Gaybutton

I don't disagree with that, but I don't see that as the issue. To my mind, that's between the farang and the boy and is not our business to pass judgment. I don't know how a farang can truly consider the boy to be his boyfriend if he works in a bar. What is important to me is my friend does consider it that way. Also, I neither know nor care whether he condones it or not. For all I know, the farang might be back in his home country and isn't even aware that the boy is still working in a bar. I don't see how that alters the issue. To me, there is only one issue here. A friend has asked that you don't off a certain boy because he has an ongoing relationship with him. Now you have the choice of abiding by his wishes or disregarding his wishes, no matter what the boy does for a living and no matter whether my farang friend condones it or not. That's his business, not mine. He has his reasons and I don't see any need for a friend to have to justify his reasons to my satisfaction. I pose the same question because so far nobody has posted an adequate answer: Given that there are so many boys here to choose from, why would you take off the one boy your friend has asked you not to?

I know this is a silly question, but would someone please explain to me what difference it makes as to which board posted a news item first or which poster made the "scoop"? What's that all about? Are we having some sort of an "I found out first" rivalry contest or something?

Yes, when I am subjected to needless put-down attempts as part of the post I get unreasonable about things like that. I'm funny that way. Ok, as far as I'm concerned you can have the last word.

That's right. I don't dispute gay_grampa's position that the boy is available for anyone, including him, but it still goes beyond me that if he knows his friend's wishes, he'll still take that boy. Don't forget, we're not talking about a boy somebody takes off every so often. We're talking about people who have an ongoing relationship with that boy. Gay_grampa is saying that if the boy works in a bar, then there's no reason not to take him off. I say there is a very good reason if I know my friend has some sort of a relationship going with that boy, beyond casual offs, and has made it known to me that he would rather I not take that particular boy. I'll repeat . . . I would choose to abide by my friend's wishes. Gay_grampa, on the other hand, as far as I can tell from the manner of his posts, couldn't care less whether his friend likes it or not and instead of finding another boy, he's going to take that boy regardless of his friend's wishes. Gay_grampa, I sincerely appreciate you giving me permission to think what I want. I hope some time you really do have a friend who asks that of you, but you go to that bar and off that boy anyhow. I hope as you're leaving with that boy, your friend at that moment is walking in. I'd love to be there when your friend realizes that you didn't give a damn about his feelings, only what you wanted for yourself, and asks you why you did that. I'd be very interested to see what you'll say to him. Since I now have your permission to think what I want, good. I think your attitude stinks.

Whatever the man's reasons were, his behavior was way out of line. Sometimes it can be very difficult to know what goes through the minds of people like that. Certainly part of the job of any hotel staff worker is to be friendly with the guests, but since when does that friendliness mean now he is supposed to date or have sex with the guest?

For me, that's easy. I would choose, if I could have plenty of money, to go to ancient Greece or ancient Rome. Can you imagine what gay life must have been like if you were wealthy? It was probably pretty good even if you were poor. Pompeii, before Mt. Vesuvius blew its stack, must have been a paradise. I would also consider Thailand, before western countries started imposing their homophobia.

I think that's just like saying "If God meant for man to fly, He would have given him wings." Sorry, but I don't view that as valid because I do not presume to know what God would have done and I don't presume to know what someone else would do. How do you know what someone else would do? Just because you feel that way doesn't mean that everyone else has to see it the same way. I see it just as Astrrro does. And again, I don't see your point. Are you saying that if you have a friend who you know would be upset if you took a particular boy, then instead of finding a different boy you would take that boy regardless of your friend's feelings? What are you going to say to him? "Yes, I knew you would be upset, but I didn't give a damn because you are letting him work as a prostitute." How do you think your friend will respond? Do you at least care? Maybe the boy is fair game because he works as a prostitute, but so are hundreds of others. Just because he is fair game, that doesn't mean you have to choose him. Why on earth would you want to take the one boy you know is going to upset your friend? If you value the friendship, why would you choose to disregard his feelings? I really don't understand why you would do that.

I agree with what you say, but I don't think it is upon me to judge how special a boy might be to a friend or upon what criteria the line of "fair game" should be drawn. My feeling is very simple. If a friend lets me know that he would be upset if I go with a particular boy, then to me whether the boy is a bar boy or not would be irrelevant to me. For me the only issue is whether I want to abide by my friend's wishes, as I hope he would abide by mine, or whether it is more important to me to take that particular boy and upset my friend when there are so many others. While there may be all kinds of justification for taking the boy despite my friend's wishes, it is something I simply would not do. I would find another boy. I just don't see any reason why that one boy would be so important to me that I would risk upsetting my friend to have him. This is one sea that has a hell of a lot of fish. I'll choose a different one. I would abide by my friend's wishes as I know my friends would do for me. If it is a boy I know my friend is been seeing, I wouldn't even ask the question as to whether it would be ok with him when he is away or any other time. I just wouldn't do it. If my friend tells me he doesn't see that boy anymore and has moved on to others or tells me they have "finished," now I would assume the boy is fair game.

I'm not so sure I would want a 'next life.' I'd have to go to school again? It's nice to think about going on to something else and even nicer if you genuinely believe that happens. Unfortunately for me, I think this is it and it's all you get. So, enjoy it while you can.

I am very familiar with that case. He's one of my closest friends. There was more to it than that, but you're talking about a substantial amount of money they were trying to cheat him out of and he got a settlement on breech of contract grounds. He had to pay attorney fees and this was a civil action, not a criminal case. I'd say that's a far cry from a 200 baht traffic ticket. I don't feel the least bit guilty about paying it and being on my way, no matter how many times bkkguy wants to insist I am morally wrong. RichLB is right. I have yet to meet anyone who has ever flat out refused to pay and took the consequences. I have no idea what those consequences are. Does anybody know? If you refuse to pay, what happens? What can they do about it? The only thing I am sure of is they can hold your driving license. The first thing they do when they stop you is ask to see your driving license. Until you either pay the cop, or go to the police station and then seek him out again to show your receipt, he's got your driving license. Other than that, I have no idea what can happen. So, excuse me for my terrible immorality, but I'm not about to be the one to find out the hard way. And I'll bet neither is bkkguy. In the meantime, I'm not idiotic enough fight a battle I know I can't win just to satisfy bkkguy that I'm being morally correct. I don't see him stepping up to lead the battle either. He says by not fighting it, then I am shirking my responsibility and leaving it for everybody else to fight . . . except him, of course. To me, his version of morality is the same principle of the terrorist leaders leaving it to others to be the suicide bombers. Lecture everyone else on how moral it is, but get involved and do anything himself? No way. Yep, that sure is fine example of morality on his part, isn't it? Should I ask him my question a fourth time? Bkkguy says at least he has the guts. Goody goody. I'll just have to suffer through life being a sniveling coward . . . "Hell, you're just a goddam coward!" - George C. Scott, 'Patton'

I think the main issue is whether they let their customers know, before they go upstairs, that they are going to be charged the 150 baht fee. I don't have a problem with it if they let you know, but I would be upset if the fee comes as a surprise later. Do they let people know? Also, it used to be that you could go upstairs alone and find boys already up there waiting for customers. Is it still like that or do you need to find a boy you like downstairs first and take him up with you? I'm guessing that whether you go upstairs with a boy or go up by yourself, you get charged the 150 baht fee. Is that correct?

That's precisely what I think. You know why? You don't merely express your opinions. You get personal about it and you express your opinions as if they were fact. Well, my friend, your opinions are not fact. Neither are mine. I notice when you have no valid argument you start resorting to insult and put-down attempts. Unfortunately, with me they don't work. Keep trying, though. With enough practice I think there is a very good chance you might eventually become good at it. Are you ever going to answer the question I asked, three times now . . . the one about what you do to fight corruption in Thailand and what results you've achieved? Well, since you entirely avoid answering that question and since the answer is perfectly obvious anyway, I'll answer it. You do absolutely nothing, give right in if a police officer, even a corrupt one, confronts you, and then get on this board and start posting with a self-righteous attitude if someone, meaning me, won't agree with you. And that's why, in my opinion, your arguments and put-downs have no validity whatsoever. My favorite line of yours is, "at least have the guts to admit that what you are doing is wrong." I'm so grateful to you for presuming to decide for me what I think is right and wrong. Ok, since you are so morally righteous, just let me know where to erect the statue.

Good point. If you have to be stuck somewhere, it might as well be right here. I can certainly think of worse places to be stuck.

My interpretation of bkkguy's standpoint is even if you go to the police station to pay it, if you know you did nothing wrong, then you're still contributing. Based on his post, the only way I see to avoid being a contributor is to refuse to pay at all and face the consequences. Otherwise, according to him, you're taking the easy way, shirking your responsibility, you're morally wrong, and you're leaving the battle to be fought by everyone else. You know what? In that kind of circumstance I'm going to take the easy way, shirk my responsibility, be morally wrong, and leave the battle to be fought by everyone else.

I don't think the issue is determining whether to call it a bribe or call it something else. I believe the issue, stemming from the other thread, is whether you are contributing to corruption or being victimized by corruption if you do give the policeman his 200 baht, even when you know you have done nothing wrong when driving a car or motorbike.

I agree with RichLB. The question on this poll is a loaded question, to my mind similar to "When did you stop beating your wife?" style questions. However, I think people will get the idea if they read the discussion that prompted this thread on page 4 and 5 of the "Red-Shirt Protests Go Violent" thread.

It was getting into a specific debate between bkkguy and myself regarding only one aspect - my personal morality (or lack of same). This thread is about what's happening with the Red-Shirt protest, the Thai political system, and commentary about it, but not whether farang should be involved in fighting corruption or the morality of disputing or not disputing traffic tickets. This thread easily could have gone off on that tangent and stayed there, so I'd rather see that subject discussed on a different thread.

No, what you have is your opinion that it's morally wrong. You, of course, are entitled to your opinion, but that doesn't mean that I have to share your opinion. I don't share it. You can call me morally wrong all you want. That doesn't make it so, although I'm sure I'm morally wrong about a great many things. But since you are so morally high and mighty, I'm still waiting for you to tell us what you have done to fight corruption in Thailand, if you've done anything at all other than your usual efforts to put me down. Do you realize you are actually criticizing me for doing precisely the same thing you just said you would do yourself? And you expect me to take you seriously? Good luck with that one. We're also getting way off the thread subject again. You can have the last word and then let's get back to the Red-Shirt protests on this thread. If you want to continue discussing the morality of paying corrupt traffic cops, please start a new thread.

I don't see it that way. I see it as being victimized by the police and given no practical means of doing anything about it other than just not liking it. I don't know what you expect a farang driver to do when these minor incidents occur. If you listen to people like bkkguy, then I'm supposed to try to take on and fight a battle against corruption, a battle that I have absolutely no chance of winning. Charge of the Light Brigade! Huzzah! I'm not here to do that and I'm not here to try to fight a losing battle that isn't worth it to me to bother with even if I could win. This kind of corruption is, rightly or wrongly, a part of life in Thailand. I can live with it, stop driving, or pack my bags. If there's anything else I can do without becoming the next Don Quixote, I'd like to know what it is. Refuse to pay? Take it to court? Go to jail over it? Get kicked out of Thailand over it? Not me. If others want to fight it, go for it. I'll just go on merry way being a victim of it once in a while and accept the fact that I might lose a couple thousand baht per year over it. Oh, and by the way bkkguy, let's hear all about what you have done to fight corruption and all the positive changes that have occurred in Thailand as a result of your heroic efforts. "Go on, tell me about it, Cole. Tell me about how if it was you, you'd have done it different." - Robert Mitchum, 'El Dorado'

I don't wonder. I don't know how many people realize the potential for catastrophe this can have, especially if it does go on and on and even more especially if that other volcano blows its stack too. Has anyone noticed the incredible number of earthquakes that have happened over the past several months, including today in Papua New Guinea? Earthquakes and volcanoes kind of go together. And it isn't even 2012 yet!

I don't see it quite the way you do. I see the corruption part as being stopped at all when you have done nothing wrong and have violated no traffic rules. To me, that's the corruption. To my mind, in that circumstance there would be no "real" ticket, at least not one in the sense of being based on a valid violation. I see paying off the cop to get out of it not as contributing to the corruption, but as being victimized by it. You can pay the "real" ticket or you can pay the cop. Since paying the cop is much cheaper and without the hassle of going to the police station, you still end up paying either way, but I'll pay the cop. If I have violated a traffic law, that's one thing. But when I'm parting with money, either at the police station or to the pockets of the cop, when there has been no violation then I see myself as being a victim of his corruption, but I don't see myself as a contributor. Besides, either paying the cop or going to the police station, what's the alternative?

Here's even more cheery news that was just published: _____ Volcano Chaos Could Continue for Months The Icelandic volcano causing travel chaos across Europe could go on erupting for months, geologists warned last night. Volcano chaos could continue for months - Telegraph I'm also wondering if anyone reading this has been forced to cancel or postpone your trip to Thailand.

I certainly hope so.

If you really want a pleasant thought, from what I have been reading there is a second volcano nearby, the Katla volcano, that has a history of erupting only shortly after the Eyjafjallajökull volcano and has a potential of being 50 to 100 times as problematic. Better still, scientists are saying the Katla volcano does appear to be on the verge of erupting. There are already problems due to travelers who are running out of money for food and a place to stay, visas getting ready to expire, credit cards being maxed out, etc. The list of problems can eventually become quite extensive. Also, aviation is not the only travel concern. Apparently there are also worries about the volcanic ash clogging the air filters on cars, buses, trucks, etc. Ground transportation such as buses and railroads are rapidly becoming overcrowded. Even when the airlines can start flying again, it will probably be similar to the way things were following the end of the Yellow-Shirt takeover of Suvarnabhumi airport. It took days for everyone to be able to get flights out, only this time it can encompass most of the major airports throughout Europe and even airports in countries that are not directly effected by the volcano, possibly including Thailand, for Europeans and travelers trying to get to Europe. It may actually be fortunate that this is happening during the low season. I have not yet seen news items talking about Europeans stuck in Thailand who can't get home, but I suspect that problem already exists for many. I suggest reading the following articles: __________ More Eruptions Possible Located near the southern tip of Iceland, the Eyjafjallajökull volcano lies between the Eyjafjallajökull Glacier and the Mýrdalsjökull Glacier near the caldera of the Katla volcano.The Eyjafjallajökull last erupted on March 20, 2010 and before that it erupted off and on between 1821-1823. It was considered to be dormant until it began to show signs of renewed life late in 2009. Historically, the Katla has erupted following each eruption of the Eyjafjallajökull, leading experts to believe that the Katla may be close to erupting now. Eruption of Icelandic Volcano Creates Travel Nightmare __________ Glaciologist: Katla Only Needs a Nudge Glaciologist Helgi Björnsson is concerned that the current volcanic eruption in Eyjafjallajökull glacier could cause the neighboring volcano Katla to erupt as well, which could have much more serious consequences. http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/daily_news/?cat_id=40764&ew_0_a_id=360895 __________ Volcanic Ash Disruption Enters Fourth Day in UK The UK is enduring a fourth day as a virtual no-fly zone, as the travel chaos caused by volcanic ash drifting from Iceland shows no sign of ending. Flight restrictions have been extended until at least 1900 BST and forecasters say the ash cloud could remain over the UK for several more days. BBC business editor Robert Peston said the disruption risked becoming a "major business and economic disaster". BBC News - Volcanic ash disruption enters fourth day in UK

April 16~30 Gourmet Set Menu House Champagne *** Amuse Bouche *** White Wine Cackle Berry Chardonnay, Australia 2007 Sesame flavored Yellow Tail Tuna Tatar on potted Belgium Endive *** Salmon Carpaccio and Cashew Nuts Pesto on roasted Garlic Cream Soup *** Seaside Ragout in Puff Pastry *** Spicy Passion Fruit Sherbet *** Red Wine Cackle Berry, Shiraz, Australia, 2006 Tianon of French Sea Bass filet Ni