Fat is a type of crazy

They appear to have an aim to knock out Hamas as much as possible which is understandable. I think they need to temper their ambitions of what a successful outcome might look like - and prioritise minimising casualties by attributing more worth to the lives of the non combatants - the pictures of broad devastation and the loss of life looks more and more out of proportion with the losses suffered on the Israeli side. In terms of the specific tactics to achieve this I 'll leave that to those who know more about such things.

That whole 'you will own nothing and be happy' thing is a perfect example of a cynical distortion of what was said by those who gain in doing so. That comment was a specific discussion about the new concept of renting or sharing rather than buying - for things like cars, and stuff in the house, etc - it was not saying that for economic reasons you won't have the dollars to buy things and will somehow be happy to live like a serf or similar. I don't see signs of an impending doom in terms of the economy where I sit in Australia. There's always concerns of course. Time will tell but I think the tax thing won't be as bad as some people think - if it is it would be a bureaucratic nightmare for the Thai government that would be really difficult to enforce. Could be wrong of course. As someone who is going to spend a fair bit of time there in six months or so things are looking up.

I tend to limit my comments to the barbarity of the Hamas attacks and whether the response has been reasonable. I appreciated hearing a summary of some key points from his point of view that included some broader context - Bill Maher has made some similar points. The list pointed out that this wouldn't have happened but for the Hamas barbaric attacks but acknowledged that criticism of the subsequent response is not unjustified. Fair point that the language of describing critics as 'stupid' or of simply inflaming the situation by using the word genocide could be seen as belittling or attempting to diminish the overall arguments that Israel has gone too far in response. I tend to concur with the sentiment though that Israel are not deliberately killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group - so genocide is not the correct term for what it is worth. Not calling it genocide, in my opinion, does not understate the importance of the final point - that the response has been too indiscriminate and the killing of civilians clearly unacceptable. Justifications such as that they have tunnels, and use their people as shields, surely does not give Israel carte blanche to kill somewhat indiscriminately and blame Hamas for the outcome.

My bad. I was writing two separate things. First about the golfer you referred to - there is a fun little documentary on youtube about how that cover came to be and a member of Devo meets the golfer. The 'not much of a golfer' comment was talking about me.

I think what it can come down to is not whether a tv character is gay or straight or whatever, but whether, rightly or wrongly, you feel that it has been written in that way to give you a lesson or make you more inclusive, a good person, whatever. When you watch tv or a movie you want to feel you are being taken somewhere interesting - not lectured too, educated, made more progressive. Now sometimes it may be imagined more than actual but in some shows it clearly is not. Could have been said already. Haven't read the 6 pages.

I am guessing it started due to the fact that a fair few drag queens are entertaining, fun, with a cheeky sense of humour. They were a good fit at telling stories to kids. Larger than life. A bit like British pantomime can be. Probably no wokeness or politics involved. Maybe some mainly on the right got offended and turned it political. Then others on the left took it on as a cause and made it political too.

Fair points thanks

His likeness is seen on the cover art for an excellent Devo album. Not much of a golfer. I did see some friends show their personalities on the golf course. Some arrogance. Some cheating. I showed my attitude of - Not into this. Can't be bothered with stuff I don't like. Prefer other forms of sport myself.

I am making the simple point that there is a huge loss of life on the Palestinian side and you don't seem to be treating it with the seriousness or gravitas it deserves. Simply stating some of the kids are combatants or that some civilians support Hamas clearly is not a sufficient counter argument. Not saying that was your argument. We can concur Hamas are the irrational and or evil bad guys who treat their own people poorly. As an aside I have a problem with Bill Maher's argument too. His go to line is that protesters are dumb as they are supporting Hamas - which is mostly not correct. It also does not address too the reality of the deaths of Palestinians. Not sure why that is perceived as some sort of game on my part. But we are not on the same page it seems so leave it there.

Those who make jokes and give laughing emojis and likes to the comments appall me.

It appears my interpretation then was somewhat correct. Could be true what you say, but it could be interpreted as you using similar logic to Hamas, i.e. due to a past event or events actions against civilians as a means to an end are justified. I can see from whence you are coming but please take time to consider the reality of the casualties and whether one can be so flippant, as to the issue of the justification of killings of third parties, that you can stop the discussion with the word 'Next'.

I may be misrepresenting your words but that 'next' seems awfully flippant. Like because of what Hamas did, which was of course terrible, the amount of death to Palestinian children is now somehow immaterial or irrelevant. As though once Hamas did that Israel have the right to do whatever it takes to bring Hamas down no matter how many casualties child or otherwise. But I may not be understanding your use of the word next.

I recently finished Schitt's Creek. A bit late to the party but the portrayal of sexuality and other issues made sense because the writing was good. I see other shows where it's like product placement and seems like they are ticking a box but I am repeating myself now.

See what you did there. I didn't say there should be no such characters.

Seen excellent shows such as the American Queer as Folk and Tales of the city that happened to be based mainly on gay characters. I am noticing though there are a number of shows that have a range of characters, colours, sexuality, gender etc. that do seem to have been placed into the show to tick a box rather than being appropriate and relevant and helping tell a story.

For what it's worth I thought they were all crap the first time around.

Lawn bowls is more an attitude thing. Has become cool in Australia last decade or so. Things like barefoot bowls nights. Cheap beers available. Could be fun and it is skilful. I thought you were eccentric but I think you make stuff up now. Each to their own.

Bought to you by Irwin Allen of course as well as Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea, Time Tunnel, and Lost In Space. I don't think Lost In Space was popular in the UK. Fun fact is John Williams did the themes for Land of the Giants, Time Tunnel and Lost In Space. Season 3 of Lost In Space being a highlight. Later he did themes for Jaws, Star Wars, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Superman, but the Lost In Space Series 3 theme was best I say. Fun fact No 2 Mrs Robinson June Lockhart alive at 98.

Good memories. Lost In Space was my favourite. Bubble headed booby. All except a couple of episodes - the one with the knight and the person dressed as a dragon was a shocker - were all good fun. If you are a fan there is an excellent talk Johnathon Harris gave on Youtube when he toured with the robot to Australia in the 90's. It was huge in Australia. Amongst the kids. Adding to your list of others that were on: The Patty Duke Show I dream of Jeannie My favourite martian It's about time

Reasons to be proud of and care about Australia include the following: Stable democracy- there are individual policies I disagree with but relatively free elections and a free press - becoming less common in the world - extreme views and parties still not part of the mainstream. You can still get rid of the parties that aren't cutting it as we saw with the Liberals being thrown out. Might be Labour next. Labour tried some serious tax reform a couple of elections ago but the voters said no so what are you going to do. Fairness - rights for workers, freedom to protest, decent police force in each state, less corruption than other countries. Government support - Help is there to those who need it. Need better oversight but better to have it than not. Free or cheap health care in many situations. Economic opportunity - tough for the younger ones to buy a house but not hard to get employment and get ahead if you are motivated. Tax high but not that high. Environment - some bad things here but still have clean beautiful well looked after beaches and forests. Prospects look good - more revenue mainly from mining than expected in recent budget update - debt is an issue due to some poor decisions and hangover from covid but most countries in the same boat. Freedom - people talk about nanny state, can feel that way a bit with some regulations here and there that can seem over the top, but normally have safety of people in mind e.g. building regulations - road rules. I get annoyed at 40 km zones here and there but if you take it easy, no big deal, and surely better than having a free for all of speed and drink driving leading to much larger fatalities etc. That's a start. The bad things are there but they are doing things right too.

You differentiate between believing and knowing. It sounds nice but trusting what you consider as knowledge is potentially seriously flawed of course.

I like them and am one. Your small sample size is problematic. You saw a rude young lady at the checkout while 50 others nearby didn't cross your path likely because they are nice and unassuming. Not that many bogans these days and those that are are often cheerful. You seem to be looking for reasons to not like your country - maybe so you can talk yourself into finally biting the bullet and living in Thailand.

I am the guy working till 59 - then go on paid accrued leave - and retire. Not too long now. See what happens.

Is that irony though. I think not. I think you didn’t like that one of your favourites, one of your apparent allies, closed that topic.

I read the Fountainhead by Ayn Rand and at the time was inspired by the notion of totally free markets but the reality is a bit different in my opinion. Free markets sound nice if it is a level playing field between worker and boss but its not. The power is with the bosses. Little support for workers if unemployed, of course, so in a so called free market it's often take it or leave it. That's why unions happen of course. It's not about ideology and socialism when it comes to worker wages in Thailand. It comes down to if someone can live on the minimum wage in a dignified and healthy way. Often not. So without unionism the government has to intervene sometimes with regulations and or higher taxes.