Leaderboard

The BF and I went to the movie today at Siam Paragon. This mall is the one I talk about all the time with the cute boys overflowing the walkways. I have never seen such a gathering of beauty in my life. But, we were really early and I decided to go to the bathroom. There was this really cute guy outside, around 18-19 years old, and he was just standing. I found him very attractive and asked him where the bathroom was and he told me. It was right behind him and I knew that but I just smiled at him and winked. He followed me into the bathroom and into a stall. Well, I wasn't ready to have sex as I didn't have a condom on me but we did make out and he ended up giving me a great release and he swallowed every drop. It was a bit dangerous and exciting and scary at the same time. As I was all hot and sweaty when I left and as I had some other juices flowing, I told the BF that I didn't like the seats we were in and that we could come back another day. He was OK with that and we left and I got home and showered. I am not much for bathroom sex, even though from time to time in my life I have had some, but this experience was great. I have been thinking on this today and I can't figure out if the guy was waiting for someone or if he was just taken by the moment of a Farang flirting with him. In either case, I was happy it happened. Have others seen this mall as cruisey? Hooked up there? I have taken boys home from the mall there on a few occasions but never had sex in the bathroom upstairs at the movie. And, the boy was not a money boy. He asked for nothing. He just wanted some protein before the movie started. I have friends who say they get this all the time but at more local venues and not the mall.

I have been in Thailand for 3 weeks and have some reports I will share after the trip but thought I would post this to show the type of reasonable Hotels you can get in this wonderful city full of Hot Boys. Checked in yesterday . The rate was $85 a night including breakfast. I have stayed at all the Marriotts in BKK and find this Courtyard very good value for money. First the staff greets you at the front door with a big smile and "How are you Sir" and there is just something more genuine about it. Front desk speaks excellent English and as requested they upgraded me to a Corner Room because of my Gold Status. Now the last few years I have stayed at some of the best serviced apartments in BKK and got quite used to the space. So I approached my room with some trepidation. It was going to be hard not to have kitchen etc but I just don't feel like spending $160 a night for a short 5 night stay. I was pleasantly surprised with the room. Big windows on 2 sides with lots of light. When you first walk in is a large area to place your open bags, plenty of draws and closet space . Safe and small frig which is mostly empty so you can fill it up with stuff from 7/11. Nice desk space with enough outlets and comfortable chair. Good TV with decent channel selections. Comfortable bed with many great pillows. Also one lounge chair very comfortable. A/C very quiet . Bathroom has decent counter space and under sink storage and a window. Big shower with great water pressure and a place to sit down. And fast internet. Will report on breakfast buffet later. Have included some photos , I apologize for the quality because of too much sun. Oh and the boy was in my room an hour after I checked in. I love Gayromeo!

About the Reuters articleThe latest effort to distract attention from the NSA revelations is more absurd than most Glenn Greenwald guardian.co.uk, Saturday 13 July 2013 15.53 EDT (updated below - Update II) When you give many interviews in different countries and say essentially the same thing over and over, as I do, media outlets often attempt to re-package what you've said to make their interview seem new and newsworthy, even when it isn't. Such is the case with this Reuters article today, that purports to summarize an interview I gave to the daily newspaper La Nacion of Argentina. Like everything in the matter of these NSA leaks, this interview is being wildly distorted to attract attention away from the revelations themselves. It's particularly being seized on to attack Edward Snowden and, secondarily, me, for supposedly "blackmailing" and "threatening" the US government. That is just absurd. That Snowden has created some sort of "dead man's switch" - whereby documents get released in the event that he is killed by the US government - was previously reported weeks ago, and Snowden himself has strongly implied much the same thing. That doesn't mean he thinks the US government is attempting to kill him - he doesn't - just that he's taken precautions against all eventualities, including that one (just incidentally, the notion that a government that has spent the last decade invading, bombing, torturing, rendering, kidnapping, imprisoning without charges, droning, partnering with the worst dictators and murderers, and targeting its own citizens for assassination would be above such conduct is charmingly quaint). I made three points in this La Nacion interview, all of which are true and none of which has anything remotely to do with threats: 1) The oft-repeated claim that Snowden's intent is to harm the US is completely negated by the reality that he has all sorts of documents that could quickly and seriously harm the US if disclosed, yet he has published none of those. When he gave us the documents he provided, he repeatedly insisted that we exercise rigorous journalistic judgment in deciding which documents should be published in the public interest and which ones should be concealed on the ground that the harm of publication outweighs the public value. If his intent were to harm the US, he could have sold all the documents he had for a great deal of money, or indiscriminately published them, or passed them to a foreign adversary. He did none of that. He carefully vetted every document he gave us, and then on top of that, asked that we only publish those which ought to be disclosed and would not cause gratuitous harm: the same analytical judgment that all media outlets and whistleblowers make all the time. The overwhelming majority of his disclosures were to blow the whistle on US government deceit and radical, hidden domestic surveillance. My point in this interview was clear, one I've repeated over and over: had he wanted to harm the US government, he easily could have, but hasn't, as evidenced by the fact that - as I said - he has all sorts of documents that could inflict serious harm to the US government's programs. That demonstrates how irrational is the claim that his intent is to harm the US. His intent is to shine a light on these programs so they can be democratically debated. That's why none of the disclosures we've published can be remotely described as harming US national security: all they've harmed are the reputation and credibility of US officials who did these things and then lied about them. 2) The US government has acted with wild irrationality. The current criticism of Snowden is that he's in Russia. But the reason he's in Russia isn't that he chose to be there. It's because the US blocked him from leaving: first by revoking his passport (with no due process or trial), then by pressuring its allies to deny airspace rights to any plane they thought might be carrying him to asylum (even one carrying the democratically elected president of a sovereign state), then by bullying small countries out of letting him land for re-fueling. Given the extraordinary amount of documents he has and their sensitivity, I pointed out in the interview that it is incredibly foolish for the US government to force him to remain in Russia. From the perspective of the US government and the purported concerns about him being in Russia, that makes zero sense given the documents he has. 3) I was asked whether I thought the US government would take physical action against him if he tried to go to Latin America or even force his plane down. That's when I said that doing so would be completely counter-productive given that - as has been reported before - such an attack could easily result in far more disclosures than allowing us as journalists to vet and responsibly report them, as we've doing. As a result of the documents he has, I said in the interview, the US government should be praying for his safety, not threatening or harming it. That has nothing to do with me: I don't have access to those "insurance" documents and have no role in whatever dead man switch he's arranged. I'm reporting what documents he says he has and what precautions he says he has taken to protect himself from what he perceives to be the threat to his well-being. That's not a threat. Those are facts. I'm sorry if some people find them to be unpleasant. But they're still facts. Before Snowden's identity was revealed as the whistleblower here, I wrote: "Ever since the Nixon administration broke into the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychoanalyst's office, the tactic of the US government has been to attack and demonize whistleblowers as a means of distracting attention from their own exposed wrongdoing and destroying the credibility of the messenger so that everyone tunes out the message. That attempt will undoubtedly be made here." That's what all of this is. And it's all it is: an ongoing effort to distract attention away from the substance of the revelations. (This morning, MSNBC show host Melissa Harris-Parry blamed Snowden for the fact that there is so much media attention on him and so little on the NSA revelations: as though she doesn't have a twice-weekly TV show where she's free to focus as much as she wants on the NSA revelations she claims to find so important). Compare the attention paid to Snowden's asylum drama and alleged personality traits to the attention paid to the disclosures about mass, indiscriminate NSA spying. Or compare the media calls that Snowden (and others who worked to expose mass NSA surveillance) be treated like a criminal to the virtually non-existent calls that Director of National Intelligence James Clapper be treated like a criminal for lying to Congress. This "threat" fiction is just today's concoction to focus on anything but the revelations about US government lying to Congress and constitutionally and legally dubious NSA spying. Yesterday, it was something else, and tomorrow it will be something else again. As I said in an interview with Falguni Sheth published today by Salon, this only happens in the US: everywhere else, the media attention and political focus is on NSA surveillance, while US media figures are singularly obsessed with focusing on everything but that. There are all sorts of ways that Snowden could have chosen to make these documents be public. He chose the most responsible way possible: coming to media outlets and journalists he trusted and asking that they be reported on responsibly. The effort to depict him as some sort of malicious traitor is completely negated by the facts. That was the point of the interview. If you're looking for people who have actually harmed the US with criminal behavior, look here and here and here - not to those who took risks to blow the whistle on all of that. As always, none of this will detain us even for a moment in continuing to report on the many NSA stories that remain. UPDATEThe original La Nacion interview which Reuters claimed to summarize is now online; the rough English translation is here. Here's the context for my quote about what documents he possesses: "Q: Beyond the revelations about the spying system performance in general, what extra information has Snowden? "A: Snowden has enough information to cause more damage to the US government in a minute alone than anyone else has ever had in the history of the United States. But that's not his goal. [His] objective is to expose software that people around the world use without knowing what they are exposing themselves without consciously agreeing to surrender their rights to privacy. [He] has a huge number of documents that would be very harmful to the US government if they were made public." And exactly as I said, the answer about the dead man's switch came in response to my being asked: "Are you afraid that someone will try to kill him?" That's when I explained that I thought it was so unlikely because his claimed dead man's switch meant that it would produce more harm than good from the perspective of the US government. The only people who would claim any of this was a "threat" or "blackmail" are people with serious problems of reading comprehension or honesty, or both. UPDATE IIFor those who say that they wish there was more attention paid to the substance of the NSA stories than Snowden: here is the list of the NSA revelations we've published over the last month. Feel free to focus on them any time. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/13/reuters-article-dead-man-s-switch

Ill stick to lusting after Mr Ziering as the host of the Chippendales..... and lets NOT forget Sharknado also STARS the cinematic Treasure Tara Reid....... come-on People ! I cant wait for the sequel "Sharknami".....

Someone better tweet Wayne Newton and Celine Dion and alert them !

Great recipe with a super sauce - the amount of calories really depends on how much olive oil one adds to the sauce - I like a drizzle of toasted sesame oil for a bit of smoky flavor and less olive oil. 12 oz green beans 2 t Dijon mustard 2 T lemon juice 1 T extra virgin olive oil 1 T shallot 1/4 t ground black pepper 1 T parsley Steam the green beans, broccoli, cauliflower or whatever veggie for maybe 6-8 minutes or longer, just until they start to get a bit tender. While the beans steam, combine the rest of the ingredients in a small bowl. Drain the veggis and toss with the sauce and serve immediately. Can also be eaten cold. Nutrition Facts Serving Size 102.5g Amount Per Serving Calories62 Calories from Fat 34 % Daily Value*Total Fat 3.8g 6% Saturated Fat 0.6g 3% Trans Fat 0.0g Cholesterol 0mg 0% Sodium 36mg 1% Total Carbohydrates 6.9g 2% Dietary Fiber 3.1g 12% Sugars 1.4g Protein 1.8g Vitamin A 14% • Vitamin C 31% Calcium 4% • Iron 6% * Based on a 2000 calorie diet

They were certainly cute. Does that count? Best regards, RA1

Tiny Utah-based ISP makes a name for itself by rebuffing government snoopsMeet Xmission, the internet service provider embracing transparency as it shields customers from warrantless authorities Rory Carroll in Salt Lake City guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 9 July 2013 11.49 EDT The new NSA data centre is not far from Pete Ashdown's privacy-centric internet service provider. The irony is not lost on him. Photograph: Rick Bowmer/AP Silicon Valley's role in US government surveillance has triggered public anxiety about the internet, but it turns out there is at least one tech company you can trust with your data. The only problem: it's a relative minnow in the field, operating from offices in Utah. Xmission, Utah's first independent and oldest internet service provider, has spent the past 15 years resolutely shielding customers' privacy from government snoops in a way that larger rivals appear to have not. The company, a comparative midget with just 30,000 subscribers, cited the Fourth Amendment in rebuffing warrantless requests from local, state and federal authorities, showing it was possible to resist official pressure. "I would tell them I didn't need to respond if they didn't have a warrant, that (to do so) wouldn't be constitutional," the founder and chief executive, Pete Ashdown, said in an interview at his Salt Lake City headquarters. Since 1998 he rejected dozens of law enforcement requests, including Department of Justice subpoenas, on the grounds they violated the US constitution and state law. "I would tell them, please send us a warrant, and then they'd just drop it." Ashdown, 46, assented just once, on his lawyer's advice, to a 2010 FBI request backed by a warrant from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. "I believe under the fourth amendment digital data is protected. I'm not an unpaid branch of government or law enforcement." Ashdown was wary about Silicon Valley's carefully worded insistence that the government had no direct access to servers. Access to networks, not servers, was the key, he said. Pete Ashdown has rejected dozens of law enforcement requests, citing user privacy laws. The state attorney general alleged XMission was soft on crime but the company, with a staff of 45 and turnover of $7m, suffered no official retaliation, said Ashdown. "I didn't feel that I was in danger, or that my business suffered." In the wake of revelations over National Security Agency surveillance and ties to Silicon Valley he has published a report detailing official information requests, and the company's response, over the past three years. The Electronic Freedom Foundation called it a model for the industry. "XMission's transparency report is one of the most transparent we've seen," said Nate Cardozo, a lawyer for the San Francisco-based advocacy group. EFF has lobbied big service providers – in vain – to publish individual government requests and their responses to the requests. Google and other giants would need a different format for scale but could emulate the Utah minnow's spirit, said Cardozo. "The major service providers should demonstrate their commitment to their users and take XMission's transparency report as a model." EFF's most recent Who Has Your Back report – an annual ranking of privacy protection by big tech companies – gave Twitter the maximum of six stars and just one each to Apple and Yahoo. Utah is an unlikely home for an internet privacy champion. The state's conservative politicians cheered the Bush-era Patriot Act and welcomed the NSA's new 1m sq ft data centre at Bluffdale, outside Salt Lake City. Ashdown, who toured the facility with a group of local data centre operators, said he had not received NSA information requests but saw irony in it siting its data behemoth in his backyard. The agency's online snooping betrayed public trust, he said. "Post 9/11 paranoia has turned this into a surveillance state. It's not healthy." The only solution to internet snooping was encryption, he said, a point he repeated on a blog. Ashdown, 46, attributes part of his wariness of authority to his mother, who saw the Nazis overrun Denmark. He ran as the Democratic candidate for the US senate in 2006, promising to bring technology savvy to Washington, but lost to the Republican incumbent, Orrin Hatch. He ran again in 2012, but lost in the primary. An additional disappointment was the discovery that many if not most ordinary people – at least until the NSA scandal – cared little about privacy when selecting internet providers. "Unfortunately it's not what people think about. They put name recognition and cost ahead of privacy. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/09/xmission-isp-customers-privacy-nsa

A shining example.

There are plenty of weird laws still on the books virtually everywhere but some of these either have historical context or some sensical reasoning behind them. We have several posters who have spent a lot of time in Thailand so I shall not try to usurp what they can tell us but I think it is likely that the Thai currency has a likeness of the king on it and "impolite" references to him seem to carry a penalty under law. Singapore has very stringent anti-littering laws so why not Thailand? And, last but not least, any kind of clothing not only promotes "modesty" but also protects one largest organ (the skin) from UV rays, chaffing and various other indignities we dumb humans perpetrate upon ourselves. Now if I can just get my neighbor to run ahead of his car with a light to warn us of his comings and goings he wouldn't scare my cows. Best regards, RA1

A Tel Aviv BoyToy named Nate Thought he lived on the Eurasian Plate. When he learned it's a fault, He exclaimed, Oy, gevalt! I should probably double my rate!