Gaccha

I think you should be teaching us what your experience has told you.

Noone on their deathbed says "if only I had bought a Mercedes". You have already hinted that family and friends are what count in life.

As an atheist I believe strongly that when you are gone you are gone. That this is not a dress rehearsal. So don't damage your time left with pointless rituals. Attend to your family.

Gaccha, I am interested in your post and your beliefs. As an a-religious person who does not believe in God, I can sympathise with the rationalistic approach to life and death. However I have just the same reaction to your post as I would if it had been written by a born again christian, who was trying to persuade her that there WAS a light at the end of the tunnel.

I firmly believe that religion/spirituality/or the lack of it is an intensely personal decision. People make their own belief structures for their life according to their life experiences. They may have their roots in religion, they may not, but unless these beliefs are hurting anyone else, I don't see why someone finding comfort in a belief of their being something bigger should be discouraged - especially if they are facing what Nampeung is. Why would her or her family finding comfort in a ritual be 'damaging'?

Personally I don't believe in an after life, or a God. I do however read 'spiritualist' books occasionally and even religious texts. Some I find are drivel, some are exceptionally helpful. I live by a set of rules derived from a number of different sources...many religious or spiritual at root. I have no God to be scared of if I break these, only myself - but I cannot say that I am in no way spiritual or religious (if you believe these are one and the same).

I do have real issues with many dogmatic, organised religion and do adhere to the view that organised religion is a form of social control. However I think a person's own spiritual decisions should be allowed to exist in whatever form they want and that this should be celebrated not sneered at.

There was a recent advertising campaign in the UK run by an athiest group that I strongly disapproved of. It essentially said "there is no God" in very large letters. I just have no idea why someone would see pay money to aim to take away a faith in someone that they feel helps them, if it is giving no harm to them. It struck me as being like a bully stealing sweets of a child and throwing them away... pointless. Before I saw that poster I felt myself to be an athiest, but as soon as I saw it I began to think of athiests as just another zealot group trying to convert me.

Let me have a try at grappling with these points. They have considerable analystical purchase.

The question is should you let someone believe something if it is not true when it does no harm? Well, my point is it does do harm. By believing there is something next (an afterlife/reincarnation) they must constantly examine the life they have led, cosntantly questioning and comparing themselves to others. The Abrahamic Gods are nasty, spiteful and unforgiving. You are doomed to fail by their criteria. They demand you love your neighbours as you love yourself. An impossible demand. Their dictator in the sky does bring harm.

But I also think it is right to encourage people to discover reality. It is there to be found. You only have to note that those who know it the best (the scientists who are members of the Royal Society and other elite science groups) are invariably atheist. This is not a fluke. It is the outcome of their observations. There is no need for a bearded man in the sky, for humans with elephant heads, for reincarnation. I feel I have a moral duty to provide pointers so that before people cease to exist they know why they existed.

My post is to say there is not light at the end of the tunnel, for anyone, so you need not worry. Complete nothingness seems to me to be better than ending up for eternity with all those relatives who you couldn't stand at your Christmas dinner.

The spirituality mentioned by Kat and missabai is probably something I have no qualms with. If it means to look for beauty in the everyday, to find contentment with smelling fresh flowers, or pausing in comtemplation of hearing the morning bird chorus then I am a big fan. The spirituality that worries me is the one that claims rational analysis of the world lack something, that to unravel the secrets fo the world makes it less fulfilling. This idea I reject.

As for the Humanist Society advert I think they did it in good-humour. They actually said "there is probably no God, so don't worry". That does not feel like badgering to me. I recommend the website to their magazine: www.newhumanist.org.uk

This is obviously the most important thinking of people's lives. It never ceases to amaze me how little thought has really gone into it by so many. It is just too scary. I really think reading 'Breaking the Spell' may cause a few eureka moments. It imagines religions as superbly adapted metaphorical viruses that have over centuries of evolution created the best narratives that allow them to replicate the most. If you believe any group-religion you are being played.

I think you should be teaching us what your experience has told you.

Noone on their deathbed says "if only I had bought a Mercedes". You have already hinted that family and friends are what count in life.

As an atheist I believe strongly that when you are gone you are gone. That this is not a dress rehearsal. So don't damage your time left with pointless rituals. Attend to your family.

Here is a nice quote from Alain de Botton:

"Contrary to what an optimistic mind set teaches us, everything will in fact turn out for the worst. We will die, our achievements will be forgotten, everything we've strived for will be ignored, and perhaps mocked and even our names will be stamped into the ground. Whatever our status, we're all fated to end up that most democratic of substances, dust. There is no wealth, said John Ruskin, but life, including all its powers of love, joy and of admiration."

I have never believed that the little moments of happiness make up for the fact that we must all face our extinction. You are falling off this mortal coil perhaps faster than me, but every single person on this forum today will be dust within 100 years. Within 200 years almost no one will ever think about them. Within 1000 years they will mean nothing. But I want you to know this rather depressing view of life is actually uplifting. You do not need to worry about what others think of you. You are the equal of all others. Nothing you have done will be remembered. So if a classmate is now a multi-billionaire or a famous writer, don't worry, they will also be forgotten.

I feel you might want to read these books to set your mind at rest:

The Selfish Gene-- Richard Dawkins

Breaking the Spell-- Daniel Dennett

The loss of happiness in market democracies-- Robert Lane

Unweaving the rainbow-- Richard Dawkins

These through an examination of the World answer the big questions.

I am deliberately rejecting 'spirituality'. Spirituality is a nonsense. It is a rejection of rational thinking and the use of frivolity to explain a complex world. (Please read Unweaving the Rainbow to understand the emptiness of spirituality) Spiritual people argue that the rational in looking at the world logically and in trying to dig for answers lose the beauty of the world. They do not see the rainbow, only the equations to explain the different colours. This argument is wrong. There is nothing more astonishing than understanding the origins of the rainbow, understanding why the world is how it is. Every religious attempt to answer these questions has proved to be less awe-inspiring than the truth. The Abrahamic religions said the World was built by God and they made no mention of the Universe. It turns out we are in a Universe 13.8 billion years old. With 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars. The truth is always more exciting than the empytness of the vacuity of spirituality.

So, why are we here? Well, that question has several meanings. But strictly speaking, we are a transport and survival mechanism for our DNA. The DNA does not know it exists. But you can also answer the question by pointing to the beauty of life.

I hope you have time to contemplate reality. But try to make the most of your family.

Just close these sort of topics. It's like:

A: "I like onions"

B: "I don't"

So who is right? Nobody its all up to oneself!

Mods-- the topic title needs to be changed to:

"status anxiety within transnational migration groupings to the periphery by self-identified cosmopolitans without resources"

Please make it so.

I saw a post some months ago, cant find it now, on the slight local variations in language in isaan area, I can speak reasonable thai, but wanted to impress friends on my next visit to ubon.

regards songkhlasid.

P.S. 20baht/ yeesip baht/ sou baht/ northern dialect

thanking you for any help.

Think you are referring to my post:

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Audio-540-Ba...ds-t241959.html

Going off on a tangent slightly, one similarity between Chinese and Thai is in the use of sentence final particles, which seem common in tonal languages, as opposed to non-tonal languages such as English which lack them.

Just a few thoughts. Any further comments welcome.

Think I might have to put this idea to bed: Japanese, certainly, and Korean, almost certainly, use these same final particles. Neither are tonal languages. It might be an Asian language thing.

In Japanese we have: ne, na, sa, ze, zo, na- (the ne is used in the Thai word "ano ne", which means someone a bit childish in Thai, but in Japanese where it is derived, it is simply a pause strategy, like the English word "well..." or "ehhhhh...")

In fact, some are remarkably close to Thai sentence flourishes.

i am new to this site and not terribly fammiliar with forums in genera. But it seems that all the posts that my searches finds are half a decade old. shouldnt old posts be deleted to save time for people looking for recent info. I can't see why anyone would want to read a five year old help wanted ad!! maybe the site is run by americans since it seems to be nothing but advertisment. if i am missing something plaese let me know, so far i have spent over an hour with ABSOLUTLEY NO USEFUL posts read!!

I have spent over a year on this site and never read a useful post.

They sent that letter to 3,000,000 other people too, it only takes a small percentage to actually believe in it and start sending money to make it all worth while.

Do you really think you are amongst the top 10,000 most influential people on earth ?

If you were, you wouldn't need a letter telling you that you were, you'd already know it.

Do you really think you are amongst the top 10,000 most influential people on earth ?

I felt they had overestimated my power...

You need to update your reading skills.

If you were, you wouldn't need a letter telling you that you were, you'd already know it.

Well, I was going to talk about it. But since you've asked. I certainly knew I was to some extent influential. I was working as a reporter at one of the World's most famous newspapers. My articles were presumably read by Presidents and Prime Ministers and possibly your good self. But top 10,000 is a stretch...

The letter was a targeted letter by the NGO.

It made me realise how little power 'influence' buys you. Jack Straw commented that as Home Secretary of the UK he was surprised at the lack of power and was stunned at the enormous responsibility of his position. He could get nothing done yet he could control prisoners' lives with the flick of his pen.

Well... when I was living in Japan, I was sent a letter by a human rights charity telling me they had selected me as "one of the ten thousand most influential people on earth". I felt they had overestimated my power...

I have kept that letter vacuum-packed for the Grandkids.

I always find it interesting that so many expats put down Fuji and Zen and other Japanese chains. ....

Now, I did stick with cheap retaurants in Japan, but I have wealthy friends that live there and when they visit Thailand, they love Zen and Fuji too.

Well... I lived in Japan for 7 years and I really know my stuff. I hunt down Japanese cuisine everywhere I go. I eat more Japanese here in Bangkok than Thai food.

The reason I am back on this thread is that finally Taketei has reopened its Khao San store at 146 Rambutee. (they also have a branch at 144/ 3-4, Silom Road)

Their website is here www.taketei.com

This is not your fine cuisine. They don't do egg in vinegerated sauce as an appetizer. This is not Kaizen. But they are the best Japanese food at a good price that I know outside soi 33 Japantown. That is, they most accurately replicate the exact taste you get in good, unsophisticated restaurants across Tokyo. The sushi is perfect, the teishoku sets are perfect, even the narrow dessert menu is a prayer to heaven (i recommend the Abekawa mochi).

The problem is many Westerners have been fed a diet of false Japanese food, so they find Fuji and Zen hits their expectations. I went to Zen at CentralWorld after a recommendation from a Thai friend. It was dreadful. Utterly revolting. Microwave meals. But Zen is creating the same style of food as Taketei, so if you know Zen, you will understand Taketei's ambitions.

Go without delay.

A Reference Grammar of Thai | 392 pages | US$45.00

Shoichi Iwasaki and Preeya Ingkaphirom

Or is there a library that has this book?

There is a 2005 edition at Thammasat, on their central campus in Bangkok:

Pridi Banomyong LibraryPL4163 .I93On Shelf

And Chula has the 2005 edition in its main library and in its Arts library:

495.9182421 I96R

PL4163 I96R

Should cost around 230 baht for a library to copy it for you.

So, for unprotected sex

.125 (12.5% chance of having HIV) * (1/500) (random guess of contraction rate) = 1/4000 chance per encounter

1 month of encounters = 1/133 chance

3 month = 1/44 chance

6 month = 1/22 chance

**i have no idea how much a condom changes these numbers.

**i have no idea what kind of testing is done in these establishments.

This is scary. It just shows the dire need for remedial statistics classes among Thai Visa forum members. Did anyone just believe the above?

If you follow the logic then in 10.96 years you are 100% certain to catch HIV . (I didn't just pluck this figure out the air, I just calculated this on 'goal seek' in Excel). The first person to explain the logical fallacy of Mr John's fantastical calculations wins a slap on the back from me.

In the meantime, it is well known that the contraction rate is very low, unless there is a secondary infection (hence the high rates in Africa) creating lessions. The most comprehensive research on the USA was roughly 1:50,000 if wearing a condom and 1:5,000 if not, with all other factors being equal (i.e. regular sex etc.)

Thats all i need to know thank you very much, just as I thought. Sociology at it worst lurking on a fun forum.

How else do you look at society? Sociology is just the name for looking at society. You are engagin in sociology with writing on any topic in this forum. Stop your crass anti-intellectualism.

Interests me you said "at its worst". Surely, at its best. It is being used to assert an astonishing counter-intuitive revelation.

I like your use of the word 'fun'-- a 'glitter word'. Everyone wants things to be 'fun'. But then why do you not want to go and play with Action Man in the school nursery everyday. Surely, that is more 'fun' than sitting on your bar stool discussing society (which you are not interested in). Because what appeals to people depends on their intelligence, their level of reading, their experiences. You chose to engage me in this forum and not vice versa. Of course you do find the conversation 'fun', but so long as it stays at a superficial level and does not create too much cognito dissonance. Read more.

You on the other hand are boring me to death on this forum by looking at books and other websites to gather your thoughts to be creative in your writing style when posting. purr lease!

Heck, if you can't win, then just go personal. You asked me to present 'evidence' to back up my thoughts, my opinions. You now complain when I do as you asked...

My opinion again and you can make as many assumptions as you wish is that.

[cut] Having established you are not interested in understanding the World, then your opinion is largely worthless. But your assumptions beautifully tie in with my expectations of your outlook on the World.

The conclusion to my perceptual framework, if you (the third party reader) buy it, is that with these people with their burnt out, exhausted, melancholic, pessimistic, vengeful, aggrieved, putrified views of the World arrive in Thailand en masse, then there is a real risk that they could start to damage this country. Luckily, so far, they have almost no political influence. But you can see in Spain and the election of expat local politicians of a real risk. Obviously, we just have to pray that no Daily Mail reader ever gets past their bar stool in Pattaya and enters the local government house.

Let's be very clear about this - professional women do not read the Daily Mail! Its only read by stupid, uneducated people (whose friends read the Sun or Mirror), who suffer under the illusion that reading this rag will make them look more intelligent!

Yes they do. It quite deliberately targets them. The young GP, criminal lawyer.

Incidentally, I don't know how long you've been out of the UK, but The Express is the benchmark for this type of person nowadays!

No, the Express style is not what I mean. The Daily Mail's strategy of creating envy or fear and then riding off of it is quintessentially Daily Mail-esque. The Express is just plain right wing.

You're also way off the mark as Mail/Express readers are deeply Conservative and their beliefs are the opposite to those you express - i.e. they want no state interference, believing that if the government involves itself in anything at all, they're showing communist tendencies. They've been proven right - the government left banks to regulate themselves and look what happened.

I suspect that your story about quangos informing girlfriends of their boyfriends history, just goes to prove that you've been reading (and believing) the Daily Express! How on earth would any quango know about a boyfriend and girlfriend???

Do us all a favour and learn to think for yourself rather than believing any old rubbish you are told in the tabloid newspapers.

How do you think they would know? Any contact with any government worker now can result in a written record of the family environment. Perhaps a baby seen crawling in the kitchen alone underneath hot pans and pans. A local council worker, say an odd job man in a Council house, within their contract is now asked to note issues of the family environment. The most obvious route is via the Social Worker. And how woul dthe girldfriend know... well, she would ask. It's for her benefit, says the insidious state.

You have noted a dramatic irony in my perception. The Daily Mail reader certainly believes they believe in less state intervention. This has not been lost on social critics. They point out the Daily Mail readers decry the Nanny State but underneath the swagger they have a real love for it. Every news story has shrill calls for action by the government.

The Daily Mail readers demands for the State to spend their money wisely, to not be wasteful, to be competent, to sort out social ills, force the government's hand. Since the only thinking the government can do is leverage the power of the state, so the State's role is increased. It's very simple: choose any topic that concerns Daily Mail readers, see how the government has had to appear to know how to solve it (the intellectual classes understand this simple view of the World is silly but if the government was to explain it does not have the answers this would create a disorientation, a fear, in Daily Mail readers), look at how it has 'solved it', look at the inevitable disappointment, but most of all, for the purposes of this thread, concentrate on the profoundly evil consequences of the State's actions.

You are being hoodwinked. Your view of the world is certainly how the masses see it. It has a certain appeal. Us versus them. It quite pleases the State as it reinforces loyalty to it and accretes greater powers to it. If I am wrong, then where else is the government being pressured to do what it does...? (it is best not to travel down the path of analysing the banking regulations-- I do want to assert that if you believe the Banking was free of government control then you are being played here as well).

What I am trying to do is make you think beyond the 'news view' of the World. Try to look deeper.

To quote Edward Kennedy's eulogy to JFK: "Some men see things as they are and say why, I dream things that never were, and say why not".

Thats a little better at least you are showing some evidence towards your thinking.

Basic facts from me - I wasn't happy with immigration/crime/under acheiving education system/to big a welfare system etc....

Now this is my own opinion and based upon reading newspapers/on line journals/conversation with people and other sources of information.

Are you trying to make this easy for me? This is my central point. People such as yourself through the wrong perception of how life has gone wrong in the UK, have unintentionally truly messed the place up. My central contention is that it is you (not the immigrants/education system/welfare system)-- the Daily Mail reader-- that has ruined the UK. You must read my two examples again.

The truth of the matter is that most people have similar concerns which is supported by the Home Office poll which i put a link too.

Exactly. This is like shooting fish in the barrel. If you had shown otherwise my argument would have been lost. You can walk into any pub in England and immediately identify your way of thinking as the central discourse in those that identify with the language of the Daily Mail (the 'middle englanders')

Where are your ideas coming from about farangs being a force for good, pioneers for Western civilisation?

Are you doing a history or sociology course based around history of migrant movement!

I'm trying to be serious but cannot help laughing when reading/saying farangs see themselves as pioneers for western civilisations forces

Have you read why the other people came to Thailand ! go on have a read and then tell me if these people saw/see themselves as pioneers for Western civilising forces!

Have you checked the calendar lately

This is draining and way off from my central contention. Just as I totally blew away your position on the Thai thinking I could do the same with your thinking of foreigners. But I am not your performing Monkey. You need to do this yourself. Go out and read deep.

Try: Skair , Leslie, 2005 "The Transnational Capitalist Class and Contemporary Architecture in Globalizing Cities", International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 29/3 (Sep):485-500

Nice try dude to give credit to your generalisations and opinion from the Deputy Minister but this is still your own opinion. You have given no evidence or support to your own ideas other than (maybe) speaking to a Minister.

I'm guessing this conversation with the Minister is not on record anywhere so your facts about what Thailand thinks are truly made up from your own ideas and opinions.

Hopefully you can prove me wrong and show us some evidence about how Thailand sees Westerners.

Of course they are made up from my own opinion and ideas, from where else would they come. What facts do you seek? I fear you have fallen for Daily Mail- style privileging of surveys and polls; if it has numbers and equations it must be 'true'. I, for one, would not be convinced if an opinion poll of Thais was brought out to show their love of farang.

My own ideas, as you put it, are a vision of the farang as a nuisance/trouble/a concern to the Thai state, at odds with the farangs' image of themselves as a force for good. I don't know what would you convince you, but here are some quotes to get you going:

"In Thailand today, the farang are still regarded as a race (unspecified nationalities) possessed of an ideology inferior to the abundantly rich local culture. The farang who come to reside in Thailand are described as begging for the boundless benevolence of the King , or rom phtohi somphan, to live a pleasant and enchanted life. For a Farang to be accepted in Thai society, he or she must totally abandon their innate attitudes or become excessively enamoured with anything Thai (culture, art or way of life). Todd Lavell... is an American writer who provides an example of how a farang can be so Thai-like. His articles ... often underscore what is deemed to be the true value of Thainess, which is opposite to and more superior than that of farangness."

--Pavin Chachavalpongpun

Thai Professor, visiting Professor of SOAS, London University

Expert on Thai nationalism and Thai identity

And so, following a painful series of logical steps:

"Thai identity is elusive because of a lack of cultural coherence or uniqueness, so it is easier for its promoters to imagine what is not Thai"

"The adherence to Khawnpenthai [Thainess]... is a part of the exercise of Thai nationalism through which power holders portray themselves as legitimate players formulating legitimate policy"

"[The power holders] high degree of power helps create the official version of Thainess that masks political unattractiveness as well as elites' private accummulation"

"Thais comply with this variable nationhood and perceive it as though it is part of their chit winyan, or spirit... This explains why they never look beyond the boundaries of Thai nationhood, and why it always remains predominant, ultimate and supremacist."

"according to this... self-image, Thais are not guilty of anything and blame is always placed upon foreigners"

"The farang... have continously represented a real enough threat to the power interests of the Thai leaders"

Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.

In regard to the police not looking under the burqha

I'm fully aware of my position in Thailand and there is no irony in it as i bring in pounds and dollars to the Thai economy so far from ruining Thailand I would say I am of some benefit much the same as Western tourists spending money here.

Would you not agree?

So you determine your/ their legitimacy by the economic contribution. Interesting. That is how Thailand sees it. Thailand (having spoken to the former Deputy Ministry of the Interior on this very issue I really can say this) sees Western 'guests' as a nuisance, that is, of course, not how Westerners see themselves. The Westerner perceives his presence as a great cosmopolitanization of a society that is backward, they see themselves as pioneers of the Western civilising force. The locals just need to understand. The Westerner provides a refreshing outlet of new ideas, innovative thinking, exciting challenges, a force for good.

Thailand see you as an existential threat. Your differing ideas undermine the three famous pillars of the Thai state. It has done a ruthless calculation of your daily expenditure and has lowered the entry requirements to Thailand knowing you will provide money to the local economy. Many Westerneres on this forum view the visa restrictions as severe, but actually they are very liberal. Japan would not let most of the forum members in for more than the allotted two weeks holiday had they tried to go there.

So you, almost tragically, use the same guidelines as the Thai state in your tired immigrant views. Why on earth did you come to a country full of foreigners (from your eyes) if you don't like immigrants. But I digress.

Let's look at UK immigrants. What harm do they do you? Are they taking your jobs, ruining your area? Certainly not the Poles-- they are doing the jobs you don't want to do. What about the Hong Kongians-- nope, they are mini-capitalists with their mini-markets. What about Somalians-- yep, they have very high levels of economic inactivity. Would you send them home? Of course, this is your stumbling block. They are in the UK because someone was trying to kill them in the failed state they call home. Having no training in capitalism they haven't a clue how to work. They are illiterate, have no English and no understanding beyond the tribe.

You casting around for a punch bag is a necessary part of life but you are punching the wrong targets. They are virtually irrelevant in the quality of your life. You need to really try to hunt down what it is you wish for, and what is stopping you. Are you sure you do not crave a strong community, with low crime, good job prospects, and high levels of holidays? If this is what you really want, then my conceptual framework might better serve you. As it is, your apparent positioning is making things worse (Please see my two examples in my previous posts).

No more immigrants and send them home Yes or No???

The irony of your position is probably lost on you. If you are living in Thailand, you are an immigrant. Do you feel you are ruining Thailand with your presence?

Personally I know who I would rather have running the country but unfortunately its the other paper readers who run it!

That's precisely my point. Daily Mail readers feel attacked from all sides. They feel a sense of grievance that all others (gays, women, immigrants, Poles, criminals) are being privileged above them. It is their response to this perception generated by fear articles in the Daily Mail that is causing the ills of the UK.

Please think. In regard to the police not looking under the burqha, you blame the PC brigade. At the extreme, they are a threat to the UK way of life and I have had very serious arguments with PC friends of the USA (where it has set in like dry rot across University campuses) but I fear you are blaming the wrong people.

Let me turn to your example. If the police make a mistake, it is the Daily Mail reader who demands this must not happen again. The police must then ensure they make no mistakes. These means all discretion must be removed and instead a strict procedure put in place. This procedure will err on the safe side (for no senior officer wants to lose his job from a politician forcing him to resign becuase of Daily Mail demands). When a complaint comes in, the police will carefully investigate and compare the officer's actions with best practice. So long as he follows best pratice, no matter how absurd the results, the Daily Mail and its ilk can make no further complaints. So even when it is blindingly obvious what must be done, the police officer must be careful not to do it. He does not want to lose his job.

You are being played.

The 'something-must-be-done' brigade; the sergeant-majors and young professional ladies who read the Daily Mail.

The thing is in England nothing gets done these days, just people coming on webforums complaining, and whats wrong with wanting things to be better?

I think people who disregard others as fools if theyre one of the many millions who read the Daily Mail /The Sun as jumped up <deleted>, would these people be as superior as yourself if they read the FT? or didnt read the news at all? Or read whatever socialist sh7te you form your opinions from.

You must have been to a Uni mill to churn out such rubbish 2:1 in Business Studies im guessing.

No one thinks the govt have all the answers, just 50% of our money to come up with better solutions.

PS I read every newspaper theyre all free online before you try to come across as superior by calling me a Mail reader, but are Guardian readers ok in your eyes?

It was a funny posting because its mostly Guardian(liberal/yellow bellies/PC brigade/civil servant") readers who have snatched the "Great" out of Great Britain/England and turned the country into such a cess pit.

Majority of Daily Mail readers are right wing and more and would not have all the Polish/dole wasters/single mothers benefit scroungers/police killers escaping the Island dressed in a burkha as the police are to scared to stop him for fear of upsetting the PC brigade....etc

Oh dear.

Of course, Daily Mail readers are right-wing. That is presciely my (counter-intuitive) point. Their complaints that you have so beautifully provided yet another rich source of (e.g. "mostly Guardian(liberal/yellow bellies/PC brigade/civil servant) readers who have snatched the "Great" out of Great Britain"), are the ironic cause of the ruination of the UK.

The Great my friend would be put back onto Britain if the country was run by Daily Mail readers!

Especially if it was done by online voting

Spare me.

I think people who disregard others as fools if theyre one of the many millions who read the Daily Mail /The Sun as jumped up <deleted>, would these people be as superior as yourself if they read the FT? or didnt read the news at all? Or read whatever socialist sh7te you form your opinions from.

Groan. I don't recall calling them fools. I think their pereptual framework of the World is wrong. They are not well read. The sources for their thinking are inadequate and inppropriate.

It is interesting you think I'm socialist. I have, as you may now understand, a rather nuanced understanding of the World. I am certainly a libertarian, but to say more would be a parody of my position.

You must have been to a Uni mill to churn out such rubbish 2:1 in Business Studies im guessing.

No one thinks the govt have all the answers, just 50% of our money to come up with better solutions.

PS I read every newspaper theyre all free online before you try to come across as superior by calling me a Mail reader, but are Guardian readers ok in your eyes?

I'm not sure I can be bothered responding to personal attacks. Whatever I say, you will have a well-honed glib response ready for me.

To understand the World, you need to go beyond reading newspapers. You need deep reading. You must not feel that when someone knows more than you they are being patronising. Take it on the chin and try to better yourself. Anti-intellectualism is a curiously British characteristic. For the time being, you are being played by a complex nexus of government and media. I wish you well.

The 'something-must-be-done' brigade; the sergeant-majors and young professional ladies who read the Daily Mail.

The thing is in England nothing gets done these days, just people coming on webforums complaining, and whats wrong with wanting things to be better?

You ask a question that I felt I had thoroughly answered. But someone did ask me in another post to simplify my points, so this seems a good opportunity.

Ideally, making things better is, of course, a good thing. But some time ago, the advanced democracies solved the easy stuff (provide healthcare to all, give everyone an education, open the labour market to all etc.). What we are left with now is very very complicated stuff. We really don't have the answers. But your posting says it all-- you must feel we do as a precondition to making things better (this latter phrase may well be a registered trademark of Daily Mail readers so I use it with caution).

The government is forced to respond to this (distorted) perception of the World; that in the UK things are regarded as constantly getting worse, as going down the drain. Daily Mail readers are fed this as it sells media. The Daily Mail depends on envy (house prices rising) and fear (immigrants).

The government's responses are crude (they simply don't know what the result will be) but inevitably ever more intrusive as a vicious circle of demands (by Daily Mail readers) are followed by 'failure' as the Daily Mail feeds them stories of impending collapse (a 'cesspit').

My perception is the demands of Daily Mail readers (I am , of course, using them as shorthand to describe a certain type of person with a certain type of thinking) unintentionally have a far greater detrimental effect than any of the perceived problems of the UK.

Let me give another example (in addition to my example of the new register in my last post). Daily Mail readers were up in arms over the killing of two girls by Ian [?]. The stranger danger. They demanded that this must not happen again. They saw incompetence at every corner. The consequence of these shrill complaints were manifold but include:

-a change in the relation of strangers with any children. It is now regarded in the UK as highy suspect if a man talks to any children he does not know. If a child iin a park falls over and hurts herself then most men would now think twice about approaching her to help her for fears of what others would think-- the stares and the real risk of being reported to the authorities.

-a new framework of criminal records checks. This not only includes past criminal convictions, but any allegations. A teacher recently lost his job because a check found that a student had made an unproven allegation against him. This teacher is unlikely to ever find work again as a teacher. Since in the UK, through the consequences of the Daily Mail reader the cry of 'better safe than sorry' permeates. The authorities know they will be in deep trouble from the mass readership newspapers if they make an error ("it must not happen again") but there will be no consequence if they simply ruin one person's life.

What I am trying to do is build up a picture of a society dislocated and destroyed by the shrill, inattentive demands of the Daily Mail man and woman.

The reality is this:

-child killings by strangers amounts to around 5- 6 a year in the UK.

- around 60 children are killed a week on UK road traffic accidents.

There is no stranger danger. Nothing should be done. But the government cannot say this for the electoral consequences. Daily Mail readers have ruined society by damaging the very trust it needs to work.

no doubt don't see such a major life decision as such a big deal, especially the well travelled/frequent traveller.

Yep. That would be me. Lived most of my adult life in Asia. Moving here felt as brave as visiting Poole.

One enormous irony is that I despaired at life in the UK precisely because of the unintended consequences of the very people who make it a habit to despair of the UK. Many of those people are clearly the other posters on this thread.

The 'something-must-be-done' brigade; the sergeant-majors and young professional ladies who read the Daily Mail. Their insistent (and ludicrous) belief that if only the government did [fill in with whatever news story concerns them] then life would be better. That is: they have a naive 'cause and effect' vision of the World. They overestimate the power of the State. If I was to reveal to them that the State does not have the answers, that it really does not know what to do, and that its failure to make things better is not a consequence of incompetence or malevolence, but rather, nobody knows, this would break their perceptual framework develpoed from years of reading the warped Daily Mail.

The government in the UK reacts with breathtaking speed to this constituency as it regards them as critical to electability. Consequently, we have seen the profoundly evil development of the Police State, under the 'if you have nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about' ignorance of this constituency. The latest version of this state crassness arrived last week with the unveiling of yet another registration agency. This time the quangos job will be to inform women who have boyfriend's with bad histories. Not simply criminal records of domestic violence but even simple complaints, including bullying, threats and indeed anything else that encompasses typical domestic life outside of a tinted 1950's vision of domestic life. Hilariously, this will mean if her boyfriend is a convicted murderer she will not know, but if he insulted a past girlfriend and she reported him to the social workers, then his new girlfriend will know. And in this day and age of 'better safe than sorry' she will dump him. His life will be ruined by hearsay and vengefulness.

The picture I paint is of a State that does not trust its citizens. It does not trust them to do what they wish behind closed doors. Mistakes cannot be made. Real lives must not be lived. A State invading every area of our lives.

If you want to understand this further then please read Foucalt's 'The Birth of Biopolitics'.

I am then very happy to live in a quasi-democracy where police and military can kill with impunity (see The War on Drugs and the lack of any prosecutions over the 2,400 deaths). I like it because the State is not insidious enough to get involved in my life. It leaves me alone as long as I do not threaten it.

It's against forum rules to post links to (illegal) file-sharing sites. So it may be hard for anyone to post a reply without breaking the rules.

However, I'll wait a bit to see if anyone does have any legit suggestions first.

And what are "file sharing sites"? Are you referring to public tracker sites? If you are, why do you think they are illegal?

There has yet to be a successful prosecution against any public tracker site.

Although the owners of Pirate Bay were found guilty of assisting copyright infringment, the verdict is merely that of a District Swedish Court and under Swedish law is not valid until all appeals have run their course. This is a matter of several years.

(On the other hand, criminal charges have been brought against entertainment companies such as Twentieth Century Fox for attempting to hire hackers to damage the running of these sites. )

My point:

I grow increasingly tired of non-lawyers and their Intellectual Property Law fetish. This area of law is a highly contested discourse, it is not something written in stone. It has been evolving against the interests of consumers over the last 15 years. See the remarkable powerpoint show by the Stanford law professor, Lawrence Lessig, here: http://randomfoo.net/oscon/2002/lessig/free.html . This really highlights how outrageous and shocking the legal play has been by the corporations.

The nasty TRIPS agreement that determines the worldwide position on IP laws was a band of company execs imposing their will.

"a small number of executives from US based multinational corporations imposed their private interests onto public international law"-- Susan K Sell, in 'Non state actors and authority in the global system' 91, 91-92 (2000).

"the credit for the conclusion of the Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights is solely owed to advocacy by Trans National Corporations"-- Prof T Muller, p38, Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies 15:1, (Winter 2008)

You are being played; gamed by a fantastically powerful and effective corporate machine that is trying to convince you that doing things you always did before are now illegal. They have not succeeded in court, but their spending power on advertising and control of the regulatory insitutes has done most of their work for them.

The law is highly complex in this area as it depends on public and private international law as well as domestic legislative frameworks. This is ideal for the corporates who are keen for confusion to reign. Surely I am not the only one who feels like the cumsponge gimp.

Do yourself a favour, leave links to the public tracker sites alone. They are not illegal.

This looks like it is going to be good. I have around 4,000 audio files of individual words but they are not collated to anything written down (and are in Japanese transliteration word order), so unless you already know the spelling (i.e. your Thai is red hot), or have an uncanny grasp of Japanese, this might not be so useful...

Also, can you adapt it to make it into a sentence practice typing tutor-- a la 'Mavis Beacon' style? At the moment, the options are dire.

Chinese is a pictorial written language

No it is not. This is a common erroneous belief. About 4% of the characters are pictographs. The remainder are logograms-- they represent words or morphenes, as opposed to languages where the writing represents sounds (phonemes).

Wu can convey a great deal of information with few characters. As Confucius said "a picture is worth a thousand words".

It depends what you mean by "information". I suspect you mean an idea, a concept, a thought, since you approvingly quote Confucius in his use of the word "picture". In fact, since they are not pictures a better way to understand them is to think of them as highly compressed English or Thai, as if you had squashed an English sentence close together. That's all there is to it. And that is why Chinese and Japanese use up less space than English, and can be quicker to write on a computer (as the computer is given a good chance to guess a word) but slower to write (so many lines...).

Books are not banned in Thailand.

You are mistaken. There is a fairly large list of books banned in Thailand which I'm not going to list here due to LM issues regarding some of them, just Google it.

This is true, but the list does not include the infamous book that everyone thinks is banned. Go to a bookshop and order it and they say it is banned, but on the government website that lists all banned books it is not there. Hilariously, if you check out Chula Library on the internet, they helpfully inform you that they ordered the book a few years back and are awaiting a copy... It would be funny to send in a reservation request for it...