downtown

i dropped my 4th gen about one foot. 3 of the hour markers came off and now the crown freewheels. i'm not sure why we keep paying top dollar for sub-par quality. it'll be my last 'rep' for sure.

oh i'll buy the tool, no prob. no idea where to though

hands, mostly. also vice grips don't own any watch tools. this is my one and only rep.

I've got a 4th gen PO. When I try to adjust the time, the crown just freewheels. It still ticks and keeps accurate time, but I can't actually change it. When I undscrew the crown, it can go both directions, so I'm not sure that the damage is to the actual movement. Problem is, it's about a year old and I can't see to open the back. Is there anyone out there who would be able to recommend a fix, a place to acquire parts, and an easy way to open a tight-as-hell caseback?

yeah, i'm in white rock. had to drive the girlfriend to surrey memorial hospital this mornign at 7. haven't seen this much snow in 15 years

damn. someone should flag that.

i don't think we even wore watches like that in highschool. everyone had their timex tri's and that was it. nobody cared.

i've got a 4th gen, but i think it looks better without one. adds character.

The funny thing about bond is that people never used to compare them to 'regular' movies. they always had their own special yardstick reserved for the bond flicks, but with these last two people are actually seeing them as not only good bond movies but good movies in general. obviously quantum of solace wasn't as good as Casino Royale. that was an ian fleming written story and it literally created bond. however, quantum isn't half as bad as the press is making it out to be. if i could change one thing about it, it wouldn't be the bourne-style fighting, which is a far more realistic way of approaching bond, but to get rid of that stupid ''shakey action cam'' they used. everything was wayyyy too fast and there were far too many close-ups during action sequences, i had no idea what the hell was happening during half of them. just needed to pull back a little bit. the film score was very well done, however. overall i give it an 8/10 versus the casino royale 10/10. quantum could have been a bit longer, too. didn't seem like there was 'enough', you know?

To something like that? Yeah. Kind of a distraction from things that really matter like war and violence and the economy, eh.

Nokia and LG make good phones. I had a sony, but it didn't really last long. I suppose you'd have to get the top of each brand and compare them but it's different with Apple because they've only got one product line in the phone department, so there's not a lot for them to compare in terms of top line vs. consumer line. that said, i can pick up a brand new in box 80gb ipod for 160 canadian off craigslist because there are so many of them on the market. it's good enough for the money. clearly not the best out there, though.

I suggest you 'see' harder.

JohnG, I think you're missing the point of a lot of what I've said. Yeah, I'm being 'mean' but frankly I don't care. It doesn't matter that I'm ''preaching to the choir'' instead of trying to convince a conservative into liberalism, which I've said before isn't going to happen on an internet message board. I'm not too concerned with offending any of the conservatives here because I don't think I'd be able to. I might not be smart enough or articulate enough. As for my use of the term 'homophobe' which i only found in two instances, which i still stand by, which term should those who don't like homosexuals be granted? if i don't like wide-open spaces i'm an agoraphobe, if i don't like spiders i'm an arachnophobe, if i don't like homosexuals i'm a 'good ol' boy'. fine by me. As for disputing that christians believe people like gays, atheists and non-christians are going to hell. -Really? You don't think most christians think hell is a literal place and that those groups are probably gunna end up there? I sincerely hope you're right, because it makes awkward for conversation. b. the left and democrats have been apologetic in the past. -sorry, but the democrats don't represent the left of the country. they may in a two party system, but not on the street. this is why i separated them. it's also just as extreme to say that none apologize. i'm not going to bother laying out instances of this because i'm sure you could look them up yourself. see: civil rights movement, vietnam war protests, etc. c. "Those are conclusions you are basing on nothing more than YOUR own prejudices and preconceptions." *sigh* re-read my posts, sir. this time without an angry scowl on your face. not even going to touch this one. there's a different between prejudice and judging. i did the latter. d. the obviously %100 positive McCain which clearly never made ANY implication or indirect association that Obama was a terrorist, socialist or unAmerican. If you're sincerely telling me that the McCain staff didn't have an awkward and embarrassing campaign centered around Bill Ayers, Joe the Plumber, that "distribute the wealth" [sic. socialist/communist] nonsense, then you're just being thoughtless. anyway, offer an idea rather than just discuss the ones already down here.

best. sig. ever.

Just as well, I'm not here to entertain you. Though, if you really didn't care you wouldn't be replying so much. Is marriage a 'normal' institution or is it a social tradition? Is monogamy normal or is it, again, a social tradition? If so, why do you find yourself checking out other women, sexually, even though you're happily married? If monogamy was hard-wired into our genetics, meaning one partner, the same partner, for the rest of your life why would people get divorces? At one time divorce was a huge moral hurdle, but today it's common. Point is, even if something is ''abnormal'', like you claim homosexuality to be, why is it a negative? We've established that your point is that homosexuality is negative, I'm more interested on hearing why. Although, I will say it is normal to want to pleasure the person you love or are attracted to sexually and receive sexual pleasure in return. Sex in general is good, apparently. Anal sex is enjoyed by many straights, male and female, many don't enjoy it. If the only purpose of sex is for procreation, how is it possible that you still want to have sex after your prime? Is that normal? If you've taken so many science classes, which I'm sure were very in-depth with human sexuality and sexual psychology, you'd probably know about the male prostate and it's relation to the g-spot. It may not relate to human reproduction, but I'm not sure how that's relevant in creating social and ethical policy. I've never mentioned once that everyone enjoys anal sex or that everyone is gay. I did mention that human sexuality is fluid, as you've quoted above. It's possible to be attracted to a member of your same sex. Does that mean you're gay? I don't know, thought probably not. I didn't coin restrictive sexual terms like gay or straight. You've also backed my point up by saying that you were concerned that a child could be taught to experiment sexually by a teacher. Does this mean that a child can be taught to be attracted to men? If so, does that imply that perhaps a solidly defined line of sexuality is hardwired into our genetic code? None of us can answer these questions without giving personal opinion. Simply because a heterosexual doesn't want to have sex with another man doesn't mean that the act itself is abhorrent. The context that you're using 'normal and abnormal' here is maybe being misunderstood by both sides? Jake seems to have a misunderstanding on what homosexuality even is, so I'd press him or her to read further into it and self-educate. Desire for anal-sex does not make one gay. No Jake. Sorry. Hate and disagreement are significantly different. Now, onto the topic of other misogynistic, socially backward, ancient and superstitious religions. I don't hate christians or jews or muslims. I disagree with them on some points of the human condition and morality. I didn't mention Islam or Judaism because they have very little impact on public policy and represent an insignificant portion of the population, I didn't think it relevant, and assumed that my condemnations of intolerance would cover them also. I guess one can't make assumptions. I can respect the moderates who choose not to force their own belief system on others, be them jew muslim or christian. IDK, really. Believe whatever the [censored] you want to believe. I'll also refrain from going on an anti-muslim, jew, hindu, sikh or any other religious rant simply because i don't think its necessary. I could, but I won't. Youtube Pat Condel for someone who share's similar beliefs to myself concerning those religions. In public conversation I'm even more critical of contemporary islam than I am of contemporary christianity, simply because islam has not been able to modernize half as well as christianity has to western moral ideals. I'm not a cultural relativist, for the tenth time. I believe one culture can have a better set of morals and values than another. We don't institutionalize public stoning of women, execution of homosexuals or mandatory prayer, though some cultures do. Do I think we're better? In the mentioned respects, yes. Is that because of christianity? No, it's in spite of it. If homosexuality is pushed to the corners of mainstream society, where it's not ok to be gay, they'll be increasingly pushed into the underground like it was in the '80s, where they'll be forced by social stigma to sexual promiscuity. Many young gay men are sexually promiscuous, it's a fact and it's dangerous for spreading STDs. But does that mean it's the fault of these men, or can blame be shared by larger society, which places a sigma on homosexuality? If homosexuality is embraced, celebrated and accepted into mainstream society, as it was in ancient Greece and Rome, you'll find a decrease in homosexual promiscuity and in increase in monogamy. The arguments for gay adoption seem not to center on the couple themselves, but on how larger society would treat the youth. It's unfortunate, it really is. My final point before I'm done: It's not enough to just disagree with something like homosexuality just 'because'. Not when it impacts so many lives. Keep religious marriage to the church and allow gays and non-religious a legal equivalent.