Bob

The topic and Smiles' post reminded me of a dinner I had with Smiles, Khun Peter (I'm hoping I recall the name correctly), and myself - along with (I think - again, if I recall right) both Smiles' and Peters' boyfriends (mine was back in school in Chiangmai at the time). Smiles pointed out that Peter had been with his boyfriend more than 11 years and both Smiles and I had been with our respective boyfriends more than 9 years at the time. Smiles noted that, between the three of us, we had more than 30 years of relationship with the same guys.....and he suggested that this was likely damn near a record for three falang in Thailand...hehe. In any event, I'm not much on the "happy" quotient and have always had difficulty thinking of life that way. Some falang I know express undying devotion and rapture with their boyfriends and then, when looking at me for some type of explanation of my life, I usually say something like "well, we've been together just shy of 10 years, we get along most of the time, we only get pissed at each other once a day or so, neither of us have tried to kill the other (as yet), and I guess it's sorta like we're "married" (with all the positives and negatives that relationship might imply). Best I can say is I'm not "unhappy." Just taking one day at a time and not worrying about where it's been or where it's going.

Hmmmmm.....well, now I'm thinking what it'll take for me not to tell Pot you called him a "cheap date." Certainly more than a single bacardi coke (I have my standards!). I shall let you know.

I can agree that the owner/lessor of a building shouldn't be criminally liable for what his tenants independently do; however, any half-brained owner has a lease clause that gives him the right to terminate the lease should the tenant be engaged in an illegal activity. And, while such a clause shouldn't be strictly applied, it would seem that a bar owner harboring/pimping underaged kids ought to be sufficient cause to enforce it.

Yep, forgot that one. I see it when I'm heading to the post office which is located in the nether regions of the mall.

It's a date (so to speak). While I like my Thai food, a good old greasy hamburger or cheeseburger seems to make it into the diet once a week. Haven't had lunch yet and the chili dogs you mention sound pretty good at the moment.

There are three "Mike's" that I'm aware of - one on the west side of Nimmanhaemin (about Soi 4), one on the east side of the moat on Chaiyaphum (spelling?) Road, and a small one in Anusarn Plaza (the food/restaurant plaza between Chang Klan and Charoen Pratet about a block south of the night market). Their slogan: "Converting vegetarians since 1979." They do make a mean burger and I also enjoy the malts, french fries, hot dogs with bacon, etc..

Actually, using "jive" is consistent with modern American slang (at least as practiced by the younger set). GB is from the "hood" or actually hipper than we know (alternatively, he screwed it up and accidentally got it right.... B) ).

Thai has a few weird (to us falang, anyway) consonants and a sound spelled in English "bp" is one of them. Fish, spelled in Thai, is "ปลา" and would normally be spelled in English "bplaa". As you noted, the "muuk" means ink.

Sorry, won't likely be in Pattaya; however, should any of the clan be up in Chiangmai from the end of September to May, I'd consider buying a half a beer for at least some of you....

Yep, there are always conspiracy nuts. The international investigative team that concluded the ship was sunk by a North Korean torpedo included 24 Australian, US, British, Canadian and Swedish defence experts. All unanimously agreed with the findings. End of story.

Agree, TAT's numbers in my experience simply can't be believed. The only numbers occasionaly I see that seem a bit trustworthy are by a local hotel association (they seem to candidly discuss how low the numbers are when you'd think that they might not want to be that candid about it). I remember reading two articles in the same edition of the Chiangmai Mail last year when TAT reported that arrival numbers at the airport were dramatically up for the same month that a Bangkok hotel association was announcing that their numbers were down 17% (a rather huge drop business-wise) for the same month. Based on what I've seen at least in Chiangmai, the tourist numbers have been steadily dropping since about 2004 (with the exception of one 2-3 month period when the Royal Ratchapruek exhibition was first opened). And one hears various reasons for the drop - the tsunami, the bird flu, the swine flu, air polution, the world-wide recession, and now the "political troubles" - but I think they really have no clue about the reasons and are just guessing. I've begun to wonder if all these issues (and other issues, perhaps) are beginning to have a cumulative effect and/or that a lot of travelers have "been there, done that" and are simply tired of what Thailand has to offer. Or maybe other places are doing a better job of promoting tourism. Heck if I know. I've always wondered before about TAT's arrival numbers at the international airport - and whether those include only true foreigners or also include Thai citizens who have travelled abroad. If the latter is included, then it would make more sense to me to see less falang but higher arrivals (given carriers like Air Asia have arisen in the last decade and Thais are beginning to travel more because of the availability and lower cost). Again, I don't know but TAT's numbers have never made much sense to me.

Well, it sorta helps at the big dick contest!

Damn, GT's so chintzy he can only handle 475 pixels wide?

And you ought to be (prejudiced, that is) as he's a fine looking dude. Seems a little familiar to me, not sure why..... But, while you do a great job with that digital camera, I'll have to conduct a short re-sizing course with you this fall (the photo is like 1.2 megs!). Here it is resized to 60 kb:

Okay, I'll add one (not sure if I posted this one before or not):

I actually think Thai is probably easier to learn than English; however, one thing that still drives me nuts is there are no spaces between Thai words. I'd give an example but I can't seem to write with Thai font here.

I took a couple of Thai language courses at Chiangmai University and, although a bit difficult (mainly due to the inability to retain very well at my age), what was often invaluable were the cultural nuances. For example only, if you ask a Thai if he is hungry, he'll say "a little" if he's not (as it's impolite to say "no, I'm not hungry"). My guess is that if they aren't very clear that they like something or say they only like it a little, they're trying to politely tell you they don't really like it at all.

Actually, I personally think it's how they are taught English....and often it's somewhat poor. I've had repeated discussion with the bf (he's taken English at the primary school level, high school level, and university level) and others about how to say something in English and too often I'm told I'm wrong because what their teacher taught them was right. I always get a kick out of that one. It's true they don't use tenses (past and future) all that often as, in Thai, it's often understood from the context of the discussion. But they do have and use the tenses. For clear past tense, they never change the verb (like we do: go to went) but add the word "laew" which essentially means "already." So, "pom bpai rahn internet" means "I go to the internet shop" whereas "pom bpai rahn internet laew" essentially means "I previously went to the internet store" or, literally, "I go to the internet store already." But, if they added "yesterday" (mua-wan-nee) to the sentence or you're already talking about a past time period, they often skip the "laew" as you're supposed to figure it out from the context (yea, sometimes strange but it is logical). For clear future tense, they add the word "ja" which, in many contexts, means "will." So, "pom ja bpai rahn internet" means "I will go to the internet shop." But, like past tense, if they specifically mention next week or the context is about a future time in the first place, they can skip it. And maybe part of it is they really don't care to contemplate what it is you can do for them next week. They, like a lot younger people, live in present and are more interested in what you can do for them NOW! [As noted in "rahn internet", the modifier (adjective in most cases) always follows the noun in Thai. So, literally, they will say "car red" instead of "red car." For example, I'm sure you've often heard "friend you" and what they mean is "your friend." Or, if they say "you friend me", they're trying to say "you're my friend."

I've just updated my "things to do list" for my continuing retirement in Chiangmai: Watch out for wily Chinese surreptitiously trying to feed me powdered puppy penis.

Ah, Rodney, still funny after all these years. One of the few comedians who could crack up Carson. One of my favorite "ugly" lines of Rodney: I was so ugly as a child that they had to tie a porkchop to my face to get the dog to play with me!

GB's so old that, when he went to grade school, he didn't study history because they didn't have any. (I think I've stolen this from our common mentor, Mr. Dangerfield)

Lol. Sure. But first we'll have to carefully schedule the time and date so there are no misunderstandings, kao jai krab? Yep, rather nice to be able to disagree on a internet message board without the usual associated personal slams, etc. Your wrong and stubborn as hell (almost as stubborn as me) but I'd never say that here.

I've experienced hundreds (if not thousands) of situtations where there are misunderstandings between myself and Thais due to them not understanding what I said in English and/or due to my not understanding what they said in English. It almost has to be a daily occurrence. Rarely do they ever actually say they don't understand to me but, when I see the puzzlement in their eyes or faces, I usually pursue it further to clear up the misunderstanding (which usually is rather minor). You need to get out more. I should note that almost all of these experiences do not involve bar boys. P.S. Although rather minor in nature, I don't recall indicating it was my view that it was all the falang's responsibility (but mostly the falang's responsibility for the reasons stated).

If you only want to read the first two sentences, yes. Try the seventh paragraph.