LOL, I don't learn a lot from staring at someone's chin or cheeks so I am not seeing a big difference there. In either case, you are only going to have contact with that doctor, when he is 'on duty', so relax and let him do his job.
Yes, or no . . . have you ever spoken to someone wearing an item of headgear in which you can only see their eyes?
You answer mine - but honestly? - then I'll answer yours. I'll remind you what it was - What were the circumstances?
Nah. This is your Thread. Your OP includes: Why? Your persistent obfuscation is indicative of what I suspect.......but......happy for you to explain.......why?
It works like this - one poster posits an answer, the other poster asks for evidence or an example, and then the protocol is to continue in an alternating Q&A discussion. Now go back and see where you went wrong, and either answer the last question I put to you, or just call it a day because this is not only getting effing ridiculous, it's becoming tiresome too. Once more then - What were the circumstances?
Why? Are you scared of your response? (That is your OP......you made the running....I asked the first question.............so, over to you Blue Leader.)
You obviously didn't read the following words 'but I still felt uncomfortable about it.', so that's the 'why'? Now, over to you, and maybe we can wrap this up because it's beginning to get on my nerves.
So, you'd excuse yourself and walk out of the surgery, and feel uncomfortable about it. Okay. I get that. So, now explain............Why?
I feel uncomfortable when men insist on wearing the crotch of their pants down around their knees, so that their underwear is showing to the entire world. That does not mean I will not interact with such an individual. I feel uncomfortable around really large women wearing yoga pants in colors that should have been banned in the 1980's, that does not mean I will not interact with them. Sounds to me more like you just have a problem with individuals who wear traditional Islamic garb than anything else. And all the attempts to avoid confirming that are rather funny to watch I must admit.
Really? Is a habit only worn to make a statement as well? How about a rekel? Are those only worn to "make a statement", or as a visible symbol of their faith? No, I fail to notice nothing, you simply keep seeing things that are not really there. Which is something that I find all to often in say the Conspiracy Theory section. Maybe this post would be more appropriate there, and not in the military section.
Yes, really! The same as your 'rekel' and a necklace with a crucifix is a statement of Christianity; why would anybody wear any of them if not as a statement? And kindly keep your unsolicited advice on posting etiquette to yourself. Thank you.
Why would any sane person spend $1000 just so the person doing the procedure wasn't wearing a face covering. Beyond me.
Wow, a necklace with a crucifix is not a Habit. This is a habit. You are simply going around and around in circles here. Such clothing is not a statement, it is worn to symbolize their own faith to God. If it was a "statement", then why do many in modern days largely pass on wearing it other than for formal occasions? They would wear it at all times, as would a Bishop or Cardinal. As far as my "unsolicited advise", it is not that at all. I am actually correcting your false or erroneous statements. If you do not like being corrected, then I suggest that you not make them in the future. This is not the Cerberus forum for him to pontificate on whatever he wants without response. Oh, and obviously you do not even know what a Rekel is. It is the formal frock coat worn primarily by Hasidic Jews. So I can only assume that you not only knew nothing about what I said before commenting on it, you did not even bother to do the minimal research first. That is very sloppy, since you claimed it and a Habit (identified incorrectly) are a "statement of Christianity", one of them is not even Christian! But yea, I get it. You hate and are afraid of Muslims, that is all to obvious. But do not expect everybody to buy into your irrational fear, or to simply allow you to pass it along to others without comment. And you had better at least do the minimal research before trying to dress me down like that again. All you are doing is showing that you do not know anything about what you are talking about, only your own hate and fear. And when somebody tries to correct you, you lash out blindly without even bothering to find out what they are talking about. I can only imagine that if I had named a Sherwani or Sari and Ghunghat you would have also identified them as "Christian". And no, these women are not Muslims, they are Hindu. So they also have to stop wearing their clothing of tradition and choice, simply because you are uncomfortable?
It is one definition of a 'habit'. Here, read this and you'll see what I mean, because you're obviously not aware: a. A recurrent, often unconscious pattern of behavior that is acquired through frequent repetition: . b. An established disposition of the mind or character: a pessimistic habit. c. Customary manner or practice: an early riser by habit. So I was obviously referring to the noun and not a conjugation of the verb? I hate those who hate me, do you have a problem with that? I suggest you stop making such ludicrous and hysterical accusations, because as is usual with a liberal you're seeing Islamophobia where there isn't any. I'll decline to dignify any more of your puerile contribution by offering a considered reply to it. https://www.thefreedictionary.com/habit
Habit (n): a special piece of long clothing worn by monks and nuns. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/habit Yea, I think I trust the Cambridge Dictionary more than I do the "Free Dictionary". No, it says nothing about a crucifix there, that is something completely different. So please explain how you got from your own definition above that a "habit" is a crucifix on a chain? Because that does not even make sense according to your own explanation as written above. Nowhere in your definition is it described in that way. And you also stated the Rekel was "Christian", when it undoubtedly is not. Far from it in fact, you can even claim that traditional Islamic garb is more "Christian" than a Rekel is, since at least Muslims recognize Joshua bar Joseph as a Prophet, second only to Mohammed (and is in fact the most mentioned individual in the Quran). And what makes you think Muslims hate you? That is extreme conceit there you have. Here is the truth, most Muslims could not care less about you. You are a nothing to them, a nobody. Funny, you react the same way many do when they find out somebody they know is gay. They react in revulsion, assuming in their mind that obviously that gay person must want to have sex with them. When in reality, they probably find him as revolting as they find him, and would never want sex with somebody like that.
Yes, I know - it's why I provided the other definition? Are you a doggy person, by any chance? It's a perfectly polite question, and dependent upon the answer it might confirm a theory which I hold.