Cory1848

14 minutes ago, jeab1980 said:

Time to leave this drivel now typical god fearing preachers getting there one and only lines in.

?? -- Man, did you eat some bad fish last night, or what ??

10 minutes ago, MrPatrickThai said:

Have you ever shared at an AA meeting? 

Yes, occasionally, to the effect that I haven't had a drink in x number of years, that I haven't had any trouble with that so far, and that I don't know if I'm alcoholic or not but hope never to find out! I haven't been to a meeting in several years, although, reading these posts, it may not be a bad idea for me to go to a few again. And thanks for posting all the quotations from the Big Book on "recovered" -- I didn't know what it said, only what the current thinking is on that in my experience, and I've just emailed one of my alcoholic family members back in the US (who attends meetings regularly) to see what she has to say about it --

 

5 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

Fair enough, you saying, "I've never attended AA"confused me.

I've never "attended" specifically for my own personal benefit, or worked a program or had a sponsor, but I've been to plenty of meetings in support of others -- I have family members who are alcoholic.

19 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

Try going to an AA meeting, you'll learn a lot about the disease.

I wonder what the big book says, recovered or recovering?

I’ve been to a lot of AA meetings -- mostly as a guest accompanying other people who are alcoholics. Everyone I’ve talked to, in meetings and elsewhere, call themselves “recovering alcoholics,” regardless of how much sobriety they have, and they are insistent on that phrase. I’m also aware that AA is not a monolithic organization and that there are different schools of thought; some AA groups may encourage the idea of recovery. If calling yourself “recovered” helps restore self-esteem, then that’s a good thing, but I still consider such a claim to be hubris, knowing too many people who thought they’d been “cured” only to fall right back into it again.

 

As for the Big Book, I’ve read parts of it but not all -- and it certainly has tremendous value, but I wouldn’t call it the “last word” any more than I'd call a religious text the last word on the human condition. I don’t know if it says you can be “cured” of alcoholism or not, but on that question, I would put more stock in how modern medicine and psychology weigh in.

24 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

Still recovering after 35 years?!!

Work the steps dude, then you will be recovered. I assume you haven't, but apologize if wrong.

 

 

Everything that I’ve read and heard about alcoholism (which is a lot) teaches that one is an alcoholic for life; there is no “cure” available. One can be sober for thirty years and still be “in recovery.” Another way to look at is, alcoholism is a condition that is exacerbated by drinking. It’s happened countless times that an alcoholic has been sober for decades, had one drink, and been right back where he was before he stopped drinking or worse, in just a matter of days.

One could argue perhaps that to say you are “in recovery” after thirty years of sobriety is a semantic trick, a way of looking at it that keeps you on guard. But to claim that you are a “recovered” alcoholic is hubris.

12 hours ago, chickenslegs said:

No need to be so sensitive.

My comment was intended to emphasise the (likely) true cause of the death, and was not directed at the Thai Visa News Team.

I am fully aware that the article is not an original TV piece, but copied from the Phuket News - I saw the link in bold lettering.

The article indeed says that the pickup driver opened his door "without caution," and he has been charged with "reckless driving causing injury and death." The headline may be vaguely misleading, but it looks like the police have accurately interpreted what happened. I've found that, in Thailand, drivers tend to be held responsible for everything that happens in front of them, even at just a split second's notice, in which case the dead woman's family would be responsible for repairing the pickup driver's door, but I'm glad to see it worked the other way here ...

12 hours ago, MrPatrickThai said:

How can you be active in a spiritual program with a spiritual solution if you are not spiritual? How can you do the 12 steps to get the necessary spiritual experience? I guess you don't believe in a "higher power".

Basically you are saying that AA is nonsense and you don't go, you can stay sober on your own. Well best of luck, sincerely. Have you ever thought that you might not be an alcoholic?

Years ago, I drank alcoholically. Then I quit and I haven’t drunk since. I’ve never attended AA, simply because I haven’t had to to stay sober, but I have all the respect in the world for AA and for those who attend and make an effort to work a program.

 

Because I’ve stayed sober and never worked an AA or other program, some people in AA have told me that, therefore, I’m not an alcoholic. To me, whether I’m an “alcoholic” or not is beside the point; all I can say is, if I were to ever drink even just a glass of beer, I have no way of knowing what would happen next. That uncertainty has been all I’ve ever needed to stay sober.

But I wouldn’t recommend the way I’ve done it to anyone who feels he or she might be an alcoholic or a problem drinker; I would wholeheartedly recommend AA -- not necessarily for the “spirituality tools” that AA offers, although those tools have helped countless people, but just to be with other people who want to be sober. And if I ever thought I was seriously close to taking a drink, I would make a beeline for the closest AA meeting I could find.

4 minutes ago, inThailand said:

 

More like a circus of clowns.

 

I don't think you got it.

4 minutes ago, TonyClifton said:

 

Unlike most other countries on planet Earth, the United States of America is the essence of greatness.  We have the foundation and the tools that everyone else does not.  

 

What we have more than anything, is still a generation that knows what greatness is and these are the people who voted for Trump. 

 

Trump is a patriot.

 

The rest of the world's leaders are pikers when compared.

 

Wow, that's some great material there; can I quote you on some of this stuff? Especially just after fifty Americans and counting have been slaughtered by yet another lunatic with a roomful of legally owned assault weapons (he took his Second Amendment rights seriously!), this is just the sort of inspirational verbage that I need to be reading right now. Make America Great Again!

2 hours ago, inThailand said:

Sorry, you don't like the inevitable outcome.

 

They are the same as circus perfomers. They are entertainers and when the customers are no longer thrilled, their tent will be closing up.

 

 

 

Not a circus, but a minstrel show, right? Following from the sentiment of your original post, you're comparing the NFL to a minstrel show, correct?

7 minutes ago, inThailand said:

And those that knelt Before the anthem were booed.

 

Apparently, some self righteous black guys will be working at McDonalds soon if they keep this kneeling up.  

 

Kudos to you for cutting right to the chase! Bravo!

7 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

 

NFL TV Ratings Improve Overall in Week 3 After Boost from Monday Night Football

"The final viewership numbers based on projections from Fox Sports vice president of research Mike Mulvihill are that the NFL games from Sunday and Monday were up 3% in aggregate over Week 3 in 2016. NFL spokesperson Brian McCarthy also confirmed those numbers.

On Tuesday afternoon, CBS said its NFL coverage on Sunday drew 17.9 million viewers, up 2% from a year ago."

https://www.si.com/tech-media/2017/09/26/nfl-ratings-increase-donald-trump-comments-monday-night-football

 

Fake news much?

 

I didn't know this, and am glad to hear it. (I followed the Broncos-Raiders game on ESPN Gamecast online; does that count?)

2 minutes ago, TonyClifton said:

 

Yes, they did, and their bosses, the American People who are the consumers let them know of their displeasure.  Ratings dropped.

 

The "American people" are by no stretch of the imagination the "bosses" of NFL owners -- they are consumers. The owners make business decisions hoping to attract consumers, so their decision to stand (or kneel) with their employees, after those employees were called "sons of bitches" by the loudest mouth in the country, shows tremendous integrity.  

5 minutes ago, TonyClifton said:

The blame should not be placed upon the ignorant morons who go to one knee.  The blame should be placed where it is merited, and that would be the owner of the team and the coach.  If the owner and coach cannot make their employees comport properly to their wishes then they should get out of the business.

 

There is no constitutional right here, they are working and under contract.  

 

Their submissive stance of going to their knees is embarrassing.  Fire them all.

 

The blame for what? Last weekend, most owners in fact took to the field and stood in solidarity with their players, so their "wishes" would seem to be in common. And if you find it "embarrassing" that a group of US citizens would take a knee in an act of protest, then that's your problem.

15 minutes ago, riclag said:

Next time I go and fight for my country and loose my foot,I'll  remember my anti American patriotism and how stupid I was to think I was making a difference. Take notice I don't appreciate trolling. 

 

If you indeed lost your foot in a war someplace, then I’m sorry about that. But you viciously attacked a whole class of people out of hand without having any clue what they’re protesting. If you think they’re protesting against you somehow, then you’re really at sea. And if you don’t like being “trolled” (whatever you mean by that; this is a forum after all, and I was responding to the offensiveness of your original post), then I suggest you tone down the rudderless anger. Thank you.

3 hours ago, riclag said:

As a American I'm ashamed that these nitwits call themselves American's.They should respect the hand that feeds them and their families.I have emailed the NFL,NFL sponsors and  teams  to tell them I will join the  boycott . Politics has no business in sport's.

In the United States, politics has as much business in sports as it does in any other venue, private or public, at the discretion of the participants, and athletes have the same constitutional right to protest as any other citizens. I, too, am American, but my shame rests in the fact that so many Americans express opinions that are as anti-American as yours, with no awareness of what being American really means -- and the same would apply to any society that guarantees broad freedoms to its citizens. As for your statement that the “nitwits ... should respect the hand that feeds them,” well, that smacks of ... something ... but I’m not going to go there.

41 minutes ago, LolaS said:

so why you call them thai?

 

"Tai" (without the "h") refers to a broad linguistic grouping that includes Thai, Lao, Shan, and many smaller groups. "Tai Yai" is the Thai word for Shan. Most Shans are Buddhist. There is a Tai Yai temple near where I live outside Chiang Mai and they have temple fairs occasionally; when I've gone, it's like going to a foreign country, and the Thai person I go with doesn't understand the language, although it's related to Thai. I don't know how many Shans are involved in construction and will defer to others on that, but I do know that many Shans work in agriculture in northern Thailand, some here legally, some not. It's been my impression that they are somewhat looked down upon and mistrusted by the Thais, perhaps like Mexicans are by racists in the United States.

9 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Really?  I thought as most of them come from Shan, and that as Shan is about 80% Buddhist, that most of them would be Buddhists.

There are nearly half a million Karens in Thailand, most in the north. There are smaller numbers of several other non-Buddhist hill-tribes.

3 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

I would not claim to be, and I doubt you would either, my point was that my punctuation was rather more complete that any of the authors I mentioned yet you don't seem to hear people calling them out.  As for what would be the point in quarrelling, did you not jump in thinking you had one?  The mind boggles!

Oh for heaven's sake. My initial comment was entirely in jest and in good spirit, as per my <stupid smiley face> insertion. It's only your continuing insistence on comparing your writing favorably with that of Hemingway and Dickens that begs ridicule. (BTW, your original post was indeed a run-on sentence: trust me, I'm a professional book editor.) Bye now!

4 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Should?  Try telling that to Shakespeare, Dickens or Hemingway.  The sentence reads fine, nothing is ambiguous, that is the mark of proper punctuation. 

<sigh> Whatever. If you say "that is the mark of proper punctuation," I'm not going to quarrel with you; what's the point? P.S. Shakespeare you're not.

13 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

The sentence is properly punctuated, the syntax is clear, try again.

It's a run-on sentence; it should be two or three sentences, and/or a few of the commas should be semicolons. (Sorry ... I work as an editor <stupid smiley face>.)

15 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Which migrant construction workers are not Buddhists?  Don't they all come from either Cambodia, Laos or Myanmar, I don't think there are any others who are allowed.  Perhaps some are Muslim but the vast majority will also be Buddhist, so what exactly is nonsense other that the assumption that is any one person of a religion should be offended then every single person of that religion should be.

In the north, there are many Karens and hill-tribe peoples who are not Buddhist -- many are evangelical Christians. But I think this is all beside the point; any laborer, regardless of faith, who's living hand to mouth is likely to take most any job that pays money.

6 minutes ago, dave_boo said:

Actually in western Nakhon Sawan there's a temple, วัดใหม่แม่เรวา, that has exactly what you are talking about.

 

 

 

Touché! (Perhaps the locals believe that the rest of him is buried in the ground?)

6 minutes ago, Dukeleto said:

Ok fair enough, then why does every mom and pop garden centre have literally dozens if not hundreds of them on display and for sale? What about the Thai factories that make these? If decapitated buddah heads are not for temples and temples are the only place Buddha images should be displayed why are these heads being made? Fecebook strikes again!

Again, all good questions -- I'm now looking out my window at the neighbor's house and just noticed that he has a bas-relief of a Buddha head attached to the exterior wall -- in a dignified sort of display, and high up on the wall, but the head only. He's a Thai, as is his wife. Why is this OK? I don't know. It's intended, I believe, as a devotional display rather than a simply decorative one, but at the same time these neighbors (whom I don't know) have made other improvements to their house indicating that they're going for sort of a "hi-so" effect. I'll have to ask my girlfriend about this later!

3 minutes ago, Bangkok Barry said:

So, it's okay to have Buddha images at a temple but not okay to have Buddha images anywhere else. Any logic to that? No, probably not.

I don't think you'll find any Buddha heads (heads only, "decapitated") in a temple. That's what's offensive. If you see such a Buddha head in a temple, take a photo and post it!