Miscellaneous desk
< November 6	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 8 >

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

November 7

What's it called?

Do you call it a grilled cheese or cheese toastie? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.8.89.251 (talk) 02:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a poll, or are you asking which name is more correct? Personally, I'd call it a toasted cheese sandwich or, if open, cheese on toast. FiggyBee 03:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Grilled cheese" is the usual name in the United States for the sandwich (not open-faced). Marco polo 03:17, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(If you'll forgive me, Marco polo, I've added a Wikilink to your reply -- Atlant 13:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Nowadays when I make them on a griddle, I call them grilled cheese. When I was a kid, and I tried to make them by squishing the bread and cheese together as flat as I could, then stuffing the whole thing in a toaster, my mother called it something else! — Michael J 03:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK it's also know as Welsh rarebit ---- WebHamster 03:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No No No - a Welsh Rarebit is something entirely different. Go look for a recipe and see the difference. Welsh Rarebit/Grilled Cheese !!!!! Ggrrrrrrr. 81.145.241.148 11:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said it was known as, not that it was :P ---- WebHamster 13:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree with FiggyBee - In Australia it's a toasted cheese sandwich or cheese on toast (presuming we're talking about the thing made by either toasting some bread, putting thinly sliced cheese on it, and placing it under a grill (cheese on toast) or by making a cheese sandwich and cooking it in a frying pan, under the grill or in a sandwich press type thing (toasted cheese sandwich) --Psud 11:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Netherlands, it's called a Tosti. It's made in a special device that presses the sandwiches together while heating them electrically. The French have the Croque Monsieur, in which the outside of the sandwich is buttered, and the sandwich is baked in a frying pan (usually with ham as well). I can recommend this method. risk 16:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but when they're pressed together in Australia, they become a jaffle (which, in fact, redirects to sandwich toaster, amazingly enough). Confusing Manifestation 04:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eating Korean food

There's this Korean restaurant near my office, and when you go there, you always get four little side dishes with your meal: kim chi, bean sprouts, what appear to be chunks of sweet potatoes and these little rectangles of fish.

Am I supposed to eat those things before the entree, intermittantly with the entree or mixed in with the entree? -- Mwalcoff 03:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about the others but kim chi is usually an appetizer and presumably a palate cleanser; you don't generally mix it with anything, though the article says you can mix it with rice. --24.147.86.187 04:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exchange student

I am uncertain who to ask so I turn here. My mother is asking me for help for an exchange student from China. She is currently a student in a high school in Michigan and is interested in applying for college here in New York. Can she continue to stay in the country for college? Or does she return home to her country? I also spoke with an admissions person at the college I go to and he mentioned the application process followed by a student visa being issued. I am uncertain on some of the things my mother has said and I don't know where to go for answers. --Blue387 03:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite likely that both the high school where she is currently an exchange student, and any of the colleges to which she wishes to apply, will have the answers she needs. The high school will know the basis on which she is currently a student, and what privileges that offers her; the colleges all deal with international students and will likely have experienece in just this situation. That's where I would start, with Admissions in the colleges and the Guidance Department in the high school. Bielle 04:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to apologize for repeating the suggestion about the Admissions Department in a college. My eyes just skipped over that bit in your question; I didn't mean to be rude. You might be more likely to get an answer here if you tell us what things have been said, by your mother or by the people you have already asked, about which you are uncertain. However, the process is likely quite technical, and the schools are the best places for the information. Bielle 05:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just did a Google search on "student visa" USA, which led me to a US government site. A quick perusal suggests that, if the Chinese student is a true exchange student, and thus has a sponsor in the US, she is likely on an Visitor Exchange (J) Visa. There are provisions for transferring institutions within that visa category from within the US. I don't know if your student will qualify. This link[1] may answer some of your questions. Bielle 05:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brand of Vodka

Hello, There is a brand of vodka that is popular around europe and asia. It is packaged in in a carton box similar to that of small juice boxes. This is just a vague memory but i think it was russian and the name was something similar to Prove, but don't take this too sirusly because i'm not too sure. Any guesses as to what this brand of vodka was called?

Thanks --99.226.10.124 03:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you read through List of vodkas and see if you can find it there? --jjron 08:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mellow Gold Vodka comes in a carton. Image. Looks like it has some sort of Russian thing on it... Plasticup ^T/C 17:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't Mellow Gold, thanks though. I already looked through that list of vodkas and it wasn't there. If i remember correctly it was a white/gray packaging and it had a flat top. --130.63.135.23 18:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where would be the ideal destination for a holiday? Why?

For example, the beach,etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.74.132.224 (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are about a million possible answers, depending on factors such as where you live; what you like to do or see; how old you are; whether it's just you or you and a partner or you with your partner and tribe of 15 kids; how much money you have and how much you're prepared to spend; what mode of transport you will and will not consider; how much time you have ......we're good but not that good. Please give us something real to go on. -- JackofOz 05:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A mountain stream well stocked with trout, at an elevation of at least 1200m, within 10km of home, within easy walking distance to a surf beach, with no phone service, where the weather is pleasantly cool, but warm enough for swimming, where the sea has good waves but no rips and flathead are abundant and easily caught. Because mountains are nice, trout are tasty and fun to catch. Because mountain streams are at their best at around that elevation. Because close to home means easy access and maximum holiday time. Because beaches are nice and surfing is fun. Because holidays are better if not interrupted by annoying phone calls. Because cool weather is nice. Because swimming is fun. Because you need waves to surf. Because rips are dangerous to inexperienced beachgoers (and you don't want your holiday spoiled by some idiot drowning themselves). Because flathead are tasty. Because lots of flathead are better than few flathead. It's just a pity that such a place doesn't exist. --Psud 11:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boring! So bored. Nothing to do here but fish (THE most boring activity known to mankind) and swim (my pool is better). Can't even check my email and for some reason my goddamn cellphone isn't working. SteveBaker 19:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your first question is Italy. But if you want to know which destinations were voted top by the luxurious readers of Condé Nast Traveler, go look at the Readers' Travel Awards 2007. The top three are the North Male Atoll, Muscat, and the Maldives again (unspecific). Italy is only ninth on that list, dropping from fifth in 2006. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i suggest Croatia (not just because i live here) :) cheers West Brom 4ever 21:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sex

This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page.

Lanfear's Bane | t 09:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congressman sees UFO

This is all over the place. I have heard this on FOX News, in which a Democratic Congressman has seen a Flying triangle UFO, and the Republicans make fun of the Congressman. The Congressman is Kasinnich. Can this be placed in appropriate articles ? 65.163.112.104 07:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The congressman is Presidential Candidate Dennis Kucinich, and it's already mentioned in his article. FiggyBee 08:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and if you read the transcript in the talk page you will see that he did see an "unidentified flying object", but had no idea what it was--certainly not anything to do with aliens or outer space, etc. He was laughing about this in the interview. If you take this term literally it simply means that something is seen in the sky, but the person doesn't know what it is--an experience we have all had. There are always many possible rational explanations for such phenomena.--Eriastrum 21:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Asimov was criticized by ufologists for using the term "flying saucer" rather than the more dignified "UFO". He responded (paraphrase): "But you folks insist on identifying them!" —Tamfang 23:34, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown song lyrics

I was listening to a song from a video and I couldn't find the origin of it or the singer. Here are some of the lyrics to the best of my recollection:

big fish..?

some small town?

gonna miss your ?water?

when it's gone (3x)

I see you down on the corner

trying to look good to me

Said "do you want to party?"

But that ain't what you mean.

gonna miss your water

when it's gone

So you ask me for a quarter

because you ran out of gasoline.

Trying to get back to cleveland

but it was Buffalo last week.

Is there a way to rip a song from a .wmv file? There is dialogue between two people on the left channel and the song in question on the right channel and all I want is the right channel. --Blue387 08:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mplayer can do that kind of thing - but figuring out how (it's a command-line tool) can be a fairly major undertaking! SteveBaker 19:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

inequitas I've found the same back ground track on a short adult movie clip posted on Redtube link here: http://www.redtube.com/15689 this content is of an adult nature, you must be over 18 years of age to view it, by clicking on the above link you agree that you are of the legal age to view it.

Household cavalry

Amusing photo in today's Times of members of the Household cavalry putting on their helmets, prior to appearing in the pomp around the State opening of Parliament. Amusing because they all seem to be bending to one side in order to put on their helmets. There's no explanation of why this is needed - human arms can normally reach a lot further than the crown of one's head. Does anyone know why the bending (and specifically why sideways) is needed? Is it because the breastplates restrict movement too much? --Dweller 10:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The photo can currently be viewed online by going to this timesonline link and clicking on "Slide Show" under "QUEEN?S SPEECH". It's photo #4 of 12 in the slide show. The breastplate explanation seems most likely to me. It looks like it's difficult to raise your arm vertically while wearing one of those. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well found! Direct link seems to be here --Dweller 11:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Movie Maker

Hello. A couple of months ago, my computer's microphone broke. No biggie, right? i mean i just used it to record songs and mess with them. I found out using the older version of Movie Maker that i can use its wave sound recorder to record pretty much any sound that is currently playing. and its crystal clear! its awesome! however, the newer version seems to be lacking this feature. anybody familiar with the newer version know how to record wave sounds?the juggreserection 15:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usually on the Windows audio mixer recording panel there is a "What-U-Hear" input for soundblaster cards/drivers, other cards/drivers have something similar. All you have to do is enable that input in the mixer panel etc. ---- WebHamster 15:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

86'ed

what does this mean? Simply south 16:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple meanings and several possible derivations listed in 86 (number). --LarryMac | Talk 16:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need to just point the questioner at a page that size when all they need to read is these few words from it:

used as a verb, to "eighty-six" means to "ignore" or "get rid of".

--Anonymous, 00:51, edited 04:26 UTC, November 8, 2007.

Sorry, Anon, but there is also this

generally used in restaurant or food service environments when a specific item is no longer available. For example, "86 baked haddock", or "the mussels have been 86'ed", or in a bar when you may have drank too much and can never come back. They will then say you have been randy guglerized, Which is the definition of 86ed.

Thus my reference to "a couple meanings". The questioner may also have been interested in the various theories of the term's etymology, or if not him/her, then somebody else who may be reading. It's a reference desk, I choose to refer. --LarryMac | Talk 14:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right. "I 86'd that guy", in context, could mean "I fired him," "I ignored him," "I denied him whatever he wanted," "I killed him," etc. It essentially means negation of some sort. Context is important. --24.147.86.187 01:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black paint under the eyes that special forces in the field and American football players use

What's the term (s) for this practice and why is it done? --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 17:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see: eye black.—eric 17:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HEY

does god exist?the juggreserection 17:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in the same way that dreams exist. Plasticup ^T/C 17:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at deity, god, religion, spirituality, philosophy, atheism, meaning of life - there is no right or wrong answer. ny156uk 17:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no proof one way or the other, lots of supposition and theories, but no actual proof. ---- WebHamster 17:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget Existence of God, lots of good stuff in the references and further reading sections and a box at the bottom where you can "show" links to various arguements for and against. Happy reading! Azi Like a Fox 18:02, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is certainly no way to prove that a being with literally infinite power does not exist. Whatever experiment you might try to do to prove it, a being with unbounded abilities can prevent or otherwise de-rail your efforts without you even realising it. So there can be no proof that god or gods do not exist unless their proponents are prepared to concede that these beings have testable limits to their abilities...which they typically don't. This is called "an Unfalsifiable" hypothesis - and these should generally be treated with great scepticism. The difficulty is that there is also no extant proof that god or gods do exist - and in many credo's, this is actually part of what it's all about (eg "God doesn't show us concrete proof that he exists because he prefers to test our faith."...hmmm - yeah - that's really convenient!)

So our actual provable knowledge here is zero. This means that the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Invisible Pink Unicorn (bbhhh) cannot be disproven either. In fact, there are an infinite number of possible beings with godlike powers that could exist and we would be unable to prove otherwise. Given that there is an infinity of possibilities, it is PRECISELY as likely that the Christian God actually exists as that the entire universe was created by a small purple teapot called Brian who demands only that we all jump up and down for an hour every Tuesday lunchtime or he'll doom us all to an eternity of hot dog eating contests. In the absence of any evidence for one particular god and a literal infinity of possible gods to believe in - why believe in any of them.

Whilst it's not absolute proof, some of the claims that adherents make of their religion (eg that the world was created in the garden of Eden - or that a flood once covered the entire earth) - are very testable and pretty much always prove to be false. However, there is no guarantee that God isn't messing with the evidence for whatever crazy reason...so this is hardly scientific proof.

Occam's razor says that in these cases, the simplest explanation is probably the best. In this case, the simplest explanation is that there is nothing out there. SteveBaker 19:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The correct answer is no. There is no intelligence that controls the outcome of events. --Taraborn 23:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you know this ... how? -- JackofOz 23:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any capable mind can realize that no matter the amount of prayer, the chances of getting a certain number while rolling dice won't change, but I guess we, capable minds, are less than 1% of the population. --Taraborn 20:57, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The touble is that experiments like that don't convince anyone if it produces a negative result. If praying did influence the roll of a dice in a carefully controlled experiment - then we would deduce the existance of something very, very strange indeed in the universe...a god?...possibly. Personally, I wouldn't use a dice - the moment of radioactive decay of an isolated atom would be less controllable - and hence more convincing. However, a failure of the experiment to influence the roll of the dice is easily dismissed by adherents of religion by saying something like "God wishes us to have faith - to influence the roll of the dice would be to replace faith with certainty"...perhaps more simply "You have the nerve to waste God's time by asking him to do magic tricks?!"...either way, I'd be very surprised if even the most carefully performed experiment showing that prayer does not influence dice rolling would change one single mind...so it's truly a waste of time. SteveBaker 04:49, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

God says feed ye not the trolls. —Tamfang 23:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of my favorite quotes from the The Book of Jimbo. Jon513 13:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, there are numerous concepts at play here. For starters you failed to define God, much in the same way that every bloody religion fails to define him/her/it -- if something has no identity how can it exist? There are more concepts... For example, if god doesn't exist should religion exist? And can one be part of a religion and not believe in god? And how acceptable is the Bible as proof of anything? Philosophy plays a major role here because Philosophy attempts to answer questions such as "How do we know if something exists" and "How to we know things?" (epistimology) -- and the interesting thing is that philosophy has different schools of thought, much in the same way that psychology has its different spins on things. Philosophy may teach you different ways of determining if something exists, such as having an identity, such as skepticism (just because we've never seen a species of sheep that always has 1 eye, doesn't mean that such a species doesn't exist -- or does it?). What about the dilemma that since we can't prove that something like god exists, how can we prove that it doesn't exist, much in the same way that we can't prove that a one-eyed sheep doesn't exist. The different would be that we know the identity of a one-eyed sheep, but there is no single agreeable tangible way to identify god.

This question can also be extended into questions such as heaven and hell, and Satan or the devil. What about angels and St Peter? It's all in the same boat.

In some way everything exists: ghosts exist, or at least the concept of a ghost exists: in story books, myths and legends. Anything we dream or imagine, or dream to imagine, exists the moment we dream or imagine it. So before you ask yourself "does something exist", first ask yourself, "what does exist mean?" and turn to philosophy for the answer Rfwoolf 18:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"if something has no identity how can it exist?" Bwah ha ha ha hah! That's like when small children say "How can I be an [insert insult] when I don't know what one is?" (typically this is a terrible mistake on the playground) Defining something has no impact on its existence. But anyway, probably it would be better to leave the troll. Skittle 14:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Troll? Rfwoolf 11:40, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asking something like 'Does God exist?' on the reference desks is pretty trolly behaviour, hence why Tamfang said 'feed ye not the troll' and hence why I said 'it would be better to leave the troll'. You could waste a lot of time and energy discussing this topic, but I doubt the person who asked the question is actually interested in the answer, and people attempting to discuss will almost certainly run into arguing amongst themselves and soapboxing. Ny156uk gave the best answer the desks can really give, so it is better to leave this question alone now. Notice how I was unable to resist the terrible appeal of engaging with your comments above? That way lies the heat death of the desks. Skittle 18:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks Rfwoolf

Signature

I was looking at other users signatures that had a little talk button that leads to their talk page. If you could help me get one That would help. -DarkZorro 18:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC) PS I won't be on for 2 hours.[reply]

Take a look at my signature code, by clicking the edit button for this section (or anybody's by clicking whereever ...). Based on the appearance of your user name, you know how to modify your signature via the "my preferences" page; all you have to do is add the appropriate wiki markup to add a link to your talk page. --LarryMac | Talk 18:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Doherty

Now that we are seeing YouTube pics of Pete shooting up on heroin virtually minutes after being released on a suspended sentence (yet again) by a British Court for successfully demonstrating that he was "clean", when can those of us who look to the law to demonstrate that those who flout it will be punished, expect to see him at last being sentenced to a period of incarceration, and for how long. No legal advice required here - just a pragmatic answer. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.242.139 (talk) 19:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know exactly when the images were taken, and how do you know that they accurately reflect what you claim is being done? Corvus cornix 19:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that this is new footage - Doherty is wearing the same clothes as he was wearing at an earlier awards ceremony, including the green wristband. I suppose the injecting could be fake, but I can't think of any reason why he would bother to fake it. --Richardrj ^talk ^email 11:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, he's 'fessup up to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagishsimon (talk • contribs) 11:52, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about this particular story, but in any case it's never rational to form an opinion about a law or policy based on such evidence. No matter how well a law works there will always be a few cases in which it fails disastrously, and no matter how badly a law works there will always be a few cases where it has exactly the right effect. Thus being presented with a single example of success or failure (that was selected on the basis of its success or failure) tells you precisely nothing about the effectiveness of the law. Only a properly conducted study can produce meaningful information. It's really, really unfortunate that so many laws get written on the basis of anecdotal evidence like this. -- BenRG 22:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares? Is someone worried that he might use a microphone in a manner likely to cause injury to others? —Tamfang 23:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does use of class-a drugs carry a custodial sentence? I cannot imagine that you can be sent away for recreational drug use (even of the hardest drugs). Now persistent law-breaking could get you a spell in the bargain. But we shouldn't not promote, like much of the papers seem to, the idea that we should use a famous (or even just high profile case) person as an example - the law should take into account many actions but it should not give individuals disproportionally worse sentences because of their fame. Additionally the showing of X on film/photography/whatever else doesn't add up to instantly evidence that cannot be argued in the court of law. However I consider it though the Pete in question (Doherty?) comes across as little more than a detestable, tedious, annoying wretch with few immediately visible redeemable features - though of course that shouldn't alter the way he is handled in the courts! ny156uk 00:29, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's your classic crime & punishment versus rehabilitation argument. The OP suggests punishment, and/or has a belief that a custodial sentence will be more likely to lead to rehabilitation. A view that custody leads to rehabilitation may not be supported by the evidence; it may be that community disposals - Drug testing orders, and Drug programme requirements associated with community orders, may be more beneficial. I don't have the evidence to hand. But I do know that sentencing policy and design of requirements for activities placed on custodial and community offenders seeks to be evidence based - in the UK at least - and I'm prepared to make the assumption that the courts & probation service, rather than the OP, has mastery of the arguments on this one. --Tagishsimon (talk) 11:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right of course, Tagishsimon, in your idealistic analysis of a situation with which you are admittedly uninformed, but what might your opinion have been otherwise, wherein the evidence you currently lack, would tell you that all the alternative therapeutic measures you suggest, had already been painstakingly pursued by the courts, and subsequently proved not to have worked, with the effect set out by the OP, that the courts have been seen to be (perhaps overly) lenient in dealing with Pete's problem many times in the past, but might now perceive another obligation in its duty, which is to sanction his repeated and yes, widely publicised rejection of those opportunities, which irresponsible actions have also served to put the court itself, and its leniency/understanding, in a highly critical light amongst the wider British Law-Abiding Public? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.240.146 (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Research on Sports Massage as related to the sport of Boxing

I am trying to locate articles that offer how sports massage or sports medicine have enhanced an athletes performance, and offer specific massage techniques that correct common injuries. Please let me know if you have any reference material or articles relating to this subject.

Thank you, Sherry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.53.197 (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

email address removed SteveBaker 00:06, 8 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I have not yet found anything in Wikipedia specific to massage for boxers. The Massage article mentions that "The 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta was the first time that massage was offered as a core medical service." It also has a very short sports section that links to an osteopathic Muscle Energy Technique. --Milkbreath 01:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]