Thakkar

<Snip>I have read virtually everything available by Thai, Khmer, French, Chinese, Vietnamese and American scholars on the subject, <snip>

Joe,

I'm always interested to learn more. I'd be most great foul if you could recommend a good book or two on the subject.

Thanks.

T

<snip>

Some ladies could wear a sack and look fabulous, and that's the skill.

<snip>:

I cut four holes in a sack and asked Mrs. T to put it on, and she did. She looked like she'd just returned from a very unlucky night at the casinos.

T

Why the fourth hole??

Drats! The fourth hole. That completely explains why the usually elegant Mrs. T couldn't pull it off. And, trust me, Smokie, I had no wickedly amorous plans for the fourth hole, though now you've given me ideas. Sadly, Mrs. T is too straight-laced to go for it.

Anyhoo, "Waste of a perfectly good sack," I thought at first. Then I cut a fifth hole for the tail and let our dog, Bubbles wear it. That bitch is so cute, she can pull off any outfit.

T

<snip>

Some ladies could wear a sack and look fabulous, and that's the skill.

<snip>:

I cut four holes in a sack and asked Mrs. T to put it on, and she did. She looked like she'd just returned from a very unlucky night at the casinos.

T

Thank you so much Thakkar and I was wondering if by any chance you happen to have a telephone number for him. It would just be slightly easier if I could call him but I will try him in the morning anyway. You can always PM me if it is easier but thank you it does sound very hopeful.

053214165

0805553297

T

OP: I suppose what you're looking for is a Kindle Fire model. Note that tv shows may not be available for rent via Amazon in Thailand.

Amazon does not ship the Kindle Fire to Thailand, otherwise it's best to buy direct from them. Check weather that's changed before you buy locally.

Locally, you can try one of these places:

http://ereaderthailand.lnwshop.com/

or

http://kindle-thailand.in.th/kindle-store/#ecwid:category=1580346&mode=category&offset=0&sort=normal

T

Le Spice is pretty good too. They also have Western and Thai/Chinese dishes on the menu. This is convenient when you're eating with people (I will not name names *cough* Mrs T*cough*) who have no proper appreciation for Indian food.

T

On Huay Keaw Rd, about 100 metres from the Amari Junction and right across the road from The Manderine Learning centre is a guy I use. He replaced my iPod Touch screen for B1500, installed a 240GB SSD drive on my Macbook and replaced a HDD on my iMac at reasonable (though not the cheapest) prices. I have no complaints about his service except that he's so busy that he may be slow to get back to you, but he does get back to you.

T

A man named Jingting

Had a bent for bling

Multitudes came to gawk

Of whom many deigned to mock

Asked why the restraint was abundant

They said: to mock bling is redundant.

T

Tombkk:

If you actually click the link I provided, you'll see that that Wordpress posting merely talks about the study in layman terms. The Wordpress blogpost also links to the actual peer-reviewed study published in The Proceedings Of the National Academy of Sciences. The paper is a collaboration by academics from multiple disciplines (Psychology, Psychiatry, Biology and management) at Princeton and Yale.

I make no absolute claim to the veracity of the study, the standing of the publication, the qualifications of the authors or even the standing of the universities of Princeton and Yale. I was merely pointing out a study that I thought people reading this topic might be interested in.

T

Sorry for rehashing an old topic, but I just read something that I thought would be of interest to some here. The full post by this author can be read by following the link at the end:

--

Gender Bias 101 For Mathematicians

The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie—deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.

- JFK

MYTH 1: Sexism is perpetrated by a small number of men, typically close to retirement age, who are “against women.” Most academics, especially mathematicians, are open-minded people who are against discrimination.

FACT: Please read this study on gender bias in science hiring:

In a randomized double-blind study (n = 127), science faculty from research-intensive universities rated the application materials of a student—who was randomly assigned either a male or female name—for a laboratory manager position. Faculty participants rated the male applicant as significantly more competent and hireable than the (identical) female applicant. These participants also selected a higher starting salary and offered more career mentoring to the male applicant. The gender of the faculty participants did not affect responses, such that female and male faculty were equally likely to exhibit bias against the female student. Mediation analyses indicated that the female student was less likely to be hired because she was viewed as less competent.

See also summaries and discussion here and here, and my own posts hereand here. This is not an isolated study, either. See, for example, this study on gender and blind auditions in music. I’ve seen the same exact thing in my own experience and heard about it from colleagues. Statistical evidence from my own university confirms it.

The bottom line is, we are all biased. We all tend to think of women’s work as somewhat smaller, derivative, inferior. We do so unconsciously and involuntarily. We are not aware of it, nor do we notice it in others. That’s what all these studies are saying.

http://ilaba.wordpress.com/2013/02/09/gender-bias-101-for-mathematicians/

--

T

Above...Now the truth hurts,I know,no false information there Do not need any bridges,is this sort of "enlightenment" trash ,sort of bury the head in sand stuff?"Seek the Truth and Ye shall find" LOL

Its found ,now piss off

I guess you've made your choice. It's your own life you willfully poison and impoverish, no skin off my nose.

T

Two criminally-minded guys got caught running a credit card scam. More interesting than their passports and ethnicity would be angles like, why Pattaya and not, say, Bali? Why SCB and not another bank? What weakness did they think they had identified that was specific to Thailand and to SCB that they were trying to exploit? Sadly, none of this line of enquiry was followed and all we have is a run of the mill story of crooks getting caught.

Meanwhile, I am fascinated by this cognitive dissonance of foreigners living in Thailand complaining about foreigners living in "their" country. There are two ways to resolve this dissonance: 1) avoid living in a foreign country; 2) accept foreigners living in "your" country. Hilariously, the option some posters here seem to have chosen, albeit inadvertently is this: continue to come off looking foolish.

T

It is not the fact that they are ethnics living in the UK,the same as foreigners living here in Thailand,the big difference is welfare,not many UK foreigners living here in Thailand for sure that receive Thai benefits but you can bet your boots there are loads of foreigners living in the UK on benefits

Freedom of Information report few months ago revealed ALL Muslims living in the UK are on benefits,now this couple,along with their families Ill bet my bottom dollar are,erm ...millionairs LOL. No foolishness there,yes Im racist,and proud to admit it,cannot pay your way,?get booted back whence you came

Water, electricity, gasoline, milk, rice, sugar, cooking gas and a host of other things are government subsidized here in Thailand. Only foreigners who never use these things can claim non use of government benefits. Then there's things like roads, bridges, tunnels, trains, etc., that the Thai government provides for all our benefit, foreigner or local.

More insidiously, foreigners additionally benefit from the general poverty in the country that allows them to hire help, buy food, rent accommodations, etc at lower cost than in their homelands. It is a kind of exploitation, however one may wish to couch it in kindly terms.

Are foreigners on the whole a net benefit to Thailand? Decidedly. Just as in the aggregate foreigners are a net benefit to the UK. This is borne out by all credible research. There are bound to be bad apples in every bunch. Government policy is not decided based on anecdotal evidence of one's brother-in-law's brown neighbor sucking on the public teat. Not completely decided on such anecdotes.

A lot of immigration to the UK is a legacy of colonialism. All Brits and their descendants to this day have benefited from colonial exploitation and plunder, and immigration today cannot be untangled from that history because history doesn't begin at an arbitrary date of your choosing.

On the whole, receiving countries take the best human resources that poor countries have to offer. Even an uneducated immigrant by the very nature of his act to immigrate is a go-getting risk taker and the sending country is all the poorer for loosing him. If pure calculating self-interest prevailed in receiving countries instead of having to contend with ignorant emotional racism, poor countries would be sucked dry of all their talent. So the poor countries of the world owe the ignorant racists a debt of gratitude for holding their governments back.

T

So next time I wander over a road bridge here in Thailand I can take comfort in the fact that,although not built exclusively for me its OK that wandering hoards of bloodsucking ethnics are attempting to bleed the UK dry. You write akin to an adult mature student resident there in the UK,still pushing a blackboard around well in your 20s,you know the sort all felt tip/ball point pen armed,got answers for everything except his own worthless self,probably over here on a Ed Visa,writing to the folks back 'ome how his life's fulfillment has been found here in LOS educating the masses.

The best thing ever,and I mean ever to hit the UK in the next two months is the benefit cap,and more of the (punishment) relief to the UK taxpayer too,just bring it on. Now I'm off for a wander over a road bridge in outer Mongolia,see if I take great delight in that too

When you get to that bridge, stop for a moment and look away into the distance and think about the bitterness and bile that brews within you, fed by false information, hate propaganda and longing for a kind of Britain that never was. And lament the loss of the better, gentler less hate-filled man that you could've been. Then either cross back to a life of continued bitterness, foolishness and self-delusion, or cross over to the other side to a better, enlightened state. I sincerely wish you well.

T

Two criminally-minded guys got caught running a credit card scam. More interesting than their passports and ethnicity would be angles like, why Pattaya and not, say, Bali? Why SCB and not another bank? What weakness did they think they had identified that was specific to Thailand and to SCB that they were trying to exploit? Sadly, none of this line of enquiry was followed and all we have is a run of the mill story of crooks getting caught.

Meanwhile, I am fascinated by this cognitive dissonance of foreigners living in Thailand complaining about foreigners living in "their" country. There are two ways to resolve this dissonance: 1) avoid living in a foreign country; 2) accept foreigners living in "your" country. Hilariously, the option some posters here seem to have chosen, albeit inadvertently is this: continue to come off looking foolish.

T

It is not the fact that they are ethnics living in the UK,the same as foreigners living here in Thailand,the big difference is welfare,not many UK foreigners living here in Thailand for sure that receive Thai benefits but you can bet your boots there are loads of foreigners living in the UK on benefits

Freedom of Information report few months ago revealed ALL Muslims living in the UK are on benefits,now this couple,along with their families Ill bet my bottom dollar are,erm ...millionairs LOL. No foolishness there,yes Im racist,and proud to admit it,cannot pay your way,?get booted back whence you came

Water, electricity, gasoline, milk, rice, sugar, cooking gas and a host of other things are government subsidized here in Thailand. Only foreigners who never use these things can claim non use of government benefits. Then there's things like roads, bridges, tunnels, trains, etc., that the Thai government provides for all our benefit, foreigner or local.

More insidiously, foreigners additionally benefit from the general poverty in the country that allows them to hire help, buy food, rent accommodations, etc at lower cost than in their homelands. It is a kind of exploitation, however one may wish to couch it in kindly terms.

Are foreigners on the whole a net benefit to Thailand? Decidedly. Just as in the aggregate foreigners are a net benefit to the UK. This is borne out by all credible research. There are bound to be bad apples in every bunch. Government policy is not decided based on anecdotal evidence of one's brother-in-law's brown neighbor sucking on the public teat. Not completely decided on such anecdotes.

A lot of immigration to the UK is a legacy of colonialism. All Brits and their descendants to this day have benefited from colonial exploitation and plunder, and immigration today cannot be untangled from that history because history doesn't begin at an arbitrary date of your choosing.

On the whole, receiving countries take the best human resources that poor countries have to offer. Even an uneducated immigrant by the very nature of his act to immigrate is a go-getting risk taker and the sending country is all the poorer for loosing him. If pure calculating self-interest prevailed in receiving countries instead of having to contend with ignorant emotional racism, poor countries would be sucked dry of all their talent. So the poor countries of the world owe the ignorant racists a debt of gratitude for holding their governments back.

T

<snip> I would love to see their reproductive organs fed into the same grinders used to make Findus Bolognese. but perhaps I am a tad extreme

Yes, just a tad.

T

I worry that ThaiVisa "likes" are the only credits that I will be able to take with me into the next life.

I hate that a Thai smile has a thousand meanings, only some of which are friendly.

I love that a Thai smile has a thousand meanings - it keeps me on my toes.

T

That plane looks very miserable...

Gives me an idea for a new game called Sad Birds.

Two criminally-minded guys got caught running a credit card scam. More interesting than their passports and ethnicity would be angles like, why Pattaya and not, say, Bali? Why SCB and not another bank? What weakness did they think they had identified that was specific to Thailand and to SCB that they were trying to exploit? Sadly, none of this line of enquiry was followed and all we have is a run of the mill story of crooks getting caught.

Meanwhile, I am fascinated by this cognitive dissonance of foreigners living in Thailand complaining about foreigners living in "their" country. There are two ways to resolve this dissonance: 1) avoid living in a foreign country; 2) accept foreigners living in "your" country. Hilariously, the option some posters here seem to have chosen, albeit inadvertently is this: continue to come off looking foolish.

T

In the West, it's the divorce that's expensive, at least for one party.

T

There are worse things that can happen - like becoming a prolific poster on ThaiVisa.

T

The perils of an economy with almost full employment, yet, inexplicably, relatively low wages.

Low unemployment means the available talent pool is shallow.

T

I have to wonder about your conclusions. There are a fair number of tourists, but not a lot of the kind that spend much money. In general, from what I have observed, the Chinese are very frugal. Of course, some businesses are still doing well, but over all, I would say not anything like a few years ago when more free spending Westerners were flocking here.

I'm glad you said 'frugal' because they're not stingy. HK Tourist association figures, which are very reliable, indicate that Chinese tourists to HK spend more per night than any other arrival (HK$9k+). Chinese tourists tend to be frugal when spending on dining, entertainment and hotels. Their spending skews heavily towards shopping. The same seems to be true of Chinese tourists to Thailand. A week ago, Mrs T read me a Thai newspaper story on Chinese tourists that indicated they spend heavily on items such a baby milk formula, toothpaste, shampoo and Jasmine Rice. It's an odd assortment of items, and to explain it, here's a summery of recent a happening in HK gleaned from various HK cantonese language talk show podcasts:

--

China makes enough baby milk formula for domestic needs and bans any import of foreign milk formula to protect local conglomerates. This means domestic producers, in the absence of foreign competition charge about 30% more than the price of a foreign-produced milk formula available at HK retail shops. So some opportunity for arbitrage whereby Chinese day trippers buy and smuggle the product for Chinese consumers has always existed, but it's never been a big problem as the small price difference means demand hasn't been that high.

That changed when Chinese consumers lost faith in the local products due to repeated tainted milk scandals that resulted in dead and seriously maimed Chinese babies. The Chinese government has repeatedly failed to address these transgressions by Chinese manufacturers leading finally to a complete collapse of faith by consumers. The result has been that any Chinese parent with the means now buys only foreign milk powder that is smuggled in from HK and elsewhere. With Chinese buyers buying up milk formula by the shitload, HK, Macao, and even Taiwanese parents are finding it more and more difficult to buy milk formula for their babies even at double the normal price. Chinese buyers, running out of stocks to buy up in HK, Macao, and Taiwan, are going as far afield as Holland, Australia and New Zealand. Some Macao mothers have formed cooperatives to send buyers back to China to buy back (at three times the price) formula that was originally bought in Macao and smuggled to China.

This would all be farcical if we weren't talking about hungry babies all round.

--

In the past Chinese tourists spent on luxury brands, watches and high-end electronics. They also tend to spend on medical care and drugs that they can be confident are not faked. The notion that Chinese are stingy and westerners are free-spenders is not supported by the facts. Such notions, though false, are useful for some people who like to trot them out to feel somehow superior.

T

You've conflated a few things here and it's difficult to parse, but I'll try.

With respect, I think you've misunderstood feminism. The point, I think, is that women should be able to succeed without having to become more like men. One of the biggest things holding women back in the corporate world are male boardroom attitudes such as yours. Why don't we let individual women decide whether they want career, money, "high-stress" CEO positions (actually, research shows that positions with decision-making powers have lower stress), etc. As Winston Churchill said on a different topic: 'Since it is in the minds of men that wars begin, it is in the minds of men that the defenses for peace must be built.' Similarly, both men and women need to change how they think about women if that half of humanity is to achieve it's full potential. it's not just about money and career. It's about equal opportunity and having all the same options that men have, with no artificial barriers. Some of those barriers are in the thinking that permeate in the minds of men (and some women) like yourself.

There is no indication that women are any less capable than men. They may do things differently, but no less effectively.

T

Well I see you differ in opinion which is fine however I don't see where I have a male boardroom attitude. All I'm saying is that measuring equality by % numbers of women on boards and as CEOs is, in my view, ridiculous. As well as that measuring success and equality in this way is also dubious in my view.

I assume you are referring to "glass ceilings" that exist in some organizations; and that are being pointed to by ambitious women as the apparent cause of them not being able to enter the executive levels in numbers they perceive as sufficient. Undoubtedly these ceilings exist. But they only exist in some organizations, and will be ground down over time (not long ago, women held no executive positions). However by saying that a fixed % of boards should consist of women and making that law (as they are planning in Europe apparently) is extreme and dangerous for business. Next thing you know is they will say the board has to reflect the ethnicities in the country % wise: so many whites, so many blacks, so many Asians... The course of business needs to be the course of business. And in some industries women traditionally have little expertise, because they have not much interest in those industries. So to force boards in these industries to appoint women who don't have enough knowledge of their industry would be insane.

About feminism: I don't think I've tried to understand feminism. I just observed. And what I saw was that women in top careers appear to have more male personality characteristics in some ways than non-career women, on average: in their presentation, personality, demeanor, etc. It's just an observation.

Sorry but I also did not say that women should not decide on whether they wanted CEO positions; however I did say those positions are not acquired by rights, but by achievement. And definitely not by law, as some feminists in Europe are now pushing for. If a women really wants that role, she will achieve it. It may be harder in some industries than for her male counterparts, but that's life. In other industries the playing field is already level. Pioneers always have to fight harder. They should stop whingeing and get on with the job.

And last but not least, I don't think I said anywhere that women are less capable than men. You make a lot of assumptions.

My main points remain:

1. Using pay levels and traditional career ladder levels as measures of success and equality (either for men or women, but in this context, for women) is limiting. Success for me, for example, is much more in happiness and fulfillment. I've never met anyone whose career and income made them believably happier than they were before. Maybe I meet the wrong people. Traditionally, men have used pay and career as measures of success. Now women do the same. I guess what I'm saying is: we're not going anywhere. Now the women just do as the men did before. Great. It's time things evolved. Women could be creative and champion a new approach to measuring success and equality in a better way. Yet they want the same as the men have used in the past 100 years. No evolution. Same old same old, but with a skirt.

2. Forcing females into male business roles by law (the European % law) rather than letting business dynamics take care of this (which indeed may take a few years longer but will get there), is dangerous for business.

I appologize if I've misinterpreted your implied attitudes. It's just that people who say the things you did tend to have the attitude I suggested.

I tend to agree with you when it comes to legislating quotas for women as it's a rough tool, could lead to unintended consequences, and, once established become entrenched. In the case of Blacks in America it was necessary to redress generations of slavery and Jim Crow. Women, while they have suffered unjustly, can hardly be compared to that—at least not in the West. But doing nothing and suggesting women should just pull themselves up by their own bootstraps shouldn't be the way to go. There have been inequities, and the mark of a civilizing society is that efforts be made to redress past inequities. It is simply the right thing to do. What such efforts could be is for another post.

Measuring the the advancement in women's rights and equality by number of women in leadership positions is not at all ridiculous. It's a perfectly legitimate measure when you remember that we're just now coming out of a history where women were explicitly barred from leadership positions simply by virtue of their gender.

You are right that success can (and perhaps should) be measured by yardsticks other than career, power and money. But neither you or I should be imposing our idea of success. The fact is, most people measure it in the conventional way, and they have the right to do so. If their road to that success is barred on the basis of gender, they have a legitimate grievance.

Your observation of the 'maleness' of women in leadership position is noted. Whether they got there because they were male-like or behaved male-like to get there is impossible to say and in any event, any judgement would be a gross generalization. My point was that if maleness was one of the assets they needed, it shouldn't have been.

I agree that women should be judged on achievement. The problem is, they aren't. Men have it easier in a male-dominated upper-echelon. The existence of glass ceilings is well documented. The fact that, in the aggregate, women doing the same work receive less pay than their male counterparts is well documented. These situations need redress.

We don't disagree when it comes to measures of success. But the debate isn't about success. It's about equality and equal opportunity.

T

The funny thing is, the measure of "equality" and "success" for people in general, and in this case women in particular, appears to be pay and career. However are these really the most important yardsticks to measure equality and success? It is a convenient thing (after all we live in a capitalist world), and, far as I know, has been pushed by the feminists and equal rights movements for decades.

But should women be exactly in the same careers as men, to prove they have achieved equality? And is the number of women in boards and as CEOs the global measure of equality between the sexes?

In my world, women and men are different, and the difference between women and men is one of the things that I enjoy most in life, and the women that I share my life with, enjoy too. Yet if one looks at many of the women who have reached the top of global career ladders (such as Christine Lagarde; others that come to mind include Margaret Thatcher and Angela Merkel, to name a few), these women seem to have lost some female traits along the way. They have more "male" characteristics, at least in the way they present themselves, than most women I know. Perhaps that is the aim of this equality thing the article focuses on: erase the differences, and as men earn more money, let all women become more like men - so they can climb career ladders better and earn the same as the guys.

To say it differently, my view is that many of the women who did manage to climb to the top of these career ladders, did so by shedding female characteristics and adapting to a male world, at least to a degree. And the aim of the movements supporting this seems to be to increase this phenomenon. In Europe, they are trying to force boards to have a certain % of women, by law. Because to them, the measure of success is the number of women on boards and as CEOs and similar. Which I think is absurd. The author of the article seems surprised that Siam Cement Group never had a female boss. It's cement, for chrissakes... Women don't climb through the ranks of the builders world to become CEO of a Cement Group. Because most women don't want to work in construction; they have a feminine focus and are simply not interested in that area. Women and men are not the same physically and psychologically and that's a good thing. Why try and erase that difference for the sake of yet another "ism" (or money and career ladders)?

Don't get me wrong - I do support true equality: same pay for same work, same rights for women and men in all parts of society. But being on a board, or becoming a CEO is an achievement (as a result of deploying specific personal traits/characteristics), not a right. And let's face it, most people, including the far majority of men, don't aspire to be a CEO or a board member, with all the dogged determination to get there, and once the position is reached, the extreme stress that often comes with the job. Some women will be interested in such a career path and position, as are a probably somewhat larger number of men. But I don't think the level of interest in those roles is that great, and the people that are interested will be mostly men, as this type of role is not something many women would aspire to - they are smarter than wanting the stress that comes with them, and lack the historical "expectation" to achieve this kind of "life result", that often drives men to get there.

To repeat what I said before: at least in my world, women are different. They have feminine "soft" traits that they may not get paid for, but that may just be because these traits cannot be valued in money in today's world. But they can be valued personally and by society in non-monetary terms. I believe these traits are highly valuable and need to be encouraged, not steamrolled over to be replaced by male or semi-male values in order to achieve a board-room role or a half a million dollars a year salary. Career and money - is that all that counts anymore? Are women really less happy because they are not in a board room? I don't believe so. How about measuring success in life by how happy and fulfilled we are, rather than by career or money: man or woman - we're all equal. Same same but different

You've conflated a few things here and it's difficult to parse, but I'll try.

With respect, I think you've misunderstood feminism. The point, I think, is that women should be able to succeed without having to become more like men. One of the biggest things holding women back in the corporate world are male boardroom attitudes such as yours. Why don't we let individual women decide whether they want career, money, "high-stress" CEO positions (actually, research shows that positions with decision-making powers have lower stress), etc. As Winston Churchill said on a different topic: 'Since it is in the minds of men that wars begin, it is in the minds of men that the defenses for peace must be built.' Similarly, both men and women need to change how they think about women if that half of humanity is to achieve it's full potential. it's not just about money and career. It's about equal opportunity and having all the same options that men have, with no artificial barriers. Some of those barriers are in the thinking that permeate in the minds of men (and some women) like yourself.

There is no indication that women are any less capable than men. They may do things differently, but no less effectively.

T

Has anyone tried these guys: http://ereaderthailand.lnwshop.com/

or

would it be better to order one fromAmazon, have it sent to someone in the United States, who then sends it to me by USPS

The model I want (paperwhite) is not available for international shipment direct from Amazon.

Thanks for any advice.

T

Just a follow up, in case anyone cares. I ordered my kindle from these guys in Thailand. It arrived a little later than promised. The original, unopened Amazon box was bubble-wrapped and sent in an EMS box, by EMS.

Compared to the iPad, the kindle is a joy to read on when it comes to reading books. I might even use it for long articles.

If the kindle you want is available direct from amazon for international shipping, it's still a good idea to buy direct from them as you have recourse during the warranty period.

T