Bob

Hedda, I'm not so sure that's what happened. What you're saying is what the Defendants claimed as was reported in the papers. What the newspapers haven't reported in depth were the actual factual findings of the Court. Having read another couple of articles a long time ago, the drift I got was that the prosecution claimed that the stock transfer paperwork was dated in 1997 but that it actually happened shortly before the Shin stock sale (which may explain why the urled newspaper report makes a reference to the Court saying that the offense happened while her husband was prime minister). We, of course, don't know for sure as the Thai press reporting (at least in English) is generally worthless.

I don't see where anyone suggested you dispense with any kindness or compassion. Some, though, have suggested you not dispense with some intelligence about the situation. I have no problem if you disagree with any of the thoughts or suggestions, but it's a bit over the top to get a bit snarky about other people's thoughts which you solicited in the first place! I'm now beginning to wonder why you wanted anybody else's opinions about the subject in the first place. Regardless, be smart, be lucky, and chok dee.

Ol' George always proved you could combine humor with intelligence and just a wee bit of humanity. Always nice to essentially get a lecture in a gentle and humorous way. First time I ever saw him was very early sixties on the Johnny Carson show when he was doing the hippy dippy weatherman bit. Laughed my ass off when he was giving the weather and just mentioned, in passing, that he also saw a flight of Russian ICBM's coming in on the weather radar. Funny man.

Whoa! Were you in the movie ET? ( )

It's up to you and I'm not going to pass judgment on whatever you do. If it was me....given the possibility (however remote) of nefarious intent by your past friend, the possibility (however remote) that either neighbors or police might misinterpret, and just the political correctness of the day, there is no way I would allow the 10-year old to stay in my condo or hotel room. Not a chance. And, if I thought there was any chance I might end up in bed with my past friend, I'm simply tell him don't even bother bringing his 10-year-old kid brother to town (where's the 10-year-old going to be when this happens and/or what is he aware about it?). While we all understand and say that the Thais are very tolerant of gays, I personally believe that a lot of Thais don't like it at all and simply don't express that displeasure. Let's not forget what the scene is here that you're talking about - your boyfriend (a Thai boy you've historically had sex with - and I'm not sure if that was moneyboy situation or not) is coming to stay/visit with his falang boyfriend and bringing a 10-year-old brother with him. Sounds like a bunch of red flags to me (and it is almost unfathomable to me that anybody else who might know the guy was your boyfriend wouldn't wonder what the heck was going on with the younger brother). Based on what you've written here, I'd trust you.....but it isn't me you have to worry about. If the 10-year-old's parent was there, then I'd have a totally different view and basically wouldn't worry about it at all. Whatever happens, hope it works out for you.

I actually have no problem with some physical contact whether be a friendly pat on the ass, a hug, somebody chatting while laying on hand on a shoulder or a leg, the Throb dog (dalmation?) doing a dry hump to some customer's face, etc. Heck, that's to be expected and I'm not going to worry about whether some internal security camera sees me doing that. And I frankly have no problems with people going into the joints that show full nudity or sex shows. We all appreciate the Thai physique and, if somebody wants to see a sex show, that's fine by me (hell, it's been a few years, but I've gone and seen a few of those myself). And, frankly, I don't give a hoot about what some 70-year old farang or Japanese lady or whoever do outside my presence. But I see no reason when I go into these places that it's acceptable behavior for the falang next to me to pull the Thai's kid's dick out of his pants to inspect it, blow it, or bless it, and I personally find that behavior (expecially by some obnoxious and/or drunk falang) unacceptable (I didn't go into the bar to see that shit). So, to the extent the cameras may stop that kind of behavior in my presence, fine by me. But, to be honest, I'm doubtful if the truly obnoxious will be deterred at all by the cameras. Maybe I'm wrong but there is certain bedroom behaviour I like, do and enjoy but the public area of a public bar ain't the place for falangs to display it.

Why? I'm expressing an opinion, just like you did (and, while I'm very biased as to who has the correct one, I'll at least suggest that yours is no better than mine). It's perfectly fine that you don't like the cameras. I don't feel that way as I stated and I even welcome the cameras all over public venues. Is it a bit intrusive, at least theoretically, on our grand civil liberties? I suppose so but I don't mind it as I also believe there are positives that come along with them. I have no expectation of privacy on the streets or in somebody else' business premises (at least the public portion of those premises - and, yes, I'd probably hoot and holler if they were taking video of bathroom stalls or, perhaps, short time rooms designed for privacy). And I'm not sure what you mean by sitting on one's hands in the bars. To each his own, I suppose, but I have no desire to see falangs engaged in sexual behavior in front of me. I've seen it before and find it personally disgusting. Once, in a Bangkok bar, I happened to be sitting too damn close to avoid seeing some elderly (probably in his 70's) jerk blowing one thai guy while another thai guy was blowing the old man. I'm no prude at all but, for christ's sake, I'm not there to see that gross display (and, yes, I see a big difference between that behavior by a falang customer and some of the shows I've seen - but, then again, I've gone to watch those shows a time or two over the years and watching some old geezer doing it wasn't on my agenda). The cameras don't hamper my activities in a bar. Do they hamper your activities ( if so, mind saying what activities those might be)?

I personally have no problem with security cameras and take the view that, if somebody doesn't like them, then don't go there (or, perhaps, go make a complaint about it where it might count - which I doubt is anywhere in Thailand let alone an internet message board). If the cameras deter any crime or even deter some slob falang from fondling (or worse) a boy in my presence, great! But my one concern is that somebody will rip one of the cameras off the wall and use it as a weapon to club me to death. That could happen! [Actually, I have no concern at all about that - but, what the hell, just like somebody blackmailling a patron because of one of these videos, it could happen although nobody's ever actually known it to happen.]

Well, GT, I would have to say you take a cheap shot or two rather graciously. But (just a little humor here, now...), "bliss?" Geez, sounds like Ozzie and Harriet Nelson. And I'm wondering who's cooking dinner in the kitchen with the formal dress and high heels! (Truly glad things are going well for you)

Well, the name Troy King sorta gives one a hint...hehe. I presume he's a top, of course.

GB, I do believe your lead-in ("YouTube Ordered to Reveal Its Viewers") is a bit misleading. Viacom (owner of the copyrighted materials) was seeking the data to be able to prove how many times its materials were viewed - and Viacom's attorney said in court that it had no intention to try to determine who belonged to what IP number or to go after either viewers or uploaders. Additionally, the Defendant asked about turning over the data with IP numbers and usernames blocked out (omitted or masked) and Viacom's attorneys said they were open to that. Finally, there is a protective order in place which limits how the data can be used and/or disclosed. The key to the case is YouTube is required to turn over data to show how many times the copyrighted material is being viewed and the side concern (which may not be very much of a concern given the above comments) is whether Viacom would or could use the data to check out what a given person is viewing or uploading. The Judge in the case did correctly note that it would be almost impossible to personally identify any user or uploader solely from the data being turned over [even if an IP number is included in the data, one would have to get the ISP to disclose who that belongs to - and that, I certainly hope, would require a court order that would never be given - and, in this particular case, given the Judge's comments, it's fairly certain that this Court wouldn't order that disclosure].

There was nothing in the voluminous court papers (the US case) which gave a clue as to why the Canadians reported the guy to the US as a member of Al Queda. So, you'd have to ask the Canadians (and my guess is they had no good reason to say that as they paid a lot of money in reparations for doing so). My guess is we (the US) would automatically trust the information given by the Canadians and most likely the INS did nothing to verify or un-verify the info. I'd also guess that the "watch list" includes hundreds of thousands of names and we probably would all be appalled at the quality (lack thereof) of the sources calling somebody a terrorist; on the other hand, I'm doubtful even the US government people have the brains, time, or money to check out all the names and, given the names given are usually of non-US citizens, probably don't care one way or the other. I'd personally question whether all the billions spent on the inconvenience of "airline safety" and other homeland security measures have really prevented anything (of course, the neocons would say that the fact no further attacks have occurred proves it works).

I just read most of the Arar v United States decision and can at least tell you that your head will spin and almost burst trying to wade through all that legal jargon and analysis. While I won't defend much of what the US government does, it's clear from the facts pleaded by both Arar and the government that he was detained at the request of the Canadian government. The Canadian government had given his name to the US as a member of Al Queda and asked that his name be placed on the watch list. He was at JFK in the international area when he was located (going from Zurich to Canada with a stop-over at JFK). He was neither seeking nor ever granted permission to enter the US and, given that, even though he was physically taken from New York to Washington to be flown to the middle east, he was considered to be never legally in the US (not an untypical decision and that type of theory is somewhat followed by many countries). For example only, an illegal Mexican immigrant in found in the US has no right to proceed in a regular federal court as he isn't here legally and Congress has enacted statutes that gives INS exclusive authority over illegals found within the US. His basic complaint is that the US violated his Fifth Amendment (due process) rights by sending him to Syria (actually, it appears he was turned over to Jordanian authorities who then shipped him to the Syrian bad guys). The basic problem with that theory is that he isn't a US citizen (the Fifth Amendment rights don't apply to non-US citizens) and he wasn't even legally in the US in any event. Complicated set of facts and even more complicated set of legal precedent, immigration statutes, and treaties. If you really want to hurt your brain, google and read the entire file (Azur v United States).

Frankly, GT, while I've always appreciated your sentiments and respectful feelings towards your Thai friends, I think these particular comments are simply wishful dreaming. If the kid has a yaba habit, he's going to buy more regardless of how much money you give him (sorry, but the stuff is nasty and just too addictive - and also indicates he surely is hanging around the wrong crowd). And, if he's in the habit of giving funds to the family back home, he'll continue with that as well. Obviously, he'll spend less for bad habits or supporting the family if he has less money - which is really what I think is all you're saying there. He(GT)'s my brother but sometime his thinking isn't too heavy! hehe (Not trying to lambaste you here, just a mild spanking (oh, you like that?) for fuzzy brain activity.. )

The problem with newspaper articles like this (and most others) is there simply isn't enough information there to really know what happened or to truly come to a decent opinion about all of it. And that's even presuming that the author has a real clue as to what the issue is all about or was aware of the importance of particular details he may have heard but misunderstood (or, more likely, omitted from the article). I would note that there is actually a legal question as to whether the person was ever in the United States (from a legal fiction point of view). There are some historical treaties and understandings involving persons in international transit. If you leave the international area at JFK, you're definitely on US soil; if you don't, you may not be in the US for some purposes.

Actually, no - usually Taipei (less frequently Narita). But, if my memory is correct, each time the customs officer knew I was in Thailand (I think they ask where I've been and I just say Thailand and usually they ask if for business or pleasure). Once or twice I think they've asked me another question or two ("what part of Thailand" or "how do you like it over there" - questions that didn't give me the impression somebody was trying to grill me (more of a friendly chat). If there was a concerted effort here against single males visiting Thailand, I'd guess I would have been questioned more or at least a time or two they might have asked to check the laptop or camera memory card. I actually don't care if they want to do that - so long as they don't screw me up, timing-wise, on wherever I'm going next. They're just trying to do their job as far as I'm concerned. I suppose some day I'm going to run into some extremely rude bastard and, after a long flight, I'll have little or no chance of restraining myself from asking him about his mother's relationship with a buffalo? Good lord, stop me before I kill myself....haha.

The searching of camera memory cards and laptops has obviously been selective. I've been through LAX 15-16 times and Detroit a few others and have never had them even ask about my camera or laptop (they wouldn't find anything inappropriate on either anyway) which are carried in plain sight.

That sounded good so I tried to price premium economy from mid-August to mid-September. The price that came up was $1270.00 without taxes and other fees. When I got near the end, found out that the taxes and other fees added up to over $670.00....so total ticket price was $1,900.00+. A bit expensive. Then priced Eva upgraded economy (of course, LAX to Taipei and Taipei to BKK) and that was just under $1500.00 for the same dates. Got that price down to less than $1,300.00 for mid-September to mid-October. I'm actually going over at the end of September for 3 weeks and used my EVA miles for a free* ticket. That brings my miles down to not much and the next ticket is really going to cost! *Free except for $268.00 worth of taxes!!!

And remember the three-ring theory. First there's the engagement ring, then the wedding ring, and, finally, the suffering....

I personally don't like them at all but I suppose much of that attitude was instilled in my youth when anything different (or wore leather and rode a motorcycle) was definitely bad; regardless, not my cup of tea but I don't ever criticize them (and occasionally complement what appears to be one that's well done). If it's a only a fad, it's an infectious fad as every year I seem to notice more and more of them.

With the continuing epidemic of flying falang, I'm wondering if it's time we all started to wear hard hats (and/or simply didn't walk near high buildings)? Most of these cases, no doubt, are sad situations but it'd be a real tragedy if the poor bastard landed on somebody who actually enjoyed life.

I think the only right answer you'll get to that question is go ask a competent Thai lawyer.

2lz2p, Thanks. Sounds interesting and may have to switch to Bangkok Bank. Glad to see they exchange/transfer funds at the Thai rate.

I use an ATM card issued by my Thai bank to get money out of my Thai bank account. Costs nothing. Using your foreign ATM there - which is probably what you're discussing - does cost you money just like using your ATM card at any bank/outlet not directly associated with your personal bank.

Regarding Bangkok Bank and the ability to electronically transfer money (from, let's say, the New York branch to a Bangkok Bank account in Thailand), does anyone know: (1) Is there any charge imposed by Bangkok Bank to make the transfer? (2) And, more importantly, how do they handle the exchange rate - the one in New York (horrible) or the one in Thailand? If they are using the offshore exchange rate, people are getting hosed. If not, may be worth looking into especially if you are in need of quite often transferring funds to a Thai bank account.