SHOULD I BUY A JAEGER LE COULTRE REVERSO?

Wasn't one of the initial selling points of the Reverso to be
particularly tough and made for polo players?

--
germ Remove "nospam" to reply

RK276

2004-04-04 09:06:05 UTC

I have a JLC Master Date, which is an auto but a wonderful watch.

I enjoy wearing it thoroughly, if you like this timepiece and can justify it
(only to yourself!) have it..

Post by JWH
Dear All,
I am considering purchasing a Jaeger LeCoultre Reverso Classique in
steel with a mechanical movement. I would be wearing it quite
regularly but not during sport or during any activity where it may
become damaged easily.
I would like to hear anyone's thoughts or experiences with such a
watch. Would a quartz movement be more sturdy and reliable? Please
forgive the relatively basic nature of my question; this is the first
watch I have considered buying since purchasing a Tag Heuer Formula 1
15 years ago!
Thanking you in advance for your feedback,
JWH
Melbourne, Australia

John Llort

2004-04-04 16:21:31 UTC

I would go for quartz, buying a mechanical watch now is like buying a horse
and buggy and paying more than the price of a Bentley just so you can tell
your friends you paid a fortune on antiquated technology. It is silly and
fiscally dumb to do so. Use the money you save to take yourself and your
wife to a nice vacation in europe where you will get more out of your money
than an overpriced mechanical watch sitting on a winder.

dookie

2004-04-05 02:02:53 UTC

check the resale values, mr. 'fiscally dumb'.

paintbrushes are antiquated technology too, but somehow i'd rather have a
van gogh than an ansel adams print.

but wait...oh yes...that's fine art, not mere watchmaking...

dookie

Post by John Llort

P. Bianchi

2004-04-05 20:43:26 UTC

Post by John Llort
fiscally dumb to do so. Use the money you save to take yourself and your
wife to a nice vacation in europe where you will get more out of your money
than an overpriced mechanical watch sitting on a winder.

The "Grand sport" apart, mechanical reversos have manual wind, johnnie. They
better sit in their box.

Reverso is a nice watch, yet -as i had to discover to my own dismay and
4000$ later- it makes you look a bit of a faggott, so to say. Great gift
for a girl, though.

Ciao
B.

Chris Malcolm

2004-04-06 14:14:27 UTC

Post by P. Bianchi
Reverso is a nice watch, yet -as i had to discover to my own dismay and
4000$ later- it makes you look a bit of a faggott, so to say. Great gift
for a girl, though.

You liked the watch, yet discovered to your dismay that other folk
thought it amde you look like a faggot. What a social minefield watch
appearance must be! I had no idea one was running such risks when
purchasing a watch.

Indeed, now I come to think of it, as a man with small feet I
sometimes buy women's shoes or gloves to get a better fit. I do recall
that when I bought my last pair of women's sandals that the assistant
seemed rather embarrassed. It all becomes clear now! She was a
homophobe and thought I was a faggot!

One could, as you have found out to your cost, make some rather
expensive mistakes. I'm clearly rather blind to this kind of
thing. It's quite possible that without realising it I'm wearing a
faggot fountain pen, maybe faggot spectacles, perhaps faggot socks. I
really don't know how to tell.

Is there somewhere one can go to get advice on these social niceties,
so that one can avoid accidentally sending out the wrong signals to
those of of more finely tuned social perceptions?

--
Chris Malcolm ***@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

P. Bianchi

2004-04-06 17:21:23 UTC

Post by Chris Malcolm

Post by P. Bianchi
Reverso is a nice watch, yet -as i had to discover to my own dismay and
4000$ later- it makes you look a bit of a faggott, so to say.

You liked the watch, yet discovered to your dismay that other folk
thought it amde you look like a faggot.

Not quite - other folks didn 't take the trouble to think about that, or if
they did, they negated themselves the pleasure of letting me know.

What a social minefield watch

Post by Chris Malcolm
appearance must be! I had no idea one was running such risks when
purchasing a watch.
Indeed, now I come to think of it, as a man with small feet I
sometimes buy women's shoes or gloves to get a better fit. I do recall
that when I bought my last pair of women's sandals that the assistant
seemed rather embarrassed. It all becomes clear now! She was a
homophobe and thought I was a faggot!
One could, as you have found out to your cost, make some rather
expensive mistakes. I'm clearly rather blind to this kind of
thing. It's quite possible that without realising it I'm wearing a
faggot fountain pen, maybe faggot spectacles, perhaps faggot socks. I
really don't know how to tell.
Is there somewhere one can go to get advice on these social niceties,
so that one can avoid accidentally sending out the wrong signals to
those of of more finely tuned social perceptions?
--
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

P. Bianchi

2004-04-06 17:36:58 UTC

Post by Chris Malcolm

Post by P. Bianchi
Reverso is a nice watch, yet -as i had to discover to my own dismay and
4000$ later- it makes you look a bit of a faggott, so to say.

You liked the watch, yet discovered to your dismay that other folk
thought it amde you look like a faggot.

Not quite - other folks didn 't take the trouble to think about that, or if
they did, they negated themselves the pleasure of letting me know. It was a
pondering all within myself, while contemplating my own wrist. Too small!
too yellow! too fine! And i had been dying after a reverso for dunno how
many years.

Post by Chris Malcolm
Is there somewhere one can go to get advice on these social niceties,
so that one can avoid accidentally sending out the wrong signals to
those of of more finely tuned social perceptions?

come on chris, take it easy, after all that's not you who made the mistake
:-)

Have i or don't i have the right of being pleased or displeased with my
purchases?

Ciao!
B.

Brian Talley

2004-04-06 19:58:44 UTC

Is there somewhere one can go to unabashedly reach the conclusion
that a watch looks more effete than one would like without receiving
snide sarcasm for conveying that observation?

Post by Chris Malcolm

Post by P. Bianchi
Reverso is a nice watch, yet -as i had to discover to my own dismay and
4000$ later- it makes you look a bit of a faggott, so to say. Great gift
for a girl, though.

You liked the watch, yet discovered to your dismay that other folk
thought it amde you look like a faggot. What a social minefield watch
appearance must be! I had no idea one was running such risks when
purchasing a watch.
Indeed, now I come to think of it, as a man with small feet I
sometimes buy women's shoes or gloves to get a better fit. I do recall
that when I bought my last pair of women's sandals that the assistant
seemed rather embarrassed. It all becomes clear now! She was a
homophobe and thought I was a faggot!
One could, as you have found out to your cost, make some rather
expensive mistakes. I'm clearly rather blind to this kind of
thing. It's quite possible that without realising it I'm wearing a
faggot fountain pen, maybe faggot spectacles, perhaps faggot socks. I
really don't know how to tell.
Is there somewhere one can go to get advice on these social niceties,
so that one can avoid accidentally sending out the wrong signals to
those of of more finely tuned social perceptions?
--
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

omniscient idiot

2004-04-07 03:14:04 UTC

Post by Brian Talley
Is there somewhere one can go to unabashedly reach the conclusion
that a watch looks more effete than one would like without receiving
snide sarcasm for conveying that observation?

At least, be happy that we could still use terms like "men's size",
"ladies size", "Swiss made", or whatever, before we have to call them
"person's size" (to avoid any accusations of sexism) or "made in a
place somewhere" (to avoid any accusations of jingoism). Regards, oi

Paul Raposo

2004-04-07 14:39:56 UTC

And you should be happy that your parents still call you son and child, rather than the less polite, but more
apt "mistake," (to avoid accusations of emotional abuse) and "broken rubber," (so as to avoid accusations of
using birth control.)

Post by omniscient idiot
At least, be happy that we could still use terms like "men's size",
"ladies size", "Swiss made", or whatever, before we have to call them
"person's size" (to avoid any accusations of sexism) or "made in a
place somewhere" (to avoid any accusations of jingoism). Regards, oi

omniscient idiot

2004-04-07 17:40:59 UTC

Very funny. Are you that angry?
With all respect, your email makes me think you are so angry that you
don't even think about what you are saying. I hope I am not too cruel
by analyzing your language - although I do consider your terms funny
in a slightly sad way.

Like "mistake". What do you mean? Do you mean, it is a mistake for you
to have kids? Or, are you angry at this world, and so you blame your
parents for conceiving you?

Or that "broken rubber". So, you are still angry at that piece of
rubber? Would rather never exist at all, eh? Angry at people who have
kids?

I guess I better leave this thread now. I could make as many bad jokes
as I want, but nobody can prevent people from divulging a tad too much
info about themselves!

Regards, oi

Post by Paul Raposo
And you should be happy that your parents still call you son and child, rather than the less polite, but more
apt "mistake," (to avoid accusations of emotional abuse) and "broken rubber," (so as to avoid accusations of
using birth control.)

Paul Raposo

2004-04-07 20:16:32 UTC

Post by omniscient idiot
Very funny.

Thank you for your kind words!

Post by omniscient idiot
With all respect, your email makes me think you are so angry that you
don't even think about what you are saying.

Saying, or writting? Are we speaking, or corresponding?

<snip>
Extensive extraneous verbiage.
<snip>

Ah! You are a brilliant tactician. I can see you've honed your wits on some of the world's most battle hardened
playgrounds and schoolyards. I would rebut your statements, but I fear you will use your dreaded "I'm rubber,
you're glue," maneuver.

Post by omniscient idiot
I guess I better leave this thread now.

Excellent idea, never put off until tomorrow what you can do today.

Post by omniscient idiot
I could make as many bad jokes
as I want,

Go for it, your parents made at least one bad joke--unless, of course, you have siblings which I don't know of.

Post by omniscient idiot
but nobody can prevent people from divulging a tad too much
info about themselves!

You're too late in that regard.

Regards, oi

Your handle is omniscient idiot, but you're nom de plume is only half correct in describing yourself. Try to guess
which half.

Yours,
Paul R.

Paul Raposo

2004-04-07 14:35:04 UTC

Yes, inside your own mind. If you need others to justify the correctness of
your purchase and whether or not it suits your masculinity, then perhaps you
should not be making big ticket purchases.

Brian Talley

2004-04-07 20:11:08 UTC

Post by Paul Raposo
Yes, inside your own mind. If you need others to justify the correctness of
your purchase and whether or not it suits your masculinity, then perhaps you
should not be making big ticket purchases.

I quite agree that requiring others to compliment your purchasing
prowess in order to enjoy a purchase is inane. But the poster to
whom I was responding didn't imply that was the problem; he said
HE didn't care for the look of the watch, not that others had
called him a flaming fag for wearing it.

So, if one has an observation about a product and wishes to impart
that observation to others in public discussion fora, what's wrong
with that? Nothing. And back to my point, other readers should not
ridicule that posted observation.

Regards,

Brian

Paul Raposo

2004-04-07 20:59:45 UTC

Post by Brian Talley
I quite agree that requiring others to compliment your purchasing
prowess in order to enjoy a purchase is inane. But the poster to
whom I was responding didn't imply that was the problem; he said
HE didn't care for the look of the watch, not that others had
called him a flaming fag for wearing it.

It's quite apparent Chris Malcolm was replying to P. Bianchi's use of "faggot" to
describe the appearence the watch seemed to give him. Obviously the watch
appeared unpleasing to P. Bianchi and rather than articulating his point
intelligently, he chose the ignorant route when describing the look of the watch
on his wrist. The point was not that others may or may not have called him a
"flaming fag," or, "faggot," it was the childish use of the word in the first
place.

It's plain that P. Bianchi believes that anything which appears feminine to
himself, must somehow cause others to reflect on his sexuality and Chris Malcolm
was simply using his own past purchases to demonstrate how ridiculous P. Bianchi's
conclusion was. If any man has such a tenuous grip on their self perceived
masculinity that they fear how a watch makes them look in the eyes of others, then
obviously they have problems greater than mere jewellery purchases.

Post by Brian Talley
So, if one has an observation about a product and wishes to impart
that observation to others in public discussion fora, what's wrong
with that? Nothing. And back to my point, other readers should not
ridicule that posted observation.

If one wants to demonstrate their lazy mind, by showing that the only descriptive
they can come up with to impart their displeasure with an unsatisfactory purchase,
is a derogatory slur usually aimed at homosexuals, then there is nothing wrong
with that. However, in a public forum that same individual should expect negative
responses to their comments by those who take offence with their language. If one
wishes to avoid ridicule, then one should perhaps avoid using insulting language
when posting to widely viewed public forums. Otherwise, one should take the
ridicule and suck it up.

Brian Talley

2004-04-08 20:35:22 UTC

Yes, of course that was the point.

However, I was looking at it from two angles. First, P. Bianchi's
native tongue may not be English, and the use of the word "faggott"
(sic) may have been the most concise way for him to express himself.
Can his choice of words not be forgiven under those circumstances?

Second, P. Bianchi may have deliberately selected that word to
express a loathing for homosexuals. I cannot speak for P. Bianchi, so
I cannot say whether or not this was his intention. But in our
ostensibly tolerant global society, is there no room for people who
have an opinion that may differ from that of others?

Post by Paul Raposo
It's plain that P. Bianchi believes that anything which appears feminine to
himself, must somehow cause others to reflect on his sexuality and Chris Malcolm
was simply using his own past purchases to demonstrate how ridiculous P. Bianchi's
conclusion was. If any man has such a tenuous grip on their self perceived
masculinity that they fear how a watch makes them look in the eyes of others, then
obviously they have problems greater than mere jewellery purchases.

That may well be what Mr. Malcolm was saying. I'll let him pipe
up on the subject if he wishes.

If one has not seen a product "in the flesh" it is entirely
possible one may be misled by images seen online and/or in catalogs.
Would it be equally wrong to alert prospective buyers of other
characteristics, such as finish or workmanship? Of course not; it
happens all the time in discussion fora such as this.

(In all fairness to common sense, purchasing a JLC or any watch with
a hefty price without first having seen it, worn it, maybe even taken
it to dinner and a movie, is nothing short of foolish; that's a big
honkin' chunk of change to part with!)

In P. Bianchi's view, the watch was not pleasing from an aesthetic
perspective in that he thought it was effete. Granted, that is
subjective, but so are many other observations made here. I have
heard people comment that any watch with an ETA 2824-2 movement is
a cheap piece of crap because it's made on an assembly line and
may or may not be well-finished. Is this a fair statement? Should
everyone with a watch with a 2824-2 movement take offence at such
a statement?

How is your calling P. Bianchi "lazy" and "derogatory" any less an
offence than that which you accuse him of making? Again, consider
that others may not be as eloquent as you for any number of legitimate
reasons. Should they therefore not be permitted to post to public fora
for fear of them making a gaffe?

Post by Paul Raposo
However, in a public forum that same individual should expect negative
responses to their comments by those who take offence with their language.

I would argue that private email would suffice, rather than taking
a holier-than-thou, ever-so-much-more-enlightened approach.

Post by Paul Raposo
If one
wishes to avoid ridicule, then one should perhaps avoid using insulting language
when posting to widely viewed public forums. Otherwise, one should take the
ridicule and suck it up.

Tell me, how is one to know whether one has offended another? Where
does the line get drawn? What's acceptable and what is offensive? And
who decides?

Why is P. Bianchi obliged to be sensitive and tolerant, but others are
not obliged to be tolerant of P. Bianchi's views and/or choice of words?

Regards,

Brian

Paul Raposo

2004-04-09 16:41:50 UTC

Post by Brian Talley
However, I was looking at it from two angles. First, P. Bianchi's
native tongue may not be English, and the use of the word "faggott"
(sic) may have been the most concise way for him to express himself.
Can his choice of words not be forgiven under those circumstances?

I speak three different languages, not as fluently as I'd like. However I have never
used words in conversion, which are considered by the people who speak those languages,
to be rude. So no, ignorance is not an excuse. Even if english is a second language to
P. Bianchi, he knew it was derogatory enough to use as a negative, which shows clearly
he knew what he was typing.

Post by Brian Talley
Second, P. Bianchi may have deliberately selected that word to
express a loathing for homosexuals. I cannot speak for P. Bianchi, so
I cannot say whether or not this was his intention. But in our
ostensibly tolerant global society, is there no room for people who
have an opinion that may differ from that of others?

Of course there is room for differences of opinion. However there is also room for
criticism of people's intolerant stances. I'm not telling him to not think that way; I
am telling him that there are people who dislike his choice of words and will not
hesitate to call him out on it.

Post by Brian Talley
If one has not seen a product "in the flesh" it is entirely
possible one may be misled by images seen online and/or in catalogs.
Would it be equally wrong to alert prospective buyers of other
characteristics, such as finish or workmanship? Of course not; it
happens all the time in discussion fora such as this.

P. Bianchi stated clearly he had purchased the watch, took it home and wore it.

Post by Brian Talley
In P. Bianchi's view, the watch was not pleasing from an aesthetic
perspective in that he thought it was effete. Granted, that is
subjective, but so are many other observations made here. I have
heard people comment that any watch with an ETA 2824-2 movement is
a cheap piece of crap because it's made on an assembly line and
may or may not be well-finished. Is this a fair statement? Should
everyone with a watch with a 2824-2 movement take offence at such
a statement?

Yes--if the person is told that the watch's movement makes the wearer look like a
<insert any derogatory term you'd like here,> and they take offence with the critics
comments.

Post by Brian Talley
How is your calling P. Bianchi "lazy" and "derogatory" any less an
offence than that which you accuse him of making? Again, consider
that others may not be as eloquent as you for any number of legitimate
reasons. Should they therefore not be permitted to post to public fora
for fear of them making a gaffe?

I hope people do take offence at being called mentally lazy, because too many people
seem to take pride in being stupid. To paraphrase comedian Chris Rock, books and
education are to ignorant people, like kryptonite is to Superman. And again, if P.
Bianchi, or anyone, takes offence at my writting, then they are free to rebut, as you
have proven by replying to me.

Post by Brian Talley
Tell me, how is one to know whether one has offended another? Where
does the line get drawn? What's acceptable and what is offensive? And
who decides?

Chances are if you find something personally offensive, even if it is not the particular
offending words you type yourself, then chances are others will be offended by things
you say, or write, if it is meant to be offensive towards them. Even the most offensive
person is personally offended by something.

For example: P. Bianchi obviously finds the idea of appearing ostensibly gay as
offensive and chose his words as a derogatory descriptive. Since he is human, there
must be something he finds personally troubling. Since homosexuals are also human,
chances are they would find derogatroy language and slurs about them as offenseve, as
well. Simply put, just because a slur, or insult, does not hurt you, doesn't mean it
will not hurt others. Using personal judgement and experience in these cases is an
ounce of prevention.

Post by Brian Talley
Why is P. Bianchi obliged to be sensitive and tolerant, but others are
not obliged to be tolerant of P. Bianchi's views and/or choice of words?

P. Bianchi, or anyone for that matter, is not obliged to be sensitive to anyone, or
anything. A detracter may be tolerant toward people they disagree with, without
remaining silent. Basically, you're saying anyone should be able to write and say
whatever they choose without reproach. The world does not work that way--you cannot
say, "Listen, but do not respond." If a person types something--whether they do, or do
not know it is offenseve--they cannot expect to not receive rebuttals to their words if
the reader is chafed.

P. Bianchi

2004-04-09 17:44:54 UTC

Post by Paul Raposo
And again, if P.
Bianchi, or anyone, takes offence at my writting, then they are free to rebut, as you
have proven by replying to me.

Have you been wearing any nice watch lately?

Here around people are truly going crazy for big, cheap, colorful Locmans.
The best selling is yellow face with yellow strap. Preferred case tends to
be big tonneau, à la Franck Muller, but much much less self pretending.
Locman is a fashion brand putting out watches designed by an artist living
in the Isola d'Elba (where Napoleon was first exhiled in 1813-14).
Production is outsourced somewhere in Switzerland.

Another brand selling alot, on the sporty side, is Breil. Breil's sales are
pumped by obsessive advertising every f where on TV and magazines. Leading
idea: a beatiful girls doesn't object at a guy stripping her down (nice
butts). but when he comes to her watch, she slams him on his head. Motto:
take me off everything but my Breil.

Sporty brands such as Pringeps, Sector etc, hevily advertised in the past
years through sponsoring of extreme sports, are downing.

You may feel puzzled reading such exotic brands. So am i when you name
unheard-of US watches.

Who is Marcello?

Ciao
B.

Brian Talley

2004-04-09 20:43:14 UTC

I speak three different languages, not as fluently as I'd like. However I have never
used words in conversion, which are considered by the people who speak those languages,
to be rude.

I might suggest, then, that if one does not speak a language as
a native, one runs the risk of uttering a faux pas and offending
someone. Idioms, mores and the culture du jour present plenty of
pitfalls.

Post by Paul Raposo
So no, ignorance is not an excuse. Even if english is a second language to
P. Bianchi, he knew it was derogatory enough to use as a negative, which shows clearly
he knew what he was typing.

I think I agree that he knew what he was typing and that it was
less than complimentary. But he may not have known that it would
strike people as downright offensive. So yes, ignorance is a factor
and the potentially-unintended slur is therefore forgivable.

By way of example, the Japanese culture, while very western in
some ways, has many customs that are not seen in western cultures;
it is very, very easy for a westerner to unintentionally offend a
Japanese host.

That's quite fair. So, if I have this correct, one has the right to
make the statements one believes and others have the right to
criticize them.

What is not reasonable is to a) require that anything that is deemed
"offensive" by one or more people may only be thought and not expressed,
or b) the riposte may be uncivil or unduly harsh. And if the riposte
IS harsh, don't be mortally stunned when some third party (like me)
interjects.

My point was that Mr. Malcolm could easily have conveyed his message
in a more meaningful and educational way, and he could have been far
less condescending.

P. Bianchi stated clearly he had purchased the watch, took it home and wore it.

And I would be among the first to say that if, at the moment he
took possession, he had any doubts that he should have taken some
time to reconsider his purchase, particularly given the amount of
money involved!

We all make bad choices in our lives, some more expensive than others.

Yes--if the person is told that the watch's movement makes the wearer look like a
<insert any derogatory term you'd like here,> and they take offence with the critics
comments.

Great, but what if that is not stated? What if, instead, a reader is
very happy with his purchases, many of which use the 2824-2 movement,
and finds someone calling those watches garbage? Does that comment not
infer negatively on the purchaser? Certainly, it does!

Whether one chooses to heed to the comment is another story. I would
disregard it as mere opinionated fluff.

I hope people do take offence

Ah, so offending people can be a good thing? I completely agree, of
course. It's most delightful when it's done in the open without them

Post by Paul Raposo
at being called mentally lazy, because too many people
seem to take pride in being stupid.

No truer words have been spoken!

Post by Paul Raposo
To paraphrase comedian Chris Rock, books and
education are to ignorant people, like kryptonite is to Superman. And again, if P.
Bianchi, or anyone, takes offence at my writting, then they are free to rebut, as you
have proven by replying to me.

Sure! Rebuttal is fine. I've enjoyed the discussion, and I think if
we were talking over a couple beers we'd agree far more than we
disagree.

Again, my only point was that Mr. Malcolm, who seems to have a very
good command of English, lit into Mr. Bianchi who may not have an
equally good grasp of the language. Mr. Malcolm could have been more
charitable in his comments.

Post by Brian Talley
Tell me, how is one to know whether one has offended another? Where
does the line get drawn? What's acceptable and what is offensive? And
who decides?

I'm going to have to chew on that a while, but I think I know what
you mean.

Post by Paul Raposo
Even the most offensive
person is personally offended by something.

Certainly. Howard Stern is an example these days.

Post by Paul Raposo
For example: P. Bianchi obviously finds the idea of appearing ostensibly gay as
offensive and chose his words as a derogatory descriptive. Since he is human, there
must be something he finds personally troubling. Since homosexuals are also human,
chances are they would find derogatroy language and slurs about them as offenseve, as
well. Simply put, just because a slur, or insult, does not hurt you, doesn't mean it
will not hurt others. Using personal judgement and experience in these cases is an
ounce of prevention.

One usually doesn't make a slur against another individual or group if
it is likely to insult one's self equally; one makes the slur with the
expectation and intention that it will sit badly with those who are
being insulted. (Did that really need saying? Who insults others whilst
intentionally simultaneously insulting themselves?)

But what happens when one is naturally offended by the behavior of an
individual or group? Is one obliged to keep it contained and not share
the opinion for fear of rebuttal?

In the case of homosexuality, the answer, apprently, is yes. That does
not sit well.

But there are many behaviors that are not culturally acceptable that
would not elicit any negative rebuttal were someone to make the most
horrendous slur against those who engage in them.

People are funny critters, eh?

Post by Brian Talley
Why is P. Bianchi obliged to be sensitive and tolerant, but others are
not obliged to be tolerant of P. Bianchi's views and/or choice of words?

NO! I'm sorry, but you've misunderstood me. I asked where one might
go to unabashedly reach the conclusion that a watch looks more effete
than one would like without receiving snide sarcasm for conveying that
observation.

I don't mind a rebuttal or a long argument. Hell, I enjoy them. :-) But
I can't abide the attitude exuded by Mr. Malcolm in his post on the
subject; he wasn't trying to persuade, discuss or argue. He was trying
to ridicule.

That's certainly within his rights. Mr. Bianchi arguably ridiculed
homosexuals, deliberately or not. Mr. Malcolm ridiculed Mr. Bianchi
quite deliberately. So as not to perpetuate the ridicule, I called Mr.
Malcolm on his comments with a posting of my own which I tried to keep
civil.

(And then you piped up, for which I'm grateful. You've provided food
for thought.)

Post by Paul Raposo
The world does not work that way--you cannot
say, "Listen, but do not respond." If a person types something--whether they do, or do
not know it is offenseve--they cannot expect to not receive rebuttals to their words if
the reader is chafed.

I have no problem responding if one is offended. As I said before,
though, one can take it offline to email to convey why one was offended.
Or, one can post publically to the forum and explain why a comment made
by another was offensive. But to perpetuate animosity with an equally
(or more) offensive response in a feeble attempt to appear superior is
sophomoric at best.

Regards,

Brian

Paul Raposo

2004-04-09 23:16:46 UTC

Post by Brian Talley
What is not reasonable is to a) require that anything that is deemed
"offensive" by one or more people may only be thought and not expressed,
or b) the riposte may be uncivil or unduly harsh. And if the riposte
IS harsh, don't be mortally stunned when some third party (like me)
interjects.

Ignorant statements can only be responded to with equally ignorant replys, especially when
dealing with a juvenile mind, which P. Bianchi evidently posses.

Post by Brian Talley
My point was that Mr. Malcolm could easily have conveyed his message
in a more meaningful and educational way, and he could have been far
less condescending.

And P. Bianchi's original post could have been equally less condescending. We are in
agreement that P. Bianchi knew well, what he was typing.

Post by Brian Talley
Great, but what if that is not stated? What if, instead, a reader is
very happy with his purchases, many of which use the 2824-2 movement,
and finds someone calling those watches garbage? Does that comment not
infer negatively on the purchaser? Certainly, it does!

The comment imparts negativity, yes. Is it a bigoted slur about a group of people? No.

Post by Brian Talley
Again, my only point was that Mr. Malcolm, who seems to have a very
good command of English, lit into Mr. Bianchi who may not have an
equally good grasp of the language. Mr. Malcolm could have been more
charitable in his comments.

Charity begins at home.

Post by Brian Talley
One usually doesn't make a slur against another individual or group if
it is likely to insult one's self equally; one makes the slur with the
expectation and intention that it will sit badly with those who are
being insulted. (Did that really need saying? Who insults others whilst
intentionally simultaneously insulting themselves?)

The point here has never been whether P. Bianchi was directing the comment at himself or
homosexuals. It is the fact that he specifically chose a word which he knows is derogatroy.
Would you be defendeding him so vociferously if he had said he thought the watch made him look
like a: nigger; kraut; paki, etc.? Those words are just as offensive as fagot, but he hoped
no one would call him on using the word, "faggot," because very few people ever call others on
that.

Post by Brian Talley
But what happens when one is naturally offended by the behavior of an
individual or group? Is one obliged to keep it contained and not share
the opinion for fear of rebuttal?

If one fears rebuttal, then one obviously does not have the intestinal fortitude to back up
their statements. If a person wants to avoid being told they are ignorant, then they should
only post vulgar comments about people they dislike, in newsgroups that are populated by
people who share their anti-gay beliefs. The web is litered with those types of groups,
however I doubt P. Bianchi would be too terribly welcomed by those people, because of his
Italian ancestry.

Post by Brian Talley
In the case of homosexuality, the answer, apprently, is yes. That does
not sit well.

Not with gays, or the people who are supportive of us. For any group of people who are
maligned by ignorant language, it is their right to denounce a person's poor choice of words.
As free as anyone is to make damning statements about us, we are as free to make character
judgements about them.

Post by Brian Talley
But there are many behaviors that are not culturally acceptable that
would not elicit any negative rebuttal were someone to make the most
horrendous slur against those who engage in them.

Such as?

Post by Brian Talley
NO! I'm sorry, but you've misunderstood me. I asked where one might
go to unabashedly reach the conclusion that a watch looks more effete
than one would like without receiving snide sarcasm for conveying that
observation.

And, again, I say within yourself. One man's effete, is another man's oversize. Midsize
Rolexs', 33mm, outsell the larger Datejust and Day-Date models all throughout Asia.

Once again, this argument has been about the fact that a poster chose to use the word,
"faggot," on a world-wide newsgroup, to convey his perceived feminine look of a watch. If P.
Bianchi beleived the watch to be a lady's size, then why did he not simply say so. Why the
hateful language? If P. Bianchi believes that gay men are feminine and would only wear
"lady's size," articles, then he needs to get out more, becuase I've met some queens that
could break most men in half at the pelvis and not even work up a sweat doing so.

Post by Brian Talley
I don't mind a rebuttal or a long argument. Hell, I enjoy them. :-) But
I can't abide the attitude exuded by Mr. Malcolm in his post on the
subject; he wasn't trying to persuade, discuss or argue. He was trying
to ridicule.

He was ridiculing P. Bianchi, no more--or less--then P. Bianchi was ridiculing homosexuals.

Post by Brian Talley
That's certainly within his rights. Mr. Bianchi arguably ridiculed
homosexuals, deliberately or not. Mr. Malcolm ridiculed Mr. Bianchi
quite deliberately.

This is up to P. Bianchi to admit.

Brian Talley

2004-04-10 13:40:24 UTC

Ignorant statements can only be responded to with equally ignorant replys, especially when
dealing with a juvenile mind, which P. Bianchi evidently posses.

No, I disagree. If one makes a mistake, that mistake can be
gently corrected. If one makes a mistake that is offensive,
it can be gently corrected.

Worst case: two civilized people should be able agree to disagree.

Post by Brian Talley
My point was that Mr. Malcolm could easily have conveyed his message
in a more meaningful and educational way, and he could have been far
less condescending.

And P. Bianchi's original post could have been equally less condescending. We are in
agreement that P. Bianchi knew well, what he was typing.

We're in agreement that he didn't care to take great care in word
selection.

My point once again: if another person responds in kind and is
equally or more mean-spirited, I ask: how does that help anyone?
It doesn't, and it invites diatribe from others.

The comment imparts negativity, yes. Is it a bigoted slur about a group of people? No.

And you prove my point that it is culture, not the words or intent,
that define what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. That is
obvious, I realize. But it's also somewhat silly.

A couple decades ago, one didn't have to go far to hear jokes at
others' expense, and it was not considered insensitive or ignorant
to laugh at them.

We have been taught to accept some people through sensitivity and
diversity training. You can't get away from it; it's in the media
and workplace.

What room is there, then, for personal principles and views?

Charity begins at home.

It begins with the magnanimous individual, home or away.

Mountain. Molehill. Do the math.

I think you're assuming a great deal to bolster your point. Mr.
Bianchi has already chimed in with an acknowledgement that his
mother tongue is not English. He also is apparently not up on
the latest English words and phrases that have become gauche in
some Western culture. Cut him some slack.

Post by Brian Talley
But what happens when one is naturally offended by the behavior of an
individual or group? Is one obliged to keep it contained and not share
the opinion for fear of rebuttal?

If one fears rebuttal, then one obviously does not have the intestinal fortitude to back up
their statements.

I can't accept that. Mistakes will be made, and it is better to
correct and teach than to chastise without teaching.

If an employee goofs up, the boss is supposed to speak with that
employee privately and correct the behavior, not scream at the
person in front of his or her peers.

Post by Paul Raposo
If a person wants to avoid being told they are ignorant, then they should
only post vulgar comments about people they dislike, in newsgroups that are populated by
people who share their anti-gay beliefs. The web is litered with those types of groups,
however I doubt P. Bianchi would be too terribly welcomed by those people, because of his
Italian ancestry.

Horology brings together many, many types of people, each with
their own principles and beliefs. Each tend to inwardly believe
they have the right idea and those who disagree are not seeing
things very clearly.

In this case, Mr. Bianchi let slip a slur that he didn't realize
would be incendiary using a language that is not his native one.

Again, cut him some slack.

Post by Brian Talley
In the case of homosexuality, the answer, apprently, is yes. That does
not sit well.

Not with gays, or the people who are supportive of us. For any group of people who are
maligned by ignorant language, it is their right to denounce a person's poor choice of words.

Denounce? Yes. Feel indignant? Certainly.

Lambast the person verbally in private if it makes you feel
better. But in public, I suggest a quiet correction.

If the situation were face-to-face, would you be so quick to
verbally castigate the guy? Or might you worry about getting
pummeled?

Post by Paul Raposo
As free as anyone is to make damning statements about us, we are as free to make character
judgements about them.

No argument. But you lower yourself to the level you despise
by doing so with public vitriol.

Such as?

There are plenty of acts that are virtually universally condemned
as violent, abusive and counter to the well-being of society, and
which are therefore illegal across borders.

Use your imagination.

And, again, I say within yourself. One man's effete, is another man's oversize. Midsize
Rolexs', 33mm, outsell the larger Datejust and Day-Date models all throughout Asia.

Part of that may be culture, and another part may be due to the
average wrist size of Asian men. At the risk of making a racial
slur (I'm sure SOMEONE can find a way to twist this around), many
Asians tend to have smaller stature than Westerners.

Post by Paul Raposo
Once again, this argument has been about the fact that a poster chose to use the word,
"faggot," on a world-wide newsgroup, to convey his perceived feminine look of a watch. If P.
Bianchi beleived the watch to be a lady's size,

Actually, he clarified this bit. It had less to do with size and
more to do with the bling bling glamorous dressy nature of the
thing than its size.

Post by Paul Raposo
then why did he not simply say so. Why the
hateful language?

Once again for the folks at home: there is a difference between
making a gentle slur against someone and making a hateful statement.
He has already said he didn't know it was a particularly bad word.

He was ridiculing P. Bianchi, no more--or less--then P. Bianchi was ridiculing homosexuals.

So it's not ridiculing that is wrong, it's ridiculing homosexuals that
is wrong. Is that what you're saying? If so, that's where we disagree.

Ridiculing is wrong. It prevents a healthy exchange of views and ideas
and perpetuates animosity. Don't elevate one group over another; that
is precisely what you're fighting against.

Post by Brian Talley
That's certainly within his rights. Mr. Bianchi arguably ridiculed
homosexuals, deliberately or not. Mr. Malcolm ridiculed Mr. Bianchi
quite deliberately.

This is up to P. Bianchi to admit.

Nope. I can read for myself that Mr. Malcolm ridiculed him. Whether or
not Mr. Bianchi took any offence only Mr. Bianchi can say.

Regards,

Brian

Paul Raposo

2004-04-10 15:58:32 UTC

Post by Brian Talley
No, I disagree. If one makes a mistake, that mistake can be
gently corrected. If one makes a mistake that is offensive,
it can be gently corrected.

People who achieve the ends they want via their mistakes, will repeat them. People will only
correct their "mistakes," if they want to and very few bigots want to.

Post by Brian Talley
We're in agreement that he didn't care to take great care in word
selection.

You're in agreement "that he didn't CARE to take great care in word selection," while he was
typing. So he knew what he was typing was ignorant and chose to type it anyway? I believe he knew
exactly what he waswritting.

Post by Brian Talley
My point once again: if another person responds in kind and is
equally or more mean-spirited, I ask: how does that help anyone?
It doesn't, and it invites diatribe from others.

What you consider mean-spirited, is considered polite correction by others. The level of hostility
is subjetive to the reader.

Post by Brian Talley
And you prove my point that it is culture, not the words or intent,
that define what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. That is
obvious, I realize. But it's also somewhat silly.

It is not culture, but rather society that decides what is appropriate. Now, using your "garbage,"
analogy, you are simply playing semantics. Apples to oranges. Words do mean things. We all know
what "garbage" means; and we all know what "fogot," means. And we both know which word P. Bianchi
used in this forum.

Post by Brian Talley
A couple decades ago, one didn't have to go far to hear jokes at
others' expense, and it was not considered insensitive or ignorant
to laugh at them.

It was always considered ignorant to laugh at bigoted jokes. What changed was the people who were
and are the butt of those jokes, raised our voices louder until we were finally heard. People who,
although not a part of the group being ridiculed, felt that laughing at the expense of others was
wrong, were finally able to state their dislike of these jokes without fear of reprisal from those
telling the jokes. That is when things changed, not because the bigots decided to change.

And the enviroment has not changed. Just go to any comedy club and you will see that comedians are
still pointing out groups they don't like for mockery. Except now the group that is socially
acceptable to make fun of has become smaller, but the comments have become much more caustic.

Post by Brian Talley
We have been taught to accept some people through sensitivity and
diversity training. You can't get away from it; it's in the media
and workplace.

If people are "taught to to accept some people," (notice, not ALL people,) it's because they were
also taught to not accept some people. If one needs outside intervention to be accepting of people
different than themselves, then it shows clearly that they do not want to change. If they did, they
would have come to the conclusion that what they were saying, or doing, in regards to groups of
people thay dislike, is wrong.

Post by Brian Talley
What room is there, then, for personal principles and views?

Plenty of room. But, once again Brian, you cannot expect people who disagree with you to rest on
our laurels and let what you say go unanswered. If I take offence to what a person says or does, it
is my right--just as much as it is their right to say and do what they choos to--to call them on it
and inform them that I think they are wrong-headed.

Post by Brian Talley
It begins with the magnanimous individual, home or away.

Acting magnanimously towards everyone, or merely the people they like?

Post by Brian Talley
Mountain. Molehill. Do the math.

So certain groups are permitted to be called ignorant names, more so than others?

Post by Brian Talley
I think you're assuming a great deal to bolster your point. Mr.
Bianchi has already chimed in with an acknowledgement that his
mother tongue is not English. He also is apparently not up on
the latest English words and phrases that have become gauche in
some Western culture. Cut him some slack.

People can say whatever they like to avoid owning up to what they do. Just because P. Bianchi says
english is not his first language, doesn't necessarily make it true. You are assuming a great deal,
Brian. Writting, "He also is apparently not up on
the latest English words and phrases that have become gauche in some Western culture," is too easy
an excuse, Brian. Again, ignorance is not an excuse.

By the way, Brian. P. Biachi's comments affected me because I am gay and took offence at his choice
of words. So needless to say I will question his actions. Why are you so vehemently defending his
actions? You did not type "faggot," you were not replyed to by Chris Malcolm. Why are you acting
as P. Bianchi's advocate? What have you to gain by defending his actions?

Post by Brian Talley
If an employee goofs up, the boss is supposed to speak with that
employee privately and correct the behavior, not scream at the
person in front of his or her peers.

Brian, we are not in a work place enviroment. We are on a public newsgroup. P. Bianchi is not
surrounded by his peers and I, or Chris are not his employers. Don't change the venue to support
your argument.

Post by Brian Talley
In this case, Mr. Bianchi let slip a slur that he didn't realize
would be incendiary using a language that is not his native one.

Again, he knew it was a derogatory term and used it purposefully. It did not slip out, this was not
a conversation at a party, it was typed out and sent via email. If P. Bianchi is typing faster than
he thinks, then he has problems greater than being a bigot.

Post by Brian Talley
Lambast the person verbally in private if it makes you feel
better. But in public, I suggest a quiet correction.

Why? P. Bianchi's words were sent to a public forum, Chris's and my rebuttals were sent to a public
forum. If one does not want to be pointed out as ignorant in public, then one should state their
ignorant opinions in private. We are not dealing with a child, Brian, but with a grown man.

Post by Brian Talley
If the situation were face-to-face, would you be so quick to
verbally castigate the guy? Or might you worry about getting
pummeled?

Yes, in a face to face confrontation I would tell P. Bianchi off. If this is how I am on a forum,
why would I be any different in real life?

Also, why would I worry about getting beaten up for chastising him? Are you assuming that I am
physically weak because I'm gay and P. Bianchi is physically strong for using the word "faggot,"?

Post by Brian Talley
No argument. But you lower yourself to the level you despise
by doing so with public vitriol.

You can't keep your hands clean all the time, sometimes you have to get dirty to get the work done.

Post by Brian Talley
There are plenty of acts that are virtually universally condemned
as violent, abusive and counter to the well-being of society, and
which are therefore illegal across borders.
Use your imagination.

Well now you're talking about violence, which must be condemned. Just as actions or deeds can be
violent, so can words when used as weapons.

I have yet to meet a person in my own personal travels who has said any heinous crime of violence
against another is ok; but I've met plenty of people who differ on sexuality, with the majority
supporting the homosxual community. You can't compare violence against others, to sexual
orientation.

However, most perpetrators of violent acts who are on the receiving end of angry words will voice
their anger at being singled out; correct? I have never seen a murderer, child molester, or rapist
say, "Yes I am a bad person, thank you for pointing that out." They defend their actions to the end
and some people do side with them, whether attourneys, family or "fans," (in the case of Charles
Manson.) To say violent individulas do not have defenders is a spurious argument.

Post by Brian Talley
Part of that may be culture, and another part may be due to the
average wrist size of Asian men. At the risk of making a racial
slur (I'm sure SOMEONE can find a way to twist this around), many
Asians tend to have smaller stature than Westerners.

"(I'm sure SOMEONE can find a way to twist this around)" This was an entirley childish thing to
type, Brian. I'd expect better from you, considering your other posts.

However, yes Asian men do have smaller wrists. That was my point; where as a Caucasian, (not
exclusively, since many small wristed men and women choose to wear big watches,) might consider a
33mm watch to give one the appaearence, shall we say, of a "faggot" look?; many others consider it
a normal look with nothing to do with sexuality. I have yet to meet a watch collector who is
offended to be wearing a watch that is to big, yet that same watch collector will ridicule what they
onsider a watch which is too small.

The entire point of this, Brian, has been the fact that P. Bianchi chose to use an offensive word,
whether towards himself, or directed at ohers, it was, is and always will be an ignorant thing to
type.

Post by Brian Talley
Actually, he clarified this bit. It had less to do with size and
more to do with the bling bling glamorous dressy nature of the
thing than its size.

Again, he could have chosen a plethora of more appropriate words. From what he has written is all
his previous postings to this forum, his english is not nearly as bad as he is letting on. Do a
search of his messages and you will see that.

Post by Brian Talley
Once again for the folks at home: there is a difference between
making a gentle slur against someone and making a hateful statement.
He has already said he didn't know it was a particularly bad word.

There is no such thing as a gentle slur, Brian. You're either pregnant, or you're not. Words mean
things and can be violent. He knew it was a word which is considered bad enough, in his mind, to
convey negativity.

When a person learns a new language, especially from friends and co-workers, the first words they
always learn are the bad ones. Whether they are taught as a warning to avoid these words, or for
childish amusements, the bad words are learned. P. Bianchi did not pull that word out of the air,
he thought about it, typed it and sent it to a public forum, where he was called on it.

Post by Brian Talley
So it's not ridiculing that is wrong, it's ridiculing homosexuals that
is wrong. Is that what you're saying? If so, that's where we disagree.

When did I say that it is exclusively wrong to ridcule homosexuals? I used gays as an example
because the slur P. Bianchi used is a word directed at us. If he had used any other slur I would
have called him on it, even if the word did not affect me.

"If so, that's where we disagree."--It's quite apparent you share P. bianchi's views. Thank you for
clarifying that, now I know who I'm dealing with.

Post by Brian Talley
Ridiculing is wrong. It prevents a healthy exchange of views and ideas
and perpetuates animosity. Don't elevate one group over another; that
is precisely what you're fighting against.

Again, I am defending gays, because P. Bianchi used the word, "faggot," and I am gay. You are the
one is trying to steer the argument towards "elevating one grouop over another," and I will not
allow you to hijack this discussion toward politics of inclusiveness. Stick to the topic at hand, a
poster used a rude word and two other posters called him out for his actions.

Post by Brian Talley
Nope. I can read for myself that Mr. Malcolm ridiculed him. Whether or
not Mr. Bianchi took any offence only Mr. Bianchi can say.

Correct, once again, the feeling of being wrongly reprimanded is subjective.

Brian Talley

2004-04-11 15:53:20 UTC

Post by Brian Talley
No, I disagree. If one makes a mistake, that mistake can be
gently corrected. If one makes a mistake that is offensive,
it can be gently corrected.

People who achieve the ends they want via their mistakes, will repeat them. People will only
correct their "mistakes," if they want to and very few bigots want to.

Once a bigot always a bigot? That's wrong, of course.

Post by Brian Talley
We're in agreement that he didn't care to take great care in word
selection.

Believe what you wish. I'll do the same.

Post by Brian Talley
My point once again: if another person responds in kind and is
equally or more mean-spirited, I ask: how does that help anyone?
It doesn't, and it invites diatribe from others.

What you consider mean-spirited, is considered polite correction by others. The level of hostility
is subjetive to the reader.

Returning a comment construed as mean-spirited with another one
equally mean-spirited does nothing to rectify misunderstanding or
educate anyone. That is just fighting, not discussing or arguing.

I suppose you could say that Mr. Bianchi has been educated in that
he now knows not to use the word "faggot" in a posting for fear of
another inane thread coming to life. But has he changed his views
any? I doubt it. He has no reason to; all he got was harsh criticism.

Maybe you can silence the voices for a while using that technique,
but you haven't changed hearts and minds. That's unfortunate. And
short-sighted.

It is not culture, but rather society

You're right, the correct word is society. We have precious little
culture today of any value. (That's just my bigoted opinion.)

Post by Brian Talley
A couple decades ago, one didn't have to go far to hear jokes at
others' expense, and it was not considered insensitive or ignorant
to laugh at them.

It was always considered ignorant to laugh at bigoted jokes.

I suppose it's up to the individual to choose to take offence or to
laugh.

It is socially unacceptable to poke fun at homosexuals these days.
But tell a joke about a Christian or a conservative and that IS
tolerated.

Post by Brian Talley
We have been taught to accept some people through sensitivity and
diversity training. You can't get away from it; it's in the media
and workplace.

Hmmm. Homosexuality was taboo decades ago just as some actions are
taboo today. People are taught to dislike those who engage in
taboo activities.

Post by Paul Raposo
By the way, Brian. P. Biachi's comments affected me because I am gay and took offence at his choice
of words. So needless to say I will question his actions. Why are you so vehemently defending his
actions? You did not type "faggot," you were not replyed to by Chris Malcolm. Why are you acting
as P. Bianchi's advocate? What have you to gain by defending his actions?

Satisfaction. Where I live and where I work there are some groups
who are untouchable. The topic of a lifestyle may not be discussed
unless it is to praise them ad nauseum. Criticism is met with the
same sort of vitriolic, intolerant crap of the sort posted here.
But may one speak negatively about some other groups? Certainly!
No worries!

The original post by Mr. Malcolm bothered me. I'm over it. In fact,
I'm not really enjoying this as I hoped I might. Obviously, I'm
failing miserably to convey my thoughts in a meaningful way, so
I'm just wasting my time and yours.

Post by Brian Talley
Lambast the person verbally in private if it makes you feel
better. But in public, I suggest a quiet correction.

Do what you will; I was only offering a suggestion. In my eyes,
you'll appear no wiser, no more tolerant, no less ignorant than
the one you denigrate because you impart no useful information
when you ridicule and insult.

Not that you'll care, I expect.

Post by Paul Raposo
The entire point of this, Brian, has been the fact that P. Bianchi chose to use an offensive word,
whether towards himself, or directed at ohers, it was, is and always will be an ignorant thing to
type.

As vociferously offended as you seem to have been by Mr. Bianchi's
remark, do you have any idea that others are equally offended
whenever they hear or see homosexuality elevated to where it is
in Western societies today? I am not one of those people but I
know many who are.

The prevailing view in society, which, years ago forbade
homosexuality, is now diametrically opposed: those who still abhor
it are heard less and less, are not tolerated, and are called
"ignorant" and any number of other insulting names by those who,
decades ago, would have been called all sorts of names far worse
than "faggot".

It's amusing when you take a step back; we're no more tolerant
or less-ignorant now than we were years ago.

Post by Brian Talley
So it's not ridiculing that is wrong, it's ridiculing homosexuals that
is wrong. Is that what you're saying? If so, that's where we disagree.

When did I say that it is exclusively wrong to ridcule homosexuals? I used gays as an example
because the slur P. Bianchi used is a word directed at us. If he had used any other slur I would
have called him on it, even if the word did not affect me.
"If so, that's where we disagree."--It's quite apparent you share P. bianchi's views. Thank you for
clarifying that, now I know who I'm dealing with.

No, obviously you don't know me. I don't think it is right to
ridicule anyone.

It is unfortunate that the best way you can think to defend gays
is to sling mud.

Post by Brian Talley
Nope. I can read for myself that Mr. Malcolm ridiculed him. Whether or
not Mr. Bianchi took any offence only Mr. Bianchi can say.

Correct, once again, the feeling of being wrongly reprimanded is subjective.

...just as the feeling of being wrongly insulted is subjective.

Evidently, Mr. Bianchi has thicker skin than others.

Regards,

Brian

Paul Raposo

2004-04-11 22:15:47 UTC

Post by Brian Talley
Once a bigot always a bigot? That's wrong, of course.

Prove it with some examples.

Post by Brian Talley
Believe what you wish. I'll do the same.

You've asked me to cut P. Bianchi some slack and you've cut him too wide a swath.

Post by Brian Talley
Returning a comment construed as mean-spirited with another one
equally mean-spirited does nothing to rectify misunderstanding or
educate anyone. That is just fighting, not discussing or arguing.

Once again, Brian, what you consider mean-spirited, others consider quite normal disourse.

Post by Brian Talley
I suppose you could say that Mr. Bianchi has been educated in that
he now knows not to use the word "faggot" in a posting for fear of
another inane thread coming to life. But has he changed his views
any? I doubt it. He has no reason to; all he got was harsh criticism.

You've decided to carry on this thread to it's inanity, Brian. If one chooses to remain a bigot, no amout
of "gentle," discussion will sway them. P. Bianchi has no reason to change his views as long as people,
such as yourself, share and support those views.

Post by Brian Talley
Maybe you can silence the voices for a while using that technique,
but you haven't changed hearts and minds. That's unfortunate. And
short-sighted.

The voices haven't been silenced in the least over the years and I'm sure they will not be silenced for
many years to come. No amount of outside pressure can change a person's beliefs. They change when they
want to and few want to.

Post by Brian Talley
You're right, the correct word is society. We have precious little
culture today of any value. (That's just my bigoted opinion.)

When discussing American dialogue, yes I agree.

Post by Brian Talley
It is socially unacceptable to poke fun at homosexuals these days.
But tell a joke about a Christian or a conservative and that IS
tolerated.

I have yet to hear a Christian or conservative remain silent about any perceived slight. By typing the
above paragraph, Brian, you have proven my statement amply.

Post by Brian Talley
Hmmm. Homosexuality was taboo decades ago just as some actions are
taboo today. People are taught to dislike those who engage in
taboo activities.

Once again, Brian, you're trying to steer the discussion toward the topic you wish to discuss. I will
humour you.

It was never taboo, until it was legislated as such. Groups of people have always had prejudices about
things they did not like and eventually came into enough power to actually create laws making certain
activities, shall we say, "verboten." The idea of, "live and let live," was legislated out of existance
and replaced by, "live as we say." Oddly enough, these actions are the modus operandi of white, religious
settlers today, as it was 512 years ago.

"People are taught to dislike those who engage in taboo activities." This is a very telling statement:
people are taught to not like PEOPLE, not their actions. Which explains why so many conservatives
tolerate thieves, but not homosexuals.

Post by Brian Talley
Satisfaction. Where I live and where I work there are some groups
who are untouchable. The topic of a lifestyle may not be discussed
unless it is to praise them ad nauseum. Criticism is met with the
same sort of vitriolic, intolerant crap of the sort posted here.
But may one speak negatively about some other groups? Certainly!
No worries!

You appear to be a very small, frustrated and bitter man Brian. It amazes me how conservatives and
religionists are constantly admonishing others for what they call "victim mentality," yet suffer from that
same mentality themselves. It's apparent you're afraid to speak up where you live and work and have
decided to use this forum as your own personal soapbox to rail against homosexuality. If you don't have
the backbone to say these things in public against the people you loath, why share your acrimonious
harangue here? Are you, perhaps, afraid of getting pummeled?

Post by Brian Talley
The original post by Mr. Malcolm bothered me. I'm over it. In fact,
I'm not really enjoying this as I hoped I might. Obviously, I'm
failing miserably to convey my thoughts in a meaningful way, so
I'm just wasting my time and yours.

No, you're not wasting my time. In fact, you are making my daily trips here quite interesting.

Post by Brian Talley
Do what you will; I was only offering a suggestion. In my eyes,
you'll appear no wiser, no more tolerant, no less ignorant than
the one you denigrate because you impart no useful information
when you ridicule and insult.

In your eyes, perhaps. But you're only one man, Brian.

Post by Brian Talley
Not that you'll care, I expect.

Oh, I care.

Post by Brian Talley
As vociferously offended as you seem to have been by Mr. Bianchi's
remark, do you have any idea that others are equally offended
whenever they hear or see homosexuality elevated to where it is
in Western societies today? I am not one of those people but I
know many who are.

How has it been elevated in society? We, (in some places, not all) are no longer arrested simply for
being homosexual. But we are far from being considered as citizens with the same rights as other
citizens. The people who are offended by homosexuals are insensible prudes with too much time on their
hands. It's no longer socially acceptable to openly discriminate against minorities, so these nescient
cranks are attacking the people who remain permitable to lambaste: homosexuals.

The only way one may hear and see homosexuality is to go looking for it. This, of course, gives rise to a
host of new questions regarding the person's aims.

Post by Brian Talley
The prevailing view in society, which, years ago forbade
homosexuality, is now diametrically opposed: those who still abhor
it are heard less and less, are not tolerated, and are called
"ignorant" and any number of other insulting names by those who,
decades ago, would have been called all sorts of names far worse
than "faggot".

Years ago society forbade working and shopping on Sunday, married women in the work-force; minority
property ownership; interacial marriage. You seem to feel that some societal changes are alright and
others are not. You can't pick and choose, Brian.

For some reason you seem quite upset at what you consider the rise of homosexuality. How does this
adversly affect you? How does it make your life more difficult to live; make money; socialize? Are you
angry becuase you can no longer denegrate homosexuals openly and must now spew your bile on newsgroups?

It's apparent your rage seems to be at the fact that gays and other minorities, are no longer silent--and
are perhaps, "too uppity," Brian?

Post by Brian Talley
It's amusing when you take a step back; we're no more tolerant
or less-ignorant now than we were years ago.

It does not feel good to be on the receiving end of loathsome language does it? Welcome to our world.

Post by Brian Talley
It is unfortunate that the best way you can think to defend gays
is to sling mud.

The people with muddy hands are always the first to accuse others of mud slinging.

Post by Brian Talley
...just as the feeling of being wrongly insulted is subjective.

Not when the insult is a commonly used insult, directed at the particular group of people it is meant to
insult. Individual words are not esoteric.

Post by Brian Talley
Evidently, Mr. Bianchi has thicker skin than others.

Yourself included?

P. Bianchi

2004-04-09 17:16:30 UTC

Post by Brian Talley
However, I was looking at it from two angles. First, P. Bianchi's
native tongue may not be English, and the use of the word "faggott"
(sic) may have been the most concise way

Ops, now i see there is a T too much. Sorry.

Yes english is not my native tongue, and although i knew the concept
associated to the term, alas i failed to review my trusted source (Forbidden
American English / Essential Dictionary of Taboo American English / The
Authoritative Guide to the Most Offensive Words in American English", NTC
publisher 1990 etc) which would have warned me: intended and perceived as
strongly derogatory - deeply resented (indeed).

Maybe a softer term would have better conveyed the concept that reverso
doesn't quite impart the wearer a macho-man look. You may think this is not
such an original observation: it was not so obvious to me, as i had always
thought of the reverso, in their many versions, as of a magnificient piece
of
technology - not of a dress watch.

Yet it is a dress watch. Its outside is clearly elegant, technology sure
ticks and clicks in its insides, but it is a well kept secret for
knowledegeables. As i tend to wear casual and to be a technology
enthousiast, a day or two after i got my reverso i was surprised to be
staring at it, asking myself: what t.h. does this goldie thing do on my
wrist?

Please notice that referring to myself as to a fag because of my new watch,
i meant to be self-ironic. I didn't think that offending myself would have
hurted so many people, it's a pity there is such a shortage of spirit
around.

Clearly i had seen and manipulated the watch before, and even put on my
wrist. But i was in blind love with it. Eventually i realized that what i
regarded as a piece of craftmanship, was to be perceived as a small jewel.
This was a small shock to my engineering-oriented soul. What! Me jewels? oh
naw.

This will reassure the other friend that i am neither the greasy dago kind
of guy, for two reasons: 1) dagos wear fake rolexes (sometimes fake-fake
rolexes, ie genuine oysters) 2) being a dago living in dagoland, it would be
hard to feel strange.

Post by Brian Talley
In P. Bianchi's view, the watch was not pleasing from an aesthetic
perspective in that he thought it was effete.

The watch is and remains splendid. It's the wearer who feels not up to the
watch. That's why, if and when named wearer will have set apart another
provision of "conquibus" ("with which" = $$), he will rather buy a more
masculine (*) Master, dunno whether a master geographique or a memovox. Yr
suggestions, guys?

Post by Brian Talley
How is your calling P. Bianchi "lazy" and "derogatory" any less an
offence than that which you accuse him of making?

Lazy yes, derogatory not intentionally. Meant to be funny. Oh well.
Homoxesuality is in the ass of the beholder.

ciao
B.

(*) no sexism intended

Brian Talley

2004-04-09 20:56:35 UTC

Post by Brian Talley
However, I was looking at it from two angles. First, P. Bianchi's
native tongue may not be English, and the use of the word "faggott"
(sic) may have been the most concise way

RIGHT! That's my point, exactly. Many Americans are overly sensitive
to anything that can be construed as offensive.

Which is odd, because I'm an American defending you, and Mr. Malcolm
appears to be a Scott.

Whatever.

Post by P. Bianchi
Maybe a softer term would have better conveyed the concept that reverso
doesn't quite impart the wearer a macho-man look. You may think this is not
such an original observation: it was not so obvious to me, as i had always
thought of the reverso, in their many versions, as of a magnificient piece
of
technology - not of a dress watch.

I'm sure it is a great watch. But I also acknowledge your observation
that it did not look good on you.

Post by P. Bianchi
Yet it is a dress watch. Its outside is clearly elegant, technology sure
ticks and clicks in its insides, but it is a well kept secret for
knowledegeables. As i tend to wear casual and to be a technology
enthousiast, a day or two after i got my reverso i was surprised to be
staring at it, asking myself: what t.h. does this goldie thing do on my
wrist?

:-) I quite understand.

That's the way I took it. But not the way others did, evidently.

Like I said in a previous posting, everyone makes mistakes. I'm a
software developer and I really enjoy the mechanical movements of my
watches. No electronics. No digital displays. I get enough of that on
a daily basis; I need outlets where I can be divorced from the high-
tech world.

That's not to say I'd wear a dress watch to do it. I have a Tissot
auto diver that I wear as a daily beater.

Post by Brian Talley
In P. Bianchi's view, the watch was not pleasing from an aesthetic
perspective in that he thought it was effete.

The watch is and remains splendid. It's the wearer who feels not up to the
watch.

That's an interesting way of looking at it. I can appreciate a watch
for its superiority in so many ways and still find it utterly revolting
aesthetically. I don't consider myself inadequate in some way to wear
the watch.

Post by P. Bianchi
That's why, if and when named wearer will have set apart another
provision of "conquibus" ("with which" = $$), he will rather buy a more
masculine (*) Master, dunno whether a master geographique or a memovox. Yr
suggestions, guys?

Give us a price range and style and I'm sure many people will chime
in with ideas.

Post by P. Bianchi
Homoxesuality is in the ass of the beholder.

Well said.

Regards,

Brian

Paul Raposo

2004-04-09 22:33:03 UTC

Post by Brian Talley

Post by P. Bianchi
Homoxesuality is in the ass of the beholder.

Well said.

Your ignorance is boundless.

John and Beverly

2004-04-10 01:28:21 UTC

Post by Brian Talley

Post by P. Bianchi
Homoxesuality is in the ass of the beholder.

Well said.
Regards,
Brian

A very astute observation, did this knowledge
come from a personal experience ?

John C.

Brian Talley

2004-04-10 13:41:01 UTC

Post by John and Beverly

Post by Brian Talley

Post by P. Bianchi
Homoxesuality is in the ass of the beholder.

Well said.
Regards,
Brian

A very astute observation, did this knowledge
come from a personal experience ?
John C.

No.

Appin

2004-04-10 16:48:58 UTC

Post by Brian Talley
Which is odd, because I'm an American defending you, and Mr. Malcolm
appears to be a Scott.

No, he appears to be a Malcolm. Scotts are a different breed.
I think you meant to write "Mr. Malcolm appears to bea Scot."

John

Brian Talley

2004-04-11 14:40:55 UTC

Post by Appin

Post by Brian Talley
Which is odd, because I'm an American defending you, and Mr. Malcolm
appears to be a Scott.

No, he appears to be a Malcolm. Scotts are a different breed.
I think you meant to write "Mr. Malcolm appears to bea Scot."

Quite right. Sorry.

Paul Raposo

2004-04-09 22:31:08 UTC

Post by P. Bianchi
Yes english is not my native tongue, and although i knew the concept
associated to the term, alas i failed to review my trusted source (Forbidden
American English / Essential Dictionary of Taboo American English / The
Authoritative Guide to the Most Offensive Words in American English", NTC
publisher 1990 etc) which would have warned me: intended and perceived as
strongly derogatory - deeply resented (indeed).

It's quite apparent you have a fine command of the english language and are
using the, "I no speaka the english no so good," excuse as a cover to your
ridiculous comment. You chose to type something which is ignorant at the least,
childish at the most, but wholly unnecessary.

Post by P. Bianchi
Lazy yes, derogatory not intentionally.

But thoroughly thought out in advance so as to offend the original poster, quite
obviously.

Post by P. Bianchi
Meant to be funny. Oh well.

A wit with dunces, and a dunce with wits. -- Alexander Pope

Post by P. Bianchi
Homoxesuality is in the ass of the beholder.

Here's some advice for your future posings: It's so simple to be wise. Just
think of something stupid to say and say the opposite.

Appin

2004-04-07 17:28:15 UTC

Post by Chris Malcolm
Indeed, now I come to think of it, as a man with small feet I
sometimes buy women's shoes or gloves to get a better fit.

I usually wear gloves on my hands, rather than my feet! :-)

Post by Chris Malcolm
I do recall
that when I bought my last pair of women's sandals that the assistant
seemed rather embarrassed. It all becomes clear now! She was a
homophobe and thought I was a faggot!

So how do we read the inclinations of those women who wear men's
watches, men's shirts, men's jackets etc. etc.? Latent or patent
transexual tendencies? An excess of testosterone? Should we be
looking for signs of regular shaving of their faces or other indications
of masculinisation?

Are female (?) undertakers in Edinburgh like those in Aberdeen and wear
top hats?

John

Paul Raposo

2004-04-07 14:30:48 UTC

Funny, I thought you would have been more comcerned about the small size of the
watch giving you the appearence of a greasy dago.

Paul R.

Post by P. Bianchi
Reverso is a nice watch, yet -as i had to discover to my own dismay and
4000$ later- it makes you look a bit of a faggott, so to say. Great gift
for a girl, though.
Ciao
B.

2004-04-07 18:10:23 UTC

Jaeger LeCoultre watches have an excellent reputation in my country.
However, a quartz watch will be more reliable and will require almost no
maintenance, compared to a mechanical watch which might require an expensive
service every 4-5 years.
Just my $ .02

--
Best Regards
G. Tarantino
Switzerland
Baume & Mercier Capeland S XXL 1000m

omniscient idiot

2004-04-07 22:07:16 UTC

Post by GT
Jaeger LeCoultre watches have an excellent reputation in my country.
However, a quartz watch will be more reliable and will require almost no
maintenance, compared to a mechanical watch which might require an expensive
service every 4-5 years.
Just my $ .02

Probably less - I did not pay to send this email, at least as of yet!
Sorry for entering this thread - after I promised to leave it...

Anyway, I have two probably idiotic, likely stupid questions (but
still ones whose answer I don't know). First, if maintenance is
expensive, why bother to maintain it - why not just let it run until
it breaks down on its own? And second, if we give that "who cares"
treatment, how long will it work usefully (say, with ok accuracy)?

The reason I ask this sort of questions is as follows. My dad's
low-end mechanical Orient was purchased in 1972 (?) (as far as he
remembers), was never serviced, and the thing was still in good
condition when he gave it to his kid brother in 1983. Then, he bought
a Seiko 5, never serviced it, and he still wears it today - it still
runs well. Why not do the same thing with a JLC, Rolex or whatever? Is
it just because it is more expensive?

One thing I heard (from anecdotal stories anyway), was that
maintenance of quartz watches is not necessarily that cheap. A friend
has a $1500 quartz Tag (just why anyone spends that much on a quartz -
or indeed on any watches - is beyond me, but let us not touch this
explosive subject here) which runs out of battery every 30 months or
so. Because he - like me - *needs and demands* water resistance, he
got the watch checked for water resistance every time he changed
battery. Guess what: he spends $50 or so each time!

My own cheapish solution to this is as follows. Just get two watches.
One is a cheap ($30 or thereabouts) quartz Casio whose water
resistance I never bother to maintain (I buy it for its accuracy
only). Second is an NOS Seiko S-wave (around $ 60) which I will never
service. It is the one I use when water resistance matters (which is
to say, often, almost all time). When I need to calibrate it (so to
speak), I either check the Casio or (when I am in the midst of
civilization) the clock in my US Naval Observatory-synced PC.

None of other people whom I personally know as Seiko or Orient
mechanical owners ever bother to get their watches serviced. Why not
just give the same treatment to a JLC, IWC, Rolex or <insert your
favourite brand here>? Are they not supposed to be better than a Seiko
5? Or, do people simply want to bequeath their watches to their
grandchildren? Regards, oi

Clockit

2004-04-08 08:18:38 UTC

"omniscient idiot"

Post by omniscient idiot
Anyway, I have two probably idiotic, likely stupid questions (but
still ones whose answer I don't know).

Your questions, as you point out, are idiotic, since you already know the answers but pretend that you don't
for the sake of trying to make some sort of argument.

Post by omniscient idiot
First, if maintenance is
expensive, why bother to maintain it - why not just let it run until
it breaks down on its own?

The reliability of a watch is inversely related to its price.

Watches are worn for lots of reasons other than telling the time.

The main reason that watch maintenance is expensive is that the market is almost non-existent.

The utlimate goal of human activity is not the pursuit of the cheapest price.

Post by omniscient idiot
Or, do people simply want to bequeath their watches to their
grandchildren?

Well excuse me....

Watch King

2004-04-08 19:10:04 UTC

JWH, the only question you asked concerned whether the quartz Reverso
would be more sturdy or reliable compared to a mechanical Reverso.
Since you also say you won't be using the watch for stressful
activities but you will be wearing it often, that limits the answer
much further. For you an automatic wind Reverso there would not be
much difference in sturdiness or reliability compared to the quartz
model. A manual wind Reverso may not hold up as well because the daily
winding has two effects. First of all the winding gears themselves are
quite thin on this Reverso and substantial wear can occur if the watch
is wound every day. If the crown is a precious metal (gold) then the
crown itself can wear smooth with daily winding in a surprisingly
short time. A stainless steel crown would not wear significantly in
your lifetime but it would wear some.

A few other misnomers seem to have been spewed about in this thread.
All watches whether quartz or mechanical need to be cleaned regularly
or the movement will wear out much faster and it will stop performing
properly. I've seen many watches that were not maintained properly.
Any mechanical watch can often show wear from gummy oils or internal
grit when the watch seems to keep time okay when it is worn, but it
slows down or speeds up drastically when sitting on one position for a
while. Another common problem in automatic watches is that the winding
rotor will come out of alignment enough to make contact with the case.
These watches may keep time (sort-of) but they are literally trash
waiting to be thrown away.

Badly maintained quartz watches often just stop (some mechanicals do
too but mechanicals can also keep bad time for a while fooling the
owner). If a quartz watch just stops because there is too much
internal wear from grit and lack of lubrication then it is common for
another complete (lubricated) movement to be swapped in. Whatever you
do JHW, have your watch serviced by the JL dealer for the life of the
warranty and this includes changing batteries. The oil from a
technicians fingers is corrosive and so even batteries need to be
installed correctly or a watch can be damaged (although this damage
may not show for 5-10 years). If absolute timekeeping accuracy is not
a huge factor, then either an automatic or quartz Reverso might meet
your needs just as well. Since you've likely already seen one in
person, the size of the watch or the dial should not be a problem.
Reversos are elegant tasteful watches originally designed during an
era of Deco-revivalism. They not only look fine with a suit but men in
the know about watches will recognize one immediately. It is a
definite symbol of wealth, much more so than a Rolex or even the
current ultralarge dive watches with expensive brand names. If it is
what you want then good luck and enjoy. Watchking

We don't get enough sand in our glass

JWH

2004-04-09 23:04:32 UTC

Dearest Watchking,

Thankyou for such a thorough answer to what I considered to
be a relatively straight forward question.

I have been following this thread with great interest since posing my initial
question several days ago. I would also like to thank all of the others who have
contributed to what has become quite a lively discussion!

I have decided to purchase a quartz reverso in steel. P. Bianci - fear not - I have
worn the watch and feel that it will not compromise my masculinity. At 198cm and
110kg, it was never a great concern of mine!

I will report on my experiences over the next month.

Cheers,

JWH

Post by Watch King
JWH, the only question you asked concerned whether the quartz Reverso
would be more sturdy or reliable compared to a mechanical Reverso.
Since you also say you won't be using the watch for stressful
activities but you will be wearing it often, that limits the answer
much further. For you an automatic wind Reverso there would not be
much difference in sturdiness or reliability compared to the quartz
model. A manual wind Reverso may not hold up as well because the daily
winding has two effects. First of all the winding gears themselves are
quite thin on this Reverso and substantial wear can occur if the watch
is wound every day. If the crown is a precious metal (gold) then the
crown itself can wear smooth with daily winding in a surprisingly
short time. A stainless steel crown would not wear significantly in
your lifetime but it would wear some.
A few other misnomers seem to have been spewed about in this thread.
All watches whether quartz or mechanical need to be cleaned regularly
or the movement will wear out much faster and it will stop performing
properly. I've seen many watches that were not maintained properly.
Any mechanical watch can often show wear from gummy oils or internal
grit when the watch seems to keep time okay when it is worn, but it
slows down or speeds up drastically when sitting on one position for a
while. Another common problem in automatic watches is that the winding
rotor will come out of alignment enough to make contact with the case.
These watches may keep time (sort-of) but they are literally trash
waiting to be thrown away.
Badly maintained quartz watches often just stop (some mechanicals do
too but mechanicals can also keep bad time for a while fooling the
owner). If a quartz watch just stops because there is too much
internal wear from grit and lack of lubrication then it is common for
another complete (lubricated) movement to be swapped in. Whatever you
do JHW, have your watch serviced by the JL dealer for the life of the
warranty and this includes changing batteries. The oil from a
technicians fingers is corrosive and so even batteries need to be
installed correctly or a watch can be damaged (although this damage
may not show for 5-10 years). If absolute timekeeping accuracy is not
a huge factor, then either an automatic or quartz Reverso might meet
your needs just as well. Since you've likely already seen one in
person, the size of the watch or the dial should not be a problem.
Reversos are elegant tasteful watches originally designed during an
era of Deco-revivalism. They not only look fine with a suit but men in
the know about watches will recognize one immediately. It is a
definite symbol of wealth, much more so than a Rolex or even the
current ultralarge dive watches with expensive brand names. If it is
what you want then good luck and enjoy. Watchking
We don't get enough sand in our glass

P. Bianchi

2004-04-10 09:04:54 UTC

Post by JWH
I have decided to purchase a quartz reverso in steel.

Aaargh! change your mind! buy mechanic! with quartz you buy the idea of a
reverso. With a mechanical movement, you bring home an actual part of JLC
history!

Post by JWH
P. Bianci - fear not - I have
worn the watch and feel that it will not compromise my masculinity. At 198cm and
110kg, it was never a great concern of mine!

:-)

ciao
B.

P. Bianchi

2004-04-10 14:16:26 UTC