Bob

Rogie, I think Khun Fountainhill is referring to the Best Gore website that you mentioned in your post; if so (and, yes, I realize you weren't promoting it at all), I'd have to agree that the Best Gore website is beyond disgusting. There's no legitimate purpose in posting graphic photos of deaths, etc., and one would have to wonder about the mental health of those that post such stuff and/or the viewers that might get off on it.

Probably not the place for an extended discussion on this but I don't agree at all with any presumption that "The Social Network" was fact (versus fiction) or that the Winkelvoss boys are victims at all. But I will note: (1) Anybody can make a claim in a lawsuit. The making of a claim (like the charging of a criminal offense) is not any evidence of truth. Nor should anyone presume, without knowning more, that the Winklevoss boys are either truthful or victims of anything. (2) The Winklevoss boys along with another ex-Harvard guy made a settlement (purportedly for 65 million dollars with Facebook). They were represented by lawyers and accountants during the settlement process; regardless, after a while, they decided to sue Facebook claiming they should have gotten more for various reasons. The U.S. District Court said they were wrong and they appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and lost there too. They then decided against appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court. (3) They then sued their lawyers claiming the lawyers didn't protect them enough (i.e., that the lawyers committed malpractice and they should have gotten more money). They lost that case in the New York trial court and also lost the appeal to the New York Supreme Court. The information in items #1 through #3 above is factual. They've been in 4 courts (actually more involving tangential issues) and have lost in every one of them. Those court losses do mean something (multiple judges ruled their claims lacked merit) and the second claim against their own lawyers tells me that their claim against Facebook was even less meritorious than what the various judges ruled.

I, too, am a dinosaur and have no use for Facebook. Had an account for a while but then attempted to get rid of it with some problems (story posted recently on Ting Tong). Never again for me. As for Zuckerberg, I have no clue about the rumors about how he started it or whatever. I tend not to believe most of that because the common rumor was that one of his co-founders was quite upset with him (thought he was ripping him off, tossed a computer at him, etc.) and a recent interview of the co-founder proved all of that to be pure baloney (the co-founder had nothing but praise and good wishes for Zuckerberg). What I don't get is why people post all kinds of personal details on their "wall" for the world to see. But I do tend to chuckle a bit when I read a newspaper story of somebody's house being broken into after they posted on Facebook that they would be gone for the weekend.

Aw, come on, I'm kinda partial to the monkeyman Hanuman. If/when I get around to it, I'll resurrect it in some form in your honor! P.S. No time like the present. This masked entry is cropped from a photo taken during the Poy Sang Long ceremonies at Wat Gu Dtao in April of this year. Much more benign than the monkey god Hanuman, I suppose.

I wouldn't say "funny" but, in American English, it's an odd way to phrase it. When somebody has screwed-up teeth, we usually say that they are "crooked" or "not straight." Never heard anybody refer to the problem as "teeth not in a row." Come to think of it, the Brits probably thought you meant that the teeth were not fighting....

I haven't stayed there before but have been in the place a couple of times. A beautiful place and I'd recommend anybody traveling to Hua Hin take a look at the interior. And I had lunch there once on the front lawn near the ocean and the food was very good and, I'd add, not too expensive (I don't remember the cost but think it was only a few hundred baht). I took several photos of the place when I was there once but, since I don't belong to a photo site anymore, I can't post them. But, if somebody wants to see a few, PM me and I can figure out something. As a matter of trivia, immediately in front of the Sofitel are the big rocks in the ocean. "Hua Hin" litterally means "head (as in chief or leading versus your noggin) rock" and that's apparently how the town was named.

Michael, sent you a PM with some info.

Misinterpretation is theoretically possible but I've never experienced the problem. The context of the situation, who the speaker is, the tone used, etc., always have made it fairly clear to me. I don't recall misinterpreting it before. It seems to me.....just based on my experiences and impressions.....that much of the use of these older "hurtful" words has been by the groups affected by the words in the first place. In the last decade or two, I'm not sure if I've ever heard the word "queer" used by anyone other than by a member of the gay community. Another analogous example might be American blacks using the "n" word these days amongst themselves. Such words are typically used by the affected groups humorously and maybe (just speculating here) some of the resurgence in use of some of the older words is a method of bravado and/or demonstrating to either ourselves or others the old saying that "sticks and stones can break my bones but words can never hurt me."

During the time that potential jury members are questioned, they are asked in the cases you mention what their attitude is about capital punishment and, if they indicate that they could not ever agree to make a finding of death regardless of the circumstances, they are excused and not allowed to sit on that case. Seems strange but, for those barbaric states (the majority of states!) which have the death penalty, it makes some legal sense (having a potential juror say he or she won't follow a given law under any circumstances somewhat logically disqualifies them from serving).

Sometimes I think that the views of the talking heads on the news programs change more often than the weather. When you've got to fill 24 hours of "news", it's amazing at times who'll they'll dredge up to offer some unknown or bizarre views. And, of course, we have the Ron Pauls here in the US that are demanding we go back to the gold standard. Although I don't know all that much about it, I never understood how multiple countries can effectively share a common currency when their economic systems and planning mechanisms are all different; besides, many nations simply instinctively view their currency as inherently connected with their individual brand of nationalism. Unless and until the various countries combine into a single poltiical and economic union, I personally can't see how it will work very well on a long-term basis. On a very long-term basis, it seems to me that "cash" is on it's way out and we'll be relegated sometime in the future to some type of debit and/or credit card. With the ability of international banks to electronically connect to each other and their computers having the ability to virtually and instantly switch between currencies, I really don't see (long-term) the need for any physical international or multiple-country currency.

Hey, I resemble that! Now I'll be nice and not mention I'm old enough to be Khun Khortose's much younger brother....

James produces a very nice (and, I think, popular) magazine and I and others in Chiangmai certainly have told him that before. And I like James (we know each other but admittedly not all that well). Getting that out of the way, I'd also be curious as to the numbers (presuming James is willing to share). A few of us in Chiangmai were a bit surprised by the local winner a few months ago - not that the given bar didn't deserve some praise but because several of us thought that one or two other bars might have scored higher. I'd note that none of the 4-5 guys I talked to voted (and we also wondered who it was that did vote and how many actual votes were cast). But I leave that up to James as to whether he wishes to disclose that information. Some of the guys I know in Chiangmai didn't vote as they weren't aware of the competition at the time whereas others didn't vote (myself included) because they simply didn't want to register at the magazine's website (only registered members are allowed to vote). For whatever reason, the older I get the less I've been willing to give up my email address. Simple as that (and no reflection on James, his magazine, or website).

I'm not queer but I suppose my boyfriend is. A little more seriously, it seems humans throughout history have treated "different" people (tall people, fat people, gays, people not from your community or neighborhood, people not of your political party, etc., etc.) as odd, queer, or whatever. Even the gay community tends to label gays who are different - using terms such as "fem" or "twink" or whatever to describe different members of our own community. The labelling itself doesn't bother me to the extent it's intended to describe some differences and the only time I get somewhat offended by it is when some assign negative connotations ("wrong", "evil", "immoral", or "sinful") to the labelling. Heck, some of us at another message board got all huffy (justifiably so in my view) when one poster was clearly attempting to portray anybody acting "fem" as something bad or wrong (he, of course, was "undauntedly" attempting to describe anything that didn't meet his particular sexual preferences as slimey or worthless). Being called a "queer" or "fag" by Khun Khortose achieves a comical (and almost respectful) response from me whereas being called a "fucking queer" by some inebrieated slob in a straight bar tends to generate either a flight response and/or a resolve to beat the crap out of him. So, to me, it's more about the intent than the label itself.

I made several short-haul flights in prop planes in the early 60's. I believe they were DC-3's but I don't know that for sure (all I can remember for sure is the planes had aluminum skins and two prop engines). Generally, loud as hell and most of the flights were bumpy as hell. I remember landing a couple of times during rain storms (once in the midst of a lot of lightning) and being frightened as hell.

In a few jurisdictions that have the death penalty and actually allow the jury in a second deliberation to make a finding/recommendation of execution versus life imprisonment, juries generally are neither told about the possible punishment nor are allowed to consider or speculate about that topic during their deliberations. The theory, I understand, is that juries should make findings of fact and, once that's done, then the judge or tribunal should impartially apply the punishment determined by the legislature. Considering or handing down an actual sentence would, it's theorized, alter the basic function of the jury to determine whether the defendant did or didn't do the particular act in question. Your comments - that you'd be swayed to a certain degree by the sentence rather than exclusively by the evidence - clearly demonstrates that dilemma. Having lived through the system for so long (which I think tends to make one blindly believe that "the way it's always been" is the only right way to do things), my first reaction is that I wouldn't want juries to provide punishment for convicted offenders for many reasons. The sentencing process, I'd think, ought not to be swayed by inflamed emotions, sympathy, bias, or whatever. And, importantly, the sentencing process takes into account the history of the particular defendant including the prior criminal record (and it's thought that telling a jury a defendant robbed 10 banks before would certainly cause them to "lower" the level of proof required to convict him of another robbery charge). But I'm absolutely against the modern trend of legislatures providing for certain fixed or minimum sentences - such as mandating that somebody caught with 2 pounds of pot must serve a minimum of 4 years in prison or that anybody committing an offense with a firearm must receive an additional 7-year prison sentence. Given every defendant is different and normally there are extenuating circumstances (both favoring and condemning the defendant) which ought to be considered in the penalty phase, maybe allowing the juries to determine sentences in those type of cases would offset the arbitrary harshness of some legislative mandates. I'm not sure about that but perhaps it'd be worth considering (or perhaps I'm just a little bit in favor of allowing juries to intentionally ignore stupid laws which, I suppose, is advocating a bit the disfavored concept of jury nullification). In reality, though, maybe I'd rather have a judge who's unfettered in considering all the circumstances and history of the defendant and let him or her decide what is or isn't the appropriate sentence.

An absolutely normal and admirable reaction, one repeated again and again by jurors all over the world (well, at least where they allow juries). Sometimes I've been amazed how deciding a case truly affects somebody and I've known people who've fretted for years after sitting on a jury which convicted somebody of a simple misdemeanor. Those type of reactions confirm to me the value of a system of trial by jury.

Yes, the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard applies to all criminal cases including capital cases. I'm not aware of any criminal system anywhere that uses a "higher" standard than that. The system works well in 99.9% of all cases but there have been and always will be exceptions. Any system that relies on eyewitness testimony is bound to have faults and, in the very few cases where innocent people are convicted, it's usually due to faulty testimony or even some perjury (when that happens, it's most often do to the "professional" witnesses such as police officers) but I've never been aware of a case where I would have blamed the jury. They generally do their job with diligence and they do tend to exercise even greater care when the alleged crime involved is a serious one (murder, rape, or whatver). It would be prudent (in my view) to simply abolish all forms of capital punishment. Besides being morally repugnant to some (myself included), it's actually cheaper to house somebody in prison for life than to go through that often decades-long appeals processes that end up costing millions. Executing somebody in my view is simply state-sanctioned murder. Thankfully, I am from a state (Michigan) which outlawed capital punishment back in 1846 (and that statutory ban was adopted in our newest state constitution in 1964). Our system does seem to gradually improve with the discovery of new forms of evidence. DNA typing has allowed a couple of dozen people to be freed from the death rows of some states and that, of course, is very good; however, I'd be willing to bet a small amount that most of us here, had we sat on the juries that heard the evidence in the original trials, would also have voted convict. Had there been usuable DNA evidence at the time of the original trial, some of the mistakes would have never happened. I do get concerned that the public perceives the justice system based only on an extremely tiny sampling of cases - meaning, of course, the bizarre and notorious cases that are often badly reported in the news media. I can't blame people for thinking the system is broken after watching the OJ Simpson case (and then presuming many cases are like that one) and it is unfortunated that a few abberations are allowed to color the entire criminal justice system. If I could walk somebody through the local courts for a week, most would come away rather impressed as to how the system works.

Given her personality, it's rather difficult for me to accept that she wasn't aware of the phone hacking that occurred for years under her watch. Even less controlling editors do tend on occasion (like ever 10 minutes?) ask to know the source of a reporter's story. A few of the "news" stories involved in this case concerned very personal matters (such as medical issues) that would have begged even the dumbest editor in the world to ask the question. I simply don't buy the "Sgt. Schulz" ("I know nothing, I see nothing, etc.) defense.

Hmmm....was operating last year. Guess things change. And the only way I can hitch a ride is to use the paperbag-over-my-head trick.

Would note that it only took 2-3 minutes to get through immigration going out of Thailand on Tuesday (about 1:30PM). All the booths were manned (they even have a few added ones on the left and right) and I think I had one person ahead of me in the line I chose. And, yes, they did ask to see my boarding pass (don't remember that from before).

There actually is a commuter airline that flies between Bkk and Hua Hin but I don't remember the name of it. The Hua Hin airport is rather dinky and is 4-5 miles towards Cha'am from the center of Hua Hin (when you drive to Hua Hin, you're actually driving under a portion of the runway (you'll notice the rather wide overpass). I don't remember the name of the airline and don't remember the cost (other than I thought it was overpriced and didn't choose that option). Best option in my book is simply to hire Suphot (Pot) per Khortose's suggestion above. Last year the cost was about 2,000 baht but, with the price of gas being up, it might be a couple of hundred baht more now. Great driver and heck of a nice guy. But, between May and August, it's possible that Pot might not be available all the time as he's often in Surin province during that time period. Every time I've driven down there from Bangkok, it takes about 3 hours.

Just testing to see if I can post. No problems logging in (although I still have no idea why you have that "keep me logged in" little button as I've always had to log in every time I come to the site).

I obviously have no taste at all. Sure I've been in the girlie bars (well, they are host bars here in Chiangmai). Not all that often but it's quite fun and social there. And, no, the girls don't seem to care a bit if/when they find that I or somebody I'm with is gay (I always give them the standard line that I'm not gay but my boyfriend is). For a simple social setting, sometimes I think the girls prefer just gabbing away with somebody who isn't figuratively or litterally planning on screwing them! hehe As concerns Pattaya, have only been there twice in the last 5-6 years and always get the urge to leave town after a couple of days as it's just a bit intense for me. But it's fun to occasionally have a drink in a bar facing the street and watch the world go by. Somewhat like going to the county fair..... Speaking of Pattaya, I got one of those daily message things from ThaiVisa and the lead-off story is (and I'm quoting this exactly): "Pattaya is Thailand's role model." Almost gagged when I read that (i.e., if it's true, this country is really in trouble).

In all my trips and stays here since the late 90's, I've only felt uncomfortable twice - once due to some Russians in a bar on Walking Street in Pattaya (I and my boyfriend left when it became obvious we were becoming the target of their drunken taunts) and the other time when a drunk lout in a girlie bar here in Chiangmai wanted to take issue with us (myself, a British friend, and his boyfriend) "homosexuals" being in a straight bar. But I've never had any bar owner or staff, vendor, shop owner/staff, or hotel staff person make me feel anything other than welcome.

That's what I understood....some airlines avoid using the gates because of the cost. Everytime I get bussed, there are plenty of open gates so I don't think that seems to matter. I've bitched before about coming from CNX on a loaded 747 and, even though there were 17 open gates, they bussed us to the terminal.