Pugwash

They mean Noob. A Bizut is a first-year/freshman/whatever scholarly term you use. There are even more complex French terms used by those that need a Reu-reu to get into Les Halles for their tarp

Mine is on my wrist as I type. There must be something in the air.

Now, now, Narikaa ... my dad was a Scouser! Oh, wait.

It takes as long as it takes. I'm in no rush. :-)

A Gallery post is by far the best idea as members can navigate by thumbnails.

If you want to count actions in disputed zones, like Iraq, then in the last few years, there have been a lot of terror attacks by alleged Muslims, but those can be classed as acts of guerilla war. The Hindu Tamil Tigers can't be classed as Muslim, and neither can the recent Thai terrorists, no matter how hard the western powers claim they are. As for the Eastern-European terrorist activities, they're all about territory.

I don't have time to learn Arabic.

You accuse me of not reading your holy book, yet you can't even see the difference between a scientific theory (everything is a theory in science) and literary heresay? Do some research: Evolution is accepted as the most likely version of events and just because scientists are disagreeing over the finer points doesn't mean it should be discounted as complete fiction. Gravity is a theory, particle physics is atomic theory, electricity is a theory, are you saying that we should discount them as well? Until all religious leaders can sit down and decide which of them is right, they should all be discounted equally and never, ever given power or arms. Islamists seem to gravitate towards the Sharia Law based, as you say, on "Do not write down anything of me except the Qur'an. Whoever writes other than that should delete it" and that is obviously a disaster waiting to happen, but basing law on the Qur'an is equally as dangerous as it can't take into account, for instance, software piracy. Software piracy doesn't break any religious laws as theft was always seen as depriving someone of something they own. Society evolves (unless you want it to stay in the stone ages and you discount both cultural and biological evolution) and a law based on immutable text is possibly the stupidest thing I can imagine, especially when the text is so ambiguous. Islam only survives because of the financial power in the middle east. It lives and dies by oil, I'm afraid. When the oil runs out, the radicals take more power and we're all screwed.

Quotation? Transliteration, more like. It's a translation of a transcription.

Clearly. It's going through the same growing pains that Christianity did in their Medieval period, and we know how enlightened they were then.

This isn't some extremists at work, this is Saudi-[censored]!ng-Arabia. A country interpreting Sharia Law, a premise you agree with, taken to its natural end. Law and God should never be the same thing as this is what happens. Religion is the Crack of the masses. It'll denigrate you and rob you blind, and you'll be grateful for it. ps. I don't hate Islam. I'm merely a rationalist that thinks thousand-plus year-old made-up stories of wise men should have no place in modern government. I respect peoples' faiths, but have no time for those who control the religions. Yes, your faith is based on made-up stories, but if it makes you happy and a better person, I'm all for it.

Now that's a made up figure if ever I've heard one. :-) If you look at real terrorism figures, you'll find that in the recent decades, most terrorist acts were done by separatists or Christians. Look at the Spanish, Irish and German terrorists for examples of non-islamic terror. If you want to get really deep into the figures, you should check which terrorist organisations were funded by the US directly or by US citizens. Don't just make crap up. It doesn't help your argument. Ps. Islam hasn't caught up to Christianity in murders, human suffering, degradation, torture, and execution of women by a long shot.

In your next prayers, can you ask him to be a little less ambiguous next time? So you do agree with Sharia law then? No, it's just bad weather.

Or he wanted it called Jehovah so he could get back to some smiteage.

So, you're a better Muslim than the Islamic state of Sudan? The problem is that, unless Allah comes down and tells you which one of you is correct, both you and them will think that one of you is a true Muslim and the other is false. If you see that basing law on religion is stupid then you see laws and rights as higher importance than religion. At this point, why bother with religion if it's less important? To take it back to the case in Sudan, the courts there believe that it is important that they act upon the strict rules about blasphemy. Should they be looked down upon by Muslims? Are they not just following Allah's will? Wouldn't Allah stop them if they were wrong? The Gods used to tell us how to live all the time, according to sacred writings. Where are the Gods these days if they allow us to commit such flagrant stupidity in their names? God is an absent father. He obviously doesn't care about us any more. Is that our fault or his? Did we take his name in vain one time too many?

Paedophilia: Something we find so morally repugnant that extremists call for executing the offenders. Blasphemy: Something Muslims find so morally repugnant that extremists call for executing the offenders. And she wasn't sentenced to 90 lashes. 15-days in prison isn't that far from western sentencing for some offences, like, for instance, a Judge imprisoning an entire courtroom (47 people) because one person's mobile phone went off.

No, you don't get people on the streets saying "Hang 'em high" about Conservatives. Maybe you missed the national rage over paedophiles in the UK a few years ago. It was exactly like the Teddy issue, apart from there were no machetes. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/872436.stm

It doesn't make for exciting news. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7122562.stm

Change the word "Blasphemer" to "Paedophile" and the vitriol is the same.

Great to see no-one is posting here. :-)

10:08 again. (although Casio use 10:58 and Timex use 10:09) Here's a 1998 article on 10:08

Sheesh, that sounds like advertisers trying to find meaning. It's got nothing to do with "sexy time" which is obvious to anyone that knows how long watches have been sold with the hands in that position. Theories like "it's a smile" or "it's a tick" may hit on the subliminal reasons why it was chosen, but advertising simply wasn't that sophisticated back then. Oh, and the biggest reason the 10:10 sexy time theory is bogus? Watches are set to 10:08, not 10:10.

Ironically, I fail to see a difference between your POV and theirs. People like you scare me.

While high-end watch sales are up, low-end watch sales are down, thanks to people using mobile phones to tell the time. And yes, replicas will hurt high-end brands, just not yet.

Goth Chick is an 80s term ...