Rogie

Good question! I'm not sure, but to camouflage my embarassment for not knowing, how's this for a bit of light relief: Revealed! The Secret of Japanese Longevity http://observer.com/2010/08/revealed-the-secret-of-japanese-longevity/

Anyone remember Thunderclap Newman? Something in the Air Call out the instigators Because there's something in the air We've got to get together sooner or later Because the revolution's here, and you know it's right And you know that it's right We have got to get it together We have got to get it together now Lock up the streets and houses Because there's something in the air We've got to get together sooner or later Because the revolution's here, and you know it's right And you know that it's right We have got to get it together We have got to get it together now Hand out the arms and ammo We're going to blast our way through here We've got to get together sooner or later Because the revolution's here, and you know it's right And you know that it's right We have got to get it together We have got to get it together Now

My reading of Koko's comment was the Philippines came bottom (i.e #12) in your original list of 12 countries FH. ________________________________________________________________________ It would be interesting to speculate how life expectancy rates will change in the next few decades. for example, barring any major disaster in a country, what would count for more? First-class medical care A country whose people take great care to eat nutritious food Similar to above, but where the people always take regular exercise Certainly a country with all of the above would be a serious contender for the #1 slot, unless there was some other factor: eg. something in the air! genetic predisposition to longevity a future where some countries mess around with human DNA, perhaps cloning or genetic screening to weed out 'bad' genes

Thanks for posting this. I have never been to Japan and probably never shall (unless I were to join a tour group which in general I'm not keen on), but hats off to anyone 'going it alone' like yourself.

Britain's tabloid press, sometimes referred to as 'Red Tops', have been playing havoc with headlines for several decades now. Bob mentioned a recent one which I shall refrain from repeating as it was a slur on a respectable American politician. However, be that as it may, they usually get away with it as all they are doing is reflecting the views of their readers. If millions of people 'think' like that, the newspaper editor can't be wrong, can he? Here are a few: Elton takes David up the aisle - a pretty obvious one Zip me up before you go go - refers to a British singer's toilet disgrace I've had my whey with three sisters called Miss Muffitt - for lovers of nursery rhymes Swollen Dick's out! - well I suppose it helps to conceal that sort of thing if you're wearing the now-fashionable baggy shorts . . . Gotcha! - probably one of the most controversial headlines which relates to the sinking of the Argentinian ship the General Belgrano during the Falklands war in 1982. http://sandsmediaser...-headlines.html

Looking for a safe haven? South-east Asia could fit the bill Jim Rogers, co-founder of the Quantum Fund with George Soros and the entertaining author of a couple of On the Road-style investment books, understands the power of a headline. http://www.telegraph...t-the-bill.html

Ah, but the original data came from the UN, and I note FH, perhaps anticipating disputed data, rather cagily says "according to the UN".

The gymnast on the rings in post #5 and the athletes in the second photo in post #3 look to be wearing something a bit leotardy, but I am no expert on leotards so I expect whatever it is has another name.

Oxford University changes dress code to meet needs of transgender students ______________________________________________________________ RE: use of the term LGBTQ Some of the issues surrounding the word queer were discussed in the Are You Queer? thread recently. I can understand some homosexuals using queer to describe themselves or applying it to a kind of homosexual lifestyle or academic study - they are free to do that if that's what they prefer. However, I have always imagined a person describing him or herself as queer is either a gay or a lesbian. Now it seems that is not necessarily so. So who are these queers who wish to differentiate themselves from established usage? ______________________________________________________________ http://www.guardian....s?newsfeed=true

If anyone living in Singapore, or indeed anywhere, has recently tested positive for HIV and is bewildered and confused and wondering what to do, hopefully by reading Zack's story he will decide to seek immediate anti-HIV drug treatment before all sorts of awful complications, such as happened to Zack, set in. I see he was tested +ve but did not go on meds at that time. I wonder if the support structure in Singapore is poor. Surely in a civilised country anyone trested +ve should be given appropriate support and encouraged to start anti-HIV meds straightaway. But, as we have seen in Thailand, even if the medical support is there, the family and friends support is often lacking, and it's when that is coupled to the guy's feelings of inadequacy that hopelessness can so easily set in and so there must have been, and no doubt still are, many 'Zacks' in Thailand.

I quite agree that if quizzes were an Olympic event, Koko would be in contention for gold. However, he has allowed his concentration to slip in this instance and isn't going to win. The rules quite clearly state you have to name the 4 countries and put them in the right order. I am afraid Thaiworthy, normally so sagacious, has hitched himself to a wagon with wonky wheels. Me too! Bit in fairness I think we should allow a little while longer so Koko and TW can re-submit their guesses, if they so wish.

And now some people are saying Romney had it right and things ain't as they oughta be. What would you think if you saw an event described as 'unticketed'? It meant you could get in for free, tickets not needed? or, it meant tickets were not being sold? i.e. event not open to the public Seems the confusion resulted in many folks thinking they could go and see the archery at Lord's (the cricket ground) without needing a ticket and found out it wasn't open to the public. Does that make Romney right? It seems there were some rogue websites giving false or misleading information. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/olympics/archery/9431496/London-2012-Olympics-hundreds-of-ticketless-fans-turned-away-from-archery.html

. . .and one of mine.

I hadn't thought of it in that way but that's a bit worrying. The word cult implies some kind of worship, although a more relevant meaning here would be 'devotion to a particular person or thing' (SOED). I don't have nuthin', neither Apple nor Samsung have i none. That doesn't mean I don't notice the almost beatific trancelike state some users lapse into. It can't be long before one is cited in the courts as a reason for marriage or civil partnership breakdown . . . See what I mean? (sorry Bob, I hope you have a great time with it, as one of a dwindling band of non-believers I've actually begun to think about a time when I too may see the light).

Sounds like Romney hasn't exactly hit the ground running, more like ground to a shuddering halt.

Yeahsper says he's 19 and that's a nice age to be so let's not get too jealous here! If I was 19 with a wanderlust looking to go backpacking for a few months, I almost certainly wouldn't do this (i.e. prostitute myself) myself, but cannot criticise another for contemplating it. Even if the poster is a troll, it's a legitimate topic for discussion IMO.

Ok, I'll bite. No cheating, promise. I assume you mean the top 10 for ALL the world's countries. My guesses are as marked. 1 - 4 in blue for top life expectancy in order, so 1 = top, etc and in red for lowest, so 1 = worst, 2 = second worst etc I've absolutely no idea about China, it's just so big and a difficult one to call, so I've 'ignored' that one.

Check these guys out Christian! http://www.dolcegabbana.com/dg/books/uomini/ http://www.dolcegabbana.com/dg/perfumes/the-one-sport/man/ The guy featured in the second of my links appeared on a full page advertisement in today's Telegraph newspaper. That's a traditional broadsheet size, 54 x 35 cm. Quite an impact!

In the context used I just assumed 'complot' was short for communist plot. Communism may be in its deaththroes (N.Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, a few despots here and there) but let's not forget in their heyday they used to hide under people's beds and, unlike Koko's aliens, they weren't blue they were red, and instead of making sure their countrymen had a decent standard of living (millions died in purges, wars and famines) their leaders, whilst living a life of luxury and privilege, plotted the downfall of those they secretly envied and who did it better, the 'decadent' west.

Language problems aside, what would concern me if I was working in any foreign country would be my relationship with my co-workers, my boss(es) and those outside the company I interracted with as a part of my job. I could make a rough guess that the more different the culture, social upbringing and 'open-ness' of the people, the more difficult it would be to advance (i.e. fair salary, equal opportunities, promoted on merit etc) your job on a level playing field. I cannot get out of my mind some of the stories we read about Thailand (as this is a Thai-centric Forum), Working with other Thais may be perfectly fine, but I would be very concerned about the competance and fairness of the higher-ups - the bosses. So, unless you were lucky enough to work for a company or other body entirely staffed with westerners, I would not be keen to do that. Hopefully my fears are ungrounded, I just raise them because in your shoes that's what I'd be thinking. FH has experience of working in Hong Kong and Japan and may cut away my reservations with a scythe.

The figures look pretty clear-cut to me. FH cites 309,000 deaths for homicides, suicides and 'unintentional' gun-related deaths over a 12 year period. Up to an including Iraq and Afghanistan, FH quotes 119.403 deaths in conflicts post WW2. If we add to that the following: Revolutionary war (war of independence) = 25,000 Civil War = 625,000 1812 = 20,000 Mexican = 13,000 WW1 = 117,500 WW2 = 418,500 Total (1) = 1,219,000 plus post WW = 119,400 Total (2) = 1,338,400 __________________________________________________ Gun-related deaths for 12 year period = 309,000 If we say approx 25,000 deaths/year 1,338,400 divided by 25,000 = 53.5 In 53.5 years the numbers of deaths that are gun-related equalled the numbers killed in the major conflicts in which American personnel served (I have not included many of the 'minor' ones) since 1774. 53 and a half years compared to 238 years. Of course the deaths by guns are not constant, and the population was a lot lower in the early days, so this kind of erercise is somewhat futlle . . . I wish I hadn't bothered _____________________________________________________ Slightly on a tangent I think including suicides by guns is fair. Often the verdict on a person who's committed suicide is "death when the balance of his mind was disturbed" or something like that. I would imagine some suicides are as a result of a spur of the moment thing, perhaps after drinking too much and falling into a depressive state. Grabbing your gun and using it to kill yourself is a lot easier and quicker than most other means, although jumping off a cliff or a suspension bridge is equally quick (bit not so easy, they usually involve some kind of pre-meditation). So, without doing any research, I am simply postulating that deaths by suicide in countries where many of its citizens have guns in their homes will exceed those where guns are outlawed, pro rata per head of population. I'm going out on a limb there, and would be happy to be proved wrong. For example, a country where guns are outlawed may have a similar suicide rate to the US, with suicides choosing to hang themselves or take poison instead, or any of a host of alternatives.

How many of the 50+ States have banned guns (or require some sort of permit)? Is there evidence to show any change in gun-responsible fatalities (excluding suicides) in such States? What a wonderful diary! Makes mine look so dull. Here is the entry in mine for 1st August: "First savings bank opened, Hamburg Germany, 1778." and for the 13th; "Last hanging execution took place in Britain, 1964" My mind goes back to circa 1895 - excitement mounts as on the 13th I join one of the PoW's shooting parties. We eagerly await our first grouse, but of course decorum obliges us to hold our fire until HRH bags the first one. I wrote about such things in my acclaimed book: The Country Diary of an Edwardian Gentleman. (available at all good bookshops and on line at Amazon - of course). (I hope my flippant reverie above may be forgiven. Now back to the real world.) What a tragic outcome. I am shocked at something though. What gives a person the right to behave in such fashion? I mean, to a person who simply rings your doorbell, gets no reply and walks away. It could have been anyone, Jehova's Witnesses, door to door encyclopaedia salesman . . . anyone. Put more simply what gives anyone the right to shout the uncouth command "freeze"? A policeman? Yes, but not an ordinary citizen, and one armed with a gun at that. Well, there's plenty of uncouth people around but most of them restrict their uncivility to their tongues. There are shades here of the discussion on the killings at the showing of the new Batman film. We've all seen films where the police shout "freeze" and the 'baddy' either does as he's told or he doesn't in which case he gets shot (often killed - I don't know why they have to kill the guy, if they are trained properly why not just incapacitate?). So it's not so hard to imagine some pathetic gun owner imagining he's on the set of his own film and enacting what he's seen his heros do.

Ideally yes. My guess is if we take a developed country such as the US (rather than one of the Caribbean islands), folks are blinkered. They either assume it won't happen to them or maybe they haven't even considered it at all! There is some justification for this as the course of a hurricane is totally unpredicatable. Yes, you know one is brewing far out at sea, but when it hits land its zone of impact is anybody's guess - until it's too late at any rate. I wonder if the people responsible for ensuring public buildings can withstand hurricane force winds - town planners and construction firms - don't take the same devil -nay-care attitude. As for houses, and folks choosing where to live, if you were to move to a town in the hurricane-belt, how much care would you take to ensure the house was built to withstand a hurricane's impact? If you did, I imagine it would cost a lot more than a simple wooden house where no effort had been made to construct it properly. Against that we have insurance - presumably insurance companies have a say in the matter and will levy hefty premiums if a householder lives in a high-risk area and his house was built to sub-standard specifications. It would be interesting to know exactly what those specifications are. Taking the discussion a stage further, there are many other examples of folks living in high-risk areas. I wonder why they do it? They must have their reasons. I suppose they weigh up the risks and decide accordingly. For example, Californians know they live on the San Andreas faultline, but are prepared to live there just the same. So, if you live in California and don't lie awake at night wondering when the 'big one' will hit, and like the quiet life, you might decide living in a large house in the mountains appeals to you. Pros: Good quality of life, little noise, fresh mountain air, wonderful scenery. Cons: The very small chance of a forest fire raging out of control destroying your house and possibly even taking your life.

Torture? That's a bit strong, and I don't know about being made to watch, but otherwise I agree parents should certainly be made aware of what's involved. My use of the term 'the snip' reflects the common view that's all there is to it. It would seem more complicated than I had realised, so I appreciate the clarification. Like many, I am baffled by its prevalence in countries such as the US for non-religious reasons. Most people seem to put it down to 'like father, like son' or "if he doesn't have it done he'll be different to his peers" with a swipe at the medical profession for being happy to perpetuate the custom. It would be interesting to hear how doctors performing circumcisions for non-medical reasons justify that, other than trotting out "the parents want it done". No doubt these arguments have been gone over again and again, with eventually some sort of common sense prevailing to the extent its legitimacy is becoming increasingly questioned. But back to religious circumcision: here the 'harm' principal helps us to distinguish what should be banned and what should be tolerated. As the male child suffers no long-lasting harm I still say in a tolerant society it should be allowed for religious reasons.

The following article written on the 10th anniversary of Columbine quotes 300,000 deaths in ten years. That ties in with FH's source, except it hasn't been edited to take into account suicides. Read more: http://digitaljournal.com/article/271202#ixzz21NwC59dO You're not the only one. What about those 4x4's, SUV's, utes, Chelsea tractors, off-roaders, call them what you will, all owned by people who'd just love to stick a machine gun or anti-missile launcher on their roof or bonnet (hood). They love to lord it over the rest of us, motoring along in their diesel-powered palaces, heaven forbid they get any actual mud on their precious replacement phallus.