A few years ago I saw a similar unit (not denon) in an electronics store in california, and it was neat the way the machine would sweat all the details making sure it “tracked” the music trace, and you could spin the platter with your finger, forward or back, and the player rode the “groove” flawlessly.
Ali? He never had a beard as far as I can remember.[;)]
Which brings to mind - If no one knows what the Prophet Mohammed looked like in the first place (since an image of the guy is banned by Islamic decree), how can anyone be subject to jihad for putting up an image which is deemed to be Mohammed?
Which is why it is so ludicrous for Comedy Central to have blacked out a supposed image of Mohammed in that episode of South Park recently.
I guess you could put up a picture of Sideshow Bob from the Simpsons, call it Mohammed, and be subsuequently given a death sentence, huh?
I was thinking the exact same thing when the whole nonsense began…
Of course what the true underlying issue is, they are asserting their right to claim offense, under the doctrines of “PC”, just like all the other self styled underdogs of this time.
There was an interesting cartoon in one of the middle eastern newspapers (maybe Jordanian, perhaps syrian) where despite the captions being in arabic, the pictures made the message clear.
It was about the balancing act we place between “freedom of speech” vs ‘social taboo’ and pointed out that we likely would not be so forgiving of a cartoon making fun of the nazi holocaust (violating a taboo important to us) while we at the same time simply write off a taboo important to the islamics as a foolish conflict with our ideals in support of free speech.
Found this article on how the same paper that caused the uproar with the muhammad cartoon, declined to publish a cartoon about Jesus, for fear of offending christians.