Gaybutton

ESPN to Launch 3-D Network By Doug Gross, CNN January 5, 2010 (CNN) -- World Cup soccer, the 2011 BCS National Championship game and dozens of other sporting events will be shown in 3-D by ESPN in the coming year. The cable network announced Tuesday that it will launch a new channel, ESPN 3D, on June 11 with its three-dimensional broadcast of a FIFA World Cup soccer match between South Africa and Mexico. In the next 12 months, the network will show at least 85 games, including the January 11, 2011, national championship and other college football games, college basketball, and ESPN's Summer X Games, according to the network. "ESPN's commitment to 3D is a win for fans and our business partners," George Bodenheimer, president of ESPN and ABC Sports, said in a news release. "ESPN 3D marries great content with new technology to enhance the fan's viewing experience and puts ESPN at the forefront of the next big advance for TV viewing." The network has been testing its 3-D technology for more than two years. In September, the University of Southern California vs. Ohio State football game was shown in 3-D in several theaters and on USC's campus by ESPN. The new network will require a 3-D television set -- a technology that is still emerging and a step ahead of high-definition -- and 3-D glasses. Initially, the channel is expected to be dark between live events. ESPN probably won't be the only player in the 3-D TV game. Industry analysts expect DirecTV to announce its plans for a three-dimensional channel this week at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.

It's amazing how attitudes can change once you are actually retired and living here. When I used to come to Thailand on a holiday I wanted to be in the bars before I even unpacked my luggage. If I was in my hotel room before 12:30am, I was in the bars even before I unpacked. If I missed a day getting to the bars or missed a day taking a boy off, I felt as if I was really losing something. Now that I live here, the bar scene is rather ho-hum to me. I sometimes go for days or even weeks without setting foot in a bar at all and I don't feel as if I've missed a thing. That's one reason you'll never see me patronizing a bar that charges 300 baht for a drink. Why should I? "All that you wanted, he would not even take." - Anne Baxter, 'The Ten Commandments'

Thank you for that post. I think you just increased their customer numbers substantially, and you can include me in that number next time I'm in Bangkok. It sounds like a restaurant I'd love to try.

If you go to just one bar with prices like that, have just one drink, buy just one drink for the boy, pay the off fee for the boy . . . by the time you're done you've already spent 1000 baht on that alone. Chances are that a lot more will have left your wallet before you've even taken a boy off. I suppose people in Bangkok on a one or two week holiday don't mind spending that much, especially when they compare those prices to prices where they came from, but for many of us who live here, our point of view is a little different.

And I definitely "ain't it" and never was: _____ Dating Site for Beautiful People Expels 'Fatties' after Holiday Weight Gain By Mallory Simon, CNN January 4, 2010 (CNN) -- A dating site that markets itself as an elite community for beautiful people with a "strict ban on ugly people" has axed about 5,000 members for packing on the pounds during the holiday season. The international site BeautifulPeople.com threw out members after they posted photos "revealing that they have let themselves go," according to a company statement. "As a business, we mourn the loss of any member, but the fact remains that our members demand the high standard of beauty be upheld," said Robert Hintze, founder of BeautifulPeople.com. "Letting fatties roam the site is a direct threat to our business model and the very concept for which BeautifulPeople.com was founded." The site describes itself as an "elite online club, where every member works the door" -- that is, users can join only after enough members vote them "beautiful" during the 48 hours after their profile is uploaded. And apparently, enough beautiful people were angry that some members had enjoyed a bit too many treats during the holiday season. So BeautifulPeople.com sent those flagged members e-mails, according to the company statement, telling them they could register again for the site when the extra pudge was gone. "We responded to complaints by moving the newly chubby members back to the rating stage. This is the same as having them re-apply," Greg Hodge, managing director of BeautifulPeople.com, said in a statement. The company said it "expelled" 1,520 users from the U.S., 832 from the U.K., 533 from Canada, 510 from Poland, 425 from Germany, 402 from Italy, 323 from France, 220 from Denmark, 176 from Turkey and 88 people from Russia. In the e-mail, it gave users suggestions for boot camps and workout facilities to get themselves back in shape. Some gave the site a shot again, hoping fellow users might not see them as the "fatties" others had. "Their re-applications were reviewed by existing members, and only a few hundred were voted back in. Over 5,000 were rejected," Hodge added. Hodge admits, and has admitted from the time his company started, that his site may not be fair, but people want to date someone they are attracted to. "Is it elitist? Yes, it is, because our members want it to be," Hodge said when the company started out in 2005. "Is it lookist? Yes, it is, because our members want it to be. Is it PC? No, it's not, but it's honest." And on this site, beauty is certainly in the eye of the beholder; only one in five applicants is normally accepted, a company statement said. Maintaining those standards is what the site is about, Hodge said, and that's why people were expelled. "Every year we see that some of our members from Western cultures eat and drink to excess over the holidays, and clearly their looks suffer," he said in a statement. "The U.S.A. has been grossly over-indulging since Thanksgiving. It's no wonder that so many members have been expelled from the network. We hope they will be back after shedding the festive pounds." _____ "I don't want to belong to a club that accepts people like me as members." - Groucho Marx

Wow! I am very behind-the-times. I remember when the reason to own a telephone was to talk with someone who is not right there with you. I'll bet the first people to rush out to buy one of these are people who already own an iPhone. Blackberry, iPhone, GooglePhone . . . I can't keep up with it all. I don't even understand what some of the functions are for or why they would be included on a telephone. An accelerometer on a telephone? Why? What is the practical use of it? I think I need to take a course in this. For me, the title of the course might very well be: "Smartphones for the Dumb-ass." ______________________ Is Google Unveiling an 'iPhone Killer?' By Doug Gross, CNN January 4, 2010 (CNN) -- Could it be the long-awaited "iPhone killer?" Tuesday at 1 p.m. ET, Google will make some kind of announcement related to its Android smartphone operating system. It's expected to be the launch of Google's Nexus One phone -- the company's first full-on leap into the smartphone fray and one that will put the online giant head-to-head with the darling of the market, the iPhone. Google scheduled the announcement for the day before the annual Consumer Electronics Show -- the Super Bowl of the technology world. In doing so, the tech giant is taking a page from the Apple playbook, rolling out a big announcement in the relatively clean air right before news from CES floods the tech world for days. While the Google-phone buzz has centered on whether Google can take down the Apple iPhone, analysts say unseating Apple probably is unrealistic. "Is this going to be an iPhone killer? I don't think anything is an iPhone killer," said Kevin Burden, a mobile industry analyst with New York-based ABI Research. "Was the iPhone a Blackberry killer? "It's never going to be that one device that was promised to us a decade ago." The term "iPhone killer" has been bandied about virtually every time a new smartphone has been introduced in recent years. Each release has been followed with reviewers almost unanimously announcing, "Nope ... not this time." Google recently released its to-be-announced phones for use by some of its employees, leading to the inevitable appearance of videos and unofficial reviews online. Leaks suggest the Nexus One will be a global-system device with a 3.7-inch touch screen, five-megapixel camera, Wi-Fi connectivity, an accelerometer and a compass, according to CNN.com partner, Wired magazine. It is expected to run the latest version of the Android operating system, Android 2.1, which is also made by Google but runs on other phones as well. It's widely speculated that the phone will be "unlocked," meaning users won't have to sign up for long-term contracts with a particular mobile carrier to use the phones -- as is the case with most major phones now. Unlocking would mean the price of the Nexus wouldn't be subsidized by a carrier, as is the case with iPhones and others. So the Google phone could carry a price tag of $500 or more. But analysts expect Google to address the cost difference through advertising on the phone, or by other means. One possibility, Burden said, is that Google will be willing to sell the phones at or below cost as a way of ensuring Android, or some other future product, has a longstanding place in the market. "Google could be thinking, whatever their endgame is, that [the phones] are really just part of the plan," he said. "I can't think it's really just about selling hardware. "That goes back to the '70s and '80s. It's not a hardware business any more and Google's smart enough to realize that." Tech blog Engadget reports that it got its hands on one of the phones. In a review, Editor-in-Chief Joshua Topolsky gives high marks to the Nexus One for design and performance. But he, too, dismisses the "iPhone killer" speculation. "Now, of course everyone seems to have one question about the device -- is this the be-all-end-all Android phone / iPhone eviscerator?" he wrote in the January 2 review. "In two words: not really." He wrote that the Nexus One is not dramatically different than the Droid, Motorola's smartphone that runs the Android operating system. But Topolsky writes that the Google phone is "super fast" and "very smooth" in operation.

I'd rather do without it anyhow. Once I forgot to remove it from the glass. Damned near poked my eye out.

If that's the case, then good. It won't cost me anything. That's because I won't be there at all. I don't like the shows and when I order a drink, I want a drink. Paying 50 baht or 10 baht or even free, if I order a gin and tonic, I expect to get what I've ordered. A glass of tonic with a slight hint of gin doesn't cut it for me. Neither does paying 300 baht for it. So, you gents who don't mind paying 300 baht for your drink can have it. I'll be elsewhere.

I have never believed in that 'if you have to ask how much . . .' cliche. I don't mind spending money, but I mind rip-offs very much. If I had the money Bill Gates has, I would still mind being ripped off. In my opinion, you analogy has no validity. 5-star hotels all are expensive and they offer luxuries that are not found in less expensive hotels. With regard to go-go bars, the only difference I can see between one bar and another is the price. So yes, I think the bars do have to justify it. I don't think I'm stepping out of line by wanting to know why a bar that offers nothing that can't be found in other bars is charging 2 to 3 times the price. However, justified or not, I'm not going to pay a bar 300 baht for a drink when I can go to another bar and get the same drink for 100 baht.

If anyone out there really wants to pay 250 to 300 baht for a drink at a go-go bar, fine with me. Personally, I think it's highway robbery and you won't find me setting foot in any bars that charge so outrageously. I doubt that this is the only web site on which complaints about these prices appear. I also doubt that none of the Bangkok bar owners read these web sites. I would like very much to see a post from any bar owner who charges these prices explaining why and justifying their rates.

It looks to me like we have the makings of the latest brouhaha going here on this thread. I'd like to address a couple points. First, Oogleman - I don't think RichLB or anyone else who takes his position is finding any fault or placing any blame on you, the charity effort, or the worthiness of the charity itself. I get the impression that you think people are somehow blaming you or misinterpreting your position. You certainly did nothing wrong in any way and I think everyone is aware of that. I agree with RichLB about this issue. I don't think the fact that 20,000 baht was collected has anything to do with the issue. The issue is the means by which the 20,000 baht was solicited. The only reason that I'm coming up with for not letting the audience know about the video in advance would be because they figured people would leave and not view the video. In order to promote this charity I don't see the need for a video in the first place. What was it supposed to accomplish? I think those who donated would have done so if a brief announcement was made. Maybe even more than 20,000 baht would have been collected. We don't know. It wasn't tried. I also think RichLB has a very good point about the nature of the video. Apparently it was quite depressing. Has anyone noticed that the history of charitable events in Pattaya has always been fun, enjoyable activities as the means of solicitation? The PGF dinners, the Quiz Nights at Bondi, Oogleman's parties at Memories, Gunking GB, etc. Is anyone disputing that this particular video did not quite fit the profile? While I think The Venue's heart was in the right place, I also think they exercised poor judgment in their method. I think it was a mistake and I hope they won't repeat that mistake.

I disagree. I haven't seen anything from The Venue stating they are collecting donations, but even if I had, my assumption would have been that they have a collection box somewhere on the premises. I think it is a huge leap to think they would present a program. In the entire history of Pattaya, I have never heard of any bar doing any such thing. What on earth would have caused anyone to suddenly expect a presentation, especially with no forewarning about it? I think all of us are sensitive to those less fortunate, but I don't think anyone is out of line to expect sensitivity from the venues soliciting to those making the donations. If I had gone to The Venue that night, I would have been there to have an enjoyable time. I wouldn't have been there to unexpectedly be subjected to their solicitation video. In all honesty, I think this has backfired on them. They may have been well intentioned, but I think the end result will be fewer people donating to this particular charity. If I had been there I would have been mad as hell.

Neither am I. Getting off the thread subject for a moment, if there is a bar show anywhere in this city that doesn't include drag and doesn't include lip sync, I'd like to know where. That might be a show I would enjoy. As far as I can tell, every bar show in Pattaya is essentially the same. Don't any of the bars believe in employing a singer who actually sings? Can't any of the bars come up with a show that leaves out the drag queens, the lip syncing, and the lady-boys with breast implants? That's why I never go to bar shows or always leave if a show is about to start. People tell me I must go to see this show or that show. It's fun! It's wonderful! Yeah? Bullshit! That's precisely what I hate. So, I don't go. Am I the only one who feels this way?

I certainly have no objection to them offering to help and it was kind of them to make the offer, but there is a right way and a wrong way to do it. When you run your charity events, Oogleman, you make plenty of announcements well in advance and people who come know they are going to be solicited for donations. Obviously RichLB did not know and resented being surprised by it and subjected to it. I would have felt the same way. I should also be obvious that I support this charity too. Otherwise I never would have subjected myself to "the gunking." Again, I knew in advance what I was in for and so did everyone else who attended and participated. But if I walked into a bar show at which I had no idea I was going to be solicited and if there was no prior announcement or nothing to indicate there would be a solicitation, whether it was part of the show or not, I would have donated nothing. To my mind, if it was done as RichLB described, that's a high pressure tactic and an abuse of the customers. There's no way I would put up with going to a bar at which there is an attempt to high pressure me into anything. I wouldn't stand for it and I would never return. Unless RichLB and I are the only ones who feel this way, then perhaps The Venue would be wise to reconsider their methods unless they like the idea of losing customers.

I don't know, but some of you guys sure seem to embarrass easily. If some schmuck really wants to leer at me messing around with one of the bar boys, let him. He's the one who ought to be embarrassed, not me. I'll ask him if he wants to buy a ticket or at least give me a tip for the show. Maybe that will offset the 150 baht fee. For me, if I'm up there "engaged" with a young gentleman, that's who I'm paying attention to. I guarantee I'm not paying attention to whoever might be looking, unless 'me mum' walks in . . .

That's good. I'd hate to go to a bar that was indefinitely open . . . I can think of several reasons to go upstairs rather than take a boy off. Instant gratification comes to mind. Then we had that thread here on which some people posted about being embarrassed to be seen walking the streets with a bar boy. That upstairs area is a good alternative for them, unless of course they are too embarrassed to even be seen walking up a set of stairs. It also saves time. By the time you arrange to take a boy off, wait for him to change clothes, get to your hotel, get to your room, and take the showers that neither of you probably really need anyway, who knows? You may have lost the mood and now have to wait for the Viagra to take effect. By taking him upstairs, you also don't have to be concerned about the possibility of him stealing any of your valuables. Some people enjoy doing their thing within the bar atmosphere. To some, while in the bar the boy is still perceived as a sexual being. Once he is in street clothes and is headed for your room with you, now he is a human being again. Going upstairs also can save money. Many people who take a boy off don't necessarily head directly for their hotel room. Sometimes they offer to take the boy somewhere to eat first, or maybe some shopping, or maybe a stop somewhere for a drink, or whatever. One other thing comes to mind. If you take him upstairs there is no television for him to turn on and most likely he doesn't have his mobile phone with him either. That alone can make the upstairs option very attractive.

Yes, it is open. It's been open for quite a while now. It costs 150 baht to go upstairs, but only if you haven't bought a minimum amount of drinks while still downstairs. I really can't remember what that minimum is. It's probably about 250 baht, but maybe someone else knows for sure. Regarding a tip for a boy you bring upstairs with you, I can't answer that one. There is no set amount. It's an "up to you." I would imagine, depending on what you do and how good the boy is at doing it (if it goes beyond just having a nice little chat), 500 to 1000 baht would be appropriate.

Awwwwwwwww, shucks. I'm flattered you see it that way. Whatever you've been drinking, how would you like to wake up sober and find me next to you in bed? "If the room was on fire you wouldn't be hot!" -George Burns, 'The Sunshine Boys'

I fully agree with you. If I had been there it would have been the last time I would ever be there. I'm sorry, but I think you're right. Worthy cause or not, if I had gone, my reason for going would have been to spend my money having an enjoyable time. An evening of second and third rate acts is bad enough, but subjecting the audience to a plea for their favorite charitable cause was totally inappropriate. If there had simply been a quick announcement that the Venue supports this particular charity and donations would be appreciated, then I probably would have given some money. But if I had been surprised in the manner you describe, then you can bet I would have made Scrooge look like a spendthrift. In my opinion, that was a terribly rude thing to do to the audience and was very poor judgment on the part of the management. In that situation I would have immediately called a waiter over to pay my bill and would have been gone, never to return. If I couldn't get a waiter's attention, I would have gone to the cashier myself. I don't go to bars to end up being part of a captive audience and I'll decide for myself which charities I wish to donate to, thank you very much. Did you happen to notice whether other audience members shared your opinion? "The world is filled with worthy causes." - Bette Davis, 'The Whales of August'

Not if he pays for the room at the time he checks in, which is what most these places want you to do anyhow. And those rooms don't even have a mini bar. He won't exactly be checking into a Helmsley hotel . . .

You must have been way, way, way over the limit that time you propositioned me . . .

Right now the odds of that happening are quite remote. The bars, even during this high season, are not exactly filled to capacity with customers. The odds of that happening are even more remote. But even if that does happen, so what? What does he think would be the problem about that? I hope your friend is not stupid enough to take an under-age boy off. Assuming the boy is at least 18 years old, why would he care if the boy uses the room with another customer? Is he paranoid enough to figure the boy will give the room key to another boy, one who is under-age, and that boy goes to the room with a customer, and then the room gets raided? Even in that event it would be the farang with the under-age boy who gets arrested, not your friend. Anyway, the idea of the boy going back to the bar and getting taken off a second time, and assuming the farang who would take him off would want to go to a room where he would be using an unmade bed that had already just been used, instead of taking the boy to his own room, is kind of a strange thing to worry about, especially in light of the fact that these boys are lucky to be taken off two or three times a month, let alone twice in the same night. It seems to me your friend is kind of picky and wants to try to cover all possibilities of something going wrong, even the most oddball possibilities. Jomtien's point intrigues me. Is your friend doing this with or without his wife's knowledge? If it's with her knowledge, the idea of a threesome comes to mind . . .

I fixed it for you. You left off the end-quote bracket. You were sober? I'm not sure I would have recognized you in that state . . . Well, I guess he didn't actually say it, but I kind of hope that's what he's doing . . . Maybe later, if he really likes the boy: He: "Honey, I hate to tell you this, but we're getting a divorce." She: "Huh?!?!? What are you talking about. Why, is there someone else . . . another woman?" He: "Not exactly." "I asked a girl to marry me. She said no. I asked why, is there someone else? She said, 'There must be.'" - Rodney Dangerfield

Sometimes it's good to venture out into venues where you know the boys are not necessarily your type. The bar can still be fun and it can make you appreciate the venues where the boys are your type even more when you go again.

That's the problem, right there. I'm glad at least some of you saw a police presence. I saw virtually zilch.