capt_cope

Nothing too special here, just one of the best deals in Gen. auto watches (IMO)

Not to hijack, but I too am new to the pam scene. I came across this thread in my search for any info on the 253. Any comments on it? More specifically the one TWP has (asian movement) Being new, and light of wallet it looks like the best of all worlds to me: it's a pam, it doesn't need the CP fix, and it's an auto (yea it's a 7750 but it's running sec @ 9, not 6, so it should last right?)

While I'm obviously familiar with the name and face, McCain really doesn't creep into my mind very often. But if worse comes to worse I'd have to vote for him. I don't support socialism, and that rules out all the Democrats (speaking of Dems, I am seriously starting to think my neighbors to the south are going soft in the head. Has anyone listened to Obama talk? I'm embarrassed he's an American).That's the problem with America, when the libs take over and start destroying our country in earnest, there's nowhere to go. The Liberals can all run to Canada when someone starts talking about a draft. Where can I go when they start nationalizing health care? I may have to look into a private island.

HAH! I found the damn gear. Of course now that it's completely assembled I can't set the stinking time. Winds perfect though. Time to dive in again. Edit That was quick. Turns out I didn't screw down the little screw that holds down the lever that keeps the stem in place. DUH. now it functions correctly. we'll see how bad it keeps time next. yes another edit HOLY CRAP! The Pam LIVES! I don't know how all the cat hair and sweat isn't messing this watch up, but in the past hour or so it hasn't gained a single second. I know that's not much in the land of watches, but the LAST time I touched a movement it gained 30 seconds every 15 minutes, till it died. I think this one may be my first actual... dare I say it... REPAIR?! now I just need to mod it and all will be well.

shouldn't work on watches. While sitting in a chair, though not at a desk. Let me catch you guys up to speed, as my eyes need a rest, and my knees hurt. Yesterday my pam 111g stopped winding. As in it slipped the entire time I tried to wind it. I was angered by this and thrust the offending watch into a dark corner. Today after work I had a nice glass of Aberlour 12yr. and was reading the various forms I was on. Inspiration strikes. I remove the caseback from the pam and dis-assemble it (well I took the movt. out at least) This, having failed to fix the watch, did not please me. so I attempted to re-install the movement. Enter Mr. Murphy... one of those little feet that hold the movement in the case decided to move as I was attempting to screw it down. It moved, I attempted to retrieve it with my screwdriver, and it promply shot down in and amongst the gears. I shook the movt. gently tapped it, rotated it 360... all to no avail. I had another finger of aberlour. Feeling a bit more courageous given the knowledge that the watch was DEAD, I removed the biggest bridge. And sitting beneath a gear was the stinking movt. holder. I retrieved it and put the bridge back on (the wrong way) I continued to fiddle with the movement, and came to the astounding realization that if I put preassure on one of the smaller bridges I could wind the watch without slipping. I took note of the single blued screw holding said bridge in place. IT WAS LOOSE! I tightened it and voila it wound. Somewhere in there I ran out of ice, and decided to take a swig or two of soco straight from the bottle. At this point I was feeling really kick ass, so I popped off the dial and filed down the hands, to get less of a gap between the cannon pin and the minute hand. (un-beknownst to me I also managed to knock out the gear that winds the damn watch in this process.) I put everyting back together, and gave her a test wind. nothing. no slipping, and definetly no winding. No resistance at all, infact. I tore the watch apart again. and saw a small gap where the little gear once lay. From that point until I started typing I have been scouring this room in search of that gear. For tonight I give up. perhaps tomorrow I will finaly get it together. I've learned a few things: don't underestimate the little things. watches don't have loctited screws little things and carpet don't mix Aberlour 12 year old single highland malt scotch (double cask matured) is mighty tasty Soco without coke or ice is fairly gross. I should NOT quit my dayjob in favor of becoming a watchsmith.

See the problem is, Josh has never tried to screw me over, and while I'm sure other people have received products and service they were less than pleased with, I haven't. I'll keep buying from both Josh and Andrew. You apparently have a problem with them, so don't buy from Josh or Andrew. But why bother trying to influence MY money? I'm sure there are dealers with better watches, and I'm sure there are dealers that sell similar models cheaper. But I feel secure buying from Josh and Andrew, I know that if I order something, I'll get it. If I don't get it, I know I can raise enough of a stink to get it fixed. Hell I could be buying from TTK, who is, in my reading of his posts, the biggest asshat I've encountered on an online forum. But I haven't started threads detailing how if you buy from TTK you're supporting asshatery and harming this community. Regardless of who you buy from, the ONLY people who benifit from the transaction are the buyer and the seller. Unless you bought your rep from sash recently, then your seller just dropped off the face of the earth, good luck finding a tracking number. So yeah, by all means, use other dealers, that's capitalism. But there really isn't any ground for you guys to stand on when it comes to arguing Josh and Andrew are hurting the community. Might as well start picketing Starbucks, as they charge too much for sub-par coffee, and are hurting the coffee community. PLUS they don't sell their branded coffee beans to the local coffee house, they have a monopoly!

the guy with three barbies on the other hand...

Honestly people who gives two hoots about a "cartel" of two dealers? I've had nothing but excellent service from Josh, and my current order with Andrew is looking like it will be the same great service. They both offer excellent watches with outstanding service. If they have to form a co-op to make more money, so be it. If you think their prices are too high, or don't like their cooperation, buy elsewhere. Just like I don't buy gas at citgo because I'm not a fan of chavez, you can take your money elsewhere. I'm willing to pay a little more to get what I want.

Man shows how little I know about rolex, if you didn't say "rep" I'd swear that's a gen. I mean the mag looks good, and is in the right spot, dial looks great, and the crystal looks nice too. Oh and it's still kinda like a Wok now that you mention it. But I can't really tell between that and the LV.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...type=osi_widget And I quote from his description: Will be delivered with it

You won't get much of an argument from me, only this statement: I started this thread in response to comments that I disagreed with. Nothing more, nothing less.

Express an opinion? Sure thing, if there were no dissenting opinions life would get rather boring. But when your opinion concerns things that you have no vested interest in (say gun control) then I have a hard time finding a reason to care. I'll listen to well thought out and well expressed ideas, but I won't let anyone ram their beliefs down my throat. Regardless of age or experience, if you live in a different country your outlook on many issues will differ from mine. And while your beliefs and opinions may well be correct for you, it doesn't make them correct for me. I don't pretend to have a good argument on why other nations should or should not ban firearms, I don't live there, and frankly, it doesn't really concern me. When another nation's activities DO concern me, I'll take interest and probably voice my opinion. And when some shitbag from the UN decides to try to get a global ban on firearms... I take interest and voice my opinion. I send out letters of protest, and I call anyone who might be able to influence said [censored]. http://www.stopungunban.org/

Three words: Go [censored] Yourself. String them together you get the phrase that pays. Go ahead and call me whatever the hell you like. Unlike some, I'm pretty well adjusted, and can take it without getting too upset. After all, when I do start getting angry at the things you say, all I have to do is remember, you're not American, your viewpoint doesn't matter.

Again I didn't waste my time reading much of that, after all you don't want to go to the effort of changing your writing style to suit me. No problem, but I'm not going to go to the effort to read what you have to say. Pictures? No problem Here are a couple of my FAL (it's a DSA) and one of my Socom 16. Also included are my Emerson Super CQC-7 and Surefire E2E. Oh and here's a slightly older one of me shooting my Walther P88

I can't read more than a few sentences of what you wrote, poor composition will do that. And I do think I'm done responding to your drivel until you can manage to put it into a format that is easier on my eyes. I don't like to.........read.......[censored] like.......this. Oh yeah and get a clue, a firearm is NOT a WMD, and you look exceptionally stupid for continually using that acronym in place of another three letter word. Gun.

Just saw this, and while I am grateful of your service to this country, your poetic stuff I'm not such a fan of. In fact I'm decidedly against it. I like the US, as [censored] up as it's getting, living here is still light years better than any other country that I can think of. I won't bother posting reasons, because they are opinions, but if the US starts following the trends set by older societies... we're no longer the United States of America, then we're some [censored] "peace love happy landmass" That's actually some form of oppressive dictatorship, Not to mention we would no longer stand up for the very beliefs our nation was founded on. We were founded, as a nation, because we REFUSED to listen to the older society. Yes we're young, but age and wisdom don't walk hand in hand. Age and stagnation, however, DO.

And the obvious fact is that he shouldn't have come up clean. But the hot line for background checks is often plugged in my area, so it takes sadly little imagination on my part to accept that the FBI [censored] this one up and gave the green light to Mr. Cho. But what good would adding more restrictions to firearms have done? Since we already know he wasn't legally fit to own a firearm, clearly adding more laws wouldn't have helped at all. What might have helped is stronger enforcement, and a stronger response to infractions. We need both a deterrent effect, and the ability to effectively weed bad apples out of society, and isolate them, because gun or not they WILL find some way to harm society.

HOLD THE PRESSES! Re-read what you just wrote. The grievous error here was in ENFORCEMENT/ Adding more laws that aren't enforced would have done all of jack [censored]. And I gather from that *Slightly* you mean illegally, but that is already a problem, as felons can get firearms. How are we supposed to enforce new laws when we can't even keep old ones effective on anyone but law abiding citizens, who are NOT the problem.

Strange, could have sworn this was the "off topic" section, and that this forum's main "topic" was watches. (Meaning this section of the forum was dedicated to subjects OTHER than watches. If you'd like to stick to watches, be my guest, the various sections pertaining to watches are at the TOP of the page, under Replica Watch Group> The RWG Lounge. And I have tried to stick to facts, just a little heads up. I understand nobody's perfect, and I have posted theories, but try to look a little deeper, or simply refrain from posting, you're cluttering up this topic for no apparent reason.

[censored], forgot to say this: Making more laws doesn't stop people who break laws. All it acomplishes is further restricting the freedoms of the law abiding.

Nope, I believe that the gun laws in effect are more than needed, and in some states are absurdly over done. What IS needed is enforcement. Once again a tool is being villianized, it's becoming a theme here. How many cries do you hear for "Rock control laws?" Rocks are a weapon too, have, are, and will be used time and again to kill people. They are everywhere, and deadly. Human life is pretty damn fragile, and like it or not, it doesn't take a whole lot to snuff it out. Perhaps instead of devoting so many man-hours to getting rid of a tool, we should devote some time to understanding WHY [censored]ed up people exist, and how the hell to deal with them before they can get a tool. And while I am no bomb expert, it probably doesn't take too much to kill 33 people with a bomb. One asshat with a bomb on a bus or a train could accomplish that. More than likely easier than buying a gun and killing 33 people. Hell where is TTK to tell us that all owners of bomb making materials are the real reason WMD are around. If someone blew up someone he knew he'd be suing YOU for owning lawn fertilizer. You're the problem because you support a government that doesn't ban fertilizer. oh and owning fertilizer doesn't make your penis bigger, and you haven't told me why you NEED fertilizer. Am I starting to get through? Or at least can you understand where I'm coming from? I wouldn't change my views on guns and gun control over a debate online, and I wouldn't expect the same out of anyone else, but do you at least see my point, regardless of your views? I'd love to actually discuss the various arguments for and against stricter gun laws, and the eventual banning of firearms. But right now all I'm seeing is a small group arguing about religions and race (neither of which play any more than a tiny role in the big picture, thought they are exposing a bigot or two. And a large group of people arguing about the fine points of a changed subject. My main complaint was pertaining to gun control, and why there shouldn't be a banning of guns simply because there is no real NEED for them. (On a side note I'd like to apologize, I was wrong when i stated I never said "I need firearms" I did, and I stand by it. I need firearms to maintain my quality of life.) The whole religion/race/what country can beat up what country/who has nukes/who should we nuke posts aren't really pertaining to the original intent, and I think they are cluttering the thread. I don't really care to hear who is a bigot, if you want your own [censored]ed up views that's fine, make a post about them, but don't sully up fine firearms discussion with it. Same goes for religion and politics. Both have no business here, as they will only stir up a hornets' nest of opinions (more so than guns) and will result in our being sidetracked, as I was last night. And I will mention I've been drinking, so there's no telling what I'll respond to tonight.

Whew, I leave for work and I get so far behind I don't know if I'll ever catch up to this one. A few points: I heard a bit about the absolute right of a citizen of the United States of America to keep and bear arms. You're treading on thin ice with that one. You are choosing to interpret the meanings behind the statement, but no instructions were given on how to interpret any of the constitution. What is to say that the right to freedom of speech isn't also under the same "non-right" that some have labeled gun ownership? If we can interpret any of our rights to mean something that is completely contradictory (Constitution states: the right to keep and bear arms. Interpretation: the right NOT to keep and bear arms.) Then we've just proven our entire constitution to be a waste. And for the record by interpret I mean this: the idea that the right to keep and bear arms pertained EXCLUSIVELY to keeping a well regulated militia. It's foolish to think so, or our fore-fathers probably would have written that in. A simple "and with regards to this well regulated militia, the right to keep and bear arms shall be invoked. But only for militia business, and then the firearms must be rented. No handguns allowed. Also, no assault weapons. No one needs assault weapons." would have worked. But they didn't. Instead they wrote that it is MY RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Not rent and shoot arms, but to keep and bear. I also hear a few cries of "They can't manage to confiscate the guns, there's too many" California sure as hell did. You take a look at CA or NY and their [censored] up gun laws, then you tell me no one will ever try to ban all guns. (Not that it'd start that way, it'll start with Nazi Pelosi banning assault rifles, then big bore rifles, then pistols, then semi-automatic firearms, then soon enough there won't be any damn guns left to ban.) I find it rather funny, TTK has brilliantly demonstrated the attitude I fear the most in our society, mainly that it isn't the criminal's fault. If some low life breaks into my house and steals a gun, any crimes he commits aren't his fault, they are MY fault, because I made him do the crime by owning a gun. Such logic is at once absurd and frightening, as it removes responsibility from the people who need to take it.

Your logic and ability to write are so poor it hurts sometimes. Correct, you never stated I need a gun. Correct I stated I don't need a gun. But both un-related. You seem to be stringing together stupidly obvious sentences that don't belong. Oh and I never stated I never would become angry, I get angry all the time, it's how I act upon the anger that sets me apart from you. Based on your showing here I'd say you still get on the floor and kick your feet in the air when you get angry. Oh yeah and here's my attempt at your logic, hopefully you understand: The elephant is grey.....I'm eating breakfast....YOU never said anything about eating breakfast./ Un-related, I don't need a gun because the sky is blue. You aren't making me think too highly of you here neil. Perhaps you should have stuck to insults, at least you sounded good when you did that. I do in fact need a gun to hunt... I'm not too skilled in the art of stalking grouse with a knife. Oh and congrats you managed to toss in an unrelated bit there. You'd be hard-pressed to find a hunter who honestly claims it's to put food on the table. Hmm... Nope you're wrong. Man you're shooting an 0 for three here. Best to keep your mouth shut, since it seems to be doing a fair bit of talking that the brain can't backup. If someone is in my house with a knife, with the intent to kill me, the only real option I can see that greatly reduces my chances of harm is the use of a firearm. Perhaps there are alternatives, but none quite as nice as a firearm. And as to banning guns and preventing them from falling into the hands of irresponsible people... THE IRRESPONSIBLE PEOPLE ALREADY OWN THEM. Not to mention they are breaking the law by doing such, so do you think they will bat an eye at another law? Ahh we get down to the real meat. You just hate the US. Clearly because my government is tyrannical in your foolish little eyes (but more experienced, hell you've got 35 years on me. Must know allot about the US in that time. Funny I didn't see you stationed here)I don't need to own guns. You haven't come up with a single good reason why I need to get rid of my guns. This drivel you wrote sounds pathetic, is it the best you can come up with? It's my right to do so. I enjoy excercising my rights daily. Because I don't have to rent a gun, I own them. How's that for a good reason? Ahh back in poor taste and form I see. No, the last I checked renting a gun will not, in fact, increase penis size. Damn shame isn't it? Ah there we go, you still fail to grasp even the most basic of concepts. The gun didn't walk in there and kill people. Even if guns didn't exist, he would have found another way. Bomb? Fire? Forks? Bricks? I don't know and I don't care, but your argument is severly flawed. I've heard idiots type to hear their own voice. Do you fall into that category? Oh God no, I've KILLed small animals, I must be a serial killer. I stalk grouse! Jesus lock me up today. And you claim I'm unstable. I don't wake up and say good morning to myselfs. I'm not where I am. Got it Why didn't you just say you've been brainwashed to be stupid? My liver is fine thanks. Listen until you can form a decent argument I'll lecture you on your own stupidity with great enjoyment. I wouldn't want you there either. And YOU'RE the one to be saying this? I mean it's true, but please.

You sound rather foolish. I never did state I needed a gun, just that I had good reasons to own them. You try to hide your own failed logic with insults. I don't need guns, and if it becomes illegal for me to continue owning them I will give them up. YOU can't put forth a logical NEED to get rid of firearms, instead you simply drop to the level of name calling and slander. Both marks of childish thought. You claim to have 35 years of experience on me. Could it be you've had a head start of 35 years and are still foolish? I've met many fools, some older some younger, you wouldn't be the first. You claim I have a biased viewpoint, if yours isn't biased what is it? Perhaps a viewpoint dominated by fear, and a lack of understanding? You're older than me, even more experienced, but you certainly aren't wiser. You've proven that yourself.

My mistake, perhaps your country is better than most, but the statistics in others don't offer the same outlook. I won't bother with a response beyond this: Show me some actual statistics to back up your claim. It smacks of [censored] propaganda. I see enough of that from the anti-gun lobby every day. It's too late and my stat finding is suffering, I'll dig up the stats tomorrow, but I seem to recall you're more likely to die from stab wounds than a gunshot. Besides, you're far more likely to be attacked by something other than a gun here in the us. take a look at this excerpt from the BUJ: "In addition, during the same time period, an average of 21,000 people were murdered each year. For every homicide victim 12 years old or older, approximately 121 people were injured in a violent crime, including 16 people whose injuries were serious. An estimated 344,000 victims incurred severe injuries, such as gunshot or knife wounds, broken bones, loss of teeth or internal bleeding. Fifty-eight percent of severely injured victims reported the offender or offenders had a weapon, usually a knife or other sharp object (such as scissors, ice pick or ax) or a blunt object such as a rock or club (44 percent), rather than a firearm (14 percent)." But you're missing the point, no one is arguing that guns, when used with the intent to kill, can in fact kill people (what a novel idea! I never imagined that guns could in fact kill people.) In fact the only statement in which you sort of addressed my original point is on shaky ground, I'll wait for stats, but I suspect that you pulled the huge numbers of legit gun owners killing people thing out of your ass.