khaolakguy

Given the context of this thread, in honouring Gay Paattayan's contribution, it was appropriate that Smiles should, in a conciliatory way, recognise Gay Pattayan and Gaybutton's positive help in starting Sawatdee Forum. That was hardly usurping the thread! As I recall you, Hedda, were repetitively critical of Gay Pattayan's running of his forum under a number of names! It is also diisinegenuous to compare the free speech on Sawatdee Forum with moderated comments on Gaybutton or your own blog. As politically and practically naive as blaming a government for comments in the free press in that country.

It's a shame to see that a poster who has his own blog, specifically set up to attack Sawatdee Forum, ironically calling his blog Radio Free Sawatdee, although it is a moderated forum, which means he vets posts before they can be displayed, unlike this and the Sawatdee Forums, has usurped another thread, this time one in honour of GayPattayan, to continue his vendetta against Smiles and SWF. Does he have no shame?

But in the first instance Hedda challenged Smiles to prove that Hedda was a mutliple name user. Proof of which, as Gaybutton acknowledges above, is impossible to obtain, particularly as the second personality quoted, L& N, is posting here, where not even the moderators, as acknowledged again by Gaybutton, are without any control or knowledge. Hedda added moral leverage, or moral hypocrisy, to her impossible "challenge" by her mention of charitable donations, knowing that that these things are impossible to prove. The characteristic of Hedda's posts exemplified. Without morals, cohesion or respect for others. I think one poster once characterised her posts as being like those of a matador with a bloodlust. She has to be the winner, and as such her behaviour is the antithesis of Thai cultural and social behaviour, which perhaps explains why she will always be an embittered outsider in Thailand.

It is certainly hypocritical to complain of others abuse of the hospitality on this board, when a significant number of Hedda's posts on Sawatdee Forum, and previously on Pattayagay, were abusing and questioning the integrity of the moderators of those forums.

A considered and evenhanded response to Hedda's continuing Hydra fantasies, from Peter UK, as posted on SWF. "I always thought Hedda was a much better political analyst than literary critic and this latest rant proves it. I presume that when he says one poster uses 60 names and controls 80 percent of the board he doesn't really believe such twaddle himself and just does it to needle. What a filing system Smiles would need if it were true and he certainly wouldn't have time for a boring old paid job. But the literary argument is the most compelling evidence against such claims. Each of us, when we write, do so in our own unique way, using favourite words, favourite ways of phrasing things and so on, much of this at a subconscious level. It can be hard, even for a professional writer, to disguise his normal 'voice' convincingly - some stylistic quirk or other will usually give him away. For one person to have done it on the scale mentioned above - well, it's laughable. The only poster I'm aware of at SF who really seems to make a career out of multiple handles is the Australian midget and he is too dim to begin to disguise his normal style (or even to use the occasional upper-case first letter in his handles). Smiles actually has a very distinctive writing style. I consider myself to have a good ear for such things and no other poster at SF has ever put me remotely in mind of him. I've never known Hedda to produce a shred of proof for his claims; it's all just the malice of the once-favoured one in exile. I'm pleased to see that bao-bao, the latest poster to be fingered by Hedda (for no more than the crime of agreeing with something Smiles wrote!), is able to take it all in such good part; I'm not sure that I would be able to. I don't think that Smiles has helped his own cause by continually responding to Hedda's jibes - a dignified silence would have been much better. But I have no doubt in my mind as to who the real villain of the piece is. The famed intelligence and wit mean nothing to me by themselves. Recently Hedda saw much irony in the fact that Bush should defend the right to life of unborn innocents at home while pursuing a Middle East policy which takes innocent life. I also see a certain irony in a commentator who advocates high ethical standards in the political domain while showing a complete lack of them in his personal dealings with others."

And I am prepared to make a donation of 100,000 Baht to the Camilla Centre if Hedda can substantiate his often repeated theory about Similes the Hydra poster. We have been listening to this theory quoted as fact for a long time, with lots of assertions by Hedda, that he will prove all from his "secret files" amassed with great diligence, but proof provided? Not a shred.

But wasn't the opening sentence of yours in this thread: "The Thais as a group always strike me as much more religious and devout than farangs." Meaning of devout in a religious context: "Devoted to religion or to the fulfillment of religious obligations." I think that you must have had a different thread in your head to the one that was conveyed to your keyboard.

How could anyone, who claims to be a resident in Thailand, and regularly pontificates on the country, make the fundamentally flawed analogy between the Thais use of Wats, and the Christian use of churches! To go on to extrapolate that this makes thais more religious, whatever that term means in this context, is surely just a plea for attention. What Thais are, is more spiritual, with animist and non Buddhist related concepts such as spirit houses, wearing Buddhas to fend off evil. It has NOTHING to do with Buddhist devoutness.

Through the two sides that have no walls!

Are the owners of this site ever going to correct the misleading information in the City Files regarding Phuket. I first pointed out these glaring and laughable errors six months ago, eg "The Doormen at Flying Handbag", but it has no doors, let alone doormen!

I didn't say that either! I am sure most aren't "in lust". However, if you have a hardon you are aroused. QED. As for watching chimps in a zoo, well whatever turns you on, but I suspect that the chimps are getting turned on by each other. Turned on by an ATM machine. Well that doesn't do it for me either. I suppose that if you're in heat and rub yourself against all those buttons. No I still can't see it.

Your mirror may well scream at you dear, you may well find yourself unattracrive! But unlike with girls, you may have noticed that guys have a very obvious indicator of their sexual arousal!

Wow Stef, you have certainly been getting around. Are these hundreds of boys just from this site?