Fat is a type of crazy

Depends on the rules of the game. If it's a one way trip I wouldn't want to go to the wild west but it would be fun to spend a week or two and come back. Life back then sucked for most people. 

If the rules mean that going back in time means you get younger too then sign me up.

But going back at my current age to a time when I was 20 or 10 would be a mixed bag, except for the bit about knowing what's going to happen, and seeing family and friends.

For example I work in an office job and the thought of not being able to work at home or to have paper files, or that the most hi tech thing is computer punch cards, then no thanks. 

12 hours ago, olfu said:

No, I didnt watch this mainstream propaganda but I did some research on movie and director and found that director stated he is a Nazi.

Have a nice day.

He's quirky and provocative and maybe a bit silly. He later said if he was asked on the day to clarify his comments he would have said he was not. He said it was one of the first interviews he had done sober. The comment was in relation to him finding out that he had german heritage and not jewish heritage as he had thought. He said later that Hitler is an icon of how cruel you can be.

The point being that, though the comment seems reprehensible, and could have landed him in jail,   he is not likely to actually be a nazi. 

Telex were a good French band too. Twist a St Tropez. They probably thought there name was quite high tech at the time. 

Delete

One of my favourite thai cultural events was the candle festival in Ubon and I would hate to see things like that go. Same as Bangkok street food.  

But what is the government actually doing to get rid of Loi Kratong and similar festivals and events.

Even if cynical they would know it brings the tourists and tourists are money.

Maybe a bit quiet this year as everyone wakes up from lockdowns and constraints. 

1 hour ago, Liverpool Lou said:

 

 

"The fact that the judge wouldn't let the victims be called victims but let them be called looters didn't help".

Jesus...    Yes, those facts, terrible things.   Let's keep facts out of trials!

 

 

24 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

That would be reIevant if I had said that "it is ok for the judge to not let victims be called victims", I did not say that, I quoted your comment, you said that!   I assume you cannot read.

I had said that the fact the judge did not allow victims to be called victims, but that they could be described as looters, is  not helpful i.e. not balanced or appropriate.

You have said 'Jesus...    Yes, those facts, terrible things.   Let's keep facts out of trials!'

The implication is that you either think I am trying to keep facts out of a trial and or that you think the judges descriptions of the individuals as looters is appropriate and therefore could be considered a fact. 

If I am missing something please let me know what your comment meant thanks.

5 minutes ago, CFCjeff said:

Maybe we call them  Victims who burn ,loot, destroy property, hate the police, and especially want to whack you round the head with a skateboard and then pummel you to death,

Putting the trial aside do you want to live in a situation where an untrained kid, in weapon use and psychologically, takes on the role of the police.

Let us assume you are correct and one or more of the victims were a bit rough and deserved punishment. Is this the appropriate way to mete out punishment. I think not. Let the police do their job. 

14 minutes ago, fjb 24 said:

what is this?

I assume you are saying that the term 'wide eyed' is racist or prejudicial. It is a point to say that the jury may be influenced by the fact that a defendant is cherubic and innocent looking and that there could be a black kid of a similar ilk and therefore the inclusion of wide eyed is not relevant.  In my opinion a white kid is more likely to be wide eyed and garner sympathy. Putting the wide eyed description aside, I think a young black kid that kills 2 in similar circumstances, might not get as much sympathy as a white kid. 

It was not a huge point I was making but I still think it has merit. 

1 hour ago, Liverpool Lou said:

"I haven't seen all the ins and outs but ... I think he should get minimum 10 years".

Jesus...

 

"The fact that the judge wouldn't let the victims be called victims but let them be called looters didn't help".

Jesus...    Yes, those facts, terrible things.   Let's keep facts out of trials!

 

"I think the racial point is relevant".

Jesus...   There is no racial aspect to Rittenhouse's case!

Further, I think your point is wrong that it is OK for the judge to not let victims be called victims, but let them be  called looters. I assume you call it a fact that they are not victims but are looters. Loaded terms should be not used if they can reasonably be avoided. 

58 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

"I haven't seen all the ins and outs but ... I think he should get minimum 10 years".

Jesus...

 

"The fact that the judge wouldn't let the victims be called victims but let them be called looters didn't help".

Jesus...    Yes, those facts, terrible things.   Let's keep facts out of trials!

 

"I think the racial point is relevant".

Jesus...   There is no racial aspect to Rittenhouse's case!

You've mixed up my quotes and had a lot of attitude which is a very Liverpool Lou thing to do. I concede though you have a point that I am not in a position to know in detail but I acknowledged limited knowledge. 

The topic was to make a prediction. Everyone here probably  has limited knowledge with the odd exception. 

My 2 cents was that I consider if someone leaves there home, and goes to a protest and waving around an AR-15 and people die, there should be implications. 

This is a chat - people's lives aren't hanging on my words. 

See my other post about the racial element. The point being that I think many Americans, including some posters here, would be less likely to be sympathetic if a young black guy did the same thing. 

30 minutes ago, fjb 24 said:

This has nothing to do with the criminal trial underway in WI.

What is the racial implication you are alluding to?

My point was probably not well explained. I just think if a black man had the gun and shot three protesters rather than a wide eyed white boy it may have been looked at a bit differently. I do believe that people, especially given 11 out of 12 jurors are white,  can see Rittenhouse and be more likely to think he could be innocent and trying to do good as compared to if he was a black boy of the same age. 

1 hour ago, BritManToo said:

Do you let your hired servants take part in households decisions?

Should a woman who didn't attend high school be allowed to choose your kids high school?

Should a woman who abandoned her kids in the village with grandma be allowed to play any part in your kids upbringing?

 

In fact, should a woman who's career choice was to have sex with random guys for money be allowed any say in any decision?

 

I gave it a smilie face when you just had the first line only but that stuff you added later is a bit depressing. If you did have kids with her then..I guess.. she does have a say.

I kept a diary as a teenager and young adult. Peak of my dating. Includes a day to day account of a trip with my girlfriend on a first trip to Thailand and Myanmar. Haven't looked in decades. 

I remember details of the 80's better than I remember the 10's. Probably because stuff is changing more then while in the 10's it's a bit same same.   

3 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

If she paid for 50% (or more) of everything, fair enough.

But as it's 100% my money, I make 100% of all decisions.

 

As for Google tracking my every movement ........

When accused or wrongdoing, you can just say "Google says I wasn't there!"

So, to put my Nice Guy or Political Correct hat on, doesn't the fact that she does things for you give her some bargaining power - even if sex. Surely she works hard for her money so that gives her rights to help decide on - best school, how to bring up kid, food to buy, what movie to see etc

8 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Which USA laws do you think are unjust and should be changed ?

I live in a country where you can't hear about a public disturbance somewhere and go out in the streets with an AR-15 with wide eyed excitement and see what fun is to be had. You can't own a gun let alone an AR-15 without stringent conditions. 

I won't pretend to know all the specific laws but I would let few if any own semi automatic rifles. Maybe farmers. I know I probably lost you there. But if you could have them you would not be able to walk the streets with them and certainly not for anyone under 25 or maybe 30. Police should not allow a kid to even have the opportunity to do what he did. In Australia that would be insane. 

You may prefer the American way but I love that we have so little gun crime and few gun deaths. 

Just stupid gun laws mixed with a stupid kid. I feel he deserves a punishment but the lawmakers who let these situations be even close to legal are the guilty ones. 

The Ahmaud Arbery case is more clear cut. If his killers get off there will be riots I should think. 

I have an HSBC card and when I added an app at the time it was quite complicated to get it connected to my  account. It seemed like I had to go back and forward for proof between the app and online and only one could be on at a time.  I deleted it and just use the online account. 

A tip for call centres is to call about 8am  in the country of your account. They tend to have a lot of staff  on call, regardless of where the call centre is, but not that many customers call at that time. 

5 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL.

Please explain why the rain forests continue to get cut down at a rapid rate when they are IMO the best carbon storage on the planet?

Explain why the only option being promoted for transport is batteries when hydrogen is a better solution?

Explain why most of the options being pursued ( electric cars, windmills, solar panels ) are profitable to certain people, and good options that are not profitable are not being pursued?

Explain why nuclear is being abandoned when it is the best way to continuously generate large amounts of electricity without producing carbon? France has PROVEN it is safe and economical to use.

My post was about climate change denial.

Having accepted it, I concur, the solution  is harder where economic interests have to be a factor and politics plays a big part. The Australian Labour govt were impressive at the last election with a decent climate policy. They unexpectedly lost due to coal mining seats going Liberal. Now both parties support coal mining but one is a touch more reasonable.

I agree on nuclear - again it is politics that stops it because people are scared. Chernobyl left a strong mark. Its not fair too that India and China get so many breaks too for being undeveloped. Maybe a bit but they get too much.

So all that stuff is true but there's signs of hope I suppose. But if people can't even agree there is climate change then the solutions aren't even considered. I think though there's definitely money being made all over the place but I think there is good stuff that hopefully outweighs the dodgy stuff. 

Climate deniers seem to start with the fact they haven't noticed at their local town.

Or that most scientists don't believe its true.

Then it's that most scientists believe it but they are corrupt.

Then it's climate change is happening but its part of a natural cycle.  

Then it's man made climate change is happening but it won't be bad.

Then it's that we'll just have to adapt.

They see anyone trying to do something as short sighted do gooders influenced by the secret rich illuminati or something. 

To be honest I don't give the topic much thought, but the outright denial that some action might be appropriate, is somewhat confounding. It is as if, for some, the possible fact that there are people who are smarter than them, and actually can take action, goes against their outlook that anyone with education and knowledge and some power to do good must ultimately be greedy, corrupt, or foolish. 

For me a starting point is to recognise and accept we all ultimately look out for no 1 being ourselves. That then gets expanded to our families, and social circle, and country, and there is nothing wrong with that. For example I feel strong immigration policies are quite reasonable for particular countries. Trade can be complicated. Open trade can benefit your country, and the world, but sometimes it's not a level playing field. 

I can see how that term has mainly been used by the right to discredit the left but you can see how it is used by the left to shame the right.  

Having accepted that we are looking out for no 1 we can then say 'OK its in my interest to deal with warming, or a strong China, or whatever.' We can go a step further and say I am not happy that  Uyghurs are treated so poorly in China and support groups like Amnesty International because part of looking out for no 1 could be to make a good and fair world.  

My Thai holidays in the last 15 years were in Phuket from 2004 to 2011 and then Koh Chang from 2012 to 2019. I am a bit of a creature of habit as you can tell. As such most the tourists I see, particularly in Koh Chang,  are 'normal' tourists here for a nice break with nice resorts and a bit of beach and nature. Probably forty per cent of those just eat at restaurants and don't go out much at night and a different 40 per cent younger half also go out at night to night clubs and may take in a naughty show for a giggle. Then you have your loner or small groups of men at say Pattaya, Patong, and Bangkok and dispersed at other resort areas. They appear to range from guys just going out and having fun, looking for women as well, to those being there for one reason only. If I had to hazard a guess I would say they are 15 to 20 per cent. I have only been to Pattaya once and the ratios would differ significantly there.

For alcohol I think most tourists would find it obnoxious not to be able to drink at dinner and that half who want to go out to night clubs would find no alcohol a huge deterrence. I don't drink much so I am happy to have a beer on the hotel balcony from a store.  

My ex wife and girlfriend love a good buffet and some hotels provide amazing buffets and our choice is influenced by that. I just wish you could access them a bit later. We  tend to change our habits by having no lunch and small dinners so we can enjoy the big buffet. Saves cost too.  

Interesting post and here's hoping they make further updates on those topics. I have a February booking but if there are no changes I would throw away my ticket. Jetstar sale so no big deal.

They would miss out on my spending for three weeks on hotels and food etc.