Bob

No, they're both correct (and you'd also be correct for spelling it with a symbol that is halfway between an English "r" and "l" as I most often hear it that way). Technically, it's not spelled with an "r" in Thai as they have no "r". They do have a consonant that in English we call "ror ruea" ("reua" is the Thai word for "boat") and it's correctly pronounced similar to our English "r" (although most Thais will "roll it" much like the Spanish and Mexicans do). But most asians simply can't say "r" like we from the US and UK can (on the other hand, we westerners usually can't correctly say a few of the Thai consonants or vowels) and oftentimes they just pronounce it similar to our "l". If you're following your Berlitz (or whatever) when you're trying to say how much (tao rai), the Thais will often say "tao lai", the city north of me is "Chiang Lai", etc, etc. Even most of the Thai teachers I've had have a tough time with their "r's." If you're ever having a playful time with some Thais about pronouncing English words occasionally, ask them to say "roar" (and I'll bet their attempt will raise a chuckle or two).

Sorry you got lost.....lol (it really isn't that hard to find). New My Way just revamped its stage a few weeks ago, a fair amount bigger and much nicer than the old one (however, the stairs coming down to the stage - which is how the performers get on stage - will very likely be the scene of some very nasty falls especially by some of the wildly overdressed ladyboys). The show itself is what I call the same-o, same-o - various somewhat boring acts with nudity with ladyboy-sync-routines in between those acts. The boy acts are not all that exciting and most of the ladyboy acts are excruciating (well, at least to me).

Maybe it's more of a Pattaya thing as I don't see it very often up here in Chiangmai. Whether in the 7/11, Centran, bookstore, grocery store, or elsewhere, what I see is people in a queue rather patiently waiting and not jostling for the counter. I don't think anybody's jumped ahead of me once in the last 5 months that I can remember. A couple of hours ago I was standing in line at one of the local 7/11's and the elderly Thai lady ahead of me (seeing I had my arms somewhat full) even motioned me to go ahead of her (I didn't but thanked her just the same). As to blocking sidewalks on occasion, I don't see it that often but I do think part of that is that the Thai sidewalks are sometimes rather narrow and are habitually used to plop anything down (including a restaurants' signs or tables, motorcycles, etc.); it's rather customary to walk around and in the street while that's fairly rare in the west. I do notice Thais in my way on occasion but a lot of that is due to the fact I walk faster then most of them. So, I don't see much of what you all are talking about up here.

This is what the "Ocean 1" site looked like last March and it looked the same a month ago. One can see nothing on the site other than the "cement plant" (those three blue stacks are stacks used to mix cement and cement trucks which are loaded on occasion are driven to other locales for use of the cement there). You'll also notice perhaps that the site is not on the ocean (the developer's website says that the development is 250 meters from the beach and, while I didn't measure it, it seems quite a bit farther away than that). Okay, here's that FAB development:

Your customer relations tact falls just a bit short here, Mark, when you also don't deal with a genuine complaint - the noise level of the bars. I would guess (don't really know) that a majority of the falang customers would appreciate the decibel level being lowered (and I'm doubtful that lowering the music to just a roar would deter anybody from going into a given bar). In general, the music of most of the bars is way too loud for me and I either don't go into those bars or stay a shorter time. I know the boys like it that way but I thought that what the customers might want would also fit into the equation somewhere. But, if not, that's fine, I'll go elsewhere.

I'm a Boeing fan too and Im seriously hoping that the 787 turns out to be a gem. However, presuming I was on the board of directors of Boeing, I'd do some serious house cleaning. Whoever put together the production plans for this plane and/or whoever engineered some of the parts (and, importantly, the methods to put the international parts together) ought to be seriously questioned. And so should the top officers as it was their job to know what they hell people below them were doing and to stop what wouldn't work and what wasn't realistic. Maybe it's time to hire officers and directors who actually know something about building planes?

You're probably right although part of the fuss involved in this project was the level of hype spewing out from the developers in general and, more particular to this and another message board, the amount of hype/hyperbole that emanated from a poster. This project, afterall, was touted as the highest residential building in the world (that's right, not just Chon Buri or even Thailand but the entire world). As concerns firecat69's comments about the alleged "concrete plant" there, it's not much of a concrete plant and, more importantly, it's been used to make and transport concrete for other things outside of the so-called Ocean 1 site. So it's almost meaningless other than the insinuations by the developers that it's being used for this project (which it most definitely isn't as physically on this site no project exists).

Not worth trying to explain it to him. By the way, this FAB proposed 91-story thing is not on the beach at all (which makes it even goofier in my view).

Huh? Without that, how will you ever be able to post again about the "inside" scoops you always seem to have? Maybe I'm simply nuts but didn't you just post the following comments on the Astbury thread: "...it would not be right for me to announce future developments here, that I have been told in confidence, but I can tell you amazing things are going to happen there in the near future..." Is that assurance, based on your inside information, just as accurate as the pronouncements by the developers in 2006 and 2007 that construction would soon begin and be finished in 2012? I don't really care if potential buyers have actually deposited money for units in this proposed project. But, based on Darwin's theory that the human race is supposed to be becoming smarter as we evolve, I sure as hell hope not.

HeyGey, I have a bridge to sell you.....please put your deposit down today! I just know everybody will love it as it will just be so FAB!!! Now, I haven't started any construction but, trust me, we will someday! You betcha! P.S. Anybody know of a river that needs to be spanned?

They used to have a dancer named "A" (I think that was the name) and A was very good (as I understood it, he was employed solely as a dancer and he had a job elsewhere in Pattaya as a dancer). Anyway, for a while, he seemed to me to be the most talented dancer there and it didn't hurt at all that he had a well-toned body and looked rather handsome (or so I thought); anyway, a somewhat exceptional dancer. The "fat girl" was Oh and you're dead right about the acrobatic ability. He/she would somewhat shock everone when turning a cartwheel almost standing in place, a feat that one would think that somebody that size could hardly perform. Obviously the stage was rather well-built. Although I thought the Throb shows were entertaining in general, I'm with you about not seeing any shows in Pattaya that I would ever call "great." Generally, they were rather bad (especially the lip-synching ladyboys and the painted clowns) and the only saving grace on many occasions for me was that many of the dancers were good-looking and had trim bodies. Just my thoughts.....and I'd note that I was only around Pattaya sparingly between 2000 and 2005 (since then, I've only been there two nights). The show at Lavender Lanna - at least the one I saw a couple of times when it first opened - here in Chiangmai seemed to me to be a bit more professional than the shows I ever saw in Pattaya (but even then I wouldn't have called it "great"). The shows in the other gogo bars up here have never even approached mediocre in my opinion.

For Christ's sake, it sounds like an Amway dealer on crystal meth. No foundation has been started (in spite of the 2006 and 2007 assurances of those that touted it before) and I am doubtful that there is any planned beginning. And what will it take, maybe 4-6 years to finish it once somebody starts on the foundation (the foundation alone will likely take more than 1 year). Given the history here (assurances followed by nothing), anybody that would put down a deposit until it's substantially started and you see some reasonable proof that they have the money to finish it (and you're satisfied that it will be well-maintained - which is a gamble in itself) has to be an absolute fool. And, even if you choose to make that leap, you better make sure you're deposit money is protected just in case history repeats itself. In my opinion (worth exactly what you paid for it), this planned building was more about somebody's ego than anything that ever made any economic sense from the beginning. [None of this is aimed at Mr. Astbury as it isn't his problem].

Good luck to Mr. Astbury wherever he goes and whatever he does. As concerns Ocean 1, it's difficult for me to believe anybody would have the sheer balls to hawk let alone sell anything that doesn't exist. In spite of prior "scooped" announcements, it remains at best (presuming this is even owned) a piece of flat ground and wouldn't be finished for years after the first shovelful of soil has been turned over (if that should ever occur).

And your efforts to suggest we're safer in the US (because we have guns?) than in England seems to fall a little flat given the overall homicide rate is about 6 times (that's 600%) higher in the US than what it is in England. Please don't bother arguing that this difference has nothing to do with the availabilty of guns (you might as well argue the sun rises in the west). I've had more access to and use of guns than most people I know and I fully understand how careful one must be in their use, possession, and storage; nevertheless, I'm not blind about the social ills that the wide availability of guns provides the US and I believe the price we're paying is too high. I don't advocate getting rid of guns entirely but I do advocate a fair number of restrictions (none of which would prevent any hunting activities, target practicing, or restrict defense of one's home or business); yet, I'm sure the NRA would oppose any and all efforts and argue that any regulation is just the beginning of the end of anybody's right to own a gun. Of course, that's simply BS.

Given his success over the years, I feel somewhat obligated to defend King. Sure, he wasn't anything to look at and often he didn't ask the tough questions; yet, he also didn't insert his own personality into the interview either. Bar none in the US over the last 25 years, he had the best guests (and, of course, a slew of empty-headed ones too). As somewhat mentioned here or elsewhere, Charlie Rose is a much better interviewer although he never seems to pointedly ask the tough questions at times either. But, to be fair to both, these guys didn't see themselves or tout themselves as tough journalists or probing interviewers. It's just entertainment and, with the right guest, it was entertaining and, occasionally, illuminating.

I'm curious as to how they worded the poll and if they presumed that anybody who accepted a payment (i.e., got the standard 200-300 baht for allegedly selling their vote) then voted as they were paid once behind the voting booth curtain. I asked a Thai friend from the Surin area if he accepted payments from the politicians and he said "yes." He added that he sometimes accepted payment from several political parties (their operatives float around the towns prior to an election and dole out cash to people). When I asked him if he thought it was wrong to do that, he answered somewhat to the effect of "why not, I'm not stupid, I never turn free money down." When I asked him if he felt obligated to vote for whoever paid him he was rather clear: "Oh no, I'll take their money but I vote for who I want to when I go to vote" (not an exact quote but that was the message he was conveying). I've heard the same story from others - they take the money but then they go vote for whoever they want to vote for (given nobody, they claim, knows how they vote once they go into the booth).

One of the startling statistics (from the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, 2000 statistics) is that 78% of the homicides in the US are by firearm and there's only one other country (Columbia) that beats that number. Other statistics: (1) England & Wales had a total homicide rate of 1.45 people per 100,000 and 8 percent of their total homicides were by firearms. (2) Germany had a total homicide rate of 1.17 per 100,000 and 40% of their total homicides were by firearms. (3) India had a total homicide rate of 2.97 per 100,000 and 25% of their total homicides were by firearms. (4) The US had a total homicide rate of 7.55 per 100,000 and 78% of their total homicides were by firearmss. I'm not sure how you interpret these figures other than to conclude that the availabilty of guns (handguns especially in my opinion) only leads to more homicides. One of the NRA's popular idiotic chants is that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Yea, sure. I'll have to remember that concept when the Judge asks me if I have anything to say after I've been convicted for hacking somebody to death with a machete (hey Judge, you dolt, machetes don't kill people, loss of blood kills people!).

Yes, that was him. I didn't watch it as I rarely watch any television series and can't stomach "The Donald" in any event. I have no clue if Piers won or lost.

As a matter of background, I am a US citizen. I have owned several long and short guns, hunted since I was very young, probably engaged in more target practice than 99% of all other gun owners in the states, etc. I feel rather free and entitled to discuss the issue. But I also don't believe that us "gun owners" have any right to shut any other citizens out of the discussion as there are far many more citizens who don't hunt and don't target practice with guns than those that do. I also don't have a problem with anybody else - including those from other countries - discussing the issue although I do acknowledge that they often come to the table with a rather inaccurate view of what's happening in the US due to them having access to news that is inaccurate and focused on the bizarre (versus what really happens in the average American town on a daily basis). But, of course, in the end game, it is the citizens of the US that will decide where we go with this issue. Our original constitution and Bill of Rights (including the Second Amendment) were brought to us by "them foreigners" (people who by and large were born in Europe and who looked to the European models and legal and political history to shape our Constitution and the Bill of Rights) and so I wouldn't be so blind as to ignore good ideas wherever they should come from. I totally reject the NRA notion that any attempted regulation of guns is either unconstitutional or just the first step in taking all guns away from everyone. That's just pure political hysteria attempting to totally divert attention to issues that need to be addressed. Everybody (I hope) understands that there needs to be some regulation (hopefully, even you believe that we shouldn't give guns to kids or automatic weapons or bazookas to anybody) and the issue can't be pigeon-holed into any "just say yes to guns" or "just say no to guns" sophmoric discourse. The issue is what reasonable regulations are best for the US society and should we consider amending the Second Amendment (or, effectively, legally correcting what I consider to be wrong interpretations by appellate courts over the years)? We Americans never seem to be able to inwardly reflect as to why we have some of the problems we have. Our homicide rate with guns - which, contrary to the views of movies and the news floating around the world, doesn't usually involve any robbers or strangers - is unacceptable (at least to me) and is downright horrible in certain metropolitan areas. Some effort ought to be made to improve that situation and I totally reject the idea that having more citizens own more guns is the answer. The Tucson story brings up the issue for discussion but, unfortunately, it'll fade away in the next news cycle. How, for example, did the kid get a 30-shot clip for a 9mm handgun and why would we allow anyone in the US to have a weapon capable of holding that many shells? As you know, it's not allowed in a hunting weapon (my state caps capacity at 5 shells in a rifle or handgun which is semi-automatic) and it's hardly needed for target practice or self-defense. The issue is complex and often wrapped (warped?) with false information and political hysteria and fear-mongering. We won't solve it here but I'd like to think we can at least talk about it in a civil way.

Sure they do....they run over frequencies licensed by the government even from satellites. For down to earth use, they're running their wires over public utility poles (over, under, and through public right-of-ways). But I don't think the Fairness Doctrine applied to them at the time because most of the programming went over the frequencies licensed over the public airwaves. If it was to become law again, I think it ought to apply given that probably 90% plus is all via cable or satellite nowadays. The Fairness Doctrine, however, is really unworkable (I mean, what if a guest on Leno or at the Academy Awards makes a poltical comment?)and I'm not sure how it ought to be regulated. Without regulation, though, I see only one result: the rich and powerful win as they control the methods and substance of communication. Maybe someday Rupert Murdoch will own everything and we'll all get Fox News crammed down our throats.

Well, let's first look at the precise language of the Second Amendment: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It's my view that the appellate courts over the years have misinterpreted that language. One needs to look at the language in connection with the intent of the original drafters and the various state legislatures that ratified it. There are a lot of people that have argued (unsuccessfully, I'd add) that the right to bear arms was not a personal right but a right held by the states to maintain their own citizen militias. Militias in those days consisted of private individuals who usually brought their own flintlocks or swords with them (heck, that was largely the case with the continental army). The political reason for reservation of this right to the individual states was that most or all of them totally distrusted a centralized government and the states' right to keep it's own militia (army) was it's way of physically defending itself against an overpowering central government. Remember, most of these states believed they were joining a "federation", not giving up all their powers to some central sovereign (one of those damn "kings!). It was called and is called the "federal" government for a reason. With that background, I'd argue: (1) First, if one argues that it is a personal right and not a right that belonged to the states, then what was the purpose of the set-up (purpose) clause (the clause that says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State)? To me, it makes no sense that what was intended was a personal right as, if that was the intent, then there was absolutely no need for the "militia" clause. It's my view that, at a minimum, the original drafters intended that the entire language to mean what it says (at least in my eyes): that the federal government cannot infringe on the states' rights to maintain a militia who have arms. And, because it doesn't say a State cannot do it, I also take the position that each State has the right regulate the holding of arms by private citizens. If one accepts those premises, there's no reason in the world that a state cannot prevent, for example, people owning handguns or owning clips that hold more than 5 bullets (i.e., they can outlaw even semi-automatic AK-47's). 2) Second, what the heck did they mean by "arms." I'd hope everybody would agree that there was no intent whatsoever that every Tom, Dick, and Harry would be allowed to personally keep a canon let alone two tons of black powder or a missle or two. If one so agrees, then there obviously were intended limits to what "arms" even the state could keep. I'd hope that Nebraska might not take the position that it can own it's own nuclear weapons. Thus, again, if you accept the argument, whatever it is that you want to call the "right to bear arms", it sure as hell ain't the right to bear any arms you want. The "arms" of the time were a flintlock....something that was single-shot and hardly could repeat fire in any rapid fashion. Even if (hey, Scalia, you and your originalist brain listening?) you argue that that the right to bear arms is a personal right, then what the drafters and adopters were thinking about at the time was a relatively inaccurate single-shot weapon (well, besides swords, spears, and arrows). All in all, it's my view that the appellate courts have misinterpreted the Second Amendment over the years and expanded it into something not at all justified by the original language or the original intent of the drafters. So, I'd support a modification (an amendment to the amendment, if you will) that would simply allow the invidivual states to decide what arms a private citizen can own or carry. If, after a generation or so, that doesn't work out very well, then maybe I'd support simply tossing the Second Amendment altogther and allowing the federal government to decide what is or isn't allowed.

King did a great job but I never thought he had a sparkling personality. For some reason, I've never liked Piers Morgan and always thought he had somewhat of a snarky (smart-ass) personality. But, like others, I'd watch King in the past when he had somebody on the show that was worth listening too (somebody like Warren Buffet verus somebody like Suzanne Somers). You'd think that CNN could find somebody that's intelligent and likeable somewhere. Hell, Anderson Cooper would likely do as well as anybody.

I actually think it's a great airport and very easy to use. Sure, it's big and sometimes the walks are a fair distance, but that comes with the territory of an airport that services upwards of 14 million people a year. Many of the complaints - not enough immigration officers on duty at a given time or carriers choosing not to use the sky bridges - really don't have anything to do with the airport itself but how it's run. I used to hate how one would switch between international and domestic at the old Don Muang airport. Basically, you had to haul your suitcase half a mile through the allegedly air-conditioned tunnel. In Suvarnabhumi, you just zip up to the fourth floor via elevator or the slanted/powered walkways. Easy as far as I'm concerned.

Probably not, at least not without a disclaimer that the scene is small there so that any of the often-happening changes do alter the picture quite a bit.

I've traveled with the bf to Singpore, Luang Prabang, Kunming, and Kuala Lumpur and I don't remember any momentary incident where anybody even looked funny at us. And, yea, hate to admit it but I'm 30 years older than the young lad (he's 32). The bf has never expressed any concerns to me about it before and he's not shy at all about telling me if something's bothering him. My guess is that one might see some funny looks in the west but I'm not even sure about that. The only time I can really recall getting some very weird/bad looks (which caused us to leave immediately as I knew what was coming) was in an establishment in Thailand which had too many drunk Russians in it.