TotallyOz

I gave the four possibilities as options. They are all open choices. I can tell you that the original post did NOT come from me. I have a cute Thai BF who will vouch for me being asleep when the post was made. Other than that, there is not much more I can or would say about the IP in question. I am sorry, but I that is an area I feel very uncomfortable with. Like you said, I think it best to move on. Should Daddy decide to post here again with clarifications, that is his right and prerogative. He is most welcome to do so until a time when we are confident that the poster "Daddy" is here only to cause trouble. If that were the case, we would have banned him already. That determination has not been made.

I have zero interest in seeing this movie. I may give it a shot if the BF wants to go. But, I find the older I get the less I understand of the comedy of teenagers. I loved Porky's when I was younger. But, I understood all the jokes and humor. Some of the recent movies that are geared toward a teen audience, I find myself sitting there thinking, "why am I here?"

I understand your desire to believe number 4. I agree that we should move on.

We have a strong privacy statement. We value the privacy of others. We have no way to identify the person in question other than e-mail or IP. We will not be doing that with this poster or any other poster. It goes totally against what we believe in and what our statements are on this website.

I am not sure how much good can come from it being made public that someone died of friendly fire. It would be very hard for me if one of my family members died that way. However, I do think there must be accountability. I am not sure how this is done without full disclosure of the facts. I agree this man was a hero. I do not want my military to cover up problems. I am just not sure how much I want them to disclose either. Sorry if I sound wishy washy on this. Wars are brutal on everyone involved. I have the greatest respect for our servicemen and women. I appreciate all they do for our country. That said, I don't think it is our job to police the world. We have too many problems at home to take care of other problems.

An interesting article on the Thailand Tobacco Monopoly. http://bangkokpost.com/news/local/191107/where-there-s-smoke

You may be right. That would not surprise me at all. There are 4 possibilities. 1. This was a post from Daddy. He had a momentary lapse in judgment and made the post. Shit happens. I have made posts that I regret the next morning. 2. This is someone that is very close to Daddy and wanted to protect his reputation. The post here did not do that and the poster did not realize the full impact of his post. 3. This is someone who posted with Daddy's knowledge and permission. 4. This was a post by someone that does not have anything to do with Daddy, his site, his business or any relation whatsoever. I am not sure which of the above 4 scenarios to believe. I do think that it might be someone that had good intentions to protect someone they care about. I understand this. And, like the poster "Daddy" said, with age comes wisdom. Perhaps I would have done the same thing 25 years ago to protect someone I care about or a business I have an interest in maintaining or profiting from in some way. I learned a long time ago: You can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

Thank you. I will try to figure out why this is happening. One question, does this happen after you close and reopen your browser? Or is the http://gaythailand.com site open on your browser the entire time?

You also paid $10 to register your name and that brings your entire cost for your board to $100. We have a slightly higher investment. We also hope to hire staff in the future to take photos, write articles and keep things updated. We are not only a message board but a full website experience. It is like comparing apples to oranges.

Gaybutton, we hope to completely revamp the entire profile area. It will make it easier for you to contact the guys listed. Thank you for your suggestion. Please keep making comments and suggestions. Hugs, Scooby

RickLB, thank you for your suggestions. We will try to see if any of them are viable to implement. Jason1988, thank you for your suggestion. Those guys are not escorts. We are not an escort site. They do have guys and ladies and ladyboys from Thailand on the site. They may not appear in that area but they are on the site. We are considering changing that area but as it is a source of revenue, it would have to be replaced with something else. Your suggestion as to what that would be? Please keep up your comments and suggestions. Thank you! Hugs Scooby

Sorry, that was the Times article. Here is the link that was sent regarding the e-mail I received yesterday and looks to be valid today. It was only posted yesterday as that is when I get the e-mail. http://www.smartours.com/thailand.shtml

Thank you! I am glad you enjoyed.

''I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages,'' Barack Obama told Chicagoans in a letter to the Outlines newspaper dated Feb. 15, 1996. One month later, on March 19, 1996, Obama became the Democratic nominee for the 13th State Senate District in Illinois – nominated along with President Bill Clinton, running for re-election on the ballot that day. It was only two months after that, on May 7, 1996, when then-Rep. Bob Barr ® took to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives to introduce the Defense of Marriage Act. Two months later, on July 12, the House passed the bill – which defined marriage in federal law and purported to give states the ability to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere – by an overwhelming 342-67 margin. Without delay, the U.S. Senate passed the bill when it returned from its August recess on an 85-14 vote, and, on Sept. 21, 1996, with his re-election campaign in high gear, Clinton signed DOMA into law. In November, Clinton was re-elected easily and Obama won election to his first public office. Nearly a decade later, Obama, running for the U.S. Senate in 2004, supported the repeal of DOMA and civil unions but opposed same-sex marriage for ''strategic'' reasons. ''I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue,'' then-Senate candidate Obama bluntly told Chicago's Windy City Times in 2004. ''I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation.'' Throughout his presidential campaign in 2007 and 2008, Obama heavily sought LGBT support despite still opposing marriage equality and, after being elected president on the same night that Proposition 8 ended marriage equality in the state of California, Obama continued pushing his LGBT bona fides. At a news conference in December 2008, Obama declared that ''it is no secret that I am a fierce advocate for equality for gay and lesbian Americans.'' Not even six months into his presidency, the difficulty of calling oneself a ''fierce advocate'' was made clear when his Justice Department, led by Attorney General Eric Holder, filed a brief in Smelt v. United States, a challenge to DOMA, declaring at one point that ''DOMA does not discriminate against homosexuals in the provision of federal benefits.'' The outcry from the LGBT community was immediate – and harsh. Much discussion was had within the LGBT community and among political and legal activists about the wording of the brief and the impact of Obama's Justice Department defending a law that he had called discriminatory by saying that it doesn't discriminate. There remain differing views on the role of Justice in defending laws such as DOMA and the circumstances under which the department need not defend the law in question. Regardless of those differences, however, the Smelt brief defending DOMA stood as a stark symbol to most people of the long way Obama had traveled from promising to fight efforts that would prohibit same-sex marriages. Some of that was a function of the distinction in the status of Obama as a citizen in Chicago and Obama as president of the United States. But some of it, with his history in mind, was a change in Obama as a politician. It also was a turning point in Obama's relationship with many in the LGBT community. The caution bred by seeing gospel singer Donnie McClurkin, who has preached about ''curing'' homosexuality, on the campaign trail and Pastor Rick Warren, who endorsed Proposition 8, at the inauguration turned into suspicion or even distrust. This was seen many times, most clearly in the lackluster LGBT response to the Obama administration's action on hospital visitation and the animosity in some corners to the certification language in the ''Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' compromise amendment. Despite language in legal filings about the administration's policy opposition to and support for repeal of DOMA and DADT in challenges to both laws, even White House senior domestic policy advisor Melody Barnes admitted in a meeting with LGBT reporters and writers in July, ''[W]hen there's a filing it kind of scrapes at the scab one more time, and it reminds people of the posture of the government one more time.'' Regardless, since Barnes said that – and also could not answer whether Obama thinks DOMA is unconstitutional – federal judges on the East and West coasts have put a salve on the wounds, striking down Section 3 of DOMA and Proposition 8, respectively, as violating the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the U.S. Constitution. U.S. District Court Judge Joseph Tauro, a Nixon appointee, ruled on July 8 that the federal definition of marriage contained in Section 3 of DOMA was unconstitutional in two cases, one – Gill v. Office of Personnel Management, brought by the Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders – and the other – Massachusetts v. United States, brought by Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley (D). U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker, a Reagan appointee who is reportedly gay, meanwhile, struck down Proposition 8 in Perry v. Schwarzenegger on Aug. 4 for similar reasons. Obama and his Justice Department, however, have two very different relationships to the cases. It was a Justice Department lawyer who stood in Tauro's courtroom defending DOMA's constitutionality. The case against Proposition 8, on the other hand, progressed throughout a three-week trial without any involvement on the part of the administration. This is not unusual; the federal government rarely involves itself with trial court proceedings involving state laws. But, now, decisions have been reached in both lawsuits, and in both cases the judge held that these discriminatory laws are unconstitutional. As Walker concluded in striking down Proposition 8 in Perry, the law in question ''does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples.'' Tauro, in a way, was more blunt, concluding in Gill, ''As irrational prejudice plainly never constitutes a legitimate government interest, this court must hold that Section 3 of DOMA as applied to Plaintiffs violates the equal protection'' guarantees of the U.S. Constitution. The White House responses to both decisions were as different as their involvement in the cases. Spokesman Robert Gibbs has directed all inquiries about the DOMA challenges to the Justice Department, whereas the White House issued a statement the night of the Proposition 8 decision. Spokesman Shin Inouye told Metro Weekly in an e-mail, ''The President has spoken out in opposition to Proposition 8 because it is divisive and discriminatory. He will continue to promote equality for LGBT Americans.'' Then, senior Obama advisor David Axelrod on MSNBC on Aug. 5 told Savannah Guthrie, ''The president does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples'' – adding that Obama believes marriage is ''an issue for the states.'' Over the course of the next two or three months, however, marriage – whether Obama wants to deal with it or not – is very much going to be an issue for the Obama administration. What's more, Obama did not hold and, from Axelrod's comments, continues not to hold the view that most LGBT Americans and liberal activists wish he held. Although Tauro has not yet entered the formal judgment in the DOMA cases – which starts the 60-day clock for the timeline of when the Justice Department would need to file the notice of its appeal – the Obama administration and Justice Department are doubtless already dealing with their response to the decisions. And, though they may not be thinking about it, they also should be thinking about their response to the Proposition 8 case. The way in which Obama handles the appeals of these cases is likely to have a long-lasting, if not permanent, effect on his relationship with the LGBT community. As was clear at the LGBT media meeting with Barnes, communication – or the lack thereof – will be key. But, substance must underlie that communication if it is to be effective. In addressing these cases, four substantive questions to be answered by the administration are: Will the Justice Department appeal the decisions in Gill and Massachusetts, thus continuing to defend the validity of Section 3 of DOMA in the U.S. First Circuit Court of Appeals? Of these questions, this is the only one where the administration needs to take an action. Because Tauro declared federal law unconstitutional in his decision, the Justice Department will need to file a notice of appeal with the court or send a letter to the Judiciary Committee explaining the reasoning behind why it is not appealing the ruling. This latter action was taken by now-Justice Elena Kagan when, as solicitor general, the determination was made not to appeal the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Witt v. United States regarding the evidence needed to be proven in order to discharge an individual under ''Don't Ask, Don't Tell.'' It would be extremely surprising, in light of past actions and statements, if the Justice Department does not appeal Tauro's rulings. As Barnes said at the July meeting, ''[W]e believe, the president believes, that given his office he has to defend the law.'' The communication of the reason for doing so is important, though, and the White House and Justice Department's reactive communications strategy regarding court filings will do it no favors if and when it files its notice of appeal in these cases. The remaining questions – though simple in fact – would create nuances that require careful communications that have not been the hallmark of the administration's work on LGBT issues, to say the least. Regardless, they are out there. Will Obama take an individual position on the constitutionality of DOMA, and what is it? This is the most nuanced of the three remaining questions. When meeting with Barnes in July, she told LGBT writers, ''[T]he president hasn't made an argument around the constitutionality [of DOMA]. He's said it's discriminatory.'' Obama can, personally, hold a view that DOMA is unconstitutional while believing that, as president, he has a responsibility to enforce the law and, hence, appeal the DOMA decisions to the First Circuit. This is a fine line, though, and it understandably raises questions about other instances when presidents have refused to defend laws that they found to be unconstitutional. If he chose to do so, Obama could say that while he believes it is unconstitutional and Tauro agrees with him, other judges have found otherwise. Accordingly, as the head of the executive branch, he believes the judicial branch is best suited to make a final determination about whether the law is unconstitutional. This is a risky position that is hard to articulate and unlikely to please many people because it risks appearing to be trying to please too many people. Will Obama take an individual position on the constitutionality of Proposition 8, and what is it? Obama has no obligation to defend the California Constitution. The near-immediate statement from the White House that Obama believes the measure is ''divisive and discriminatory'' also belies any argument that he doesn't want to comment on a state's constitution. California is the only state where same-sex couples were being legally married and a popular vote took away that right. Obama, under that reasoning, could hold a view that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional without addressing his views on DOMA. Will the Obama administration address its views on Proposition 8 to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals through the filing of an amicus curiae, or friend of the court, brief in any appeal of Perry? If Perry is appealed and Obama does believe that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional, he could go a step further and direct the Justice Department to file an amicus brief to that effect in the Ninth Circuit. An amicus brief is an opportunity for a party not subject to a case to tell the court its views on the lawsuit, including any policy concerns or preferences. If the reason for the Justice Department's defense of DOMA, per Barnes, is premised on Obama's view of his role as the head of the executive branch of the federal government, those constraints do not apply to an amicus filing regarding a state constitutional amendment. Moreover, many believe that Obama did not do enough to oppose Proposition 8 in 2008 when it was on the ballot. Opposing it in court now could give a much-needed shot in the arm to those LGBT supporters of his – and their allies – who are still looking for fierceness in his advocacy on behalf of LGBT issues. Regardless of whether Obama or Axelrod believe or want it to be so, two judges in three lawsuits have put same-sex marriage front and center on the national stage. Pretending it not to be so is no answer, and failing to communicate more effectively and substantively about the administration's actions and Obama's positions regarding same-sex marriage could be disastrous. Although Obama may say he no longer favors legalizing same-sex marriages, he has opposed restrictions on those marriages as discriminatory and promised to work toward equality for same-sex couples. These have been his decisions; it is up to him to thread that needle. http://metroweekly.com/news/?ak=5505

But it's perfectly OK to allow those kids to wallow their entire lives in the substandard and inattentive state care that they've been placed in, NOT INCIDENTALLY, because their heterosexual parents abandoned, abused, and/or molested them. http://joemygod.blogspot.com/

I was just getting into the area last night when I saw all the fire trucks, police, etc. There was a huge fire. In the article below, there are a lot of photos. http://www.pattayadailynews.com/en/2010/08/14/blazing-fire-ignites-at-south-pattaya-labour-encampment/

I love Ansel Adams. When I was pursuing a career in photography, he was one of my most admired photographers. The collection in DC is fantastic. I have been following the story below. It is a wild ride. SAN FRANCISCO — It was a dream come true, straight out of “Antiques Roadshow.” In 2000 Rick Norsigian, a painter in a school maintenance department, bought a box of photo negatives at a garage sale in Fresno, Calif., for $45. Last month, a decade later, he stood in a Beverly Hills art gallery to announce that a team of experts had concluded “beyond a reasonable doubt” that Ansel Adams had taken the pictures. Rick Norsigian with one of the 65 glass negatives he bought in a California garage sale. Prints from them are being sold as the work of Ansel Adams. The gallery’s owner, David W. Streets, appraised the value of the 65 images, which the experts called “the lost negatives,” at $200 million, and the incident made news around the world. But a fairy-tale ending is eluding Mr. Norsigian. A day after the announcement, Matthew Adams, a grandson of the photographer, disputed the finding, questioned the credentials of the experts and went so far as to call the whole business a “scam.” A few days after that, an Oakland woman, Marian Walton, announced that she had a photo that was identical to one of the negatives. It had been taken, she said, not by Adams, the famous outdoors photographer, but by an uncle of hers, Earl Brooks. And now, in the latest complication, court records reveal that Mr. Streets, who set the value for the negatives and is handling the related sales, is a convicted felon with a criminal record for petty theft and fraud in Louisiana and Kentucky. Though he says on his Web site, davidstreetsbeverlyhills.com, that he has 25 years of fine-art appraisal experience, two of Mr. Streets’s former employers say his true talent is in the embellishment of his credentials. Doris Allen, who owns the Bryant Galleries in New Orleans, says that though Mr. Streets, 45, can be “very charming,” he had said he had no appraisal experience when she hired him at her business in 2000. Now she is amazed to see him occupy an influential role in a national art debate. “How can he get up there and claim that those negatives are worth $200 million?” she said. “That is absurd.” The discussion of just who took the pictures is far from over, and Mr. Norsigian’s lawyer, Arnold Peter, said Mr. Streets’s past has little bearing on that question. But in a subjective field where credibility and expertise matter, it cannot help Mr. Norsigian that Mr. Streets’s résumé appears to be tarnished. For his part, Mr. Streets initially denied in an interview that he was the same David W. Streets who was convicted of passing bad checks, fraud and petty theft over a seven-year period that ended in 1998 when he was in his early 30s. But he later sent an e-mail in which he cited his extensive civic involvement in recent years, described the incidents as old, and attributed them to “untreated manic-depression” that he began to experience after his mother “committed suicide when I was 15, and my father died the following year.” “I took complete responsibility and learned from that experience,” he said. The art debate has its roots in Mr. Norsigian’s purchase of the box of negatives, a rummage-sale find that took on a new light when he later noticed in an Adams biography that certain features of the plate-glass negatives he bought, which depict California landscape scenes from Carmel, Yosemite and around San Francisco, seemed to match events in in Adams’s life. In particular, the plates showed evidence of fire damage, and in 1937 Adams lost negatives to a darkroom fire. “The size, the fire damage, the locations and different stuff like that,” Mr. Norsigian said. “I kept researching little pieces at a time.” He took his discovery to members of the Adams family, who disputed his claims. Adams had been notoriously protective of his negatives, locking them in a bank vault when he lived in San Francisco. Would he misplace a box of negatives? “Ansel would never have done something like that,” said William Turnage, managing trustee of the Ansel Adams Publishing Rights Trust, which owns the rights to Adams’s name and work. But in 2007 Mr. Norsigian and Mr. Peter, his lawyer, set about organizing an authentication team that included a former F.B.I. agent, a former United States attorney, two handwriting experts, a meteorologist (to track cloud patterns in the images), a landscape photographer and a former curator of European decorative arts and sculpture for the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston. They concluded, without question, that the prints were of the sort made by Adams as a young photographer in the 1920s. Mr. Peter said he decided to market the materials through Mr. Streets, whom he did not know but whose work as a dealer he was aware of. Mr. Streets, who moved to California from New Orleans in 2005, bills himself as “Los Angeles’s leading appraiser of all genres of fine art and celebrity memorabilia.” Among clients listed on his Web site are three former presidents, including Bill Clinton, and numerous celebrities. It features photos of him with Hollywood stars and with Maria Shriver, the wife of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California. A spokesman for Mr. Clinton said he did not recognize the dealer’s name. For the Entire Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/arts/design/14photos.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss Also, some of Adams works:

Thanks. Quite YUMMY. Jeeze. GREAT photos!

Don't forget this sexy guy!

I think the Supremes know more about love than we give them credit for. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t2yLMpGPU8A

I agree. I wonder how long it will take him to get a new job in Florida after this controversy? I also wonder if WeHo Police have contacted him yet about a move.

Music from the 60's. Drop by and support Krazy Dragon with this event. http://www.krazy-dragon.com/events.html