I just read it as though it were my morning paper with coffee. Then I'm up and about being constructive with my life. It obviously becomes obsessive compulsive behavior with some people, and that's not healthy. Wanting to be informed about the world is laudable, but getting carried away in negative thinking and pointless back and forth is not healthy. I don't want to read about most of what's going on in the world especially the US where I'm from. I'm here in Thailand for a reason. Some of what I read here is intelligent and worth reading, funny and worth reading, but some of this is just ignorance on parade. I think it's important to not respond to ignorance at all. Or racism, or bigotry, or hate, or just plain old ldiocy. Because that can lead to endless back and forth. Crack a few jokes, sure. Stay on top of the mountain, and don't get glued to your device endlessly and obsessively. And I'm guilty of getting carried away myself, so I've rewritten my own rules according to my previous point. Life is much better that way. I should add that everyone's life is different, some people may have such limited lives that tapping away on a forum is all they've got. I would recommend the same thing, read it like it's your morning news. There will always be more tomorrow, and you don't need to read all of it. So, this is only my narrow perspective, and I know that it's only MY perspective. Cheers.

2 minutes ago, gargamon said:

My only question is if he/she/it will change their name (again) before it hits 0. I wonder if it fan go negative...

My only question is why 70yos get off on emojis? They should appeal more to children.

Just now, Harrisfan said:

My only question is why 70yos get off on emojis? They should appeal more to children.

At a certain age people start turning back into children. Once my mom hit 80 she was easy to get along with because I viewed her as a child, no lie.

1 minute ago, Jonathan Swift said:

At a certain age people start turning back into children. Once my mom hit 80 she was easy to get along with because I viewed her as a child, no lie.

Yes I agree. Explains the behaviour online.

3 hours ago, Terrance8812 said:

Harriett has ANDD. 😂

Harriet is a wonderful Karen Carpenter sound-alike.

Harrisfan is not !

One more thought. It should be regarded the same as anything else that is potentially addictive. The test should be is the time spent here detrimental to your overall state of mind and does it disrupt or cause you to neglect other more positive elements of a healthy life

1 view a week normally does it.

9 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

Khunla knows more than me. Nobody else does

At least a dozen posters know more about Thailand, culture and food than you.

10 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

My friends lived in Thailand for 10 and 12 years. I know way more than them. I also speak better Thai.

Good for you but means absolutely nothing.

10 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

. Every city is different. In Thailand the people are different too. Like southern folks are mostly muslim. Isaan folks are mostly short and speak Lao Isaan mostly. Chiang Mai people speak Lanna and are taller and prefer different food.

This is just so subpar and inane. The south is not mostly Muslim. Narathiwat, Yala, Pattani, and Satun are significantly Muslim but when you add in the other provinces of the south it comes out to less that 25% Muslim. Your characterization of Isaan is just silly as are you views on the north. Just "trumpeting" what you have read from poor sources.

Posters are tired of you trying to put them down while you big yourself up each and every day. This is reflected in your disappearing reputation. An easy way to express their opinion on your posts.

45 minutes ago, connda said:

Talk about obsession?

Are you referring to me? If so, please tell me how many "I love Trump" topics have I posted?

1 hour ago, Harrisfan said:

The problem is many discuss other posters not the actual topic. Ive clicked on profiles and seen 15/15 nothing to do with topic. Yet these guys claim to be "good" and not trolling. 15 troll posts in a row.

The new tactic is to respond to a post and toss their childish ad hominem in as an afterthought.

But sometimes they forget who they are and toss in a clue to their prior identity LOL. We just had one do that LOL

Just now, Yagoda said:

The new tactic is to respond to a post and toss their childish ad hominem in as an afterthought.

But sometimes they forget who they are and toss in a clue to their prior identity LOL. We just had one do that LOL

Is Danderman here? Lol he hated Trump then ran away after Trump won. He must have called me an idiot 50 times yet I was right.

3 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Probably paid to do it by Russia ........ can't think of any other reason.

Yup...they are trying to fool a bunch of broke retirees to like Russia. Money well spent.

Just now, Harrisfan said:

Is Danderman here? Lol he hated Trump then ran away after Trump won. He must have called me an idiot 50 times yet I was right.

Hes here but the rules forbid me from naming him. So are two others that I have IDed, one just yesterday. If anyhting, they are more hateful than before.

4 hours ago, Harrisfan said:

It is a Thai forum. You got lost

But you aren't in Thailand...are you? So why are you here quite so much? Do you miss it?

1 hour ago, Harrisfan said:

The problem is many discuss other posters not the actual topic. Ive clicked on profiles and seen 15/15 nothing to do with topic. Yet these guys claim to be "good" and not trolling. 15 troll posts in a row.

I would say that in my short time here, that you are the worst for that.

11 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

Is Danderman here? Lol he hated Trump then ran away after Trump won. He must have called me an idiot 50 times yet I was right.

You were both right ☺️

13 minutes ago, Yagoda said:

Hes here but the rules forbid me from naming him. So are two others that I have IDed, one just yesterday. If anyhting, they are more hateful than before.

Explains all the thumbs down lol

I even called the silver crash 2 days ahead

They should be thanking me

World's best advice

Election winner 6 months ahead

Commodity crash 2 days before

24 minutes ago, gearbox said:

Yup...they are trying to fool a bunch of broke retirees to like Russia. Money well spent.

No normal person "likes" or will ever "like" Russia.

11 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

Explains all the thumbs down lol

Well if you go back to the election, there was a whole group of them (who I nicknamed the emojinauts) who gave out thumbs down in an organized fashion. Even though some of original members are gone, their replacements are here and I bet they are still at it. It matters not, thumbs down are a badge of honour, as well as being called "racist" and all the other names that allow them to feel morally superior.

1 minute ago, Yagoda said:

Well if you go back to the election, there was a whole group of them (who I nicknamed the emojinauts) who gave out thumbs down in an organized fashion. Even though some of original members are gone, their replacements are here and I bet they are still at it. It matters not, thumbs down are a badge of honour, as well as being called "racist" and all the other names that allow them to feel morally superior.

All of your posts seem to revolve around the same thing. Don't you have other interests?

Just now, Yagoda said:

Well if you go back to the election, there was a whole group of them (who I nicknamed the emojinauts) who gave out thumbs down in an organized fashion. Even though some of original members are gone, their replacements are here and I bet they are still at it. It matters not, thumbs down are a badge of honour, as well as being called "racist" and all the other names that allow them to feel morally superior.

Yep. Imagine giving thumbs down to a guy who predicted the silver crash. They should be begging me for my next tip. My US election system even picked the margin to within 0.1 points.

I don't spend much time here, but it is not simply about how much time you spend on the site. A better measure is whether what you post is found to be useful, appreciated, or enjoyed by other members, or whether most people actively dislike your opinions altogether and would prefer not to see you posting at all. I've found that distinction is reflected quite clearly in the reputation score shown on a user’s profile.

As a general rule, a reputation score should be at least one and a half times your total post count. Double or triple is even better. I just looked at one guy's profile who has been posting on this topic, and his reputation score is nearly four times his total post count. That speaks for itself.

When someone’s reputation score is far lower than their total post count, it usually means they are spending too much time on the site while providing very little value. In most cases, a lot of people are probably irritated by their presence. At that point, it does not really matter whether they are spending one hour or fifteen hours per day on the site. It would be healthier and more productive to find something better to do than to continue persistently annoying everyone else. In that situation, the polite response is simply to move on.

1 hour ago, Terrance8812 said:

I don't spend much time here, but it is not simply about how much time you spend on the site. A better measure is whether what you post is found to be useful, appreciated, or enjoyed by other members, or whether most people actively dislike your opinions altogether and would prefer not to see you posting at all. I've found that distinction is reflected quite clearly in the reputation score shown on a user’s profile.

As a general rule, a reputation score should be at least one and a half times your total post count. Double or triple is even better. I just looked at one guy's profile who has been posting on this topic, and his reputation score is nearly four times his total post count. That speaks for itself.

When someone’s reputation score is far lower than their total post count, it usually means they are spending too much time on the site while providing very little value. In most cases, a lot of people are probably irritated by their presence. At that point, it does not really matter whether they are spending one hour or fifteen hours per day on the site. It would be healthier and more productive to find something better to do than to continue persistently annoying everyone else. In that situation, the polite response is simply to move on.

Don't think you can take rep score seriously. As I seem to upset people by posting a photo of a brekkie sandwich in a brekkie food thread. Or if I give good solid advice to someone.

People actually pay attention to posts score, opinion numbers or badges receive that site award you ?

Give me a discount food coupon or something, not a badge to entice me to keep posting to get the next badge I don't care or know about.

16 hours ago, Terrance8812 said:

As a general rule, a reputation score should be at least one and a half times your total post count

Since Jan 17th, I have posted 156 times, reputation is excellent @ 125

I rarely post at all.
When I am bored, I occasionally login and go for a scroll and, not surprisingly, I see the same posters' names and the same types of ad hominem attacks, the same arguments about who speaks better Thai, or who has visited more cities or provinces, or who has lived here longer, or who likes ladyboys, or the anti-[insert any country-of-origin here] brigade.
Unless someone brings up US politics for no apparent reason, I generally find most members' posts humorous and can easily read ten or twelves pages before finally realising - through my own willful masochistic blindness - that the topic is no longer even being discussed, just three or four people writing responses to each other.
Not learning from my mistake, or being a glutton for punishment, I'll change thread and subject myself to more of the same.
It's cathartic.
But if more than once a month, I have a good hard look at myself and go to the other bastion of well-structured discussion: the "comments" section of the Bangkok Post.

3 hours ago, wil iam not said:

Since Jan 17th, I have posted 156 times, reputation is excellent @ 125

Sorry, I guess the thumbs down is because i only did 152 posts.

On 2/7/2026 at 6:41 AM, 123Stodg said:

There is one dude on here that all he does is bang on about days won, lefties, trolls and can't make a single post without getting a flock of red thumbs. I have never once come on the site and not seen him online. This would put him in the 15+ hours a day category. Yeah, that bloke definitely needs an intervention.

That womble’s mere presence in any thread is a guarantee of its destruction. No insight follows, no value survives, and continued attention is entirely pointless.

More than a few decent threads have been destroyed by a single forum parasite who delights in derailing anything worthwhile. Just as culpable are the enablers - the dafties who keep replying, providing the oxygen and attention that allow this trollish moron to continue fouling the room.

4 hours ago, wil iam not said:

Since Jan 17th, I have posted 156 times, reputation is excellent @ 125

Typically, for a reputation score to be considered excellent, most site members agree that it should be at least double a user’s total post count. That said, the site itself appears to label nearly every member’s reputation as excellent based on an internal parameter that does not seem to correlate well with this commonly accepted standard. I am not sure what that setting is, but that does appear to be where some of the confusion comes from.

In any case, your reputation is not bad, but by most informal measures it would not be considered excellent, despite what the site is telling you. There is no need to worry about it, though. Reputation generally does not matter unless you personally care about it, and most people do not care about it or even look at it.

As an example, reputation becomes more clearly indicative only in extreme cases. I have encountered at least one member with a total post count of over 17,000 and a reputation score under 1,300, which means their reputation is far less than 10 percent of their total post count. Yet even in that case, the site still reports their reputation as excellent. Go figure. In a situation like that, it is reasonable to conclude that their posts are not particularly liked or appreciated by other site members, even though the site’s labeling suggests the opposite.

37 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

That womble’s mere presence in any thread is a guarantee of its destruction. No insight follows, no value survives, and continued attention is entirely pointless.

More than a few decent threads have been destroyed by a single forum parasite who delights in derailing anything worthwhile. Just as culpable are the enablers - the dafties who keep replying, providing the oxygen and attention that allow this trollish moron to continue fouling the room.

Fully agree. That is why, in many public places, there are signs that say “do not feed the animals,” to prevent them from continuing to return to the same location and bother more people. Unfortunately, those who keep feeding this particular site pest do not seem to understand that dynamic, and so it goes on ad nauseam.

This site nuisance appears to have one particular enabler who is willing to go many rounds with the malignant troll, which, as you pointed out, only poisons the overall mood on the site. By engaging with the troll, the enabler likely does not realize that he is harming many other site members in the process, not just himself. If he understood the “do not feed the animals” concept, we might see a noticeable improvement in the current situation.

As a safeguard, and although the other poster is merely long winded and prone to waffling rather than being what I would consider a true site nuisance like the other individual, I have placed both of them on ignore. Doing so greatly reduces the noise from topic hijacking that occurs from the two of them on most discussions, down to nearly nothing.

40 minutes ago, 123Stodg said:

As a safeguard, and although the other poster is merely long winded and prone to waffling rather than being what I would consider a true site nuisance like the other individual, I have placed both of them on ignore. Doing so greatly reduces the noise from topic hijacking that occurs from the two of them on most discussions, down to nearly nothing.

Then we get pages and pages of this (below)... It would be good IF there were some way, not to just ignore, but to remove their presence completely - I don't want to remove someones posting rights because I don't like what they write. I just don't want them taking up any real-estate on my screen at all - by placing someone on ignore they really should be removed from our visibility completely - even when 'others' quote them.

Of course - its easy enough not to be bothered by pathetic trolls or those who foolishly give them oxygen - however it starts to get a bit silly when we have a scenario such as below...