User talk:GoodDay

Welcome!

Hello, GoodDay, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

---

Hello to all fellow Wikipedians. Be assured I'll be as curtious as possible & hope to provide worthy answers to your questions (about wiki edits), I'm looking forward to meeting you. User:GoodDay 22:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC).

Alternate Captains

I haven't been paying to much attention to other teams' alternate captains so I wasn't aware that the Wild had permanent alternates. Cheers Raul17 (talk)

Oldest national anthem

GD, do you realise that God Save The Queen is the oldest national anthem in history, followed by La Marseillaise? Talk about stamina! There must be something to the monarchy after all.--jeanne (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sadly God save the Queen is not the oldest national anthem in the world, its one of the oldest and when Britain got one everybody else wanted one too, atleast we did beat the french to it though as you rightly say. Monarchy is a wonderful thing, there is simply nothing better. BritishWatcher (talk) 09:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh really, it's not? What is the oldest national anthem then? I cannot criticise the French national anthem. La Marseillaise has got to be the most rousing national anthem in the world, although the Irish is the most poignant. The American is also pretty stirring but not as dramatic as the French. Yes, I am a monarchist and I've put that fact on my userpage.--jeanne (talk) 09:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the national anthem page it was the Dutch who first had a national anthem. According to their figures over 100+ years before Britain got one. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've always wondered why a large population of British folk sing God Save The Queen. Why do they particulary want to save her, and do they really think God is going to save her due to their singing it. Most countries anthems would ask God to save their country or their people, although personaly I'd leave God out of it, he's got enough trouble around the world at the moment without having to bow to the demands of people who think a woman (and her family) living in luxury off our taxes is better than the rest of us. Titch Tucker (talk) 12:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Titch, don't Presidents of Republics do the same with their taxpayers hard-earned cash? Even Obama has reportedly rented a villa in Hawaii at the taxpayers expense and he hasn't yet taken office!--jeanne (talk) 12:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Jeanne, I'm sure many of them do, but people have the option of voting them out if they don't like it. Titch Tucker (talk) 12:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

And voting another in his place to do the same but with taxes raised even higher to accomodate wifey's taste for designer clothes ?--jeanne (talk) 12:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

People get what they vote for, but they have voted for them, which is my point. Perhaps the Americans should give up the voting system and allow Obama's children and grandchildren reign after him. I'm curious Jeanne, why do you love the Queen so much, and as I said previously, why do you think God should save her particulary rather than the country or its people? Titch Tucker (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Titch, I don't care much for the Queen. My favourite Royal is Prince Charles. I just prefer the system of monarchy, but it wouldn't work in America as most US presidents have been a wee bit low class. Can you see King Lyndon and Queen Ladybird Johnson? Or Duke Billy Carter? Pleeeeeeeeeeeeease.--jeanne (talk) 13:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I know what you mean by low class. Can you imagine King Charles and Queen Camilla? What a laugh that would be. Of course, I'm just being silly now. ;) Titch Tucker (talk) 13:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think even a Republican like GoodDay would agree that Charles has far more class than LBJ? Don't you remember him, Titch? An he invited America to a real fun party in Southeast Asia.--jeanne (talk) 13:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you not remember Charles dirty phone call to Camilla a few years ago? I've got more class than Charles, and that's saying something. A posh accent and having a flunky brush your teeth and dress you every morning (its true) doesn't equate to class. Titch Tucker (talk) 13:27, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree on the "God" bit, its strange that a country which is more atheist than religious still has an anthem mostly mentioning God but that simply reflects how much we have changed over the past 60 years. When the Queen dies i imagine the anthem will come up for debate again along with many other things including the monarchy itself.

You can say the same thing about the United States. Americas anthem goes on about a flag which they feel very strongly about, children in American schools pledge allegiance to the "flag of the United States of America and the Republic for which it stands". If its possible to rally around a flag, surely its possible to rally around a living person, our monarch? Look at the countries where they have elected presidents, to qualify for such a role you would have to have some political background, which means you are from a political party or certain side. It helps having a monarch who has no political affiliation able to represent ALL of the people. The Queen has far more support than a president does, and the Royal family as a brand has HUGE influence around the world which is great for Britain. An elected president for 4 years has no such influence. Then you have countries like the USA with one leader, Bush being head of state and head of government.. thats an awful system for so many reasons. The truth is monarchy has its flaws but i have yet to see a better system.

As for Charles, im hoping the Queen will live long enough for it to skip a generation ;). William is the saviour of the monarchy, not Charles. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid all this pledging alleigence to the flag in schools is just a form of brainwashing. Being proud of your country, flag and anthem are all good things, but forcing it down your childrens throats every day goes a bit too far for my liking. As for Bush, well, probably the least said the better. Titch Tucker (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree on it being brainwashing yes and in my view brainwashing towards a flag which can be made in China and burnt in the middle east which actually hurts many Americans is dangerous where as most here feel more strongly about a monarch who can be protected than a flag that can be mass produced. I support the monarchy but only in a democratic society where people are free not to support the monarchy and where they stay out of politics. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I also think its dangerous having a national anthem asking God to save someone or asking God to bless your country. I seem to recall George Bush remarking that God ordained him to become President, or words to that effect. Once you think you or your country have God on your side it can only mean trouble. You only have to look at the middle east. Titch Tucker (talk) 14:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree that class has got nothing to do with one's accent, social standing, or bank account. It's how one treats others that shows whether they've got class or not. You definitely have class, Titch, seeing as you are very polite and I won't forget how you came to my defense more than once. I have heard from British people who have met Charles personally say that he is very courteous and gracious.--jeanne (talk) 13:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC

I'm an American, and I hate our national anthem. Hate. It. It's only redeeming quality is that it is about just barely winning a defensive battle rather than about taking over the world. The music is awful, the words are hard for most people to remember, and the voice part requires a wide vocal range, making it hard for most people to sing. But then why would they want to? It is such an ugly, ugly piece of music. I'd rather have God Bless America; I don't even care about all the "God" stuff. At least is sounds good and is accessible.

Oh, and I agree with BritishWatcher about the problem with one person as head of state and head of government. Having the trappings of a head of state give the head of government too much power. I don't know that a monarchy is the necessary answer, figurehead presidents seem to do well enough, but the US-style presidential system is flawed. -Rrius (talk) 14:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As a republican & atheist, ya'll know my views on a god being mentioned in national anthems. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

As I have said before, I'm kind of 50/50 on God, keeping my options open. You are right of course, God should never be mentioned in anthems. If there is a God I'm sure he would rather concentrate on individuals (of course, I don't have any inside information). Titch Tucker (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course, even Canada's national anthem refers to a god (God keep our land...), as does the ever so revered Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law...). I'm agnostic myself, so I'm no promoter of mixing religion and government, but, on the other hand, I'm not sure it can ever be 100% purged from our institutions. Pretty much everything we do as societies has some element of faith to it. --Miesianiacal (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There's still hope (of removing religion), on account that we're still in the first decade of the 21st century. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, if you had your way and religion was removed, there'd be no priests left anywhere!!!!!!--jeanne (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Bbbbbut GD, I happen to LIKE priests, thankyouverymuch.--jeanne (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Nay! they gotta go. No exceptions. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

But, not even the guys on my talk page? Can't they remain? Have they got to go as well? Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!--jeanne (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, they can stay at your talkpage. Afterall, freedom of religion. GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Inaugurations, Coronations & Investitures

This January 20, Americans will watch (again) as their President slaps athiest in the face, by ending his oath of office (unconstitutionally) with 'so help me god'. So much for seperation of Church & State. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's unconstitutional. Chief Justice Roberts read lines from the oath and Barack Obama will repeat them. After Obama has uttered the last word of the oath and has therefore legally entered into the execution of his office, Roberts will say, "so help me God", and Obama will repeat it. If Obama were being forced to say it, that would be one thing, but it is his choice, just as it is his choice to swear on a bible (the one Abraham Lincoln took the oath on) and to swear rather than affirm. I also don't think there is a case that any of the people around them are being subjected to religious speech since no one has to participate other than Obama and someone qualified to administer oaths. -Rrius (talk) 18:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Unconstitional was a strong discription (on my part). My point is, that so help me god or I afirm, is not mentioned in the US Presidential oath of office. It was merely a precedent. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I dont believe in God, i find it amazing that so many billions of people on this planet have fallen for such things for so long. For over 1000 years religions have discriminated against and oppressed people who are different. I look forward to a day when religions are extinct but i sometimes think atheists are now starting to do the very thing religious people did in the past, trying to push their will and opinions on to others and attempting to undermine and discriminate against those who are religious. Religion is fine aslong as it stays out of politics and schools. I wouldnt have a problem with Obama making the oath mentioning God, its his faith and hes entitled to it, Its his policies that count.

Having God in national anthems is one thing, forcing kids in American schools to make the full pledge of allegiance is the thing that really offends me. Especially as the GOD bit was added in the 1950s.

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all." BritishWatcher (talk) 19:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

In agreement, atheist shouldn't push their views on anyone. What got religions started? Fear of death. GoodDay (talk) 19:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It was also fear that they would never see their loved ones again. I don't really believe in God, yet have no fear of death, it's the act of dying that concerns me. Slow and painfully is something I could do without. Titch Tucker (talk) 19:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It must be great to have faith and think that after death everyone lives happily ever after. I wish i could believe, ignorance is bliss. When ever you ask someone to actually explain how heaven works, they have no clue. BritishWatcher (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ya'll want a good chuckle? See George Carlin's views on Religion, via YouTube. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

lmao very good BritishWatcher (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

There is also fear of the unknown and curiosity about the world around us. There is also, I think, a generic human need for spiritualism that manifests itself in different people to different degrees. On some level, it's really kinda scary. That intelligent, logical people feel that draw is a sign of its power. -Rrius (talk) 02:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know guys, religion can be a comfort, whether you believe it intellectually or not. I went to a funeral yesterday. The priest gave a really moving sermon and offered the bereaved hope which atheism does not.--jeanne (talk) 09:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

2009

Neither do I. Maybe it's because it's a new article and they want to change policy. I don't think there is a consensus to have her listed there, but I am not going to get in an edit war over it. If it stays on the article then when things quiet down I will remove her. --Tocino 23:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's recentism. It's being pushed by editors who haven't been editing the YEAR articles much in the past (not that WP requires a certain amount of experience or that we own the article). They need to be thinking ahead. Will those reading the article 20 years from now believe that Maria de Jesus is worthy of a spot on the exclusive list, that she was one of the top newsmakers of the year 2009? I don't think so. --Tocino 23:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

and i would remind you, as one person, you have no aurthority to keep removeing the piece as we are currently debating it in the discussion area once a no. of people have oposed (soz spelling) her being there she will be left. Hawkania (talk) 23:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC) oh and Tocino will see her reinstated.

'note' there is no consensus to remove her as there are only a few users debating this. Hawkania (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

'Yawn' Look if you really feel so strongly about a few words then get Jimmy Wales himself so sort out the discussion. Hawkania (talk) 00:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. What are you talking about? GoodDay (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Franken Article

Thanks for removing/changing the info box on the Al Franken article. I was actually saying it should be changed as well, but couldn't remember how to do it. I'm out of practice on editing since I rarely come here anymore (I finally got sick of the edit warring and decided to spend less time and energy here). It looks like both the Franken and Coleman articles are going to have to be watched carefully as they are subject to reverts by many unregistered users, who are often more difficult to deal or communicate with then regular users. Anyway, I just wanted to say that. Davidpdx (talk) 08:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I suspect those IPs are Coleman & Franken supporters. Maybe even campaign members. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The info box was changed again on the Franken article. Could you please go and change it again? I don't want to mess with it as I'm kind of afraid I'll screw it up worse then it is now. I really believe that the senator info box shouldn't be there and there should be no one shown as a successor to the position at this point. I owe you a cyber beer or something. Thanks! Davidpdx (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for getting that again. I left a message on the talk page driving the point home that we need to leave the info boxes alone until this thing is resolved one way or another. People seem to want to act like a dog with a constant itching problem around here. Davidpdx (talk) 10:13, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Jeanne Calment

Hey GoodDay, what do you think kept Jeanne alive so long? She said she never worked and ate 2 pounds of chocolate a week? Aha, I am a lazy ass, I also eat an enourmous amount of chocolate, my name is Jeanne, I've got French blood, now all I need to do is to start rubbing olive oil into my skin. Look at her photos. You'll notice that she looks better at 40 than 20! I wonder what the world will be like if you and I live to be 122 years old. Holidays to the moon, the world government recording our thoughts and dreams, elevated cities and streets, flying cars, temperatures at 90 degrees throughout the year, more rain, lots of tornadoes and earthquakes--jeanne (talk) 08:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If I make it to 122, I doubt the world will have changed too much (in 2093). I base this belief on the 1950's hopes, that we'd be living like the The Jetsons by now. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

We're NOT?! Bbbut, I thought we already were living like The Jetsons! GD, must you ALWAYS burst my bubble?--jeanne (talk) 17:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the bursting, gorgeous. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Moon landings & Aliens

Don't worry, Jeanne, as far as I know the Jetsons didn't have the internet, so we are well ahead of them. PS, I'd rather go to mars, I hear it's a little warmer this time of year. Titch Tucker (talk) 17:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Baba Hum Be Be. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Baba what/who!! Titch Tucker (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The novelty song The Martian Hop. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Sailors fighting on the dance floor, is there life on Mars?--jeanne (talk) 17:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you imagine going to Mars when your 122? I'd be floating there all wrinkled, drooling and incontinent. Hmm, I think I'd rather check out before then! Titch Tucker (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

We won't be going to Mars for awhile yet. Humans haven't even been to the mooon, yet. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Not been to the moon yet? didn't you watch that episode of the Mythbusters where they proved man went to the moon? Masterhatch (talk) 18:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

e/c::::I was wondering what you meant by that, then it hit me. Do you believe in the conspiracy theory where the US Government faked it? Flag blowing in the non existent wind, the wrong shadows coming off the astronauts, etc. Titch Tucker (talk) 18:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Definitely a Cold War PR stunt, to frighten the Soviets. Ever wonder why there's no Mooon bases today, or frequent trips to the Moon & back? Why it's too expensive today, yet wasn't back then? Yep, it's was a hoax. GoodDay (talk) 18:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If you watched that episode of mythbusters, they put a flag in a vaccuum chamber and simulated the movements of the flag being placed and the flag made the same motion as on the moon....meaning the inertia of the flag moving cause the "waving" and not a wind. Also, with the shawow thing, they built a huge scale model of the landing site and proved that topography can make the shadows appear to be going in different directions. Masterhatch (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The only way they will prove it (to those who doubt it) is when someone else goes to the moon and either finds the remains of the landing modules, rovers, and other bits and pieces or they don't. Titch Tucker (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Mythbusters also did that "laser" test. When they went to the moon, they left a reflector up there and mythbusters (for their grand finale) aimed the laser at the reflector, and sure enough, the laser came back to them. Masterhatch (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I also believe they use the lasers to accurately measure the distance between the earth and moon at any one time. Titch Tucker (talk) 18:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

If i recall the episode correctly, that is one of the reasons they left the reflector on the moon. Masterhatch (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Titch hit the nail on my skeptic mind. It's been 37yrs since the last alledged moon landing & their doesn't seem to be any movements for a return. I'm still waiting for the next moon landing (37yrs & counting). GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am no expert on the field, but my theory is that since they have already been there and they have gathered lots of moon rock already, the need isn't there to go back at this time. It seems NASA is more interested in Mars, which makes sense. There is nothing to gain by sending a manned space craft back to the moon at this time. I read somewhere, though, that in the future they are planning to use the moon as a training ground for Mars. Masterhatch (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

A big Cold War PR stunt & nothing more. We should have bases on the moon by now, with frequent trips their & back (in passenger shuttles). Sorry ya'll, I'm just not convinced. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am not going to try and change your mind, but here are a few things off the top of my head to think about as to why there aren't regular "passenger" flights and a moon base:

• the challenger accident set back the American space programme many years
• no "efficient" space shuttles have been built yet. We are still using 20 plus year old shuttles
• space tourism is relatively new (why don't they have regular passenger shuttles to orbit the earth or go to the space station? do you believe that humans haven't gone to space yet either?)
• it takes months of training to go to space, making space "tourism" difficult.
• We are barely able to build a space station to orbit the earth..imagine the complications and cost of trying to build one on the moon, several days away from earth.
• We barely have frequent trips to orbit humans around our own planet, why would we have frequent trips to the moon?
• yes it costs lots of money to send a human to the moon. It is a lot cheaper to send a robot there to gather more moon rocks if we need them. Maybe one day, when we are more advanced, we can build a space station on the moon using nothing but robots to do all the work up there.

Think of the cost of building a space station on the moon. Who would pay for it? Where would the money come from? Tourists? Private companies? Well, considering that space tourism isn't that feasible at this point in time, and there is no economic benifit for private companies to go to the moon, there is no one willing to do it. While I believe we have the technology to build a space station on the moon, we don't have a reason to spend the money to do it. We can't mine the moon. We can't live on the moon. There aren't enough rich people would would be willing to shell out billions to be moon "tourists". Simply put, the reason we haven't built a moon base is because we don't have a reason to, not because we can't. Masterhatch (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

When (via CNN coverage) they return to the Moon & find the supposed Eagle remains & the flag etc; then I'll be convinced. GoodDay (talk) 19:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, would you be convinced if I told you I have been to the moon? It's a marvelous night for a moon dance.....Do you believe there's life on Mars, BTW?--jeanne (talk) 05:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be convinced. I don't believe there's life on any of the other seven planets of the Solar System. Also, I don't believe that extra-terristial aliens have visited Earth (sorry Roswell folks). GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

For me, the jury is still out with Roswell, although logic points to no alien visits. But who knows, eh?. Let me ask you, do you think that there WAS life on Mars and that NASA might find fossils or something? Also, that icey moon (sorry, can't remember the name off hand) might have life under that ice in that ocean. Scientists are pretty hopeful about that. Masterhatch (talk) 16:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I should rephrase: I don't believe there's aliens beyond are known development, within the Solar System. There's every possibility that slug-like or fish-like beings exist or existed on Mars. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

There is even a theory that we originated from Mars, not as we are, but as spores landing on earth. Don't ask me for any fact's, I don't have them. Titch Tucker (talk) 16:51, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw that movie, though I forget the name. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

And if I told you I was an alien? Perhaps you are one GoodDay, after all nobody here has ever seen your photo (hint hint)--jeanne (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh and GoodDay, if you don't believe man has ever landed on the moon, then who in hell was Major Tom?--jeanne (talk) 18:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I might be an alien (hmm, I'd luv to see that suggestion, spread across Wikipedia). It's possible I've been observing human behaviour on this site (since 2005). Maybe even running 'behaviour response' tests across other editors User pages. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Start spreading the news, GoodDay comes from Mars, he wants to be a part of it, planet Earth, planet Earth GD, speak of the devil, check out the photo on Sarah's talk page.--jeanne (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Sing it, Frankie baby. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

OK here I go: Relax, don't do it when you want to .... to it.....--jeanne (talk) 06:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia hot-spot spotter

I have the feeling another hot-spot is smouldering on Talk: 2009. Call it woman's intuition, ESP, whatever, I just have a wee feeling that the section regarding Obama's inauguration is about to expel lava into cyber space. Id head over there if I were you.--jeanne (talk) 14:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I've returned

4-year old Niece visiting. Thus computer (Wikipedia) unavailable to me, due to cartoons on YouTube. GoodDay (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what you mean. My 17 year old son monopolises the computer for hours on end watching 1980s Dead or Alive videos on YouTube. I tell ya.--jeanne (talk) 07:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm back. Yep, the sacrifices we must make for the younger generation. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's the dawning of a New Era

Reminds me of the line in the Monkees song, We're the young generation, and we've got something to say, ahh...... Just think GD, I was part of the Young Generation back then, and you weren't even born.--jeanne (talk) 06:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I was born in 1971, but my musical tastes would suggest 1951. GoodDay (talk) 15:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

My musical tastes would suggest that I was a liberal, atheist republican, so one cannot judge another based on their choice in music, LOL!--jeanne (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

All my photo's when I was really young are in black and white, they look like something from another era. Titch Tucker (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just 1 B&W photo of myself (the rest being coloured). GoodDay (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

They are from another era. WE ARE FROM ANOTHER ERA!!!Remember those pics of me in 1960s in fashion?--jeanne (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't go telling me I'm from another era. My parents where from another era, I'm from right here right now. So I'm not listening to you!, (put's fingers in ears). Titch Tucker (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I'm from another planet. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Aha! So there is intelligent life out there. Titch Tucker (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too certain of that. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Ground control to Major Tom, one, check ignition and may God's love be with you. Lift-off beep beep beep beep......--jeanne (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) God's love? You humans have a very active imagination. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, Houston could have substituted God for this god.--jeanne (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 16:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

May Lucifer's love be with you, Lift-off. Beep beep beep--jeanne (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I wonder if during the War between Mexico and the Republic of Texas, did General Sam Houston own a messenger Eagle. When it arrived with a message, somebody may have inevitably yelled out, Houston... the eagle has landed. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, Mexico's flag does have an eagle on it.--jeanne (talk) 16:31, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The eagle has landed

My father used to love reading J. T. Edson books. All those heroic cowboys and rather sinister Mexican's. He was actually an English guy with a vivid imagination. Titch Tucker (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Remember the Alamo. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I had a lot of Mexican friends in school. The first (last?) love of my life was half-Mexican. Bet you can't spot him on Wikipedia!--jeanne (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

His name wasn't Maximilian was it? Nah, it couldn't have been, wrong era. And he wasn't Mexican. ;) Titch Tucker (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No, his name was John and he doesn't have an article, just an image.--jeanne (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Did he go by Juan? GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

No way, Jose just John. Anyroad, he could have been called Johann seeing as he was also half German-and a surfer!--jeanne (talk) 16:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of John's, Juan's etc. Ever wonder why the current King of Spain, is known as Juan Carlos in the English world, yet his ancesters were known as John, Charles, Ferdinand etc. Same with the crown prince of Spain, why does the English world call him Felipe, instead of Philip (like they did with his ancesters). GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Who knows? None of my teachers could pronounce my name correctly. It still provokes much hostility from many Francophobic Americans. How much French are you, BTW?--jeanne (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm atleast half-francophone. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm only 1/8th. Not much but if Wikipedia can mention that Obama's great-great-great-Grandfather was Irish, I can claim my French blood, eh?--jeanne (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, seeing as I'm related (albeit distantly) to Boom Boom, do you think I can become an honourary Quebecois?--jeanne (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I reckon so. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I wonder where Titch has gone? Probably off to the pub for a wee pint.--jeanne (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

'Tis possible. I'm confident, he'll return. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I wish you guys would put your photos up on your user pages.--jeanne (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

But ya already know what I look like (at least in human disguise), remember George Fox? GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

And Titch? Personally I think he was one of the Bay City Rollers--jeanne (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Maybe only on Saturday night. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, he's the drummer. Dig his white flares?S-s-s-saturday niiiight--jeanne (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's all so 1970's. Even Bill Bixby as Dr Banner, wore the bell-bottom pants. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Talk about 1970s check out this guy here: Bobby Sherman on YouTube Hey little woman please make up your mind.....--jeanne (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's funny how things change, then change back. Sherman's appearance wouldn't have been excepted today or in the 1st half of the 20th century. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

But he would have been accepted in Napoleon's France or Regency England--jeanne (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC).

A possible friend of Beau Brummel? GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly or Charles Joseph, Comte de Flahaut, Hortense de Beauharnais's lover.--jeanne (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wowsers. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's like the hippies of the late 1960s, early 1970s. We used to think those guys with long stringy hair, droopy mustaches, ragged bell-bottoms, bare feet and fringed vests were hip, now they look silly. Same with the hippy girls with their non-use of make-up and granny dresses. I used to wear ragged jeans, Indian-print dresses, and no make-up. In 1973, I changed my look drastically by adopting glittery make-up, glam rock style clothing, and I plucked my eyebrows to a thin line (see my user page main photo). Fashion also changes one's mentality as well as wardrobe contents.--jeanne (talk) 09:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey GoodDay, have you heard the latest from NASA? It seems that they are today going to reveal compelling new evidence that there is life on Mars. Something to do with the discovery of methane gas which they say must come from organisms living below the surface. I reckon its little green men travelling by metro/subway with really bad wind. Any inside knowledge? seen as you say your from another planet? Titch Tucker (talk) 12:14, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course there's life on Mars. The Martians are actually all Bay City Rollers lookalikes, all dressed in tartan scarves with flared parallel jeans! P.S. Titch, I know you're really the drummer with the group, Derek Longmuir, or else his brother Alan Longmuir, or perhaps even Eric Faulkner or Woody!. I Only Want To Be With You.........--jeanne (talk) 12:44, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Jeanne, I would never have been seen dead wearing tartan trousers, I told you, I was a pretty cool dude with a wardrobe full of sharp suits and the patter to match it. It might have been 30 years ago or more, but memorys never fail, just the body. Titch Tucker (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Response to both: Remember the alien being interviewed by Kermit the Frog, on The Muppet Show, who had the ability to evolve quickly (copying himself after Kermit)? GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Your giving the game away GD, is there another GD out there? Maybe locked up in a little room while you walk amongst us? ;) Titch Tucker (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

'Tis possible. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It would be something if they found even organisms on Mars. The first alien life to be discovered so close to earth, and think of the uncountable other planets that could have all kinds of different life on it.Titch Tucker (talk) 16:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Indeed, it's a discovery I'm looking forward to. With so many galaxies, it's impossible for their to be life on only one planet. GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Ooh, real live Martians, how fun! Remember that 1960s programme, My Favorite Martian?--jeanne (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Walston & Bixby? yep. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a Starman waiting in the sky, he'd like to come and meet us but he thinks he'd blow our minds... and that is why the aliens have not yet landed on Earth, but......they are OUT THERE!!!!!--jeanne (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Uncle Martin... GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

That werent no DJ that was hazy cosmic jive.....--jeanne (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Governor numbering

Yeah, there's quite a few. I go from either an official list (Alabama has one), or just from the official declaration of the current number and work back, figuring out how they arrived at that number. This issue has kept me from even working on Virginia; the official sources contradict as to the numbering. --Golbez (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Nominee

Will this cause you to oppose or will you remain neutral?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Let's try to keep the discussion centralized at the FAC.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 19:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool

Just wanted to say that I like your username...very clever and refreshing! --Eustress (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Oswald and Tippit

GoodDay, I just added a comment to the talk page of the Lee Harvey Oswald page which is sure to provoke several rebukes. Have a look, do you think my comments are valid? P.S Who tipped off Tippit? The Wizard of Ozwald, perhaps? Tip it, baby!--jeanne (talk) 12:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Before I add it to the LHO article I'll wait and see what the others say, otherwise it'll be quickly deleted. Their only reliable source is the LBJ-approved Warren Report.--jeanne (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That's the problem. Since it falls under conspiracy theories, it's difficult to get a reliable source. GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, GD, go check out the J.D. Tippit article! The guy never made it past the tenth grade in high school, yet he somehow was intelligent enough to have spotted the assassin from BEHIND!!! Are we in Twilight Zone or what?--jeanne (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, had Tippit survived? he just might've succeeded Hoover, as FBI Director. GoodDay (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of the TwilightZone, did you notice how number 10 was a significant feature of his life? He had a 10th grade education, he drove a #10 patrol car, and he died in 10th Street.Scary stuff, eh?--jeanne (talk) 17:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ooh da do da, ooh da do da - "you unlock this door...". Luv, the '50s/60s series. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

What about Dark Shadows? I LOVED that programme also One Step Beyond. I can still hear that creepy distorted music playing........--jeanne (talk) 17:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

'Taint never heard of those. GoodDay (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

What? You never heard of Dark Shadows? The vampire Barnabas Collins? Angelique the witch? Mad Jenny? It aired on ABC from 1966 to 1971. I used to race home from school every afternoon so's not to miss a second of it. One Step Beyond was a scarier version of Twilight Zone.--jeanne (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It's all new to me. GoodDay (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

But of course, I forget you were born in 1971! God, do I feel OLD!--jeanne (talk) 18:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ya don't look old, foxy. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This fox is old enough to be your big sister!--jeanne (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Giggle giggle. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Surely I'm not the only editor at Wikipedia who smells fish in Officer Tippit's patrol car #10?--jeanne (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Tippit's the assassin. Oswald had to eliminate him & Rudy had to eliminate Oswald. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Have you got a reliable source to back that up, GD? Otherwise it's just original research!!!!!We must not be original here, you know.--jeanne (talk) 19:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

That's my weakness on Wikipedia. I'm not good at providing reliable sources. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Your version makes sense. Hire a dumb cop as trigger man (his presence in Dealey Plaza with a gun would not attract attention), and have him rubbed out before he opens his gab. Ditto with Patsy Oswald. Except Oswald was no Tippit. Lee was not supid-in fact, he was a cool, shrewd character. God, did he handle those reporters with elàn!--jeanne (talk) 19:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I reckon we'll never know the full truth. The cover-uppers, must curse Zabruder constantly. GoodDay (talk)

Why? They got away with it Zapruder or no Zapruder! Go over to the LHO talk page and you'll see what I mean. Doubters are not to be taken seriously.--jeanne (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

It would've been tougher for conspiracy theorist, with the Zapruder film. GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but the upshot is that they got away with pulling off the crime of the century.--jeanne (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I fear, the truth will never be revealed. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it will be....one day.--jeanne (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep our fingers crossed. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Norm Coleman

Suits me just fine GoodDay, I've tried to be reasonable with you. It is you that has refused to listen to reason I'm afraid. Hero of Time 87 (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you know why he's suspected and why he was allegedly getting all socky? -Rrius (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, backing himself up and 3RR. I guess he likes to target you. Sorry, mate. -Rrius (talk) 21:34, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, my remark about not needing to post at my talk and his own was almost a lot more pointed. He absolutely would not respond to the points actually put to him. -Rrius (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Scotland

I just had a look at the Scotland talk page. I dont blame you for leaving. Why do people get so worked up over a singe word or sentence? It's not as if lives, money or property were at stake. You were sworn at and all. At least, nobody has ever sworn at me on the LHO talk page. An English editor once swore at me, on another talk page, but I did not bother to reply, although had I done so, my choice of words would have made his personal harlot blush.--jeanne (talk) 13:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Just curious

Yes. --89.101.221.3 (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 20:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Presidential Succession

It's confusing because it is not well thought out. "Act as President" suggests to me that she would be "Acting President". The text suggests that if Obama and Biden had died, removed, or resigned, she would serve until January 20, 2013, just as you said. But if she has all the powers and duties of the President, that would include appointing a Vice President under the 25th Amendment. It would be strange to say that there is an Acting President and a Vice President. The statute really should set out different procedures for death, removal, and resignation; for failure to qualify, and for inability. Having the Speaker just become President makes sense for the case where the President and Vice President are gone and not coming back. Having the Speaker leave office for a temporary disability doesn't make sense. The Speaker should not be involved in a voluntary midterm disability; a Cabinet member should just take up the role. For a failure to qualify, it makes some sense to use the Speaker, but making her resign doesn't make sense.

The whole resignation thing doesn't make sense, either. It should be that the taking the oath as President vacates the legislative office, not that resigning it makes her eligible to be Acting President.

The 25th Amendment also seems to have a hole in it. It seems no involuntary vacancy can be declared if the office of Vice President is vacant. So if, after the swearing in, a chunk of the Capitol falls on Biden, killing him, and hits Obama on the head, putting him in a coma, they'd just have to make something up. -Rrius (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Neither of us even mentioned the possibility of the Act being unconstitutional. That sets up the prospect of dueling presidents (hopefully not literally dueling). What's more, if the statute is unconstitutional, it might all be unconstitutional, which would mean there is no law providing for what happens when both offices are vacant or the officers disabled. The Act definitely needs a rewrite. -Rrius (talk) 21:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion wanted

Your opinion is wanted on Titch's talk page. I cannot understand your silence. Out with it, GD. We want your thoughts, feelings, POV. Let's get the show on the road!--jeanne (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello  :)

Hello. Sorry about not logging in. Was on the laptop and switched IP addresses to a different wifi. Didn't realize at first it changed the IP. Cheers  :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaptainChrisD (talk • contribs) 20:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama's inauguration

In a few hours, Obama will be sworn in. I heard on Italian TV that his inauguration is the costliest in history. I thought Obama promised to resolve the economic crisis? Funny way of going about it, Me is thinking. GD, why is it that Democrat presidents are so damned expensive? I wonder how much Michelle's dress cost the taxpayers? I hope it's a lot more chic than that red and black horror she wore when Barack won the election. It looked like someone threw red paint on the front of her dress. Since Nancy Reagan exited the White House, all of the First Ladies have dressed like hell. Cherie Blair was also a bad dresser. Carla Bruni is starting to lose her style. When she visited the Queen, wearing that grey, nun-like sack, Camilla Parker-Bowles even managed to upstage her! One can be serious and stylish at the same time.--jeanne (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

'Tis true; the Democrats complained over Bush's 2005 Inaugural. But, they don't dare complain about their own. GoodDay (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, GoodDay, Barack and Michelle will be expensive to maintain. When the honeymoon is over, perhaps the taxpayers will complain about it. What is your opinion on Obama's mother-in-law moving into the White House?--jeanne (talk) 07:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I reckon, in-laws stayed at the White House in the past. Therefore, it's not out of the ordinary & the First Daughters have grammie to keep an eye on them. GoodDay (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've been waiting for you to get on line, GD. I believe Mamie Eisenhower's mother lived in the WH. I feel sorry for Barack, is all I can say. It's not good to have in-laws as permanent house guests, even if the house is on the scale of the White House. Somehow, a mother-in-law can always find you.--jeanne (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Imagine what First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt went through, with her mother-in-law. Sara Delano Roosevelt stayed at the White House, until her passing in 1941. GoodDay (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Imagine what Franklin went through every night with Eleanor lying next to him in bed.--jeanne (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Michelle's dress? The government does not pay for the entire event. Michelle almost certainly provided her own clothes (although I hope she didn't pay for that thing. I could have covered her in papier mache and achieved the same effect). Most of the expenses are paid for by private donations. I don't understand the criticism. The Democrats were hypocritical in 2004 when they complained about pageantry in a time of war, but it didn't have to do with taxpayers. -Rrius (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I could have designed her a dress that would have knocked people's eyes out. She needs a new stylist-someone with TASTE.--jeanne (talk) 19:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've no knowledge in fashion. But, I'll admit, if the skirt part had been above the knees, the First Lady would've been wearing a Wilma Flintstone imitation. Too bad, as Michelle is very attractive. GoodDay (talk) 19:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

She has attractive, well-developed curves, she should emphasize them not try to conceal them by wearing skirts that are too large.--jeanne (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Had I been her stylist, I'd have dressed her in midnight blue with silver. She needs rich jewel colours.--jeanne (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with well-developed curvey women, showing themselves. GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"Narrow" and "3,000,000 vote margin" discussion

I encourage you to participate here. Timmeh! 00:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Acting Secretaries

No. Unless they are asked to stay on, they generally resign sometime around the end of the term. Some leave a day or so early, and some leave shortly after noon on the 20th. Other than Gates, it seems only Chertoff was kept on at all. He stayed in office until this morning to ensure continuity in case of an attack during the inauguration. -Rrius (talk) 22:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Kennedy withdrew

It looks like Caroline Kennedy withdrew. It may be Cuomo after all. -Rrius (talk) 00:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

William McKinley

Hey, read up on his assassination. Doesn't it ring a bell with Dallas? And what about Leon Czolgosz, the anarchist? They sure knew where to find them, eh? Scary.--jeanne (talk) 15:19, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Presidential security was quite weak (one bodyguard) in 1901. Atleast, Czolgosz had the guts (or insanity) to face his victim. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Presidential security was also quite weak on 22 November 1963. How far away were they from JFK's Lincoln Continental? They should have been on the running boards.--jeanne (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The Bubble Roof should've been used. Also, talk about security riskes, Prez Obama and Vice Prez Biden simultaneously walking in the Inaugural Parade? What happen to avoiding a double-tragedy. Back to McKinley/Kennedy: I'm not sure I see the conspiracy links. GoodDay (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

McKinley was against war with Spain, The Maine blew up in very mysterious circumstances, plus McKinley made unwise comments about outside forces plotting wars, also Teddy Roosevelt hated him.--jeanne (talk) 16:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

GD, you should read Taylor Caldwell's Captains and The Kings. It discusses the international power-brokers and financiers who work behind the scenes.--jeanne (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm interesing. 'Tis true, the Maine explosion was a inside job. Also, remember the trouble William Randolph Hearst got into? His paper suggested McKinley should be shot. GoodDay (talk) 17:05, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was an accident that Hearst blew out of proportion. -Rrius (talk) 08:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it was an accident. There was never any reason given for it's presence in Cuba. Protecting national interests, hmmmm. There were many who eagerly sought a war with Spain, including Hearst and Teddy Roosevelt--jeanne (talk) 08:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

And there was a nice little anarchist handy.--jeanne (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Mr Czolgosz; he wasn't as entertaining as Mr Guiteau. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

None could compete with Lee Harvey Oswald, however.sigh --jeanne (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Booth comes close.--jeanne (talk) 17:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Guiteau gets my nod, as the most colorful. This guy actually thought, he was mainly responsible (due to his self-written/self delivered campaign speach), for Garfield's election. Actually felt he was due a government appointment, for his supposed services. During his Trial, he was correct in his defence, that the doctors brought about Prez Garfield's death, more so then the bullet. Charlie Guiteau was truly, a smart fool. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

He was indeed odd. Italian TV once did a programme on the assassinated presidents, as well as those who died mysteriously while in office, such as Zachary Taylor. They said how Guiteau had stalked Garfield. It was also confirmed that the doctors killed Garfield by their incompetance. I still vote for Oswald as the most enigmatic and charismatic of all the famous assassins in history. McKinley's assassination was verrrrrry suspicious. You must get a copy of Captains and The Kings.--jeanne (talk) 08:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Sakic

I only removed it because it was incorrect. No offence intended Ezc 195 (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Gday, GD

Hi GD, watcha upto. Titch Tucker (talk) 00:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Digits vs. Words

Hi,

It's quite clear from the manual of style that numbers higher than 10 are written in digital form. Please don't keep changing the Obama article. The other bios are wrong, so should not be compared to. This is a featured article and should reflect our highest standards. Thanks Majorly talk 03:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

In a roundabout way

Thank you for the bit of trivia about the "assumed" warriors you posted elsewhere. I happened upon it and it helped put other editing troubles in perspective. Almost nothing could be as bad as having to deal with that. Just... wow. And yeah, I would bet they were serious. arimareiji (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Romano-British

I already put a warning template on my own edits, while contracting and polishing those very edits in response to unclarified objections. If you would like to improve the text, please do so. Do not remove all content out of hand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.231.164.27 (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I am the one doing most of the talking on the talk pages, without adequate reply by my assailants. Perhaps you'd like to give me a "smack down"? Join in and cut me down!