Bob

I think it was meant with a little humor. Steve Jobs is obviously a brilliant guy and I hope he has an excellent conclusion to whatever illnesses he's been battling in the last few years. That being said, there are some that are upset that he has been unusually coy about these illnesses - taking murky leaves of absence from the company, telling investors just enough to make them fear the worst, etc. I can understand why he would want to maintain his privacy about his medical condition(s) but, given he is Apple, not all of the investors see it that way. Rather a tough issue to handle properly by anybody. I never understood from the beginning why they called this product an Ipad or any kind of "pad." Sounded like a very personal feminine product to me.

I can understand that as that's been my experience too....although I presume I'm probably wrong in some respects. Sometimes I wonder if part of it is their language as it comes across rather course to people not used to hearing Russian. I remember once seeing this small but beautiful blonde girl who was maybe 18-20 years of age on walking street in Pattaya a decade or more ago. When she opened her mouth to say something, how she sounded (I had no idea what she was saying) shocked me as it came out so rough and course that it didn't seem to fit her pretty little body. While she very likely was just being polite (her body language said that), it sure as hell sounded like she was being extremely crude.

New to posting? He's probably a nice guy but he indicated that he's lurked here or elsewhere and he took the time to repeat some (perhaps) unfriendly remarks about another board owner. That much was obvious. I didn't see you ask about board rules or I would have replied (actually, I'm sure there around here somewhere but I actually haven't read them). Offended? Nah. And I hope your friend doesn't see any of the comments as an objection to him at all. It was just the topic that I didn't like a bit. I hope your friend continues to post here.

Hopefully, all of us (including myself) won't let this incident blow up into something it isn't or to even use the thread to hurl some slings at some other board or board owner you don't like. Life's a little too short for that in my view.

I don't agree that the so-called warning was a "threat" nor do I believe there's any basis to say Scooby treated anybody "shabbily." Somebody's blowing this out of proportion. Secondly....and importantly.....did you happen to read the one sentence that read: "He certainly seems to be (name calling and personal attacks removed by admin)....?" Now, none of us know what was said there but I've never seen Scooby over-react or grossly mischaracterize anything, i.e., I trust that Scooby fairly described what he deleted. I thought Scooby handled it rather politely. And I also believe (and have argued elsewhere for years) that using any internet board to gossip about or attack another message board is silly and even a bit cowardly (if you want to criticize a board, board owner, or moderator, have the balls to do it there).

I admit in advance I'm going to step on some sacred cows (at least for some). Steve Jobs is likely brilliant in his field and Apple surely has created and sold millions of products to largely satisfied customers. I've never owned an Apple product (never saw the need) but I've been a little fascinated with Apple and Jobs because for years the people I knew who were Apple afficianados regularly (and often "nerdily") slightly irritated anyone who hadn't joined the cult. I just finished watching the introductory video of Jobs and sidekick introducing the Ipad 2 and I have seen a few of Jobs' prior videos where he was enthusiastically introducing world-ending products. Maybe I'm alone but, when I watch this kind of orchestrated stuff (often to a crowd of rabid faithful), I get a slight whiff of a neighborhood door-to-door vacuum salesman, a televangelist, and P. T. Barnum. Maybe I'm just too cynical but when Jobs and the audience almost had an orgasm regarding the flippin-fantastic functionality and colors of the new cover for the Ipad, I had to turn it off before I became too nauseated. Sorry for the interruption.

While I won't defend the customs people at Detroit or LA (although I've had little trouble), the Detroit airport itself is in my view a breeze to use, especially since they opened the new terminal about 8-9(?) years ago.

Yep. And maybe it's China that's in the Catch-22 situation too (by selling off dollars, they help lower the value of the huge amount they still haven't sold yet!). Then, again, I never understood over the last decade why they were holding tons of US Treasury bills anyway as they were earning maybe 3-4 percent on average and losing 6-7% value at the same time (annually).

Lol....and quite true. I used to refer to GW being "dumber than a stump" but he'd almost be a Fulbright scholar compared to Palin. Many people have short memories and I am amazed at times how we criticize any politician just because something happened on their watch. Saying Obama's fiscal and monetary policy - viz-a-viz what's good for the US economy for the long term - have been disasterous is probably fairly correct; however, what he got dumped on his plate two years ago last month is hardly his fault at all [Hmmm. Just who's fault could that be? Perhaps the economic stupidity of prior Presidents and Congresses?] and I for one think that Obama had very little choice as to what he's done. In fact, some could even argue that the current administration could be praised for avoiding an even more horrific economic disaster (one which, frankly, I'm surprised that the US didn't suffer....but I suppose there is still time to take that final plunge). Basic economic theory will tell you that any nation running a long-term imbalance of trade - which ultimately means that foreign nations end up with a whole ton of paper dollars - leads to a weakening/devaluation of those dollars. And increasing the number of them leads to the same direction. It's been going on for decades and, while embarrassing, the IMF is only spouting the obvious. Devaluation will happen under these circumstances regardless of what any entity or politician says. Back to the notion of supporting Palin over Obama. Unbelievable. I personally wouldn't vote for Palin for dog catcher. And I was actually rather pleasantly surprised that even the Republicans apparently won't either given the results of the last two straw polls. Thank god or somebody.

While I won't sit in praise of the IMF's history or achievements (or failures), equating the IMF with Geithner is a bit inane. The IMF is an international organization run by a director (he's from France) and three other top officials (one from the US, one from Brazil, and one from Japan). Suggesting that US fiscal or economic policy has been a disaster (which it has been for decades) is a far different cry than dealing with the substance of what the IMF is recommending. And anybody thinking that the US fiscal or monetary policy has been bad only for the last 2 years and one month (that's how long Geithner's had any influence) is also a bit naive. What's good for the IMF isn't necessarily what's good for the US but, then again, the IMF's job isn't to spout or support US policy. Rather than saying the devaluation suggestion is a bad idea (which apparently it isn't from the IMF's point of view), I take it more of confirmation that the US fiscal and economic policy for the last 40 years has been awful. Rather embarrassing that the world thinks you should devalue your currency because you can't keep your books in order.

Lol. Didn't have time on the 12-hour flight?

Brazil is the one country in the western hemisphere that ought to stand as an example for their bigger northern brothers. They elected to attempt to achieve energy independence (seeing it as both a security issue and important economic issue)and by and large achieved that in the last few years through the use of ethanol from sugar cane. And they're laughing all the way to the bank (besides providing huge benefits for future generations). We (the US) can do it but neither political party has the balls or forsight to even suggest such a plan. To them, long-term planning means raising money for the next congressional election held in 2 years or less (sadly and pathetically, some of those creeps are actually raising money for the next election before they're even been sworn into office for the last one!).

While I don't disagree that this would have been a better policy in the long run, the US didn't do that and certainly can't make any bold strokes in that direction in the near future as it would cause too much more eonomic havoc. Based on what I read, natural gas is already competitive with gasoline at $3.00 a gallon so all we need is the government will to force the alternative. But the right wing Republicans will use all their campaign money from the traditional oil companies to fight that tooth and nail, the national interest be damned.

And what you're spouting is just more of where we've been for the last 60 years. And just what has it achieved? More pollution, less security, and more debt. One would have thought we learned something from the oil embargo 40 years ago (but we didn't.....other than to build bigger storage tanks for the national reserves). Any energy policy has environmental hazards and the so-called new deep gas extraction method (I do believe you are referring to fracting, aren't you?) has had it's issues too (polluting local underground water supplies being the biggest) and that will have to be carefully controlled. And, as Khor Tose notes, the extraction of oil from the shale involves several environmental issues (not including the negatives we get from burning that oil once we've extracted it). If I was in charge (I'm not), I'd require 75%+ of US automobiles to be converted to use natural gas (last I looked, the cost to convert is about $2,400.00 per vehicle) within the next 5 years and require the gas stations to provide natural gas outlets. I'd also require all homes in the US heated by heating oil to convert to propane or natural gas. The result is we cut our oil imports and trade deficit drastically and produce homes and vehicles that pollute less (and, in the process, create a few million jobs to get all this done). The key is the money stays home and we get a cleaner environment, a win-win deal to me. Old oil barron Boone Pickens has been championing this method for more than a decade and I think he's right. As concerns the feasibility of using natural gas to fuel cars, it does work rather well and produces far less pollutants. Even a so-called third-world country such as Thailand has partially adopted that method and one would think that the US can maybe figure out how to get it done if the Thais can do so. Long-term, I'd hope there would be a breakthrough with affordable electric cars that travel far enough on a single charge. But that possibility (and it's only a possibility) is so far down the pike that we simply can't afford to wait. The much better alternative of natural gas is already available and we have huge supplies in the states (and, if we need more, I have no issue in paying our reasonable Canadian neighbors for it). Then we don't need Chavez or any sheik in the middle east and we would have no need to breech our ethical standards by avoiding pointing out they are simply a bunch of dictatorial thugs.

I'm going to have to disagree with those priorities entirely. Sure, military strength is needed and an intelligent energy policy [which none of the western nations (other than maybe Brazil) has even approached in a comprehensive and intelligent manner] are important national concerns. But your #2 option, in my view, is a euphemism for what has caused us and the citizens of the middle east trouble for decades. We ought to stand up for basic human principles (perhaps those outlined by the UN charter versus the particular brands any one of the western countries adopt at home) and that ought to be our number one priority and we ought to help those that abide by those rules (and, necessarily, not help at all those that don't). We (mainly the US and the UK) have spent way too much time cozying up to dictators and wackos just to make oil deals and that policy has defined us to the people of the mideast. It's been immoral in my view and has led us to support and prop up oppressive regimes and it's about time that the west stood up for its alleged priniciples versus using foreign policy to grab economic benefit. The oil is theirs, not ours, and it's absolutely horrendous that we ever went down the avenue of looking the other way just to keep our automobiles and economies plugging along. Some may argue that the national/economic interest of our western countries trumps the concept of standing firm for the human rights principles that we claim to support and that it's naive to think that "doing the right thing" is better (security-wise) for the west. Sorry, I don't buy that concept as what we've done in the past has only made our security concerns more severe and likely assisted the general populace view that we are untrustworthy, hypocritical, and detestable. For example only, our support for the Shah of Iran has directly assisted in having a very dangerous regime in place there not to mention the suffering of millions of Iranians for the last 40 years. So, as far as I'm concerned, it's time for a new policy, one that's grounded on who we are versus what we want.

While I don't like the bussing at Suvarnabhumi - especially when there appear to be plenty of gates that seem available - my worst experience was on an Air Asia trip from Chiangmai to Kuala Lumpur. On that occasion, they parked the plane quite a ways out on the tarmac and simply had the passengers walk in a line to the terminal. It was hot as hell (at least 40C) in the bright sun and I was a bit pissed because I was a wet mess by the time I got to the terminal; however, what I was really concerned about was that I wasn't sure if several of the older passengers were physically able to even make the journey (I saw many struggling and thought they'd keel over but all did make it to the terminal). Edit: On second thought, I think this actually happened at CNX on a return flight from Kuala Lumpur.

Why do you want to know? I don't mean that question disrespectfully as I am a bit curious as to reasons for the question.

You're blaming the bussing situation, I presume, on the notion that there are not enough gates. While that could be true (I've doubted that before when seeing so many open gates), is it also possibly the result of the airlines choosing the cheaper option? I actually don't know the reason but have read many comments that it's happening because the airlines are trying to avoid the gate fees on occasion to save money. Anybody actually know for sure why it's happening?

Nobody knows but my guess would be not likely at least while the current King is with us. Thais in general seem to just roll with the punches (corruption is just considered normal and nothing to get all that upset about, the coup-of-the-week is largely ignored, etc.). You often hear of irate westerners about this or that (and, frankly, some of the stuff that happens here would cause a major protest or revolt in western countries) but the Thais in general don't seem to get too bent out of shape about anything (excepting a very small portion of the population wearing colored shirts).

Yes, at least with EVA (which I've used exclusively for 5+ years), at least you're not bussed to gates. The cheapness of some airlines bussing passengers on occasion isn't necessarily the fault of the airport. I've been bussed on Thai, Air Asia, and Bangkok Airways (and probably one or two others) and many of those times I've counted many gates open that could have been used. Once I flew on a loaded 747 from Chiangmai and they bussed us in spite of the fact that I counted 17 gates totally unoccupied. But I don't blame the airport for that problem. Other than the sometimes long distances to walk, I actually like Suvarnabhumi and find it very easy to use. I've never understood the complaints. Immigration queues, the only really annoying item, is also not the fault of the airport but of an Immigration Bureau that doesn't properly man the booths and/or occasionally has incredibly bad timing.

Addressing Fountainhill's comments only, you're correct that I'm no China expert or claim to be and, yes, not only am I amazed at the staggering changes that have occurred relatively peacefully, I'm hopeful that China can ultimately emerge into some type of modern democracy (not necessarily an exact duplicate of any western model but at least one where the people elect their leaders versus the small group that controls the situation now)in a peaceful fashion where there's a little more even distribution of the wealth in that country. If they can pull that off (and I hope that's the case for both the Chinese people and even the world at large), they'll really make some amazing history. My comments about Cuba are in no fashion intended to support the corrupt regime of Batista or even the right of the Cuban people to overthrow that thug. But, frankly, while one might argue what caused Castro and his cronies to turn around and essentially act much like his predecessor, that's what he did (lately, it's actually been nice to hear Castro himself express regret over the excesses). In a sense, I suppose, there were some mild similarities with Mao and his so-called cultural revolution (read: a dark period ala middle ages of persecution and extremist behavior aimed mainly at the intelligentia). I haven't agreed with the US policy toward Cuba but to suggest that this guy was a thug because of what the US did is untrue and rather simplistic. His behavior throughout the sixties was appalling especially against gays - who he sent to essentially concentration camps to "re-educate" them (again, just last year he came very close to apologizing for those types of "injustices"). His stiffling of a free press (the forced closing of all opposition newspapers) and purging of teachers and professors, let alone the jailing and torture of thousands of dissidents, can hardly be laid to rest at the feet of the US. But that type of behavior surely made nobody in US politics want to support any reconciliation with Cuba. The Bay of Pigs fiasco, people sometimes forget, occurred after Castro began the parading of soviet tanks through the town squares and after Castro began the terrible oppression of some of his people. I would have supported a more open policy and perhaps that would have ultimately helped enable the Cuban people to determine their own destiny. Maybe they'll have that chance some day as they sure deserve it based on what they've been through the last 60 years. I also am not aware of any news about any significant protests or groundswells in Cuba. I'm hopeful that day will come but it's perhaps not likely until Fidel has passed away (or, if before he dies, he regretfully acknowledges that the woes of the Cuban people were caused as much or more by the socialist policies he championed than by the activities of the big bad neighbor to the north). [Over the years, the vast bulk of the US policy involving Cuba has been essentially controlled and influenced by the substantial population of Cuban refugees in the US (many of whom reside in south Florida). They've been a powerful lobby and regretfully have always lobbied for even more aggressive reaction to the Cuban leadership than what the US has actually shown.]

While it's always fun to listen to what the pundits of various political and economic stripes tell us why certain things are happening (the notion that Bernanke's monetary/fiscal moves triggering world commodity prices triggering Tunisia's events and so on is rather unbelieveable to me), I suspect that you've hit upon the very reason that things are beginning to happen all over the place, each seemingly triggering the other. Everybody everywhere, it seems, longs for some aspects of freedom and most people, I think, resent long-entrenched powers who are corrupt and simply steal from their own people. The more educated people become and the more they are able to communicate with each other, the more they are enabled to bring the power of numbers into the game to actually effect a change. It must be incredibly difficult for any regime these days to control the information that gets to its citizens. Countries try to control the access (so as to control what their citizens will think about something - which, of course, controls any reaction) and North Korea is probably the worst example of that anywhere in the world. China tries to do it but, ultimately, it all may ultimately blow up in its face. Sometimes one looks at worldwide events (for example, the fall of various empires such as the events in Russia 20 or so years ago) and it seems that what ultimately triggers the big changes is a populace that's better informed (the old saying "it's hard to keep them down on the farm once they've seen Paris" comes to mind) and able to rapidly communicate and organize calls to action while the emotions remain heated. I tend to think that what's behind any of this is simple human aspirations which aren't all that different than those that have existed for eons. Poverty of the masses and corruption by their leaders - which has existed for centuries - tend to trigger reactions but only when people can communicate and mobilize about it. Modern technology seems to allow that sharing of information (and emotion) and the resultant incitement to action like never before. If, for example, there was any form of free-flow of information in North Korea, that regime wouldn't last for another year. But, as long as the people don't know (hell, some assert that the average North Korean has been indoctrinated to actually believe that he's better off socially and economically than his South Korean counterpart!) and can't talk with each other about it, nothing is going to happen to change the status quo for them. And, of course, there's danger to all of this, most often the danger of one distinct and dangerous group taking control and imposing their own brand of dictatorship, corruption, and control of the masses. Iran and Cuba are only two examples of what happens when extremists hijack justifiable revolutions. Hopefully we're not going down that path but, if I was required to bet on the outcome, that's where my money would sadly go right now.

What in part you're describing isn't really an "expat" issue but an issue common to older people everywhere, even in the west. Older people, especially once they are retired, tend to change their habits and one sometimes gains the impression that their whole day is planned around meals. I remember I used to mildly/jokingly criticize my folks for that a little, my view being that you do what you want to do and eat around that versus letting any meal schedule control what you do that particular day. But I don't see your worry as a real concern. Sometimes people think that coming to live in Thailand means a totally different experience than what you've been doing the prior 20-40 years. While to some degree it is (plus you're typically retired now which is a fairly big life change), 90% of what you do is the same mundane stuff you did in your "prior" life. You sleep, shower, have meals, go grocery shopping, clean, do laundry, read books, play on the internet, etc. I've spent two seasons (7 months and 8 months) here in Chiangmai and, while I recognize everybody is different, I still do a lot of the same things here I did back in the states. As concerns the bars, I go on average once a week I suppose (versus almost every night when I used to vacation here). And I make eating choices just like I did back home (and, like at home, when I notice on the bathroom scale that I'm down a couple of pounds in the morning, I'm less hesitant to eat an occasional donut or whatever). Yes, there are some that are obese and do nothing about it, engage in reckless personal behavior, and at times act a bit stupidly - but I suspect they are acting here just like they did back home. The fact alone that you have these "concerns" tells me you had certain internal guidelines you used to regulate your lifestyle and eating habits for the last 20-40 years. Don't worry, your attitudes will follow you here and more than likely you'll use them the same way you did at home.

You're derailing your own thread and in a rather nasty little fashion too. Up to you. As to the original post, people who read it hopefully will see the inconsistencies and inaccuracies noted and then make their own judgment as to its likely accuracy. You're vouching for it apparently whereas I find it very unlikely to be substantially true. Mai bpen rai, we all have different views of what's credible.

Somebody's trying to sell a bill of goods here in my opinion and I simply don't believe it for the reasons listed. You can, of course, but I don't. You say he could have lost his savings in the 2008 crash. Sure, a fair number of people lost 40-50% but I don't know anybody that lost 100% or anywhere near that. His claiming to be in middle management for 35 years and now saying he only has $4.00 left is astoundingly unbelievable to me. And I read it again and I note the writer first states: "I am almost 60 years old." and then later says: "in seven more years, I'll be near 70 with the new retirement age at 70" First, if somebody is going to spin a yarn, that somebody might want to at least try to keep the story internally consistent. He didn't as, unless there's a time warp involved here, one can't be "almost 60" and 63 at the asme time. And: (a) He says he's physicaly disabled. Well, if that's true (I'm doubtful) he can get social security disabiility and, as Jason points out, it's a fair amount of money (I believe around $2,000.00 per month). (B) Or, if you want to buy that he's 63, like he later said in his "story", then he can elect to take social security benefits right now (he could have elected to do it last year when he turned 62, just like I did). And, if he was in middle management for 35 years, he'd get $1,800+ per month (or $21,600+ per year). There are enough other inconsistencies to make this all seem like a political polemic (railing at the government for all one's woes). For another example only, he suggests he can't get his full social security retirement benefits until he's 70. That (presuming you believe he's either 59 or 63 - take your pick) is flatly untrue. He gets his full (100%) social security payment at age 66 (anybody born between 1943 and 1954 gets the same treatment) And, as I noted, he can get less (80% at age 63) if he simply tells them he wants it now. If he's telling you inconsistent things (his age) in the same story or saying things that you can demonstrate are false, there's no sense believing any of it in my view. P.S. Everybody in the US gets their full (100%) of social security when they reach 67 years of age. There is talk of extending that age to 70 (for younger americans - it won't apply to anybody about 50 or older) but so far it's only talk so far.