jkerouac

Thanks very much. My wife was "volunteered" to help plan her company's Christmas party this year. She has been asking me to help her with music. I think your playlist is awesome, so I'll burn a copy for her.

Some of you will probably pounce on me for saying this, but I don't think Panerai will remain as hot as it is today. Granted, the classic Pam design is wonderfully clean and elegant. But there isn't enough difference between different Pam model lines to justify accumulating a large collection-- a Luminor, a Radiomir, and perhaps a chrono and/or GMT for me. (The submersibles are not particularly attractive, in my opinion). At least if you are into Rolex, Omega, IWC, or even Breitling there are more significant differences between models to justify a large single-brand collection. Yes, I know there are people intent on collecting every variation of Pam just as there are people whose collections include 10 different models of Roxex Submariner. But in the long run, I think more collectors are interested in breadth than in that kind of depth.

Since when do mods have to worry about censorship? In any case, from the Social Security Web site, a few "corrections:" (http://www.ssa.gov/history/InternetMyths.html) MYTHS AND MISINFORMATION ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY Myths and misstatements of fact frequently circulate on the Internet, in email and on websites, and are repeated in endless loops of misinformation. One common set of such misinformation involves the history of the Social Security system. One Common Form of the Myths: "Franklin Roosevelt introduced the Social Security (FICA) program. He promised: 1) That participation in the program would be completely voluntary; 2) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the program; 3) That the money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year; 4) That the money the participants paid in would be put into the independent "Trust Fund," rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement program, and no other Government program.; 5) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income." CORRECTING THE MYTHS AND MISSTATEMENTS Myth 1: President Roosevelt promised that participation in the program would be completely voluntary Persons working in employment covered by Social Security are subject to the FICA payroll tax. Like all taxes, this has never been voluntary. From the first days of the program to the present, anyone working on a job covered by Social Security has been obligated to pay their payroll taxes. In the early years of the program, however, only about half the jobs in the economy were covered by Social Security. Thus one could work in non-covered employment and not have to pay FICA taxes (and of course, one would not be eligible to collect a future Social Security benefit). In that indirect sense, participation in Social Security was voluntary. However, if a job was covered, or became covered by subsequent law, then if a person worked at that job, participation in Social Security was mandatory. There have only been a handful of exceptions to this rule, generally involving persons working for state/local governments. Under certain conditions, employees of state/local governments have been able to voluntarily choose to have their employment covered or not covered. Myth 2: President Roosevelt promised that the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the program The tax rate in the original 1935 law was 1% each on the employer and the employee, on the first $3,000 of earnings. This rate was increased on a regular schedule in four steps so that by 1949 the rate would be 3% each on the first $3,000. The figure was never $,1400, and the rate was never fixed for all time at 1%. (The text of the 1935 law and the tax rate schedule can be found elsewhere on our website.) Myth 3: President Roosevelt promised that the money the participants elected to put into the program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year There was never any provision of law making the Social Security taxes paid by employees deductible for income tax purposes. In fact, the 1935 law expressly forbid this idea, in Section 803 of Title VIII. (The text of Title VIII. can be found elsewhere on our website.) Myth 4: President Roosevelt promised that the money the participants paid would be put into the independent "Trust Fund," rather than into the General operating fund, and therefore, would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement program, and no other Government program The idea here is basically correct. However, this statement is usually joined to a second statement to the effect that this principle was violated by subsequent Administrations. However, there has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government. The Social Security Trust Fund was created in 1939 as part of the Amendments enacted in that year. From its inception, the Trust Fund has always worked the same way. The Social Security Trust Fund has never been "put into the general fund of the government." Most likely this myth comes from a confusion between the financing of the Social Security program and the way the Social Security Trust Fund is treated in federal budget accounting. Starting in 1969 (due to action by the Johnson Administration in 1968) the transactions to the Trust Fund were included in what is known as the "unified budget." This means that every function of the federal government is included in a single budget. This is sometimes described by saying that the Social Security Trust Funds are "on-budget." This budget treatment of the Social Security Trust Fund continued until 1990 when the Trust Funds were again taken "off-budget." This means only that they are shown as a separate account in the federal budget. But whether the Trust Funds are "on-budget" or "off-budget" is primarily a question of accounting practices--it has no affect on the actual operations of the Trust Fund itself. Myth 5: President Roosevelt promised that the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income Originally, Social Security benefits were not taxable income. This was not, however, a provision of the law, nor anything that President Roosevelt did or could have "promised." It was the result of a series of administrative rulings issued by the Treasury Department in the early years of the program. (The Treasury rulings can be found elsewhere on our website.) In 1983 Congress changed the law by specifically authorizing the taxation of Social Security benefits. This was part of the 1983 Amendments, and this law overrode the earlier administrative rulings from the Treasury Department. (A detailed explanation of the 1983 Amendments can be found elsewhere on our website.)

I recently mentioned both my Seamaster and Ingy in a post, which led someone to PM me about their relative sizes. I think my answer would apply to the 42mm PO as well, so I'll copy the question and response here in case it helps with your deliberations. ************************************************** i hope not to bother you asking a short opinion about the size of those two watches. How about their sizes? Ingenieur looks way bigger from pics despite the same diameter, is it just an impression? Thank you Axxxxxx No bother. It's actually an interesting question. Both watches do indeed measure 42mm across. But if you look at pictures of both, you will notice that the SMP tapers more toward the bottom and top, which may make it seem like a slimmer watch. On the Ingy, the watch measures 32mm where the band meets the case. In comparison, on the SMP the lugs taper to about 27mm outside diameter, and the band itself is only 20mm where it meets the watch. Also, the Ingy case is 15mm thick, compared to 13mm for the SMP. Although the crystals are about the same diameter, the bezel on the SMP is actually a bit wider than the Ingy bezel, and as I look at them I think this may help a bit in distributing or offsetting the appearance of size or mass. Just for kicks, I also pulled out our kitchen scale, which is cheap and non-digital, mind you, so the readings are very inexact. But I measure the Ingy at right about 200 grams compared to about 150 grams for the SMP. The SMP is a very solid watch, mind you. But the Ingy is quite a bit heavier. Despite the weight, IWC bracelets and watches are extremely comfortable to wear. I hope this information helps. Both are awesome watches, and I would be a very happy watch fan even if I had to get rid of every other watch in my select collection and could keep only these two watches. So don't ask me which I prefer, or which you should buy. But good luck in deciding.

I am in the computer industry as well, and I certainly enjoy having a faster, more up to date machine. But I also cringe at the thought of all these obsolete electronics piling up in landfills. This is a hidden cost of our wastefulness. In my opinion every electronics manufacturer -- make that every manufacturer and retailer -- should have to account for recycling and disposal costs up front, rather than leaving these costs to the community. I realize that my comments are a bit off topic to the core question "When to service an Asian 7750." So let me "digress" a bit from my own platform to say that in my opinion The Zigmeister has bent over backward to give a balanced perspective on the servicing question. I have one 7750, a GST which I value as a long-term keeper. I have not had it serviced, but know that a service is in its future, very likely with a complete movement replacement. The Zigmeister has not oversold service. He has plenty of business already and doesn't need mine or any other potential new custoemrs to keep his workshop occupied,

I wonder about the whole service question when I read about people who buy four or five watches a month and quickly accumulate 20-30 watches -- or more. How many people consider that every watch we purchase is a potential service liability a few years down the line? Sure, some watches I purchase are "disposable," but most are pieces I hope to keep for a long, long time. As a result they will, in time, require service that could otherwise go toward "that next rep." A few years ago I heard a fascinating interview regarding materialism (sorry, but I forget who the speaker was). The author questioned the common assertion that Americans are materialistic. A true materialist, he argued, would value their material belongings rather than accumulate and dispose of them at will. The latter, he suggested, is anti-materialistic and reflects a shortcoming of spirit. In comparison, true materialism and appreciation of material things are spiritual values. Have you ever seen that bumper sticker: "He who has the most toys wins." I don't believe it. We call ourselves watch collectors. But how much do we really care about the watches we own? Or are they merely baubles we accumulate to amuse ourselves for a few years until our next amusement comes along? This is not meant as a blanket indictment, because I know that many (most?) members really do appreciate and care for their watches. And I don't care a bit how many watches you own, or whether or not you plan to ever service them. It's absolutely none of my business. But I ask myself these questions, and perhaps others here also think about these things. Now let's get out there and do some Christmas shopping!

Things You Can Only Say On Thanksgiving 1. Talk about a huge breast! 2. Tying the legs together keeps the inside moist. 3. It's Cool Whip time! 4. If I don't undo my pants, I'll burst! 5. Whew, that's one terrific spread! 6. I'm in the mood for a little dark meat. 7. Are you ready for seconds yet? 8. It's a little dry, do you still want to eat it? 9. Just wait your turn, you'll get some! 10. Don't play with your meat. 11. Just spread the legs open and stuff it in. 12. Do you think you'll be able to handle all these people at once? 13. I didn't expect everyone to come at once! 14. You still have a little bit on your chin. 15. How long will it take after you stick it in? 16. You'll know it's ready when it pops up. 17. Wow, I didn't think I could handle all of that! 18. That's the biggest one I've ever seen! 19. How long do I beat it before it's ready Now get your mind out of the gutter....it's crowding mine!

Thanks RT, and the same to you, and to the rest our terrific little community. The other day I volunteered for a shift at a local food bank. It was my first time doing that. My first task was helping organize recent donations. My first impression was "Man, they have a lot of food in this warehouse and on the shelves." But then the lines opened, and in my section (one of five on this line) I was instructed to give clients each one can of broth, one can of cling peaches, and one can of olives -- plus two discretionary items off the shelves behind me, which help a variety of raw or prepackaged rice, beans, canned fruit, and condiments. People came through with boxes that had the number of household members written on the side (to let us volunteers spot larger families so we could give them more than the minimum allotments). Other stations had turkeys (or portions for smaller families), breakfast items, and other goods. But overall my initial impression (that this was a ton of food) changed to a realization that this isn't much food for all the families of two or four or six that we were serving. I assume the food pantry is a supplement to grocery-purchased items for many or most of these people, but still it was very sobering. There was never a pause in the line during my three-hour shift. And the same number come through every day of the week. I was exhausted by the time I went home, and my back ached from bending over to pick up cans from the crates in front of me. So I stopped at the store and picked up a premade meal (gourmet by most standards) before heading home to my beautiful, comfortable house and my all around tremendous life. We all have a tremendous amount to be grateful for.

Personally I would only list someone if they wanted to be included on such a list. I don't think it would be fair for me to add someone to such a list without them telling me, "yes I would like to be on such a list." That's just my opinion. Others may feel otherwise.

Rehaut: Leftovers from a haute cuisine restaurant. As in: "I reheated the haute cuisine meal" and abbreviated in culinary circles to "rehaut."

What's a single mm between friends? Often it's just a question of how one preson measures compared to how another measures the same item. So, to answer your question they most likely are the same. Of course you probably already know that the Joneses are offered with two different movements -- an undecorated ETA and the decorated Asian. So in addition to your case/dial/hand options, you also need to choose which movement you prefer. Cheers.

Great pictures from both Esteban and Pobiga. I was wearing my SMP GMT earlier today in honor of "Bond Week," but ended up switching back to my Ingy. This watch is really growing on me. (I'll switch back to the SMP on Friday or Saturday when I go to see Casino Royale).

Bad news. Very sorry to hear that. When you say the clasp is non-functional, exactly what do you mean? Does it not hold? You might check the alignment of the extensions. With mine it was a simple process of bending one slightly so that the two pieces aligned properly and since then the clasp holds perfectly. Good luck in getting everything sorted out.

The clasp on the Inge is wider (20mm) than the clasp on the GST (18mm), so a swap is not possible.

TT, your post expresses class and integrity. I must have missed the posts where you stepped on others' toes -- but still you care about their feelings and relationships. Other people seem ready to spit and vent if they even think your views don't square with theirs. I am glad that there more people like you than the other on the board. I have no doubt the overwhelming majority here agree. Best regards and wishes.

The media blah, blah, blah..... They do what they are paid to do, whether they are liberal or conservative, US or foreign. I would argue that in the early days of the war the "mainstream" media were not critical enough in unveiling the flimsy pretexts and stilted intelligence the administration was putting out. (The same applies to the Democrats, who sat mute lest they be considered undemocratic.) Sexual pecadillos? It wasn't that long ago that Repubs used that as an excuse to tie up the political process by trying to impeach Clinton. Economy? Sure, overall our economy is strong but how long will that given the pork barrel policies of the administration and their cronies (Motto: "Ubi sunt mea?" translation: Where's Mine?). It's fascinating to me that the Clinton administration proved to have been far better stewards of our money than the so-called fiscally conservative Republicans. In my opinion, the American majority for too long caved in to the Republican fear and distortion tactics. Sure, ads for both parties leave one needing a shower to get rid of the slime that is being tossed. But I have to hand it to the Republican party, they have been masters of the art. As for staying the course, remember the definition of stupidity: making the same mistake over and over again yet expecting a different result. American needs creative solutions. I do not think the Democrats have all the answers...no more than the republicans have all the answers. And sure, they will make mistakes....big mistakes. But the optimist in me hopes for gradual progress in moving away from today's failed policies. And aside from whether people think Bush is a boob, a devil, or the best thing since sliced bread, I think that's that best anyone can hope for.

Why do even have avatars? To express a bit of our personalities, and to make it easier to scan a thread and identify posts by individuals you are familiar with. Actually I'm relieved that not everyone has a watch-related avatar, because I'll be the majority would use Submariners, Pams, or Breitlings. On the other hand, I would prefer not to be confronted by tacky or obnoxious avatars. I make no claims to be the final arbiter of what is tacky or offensive. However, if I am offended then I figure others can and have been even more offended. I can think of several fine people, male and female alike, who have abandoned this and the other watch forums because the sexist or even bigoted overtones of the forums made them feel uncomfortable. I usually browse when I am alone, but I would not want my family or coworkers to be exposed to obnoxious avatars. Sure, I can turn this content off, but it's a multistep process both to turn avatars off and then to turn them back on again. Big pain. So here is my vote: The responsibility should not be on the members of the board to screen out content they find distasteful or inappropriate. Say no to censorship, but say Yes to being sensitive to images that are potentially offensive to other members or to those around them. What is so complicated about that?

Adjusting the out-of-alignment extension turned out to be a very simple fix -- no tools, just bending slightly with my bare hands. The first adjustment went too far and I couldn't close the clasp at all. I backed it off just a bit and now the clasp closes very securely. I could probably play racquetball for hours and I think it would still stay closed. And I have all the tools that you list, RT. In fact, I recently sentmy wife the first installment of my Santa Claus/birthday list and the first entry is a cool dremel set from the Home Despot (sic). If anyone else would like add me to their holiday shopping, I'd be delighted to send you a copy of the list and periodic updates.

No chips. And as for adjusting alignment by 1 degree, I'd be very hard pressed to make an adjustment that minute. If the alignment on the hour markers (1,2,4....) was visibly off, then I would be concerned, but the look spot on to my middle-aged eyes. Actually I have found one annoyance since I started wearing this watch yesterday. The clasp on the bracelet opens far too easily, often unintentionally. I don't recall if others have run into or reported this problem. I haven't had any problems with my GST, which has the same type of closure. Of course the Ingeneur bracelet is wider, which should make no difference. Links on both bracelets are about 4 mm thick, but when closed the bracelet on the GST is 5 mm thick (that includes the extensions) and the Ingeneur is 7 mm thick. On closer examination, the difference appears to be that the extensions on the Ing have slightly different curvatures and therefore do not align perfectly when closed (they are perfectly aligned on the GST). The extra 2 mms might be just enough to cause the closure problem. Later I'll see whether I can improve the alignment and whether this solves the problem.

I hadn't hear anything, so I requested a tracking number from Jay on Saturday. On Sunday he replied with a tracking number and an apology for not sending it earlier. A quick check revealed that my parcel was shipped on Saturday and by late Sunday had already cleared customs in San Francisco. Alas, I was working at home Monday, but the wife was at home on Tuesday, so of course the watch arrived on Tuesday. Usually I try to "glide" new watches into the collection, but no chance of that now. In any case, I arrived home from work Tuesday afternoon and found a lovely parcel from China waiting for me. My wife had signed for it while I was at work. I quickly unpack the wrappers, and found an absolutely stunning, solid Ingeneur. After resizing the band, I pulled out the magnifying glass to see whether my watch suffered from the same flaws that others have experienced. (In my opinion we in RWG have created an obsession with perfection that is not always healthy.) I used their photos and descriptions and pored over this watch like a demon skeptic. Damn, I think the dial is slightly out of alignment, though not as severely as other members'. I look for chips, but fortunately find none. Then I take a few quick pictures. I apologize for not doing color correction or setting up better quality pictures. But when I scan my pictures, I can't find the alignment problems that I thought I saw using the magnifying glass. Or if there is a misalignment, it is very, very hard to detect. In the end I have to admit that the dial alignment is quite good. So then I scanned the picture for other flaws. Again, I apologize for my amateurish pictures, but each fleck or potential flaw ends up being a defect of the photography, not the watch itself. On top of that, the wife arrived home while I was typing this message -- and even she decided that this is a terrific purchase! My thanks once again to Richard and to Jay. Life is good.

Sad, but I think you summed up my sentiments exactly. And yet there are a handful of people that I miss, egos and all. I just hope that when or if they finally do rejoin the rest of us that they leave the baggage at the door.

I've been using IE7 for some time now. I have not had a single problem, even with the beta version. I recently replaced the beta with the RTM version. It's great. Excellent new features. Check out the reviews if you have any doubts. You should back up your data periodically even if you never install a single new application, as well as any time you make a significant change such as installing new hardware or software. As far as doing a full system backup, you need to make that call based on the complexity of your system and how labor and time intensive that would be. Cleanup (almost) never hurts either, although with 100 gigabyte systems it's easy to let unused applications and other junk pile up.

This has been discussed in previous threads, so I'll summarize from what I recall and my own impressions. The Chanel is a good option, and you might want to look at the ladies or midsize versions of the Yachtmaster, plus the two-tone Omega Constellation. Also, you might find some of SQL_PL's posts in the photo gallery where his girlfriends model some of his Pans and IWCs. Large watches can look great on a lady's wrist.... if she would feel comfortable doing so. Perhaps ask her if she's like to wear one of your watches some time and see how she reacts. One other thing. How does she feel about watches in general and reps in particular? My wife has four watches, two of which are reps. She has firmly stated several times that she does not want another watch. Otherwise I think the Chanel Ceramic would make a great addition to her collection.

The biggest flaw that I can see with your proposed system is that almost everything popular here is in the Manly category, with occasional forays into the Macho and Bit Camp realms. As a result it seems to me that it would tend to reduce some peoples' inclination to explore the edges, without really differentiating among our more popular choices. For example, I presume that Submariners, GSTs and Bentleys would all fall in the Many category, though the Bentley might actually be a "Bit Camp.". Heck, I might be inclined to put a watch emblazoned with 007 logos into the "Bit Camp" camp. So, would you give us some examples of how your system would play out?

Where are you located? Someone in your country may have to decipher your chances here. But no, I wouldn't like the sound of that either. And what the heck is a "non delivery 1st attempt?" Sounds a bit like a contradiction in terms, doesn't it?