TeeJay

Absolutely so. At the end of the day, it's for local government to keep a better eye on just who is preaching (in all religions). In addition to getting rid of the extremist Imams, it might also help combat pedophiles in the priesthood. Sadly, the UK government is too scared of upsetting any religious group to actually take the kind of steps which are taken in Australia. If England had organization and adherence to the rules more like Australia, it would no doubt be a better place

The countries, maybe so, but to blame the issues solely on Islam, is to ignore the fact that the true problems lie with the cultural issues of the locals and government, who are not following the true tenets of Islam. As mentioned above, the Qur'an does not state that women should be treated badly, indeed, there is an entire chapter (and many other passages) relating entirely to the fair treatment of women. No conspiracy, but NUJ guidelines. I admit, hardly the most unbiassed source, but, that's where the wikipedia led me after a review of the BNP on wikipedia... Your view is not really relevant to the nature of discussing factual issues though. Regardless of your belief about the 'authenticity' of the Qur'an (or any other religious text) the text contained within is factual of itself and can thus be discussed and referenced as to what it (true or not) permits and forbids. Afterall, this is not a debate as to if the Qur'an is real, or if their is a God, but a discussion about how organized religion can 1) be at odds with it's scripture, 2) how organized religion can be used as a form of manipulation for the (uneducated) masses, and 3) how people following in the true spirit of a religion condemn the actions of extremists who hide behind a perversion of their faith as an excuse for their actions.

Absolutely so. This is what I was trying to clarify when I say that what is publicly recognized as an organized religion, should never be (but often are) confused with the true fundamentals of the (or any) religion itself. There was a documentary on TV I saw a while back about the history of the Qur'an, and naturally, that included examinations of many contemporary 'Islamic practices' by the 'organized doctrines', and it was astounding just how much of them are actually shirk when viewed against the actual text of the Qur'an. The example I made above about wudu is but a simple one, but it is also a very clear and effective one... Indeed, I understand the point you're raising, and I quite agree with it. Yes, there are Imams who preach violence and radicalism, and indeed, there are Imams in Arabic countries who would claim to be utterly devout Muslims, yet their practices are unquestionably shirk. Islam (or rather, the instruction within the Qur'an) certainly does not stifle teachings, indeed, it specifies that there is no obligation in religion, and that people have freedom of choice in the matter. However, the 'recognized organization' could certainly stifle teachings which they considered threatening to their power-base (much as the Catholic church behaved over the translations of Egyptian hieroglyphs, because it would have conflicted with their 'approved dogma') To be honest, I don't feel qualified to truly answer that question, as I am not an expert in what I can only term 'the rankings of the 'Islamic Church'', as it is not something which I have ever encountered. I am a Qur'an Alone Muslim, so my knowledge of the organized aspects of the religion are limited to what is mentioned in the Qur'an (and to be honest, much of what makes up that organization, is based on Hadith, which, as a Qur'an Alone Muslim, I do not follow or study in-depth). I think that such a thing would certainly be possible in theory, but I would not like to say for sure.

I hadn't read you edit, so I'll quickly comment here: Absolutely so, I quite agree, except for this one point: Not 'rightly' so, but definitely understandably so.

Sorry, but naming a 'debating point/logical fallacy' does nothing to change the fact that many so-called 'Islamic Countries' perpetuate behavior and attitudes which is outright forbidden by the Qur'an, such as I noted with female circumcision in some African countries. This is, as mentioned, an example of how cultural attitudes and practices, are being added to the Qur'an, which, as mentioned before, is shirk, thus utterly forbidden. That page is but the work of a single scholar, who chances are, is also a hadithist. (again, a form of shirk) Regardless of how the word is 'universally translated', the fact does not change that the usage of the word in Classical Arabic is different to how it is translated and (mis)understood in contemporary times. Also, as I mentioned before, there are passages in the Qur'an which, when viewed solely out of context of the remainder, are more easily open to misinterpretation or manipulation (as the BNP love to do) because other passages in the text, provide other guidance or commands, which then clarify that specific phrase. Sure, there are passages which are easily quotable, but to be truly understood, they have to be considered with what the rest of the Qur'an states. As I said before, I think you would find it an interesting read, if for no other reason, that it would show you what I'm trying to explain. Remember the example I gave with regards differences of translation as shown in the movie Stargate... Languages mutate, and the use of words alters. Example. A hundred or so years ago, the sentance "I'm feeling particularly gay today, I hope you are having a gay day as well." would mean that the person was happy. In modern times, it would mean something completely different Such as? I don't deny, scholarly opinions will always differ, that is the result of having the intelligence and free-will to draw one's own conclusions about the text, but, as I've said before, this is an example of where the fault lies with the 'organized religion', rather than 'the pure religion' itself. Much, if not all, of the modern perception of Islam is based upon organized versions of it. Sunni, Shia, Suffi etc etc, and this is a good example of how 'the official religion' can be quite different to the fundamental source. Just a little example such as wudu highlights these discrepancies, and why 'organized religion' is not really something to be considered as the true religion: Performance of wudu according to Sunni Muslims Start by making niyyah (intention) to perform wudu and cleanse the self of impurities. Say bismillah ("In the Name of Allah (God)"). Wash the right hand up to the wrist (and between the fingers) three times, then similarly for the left hand. Rinse the mouth and spit out the water three times. Gently put water into the nostrils with the right hand, pinch the top of the nose with the left hand to exhale the water. This is performed three times. Wash the face (from the hairline on the forehead to where facial hair begins and ear to ear). This is to be performed three times. Wash the entire right arm, including the hand, up to the elbow three times; then the left arm three times. Wet hands and starting with your hands flat on the top of your head near the hairline, wipe them to the back of the neck and back again to the front. This is only done once. This act is called masah. One may make masah over a Muslim head cap. With wet fingers, place thumbs at backs of ears, use index finger on curves of ear and middle finger to wash the ears (front and back). This is only done once. This is called making masah the ears. Starting with the right foot, wash both feet from the toes up to the ankles. Recite the shahadah. Performance of wudu according to Shia Muslims Wudu must be performed on the skin except in the case of the wiping of the head (unless there is an obstacle that isn't naturally there, such as a combover). If there are bandages stopping one from wiping the skin of the arms, face, etc., then it is permissible to wipe the bandage. Make the intention to perform wudu in the heart. Shape the right hand like a cup and take water into it. Afterwards, pour the water on the top of the forehead and wipe down with the right hand. It is obligatory to wash from the area where the hair normally grows to the chin. Shape the left hand like a cup and take water into it. Afterwards, pour this water onto your right forearm and wash your right forearm (covering the right forearm in water, leaving no spot dry). Wipe from the elbow to the fingers, and not from the fingers to the elbow. Repeat this process except with the left forearm. Without taking more water, wipe your hair from the middle down to the forehead, or vice versa, using the index finger of your right hand; it is mustahab to use three fingers. If you are balding, you would wash your hair as if it were growing when you had a full head of hair. It is not permissible to wipe the hair over an obstacle (such as wiping a hat or a turban instead of the hair/skin). It is not obligatory to wipe the actual skin on the head. If, however, the hair isn't growing from the area you are wiping (such as if you have a combover), then you must move the hair to where it belongs and wipe the skin. Without taking more water, wipe the top of your right foot with your right hand. You only wipe once and with a swiping motion. It is unallowed to wipe the shoe, sock, etc. You MUST wipe the skin of the feet unless there is an extreme reason. Do the same thing, except using your left hand and wiping your left foot. Okay, that's the 'official/organized' version. That's what the majority of Muslims world-wide have been raised to believe to be correct to do. But: Performance of wudu according to Qur'an Alone Muslims Qur'an Alone Muslims 1. Wash the face 2. Wash the arms to the elbows 3. Wipe the head 4. WIPE the feet to the ankles. This is based on the 6th Ayat of Surah al-Ma'ida (Qur'an 5:6) which states: "O you who believe! when you rise up to prayer, wash your faces and your hands as far as the elbows, WIPE your heads and your feet to the ankles..." So, when the Qur'an specifically and clearly says how to perform wudu, and the order with which it must be done, why have 'the other versions' come about? Again, through hadithism, emulation of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), which is, as mentioned before, shirk, thus utterly forbidden. Organized religions sadly, are too often confused with the actual fundamentals of the religious scripture, and this is why I try and make this distinction between the two so clear. It is not a matter of belief, but a matter of what one is believing... Again, no disagreement from me there, but, key emphasis must be put to "appears to be doing nothing..." (just because that is how it appears, that is not necessarily the actuality of the situation, and one must also remember media influence, and who it gives the opportunity of accurate coverage to. Take the BNP for example. The press are under orders never to portray the party in a positive light. Is that giving an equal opportunity for them to espouse their views? Look at the recent situation where the members list made its way into the press, despite there being a court-order forbidding such a thing happening. Of course, the public does not have much sympathy for the BNP, but, the key issue which is being ignored by the press, is that the Data Protection Act, and court orders, make such an occurrence a criminally punishable act. Now, please don't think that I'm actually trying to defend the BNP here, nothing could be further from my mind. All I'm trying to do, is highlight how the media chooses to grant coverage to certain groups rather than others, and will always portray certain groups in a negative way, even when such portrayal is not relevant to the particular situation... Don't forget, the press always need someone to demonize, so once that happens, they are not going to start making exceptions... You'll get no argument with me there. In such cases, religion is simply being used as a justification (excuse) for such behavior, because, as you say, the behaviors are so far from the teachings, it is a wonder how they think they are acting "in God's name", when the behaviour is so utterly forbidden. The only answer can be an ignorance of the true message in the Qur'an, and 'being brainwashed', by charismatic speakers who know how to use scripture to manipulate people, rather than enrich them. Indeed, it is very hurtful, but, it is also a challenge to overcome those misconceptions, and such challenges can only be rewarding.

Why can they be considered 'out of date'? Has Allah said that His rules have been relaxed? Oh I do not deny, that social attitudes have changed, but that does not mean that the rules are 'out of date' or no longer applicable. To be honest, I have read nothing in the Qur'an which is incompatible with the 21st Century Western world. For example, the rulings on fornication and homosexuality: [4.15] And as for those who are guilty of an indecency from among your women, call to witnesses against them four (witnesses) from among you; then if they bear witness confine them to the houses until death takes them away or Allah opens some way for them. [4.16] And as for the two who are guilty of indecency from among you, give them both a punishment; then if they repent and amend, turn aside from them; surely Allah is Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful. For the punishment to be applied, the 'crime' must be proven. For the 'crime' to be proven, then four witnesses must be called. If people are committing fornication, adultery, or committing homosexual acts within the confines of their own homes, how can there be four witnesses? There can't. Therefore, the acts themselves are not punishable (by Mankind) but judged by Allah alone. What these passages are particularly referring to, is a warning not to behave lewdly in public. So, no incompatibility with today's 'tolerant and open' society there... Here's where the debate gets truly 'hair-splitting'. Countries such as those, no matter how devout they may claim to be, are not truly 'Islamic Countries', as they are not organized solely by the teachings of the Qur'an, but rather, combining pre-Islamic local cultural attitudes and behaviours with Islamic teaching, and then passing the two off as one and the same. As mentioned above, that is shirk, therefore utterly forbidden, and not something which any true Muslim should agree with. Really? Granting a woman the rights to divorce and finances is barbaric? I don't deny for an instant that there is a perception that Islam treats its women in a barbaric manner, but, as I mentioned above, this is truly a case of local cultural attitudes being blended with Islam and passed off as the same thing, in reality, something of a misconception. Female (or male, for that matter) circumcision, for example. Widely practiced in some African countries as 'religious obligation'. Absolutely nothing in the Qur'an about anyone (male or female) having to be circumcised for religious reasons. Equally, there is nothing whatsoever in the Qur'an which says a female must cover her face. Indeed, wearing a veil was quite likely a customary form of dress in Medina during the time of the Prophet, (PBUH) but that was nothing more than local conditions dictating practical clothing to protect from sandstorms, and again, absolutely nothing which is stipulated in the Qur'an. Who is to say they do not? The media only reports the news it wants people to hear. Becoming targets themselves, perhaps. Actually, this is one of those examples where differences in language can create differences in understanding and interpretation. Here's the passage in question: [4.34] Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great The word which, in Classical Arabic is the same as the modern Arabic word, which is then translated into English as 'beat', during the time of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was used to mean 'make a decision/come to an understanding'. It was not used to mean 'physically chastise', so despite the changes in how the word is currently understood, that does not mean that the message of the Qur'an has actually changed accordingly. To focus precisely on the passage: "and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them" How can a man leave his wife alone (by herself) in her bed, and beat her at the same time? A man cannot be in two places at once... "then if they obey you" Obey what though? What would they be obeying? The intent of the passage, is to mean that during times of marital strife, there should be discussion, then if the discussion fails, then the man should leave the woman to sleep alone, so that, God willing, she may desire his company once more, which therefore, means there has been an understanding between them, so the husband need not 'seek a way against them' (divorce) (which is permitted in Islam, where Catholicism would not allow it, hence Henry VIIIth's creation of the Church of England...) It is not a case of reading the English text and thinking it means a husband has a 'God-given right to beat up his wife', (such as the above picture might suggest) but looking to the linguistic history involved as well... I hope that answers your question on that issue

Absolutely so, I couldn't agree with you more. I absolutely believe that, but in a way I shall clarify below. I cannot stress enough how utterly forbidden it is to deliberately alter or mis-transcribe the Qur'an, so moving onto the next point: Indeed, you are absolutely right about that, in that the Bible has undergone numerous revisions for primarily political reasons. Modern-Day Christianity is not the message which Jesus taught... This is why, although Muslims (should) grant respect to the Bible and Christians as 'people of the book', it is not considered unquestionably as 'the word of God', because of the deliberate revisions which have taken place. Obviously, the Qur'an has been translated out of the original Classical Arabic (which is very different from the Arabic spoken today) and the Qur'an was first translated into English from French, although obviously today, there are translations direct from the original Arabic. Languages can be translated or, more accurately, mistranslated with no intention to be incorrect or misleading on the part of the interpreter. For example, have you seen the original movie Stargate? If so, do you remember the scene where Dr Jackson corrects the translation on the blackboard? The fundamental basics of the message were relatively unaltered, and it was essentially only the wording which was altered. Even the apparent differences in intent of the words, can be 'acknowledged but tollerated' as differences in how the two different languages were and are, used. This is how there can be occasional differences in wording between particular 'editions' of the Qur'an, simply because of the different translations, but the fundamental basics of the message itself, are unchanged, rather than the intentional revisions of the Bible, which as you correctly mention, have taken place. Now, if you were to read a Palastinian Qur'an, you would find parenthesis have been added to the text, referring to modern munitions. That is something which gives not only a false translation of the original text, but also a false interpretation of the message of the text, and, as I mentioned above, such conscious and deliberate actions, are utterly forbidden. If you've ever read the Bible, you might enjoy reading the Qur'an. Before I read the Qur'an properly, I had lived my life as an Atheist, and held 'Muslims' (as I perceived them, or rather, as the Media told me to perceive them) in utter contempt. I'd heard all the Right-Wing rhetoric, heard quotes of particular passages which mentioned fighting and whatnot, but had not read the full text, so it was all too easy to accept those quotes as accurate, particularly when they tied in with what the media was showing about 'Islamic Extremism'. Taking individual passages out of context makes it all too easy to manipulate the message. When I then actually read the Qur'an myself, and the history of the life of the prophet Muhammad (PBUH), the context provided by all the other text, made all the difference to those individual passages which hate-mongers so frequently bandy about. I'm not saying that it will make you believe, but from an educational point of view, I believe you would find it an interesting read. Again, absolutely correct, in that the Qur'an has remained mostly unchanged. As I mentioned above, any changes which have ocurred are (or rather certainly should be) only down to differences in interpretations of translation, not intentional revision. Anyone who does intentionally mis-transcribe the Qur'an is, as mentioned, behaving in an utterly forbidden way, and in a way which no true Muslim would consider doing. As for your point about the scholars still disagreeing with text, again, you are absolutely right. They do disagree. But, it is an essentially irrelevant point with regards the text itself, in that it does not matter if Scholar A feels a passage means one thing, and Scholar B feels it means something else, as those are simply their personal opinions, and they are entitled to have them. But. Regardless of what either of them believe, it does not change the message of the Qur'an itself. The actual issue being faced, is how organized religion can be used to manipulate people into behaving in ways utterly forbidden by the Qur'an itself. It is all too easy for a scholar to say "This is the word..." as, if the people have not, or, as is sometimes the case, cannot read the text for themselves, then they will believe what the scholar says as true. It's like when Christianity was brought to the British Isles, and sermons delivered in Latin. That was not the language of the people, nor were the majority educated enough to actually read the text for themselves. It's the same issue with Islam (as an organized religion) There are 1.1 billion Muslims in the world, yet only 20% of them actually live in Arab countries, so it is certainly not a requirement for a Muslim to know Arabic simply to be a Muslim. How does that relate to the Latin problem? Well, in those days, there were no 'English translations' of the Bible, so the people simply had to believe what they were being told. In modern times, there are English (and other language) translations of the Qur'an (which are available to anyone) so the people can actually study the text for themselves, so they do not have to rely solely on the reciter (as the Qur'an is meant to be recited aloud) to be actually reading it correctly. However, even in modern countries, where education is not a universal matter, people can easily be manipulated by incorrect interpretations, simply because they cannot confirm the message themselves. Another situation, is if their opinion is somehow swayed by a particularly charismatic scholar, that is then because they choose to accept that scholar's interpretation, over their own knowledge of the text itself. Again though, if they chose to follow a scholar's interpretation of the Qur'an, rather than the Qur'an itself, then they are no longer following the Qur'an, and, when they then commit behaviors which the Qur'an specifically forbids (such as suicide) then they should no longer be viewed as Muslims, simply because they are no longer submitting themselves to God's Will, but are infact following 'another', which, as previously mentioned, is completely and utterly forbidden, and they are, to use the Arabic term, committing shirk. The issue is not the (or any) religion itself, but the organization of religion, and how that organization can be used to manipulate people. This is why I always say that people (regardless of how the media 'use' the word) should always study the fundamentals of a religion, (the original source material) rather than simply following the word and 'traditions' of the organization of how the religion currently exists, as those two factors are not always in true harmony And as above, I could not agree with you more completely. [Edit to clarify points]

To a degree, yes and no. Yes, people can interpret a text in a certain way, but also, the scriptures themselves (be it the Bible, the Qur'an or the dead sea scrolls) remain consistent and unchanging. Even with differing interpretations, it is impossible to actually change the text itself. This is what is so disheartening about these Islamic extremists: They are acting in ways which are so contrary to the nature of the Qur'an, they are beyond what could be considered 'differing interpretations'. Then, as you say, there a the issue of religion itself (as in organized doctrine) which itself can be radically different to the actual nature of the original text. That's why I've said before, I am a fundementalist, In that I follow the fundementals of Islam: The Qur'an. It is this kind of indoctrination which is a problem, because that is not actually educating the person, or allowing them to educate themself by actually reading the text properly themself, and that, combined with cultural/social issues, is the true problem.

I once saw an SMP in an AD such had two visibly noticeable flaws in the finish of the bezel insert. One was a scratch, the other, was a raised line, almost like a hair under clingfilm... Even gen watches can have QC flaws...

Robbie, good to see you wearing the homage, it looks good on you, bro I'm still wearing my SMP, although I did wear my 45 PO for a few hours last night while hosting a paranormal investigation on behalf of my father in law, who is currently in Riyadh on business. I'd bought the SMP with money I inherited when my gran died, and it turns out that last Wednesday would've been her birthday, so that's probably why I was inspired to wear it. I have to admit, I'm tempted to sell on some of my PAMs, but I don't think it'd be worth my while Have a good weekend, amigos

The really sad thing, is if these idiots actually bothered to read the Qur'an, they would know that such actions are utterly forbidden. They have no right to call themselves Muslims, as their behavior is totally against the tenets of Islam

The dial kind of reminds me of a Speedmaster dial, but rotated 90 degrees... Nice watch

It's great to have another watchmaker in the community, welcome indeed

No problem, bro, we Double Tens need to stick together As above, if you PM me some details of your project requirements, I'll see what I can do for you. It'll probably be cheaper than the other guy too Nothing like a little competition to stimulate design ideas

C'mon, it's not like Robbie makes posts bragging about his stuff, it's just stuff he's talking about. The posts he's made about economic conditions/stocks etc, have not been saying "I'm Gordon Gekko, you guys aren't worthy to kiss my ass!", just discussion about a subject... So what if his watches are gen? Okay, I know this is a rep forum, but folks have frequently also pointed out, that it is a watch forum, and that we're all here because we all love watches. It's not as if he's bragging about having a gen watch, or a Porsche "worth more than your life!!!1" (that post always makes me chuckle ) he's just talking about what he's got. Should he pretend that he drives round in a Nissan Micra and wears a Casio so as not to risk upsetting anyone's pride? Believe me, I know a braggart when I see one, and I do not believe that Robbie is that kind of guy. As I mentioned above, I've been accused of being arrogant, when nothing could be further from the truth. It's just a case of misinterpretation and perception, and folks 'getting the wrong idea' about me, and I believe that that's the case with Robbie as well. Is his 'boasting' really boasting, or are people just perceiving 'boasting' by projecting their own insecurities?

I think something which needs to be considered, is the situations where the watch will be used. My wrist is also 7.5", but I'm 6'2. For the past year, I'd been wearing pretty much nothing but PAMs, and thought of anything else as 'small', but, having worn my SMP for the past week, I'd say that that is about the smallest I would want to wear as a regular beater. For me, I want a watch where I can see the dial clearly and quickly, PAMs certainly fill that function, but equally, so do Omegas. If I was going to be wearing a suit for a formal occasion, I wouldn't mind wearing a 'smaller' watch, such as the PP Nautilus, as it would only be on my wrist a few hours, but I probably wouldn't wear the watch at other times. Equally, when I wore my unbranded Suunto Vector Clone with combats, Vans and a T-Shirt, it looked okay with what I was wearing, but I certainly wouldn't try wearing it with a suit, and probably not with jeans and a button-down shirt either... For me, I'd say it is 'too big' to be a universal beater, but certainly acceptable for situations like camping/hiking etc, where all that is needed, is quick access to a rugged time-piece I think the context with which the watch is worn, is more important than going strictly by dial size

x 4 for question 2 putting me out of the running Sorry I couldn't be more help

I kid you not, , 10/10/78 Indeed, that would certainly explain why we understand each other It's like my wife is a Gemini, but her mum is a Libra, and I get on better with my mother in law, than I do with my wife, so the same scenario here: It's ultimately the same personality type 'talking to itself', rather than trying to get along with another This was from this year's 'birthday breakfast', which was in my favorite cafe, which is in Spain Sure, thanks for the opportunity If you PM me some specifics and whatnot about the venture, I'll certainly see what I can come up with for you This was my most recent 'logo work', and I have to admit, simple though it is, I'm very proud of it Concept Art: Final Product (under production):

Absolutely, October 10th, so astrologically speaking, nowhere near either cusp, so as typically 'full Libra' as one could be That's awesome about the business plans, I hope the work out for you Out of cusiosity, how does your graphic artist dress? I'm guessing suit rather than jeans and sweaters

Absolutely, to be judgmental is one of the worst things a person can be. I really am not an arrogant person at all, but, I understand that I can be perceived to be, because I have confidence in my opinions about a subject. If I don't know something, I'll happily admit to it, and learn about it. If I do know something, then I know that I know it, so see no reason to doubt that knowledge, just because someone else thinks differently to me. (that's not to say I don't respect people of differing opinions, because I do. We're all entitled to different opinions, as opinions are opinions, where facts are facts, so either wrong, or right...) The last person who accused me of being arrogant when I was working for a company, was someone who should never have been a manager, as they actually had no grasp of economics, how to properly motivate people, or the company regulations which they had to operate under. They accused me of being arrogant, yet they were constantly proven to be incorrect about their thoughts, and, in the end, their actions towards me, not only cost their company a considerable sum of money (that's my wedding paid for ) but it also cost them their job. Simply because they 'thought they knew best', and thought they were getting one over on me... Look where 'what they thought' got them If people 'don't get me', so be it... They're not the first, and won't be the last, but those who do know me, know that arrogance just isn't in my nature. Again, text sometimes cannot properly convey the tone intended by the author, so don't feel too bad about it. Being a Libra, I tend to see both sides, so try to view things as objectively as possible To be honest, the cop in question is clearly a small-dicked inadequate on a power trip, and someone who pulls drivers as an 'easy target'. I've seen a cop in town do the exact same thing, but he targets young drivers who don't have the life-experience or cojones to stand up for themselves in those situations. As I mentioned before, one should always respect the badge, even if one doesn't respect the bearer (although blind obedience is not a good thing ) I mean obviously, if someone is seriously in the wrong, then fine, they deserve whatever the law says is the punishment, but, one also needs to consider the circumstances (like your example of a speed restriction on a freeway, that then returns to the normal speed, it's hardly the same as going peddle to the metal around a housing estate when the schools are turning out ) In a way, I'm really looking forward to getting the Japanese body-suit I have planned, as that will be a protection against judgmental people, as, if they're judgmental enough to judge me because of some ink, then they're not someone I would want to get to know better, and that'll save me from having to

Robbie, for what it's worth, I know precisely where you're coming from, and suspect that we have very similar personality types. I've been accused of being arrogant on more than one occasion, when the truth could not be more the reverse. Funnily enough, one such person to accuse me of being arrogant was someone who actually didn't have a grasp on any of the concepts which they should have, and felt threatened that I knew what I was talking about. I guess what I'm trying to say, is that I know what it's like to have people 'not get me', so I don't take such comments to heart. Allah knows the truth in our hearts, and that's all that matters.

Text sometimes fails to convey the true spirit of someone's words, so I always try and read things with an open mind I totally agree, the fact that you weren't trying to get out of it, and then threw in a joke was probably more than he could accept. He sounds like the kind of guy who gets 'a job with a uniform' so he can throw his weight around (probably hung like a hamster ) You're quite right, it's a huge difference in circumstances to doing that speed in a freeway speedtrap, than say in a residential area, and, to be honest, I don't like that kind of speedtraps (or even signs warning people of speed cameras etc) as if someone is speeding, then in their attempt to brake down to the stated limit, that in itself can cause accidents to happen... I really do think that the best system would be to retain speed limits in towns and residential areas (although to be honest, it's pretty hard to break a 30 mph speed limit while pulling out of a 30 ft cul-de-sac, but, it's good to retain them for legal reasons for the occasion when someone does go tearing through such an area) and just de-restrict other freeways like the autobahns. People choose their lane by the speed they want to go, or if they need to overtake. It's so simple. But, at the end of the day, the rules are the rules, and one should always respect the badge, even if one doesn't respect the wearer

Robbie, for what it's worth, I totally get your point: The cop was being a jerk by writing you up for your tints. That was, while technically speaking probably not an abuse of his authority, it was morally speaking, a needless one. He'd written you the speeding ticket, he shouldn't've then decided to write you up for something else regardless of what you said to him. That was nothing more than a jobsworth cop looking for excuses to write a ticket and throw their weight around a little due to injured pride. But. That does not give you a moral high-ground to complain about his lack of humor, given that you were speeding... Regardless of your personal driving experience and skill, speed limits exist for a reason and they apply to everyone using the roads. (personally, I'd be for de-restricting the motorways and freeways in the same manner as the German autobahns, and let people's own discipline and requirement govern how fast they drive) Allowing oneself the cash to pay speeding tickets with the intention of speeding (as with the Jack Johnson anecdote) shows a total disregard for authority and the rules, and it's not surprising that folks don't take kindly to it (especially not when traffic accidents can have such devestating consequences) and being prepared to pay tickets, does not entitle someone to flaunt a rule, with the mindset that if they can pay the fine, it doesn't matter if they break the rule (whatever rule that may be) (That might not be what you intended when you mentioned the 'ticket allowance', but that is how someone could have read it). If you want to drive fast, go to a 'track day'... Do it in a controlled, safe environment. At the very least, it'll save you in ticket fees Peace

Okay, so I was hoping to see some posh totty with names like Arabella and Jemima in riding gear, but DAMN that was awesome

I was wondering if anyone would be kind enough to tell me which (if any) of the following kanji and hiragana most accurately translate the Japanese equivelent of the English word 'patches'. Ie, if translating the sentance "Those are patches of color." what word would be used to mean 'patches'? I've done some research and come up with some possibilities, such as tsugi, but I don't know if it can be used to refer to 'more than one patch' in the same way as the English word 'patches' does. If anyone could confirm or further my own translations, it would be much appreciated. Domo arigato