ForumGarden

High Threshold;1458443 wrote: By eating the burder, eh? I don't know much about Islam, really. Christianity, as I remember it from my youth, says that you need to be aware of your sin in order to be guilty.

I wonder if his emotional scars aren't brought on by his mother going on about it. I have a fear of the dentist thanks to my mum.


At your age you are still blaming mommy? It's about time you worked through this fear, ya think?

Snowfire;1458517 wrote: I feel your pain mate.

"Not that I know" makes perfect sense to me


Me 2

Bruv;1458486 wrote: I give up.
Or maybe she could just be yanking your chain over your grammar.

High Threshold;1458501 wrote: Very interesting. I do have a couple of questions, however.

1). Is the helmet-exempting conventional turban any kind of wrap-up or must it be bona-fide by certain manufacturer(s)?

2). Is one required (by UK law) to prove one's faith in order to wear a conventional turban, thus leaving the crash helmet behind? I mean, what about a rastafarian who could certainly benefit from a good wrap-around?



3). This quote from the crash turban link: "Until now, all Sikhs have had to simply rely on their traditional fabric cloth material and consequently put their lives in danger because of their strong religious beliefs." But if (I say "if") worshippers of any faith believe that the life of any one man is in the hands of G_d then wouldn't wearing protective gear be an overt display of infidelity?


As i understand it, it's down to the religious significance of the turban and i believe the turban is accepted as a religious symbol.

The Turban Is regarded as part of the head which Is part due to why It's exempt with crash helmets.

Why do Sikhs wear Turbans?

Peter Lake;1458529 wrote: Or maybe she could just be yanking your chain over your grammar.


That's the problem with the written word. In speaking face to face, we would notice expression, voice tonality, etc. There is so much room for misunderstanding when we write to each other as conversation.

AnneBoleyn;1458523 wrote: What makes you think they don't?


Not nearly to the same extent. In any case my comment was directed to the rhetorical question of "why that but not the other". The answer to that question are many, and all of them valid.



AnneBoleyn;1458524 wrote: At your age you are still blaming mommy? It's about time you worked through this fear, ya think?


Phsycology my dear.



AnneBoleyn;1458532 wrote: That's the problem with the written word. In speaking face to face, we would notice expression, voice tonality, etc. There is so much room for misunderstanding when we write to each other as conversation.


You´d better rephrase that. You just insinuated that his mother is a goat. :wah:

Oscar Namechange;1458531 wrote: The Turban Is regarded as part of the head .....


OK.

Oscar Namechange;1458531 wrote: ..... which Is part due to why It's exempt with crash helmets.


Making no sense. If the turban is considered part of the head then a crash helmet ought to fit OVER the turban to protect it from "injury".

Peter Lake;1458529 wrote: Or maybe she could just be yanking your chain over your grammar.


How did my Nan get involved in this......per say ?

Bruv;1458549 wrote: How did my Nan get involved in this......per say ?




That took me a minute or three, but it's really funny

theia;1458552 wrote: That took me a minute or three, but it's really funny


The old ones are still best.