Bob

To me, there's a big difference between a law that regulates commercial sex versus a law that regulates private consensual behavior. This law applies to commercial sex and I see no problem with it at all. The straight and gay communities ought to shriek in horror if the government did anything other than strongly encourage the use of condoms for sex between two people who are not long-term partners. Whether the actors Michael is referring to are "tested" is somewhat irrelevant to me when they're engaging in sex with people who for the most part are one-night stands (or, perhaps, one-video stands). When that occurs - and given testing doesn't guarantee that the other person is HIV free (let alone somewhat monogomous) - the only intelligent and safe thing is to wear a condom. And the safety issue imposed by the government makes complete sense based on known medical issues. Arguably, this law protects others (the other short-term and long-term partners of the individuals making porn films). Not too different in my view of the government requiring kids to be immunized against polio so you can protect the rest of society who comes in contact with them.

At least in the US, the overriding principle involved in any child-related matter is what is called the "best interests" of the child. While a judge has to ultimately determine what a child's best interest is in a given matter, there are statutory guidelines as that the court needs to consider and weigh as part of that process. Each state has its own laws but many are similar and, in Michigan, one of 12 factors the court must consider is: The capacity and disposition of the parties involved to give the child love, affection, and guidance and to continue the education and raising of the child in his or her religion or creed, if any. So, religious preference (if any) is part of one factor but I personally never saw any case turn on that issue alone. And, additionally, you've got the parent's freedom of religion rights surrounding this issue. For thousands of years, various religions have espoused/mandated circumcision and I'm doubtful that any court (at least in the US in the foreseeable future) will rule that a parent cannot make this choice for his/her child. What will be interesting, though (if it ever happens), will be a court fight over whether a child should be circumcized when the divorced parents have equal custodial rights. That'd likely be a judge's nightmare.

"Passionate?!?!?" I hope he was wearing a condom when he said that....

Hopefully, Abang will ignore those cheap shots. While I don't know about world peace, we might be able to have a little more peace and adult discourse here if you follow through on your earlier pronouncement ("but i shant bother posting anymore").

I really don't have a problem understanding the expansion as it's been easily proven and I also don't have a logical problem with what the expansion occurred "into." By definition, something expanded into nothing (where previously there was nothing) and that sorta makes sense. But.....given my pea brain can't get away from basic cause and effect, what I can't get any of my axions around is the notion that there was "nothing" before the big bang. I mean, my god/buddha, something had to be there to "bang" and I can't see something being created out of nothing. So, to me, the real issue is what was it that created the big bang. Given I have no logical answer to that, I call it "god" (meaning only that I have zero knowledge of who/what did it and not that I believe some other "being" of any nature did it.....as then I'd have to ask who created that "being").

The man thinks at levels most of us are incapable of even partially understanding. I've read his one book "A Short History of Time" several times and, although I think I'm able to understand a bit more of it each time I read it, I'd guess that my comprehension is probably far less than half. Simply (well, perhaps using that word in attempting to describe Stephen Hawking is very inappropriate) an amazing man.

Hmmm.....is that right? I had a cable modem back in the frigid midwest and I had a fixed IP number. When I got a new computer, I believe I still retained the same IP number (I remember checking it once and it looked the same). That kinda makes me think it's the modem itself that spits out the IP number but hell if I know. (But I never worried about my IP number as I made all the death and bomb threats on Khun Fountainhill's computer). (Dear Mr. NSA - I'm only kidding, you wrinkled goverment hack!)

I could be wrong but I believe that one can always trace a given IP number to a location. With a proxy, it'll trace only to the location of the proxy server (you use a Swedish proxy, it'll look like you're posting from Sweden). Somebody at that proxy location could trace you to wherever you're really located but, as I understand it, they don't do that nor keep records (supposedly) of those IP numbers.

The Thai Democrats and some of their fringe allies (what's left of the yellow shirts and PAD), like the Republicans in the US, seem to be totally nuts in what posltions they stake out on various issues. Instead of actually coming up with a policy that might be helpful for the Thai people, they seem to choose any topic they think they can use to undercut the current Thai government. And, for whatever reason, they seem to always select the dumbest positions on such issues. The International Court of Justice ruled over 50 years ago that the Vihear Temple belongs to Cambodia. And, like it or not, there is no (zero) possibility that the Court is going to reverse that ruling. What the new ruling will involve will be a clearer delineation of what land around the temple also belongs to Cambodia (I would think that the land immediately under the temple grounds has already been decided). The new ruling is expected this coming fall. The Foreign Minister recently said that it's possible that Thailand will not win this case. And the Democrats and fringe wackos have blasted him for "conceding" ahead of the ruling. What total moronic thinking. Let's look at the facts: (1) No doubt, as mentioned, the temple and grounds of the temple belong to Cambodia - and that isn't even at issue. Some of the PAD and yellow shirts think that's part of the case but it isn't. (2) The prior Thai government and their legal team have taken the position - based on their argument that the ICJ had used faulty maps in making their decision in 1961 - that Thailand owns all of the land in front (towards Thailand) of the temple and even on the sides and to the rear of the temple. Now, come on, somebody really wants to argue that the ICJ, when ruling the temple belonged to Cambodia, could possibly have intended to leave an island of land (the temple grounds) within the sovereign state of Thailand? Nobody (well, except for some Democrats and some of the fringe wackos) is that stupid! (3) The Pheu Thai government has maintained the same legal team to handle the claim in the ICJ, the same team that the Democrats put in place. If you can believe this - I mean, where do they get these notions??? - The Democrats are now claiming that (1) the current government is doing that to cover their ass should they lose the case and (2) that the current government "should assemble the best possible legal team" to win the case. Somewhat difficult, I would think, for the Democrats to impliedly argue that they didn't put in place a decent legal team, isn't it?!? I'd hope the current government isn't dumb enough to replace the legal team (if they do, the Democrats will claim when the case is "lost" that the Pheu Thai government is responsible because they put a bunch of morons on the legal team with the actual intention to lose the friggin' case!). The Thai position since 1961 is untenable both factually and as a matter of law. That, however, really has nothing to do with why the Thais are fighting the case or why the Democrats and their fringe allies are attempting (stupidly, in my view) to fan the flames of phony nationalism to attempt to undermine the current government. Hell, I'm a bit surprised they haven't investigated Yingluck's birth certificate as yet (she, like Obama, was probably born in Kenya.....you heard it here!).

Hopefully not. But I'd note that our two regulars are perhaps not recognizing that others are dredging up old posts (several yesterday that were 3-10 months old) and making repeatedly irrelevant comments (why this thread has anything to do with disliking other posters that "lie" is beyond me) that are stirring the pot. Just be aware.

Z, you're awarded 1000 bonus points (what they're good for, hell if I know!) for the best freudian slip of the day. As Clark Gable might have put it: "It's all in the capitalization, my dear." But, I do have a problem. The board software is quite deficient in that it doesn't allow me to ignore me!

While I realize you're not really expounding on why you don't do attack posts, it'd be my view that the fact you don't do them or have the desire to do them says a fair amount about you and your character. (I don't need to add this for you or most others but, to avoid any misinterpretation by those who can't parse meanings, that's a compliment). Contrary to the Op's view, I have no problem in having a separate opinion about content and writing style. The blogger's writing style is rather excellent in my view (and it would seem that most have that view); however, most of his content (what he thinks about other message boards or posters thereon, for example) is meaningless to me in that I don't really care what he thinks about such topics. What provides some interest to me, though, is why he feels the need to publicly share those thoughts (is there some form of "the world is clamoring to hear me" belief going on there?) and/or what process is going on which somehow turns putting down others into some sense of self-gratification for the writer. Hell if I know but I don't consider it healthy adult behavior.

Probably a topic for another thread - I won't go into the detail here - but you're view of the American jury system (or the ability of the Trial Judge to dismiss a proposed juror or the ability of prosecutor and defense to both move for dismissal for "cause" and to exercise a small number of peremptory challenges) as "daft" is only because you don't know how it works. I suspect Khun Thaiworthy was a dedicated juror that the Court, the prosecutor, and defense all found acceptable (i.e., just the kind of jury member we'd want judging us if our freedom or money was on the line).

Took a look at the mentioned blog and I tend to agree with Khortose's analysis of the content. Extremely well written and occasionally witty. But, since he's obviously invited the analysis in return, I at least wonder about the motivation for the extensive blogging and generally negative content. First, as he obviously spends a whole lot of time writing his articles and keeping track of all the various boards and posters, one wonders if he has much of a real life beyond that. Second, for whatever reason, he obviously gets a vicarious and very personal thrill out of putting other people down - a task made much easier for the self-appointed "brave" when done behind a keyboard and the anonymity of the internet. If it gives him an outlet for all those petty irritations he feels, probably fairly healthy for him; however, as to why he personally has those particular concerns let alone the desire to make sure that some part of the world knows about them, you'd have to ask Freud. In a sense, the blogger reminds me of William F. Buckley in that, if you strip away the excellent writing style and clever vocabulary, what you have left really seems to be rather petty and juvenile. P.S. As of 22.00 Thai time today (January 3rd), I'm no longer getting the Norton mentioned warnings.

For about a day, my up-to-date Norton gave this site the all clear; however, this morning, it says it's "attack city!" again. Thanks for the efforts, Scooby, but my guess is that, like Arnold Swarzenegger, "IT'S BAAACCKK!" P.S. What happens with my Norton is that a little window pops up that reads: "Norton blocked an attack by: Web Attack: Mass Injection Website." As to what that means other than Norton's program is stopping the so-called "attack" is beyond me.

It's the Mayan end of the world! My Norton doesn't like something either....keeps saying that it's stopping attacks emanating from this website.

Somtam? Although I limit it when I can to one chili and ask for it without the dried shrimp, I rather like it....and don't think it has a bad smell at all. Probably close to the number one dish in Thailand. As for raw fish....regardless of any fancy name.....yuck!

I think that's what they called Sean after he bought an Apple product....

Lol. I might have bought that theory (that it's somewhat fruitless to keep expressing the same opinion in the face of obvious disagreement) had you not one more time expressed the same opinion before announcing that you weren't going to read any replies. Kinda reminds me of the nephews and nieces on occasion getting the last comment in and then covering their ears as they walk away. Some obviously disagree with your spirited defense of allowing LMTU to continue to roam the halls. I could be wrong but wasn't it you who booted him out of here the first time? (and, if I recall correctly, you were pretty much universally praised for doing so).

I borrowed Khun Khortose's .44 magnum and really enjoyed the game, Khun Thaiworthy. Now, who the hell is going to fix the holes in my laptop screen?

Including, of course, those little colored pieces of paper with the King's picture....hehe. But I'm still wondering......was the cop wearing those skin-tight brown pants and did he have a nice ass?

While I agree things are hit or miss here, I'm a bit puzzled by that guy's experience. First, he must have been a newbe to the one-year visa (or anything other than the freebie 30-day) or he should have known better. Second, he must have run into the dumbest immigration officer in the country (any other officer would have known you need a re-entry permit and, besides, when did they not avail themselves of the opportunity to sell you something even though they knew you didn't need it?). Third, anybody that comes back into the country gets an entry stamp in his passport - and that stamp (in the case of a longer term visa) says right on it the date that it expires (e.g., I re-entered the country this past September and the stamp states right on it that my stay is authorized until May 27th - which is the expiration date of my annual visa). If he got the standard 30-day freebie, I think (sorry, I actually have none of those in my current passport), I think it also states the date of expiration. So it's sounds like maybe some compounded ignorance there. Mysterman mentions the clerk plugged in the appliance to make sure it works. That's pretty standard practice anywhere I've been here.....whether a tv, sound system, vacuum cleaner, dvd player, microwave, or whatever. I'm not so sure that this practice stems from worry that the thing won't work - as they'll do the same thing with a "name brand" appliance - but perhaps a policy to make sure it works so you're happy and/or they get less returns or service calls.

Given it's Christmas Eve, I actually can conjure up a bit of sympathy for you. But I'm guessing that the Pattaya cops are convinced that all they did was to give you the very present you were looking for here in the Land of Smiles (i.e., a good scewing! ). Melly Clitmas, Khun Michael.

Hope borne out of too much crystal meth? Nah, I blissfully wish for the same. Happy holidays!

Sounds logical to me. One supoosedly isn't banning a name but is banning a poster for his behavior. Many of us who have been around for years almost immediately spotted the new guise (HeyGay) of LMTU and some of us were dumbfounded he was allowed to roam the halls again. We "knew" (based on both his prior behavior here as well as his antics and bannings elsewhere) in our hearts where this would all end up. So it comes as no surprise at all. My only regret about any of this is that his forced departures from various boards have at times ended up with comments and even threads which owners/moderators might view as less than favorable to them. In my view, if the owners or moderators were at "fault" at all, it was for being overly generous with the latitude they gave him. Pretty hard to criticize them for that!