HarryHerb

Sorry Brit, I wasn't directly referring to you. But don't you think it's kind of funny that a thread about desirable men gets overrun with posts from straight men?

Kat,

thank you,

you are saying exactly what I wanted to prove by starting this thread.

I wondered, how long it would take for some posters to try to destroy the fun spirit of it as so often happens with other topics.

I asked what is a desirable man, a topic women would have fun with on a girl's night out, an afternoon shopping.

it's not a question of numbers, how few or how many women are TV members , the point is that the Ladies forum is a nice vehicle for women to vent, share, giggle, or ask for advice from like minded people who understand what they are going through, a woman's point of view rather than a man's idea of what a woman should think, act or behave.

however, this is not what happens.

Yes, I think quite a few ladies here would find the silent type quite desirable

Yes I have to agree the work schedule is not good for a relationship. Actually most weeks we only spend around 8 hours of quality time together. That said, we knew time or lack of it together would be a problem but accepted this when we started the business. If we want some security for our future we need to work hard now. Obviously a balance would be better but we do know that there is a problem and that is half the problem solved. If the work seriously threatened our relationship then I would slow down. As long as we accept this situation is for now, then it has little or no power over us.

I'm no expert in relationships but the above sentence in bold really sets alarm bells ringing. Future goals are all very well, but what future will there even be if you're putting your relationship in jeopardy right now?

(Over) work is surely the biggest relationship killer of all (after cheating). When you don't have time for each other now, there seems little point in thinking about an idealised future when things will be better. They won't. I think someone mentioned about 'letting go' and this is very important - at least if you value your relationship over your business.

Take some time off! Cut back on your hours. It'll be hard at first (I know, I have done this myself), but I'm sure it can be done without serious detriment to your business. Just remind yourself what is more important to you. The balance is there - you just need to find it before it's too late.

My best wishes to you...

p.s. very interesting thread, thank you!

Forget about the nasty females, you guys really know how to bitch fight...

Hi, maybe this should be in the pets section. not sure, sorry if that's the case. Simple question. I want to buy my son a small. harmless snake for his birthday - any tips on where to buy?

Thanks,

Seonai

Never seen a snake in a pet shop here; most Thai people throw rocks or start beating the poor creatures with a stick on sight, regardless of whether or not they're posionous.

Why don't you ask some of your neighbours to catch one for you? There must be snakes everywhere in Koh Yao.

Failing that, I'd try asking at one of the snake shows in Phuket or Ao Nang. They mostly keep venomous snakes, but they get them all through their local contacts, so they may be able to find you a harmless green grass snake, or something of that nature.

alot of them look like they are into Voodoo Magic or something

Are you sure your nickname isn't kkk123?

I second Donna.

PLEASE!!! can a mod close this thread before it degenerates even further?

foreign females in general are thin on the ground here

Just curious -- where " in the sticks" are you, that there are farang men but few women, and most of these not straight-thinking??

Sheryl, don't mean to be coy, but think about it: this description fits most touristy beach areas in Thailand... especially the bit Seonai added of women not sticking around for very long.

A german friend of mine was approached on sukhumvit and asked by an african if he would like to purchase drugs

And? What's your point? My Italian friend was approached by "a European" yesterday and asked if he wanted to buy drugs. Big <deleted> deal.

This thread is completely pointless. Why should the presence of Nigerians, regardless of what they are 'up to', in Thailand bother anyone? Live and let live, and let the Thai police do the rest...

Yup, me too. Seems all is well now. Thanks to everyone who checked!

You have to consider how this farang woman is going to meet this Thai guy.

I don't know about Bangkok, but out in the sticks, I'd say I spend about 95% per cent of my time with men, Thai or farang. Female company is the one thing I miss the most in Thailand. It's pretty impossible to make (real) friends with local women; and (normal) foreign females are thin on the ground.

Men, however, are everywhere! And mostly pretty friendly. I think it won't be hard at all for this character to meet a Thai guy, especially if she shuns the organised 'spouses' coffee morning / charity event planner / croquet club' set and hangs out on her own. It'll be more a case of fighting them off with a stick

You got me curious. 1. What is an abnormal foreign female? 2. Why are normal foreign females on thin ground?

Tempting though it is, I'm afraid I shall have to decline your invitation to wade into deep waters, mark45y - even escorted by yourself.

I will admit that the word 'normal' was an afterthought to the surely uncontentious observation that foreign females in general are thin on the ground here and, in hindsight, probably the wrong choice of adjective. I suppose it was shorthand for 'straightforward, clear-thinking / self-aware, amiable, lacking in complexes (Thailand-related or otherwise)'.

One of my reasons for joining this forum, after lurking for a while, was precisely because of the high concentration of 'normal' (as defined above) women here, as opposed to my everyday life. As to why that is, I couldn't tell you.

???

I'm on TOT ADSL and still nada. Hardly a site an ISP would want to block, so what's the problem?

You have to consider how this farang woman is going to meet this Thai guy.

I don't know about Bangkok, but out in the sticks, I'd say I spend about 95% per cent of my time with men, Thai or farang. Female company is the one thing I miss the most in Thailand. It's pretty impossible to make (real) friends with local women; and (normal) foreign females are thin on the ground.

Men, however, are everywhere! And mostly pretty friendly. I think it won't be hard at all for this character to meet a Thai guy, especially if she shuns the organised 'spouses' coffee morning / charity event planner / croquet club' set and hangs out on her own. It'll be more a case of fighting them off with a stick

Anyone else have problems logging on to http://www.britishembassy.gov.uk, or is it just me?

Anyone know what the problem is? server down or site moved?

Cheers

Byron, who is this play for? Are you writing it for fun, or have you been commisioned? Is it a radio play, screenplay, or theatre piece? I think the intended audience will probably have some bearing on the plot - is this aimed at world-weary expats here, or a naive western public who will believe any old sex tourism / ladyboy rubbish about Thailand?

Is the main figure going to be the female character, i.e. will the story be told from her point of view?

Personally I don't find the whole 'turns out to be gay' storyline credible at all. I think straight women are much more tuned in to sexual orientation than straight men. Sheryl beautifully articulates all the motivation you need for the affair above - and there are any number of other twists in the tale you could add, depending on how cynical you want to be...

Mid-May is low season. The boats stop around 10pm / 11pm, depending on the day. After dark it's 100 Baht per person. You'll either have to wait for the requisite 5 people, or charter the whole boat for 500 Baht (possibly negotiable)

As I cruise about in BKK and Pattaya, I notice not only large #s of farangs and TGs with tattoos but also a massive amount of tattoo shops. I'm trying to get a feel for how popular they are in Thailand percentage wise. Thanks Q4F

Dunno if that shows that tattoos are popular in Thailand - maybe only that Thailand attracts a lot of farangs who have / like tattoos...

What I read here is a bit of knee-jerk negative reaction to the very idea of any tsunami film, at least this early, if at all (which is fine). But I think I detect just a slight amount of self-righteousness in some of these posts. Many people are making negative (and false) assumptions.

First, a small thing: as some people have missed, this is not going to be a film that will be shown in theatres, but rather on BBC.

Second Harry Herb said, "What I find interesting is that they're clearly concerned about "distressing" British families of victims, but don't think twice about using local people here to play the 'victims' - having said that, though, I'm sure there are plenty of people who will take the cash without a second thought." What is wrong with merely asking local people to play victims? (Its asking, not “using”) If you are asked to participate, and have a problem with it, you just say no. Movies, unless they have a big budget, can’t really afford to bring in extras from outside the places where they are being filmed. I didn't know it was so horribly insulting to merely be asked. Lastly, not all extras are doing it for the cash. Some people, (gasp!), actually think this film is a good thing.

The widespread reaction you dismiss as 'knee-jerk' could equally well be described as a very strong gut feeling that this film is wrong. Although you attempt to portray me as self-righteous and over-emotional, I think I am a fairly rational person, capable of clear thought. And my overwhelming feeling is that, regardless of how the subject is treated, it is just too soon to make this film.

This is why, yes, it is insulting to put up a public poster asking local people (many of whom were real victims) to come and play at being victims. There are more sensitive ways to recruit.

Third, it also seems alot of people on this thread are trying to deny that anyone who would have anything to do with this film could actually also have been victimized or traumatized by the tsunami to the same level or at all. The disaster affected all kinds of people, whether they were physically on the beach, chilling out in Rawai, or watching it on TV from another country. Whether a person you knew was killed, a place you identified with was destroyed, you were simply horrified by the scope of the disaster and its aftermath, or whatever, nobody can be denied their particular emotional response.

Including those who object to the film?

Fourth, to quote ‘konkeror,’ “It depends on how it's done. It could be totally tasteless. Then again, if done well (not likely) it could induce some people to visit just by virtue of the on-location shooting. It depends a great deal on what sort of attitude the film has towards both officials and local people who went through the disaster.” A film does not have an attitude. A film is not a person. It is (hopefully) a collaborative work of art that is the product of many interactions. Surely the people involved in the making of the film are not all of one mind acting in unison. Yes, the film could wind up being done poorly, but if that happens, it will likely happen to the dismay of many involved in making it.

A brief aside: Harry Herb’s original post says “Extra info: filming locations will be - get this - Krabi, Phuket, Khao Lak.,” I’m sorry, but what do you mean by “get this” When you say “get this,” you mean it is self-evident, very obvious, to everyone what you think about the fact it is being filmed in those places. Is there a self-evident, undeniable problem with filming in these places? Can you enlighten me, please?

See above: it is too soon. With the exception of Ko Phi Phi, which seems to have its own little tsunami tourist industry going on, I cannot see a re-enactment of events on any beach in the area going down very well.

Fifth, yes perhaps it is too early for a film about the tsunami, but on the other hand, some of the issues raised are pressing and many people have already forgotten them: land snatching, people who still haven’t found their loved ones (or their bodies), just to name two of them. Why should we wait to talk about land snatching when five years from now it will be, in many cases, something nobody can do anything about. Bad things are happening RIGHT NOW and surely raising awareness of them can help. Why does everyone automatically assume this film is all about making money? Maybe the person who wrote it wanted to raise awareness. What a concept.

Please re-read your two statements in bold.

Land-snatching is clearly an issue, you are quite right, and one that should be raised; there are several groups working with disenfranchised residents at the moment. However, the sub-plot of a TV drama is hardly the best place to raise such complex issues.

More strange comments, (khall64au) “Too bad the locals were not consulted... am sure the "true" experts popped up and the end product will be sensational-istically worth the advertisers dollars! First, who are “the locals"? Expats who make comments on online bulletin boards? Thai government officials? Food vendors? And how do you know they weren’t consulted? How could you possibly know who was, or is being consulted?!

Harry Herb writes, The story, as far as I understand it, is told from a tourist's (not local) perspective and is likely to be critical of the Thai (lack of) action re: warning systems... no mention of charitable donations either (probably because the BBC already thinks of itself as a charity!!)

Actually, my understanding is that there are a number of perspectives represented in the film, including a number of different Thai perspectives. (There’s actually more than one Thai perspective, you know) To expand on this, and this is the worst aspect of self-righteousness, why are people afraid to point the finger at anyone Thai? The fact is that warnings of a potential tsunami were ignored by Thai “government officials” in order to protect tourism. Everyone knows that. We’re not afraid to criticize the UK authorities but as soon as anyone has anything negative to say about anything Thai, suddenly we’re racist, colonialist or some other shit. That’s just ridiculous. Some serious corruption exists here and some really bad stuff went down not just because of the scum in the media and foreign corporations, but also (gasp!) some very evil Thai people.

I will make no assumptions about to what extent anyone posting here should be or is involved in efforts to help those vicitimized (in whatever way) by the tsunami or to fight the injustices that followed in its wake, but I do wonder why so many people are getting in a big huff about this film (the criticsm extends well beoynd this online forum) when they could be doing more to address the issues raised by the film.

Despite all the points I’ve raised, I definitely accept that people may simply not approve of this film and everyone is entitled to an opinion. Criticize it, undermine it if you must. But just try to keep your mind a bit open and don’t always rush to judgment. Simple advice in anything in life.

Thanks for the advice, Phuketvoice. I'm not trying to undremine the film itself (how could I? I haven't even seen it, or the screenplay), simply questioning the need to film it right now, presumably with a 2-year anniversary Christmas release date. The only reason you've come up with is that it will raise issues about land snatching, the merits of which frankly do not outweigh the distress I think this film will cause. The fact there are, as you say, so many others like me who feel the same surely points to the existence of some overriding public sentiment. Call it the self-righteous moral majority if you will; but it is a real feeling and I'm afraid it will not budge.

Lots of great spicy salads with som-o, long gong, green mango, also banana flower (not strictly fruit) etc.

You can add pieces of jackfruit to chicken curry (kaeng ka-ti), pineapple and papaya to kaeng som.

Then of course there's that nasty tourist Thai stuff like sweet 'n' sour sauce made with pineapple, onions and ketchup

See a doctor about a few zits? He / she'd laugh you out of the surgery, especially in the UK.

What's up with her skin sounds like not lack of sunny weather, but the radical change in humidity. My skin goes crazy for a few weeks every time I go back and forth from here to the UK, simply because the air is so dry there and so humid here. Your wife's skin is overcompensating for the driness in the air and adding tons of moisturiser on top will only make matters worse.

The Pill will have an effect if she has recently changed brands, as I think had been mentioned. If she's eating veg, then her skin should not break out. Instead of a vitamin supplement she could try evening primrose oil, or starflower oil (available from Boots), which will nourish her skin from the inside - and cut down on the moisturiser.

My final 'diagnosis' is that many women find themselves entering a second adolescence re: their skin when they're in their late 20s / early 30s. Not sure why this is, but has happened to many of my friends - getting a mild acne - even those that had clear skin when they were younger...

This thread has been specialy created for the pleasure of short-posters.

However, if long-posters wish to say something it would also be welcome, so we can give short succint constructive answers.

As on TV, as in life, perhaps. Anything else you're quick at?

Thanks for the comprehensive answer, Sunbelt.

Now I know why everyone recommends a limited company . Yet I know loads of people who go the limited partnership / sole proprietor route, so I can't help but feeling there must be some advantage in this somewhere. Or perhaps it's because they simply don't meet the criteria for a limited company. Anyone?

Apologies if this has been discussed before, but neither search engine came up with anything relevant.

Basically, I'd like to know if there is any other set up where I can pay less tax and still receive a work permit. All the info sites just tell you to form a limited company, but I am sure there are other options if you are married.

When I first arrived, I went the classic route and now "own" a limited company, through which I get my work permit. But I'm starting a new business, which will be a joint venture with my soon-to-be husband. I've heard a lot of anecdotal evidence about foreigners having privately-run businesses in their wives' names (sole owner?), through which they are allowed to get a work permit, but are not liable for VAT etc.

Is this true, or one of those farang myths?

Can a business in an individual's name, or joint partnership issue work permits?

What taxes are these type of businesses liable for?

If anyone could outline the options, I'd be really grateful!

They must give some protection. Thais use them for welding.

My optometrist reckons that cheap (no UV protection) sunglasses are actually worse for your eyes than no sunglasses at all because behind the dark lenses your pupils relax and dilate, thus allowing more harmful rays in - he says squinting into the sunlight is better for you (although I agree with Patsycat, it's not a good look).

Of course, he was sitting in a shop full of $200 Ray-Bans as he told me this, so

When you apply do you pay the 95k or is there a filing fee other then this that you would stand to lose if your rejected?

http://www.thaivisa.com/300.0.html

7,600 Baht, non-refundable - see above page for more info...

They want to see you have made some valuable contribution, either through creating (a large no. of) jobs, charitable work, investment etc. Letters of recommendation from upstanding Thai citizens also counts for a lot.

These things may be important for an application for Thai citizenship, but they are certainly not for PR. Although I have a good job and pay a substantial amount of tax, I have not created a single job, nor did I provide any letters of reccommendation from upstanding Thai citizens. It's just not relevant for PR.

Bobcat, perhaps your job speaks for itself or perhaps your salary is way above the average, I don't know. Or perhaps there is (as usual) one rule for Bangkok and another for upcountry applicants.

The people I know who have successfully applied (upcountry) all had to prove their status in and worth to Thai society. Although it wouldn't surprise me at all if that could be valued in monetary terms...

In fact it's probably that if you don't pay the requisite amount of tax (very likely upcountry), you have to give other evidence that you have a right to be here.

Based on what you have told us you should be a certainty for PR.You are exactly the sort of person the Thais like seeing apply for PR.

I think that's the key point that everyone is missing here. PR is not just a simple admin process after having 3 consecutive extension stamps. It is generally only handed out to people who "deserve" it, i.e. have made some contribution to the kingdom they desire to live in (and no, that does not include running a pizza joint on Chaweng Beach). They want to see you have made some valuable contribution, either through creating (a large no. of) jobs, charitable work, investment etc. Letters of recommendation from upstanding Thai citizens also counts for a lot.

I have never seen the figures but I believe that the quota of PRs per country that exists is rarely used up in any given year, despite the vast number of people applying. It's highly selective.

Having said that, Tywais, you definitely have a great chance - almost certain I'd say - based on the info given.