AllergyDoc

You've lots of catching up to do! Welcome back.

I received a watch from them last week. I used the form on their web site to order it.

Welcome to the site, sort of. Hopefully now that you've started posting, you'll continue. Pictures are especially welcome.

Usually these are gens. The pearl likely fell out years ago and putting a new one on would look out of place.

Replicas I bought 2 years ago are quieter than most "Swiss" ETA's I've purchased recently.

But now you're talking about real rights. Voting, particularly. You said marriage wasn't a right so this argument doesn't apply here. I've already established the government DOES limit rights as society sees fit. We don't allow plural marriage. We don't allow multiple partner marriage of any type. Can't marry the underage, etc. Let's not hear "but these are proven to be negative... blah blah." Society determines what is bad or harmful for itself all the time, what groups get what preferential treatment, etc. If you say gay marriage must be allowed because they are a minority that is to be protected under equal treatment law in the CA constitution, then it MUST also grant marriage to other minority groups that apply for the right to marry. To do anything other is to deny the same rights. As I said, it's a slippery slope. The question is, in my mind, has society decided to grant marriage licenses to same sex partners? No, it hasn't, but democratic vote in all 30 states that have voted on it.

Idealwatches grossly overcharges for their goods and has a spotty customer service record, at best. I bought a watch from them for my wife, a beautiful Rolex DJ with CZ's all over the place. Paid $1,000. I'd be lucky to get $180 for it now. Maybe $200 if I exercised my best photography skills. The only way you'll recoup much of your money is to sell it to someone who is unfamiliar with replicas. But now that you're here, wouldn't you feel a tad bad about doing that, knowing that it's worth far less than you paid. P.S. I also have a $1,050 YM I bought from a different "scam" site. Gorgeous watch. A real beauty. But I got ripped off.

My opinions and feelings about homosexuality stems from my religious upbringing. I've kept words like "sin" and "morally wrong" out of my arguments in an effort to talk about homosexuality as a social issue. Although I'm Christian, I don't identify with the so-called "Christian Right" on many issues. I find many of them pompous. Religion should never be forced or coerced onto anyone. The greatest gift God gave us is our agency--the ability to choose for ourselves the path we'd like to follow. (We cannot, however, choose the consequences, but that's a whole different subject.) Another area I disagree with the CR is how they teach creationism. Matter can neither be created or destroyed, it can just be organized. God didn't "create" the Earth out of nothing in 6 literal days. He organized existing matter into the planet we now live on. In the Greek manuscripts of the Bible, the word "create" means "organize." My personal opinion (not official church doctrine) is that the "days" spoken of in Genesis should be thought of as periods of time rather than a 24 hour cycle as we understand it. Said "days" could have taken millions of years. Lastly, I believe Adam had a belly button, with all that implies. The CR thinks he was literally stirred up out of dust, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I was taught, and believe, that homosexuality is fornication: having sex with someone you're not married to. Therefore it's a sin. This is why I said I would have equally upset at my sister's decision to boot her faithful husband out if she had decided to shake up with a younger man. In mine they're similar sins. (Adultery is much worse, of course.) This is your "why" about my opinions about homosexuality being negative. As to whether monogamy, or even marriage, is "normal" or "hard-wired" into humans, I don't know. But it's the way we've lived pretty much throughout all of recorded history. At least when we've behaved in a somewhat "civilized" manner. I believe monogamous marriage is the way God wants and has commanded us to live because it's the only way to true happiness. To live otherwise usually causes broken hearts, misery, and sorrow. In my opinion. Why do happily married men check out other women? I've been taught and believe that mankind, left to his own base desires, untethered by "commandments" or rules, would follow a path offensive to God. As I've said, I believe God gives us rules for our own happiness. But I admit it's a constant struggle. When a young woman wearing a miniskirt strolls by I will usually look at her. But it's what happens afterwards that makes all the difference. If I avert my eyes and clear my mind, I'm okay. Probably. But if I continue to stare, whistle, and then make her the subject of a shower fantasy, I've committed adultery in my mind, haven't I? Definitely not okay. If I chase her down, get her phone number, and have an affair with her, even worse. The base urges you've asked about can be corralled and controlled. They don't have to be given in to. Just as homosexual urges don't have to be given in to. Neither does the urge to drink or gamble have to be given in to. Thus my use of that analogy. I don't believe that sex is only for procreation. It also helps to emotionally bind a man to a woman, and vice versa. What said man and woman do in their bedroom is, in my opinion, between them and God, as along as it's just between the two of them. I never said a child would be taught to experiment with homosexual, or heterosexual, sex by a teacher in a classroom. I said I don't want teachers telling young children that homosexual relationships are the same thing as heterosexual relationships because I don't believe they are. I don't want a teacher telling my children it's okay to have premarital sex or to live with someone out of wedlock, either. It's the same thing to me. I found it interesting when you wrote that gays are "forced" to be promiscuous by society. Even if society "pushed them back into the closet," why can't gays remain faithful to one partner? I'm not seeing any connection there. Also, I find it interesting, but not surprising, that gays are out in force, protesting in front of the church of a vocal white preacher, spray painting vulgarities on Mormon chapels, and chucking rocks through the windows of other "white" Christian churches, but are leaving the black churches alone. It appears that about 11 million people voted in CA. About 10% were said to be black, up from 6%. That's 1.1 million. 70% of the blacks voted for Prop. 8. That's a little over 700,000. Yes on Prop 8 got 500,000 more votes than no. That's more than enough to swing the vote to the Yes side. Willie Brown said the blacks voted for Prop 8 because their preachers told them that's what God wanted them to do. Gay activists should be targeting the black voters and churches because without them Prop 8 would have failed. Can't do that, though, can they? Instead, gay activists are calling for a boycott of Utah ( wonder how the gays in Utah feel about that) because the Mormon Church headquarters there, although the Mormon Church didn't give any money to Yes on Prop 8, and a little theatre in Sacramento because the guy who owns the theatre gave $1,000 to the Yes on 8 campaign.

Me too. But that's not what they want nor would they ever settle for it, unless they were just using it as a stepping stone towards their ultimate goal of forced acceptance and a silencing of all opponents.

Everything I've ever read about it has said it would be easy. For others, that is. I wouldn't have the foggiest idea how to go about it. I'm for it, though. My shoulders are starting to sag a little, with all this hanging out in the loony bin.

John needs his limbic system excised.

When you're not resorting to name calling, you ask good, and difficult or thought provoking questions. I'd like to give some of these some careful thought and answer when I'm not so tired. (After midnight here.)

You can be a [derogatory term for penis--damn censors!] and I think you're a lefty nutjob, but that was damn funny. Okay, so that wasn't boring, either. No Dem.., uh, Chancellor, I'll be going to bed chuckling. My wife will be, "what now?" Good to read your posts, too. John, the new board? Wait a minute. BJ's have nothing to do with anal sphincters... Do they?

Sigh... Back to the name calling again. So full of righteous indignation! All you've done is switch gods, from the gods of your parents to the gods of relativism. "Sexuality is fluid" "masculinity and femininity are social constructs and by no means acutely biological" Is this what they're teaching in college these days? No wonder you're so screwed up. Or is that a result of being raised by "Bible thumpers," the dirge of civilization (according to you)? It sounds like there are some serious issues there. Maybe some couch time for you? Therapy to help you work through your hatred for anything having to do with religion? Oh, just Christianity most likely, based on your obvious contempt for it. Hate the Jews, too? They go back further than the Christians and they don't think homosexuality is "normal" either. Then there's the Muslims. They don't like homosexuality, either. But you don't dare pick on them, though, not in "university." It's not "PC." You've made them a protected class. "normal" vs. "abnormal" I've taken plenty of anatomy, physiology, pathology, etc., and I have to say, Mr. College Boy, no way is it, by any stretch of anyone's imagination, "normal" to have an erect penis shoved through the sphincter muscles, past the anus, and into a rectum so that ejaculation onto a pile of feces can occur. But just to prove it, I'm setting up a double-blind study, to be published in The Journal of Gay and Lesbian Studies, vol. 6. We're looking for study subjects. Need some extra cash? You wouldn't mind, of course, it being normal behavior and all. Perhaps your sexuality would be flowing that way during the study. Worst of all? You're boring.

So, is the place next door still available? I could use some beach time. Me and gambling though, it's just lose and lose. Nice turnaround for you, bud.

And your thread goes down in flames in classic RWG1 fashion... And I had more to add to the discussion.

I paid $290 for this watch. Good price. But, the watch would manually wind when I first got it. Now it won't. Plus, it gained 8 minutes in 6.5 hours last night. I think it's going back for repair or replacement.

It's just dirty. You know how these things arrive coated in "rep factory grime."

The white dial is more attractive to my eye, but then I rarely choose a white dial over a dark dial. Plus, as you pointed out, the slight in accuracies of the white dial put me off a bit. (Not that my eyes would ever notice.)

ETA 2836-2, "verified genuine" Incorrect handstack http://www.rwg.cc/members/index.php?showtopic=83135

How many watches ago was THAT?

Picked this up from Eurotimez last month. It arrived this week. Communication was good. Watch took a while to get here. I was told the first one had a problem with the GMT hand and another one had to be ordered. Here are some pics. Please keep in mind I haven't washed the rep factory grime off yet so the watch is not really clean. You've seen this watch before, photographed better, so I don't feel bad about being lazy here.

Picked this up from a dealer on another board for a nice price. Shipped from China. I expected to sell this watch shortly after receiving it, but I like it. It's definitely different. It feels substantial and is very well made. The band is thick and very high quality. The chrono function works fine. The chrono lever is a tad bit wobbly and the edges are quite sharp. I had to file down the side that abuts my arm. The watch has to be worn more distally on the wrist or the chrono lever will jab the arm. Great to wear with a long sleeved shirt if you tuck the end of the sleeve under the lever. It's not a wear-to-the-office watch for me, but it's great for after work, the gym, and shopping at the farmers' market. (The watch was not cleaned before the pictures were taken due to laziness. I make no apologies.)

This is the crux of the matter. We, as a society, decide what is right or wrong, what behavior we will tolerate and that which we won't. But it's not always based on behavior that infringes on the rights of others. How does polygamy infringe of the rights of others? You said "consenting adults." What about 2 men and 3 women, all consenting adults, that want to get "married"? Doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights. By forbidding them marriage, are you taking away their basic civil rights? If you say no, why not? If you feel denying gays marriage is taking away their civil rights, how is this any different? When you change the definition of marriage that has stood for centuries, you risk starting down a slippery slope. Some slopes are slippery. The answer is, we, as a society, have decided what is acceptable behavior and what is not. We exclude groups. And, as of this date, all states that have voted on defining marriage as being between one man and one woman have passed those initiatives. Obviously, the majority of our citizens don't think the same sex unions are marriage.