Lilyflower

oh yes!

and not a nicked wheel or curly wig in sight!!

funny that...

no no no no no no no!!!!!!!

if your parents instilled in you (from a very early age) a fear of anything even slightly likely to be dangerous, or just moderately risky, you'll know that the best one ever is...

29) Despite constant warning, you have never met anybody who has had their arm broken by a swan.

i'm obviously not in PK's league - but i think this could be closely followed by

29b) ...or their leg broken by a badger

but garlic bread definitely is the future - and i have tasted it!!

Well this is a topic where all of us English Guys can at least discuss without war breaking out

Sven is to depart after the World Cup Finals whatever the outcome.

Is this a good thing for England?

Bear in mind that El Tel knew he was going after Euro 96 where we got to the semi's only to loose on penalties.

Will he be motivated enough to do a good enough job? Will he be able to motivate the players, especially after he has slagged many of them off?

If you were in charge at FA headquaters what would YOU DO?

Personally I think it is very tricky, the man has a colourful past to say the least, England are pretty good right now, but is that down to him or the fact that there is a fantastic crop of players who are hitting their peak at the right time (like Man U in 1999)

Because of this would it be better for him to go now and get soemone else to motivate this wealth of talent we currently have?

Problem there is how to make a quick appointment and who out of the wealth of talented Managers out there would want the "Poisoned Chalice"???

is it ok for a non-english-non-guy to pass a comment?

if it is - here's mine.

no problem with him going. it's clearly what he wants to do anyway. big problem with the payoff it looks like he's secured (est 2.5 mill+).

unless there was a cracking manager ready to take over right now, he really needs to stay until after the world cup. don't think england would do well in the world cup with the lack of consistency PLUS a mediocre replacement.

Buying me a beer always works...

..and in Yorkys case (nothing "potential" about it mind) just wait.. it won't be long before he deals with himself and falls over !

totster

first - i promise this is a genuine question... i'm really not trying to make a point, etc. i think knowing the answer (ie understanding how you're thinking) might help me understand how best to handle it myself.

i've copied totster's post because he was honest enough to say it! but this question is to any bloke out there who knows he does the 'trying to start a conversation with a woman' thing after a few beers...

what would you do if you (a bloke) were having a quiet drink in a bar and a group of rowdy/drunk, etc blokes came in and one of them came over to start a conversation - if you thought they were trying to chat you up...?

This is a straight answer. I was in Phuket a few weeks ago, sitting in a bar having a quiet drink (not a girlie bar). A large Finnish guy started talking to me from across the bar then asked if it was ok to join me at my part of the bar. We hit it off, had many drinks, compared stories about work, travel, ex wives, his time in Sydney some years ago and generally had a good blokey time. I even won 500 baht from him when he insisted on betting he was older than me (Apparently we both look younger than our real ages).

After many and varied drinks boheme abounded. I then began to notice that every joke, point made, etc, seemed to result in a hand shake and these shakes became more and more prolonged. They were sometimes accompanied by a hug and more. I found I had difficulty retrieving my hand from his. When I looked at the bar staff, and a young Australian couple next to me, they were all grinning and tittering! I then realised he was looking at me in a very drunken amorous way (a look I'm sure I've had in the past, but never in the company of a large male Fin). He then made it obvious he wanted the party to continue at a different level.

It was time to retrieve the situation. I forcefully pulled his hand off mine, placed it on the bar and told him firmly that I was not interested in anything beyond drinks. He got the message, we had one more drink as mates and went our seperate ways.

I had been flattered in a way, it was the first time ever in Thailand I had come across someone who was interested in me and not my wallet.

thanks old croc! it's a bit of a wierd feeling isn't it when you first realise what you thought was a great night over a few beers was actually meant to be something else!!

do you think you would have felt differently if there were a load of his friends (also large and male) watching in the background? i think it's sometimes quite intimidating for women if they feel there's a 'mob' just a couple of metres away...

Buying me a beer always works...

..and in Yorkys case (nothing "potential" about it mind) just wait.. it won't be long before he deals with himself and falls over !

totster

first - i promise this is a genuine question... i'm really not trying to make a point, etc. i think knowing the answer (ie understanding how you're thinking) might help me understand how best to handle it myself.

i've copied totster's post because he was honest enough to say it! but this question is to any bloke out there who knows he does the 'trying to start a conversation with a woman' thing after a few beers...

what would you do if you (a bloke) were having a quiet drink in a bar and a group of rowdy/drunk, etc blokes came in and one of them came over to start a conversation - if you thought they were trying to chat you up...?

redrus i can see you too...

it took me ages to work out what was going on in phuketsiam's and it scares me

quite a lot

Manchester United are the best soccer team in Britain but they have been having problems and my own thought is that this could be because George Best passed away still very recently which has daaged moral among the team.

I am sure they will bounce back sure enough this will be their year.

are you being serious??? even the biggest mufc fans i know wouldn't say that...

Question to those familiar with the Abrahamic monotheisms: are God, Allah and Yaweh thought to be the same entity or is each competing with the other two (not to mention Brahma, etc) for supreme status?

According to a book on Islam that I read last year, it's the same deity, and Muslims originally gave special consideration to Jews and Christians as "Children of the Book." I think the difference lies mainly in the interpretation of God's wishes. I don't know if the average guy in the street sees it that way, though. I remember after Holyfield beat Mike Tyson (a Muslim by then) to a pulp one time he was yelling, "My God's greater than your God!" But I guess heavyweight boxers aren't exactly known for their intelligence.

here's how i understand it...

abraham believed in god. that god had the name 'yahweh' and was referred to as 'god'.

abraham had two sons: ishmael and isaac.

ishmael became the 'father of 12 nations' (nowadays they're generally referred to as 'the arab nations'). these nations are muslim nations and the name of their god is allah.

isaac became the father of jacob (his name was later changed to israel) and jacob/israel became the father of 'the twelve tribes of israel'.

christianity came into being with jesus christ. he was from one of these tribes (judah).

jews see yahweh as the name of god. some bible translations used by christians (eg new jerusalem bible) also use this name - but most christians just use the title (ie god) rather than a specific name.

muslims, jews and christians all have abraham as their father. it sounds to me like they all started off with the one god - so i would say that yahweh and allah are the same in that sense. over the years, the beliefs that came with that have become more diverse (that might explain camerata's comment that muslims originally thought of jews and christians as 'children of the book' when i'm pretty sure they're not viewed like that now).

you guys make me laugh

not sure what's going on with wes turner. i'm still trying to work out what ##### means!! no need to enlighten me... i might be better off not knowing!

i think samui is lovely. it's no more dangerous than anywhere else in the world and a lot safer than most. Like everywhere, you're likely to be absolutely fine if you're not looking for trouble...

i agree about prices being a bit more than bangkok - but it's still pretty good value for money i think. you can still get a good meal for 30 baht. i wouldn't worry about not being able to get stuff. there's a pretty big range of stuff there - and in case you don't find what you're looking for anywhere else... a whacking great tesco lotus

you've got the choice of busy places (chaweng and maybe lamai) and loads of really quiet places (mainly south and west coast) and loads in the middle.

there's loads of choice in terms of accommodation - and if you want to PM me i can put you in touch with someone who has a place 2 mins away from choeng mon and big buddha beaches, but in a mixed area (thai and farang). choeng mon is my favourite place! really beautiful and a good choice of restaurants. what more do you want!!!

hope you find what you're looking for...

redrus - sorry about the bad year... i know how that feels.

i've not got a signature because i think it's something really personal and i haven't worked out yet what i should have. more a case that it matters a lot, than doesn't matter at all.

strange how different people view it differently. would be boring if we were all the same!

for info... james wattana (snooker player) played A LOT years ago. not sure if he still does...

thanks guys. making more sense now...! just want to clarify a couple of things and ask a couple more questions.

chownah - thanks for the comments re dukka. that also makes sense when put together with camerata's comments that the buddha didn't seek to explain the origin of the universe, etc.

camerata - thanks for the clarity of your post and the way you laid it out. made it easy to make sense of what you're saying. i have more questions - see below!

thaibebop - i can't agree with your statement that there isn't a truth to how we got here, what (if anything) life is all about, etc etc (which is what i was asking about). i absolutely appreciate your comment that we only experience a perspective on that truth, and I would add that maybe none of us have the 'true' perspective... and therefore 'the truth'. but there absolutely is a truth about these things.

back to camerata's post...

i can understand what you're saying about buddhism creating a purpose in life (if you don't believe in a deity)... i can see exactly how what you and others have described as buddhism can provide this. i can see also that you might believe in evolution as a buddhist (because you may not believe there is a diety who put it all here). that to me would make sense also. where it stops making sense to me at the moment is where the notion of rebirth fits in (if this is about reincarnation which i've assumed it is). i'm not sure how reincarnation fits with what else i've read in your posts and others on this thread.

can anyone explain?

thanks

don't you just love stuart pearce....????

seriously refreshing passion and honesty. good for the game i reckon (regardless of the team you support)

interesting idea for a thread...!

i think it's interesting because there can only, by definition, be one truth. what i mean is that there can only be one true explanation for how we (and the universe generally) got here, whether or not there's a purpose to us being here (and if there is, what that is), etc, etc.

there are different 'stories'/narratives, etc for what this one truth is. some of them are found in different religions and philosophies, and across different cultures around the world. BUT there is still only one real truth (by definition of the word!).

and camerata's point (if i've understood it properly) is also that there are falsely held views of what this one truth is and he uses a really good example to illustrate this (eg believing 'the truth' to be different to what actually happened in the kitchen!).

like suegha, i would also like to know what buddhist's consider to be this one truth...

thanks to camerata and abandon - i can see what you're saying is that nirvana is the 'end point', and i think you're describing that as a non-judgemental state where things are seen exactly as they are. what's the buddhist belief in relation to this state? is it an everlasting state? (ie once we reach nirvana we 'live forever').

that would answer the point about the 'purpose' to us being here... but i'd also like to go back to the other point - what's the buddhist's explanation of truth in relation to how we (ie the universe as a whole) got here. and also what happens to those who don't achieve the end purpose and reach nirvana?

i appreciate these are big questions - and i'm really looking forward to the answers!!!

but it encourages these young Thai men in ways you cannot understand........ they have never seen their women like farangs except in bars where you can buy sex...

...And beat them up and kill them?

No excuse can be made, we decided many hundreds of years ago that we, as human animals, would have law and order for reasons of self preservation.

As a Darwinian I could argue that rape is as natural as murder, eating or going to the toilet - which it is, but that's beside the point.

just for the sake of 'balance' Wes...

here are the words seonai posted immediately before the bit you quoted...

and about the way western women dress etc and the way they often behave..... it is certainly NEVER an excuse for rape.....

the one thing everyone on this thread seems to agree on is that there is no excuse for those who did this. i think that was seonai's point also.

on a separate subject (maybe one for somewhere away from this thread...???) i didn't realise that darwinians thought that rape/murder are as natural as eating, etc. that's also a biblical principle... interesting thought!

I know I am a bit late with this but I just want to say that this case has touched me as much as a lot of you out there. What I find particularly disturbing are comments from people like JOHPA about fishermen hanging out on Lamai Beach. Seonai

Yo Dude, Lamai, as well as Chaweng, have really never been on the fisherman's path. Both beaches are windward, are shallow, have never had fishing boat docking facilities, nor had shops to resupply fisherman. You want ports on Samui for fisherman you need to go to Nathon or Bophut. Chaweng and Lamai beaches are scarcely recognizable as being Thai: they are Farang tourist ghettos.

Thai fishermen are a tough group. And I am not talking tough because they work hard like fisherman up in Alaska. These are the "Thai pirates." They do have a very, very high rate of substance abuse. Yea, sure, you can meet some nice guys who are fisherman, usually local boat owners and their local crews. But having non-local fisherman from the mainland anchoring outside Lamai or Chaweng when there is not now, nor has there been in the past, any reason for them to be there, is just asking for trouble. Most municipalities around the world keep the addicts away from the tourists. Chaweng and Lamai should be no exception. It has never been "their patch."

i don't know anything about boats moored off the mainland... and i don't know about lamai beach longer ago than about 3-4 years. but at one end of the beach (the buddy bar end) there is a little makeshift harbour and has been during the years i've been going there. i think the fisherman are local - in any event, they're pretty established and the ones i've come across are very pleasant... just getting on with their lives like everyone else.

i'm just trying to emphasise that there are nice guys, who are fisherman, who've been located on lamai beach for years...

i must be a bit slow today, i didn't see it coming...

or perhaps both...

But I do wonder why Thai fisherman are allowed to hang out at tourist venues such as Lamai or Chaweng or anywhere other such locations as it spells only big time trouble.

...and I wonder why tourists are allowed to hang out at fishermen's venues such as Lamai...

And I wonder why local San Francisco residents are allowed to mingle with the tourists at Fisherman's Wharf? And just how would that "anti-mingling law" read? C'mon! Get real!

Just to clarify... I was being sarcastic to make a point (clearly it didn't quite work - sorry about that!).

I was surprised to read Johpa's comment when he wondered why Thai fishermen are allowed to hang out in Lamai. I would have thought that the first place Thai fishermen would have thought of hanging out would be somewhere near the sea, in Thailand!

I suppose I'm trying to say that just because tourists like/use a beach, I don't see why other people can't use it too. As an occassional tourist myself, I would be horrified if my choosing to visit a nice beach meant that previous users/native users/anyone else, etc etc etc weren't allowed to go there anymore. I'd be especially horrified if that decision was made because as a tourist I brought in more money etc (perhaps an idealistic view of the world - but nevertheless that's how I would feel)...

...And just on a practical level, there are bad people everywhere in the world - some of them are fishermen, some of them are tourists, some of them are politicians, some of them are teachers, some of them are... etc etc. Making a beach exclusive to one group of people will not stop bad things happening.

Hope that helps to clarify what I was trying to say

But I do wonder why Thai fisherman are allowed to hang out at tourist venues such as Lamai or Chaweng or anywhere other such locations as it spells only big time trouble.

...and I wonder why tourists are allowed to hang out at fishermen's venues such as Lamai...

'Tourist' Katherine Horton cannot be deemed at fault for 'hanging out' at Lamai. Though possibly aware that fishermen were in the area could she really be in any way held responsible for the foul, inhuman death she met?

Not all fishermen are drunken rapists and killers.

Not all tourists are mindless ill mannered fools.

If as it increasingly appears, these men have done this dreadful thing it is their responsibility.

There is no justification for such a vile act whereever it takes place and whomsoever it involves.

Evil is evil.

Hi there... I've just posted a reply to toptuan which might clarify what I was trying to say on this. I agree absolutely with all that you've said here.

But I do wonder why Thai fisherman are allowed to hang out at tourist venues such as Lamai or Chaweng or anywhere other such locations as it spells only big time trouble.

...and I wonder why tourists are allowed to hang out at fishermen's venues such as Lamai...

a slightly different tack here...

(i'm going to talk in sweeping generalities here - so please excuse that - it's a general point i'm making)

i think some nationalities are more able to 'take a slagging' than others. for example, it seems to me that the aussies and the irish are used to taking a slagging because to a large extent that sort of thing is part of the culture of those countries - and certainly part of the national sense of what is humorous (and can make for an extremely entertaining night out!).

the brits aren't quite as good at taking a 'personal' slagging - but they're great at slagging off their government (even if they voted for them), the royal family (whether or not they think it's a good thing), their mates/colleagues, etc etc.

i think what is sometimes different with americans is that they aren't used to that slagging thing. i was in a group a while ago that included an american who was getting really naffed off that others were slagging george bush/america's foreign policy etc. they really weren't being serious about it, but he took it really badly. he didn't realise that they do the same for their own country's politicians, etc and it was nothing personal towards anyone - certainly not him...

i don't think anyone should have to hide their nationality when they travel - mixing it up is part of the joy of it... i'd just suggest that you be prepared to understand there are differences in cultures (including how different peoples interact) - then you'll have a great time!

have a good trip...

i hear a lot on other areas of this forum about pattaya and although i try not to believe bad stuff people say, it does have a bit of an effect.

i'm really sorry richard about all that happened with aom's illness and death. i'm so pleased it was possible for her to have some care, comfort and peace in the end. i wish you well for the future and hope you gain some comfort yourself from your memories of aom.

i've been really impressed and touched by the help richard gave to aom (i'm sure a person who felt less might have walked away). and i've also been really impressed and touched by the help offered to richard (especiallly in that so much of it seems to have been done privately - away from the forum itself). it makes me feel good to be part of a forum where people are so willing to help each other in a time of need.

whenever i read negative stuff about people in pattaya on other threads, i'll be sure to post a reminder that redresses the balance...

Suegha:

You claim to not want a "confrontational" board and yet you throw around accusations of other Christian denominations that they are "apostate" quite freely.

AFAIK (i was brought up a Catholic but didnt pay much attention in religion class) the Catholic church believes in Heaven and hel_l (along with the Orthodox churches), so to claim that churches that preach the existence of Heaven and hel_l are apostate straight away offends about 60 to 70% of Christians worldwide.

Casually referring to their beliefs as "apostate" seems pretty confrontational to me.

In addition you boast about having read the Bible many times, but you also say you have never read St. Augustine. (In the interests of full disclosure I should state that i never read a word of thim either). Since St. Augustine is regarded as an extremely significant theological thinker by both the aforementioned churches and most Anglican, (and i think Lutheran) churches, basically you are out of step with 80% of Christians worldwide.

Not that there is necessarily anything wrong with that, for all i know you could be right and they could all be wrong.

However, it does mean that (from a purely statistical point of view) thaibehop was nearly right to state that (to copy his irritating use of caps and all) CHRISTIANS AREN"T LIKE YOU. He would have been more right to state that "OVER 80% OF CHRISTIANS AREN"T LIKE YOU".

Even still i am not sure what point he was trying to make, but perhaps the above provides some clarification.

well worded post RTB... i like your logical approach!

thaibebop wrote...

Trying reading my post and then respond. It might work better.

hmmmn... did you think i responded without reading your post? what was it i said that made you think that?

i thought i was responding quite clearly to the points you made in your post.

Yeah, so, let me repeat myself, CHRISTIANS AREN"T LIKE YOU. Okay? You have your nose so far in the book you don't know what other Christians are doing or what they believe. So, please read something else before telling me what Christians are, becuase you have no clue. I said it before, but, you should care what Augustine wrote and others like him because they have influenced modern Christian thinking, thus how that book of yours is understood by other Chirstians. And the whole grace thing has been thrown out a long time ago because why would any want to be a Christian if what they did had no effect of getting them into heaven? The Church (which ever one you want to use) isn't going to get modern people in the pews by saying that God has predetermined who is going to h3ll and who to heaven and there is nothing you can do about it. So, yes it is an outdated concept.

wow thaibebop! your post reads like you think all christians are the same... are you saying that all modern christians think the same, and that all christians believe in going to heaven or he11? i think suegha describes himself as a christian - but he just doesn't believe some stuff that some other christians believe.

i know loads of christians who believe (fundamentally) different things to each other - and i know loads of christians who don't believe in the concepts of heaven and he11 as places of eternal reward or punishment...

i think from the people i discuss these things with that there are variations of belief within people who share the same 'title' (eg christian) - sometimes over absolutely fundamental things (eg heaven and hel_l!). i think that's the same for other major religions too - eg some muslims think islam justifies killing non-muslims, some think the opposite and say it condemns the taking of innocent life - and i'm sure there are similar examples in other religions...

a previous 'poster' wrote about foundationalists and fundamentalists... i really appreciated those definitions - i'd not heard of foundationalists before. sounds to me like suegha is a 'foundationalist' who believes that christ was the 'messiah', and that the 'holy scriptures' are complete (which could be why he calls himself a christian). if that's the case, why should he read augustine (except out of general interest)? it would have no effect on his general beliefs or faith. i'm sure there must be many writers (across religions and with no religion) who don't believe in the concept of 'grace' - but then there are church of england bishops in england who don't believe quite a bit of what the bible says!

surely by definition, a foundationalist wouldn't believe that it's possible for the bible to be 'outdated'? (would welcome the original poster's view on this...)

ps - just wanted to apologise ... as you can tell, i'm new to this!

i didn't know how to check who'd said about foundationalists and fundamentalists once i'd started to post a reply!!! so, thanks sabaijai for your definitions. and, as i said, i'd appreciate your response to the question at the end of my previous post.

i'll get the hang of this soon...