eddhead

there may be some give on the 60 day restriction if you get verified.. the process involves having MB pass a small entry from your cc acct and than confirming the amt that was posted.. I requested this sunday evening and am still waiting for the debit to post. if and when it does, i will let you know

hey bill! I will pm you.

I am sorry but I do not agree. I do not see how you can read Einstein as believing in the existence of God.. not the God who created Man in his own image. The "God" of Einstein (and Spinoza) is more of an essence.. the energy that flows through everything in the Universe and connects us... a notion of universal conscousness.. .Nature.. but not a creator, not a prime mover..not a knower of all that has happened is happening, and will happen. But that is as far as I will go with this.,.As I said previously, I do believe in God so for me taking the other position is pointless. Besides, I do not want to get Ken mad at me.

sorry ken, didn't mean to step on your toes.

Here is the full pasage on Einstien and God and Religon from Wilkepedia He argues that conflicts between science and religion "have all sprung from fatal errors.", however "even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other" and there are "strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies... science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind ...a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist.". He makes it clear that he does not believe in a personal God, and suggests that "neither the rule of human nor Divine Will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted...by science, for [it] can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot." In response to the telegrammed question of New York's Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein in 1929: "Do you believe in God? Stop. Answer paid 50 words." Einstein replied in only 25 (German) words: "I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind." While unequivocally not believing in a personal God,[49] Einstein still considered himself Jewish by heritage[50] and saying "A Jew who sheds his faith along the way, or who even picks up a different one, is still a Jew."[51] It is clear from this passage and the one that follows that Einstein did not believe in God as he/she is described in this thread. The notion of beliveing in the "rational nature of reality" is a reference to Spinoza a founder of Rational thought who equated God with nature. Spinoza's God is not at all like the God in the tradional sense. In fact the difference between Spinoza's views Jewish Dogma were significant enough to have him shunned in Jewish circles. Here is a quote from Wilkepedia "He contended that everything that exists in Nature/Universe is one Reality (substance) and there is only one set of rules governing the whole of the reality which surrounds us and of which we are part. Spinoza argued that God and Nature were two names for the same reality, namely the single substance (meaning "to stand beneath" rather than "matter") that underlies the universe and of which all lesser "entities" are actually modes or modifications, that all things are determined by Nature to exist and cause effects, and that the complex chain of cause and effect are only understood in part." As you can see, this is not exactly God as we know it in the traditional sense. To me this is more a view that represents the Universe as a single organism comprised of infinite micro-organisms. (so now I am an ameoba!). In other words, we are connected by virtue of being part of the same organism.. and to the extent our actions impact that organism they impact us all.

well you won't be too happy when you get back to NY either...

Here is anothe op-ed piece I read in the back in June 2005. It comes from Admin Friedman a favorite of mine. When I first read it, I remember thinking that in a way it is too bad... I have always admired the work/life balance of the European community.. I always felt they had thier proirites in the right order. But given the pace of globalization I just do not see how those same countries, especially the French, can those same countries to rationalize the balance they so treasure on one hand with their desire to attain the kind of Global influence they aspire to. Afetall, Geopolitical influenced is always fueled by economic strength and stability ------------------------------------------------------------------- It was extremely revealing traveling from Europe to India as French voters (and now Dutch ones) were rejecting the E.U. constitution -- in one giant snub to President Jacques Chirac, European integration, immigration, Turkish membership in the E.U. and all the forces of globalization that are eating away at Europe's welfare states. It is interesting because French voters are trying to preserve a 35-hour work week in a world where Indian engineers are ready to work a 35-hour day. Good luck. Voters in ''old Europe'' -- France, Germany, the Netherlands and Italy -- seem to be saying to their leaders: stop the world, we want to get off; while voters in India have been telling their leaders: stop the world and build us a stepstool, we want to get on. I feel sorry for Western European blue collar workers. A world of benefits they have known for 50 years is coming apart, and their governments don't seem to have a strategy for coping. One reason French voters turned down the E.U. constitution was rampant fears of ''Polish plumbers.'' Rumors that low-cost immigrant plumbers from Poland were taking over the French plumbing trade became a rallying symbol for anti-E.U. constitution forces. A few weeks ago Franz M

i believe they were. Reagan was far more classically a conservative than Bush was. A strong believer in minimalist government, Reagan was the purveyor of the tactics Junior is deploying today vis-a-vis small govt. Raise spending, especially military spending, lower taxes and creat a paradimn where social entitlement programs are crowded out but virtue of an inability to fund. It is classic. In many ways, HW was far more moderate. Remember he raised taxes and in so doing began the cycle of moving toward a balanced budget. I have always felt that by raising taxes HW did a lot of the dirty work for Regan and in fact preserved his legacy. I am not sure what would have happened if HW did not bring some fical responsibility back to the budget process..i.e. not sure if Regan would have been perceived in the favorable light he was. In some ways, I think he bailed his predecessor out. Geopolitcally they differed as well. Bush was much more of a globalist and was actually the first president to propose economic Globalization policies. He never did get the effort off the ground but it was his idea. By contrast, despite the success with the USSR, Regan was more of an isolationist in the classical conservative mode at least initally at least until Irangate came to pass. Even if you do not buy into the difference, ultimately however the pendulum did back... it just took a bit longer. HW was a one term president afterall...almost a caretaker. And you do not get much different than Regan or Bush and Clinton. Let's also not forget what happens in Congress at off-year election cycles. With the exception of 2002, the president's party almost always takes a beating. as far as france is concerned, i agree with you that that is not what we are seeing today. I have some theories about France and for that matter Germany, but I am not close enough to the situation to vette them here which is why I was asking for input.

i agree with your assessment but not your conclusion (and i am not an athiest btw). In my view, an athiest who does good by choice has more altruistic motives than someone who does so because 'they should'. I I think that someone who does good by choice is more heartfelt than someone who is being consistent with some coda. I really hope that most people who do good, love, etc.. (athiests, agnostic, or believers) are acting on their desire to do good for good's sake, and not to do good because that is what you are supposed to do. And if you are a Christian (and I am) you believe in the tenents of both the new and old testament. The thing I struggle with is reconciling the the differences in the way God is perceived and represented in each canon. The old testament represents god in very righteous and even vengefull tones.. the new testament as a God of mercy and fogivness. I am not sure how you follow both. IT is yet another reason I struggle with organized religous dogma. EDIT" @ Pug.. you beat me to it again!

would it make sense for me to compile a draft worksheet of guildlines and publish it for editing or do we just want to wing it. ? i think taking one more crack at a draft may make sense so we are all on the same page, but if most think otherwise fine. If we think there is value in doing a draft, we can do a sticky with the final (after edits) guidlines and let the dealers know they are free to self-certify or not, at their own discretions. May take me a couple of days to get the draft.. i will just use what everyone else has already proposed as a starting point.

I am not sure i know what else there is to discuss. There is a proposal on the table to create a voluntary, self- certifying star rating system of dealers who adhere to a consitent and clear naming convention. why don't we just implement it? not trying to sound coy, but what are the next steps? is it just a question of coming up with the convention? i am not the best qualified to do this, but if you want me to give it a shot based on the input others have provided i'ld be happy to. it might take a few days though.

actually i believe money bookers banks with commerz bank AG frankfurt. But your point is well taken.

i think so, but i will let you know shortly as i am im the process of getting verified.

for credit card it is about 2%... for funding by wire, i could not find a charge, but it takes 2-5 days. i assume they use the interest earned in lieu of hard fees. i just signed up myself. for U.S domiciled members, the biggest problem i see is the limit.. about $327 for 60 days for credit card funded purchases. You can wire funds into the account at ur expense, but if you are going to do that, you may as well wire to the dealers directly. At least than you have quicker access.

.. i know you did , but not from everyone

actually this has nothing to do with the thread's theme which is weather or not to go underground, but for what it is worth, while i agree that people hesitate to call out bad behavior, i would not put the onus for this on the admins/moderators. people who do not call out do so because they are afraid of being flamed or because they are concerned about dealers working with them going forward. I mean I agree with you.. provided all other means have been tried to work things out privately first, if you have a legitimate complaint you should post it. But the cuture itself has nothing to do with the admins, it is the members themselves flaming other members. Maybe it took someone as established here as pub with the 'White Lies' thread to change the culture a bit. We'll see. Sorry, but that is the way it is.

unfortunetly, national poltical preferences tend to act like slow moving pendulums swinging from right to center to left. It is almost as if the population needs to experience the effect of extremism before they collectively decide to slam on the brakes and move back to the center. But it take time. Sometimes you really need to screw things up for the correction to occur. For the US In the 70's Nixon begat Carter who begat Regan/Bush who begat Clinton who begat Bush. Conservative disaster, left of center deisaster, right wing sucess, right wing failure left of center but morally challenged, right wing solid chrisian and ....? Not necessarily my interrpetation, but that is how the population at large feels.. We tend to over react to that which put us off in the previos admn. It should be interesting to see what 08 brings,.

ROLF!! now YOU owe me a keyboard!

so what do you really think/ i cannot stand it when people refuse to take a hard position on issues or topics...

you owe me a keyboard.

well i tired to do some research on this last evening (yes i need a life) .. as ethan mentioned, there is not a lot out there. Where I did find references on the topic of watches and etiquette,(GQ, askmen.com, a few US based business schools, and even Emily Post) the guidance was that a dress watch should be thin, relatively small (which i took to mean less smaler than 38MM or so) simple and understated (so much for the presidential) and have few complications on the dial. No diamonds. No divers watches etc... Interestingly, I did not find any preference stated for straps vs metal bracelets. In fact one site (I think it was askman.com) showed a watch with a metal bracelet AS a dress watch (it did seem to fit the other attributes of dress watch referred to). I am not saying they were correct, just that it was displayed that way, and that I could not find reference to a strap being more correct than a bracelet. Still in my mines eye i kept seeing simple executive style Pateks. I did find mention that proper etiquette dictates that wrist watches should NOT be worn at ANY black tie event. So I guess I learned something yesterday and thanks for that. Not only that but I was inspired! Today, I am wearing a simple gen Baume and Mercier Hampton Classic with a simple leather strap.. no complicated dials no date, with a pinstripe brooks bros. suit. As an editorial aside, I think the reason you may have hit a nerve with some members yesterday (including me initially) had less to do with the context of your message than it did with its style. I am sure you meant no offense, but the use or words like "Middle Managment" in the context it was used in, or "minions" in ANY context has the potential to seem condescending, even if they are not directed toward the audience yo are addressing. I am sure that was not the intent, but I think it accounts for the reaction. Anyway, just my 2 cts. As another famoust philosopher, Wavy Gravy once put it, "take it with how many grains of salt you choose." p.s. call me Ed for short!!

good post, especially the part about being connected to all things in the universe. I think you very concisely explained a view that I am starting to embrace as well. I am not sure I am quite there yet, but it is both spirtually and intellectually appealing to me

yeah, the 6000 year thing is unbelievable. Yet another reason why i have problems with 'religons'

I only ask the question, because I would like to have access to the information. I too tried to research and could not come up with anything supporting or challanging that position. . Also while i am not exaclty emily post. I have seen what i thought were some fairly impressive metal banded watches in my time.. my mom has an old solid 20 ct white gold bulova probably at least 50 years old that could pass as a dress jewelery and i have seen some impressive diamond bezeled rolexes too. I am having a hard time not thinking of them as acceptable dress wear.

... which has exactly been my experience, frankly. I guess i want it on my terms. seriously, i guess my point is that i do not feel affilated with any institutionalized religon, be it catholic, protestant, jewish, muslim, buddhist, hindu (damn, if I have to name them all i will fail miserablyl) or paganism. While religons promote strong individual ethical values for the most past I think they (especially fundamentalists) followers of all sects have created a lot of misery in this world, and i just do not want to sign on. When John Lennon wrote "imagine no religon" I do not think he was necessarily talking about God (or god). Rember the documenatry basis for most religons eg: bible, are composed of texts written by man and in the case of the new testament, selected for their relevency by man, not God . (although Muslims dispute this) Philosphically, i (like Deve potentially has ) have expanded my belief of what God may be to include a supreme bieng or spirit, that we may not necessarily know in our established relitions.