TeeJay

Personally, I have absolutely no idea I'd be glad for others to comment though The 'droplet test' suggests a sapphire crystal, (it was advertized thus) and, when it catches the light properly, there is a very faint 'double' reflection in indigo which could suggest AR. I don't think it's the 'light AR', as that would be a constant color, but this is only when the reflection is right (and it is also distorted slightly by the different shape crystal to a 111 series...) and nowhere near as noticeable as the AR on my 111g (but, again, the shape of the crystal/light distortion might be a factor...) If anyone else can make the comparison, by all means feel free, and, if anyone has any other questions about mine, again, feel free to ask

I did indeed. That said, he slipped me the slightly more expensive version for the price of the original

Thankyou I'm glad you approve, I know the 127 is one of your favorite models Thanks Here's a pic of the first one I had. The most noticeable improvement is the crown guard. This one actually closes properly It also has the REG. T.M. indented into the metal rather than just etched on the surface. The colors of the dial, in all fairness, the first pictures were quick shots, as I knew I wasn't keeping the watch, so some of the variation is just down to differences in ambient light. Also, this has the (correct?) movement bridges which I prefer to the other bridges. I admit, the foils could be better fit to the bridges, but, it still looks nice I will admit though, that the strap on the first watch was much nicer, and cashmere-soft. In an attempt to soften this one up, I was twisting the strap at the places I needed it to fold, and I actually 'burst' the top layer away from the bulking of the strap at the side Oh well, it was never intended to be a permanant strap, so no real harm done [Edit to add] I'm not sure which crown is the more accurate, but the shape at the end of the CG lever is much nicer. The buckle is also nicer, as it is brushed rather than polished, and has 'PANERAI' to the right of the buckle indent rather than centered, and I understand the off-set logo is the correct version

As you say, you've got to at least look presentable. As Keith mentioned, bargain clothes can be good quality (I've also got a load of really nice clothes from Tesco which were dirt cheap) it's just a case of working with the materials available to create the desired effect When I was at Alicante airport a few weeks ago, I spotted someone wearing a rep of the Planet Ocean Chronometer. The pearl and lack of AR were the give away Other than that though, the guy in question was smartly dressed, so sometimes, one has to rely on the watch itself for the tells

As Jon and Kuba said, wearing an expensive watch, but maybe driving a crappy car, or wearing from the Bargain Basement are certainly potential give aways. I wouldn't judge location too much, as people do go to various places, and, who knows, someone might be travelling, so going into the first bar/eatery they find. I'm sure we've all done that at least once in our lives on a vacation... Things like fiddling with a watch, rolling up sleeves etc, I would say were individually judgeable. What might be one person's "Look at my watch, bitches!" might be another person's unconscious habit or style choice. Overall, I'd say the best tell, is obviously, the watch itself Fascinating subject though, and one which makes watch-spotting in stations/airports all the more fun

Now that is being Cool Congratulations to you and your wife

Title and description says it all really I'm sure there are flaws, I know it has a 'ding' on the inside of the CG 'hollow', but boo-hoo, I can live with that that gives it character Lume, Canon pinion, AR, I konw these things need doing, but for now, it'll certainly make a nice 'swap into' watch

Just arrived in the post If it's good enough for Orlando, it's good enough for me

Of course. Indeed, the branch of Islam I follow is a minority branch, but, that is because it focusses solely on the Holy Qur'an, and not the hadiths of the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. As I mentioned in a post above, there is a difference between 'the organization of religion' (whatever it may be) and the original scriptures of the religion itself. As illustrated, there is a considerable difference between the message Jesus taught, and what modern 'Christians' claim to be 'Christianity'. Islam is precicely the same in this, as the modern'concepts' of the religion, are additional and augmentations of the Holy Qur'an, and the Holy Qur'an is specific in saying not to add 'gods' to Allah, and is specific in the passage where the prophet, peace be upon him, was told not to guide people. 'Qur'an only'Islam mightbe considered 'minority', or 'going against the establishment', but it is the only branch of Islam which focusses solely on the Will of Allah, by not incorporating the hadiths of the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. It is fair to say that it is 'Pure Islam', as it does not incorporate other ideas, and is the religion as specified in the Holy Qur'an. As a convert to Islam, I felt this was the branch which I should be following for those very reasons. I had not been 'raised' a Muslim, so was not simply following family traditions and practices (which could be inconsistent with the Holy Qur'an), but submitting to the will of Allah, in the manner Allah had commanded in the Holy Qur'an. With regards 9-11, while I would never justify or agree with what happened, I would point out, that what happened, regardless of the claimed religion of those responsible, happened because of political and social reasons, going back many years to Operation Cyclone. I would point out that even the majority of the Muslims you know, are a tiny minority compared to the actual number of Muslims world-wide, and, while not all Muslims world-wide follow the same branch of Islam I do, the majority would certainly share the same basic views about the Holy Qur'an, the Human Rights it promotes, and it's commandments to treat othersand the less fortunate with kindness, and to show tollerance to people of other beliefs. It is not the place of Mankind to judge each other for any reason, that judgement is made by Allah and no other. If you ask, I shall try and answer. Let's bring this all to a close with this good news from the MSN homepage:

Sorry, but if you are grasping what I am saying about cultural differences, but refusing to accept that those conditions are keeping people 'under the thumb', then this has become a cyclical argument, no longer a debate, and not something I am prepared to give any more time to. You mention the Muslims in Canada and the US who want sharia law established, but are suggesting that this is somehow wrong. As I have tried to make very clear, there is a distinct difference between the 'sharia law' specified in the Holy Qur'an, and the brutality of countries like Sudan and Iraq, where a distorted version of Islam is being used as a basis for their 'sharia law'. The name might be the same, but the basic principles (as I illustrated showing the Human Rights in Islam which are repressed by these so-called Islamic countries) are radically different. As said before, if you want to properly understand Islam in it's pure form, then read a copy of the Holy Qur'an cover to cover. You will find it much more explanatory. As above, it's time to put an end to this debate as it's now just going in circles. Best regards.

This is a much more accomodating post, but, something which needs clarifying, is that Muslims accept two basic things: That there is One god, Allah, supreme and unique; and that the revelation given through the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, is the genuine, final and complete revelation from this god, and supersedes all revelations that came before it. That means that the scriptures cannot change, and indeed, have not changed since the time of the prophet, peace be upon him. What has changed though, is the importance given to the hadiths attributed to the prophet, peace be upon him, and the cultural values of the regions under discussion. People's perceptions of religions can certainly change over time, as can the religion's involvement with governmental power, but on a personal level, they remain the same.

Yes. One of social and cultural problems. One where tin-pot dictators use perversions of religion to keep the masses uneducated and compliant. As mentioned before, this was the same problem with Christianity, when the scriptures were delivered solely in Latin, when Latin was not the common language of the people. Before the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, began to give the recitations (which is what 'qur'an' actually means - the recitation ) Arab women were treated extremely poorly and as little more than cattle or property, but the emergence of Islam changed that treatment. The Holy Qur'an has a specific sura devoted to detailing how women should be treated, be it as wives, mothers, divorced wives, etc etc. As I tried to point out before, many of the problems facing Muslim women in Islamic countries are not because of Qur'anic teaching, but because of cultural issues within that country/region. One must believe all parts of the Holy Qur'an, both positive and negative, because they are all the will of Allah, and as a Muslim (one who submits to the will of Allah) The choice is to obey, or not. If one obeys and submits to the will of Allah, as laid out in the Holy Qur'an, then they are a Muslim. If they do not, then they are not. False assumption. The 'true principles' of Islam exist in the Holy Qur'an. Yes, thousands of Muslims living under an extremist regime, where, as in Iraq under Saddam's rule, dissent was not tollerated. As previously discussed, those thousands are a miniscule percentage of the 1.1-1.8 billion Muslims world-wide who do not agree with such extremist ways. I'm no mathmagician, but what percentage would, say 5000 be of 1.8 billion? Would it even be 1%? I don't think you are quite grasping the differences in cultures between America and these countries which live under extremist rule. Under these regimes, which have departed from the true principles of Islam, for the previously discussed reasons of maintaining power, the 'citizens' do not have the right to protest and free-speech. That kind of behaviour would get them killed. Not just killed as in a clean bullet to the back of the head, but stoned or flogged to death. That is the problem. That is why these other people are silent and not having an anti-protest. Not because they don't want to, but because the conditions they live under simply do not allow them to, and, those conditions, as previously explained, are not down to Islam, Christianity or any religion, but down to dictatorial regimes using a corruption of a religion to maintain power. As for where are the people who want her released, I already linked two articles about British Muslim peers who have travelled to Sudan to try and negotiate a swift release. @ Jon Fort - Again, if you have something specific you disagree with about my posts, please say so. If you are not going to actively participate in this debate, please have the courtesy not to rate the posts I make in it. I am all for difference of opinion, but simply slapping a 'disagree' rating without putting your reasons and own opinions for discussion is not debate, and, I hate to say, rather cowardly.

Absolutely so. As DemonSlayer pointed out, you should judge a religion by it's scriptures and nothing else. I have found nothing conflicting in the Holy Qur'an at all. Correction, like some Extremist Muslims do. Please stop confusing the vast majority of Muslims with these fanatics who do not follow the true principles of Islam. Also, please define 'nasty'. If you mean 'more strict than the lifestyle people in the West are currently accustomed to,' sorry, but that is not 'nasty'. I now have to repeat the same point I made when I listed the Human Rights granted by Islam, which is rather sad. Are these people (men or women) having restricted rights because of Islam, or because of the 'government' (regime might be a better term) of the country they live in? Given the list I previously listed, I suggest you think carefully about that answer.

Not necessarily 'extremist', 'mis-guided' might be the politest term for several reasons. Firstly, as I previously said, and DemonSlayer pointed out, there is a difference between the 'religious message', and the way the country and it's citizens live, and that is something not restricted to Muslim countries, but 'Christian' countries as well. Secondly, the majority of these Islamic countries are composed of Shi'ite a or Sunni Muslims. Both these branches of Islam follow, not only the messages laid out in the Holy Qur'an, but also follow the hadiths - the thoughts/habits/opinions of the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him - and this, as I pointed out in my first post to Victoria, is something the prophet, peace be upon him, was specifically told not to do. Equally, the Holy Qur'an states that there is no god but Allah, and one should not add (gods) to Allah, but to worship Allah alone. Thirdly, as Seadweller pointed out in his post, that many of these countries, like Europe in the middle ages, is nothing more than people using a perversion of religion to keep themselves in power. That is not a true reflection of the religion itself, so ultimately, while these governments might not be 'extremist fringe', they are still not following the true principles of Islam A minority group finding itself treated as second-class citizens... Nothing like that happens in the UK or US any more. Does it... Islam permits many human rights: The right to life. The right to equality. The right to freedom. The right to freedom of opinion. The right to emigration and refuge, to remove oneself from oppression. The right to work and provide for oneself and one's family. The right to justice. The right to equality before the law. The right to protect one's honor. The right to social welfare and the basic necessities of life. The right to marriage. The right to privacy, and security of private life. The right to dignity, and not to be abused or ridiculed. The right to education. The right to protest against tyranny. The right to freedom of expression. The right to freedom of conscience and conviction. The right to protect religious sentiments. The right to participate in affairs of state. The right to rise above the level of animal life. Those points I boldened. Are they because of Islam, or because of their governments trying to 'keep the peasants down', as previously pointed out? You are (deliberately or otherwise) confusing the issue. The Holy Qur'an shows that the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, was not to guide people with his own personal opinions/thoughts/habits. That does not make him a false prophet. For you to suggest that he was is quite possibly the most disrespectfull comment I have ever read. As mentioned before, people who are 'raised' Muslims, and simply following the habits of their forefathers, without reading the Holy Qur'an for themselves, and without experiencing ihsan (realization) themselves, are Muslims in name only, and there is a considerable difference, as has been illustrated several times by comparison to Jesus and present day Christianity. What is not moderate about wanting to live under the guidelines laid down in the Holy Qur'an by Allah? There are already Sharia courts in the UK, although they are not 'legally binding', but rely on voluntary acceptance of decisions. Muslims in Australia have recently criticised Muslims in some other countries for not fully integrating into their new home countries. Moderate enough for you? Victoria and Ken, thank you as-Salamu alaikum

Personally, I can see the difference. The point I was making, is that evolution has not been 100% absolutely proven, but is still accepted thus. Likewise. Do some research: Get a copy of the Holy Qur'an and read it. And who says that these people should even be religious leaders? Why does there have to be an 'organization' to religion? People have their scriptures, that is all they need. As I have said several times, a lot of these 'Islamists' are people who have been raised in the faith, so are following organized doctrine, rather than following pure scripture. Sharia rules on theft are specific, and it is potentially quite possible for software piracy to be considered theft under those conditions, if those conditions are met. Have you read the Holy Qur'an? If not, who are you to say that the text is ambiguous? It is written in a clear manner, the only confusion one might experience, is dealing with terms or formalities no longer used in contemporary language. Only about 20% of Muslims live in Arab countries. Again, there is a confusion between Muslims, extremist radicals, actual religious guidelines, and region-specific social guidelines. Yes, if radicals take more power, we're screwed, so hopefully more rational minds will prevail, and these people will cease to be a threat. As I said before, I am not prepared to continue discussing this issue with you, because you have a very fixed opinion about Islam which is not accurate, appears to be based more on hearesay than actual religious study, and for the simple reason that Ry pointed out. I have nothing to justify to your or anyone else. As I said before: If you cannot respect that, then that is an issue for you to resolve with yourself.

Not when it is based on hadith. A point I made very clear. In your opinion. Who are you to say those stories are made up? Where is your proof of that? Indeed, you do not hate Islam, but you clearly do not understand it, and that is fine, but do not expect me to accept your opinions, just because you feel it is 'made up'. Here's something else which is 'made up', but people still believe in: Evolution. It is a theory, it has yet to be actually proven as 100% correct.

I am not prepared to debate the semantics of my copy of the Holy Qur'an with you. Either accept the message in the spirit it is intended, or do not. But if you are looking for a continuation of the debate, or to furtherget off topic, I'm afraid you will have to find someone else to indulge you. as-Salamu alaikum

And the key problem, (In both instances) is as highlighted in SeaDweller's above post, nothing whatsoever to do with the religion itself, but the little tin-pot dictators using a corrupted version of teachings to keep themselves in power. Christianity (in any form) has virtually nothing to do with the message that Jesus gave. Jesus was a prophet. He did not want people to worship him, he wanted them to follow the message he had to pass on, as was the case with Moses. People do not worship Moses, nor (and they are not supposed to) the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. The problem is not 'the message', it is 'the organization' within which it is being presented (and influenced by cultural and social attitudes of the regions). I think I've said just about all I need, or am prepared to on this issue, so will leave things with this quotation from the Holy Qur'an:

Why the references of 2000? Islam is not 2000 years old. Previous posts by both myself and others (which I have pointed out to you) explain the behaviour of those in Sudan, as well as hopefully enlighten about Islam. You clearly have no interest in discussing this topic reasonably, therefore, I have nothing further to say to you. Please stop trolling the forum.

For example, Operation Cyclone.

You really have no clue what you are talking about, or grasp of the concept of 'extremist minority', have you. Try reading this post, you might find it informative. @Jon Fort - What part of my comment (there was rather a lot of it) did you disagree with? I'd be willing to discuss any aspects of it you might have disagreed with

Neither have the majority of the 1.8 billion Muslims worldwide...

Edd, that was not my premise. I said: There have been several posts, both recently and not so recently, where certain members (not naming names) have made extremely ignorant and bigoted posts against Islam and Muslims, and, they have not been corrected for it by Admin or his moderators, therefore, this behavious appears to be tollerated. One such spam post was removed following a complaint, but I would not like to say that it would have been had there not been a complaint made. If someone was to title a post "All n****s are murdering crack-head rapists" or "All Jews are hook-nosed shylock c*nts", then the member responsible would likely be disciplined for it. The fact that it has not happened to people making Islamophobic comments, makes it appear to be tollerated, and that could be why there are not more Muslim members.

I was expecting a tale of social riddicule, but never mind, a lesson in pronunciation is just as good 'Pah-nair-eye' rolls off the tongue so nicely with an Italian accent

All's well, thanks Fantastic post, it covers pretty much everything