Bob

My head starts to hurt just contemplating what a "light year" is. It seems it's both a unit of time (the time it takes light to travel in a vacuum in one of our years) and a unit of distance (the distance light travels in one of our years - or about 5.8 trillion miles). So, the sighting that Khun FH noted in the original post actually occurred a long, long (etc) way from here and 27,500 years ago. Old news! (Khun Khortose was just a wee tot licking an electrical panel when that happened!)

From my point of view, one can't look at or understand the events of 2010 without being aware of prior history. The redshirts, in my view, were reacting in large part to the coup and the events that preceded the coup. Remember, the yellowshirts occupied Government House for 6+ months and then also occupied the international airport for a week or more - all without police or soldiers attacking them (and, from what I've seen so far, essentially no retribution at all). Had that happened in the west, the cops would have been in there in minutes/hours and a whole lot of people would have been thrashed and sent to jail. Anyway, back to the point of this story, everybody (including the redshirts) could see that such actions were taken without any real consequence. So, instead of occupying a seat of government or the airport, they chose for whatever reason to occupy a section of the business district. My guess is that they (the redshirts) thought there would be little or no repercussions from doing that (thinking they would be treated the same as the yellowshirts mobs). They obviously were wrong as the essentially army-arranged government ultimately reacted otherwise. And, to be fair, there was some provocation by small numbers of redshirts and by other unknown groups (either disguised redshirts, army or pad provocateurs, or whatever). And there's no doubt that some things just happened and events spirralled out of control. But the redshirts represented, for better or worse, the have-nots and the government/army/yellowshirts represented the amataya or, if you like, the elite. That's the divide that's always existed in Thailand and "them-that-have" have always had a tendency to react badly to any element of Thai society that either criticizes them or, god forbid, actually might demand a fair piece of the action. Unless/until there is a fairer division of the wealth and power of the country, things ain't gonna change. The only issue is whether the have-nots will ever get to the point of some form of revolution and that, in my view, just isn't in the cards. As noted above, I asked several Thais what they thought of the coup after it happened and universally I got the same answer: "not my business." While I first thought that maybe the answer might have been a polite way to say they didn't want to discuss such a topic with a foreigner, I recalled that I knew most of them well and they weren't reluctant to discuss much more sensitive topics with me before; so, I've somewhat concluded that Thais really don't "have it in them" (for better or worse) to fight for certain democratic principles we take for granted in the west. I don't evision further fighting, at least not within the forseeable future.

It seems to me that prices on just about everything have slowly creeped up in Chiangmai, most likely like everywhere else. Food (excepting, perhaps, for raw foods you pick up at public markets or roadside stands) prices seem to be leading the charge which would be similar to what's happeing in the states). But since the late 90's, the biggest "price increaser" has been the exchange rate. Those heady days "40+ baht to the dollar" are long gone.

Each handle has a different birthdate apparently.

As crude as it was, I couldn't help from laughing. Been there, done that.....and his description is pretty damn accurate. And thank god they put you out for the actual procedure. I wonder if those doctors who do these procedures are much for small talk at parties (but I do hope they wash their hands).....

For the record, I received a polite note by PM from one of the Moderators where he explained the concern with the posts mentioned. Although I've done it privately, I do wish to publicly thank the Moderator for the cordial tone and explanation. I'd also note that the posts in question have re-appeared on the board.

Taking photos of hotels he hasn't visited?

Wrong forum, I know....ought to be in the Comments and Suggestions forum. Scooby/Moderator(s), I have a couple of questions: (1) Is there a reason that the Comments and Suggestion forum is not open for new posts? (2) Khun FH made a post within the last day regarding the Ocean 1 project including contacts and responses he received from the managers or partners of that apparently defunct project. I then posted a response which included my observation of what I saw when last walking by the almost empty site. Both of those posts were deleted for some unknown reason. Can you advise as to why the posts were deleted? And, for future possible deletions (presuming there won't be many), do you think it might be better to simply reference the reason why a post/thread is deleted? Doing that would help posters to understand what topics are off limits and, additionally, would help you avoid having to read/respond to posts like this!

Egads, Ocean 1 Redux! Khun FH is much too kind about this mythical project and, if any of the imagined "units" were in fact sold, somebody ought to have been prosecuted. Last I looked (after repeated claims on its website that construction was partially under way), it was a fully un-excavated site with a concrete mixing platform making concrete for projects off-site. During my walk-through of the property, I saw zero evidence of any soils that had been "scooped" to begin this "amazing" project.

Hardly. But, before commenting further, perhaps you might advise how you (who apparently has only been here since June of this year) know that the referenced poster was "young" (let alone "dynamic")? And what might you know of the posting problems the referenced poster caused both here and on two other boards over the last three years?

Given the provisions you appear to usually take with you, may I suggest an aircraft carrier?

Au contraire, Khun KT. We heavily regulate nasty chemicals and we should as they are extremely dangerous when used in the wrong way. I advocate the same heavy regulation for other dangerous items (ie.g., guns) especially if those items were designed to cause death or severe injury in the first place. Any reasonable society regulates dangerous activities and products and the only issue or argument is how much regulation is needed. You, due to the fear that all guns will be taken away from everybody (a proposition nobody here has ever advocated), support the notion of allowing too many idiots to possess and use lethal and easily-concealable weapons and one result of that concept is a horrendous murder rate. That's not acceptable collateral damage in my view.

When you're an alleged adult and playing the kind of juvenile games he played, I can only conclude that what's involved is a substantial personality disorder and/or outright mental illness. In real life, he can't get away with it as the people around him certainly react and cause him to either modify his behavior or to shrink into the background. The internet's anonymity, on the other hand, fosters tsuch behavior and too often prevents us from normally reacting to the bullshit. More than likely, he's continued to post under other guises and most certainly he's read the boards. He, like half a dozen others that infest a few boards, simply can't stop themselves.

Your logic escapes me. Nobody's claiming a gun kills anybody by itself or has any inherent good or evil in it. It's what the product is used for....and, regardless of some good uses (if we want to call legal hunting and target practice "good" uses), guns were invented and have been used primarily for one use throughout history, i.e. killing/wounding other living beings. We apparently agree that guns ought to be regulated but not many of the effective attempts at regulation are legal (at least according to the Supreme Court). Washington DC, the prior murder capitol of the US, passed a law banning the possession of handguns but the Supremes struck that down under the guise of a Second Amendment violation. A few of the massacres we've had in the states in the last decade or two involved guns with clips holding 30+ shells. That would be a nice start to ban the sale of any weapon that holds more than 5 cartridges/shells (in most states, it's illegal to possess such a gun while hunting anyway and, normally, self-defense doesn't usually require you to hold off an army). And it's currently illegal everywhere for anyone other than the military and police to possess a fully automatic weapon. The "talon" bullets you mention are simply hollow-point bullets (I think "Black Talon" is the brand name) that expand when hitting a target and are actually preferred for both hunting and by police forces (so, if you have to shoot somebody, it puts them down and doesn't go through them to hit an unintended target).

I'll be damned, Khun TW is now using a magic o-ring to make somebody's foreskin disappear! But I should've guessed given all the rumors about him hiding thousands of them before.... Harry Houdini morphs into Hairy DoWeenie! (stifle the groans, I apologize in advance)

I'm elated that you appear to support some regulation of guns and, if that's the case, all we're discussing is what's reasonable regulation. On the other hand, the NRA fights every single suggested regulation change based on the theory that giving in to any regulation means the government will take away all guns - and your caveat is right out of their playbook. Meantime, nothing's changed here in the states and the next massacre will likely be in the newsvery soon. And nothing's being done about it at all. Pretty sad.

Can't help you if you can't distinguish between a product that happens to kill (like a car - which has substantial personal and societal benefits and is designed as best it can not to kill) and a product designed to kill. And rather sad to me that we worry more about driver's education and licensing a person to drive a car than educating and licensing the people that own/use guns. By the way, it's perfectly legal for a state to outlaw anybody carrying a knife which has a blade that exceeds "x" number of inches but the states cannot legally stop most citizens from carrying around a loaded gun. Now that makes sense, doesn't it? (NOT)

Middle item looks like an o-ring used in plumbing fixtures (although I have no idea what the friggin' string is doing there). So my wild guess is that it's stuff to fix your shower valve or kitchen sink faucet.

Nah....he brings a power plant in another 12 suitcases. B)

Somewhat interesting article today: http://en.isnhotnews.com/?p=21725 While I don't normally cut and paste, I'll quote a part of the article: “It is absolutely not ready. There is too much inconvenience for passengers,” the frustrated South Korean executive told the Bangkok Post. Among the problems faced by T’Way are too few check-in counters, no refund facilities for value-added tax (VAT), breakdowns of luggage carousels, lax security and a shortage of immigration officers." Immigration officers? That puzzles me as I thought Don Muang was going to be used exclusively for domestic flights. Apparently not.

It's absolutely beyond me how anybody would either need or want to travel anywhere in the world with more than one or two suitcases. Geez, Michael, you take the kitchen sink with you? Only suggestion I have is to travel lighter! P.S. I also looked at flying business on Korean Air via Chicago but saw the same ungodly price you saw; as such, in a few weeks, I'll be heading back to Chiangmai via Korean Air economy and I hope I survive the trip. If I don't survive, I at least saved over $4,000.00 (the round-trip ticket to/from Chicago-Seoul-Chiangmai was less than $1,400.00) to handle the cremation.

I personally wouldn't worry about it at all. I actually don't believe they'll even inspect your suitcases and, if they do, I can't believe they'll give a hoot about the two items you mention. I've been leaving Thailand once a year and always bring back a few small items (small household goods) in my suitcase and nobody has ever batted an eye at me before. After going through immigration, you grab your suitcase on the carousel and walk out the door. I've never seen any inspection of them before and wouldn't expect it to even occur.

My point previously, Khun Khortose, is that I disagreed with how the Supreme Court has changed its interpretation of the Second Amendment and essentially changed it from a states' right (as referenced in the Miller unanimous decision noted by Rogie immediately above) to a personal right that ended up exploding the number of citizens possessing handguns. If somebody (Scalia, for example?) is going to argue that we should stay with the original intent of a constitutional provision, then the first 170 years of interpretation and use ought to count for something (in legal parlance, we call that "stare decisis"). Immediately after adoption of the constitution and for 170 plus years after, states passed laws regulating the use and possession of guns and the Supreme Court consistently upheld those laws. That whole scenario changed after the massive lobbying efforts of the NRA and a new interpretation (contrary to 170 years of prior rulings) arose which has led to what we have today. I'm no fan at all of the right-winger Warren Berger but I find his comments interesting in that his words also express the frustration many feel as to how we could possibly end up with the damn-near "almost anything goes" philosophy of the modern Supreme Court regarding guns. As to the CNN article, I have no clue why it can't be found. As I said, I read it yesterday morning on its site, linked it here, and the link worked immediately after I posted it. I've never had that happen before (I've always been able to find an article there) and I'm surprised that it disappeared so soon after being first posted on its site.

Not the same article but has some of the same information. I'm still puzzled why it can't be found (if I was the suspicious type, I'd guess somebody pressured CNN into deleting it).

The link worked when I posted it as I tried it. Unfortunately, not only doesn't it work now, the article is nowhere to be found on CNN's website (which I saw and read this morning). I've never seen that happen before and I wonder a bit as to why it's been deleted/hidden. Anyway, it was an analysis of the history of the Supreme Court's historical treatment of the Second Amendment and it noted that, until the early 1960's, the Court consistently held that the language in no manner infringed the rights of the states to regulate guns and provided powers to the states versus powers or rights to individual citizens. 170 years of precedent, however, was changed due to the lobbying efforts of the NRA and the Court ultimately changed it's mind that the Second Amendment didn't convey personal rights to individual citizens. After he left the bench, Chief Justice Warren Berger (a right-winger appointed by Richard Nixon) said of this change: "This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud . . . on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." Just an interesting sidenote but doesn't change the fact that the Supreme Court in the last 40 years has somehow ruled that bearing arms is a personal right that even the states cannot regulate. Wrong-headed change in my view (but don't worry - they don't listen to me!).