Rogie

That seems to me a fair assessment. Yes, more pressure on babies to be born - certainly. There would surely have been enormous taboos against a woman aborting a child. I suppose to some extent, the degree to which would depend on the society's attitude to 'bastards' - children born out of wedlock. I quite agree the baby suffers distress. We saw that in the video Christian posted in the 'Ten out of ten babies say NO to circumcison' thread back in November last year. But I stick by my comment it's "natural and completely harmless". Compare it to childbirth. Also by common agreement 'natural and completely harmless' (especially nowadays when the standards of medical care are so good that women dying in childbirth must be almost unknown in western countries), but not without a fair degree of distress and 'screaming' on the part of the mother-to-be. Although I believe its use is in decline, many women also undergo something called an episiotomy which is a cut on the perineum between the vagina and anus. Maybe baby boys destined for circumcision should have it done following the cutting of the umbilical cord. That would be a triple whammy for the poor kid - having to fill his lungs with air and breathe for the first time, having his umbilical cord cut, and the snip. All over with quickly. As for Nelson Mandela, he's just celebrated his 94th birthday (I think I have that right) so we don't need to feel too sorry for what happened when he was a pubescent. In post #6 I said: ". . . there are cases of boys being circumcised in parts of Africa, and maybe other places, where the local 'witch doctor' performs the operation which can lead to awful complications . . ." so I can only assume he was the victim of something similar. Not a nice thing to wish on anyone, and I would never advocate that. In post #6 I outlined the reasons why I believe female circumcision is wrong. I agree, given equal weighting, neither sex should have greater 'rights'. The fact of the matter is, male vs female circumcision is far from equal. In fact I would argue the only similarity is in the word 'circumcision' and that is why I say when that happens to girls and young women it's mutilation. I accept some may say male circumcision is mutilation but IMO that is putting it a bit strong, because the dictionary defines to mutilate as "cause a severe and disfiguring injury to someone". That fits the bill for female circumcision but not male IMO.

People use all manner of justification for their actions. Just as boys have been cirumcised for thousands of years, so did many other practices occur in that time. Some examples might be cannabilism, human sacrifice and idolatory. As civilisation has evolved, mankind has dumped those practices. So it could be argued, why not then dump circumcision? But is it a civilised activity? I think becasue it is borderline that explains the dilemma. Personally I do not think abortion is particularly civilised. Why does it happen then? I admit I haven't done any research on the history of abortion going back thousands of years, but I would imagine it has always been practiced, but with a high risk of harm to the woman, so I'd have expected abortion would have been the exception rather than the rule. So why has abortion become acceptable? Well it's now legal in many countries where it wasn't before. It was legalised in 1967 in England with a gestational age limit of 28 weeks, changed in 1990 to 24. Nobody would wish to see the return to 'back street' abortions. Now the woman can justify it to herself it's legal, provided she sticks to the rules, and it's her 'right' to do it if that's what she decides, she no longer feels society's stigma or shame. The abortion laws needed changing as a simple matter of necessity. Pre-legalisation: "Estimates of the number of illegal abortions varied widely: by one estimate, 100,000 women made efforts to procure a miscarriage in 1914, usually by drugs". Post-Abortion Act: In 2009, there were 189,100 abortions in England and Wales. (source Wikipedia). So, what to me at least, is an uncivilised act, killing an unborn child, has become accepted owing to the way civilisation has evolved. A general feeling for what is fair and reasonable, and what isn't. Back to circumcision, it seems what has up to now been seen as a civilised act, perfectly natural and completely harmless, is now seen by some to not be so. As a civilised person I think it is 'fair and reasonable' that if parents want to circumcise their boy they are free to do that. Maybe all this talk about civilisation is besides the point. Maybe we should be talking about what's modern in this day and age. What does Modern mean? Modern ways of thinking . . .? It seems to me the decision by the court in Cologne is their idea of modern thinking. Modern thinking to me has the veneer of civilisation overlying a bit of old-fashioned "you'll do as you're told because we say so".

I never met Tutu but I've spoken with people who knew him when he was living in a part of London near where I used to lived. They have an enormous respect and affection for him. What Tutu is saying seems to me the most important part of this report in the Lancet. Other aspects are also important, but take the reference for the drug Truvada for example. In common with many previous 'breakthroughs', there is bad news along with the good. First the good news . . . . . . and now the not so good: http://blogs.independent.co.uk/2012/07/20/truvada-a-good-news-day-for-hiv-sufferers/

Here's links to a couple of recent HH-centric threads on GT. The first one is of a general nature and the second one more specifically about one particular hotel. To the best of my knowledge, there isn't a hotel or guest house that everyone mentions in the same breath as Hua HIn (unlike Ambiance, Cafe Royal, Two Guy's, Howards, etc with Pattaya), but as you will be aware if you've been 6 times all places are 'gay-friendly' - at least the management and staff are. I suppose the only sort of place I would steer clear of would be anywhere with a high concentration of families or laddish youths. http://www.gaythaila...n-from-bangkok/ http://www.gaythaila...-from-may-2012/

In the UK, before my last trip to Thaland I registered with the FCO (Foreign and Commonwealth Office) 'LOCATE' programme. http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/staying-safe/Locate/ Smart Traveler looks similar.

Until the early 1990's in Britain anyone with money to save or wanting to buy a house with a mortgage had a great choice of institutions. First off you had to decide if you wanted to use a bank or a building society. I don't know the history of building societies but I assume they were so-called because they were originally set up to lend money to people who wanted to buy a house or invest in 'buildings'. There weren't that many banks, as they'd gone through the merger-mania some years before, but if you'd decided to use a building society the choice was immense. Then they too became acquainted with the merger bug, so the smaller BS's disappeared and those remaining a lot bigger, obviously. Then, starting in 1989, the BS's looked enviously at the banks and became infatuated with the idea of becoming banks themselves. As the old building societies were owned by their members (they were mutuals) those that did convert paid big windfalls to existing members. Many people, the so-called carpetbaggers, jumped on the bandwagon and joined building societies in the express hope they would de-mutualise. All the BS's that became banks have in turn been taken over by other banks and many illustrious names have disappeared from Britain's High Streets. Why am I going on about this? Well, following the bad publicity and plummeting repution of banks those BS's remaining are in a good position to benefit. If I could go back in a time machine and ask executives of BS's who ceased to be BS's in a frenzy of de-mutualisation if they regretted it, if they were honest they'd have to say yes. On the whole, Britain's financial institutions have been managed by donkeys (borrowing from the expression "lions led by donkeys" from WW1) for at least the past 20+ years.

The key word as used by Koko is 'devoted'. Can be a devoted bf or gf/wife, depending on who you are living with. It seems to me a high risk strategy, assuming it has all been pre-planned as such. But, pared down to the basics, if the guy is coming up with the money and the bf or gf is happy with the arrangement, and several years later his health starts to fail, it can surely be a comfort to know he has someone he can rely on. Getting old and sick in a foreign country, without the support of a loving partner, cannot be much fun.

Koko mentioned Roswell in passing in one of his posts on the Spellbound thread. Well, dare I say it, but Roswell's back in the news! You'll either sit bolt upright in your seat or stifle a yawn. It's that kind of thing . . . Roswell UFO Was Not Of This Earth And There Were ET Cadavers: Ex-CIA Agent Says Read more, if you're interested, at: http://www.huffingto..._ref=weird-news

I took a trip with an outdoor group (we were camping) many years ago into the SW and it was great. The walk down into the Grand Canyon was a cinch, but getting back up again. . . ? I could've done with that helicopter I can tell you. We didn't walk right down to the bottom, about halfway I seem to recall. I think the only sensible way if you are intent on going all the way down is to camp at the bottom overnight and start the ascent really really early. Part of the trip included a day in the Navajo nation. It obviously wasn't the place KT refers to, but still pretty interesting. We were all given a horse to ride and as a non-rider it was fun and actually a bit scary; when those hosses set off at a gallop you have to hold on for dear life! I loved the Grand Canyon but the group I was travelling with didn't have Carlsbad on the itinerary (but as I hadn't heard of it then I didn't know what I was missing).

That's a good point. The BBC news last night had an item about the increase in Britain's population since the last census. A census is undertaken every ten years and the age group 65+ had grown by 900,000 since the previous one. Coping with ever-increasing numbers of older people, coupled to the decrease in extended families no doubt in other western countries also, will result in many sad individuals living apart from their families for far longer than would have been the case just 20 or 30 years ago owing to improvements in medical treatment and changing life-styles eg. fewer people are now smokers. I recently visited am elderly couple in their late 80's who'd had to move into a very expensive care home owing to the sudden onset of poor health. I have known them since I was a teenager and it was so sad to speak to the husband, in despair as his wife had taken to her bed and seemed to have given up on life. I expect that is why Pattaya is popular amongst our brethren as at least, until medical intervention becomes necessary, hopefully several good years can be spent in enjoyable company.

Ah, but it's all a matter of scale. For example I just checked out #17, the Carlsbad Cavern. From wikipedia: I've not visited this place, in fact never heard if it until I came across the CNN list, but if I was standing in the middle of that cavern I'd be feeling pretty insignificant I'm sure. The World is an immense place, and mankind must have always been in awe of its size, Maybe it's the ease of modern intercontinental travel and wall to wall television that's stripped away a lot of the awe and mystery and made it seem small. That, plus those photos, mentioned by Fountainhall in the Momentous Impressions thread, showing Earth, the blue planet, looking so alone in space, together with more recent photos taken from the Hubble telescope showing galaxies untold millions of light years distant.

As an appropriate follow-on from the Momentous Impressions thread, CNN have come up with 27 "must see places before you die". Like most lists of this nature there are a few idiosyncractic choices along with the usual shoe-ins. See what you think: Topping the list is Borobudur at sunrise in Java, Indonesia, with a 'starling murmuration' at Brighton's derelict West Pier a close second. Third is the Northern Lights in Scandinavia, followed closely by the great migration in East Africa. The fifth and six spot is filled by the star-filled sky, in New Zealand and the Torres del Paine in Chile. Morocco's Djemaa el Fna is in seventh place and California's Yosemite peaks is the eight must see place to see before death. Number nine is Santa Maria della Salute in Venice, the Jungle pyramids in Mexico is number ten and 11 is the electrical storm in Tornado Alley, USA. The famous Sydney Harbour comes in at 12, with the inside of Thrihnukagigur volcano in Iceland at 13. Number 14 is Monument Valley in the US and 15 is India's Taj Mahal. The Kasanka bat migration in Zambia, Carlsbad Cavern in America, Lunar rainbow in Zambia and Shubenacadie tidal bore in Canada take the 16,17,18 and 19 spots. Cape Tribulation in Australia, Rock Face City of Petra in Jordan, Enrosadira in Italy and Fairy Chimneys in Turkey take up the spots from 20 to 23. England's Lake District is at 24, with the Sardine run in South Africa at 25. The last two spaces are filled by the pristine beaches of Islas Cies in Spain and finally, Cornwall's ruined mines come in at 27. http://www.telegraph...re-you-die.html

One momentous moment was in 1967 in the UK when BBC television started broadcasting in colour on the BBC2 channel. I couldn't remember the exact date so looked it up, it was the 1st July 1967. My father, always keen on gadgets, had already bought a new TV set specially so we could watch. 1967 was also the year BBC radio came out of its cocoon and flourished as the newly-created Radio One hit the airwaves. We finally began to catch up with Canada and the US where pop music on the radio had been taken for granted. Prior to Radio One, apart from 'Pick of the Pops' broadcast once a week, pop music on the radio was only available on Radio Luxembourg or one of the several 'pirate' ships at anchor off the coast of Britain. Momentous impressions are those I get every time I visit a new country, especially one which has a markedly different climate, landscape or culture to my own.

Come on Christian, that's why I specifically addressed that issue in my previous post. Circumcised boys and men lead 100% normal lives in the way I mentioned. Whilst I agree it may well be the custom in parts of Africa, I don't know of a single westerner, or enlightened person of any nationality, who thinks female mutilation (as I prefer to call it), is perfectly acceptable. We all know the trauma it causes the young girl, the risk of terrible complications and the sheer brutality of it. Anyone'd have to be a male chauvinist, par excellence, to think any different. I admit there are cases of boys being circumcised in parts of Africa, and maybe other places, where the local witch doctor' performs the operation which can lead to awful complications, but in western countries I would imagine the chances of any medical complications from circumcision is zero. Circumcison in such countries is perfectly safe and the males go to on to lead a life no different or less satisfying than their uncircumcised brethren.

Never was a truer word spoken! Now if only we could find a way to ease those 590 tonnes onto the tarmac on a cushion of air everything'd be just fine. Fine in the way the Thais like it, without any problems or recriminations. Whilst not addressing the problem of an aircraft coming in to land, here's an interesting description of weightlessness in reduced gravity aircraft. http://en.wikipedia....ravity_aircraft As to whether gravity can be defied here's a link to a Guardian article from 2002: http://www.guardian....ration.netnotes If you can't be bothered or aren't interested in that kind of thing, let me save you the trouble. It concludes by saying: And don't worry, I'm not into yogic flying, whatever that turns out to be - surely if it really exists we'd all be doing it. Who doesn't envy the bird its freedom - although when you see a big one like a stork or pelican coming in to landing on water, they're a bit like the avian equivalent of the A380, they make a pretty big splash. ______________________________________________________ Does the A380 actually fly into Bangkok?

Many of the Message Boards have over the years had threads discussing the pros and cons of male circumcision. Unlike female so-called circumcision, which, other than in those few countries where it's practiced, is universally regarded as wrong, male circumcison doesn't ruin or in any significant way alter, a man's virility and sexual enjoyment. Debate as to whether sexual enjoyment is affected seems to be polarised, with the more hysterical opponents of circumcision going way over the top IMO. Ideally, yes, men should be in a position to opt for circumcision from an informed vantage point, in a pressure-free climate - infants and young boys do not have that luxury. But as circumcision doesn't affect a boy's or man's sex life, and if it's part and parcel of a religious tradition or requirement, I do not see any problem. Could one make a comparison with abortion? Possibly. No doubt people who are pro-lifers and anti-abortion could with some justification argue circumcision is wrong. On the other hand, a woman (and her boyfriend or husband) who has an abortion might, from a point of view of consistency, be expected to side with proponents of infant circumcision. I am thus another who thinks the German court 'out of bounds'.

Taking things a stage farther, beyond the nude wrestling of Oliver Reed and Alan Bates, into clothed territory, one ingredient of the western movie as often as not was a fist fight. Here are three good examples IMO. Alan Ladd and Van Heflin in Shane. I love the way Shane's hair gets all disheveled (btw I'm not entirely sure it was all his own! Maybe Gaybutton can answer that one). Rock Hudson and the big guy in the diner (sorry, can't remember the actor) in Giant. Gregory Peck and Charlton Heston in The Big Country. Charlton Heston went on to star in Ben Hur of course. Both The Big Country and Ben Hur were directed by William Wyler. Apparently Wyler was sufficiently impressed with Heston's role in The Big Country he was offered the lead in Ben Hur. Heston was lucky in more ways than one - I read somewhere he wasn't originally going to play the Steve Leech character as he wasn't the lead, Peck was. Luckily for him he decided to swallow his pride and it paid off handsomely. Does anyone else see anything homoerotic in two men squaring up to one another in this way?

I must just press the pause button here. I agree that an OBE or MBE harks back to another era and is anachronistic. However, if we mentally substitute OCN or MCN for those honours then what we have in reality is the Order, or Member of the Commonwealth of Nations. There are currently 54 independent member states, with a population of 2.1 billion people (2005 estimate). I don't see why that should be insulting to other nations at all. I hadn't realised that whereas the Queen is the current Head of the Commonwealth, when she dies her successor does not automatically assume that role, -."The position is symbolic, representing the free association of independent members." And here's something I was completely unaware of! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Nations

My usual method for eating a carrot involves absolutely no sliding of the lips, merely crunching followed by chewing with swallowing bringing up the rear. I regard tackling a carrot bugs bunny style a bit coarse. My tender sensibilities require me to cut the carrot up into thin wedges, followed by dipping each piece into a pot of something moist but firm, taramasalata if I am feeling lascivious or the more mundane humous if my mind is on other things.

Of course, and the bit when the Jack Hawkins character (the captain of one of the galleys) eyes up all the half naked slaves down in the galley tugging on their oars and spots Ben Hur. When he says "Your eyes are full of hate, 41 - That's good. Hate keeps a man alive". It might not seem the most promising chat up line, but . . . later Hur saves him from drowning and becomes his adopted son. There is never any suggeston that anything sexual happened between them, but there's no harm in thinking it might just have been a possibility.

The rates I quoted were the 'advertised tariff' and, according to the guidebook, guests usually paid less than this, so your experience bears that out. No apology warranted Billy! I wish we had more posters getting on their soapboxes if they could match your most informative post in terms of sincerity. I must apologise for a couple of flippant posts I made earlier, I hope nobody took offence. The plight of the ethnic groups in Burma looks like continuing for quite some time to come. Wouldn't it have been great if Shan people in Chiang Mai and other towns in Thailand had been treated fairly by all sections of the Thai population. I know we hear that the police are not paid a decent wage and have to resort to padding out their income by shady means, but some of their activities really are pathetic. That sort of thing reminds me of nature programmes where the wolf pack are chasing a herd of buffalo and they zero in on the weakest one, usually a poor little calf, separate it from its mother and rip it to shreds. That's mother nature for you, can't do much about that, but it seems some humans haven't heard of the 'c' word - civilisation.

Yes, he was. I am speculating here, but I think if the Queen is given a person's name more than once she is more or less obliged to accede to the nomination. Personally I think a knighthood is pretty meaningless nowadays, it's been devalued (if ever there was such 'value' to it other than the recipient having to be addressed as Sir whatever), not sure when the rot set in, perhaps during Tony Blair's premiership. On the other hand, I suppose if Britain wants to be seen to be fair-handed honours should be spread across the whole of society, so that it's not just 'captains of industry', or donors to whatever political party is in power, that receive recognition.

Count me in as a fan of boungbe chut too (the term, not the person!) Kachin state is the most northerly one in Burma, bordering China and India, and difficult to get to, unless you fly I suppose, and I know nothing about that region of the country. The most relevant border crossing from Thailand to (eastern) Burma is at Mae Sai. The one a lot further south at Mae Sot (if it's currently open) is only for day crossings and takes you into Mon state, and you have to be back before nightfall. Mae Sai takes you into Shan state, but I have never used that one. Do you think there is any chance of any further border crossings opening up in future? The reason I ask is hopefully the more accessible to outsiders the more remote areas in Burma become, that increases the likelihood of better treatment for their inhabitants and those refugees who might in future be repatriated.

Thanks for explaining about the hotel branding. My description of the Traders as having 500 rooms was taken from the same guide book I quoted prices from (Lonely Planet, 7th ed. 2000) so unless they got it wrong maybe they revamped the rooms to make them larger - knock a few interconnecting walls down? 272 is just over half of 500! The write-up inplies it is fairly new so built sometime in the late 90's I expect, and it's always been called Traders Hotel as fas as I know.

I was interested to see you refer to the Traders Hotel in your post Billy. This 500 room hotel is massive. It wouldn't warrant a second glance in Bangkok, but in Rangoon it really sticks out! Here's photo I took of it in May. I've never been inside it as it's not the kind of place I like to stay. I prefer small, cheaper places as I don't have much money! But in all honesty even if I was flush I don't think I could see myself staying in that kind of hotel. My old (2000) Burma guidebook says it's owned by the Shangri-La chain. That sounds nice but means nothing to me. I don't know if there is any military involvement in its ownership. Rooms were quoted in 2000 at between US$ 90 and $120 + 20% tax and service (for comparison, a room in a back-packer hotel would have cost around $10). I expect they are a lot more now, especially, as other posters have said, if prices are going up owing to increased demand.