ratchpot

Pimpin' ain't easy...

Do law schools tend to give feedback on applications?

That "Trust" indicator is.....intriguing.

Also, on the inner bezel, the minute marker after the 10 is too close to the 10. To me, that's the type of flaw that can be spotted without even looking at a gen.

Fool me once, shame on you....fool me twice...yadda yadda yadda......

I prefer George Bush's version:

"There's an old saying in Tennessee....that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."

Yes, but it only works once. If you fall off the wagon, you need a different method for the second try.

If you fall off the wagon, then it hasn't worked at all

Have you tried Allen Carr's "Easyway" method? I know a few people who read his book and gave up straight away.

To my knowledge, there are no reps of the Jay-Z watch out there.

Eunomians, rather than just quote your whole post over again, I'll just congratulate you on a superb project.

wow, that reply seems kind of harsh to me. I mean the guy is just letting you know about his priorities and preferances. You do not have to agree with him and you have every right to tell him so, but man, that reply seemed to be directed more to him personally than to the context of his post. Seems kind of tough.

+1

subzero1, my compliments on a very well argued position.

I was not addressing which God einstein believes in, but it is certain he believed in _A_ God (the topic, hello?). Note that he included "personal" before God to distinguish from not believing in God at all, and said many times that he was not an athiest and believed in a creator/prime mover.

You clearly misunderstand the the concept of religious metaphor. "Einsteinian religion" (which is nothing to do with believing in any supernatural being) is the opposite of conventional religion. You also fail to provide any evidence to back up your statements (let alone credible evidence). Your reliance on "google it" just doesn't cut it. I am comfortable in the fact that impartial obvservers will see through the falsities.

Einstein DID belive in God fyi

and a reasonable person could say he was religious (google it!) He specifically disavowed being an athiest on numerous occasions (again, google is your friend).

Uh oh.... that is a myth that keeps being perpetuated, unfortunately. To quote Einstein himself:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God

and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the

structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."

When Einstein clarified his beliefs in statements such as the above, it provoked tremendous uproar and criticism from many people within the Jewish and Roman Catholic communities. Considering how much abuse he had to put up with, it's a real shame that people are still spreading mistruths that he believed in a supernatural god.

QED: The fact that the Spanish Inquisition happened means there is no God.

You are muddling God with human religion.

For instance, you proclaimed yourself a diety earlier in this thread. If I decide to worship you and kill millions in your name (with no instruction from you to do so) is that your fault? I think not. It would just mean I am a wack job (which may be true either way depending on who you ask).

As your deity, I would reproach you at the very least. The Christian God was well-known for doing just that in the Old Testament. So, he either never existed and the Bible is interpreted fiction, he's forsaken you or Nietzsche killed him Spakeing Thus and the like.

I actually agree with Craytonic on this point. Essentially your argument is: "if the Christian God was said to have acted a certain way before, then, unless he continues to act that way in similar circumstances, he doesn't exist". It's a fair point about the Bible being fiction, but it's an invalid argument against the existence of God.

It isn't weak why? I don't see how you can go either way on this on "evidence" argument outside of people that don't believe because of some great tragedy (perhaps there was a reason they don't understand) or people that believe because they see evidence in math, nature, beauty, etc. It is just a clever little thing to say, not something to base your beliefs on.

By analogy there is no "evidence" that a perfect circle exists or has ever existed - take it to a high enough level of precision and any circle will be off. I can represent it conceptually and mathematically, and I don't think I would say I don't believe in a perfect circle because there is no actual evidence of one.

Again, you have failed to advance your argument in any meaningful way. There is a fundamental difference between believing in the concept of a perfect circle and believing that one actually exists. I can believe in the concept of a spaceship that can fly 100 people to the moon and back. There is strong evidence to suggest that such a spaceship could be built. But there's no evidence that the spacship exists or has ever been built, and therefore I do not believe the spaceship has ever been built. If they build it, I'll believe it exists. But in the meantime, I will stick to believing in the concept that such a spaceship can exist.

Likewise, I can accept the possibility (i.e. acknowledge the concept) that god created the universe. However, I rank the existence of god alongside the existence of the flying spaghetti monster and the invisible pink unicorn. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, they are all equally likely to have created the universe (hint: not very likely ).

Technically, there is no scientific evidence he didn't either...

Sure there is no evidence God exists, but there is no evidence he doesn't

Your counterarguments are based on a logical fallacy, so your point about my argument being weak is unsubstantiated. Furthermore your statements in no way help your own argument.

Here's the one that got me. I realised one day that if there were a god, he wouldn't only allow you to believe in the the one true religion based purely on the location of the birth of your parents.

So, how come the Australian Aborigines didn't have a concept of Jehova until they got presented with it along with alcohol and syphilis?

I don't believe in god, but for different reasons to you. I don't believe in god because there's no evidence that a supernatural being created everything.

if there were a god, he wouldn't only allow you to believe in the the one true religion based purely on the location of the birth of your parents.

An easy way to rebut your argument is to simply ask: how do you know what a god would or wouldn't do if god did indeed exist? Obviously, the answer is that you don't. Therefore the argument falls apart.

There are no U-Boat reps, as far as I'm aware. The non-chrono gens are fairly cheap so it might be worth saving up for one of those instead.

You won't find the Montoya. It is not replicated.

It has been replicated - unfortunately not very well.

AP never made a quartz ROO, so any rep with that combination is an immediate giveaway.

The purpose of showing three dates (yesterday, today and tomorrow) is that you can see what date it is today even when one of the hands are hiding todays date.

I was really hoping the reason wouldn't be as bad as that one...

I've never understood the purpose behind big date windows that show what the date was yesterday and tomorrow. Doesn't seem to make any sense...

I hope so. But given how poor the Mark XV rep was, I'm not getting my hopes up at all about this one. Besides, I think the design of the Mark XVI probably isn't as good the Mark XV. The new pilot's chrono, on the other hand, is an amazing watch.

Seemed to me he was trying to say it's a rep without actually saying it, as you know if he came right out and said it's a rep ebay would cancel his auction.

So you agree that he lied about the true nature of the watch, to avoid his listing being cancelled. Rather than applaud the seller's ability to sucessfully flout eBay rules and sell a fake watch without mentioning the word "fake", I am more concerned about him trying to con someone out of thousands of dollars.

IMO anyone who bid on that thinking it was real deserved to get shafted

You don't seem to realise that one of the fundamental reasons for this board's existence is to educate buyers so they can spot the good dealers from the unscrupulous ones. Those of us with a moral compass will warn others who do not have the benefit of the knowledge this board has given us. Since you're obviously happy with him conning people, I wonder if your views would change if the person being conned was a friend or family member.

FYI i highly recomend the Richard Dawkins book - the God Delusion. If you want to become an athiest or if you want to just reinforce your own belief or want to get all kinds of good tidbits to bring up in those type of conversations at tea parties - this is the book for you !!

I highly recommend that book as well. In answer to the OP's question.... no I don't think we are alone in the Universe. Considering there are billions of stars and planets out there, it's rather narrow minded to think we are alone.