khh

From the OP: "The main cause of illiteracy among Thai students is the teaching approach which centers on rote learning that better suits learning of other languages like Chinese and Japanese while Thai language has tone marks that require great practice from learners."

Perhaps I'm missing something, but the dialects of both China and Japan are tonal.

chinese yes, japanese no.

in thai you have accents (tone marks) and rules for which letter + which accent = which tone.

to learn chinese you need to memorize the characters because even though most of them are combinations of other characters, there's no rule that can reliably predict the pronunciation, especially the tone.

when chinese characters are used in japanese it's normal for them to have multiple, completely unrelated pronunciations depending on the context, so again you need to memorize.

"and also to ordain Weerayut Photassa, a temple-affairs manager at Wat Ratchaburana."

who is clearly doing a superb PR job. As long as the temple income from the various superstitious rituals exceeds the cost of a few iPhones they give away, it is a win win....

Next step will be a premium rate phone-in for a chance to achieve enlightenment.....

Who was it said that religion is the opium of the people?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people

What a way to get people to come and worship Buddha! Is this religious? Is this instilling religion or even practicing religion?

Sure! The leaders managed to get thousands of to come to their temple. But at what cost? The temple should be closed for sacrilege and their leaders disrobed for this farce.

Or maybe this new tactic is a sign of the times. Come practice pur religion and you will get a prize. What a joke. Now I see why my wife doesn't want to be a Buddhist except as a show for family. It is no longer a religion and instead is a lottery drawing.

Yes totally disgusting - you would never see any of the Christians or Jews doing anything this sacrilegious, like giving money or gifts to their followers...no way... the Christians and Jews TAKE THE MONEY FROM THE CONGREGATION, BUY GOLD AND KEEP IT THEMSELVES....!!!

Those who complain that this is not the right way for a religion to act, should think about the outright theft and corruption practiced by the thieving bastards that run the horrendous child-fiddling religions of the world, and who imposed life-destroying taxes on their "flock"...rightly named as a bunch of brainless sheep who think they are helping the church, when in fact it is simply BUYING THEIR GODS...

you have a good point. but name one religion that hasn't had the same type of scandals. (atheists are also guilty.) so it's not fair to pick on judaism and christianity specifically... and this article is about thai buddhism.

i would hate to go off topic but i want to point out that post #50 by clutchclark ("missionary" complex) makes an interesting contrast with post #20 by gopis108 ("foreigners are satan" basically).

to globeman's post #48 i would like to say for the record i have met expats, in thailand and elsewhere, who kept/keep up the kind of behavior he describes for much longer than 2 years. we all have reasons for doing the things we do...

i can't speak directly for muslims but i feel obligated to point out that many of them would tell you that among muslims genital mutilation (male and female) is actually a cultural phenomenon not a religious one, even though religion is often used as a rationalization for it. the bottom line is the quran doesn't mention it at all. i'm assuming from what you've written you're already cut so it would just be a formality for you, but you should read up on it (from a wide range of sources) before committing to imposing an irreversible body modification on your potential future sons in order to satisfy a supposed theological requirement that many of the faithful dispute. there are also jews who shun circumcision even though their religion does seem to require it. the reasons some of them give are quite interesting.

anyway best wishes

gender segregated carriages are found in brazil, egypt, japan, malaysia, taiwan, indonesia, and india. if you include buses then also mexico and israel. the uk abolished them in 1977 due to gender equality laws. (thanks wikipedia)

it might seem like a good idea... but first of all in practice it's going to be a women-and-children carriage because how can you separate a mother from her small child just because the child is a boy? so then where do you draw the line? will there be teenage boys using fake id's to deflate not inflate their age? and what about disabled men and their helpers (as in japan)? and what about kathoeys who haven't had their id's adjusted?

and more importantly, would these carriages actually be that much safer? in the other countries that have them, the idea always seems to be to prevent harrassment and groping in overcrowded commuter trains, not abduction and rape/murder in sleeper trains. we don't know exactly how this incident unfolded but the guy probably found a pretext to lure the victim out of the carriage first. if you've got a staff member telling you to step out of the carriage then what difference does it make which carriage you step out of?

also thai sleeper trains are often sold out in advance. making a certain number of tickets unavailable to men would not help that.

as for alcohol, if you're disorderly on a plane you get in trouble, right? they should just enforce the same standard on trains and let the majority continue to enjoy responsibly if they choose. plus it's easier to have the train make a quick stop for the police to pick up rowdy passengers before moving on than to do the same thing with a plane...

The issue of appropriate dress was culturally defined by the government in 1941 when it issued this edict, supported by a poster defining appropriate versus inappropriate attire for Thai people.

"On Thai dress, issued 15 January 1941, consisted of two items:

1. "Thai people should not appear at public gatherings, in public places, or in city limits without being appropriately dressed. Inappropriate dress includes wearing only underpants, wearing no shirt, or wearing a wraparound cloth."
2. "Appropriate dress for Thai people consists of:
   1. "Uniforms, as position and opportunity permits;
   2. "Polite international-style attire;
   3. "Polite traditional attire."^[

Thai_culture_poster.png

ok somebody needs to ask the lawyer:

1) what does the law actually say about indecent exposure?

2) does the 1941 edict have any legal weight today?

3) how are "city limits" defined in thailand anyway?

you might not see much toplessness in a major city (outside) but next time you take a bus around towns or villages on a hot day just watch and count how many thai men you see exercising their right to be comfortable. not as many as would like to do it, but they're there and they're normal people, no more likely to be crazy or crass than anybody who is wearing a shirt.

if the majority of thais really found it so offensive they would do like majorca... or saudi arabia...

where in the world is it acceptable to walk around with no shirt on? (other than on a beach)

if you are going to visit Thailand at least have the decency to respect their culture

it is most certainly culturally UNACCEPTABLE to walk around here with no shirt on

incidentally, I only disrobe on the beach, I am 46 wear factor 30 sun cream, and have just been diagnosed with skin cancer!

THINK ABOUT IT

in the whole world? seriously?

first of all in any country that's less inhibited about the male body (and/or the female body...)

and in western countries even cold ones in the summer, of course you might find bylaws saying shirts required in this or that place but outdoors if people are uninhibited and feel hot, they take their shirts off. why not?

urban thailand is similar to developed countries in many ways and it's going to keep changing. the overall worldwide trend is towards less inhibition about the human body (and sexuality, which is what covering the body is mostly about when it's not about protecting the body from the elements). you can fight modernization -- which in this case is actually a return to tradition -- and you can try to deny human biology but it's a losing battle...

of course if male toplessness really bothers you that much you can always move to a country where it's illegal

My first line was a question not a statement.

So answer the question... where in the world is it acceptable to walk around with no shirt on? (other than on a beach)

the key word was "outdoors".

where in the world is it acceptable to walk around with no shirt on? (other than on a beach)

if you are going to visit Thailand at least have the decency to respect their culture

it is most certainly culturally UNACCEPTABLE to walk around here with no shirt on

incidentally, I only disrobe on the beach, I am 46 wear factor 30 sun cream, and have just been diagnosed with skin cancer!

THINK ABOUT IT

in the whole world? seriously?

first of all in any country that's less inhibited about the male body (and/or the female body...)

and in western countries even cold ones in the summer, of course you might find bylaws saying shirts required in this or that place but outdoors if people are uninhibited and feel hot, they take their shirts off. why not?

urban thailand is similar to developed countries in many ways and it's going to keep changing. the overall worldwide trend is towards less inhibition about the human body (and sexuality, which is what covering the body is mostly about when it's not about protecting the body from the elements). you can fight modernization -- which in this case is actually a return to tradition -- and you can try to deny human biology but it's a losing battle...

of course if male toplessness really bothers you that much you can always move to a country where it's illegal

Only okay if it's Silom soi 4.

Prepare to get your nipples tweaked.

some thais will occasionally admit they go to khao san just to ogle farangs. of course those are mostly young farangs and much less likely to be obese than the average sexpat.

At least he DID make a substantial dent in it, obviously !

This Kingdom needs 1,000 chaps like him and then, perhaps, things might even look different . . . . . .

Please try to remember that, in the UK, things were very similar (to today's Thailand) not all that long ago; ever heard of Robin Hood ? ? Well; he stole from the rich landlords and gave back to the poor peasants.

If he spent his entire career fighting corruption........he failed miserably!

robin hood lived around the time of the founding of sukhothai... "not all that long ago" you say...

I had 2 bad experiences with Thai International.

1. My wife and I were bumped out of business class just before boarding when some big Thai HiSO and family showed up, forcing us to economy with refund.

2. My wife asked for help in putting a bag in the overhead bin. She was told by the Thai Airline Steward that "We all have bad backs.", and walked away.

These 2 issues have melded a permanent impression in my mind of Thai's trying to run a airline.

regarding number 2. In the past I always helped people put their bags in the overhead bins but in the past few years passengers now practically drag everything on board and whereas in the past the bag may weigh only a couple of kilos now some bags weigh as much as 20kilos. "You came all the way from home, dragged your bags down the stairs to the door, put them in the trunk of the car, drove all the way to the airport, dragged them through security and all the way to your seat. Suddenly, the bags are too heavy for you to put into the overhead compartment by yourself. The deal is: you brought it, shove up there yourself or we throw it out the door and under the plane." I'm not going to throw my back out at the beginning of a flight and have to work the next 12 hours in pain.

I have a mate who worked as a flight attendant on Qantas for many years.

His answer to this overhead baggage problem was.

If your bag is too heavy to lift up to the overhead locker.

What makes you think it is not too heavy for us to lift up.

I have also followed this while on the plane. I fly on TG twice a year to BKK

aussiep

We have a guy in the village whose wife moves her Tom in whenever he is away. He know this and is OK with it. Not sure whether any threesomes involved or not [url=http://static.thaivisa.com/forum//public/style_emoticons/default/clap2.gif]http://static.thaivisa.com/forum//public/style_emoticons/default/clap2.gif[/url[/url]

Having a Tom is hardly being unfaithful, but they're not normally 3-some material!

Not much potential for a threesome, no. But what would a wife having a Tom be "hardly" unfaithful?

In the same way that having a "mia noi" is hardly being unfaithful.

some men wouldn't mind their wives sleeping with other women but would mind them sleeping with other men. homosexuality carries no risk of pregnancy... and it's easy to see it in terms of "she's giving her something that i can't".

a 2nd wife might be giving a man something his 1st wife can't, such as youth if the 2nd wife is much younger... or just variety. it's doing it behind the 1st wife's back or shirking his responsibility to the 1st wife that i would call immoral.

again i say if people in a relationship agree to certain rules and they don't hurt anyone (except others who are jealous of their freedom) then let them be happy.

@khh

No moral rules on monogamy in Thailand which is part of the problem foreigners have living here.

which moral rules do you subscribe to?

deceiving your spouse about your sex life? immoral by my standards.

making tons of money at an innocent person's expense? immoral by my standards.

consenting adults having fun without hurting anyone? moral by my standards.

oh wait, they're hurting others by making them jealous because they're having more fun... well unless your spouse objects, you're always welcome to join the party [url=http://static.thaivisa.com/forum//public/style_emoticons/default/smile.png]http://static.thaivisa.com/forum//public/style_emoticons/default/smile.png[/url[/url[/url]

i would choose an honest open relationship over a dishonest closed relationship any day.

more specifically to the topic, any spouse who plans to be away for most of each year should not just expect extramarital sex to occur on both sides, he/she should plan for it with the other spouse in an open, honest way, to minimize risks of std's, unwanted pregnancies, nasty gossip, legal problems and any other negative things that could come up.

A rather twisted sense of justifications for immoral behavior. Hell, if you're going to sleep around, why get married and make the investment in time and money in the first place?

a rather twisted sense of justifications for hating other people's freedom. hell, if you're going to declare any lifestyle other than absolute matrimonial monogamy immoral, why not extend this absolutism to capital punishment for premarital sex and widows and widowers who dare to dishonor their spouses by remarrying?

seriously, if absolute matrimonial monogamy works for you and your spouse, that's great, but not everyone feels the same. why do you suppose marriage laws vary so much between countries?...

agree on the rules with your partner(s) and see to it that everyone follows the rules. but do be realistic, don't expect an average human being to be happy with one spouse for a quarter of every year and no playmate.

@khh

No moral rules on monogamy in Thailand which is part of the problem foreigners have living here.

which moral rules do you subscribe to?

deceiving your spouse about your sex life? immoral by my standards.

making tons of money at an innocent person's expense? immoral by my standards.

consenting adults having fun without hurting anyone? moral by my standards.

oh wait, they're hurting others by making them jealous because they're having more fun... well unless your spouse objects, you're always welcome to join the party

i would choose an honest open relationship over a dishonest closed relationship any day.

more specifically to the topic, any spouse who plans to be away for most of each year should not just expect extramarital sex to occur on both sides, he/she should plan for it with the other spouse in an open, honest way, to minimize risks of std's, unwanted pregnancies, nasty gossip, legal problems and any other negative things that could come up.

consenting adults should be free to do what they like as long as they're not hurting anyone. the rich thai businesslady with 5 boytoys sounds very happy but what really makes it a happy story is that everyone knows and is ok with it: the husband, the wife, the boytoys, and presumably the husband's girltoys too.

variety is healthy and can be a great way to relieve stress. the trouble is with people being brainwashed into thinking that absolute monogamy (at least for your spouse though maybe not for you) is the only respectable path. many say things like "i would never marry someone who admitted to wanting to have an affair or a 3some now and then!" even though it's human nature to want variety, so instead of accepting it they try to defy reality by choosing a partner who promises to love them monogamously forever and ever... and sooner or later they realize they've made a mistake... probably would have been happier taking the open and honest offer... but they would first have to overcome the societal brainwashing that sex is only respectable within the confines of absolute monogamy.

of course there are exceptions, some people really do prosper in strictly monogamous ltr's but then some people find happiness in prison too...

(that said, of course they should take safety precautions to prevent std's and unwanted pregnancies)

I don't want to suggest in any way that the girl is at fault, but it's best not to sit in the front seat of a taxi. Some of these guys take it as a sign that you are interested in them. Sounds like a scary experience. She should definitely change hotels.

partly a cultural difference. i remember seeing signs in chinese taxis that said only women and children could sit in the front (for the driver's safety).

Public transport is essential yes, taxi drivers yes, goods vehicles sure, and maybe tens of thousands of workers, but personal car users and most commuters; come off it. They really cause me pain you know, truly, I suppose you could argue I need not be in Bangkok, but equally tens of thousands of car users need not be on the road particularly in Bangkok of all places, why should they have a right to poison me so they can get ever fatter and even more of a burden on society?.

And fingers crossed, safer fuel will become available for cars, believe me that is really needed above all else.

we all want cleaner fuel but upgrades will take a long time and meanwhile traffic keeps getting worse, so increasing public transit (other than taxis) is necessary.

even if ecigs are safe i'm sure many smokers will say they prefer "real" cigs (and how do the prices compare?) so the issue will still exist for a long time.

re sir richard doll: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/19799.php

Sir Richard Doll, a contributor to the report and one of the doctors who discovered the link between lung cancer and smoking in 1950, said:

"As recently as 2003, one UK tobacco company said that it did not know whether smoking causes lung cancer. Now tobacco companies are using the same techniques to undermine the conclusion that passive smoking causes fatal disease.

"The evidence that it does is clear. As a responsible citizen, I believe that nobody should have to work in an atmosphere polluted by other people's smoke."

getting back to the original topic:

banning smoking rooms will encourage smoking around the building's entrances, making the smoke more noticeable to more people, and i bet more of it will get into the building through open doors...

others will smoke in the washrooms where they're likely to get away with it, and again it will be more noticeable to more people and circulate through the building.

so i say keep designated areas for smokers, away from everyone else, with good (outdoor?) ventilation so as little smoke as possible sticks to them.

Hitting the headlines

His findings have sometimes sparked controversy. So too has the man.

In 2001, he riled the anti-smoking lobby after appearing to downplay the risks from second-hand smoke.

In an interview on BBC Radio 4's Desert Island Discs, he said: "The

effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't

worry me."

That's what he really said, and that was in the wiki profile on him but has now been removed, wikipedia is not a reliable source.

instead of telling us how unreliable wikipedia is (did i mention it?) you could spend your energy finding a source for your quotation here (different wording from your earlier post btw).

you could also ask yourself, if that's what doll allegedly said in 2001, were his words in 2003 not clearer? and did he not go out of his way to clarify his position in 2003 because he was alarmed at his words in 2001 having been taken out of context?

the website that nisakiman loves has another quotation from doll (in a 1981 article he co-wrote):

http://tctactics.org/index.php/Scientific_Figures

[E]pidemiological observations ... have serious disadvantages ... [T]hey can seldom be made according to the strict requirements of experimental science and therefore may be open to a variety of interpretations. A particular factor may be associated with some disease merely because of its association with some other factor that causes the disease, or the association may be an artefact due to some systematic bias in the information collection

other than the case from scotland, that's the only time he comes up on their website. funny, if doll had been such a good advocate for big tobacco you'd think he'd have some better lines than that wouldn't you?

you can quote statistics all day long, most of us won't bother reading them. every study you could cite showing unclear results could be refuted by more studies showing very clear results. who's funding the studies? who's doing them? and so on and so on..... if you've smoked in the past (yourself or heavily 2nd hand) and quit you probably know the score from your own experience. even if it doesn't kill you, it changes the quality of your life.

the reason why it took centuries for humans to figure out how bad it is might be that tobacco itself is not so bad but the average cigarette today is -- how many of those chemicals existed 100 years ago anyway? but it's too late, tobacco is on the way out like opium -- probably not to be banned completely but to be controlled to the point where most people won't even notice it. it'll be a strange hobby for rich people or an experience for tourists who think it's quaint, like how opium is generally seen nowadays. ever hear someone say "i want to go to a real opium den -- like in those old photographs"?

"you could also ask yourself, if that's what doll allegedly said in 2001,

were his words in 2003 not clearer? and did he not go out of his way to

clarify his position in 2003 because he was alarmed at his words in

2001 having been taken out of context?"

What out of context? I think his words in 2001 are clear enough and not open to question.

Could it not be that his words in 2003 were to appease the whining winnies?, I imagine he got lots of stick for his honesty in his original statement.

Anyway, to get back on topic, why can't swampy just build properly sealed and ventilated areas for smokers? No need to ban it outright, millions of people still smoke and it's still legal.

oh sure, not open to question at all... especially when there's no source!

and if one person makes two conflicting statements you should automatically believe the first statement. of course...

btw i still agree that smoke leaking from the smoking room at the airport is a smaller issue than stuff like vehicle pollution and open buring. but i think it's going to be a long time before there's much improvement in those areas, sad though that is. smoking is something where most people by now are aware it's bad and won't object to tighter controls.

do you not care about the people who work in airports or do you just not think about them?

or do you say to them "if you don't like smoke just work in a non-smoking airport and let the smokers work in this one"?

Another straw man argument. Funny you should mention that. The zealots conducted a study which failed to produce the desired condemnation of SHS even with barmen exposed to SHS all day, every day. So they buried it. To date they still claim that SHS "kills" 60,000 people a year yet can't name one - not one, from their (now millions) of 'victims'. This is primarily because their results are not those of proper scientific studies (I also exclude those paid for by, e.g., manufacturers of nicotine patches and gum), but are produced by statistics - which are easily manipulated to produce the desired results.

But to address your question - if the smoking room didn't leak, what exactly would be the impact on the people who work in the airport?

i was specifically responding to the "it doesn't matter because you only use the airport briefly a few times a year" argument. that kind of thinking completely ignores people who have to breathe the airport's indoor air every working day of their lives -- especially whoever gets stuck cleaning the smoking room! (and some are talking about having attendants to serve them drinks...)

you can say in theory if the smoking room doesn't leak too much air pollution to the rest of the building then you can breathe it all the time.

BUT the point of the OP is that according to the experts the safe exposure limits ARE being exceeded so it does matter.

IF the smoking room doesn't leak (impossible) or doesn't leak enough to exceed the safe exposure limit (and gets cleaned by robots) then there's still a problem: you come out of the room smelling like an ashtray and spread your ashes to the next place you sit.

SO... why not have the smoking area up on the roof where the wind will blow the smoke away from the building AND away from the smokers and their clothes?

non smoking was going to revolutionise everything ,,,,instead dozens of hotels resto clubs went broke ..4 little clubs i used to frequent in sydney all closed now just get better ventilation systems <deleted>

Clubs close down all the time, mate. But it's got nothing to do with non-smoking bans. There are no statistically significant effects to the income of bars and restaurants before vs after a ban comes into effect. There's loads of data on this.

http://www.tcsg.org/sfelp/economic.htm

Hogwash! There are no statistics? Drive around the U.K 1 year after the ban and 50% of the pubs/bars where boarded up closed. All the social drinking/smokers stayed at home or moved to Thailand.

no matter who has the right numbers... think about the bigger picture! many things are "bad for business" or bad for something in the beginning, but in the long run almost everyone agrees they were good, even necessary.

banning slavery was definitely "bad" for many businesses in the usa. should it be legalized again?

There is hardly anywhere left in the World where you can properly enjoy a cigarette in public. And here's a wee Italian resturant who not only has some sympathy but good food too. But some xxxxxxxx always has too complain.

there is hardly anywhere left in the world where you can properly enjoy a s**t in public but not many are complaining