Gaybutton

I don't agree with his post at all, but regarding that comment, the way he uses it within his post, I believe he was being sarcastic, not serious.

It's fine right where it is and I think this forum is the most appropriate for it.

How many have you met . . . . . ?

To me the solution is quite simple. The gun people in the USA keep saying they have a constitutional right to have guns. I think that's debatable, but fine with me. Let them have all the guns they want; their children too. No toy guns. Let 'em have real ones. No problem. Just ban bullets.

I don't think anyone is disputing that. Once it's in the media, yes of course it's fair game. Whether Palin brought her daughter into it or not, and whether the daughter is an adult or not, the issue is Palin, not her daughter. I think the children of politicians should be left alone. The chosen career of their parents is neither their own fault nor something over which they have control. I think they are entitled to their private lives, scandalous or not, without being plagued by the media that would otherwise totally ignore them.

Damn! That's too bad. Oh well, my second favorite has always been Maxwell House and that is sold here in Thailand. Based on what people have said about Moccona, that's going to be the next coffee I'll try. Maybe I'll like it even better than Maxwell House. What's really a shame is that so many restaurants serve Nescafe instant. As far as I'm concerned, that tastes more like sewer sludge than coffee. I have no idea why they all serve Nescafe, but that's what most restaurants, with the exception of better restaurants, give you. And they even charge for a second cup of that stuff.

I fail to see your point. How are unintentional accidents comparable to intentional multiple murders?

I'd bet just about anything the "we" part is what ruined it for you. I advise re-applying, this time without any "we." Let him go himself. Don't have him show pictures of a wedding ceremony or anything at all to even hint he is gay. Have him show only the documentation they ask for. Don't add things they never asked for. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if this time they grant him the visa.

In the USA I always liked the coffee served by Dunkin' Donuts the best. I don't even like donuts, but I would always buy their packaged coffee. They sold it there. Dunkin' Donuts is right here in Thailand, but so far it has never occurred to me to even stop in and try seeing if they sell just the packaged coffee to brew at home. Anybody know?

Well, so far it seems to be great for provoking wars, justifying murder and torture, wearing interesting clothing, molesting young boys, and acquiring more money than Madoff ever dreamed about. "The only good thing ever to come out of religion was the music." - George Carlin

That's hard to say. Usually it does cool down a little bit this time of year, but not all that much. The comfort level is going to depend much more on humidity than temperature.

The following appears in the BANGKOK POST: _____ A cell at the New York's Metropolitan Correctional Center Madoff Wakes Up to Life as Prisoner By: AFP NEW YORK - Bernard Madoff awoke Friday -- at 6:00 am and in a narrow bunk -- on the first day of his new life as Prisoner 61727-054 after pleading guilty to massive fraud. The spartan eight-by-seven-and-a-half foot (2.43-by-2.28-meters) cell at New York's Metropolitan Correctional Center will be home for Madoff, 70, until he is sentenced on June 16. While the confessed multi-billion-dollar conman settles in, federal investigators are examining who helped him perpetuate the "unprecedented" Ponzi scheme, in which thousands of investors were targeted over decades. "We are continuing to investigate the fraud and will bring additional charges against anyone..., as warranted," US prosecutor Lev Dassin said. Victims revelled in Madoff's jailing and US media immediately published pictures of the type of cell that one of the country's most hated men now occupies. Pictures show there's just enough room to stand, wash and get dressed in the room -- a far cry from the seven-million-dollar Manhattan apartment that he lived in with wife Ruth until Thursday. Space will be even tighter if Madoff has to share his bunk bed with another prisoner at the Correctional Center, which holds the gamut of accused and convicted criminals, whether terrorists, gangsters, killers or rapists. Lights go on at 6 am, with breakfast half an hour later, lunch at 11 am and dinner at 5 pm, ABC television reported. At 11 pm, it's bedtime. After decades of pretending to be an investor, Madoff will have the chance to do some real work at the center, including janitorial duty. Alternatively, he could visit the prison library, which has a special section of books on the law. If he does have a cellmate -- not always a good thing in prison -- they could play ping pong or watch television in the common area. Should he like the life, Madoff is lucky: he faces being sentenced to as much as 150 years in a federal institution. And if he isn't happy, there's still an upside, MSNBC television pointed out. "He gets to avoid this less than desirable address: Death Row." The FBI and prosecutors are looking to see who else might go behind bars. Many of Madoff's victims are frustrated by the absence of other suspects and lack of progress on recovering the billions of dollars that vanished. Madoff pleaded guilty to 11 counts, but not conspiracy, something that would have flagged that investigators were closing in on others. But it's not possible that Madoff acted alone, victims say. "Just to produce the reams of documents that were received and the elaborate data that went into them must have required an army of people to produce," said George Nierenberg, one of the three victims allowed to address the court during Madoff's plea hearing. The media spotlight is falling increasingly on Madoff's family and close colleagues -- Ruth, brother Peter, and sons Mark and Andrew. On Thursday, Madoff sought to build a firewall around them, telling the court they worked for parts of his empire that were separate to his illegal activities and were "legitimate, profitable and successful." Lawyers said Friday that the authorities who failed to uncover Madoff's scam must now come to the rescue. "After Madoff pleads guilty at the hearing, it is time to take care of the victims," said a statement from The Global Alliance of Law Firms on the Madoff Case, which is pushing for an international court to deliver justice.

I agree, but I doubt I could get away with pretending I was actually enjoying it when in reality I would prefer to be racked and tortured. What I would do is give him some money and tell him to go with a couple of his friends and have a wonderful time. I think he would appreciate that much more anyhow than dragging me along with him.

I do know some of it. The major factor is that the applicant must demonstrate a "compelling reason" to return to Thailand. That means strong family ties, a good, well paying job that he has held for a substantial period of time, property ownership, a healthy bank account, again held over a substantial period of time (so that nobody could stuff his account just to get him the visa), his level of education, and anything else that provides clear evidence of that all-important "compelling reason" to return to Thailand. I also know that if the embassy has any reason to suspect that the applicant has ever been involved with prostitution, you can forget about him ever being approved for a visa. Unfortunately, based on Pattayaplayers' and Sabaisabai's posts, even if the applicant can well-document everything the embassy is looking for, the interviewer can still reject him for no good reason at all. All you can do is try. I could be wrong, but I have a feeling the worst thing you can personally do is to go to the embassy with him, especially during the interview. Getting the visa has to be his own show. Also, if a farang is accompanying a young Thai man, that alone might be enough to cause the interviewer to suspect prostitution. You can find most of the information on the USA Embassy's web site at: http://bangkok.usembassy.gov/visas/visa-services.html You also might be interested in the following: http://www.integrity-legal.com/us-visa/us-...r-services.html

Wow! And that didn't even make the headlines? I wish I was there to see that! I think most people can tell the difference between a serious statement and someone just kidding around or joking, as I was doing just now. While I can understand how the intent of Geezer's post could have been misinterpreted, I can tell you that knowing Geezer as I do, and I'll guarantee that any of his friends would say the same thing, probably nobody on this planet is more cautious about taking an under-age boy. Geezer won't take a boy at all unless he thoroughly checks the boy's ID. If the boy is so much as one day younger than 18 years old, Geezer won't take him, and I'm not exaggerating.

Apparently to all except for the interviewer. The interviewer could simply be in a bad mood, but gets to deny people a visa simply on the strength of that, despite the fact that the applicant has met every requirement flawlessly. You said this is by design. Why is that the design? At the moment, that's on my "I Don't Get It" list. Do you know why they want to do things that way? Did anyone explain to you the logic behind that kind of policy? I can't make sense of it. I thought that was the very kind of thing the USA is supposed to be against.

I agree. Who even cares about Palin's kids? They leave the Obama kids alone. They leave Chelsea Clinton alone. They leave Julie and Tricia Nixon alone. They leave Biden's kids alone. They even leave Bush's kids alone. Why can't they leave Palin's kids alone?

Actually, 16 is legal in Thailand, provided no money exchanges hands. The trouble is, who's going to believe a 16 year old is with a farang four times his age, but no money exchanged hands, even if it's true? 18 and older, folks . . . please.

Maybe it's because he missed . . .

I thought this commentary was well worth reading and I agree with every word of it: _____ Commentary: We'll Never Know Why They Kill By Bob Greene CNN Contributor Editor's note: CNN Contributor Bob Greene is a bestselling author whose forthcoming book is "Late Edition: A Love Story." (CNN) -- Carnage in Germany, carnage in Alabama, and one of the most saddening aspects of the killings is this: The impulse to ask "why," while present, seems somehow muted. There will be a search for answers -- why did Michael K. McLendon, the gunman in the American South, murder 10 people, why did Tim Kretschmer, the gunman in the German South, murder 15 people -- but even when a tentative answer is arrived upon, it almost certainly won't mean much. Because the real answer we're searching for -- the answer that will stop these bursts of bloodshed -- seems destined to ever elude us. There is always an impulse to blame obscene killing sprees on outside stimuli. In the years just after World War II, comic books were cited as an incitement for young people to harm each other. Violent television programs were subsequently blamed, as video games sometimes are today. The connective theory has long been: if society desensitizes people to violence, if violence becomes a commodity, then it will proliferate. If people are passively taught that violence is everywhere, then violence will sprout, if not everywhere, then many wheres. But to place the brunt of the blame for this on outside forces is to duck a truth that we are understandably reluctant to face: the impulse to murder without remorse seems to be, in some people, almost like a learned language, deriving from somewhere deep and difficult to find. Thankfully, it remains relatively rare, although during weeks like this one it is not easy to take much comfort in that. Yet with each new torrent of killings, with each new demonstration that, to some among us, the idea of spreading heartache and horror is not only acceptable, but attractive... With each new demonstration of that, we find ourselves once again looking for lessons, in a search that can seem perpetually futile. Are the gunmen in cases like these out to make a name for themselves? If so, they are ordained to fail; there was a time when multiple, random murders were enough to give the perpetrators such notoriety that their names became catchphrases. Charlie Starkweather, whose name means nothing to most people today, had more than one movie made about him after his killing spree on the American Plains in the 1950s. There was a time when we could ascribe, to people who murdered without mercy, a dark desire for the worst kind of fame. But that's gone. Those names you read in the second paragraph of this story -- Michael McLendon, Tim Kretschmer -- may be freshly in the news today, but you will have forgotten them in a month or two. That's one more numbing sign of just how ordinary extraordinary violence has become: the names fail to stick. The protagonists are interchangeable. How to stop this? There has long been a debate over whether the death penalty is a deterrent to murder, but this week the murderers themselves are both dead, and almost certainly they considered that probability before they set out to kill. The learned language of violence seems to contain a concession, on the part of those who absorb it, that their acts may very well conclude with their own dying -- and that the price, in their minds, is acceptable, even, perhaps, sought. Which may be the most chilling lesson of all. Because if even death for those who do it is not enough to stop the profane slaughters around the globe, then our impotence in the face of this feels all the more profound. Whatever our need may be to grasp for answers, the killers, by dying on the day they kill, deny us the chance for even that scant solace. It's the ultimate taunt; it is as if they are saying: You want to know why? You'll never know. Which leaves us with only one certainty: Before long -- in a matter of days, or weeks, or months -- we'll be asking these questions again. The names will change; the specks on the map will be different. But somewhere, someone who has learned the wordless language of spreading hurt and grief will do this once more, and we will pause anew in our daily lives to wonder what has become of us. And feel all the more empty at the silence that greets our question.

Obviously it can't hurt anything to be cautious, and I fully agree that one would be taking a serious risk by taking a boy with him who has no ID, but again I have never heard of farang arrested for harboring when he took a boy off from a bar, no matter what his nationality is. As a matter of fact, I have never heard of any farang arrests when he took any boy off from a bar. As far as ID is concerned, if a Laotian boy has a valid passport with a valid visa that has not yet expired, then you're not harboring. Under those circumstances he is in Thailand legally. He and the bar would have a problem if it is discovered he is illegally working in a bar, but you wouldn't. However, I still wouldn't advise taking him under any circumstances unless he at least can produce his passport and visa and he is at least 18 years old. If he can't, then if it were me I would tell him it was nice to meet him and maybe I'll see him around some time. If he can produce those, then I don't see an element of risk for the farang at all, but people have to make their own decisions. Obviously, there is no question about it if the boy is Thai, so people have to make their own choice regarding risk and whether taking the risk is worth it to them. Under any circumstances, to my mind the basic universal precaution is very simple: No ID=No Off.

Considering the number of possibilities, it's going to be difficult to respond to that because there's no way to know what you have and have not discovered. However, your post brings the word "cookies" to mind . . .

In other words, it really is up to the whim of the interviewer and the interviewer doesn't have to answer to anybody or justify a thing. "I don't like your face." Rejected! "Your shoe is untied." Rejected! "You have a tattoo." Rejected! "You don't know the second verse of The Star Spangled Banner." Rejected! "You forgot the date of Mamie Eisenhower's birthday." Rejected! Apparently it really is as simple as that. And some of us complain about immigration procedures in Thailand? That's true, but it wouldn't kill them to at least give a hint to the person they reject, especially if he met all the published application criteria and had all the necessary paperwork. I get the feeling they reject applicants if they suspect they might be gay. After all, we can't have gay foreigners running loose in the USA. That's a no no. No no no no nooooooo!

I don't see why not. I've written many lengthy, detailed articles for people who come to these boards. Since you brought up the issue in the first place, I don't see why you can't do the same thing. Nobody is asking you to post any kind of personal information, if that's the problem, just some "dos and don'ts" guidelines for people trying to get a visa for a boyfriend, based on your own experience. It's an 'up to you.' Meanwhile, since the interview was so short and his application was rejected, apparently by sheer whim of the interviewer, did you investigate whether it was possible to go to someone higher in authority, check if there is an appeals process, or file some sort of complaint about the fact that she refused to even look at the paperwork? Did she give a reason for the rejection?

I'm sorry, but that decision, at least on this board, rests entirely with Travelerjim. It was his post and he has the right to be the one to decide whether to re-post it or not, just as you or any other poster would have. I would not presume to make that decision for him. The only way I would ever do something like that would be if a post was removed by a moderator, against the wishes of the poster, but we were later convinced we were wrong to do so. In this case, Travelerjim made his own decision and we will respect his decision. If he wishes to reinstate his post, that will also be his own decision. We will abide by whatever he chooses to do. However, you can still have that civilized debate. While we won't resurrect Jim's post against his wishes, I don't think he would object to seeing a debate about the basic issue that he brought out - namely that several bars hire Laotian boys illegally and what effect that might have on farang who do not realize they are with a Laotian boy rather than a Thai boy. I'm sure you can easily figure out the gist of the issue from reading my own first post on this thread.