Bob

In honor of our recently closed thread, I thought it would be appropriate to post a photo of 300 pig heads a woman left at a temple in Nakhon Pathom to thank the gods for help in getting a loan repaid. What I really want to know is what would the lady have done if the debtor didn't repay the loan - dump 1000 pig heads at the temple?!? Disclaimer: Although one or more of us in the recently described closed thread have been described as pig-headed at times, none of us (or the top parts of us) actually appear in the attached photo. The original story is here: http://bangkok.coconuts.co//2015/02/20/woman-thanks-statue-300-pig-heads Edit: Although all the pigs were Thai and it is likely that at least some of these pigs were gay, I have no objection if the post is moved elsewhere.

Charming repartee.... Michael, I've stayed out of the topic of whether you and willie like each other and I've only attempted to make two points: (1) That everybody ought to leave FH out of their various conspiracy theories that he was banned or shafted (a point, apparently, you agree with), and (2) private messages shouldn't be posted without the consent of the writer (a point you apparently don't agree with). P.S. I'm still pondering: (1) What a "flying fuck" might be. A member of the mile-high club? Some of the sexual" acrobats" on the monkey bars at Boys of Bangkok? Or do fucks actually fly? (2) And why won't you give one? Heck, they're not that expensive and somebody might need one.

I personally vouch for FH's honesty and, should anybody want to know the truth, go read what he has written on the other board. End of story as far as I'm concerned and I see no need to respond to other claims.

For Christ's sake, Michael, I'm not going to get into a "show and tell" routine with you.....plus I don't want to repeat posting a private message that at least used to be "private!" However, if you really want to know: (1) Read any message from FH which Scooby posted above....and that qualifies for what I'm talking about; and (2) Alternatively, go read the thread elsewhere.....the issue is specifically discussed by FH himself (take a look at his February 17th, 2015, posting).

Just because FH complained about somebody turning a private message into a public message without his consent (an act which is simply inexcusable to me) hardly means he joined any "circus."

Fountainhill was a valuable poster here, did nothing whatsoever to merit being included in wild and erroneous speculation (banned or shafted....indeed!), and it'd be nice if you all would quit using his name as a basis to support this or that erroneous conspiracy theory. He's publicly posted on another board the following: "In my case, I had for some time planned to give up posting on gaythailand largely because a lot of new work had come in. Not only was I posting frequently (too frequently for some!), I had rewritten and updated much of the lengthy Thailand and City Guide descriptions on that site, many of which still include the photos I willingly supplied." And, right or wrong (in my opinion, nobody - especially a board owner - ought to publicly post a private message absent the consent of the writer), you now have what Fountainhill wrote to this board's owner immediately preceding his departure. There you have it - his words - and that is all you can possibly know about why Fountainhill decided on his own to stop posting here. So please quit attempting to use his departure to fit some other agenda or fantasy you might be attempting to make. P.S. Yes, some, such as myself, consider FH to be a friend and had private discussions with him about his decision to stop posting. The key word there is "private" (a word that has substantial meaning to me).

It's just my opinion (and worth what you're paying for it) but I don't think this message board ought to be used to either regurgitate disputes occurring on other message boards or to use GT to attack other message boards or their owners. I don't think this has been necessarily a "rule" here but I think the policy (unwritten or otherwise) has served this board well in the past, i.e., we were spared some of the crazy infighting that occurred elsewhere (the whole Neal saga comes to mind). So, while I understand how the one other thread devolved into a few comments about what other people were doing elsewhere, I respectfully object to this thread as it's simply using this board to take potshots at people and posts elsewhere. While it isn't fair to the targets who don't regularly post here and can't effectively respond, it's especially not fair to those people who hang out here mainly or partially to avoid getting involved in or even listening to the slagging matches elsewhere. Just my view.

I was joking, Billabonkie......maybe Z can meet you in some deserted stall (still joking, Billabonkie).

Sorry, there's a specific law in Thailand that prohibits anyone using the handle of "Billabonkie" from bonking his privates in any bathroom at any time. If you violate the rule, one of our moderators will feed it (your bonker) to the ducks.

As has been noted, it's absolutely incredibly childish/inane that anybody would be banned from this board based on anything anybody as said so far. But to ban somebody on another board for what's occurred here takes the stupidity even farther. So, Surfy, I've been a member of your board since long before you heard about it although, admittedly, I haven't posted there in 4+ years. While you're in the banning mood, why don't you ban me? I don't think I've said anything that would merit any banning but, what the heck, neither did Firecat! On the other hand, if you knew what I was thinking, you'd probably file a lese majeste charge against me. Go ahead, make my day.

Oh, I'd add that I really don't think anybody here "laments" over the model photo thread. Some may drool, some may have blood rushing to the smaller head, but nobody laments here. We have a "no lament" rule (whereas drooling and boners are perfectly legal).

I'm not sure who the royal "we" are that you're referring to but I'm guessing you mean yourself and Gaybutton? Well, I've been around all the boards forever (although admittedly I don't post much any more here and in some locations almost never) and, while I acknowledge everybody's perceptions are different, I haven't seen or felt the different treatment you suggest. Regardless.....and I'm not complaining about your ability to offer your own comment on how somebody else is treated here or elsewhere....but you're then jump on to essentially say that elsewhere (I'm guessing you're trying to talk about your board?) there is quality discussion about gay life in Thailand whereas impliedly suggesting there is none of that on this board is not exactly the best way to make friends here. What was the point of this little slam? Now I'd like to be neutral about all this so let me list in order the latest ten topics on your board (which, I presume, you're arguing represents a much higher quality of discussion about gay life in Thailand): (1) The daily Nicky's newsletter. I've never read it but I would presume that's helpful to those in Pattaya. (2) A thread on Suvarnabhumi. (3) The protest update thread originating last June, much of what is argument between a few opposite thinking guys who like to take shots at each other all the time. (4) A thread about an old message board. (5) A thread about smokers in a gay bar somewhere. (6) A thread about a rate deal at a Mariott in KhaoLak. (7) A thread about the Chiangmai Flower Festival. ( A thread about police harassment in Bkk. (9) A thread about a buddy in HH who's cool bf used a funny phrase of my buddy not being able to "stand up" on one occasion. (10) A thread about some guy who likes to smell unwashed underwear. Now, I myself (as you may have noticed) am not suggesting one way or the other that this list of topics is or isn't "quality" discussion of gay life in Thailand - you and others can judge that yourselves. But I....just my weird personal preference....might on occasion rather go look at some photos of some stunning dudes than read some/most of those topics. Edit: I didn't do the "smiley" face under #8....it popped up on its own.

Rather classy that James and Outwebmaster haven't responded in kind to the nasty manner in which GB has attempted, ad nauseum, to make his point.

Seems somewhat puzzling to me that somebody who's long proclaimed to be an investment guru in the West is now claiming to be a source of expertise about agricultural employment in Thailand. Perhaps, Shamahan, it would help all non-believers, including myself, if you might state how it is that you gained your asserted expertise in this area. Be that as it may be, my gut simply tells me that there is no way that 2/3rd's of the Thai population is involved in agriculture. Checking a few websites...including the World Bank and even the CIA.........they seem to list 38-40% of the employed population as involved in agriculture and that seems a bit more sensical to me. And note they're talking about a population of those who are employed (i.e., if one included the entire population including the kiddies, grannies, retired, etc., the percentage of the entire population involved in agriculture would even be lower).

I didn't mean in any respect that the program was "stupid" in the sense it was intended to provide money to the poor farmers....as I think that's a great idea. It's only "stupid" in the sense that the government ran much of the program (the government renting warehouses, the government handling commercial sales, etc.). Governments generally totally screw things up when they get involved in private enterprise or intervene in commodity markets. And it was dumb as hell in my opinion to buy rice from the farmers at prices way above market prices (and way above what Burma, Vietnam, and others were selling rice for on the open market). Couldn't they envision they'd end up screwing up the market (and that this almost guaranteed they'd be sitting on a whole lot of rice that would rot over time in the warehouses)? It would have been cheaper and smarter to just pay some money directly to the farmers to raise their living standards and to let the farmers and local mechanisms work out the market price of rice. But, like in the US, I would have definitely limited how much a single farmer or business would have been paid so that a few big corporate farms didn't suck up most of the government handouts.

Besides the relevance to this forum (really related to gay Thailand?), one probably good investment tip is that people with money to invest probably ought to do a fair amount of research themselves and/or talk to trusted investment advisers prior to committing any significant portion of their assets to any investment scheme. Rational research, by the by, probably doesn't include reading "investment advice" on internet message boards.

The way this has all played out has been rather pathetic to me. (1) First, a man with some guns takes power, abolishes the constitution, and deposes the elected Prime Minister. Then the guy with the guns appoints what he has the balls to call a national legislature (filled, of course, with a bunch of military cronies). Then, lo and behold (surprise, surprise!), the hand-picked bunch of "legislators" unanimously picks the man with the guns as Prime Minister (hmmm....has any legislature anywhere at any time in history ever unanimously picked a prime minister of a country?). Then the military boys (whoops, I mean the "legislature") impeach the old Prime Minister who really isn't the Prime Minister anymore (because the man with the guys said she wasn't!). And, adding to that little scenario is the "technical" problem that the only power to impeach was enshrined in the constitution that the man with the guns already abolished (and, forgot, in his military wisdom, to include in his interim charter)! (2) Second, somebody failed to mention or even submit any evidence on the subject of how the former Prime Minister even benefitted by a single satang due to the rice-pledging scheme created by the last/only elected legislature. She, as Prime Minister of a country is supposed to micromanage the socialist program? I really can't see David Cameron bothering with that all too much. (3) Finally, the "bad" thing that happened was that this socialist program (not dissimilar to the prior rice-pledging program passed by the Democrats!) actually lost money! Damn, wasn't that fully expected? Since when has any give-away program been expected to do anything other than cost a government a ton of money? I'm almost beginning to wonder if the new "Prime Minister's" recent cash donations to the rice farmers made any money. I'd note that the rice-pledging program was likely a stupid idea in the first place. Letting any government handle any economic program of this sort is probably a surefire way to lead to huge losses. And adding in the Thai penchant for corruption at every level (buying the rice, storing the rice, safeguarding the rice, and selling the rice) only guaranteed the losses were going to be even bigger than normal. It's funny, though, that I haven't read a single newspaper article describing a single arrest of any individual who allegedly miss-appropriated or miss-used any of the rice or funds involved in the whole process. One almost begins to wonder as to what color shirts are worn by all those middlemen....

I'm not sure how I use my online (SCB) account to transfer funds to an account in another bank as I've never tried doing that. I do regularly transfer funds to the beloved's account (also at SCB) and I remember that I had to "link" the account somehow at a local SCB branch. Since then, I simply transfer funds on occasion with a few clicks of the mouse and all the transfers have been without any cost whatsoever. I'd note that the "linking" simply identifies the other account and doesn't imply or allow anyone else (including the beloved) access to my account or my account information. And, whereas Michael was able to do the "linking" online, I did it at the branch bank long ago (perhaps....haven't tried it....I could link online now). Another nice safety feature is that I get an email notice and SMS notice from SCB every single time anybody (only me) accesses the online account or transfers funds from the account. The notices come within seconds and have a link to use in the event that anything should be amiss with the access or transfer. Extremely easy, efficient, and safe.

They have served alcohol on some occasions in the past on the King's birthday. If I recall right, it was the King himself that asked that alcohol not be banned on his birthday.

Sorry for drifting off topic but I'm wondering how many people actually take the time to copy/photograph all the important documents they typically carry in their wallets.....such as drivers licenses, credit cards (including the backside which typically contains the telephone numbers to call in case the cards are lost/stolen), ATM cards (ditto on the backside), medical insurance cards, etc. Just photograph them and store the photos in a folder on your computer or phone or, I suppose, send the photos to yourself in an email which you can access anywhere. And, while you're at it, include photos of the critical pages of your passport. Might not prevent a theft or loss but it'll sure make it easier for you to prove who you are, notify credit card companies and banks, and simply recover from the loss of important documents.

Reading the story and seeing the photos first reminds me of my strong dislike as to how the Thai system regularly treats criminal suspects. And I'm surprised they didn't have a photo of the alleged wallet snatcher re-enacting the crime. So much for any presumption of innocence. [i'd note that it occasionally happens in the west too when a shady prosecutor intentionally parades a suspect in front of the press] The story says the suspect shown in the photo is 25 years old. Damn, I would have guessed about 40!

By "special pictures", I'm guessing you want to see one of the sex shows around here. Okay, here's one....

My favorite little town up here in the boonies is Mae Hong Son; however, it's a long car ride (about 8 hours).....although you can take a relatively inexpensive and quick flight via Kan Air. No obvious gay life there but a lovely little town. Here are a couple of shots:

Glad it was worth a chuckle. I keep telling myself to use the spellchecker and/or simply read what I write before posting it; however, I too often forget.

First, apologies to the OP for being off-topic. As Firecat accurately stated, you only appear to castigate and throw your little barbs and, as others have said, not once that I can recall have you offered any substantive help or information to anybody. When I see your board name here, I suddenly have the urge to grab a can of mosquito spray. As for retirement visas, it continues to amaze me that the only ones who get bent out of shape when that term is used are pendants like you. No foreigner (well, except the pendants) refers to the "one year extension based on retirement" as anything other than a "retirement visa." And no immigration officer I've spoken to in private has ever called it anything other than a "retirement visa." Come to think of it, at the recent speech given by the Chiangmai Chief of Immigration and his associates to our expat club up here, their references too were only to a "retirement visa." I also recall a chat I had with two immigration officers where they answered "retirement visa" when I asked them (pointing at my "extension") what they would call it and, when I then went on to explain that some falang get all hot and bothered when people use that term, one of the officers blurted out "falang baa!" He wasn't referring to me.