SteeleJoe

Answer to question in Topic Title:

Apparently I could, because I did.

I was 19 and knew no one here...

Likewise.

I was not 19 at the time but knew people here who were of some assistance, but not essential.

I can't even remember being 19, but am pretty sure I was once, although I suspect at 19 I would have made a real hash out of settling in Thailand.

I know I was once nineteen as I've got photos. And even some memories...

As for people being of assistance, I had plenty - some old hand expats and some Thais I met due to my openness and keen interest in Kettering them (due in part to my youth - which also increased people's interest in me and likely increased the degree to which they wanted to help . But I took the OP's question - and I still do - to be something quite different: guys who meet someone, get in a relationship and then that person largely facilitates their settlement. That wasn't my story.

I found a place to live - in an all Thai neighborhood (and in those days, unlike now, there were places in Bangkok where you'd NEVER see non-Thais), got work (because I already had about 5 years DJing and befriended DJs who let me play and then was offered work - which led to other things), and asked people questions and - as I always have - read a LOT on a subject that greatly interested me: in this case, Thailand.

Women? Loads and loads and they were definitely part of what I was enjoying but they were a byproduct of my approach to life here rather than a reason for it. Some of them gave me some practical assistance but most of them were around my age but in some ways less worldly and not necessarily a lot more capable than I.

rayongchealsea's initial post segues into a diatribe about sexpats, e.g., "love at first blowjob"; that was where I got my context from about quality of expat. I don't think I'm being subjective here; it's obvious what he meant.

I'm not trying to be hostile or defensive toward you. In hindsight it appears if I misunderstood you, it's because you took RC's post out of context by cherry picking his statement: it's quite clear he was inferring quality -- guys back then were adventurers now they're mostly just horny old men.

The subjective part is when you decide a well travelled and self sufficient adventurer type is "higher quality" than someone who comes here because they heard they could get laid cheaply etc. Generally speaking, I (and you) may like the former sort more than the latter - with some exceptions - but that is SUBJECTIVE.

Context? Well I deliberately isolated the part that really resonated with me and that didn't even come close to judging other people but...

I agree with the poster when he speaks of "love at first blowjob" - sometimes it is literally that, I imagine, and I know for sure that some guys lose their heads (ahem) and settle down with the first Thai that they have a great sexual experience with. I also largely agree that those people - and people inclined to be swayed in that manner - are not equipped to live here, do not absorb the culture, live in a dependency bubble created by the partner".

And I agree that often "loss of independence..leads to a lot of trouble financially as well".

And I also agree that if at the end of the day they find happiness good for them, and that many don't.

So...context: I still largely agree. And I still don't have to decide who is "higher quality" or assume that such a thing applies to people or that they should be judged so simplistically and with so little nuance.

Yes, thank you, I know what subjective means. But I wasn't being subjective about RC's intended meaning. It is clear what he meant with regard to quality, and as you wrote again, it is clear that you agree. I am not talking about the subjectivity of what everyone else thinks. I replied to specific statements made my specific individuals.

Your user name is quite apt, as you're decidedly inflexible. But despite your attempts to play semantics, it's rather transparent which of the two groups is of higher quality in your opinion. In liking his statement and agreeing, you made a judgement, even if now you want to try to take the high road. No need to be defensive about it. And at this point, if you accuse me of being defensive, I'll subjectively assume you're just projecting.

Wow.

You simply refuse to believe others don't think in the same way you do.

aTomsLife wrote:

Being self sufficient and well traveled as opposed to not being those things, if not quality, how do such characteristics rate? Nevermind, you're not interested in figuring it out. You just want to agree with someone's ideas without knowing what they mean. Sorry for interrupting.

And strongly suspecting something means you're inclined to believe that such is the case. Don't see how I misquoted you. You're just being specious.

* I like people who are well travelled and self-sufficient. They are not the only people I like nor are they necessarily better than people who can't be described as such but may have many other very fine qualities equally or more admirable.

* I agree with the words posted. I know what they mean - they have a clear meaning that is quite literal - and I don't need to interpret them in order to agree with them nor do I need to use your subjective terms to describe the sort of people who he is referring to.

* Strongly suspecting means "I'm inclined to believe" it is true. It clearly not the same as an absolute declaration that it IS true.

Not sure why you have to be hostile and defensive just because I don't think as you do but...whatever.

rayongchealsea's initial post segues into a diatribe about sexpats, e.g., "love at first blowjob"; that was where I got my context from about quality of expat. I don't think I'm being subjective here; it's obvious what he meant.

I'm not trying to be hostile or defensive toward you. In hindsight it appears if I misunderstood you, it's because you took RC's post out of context by cherry picking his statement: it's quite clear he was inferring quality -- guys back then were adventurers now they're mostly just horny old men.

The subjective part is when you decide a well travelled and self sufficient adventurer type is "higher quality" than someone who comes here because they heard they could get laid cheaply etc. Generally speaking, I (and you) may like the former sort more than the latter - with some exceptions - but that is SUBJECTIVE.

Context? Well I deliberately isolated the part that really resonated with me and that didn't even come close to judging other people but...

I agree with the poster when he speaks of "love at first blowjob" - sometimes it is literally that, I imagine, and I know for sure that some guys lose their heads (ahem) and settle down with the first Thai that they have a great sexual experience with. I also largely agree that those people - and people inclined to be swayed in that manner - are not equipped to live here, do not absorb the culture, live in a dependency bubble created by the partner".

And I agree that often "loss of independence..leads to a lot of trouble financially as well".

And I also agree that if at the end of the day they find happiness good for them, and that many don't.

So...context: I still largely agree. And I still don't have to decide who is "higher quality" or assume that such a thing applies to people or that they should be judged so simplistically and with so little nuance.

So is anyone going to help her find where to buy this seat for her bike rather than just bitching about the rights or wrongs of what she is doing? She didn't ask for opinions she asked for locations. What is wrong with the people on this forum who just have to try foist their perceptions of right and wrong on every one else.

A few people have given her help. Did you not read those posts or did you jus read the ones that you don't like?

This is a public forum and problem have every right to express an opinion. She had the right to respond (or not) to those opinions and defend hers, and she did. People further responded to her erstwhile defense.

Personally, I think this is an ethical issue. As such, I feel people are not unreasonable to express a position on it - and the simple fact is, if you post on a forum, you can't control what response you get...

My first thought - and possibly all the thought I'm going to give to it - is that I have seen Thai people wear the most breathtakingly inappropriate T shirts over the years (and I mean stuff they absolutely did NOT understand), so I'm not convinced there was any trout at all to any sort of meaning. "Aesthetically pleasing colors and graphic design. English words. Yeah, I'll have that..."

Quite possibly I do agree.

However, if this becomes a big trend, particularly with this holocaust angle, I won't be so sure.

BTW, it took me a while to read the shirt and when I did, I had a bit of a shock reaction to it.

Not because the text wasn't huge, it was HUGE, but because of the viewing angle and that I'm not always bothering reading people's t-shirts.

I noticed the wearer noticed that and didn't seem to be surprised.

So I think that one wearer knew there was something more to his shirt than fashion.

Pattaya is a city with many foreigners that I think would be similarly shocked as me.

I can imagine as a teen it would even be fun to watch foreigners freak out.

I also have to admit that graphically the t-shirt was quite artful if you ignore the words and symbol.

Freaking spellcheck is out of control "trout" should be "thought".

aTomsLife wrote:

Being self sufficient and well traveled as opposed to not being those things, if not quality, how do such characteristics rate? Nevermind, you're not interested in figuring it out. You just want to agree with someone's ideas without knowing what they mean. Sorry for interrupting.

And strongly suspecting something means you're inclined to believe that such is the case. Don't see how I misquoted you. You're just being specious.

* I like people who are well travelled and self-sufficient. They are not the only people I like nor are they necessarily better than people who can't be described as such but may have many other very fine qualities equally or more admirable.

* I agree with the words posted. I know what they mean - they have a clear meaning that is quite literal - and I don't need to interpret them in order to agree with them nor do I need to use your subjective terms to describe the sort of people who he is referring to.

* Strongly suspecting means "I'm inclined to believe" it is true. It clearly not the same as an absolute declaration that it IS true.

Not sure why you have to be hostile and defensive just because I don't think as you do but...whatever.

OK, here's a new to one.

To me.

Many people say it would be a good thing for Thai people to become more educated about Hitler, Nazis, WW2, the holocaust, etc.

I agree.

Well what do you make of this?

Today on a Pattaya baht bus sighted a Thai teen wearing a very loud bright yellow t-shirt.

On the top large text: ADOLF HITLER

middle graphic: Nazi Swastika

On the bottom large text: HOLOCAUST

Is this part of the new "education" program?

No I didn't confront the wearer.

Supposing this becomes a trend, with Thai teens wearing this kind of t-shirt en masse, especially this holocaust wrinkle, what does it mean?

Is it still just fashion? Is it teens rebellion, shocking adults for fun? Or what? I don't get it.

I actually was a bit shocked so if that's the goal, it worked on me.

I had to wonder, yes Hitler, Nazis, Holocaust, I get the connection, what is the message of the t-shirt? Pro, con, or nothing?

My first thought - and possibly all the thought I'm going to give to it - is that I have seen Thai people wear the most breathtakingly inappropriate T shirts over the years (and I mean stuff they absolutely did NOT understand), so I'm not convinced there was any trout at all to any sort of meaning. "Aesthetically pleasing colors and graphic design. English words. Yeah, I'll have that..."

OP seems smart but stubborn who doesn't like to shut up an just accept the truth.

Sad for her, I have already seen a dead baby on the road and it looks bad.

OP is right, we are always exposed to risk without even doing something dangerous, but why add more risk to a baby life ? It is just plain stupid whatever the OP thinks.

But she has a nice car and a nice apt (bought) on 43rd floor on Wong Amat beach, one side facing koh Larn and the other side facing whole pattaya city! She doesn't make a fuss and say the westerners are "committing suicide" everyday by damaging their stomach with cold drinks! she doesn't point out social consequences of the welfare system in EU. This danger you speak of is too generalized. Besides her brother in law did it. And 9/11 didn't put an end to air travel.

And it's a good way to experience local life.

Answer to question in Topic Title:

Apparently I could, because I did.

I was 19 and knew no one here...

.

Maybe a new topic some day. I hope so.

How does a 19 year old immigrate to and remain in Thailand?

Haha, all I can say is, if *I* had discovered Thailand at age 19 (I first went there when I was 40), I would be dead today. Died happy, to be sure, but dead for sure...!

Truth be told, I came pretty damn close.

Stand on your own two feet...no question..100% right..

The biggest difference between foreigners who came here through the 70, 80 and most of 90 was that they were self sufficient well travelled etc..who came for the travel experience and found out about its charms later..basically looking for adventure, these types still exist but go else where now..

I regret that it will sound like another version of the tired old "well, you should have seen like it USED to be.../ It was much better when I got here..." and so on - guys were saying it when I got here - but I strongly suspect that the above is largely true. Certainly it appears that way to me and it certainly applies with me and the guys I met when I got here and the few years after...

If the quality of westerner was so much higher back then, it stands to reason Thais were more inclined to be accommodating. Perhaps then, before the infamous 'farang fatigue' set in, a westerner didn't need a girlfriend to help because many others were happy to lend assistance to the charming, white skinned gentleman living next door.

When I got here, I didn't need much help -- but then I had the internet as a crutch.

Still, one instance where my girlfriend proved invaluable was when there were massive leaks in my ceiling. I was living in a top floor apartment in a new building and the roof wasn't sealed correctly. It was late in the evening when the rains came, the super had already retired to his apartment, and having her there to call and explain what was happening made everything seem ok. That was during my first year here. Now I speak enough Thai myself and would be able to make that phone call and explain things. But at that time, knowing she could help me like that gave me great peace of mind.

I never used the word "quality" and I honestly don't think in those terms about people - generally speaking and certainly not in this instance. I believe, for the most part, the people who settled back then were different than those decades later; different, not "better" (or necessarily worse). I mean there were a LOT of less than reputable guys around doing unsavory things to varying degrees - many of them people who I liked and who added to the allure of the place - and I don't think of them (or myself) as having been a "higher quality".

In rayongchelsea's post, to me quality is clearly inferred. You responded by saying "the above is largely true". If I was mistaken, my apologies.

I can only comment on what I posted and have no interest in trying to figure out what the other poster was or wasn't "inferring" but it seems to me that "Quality" is your judgement. In any case, it never would have occurred to me think of people in those terms and on reflection I still wouldn't about the sort of people described in that post.

And you have misquoted me. What I said was I STRONGLY SUSPECTED the above is true and what was above was (the part I had quoted): "The biggest difference between foreigners who came here through the 70, 80 and most of 90 was that they were self sufficient well travelled etc..who came for the travel experience and found out about its charms later..basically looking for adventure...".

I don't think those people are "higher quality" than other people.

ERROR

Stand on your own two feet...no question..100% right..

The biggest difference between foreigners who came here through the 70, 80 and most of 90 was that they were self sufficient well travelled etc..who came for the travel experience and found out about its charms later..basically looking for adventure, these types still exist but go else where now..

I regret that it will sound like another version of the tired old "well, you should have seen like it USED to be.../ It was much better when I got here..." and so on - guys were saying it when I got here - but I strongly suspect that the above is largely true. Certainly it appears that way to me and it certainly applies with me and the guys I met when I got here and the few years after...

If the quality of westerner was so much higher back then, it stands to reason Thais were more inclined to be accommodating. Perhaps then, before the infamous 'farang fatigue' set in, a westerner didn't need a girlfriend to help because many others were happy to lend assistance to the charming, white skinned gentleman living next door.

When I got here, I didn't need much help -- but then I had the internet as a crutch.

Still, one instance where my girlfriend proved invaluable was when there were massive leaks in my ceiling. I was living in a top floor apartment in a new building and the roof wasn't sealed correctly. It was late in the evening when the rains came, the super had already retired to his apartment, and having her there to call and explain what was happening made everything seem ok. That was during my first year here. Now I speak enough Thai myself and would be able to make that phone call and explain things. But at that time, knowing she could help me like that gave me great peace of mind.

I never used the word "quality" and I honestly don't think in those terms about people - generally speaking and certainly not in this instance. I believe, for the most part, the people who settled back then were different than those decades later; different, not "better" (or necessarily worse). I mean there were a LOT of less than reputable guys around doing unsavory things to varying degrees - many of them people who I liked and who added to the allure of the place - and I don't think of them (or myself) as having been a "higher quality".

In some sence, it is a pity that this thread is being misused like it is. It is the normal crowd of guys who have no problems whatsoever, and they are so extremely well fitted into society here in Thailand.

I think myself that the more a person is screaming out his own perfection and success in adapting into the thai way of life, the more of a failure is he in real life. I have been on this forum (Thaivisa) now I think since 2008, and I see all these millions of questions coming from guys that have absolutely no clue whatsoever, more than ordering in a beer at the bar, or buying food at Foodland..

Where are all these guys, that could have answered here in this thread. Because what I read here sofar, is mostly the normal kind of people that never in a lifetime will take a good idea and make something useful of it...

So much bullcrap in one thread, come on be honest, dont be so naiv and clever and never dare to open up.... OK I shall start than....I think that the OP has a point here,,,,, In many cases there are a woman behind the expat who is helping him to learn about the practicle obsticles in living his life here, and without this woman it would be so much harder to find out.....

Glegolo

If a topic is begun with a question that makes an assumption that simply isn't accurate in regards to me (among others), is it a misuse of the thread to point that out in my answer?

Speaking for myself, I never claimed to have no problems.

Stand on your own two feet...no question..100% right..

The biggest difference between foreigners who came here through the 70, 80 and most of 90 was that they were self sufficient well travelled etc..who came for the travel experience and found out about its charms later..basically looking for adventure, these types still exist but go else where now..

I regret that it will sound like another version of the tired old "well, you should have seen like it USED to be.../ It was much better when I got here..." and so on - guys were saying it when I got here - but I strongly suspect that the above is largely true. Certainly it appears that way to me and it certainly applies with me and the guys I met when I got here and the few years after...

The "I have a policy of not commenting on parenting skills, but here's my comment about your parenting skills" Brigade

The "deliberately twisting people's word" brigade.

The "that implied criticism of someone else made me angrily defensive" brigade.

BNH. Both kids born there. Can not say enough about the place: very, very impressed with quality of medical care and customer service.

Sorry, it's not readily apparent on the iPad app what forum one is in: just noticed you are in CM...I'm not.

I'm using True to post this while True Visions is playing on the TV: we've had no disruption of service.

It has eff all to do with being PC.

That term has become a simplistic unthinking rebuttal for so many arguments that are in fact based on ethics or genuine beliefs and while I've seen it used in the service of rejecting all sorts of things, this is frankly one of the dumbest examples I've seen.

Decry the increased concern for safety of society today compared to generations past and argue that it's gone too far - I think there are some valid points to be made there. But to ascribe - with no cause at all - the genuine objections people might have to someone unnecessarily endangering their child to them being "PC"...that's just lame.

.....adults differ greatly even of same age (some 40 look like 70, vice versa), so do babies (some can already walk stably of 10 months, some still have no teeth of 12 months.). We are a sporty family. I rode motorbike alone to BPH for delivery on that day ! If you are strong and alert, you have more control and confidence. So long as the safety methods are done, no need to have panic. How many people still get killed every year, even with the proper car seat and belt on?! Once you're on road, your safety is a bilateral thing. What can you do if a drunken fool is driving a heavy truck towards you ?!?!

I'm not riding motorbike like in Grand Prix, and I ride mostly in sois for shopping and sightseeing, and mostly in the early morning (when most of the *@(#&$(*#&$(*@#$& have just fallen asleep ))))))

I post here for info and advice, not for unreasonable accuse . Be fair!

Where to begin...

Yes, babies developmental levels vary and one 9 month old can differ from another. I'm not aware of ANY 9 month old who would be developed to such a different extent that it would affect the degree to which that child could withstand an accident - so what possible difference does the difference you speak of make?

A sporty family? Whatever that means, I can't imagine how it would increase your 9 month old infant's safety - no matter how "sporty" you may think he/she is.

You rode alone on delivery day? Sounds like another example of questionable regard for safety of your child but in any case, it has ZERO relevance to the child's safety now.

Control and confidence? Hmmm...does that mean you can not get in an accident? Do you realize that the vast majority of people injured or killed on motorcycles had (perceived) control and confidence?

Panic? Who is panicking? What does that have to do with anything?

You negate your whole argument above with the acknowledgement that no matter how you drive, an accident can occur. But you offer that as a reason why taking a baby on a motorcycle is OK - that's remarkably unthinking. Take a moment to consider: if you and your baby are in a car and the baby is secured in a seat and your car is struck by another at say 30kph - what will happen to you and your baby? Now imagine you are on a motorcycle...

Your first post struck me as someone who was sacrificing safety for convenience but without much thought. Now you actually try to defend your choice and the argument reveals how incredibly foolish you are about it.

By the way, I rode motorcycles very seriously (even competitively, as an amateur racer) for 30 years. I am not anti-motorcycle. But anyone who thinks they aren't taking a degree of risk virtually every time they go out on the road, simply hasn't got a clue. Someone taking that risk for themselves - as I did tens of thousands of times - has every right to. Someone deliberately exposing a baby to that risk...

Well, I will leave that unsaid.

I think people are falsely focusing on the irrelevant question, is Zimmerman a "racist" or not a racist.

That isn't really the point at all.

Indeed.

So again why were the FBI investigators interviewing his co-workers and fiance etc. who to the best of my knowledge were not on the scene that 26 February 2012 7 PM at Retreat at Twin Lakes other than to establish a general profile?

BTW that was the previous headline in the Miami herald article as was contained and linked to in the Wikipedia article on this case Footnote 207. as retrieved 16 JULY 2012

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Trayvon_Martin

I have not claimed they were or were not trying to establish a general profile - for all I know they may have been but it has nothing to do with me or the headline - the point is that they have not stated he is not a racist or even that there was no evidence that he is.

And there is a significant difference in saying 'we have no evidence that this man is a racist' and 'there is no evidence that this shooting happened because of race"...

Not a big deal but I see a LOT of things get twisted on both sides of this case and I think the demonizing AND the idealizing needs to stop as does any slight embellishment (conscious or not) that favors or disfavor a either side. (And this one has gained widespread acceptance - even by newspaper copywriters but that don't make it so)