Bob

Why or how you think is fairly obvious. It's just puzzling why you seem reluctant to answer the questions legitimately posed. No problem,I guess, as that's your choice. You imply you have substantial interactions with Thais outside of the bar scene and I'm wondering if that is truly accurate. If I may be so bold as to ask a question, how often are you in Thailand and where do you stay during those times? I'm not within what you call the Pattaya cocoon (currently spend 6-8 months in Thailand and I've been to Pattaya for two days within the last 5 years) but I still do not share your rather western views of the sex industry. If by re-education you mean I should re-adopt the biblical claptrap that shackles (my view) most westerners, please count me out (been there, done that, don't buy it). I'm not in the game of rating the nobility of professions but I certainly don't consider those involved in prostitution by choice any more or less morally or culturally superior to any other profession. But, if I had to choose between hanging out with somebody from the country-club elite or a prostitute plying his or her trade, give me the whore any old day as I find them a bit more down to earth and genuine. Oh, one more question (if you will). Given your views of prostitutes, I'm presuming then that you've elected not to participate in that scene?

I agree fully with your comments, Khor Tose. Too often some of us analyze the Thai scene using the cultural and moral blinders we acquired in another culture.

I can understand your logical reasoning but I wouldn't believe any of the groups or characters involved. Logic (or truth) has generally not applied to what they've all done or said for years.

Yep, I've been to hell (and back!). And then there's Climax, Michigan [as college students, we used to giggle (and start moaning sounds) when we passed the "20 miles to Climax" sign].

Hmmmm.....the only thing I can think of is the Thai phrase "mao maak!"

If one looks at just what's happened the last couple of months, it'd be very difficult for anyone to disagree with you; however, it's a bit more understandable if one only considers what's happened in the last five years and how all of that led to much of this. Sadly, it's a mess and there will be no reconciliation in the forseeable future. I just hope it doesn't get worse (and, frankly, I do expect that in the future in the aftermath of future elections and/or when the present King should pass).

"Perfectly reasonable behavior?" Strange use of language and, in my view, way off the charts. I'm glad you're not making the rules where I live. If somebody is shooting at you or taking action (e.g., throwing molotov cocktails or other actions designed to cause significant bodily injury), then shooting back is justified - and, in that situation, it's called self-defense or justifiable homicide (not "perfectly reasonable behavior"); otherwise, call it what you want but in the end it's called murder of some degree. The civilized world doesn't shoot protesters just because they're being disruptive, refuse to disperse, and/or verbally threaten violence.

Since he's essentially their boy, the army's refusal to follow Abhisit's orders is a bit surprising. But the fact that the army only takes orders from itself is rather appalling and recipe for disaster (coup, dictatorship, etc.).

While I still don't disagree that some US meddling was occurring, the only thing "clear" about the PM's roadmap is that the elections would be held November 14th (presuming that happens). The rest if it is ambiguous at best. Most of it sounded like political pap to me and none of it (except the election date) seemed to be couched in language that was verifiable by anybody. Regardless, I welcome anything that might lead to elections.

While true about the meddling bit at times, the news doesn't quite tell the whole story. Supposedly, this was a breakfast meeting to facilitate both the US government's understanding of the PM's roadmap and to get the parties together. The government was invited to appear also and, when they chose not to attend at the last minute, then the whole deal was colored as a political meeting between the US and the redshirts. Not entirely accurate (not that this should surprise anybody with respect to the Thai press).

I'm not sure why we typically find it funny when the elderly talk dirty - but it sure worked with Betty White. Something both funny and disgusting hearing about her muffin...

Yep, GB has it right....just a method of relocating one's t-shirt to show off the fine bod and, if available, six-pack.

From a westerner government's point of view, of course you're right. Yet, the events of the 1976 Bangkok student "massacre" and the firing on the Bangkok protestors in 1992 remain deeply ingrained in the Thai psyche - and help explain the government's inability to do anything meaningful. The condemnations for those actions were sustained and deeply etched into Thai society and they just can't handle a repeat of that. And, of course, they did nothing when the yellow shirts took over Government House for months and essentially nothing when they took over Suvarnabhumi. Asking them to all of a sudden change their modus operandi is asking a bit much. Plus, it could be argued that the current protestors have been led to believe by prior inactions that they could get away with just about anything and it might be a bit "unfair" to change the ground rules just because of the color of their shirts. Hell, they still haven't tried anybody for the Suvarnabhumi takeover! Seems like nothing changes (I'm not happy about it but, then again, it's not my country or psyche we're talking about).

I understand and agree in part with your concerns. I see no reason why we can't talk about it - understanding we're not part of it and we very likely can't understand it in the way many Thais do - and not incur any responsibility to pay for it. I'm fairly certain Thais in recent days have talked about the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico but I see no basis to suggest it ought to cost them something (or, more pointedly, to tell them that: you know, it's easy for you to talk about it when it doesn't cost you anything). We're falang (most of us are, I think) who are reacting to and chatting about the goofiness happening in Thai society and politics. As long as we remember that we're non-participants and our cultural backgrounds color our views, I see no reason to feel guilty in any sense that it doesn't cost us anything. That lack of cost, financial or otherwise, doesn't logically indicate in my view that any of the views expressed in the forums by falang are either easy (whatever that means) or less valid.

Huh? Quite a load of non-sequiturs, Khun PM. Somehow you are suggesting that a person has no concern for the poor of a given country unless he behaves and pays the same as he would do in another country? Rather illogical nexus in my view. You also suggest that all of this is about "power and enhancing one's wealth" right after you say that this is "NOT about helping the poor!" Again, your logic in part escapes me. The rural poor, who are powerless and obviously without wealth, are struggling to get a piece of the action - and they happened to like Thaksin as he (a corrupt politician just like the rest of them) was the first national politician to ever do anything for them. There are others, the so-called amataya who are generally championed by the yellow-shirts and PAD, who don't want to lose any of their power and wealth and certainly do want to rural poor to stay on the farm and out of their business of controlling everything (including, obviously, electing national leaders when one of the PAD's primary tenets is that one house of parliament should be 70% appointed by the elite and not elected by those unwashed and ignorant rice farmers). I agree that most of what's been happening in Thailand is all about a background struggle for power and money (and it's been going on in the Land of Smiles forever and, I'd note, is somewhat the common theme in most if not all other countries). If you would include in your concept of "helping the poor" that they ought to have the right to vote for their leaders and also have a right to an equal share of the wealth of the country, then I don't agree with your premise at all.

Geez, if the Thais followed all your proposed rules, how would we recognize the Thai poltical sytem as "Thai" in any respect? And the "balanced & fair leadership" description almost sounds like you're proposing that Sean Hannity come to the rescue!

God or Bhudda only knows what's "true" but the only statements reported in the press that the redshirt leaders have made for several months explicitly say they honor and support the king (versus, let's say, Prem who they blame for giving the green light for the coup). Even Shinawatra, in his quoted statements, has said the same thing repeatedly. The Yellow Shirts (and, perhaps, the current government) have always accused their enemies of being against the king. It's standard pap from that group.

Hell, he looked perfectly fine in some news coverage just a couple of days ago! And about a week ago he actually had to make a statement before the cameras to deny he wasn't dead! (there were rumors of his death floating in Thailand)

Not that it's any big deal but I've been a member of SGT since the beginning and I only remember that it's occurred twice in the last 10 years. I do hope that it comes back online but that's mainly so that the half a dozen or so idiots there won't attempt to infect the other boards.

Just out of curiosity, wouldn't whoever is hosting a site send somebody a reminder, a bill, or an email before just pulling the plug?

Other than by hotels, my bank (on occasion), airlines, and immigration, nobody has ever asked to see my passport in the last 10+ years; nevertheless, I carry my passport with me everyday when I'm there (and did for the 7-month trip I just completed). It's easy, at least for me, like carrying your wallet.

A couple of months ago, during one of my brief sojourns to Pattaya, I stopped by the site to take a look-see. Nothing had started on site at all and the only thing happening was somebody was using part of the site to mix concrete for some other venue. I have no interest one way or the other if it's ever built but, frankly, I doubt if it will ever be. Too big (based on what I've read, any building over about 60 stories is more a story about vanity than economic intelligence), too costly, the economic climate sucks (and financing has to be extremely difficult or impossible), and the drop in tourism numbers wouldn't seem to be a very good omen.

Rather obvious that I'm not in sync at all with how many consider what the boy/girl bars really are. If the bar (the house) wasn't being paid for providing the employee, I could almost see the technical argument that these places aren't houses of prostitution. But they do extract a fee for taking the employee off and everybody (except for a few, apparently) knows exactly what type of services are being facilitated and purchased.

While I'm not too fond of either facial hair or heavily-tattoed guys and, if asked by a Thai whether I like a given tattoo or facial hair, I'd probably try to say no in a somewhat polite fashion, I'm hardly about to join some falang effort to "get the word out." Seems to me that it's their lifestyle choice and trying to push them to comply with my personal standards seems a bit awkward and/or wrong to me. Plus (the following is meant with a little humor), maybe the boys will all get together and decide that they should tell every falang they meet that they don't particularly enjoy certain falang features that they might find a bit distasteful. If they all did that, maybe some slimmer and better-showered falang will start showing up at the bars?

You might be attempting to be a bit technical with the language, Rich, but it's really difficult for me to understand you don't view the bars' participation as being involved with prostitution. Any court in the west would consider these places houses of prostitution (and, again, by calling them that I'm not expressing any personal disapproval).