Some time ago, I asked readers:

If you had to meet somebody you'd never met before someplace in Chicago, but you hadn't agreed on a time or a place, and you couldn't talk to them in advance, where and when would you go, hoping that the other person would pick the same time and place? I have my hypotheses, but I'm curious to see what other people say.

The nature of this game (hence the title "Focal Point") is to see if there is some answer that is so expected that everybody expects everybody else will pick it. One common example is driving on the right side of the road. Even if there were no rule against it, people presumably would drive on the right side of the road, because that's what everybody else is likely to do, and it's better that there not be any mixups. Of course, in other places everybody drives on the left side of the road, for the exact same reason.

Now, your answers: Some 85% of you agreed on a single time-- high noon. This didn't particularly surprise me, as it's one of those times that has a special name (and unlike midnight, is a convenient time to meet people downtown). It's only fair to mention that this question is patterned after a similar investigation once done in New York by Thomas Schelling. The answer there was Grand Central Station at noon. One reader even added: "'straight up' would seem to be the easiest time to remember"

But as to a place, your answers were wildly divergent-- the two most common answers were the Sears Tower and the steps of the Art Institute, with four people each. Several folks who picked the Sears Tower expressed familiarity with Schelling's finding. My co-blogger Greg Goelzhauser, for example, wrote:

For example, I haven't met you. So say the coordination game you set up is between you and me. Knowing that you are familiar with Schelling and focal points, I would certainly be at the information booth in the Sears Tower at high noon on the date requested.

Unfortunately, I can't separate my knowledge of the game and Schelling's findings to know if my answer might be different.

Something like the front steps of the Art Institute would be the nicest answer, but I just don't think any of the musuems have the kind of status that the clock in Grand Central used to have in NY.

It's just hip enough to be inviting, but not so much that it would distract from conversation. The porch is a great place to spend hours and hours snacking and talking while the Mag Mile traffic drifts by...and the game winner?S'mores that you can COOK AT YOUR OWN TABLE. You can't deny the coolness of that.

From this week's Economist:

In Spain, bones from Seville cathedral are being subjected to DNA testing to see if they belong to Christopher Columbus, otherwise thought to lie under a monument in the Dominican Republic.

If anyone knows how a confirmed DNA sample from Christopher Columbus is available for reference, please email me. I'm utterly stumped and dying to find out.

UPDATE: A reader writes:

I don't think you'd need a confirmed sample from Columbus himself. If you had samples from a significant number of his descendants, you could use those to authenticate a putative Columbus sample to a high degree of confidence.

It turns out that he's absolutely correct. According to this article, researchers will also be exhuming the remains of Columbus' known son and presumed brother to use as references. What is shocking to me is that record keeping of these remains has survived almost 500 years!

Scientists will also undertake tests to determine if Columbus was Italian or Spanish.

I'm currently re-reading True History of the Kelly Gang, and I think one of my original impressions from my first reading still holds: Peter Carey uses the St. Crispian Day's speech more effectively than Shakespeare does in Henry V.

background:
It's the night of the siege, the night before the big battle, and Ned Kelly and his friends are holed up in a bar with their friends and allies, all singing and dancing to build their spirits for the morning. The schoolteacher says he can't sing, but he tears a few pages out of his book of Shakespeare that he's carrying around.

the passage:

Here is the very words he spoke I pin them to the page as tore directly from his book.

he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse:
We would not die in that man’s company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is call’d the feast of Crispian:
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam’d,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say, ‘To-morrow is Saint Crispian:’
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say, ‘These wounds I had on Crispin’s day.’
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot,
But he’ll remember with advantages
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words,
Harry the king, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester,
Be in their flowing cups freshly remember’d.

This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne’er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered;
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne’er so vile
This day shall gentle his condition:
And gentlemen in England, now a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs’d they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin’s day.

In response to my post about Scalia, Toby Stern writes:

I think the answer is that Scalia himself has created somewhat vague and easily-manipulated tests to interpret otherwise ambiguous constitutional mandates. And I applaud that -- if you believe, like Scalia does, that Article III requires some sort of minimal standing requirements, then you need to provide judges with a way to figure out whether a litigant has cleared those hurdles.

And sometimes, as with standing (and many other areas of law), the best way to do that is to hand over the reins and let judges judge. Perhaps, in many cases, hard-and-fast rules are more desirable than balancing tests. I can get behind that idea.

But rules, while somewhat more restrictive than tests, should not be thought to take the judging out of judging. In the passage Will quotes, Scalia argues against these tests because they are "manipulable." Well, so are rules, and I doubt Scalia would disagree. But if you're going to argue simply that rules are the "lesser evil," then I don't think we get very far in cabining, as Will calls, it, the "potential evils of judges."

In other words, just let the judges judge, man. Let 'em judge. (Aren't slogans fun? Let the judges judge, man! Also, while you're at it, free Mumia, save the whales, something about Adam and Steve, and I'm lovin' it.)

Well, I should have suspected that caving in to the folks at Begging the Question would open the floodgates for link-requesting email. Here's a note I received today:

Dear William,
At fist glance this might seem like a Nigerian scam letter. Don't worry. Let me get right to the point. Searching google in my never ending daily grind to obtain better rankings for my web site www.since1884.com (specialists in Alden shoes) - I came trundling along slam bang into your blog* - http://www.crescatsententia.org/. Not unexpected since I used the search term 'Dr. Marten shoes blog'.
Why?
I'll be perfectly honest. You have probably read all about the recent Google bust up. Change in algorithm, etc. Small guys getting popped left right and center. Such as us. Our big venture capital funded enemies such as Zappos.com beating us up around every corner. Hey, they even advertise twice on the same Google ad words.
I need you help, and I am willing to give you something back.
First let me tell you just a little about our company. We are small, we are focused, and dedicated, we make mistakes, but we are ethical, and simply put our mission is to provide a web site specializing in a little niche of the market. We have real brick stores (picture attached) too. We don't go in for search engine spamming, link exchanges, or for that matter any form of spamming. We don't utilize any techniques to redirect and mystify search engines. But being an honest Joe does hurt.
Our staff are all keen bloggers themselves...And that led onto the idea that I am here to tell you about.
We would (humble, begging, praying) like to request of you to place a link to our site from your blog. I have some suggested link words below, but frankly if you want to link to us with the words 'Scam artist shoe store', well that's clearly your choice. Of course a link and a little blog about us or our product would be even nicer.
In return, I can't offer you millions, nor even shares (equity) in our company. I can offer you a LIFETIME 10% discount off purchases from our site. Will we police this, and can you rip us off? No and Yes. You can unlink to use, and I doubt I'll ever check. Is 10% a big deal, well its 10% and we do ship world-wide. I think you'll find our service and support excellent. Oh and lifetime does mean for as long as we are around in our present format and not eaten up by some capitalist vulture.
If you aren't interested, thats fine. Just ignore me. Nothing lost nothing gained, or whatever that cliche is!
If you are interested and get a link up. Just email me. I'll do a one time check and email you your 10% promotional code. Either way you probably won't hear much from me again, unless you want to.
If you got to the end of this email without deleting, well thanks. I tried to make it somewhat stimulating.