Bob

? I've never been in the place as far as I can recall. Plus I saved my tuxedo, vino, and prayer book for attending services at the upscale Super A back in the olden days. Now I just go to temples.

My theory for many cases is that you're dealing with a mousy personality that in real life nobody pays any attention to and/or who is actively shunned by pretty much anybody that's had the misfortune of any significant contact with them. As Fountainhill suggests, there are various negatives or dark sides to the internet and one of those is that the internet allows these somewhat disturbed/bizarre persons to play games without risking any physical or verbal reaction by others around them. They crave the attention real life won't give them (and/or any attention that isn't immediately threatening to them) and somehow create in their minds some cozy feeling that they "belong to" something just by posting under any name. A negative post reacting to something stupid that such a person posts simply doesn't deter them as it means so little to them (compared to the reactions they get in real life to their comments and antics, even a sharp criticism in a reactive posting means nothing to them). But does it rise to the level of mental illness? I'm doubtful it does in most cases although many of the hydras likely have some form of personality disorder. But, combining the disturbed games with other traits (e.g., I know better than anyone, the world can't wait to hear what I have to say, I have secret sources you mortals don't have, etc.), one or two of the hydras we've all known probably are (and I'm using the technical term) "fucking nuts."

James, Scottish had somewhat of a point in that even your contest page didn't say how or where the winner would be announced. Can't read your mind, you know. On the other hand, my guess is Scotish didn't give a rat's ass who the winner was and was just being a bit pissy.

Most chedis contain the ashes of either important royalty or revered monks. Here in Chiangmai, for example, Wat Suan Dok (on the south side of Suthep Road, about 600 yards west of the moat) has many mini-chedis which house the ashes of many of the Chiangmai kings (those that ruled from about the 1790's, after the Burmese were finally booted out, until the early 20th century). Wat Suan Dok also has one larger chedi but that houses Buddhist relics only. With respect to actual Buddha relics, there are so many "genuine" relics everywhere (temples inThailand, India, Burma, Sri Lanka, etc.) that the real Buddha had to have been gargantuan in size (i.e., most the relics obviously have to be wishful thinking).

When you get 0-10 years for murder, one only has to wonder about the mindset that leads to, let alone justifies, a sentence of 15-20 years for speaking your mind (i.e., lese majeste). I would think a person's right to exist/live might be a bit more important than somebody's hurt feelings. The good news, I suppose, is that no government has figured out so far how to jail somebody for what their mind thinks.

The law and society has struggled for centuries to deal with the issue of diminished capacity but does not take the leap that this Archbishop suggests be taken. Absent extraordinary situations - such as the stockholm syndrome, somebody with physical brain damange, somebody unknowlingly taking powerful drugs that might cause criminal behavior, or the like - people are responsible for their conduct and priests who sexually molest anybody are legally and criminally responsible for their behavior regardless of what did or didn't happen to them as children. I can understand an exercise in attempting to psychologically explain the behavior (I actually do believe that pedophilia is learned behavior by and large) but that has nothing to do in my eyes as to whether society ought to hold somebody responsible for the behavior. The Archbishop even hinting that this behavior isn't intentional or by choice shows total and callous ignorance of the situation and societal norms. Reminds me of the 90's when every criminal in an attempt to explain his behavior claimed everything under the sun to attempt to absolve himself of moral or criminal responsiblity. I watched too much tv, I played too many violent video games, my parents spanked me too much, etc., etc. About the nicest way I as a judge could respond to that type of lame attempt to escape liability is to say: Okay, I'm very sorry for your past and that might even explain why you would engage in such unacceptable behavior; however, given you're trying to tell me you can't help yourself, I'll do society a favor and lock you away so you can't help yourself to some more children.

Hmmmm......dunno. But it's listed for rent by Fountainhall Realty & Sauna, Ltd.

Cheap bastard! But I have a deal for you. Only 50,000 baht a month (well, it's 12 baht a month but the agency fee is 49,988 per month). The ladyboy maid is sweeping it out for you now!

Sorry for pasting all of that here but I won't remember your questions if I don't. The area I and most falangs I know prefer around here is the west end. The river area is a bit more touristy and always has a lot more falang whereas the west end seems to be a bit more trendy (especially the Nimman Road area) and simply the area I like a whole lot more. By the way, I'm sure Khortose will add better information than I will do. The best thing about living here. I personally live here for three reasons - the beloved of 12+ years lives/works here, the weather is much better/cooler here, and there seems to me to be more of a laid-back attitude up here. And, while I shouldn't say it, the last two items are probably the biggest reasons I live here. On the other hand, I know Chiangmai better than any other area of Thailand and I think many of us tend to feel more comfortable with whatever it is we know best. I almost never go to Bangkok (I consider it just a huge, hot, stinky city and I don't like to shop).....sorry, just my personal view; regardless, I think our airport is easy to use and I can't see how you'd have any problems in flying back if forth if that was your preference. When I used to use EVA for years (their flights leave Bangkok about 4:30 in the afternoon), it was easy and convenient to get connecting flights. Now, however, when I go back to the states for the summer, I use Korean Air and that's most excellent (Chicago to Seoul and then direct to Chiangmai). Flying direct to Chiangmai for me has huge benefits - Chiangmai immigration is a breeze, you're never more than 20 minutes or so from the airport to your destination, and it shortens the trips going through Bangkok by a whole lot of hours. Can't comment about visa runs....don't do them as I have a retirement visa. I do know, however, that a visa run via Mae Sai is not easy, short, or all that comfortable. If you're coming for a year, why the heck not just get a retirement visa while you're in the states? Didn't there used to be a Thai consulate in Houston or some such place? If you do that, then all you have to do is go report your address to immigration every 90 days. By the way, if you have a long-term visa and wish to leave the country now and then, you typicallly need a re-entry permit (I have a multiple so I could come and go as I please) or you'll blow your long-term visa when you leave. I generally hear compliments about the medical care here. Once or twice a year, I go over to RAM for some minor thing and always felt they took care of me very well (and unbelievably cheaply). But can't compare it to Bangkok or Pattaya as never had any medical care there (the only other place here I've had medical care was at Sao Paulo Hospital in Hua Hin and I thought that was perfectly fine). I haven't been to a massage place in at least a year+ but there is a fairly good selection of places to choose. My prior favorites were One2Come and Oriental Mystic Massage. As to the gogo bars, I don't go often enough to be entitled to an opinion (they're not my thing and the occasional ladyboy act drives me batty). To be honest, most of the expats I know who live here hardly ever go to them either. Has the gogo scene "improved?" I doubt it (I was at Adam's Apple a couple of months ago and it was about the same as it was in 2005 and 2000!). If you like discos you might really like the fairly new and upscale Sea Man Bar on Canal Road. Somebody told me that Mandalay is also re-opened now. I've only been in Sea Man a few times and that was last year but they do have some very good looking dudes to really dance. Regardless, it's too noisy and dark for me so I won't be returning anytime soon. As for Mandalay, haven't been in there in years (discos aren't my thing). Okay...I'll let Khortose or somebody else add their two cents. Meanwhile, if you get serious about your plans to stay up here a year, please give us some advance notice. The male population probably needs to be warned.

Based on the depictions, he'd fit in better as the patron saint of archery targets. And I suppose Sarah Palin is the patron saint of the Mensa Society?!?

Look at it this way, Michael. God's just allowing the male Brazilian population to take a siesta for a day or two before MM (Marauding Michael) is back in form. Recover soon and go for it.

Perhaps. I do know that when I return from a trip back to the states with a tan, the beloved points at my arms and starts screaming "chao naa!" (rice farmer!) Guess I need to start using skin-whitening creams.

Commence to kicking as I can't figure it out. Based on the premise, the barman couldn't have recognized an issue with either the clothing or the voice. Hmmm....so it has to be something with the man himself (is he a black man?) or how/what he ordered. You got me.

You've probably seen this one before too (I found it somewhere on the web years ago). Little baby in the bucket makes 9!

A lot of Catholics didn't know that the incredibly stupid rule was territorial....it only applied to the US. People in Detroit could perfectly legally go over to Windsor on Fridays and have a steak, just as my uncle in Tucson could hop over the border and eat meat on Fridays. What was worse than the stupidity of the rule itself is that they taught us (at least in the 50's) that violating the rule was a "mortal" sin, meaning you went to hell for doing it unless the priest at confession gave you a break. Any religion that bases its rules on fear isn't worth following in my view. With respect to the "new" pope, it likely won't make any difference given the rigidity (and stupidity) of the Church's rules. And the fact that the Church is run by a fairly small number of very old men ought to signal that reasonable policies are not likely around the corner. Some day - we won't live to see it - Catholic and other churches will likely fade into oblivion as they slowly are doing in all developed countries. Education and knowledge always seems to be the enemy of anybody spinning a fairy tale.

It might be helpful, Jovian, if you actually read the post I responded to and then read my response. Please don't twist that poster's words or mine. I agree with you 100% that the Church (and any other outfit) that advocates against use of condoms is entirely ignorant and, in a way, assisting in the spread of aids and other diseases; however, that's not what the poster said. What he said was that the Church's teachings on birth control led to millions of babies being born who later died of starvation or aids. A rather big difference from what you said. And, yes, there was not-too-distant post (January 2nd to be exact - I didn't want to take the time to go find it but did anyway) where a poster argued that (and I'm quoting here): "if it had not have been for the original band aid and all the lives it had saved, how many children that have died of starvation and disease since then would have actually been born ?? would it have been better to leave them to their own devices as i personally dont think what band aid did has been that benificial to africa in the long run, sure there will have been a few success stories over the years, but as i said before just how many children have died for no reason other than the fact that they were born." The poster essentially was arguing that those who helped children live in third-world country were essentially responsible for many of them dying later of starvation or disease. And I responded essentially the same way to that poster.

Before commenting, I was raised a Catholic although I have no use for the Church anymore or any of its teachings. And it's positions on so many things - including birth control, priestly celebacy, and many other doctrines - are simply ignorant and stupid. But use of the word "murder" is as badly flawed as many of their doctrines. You call it "murder" when they sincerely believe (rightly or wrongly) that their doctrine is solely intended to preserve life. They may not be fully correct but your use of the word "murder" is fully incorrect in my opinion. I believe we had this logic presented on the board in the not too distant past - that those who help preserve the lives of newborns in Africa (through provision of food, medicine, or whatever) are responsible for their later deaths due to starvation, war, or whatever. In my view, that's simply twisted logic and almost sounds like an excuse (as inexcusable as it may be) not to do the "human" thing and at least attempt to help those that can't help themselves.

All we need is a bunch of TSA agents with tape rulers trying to distinguish between a 2.39" blade and a 2.37" blade. Hate to tell them but it'd just be wiser to ban all knives (which the public has been complying with for years). There must be a law that requires a government worker to have no common/practical sense at all.

I hope it wasn't because he got excited about seeing the Reichsadler on the guy's left cheek.

There's the old story about the woman agreeing to have sex with an old man for a million dollars. When he then suggested he'd pay her only 20 dollars, she said: "What do the hell you think I am?" The guy responded: "Well, we've already established that, we're just negotiating the price." I suppose we all have our price. Would you throw in a case of Coke Zero with the frequent flyer miles?

I'd sooner drive a pink cadillac to a Mary Kay Cosmetics orgy!

I'm guessing the "inappropriate" word was used by the cardinal given that cardinals are not supposed to be having sexual contact with anybody under any circumstances, i.e., he violated church rules (although he might have meant immoral conduct, I'm not sure). As concerns the "harrassment" level, it involves the fact this guy was the boss or superior of the subjects involved. For example only, according to the newspaper articles, the earliest (known) complaint allegedly occurred in 1980 and involved a 20-year-old seminarian and the cardinal (the cardinal was his "spiritual director" at the time). You can read more about the alleged incidents and particularly telling comments from the 20-year-old here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/23/cardinal-keith-o-brien-accused-inappropriate

Lol. Yea, on rare occasions, I guess it probably was! Koko, you're right that I probably should have referred to sexual harrassment rather than sexual predation. I probably wasn't being too fair with the cardinal and perhaps unfairly imagining that an ugly postcript will hit the news soon.

Apple is a great company and nobody can deny the business and product genius (that is the appropriate word) of Steve Jobs. Nevertheless, I've never particularly liked the cult-like attitude of the owners of Apple products beginning with the mac computer and extending to the current versions of the Ipad, Iphone, and Iwhatever. Somewhat of an "I'm superior" attitude because they owned an "Apple" product. I can understand part of that as the Apple products were probably the best on the market for some time periods. But no longer. And maybe the other manufacturers ought to thank Apple and Jobs for forcing them to innovate and make better products (and/or, perhaps in part thank them for letting them pilfer some of their ideas?). What I thought was the funniest or most pathetic part of it was how Apple and Jobs would create some big production in a big arena of Apple afficianados to roll out a new product. Sounded and looked like an old-fashioned Amway meeting to me!

If one looked around the courtrooms in my area and looked for the creepiest and skuzziest person, it was about a 99% sure bet he was a narc...hehe. They sure as hell played the part well. (On the other hand, too often I heard a defendant confess to some drug offense and then acknowledge he had far more drugs on him than was ever turned in as evidence. Sorta magically disappeared.....)