Mr Derek

Be pleased about it, because when it is perfect we'll be a step closer to the Singularity.

Thank you, Lenin. I guess I'm the only one around who thinks that Thailand has been ticking along nicely (especially in the public transport sector) and that a bunch of lefties in charge is not going to change anything for the better. In any case, a year without anyone particular in charge might be quite an interesting experiment.

They do it to be deliberately provocative. They could have invented completely new pronouns, but no - they want to commandeer existing pronouns. It's madness because it's simply confusing. The only explanation is that it's a attempt to shoehorn themselves into the existing scheme, and if that upsets the everyday meaning of things, then so be it. Subverting the normal order - undermining the foundations of conventional society - is one of their defining characteristics.

That's what happens with multiculturalism. You end up with no culture at all. Language, idiom and centuries of accumulated sophistication are all dumbed down to cater to the lumpenmass.

Of course, because they are entirely different societies, which is exactly why I am puzzled that most people here want to forcibly impose the UK system (or at least 'democracy') on Thailand. At least for the time being, a patrimonial system will work better here in terms of stability - and stability is almost everything. The thing about the 'dictatorship' in Thailand that everyone is missing is that it is benign. A country like Thailand that finds itself with a benign dictatorship should rejoice - it is the best possible system for some societies (Singapore was another example under Lee Kuan Yew). It won't last forever though and if/when it becomes malign, then is the time for uprising.

I bit idealistic. You know that as soon as the people come to power they start creating a new aristocracy - as in the French and every other revolution. I have no confidence that Thailand will be any better under 'democracy'.

Of course they'll tut tut, but they mainly care about stability. Some degree of authoritarianism is necessary for that. They don't worry about Thailand. There is no rampant political oppression or torture here. Everyone can get along nicely by not rocking the boat.

What's the point? There's no going forward in Thailand until the constitution (which doesn't allow any significant change), and the rigged senate (which doesn't allow an opposition party to govern) are replaced. Do they expect to change those things by forcible revolution? They are surely not that naive. There's only one way forward, and that is gradually. There needs to be an opposition party whose platform is not sudden wholesale changes to society (army draft, lese majeste etc). They need to get into power by stealth and then consolidate their position until they are strong enough to gradually the senate and then change the constitution. Partly, that will involve waiting until the old guard are dying off or becoming senile. It will take time. Revolution now is not an option.

It just takes some understanding of human nature - actually, common sense. Without sufficient discipline society falls apart - drug use, hooliganism, gangsterism, falling populations, crass and non-productive behaviour in general etc. For an example: the EU, which is in the process of dismantling culture - the thing that keeps society together. The results are obvious and disastrous. My point is that Thailand had better retain some of its conservatism in order to defend its culture so the country had better step carefully rather than rush headlong into some utopian idea of 'democracy' into which you seem to propel it.

Maybe 20 years. In 10, people will still be wearing masks, the population is that conformist. As to abolition vs reform of lese majeste - have they made it abundantly clear what they intend to do? I can't see any clear statement - only talk of one or the other. Reform in what way? That confusion only adds to the problem. It's a pity a better quality opposition hasn't emerged, only a new bunch of incompetents.

1800 to the 1950s? When society was being built rather than taken apart. (Talking about western civilisation here, as the topic is liberal democracy.) Don't forget that everything is now speeding up exponentially. The west has already fallen into the latrine. Newly 'democratic' countries like Thailand will rapidly follow unless they retain some conservatism.

It's a question of what you can get out of it or put into it. I always recall the scene in Bertollucci's film "1900" when Burt Lancaster takes a wench into a barn and discovers he can't get it up. He takes his belt off and hangs himself on the spot. Nature will tell me when my time is up. I have it all planned out. I'm not going to carry on like a zombie, with life assisted by artificial (that is, medical) means.

Nope, it's simply a response to the all-out attack from the left.

Depends on your perspective. Conservatism believes that a society has "collectively inherited good things that we must strive to keep” (Roger Scruton). Those things are too important to be subjected to the marketplace. There are some grounds for defending that position in a world that is rapidly falling into social degeneracy. MF was naive, and arguably dangerous, for wanting to change too much too fast.

I think they should both have laughed and said 'come back when you have evidence of an actual crime'. Those who want to escalate these things and concoct outrage are a bigger problem.

Agreed. And it was naive of MF to publicise their plan to abolish lese majeste. They can't do that without having consolidated enough power to rewrite the constitution. They should at least have waited until they came to power to try it. And they can't come to power with the EC, CC, and Senate against them. Winning an election is not enough here. Looks like Prayut stepped back in order to dissociate himself from the coming coup. He will come forward again 'by popular demand' when someone is needed to take the reins.

It was my phrase. It's realism. (And since you mention it, Russia is managing its society rather better than the US in which everybody hates each other and mass murderers run amok). Give the people too much freedom and you get chaos and degeneracy - in any society. There's always need for discipline - some countries fall apart without it. My point is that Thailand has ticked along quite well under Prayut so don't rejoice that he's going. The country has been fairly stable. It could be a whole lot worse. Westerners egocentrically think that because they have grown up with liberal democracy (after centuries of hard work developing it) then so should the rest of the world quite suddenly - and they try and impose in on everyone else. The result in many countries is a hornet's nest because their societies are not adapted to it. I have little confidence that Thailand will run any better under liberal democracy - sure there are more checks and balances (in theory), but that doesn't prevent eternal chaos and instability.

For those crowing about it, don't forget that some countries work better under a disciplined, patriarchal system than under the chaotic degeneracy of 'liberal democracy', especially of the lefty variety. Is Thailand ready for full democracy? (Is any country?)

Even less serious than that. The British have always been a prurient bunch but they need to start having a word with themselves because the fuss over this non-issue should be a national embarrassment. I no longer consider myself British as the country has gone down so far down the pan.

It's not a question of the top management. It's the rank and file of lefties that have built up over the years. The bosses would need to get rid of everyone to root it out, but they can't replace anyone for political reasons so they are stuck. If you don't see the rampant leftism that is in virtually every BBC news item and piece of programming, I have to question your ability to understand anything.

I've heard that the battery can swell and degrade if it's always at full power (an internal battery that is - if it's an external cartridge-type then you wouldn't notice). I believe the battery needs to cycle down regularly to stay healthy so leaving it always on is not a good idea. If you have an internal battery, I would open the case up to check it periodically - when they start swelling it looks scary.

Seems that you've lost touch with human nature, or are in denial. The point about beauty pageants is that young ladies have a natural instinct to show themselves off. Note the crucial word 'instinct'. The reason for this is obvious to students of human behaviour. For a married woman to show herself off in the same way would imply that she is 'in the market'. By the way, equality has to be earned, not given away, or else the entire scaffold of human civilisation will come crashing down. Try thinking these things through before you start pulling everything apart.

Seems perfectly plausible in this case that the wheels shattered when hitting the comb and got jammed under it, causing a section to tip down enough momentarily for a leg to slip in. The moral of this story is not to let your luggage slam into the end of the travelator but lift it or tip it gently (if it's a heavy bag) at the end so it runs off smoothly. That's the way I've always done it and it's pretty much common sense. They should put some safety instruction about this at the end of the travelators for the non-technically minded.

All those, including the Miss Universe Organisation, who don't understand that beauty pageants are all about nubility. Why would we want to look at some other bloke's wife?

See Barbara Stanwyck in "The Lady Gambles" (1949). Powerful film.