RogueLeader

]She's probably earned $10,000,000 a minute then. How much did you earn in your 15 mins.

Ah, of course. It appears that we'd all forgotten that making a lot of money puts someone entirely above criticism.

Maybe I have lived in a cave all my life but I can honestly say I have never ever seen or heard GaGa perform and think I have only seen her twice on TV, once being last night on the news as she arrived in BKK. Have I missed anything? ...... I don't think so.

GentlemanJim your life will be richer for having missed her

I believe it's a popular beat combo m'lud.

:facepalms ahoy:

Why would she be admired for anything...immoral and without conscience; it does indicate what the west has become..truly decadent; she is just but one of the agents to spread this decadence. May God have mercy on you...because I would not.

I think your rifle needs cleaning again.

Good point. Gaga supports Piracy. I support her though. She's an all round true artist.

My goodness, just as I was wondering why anyone should actually bother to care a toss what Lady Gaga thinks - that comment.

Billie , Ella , Nina , and others will be turning in their graves.

Why do people always dig up the corpses of dead artists when engaged in a futile attempt to pretend that nothing changes, ever? The time of the auteur, the virtuoso and the suffering artist is gone. Lady Gaga might not have a musical bone in her body, or she might be a musical polymath like Bill Bailey or Andre Previn. It's no more important than whether she plays tennis well or can program in C++. You're comparing apples to oranges: she's a performance artist. She plays social games with broadcast media and her art form is marketing. Whether this is more or less valid an art form than playing a piano concerto or producing a sculpture is an argument in itself, but I'm afraid you've been had - This is what Lady Gaga does, and she does it well. That's why millions of people give a toss what she says and why only I give a toss what you say. And I don't, really

And if you think about it, it's worked here too. You felt so strongly about something that someone said about her that you posted it into the endless stream of white noise that is the internet.

Disclosure: I think Lady Gaga's an insufferable <deleted>, but that's just the way I've been roped into playing the game. Why do I need to have an opinion at all?

Lot of fuzz about nothing. Totally innocent comment. How many tourists would say the same really?

If she wanted to be controversial with her tweet, she could have written some other truth, that embarrasses the country more than faked Rolexes... Perhaps just one or two of the BP headlines.

There are a lot of things she could have said if she'd wanted to be genuinely controversial, but she didn't want that - she wanted infamy without risk.

It's the opinion of one member of the relationship in an anonymous poll whose results will be displayed on a public forum. I wouldn't take it too seriously.

Do the pilots still perform "tactical" landings?

High approach and a race to the ground..

In Europe, both Ryanair and Wizzair do that. It saves fuel.

I almost took an Aeroflot flight back to the UK last year, but I got talking to a guy in the Gecko Bar in Rambuttri and he spent a lot of time talking me out of it. It wasn't the absolute cheapest (Turkish Airlines had that honour) but I thought it might be interesting to go via Moscow and the flight was shorter. He told me things about Aeroflot that I won't repeat here, but which put me off flying with them forever.

This is the sort of discussion more often driven by the heart than the head.

He's right though. The US gun lobby is hilariously retarded. Their main argument is that the US is dangerous because there are a lot of guns, so there should be more guns.

I have nothing against anyone keeping a gun as long as they accept this: they are personally responsible for every single incidence of death, injury or damage caused by someone using that gun, whether or not it's in their possession at the time, and even after they've passed it on.

Street food is a reality because it is too expensive for the average Thai to go in to a restaurant, sit down, get service, and have lunch. There are also too few food courts where it is more reasonable than a 'restaurant." The government should open more food courts and this would be a good incentive for small business vendors. It would also clean up Bangkok and add some much needed health and sanitary regulations to the food serving business.

Singapore rounded up all the street food vendors ("hawkers") and put them into food courts so that they could more easily control and regulate it. e.g. here are some pictures of The Newton Hawker Centre:

Notice the "B" sign in the last picture, which indicates level of hygiene.

I was wondering when the 'let's all be like Singapore' cheerleaders would turn up. It's not a city that sets the pulse racing, is it? Still, I'm sure imprisoning and caning public health law violators would 'clean up' the pavements of Bangkok. The question is: is this the sort of country you want to live in?

Seriously, though, I'd hate to see KPG, Ko Tao or Ko Lanta fall to this ugly, concrete Butlins vision of tourism colonies and you can bet that Hua Hin won't: Pattaya is strictly for the proletariat. Is there a single place in Pattaya where you actually feel as though you're in Thailand? It feels more like a green zone controlled by Russia, Israel and the US.

Still, it's not as bad as Patong. It's hard even to get Thai food in Patong.

I think the only positive point out of this is that Thailand needs another location that isn't completely oriented around the sex industry, but provides all the foreigner-friendly services, so that corporate event planners could (maybe) book their conferences and meetings without everyone thinking it's just a mongering boondoggle.

Individual "family" tourists with very open minds may be able to overlook the seedy side to some extent, but large international corporate planners can't leave themselves open to scandal.

I've worked for several companies who have conferences in Amsterdam and Thailand, and they know why they pick those places. I know for a fact that a children's television channel who name shall remain nameless had a corporate account with Yab Yum, the premium Amsterdam brothel, before it was closed down by the city council.

'Large international corporate planners' are not nuns, and neither are the people for whom they book conferences. No-one ever says it out loud, but a nod and a wink conveys exactly what kind of 'entertainment' is expected. Watch The IT Crowd episode 'Jen The Fredo'. It's far more accurate than any company would dare to admit.

"city cleanliness act."

Any chance the same act is going to deal with the horrendous rat and roach infestation on Rama I near National Stadium? Or is there concern about the rats' ability to pay bribes to eliminate competition?

Welcome to our unusual influx of straight-members-who-aren't-familiar-with-the-gay-subforum. I'm sure that the word 'Lesbian' and silly straight male fantasies never attracted you to this thread as opposed to all those other threads that never attract you here, except for the kathoey threads- but you may wish to take a quick peek at the posting guidelines thread because, to be refreshingly direct, we don't put up with any homophobic shit in here. Thanks and back to your regularly scheduled thread.

P.S. Actually, most of you are doing pretty well so far. Smooches.

I clicked the link straight away because I knew it'd be a hoot. Most of the posters here are fairly well-informed or politely enquiring but there are a few posts that give the sensation of watching a dog trying to understand a card trick.

In my experience, 1. is certainly not the case. I find Singapore and Kuala Lumpur have far more pleasant climate than Bangkok, despite being more equatorial, while the hottest hot I've ever experienced was way up North in Dubai - there gets "hot hot hot hot hot", which can be quite unpleasant during the day.

Living on a high floor, and having windows on both sides of the property makes a big difference, especially if they are tinted (and open, if you want to avoid using the aircon...).

I definitely believe the humidity the most important factor.

So there we were, enjoying a quiet drink on the verandah at the yacht club, down by the river, and it was a lovely evening in the setting sun. Then, when the sun sank below the horizon, the temperature presumably dropped a fraction, and correspondingly the humidity increased, and suddenly it became intolerably muggy, and we had to retire to the air conditioning...

SC

Totally agree. Bangkok is stiflingly hot for most of the year. I was in South India during the infamous and deadly 2007 summer heatwave (although not in Delhi where it reached 54C in some parts) and it wasn't less comfirtable than Bangkok on an average day.

Mind, I was there last Winter when it went down to 20C and actually put a jacket on in Bangkok for the first time in my life. It was the same in Rangoon: the traders on Bogyoke Aung San Market went home one day because it was so cold and rainy, and that was in April, a couple of weeks before thingyan.

Wear what feels comfortable. Why do you care what others think?

I imagine KFC are horrified at all this free publicity they're getting.

Hi ukrules,

you can't roam on your foreign phone in Myanmar - the networks just won't give you coverage. In the last few years, it's become possible to buy a prepaid SIM for $20 from any mobile phone shop. You can't recharge it though - once it's used, you have to buy another.

I just prefer to go off-network while I'm there though.

You're supposed to declare all electronic equipment on entry and fill in a declaration form, but in practice no-one bothers.

I said sorry if this "might" have happened to you. I don't assume anything including that you know what you are talking about. You now state that you have no first hand knowledge abut what you are talking about but rather what you have seen with your eyes walking around thailand.

Ok. Well just cause some poster on TV prints something doesn't make it so. I am more interested in what the law says and even more so in 1st hand experience in a given situation. All the air chair experts can spread whatever observations they want but unless they are a thai lawyer or experienced it first hand I will not give too much weight to what they are saying.

If you're as secure in your family as you seem to be, you have no problems. If you're not, Thai law will absolutely not protect you, as a foreigner, in a dispute with a Thai. That is a fact. It's not the ravings of a bitter, ripped-off man or the speculations of someone with a grudge against Thai people. Thai lawsuits are settled on a patriotic basis. I know a lot of expats in Thailand. A lot. Many of them have stories that bear this. All of them know many others with similar stories.

I visit Thailand (I've spent a *lot* of time in Thailand and I know Bangkok better than I know London) but I am not arrogant enough to believe that however proficient I become with the Thai language, or however much I know about Thai culture, both ancient and modern, I will ever be anything more than a tourist. I visit, I enjoy the country for what it is and I leave. It suits me and it suits the people of Thailand. everyone knows where they stand.

I don't have to be bitten by a snake to know that it's not a good thing. A lawyer will tell you what you want to hear as long as you're paying. A fellow expat will sing the praises of Thailand, and it is a beautiful, exotic place. But it isn't Europe with sun, sex and cheap beer. Business ethics are different. Law is different.

Perhaps you should read the laws for yourself?

I don't know if this is 100% correct. I'm married and when we bought this house I had to sign papers that were submitted to the land office when the land deed was changed over to my wife's name stating that all the money used to purchase the land was hers and I have no claim to it. Her name is listed as the owner of the land. At the same time we also registered a 30 year lease that I have on the land (small taxes paid) so my name as well is listed on the land dead and the lease holder. She clearly owns the land but cannot go selling it while I hold a lease on the land. From what I've been told, no lease in Thailand is valid for more than 1 year UNLESS it's registered at the land office. When you register the lease you also pay the taxes on the lease payments for the entire lease term (in this case 30 years).

You have no claim whatsoever on the land. If she wants to sell it, she can: if a dispute goes before a Thai court, they'll decide in favour of your wife and you will lose the land, the house and every single penny you've ever invested in it. You need to hang on to that marriage if you wish to remain in that house and on that land.

Harsh facts of expat life.

Thanks for your harsh take on life here in LOS. Have you been burned few times I guess? I didn't get married so I could buy a house. Nor did I have a few kids to insure I could keep getting visas. I did so out of love for my wife. The house was not bought as an investment but rather a place for my family to live. I know that many like to think that all thai women are out for the money and if you stop giving they will take all from you. I have no doubt that "our" family house will end up in the hands of my 2 children and that I will not be kicked to the streets like some temple dog.

But I'm sorry to hear that this might have happened to you.

Whoa. Steady. You've assumed a lot of things there.

It hasn't happened to me. I've never had any sort of sexual relationship with any Thai woman and I'm not especially interested in doing so. But every time I'm in Thailand I look around me with eyes unclouded by lust and uncoloured by bitterness towards women, either Thai or Western and I see, almost without exception, men being stung. if you're one of the ones who managed to do it well and properly (and I know a few of them) and you and you aren't partly a farang ATM, then well done. But when you say:

She clearly owns the land but cannot go selling it while I hold a lease on the land

You are just factually wrong. She can sell it. Obviously you're very secure in your situation and this isn't a problem for you, but you need to be aware that this simply is not true.

You've clearly been in Thailand for some time and are no mug, so you know that your wife fully expects you to take financial care of her and to a certain extent, her extended family for the rest of her life. It's the biggest mistake that most expats make, the meaning of 'I love you'.

He's also broached the tea money is OK if you call it donations.

They're learning. Soon, the West will declare Thailand free of corruption.

I don't know if this is 100% correct. I'm married and when we bought this house I had to sign papers that were submitted to the land office when the land deed was changed over to my wife's name stating that all the money used to purchase the land was hers and I have no claim to it. Her name is listed as the owner of the land. At the same time we also registered a 30 year lease that I have on the land (small taxes paid) so my name as well is listed on the land dead and the lease holder. She clearly owns the land but cannot go selling it while I hold a lease on the land. From what I've been told, no lease in Thailand is valid for more than 1 year UNLESS it's registered at the land office. When you register the lease you also pay the taxes on the lease payments for the entire lease term (in this case 30 years).

You have no claim whatsoever on the land. If she wants to sell it, she can: if a dispute goes before a Thai court, they'll decide in favour of your wife and you will lose the land, the house and every single penny you've ever invested in it. You need to hang on to that marriage if you wish to remain in that house and on that land.

Harsh facts of expat life.

I doubt it'll stem the flow of unrealistic 70-year-old farang who have suddenly and magically become irresistibly desirable to nubile teenage girls.

You can't buy class, but you can certainly sell it.

He should go begging for help in the richer commonwealth countries such as India, which did not squander its wealth in Thatcher/Reagan style econmics.

The UK was paying off it's debts when Thatcher was in power. It was Blair/Brown that squandered all the money. Even while they were telling us that boom and bust was over and that times had never been so good, they were still borrowing exorbitant amounts. Get your facts straight.

I`m not politically aligned to either Labour or the Conservatives but it does seem to be the case that Labour always involves itself in boom and bust economics and are then replaced by the Conservatives who have to take measures to restore the economy and that makes them unpopular leading to them being replaced by labour who again throw money around like there`s no tomorrow, and so the cycle goes on.

As for narrowing the wealth gap in Thailand, it`s always only going to be a pin prick unless you can alter the selfish mindset of the super wealthy old elite who actually own Thailand.

Your observations are spot on !

Boom and bust is an inherent feature of market economics, no matter who is governing.

Think about what you're doing here: a crowd of people gathered around a tall building shouting 'Jump! Jump!'. Whatever her faults, wishing suicide on someone is vile and ignoble. I wonder whether you'd repeat these sentiments among your family back at home.

Boiling frogs, armchair mercenaries all.

She wished it on herself! And then decided not to carry it out.

"This vehicle is reversing"

Think about what you're doing here: a crowd of people gathered around a tall building shouting 'Jump! Jump!'. Whatever her faults, wishing suicide on someone is vile and ignoble. I wonder whether you'd repeat these sentiments among your family back at home.

Boiling frogs, armchair mercenaries all.