Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 January 6

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

January 6

James Cameron

Hi. I was just wondering if there was any possibility of James Cameron being an a**hole to anyone on set. I've heard some documents about his personality before and that's quite accurate. It doesn't say anything about that here on Wikipedia. I just thought an article should say something about that since Wikipedia is all about accuracy.Jk31213 00:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is indeed about accuracy. If there is a referenced source and it is considered worthy then such things about his 'controversial' manner on stage could well be worthy of addition to the entry. Find it, reference it, add it and wait and see what the community thinks. ny156uk 01:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Well not really written but on T.V. It is said that Linda Hamilton yelled at him on set, not to mention you could figure one or a couple things about him just by listening to him in the Titanic commentary. He says that he was arguing with a costum designer or something about a hat that kate winslet should wear in a scene. He threw the hat into the ocean to end the argument. Those are a couple examples, anyway. I cant find actual written ones about him. Jk31213 02:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but Linda Hamilton was his wife, she had a right to yell at him.  :) User:Zoe|(talk) 01:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This was before she married him.Jk31213 03:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not at all unusual for there to be arguments on a film set on occasion. Artists are often passionate people, and successful ones develop considerable egos. Furthermore, on a film set, people work long hours in often trying conditions. So it's not surprising that occasionally people snap on film sets. In any case, this discussion probably belongs on Talk:James Cameron. --Robert Merkel 05:15, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Power of God

Aside from a few miracles that don't significantly affect everyday life, why does God have so little influence on Earth's events? It seems as if humans are in control of our planet instead of God. Also, if God never intervenes in earthly matters, why did the people who started religion believe he exist? --Bowlhover 01:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Is god (presumably the christian god) supposed to rule over the earth? God's apparent existance is a matter of faith. The people who believe he existed believe as a matter of faith, as a matter of understanding the way of the universe. If God made every decision (or even just the big decisions) for us what more would be than puppets on a string? Any god worth their salt creates a world and people and sets them free - kinda like an experiment. ny156uk 01:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe... just maybe... God doesn't exist. --The Dark Side 01:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Seriously now, according to the Bible he has alot of influence, you just don't realize it. For example, in the first book of Samuel, how likely is it that Saul would go to the town where Samuel was waiting? I'm pretty sure that the hand of God was guiding him or his servant/slave. See Saul's appointment as king. --The Dark Side 01:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious as to which "few miracles that don't significantly affect everyday life" you're referring to. But that's a side issue. I really like NY's answer. All I'd add is a little anecdote from a trailer for some tv show that eventually got cancelled I believe. I never watched the show so I don't even know what it was called, but I wouldn't doubt if the show was crap. Still, a couple of lines from the trailer were actually quite profound and worth repeating:

For whatever reason, God decides to take the appearance of some ordinary teenage guy, and has a conversation with a teenage girl in a park. At one point He reveals to her that He's actually God, to which the girl responds in the most sarcastic of tones: "Yeah right! If you're really God, why don't you prove it and show me a miracle, huh?" God, in the form of the teenage kid, responds: "Alright, wanna see a miracle? I'll show you a miracle". He then points to the most massive, most amazingly beautiful oak in the park and continues: "There's a miracle for you". Loomis 01:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ny156uk: surely God made enough decisions to make his existence apparent? If a terrible, cruel act was commited, shouldn't God interfere to set things right? If I had unlimited powers, I wouldn't abandon my creation. I would watch over it to make sure nothing goes wrong.

But if this god interferes where is your freedom? Virtually all law is retrospective (punished AFTER the event). It's not about abandoning a creation, it's about letting your creation do what it does. I'm just saying if I was a god I wouldn't interfere because where does it stop. What if I help Dave survive a crash in America but forget about Jorge in Spain? Wouldn't that make people think I had favouritism? And if I did save Jorge too at what point do I let people make mistakes (again back to the puppets on a string). If a god showed their actions for everyone to see, that god would be more hated than loved - because that god would either have to save every bad action, or pick and choose - so less 'freedom from god' or more 'why didn't he help me?'...Much better to do nothing but send a prophet to 'guide' people...again all assuming a belief in god.ny156uk 11:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The Dark Side: I'm an atheist too, but it's interesting to speculate why people like the creators of religion believed in God. Also, the Bible was written by theists, and it wasn't the reason people started believing in deities.

Loomis: By miracles, I was referring to images of Jesus on pieces of bread or concrete walls, and the like. --Bowlhover 01:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Cultural anthropology seems to say that mythology and deities are what people with primitive technologies use to explain the world. Those "miracles" can be attributed to observer bias (observer-expectancy effect). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjoonlee (talk • contribs) 03:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think it's because no one knows the meaning of life. --The Dark Side 03:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Assuming there is one. Maybe we're just atom machines moving around the universe. We don't have to have a meaning, per se, but we can make the best of the fact we're here. A lot of people seem to think that lack of intrinsic meaning means we have no reason to live or exist at all, which is a pretty stupid thing to say since you still have the choice to do whatever you want. — Kieff 11:49, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"It's 'I'm not touching you' on a cosmic scale." --Wooty Woot? contribs 03:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The question is a good example of how antecedant beliefs define a question's answer. As a Christian, I'm rather surprised at the total mastery God has over the universe, and the deftness of touch that allows forgiveness and free will.

My interpretation of the question is "Why doesn't god change the minds of those who choose not to respect god?" The bible provides a perfectly adequate answer to that, as any mainstream local (Christian) church should endorse. I gather though, that questioner didn't frame it that way for a reason.

Phillip K Dick, in his book Valis, poses many similar questions. If you enjoy reading books of great writers who just don't get it, give it a go DDB 08:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The people who believed in God before the Bible did so because he dealt with them personally. God communicated with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Job and others long before the Bible was written. The plagues on Egypt in Moses' time, the deliverance of the people of Israel (through a sea, mind you) - these things were done before the Bible was written. God dealt with them first, then things were written down - not the other way around. BenC7 13:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm also reminded of a quote from C.S. Lewis which seems relevant to post here:

We can perhaps, conceive of a world in which God corrected the results of abuse of this free will...; a wooden beam would become as soft as grass when it became a weapon, and the air would refuse to obey me if I attempted to set up in it the sound waves that carry insults. But such a world would become one in which wrong actions would be impossible, and in which, therefore, freedom of the will would be void... All matter in the neighbourhood of an evil man would be liable to undergo unpredictable alterations. That God can and does, on occasions, modify the behaviour of matter and produce miracles is part of the Christian faith; but the very conception of a... stable world demands that these occasions should be extremely rare. BenC7 13:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There is a paradox: God can't exist, be infinitely powerful, and also be infinitely good. This is because very bad things happen to good people, some of them from natural phenomena, like tsunamis. Either God doesn't exist, or lacks the power to prevent a tsunami, or has the power and chooses not to do so. This is still true if you assume all evil is the action of Satan. Either God lacks the power to stop Satan, in which case He isn't infinitely powerful, or he chooses not to stop Satan. Allowing Satan to do as he pleases, given the ability to stop him, seems to be rather immoral. StuRat 19:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

God is good, and has the power to stop evil. He doesn't always, because he has given us free will (see quote above). Many people have the mistaken impression that God is good only, or love only. But God is more than a single characteristic. God sometimes causes evil things to happen to people as well (see Amos 9:4, for one example of many). He does this for his own reasons. Sometimes for punishment; sometimes so others will be protected; sometimes for discipline; sometimes so people will think about their life, and perhaps what awaits them after death; and for other reasons. Other times evil things happen because of our own choices or the actions of others. Does that make God less good? No, it just means that God has more than one aspect to his character. BenC7 02:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

So the consensus here seems to be that God doesn't try to stop evil because he wants to let humans do whatever they want with each other and their planet. But what about natural disasters? Surely God could stop those without taking away anybody's freedom? --Bowlhover 10:19, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

First, I am not a theist either, but a Buddhist. The bible says that mankind chose in Eden to bite an apple from the tree of knowledge. This action was a choice of free will over being controlled by God. If God were to intervene every time someone prayed, then he would be taking away free will. He respects mankinds desire for freedom and free will by letting mankind be responsible for their own actions. Suppose no one were responsible for their actions, but just had to pray to have things fixed when they messed things up? Some feel that wew need to wait until "rapture" until God will interact with us again.

Another view is that the world as we know it, as is increasingly described by scientists, including physics, chemistry, and even evolution, is God's prescribed mechanism for creating and managing the world. All of the things we take for granted every day are God.

Some Christians feel that God, being all poweerful and all knowing had no capability for directly understanding mankind. (as paradoxical as that sounds) That there was a time when God was angry and vengeful at Mankinds disobedience, and that through the act of allowing himself to be born, and experience life from a human perspective, God gained compassion and understanding of the human condition, human frailty and limitations. Hence why there are no recorded miracles since Jesus. In this model the old testament is then historical, and all of the old rules (hebrew bible/old testament) no longer apply, as God made a new pact with mankind through himself/son Jesus.

There are countless variations, and hypothetical variations of these. There is not, and will never be any way to know. Whatever the purpose, or lack thereof, we are obligated to live our mortal lives seperated from God, and this was by our choice, in order to have free will. It is by design, or by necessity a matter of faith. If it were not a matter of faith, there would be one true way, one true path, one set of rules we must all live our lives by. Clearly, this isn't the case. Some hypothesize that ALL paths lead to the same place eventually, and that compassion for one another, and helping each other on our mortal path is appropriate. All religions and all paths eventually get there. (paradoxically, even the ones who say that they are right and everyone else is wrong.)Atom 13:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

"Lost his bottle of oil"

In The Frogs, during the 'battle' between Aeschylus and Euripides, Euripides recites various lines, which I take to be the prologues from several of his plays. Each time, Aeschylus interjects with "lost his bottle of oil". As far as I can tell, this is a criticism of some sort, based upon the claim Aeschylus makes that,

You frame your prologues so that each and all Fit in with a "bottle of oil,"

I'm having trouble understanding what exactly Aeschylus' point is. Could someone help me with this? --Awesome 07:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It is famous that Seinfeld episodes contained a reference to Superman. Such comedy can be obscure. One philosopher friend of mine was puzzled over a reference to vice, which complained of many having too much liking for wine, small boys and fish. Apparently, some fish used to be good for smoking, providing an effect akin to cannabis.

Cicero, in argument for a man accused of killing his father, fingers a wealthy Greek man who used a fashionably large amount of hair oil. Euripides characters were supposed to be more common than Aeschylus. It is possible that their vanity required hair oil. But I'm guessing. DDB 07:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

• Guesses are fun! But actually, it's the rhythm of the words, not the words themselves, in this case. Euripides is quite proud of his explanatory prologues. Aeschylus is showing them to be boring and monotonous, every one of them in the same meter, into which can freely be injected the "little bottle of oil". It's kinda like singing the poems of Emily Dickinson to the tune of The Yellow Rose of Texas. (Try it; you'll never be able to read Dickinson again without hearing it.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:52, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

or singing "My Darling Clementine" to the tune of the German national anthem, for that matter... Grutness...wha? 00:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Or, perhaps my favorite, Stopping by Woods on a Snowy Evening to the tune of Hernando's Hideaway. But neither of those are entire work like Dickinson's yellow roses. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

How did they figure out you could milk a cow?

Hi all. I was wondering how early man figured out you could milk a cow. I mean, honestly, think about what had to have been running through his mind. Any resources would be wonderful. Much help appreciated ! Xhin 08:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Surely he just saw a calf doing it. In any case, would he not have been suckled himself?--Shantavira 09:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Most people don't remember the age when they themselves would have been breast-feeding, but that doesn't matter if they get to see others doing it. "Hey look, that calf is doing the same thing as Baby Ugg was this morning... and Mrs. Cow's got room in there for a whole lot more milk than Mrs. Ugg! I wonder if..." And thus we see that the nudity taboo in many of today's societies is crippling to man's inventive powers. :-) --Anonymous, January 6, 2OO7, 10:OO (UTC).

I thought I was alone in enjoying this smutty joke. Notes were not taken of the time. Dogs were apparently domesticated in Asia about 70,000 years ago. Anthropomorphism suggests it seemed a good idea, being more plentiful than cat milk. DDB 23:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Enigma Machine

I have read articles about the royal navy capturing an enigma machine from a german sub and a rumour that the captor was a young sailor from runcorn but cannot find any details or. Does anybody know the true story. richie mercer

There were several captures of Enigma machines and codebooks from German U-boats during WWII (see our article on Cryptanalysis of the Enigma), but the most famous event is probably the capture of U-110 by HMS Bulldog in May 1941. After a depth-charge attack, U-110 was abandoned on the surface by its crew in the mistaken belief that it was about to sink. According to this BBC article a boarding party from the Bulldog, led by Lieutenant Balme, searched the U-boat. The Bulldog's telegraphist, Alan Osborne Long, found an Enigma machine in the U-110's radio room. Although he did not realise exactly what it was, it was sufficently unusual for it to be taken on board the Bulldog. The Bulldog took U-110 in tow, but it sank before they could reach port. When the Bulldog returned to Scapa Flow, the Enigma machine and associated documents were collected by a RN Intelligence officer and taken to Bletchley Park. Can't find anything about a Runcorn connection, however. Gandalf61 12:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Another possibility is U-559, although it appears that none of the three sailors directly involved in retrieving the enigma codebooks, etc. were from Runcorn. The "young sailor" was, in this case, a canteen assistant named Tommy Brown, but he was from North Shields, not Runcorn. Carom 16:36, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Father of the Renaissance

Sometimes Petrarch is considered the father of the Renaissance; while on the other hand Dante is also. Perhaps there are also others (i.e. Boccaccio)? What is this definition and what is meant by this title? Are there then some sort of subcategories to this title? When in the Renaissance was this given out?--Doug 13:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

In Florence, Italy, there is a long road with statues on either side. Primarily 'Renaissance' figures. One of the two nearest to the river is Machiavelli's. He may not be the father of the Renaissance, but his name tends to be known and remembered better than most. Dante is surely one of the top two as well. Then there's the Medici family. Vranak 17:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Really, Doug, there is no great mystery here, nor is there any strict definition to what is merely a colloquial, and loosely applied title. Later generations, loooking for a seminal figure, draped the honour on Petrarch, because he might be said to have been the first to develop a new and disinterested mode of intellectual inquiry, in a clear break with the prevailing attitudes of the Middle Ages. I dare say there are many others, like Dante and Boccaccio, who have every right also to be considered as fathers and step-fathers; and the various branches of art and thought probably have their own favourite 'petty' fathers. The complex taxonomy you seem to be looking for does not exist. Finally, on a point of procedure, can I ask you please not to link the names of people like Petrarch every time you mention them, as you have now ad nauseum: there is simply no need. Clio the Muse 17:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

history

hi all , im not a student of history but would want u all to help me with a question which has been troubling me for long, i will appriciate ur response.

the question is as follows.

Some one long back told me that the start of human race came from a very few civilizations? for eg the chinese, korean,, japanese etc have originated from the mongolian civilization, the Europeans from the mesopotimian civilization, where did the other races in the world come from for eg African, Asians, Latin Americans , Russians etc.

will be great full for ur support

As I understand it, current understanding is that the first humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago and spread from there, replacing populations of other hominids that had already migrated to different parts of the world. Civilisation, i.e. living in settled communities, didn't start until about 10,000 years ago. --Nicknack009 15:09, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

See the article Single-origin hypothesis. This is, as the name indicates, a hypothesis. The article links to other hypotheses.  --Lambiam^Talk 18:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

i prefix fad

Does anyone think the i-prefix has become a fad? with obviously the inclusion of apple's products, and alot of other products have also adopted the i- prefix i guess to be 'hip'. if it is, around what time do you think it became a fad?--Technofreak90 15:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Does Steve Wozniak explain it in his autobiography iWoz: [1] ? :-) StuRat 19:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The i prefix, imho, is an excellent marketing tool that gets results. DDB 23:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

iMac, released 1998, mentions some of the history it is more difficult to determine when it caught on a became a fad, probably shortly before apple started issuing lawsuits. A much older i- fad in english, from about 1000 years ago, added i- or y- to lots of words to denote several different things such as past participles. Yclept meaning called, named is one of the longest lived, kept alive by poets and logorrhœa sufferers. meltBanana 02:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sumer is icumen in: lhude sing cuccu: the first line of the first recognizably English poem. The Early Modern version would have been "a-coming", however. --Wetman 10:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I assume the question means the recent use of the "i" prefix to mean "Internet". StuRat 16:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

yes, but also in terms of the individual's revolution, such as the video revolution and creative commons and the ability for one person to have the same power as any other on the internet to present their own ideas.--Technofreak90 23:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Driving age in Greece

What is the driving age in Greece?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.210.180.179 (talk • contribs)

Sixteen or eighteeen, depending on the category of vehicle. See driver's license and this page.--Shantavira 16:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Familiarity seeking behavior in children

I've noticed that children tend to like to reread the same books, watch the same music, and eat the same foods, to a greater extent than adults. What explains this difference ? There might be a partial evolutionary reason in the case of foods, in that children who ate unfamiliar foods were more likely to die. However, when the parents say it's good to eat, and even eat some to prove it, this no longer seems to be the case (unless we consider the risk of a life-threatening allergic reaction to be significant). In the case of music, this strong desire for familiarity seems to last into the teens and perhaps even the 20s, as evidenced by top 10 radio stations, which repeat each song many times a day. StuRat 19:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Although I can't find the exact text, in The Uses of Enchantment Bruno Bettelheim argues that one reason children like to hear and read the same fables and stories again and again is because it takes these repeat performances for them to absorb the various implications not so readily apparent the first time around. Wolfgangus 20:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

A secret of obsessive/compulsive behaviour is that when a victim finds something they like doing, they want to do it again.

A reverse behaviour may be described as masochism.DDB 23:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There is comfort in familiarity and routine, important for all children. Rudyard Kipling used to tell his daughter, Josephine, the same stories night after night, and if he deviated at all from the established pattern she would immediately object, No! I want it just so. From this simple admonition the world was to be given the Just So Stories. Clio the Muse 02:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Adults do it too. The women I work with have a small library in the office - dozens of books in a filing cabinet, and they all seem to be romances set in the late 19th or early 20th century and have covers featuring a woman in a shawl looking wistfully into the distance while her hair blows in the wind. Not exactly the same story, but they've discovered something they like and are sticking to it. Likewise science fiction fans, soap opera addicts, comics fans and so on have found something they like, and often get upset if their choice of entertainment does something unexpected - "George Lucas raped my childhood", anyone? --Nicknack009 02:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, bodice rippers. StuRat 16:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on the idea that heaven and hell have no philsophical foundation

Apart from people like Flew, Wittgenstein, Dawkins & Marks for the pro-argument & Augustine, Ireneaus & Hick. How would you go about tackling such a statement in providing arguments for & against this topic. What other people would you include, critical Bible passes & atheist thinkers.

--85.189.4.34 19:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The heaven/hell concept seems an expression of Western Thinking. I personally find it interesting that a biblical description of Hell is akin to symptoms of Diabetes (thirst, heat). Heaven, as I understand it, is merely to 'be with god.' The nebulous nature of the biblical concepts seems to have been adapted to suit 'dark age' peasants.

I understand there are aspects of heaven/hell demarcations in ancient cultures. US Indians having hunting grounds, Asia having a motif of being with family. Not much of a division for Norse peoples, but the Karmic cycle sounds satisfying for many.

In some ways, Judaism seems to have created the demarcation as a result of identifying one god. DDB 22:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Like anywhere else, I suppose, even Hell has a history. But beyond this, although heaven is illusive and absent, hell is ever more present. For Arthur Schopenhauer, hell was something created by humanity on this earth, and for Jean-Paul Sartre Hell is other people. Clio the Muse 01:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

You realize, of course, that Jesus talked about both heaven and hell numerous times...? BenC7 02:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

North Korea Solutions

What are some solutions to the problem in North Korea with the nuclear weapons? Thanks! -I choose to remain anonymous

Please, anyone?

It's hard to see any solutions, when NK doesn't seem to be willing to cooperate. 惑乱 分からん 21:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Invade?martianlostinspace 22:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of solutions, but they aren't all practicable. Rewording the question, 'Why is it that the world wants North Korea to have nuclear weapons?' To an extent, China makes use of a dangerous, unpredictable NK as a mentor of a troubled child. If the world criticises China, China can point out that they are the only ones who can deal with NK. Iran must feel grateful for NK. They can share expertise and trade and won't seek to undermine each others paranoia. UN must appreciate NK, as it justifies UN existence without requiring a solution. US, European anti conservatives must love the opportunity to be critical, siding with UN and China.

Getting back to the original question, ideally, NK will implode. NK leadership are aware of the possibility, and are committed to nullifying any benefits through propaganda. China does not want a failed state on its doorstep. Nor does China tolerate outside interference.

For the possibility of armed invasion, China will have to acquiesse. Perhaps China will do it for the world, if NK lose their usefulness. DDB 22:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I think invasion plans are avoided, as long as there is a threat of NK nuking nearby countries such as Japan, South Korea and possibly China... 惑乱 分からん 00:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

North Korea generally wants certain guarantees before it would think about getting rid of its weapons and rejoining the NPT. Some of these guarantees would not be hard to give if it weren't for the current US administration's reluctance to deal with "the axis of evil" (a strategy which has worked out wonderfully). One thing N. Korea has been looking for for a long time was a promise from the US not to invade North Korea — to me this seems like something that would be easy to give, with of course conditions under which it would be declared null and void. But the current administration's "tough" stance seems to lean away from negotiation, which I'm not sure gets good results when all is said and done. --24.147.86.187 01:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

A US invasion is silly, NK can't possibly think that's a possibility. A Chinese invasion on the other hand, seems quite plausible to me. It would allow China to expand with very little world opposition, unlike when they invaded Tibet (or if they were to invade Taiwan). They could then govern it like Hong Kong, allowing a degree of independence, keeping the economy from collapsing, thus preventing a flood of refugees into China. China might also benefit from increased trade with South Korea. And, maybe in a few decades, NK could be united with SK. StuRat 01:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest that you actually visit North Korea, or at least read around the subject a little more before making blanket declarations of this kind. For whatever reasons, silly or not, Pyongyang perceives America as the greatest threat to its security, a fear made all the worse by the invasion of Iraq, the first link in Bush's Axis of Evil. The best guarantee of North Korean integrity is not Kim Jong-Il's weapons programme, but China, which would never tolerate either serious military or economic actions against the regime. Also you might care to look a little more deeply into the whole course of Korean history. Then you might really begin to understand why China would not in any light sense consider invasion.Clio the Muse 02:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you claiming that only people who have visited NK are qualified to comment ? Have you ? StuRat 16:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes; I have. But you entirely miss the point. To make the kind of sweeping assertion you have you either need direct experience, or you need to have looked into the question in some depth. Your statement is so far removed from the facts that it is patently obvious that you have neither the experience nor the insight. Your observations in the matter are therefore fatuously incorrect. Clio the Muse 17:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

More specifically: Korean War. Carcharoth 09:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Might I suggest that rather than asking randoms on the internet, as a starting point you could consider reading some of the works of Bruce Cumings. I find his political views intensely annoying (and I certainly wouldn't be recommending his implied solutions), but he has done a great deal of research in the area and does a thorough job debunking some of the nonsense regularly written about North Korea. --Robert Merkel 02:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a Mexican standoff. The US can't do anything other than bluster and NK can't seriously threaten the US. China doesn't want to upset the status quo; it wouldn't look too kindly on any disruption of trade with its biggest(?) export market. It only becomes interesting when Kim Jong-Il gets old or starts to lose control of the government. Up until then, it's not in the self-interest of the "Dear Leader" to do anything drastic. When he's got nothing to lose, who knows what he might do. Clarityfiend 06:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

North Korea is China's biggest export market? That sounds unbelievable... How would NK pay back China? 惑乱 分からん 13:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

According to this source, the top five export markets for China are: US 21.4%, Hong Kong 16.3%, Japan 11%, South Korea 4.6%, Germany 4.3%: [2]. They might very well ship the most grain, etc. to NK, but aren't paid for it, so it's just charity, not classified as an export. StuRat 16:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about China slapping North Korea down if it disrupted Sino-American trade. Clarityfiend 19:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

christ on a bike

Hi does anybody have any clue to the origins of the phrase "christ on a bike", beyond it being provocatively profane. I am especially interested in literary or theological origins.

Sounds more like one of those attention drawing names Catch phrase or slogans associated with one or more bike crusaders who hold services and preach and maybe even render spiritual or even physical help to other bikers in the name of Jesus Christ. Barringa 00:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably derivative of "Christ on a crutch", where crutch is an old word for cross. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

'E gets around a bit that christ bloke, I've heard of him on a bike, a cross, a crutch, a raft and fire engine! Earliest cites: 'bike' 1972, 'crutch' 1941, 'raft' Joseph Moncure March, The Set-Up 1928 and specifically as a profanity 'cross' 1956. Goodness knows where the fire engine came from but it is out there on the internut. My guess for the bike is that they have a cross-bar and some people probably think riding one is like being crucified. 'Strewh meltBanana 02:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure of origin but an aquaintance of mine used in regularly in the mid sixties. He was an ex Australian digger (soldier).

Song Lyrics - brighter day, I'm looking for a brighter day

This section was moved to the Entertainment desk .