newnative

Hugely beneficial. Organized religion, on the other hand . . .

I miss JSixpack, too! If I remember, I think he used to post that Central Festival Pattaya was one of the more successful malls in Thailand. I find the 'nobody's shopping' argument ludicrous. As you state, the mall has been open since 2009. If no shops were selling anything, there would be no shops left, even pre-covid. Instead, some stores and restaurants decided to open second outlets at T21. Why do that if nobody's buying at your first outlet just down the street?

Been here 11 years, have not seen much of a rise in prices. Certainly the COLAS on my SS and pension have easily kept pace.

Wrong, if we're talking about CF and T21. They were very busy, pre-covid. Others, like Harbor, The Bay, and Avenue, were not doing well, for a number of reasons.

Yes, there is not a 'gay gene'. I've said that several times. Instead, sexuality is polygenetic, with many different genes contributing--you always ignore this and keep repeating that there is not a gene that has been identified as the specific 'gay gene'. I explained in one of my earlier posts why this made sense---there are not just specifically straight and specifically gay people in the World. "Here's the straight gene that makes you straight." "Here's the gay gene that makes you gay." That's not how it works--and I think you know that. The latest study found that genes (again, not just one) can make up to a third of the determination of one's sexuality. I've already gone over all of this before--again, several times. Other earlier studies have found that sexuality is linked to genetics, as well. You can choose to ignore the science but it's there. At this point I think we have both made the points we want to convey and it makes no sense to keep repeating ourselves.

Thank you, as well, for being civil. I think we have both made the points we wanted to make. In my case I wanted to correct your statement that being gay is a choice. That is incorrect and I wanted to call attention to it. It's important to have this clarified when discussing the topic of gay marriage, the subject of this thread, because it has been used in the past, and likely is still used, as an excuse to deny gay marriage. As one website put it: 'Anti-gay activists keenly oppose the granting of "special" civil rights protections to gay people similar to those afforded black Americans and other minorities. But if people are born gay — in the same way that people have no choice as to whether they are black or white — discrimination against gay men and lesbians would be vastly more difficult to justify. Thus, anti-gay forces insist that sexual orientation is a behavior that can be changed, not an immutable characteristic.' Obviously, those who are anti-gay can use the 'behavior that can be changed' argument to oppose more than just gay marriage. "Just stop being gay, fella, and I won't have to fire you." So, as I said, it's important to set the record straight. Hmm. Wait a minute. 'Set the record straight'??? My lord! Is there no escape! Yet another reference to being straight that I have to put up with! When will it end! Why can't straight people just quietly go about their business and not always be throwing being straight in my face! Who cares if they're straight! I don't. Keep it to yourself! Everywhere I look there are straight people flaunting their straightness by public displays of affection I can't avoid seeing. Holding hands! In public! Sometimes even kissing with no warning! In public! Disgraceful behavior and I would even say they want to be noticed. Look at us! We're holding hands! Just dreadful and clamoring for attention, in my opinion. But, that's not the half of it. If I have to watch one more movie, see one more tv show, read one more book celebrating straight people I'm going to barf. Really, it's just too much! I sit down to watch a play and, lo and behold, nine times out of ten it's about straight people! How much more, as you say, 'public affirmation of their lifestyle' do I have to suffer through! Enough already! All kidding aside, it would be great if there wasn't a need for things like Black History Month, Hispanic Heritage, gay events, Women's History Month, and so on. We haven't yet reached that point. Not too long ago a mini-series called 'Watchmen' aired. One of the opening scenes was the Tulsa Massacre, which occurred over a two-day period in 1921. Over 35 square blocks in a Black part of the city were burned to the ground, 800 people were injured and hospitalized, and estimates of 75 to 300 killed by White mobs. One of the stars of the series, Jean Smart, has said that at first she thought it was fiction. Me, too; I was shocked watching it. Neither of us, as Americans, had ever heard of the Tulsa Massacre. It wasn't in any of our American history books, we weren't taught about it, so we were ignorant of it. Which makes me wonder what else was left out, ignored, or glossed over--and all the more reason for the above mentioned events that help educate and balance things a bit.

You seem to misread or pretend to misread. Nowhere did I say that my liking for Asian men could be traced to genetics. My sexual preference for men? Yes. Linked to genetics by science. My sexual preference specifically for Asian men? No, not linked to genetics by any scientific research I am aware of. Nor have I ever used the word 'imprinted'. I specifically said my preference for liking Asian men I think has to do with environment and my life experiences--the 'environment' in my case being Japan and my 'life experience' being that I lived there in my teens. Genetics, environment, life experiences, biology, and other factors have all been found to be contributors to sexual preferences.

I think you found the study I was referring to. As I said in my earlier post, the study did not find a specific 'gay gene'. Instead, it found that hundreds and in some cases thousands of genes play a role in sexual orientations. Other earlier studies have also shown that genetics play a role. This study indicates the role is limited, perhaps a third or less, but it is still a role. To say genetics plays no role is false. It's interesting that you use alcoholics being unsuccessful in quitting to explain conversion therapy not working for gays. But, here's something interesting. Alcoholism is strongly linked to genetics, and two genes for alcoholism have been identified. So, actually, your argument proves my point more than yours. It's difficult for alcoholics to quit because it's in their genes. Same for gays. Your argument that some gays want to see genetics as a reason for being gay because they are ashamed of being gay is, sorry, rather laughable. Again, if it's just a choice, why would someone with those feelings choose to be gay? It just doesn't make any sense. I wonder, by the way, if you chose to be straight or do you think you were just born that way. One thing I failed to mention in my earlier post is your repeated statements that we choose blondes or brunettes, big butt, etc. What you fail to include is blonde what? Blonde male or blonde female? What makes you choose a male or a female to begin with? Research shows that genetics plays a role in your sexual preference. Other factors, such as life experiences, environment, and psychology, also contribute and can play a role in your preference for a blonde. In my case, I lived in Japan during my teen years. While genes contributed to my sexual preference for men, I believe living in Japan likely contributed to my attraction to Asian men. So, life experiences and environment likely playing a role, too. I find it all interesting and fascinating. And, as the study found, very complex.

It's not my 'theory'. I was relaying the latest scientific research. You're welcome to believe what you believe but it's not backed up by science. I'm curious about one thing. With your belief that we just choose to be gay, why do you suppose conversion therapy doesn't work? If it's just a choice, shouldn't the therapy easily work--especially since anyone doing the therapy in the first place would be a highly motivated person strongly wanting to 'convert'? Should be a breeze. Instead, failure. Something's not adding up with your choice of choice. Nice you support civil unions. I would be happy with civil unions as a start in Thailand as long as that meant the same rights for straight and gay couples. I think many gays want only gay marriage for the same reasons you don't want them to have it. The rest of your post does not really relate to gay marriage. I will say that preferential treatment (nothing to do with gay marriage) is not new. My father liked to tell the story of when he took an exam to become a mailman sometime during the Great Depression. He scored the highest of the people taking the test and should have gotten the job. But, a veteran was also taking the test and, as a veteran, he was awarded 10 extra points, which put his score higher and he got the job. Happy ending though. My Dad got a job working for the Department of Defense and ended up with a much more interesting and challenging job that took him, and his family, all over the World. C'est la vie.

Probably an exercise in futility but if I might make my comments on genetics and sexuality from the perspective of a gay man. Several of your posts have made the point that there isn't a way genetically to determine if one is gay or not. In other words, there is no gay gene, if you will. In this, you are correct with what we currently know. This was the finding of one of the most recent and one of the largest studies of genetics and sexuality. Instead, the study found that sexuality is polygenetic, with hundreds or sometimes thousands of genes making tiny contributions to one's sexual traits. So, no specific 'gay gene', but genes do play a role. The study also found that other factors like psychology, environment, and life experiences also contribute. The main takeaway from the study was that sexuality is quite complex, involving many factors, including genes. When you think about it, it makes sense that there isn't a single 'gay gene'. If there was, things would be a lot more cut and dried. "Well, let's take a look under the hood. Yep! There's the gay gene. You are definitely gay, fella." Doesn't work that way. Instead, we have hundreds or sometimes thousands of genes in various combinations that, along with other factors, result in some of us being straight, some gay, some bi, some trans, etc. And, it doesn't work to say, as you have in earlier posts, that being gay is a 'choice'. No, it's not. It's a non-choice combination of genetics and other factors, just as it is for those who are straight. I doubt you woke up one day, perhaps around age 11 or so, and said, "Well, I've weighed all the pros and cons and I've made the choice to be straight." Doesn't work that way with sexuality--gay or straight. In my case, I knew I was gay before I even knew what gay was. That might be a confusing statement but that's how it was for me. There was no choice involved, there was just. . . what was. What also doesn't work, by the way, is conversion therapy, according to all the latest research. And, when you think about it, that makes sense, too. If being gay was just a choice, it should be easy to change that choice--after all, it's just a choice. Let's see...do I choose Coke or Pepsi? I could be easily persuaded to change my choice if one or the other is on sale. Doesn't work that way with sexuality. I liked how one writer explained things with his article on the sexual genetic research study. He said to think of every person on earth as being the same book, each with the same words. Although the book and the words are the same, each person's book will be different because some of the words will be colored differently. The way my words are colored in my book makes me different from you, and everyone else. Same with you and your word colors. And, neither of us had any choice in the coloring. We were both born with our words colored already--and they contribute to making us who we are. Here's one strange thing with my 'genetic coloring', if you will. I write on paper with my left hand but on the blackboard I use my right. I also use my left hand with forks and spoons but I use my right hand with knives and other utensils, tools, and sports. I grew up being called left-handed because of my eating and writing but actually I do more things with my right hand. In reality, I am somewhat ambidextrous. I say somewhat because someone truly ambidextrous can do things equally well with their left hand or right. In my case, I can do lots of things with both hands, but usually not equally well. The right hand seems to better with big movements--I use my right hand with a paint roller, for example, but I can use either hand with a paint brush. If I ever took up art painting I'd use my left hand on paper and my right on a big canvas on an easel. Weird--and nothing I chose. I recently discovered that I can use either hand with ping pong or badminton but my right is better. My point with the above description is to show that my 'genetic book' has been 'colored' a bit wildly, and in some cases outside the lines. My genetic coloring, along with possibly other factors, resulted in my being gay; but it also made me rather unconventional with my dexterity when I use my hands and arms. Fun fact, one of the biomarkers for same sex attraction is being left-handed or ambidextrous. I didn't have any choice with my genetic coloring but the result is--me: blue-eyed, brown-haired, gay, and somewhat ambidextrous. In any case, the 'choice' or 'not a choice' argument should have no relevance whatsoever with the discussion on gay marriage--except that somehow it's always thrown into the debate, along with anything else, no matter how irrelevant, that can be thought up. Many of these have appeared on this thread and not a single one has any merit. All bogus, some with no relevance at all to marriage, straight or gay. But, I guess that's to be expected when you've got the tough task of finding reasons to deny someone the same benefits you have.

Decisions, decisions. Do I enter this comment in the Dumbest Statement of the Year contest or Leaver's comment that McDonalds put all the other hamburger shops in Orlando out of business. Tough choice. And, here I thought I would likely be submitting a ridiculous statement by some Thai official.

As an American, I'm having a bit of trouble with your poll. You have two categories that I take to be income level, Upper and Middle class, and a third category that, to me, is more about type of job, not income. 'Working class' seems to be more of a British term. In America, it was more 'blue collar' or 'white collar' as a way to determine the type of work one was doing--were you wearing a white dress shirt to go to your job at the bank or a blue work shirt to go to your job involving manual labor? Upper, Middle, and Lower class in America usually refer to income levels, not the type of job one is doing. A successful blue-collar plumber or electrician in America will likely be somewhere in the middle class these days. A better poll might have been: Do you consider yourself to be financially in the: 1. Upper strata, 2. Middle strata, or 3. Lower strata.

Thank you!

I got registered and I am trying to do my 90 day online. It expires Jan. 3rd. Filled out the screen and hit submit, then confirm, and I get the error message 'failure response for: 0 unknown error'. Any suggestions as to what went wrong? Site too busy maybe? Does the address have to be exactly what Immigration has--which I 'm not sure of? For 'Building name/owner name' I typed in the name of the condominium, not the owner. Should I do both? For 'contact person' I clicked on the box 'use login information'. Thanks in advance for any hints or suggestions.

I look forward to being able to travel internationally again--there are lots of places I would like to visit for the first time. In the meantime, I look forward to every day, happy I am alive and in relatively good health, with a partner to enjoy going through the day with. This beautiful morning I am sitting by the pool with my coffee, checking the news, easing into my day. Life is good.

For the umpteenth time, it's not a mall. It's 4 new hotels, plus a 5th renovated one, a convention center, an amusement park, residences, some sort of zoo/aquarium, a health and fitness center, Legoland, and, probably some other things I've forgotten. It will be different from Festival and T21 and will likely, if successful, provide both with added customers, not fewer.

TAT does break down the numbers by country. A little less than 11 million from China in 2019, for example. True, each border entry is counted as a separate person. But, the counting system hasn't changed so the overall numbers were rising each year. Some countries, obviously, had larger increases than others. Of the countries tracked, only two, Singapore and Australia, had slightly declining numbers.

TAT wants this, TAT wants that. In my opinion it's all just an exercise in nonsense. In the last 10 years my partner and I have visited Vietnam, Cambodia, Hong Kong, China (twice), Japan, Australia, Italy, Switzerland, America, France, and Singapore. Not once were we influenced by any ad campaigns by any of the countries we visited. We didn't see a single travel ad in any format. Nor did we check beforehand to see if France, for example, was looking for a certain kind of tourist. We wanted to visit France and so we visited. Ditto for all the rest. I suspect that's the case for most tourists. TAT can seek this, seek that, blowing smoke to justify its existence and its large budget, but that's about all they are doing.

'...unlikely...'. 'all things being equal'. Not exactly precise. In the end, as I said, we don't know for certain, especially with these poll numbers. So, just present the poll numbers and nothing else. Headline: 41% say no, 35% yes, and 25% undecided over new years holiday travel travel--poll. Present only the facts in the headline, not conjecture, not guesses, not certainties when there is no certainty ('most' 'will not'), etc. Leave any uncertainties to the article itself, where a fuller evaluation of the poll numbers can be presented, and an explanation of how the large number of undecideds might be expected to break.

Sorry, no. I found the headline to be inaccurate, and more than 'the least bit', which is why I posted in the first place. With a large 25% undecided, we don't really know whether 'most' will end up traveling or 'most' will end up not traveling. With those poll numbers, we just don't know. It's a tossup. Could be lots will make a last minute decision to travel. Or, not. Again, we don't know. (And, no, let's not blithely guess and split the difference with the undecideds.) Had the poll numbers been 55% no, 35% yes, and 10% undecided, the headline would have made sense. Rounding up, in this poll around 41% said no, around 35% said yes. To boldly state that 'most will not travel' when there is only a 6% difference between the two and a very large undecided is not good journalism, whether we are here or in Timbuktu.

Not bashing Thai journalism--my remarks would have been the same if it was a NY Times headline. Nice you at least admit the headline 'may have been clearer...'. That's the point. Instead of using a vague 'most', why not use the actual poll numbers? Then you could have this headline: 'Poll shows 40.57% will not travel over new years, 25% undecided.' Then, the reader can decide if 40.57% is 'most'.

Gotta be better than the un-airconditioned horrors I see now. These at least appear to be from the 20th century.

I think the word 'most' is a confusing, imprecise term at best. "I love you the most!" Ok, but how much exactly is that? 51% or 99% could both be 'most' with your usage but there is a big difference between the two. I don't think I was the only poster who questioned its use in this context. As I said before, I think a more accurate headline would have been one that highlighted one of the poll numbers.

'Clearly' we have no idea what the undecideds will do and it's not 'safe to say' what they will do. What we do clearly have is 3 sets of figures that we do know to work with. The headline writer should have taken one of those clear figures and developed an accurate headline that reflected the poll. Such as: 'One quarter of those surveyed have still not decided if they will travel over the new year holidays.' And, slightly above 50% does not equate to 'most' in my book. Clara cut the cake roughly in half and gave one piece to John and one to Mary. Who got 'most' of the cake?

My partner and I no longer own any rental condos. But, if we did, and we were only getting a low rental rate due to covid, when we previously got much higher, I imagine we might be even more selective with whom we would rent to at that low price point.