Bday Prang

Tend to agree with you, Nothing much ever changes for the general population as a result of these events despite the rhetoric. Any improvement for foreigners is highly unlikely and would be a totally unintended consequence. All these naive posters gushing their support for this new kid on the block, expecting Thailand to evolve into some sort of left wing utopia are living in a fantasy world and are, inevitably, going to be very disappointed. The saying "things can only get better" is far from true, things can indeed get a whole lot worse and probably will " Better the devil you know" in my opinion

I'm not excusing anything , the whole thing was a absolute disaster, but there was a lot worse going on than a bit of a piss up or two. They are all just too happy to let the mainstream media and the outraged pearl clutchers get hysterical over this as it is a very effective distraction from what ever else they were up to at the time and what ever they want to bury at the moment. that's why this story goes on and on, it suits them just fine. if it didn't they would have stopped it ages ago.

Questioning the effectiveness or otherwise of any anti Covid measures is in no way indicative of whether one is left wing or right wing. It is however a normal response from those of us who are less inclined to believe everything governments and their agents tell us This whole party gate farce is merely distracting from the rest of the cluster<deleted> but if you think things would have been any better with starmer in charge you are delusional

He's Russian I don't think Russia qualifies as "the soft west"

You can call it what you like "in the west" But this is not the "west" is it ? Why are some people unable to accept that? How much further "east" would this place need to be in order for people to realise that this is not the "west" and that rightly or wrongly things are done differently here.

Was that your intention before you decided to live here? Or have you just found it a bit too difficult to fit in here?

ok

Maybe it has but do you not feel that as a parent it is primarily your responsibility to raise them as decent human beings and not the responsibility of a 20 something teacher fresh out of training college with little experience of real life which is increasingly the case these days. Is it really necessary for them to be taught the details of every sexual variation under the sun before they have even naturally reached an age where they are interested in such matters

I didn't fail to see your point. but my view is that the whole subject of human sexuality is beyond the scope of a normal school education

And this is where it all started to go wrong, the way things are these days they would have to add two more years to the time spent at school just to teach them the LGBNGT alphabet with a refresher course every 6 months for the rest of their lives

We were taught the mechanics of reproduction that was all. personally I think it was enough .

Correct

neither I nor anybody I knew was in the least bit interested, We didn't even know their christian names. It was Miss (regardless of marital status) or Mr followed by their surname or in later years it was just Miss or Sir. Any teacher divulging their first name was regarded , quite rightly , with deep suspicion by us and our parents. I think that may sound a bit strange to you but I still consider it as a good example of professional detachment and it certainly helped maintain discipline. in my opinion

There is no need to teach young kids any of this at all is the point i'm trying to make . They can't even teach them to spell properly these days. No blindness and certainly no hypocrisy

It only denotes if they are married or not, anything else is pure speculation, On the other hand Ms does have undertones in my opinion (of course)

I'm not american I'm British and yes I don't get it. Through out my entire school life I don't remember one teacher ever discussing their private lives with us pupils, their domestic situation was / is totally irrelevant to their job The same goes for any occupation in my opinion. If they did for any reason need to mention a "partner" it should be left at that "a partner" absolutely no need to go into any more detail whatsoever Of course kids are not stupid we all (thought we) knew which ones were gay , and which ones were to be kept away from even though back then we had never even heard of the word paedophile There has always been, at least as long as I can remember , an established convention of not exposing young kids to matters of a sexual nature, many people, quite rightly express concerns about what kids can see on the internet Is it really necessary to expose kids to all that the rainbow flag really stands for, in some cases before they have even got to grips with the basics of reproduction? Seems to me all this exposure holds the risk of sexualising children , something that used to be considered inappropriate by most hetrosexual and gay people people. Has something changed or am i just getting old

They can make a wooden leg for the victims of bomb explosions but its hardly a rival for the real thing!

No a rainbow flag is obviously not pornographic, that is not what I said at all. However, like porn, it is not appropriate for young kids to be exposed to what it currently represents either. I actually have no issues with gay or lesbian teachers, their sexuality is of no issue as long as they keep it away from the class room , same goes for hetrosexuals too of course, but a demonstration by LGBT "activists" is in my opinion inappropriate for young kids Whatever happened to childhood innocence

Some "transgender women" still have a penis apparently, and some ladyboys do not, the terms "transwoman" and "ladyboy" are totally synonymous, regardless of the sensitivities attached to such terms They don't actually "create" a penis or a vagina merely a very poor imitation. it is not yet possible to create a proper fully functional working model of either and it is unlikely they ever will

guess it depends on what sort of sex one is indulging in. I'll bear it in mind

As far as I am concerned a LGBT flag has no more place at an elementary school than a porno mag or indeed a transvestite or any other trans type lol I know they say size doesn't matter but the flag was 6" x 4" "There are no suspects in custody at this time," I should hope not too! Considering the other events that are all to common in American schools this really is the least of their worries

Alcohol??? !!! that seems a bit OCD to me and my urinary tract is well away from the area in question too. "that general area" seems for you, to be quite large, does Thai food not "agree" with you or something Just when I thought I had heard everything lol

For gods Sake.. other than in the extremely rare cases of congenital birth defects ie hermaphrodites and such like there is absolutely no way on god's earth that anybody should be allowed hormone treatments or puberty blockers or anything else of a similar nature at a pre pubescent age. Any doctor involved in such practices should be struck off and locked up Jesus we don't even allow under 18's to get tattoos as they are considered to young to appreciate the life changing permanency of disfiguring themselves What on earth are you advocating, to me and any other rightminded person it is just wrong If you consider that makes me a troll I really don't care. There is something very worrying about you

jesus I could not wipe my <deleted> with that

I know exactly what you mean reminds me of the joke about the 9 volt torch battery