Pugwash

No. The hands need work as the 28k has different hand sizes to the 21k and gen ETA.

I like the ceramic, but the font is a little square for my tastes. Oh, and I still love the Fantasy GMT-LV.

Priced like a rep: It's amazingly difficult to find a day/date rep.

Not my cup of tea.

I love the Sinn U2, but I could never buy one, rep or gen. Imagine showing it off and someone says "You like U2 as well? I love that Bono ..."

I wonder if the search engine would find this article? I really should post it as an RWG forum post. http://pugwash.cat5.org/articles/gst/

Mine will be up soon, hopefully this weekend if my watch arrives tomorrow.

Buy it to wear, not to collect. As you say, it's a great movement - COSC certified, too - and if you like the style and it's going cheap, you stand to get a decent gen. Buy what you like, not what's popular.

I must admit to really liking the Orsas. I've come close to getting one a few times. Great choice, I hope you treat it mean, like it deserves.

I bought mine in MBK, Thailand. However, my 031 and black Monster were from Pokemunyu.

Was there any need for that? Look up "ad hominem". Someone on your farm must have a dictionary. Ps. It's spelled "Quayle"; ironic that you're quoting him for being stupid

Since when did Liberal become a dirty word? Wikipedia is not reliable, true. However, it's a good starting point. Oh, and Discover.org is exceedingly unreliable as it;s funded for one purpose. ps. Atheist is an option when you declare your religion on a census. I want the right not to have to choose a religion. I want freedom from religion. I also want separation of church and state.

I didn't say "A Wedge Movement", I said "The Wedge"[1]. CSC Vice President Stephen C. Meyer, the writer of the document linked here, is one of the authors of the famous "Wedge" document. He also started the "Teach the Controversy"[2] movement, whereby they try to say ID is as valid as Darwinism in the science classroom. Oh, and militant secularism has its place in the science classroom and is valid as militant baking in the home economics classroom. Science is not religion and religion isn't science. I could go on, but I'll just post the link to Vengenza and leave it at that for the night. http://www.venganza.org/ Oh, and as a footnote for anyone reading: [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teach_the_controversy

Post number 10,000 and I waste it on this. I don't need to point out the flawed section as the very magazine that published it in 2004 did it for me. Stephen C. Meyer is the guy that pushes the stupid "teach the controversy" position as part of the Wedge movement that is trying to get ID taught in Science classes. Oh, and Chieftang, I'm not a Liberal. I'll cop to being an atheist, however.

Cheers. Oh, and have a look at why the smileys don't parse properly.

I'd prefer them to teach science in the science classes and religion in the religion ones. It's a simple enough delineation. I'm going to 'agree to disagree' with you. Ok?

The one on the right looks to have a better cyclops alignment.

It's not where they came from, but it's the complete and utter fiction Joshua used to sell them, claiming that a secret Chinese factory was making them specially for him. What difference does that make? Well, it implies he can replace broken ones faster than he actually can and that he will have them in stock when you pay as opposed to three weeks later.

Any day now ...

ID isn't science. Presenting it as such is a fallacy. Saying "you might be right, so you have to accept I might be right with my god stuff" doesn't wash with me. Is Darwinian Evolution 100% correct? No, but using it to wedge religion into science classes is like saying Babbage's computer technology was flawed because he never foresaw Duke Nuke 'em. Sure, teach creation in religion classes if you must, just don't try to spoon it out as science. And no matter how you look at it, Intelligent Design is religion.

It reads to me like "You can't explain it adequately, therefore it must be God." The answer to "we don't know yet" isn't a rationalisation for a divine being.

Vintage time ...

Well, it's the fact that it just gives a PHP error that puts me off the most. :-)

The science of climate change is far from junk science. You cannot deny the science behind it, it's pretty much absolute. The debate isn't on whether or not something warms up when you trap CO2 (hint: it does), the debate is whether or not it's happening to us now (hint: We don't know). Just because we take opposing sides of the debate doesn't mean we have to start denying the laws of thermodynamics. It works for both sides of the argument. ps. I hope you're right about Junk Science as I'd hate for ID to be sneaked in again.

Sure, it's just marketing twaddle. Everyone knows these were bought over the counter in Bangkok. Who precisely do they think they're kidding?