nisakiman

In my view you are perilously close to the absurd position of trying to condemn racism [...] by trying to deny common sense observable facts - that people look different.

I guess I wasn't clear. I won't disagree that people look different. What I disagree with is the idea that these differences in appearance can be consistently - and reliably - used as a definitive guide as to which side of a geographic line somebody was born on. I further disagree with making assumptions of character and worth (as the ad in the OP does) based on these highly variable appearances.

I don't think there was any assumption of character or worth insinuated in the ad. To me, it was a bit of tongue in cheek humour, and anyone taking offence has a serious humour deficit problem.

As I've said already in my previous posts on this thread, I very much doubt if any Chinese (or part Chinese) thought twice about it. If the boot were on the other foot (as it often is in western advertising, as it happens), and the English / Americans are being caricatured (bowler hat, pinstripe suit, Eton accent and stupid, or stetson and cowboy boots, unintelligible Texan drawl and stupid), do you take offense? Because if you do, I feel sorry for you.

As it happens, my wife and I went for a meal last night with a (farang) friend and his wife, and my friend managed to persuade the waiter to bring us a couple of beers (they sat on the bottom shelf of the drinks tray next to the table in a plastic bag - oh the subterfuge...), which warranted a 50 Baht tip when we paid, I thought. Then this evening (8 ish) the missus and I went to the local night market to do some shopping and grab a bite, and the lady with the drinks stall was quite happy to supply me with a beer to wash down the kaow pad muu. So I guess the deciding factor for whether you get a drink or not just depends on who (and how) you ask.

I have to admit that I fail to see the logic of the alcohol ban over the election period.

Is it a Thai tradition to get totally blasted and thus be unable to vote? I have my doubts. And those diehard drunks for whom that may be the case will surely be prepared, and have a stash of their favourite poison to see them over the 'dry' period.

It seems totally barmy to me.

Right, the mall management company has removed the ad, and has apologised for it. Some people reckon the ad is funny, whilst others reckon it is offensive. The mall company has removed it because it IS harming the sales of their business.

Let's hope the company does not make a similar mistake in the future. And let's hope other advertising groups don't make the same mistake again.

And yes, it is a mistake, an advert is suppose to improve the image (boost sales), and not do the opposite !

Do you have any evidence for that statement?

I for one would be very surprised if it influenced their business one way or another in the short term, and I would be even more surprised if it had a long-term negative impact.

As I said before, I very much doubt if any Chinese / Thai-Chinese found it terribly offensive. It's only the oh-so-liberal western meddlers who wish to impose their personal sub-set of morals on everyone else who find it offensive.

The company certainly hadn't removed the ad as of yesterday afternoon, and I would be disappointed if they had bowed down to the mealy-mouthed complainants of the PC brigade and apologised. If I was responsible for that ad, I most certainly wouldn't apologise, indeed, I would probably thank the moral meddlers (in a decidedly back-handed way) for the publicity.

Yet more posturing from the professionally offended. Note that it's 'foreigners' who are getting their knickers in a twist over something on behalf of another demographic. I very much doubt that anyone here found the advertisement offensive; it's only the busybodies in the west with their PC radar turned to the 'extra-sensitive' setting who are complaining.

When I was a boy, the airwaves and playgrounds were awash with "there was a Scotsman, an Irishman and an Englishman...." jokes. No-one was offended by them, even if they were the butt of the punchline, because people were able to differentiate between humour and insult in those days. But under the tutelage of the purse-lipped arbiters of Political Correctness, we are forced into bland, flavour-free dialogue, where deviation from the approved path is immediately slapped down.

It's about time these meddlers were shown the door and told not to come back.

On a happier note, I was in Central, Ubon this afternoon, and the advertisement, about 5m square, was still proudly swaying in the air-con.

Where does it say that its foreigners (farangs),complaining?

The image generated mixed reactions online, with mainly foreign commentators expressing disapproval.

"This ad is sure to create negative publicity for Central. Lots of people who shop in Central are foreigners. Not a good idea!" said @BKKEarlsy on Twitter.

Yet more posturing from the professionally offended. Note that it's 'foreigners' who are getting their knickers in a twist over something on behalf of another demographic. I very much doubt that anyone here found the advertisement offensive; it's only the busybodies in the west with their PC radar turned to the 'extra-sensitive' setting who are complaining.

When I was a boy, the airwaves and playgrounds were awash with "there was a Scotsman, an Irishman and an Englishman...." jokes. No-one was offended by them, even if they were the butt of the punchline, because people were able to differentiate between humour and insult in those days. But under the tutelage of the purse-lipped arbiters of Political Correctness, we are forced into bland, flavour-free dialogue, where deviation from the approved path is immediately slapped down.

It's about time these meddlers were shown the door and told not to come back.

On a happier note, I was in Central, Ubon this afternoon, and the advertisement, about 5m square, was still proudly swaying in the air-con.

I arrived in Bangkok from the UK with my case weight 20 Kilos, I then wanted a single flight to Phitsanulok max weight for luggage 15 kilos. Welcome back to LOS land of stupidity.

I like your posts, possum, but my wife and I always purchase additional weight with the ticket on Nok Air to PHS. Otherwise, we'd always be overweight.

I hope this helps.

http://www.nokair.com/contents/journey_plan/baggage_info/en-US/

I understand the Nok Air situation, but I'm wondering what the situation will be when my wife and I return to Greece = the ticket I bought was from the island where we live - Olympic (15 Kg allowance) to Athens then Qatar (30 Kg allowance) to BKK. However, Olympic and Qatar are part of an alliance, so I checked my bags in at my airport of departure and didn't see them again until I arrived in BKK. Now on the outbound, we were anyway not carrying much, so weight didn't come into it, but on the way home, we will be nudging the 30 Kg mark. If the bags were going direct to our final destination, I would imagine there wouldn't be an issue with the weight. However, I suspect that because the Olympic flight is domestic, on the return leg we will have to take our bags through customs in Athens (international arrivals) and then check them in again for the last leg. So the question is, will the alliance between Qatar and Olympic (given that the ticket was bought and paid for as a single trip) stretch to Olympic giving us the Qatar luggage allowance?

Has anyone has a similar situation?

Spaniel would probably find my avatar sexually explicit...

I wouldn't worry too much about it. I got hep B when I was in Afghanistan in 1967, and I'm still here, alive, kicking and generally doing all the things that the health fascists tell us will kill us tomorrow if we don't stop. Also, since then I have had four children by two wives and I'm on my third wife now, and none of them has shown any sign of contracting the disease. The last liver function test I had several years ago came back A-OK, despite the fact that I'm a man who likes a drink.

We are all different, of course, but the medical establishment is well known for talking up risks - it keeps that six-figure salary coming in.

As for how you got it, it can be as simple as using an infected glass or spoon that hasn't been properly washed. The luck of the draw, mate.

Yes, a good article which highlights the negative effects of intervention in an area where the interventionists have really little or no idea of the unintended consequences inherent in their actions. Unfortunately the world is full of people who think that they know best how people should live their lives, and thus seek to impose their personal moral template on everyone else. You see it in many areas of life; smoking, drinking, eating as well as sex. And because these people tend to be moral crusaders, they are able to influence decisions at government level by dint of shouting long and loud, even though they don't represent the majority. It's essentially puritanism that drives their thinking, and a misplaced sense of self-righteousness.

I guess they were stopped because they were speeding...

Came through Doha a few days ago for the first time - what a dump. No wonder there is eager anticipation of the opening of the new terminal.

Now the waiting starts for the next delay.

Yes, the pushing back of the opening date does seem to be an ongoing situation. One wonders if it will ever open...

SO = significant other, bedmate

I've always used SOH = Significant Other Half

Although I didn't think it was specifically Thai related - I'm sure it's fairly common currency across the English speaking world.

Another good article about this subject I just came across in an online magazine I often read:

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/poor_people_are_getting_plump_good/14477

And some erudite and informed comments, too.

I'm arriving on Wednesday morning, and have decided to skip the shuttle bus in favour of a taxi, as I'm quite tight on transfer times. As Craig says above, the taxi drivers will know where the trouble spots are and will be able to skirt round them (hopefully! ).

Ok, so just to throw the cat in amongst the pigeons, I came across this little item this evening:

Science teacher goes on McDonald's-only diet to prove it's not where you eat, but what you eat (and how much you exercise) that matters.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/06/mcdonalds-nutrition-fast-food-mcdonalds-menu/4339395/

Which rather illustrates the fact that taxing something in an attempt to achieve a particular result is a very blunt and inaccurate instrument. Not only is it ill-targeted, but it is likely to produce far more unintended consequences than would be immediately apparent, as does most heavy-handed social engineering legislation.

So I presume you agree in doing away with the subsidy and importing sugar from Brazil and Thailand to substitute expensive American sugar.

After all, governments intervening for social reasons is just terrible, and leads to unintended consequences such as the invention of HFCS.

Apples and oranges. You refer to an economic exercise. I was referring to a social engineering exercise.

Ok, so just to throw the cat in amongst the pigeons, I came across this little item this evening:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/01/06/mcdonalds-nutrition-fast-food-mcdonalds-menu/4339395/

Which rather illustrates the fact that taxing something in an attempt to achieve a particular result is a very blunt and inaccurate instrument. Not only is it ill-targeted, but it is likely to produce far more unintended consequences than would be immediately apparent, as does most heavy-handed social engineering legislation.

We are talking here about 'obesity', but what, exactly, is 'obesity? How far above the 'recommended' BMI does one have to go before becoming 'obese'? It's worth remembering that overweight people on average live longer than 'normal weight' people. But we start to get into the medicalisation of conditions that are really not medical conditions at all, because the pharmaceutical companies have no morals whatsoever where it comes to profits.

Overweight:

Body Mass Index (BMI) is defined as the ratio of weight (in kg) to height (in meters) squared and is an inexact measure of body fat, though it supposedly establishes cutoff points of normal weight, overweight, and obesity.

Old definition: BMI > 28 (men), BMI > 27 (women)
People under old definition: 70.6 million
New definition: BMI > 25
People added under new definition: 30.5 million
Percent Increase: 43%

The definition was changed in 1998 by U.S. National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute.

It would seem that the definition of 'obese' is quite arbitrary. But as I mentioned, much of this is driven by the pharmaceutical companies.

Selling sickness: the pharmaceutical industry and disease mongering – 2002

“There’s a lot of money to be made from telling healthy people they’re sick. Some forms of medicalising ordinary life may now be better described as disease mongering: widening the boundaries of treatable illness in order to expand markets for those who sell and deliver treatments.

Pharmaceutical companies are actively involved in sponsoring the definition of diseases and promoting them to both prescribers and consumers. The social construction of illness is being replaced by the corporate construction of disease.”

“Within many disease categories informal alliances have emerged, comprising drug company staff, doctors, and consumer groups.
Ostensibly engaged in raising public awareness about underdiagnosed and undertreated problems, these alliances tend to promote a view of their particular condition as widespread, serious, and treatable.

Because these “disease awareness” campaigns are commonly linked to companies’ marketing strategies, they operate to expand markets for new pharmaceutical products.”

“As the late medical writer Lynn Payer observed, disease mongers “gnaw away at our self-confidence.”
http://www.bmj.com/content/324/7342/886.1

And it's not only Big Pharma who use these tactics, the healthist zealots are past masters at fudging figures to create a panic where no cause for panic exists, in the hope of forcing governments into a knee-jerk reaction

Like imposing a 'sugar tax', for instance.

Cigarettes, alcoholic drinks and gasoline are taxed everywhere, it's exactly the same kind of tax. Has nothing to do with morality or Puritanism.

As far as cigarettes and alcohol are concerned, it has everything to do with morality and puritanism. Why on earth do you think they call them 'sin taxes'?

So again, what have you decided needs to be done about the sugar that is killing all the fat Thais?

It's not my call but I think they should consider a substance tax on ALL sugars. Or if not, at least watch closely to look at results from other countries.

Also make transfats illegal in processed commercial products.

Require labeling for food products in retail stores with clear icons about danger levels for danger substances.

Try to encourage manufacturers to offer actually healthier choices at normal prices (not easy).

PR campaign to make half hulled rice SEXY. (Why not?)

Sure throw in the education campaign as well.

Require labeling for food products in retail stores...

Sure throw in the education campaign as well.

Those are the only two items in your list that I would agree with.

As for the rest, you are assuming that you are better equipped than I to make those choices for me. I find that both arrogant and insulting. I am educated and intelligent enough to make those decisions for myself. If I choose to have two spoons of sugar in my coffee, who are you to tell me that I shouldn't? Who do you think you are to advocate that I should be exorbitantly taxed for that small pleasure?

You exhibit the traits of far too many 'Public Health' jobsworths, who think they should be the moral arbiters of the human condition. What arrogance! What hubris! Just who do you think you are?

I tell you what. I won't seek to pass judgement on your lifestyle if you will extend me the same courtesy, ok? So no more talk of coercion through taxes, ok?

We don't need self-righteous do-gooders hectoring us daily, thank you. We can muddle along just fine without them, and probably enjoy our lives a lot more into the bargain. And if our lives are somewhat truncated as a result of the lifestyle we've chosen, then so be it. You may see quantity as the ultimate goal, but I would go for quality.

As Kingsley Amis once perspicaciously quipped:

“No pleasure is worth giving up for the sake of two more years in a geriatric home at Weston-super-Mare”

A government's job is to govern the country; to use taxes they gather wisely and for the good of the people from whom they take those taxes; to maintain a just and lawful society; to be custodian of the economic activity of the country; to maintain good diplomatic and trade relations with other countries.

Social engineering is not within their remit. They can advise and they can educate, but as soon as they start to coerce, be it via taxation or legislation, then they are starting down the road to totalitarianism. What I choose to eat, drink or smoke is nobody's business but mine.

An increasing number of overweight population is a sign of a country that is becoming increasingly wealthy - it should be celebrated. Unfortunately these days we are seeing a surge in the power of the Neo-Puritans, the prohibitionists, those who would have us deny ourselves all pleasure, don sackcloth and ashes and live like ascetics. Well they can <deleted> off. I have no intention of kowtowing to their petty moralising, particularly given that 95% of the 'science' they use to try and browbeat us with is made up of cherry-picked and manipulated statistics, and outright lies.

"Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy."

H.L. Mencken

bored, after selling my it-company and buying myself a benz i need some more action and thaivisa never disappoints me, with all old farts here that are losing their money in this country haha..

<deleted>.

Forgot to mention that with Voip Discount, although you have to make the call via your computer, if you don't like headsets you can rout the call through either your mobile or your land line, so you have a phone to phone situation. That's what my wife does.

I use Voip Discount. Some calls are free, some you pay a nominal sum for. I put €10 credit on which gives us 180 free days to those destinations that are free. My wife calls from here (Greece) to her mum in Ubon every week, and she gets free calls to either land line or her mum's mobile. No time limit - sometimes she's on for hours. For me to call a mobile in UK costs (I think) €0.18 per minute.

Alternatively, if your parents own a smart phone you can use Viber, which is a free phone to phone app.