Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2006 December 29

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 29

Existence of my own mind

What is the name of the belief that the only thing I can be certain of is the existence of my own mind? I read about it, but I can't remember the name, and google isn't helping... J Milburn 01:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Solipism. "Solipsists of the world, unite!" (old joke). AnonMoos 02:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks, and a bonus point for the joke! J Milburn 02:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The only thing whose existence you can be sure of is doubt. I doubt that even doubt exists therefore doubt exists. 202.168.50.40 02:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't doubt that doubt exists. But I'm not sure of that.  --Lambiam^Talk 06:40, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

With an "S" after the "L". Solipsism as per AnonMoos's "Solipsists unite." --Seejyb 10:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There was a great line of internal monologue from Adaptation, as Nicolas Cage's character is struggling to complete a movie script:

"It's narcissistic, it's solipsistic... it's pathetic. I'm pathetic."

Vranak 21:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be narcissiStic? JackofOz 00:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The Black Sea ?

A port is a facility for receiving ships and transferring cargo to and from them. Are there any ports in the black sea? --Jones2 10:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Odessa is one. Other ports include Burgas, Varna, Constanţa, Yalta, Sevastopol, Kerch, Novorossiysk, Sukhumi, Poti, Batumi, Trabzon, Samsun and Zonguldak. Note that seaports may also be used to transfer passengers, not just cargo. StuRat 14:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Cargo ship v/s Cargo airline ?

After reading the articles Cargo ship & Cargo airline, there is no information regarding the comparision. I am wondering is Cargo ship going to become exticnt due to new technology Cargo airline? --Delma1 10:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Del, I doubt it. The cost of air fuel is rising, and there is a not-to-distant future when it will be the privilege of the middle classes. Ships and trains are the most practical alternative for cargo, and for passengers, high speed rail (eg TGV, Shinkansen, and the equivelants, ICE in Germany, TAV in Italy, etc.) will have to be the norm. That means other countries - like the US and UK - building similar networks.martianlostinspace 11:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

In other words Air Cargo is expensive compared to Ship Cargo? --Delma1 10:00, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Very much so. As a general rule, it costs ten times as much to ship something by air as it does to ship it by ground or water. --Carnildo 01:52, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Old Middle English spelling for Jesus

Apparently the Old Middle English spelling for Jesus was "Iesus" or "Ihesu" (perhpas both are correct). When did this spelling change to what we use today as "Jesus". Is there any English word origination for the word "Ihesu" or where did this word come from (language). Is there a Latin word similiar to this of "Ihesu"? Is there a Greek word similiar to "Ihesu"? If there is (Latin or Greek), then what is its root meaning? Is there other root meanings (multiple meanings)? When was the letter "J" brought into use? --Doug 12:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Neither ancient Greek nor ancient Latin had distinct letters for an [i] vowel and a [y] consonant -- the same letter was used for both sounds in each language. The Greek spelling was Ιησους (i.e. Iêsous). This was borrowed into Latin as IESVS (as it would have been carved in a monumental inscription). Ancient Latin IESVS is usually transcribed into modern alphabets as Jesus (since the letter "I" represented a consonant sound, while the letter "V" represented a vowel sound). The letters "J" and "I" were not fully distinguished in English until the 17th century, so that "Iesus" and "Jesus" were fully equivalent before that time (a swash glyph variation, not a distinction between separate letters). "Jesus"/"Iesus" was derived from the Latin nominative case form, while "Jesu"/"Iesu" was derived from the Old French oblique case form and/or the Latin vocative case form. The spellings with "H" appear in some medieval renderings of Biblical names (e.g. Hierosolyma for Jerusalem), and could be influenced by Greek Eta (see IHS, for example), but they probably weren't generally pronounced with an "H" sound in medieval Latin / middle English. AnonMoos 13:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Here's a table of the different Latin and Greek case forms of the name, both as these languages are transcribed into modern alphabets (with the upper case / lower case distinction and the separation of I/J and U/V into distinct letters which did not exist at that time), and how they would have appeared in ancient inscriptions (with the C-like "lunate" form of the Greek letter Sigma common in the early centuries A.D.):

Case:	Latin:	Greek:
Nominative	Jesus (IESVS)	Ιησους (IHCOYC)
Accusative	Jesum (IESVM)	Ιησουν (IHCOYN)
Genitive / Dative (Latin also Ablative)	Jesu (IESV)	Ιησου (IHCOY)
Vocative	Jesu (IESV)	Ιησου (IHCOY)

This question probably should have been asked on the Language reference desk, by the way... AnonMoos 13:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and the name was originally Hebrew and/or Aramaic, ישוע Yêshû`, which was a post-500 B.C. shortened form of older Hebrew יהושע Yehôshû` or "Joshuah". The same name ישוע Yêshû` occurs in the Hebrew of the Old Testament at Ezra 2:2, 2:6, 2:36, 2:40, 3:2, 3:8, 3:9, 3:10, 3:18, 4:3, 8:33; Nehemiah 3:19, 7:7, 7:11, 7:39, 7:43, 8:7, 8:17, 9:4, 9:5, 11:26, 12:1, 12:7, 12:8, 12:10, 12:24, 12:26; 1 Chronicles 24:11; and 2 Chronicles 31:15, and also in the Aramaic of the Old Testament at Ezra 5:2 -- but due to certain historical vagaries in transcription practices, in modern English Bible translations this name is usually rendered "Jeshua" in the Old Testament, but "Jesus" in the New Testament. AnonMoos 13:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that was most useful. Now I have an EXCELLENT concept where the name came from. I see now WHY the letter "V" was used, since it would be carved into stone. The letter "U" would be nearly impossible. Didn't realize it should have been under language. I see "Humanities" has to do with religion, so used this thinking it was correct (as part of the Christian religion). I am sure with your excellent answer I could not have obtained anything better anyway. Glad you noticed. I notice under | Biblical Names the meaning is "Jehovah is salvation; deliverer; help" and Jehovah is "self-subsisting". This then puts the first part of the definition (meaning) as "self-subsisting is salvation". I am not a religious person (do not associate with Christianity), so could you elaborated on this meaning (without too much 'religion', if possible). Also is there any non religious meanings connected to "deliverer; help". So now you can see my dilemma; since it is basically on a "religious" theme. Should I ask on Language instead? --Doug 14:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Also on that of the 17th Century - could it have been in a "transition" period from the use of the letter "I" into the use of the letter "J" around the 14th Century? Perhaps around the 14th Century started the used of letter "J"" in Old English --Doug 14:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I answered a similar question on the Language desk before I saw it here. Marco polo 20:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Meanings - 'Yah' is a shorter form, used in names, for Yahweh, the (reconstructed) original that is usually rendered Jehovah in English. In considering the meaning of a name that uses it, it is not appropriate to consider its own meaning, if any: the name means 'Yah will save' or 'Yah is the saviour', just as 'Yochanan' (the original from which 'John' derives) means 'Yah shows grace'. For comparison, consider the name 'Johnson'. That means 'Son of John' - it would be perverse to call it 'Son of Yah shows grace'.

As for 'I' vs 'J': AnonMoos answered that. 'I' and 'J' were simply not different letters until the 17th century. No doubt some people started consistently distinguished them earlier than others, but there's no real 'transition period'. --ColinFine 00:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks all for the great answers concerning the letters "I" and "J". --Doug 23:16, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Biblical Name meanings

In Wikipedia under Biblical names it shows the public domain source as Hitchcock's New and Complete Analysis of the Holy Bible by Roswell D. Hitchcock, New York: A. J. Johnson, 1874, c1869. Apparently Roswell D. Hitchcock gathered these meanings from other sources. What other sources? How long have these Biblical meanings been around? Where did they come from originally? From what language or country source? Are some newer than others or were they basically defined about the same time? Were some originated in the later periods, say from the Renaissance Period? --Doug 12:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you're asking, but sources which can cast light on the meanings of Biblical names include ancient cuneiform inscriptions, and the existence of related words in other Semitic languages. A lot of details have been learned since 1874, but the basic parameters within which a name is explained remain somewhat the same. AnonMoos 13:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe you pretty well answered what I was looking for. I see now that "the basic parameters within which a name is explained remain somewhat the same" is what I was wondering. Over time (i.e. centuries) then the name meanings basically have remained the same. Perhaps even in Semitic languages many of these names came from the Persian Empire (500 BC) or before; making some of the name meanings even then perhaps a couple of thousand years old or older. Perhaps this question should have been also under Language, since it has to do with language names? Should I also then ask again; would others answer? --Doug 15:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Look at a King James Bible with a concordance. Most of the names are given English translations on the very page where they are first mentioned. I assume that the concordance was written at the same time as the KJV translation, but that may not be true. User:Zoe|(talk) 17:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Remember, too, that these "etymologies" were not invariably lively in the minds of those who were given them or who bore them. James, brother of Jesus may have been unaware that his name meant-- if it really did mean-- "holder of the heel". "Benjamin" connotes "youngest son" rather than the various "etymologies" over which scholars quibble (see article Benjamin). --Wetman 19:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Great ideas! Thanks everyone.... --Doug 23:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

British territories sold to the US in WWII

As I understand it, in the early part of WWII before Lend Lease kicked in, the UK sold off some islands to the US in exchange for war materiel. What were these territories? Jooler 13:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There was a Caribbean-bases-for-old-destroyer-ships deal, but I don't think that actual full and final sovereignty to any territory was transferred. AnonMoos 13:36, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's the article Destroyers for Bases Agreement -- AnonMoos 13:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought there were more. Jooler 21:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

For long term geo-economic reasons, US influence in the Caribbean gradually increased whilst British influence decreased. To the point in 1984 when the US didn't bother to consult the UK when it invaded Grenada. The Destroyers for Bases Agreement should be seen as a bump in that transition of influence. Paul Silverman 21:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Rum and Coca-Cola... AnonMoos 00:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Miami Beach

Hello i wanted to know the motto for south miami beach and i cannot find it, and i do not know it, please help. And when was miami beach established and by whom? my email is: (I have removed your email address to protect you from spam. Please check back here for replies. Skittle 13:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.244.171.224 (talk) 13:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Our articles on South Beach and Miami Beach might be of use wrt your second question, but I can't find any record of a motto as such - I recommend contacting the City of Miami Beach to ask. Natgoo 15:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

A question of psychology

I don't know if anyone will be able to help me here, but maybe someone can at least give me a second opinion. Maybe others can relate to my, problem. I consider myself pretty smart; I think I would be able to do many things, if I tried. The problem is that I don't try. I have spurts of inspiration once in a while, sometimes lasting for only a day, sometimes for weeks. I'm one of those guys that never finishes anything, and is able to do a lot of things "pretty well". The one thing that I can truly say that I did well was something incredibly easy that not many people had tried before, so it was easy to produce results that stood out, or at least that's how I felt.

I know I'm not normal (other, unrelated details), but I'm not affected by anything like ADD/ADHD, and I'm rather healthy and clean. If I have a certain goal that seems direct and attainable (usually in the form of a member of the other sex) I often discover immense amounts of unused motivation to use in order to improve myself, but since those situations don't come that often for me, I'm often disgusted by my own laziness, my own lack of a drive to do anything productive.

Even though I am so strongly concious of my faults (I have others), and have such a strong want to become motivated, I can't change this part of myself, and it seems like I'm doomed to be lazy for the rest of my life. Why don't I try? I mean... I think I can, but I don't know why I don't. Hell, I've even thought of self-meditation, but of course I gave up on that, too. 222.158.163.86 15:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If you don't have much self-motivation, perhaps you need another person to motivate you. Parents can serve that purpose early on, with "significant others" and spouses taking on that role later. I suggest you look for a life-mate who will motivate you to reach your potential. Some combination of the "stick and carrot" might be appropriate motivators. Of course, too much "stick" might make you resentful, so choose a mate which has the right balance for you. Don't, however, choose a mate like yourself, or you will both end up reinforcing each other's lazy tendencies. StuRat 15:07, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do think you are exactly right that I need another person to motivate me; a significant other to ying my yang and provide or restore some balance to my troubled mind. I'm on active watch. I know it is said that "no man is an island", but some men are, and as long as I'm an island, I'd like to, as much as I can, make myself into a respectable one. I think it sounds a little bit unfair to shoulder the responsibility of motivating men with half-assed lives over to women. I'm metrosexual like that I guess. Is "stick and carrot" old American for "apples and oranges"? 222.158.163.86 15:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought that was a universal expression. I believe the expression comes from how to motivate horses, with the "carrot"; being a reward, and the "stick" being a punishment. For example, your wife could reward you by letting you go out to a bar "with the boys" or punish you by banning you from watching sports (if that's something you like). Of course, you could always ignore her and do as you please, but the hope here is that your desire to please her, along with that part of you that wants to accomplish things in life, will together defeat your lazy tendencies. StuRat 15:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way you explained it, I think your "problem" is a lot more common than you realize. Not everyone's a "type A" personality, and apparently, neither are you. Wile Stu's suggestion is definitely a helpful one, from what I gather, I don't think he realizes that the whole "finding a mate" thing is likely one of the biggest hurdles within the "problem" itself. Don't get wrong, I think it would be terrific if you had a mate as Stu suggests, but it can be really tough getting there. The first step I'd suggest is to quit criticizing yourself. You're not a "type A", but whatever "type" you are, don't try to change it, learn to love yourself for whatever "type" you are. Believe me, once one is happy in one's own skin, motivation rises markedly and things that used to be tough become a peice of cake. But you have to start by loving yourself for who you are. Good luck. Loomis 15:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Another thought, are there support groups for this ? The model of Alcoholics Anonymous would seem likely to work here, with an assigned "buddy" to check up on you, make sure you attend meetings, etc. You would do the same for him. So, if one of you decides to stop going to work, the other would yell at them until they go. StuRat 15:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's any help, I can fully identify with your problem. I have exactly the same difficulty and have had all my life. I have tried really hard to resolve it but never succeeded. Yet I have had an otherwise successful life, marriage, kids, career etc., etc., but the awful feeling of not feeeling motivated has always been there. I too am good at most things, in fact, I am often complimented on the wide range of skills I have mastered, and the results of my efforts, but as soon as I pick up a paintbrush or pen, I begin to resent having begun the project. The worst part is, I know how well I might have done if I had really been enthusiastic about it, like learning a language, playing an instrument or whatever. I am now at an age where I have to really struggle NOT to look upon my past life with regret or resentment, and any advice I would offer would be for you not to waste your life looking for a life-changing holy-grail solution, but to instead accept this condition as a part of YOU; like your height or gender, you cannot effectively change it or cast it off. But please, don't thrust the problem of providing the solution onto a partner. Choose a supportive partner by all means, but be honest with them from the beginning, even to asking them to give you a kick up the bum from time to time. And you can have my support to get you started. Good Luck. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.242.57 (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

I find your problem most interesting since I would be considered at the opposite end of the spectrum. I am self motivated most of the time. I am a retiree now and doing MANY fascinating projects. I just recently retired about 2 years ago. I otherwise was self motived all my life also. I ALWAYS had plenty to do. My projects now are so interesting and fun that I do NOT have enough time in the day to get everything done (and I have ALL day). Perhaps you could learn something from me. I'll start with a couple of questions and see if this develops into something. FIRST: What are your "basic" interests? Here I mean, do you like computers? My guess is that you do, since you are here. What other "hobbies" do you like? Hobbies make for a very fasinating pass time. Also by default they are a great teacher of that field. One of my "hobbies" is Family Genealogy. It has been so "addictive" that lately I have had to wean myself off it for awhile. Now my hobby is "cracking the Da Vinci Code". It now is VERY addictive and uses up about 10 hours or more a day, seven days a week. So maybe a good start in getting self-motivated is to get a hobby. TWO: What is your job or career? What do you do for a living? Are you interested in making MORE money. Do you believe you should be interested in making MORE money? Why? Do you know HOW to make money? Are you interested in money? THREE: Do you travel? Where? What places would you like to go to? Tahiti perhaps? Maybe Bora Bora? Mexico? Club Med??? FOUR: How old are you? Do you think the advice of "Elders" is good? FIVE: Would you be considered an "honest" person? When you say "clean" is this from the viewpoint of good morals? I myself am NOT a "religious" person, however am considered a very moral person. FIVE: Instead of NOT signing in ("Logging in") as normal and saying what your name is, have the motivation to try to figure out how to "Log in" as normal and provide a name. This could even be a "nick" name like "Unmotivated", however perhaps a more positive name like "Need-Useful-Ideas" might be a better name. Start there and IF you have the motivation to answer my questions, perhaps there is much more here from an "Elder" that has "been-there-done-that". --Doug 20:17, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

For the original poster: motivation comes from within. It will not be plied with reason, logic, or conventional wisdom.

Ply: (from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ply)

4. To continue offering something to; ensure that (another) is abundantly served: plied their guests with excellent food.

5. To assail vigorously

Vranak 21:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Also for the original poster: passion and fire I believe is what this one above is saying to you. Do you have this "fire"? If you do, then there is LOTS of things out there to be motivated about. Out of all these questions I posed, which ones stuck your interest? Are you interested in money? Perhaps "the Da Vinci Code" or maybe travel to exotic places? Which things would you say you are MOST motivated about? What is "fun" to you; things that make you happy? What "excites" you to put some fire under you? What if you discovered a document (that nobody else has) that showed EXACTLY the names of the Apostles in Da Vinci's Last Supper masterpiece painting in the correct order; would this "excite" you? What IF this document were hundreds of years old; would a discovery or find like this give you "excitement" and passion to tell the world? What motivates you with fire? Perhaps making a lot of money? Would making a lot of money excite you? What fields of science or other fields do you like? What hobbies do you presently have? What "| hobbies" would you like to take up, IF you had the knowledge? Would you say you can apply common sense and are a practical person or do you come from the viewpoint of academics? --Doug 22:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

This is the usual sort of answer for people lacking drive: of all these exciting activities, surely something must spark your interest?

We're all the same: we all like the same, basic, things. It's a red herring to tell someone to find something to 'ignite their passion'. It just does not work like this. Vranak 23:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Very true Vranak, the questionner is telling us he cannot get motivated by anything; I then confess to being the same, and Doug comes along and tells us to get motivated?????????? Nice try Doug, but it's like trying to tell an alcoholic or a drug addict or a gay guy to act "normal". I am only 5'4", but have always wanted to be 6'2", can you suggest anything Doug?

Thanks everyone for your comments. It gives me a little more to think about. Especially Doug, for speaking your mind and representing the concrete wisdom of "the elders". 81.145.242.57's comments also especially hit me hard, because, though I'm sure you've lived to be happy with your life, it is truly dissapointing that you never found your place, and I see myself heading in the same direction. To Doug: People have asked me ever since high school what I "liked". For some people, that's an easy question to answer. People have hobbies, likes and dislikes. I don't really. I like everything, I want to know everything, I want to do everything and be everything, for a while. The idea of me devoting myself to a single task, or a bunch of related ones, is not only unthinkable, but entirely undesirable and even scary when I think too much about it. I guess the only thing I can say that I truly believe is "fun", is change, difference, newness. That basically explains my thirst for knowledge; learning things forces me to adapt myself to a new base, I feel like I become a different person. When I was younger, games were interesting because they are designed to suprise, to force you to think in creative ways. Being logical though, I no longer let myself enjoy such forced entertainment, because I feel that it takes away from the "enjoyment" of real life, something which I have yet to find much of yet, I guess. I think I am extremely moral, an extreme athiest, and extremely forward thinking. There are of course conflicts between my "brain" and my "heart" (my self and my superego?) as I am only human, but I do my best to keep them in balance.

Even so, the self doesn't respond well to the wants and the needs of the superego (it gets bored), and that, I guess, is my problem. I think Doug has a very strong "self", and that's something that I admire, something that I can't control. Also Doug, you have two FIVEs! 222.159.203.173 05:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC) (I am the same user as User:222.158.163.86)

You are absolutely correct, I do have two FIVES. I was having so much fun I lost track. Thanks for the positive remarks. Perhaps I can introduce some ideas from "an Elder" that might get you inspired. I have found that hobbies got me inspired and taught me to focus in on a single item. I have learned that focusing your energies on a single task gets MUCH better results. Also I too am NOT inspired by games. Never liked just playing games (because I figured it was a waste of good time), however DID enjoy what you call "enjoyment of real life" by applying all my energies instead to "real life" applications. One of my hobbies early in life was that of electronics. I liked building circuits and learning how they worked. This then lead me to my first career as an Electronics Technician. Since I already knew how the circuits worked, I became VERY good at my career. I was then paid very well and got the "gravy" jobs. I knew my stuff and it paid off. That was because I focused in on this single task. My next career was that of real estate. Because I knew how to focus my energies and also knew how to think logically (from logical electronic circuits) I then learned techniques of real estate. In the 1980's we moved from the eastern United States to San Diego. As you know real estate in San Diego is expensive. However I managed to learn how to acquire several properties (and I started with little money). Self motivation was the answer. Focusing in on a single task and putting all my energies in on real estate ultimately paid off very well. There were at the time several thousand real estate Agents and Brokers in San Diego County. Because I knew how to apply common sense, logic, and focus in on a single task I ultimately outwitted and outsmarted MOST of the Agents in San Diego County. One of the ways also that is VERY important here is honesty and morality. Because I was honest with people, people then liked working with me. I was then like a "magnet" and things just fell my way. I was definitely forward thinking. In fact once you learn to concentrate on something, you will learn also then you somhow set up what I might call "Universal Vibrations". You somehow then just attract things your way. I figured out such good honest moral real estate techniques that properties just came my way. Many times I purchased and obtained properties with no money out of my pocket. Really, it happens! There was a couple of instances that I was actually paid CASH money to take the property off the owner's hands. I will be glad to pass these techniques on to you, IF you are interested in these. It will make you LOTS of money, IF you are motivated to earn lots of money. And it is perfectly legal and legitimate. That was the "fun" part, I did it all honestly. You CAN make a lot of money and NOT have to do illegal or immoral things. In fact, I found in the long run, being 100% honest with people pays off in the long run. Now keep in mind, this is advice from "an Elder" that has been-there-done-that. Being DISHONEST will not work. Trust me on that one.

In my real estate career in San Diego my "speciality" was bank repossessions (foreclosures). Because I was so good at what I did and honest with the Bank, I was having most of the Banks calling me personally when they took back a property. I then proceeded to sell their property. My selling techniques were EXCELLENT and moral. I did not have a real estate office and no Agents under me; however DID have 6 - 8 transactions going at the same time. Most Agents are lucky if the have even ONE transaction going. Many other Agents that were trying to get this same business from the Banks were from large firms (i.e. Century 21), however the Bank presidents would rather work with me instead. Then when there was an OUTSTANDING deal, I took it. Then I negotiated DIRECTLY with the bank and purchased it far below the market. When I say "far below" I am talking 80% of market, or 70% of market, sometimes 60% of market. In one instance I bought a half million dollar home in Del Mar (if you know the area, you know this is an expensive area) for under $200,000. It had an ocean view and was in pretty good condition. The home had just recently been re-carpeted. My down payment was 10%, however since I already had commissions from this Bank "in escrow" I basically did not come up with any CASH out of my pocket. In MOST instances I was dealing with the Bank President or one of the top Bank executives (who controlled the properties). Just by "stumbling across" great deals I made LOTS of money. The Bank presidents liked how I handled their deals, so would not even bother to return the calls of other Agents trying to get their business. They then CALLED ME directly and gave me the listing to sell their properties. Pretty good, wouldn't you say? I even had one instance where I was paid 3 (that's correct 3) FULL cash commissions and I was the one that ultimately wound up with the property with no money out of my pocket. I later sold it for a $50,000 profit. Keep in mind now, these numbers are of the 1980's. Don't know what these would be today, but it would be a BUNCH more. I am now retired. FYI: Took a lot of Club Med trips. Even took one trip to the South Pacific for 5 weeks. That was my 3rd time to Tahiti.

Presently I am working on cracking the Da Vinci Code. Now the others that are watching this conversation will have a lot to say about this. That's good! I am having way too much fun. Am I allowed to have this much fun? I think so, I earned it (the old fashion way). What that does is put "fire" under me. I am then "fired" up to keep going. I have already found out MANY of the pieces to the Da Vinci Code, so I am well on my way. Can't hardly wait to see what others will say about this. Way too much "fun", don't you think. This is what I call FUN. Watch what they will have to say on this. It will be very interesting. Wouldn't you like to have "fun" like this? Then all you have to do then is take the advice of an Elder. Now this is the way I look at it: I cann't help it that they didn't find it FIRST. That's because they were NOT applying common sense and being 100% honest. Morality plays a LARGE factor here, so be honest in whatever you do. Would you be interested in helping me crack the Da Vinci Code? Its a lot of "fun", but also a LOT of work. However nobody else has cracked it yet. But I have...... --Doug 11:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The question was not a medical one per se, but the questioner might be well advised to find a psychologist and discuss these concerns with him. A person who is "pretty smart" who is not getting what he wants out of life might have some degree of perfectionism, Obsessive-compulsive disorder, or Clinical depression leading to Procrastination, and might benefit from medication, which a psychiatrist or in some cases his regular doctor could prescribe after evaluating him. Persons who are more comfortable interacting with others via Wikipedia rather than real life might find the article Asperger's Syndrome interesting. I have read biographies of famous scientists or inventors wherein the biographer said that when he was interacting with the great one, he could keep pace with the overachiever on an hour by hour basis, working beside him in the lab or theorizing in the office, but was amazed by what the great one achieved on a day by day, year by year basis. Part of it was time on task: they just kept at it persistently and did not stop. There was also the ability to not be stopped by an obstacle: instead they would renew an attack on the problem from a different direction, or they would attack it from several directions at once. Many people get into paralysis by analysis in that they try to devise the perfect plan rather than trying a reasonable approach, and if it fails try a different reasonable approach. The opposite type of person, sometimes called "A to B' just says "What are the requirements, and get out of my way," then sets off on an attack on the problem. Thomas Edison was an example of day to day year to year tireless productivity, and every field of science or industry has countless similar examples. Of course, the focus on the main interprise often meant they neglected their family or friends, so balance is necessary. The case most in need of counseling or medical management is someone who lacks family and friends and also has no business or career or fun. Life should be more than a waiting room. Edison 16:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I do believe Mr. Edison has some EXCELLENT advice for the original questioner. I would like to also throw in the name Leonardo Da Vinci, whom also was an example of day to day year to year tireless productivity. He was a self motivator. He also had hobbies. He liked to tinker with inventions. As we all know he came up with some inventions that were way ahead of their time. He is called the "Renaissance man". Now another less known figure about 100 years before him that also was an example of day to day year to year tireless productivity was the Italian scholar Francesco Petrarch. He ALSO had hobbies. One of his hobbies was the collection of ancient and crumbling Latin manuscripts or anything classical in the way of old books or Codexs. He did this during his extensive travels throughout Europe in the Fourteenth Century. He also was a tireless writer. He wrote in Latin some of the most famous poems ever written. In fact, Petrarch is considered the "Father of the Renaissance". Presently this is the person I am studing much, because he came up with some great ideas and innovations that originally came from Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle. He then reintroduced their ideas and this is called the Renaissance, which means "rebirth". Check out Petrarch's section on "Philosophy" which I believe you will find most interesting. His hobby of writing was so extensive that to this day we have only translated a part of what he wrote about. One of his books he wrote is called "Book Without A Name" (Latin: Liber Sine Nomine) which is a book written in Code. This is the reason for the title "....without a name" because he left out the names of the people he was writing about. He also wrote other Codexes and manuscripts using codes. This Code I call The Petrarch Code since it was invented by Francesco Petrarch and it is definitely a type of code. His other works have NOT yet been decoded yet since MOST scholars are not aware it is in fact a code. I have found many elements to this code already. Would you be interested in helping me crack The Petrarch Code? It will take a LOT of work and MUCH concentration, however it is a lot of "fun". One of the reasons it is so much "fun" is that (as far I know) there is no other scholars that have discovered this. Does it sound interesting and "fun" or does it sound like too much work. Be for warned that MANY people will criticize you, so be prepared for this. If you can NOT take criticism, then I would recommend that you NOT work on cracking The Petrarch Code..... --Doug 17:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Money / Banking / Investing

What is the best way to invest $10,000 to $15,000 in order to see the best return? Also I do not need access to the money for 10 - 20 years. Any help would be appreciated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.149.33.2 (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

Take a look at investment and have a potter around. I would also suggest seeking professional advice if you are looking to invest. They can assess your tolerance/intolreance to risk and discuss what is the best investment based on your circumstances. The highest returns are often found by taking the biggest risk, but these often sit alongside the lowest/worst returns. We probably have an article called risk and reward or something similar which discusses this trade-off. ny156uk 17:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

We do have investment risk and (more technically) modern portfolio theory. Wareh 00:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I am from the UK and the terminology and customs are different from the US, so my suggestions might not be clear. However if you are investing over 10 - 20 years you can afford do more than just put your money in a savings account. In your situation I would consider two things:

a) putting your money into an index tracker of the stock market - this is something that is a portfolio designed to just passively track the FTSE index or in your case the Dow or other US indicies. The indicies give better reurns than the heavily-advertised and hyped actively managed portfolios - usually called unit trust or investment trusts in the UK.

b) Using your money as a deposit to buy real estate or property as we would say over here. In most parts of the UK this would not be enough for a deposit, but I think houses are cheaper in many parts of the US as you have much cheaper land. I would get what we would call a buy to let mortgage and let the property so that the rent pays the mortgage payments. As you would be highly geared, even a small increase in the price of a house or apartment would make you a lot of money - more than option a). 80.0.123.238 19:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Calling the UK England

Is it just me or do most people from outside Europe, particually Americans, refer to the whole of the UK as just England?

thanks, --84.69.39.119 18:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

A lot of people do, and a lot of English people do as well. It's one of the quickest ways to piss off the Welsh and the Scots, and derives from England's historical dominance of the union. --Mnemeson 18:42, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Addition - Oh, and on a similar note: "British Isles" is, in theory, a politically neutral geographic term that refers to all the islands between North west Brittany, and South east Iceland. That holds up everywhere except Ireland, who will sit you down and repeat until you agree/get kneecapped, whichever comes first, that Ireland is not a 'British Isle' ;-) --Mnemeson 20:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The terms "England", "UK", "Britain", "Great Britain", and "British Commonwealth" are so confusing to many Americans that they just end up picking one at random. How would everyone else fare in describing the US if there were a half dozen different versions of the US, each containing a slightly different, but overlapping, group of states ? StuRat 18:52, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean like people continuously using "North America" "the US" "America"? :) Keria 19:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC) +

That's not quite the same, as Canada and Mexico aren't part of any union with the US (unless you count NAFTA). That would be more like calling the UK the EU. StuRat 22:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you do need to be careful. Being English and living in Scotland over 32 years has taught me how very sensitive Scottish people are to being called English. I recently went into Edinburgh for dinner with my wife and we were served a lovely meal by a waitress who I complimented as I paid the Bill and gave her a generous tip. I asked her which part of Australia she came from (her accent was so pronounced). She replied "Wellington". I retorted that Wellington is in New Zealand and then embarrassedly apologised for my crass assumption that she was Australian. She was OK and accepted my apology but told me that in New Zealand, the locals make the same mistake and ask people from Scotland whereabouts in England they come from and get the answer "Edinburgh". I will in future ask people with an antipodean accent whereabouts in the Antipodes they come from. And it's true that we in the UK make the mistake of asking North American tourists to Edinburgh whereabouts in The States they come from and often get told "Toronto". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.242.57 (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

I don't. When I say England I mean England, exclusive of Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. But to be fair, the population of England is some 50 million, while the population of the entire UK is only about 60 million. It's not as if it's the most terrible of mistakes to refer to the UK as "England". During the cold war, the Soviets were commonly referred to as the "Russians", and even today, The Netherlands is commonly referred to as "Holland". Loomis 22:51, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The point could be made that the Soviet Union was effectively dominated by the Russians, hence calling them that. To use that example, the UK really should be mistakenly called Scotland; the Prime Minister is Scottish, as is the Chancellor, and Home Secretary - of the four 'Great offices of State', only the Foreign secretary is English. Similarly, Scottish MPs are dramatically overrepresented in Parliament than relative populations would make them, a holdover from Union, when it was a necessary condition to get Scotland to join. Many more MPs in English seats are themselves Scottish than vice versa. Our next Prime Minister will certainly be Scottish, and there's a very high chance that his successor will be at least of Scottish descent, in the form of David Cameron. Most of Britain's north sea oil and gas and fishing claims rely on Scottish islands, and the territorial waters they grant. In terms of population, and raw size of economy, Britain is dominated by England, but its political elite hail from the same place as the source of much of its economy; Scotland. (It is for this reason that Scots who currently argue for independence are nuts - they're currently running the show, they'll have far less influence out). The UK, Great Britain, and all the component countries are distinct, and confusing one for another, and the relationships between them, is even easier than people realise. --Mnemeson 23:12, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Let's get this straight: Blair is traditionally seen as English. He lived in Scotland, but that doesn't necessarily make him scottish. Brown is more considered to be scottish.martianlostinspace 23:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

In that case, from 1928 at the latest, until 1953, the USSR was led by a certain Georgian named იოსებ ბესარიონის ძე ჯუღაშვილი. It would follow then that the pre-WWII Soviet-German pact, ostensibly a pact between Russia and Germany, was in fact actually made between an Austrian, and a Georgian. Loomis 23:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

In any case, picking on Americans for this type of thing is unfair as it happens on both sides of the Atlantic. When I was in the UK, do you know how many times I was referred to as a "Yank"? And I'm not even American! Still, try calling a Southerner, someone from Texas or Alabama or Mississippi a "Yank", and see how they react! Loomis 00:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Er, 'scuse me martionlostinspace, but Tony Blair was born in Edinburgh - he didn't just live there as you propound. If being born in Edinburgh 'doesn't necessarily make him Scottish', what would? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.145.242.57 (talk) 00:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC).

It's rather interesting actually. It must be more than coincidence that so many "Nationalistic" leaders tend to come from the fringes of the "Nations" they champion. Perhaps Stalin the Georgian doesn't count, as Soviet Communism wasn't exactly a "Nationalist Russian" movement. Still, Hitler the German "Nationalist" was an Austrian, Napoléon, the ultimate French "Nationalist" was in fact a Corsican; in fact Italian was his mother tongue, not French. Joan of Arc was from Alsace-Lorraine or in German Elsaß-Lothringen, today a region of France, but throughout history a "fringe" area switching between the French, the Burgundians, the Germans, the Holy Roman Empire etc. Even in my contemporary Canada, the most ardent anti-separatists, the most strenuous "Canadian" Nationalists happen to in fact be Québecois themselves: most importantly, former Canadian PMs Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chrétien. There must be a term for this phenomenon, as it seems to be too common to be mere coincidence; the phenomenon of the "Outsider-Nationalist". Would anyone know if this phenomenon has been studied and if there's any specfic term for it? Loomis 01:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Why end only here? How about Francisco Franco who was a Catalan who strongly discouraged the use of any languages except the official Spanish inside Spain? Or how about Sarkozy who has an uneasy relationship with emigrants despite his Hungarian/Sephardic Jew origins? Or Herod the Great who rebuilt the Temple Jerusalem with his Idumaean ancestry? What are these persons supossed to do? They are politicians (with a lust for power) who need major popular support and their minority hasn't the necessary numbers or influence. Therefore they turn to the majority. Most of the time they are (and feel themselves) part of that majority and guess what? They are accepted as such. Most of the time their ancestry or cultural background simply doesn't matter to the majority (of course there are cases where this is not the case). Noone should feel that his cultural/religious background is an impeachment to be a part of the majority of ones country. There is even Keith Ellison (politician) a US-Congressman, a Muslim, in the US (paranoia-country). It only really matters if you yourself believe in that. Flamarande 02:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget about Tomas Masaryk, the Czech nationalist whose father was Slovak and who married an American and wrote in German. Then there's Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the "Russian ultra-nationalist" whose father was a Polish Jew surnamed Eidelshtein. Italian national hero Giuseppe Garibaldi was from Nice, France. Thomas Paine, the early propagandist for American independence, arrived in the colonies from Britain in 1774. -- Mwalcoff 00:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I should probably shut-up for the moment though, as I seem to have found myself in the crossfire of something of a Scottish-English feud. (If I wanted to though, I can probably really irritate the Scots by saying: "Scottish? Irish? I thought that was basically the same thing!" :) Loomis 01:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Or remind everybody how Gorbachev asked if the Queen ruled in Ireland. Oops, too late. :)Flamarande 02:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

"Why do they call it a kilt ? ... because anyone who calls it a skirt gets kilt." :-) StuRat 01:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Monocular Blindness

I can find loads of groups online supporting the legally blind, but I can't seem to find much for those who have only lost the use of one eye. Any suggestions? Black Carrot 19:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

There's Lost Eye.It has a discussion forum and articles on living with one eye.Serenaacw 19:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I've added Lost Eye as an external link on the Monocular vision page (that needs some more work!); it gives the term monocular vision impairment and provides this link to an informative website. Also, try searching the Web on "monocular vision impairment" (MVI). -- Deborahjay 10:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

There are a few of us Cyclops here on the Wiki, Black Carrot. Drop me a note on my talk page if you'd like to get in touch. Natgoo 20:48, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Saad EL hariri

if i want to e mail mr Saad hariri how can I find an E mail that he will read n k 64 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.175.169.6 (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC).

It looks like his web site's contact form is as good as you're going to get. —Keenan Pepper 23:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Cloth in Europe on the 1100-1300's

Hey, i am very interested in what cloth they used in the Medieval age in EUROPE, around 1100-1300 and what "ranks of society" the different cloths were used in most and not so much, and what types of clothing were made by what. I try write what little i know from myself already, so Plz fill in on my list and correct if any wrongs.

• SILK* - used only by the rich. in fact, barely known at all to most if i am not mistaken and really really expensive.

Types of cloth that could be made from silk was : capes(?), shirts, ..... (plz add more)

• COTTON* - Used not so much by the poorer people, but mostly by the rich. Am I right?

Types of cloth that could be made from cotton : pants/trousers, sweaters, tunics etc. (plz add more and correct if any of the ones i wrote was wrong)

• WOOL* -

Types of cloth that could be made from wool : Sweaters, .... (plz add and correct)

• LEATHER* - (not really a cloth ,but still... and also used to protection)

Types of cloth/armor(protective gear) that could be made by leather : tunics, hauberks, boots, gloves, gauntlets, shoulder-protection (spaulders/pauldrons? or is that only names on STEEL-shoulders?) vests, leather-armor/vests, STUDDED leather-armor/vest, leather-thighs? (plz add and correct)

And.. i knowe they didnt have socks until quite late sometime in history, noit sure when. but when did socks first appear, and what were they made of ? and in comparison, what are they made of today ?

and most importantly ADD MORE CLOTH-TYPES that i havent listed, cos i'm only familiar with the ones i have wrote down. silk, cotton, wool and leather..

Krikkert7 20:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)krikkert

BY the way, so sorry i posted the same question TWICE. Twas an accident. i forgot subtitle/name on the first question :S

Well, you left off Linen, although it's my understanding that that was pretty expensive. And see Samite. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:58, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Samite looks like the most expensive of all! Certainly the two most common fabrics would have been linen and wool. Linen would have been the least expensive in regions where flax was commonly grown. This would have included the most heavily populated regions of Europe, but not the northern periphery (Scottish highlands, Scandinavia) or mountainous regions (Alps, Pyrenees, Carpathians). In the latter regions, wool was probably more common and affordable. Marco polo 21:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Linen was common but expensive. The commoners wore broadcloth and the toffs wore silk. Jooler 21:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

A quick search at amazon.com came up with this book, whcih might be useful. (I have no connections to amazon, the authors of the book, or the publishers) User:Zoe|(talk) 21:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Cotton didn't start getting imported into Europe until the later middle ages. It would probably have been in use by 1300, but I doubt it would have been very common, and I don't think you'd see it at all in 1100. Wool, leather (including very fine leather - "kid gloves" made from kidskin etc), linen and furs would probably be the most common materials used, plus silk, as you say, for the wealthy. --Nicknack009 00:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that dyes were expensive, and that intense colors were by and large limited to the higher classes that could afford them. The rich wore scarlet and deep blue while the lower classes made do with yellow, russet, and pale blue. - Nunh-huh 00:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Woollen cloth was exported from England to European countries such as Italy in mediaeval times. Parts of East Anglia where sheep were farmed became very rich, as shown by the literally thousands of mediaeval churches that survive from that time - often very grand such as the one at as far as I recall Long Melford. Worsted is both the name of a village in East Anglia and the name of a type of woolen cloth that was made there, but is now made anywhere. I've never read anything about people wearing pullovers in mediaeval times but perhaps they did - I do not know when knitting was invented. And by the way I think Romans used to wear socks. 80.0.123.238 20:01, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

"Heavy Manners"

This term is used frequently by punks and Aryan skinheads to refer to police/government oppression - e.g. "We're living under heavy manners". It's used in loads of songs and is frequently seen on T-shirts and jackets. Does anyone know where the term originated? --84.68.15.234 22:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Are there Aryan skinheads? --ColinFine 00:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the use of "Aryan" in this query refers to Neo-Nazi skinheads. -- Deborahjay 06:40, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarification: The page on Aryan race may be what's meant, a Nazi racialist term for white supremacists, among them Neo-Nazis. -- Deborahjay 08:24, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was referring to (AFAIK, they refer to themselves as 'Aryan Skinheads'). So, does anyone know where the 'heavy manners' slogan comes from? Thanks. --84.64.127.183 12:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Burgas Port

I am looking for more information on the Port of Burgas. --Jones2 23:49, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Something other than you'd find in the article Burgas? - Nunh-huh 00:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, cause the article Burgas has no information regarding the port. --Jones2 09:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Burgos is a port. You'll have better luck if you specify the information you're looking for. - Nunh-huh 14:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)