nisakiman

3 hours ago, JaiLai said:

Completely disagree with this.

 

If you speak the language you are privy ( unfortunately ) to overhear what they all chat about in normal conversations and everyday life, it's pathetic, like a nation of children....

 

Some would say 'ignorance is bliss'.

 

Ha! That reminds me of a guy I met fifty odd years ago when I was in India, and he told me he'd learned to speak Hindi.

 

"Wow! That must be great!", I said. To which he replied "I wish I'd never learned to speak it - they just talk a load of sh*t".

 

But learning another language isn't just about learning the vocabulary. You have to understand the culture from which the language springs, otherwise you will never truly understand its meaning. What, from an English perspective might seem rude, in another language / culture is perfectly acceptable and polite, whether it be the delivery or the translated meaning.

8 minutes ago, anotheruser said:

 

 You pay for whatever you ordered.

 

And that is the bottom line.

I assumed that the avatars were of the TV members who had most recently posted a comment on that particular topic.

Had the drink been an unopened bottle, then I think it would be fine to send it back and leave. However, given that it was tea, regardless of how much it cost to make, the polite thing to do would have been to pay for it, whether you drank it or not. That they didn't have the dish you wanted at that moment in time was just unfortunate, not a deliberate slight aimed at you.

 

I think they would have every reason to feel a bit aggrieved at your reaction. I would suggest you leave it for a very long time before you go back, or you may find your meal has an 'extra ingredient' you weren't anticipating. It happens.

Went for a massage a few years ago in Ubon, and there was a big sign in reception saying not to ask for, or expect, any 'additional services'. Good massage - took me a week to recover...

Any updates on Koh Phayam? I'd never heard of the place, but came across a mention of it somewhere and did a search on TV. The last post here by anotheruser is over a year old. Has anything changed dramatically since? It looks kind of interesting - slightly off the beaten track. I'm contemplating whether to go for a few days to have a look.

On 10/01/2017 at 4:57 AM, ubonjoe said:

You will not be allowed to take it on the plane in hand baggage.

A few months ago I was given at a bottle of wine as a gift while in Bangkok attending a conference. My wife and I were forced to drink it the night before our flight back to here since we had no checked baggage.

 

Blimey, that must have been a chore!

I've used man bags for years -  I have a few of varying sizes. Drives me nuts having my trouser pockets stuffed with phones, keys, glasses, tobacco etc. Apart from anything else, it makes my trousers fall down unless I have them uncomfortably tight.  The only thing I keep in my back pocket is paper money. Not in a wallet, just folded. Years ago when I lived in Aus, my boss had a sideline as an on course bookie at Flemington, and sometimes to earn a few extra bob, I'd work on the bag for him. One of the first things he told me was never to keep my money in a wallet. Too easy for a pickpocket to slide out of your pocket, he said. Folded notes are much more difficult to pull out undetected. That was more than forty years ago, and I've never used a wallet since, apart from a small leather case for my cards.

 

 

I think the limit is 100 ml per bottle. And yes, if she goes through security with any bottles of liquid over 100 ml she will have them taken from her, without any doubt.  As Savilesghost says, if she wants to take larger bottles, she must put them in the checked baggage

38 minutes ago, Once Bitten said:

During the times ive been eating in the food court at the Korat Mall it can seem busy , but when I look around at the nearby tables , there all ways seems to be a large number of obvious Mall shop workers and resident office staff , on my last visit to the Korat Mall it was plainly obvious that in some areas there had been an attempt to spruce up and visually improve things , in the face of the now open T21 competition . On ordering my normal routine dish from the same food court kiosk I all ways use , I was surprised to find that it had gone up in price , Ah the old faithful Thai business practice of , when things are slowing down , just up the prices.

 

 

 

"Ah the old faithful Thai business practice of , when things are slowing down , just up the prices."

 

It's not just Thailand that has this mindset. I've lived in Greece for the past fifteen years, and until recently lived on an island which is predominantly tourist orientated. For years the place has been on a downward spiral because during the heady days of the eighties (I also lived there a couple of years back then) when everyone was making more money than they knew what to do with they failed to invest in the infrastructure, and as the comfort / value-for-money demands of the tourists rose, they didn't keep up. So to deal with falling trade, rather than lower prices and/or improve facilities, they just upped the prices in a vain attempt to keep their income stream the same. Naturally, this just exacerbated their problems, and yet they stubbornly continued down this path until their businesses folded.

 

Another example of this bone-headed attitude was epitomised by a situation which happened to a guy I knew a few years ago. He was a Brit, and ran a small bar that was frequented by expats. Everyone was struggling to survive in the area, and his bar was, quite literally, surrounded by empty shops with 'For Rent' signs in the window, but he was just about scraping a living. So then his landlord comes to him telling him that he was going to put up the rent, as what he was paying 'was too low for the area'. The Brit bar owner explained that he was barely surviving as it was, and if the rent was increased, then he'd have to shut down the business. But his landlord was adamant that the rent had to go up. So the guy closed the bar and moved out. That was about six or seven years ago, and his old bar is still empty with the forlorn and faded 'For Rent' posters on the window.

 

Stupidity writ large...

Thanks guys, I'll pass it on. Looks like she'll be ok to stick to her plans.

There are two types of people who don't smoke.

 

There are non-smokers, who, like their non-smoking forbears, have a live and let live approach to life. Other people smoking doesn't bother them, and nor does the smell of smoke. My parents fell into this category. There were always ashtrays and cigarettes in the house for any smoking guests who might visit. My mother actually liked the smell of tobacco smoke, particularly pipe tobacco, although she wasn't so keen on cigars.

 

Then there are the other type of non-smoker, the anti-smoker. They used to be a rarity, but for the last few decades the Tobacco Control Industry has been pumping out (mostly baseless) propaganda relentlessly, and the less critical thinkers have lapped it up. This has, of course, been exacerbated by the fact that the ever compliant MSM have published Tobacco Control's propaganda without ever checking whether or not there is any truth in the press releases they are handed. Every paper loves a good scare story. So now we have ever increasing numbers of indoctrinated anti-smokers, spitting their bile at filthy, disgusting, stupid smokers. This is a recent phenomenon, and is entirely as a result of the massive propaganda campaign which was at the outset designed to drive a wedge through society and reclassify smokers as 'untermenschen'; outcasts; a minority group to be shunned, derided and discriminated against, with the blessing of the law. Truly, Goebbels would have been ecstatic to have devised such a successful propaganda campaign. As he famously said:

 

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

 

Joseph Goebbels - Hitler's Propaganda Minister

 

For the worldwide smoking bans, we have the WHO and their chums in the pharmaceutical industry to thank.  They created (with pharmaceutical industry funding) the FCTC (Framework Convention on Tobacco Control), which they then presented to each and every nation, with the implication that if they didn't sign it, then the IMF/World Bank (sister organisations of the WHO) would be less than helpful when they were needed in the future. Naturally, most signed. (One of the few countries that hasn't ratified the FCTC is the USA, which is why there are so many different laws re smoking from state to state). This gave the WHO (who are fanatical anti-smoking zealots) the ability to dictate to countries about smoking bans. The pharmaceutical companies, having funded this, are now laughing all the way to the bank, having seen their (overpriced, of course) smoking cessation products become a multi-billion international business on the back of the bans and ever more outlandish claims made about smoking.

 

Many smokers ask why there couldn't be a compromise. "Why can't we have smoking pubs and non-smoking pubs?" they ask. "Then non-smokers who are worried about their health could go to non-smoking pubs". But they miss the point. Smoking bans have nothing to do with health. They never have. The bans are merely part of an ideological pogrom, an apartheid. Which is why we are now seeing calls for outdoor bans. Even if you believe the far-fetched claims about ambient tobacco smoke in a room being harmful,  even the hard of thinking will take some convincing that a whiff of tobacco smoke outside will constitute a risk.

 

This is a letter from a Doctor to an American newspaper from about ten years ago when the smoking bans were becoming an integral part of 'progressive' (read socialist, top-down control) politics:

 

I’m Robert E. Madden MD, FACS. I am also a non-smoker. HOWEVER I am a passionate opponent of smoking bans. Most of the opposition to the smoking bans has been based upon economic factors such as loss of business revenue, even closings. My opposition is due to loss of individual freedom and abuse of scientific fact.

 

 

I am a practicing chest surgeon, a teacher and a former cancer researcher. I am also past president of the NY Cancer Society. I will not tell you that smoking is harmless and without risk, in fact one in eight hundred smokers will develop lung cancer. Asthmatics should avoid tobacco smoke. What I will say is: 1) it’s a personal choice and 2) so called second smoke (ETS) is virtually harmless. One may not like the smell but it has not been shown to cause cancer, even in bartenders. If people do not like the odor then they may go elsewhere. Those who support the ban have no right to deny 24% of the adult population their enjoyment of a popular product based on dislike, possibly hatred of smoking. This attitude is that of a bigot, akin to anti-Semitism or racism.

 

 

To me the most offensive element of the smoking bans is the resort to science as “proving that environmental smoke, second hand smoke, causes lung cancer”. Not only is this unproven but there is abundant and substantial evidence to the contrary. It is frustrating, even insulting, for a scientist like myself to hear the bloated statistics put out by the American Cancer Society (of which I am a member) and the American Lung Association used to justify what is best described as a political agenda. Smokers enjoy smoking. Most non-smokers are neutral. Anti-smokers hate smoking. It is this last group that drives the engine of smoking bans. Smoking sections in restaurants, ventilated bars and the like have been satisfactory and used for years. To those who choose to smoke they do so at their own risk. To those eschew smoking let them patronize establishments whose owners prohibit smoking. To impose a city wide or a state wide ban is to deny people of their rights.

 

 

 

-Respectfully,

Robert E. Madden, M.D.

 

 

 

 

I agree it's an alien concept to us farang, and I really don't agree with it in principle, but I think refusing to pay sin sot does a disservice to the girl's parents, insofar as it is a very deep rooted tradition, and it would cause them much loss of face if the extended family and friends were to see no sin sot being paid. How the parents then deal with the money they've been given very much depends on them personally.

 

When I got married, I paid 200,000 sin sot. However, the day after the wedding, my wife's mother quietly gave the money back to her. I think that's not an uncommon scenario these days with there being a burgeoning middle class who don't actually need the money. The most important thing is that the sin sot should be seen by all the guests to have been given. Tradition is served, everyone is happy.

Coincidentally, an old friend of my wife (they went to university together in Bangkok and are both accountants) is working there in Boten doing the accounts for the ladyboy cabaret business. She regularly calls my wife from Lao (on Line) to ask about various aspects of doing the accounts if she's not sure. She apparently gets free accommodation with the job, but it's on the 6th floor of a building with no lift! I don't think she's terribly impressed with the place. They must be paying her well.

My daughter and her family will be in Thailand next month, and had planned to spend some time in Ao Nang and Koh Lanta. However, she's worried that the recent flooding in the south may have affected those places, and is wondering if she should change her plans. She was planning on being there about this time next month. She says she's checked on the internet, but can't find any relevant information, so I thought the best thing would be to get the opinion of people who are actually living in those areas and know what's going on.

 

Grateful for any advice on this which I can pass on to her.

 

Cheers.

43 minutes ago, lamyai3 said:

 

Sheep are not referenced under the borderline cases in clause 1. As long as the sheep is presentable and not a juvenile you should be ok. 

 

But be sure not to let them see the wellington boots in your luggage...

I would have thought that $850 was quite a comfortable income in Thailand. My pension is not much more than that, and I live in Greece, where the government is currently taxing the very air that you breathe. They've just slapped a tax on phone landlines, <deleted>!

 

I don't have rent to pay because I own my property, but I have all the other bills to pay, plus broadband and mobile phone (which is expensive here). Plus I run a 3.5 tonne van, and I'm doing up the property, which is two apartments, one of which I live in. Plus there are two of us, and I have to pay for health insurance for my wife.

 

We go out to eat (or order takeaways) regularly;  I drink wine (and/or beer) every night; we eat well; we're coming to Thailand next month for six weeks, and I won't be scrimping. Oh, I'll be eating street food alright, but not because I have to, but because I like it. And the fact that it's cheap is just a bonus!

 

I could live very comfortably in Thailand on $850, particularly if rent wasn't a factor. Being married now, bar fines and the like are no longer applicable, and eating out in Thailand isn't exactly expensive - unless of course you want to be seen in the hi-so places.

 

I think many posters on this thread are, or have been, high earners, and they can't imagine being comfortable with a low expenses lifestyle. But people like me, who have been through periods of financial hardship, really enjoy living a life which doesn't involve overpriced clubs and restaurants. Because I have, as well as having periods of being broke, had periods of being flush, when I've spent shedloads of money on West End clubs and fancy restaurants, so I know both ends of the scale. I don't lust after Michelin starred eateries. Good food doesn't have to cost an arm and a leg.

 

So yes, you can live comfortably on $850 in Thailand if you choose your location and accommodation wisely, and you're happy to eat and drink with the locals.

1 hour ago, anotheruser said:

 

Red label taste on a moonshine budget?

 

This?

 

 

30 minutes ago, thedemon said:

"Catamites". I had to look that up - never heard the word in my life. Hilarious!!

 

Yes, I had a chuckle at that! It's not a word you come across often - I've only really seen it used in literary works, and even then not in modern writing.

 

Very amusing seeing it used in a hotel list of rules! Rather quaint!

On 02/01/2017 at 10:25 AM, sanemax said:

I still have one of the old style Changs left , saving for my last day here, when ever that will be

 

I fear that unless you are leaving next week, your Chang won't be worth drinking. Beer has a limited shelf life, usually six months to a year max (depending on storage conditions) unless it's a particularly special brew like some of the Trappist beers, and even those don't last that long. The 'sell-by' date on beer is usually pretty accurate, sadly.

2 hours ago, les Dennis said:

At that time of day The Clubhouse will have it on for sure, with audio on the big screen. The picture on the big screen is one of the best in Thailand too.

 

Yes, I was thinking that might be the case, because there won't be any football on at that time, it being early morning in Europe. Nice to know they have a good big screen. I'm looking forward to it already!

Ah, good! Sukhumvit isn't a problem, as I'll be staying in Saphan Kwai near the BTS. Looks like The Clubhouse is only about a ten minute stroll from Asok BTS on the map. Thanks. Yes, probably a good idea to do a recce the day before!

I know I might seem to be getting ahead of myself here, but it just occurred to me that I will be in Bangkok on the 26th March, which is when the first race of the F1 season takes place in Melbourne, and I was wondering if anyone knows of a bar or whatever that always screens F1 where I could go to to watch it. I think it would be around midday Thai time. I ask because I've got a feeling that the hotel I'm staying won't have a channel screening it. I seem to recollect that last time I stayed there their channel choice was fairly limited.

 

Cheers!

2 hours ago, namoi said:

log books don`t mean much unless the inspectors pull the bus apart to find the 2nd log book and the hidden goee, the log book thing is so easy to bypass

 

This is very true. In the '70s I drove semi-trailers interstate in Australia, and we had log books back then. They were so easy to fiddle that they really served no purpose at all. All the Interstate drivers used to drive far in excess of the legally permitted hours (except perhaps the Ansett drivers, who were paid a salary rather than trip money), because most of us were paid for the miles we made. More miles, more money.

 

I don't know why they don't make tachographs mandatory in these minivans. They are much more difficult to tamper with, and provide a record of hours driven and the speed of the vehicle at all times. Those installed in the van, combined with heavy fines for infractions would go some way to mitigating the carnage these vehicles cause. Establish regular checkpoints on the road where the disc from the tachograph can be inspected (no point having them if nobody ever checks them) and I think we might see an improvement in standards. And it's a relatively low cost exercise, too.

4 hours ago, DSJPC said:

Dos Equis, Molson Golden and San Miguel, in that order!!!

 

You can get XX in Thailand? I've never seen it. I used to drink shedloads of that stuff when I lived in London in the '80s. With Tequila submarines, usually.