Leaderboard

It's always hard to say goodbye, especially when it comes to the land of boys with smiles. But as our tenured member Vinapu said, I got to return home before I could come back again.. This trip was short, but every single day was filled with many good memories.. This short trip has proved me that libido is the world's biggest renewable energy. I was able to meet quite a few great guys, 2 -3 everyday ..... Among others, meeting with some forum members was one of the most wonderful things of this trip... Anddy was able to spend some time with me on Friday night .. then again on Saturday night at moonlight together with other members.. Having a chat for almost 2 hours with Drimvoiz and Vinapu this afternoon in vinapu's room has brightened my heavy heart on my last day here.. I am hoping to meet more on my next visit.. just for the record, wall street inn "hotel" doesn't have issue with visitors. but the hotel is quite run down.. bed sheets and towels provided in the room should have been RIP years ago.

My belief is that of, all of the places to visit in Thailand, Phuket is the worse. My last visit only elevated this belief. The place is physically dangerous and has more rip-off artist than Pattaya and Bangkok combined. I will not return.

Anything goes, lol

I visited Screw Boys last year and was a bit dissapointed about the show. I think there was one "boy" act and the rest boring Ladybot sync acts. However I did not ask a boy to keep me company during the show for a drink. Maybe I should have done that. How "liberal" is the bar when a boy sits with you. Kissing and/or discreet fondling is allowed?

If you don’t get a hotel, and you stay in a casa particular or an AirBnB, then if the host / landlord has no guest restrictions (some have them), you won’t have a problem having a Cuban local stay with you. Hotels in Cuba, however, will give you a big problem, as it is literally illegal for a Cuban National to stay at a hotel as an unregistered, non-paying guest. And no Cuban wants to go to a Cuban prison, especially not for something so easily avoidable. Regarding a recommendation in advance, you can try emailing the “Gay Cuban Tour Guide” Luis at his official work email: luis@gaycubatourguide.com . This was his publicly advertised email, so I do not mind posting it here. Make sure you use an email account that won’t be rejected under the USA - Cuba embargo. If that email does not work or if it bounces back, then I can privately give you the last private email account I have for him (in DM). Luis knows English very well, but he is a gay tour guide, and he does NOT double as a Rentboy or a pimp service, like the ones always discussed in the Dominican Republic. He may be able to introduce you to someone who can do this for you, however, if you hire him for a legitimate gay or nongay tour. Luis also knows the owner of Casa Aleido, an older lively Cuban queen who runs the “gay casa particular” that is also another option for you to meet someone for you to “spend time with or show you around”, as there are always gay or gay friendly local guys at the casa or at his disposal for his guests. Or you can jut stay there or contact him yourself by email: http://www.cuba-junky.com/havana/casa-aleido.htm . But as I know nothing about you or your tastes, I can’t recommend the place or his regular denizens to you. It and his crowd may be your cup of tea or it may not be. Or you can just show up in Havana and meet someone there who will probably be glad to spend time with you and show you around for the entire time you are there, for a pre-negotiated rate.

This is just a continuation of my rant above about why we need to get in the trenches and fight, as opposed to thinking that the hard core Trump base is amenable to reason, compromise, or fact. Donald Trump thinks you're dumb That is a truly remarkable poll finding. It suggests that in the era of Trump, a majority of Republicans do believe that they are not only entitled to their own opinions. They are also entitled to their own facts. In this case, it's particularly weird. Because Trump himself seems to be saying to any global leader, or any TV camera, or just about anybody, that really truly the worst corruption ever to exist is that Biden corruption. It is just horrible. And of course he asked Zelensky to investigate Biden. As well as Xi. And of course everybody should investigate Biden, according to Trump. So really now. Is there a reason that it is so hard for Republicans to swallow facts that even their fearless (if dishonest) leader wants them to swallow? And then there is this screed from the right-wing Federalist: Intel IG Admits It Secretly Erased ‘First-Hand Information’ Requirement In August I've actually been spending more time reading right wing articles than Establishment media or left wing articles since this scandal hit. I figure if Democrats have a weak case, or are just making shit up, the right wing people will figure it out and blow it open. So I keep reading things like this hoping to find the weaknesses in the Democrats' arguments. And instead what I get are right wing articles that are at best weak, and at worst plain wrong. This headline definitely caught my attention. It certainly makes it sound like there was some deep state conspiracy to doctor forms. Presumably because the deep state has nothing better to do then - yet again - attack Donald Trump, precisely because he is the only guy who will actually tell you the straight up truth. First, it is worth pointing out that the "Intel IG" in question is a Trump appointee. Just like Bob Mueller is a lifelong Republican and former FBI Director who was appointed by Trump's own DOJ. But none of this really is an obstacle to dismissing any facts that get in the way. So for Trumpians, Mueller has been transformed into a Hillary Clinton/Deep State ass kisser. He also apparently has a Gestapo fetish, since he is reputed to like busting down the doors of good solid loyal Republicans like Roger Stone and Paul Manafort. And his fact-filled report has been dismissed with two words: "Russia hoax." So I am of course not surprised that the right wing is doubling down and dismissing a Trump appointed IG who has the nerve to follow where the facts lead. Second, The Federalist article trashing Trump's own IG provides a hyperlink to the IG's press release about the whistleblower complaint form. The Federalist actually quotes extensively from that press release. So, on the one hand, The Federalist correctly reports that the law that governs whistle blowers DOES NOT require first hand information. It also quotes the IG's office in stating that their initial complaint form was developed in a way that "could be read – incorrectly – as suggesting that whistleblowers must possess first-hand information in order to file an urgent concern complaint with the congressional intelligence committees." So what the IG's office is essentially saying is that in evaluating the complaint, we actually followed what the federal law says, not what the confusing complaint form we put together last year could have implied. Third, The Federalist implies in their headline and in the content of the article that changing the form was a nefarious plot hatched "secretly" and "in August" specifically in response to this particular whistle blower's "hit job" on Trump. In fact, the press release spells out that the IG's office started to review the forms in July 2019, before the whistle blower's complaint was filed, after a Director for the new Center for Protected Disclosures was hired. The Federalist actually quotes this part of the press release. It then essentially says, "Never mind." We'll just pretend that instead of having a form that actually complies with the law Congress passed, this was all just some secret deep state plot hatched in August. Fourth, the Federalist ignores this part of the press release, which spells out the IG's interest in complying with the law even more clearly: "The ICIG cannot add conditions to the filing of an urgent concern that do not exist in law. Since [Trump-appointed] Inspector General Atkinson entered on duty as the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community [in May 2018], the ICIG has not rejected the filing of an alleged urgent concern due to a whistle blower’s lack of first-hand knowledge of the allegations." In other words, the whistle blower could have filed the report in May 2018, June 2018, July 2018 .... or any month up to August 2019, and the Trump-appointed IG would not have rejected it based on a lack of first hand knowledge. Because that is what the law actually requires him to do. When you strip away the layers of total bullshit, I would argue this is worse than going to a town hall with a US Rep to bellow "Lies!" and "Fake news!" This is The Federalist essentially arguing that Trump's own IG should have broken the law, and not allowed a whistle blower to file a complaint that was NOT based on first hand knowledge. For those of us that live in the real world, as opposed to The Donald J. Trump Fake News Playhouse, the consequence of Trump's IG breaking the law would have been clear. It would have made the scandal and cover up just a tad bit worse. And it would have given the whistle blower one more reason to go to Schiff's Congressional Committee. That is, in fact, what the law Congress passed actually allows whistle blowers to do. They seem to have actually anticipated the idea that you could have a POTUS like Trump and an AG like Barr who basically believe the only correct way to file a complaint against Trump is to file it in the waste basket. My larger point is that whether it is Trumpians at town halls or The Federalist arguing that Trump's IG was wrong to actually follow the law, this has nothing to do with facts. So on the one hand, it is critically important for people like Rep. Slotkin or Rep. Schiff to follow the facts. On the other hand, there is absolutely no way to win an argument that is factual, truthful, and civil with Trumpians who have no interest in facts, the truth, or civility. Trump himself knows this, of course. Which is why he has always displayed animus toward facts, the truth, and civility. What follows from this is some really good news and some really bad news. Here's the good news: Even among the Republican Party, there is hopefully NOT a fact-free majority. So a substantial minority of Republicans don't believe facts, like that Trump asked Zelensky to investigate Biden. (FACT: He did.) And a substantial minority of Republicans also feel that even if Trump did ask a foreign leader to investigate the candidate who is currently his biggest political opponent in a national election, this is NOT an "abuse of power". If about half of Republicans are willing to follow the facts, along with most Democrats and Independents, the era of Trump is toast. Now here's the bad news. Even if Trump is toast, either through impeachment or losing the 2020 election or a combination of both, he has now reinforced the fact-free inclinations of millions of his most fervent followers. I'll keep arguing Trump is the symptom, not the cause. The Tea Party popped up in reaction to Obama, long before anybody thought Trump would ever be President. Trump in fact jumped on their bandwagon with his fact-free and racist birther lies, as opposed to the other way around. Since these people were doing their thing before Trump, count on the fact that they'll be doing it after he is gone. And whether he is convicted and removed from office, or he just loses an election (which is actually sort of what he did in 2016, if you go by actual human voters), the Trumpians will resent it. So, for example, you may think that Elizabeth Warren is a capitalist, because she says she is. Or because her policies are clearly based on capitalist free market principles. But don't let yourself get confused with facts, the truth, or civility. If Warren does win in 2020, we will definitely have a Socialist nightmare of a President. Perhaps even a Satanist. Or maybe they'll argue she isn't qualified to be President, because she's Native American, which is not American. Who knows what shit they'll come up with. Thanks, Rep. Slotkin, for modeling what we need to do. Facts, truth, civility, and women who are just going to persist no matter what the asshole men in the room say or do.

Buy them non alcoholic drink, dont think they can work as gogo boy at 18, but as waiter.

One of my favorite tv shows! I felt bad for Kevin Spacey. His entire career puf .. gone. Even for the other guys/victims if really true. Of course there are 2 sides of the story always.

It was a great chat, its really different when you talk in person face2face, right? Til next time...very nice meeting both of u (with Vinapu)...

Michigan Democrat confronted over support of impeachment inquiry at town hall There's an interesting 4 minute video embedded in that article that is worth watching if you want to understand the nature of Trump's civil war. (I also think it should be thought of as Putin's civil war. More on that below.) I think the video describes the essential nature of what is happening in America. It also embodies what I think we have to do to "win" the civil war. In essence, the way to win the civil war is to speak the truth, and be civil. I think Rep. Slotkin modeled that is this video. She is a former CIA analyst (for some, that means "deep state" analyst, of course) who was one of the moderate women who won in 2018 in a Republican House district that had supported Trump in 2016. She seems to have several crazy ideas. First, that there are things called facts. Second, that you can investigate these things called facts. Third, that investigating facts carefully leads you to a thing called truth. Fourth, that upon learning that truth you can act in a way that makes sense, and is ethical. I know. I know. Who would elect such a crazy person with such radical ideas? The video also models what you do if you are a Trumpian who wants to believe what you want to believe. First, you shout. Second, you shout more. Third, you use simple sentences like, "LIes!" and "Fake news!" These things can't really be debated. Because any time some one presents a fact you just call it a lie, or fake news, and you're done. It's easy. You can practice this as home tonight. Just be VERY loud. It is much better when you are loud, and sound very angry. Now, in fairness, some Trumpian in the video did make a decent argument, by yelling the word "corruption". So if you are a Trumpian, you can argue logically that the guy who brought us Trump U and Trump steaks and only lies when his lips are moving has suddenly developed a hard on for fighting corruption. And as Sen. Romney (a Republican) helpfully pointed out, this boner that Trump has for corruption only gets fully hard when it involves Joe Biden, who just happens to be the leading Democratic contender. You can believe that has nothing, nothing, nothing to do with politics. It is just that Donald Trump is the only one who tells you the straight truth, and everybody else is a deep state liar. Including that Slotkin woman, who is a deep state liar who needs to be dumped. You can believe that. It's a wonderful fantasy. This is the nature of the civil war in America today. The Trump folks are going to shout and follow their leaders and say "Fake News! Lies!" (Repeat 5000 times). There is no point in talking to them, unless you like shouting. Rep. Slotkin of course has to talk to them, and talk nicely. But she's not going to persuade them, because they have absolutely no interest in listening, whatsoever. Or in facts. So Slotkin is doing what needs to be done. Focus on facts. Organize. Win. The fact that she is now the elected leader of that district models exactly what the solution is. Her being the US Rep. there took a hell of a lot of work, and organizing, and focusing on facts. And now of course they are coming after her with "Fake news!" and "Lies!" I find this video encouraging. Because the true Trumpians are like rats on a sinking ship. Of course they don't want to believe that it is a fact that the ship is sinking. They will just call it fake news and lies. I said you could call this Putin's civil war because my theory (which is not a fact) is that Putin and his Internet Research Agency worked very hard to create this tone in America in 2016. If you are a Trumpian, you think Bob Mueller is a Democrat who spends his time licking Hillary Clinton's feet and concocting an elaborate "Russia hoax". In fact, he is a lifelong Republican who documented in hundreds of pages of detail how Putin and his IRA interfered and created a huge disinformation campaign during the 2016 election. It never struck me as likely that someone like Putin would leave smoking guns behind. If it's Putin and it involves a gun, it normally means somebody is going to blow your brains out if you are a journalist or political opponent. And no one will ever figure out who did it. Putin does not leave smoking guns behind. That said, there is no question that Mueller uncovered much of the details of what Putin's team did in 2016. Why did Putin do it? Was it to benefit Trump? I thought Pelosi was correct to avoid impeachment after the Mueller report came out, because Mueller was not able to factually answer those questions - at least beyond a reasonable doubt. I find it completely plausible that Putin wanted to pay back Hillary Clinton for not being nice to Putin when she was Secretary of State. I also find it plausible that Putin cared less about who won and cared more about making democracy look like a useless and even harmful food fight. I also find it plausible that Trump, who has had a lifelong aversion to facts and the truth, was simply a coincidence of history. Again, everything in this paragraph is a theory. I know the difference between theories and facts. But I do think it makes sense to keep in mind that Putin may not have started this civil war, but he did do his level best to throw lots of gasoline on to the fire. Regardless, the approach to ending the civil war is the same. It is going to be trench warfare, probably for years to come. And Slotkin is modeling exactly how you fight and win.

Last night amazed world watched with suspension when forum's five members strong team , lead by no one less than Right Honorable The Dean paulsf visited Moonlight and conquered it by storm by offing no less than three performers and watching great show as well. Some right wing commentators expressed doubts that team performance will be affected by including in it vinapu , beaten by age and mutilated by jet lag and at least 52 hours of sleep deprivation but again and again he proved that old adage ''in old furnace devil is burning fuel' is still accurate

That's ok...its been slow so they will still appreciate the drink & Tip...a 100bhat Tip keeps a potentially hungry boy fed for 24 hours I would suggest asking for mama 'Phim' next time you go in, she's a great help and very honest imho

Excellent article that I think nails it: Hunter Biden’s Perfectly Legal, Socially Acceptable Corruption Donald Trump committed an impeachable offense, but prominent Americans also shouldn’t be leveraging their names for payoffs from shady clients abroad. I'm about 1000 % certain that this is just going to reinforce what happened under the surface in the 2018 election, and also where the 2020 election was headed anyway. There will be a huge focus on the broader culture of corruption, and the need to clean it up. (If you believe in the magic of Trump and his tweets, this was of course already settled in 2016, when he was elected to drain the swamp. Let's not go there.) I'll put up a second article, both to illustrate why this will hurt Biden, and why it won't really deflect from Trump. Now that Sarah Sanders Huckabee is gone, I guess Fox News and his Twitter feed are about all Trump has to rely on. (Oh, and The Divine Miss Graham, of course.) Good luck with that, Donald. I don't think this will get you very far. The fact that the polls on impeachment have shifted so quickly pretty much tells me that what I thought was true is true: Americans are not stupid, and they know corruption and bullshit when they see it. Busting Biden myths on Ukraine – Conduct of Joe and Hunter raises troubling questions By Peter Schweizer, Jacob McLeod | Fox News I think that is the core of Joe Biden's problems. Not a whole lot of people are going to believe that. As The Atlantic article point to, I think the image that most resonates for me about Biden's problems has nothing to do with Ukraine. It's the image of Joe and Hunter Biden walking off Air Force Two together in China, shortly before Hunter scored a $1.5 billion equity deal with the Chinese. There's not a whole lot of artistic ways to put lipstick on that pig. There wasn't a wall between them. There wasn't even an airplane between them. The illogic of that argument collapses on itself really quickly. Anyone with a sense of fairness would note that Hunter was asked to join that board after Joe was already in charge of dealing with Ukraine. So unless there is a tape recording of some conversation where Joe is telling Hunter to join the board and clean up on fees and contracts, the conflict of interest seems to be Hunter's - not Joe's. There's also the minor problem of explaining why Hunter has a legal problem, simply because he joined the board of a company whose boss had had legal problems for years. The really illogical part of this that reflects very badly on Trump is that his own words make absolutely no sense. He misspoke, based on his own transcript, and said that Biden tried to get rid of a prosecution. When he actually should have said Biden did get rid of a prosecutor. You can go full blown conspiracy theory and argue that Biden's intent was to stop a prosecution. But there's no evidence of that. In fact, what makes no fucking sense to me whatsoever is that Biden's critics are arguing exactly the opposite. They are pointing out that after Biden fired the prosecutor, the investigation and prosecution of Burisma did in fact continue. So Fox Fake News wants to have it both ways. Why am I not surprised? As I stated elsewhere, the final outcome is that Burisma did get nailed for past tax evasion - which had nothing to do with the Bidens - and Burisma coughed up several million in back taxes. At some point I expect Hunter Biden or somebody will come forward with a credible argument that Hunter's role on the board was to clean the company's policies and governance up. The argument that Biden got Shokin fired to protect Burisma and his son is incredibly weak. But based on the facts Fox itself is reporting, to make the argument you really have to argue that the real problem with Joe Biden is that he's incompetent. If his goal was to shut down the case against Burisma, it obviously didn't work. The part of this I love is that it really casts a spotlight on the endemic corruption of revolving doors between corporations and governments, former government officials getting rich by joining corporate boards, and the families of government officials getting rich by doing the same. The Trump family and Team Trump's Cabinet of Billionaires is hardly in a position to sit in moral judgment on that one. One interesting tell is that Elizabeth Warren herself was described as "flustered" when she was asked whether a President Warren would allow the child of her Vice President to sit on the board of a foreign company. You can interpret that any number of ways, based on your feelings about Warren. To me what it says is that even the candidate who has been most outspoken about corruption didn't really have a clear answer for where you draw the line. This is going to be really, really good.

I'm a little confused by your statement because one of the three articles I hyperlinked was exactly the same one you did - from John Solomon at The Hill. I assume you mean there was a conflict between Hill's article and the first one I hyperlinked, the timeline from Media Matters. My sense is that Media Matters is accurate and they stuck to the facts, the facts, and only the facts. As I said above, Hill certainly has facts to hang his insinuations on. And Biden just looks sleazy. But Solomon really has no facts that suggest either Biden did anything illegal. He sounds more like Glenn Beck: "I'm just asking questions!" One thing I've been thinking about is this: if there is an error in judgment by Biden, which Biden is it? Joe Biden became the point man for Ukraine shortly after Putin's invasion. By every credible account I have read, Joe Biden was the designated hatchet man for broadly felt concerns about Shokin that were shared by the US, the UK, the IMF, and maybe most importantly, lots of local reformers in Ukraine. The problem really started when Hunter Biden took a position on Burisma's board. That definitely created a conflict of interest. It's hard not to believe it was an overtly political move, and the only reason he was paid the big bucks is he happened to be the Veep's son. He is also a recovering drug addict, and someone who just strikes me as sleazy. All that said, at least if you only look at Ukraine, this is more like the father paying for the sins of the son than the son paying for the sins of the father. Hunter Biden did nothing wrong, other than to be a sleazebag. I don't know this disqualifies Joe Biden based on any reasonable standard or any known fact. But it certainly doesn't look good. I agree with your bottom line regarding a President Warren. Her bumper sticker is "corruption is bad". Both Trump and the Bidens seem to be offering examples of different forms of corruption. The Biden sort - "pay to play" - is legal and broadly practiced. The Trump sort goes further, and is certain to end up being an impeachable offense. That's going to be very interesting to watch. I think the verdict is in already that Trump clearly solicited foreign interference in the 2020 election. Even Republicans are pretty much all saying Trump bringing up the Bidens was just wrong. their argument is it just isn't something that merits impeachment. How the "quid pro quo" thing plays out with public opinion depends on a whole bunch of facts that have yet to be uncovered. We don't know what was happening in the months before that call. But some things we do know suggest a concerted effort to make the alleged quid pro quo - you get money to take out Biden - really obvious. Like Rudy Colludy popping up all over the place and making it clear as day that Trump wanted dirt on Biden. Lindsey Graham is the guy whose role in the Senate now seems to be to try to add as much political logic as possible to Trump's worst rants. So he's the one advancing the most cogent argument about how this was really all good policy. Trump just wanted our allies to pitch in, and he wanted to make sure the new guy was not corrupt. That's the best argument anyone can make. The White House has picked it up, so now what they are saying is that the DOD and NSC were simply conducting a "policy process" before releasing the funds. Amid Impeachment Talk, WH Says Aid Delay Was Review-Based In that regard, the very last paragraph of the whistle blowers complaint may be one of the most damning, if it holds up as the facts come out: So it's clear, that quote was from the very last paragraph of the whistle blower's complaint. Part of why I think this is gaining momentum is that the whistle blower obviously is a professional who knows a lot about policies and processes and laws that would be applicable. So if there was a "policy review" occurring within the NSC, you'd think the staff of the NSC who work on these matters would know about it, right? With the exception of Lindsey Graham, most Republican Senators - including McConnell - have said they don't have a clue why the money was held up. My sense is that at least hints that most Republicans are not going to throw themselves under the bus for Trump. It's a minor point, but Trump's congratulatory tone on the phone call also doesn't quite fit with the idea that he had grave concerns about the new President being corrupt. Zelenskyy was quite obviously sucking up to Trump in almost every sentence he spoke. And Trump was bending over backward to tell Zelenskyy what a great guy he was, and what a wonderful and promising victory he had won. Trump didn't really bring up any generic concern about Ukrainian corruption. Like he didn't say, I need you to prove to me that you can run a country without massive corruption. In fact, the more I learn, the more it sounds like Trump implicitly was siding with corruption. He talked about how unfair it was that Biden got Shokin fired, even though by almost every account Shokin was viewed as an ineffective and corrupt General Prosecutor. Then Trump trashed his own Ambassador, a career diplomat who he had just sidelined. It's going to be very interesting to learn what she has to say about Ghouliani's involvement. To the degree that Trump articulated clearly what hoops Zelenskyy had to jump through, it was all about the Clinton/Biden/DNC conspiracy theories: you make Biden and Clinton and Mueller and the Democrats look bad, and you'll make me happy. That was the clear subtext to me. Now that I've read the report of the US Inspector General who had to review the whistle blower's complaint, Trump seems to have one other huge problem: To make sure it's clear, that line is from the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community's report explaining why he thinks the whistle blower's allegations are credible and urgent. And the Inspector General, Michael Atkinson, was appointed by Trump and appears to be a squeaky clean good government type who worked for DOJ for 15 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Atkinson_(Inspector_General) Atkinson received the Attorney General's Award for Distinguished Service for his work taking down Black Democratic U.S. Rep. William Jefferson, the corrupt Louisiana legislator who got caught with a bunch of money wrapped in aluminum foil in his freezer. It's hard to argue a good cop type appointed by Trump himself had an axe to grind against Trump. It's not clear yet what "other information" means in that quote above. But if you take what the whistle blower says and what the IG agrees with, it's hard not to believe that a third of fourth of fifth person isn't going to come forward to confirm that Trump did in fact solicit a foreign leader to help his 2020 reelection campaign. Again, we agree. I think who Trump is most likely to have ended up helping is President Elizabeth Warren.

Compare your place to where they are going back home to....FIGURES....

Wow tomcal! I admire your stamina!

I went to see the show tonight after seeing the 10 pm Xboys show just steps away across Pattayaland soi 1. First show at Dream Boys 10:40 but it started closer to 11 pm. Some very hot parts, the bathtub scene sizzled as one lad at full mast soaped up with another lad. The show moved along with many acts. The two dancing ladymen were bearable, especially at the end of the show when at least ten muscular men paraded around the dancing ladyman in see through material, tented out. The sheer material comes off and all the ten stood proudly at full mast with only a condom on and paraded around the stage. There’s a second show and the cast go outside Dream Boys while the regular gogo boys go back on stage. There are now 3 sexy boy shows in Boyztown area. If Big Boys is also a boy show bar like 360 was , there will be many to choose from.