Bob

I agree and, while Michael has a point about the issue of gossip in general, talking privately with trusted friends is far different than publicly publishing the gossip. And you're right about what's at issue in this thread (and I don't think it's the concept of gossip in general). I can't count the number of times I've sat in a bar in Thailand and heard stories (gossip) from bar employees and managers about this and that - and, come to think of it, a small portion of that has actually been about a few posters we all know - but I don't repeat the stuff and I'd hope somebody would severely wack me over the head if I ever posted it anywhere.

I read all three in a row this past September and, without a doubt, they were the most thrilling, intriguing, and interesting books I've read in a long time. I've probably read 40-50 books since then and, although some were very good, none have held my interest like the Larsson books did. I highly recommend them. Michael mentioned John Burdett's Bangkok 8 and I read that one (along with the next two two sequels) a few years back. While I wouldn't call them great literature, I loved the Thai background to the novels involving Detective Jitplecheep (spelling?) which was often so weird, funny, and "Thai" at the same time. The protagonist Jitplecheep was a detective, buddhist, Thai, son of a madam of the sex industry, etc., and the juggling of all those personas seemed to create a lot of those "TIT" moments.

The "truth" of what was involved with the incident or why the bar owner exited the scene is irrelevant in my view. You printed third-hand gossip you acknowledge you got from barstaff (and, allegedly, from all the "in-the-know" types you apparently always hang around) about somebody's personal life that's not part of the public domain, at least in my view. As I noted before, it's none of your business and certainly none of mine. I'd guess "Mike" (whoever he maybe), any others personally involved, and all of their friends are simply elated that you repeated it here.

"Gay" hotels (which I would define as those which almost exclusively cater to gay people) are few and far between in Thailand. I reside in Chiangmai and, at the moment, I can only think of two of those places out of the hundreds/thousands of hotels and guesthouses available. There probably are a few more but, then again, I've never looked for or stayed in one of them. Don't worry about the hotels....just pick the one you want. The "normal" hotel in Thailand doesn't care one way or the other that you're gay or that you bring a guest back (although a few hotels might charge extra if you've paid for a single and constantly treat it as a "double"). If you plan on bringing a guest back, then pay for a double up front and you should never have an issue anywhere.

I am most definitely attacking the post that was made - or at least that portion that gossips about the guy's private issues. The fact that the mods or owner have allowed this gossip to stand and/or that others haven't criticized it is both surprising and rather disappointing to me.

No, the real shame in my view is somebody posting private gossip about somebody's private behavior that's, frankly, none of our business. You're obviously no a friend of his. [To my knowledge, I've never met the guy nor was ever in his bar; nevertheless, I actually feel sorry for the guy after reading this inconsiderate hack job]

If we pooled our money together, we might be able to afford to buy a couple of the strings....

I haven't come across this either although I fully understand that it is common to refer to somebody older than you as "Pee" or to use "Nawng" to refer to somebody younger than you. The Thai language has many words - more than English, that's for sure - to refer to relations. A "pee nawng" is a sibling, a "pee sao/chai" is an older sister/brother, a "nawng sao/chai" is a younger sister/brother, etc. Hell, they even have separate words for grandmothers and grandfathers as well as aunts and uncles that vary depending on whether they are from your mother's or father's side of the family. If what the OP is talking about is that a Thai guy will introduce an unrelated acquaintance as a "sister" or "brother" (using English), the Thai guy just doesn't know enough English to know any better. At least that's my guess.

As 2lz2p indicated, the regulations haven't even been written yet and everybody can believe who they want [heck, I was just reading a story this morning in the paper about a woman who wants to sue the pastor because the world didn't end on May 21st as he promised (she had given away all of her savings just prior to May 21st)]. If you're not a US citizen, not your problem. If you're one of the millions of US citizens who have offshore accounts, I don't believe you have to worry either (so long as you annually report when all those accounts exceed $10,000 in value at any time during the reporting year)as the regulations will surely take into account that most of those accounts are perfectly legitimate. And the big foreign banks aren't going to want to lose the business. Or, possibly, not (the referenced pastor now says that the world will definitely end this coming October).

There is a lot of misleading information about this law floating around the internet. The law was passed in 2010, doesn't apply to accounts less than $50,000.00 in value, and basically doesn't affect accounts where the account holder reports the same to the US Treasury (which we're already required to do). The only people that have to worry about the effect of this law are people who are illegally hiding offshore money and/or who are not reporting to the IRS monies earned from offshore investments. My only concern for some is that some foreign financial institutions might choose to not allow US depositors or account holders because of the reporting requirements imposed on those banks but my guess is that most of that will be sorted out without affecting 99% of us.

I reside in Chiangmai most of each year and I can tell you that nothing like that happens at any gogo bar (or even beer bar)in Chiangmai. I can't definitively talk about Sunee Plaza at all (other than I ventured into two gogo bars there last year and saw nobody that looked underage in either bar) but I will say that I've reviewed various gay Thai message boards for years and I have never seen a report anything like that. I'm not saying Patpat is wrong (because I wasn't there) but I'm a bit shocked to hear that all (let alone a majority) of the boys in any bar were underage. But maybe the guys who spend a fair amount of time in the Sunnee Plaza area will comment on the issue.

No problem. For the heck of it, I just checked Bangkok Air for the same one-way flight from BKK to CNX. The total cost is 1,990 including free check-in of up to 20kg (it's 70 baht per kilogram over that limit). Although more than Air Asia, this is the lowest charge I've ever seen Bangkok Air provide (it's usually - at least between BKK and CNX) more than any other airline.

There might be a little confusion here. When you book your ticket, you pay for check-in luggage that exceeds their apparent 15kg free level. For example, if you're going to have the biggest they allow (30kg), then you pay a fee of 535 baht for that (you pay less for lower amounts). That's what I have done in the past and, even with that fee, it's been quite a bit cheaper for me to fly Air Asia than either Thai or Nok. I've flown Air Asia internally for the last few years mainly due to scheduling times and, other than paying extra for a heavy suitcase (when I have that), I've luckily not had any problems and it's been the cheapest way for me to fly (I only ever fly between BKK and CNX). Edit: I have to book a flight for early September and just checked Air Asia's and Nok's prices. For Air Asia, the total price (free 15kg of check-in luggage) for a one-way flight is 1,386 baht (so, if I supersize up to the 30kg limit), the total charge is 1,921 baht). For Nok, the price is 1,490.00 with the 15kg limit but, if you want the 30kg luggage limit, then the total is 2,788 baht. Still cheaper with Air Asia. (Also checked Thai Air and their fare was 2,610 baht....and you're allowed for economy two pieces of luggage up to 23kg each. Didn't see anything on their website as to how much they charge for excess luggage fees). I would note that Air Asia does note that you'll be charged "up to double" for excess luggage weight at check-in versus paying for it when you book your ticket. Maybe that's what this post is all about (if so, even if it's "double", that's only 1,070 baht).

For what it's worth, I haven't seen smoking in the gogo bars in Chiangmai and each place has a somewhat decent place set aside outdoors for people that want to indulge. The open-air places (such as the night market bars) do allow smoking.

It'll probably be a year or more before the people who allegedly will figure out what happened will issue their report; however, if the air speed indicators were faulty, equipment failure certainly was part of the problem.

Hate to quote myself especially when I'm wrong. The "moo" is low tone, not falling tone.

It can mean several things - village, hamlet, or a group of houses - but 99% of the time Thais ever use that term around me they simply mean a village. [For the pedantic, "moo" (falling tone) means a group or collection (or even "those", "friends", or "officers") and "baan" (also falling tone) normally means a house (or houses or a settlement) but it can also mean other things].

Yes..IF they've already had their birthday this year (if not, still 28). All the newer ID cards use our number system with arabic numberals (so, for example, it'd show 1981 for somebody who's currently 30 years of age). Even the old ones show arabic numerals for the year (in Thai years, of course) and you've got the proper formula. If you want to be extra cautious, simply have the desk at your hotel recheck the ID when you arrive (a few hotels will actually do that on their own and hold the ID until your guest leaves). It's wise to be safe. Here's one of the newer ID cards and you can see how easy it is to tell the age:

Umm.....have them be careful of the camera angle?

While I acknowledge that there are many who are upset with various aspects of Suvarnabhumi, I've never understood the complaints from a personal point of view. I don't use it all that often - 4 to 6 times a year - but I've never had a problem with signage, finding a chair in which to sit, or finding a bathroom. Some apparently have problems in those areas but it's inexplicable to me based on my personal experiences. The only mild gripe I have with the airport is the occasional crowding in the main hall - with touts and others - once you leave the luggage area but I find even that rather minor. The only other gripe I've had is the occasional bussing of arriving passengers versus using one of the loading shutes (although I acknowledge that this is largely an airline issue given I've always seen plenty of unused shutes). I personally think it's a very good airport and easy to use, far better than Don Muang ever was.

If by "Thai thinking" you're just trying to indicate that the Thais don't think of prostitution in the same negative/puritanical way many westerners do, I agree with you; otherwise, not (the Thais are fully cognizant that the gogo bars and other "off" bars are solely about making money through the sale of booze and sex). And both the bars and boys are making money through sales of both. For whatever reason, they don't enforce the prostitution laws and, frankly, I'm quite happy they don't. Back a little closer to the thread topic, I'm a smoker (sorta embarrassing to admit it) but one who strongly believes that the no-smoking law ought to be strictly enforced within buildings for both health and safety reasons. But I guess the best answer to why they don't is simply "TIT" [trying to understand why they enforce helmet laws on some days and don't on other days, rarely enforce many traffic laws (excepting when the cops are hungry), etc., is simply beyond rational explanation in my view].

Heck, he won't even have sex standing up! (he doesn't want anyone to accuse him of dancing...).

Absolutely correct and, when in country, I don't violate it. Regardless, it doesn't stop me from believing and saying that any country that needs to protect a symbol (or religion, ruler, or whatever) by making it a severe criminal offense to even mildly criticize it is a third-rate country. We all (I hope) condemned the Islamic mullahs that demanded that the Danish cartoonist be killed for his "insult" to Mohammed (or, as another example, the death edict issued against Salman Rushdie for his writings). Thailand's lese majeste law, in my view, deserves equal condemnation although thankfully they at least don't kill those who violate it (they just imprison them for up to 20 years).

For some reason, bankers have been elevated to some level of respectability that too often is absolutely laughable in my opinion. If you work for a bank and wear a three-piece suit (perhaps with the watch and chain?), the public for whatever reason has come to view these people as capable and intelligent people. In my view, too many of them get far more respect than they have ever deserved. Before I get started, I should note that there are a lot of very good bankers out there; unfortunately, however, there are also many bad ones. A few examples underlying my attitude: 1. If I wanted a job fixing your toilet, cutting your hair, spraying for bugs at your home, building you an outhouse, selling your home, or a myriad of other everyday tasks, I'd need a license from a state. That license surely doesn't guarantee that I'd be an expert or even honest but at least the licensing statutes (often accompanied by test requirements)are designed to make sure the person has some minimal knowledge and is at least cognizant of the various rules and laws governing the given profession. But, lo and behold, what do I need to be a loan officer, trust officer, or even President of your local (or mega) bank? Not a damn thing - other than somebody telling me I'm the new trust officer, loan officer, or whatever. I've known trust officers who I've sometimes wondered if they could spell the word "trust." 2. Different rules seem to govern what are called standard banking practices. For example, let's say you gave me some of your money to take care of or hold in trust for you and then let's say I did two things with that money: (1) Half of it I used to buy stock in a company I owned and (2) The other half I just took to use for whatever purpose I wanted but, to be "fair", I did sign an "IOU" (with interest provided, of course)payable to you down the line. In both of those cases, I would have committed a felony in any US state (although the name of that felony might be called something different in many of the states, the gist of all charges would be embezzlement or fraud). Yet, now let's say you take that same money to your local bank to be managed by its trust officer. Invariably (not every bank does this but too many do), some of your money without your prior consent will be used to buy some of the stock of that bank and some of your money will end up in CD's of that bank. If you really analyze what happened there, it's really no different than the two felonies I committed as noted above. Yet, too many consider these activities just standard banking practices and nobody bats an eyelid.

As somewhat noted, I have no problem with the financial bailouts as the governments involved had no other choice. And, in the panic of the situation, I think that they handled it about as best as could be expected. Thanksfully, the loan program turned out okay in the end. Yet, I also believe in accountability and there ought to be a lot of people (the ones who sold worthless investment papers and derivatives, those that ripped off their own banks with excessive salaries and bonuses while the banks were going down the tubes, etc.) sued for civil damages and, in some cases, jailed. Unfortunately, too many governments don't pay much attention to this type of "white collar crime" so to speak.