Groongthep

To each his own I guess, but the only legitimate downside I can see to BKK over Pattaya is the poor air quality in Bangkok. Most of the other arguments I've heard on this thread are simply not true or don't apply.

> You don't need to worry about the traffic in Bangkok as you have the BTS, the MRT, the new airport link, (mostly)honest motorcycle taxi drivers, METERED cabs and virtually no sawng taeows (baht busses). Sell your car and save the money.

> There are far many more interesting places and neighborhoods in the capital to explore not to mention many more and better restaurants of all kinds and places of entertainment (except perhaps for go go’s but if you're into that sort of thing you know where to find them here too).

> The average Thai citizen of Bangkok is far better educated than in Pattaya. There is more respect shown toward foreigners and less violent crime perpetrated against them. Service of all kinds is generally better in Bangkok.

> The beaches in the immediate Pattaya area have been for years, are now and probably will remain for quite some time filthy and not fit to swim in.

> Bangkok is a vibrant international city whose expat population mostly works here and is happy to be here whereas Pattaya's expats are predominantly retired, bored and constantly complaining about something or another. Yeah, I know that's a sweeping generalization but if you read this forum much you know it's true.

> If you truly no longer like Pattaya and want to come to Bangkok, I suggest you avoid moving to lower Sukhumvit as you will encounter many of the same things you don't like about Pattaya there. You can live in another cheaper and more peaceful part of the city and still have what Sukhumvit has to offer a short commute away if you so want it.

> And after awhile if you find that you still prefer Pattaya and want to return, there's nothing stopping you from going back.

Whatever you decide I hope you find what you're looking for and wish you the best of luck.

To the OP:

All you're going to get from here on in, I think, is AA-zealots saying "Go to AA or you'll die" .

For me personally; I don't want any idioit wasting my time & theirs by attending any AA meeting before they have hit bottom.

Stopping is so hard - only a few tiny fraction make it any length of time.

So unless you want to stop - AA can not & will not be of any use to you.

If people want to kill themselves it'as perfectly OK with me. Earth is way overpopulated anyway. Just ask the econuts.

Mostly agree (except for maybe the last paragraph.

Some on here were suggesting AA are out there recruting members. Not true. There are no dues or fees to join AA. We don't keep records. You are a member if you say you are.

You can say your name is Howard Hughes, Clark Gable, Cary Grant,Rock Hudson, James Cagney. Nobody cares. Which is why folks like Eric Clapton & Van Morrison can attend in relative anonomity.

Judges in Calif "punish" DUI convicts by sending them to us with little cards to have signed. We sign them but we don't care if the person attends the meeting or not. Nor do we care what the persons name is. We don't ask for ID. Only a tiny fraction of these want help. Wastes their time & ours.

No one can prove one way or the other if someone is a member nor for how long.

It's an honor system like the US military academies.

1.) Judges in nearly all US States send alcohol related criminal offenders to AA with their little sign-off cards. I agree totally that it should not be allowed as it wastes the time of those who want to be there.

2.) I was a practicing drunk for nearly 30 years before quitting. Attending AA had a lot to do with getting me sober and saving my life although I can't say it was the only factor.

3.) I was an active duty officer in the US Navy for over 4 years and in the reserves another 2 and have no idea what you're talking about when you say that attending AA is anything remotely related to having attended a US military academy.

As of a couple years ago the first 5 books listed in Rikker's post were still available at the Rachadamri Center. Unfortunately, the tapes that go with them were not available there and IMHO any beginning Thai self-study course must have recordings (or a trained tutor) included to be of any value whatsoever. Without recordings or better yet a live trained native speaker correctly pronouncing the material, the learner will almost certainly end up speaking Thai like the guy in klon's post Heavy Farang Accent who in my opinion speaks with a really heavy and probably incomprehensible accent to most Thais. The tapes and the "Small Talk" book are still available from the Cornell University Publishing House but are quite expensive.

I still have all the AUA and FSI books and tapes which I bought for a small fortune about 20 years ago. Except for the reading and writing books they are no longer used at the Bangkok AUA center as they now only teach using the listen only method as Rikker described. I still think they're quite good but I know different people have different learning styles so others like sarahsbloke may disagree and have a perfectly legitimate argument.

The "Teach Yourself Thai" by David Smyth book is good but extremely basic and won't get you past anything but the simplest conversations. It's a good starting point though.

Don't forget the Franco Thai war 1940-1941.

Bangkok's Victory Monument commemorates this event. What Piboonsongram wanted in particular in this short military conflict were the territories which Thailand (then Siam) was forced to cede to France in 1893 and 1904 under threat of French invasion.

Bringing drugs INTO Thailand... What a joke.

Frank Lucas, a real american gangster was pulling drugs out of thailand almost as fast as they could grow them. At least the Viet Nam war was good for trade. Lots of half filled boxes that were never gonna be inspected...

Drugs, Anyone who says it's a mug's game clearly hasn't looked at the figures!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Lucas_%28drug_lord%29

I both read your Wikipedia link on Lucas and saw the movie "American Gangster". I couldn't help but come away with the impression that both downplayed the incredible suffering and social damage heroin and dope dealers like Lucas bring to any community. They are particularly hard on the most disadvantaged groups including a disproportionate number of African Americans. Kudos to the black leaders who revile scum like Lucas and shame on those (mostly entertainment types) who would build him up as some sort of folk hero.

Not to disount the book (by any wild stretch of the imagination) but the first word in the example you site is ONLY something you'd ever speak to someone in your immediate circle of friends, i.e. (very) close acquaintances or a significant other.

Not to be overly contrary but if you've ever seen "Gone with the Wind" you would know that the character of Rhett Butler was very much in the "immediate circle of friends" of Scarlet O'Hara. For that reason I don't see "กูไม่สน" too much off the mark from "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a dam_n", when used in that context. I do agree that it would be inappropriate amongst strangers or casual acquaintances however.

I finally stopped into Los Cabos tonight with my brother to check first hand on the conflicting reports I've seen on this forum and from word of mouth. Here's my assessment:

1.) The atmosphere was great. The big old wooden house painted in pastels like a large Baja style beach bungalow was very nice and the bar looked like it would be a great place to watch American sports if you're into that.

2.) The service was prompt and friendly.

3.) No "service charge" added to the bill. You tip whatever you feel appropriate.

4.) I ordered the Los Cabos Special Combination which was a steak taco and an enchilada with rice and beans. It was absolutely terrible. Everything on the plate was cold. The taco shell had obviously been fried well beforehand and was rubbery and stale. The Spanish (Mexican) rice was so cold it must have been sitting around all day. It wasn't even slightly warm. I have sometimes described some Mexican food in Bangkok as not bad "for Thailand" but this crap could only be described as lousy no matter where it was prepared.

5.) I really miss Jorge's place.

6.) I will make another attempt at La Monita's soon. The first two times I ventured by the place it was closed, even at times when the hours stated on the website said it should be open.

.

Click on: Uwajimaya Asian Supermarket and go to page 2 for shipping information. This is a large file so it may take awhile for it to download. Call the toll free (within the US) number on page 2 to ask about specific Thai products. The Seattle store is very large and carries many Thai products not listed in the catalog. If you know exactly what you're looking for they can probably find it and quote you a price including shipping.

Let's put this in the context of living in Thailand vs. overseas.

Not in your lifetime nor the lifetime of your children will there be a half-Thai Member of Parliament (MP).

But your child can come to America at any age and become a member of Congress after becoming a citizen (which is easy here).

Therein lies the social contrast, based entirely on race.

John Ungpakorn is half British and half Thai. He is currently and has been for some years, a member of the Thai Senate.

It seems that many of the posts assume Thailand isn't going to change much over the next 5-10 years. I think its fairly obvious that the beginnings of a massive social, and political change have already started. As the education system improves,and more thais venture out of the country, and return married, the population mix will change.

How I very much wish that you were correct, but I don't see much change happening anytime soon. The government education system, while maybe improving slightly is still abysmal compared to developed countries. As long as the poor kids get lousy (or no) educations at the government schools and the wealthier kids get better educated at the private ones paid for by more affluent parents the cycle of disparity between socio-economic classes will continue. The upper classes have repeatedly shown that they like being on top and want no part of changing the present system to a more egalitarian one. Any efforts by the "peasants" to change things will continue to be met by measures to prevent them from doing so.

Yeah, you are right. My name is supposed to spell as Yut in English. But let me tell you one of my experiences about Thai name in English. Someone I know spell her name as Nunta(นันทา), but her teacher, a foreigner, pronounced it as นุนทา. So, I think spelling my name as Yoot should be able to avoid some misunderstand like this.

For the very same reason I used my second choice of spelling for my forum name "Groongthep" when Grungthep was unavailable. I figured most people would recognise the oo as similar enough to sara ุ to accept that I was referring to กรุงเทพฯ. Boy was I wrong; and let's not even bring up the g vs k for the ก ไก่ issue.

As to the name Paul, the reason why we don't put silent mark on 'l' because 'l' is pronounced in English. You don't pronounce "Paw", then why "พอล์". If you use "พอล", then most people would know how it's written and spell in English. You would get a chance people can pronounce your name correctly. But if you choose "พอล์", you would confuse them and now you would get your name pronounced as "Paw" for sure, no chance for "Paul".

This is a good point which makes sense. The only problem is that the only Thais that I have met who can produce a reasonable L sound at the end of a word are those who 1.) Attended an International School in Thailand 2.) Grew up or studied outside Thailand or 3.) Had an English speaking parent. Everyone else, who represent the vast majority of the overall Thai population cannot reproduce an L at the end of a word so without the garan you're going to get an N sound 95% of the time anyway.

The problem with the point about Thais being able to spell their names however they want in English is exactly this issue of convention.....the ambiguity created by rendering English names into Thai script. But that's the reason conventional spellings arise -- to create consistency......So it seems to me that really it's the flouting of these conventions that has the greater potential to create ambiguity or confusion.

OK, I'm convinced that you are right on this point. I only wish that those responsible for coming up with the original conventional spellings would have paid a bit more attention to detail. My given name has a V in the middle of it. I would have prefered that the conventional Thai spelling used an ฟ instead of a ว because I think it would sound closer to the way I say it. Things could be worse though, in the Philippines they change the V sound to a B which really makes it sound strange.

Thanks to everyone for considering my thoughts and replying in such an even handed way.

As someone else said จอหน would be said as 2 syllables: jɔɔ-hǒn

Yes, that is why I feel that the garan is helpful in both the Thai spelling of the name John จอห์น and my suggested spelling of Paul.

And regardless of the debate about using a garan, I'm not sure why you'd want to spell Paul as ผอล์ with a ผ instead of a พ.

ผอล์ would have to be said with a rising tone because of the initial high-class consonant.

You are correct. This was another bone headed mispelling on my part. I meant to type พอล์ not ผอล์. Sorry.

Strongly agree with Meadish here. I'd recommend following Yoot's suggestion and ignoring the rest, even if they are well-meaning.

Just as I can spell Robert 'Rohbbeart' or Harry 'Hairriey', if I so please, it wouldn't make much sense to do. Thai has established conventional spellings for common foreign names, and while of course one doesn't have to follow the convention, there's not much sense in advising people not to.

Since Yoot is a native speaker and you Rikker are as close as we get to one in the foreign community here on Thaivisa I would sound pretty foolish to disagree with you. Still, regardless of the established conventional spelling of foreign names in Thai I believe the convention can be rather flawed. The purpose, I believe, should be to duplicate the original sound of the person's name as best as possible regardless of spelling. Your example of you or I spelling Robert as 'Rohbbeart' or Harry as 'Hairriey' does not really apply. We are native English speakers and know how Robert and Harry are supposed to be spelled and pronounced. The ambiguity comes in when English names are rendered in Thai script. Hence, which is the more correct spelling of Richard, ริชาร์ด or ริเชิด? There may be a conventional Thai way of spelling this name, I don't know, but for most North Americans I think ริเชิด sounds closer to how we pronounce it. Someone from Scotland may disagree however. For this reason I think the person to whom the name belongs should be free to spell it as they wish.

When Thais spell their names in English they can do so however they like so why not vice-versa? In the Northwestern State from which both you and I hail a Thai woman who goes by พร really wouldn't want to spell it Porn because of the not so wholesome meaning that Porn, as in pornography, has in the US. Likewise, I have a Thai-American friend in Seattle whose nickname is บอย. He spells and pronounces it Boyd in English because of the negative racial implications being called "boy" has in America.

I don't know for sure of course, but if our own Yoot is trying to render his name ยุทธ as in ยงยุทธ (if his name is of course ยุทธ) then shouldn't by convention it not be spelled Yut?

Krungthep,

You are assuming that the purpose of the Thai writing of English is solely for phonetic transcription purposes. The truth is a bit broader. Furthermore, your notion that "'Paul' sounds nothing like that" is true only for your ears. To the Thai ear, Paun may sound much closer to Paul than Paw does.

Perhaps you are right that to the Thai ear Paun may sound much closer to Paul than Paw does. I did not think of that, but I did qualify my statement with "in my opinion".... I was speaking from an English speaker's (and listener's) point of view. I guess I should have been a bit more broad minded.

Also, I was referring specifically about people's given names not the entire way Thais write English derived words. Thais can spell foreign names anyway they like, but from a practical standpoint nobody likes to hear their name terribly mispronounced and if this young boy named Paul grows up being called Paun then I don't think that is what the OP wanted when he asked how he should spell his son's name in Thai. Once again, just my opinion for whatever it is worth.

BTW, I agree that your spelling of my forum name as Krungthep is much more correct than the one I use but five years ago when I originally signed up, a very similar spelling I was going to use was already taken so I used Groongthep not thinking much about it. That was well before I was aware of the great controversy and emotional reactions that the spelling of Thai words in Roman characters can elicit on this forum. If I had it to do all over again I would have chosen a completely non-Thai related moniker, but I've grown used to it now even though it is actually quite bad.

A very good analysis as always David but your last sentence threw me a bit. Consider that the commonly accepted spelling of the common English name John is จอห์น. Why would ผอล์ be much different? In both cases I assume the use of the karan is to simply try to approximate the actual sound of the correct English pronunciation. จอหน would also be a uniquely foreign spelling but the karan is used anyway. Besides, why would anyone want Paul to be pronounced Pawn or Porn as in พร when "Paul" sounds nothing like that?

Paul พอล this spelling will give you a rounded, British a as in posh British

"all" (sounds to an American like "awl")

Either way, words can't end in an "l" sound in Thai, so the final sound, in Thai pronunciation is going to be an "n" sound. Don't feel bad Michael becomes Miken. And you could be named Wayne, which means something close to terrible fate as a consequence of ones own sins and bad acts.

You are right that Thai words can't end with an "l" sound, so in Thai pronunciation the พอล spelling is going to end with an "awn" sound instead of an "all" or "awl" sound. In other words the พอล spelling is going to sound like "Pawn".

I suggest you use the silencing symbol kaaran above the ล and spell it ผอล์. The resulting sound will be similar to "Paw" (which can mean "sufficient" or "enough" when spoken with a mid tone) but in my opinion "Paw" is closer to Paul than "Pawn". The kaaran will also indicate to native Thai readers that the spelling is derived from another language.

wow.more than 600 dollars a month?i pay 500 a month for a 93 acre farm in canada and think a bit much

Do you also measure the size of a drink by how much ice you can pack into it?

Since so many want to change this thread from one about censorship in Thailand into another bashing thread targeting anyone that doesn't support Abhisit's government I have decided to cease my participation in any more discussion here.

For those who missed it the first time.

The military government used them to justify the killing of a lot of people then as well.

Simply not true.

Read David Wyatt's chapter in Thailand, A Short History on the massacre at Thammasat University in 1976 and reconsider whether or not this is true.

Since so many want to change this thread from one about censorship in Thailand into another bashing thread targeting anyone that doesn't support Abhisit's government I have decided to cease my participation in any more discussion here.

[Nearly all of the video footage shown by the government was put up on Youtube independently of the government, unless you want to go down the conspiracy theory line of the independent people actually being government agents who managed to get footage online with in a couple of hours of them happening.

So what does that prove? Anybody can put up clips on YouTube. It does not change the fact that numerous television agencies from different countries around the world clearly showed Thai Army troops firing at Red Shirt positions. The clips of Red Shirts with guns came mostly from Army controlled Thai TV.

At least get your history right if you're going to use it as the basis of your argument. The 1991 coup against the Chatichai Choonhaven government was followed by the installation of the Anand government. Nobody "rose up and reversed it". Elections were held in March 1992, with the now defunct Samakkhi Tham party receiving the most votes, but not a majority. It formed a coalition government and forwarded various names as PM, before, to no real surprise, nominating the coup leader, general Suchinda Kraprayoon as PM. Only then, in May 1992, did some of the people, led by gen Chamlong Srimuang, rise up in protest that a non elected person was being made PM. The rest is history, but obviously not to you. HM the King intervened, Anand was reappointed as PM by the parliamentary council, and new elections were held in September 2002, giving power to the Democrats. Your argument is flawed on two very major points, putting your ability to post facts in serious doubt:

The date of the "peoples uprising" was May 1992, not March 1991.

The coup was not "reversed", Chatichai was never restored as PM.

History shows that the last democratically elected PM to be ousted while holding a current mandate was Chatichai Choonhaven. He was never restored to the position. The 2006 coup removed a caretaker PM with no current mandate, and who had publically tendered his resignation to HM the King. Apples and oranges indeed.

You are correct; the "peoples uprising" was May 1992, not March 1991. My mistake, I got the date wrong. I am also quite aware of the short history you laid out above as well. If you go back and re-read the posts in order however you will see that I was answering rixalex's post where he was trying to draw some sort of parallel between the coup of 2006 and 1991. My comments were intended to highlight the differences between the two so your post actually supports my point. You are right that I got the date wrong for which I apologize but I stand by the statement that the two coups where totally unrelated.

What is distressing me is that the original topic of this thread was censorship. As much as I tried I couldn't help but defend my position that Giles Ungpakorn's book should not have been banned and he charged under the draconian LM laws. Some people on this forum however cannot accept anything that doesn't 100% support the current government and charge anyone who may have even the slightest criticism of the Army and Abhisit as being a drunken, Thaksin supporting sex tourist pedophile. It's absurd. A forum such as this should be a place where the free exchange of ideas can be respectfully discussed not a win or lose all out I'm right and you're wrong competition.

I'm just curious how you know that absolutely none of the people killed were members of the black shirt militant group? Maybe they just left their black shirt membership card at home? Seh Daeng certainly did get killed by someone, and he was quite clearly the ring leader of the black shirts, so your statement "not a single one" is demonstrably false.

I'm not absolutely sure that none of the people killed were black shirts but if there were why in the world wouldn't the army have exposed the "criminals" and identify them? Respect to the families? I hardly think so. What I was alluding to when I said "I am not making any accusations here" (but am now to make it clear to you) was that the black shirts with guns could have easily been planted in the Red Shirt ranks by the army and shown on Thai television (remember the main Thai TV stations are owned by the army) to justify the troops opening fire on the civilians.

..... .the substantial video footage and photographic evidence that exists showing red shirts carrying weapons is all the evidence that is needed to substantiate the government's version of events. I would trust their statements more than I would those of the red shirts, whose leaders are quite clearly sociopaths and lie for sport.

Oh yeah!? You might want to believe everything you see and hear on Thai Army owned television but I would much more readily believe what I see on independent international TV that repeatedly showed army troops firing into the Red Shirt crowds. If you where in Thailand at the time you obviously missed these clips as they were not allowed to be shown here at the time.

Somehow, I have difficulty believing that the army were the people who responsible for indiscriminate killings.

You must be incredibly naive.

In 2005, there was an election that TRT/Thaksin won.

In 2006, there was another election, which the Democrats boycotted, and the TRT/Thaksin failed to win, and which the Constitution Courts invalidated.

In late 2006, there was a coup, generally due to Thaksin's inability to organise new elections while he was the (resigned and expired) care-taker PM.

In 2007, there was a new election, where the PPP won the most seats, but not enough to form government. They had the help of some smaller parties to form a coalition government.

In 2008, PM Samak was forced to step down as PM for having 2 jobs (PM and TV host) and for lying in court. A PPP and coalition parties elected Somchai as PM.

In 2008, the PPP was disbanded due to electoral fraud, and the party executive were banned. The remaining PPP MPs moved to the PTP or other parties. By-elections were held to replace banned MPs. (ie everyone was represented with elected MPs).

Following the banning of PPP MPs, a new PM had to be elected by the MPs (as happens with all Thai PMs). The PTP failed to keep their coalition together, allowing the Democrats and some smaller parties to elect Abhisit as PM.

Besides the coup to remove a resigned and expired care-taker PM, what did the army have to do with any of this?

You casually mention the coup as if it were a routine ho-hum event. It was a crime. If the opponents of Thaksin wanted to get rid of him they should have done it right and formed a new party or bolstered the existing Democrat Party, put together a real platform of reform and convinced the Thai people that they should vote them into power. Instead they used the gun and forced the very flawed but popular Thaksin and his TRT out. The animosity this caused may never be rectified and the resentment in the countryside continues to fester today. Had there been no coup Thaksin would have returned from New York and organized the new elections where his supporters may not have won a majority but would have certainly won enough seats to form a new government. That would have changed everything in your timeline from 2006 forward. I'm not saying that this would have necessarily been a good thing but at least it would have been democratic. If a democratic framework could have been established at least there would now be a chance, although probably slim, that change could eventually come in a peaceful and orderly fashion. What we have now is a deeply divided Thailand that may be stuck with an aristocratic dictatorship for the unforeseeable future or until it is forcibly overthrown.

OK, you win. As I said in the other part of the post that you quoted, I don't think vicious attack opinions filled with obscenities need be heard. What that has to do with the censorship of Giles Ungpakorn's book and other legitamate critical literature is beyond me, but if it makes you happy then I will admit that you are correct.

It has to do with the fact that in different countries there are different laws about opinions that can be voiced and those that can't. In Thailand you can say things about the holocaust that you can't say in other countries. On the other hand, in those other countries you could say things about the Monarchy that you can't say in Thailand. Point being, all countries have their own laws and if you knowingly break them, as i believe Giles did, well then, whether you like the law or not, you will have to accept the consequences of having broken it... or of course you can run away.

Are you high on dope or what? What bearing does this answer have on the question you originally asked me? Yes, I know what you can and cannot put in print or say on the air in Thailand but that doesn't make it right for one political group to use the LM laws as a tool to control others. LM laws were invoked during the events of 1973 and 1976 too. The military government used them to justify the killing of a lot of people then as well. Just because a law is the law doesn't make it right. Slavery was once legal in most western countries too. Giles Ungpakorn should have the right to say anything he wants as long as he can substantiate that it is true.

I'm not sure I follow you. There was the military coup of February 1991 and many before that but they had nothing to do with Thaksin's TRT government.

Your logic is inconsistent. If every government following the 2006 coup exists because of military intervention, the same can be said of every government that followed the 1991 coup.

The same cannot be said for every government that followed the 1991 coup. The people rose up and reversed it in March of the same year remember?

Apples and Oranges.