can always get another. A relationship between two beings is a wonderful thing and if she loves that fish more then you she was never the right one. I prefer if you told her what happened instead of telling her a lie. Because that lie may hurt you in the end. I hope I have helped. I hope that what I have said may or may not reflect anything. I just appreciate if you took my words into consideration. Have a good day.Rem Nightfall (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Rem Nightfall

Did you try looking for the dead fish beneath the window? It would help if you managed to produce the actual dead fish. (Maybe refrigerate or freeze it if she will be gone for a while.) It would show that you at least cared enough for her feelings to go look for the body. (Even if her feelings for the fish don't make much sense.) Marco polo (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Please, never offer to babysit someone's children. Edison (talk) 19:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You need a plausible story? Yeah, you do. Because frankly, the one you're telling here is pretty much completely ridiculous. The doobie notwithstanding, you thought the goldfish could have been saved with the kiss of life? What, were you going to take a mouthful of water, spray it at the fish's face and hope for the best? But -- oh no! -- the fish, whom your girlfriend, who drinks pints of Merlot, believes to be the reincarnation of Kenny Everett, escaped out of the window, and now she'll kill you? It's a funny story, but frankly, I have a lot of trouble believing it, unless you live in a sitcom. If you do, by all means, come up with some kind of a crazy and convoluted explanation or buy a new fish in the hopes of fooling her. Then you can enjoy the laugh track when she comes home and wonders out loud why Kenny's fins seem to have moved or how weird it is that Kenny is still alive, even though she forgot to mention that he's been ill and the vet didn't think he'd make it through the next few days. Or, alternatively, in the unlikely event that this really happened to you, you could just trust your girlfriend to realize that a 13-year-old goldfish wasn't going to live forever anyway, and that you really didn't mean to hurt it. (If she can't take that, it's okay, because I hear next week her mother's popping over for a visit, and unfortunately your girlfriend has been telling her that you're a chef, so she's going to expect a gourmet meal. So if you break up now, at least you won't have to ask a real chef to cook for her while you run in and out of the kitchen in a chef's hat and pretend to be the guy doing the cooking, prompting yet more laugh track action. Trust me, you're getting off easy here.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the discussions of whether the girlfriend's affections for the fish are absurd or not are off base. The fish was a favorite pet. Who cares if it is fish or a dog or a pet rock. The point is, she's going to be distraught when it is dead, especially if the death has circumstances that make it look like he killed the fish through negligence or accident. It doesn't have to be a fish; it could be a favorite piece of pottery. If he destroyed the cherished thing by being a fool, as appears to be the case, she's got every right to question whether he's a good mate, whether he is being truthful, etc. It has nothing to do with liking the fish more than the fellow. If a girlfriend of mine destroyed my laptop in a ridiculous manner, I would be plenty mad, not because I liked the laptop more than the girl. The problem as I see it, as I've said, is that the truthful story, assuming it is true (unlike Captain Disdain), is that it is totally unbelievable, so she's going to think he's lying anyway. So if you're going to be thought a liar by telling the truth, you might as well tell a smaller lie that will make everybody happier, as I see it. Maybe there's an intrinsic value to telling the truth but in that case it'll never be appreciated, so tell a more plausible lie, one that conveniently overlooks the fact that you desecrated the dead fish, but has all of the other aspects intact. Don't try to pass of a new, live fish, you've no idea whether she'll be able to tell or not. Get a new dead fish. Then just write the story around it. --Captain Ref Desk (talk) 23:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that this has got well into debate status and I refer my learned friends to the guidelines. Richard Avery (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Say the fish died so you buried/flushed it. If you want to make your frankly bonkers girlfriend feel a little better, get her a replacement pet (rabbit, dog, hamster, or whatever - something you like) and say the fish was reincarnated as this new pet and that's why you've named it "Kenny". Just a note of caution though: she might not believe you, dump you and you'll be stuck with the rabbit, dog, hamster, or whatever for the rest of it's life - and remember a pet's "not just for Christmas". Astronaut (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for assistance

Hello. I am an 84 year old man who has recently acquired a computer. I am currently having some trouble with it and thought I'd ask some of you young people who seem to have a lot of knowledge on computers and the Internet.

Yesterday, I talked to my grandson on the phone, and he told me that I could create a free e-mail address for myself by visiting the Web site "hotmales.com". However, when I do this, homosexual pornography is displayed on my computer. I have two questions: 1. Is there something I must do differently in order to create the free e-mail address? 2. If creating a free e-mail address is not possible, is there some way I can have heterosexual pornography displayed instead of the homosexual one?

I am looking forward to your help. Cargodemonstration 00:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Your question is so amusing I'm wondering if it's a set-up, but I'll play straight man and say: the site you want is http://hotmail.com. (Too bad Gilda Radner isn't with us any more; this'd make a great Emily Litella sketch.) There are lots of free e-mail sites besides hotmail; another one that's quite popular with the "young people" is http://gmail.com. —Steve Summit (talk) 00:40, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, what a troll --froth^T 00:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

It is hotmail.com. it is easy to use and has enough space to use.

It is a mistake you only make once :-) For whatever kind of porn you like, you can try Google. Interestingly, only 1% of web pages contain porn. Wikipedia has encyclopedic information on these topics at Portal:Pornography and Portal:Sexuality. --h2g2bob 13:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I would like to thank everyone for the help. After quite a few tries, I have now managed to successfully set up an e-mail address at hotmail.com. I also asked my neighbours' teenage son about the pornography issue, and he showed me some Websites I could use for that purpose. This means that both of my problems have been solved. These computers are really a most useful resource. Cargodemonstration 23:33, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Hah this is rich --froth^T 03:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

goat skull in motherboard

i read on helpline about goat skull being found inside of a computer when opened to put new chips in, all embedded in the motheboard. also have heard it might have a link to satanic images put there in the computer shop and displaying on the screen. does this happen?? does it happen often? Bradley10 (talk) 10:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I sprinkled holy water on my PC motherboard just in case. Magic blue smoke came out, so I think you may be right. ;) Franamax (talk) 11:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The only vaguely relevant Google result I can find is this (someone making a custom PC case with an image of a goat skull on the side). I'm pretty sure goat skulls on motherboards and repair shops putting satanic images on computers doesn't happen that often. — Matt Eason ^{(Talk &#149; Contribs)} 14:46, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

A possessed computer? In that case, don't put your hand near any fans. :) Rilak (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? Are you actually seriously asking whether this happens often -- that is to say, whether Satanic computer shops put in satanic images and embed goat skulls in the computer's motherboard? I hesitate to say this, Bradley10, but in the interests of honesty: a lot of your questions make going by WP:AGF pretty difficult... but AGF I will. So, uh, no. No, it doesn't happen often. Considering that a motherboard is exceedingly unlikely to work with a goat skull embedded in it, what with goat skulls being, well, goat skulls instead of computer parts, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that barring some really weird and unique prank, it doesn't happen at all. Ever. One simple reason for this, apart from the technical challenges involved, is that if someone buys a computer from you, and you put a goat skull and Satanic images in it, chances are that that you're going to have a really crappy day in a courtroom sometime in the near future. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 22:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)