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.

I guess AD's against blowjobs?

my insert sucks, the silver ring in the center isn't even consistent throughout the lot of it. >: pearl's gone too, adds to the charm though.

I'm a huge fan of Obama and have been supporting him since the 2004 Democratic nation convention, but I really do hope the press keeps a keen eye on him. It'd be unfortunate if someone would be able to govern without criticism. That much power could be destructive. However, I don't think much'll happen in the way of real controversy. Fake issues like his terrorist ties and his faux-religion can be brought up, but they clearly hold no credibility, so lettem come. I just hope late-night TV doesn't get boring as [censored] now that an intelligent, thin, family-man is in the White House.

I can understand how it may seem abrasive. This is the problem with the democrats and those on the left. If they just act politely then perhaps the other side will come around. It just reminds me of the term "don't be an uppity negro" a little too much. This is why I admire folks like Bill Maher, Dan Savage, and Keith Olberman. They, far more articulately than I'm able to, express how the religious right have hijacked not only the Republican Party, but the US in general, starting with Reagan. It's this folksy pride in ignorance that is exactly what sways public opinion further to the right. We've got a situation now where you're beginning to see that racism, un-structured free market capitalism, and traditional concepts of social norms and religious beliefs are beginning to show their age and be worn away by progressivism, rationalism, and secularism. The US has been fooling itself for quite sometime that it's based on this absurd notion of a homogenous population, whereby everyone is a white christian capitalist- and that's just not the case. Old beliefs, such as homophobia and racism- the traditional "American" myth that has been officially perpetuated since before Jefferson wrote that blacks were unable to think for themselves, are in their death-pangs. I also don't think American history has been always moving forward and progressing. (example: the positive civil rights act of 1866 [yes, 1866] and ensuing negative lynch laws and state-sponsored racism that followed shortly thereafter). In order to prevent a backwards spin of social and political progress, these purveyors of progress need to keep a stronger and keener eye on what they view as radicals and those who resist positive change. There needs to be an equal or opposite of the right in order to maintain at the very least a balance. Should one stand idly by because to criticize is improper or impolite? My parents are no friends of the gays and are huge bible-thumpers, but somehow I've managed to maintain a perfectly healthy relationship with them, so don't let my actions on a replica-watch message board confuse my actions in reality. Now, We've got one side who's principal philosophy is devoted to condemning others who don't follow their lifestyle to literally burning in the fires of Hell for eternity. They can be nice to you. They can say with a big smile on their face that your lifestyle and beliefs are evil and immoral, but that doesn't change anything. I'm unapologetic in my convictions. It's obvious that I'll never convince a Christian that their faith is based on ancient traditions that have little to no intellectual or moral currency in society, nor is that my mission. I simply see something that's unjust and I'm calling it out. I have no investment in being nice to someone who is blindly opposed to the lifestyle of my friends and family members simply on account on 'seemin nice'. For too long the left has had to apologize to the right for having different views. It's unfortunate that terms like bigot and fear-monger (may have made an implication, not sure if I used the term) are being used, granted. However, to avoid the terms in favor of less-honest and euphemistic terms is, in my opinion, demeaning. I hate to say it, but sometimes people or groups are bigots and fear mongers. It happens on both sides. I don't think the radical left is correct in a lot of what they say, they can be bigoted and fear promoters, but more often than not, you'll see the ''mainstream'' right principally rely on tactics of fear and bigotry. The McCain campaign was calling Obama a socialist, muslim (as if that's worse or better than being a christian), communist, unAmerican , and continuously questioned his patriotism. Recent election results overwhelmingly in favor of Obama have shown that those tactics simply don't work anymore, people are starting to wake up. It's also fair to say that the last 8 years have been a train-wreck, so I have no doubts that that greatly contributed. I also believe that christian conservatives can 'not' hate gays. I'm not, however, addressing them. It's very frustrating that people are using the Bible of all things as a moral compass for homosexuality. The same book which tells people to turn the other cheek and do unto others as they would do to you, help the poor, etc. all things the right seems to campaign vehemently against. Bumper stickers that reads NRA Member side-by-side with a bumper-sticker that reads What Would Jesus Do? He wouldn't have a [censored]in gun or hate gays simply on principle, that's for sure! My point is, there seems to be very little 'thinking for ones' self' and more 'blindly listening to what your pastor and your parents' said back in '75 about gays'. I'll take a quote, not sure where I heard it, but "Christians need to be more Christ-like". Ideally I'd be friendly and ''aw you hate gays? that's cool!" but that would violate my principals just as much as a social conservative allowing a gay to marry in their backyard would violate theirs. It's unfortunate that I've left so little wiggle-room, but I'm still young so there's hope. I'm slightly jaded.

AD added plenty to the conversation, but quantity isn't quality. All I've really got from you is: -gay is unnatural and equitable to alcoholism -to be gay means you are undeserving of equal treatment of straights -your sister may be gay and you think less of her for it -the homosexual agenda is polluting the minds of young children, who should be raised ignorant of homosexuality Each of your points is based on fear, hate, and ignorance, not empirical evidence or rationalist thought. Citing tradition isn't citing fact. The newspaper articles and opinion pieces from right-wing sources are alarmist and based out of fear. The article about the Mass. school, frankly, doesn't give any detail about the negativity of educating youth but calls out the stupidity and arrogance of the parents who had to be removed from the school's property. There's a difference between your criticism of homosexuality and my criticism of the christian right. Your attitude is based on [censored] myths and ancient desert prejudices and mine is based on calling out the right for the ridiculous hypocrisy of their opinions and policies. There's a difference between prejudice and judging. I'm not pre-judging the christian right, I'm taking what's out there and saying that it's [censored]. You're taking what ''could'' happen if gays were allowed to marry and this ''slippery slope'', which frankly you don't day descends into what and what that means for society (but you know it's not good!). As far as I know, California didn't fall into anarchy while gay marriage was legal and Canada's still on the map. I don't think I'll ever understand the actual reason why folks hate the gays other than superstitious fear and personal insecurities.

I started the thread IN the bin because discussions on religion or homosexuality are seldom conducted with any sort of rationality or intelligence, so why pretend?

1. Sexual orientation is largely fluid, especially in women, and is person-specific rather than gender-specific (which itself is a social construct). I'm not arguing that everyone is gay, but I am arguing that Western gender relations are a result of social constructions. Mainstream in popular social thought or mainstream in scientific and academic thought are certainly separate. I would argue that mainstream is not the same as traditional, because mainstream is constantly evolving, whereas traditional can be considered as fixed. Perhaps that was a point I didn't need to make as strongly as I did, granted. 2. It's clear that homosexuals are 'different' than heterosexuals when it comes to sexual preference and its subsequent cultural norms, but the language used by AD has been primarily ''normal'', which in this case has a separate meaning and implication from ''different''. Semantics? 3. In the discussion of Prop 8, various rights are being denied. Instead of summarizing, which I probably don't have time for, I'll just post information:

The argument isn't about ''different'' vs. ''not different'', it's about ''normal'' vs. ''abnormal'', which is really just applied here as a euthenism for ''wrong'' and ''immoral''. I'm also curious as to who is doing the ''agreeing'' on mainstream sexuality. Psychologists? Doctors? Experts? Or are we just talking about JoeNobody, because whenever it comes down to a vote in recent years, there's seldom been a landslide in one particular direction. Popular does not always mean 'right'. I've bolded the scariest part. It highlights a. the inability of the common population to stay educated and the failure of the public school system, and b. the ability of the people to base their opinions on 'gut feelings' rather than scientific facts. Homosexuals should be outraged when people say that they are less able to control their moral behavior and sexual orientation than heterosexuals. Simply not acting on homosexual impulses does not make one straight. Sexuality is fluid; masculinity and femininity are social constructs and by no means acutely biological. Gay is seen as wrong for few fundamental reasons. Primarily by the various religious cults who base these opinions on literal interpretations of their Bibles. It's also to be noted that in the same section that states homosexuality is immoral (Leviticus and Genesis), shellfish and pork are also targeted. Talking snakes and flying people are also depicted. Not many christians I know have such strong passions against lobster and bacon as they do of the ''gay agenda''. Which leads me to another popular interpretation. This "gay agenda" is a direct threat to the social control that religions have been steadily losing in the US since the early 80s. Every now and then a little ''awakening'' will happen, but trends are beginning to side with secularism. 16% of Americans don't believe in flying space gods or talking snakes, which is saying a lot (only 12% of the US population is black, so that should give you an idea). It's pretty obvious that the religious should feel threatened by this increasing secularization. My take home point is this. Its unfortunate, because AD has impeccable taste with watches, is clearly an intelligent individual and it's highly unlikely his attitude toward the ''homosexual movement'' dramatically affects his relationships with others. I doubt he treats a homosexual who comes to him for help with any less care than he would a heterosexual. We are all products of our environment. These things are self-evident in most people. When it comes to moot arguments like this, it always comes down to argument over principle and semantics, which I feel are holding the US and the West, really, back from further social progress. I have nothing personal against conservatives in general until it begins to negatively affect public policy. Why should homosexuals have to pay taxes when their rights and opinions aren't respected or represented by the government? Denying them equality with heterosexuals, on a fundamental level, is denying them core citizenship. It just doesn't make any sense that one particular group can mask their opposition to social progress and mask it as free speech, when they do the same things to homosexuals. Both sides are hypocritical, and I don't deny this, but it's also clear that both sides can't be right. Not with individual freedoms.

There are numerous academic attacks on polygamy. Mostly they describe the abusive power relationships within these multiple-partner marriages. By having a single man at the head and numerous women below, a power structure of dominance and submission is created thereby rendering the women in the relationship subject to psychological and often physical harm. It objectifies women. Also, those in the relationships, such as the children or one of the wives who are being abused, are highly discouraged from going to the police. Most practitioners of polygamy are in extremist religious sects which rely heavily on brainwashing and psychological manipulation. Some academics even argue that the idea of divorce is merely a serialized form of polygamy. However, what is at stake are the traditional notions of what constitutes a "family". For instance, up until the emancipation proclamation, white slave-owning households often had multiple-relationship families, whereby the patriarch would have a wife and numerous african american women as mistresses. The children resulting from these relationships would literally be servants to the white family, sometimes living under the same roof, but more often being confined to separated shacks. The black children would be genetically tied to the white children, yet be of a different race-based class, permanently in servitude of their literal white brothers. This was often considered a normal family in the South. Popular does not equal right. Gay marriage and polygamy are apples and... used car parts. Completely different.