Bob

Speaking of Hillary, some news today regarding some recent polls. Hell, it's been a long time since anybody had a 65%+ favorability rating in the US! http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/12/10/clinton-rides-high-poll-numbers-into-private-life-for-now/

There's some charitable outfit up here in Chiangmai which occasionally hands out cards for this purpose, apparently because there have been multiple occasions where a falang is found unconcious and the cops and hospital personnel have trouble locating anybody. A US passport, of course, has a page with emergency contact information and one can also register that information with the embassy. For those yanks who don't carry their passports and/or that relevant information, perhaps a photocopy of the emergency contact page might also be wise to carry.

When you're the boss (and President at that), I'd consider using that position to get some head from a young intern in the oval office an abuse of his office. however, getting some head from Monica certainly wasn't a "high crime and misdemeanor" rising to the level of an impeachable offense as defined in the constitution. The subsequent perjury, though, came close.

Any particular reason why you dig up a 9-month old post to tell us about a poster on another board who hasn't posted there for over 3 months?

No need for the apologies. As I yank, I think Bill Clinton is a damn good politician (which, frankly, isn't in my parlance a very nice thing to say); however, he's had some significant character lapses (it's inexcusable what he did to the 23-year-old intern who worked for him in the oval office but he should have been disbarred and impeached for later committing perjury over it). On the other hand, he was fairly warmly received overseas and at least started no wars. And, as president, he was lucky to have the great economic times we had then (not all of which was due to his policies, of course). Hillary, in my opinion, has been an excellent Secretary of State and she has earned praise from all most who've come in contact with her (including many Republicans and even Henry Kissinger!). In the back of my mind, I have to admit that I was personally disappointed that she "stood by her man" when he embarrassed the hell out her and himself but I eventually realized that what path she chose was her own business and not anybody else's.

Typically, no matter what phase of the moon, Americans indeed know the difference between a passport and an international driver's license. As for getting stopped by a cop for a traffic violation, I've asked quite a few around here (Chiangmai) as to what type of ID the cops request to see. Everyone has answered "only a driver's license" (or IDL) and that no traffic cop ever asked them to see a passport. Whether you carry one, however, is up to you as perhaps you'll be the rare or first exception. The IDL is simply verification that you have a driver's license in your home country and, in most cases, is a valid temporary driving license in other countries. As noted, the international driver's license issued in the US is valid on its face for a year; however, the rules/laws here in Thailand only allow its validity for a maximum of 90 days from your date of entry into Thailand.

Khun TW is correct, it's required but almost nobody (at least among the permanent residents and long-timers I know) does it. The only people I know that will ask to see it are banks, airports, hotels, landlords, language schools, any place you obtain a purchase/discount card, the various utility outfits (cable, internet, telephone) when you sign up for services, and you might be asked to produce it if you go through a police immigration checkpoint (I don't think there are many of those in the south but you'll occasionally run into one of those within a 100 miles or so of an international border, e.g., there's often one or more between Chiangrai and the borders). I don't drive here but have asked various friends who do if they're ever asked for their passport when the cops stop them for some infraction and, so far, all of them have said "no" (they just show their driver's license or, more often than not, some pieces of paper with the King's picture on it....). Whenever the topic comes up here in Chiangmai, it seems I'm the only doofus that always carrys his passport (everyone else, though, seems to be carrying a photocopy of the passport photo page). It's no hassle to me as I'm used to doing since the late 90's and never leave home without taking that, the wallet, home keys, sunglasses, etc. During Songkran, it's safely covered with a plastic baggie.

Lol. Sounds like you've been around the boards a little while longer than your 15 posts would suggest. So nobody misinterprets my comments, they were not aimed at all at the OP. His photo accidentally caught the back of the dork he mentioned and, as he noted, there's apparently nobody clearly identifiable in the photo. He (the OP) was just taking a photo of a bar. I'd note to Khun TW that you might want to read the comments a bit more carefully. Intentionally taking a photo of somebody is slightly different than somebody happening to be in the background of a photo you're taking in a public location. I don't really care who's in the background, including myself, with respect to a photo somebody's taking for other purposes in a public location; however, with respect to certain sensitive areas (in front of the million lady bars or the hundreds of gay bars), I'd think that there is a bit more responsiblity before publicly posting photos with identifiable people. You mention the word "respectful" and that sounds like we don't disagree all that much.

Hmmm.....I'm beginning to see the origins of your thought patterns. Khun FH and I will donate a case of Prozac..... But, back to your question, the main character did commit the heinous act (amongst other offenses) of stealing bread for his starving relatives. Had he (I'm guessing you're thinking) simply married the hog (with family jewels intact), perhaps he and the hog could have lived happily ever after comparing and/or compressing sausage between them.

The common law of England (which we yanks largely follow) has wisely (my view) developed over the centuries the concept that we are responsible for consequential damages reasonbly caused by our acts; however, to be responsible for such "consequential damage", the actor either needs to intend to cause the specific harm or it must be a harm or damage that an average reasonable man would consider should have been reasonably anticipated (or, in the parlance, the particular injury or harm was "proximately caused" by the behavior). In this particular case, the dj's pulled a humorous prank and I can't fathom that they intended anyone any personal harm nor do I think that any reasonable person could rationally suggest that their actions might reasonably have led to someone's personal injury or death. The fact that a tragic but totally unanticipated death occurred ought not re-characterize their behavior and I'm a bit dumbfounded by the people who are calling for action against the radio dudes. England is currently in the heat of a battle deciding how to regulate the intrusive (and sometimes illegal - hello Mr. Murdoch!) behavior of the media and I suspect that this background is fueling some of the anger towards the dj's. But I don't believe in this case it's justifiable.

Sounds like a nutty idea to me but it makes me happy not to have been a hog, I suppose. I would have probably bet 5 baht yesterday that Khun FH did not anticipate that his Les Miserables thread would end up talking about hog castration!

I just happen to believe in a zone and right of privacy excepting for people purposively being in the public spotlight. Just because there's a camera everywhere doesn't give anybody the right to invade that zone in my view. And my comments about onlookers really didn't extend to the notion of some onlooker happening to be in the background (that onlooker clearly sees the hundreds of cameras pointed at him). I do agree with Khun Fountainhill's comments about personal responsibility - meaning, don't be doing those kinds of things in public that obviously draw attention to yourself (such as playing "smoochie smoochie" in public, grabbing your boyfriend's crotch or ass in public, being a drunken dork, etc.) and I obviously feel less sorry for those caught doing those types of behaviors; yet, I have little sympathy towards those who would publish such photos.

No, I'm not "in" on that information, don't ever want to be "in" on that information, and think your comments (other than notification of the death) were typically classless. In your original post, you said: "I won't go into the details here..." That commment, at least to me, reflects a couple of things: (1) That you want everybody to know you're in on the secret, scoopy, information as if somehow that makes you better or even enviable (unbeknownst to you, it only makes you appear to be creepy), and (2) given your history, there's (sadly) no doubt that you'll go into the details somewhere. Just don't do it here. It's too bad the guy died. Leave it at that.

I'm not taking issue with Ceejay's personal opinion as I generally share it. There's definitely (for me, at least) a substantial difference between what is "legal" and what is "appropriate." I personally don't accept that it is appropriate for anyone to take my photo without my permission and sure as hell it's not appropriate to publish that photo on the internet without additional permission. I may not be able to sue somebody for doing that but I am more than likely going to call them an asshole. Taking somebody's photo in a particularly sensitive area (like outside a girlie or bar bar) is, in my view, even worse - especially if one later posts that photo on the internet. Simply tastless/classless in my opinion. There are many occasions where I believe it's okay not only to take somebody's photo in public but also to post such photos on the internet. Public events - such as a Loy Krathong parade, stage acts at a morlam,or a Gay Pride wherever - are fully fair game in my view (at least as far as the participants are concerned whereas I would have reservations about photographing or publishing photos of onlookers).

Your impression is correct. Suphot's a damned-good driver, tour guide, and likely to end up to be someone you consider a friend. He ain't, however, a moneyboy and he isn't going to have sex with anybody other than with his beloved Smiles.

If we (the US) can get in on that, we'll make it real popular (by printing trillions and trillions of them the first week). Being a government does have its percs.....if you run outta money, just print some more!

I was thinking of something more akin to a bordello in Las Vegas....

Lol. Let's not go overboard. Mr. Bill would likely not survive the confirmation process and he very likely isn't qualified in the first place (being from Arkansas gets you nowhere). I've seen an interview or two with Chelsea and have to say I was quite impressed; however, Hillary is very politically saavy and would never appoint any relative (with the exception, perhaps, of allowing husband Bill to act as special ambassador to some hot spot in the world).

I can't think of another politician in the US that I would rather have as our next President other than Hilary Clinton. She says she won't run in 2016 but I hope that she will. If she does, she'll win big....and so will the country.

Omg, Michael, another mackerel! Only we guilty ones are privy to the King James version. And, come to think of it, who the hell is King James? Lebron, maybe?

Exactly my concern. So, to assist clarity, Khun Thaiworthy was kind enough to loan me his enigma machine so I could attempt to discern the meaning of the mysterious phrase "only Moron selling drunks as above as I stated." I am happy to report that we can relax as it translates as: "As above stated, I'm the moron drunk selling only amazing/fabulous events."

Hold the phone. When I first read the title, I couldn't figure out how Thailand would rank 11th in the world at anything! (Well, other than beautiful people). So, I read the article and I'm still at an absolute loss. Anybody have any idea how they define "competitive edge?" Had the article said Thailand was 11th in Asian nations (or even Southeast Asian nations), I might have believed that. But I have no idea how Thailand ranks 11th in the world in any factor relating to economics, politics, free speech, or whatever. Given I view Thailand's educational system as falling behind all Southeast Asian nations (excepting Burma and perhaps Cambodia), any ranking on any economic scale doesn't seem too promising for the long-term.

Being a green-and-white Big 10 fan (okay, okay, the team was lousy this year), I often am disappointed in the U of M/Ohio State game because both teams can't lose. And so it is with my feelings for Bama (actually, it's the coach I dislike) and Notre Dame. I do recall a 1966 or 1967 saying which I think went like this: "Hail Mary, full of grace, Notre Dame's in second place!" And, during the infamous 1966 tie, I sat in the stadium in total disbelief that ND chose to sit on the ball rather than attempt to win the game at the end (those pussies!). But, I do have to say that the Notre Dame stadium is impressive, especially the huge mural of "touchdown Jesus" which is on the library building nearby and seems to be signalling another ND score. I always wanted to take a spraypaint can to that wall.....

I don't particularly care how you want to parse it but neither I nor many friends of mine who live here and have long-term visas have any problems with what we call "x" or "y." We know how they work and we define them by that standard, not what some form or some gracious poster such as yourself might choose to define their understanding of the so-called real world. Most visitors (and even us long-termers many moons ago) referred to the 30-day exemptions (or "ducks", if you please) as a 30-day visa. We and everybody else understood what we were talking about - you know, the free 30-day written permission/stamp to stay within Thailand for 30 days - and it doesn't matter to just about anybody what you want to call it. It was permission to stay in the country and smelled a whole lot like what most people and most dictionaries call that beast called a "visa." As for the one-year visa, I and most of my falang friends get new one-year stamps that allow us another year of stay. Again, who cares what you call it? If you do, be my guest. There's exactly nothing on the new stamp indicating it's an extension of of any older visa nor is there a single reference on the new stamp to even indicate any reference to a prior visa or the original one-year stamp/visa itself. So, silly us, regardless that the form we sign seems to say it's an extension request, we think and speak of it as a new one-year visa as, in practical terms, that's exactly what it happens to be. If that offends you, it possibly might make my day.

One wonders why the Thais made the distinction (for some of us falang, it raises the notion of "what were they thinking?!?). But the 15-day rule for land-border crossings was instituted 2-3 years back when, for whatever reason, the Thais were trying to prevent poorer falang from using various tricks to stay here forever. The poorest of the poor likely can't fly in and out and are the ones who most often take advantage of the bus trips over the border and back so maybe that's the reason. At about the same time, they supposedly limited the number of 30-day stamps per year too and i can only figure that they again were attempting to help limit the perpetual/long stays of the poorer falang.