26 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

Yep. Good thing when you have a partner so they can check your backside. The ones that cause the most problems are tiny. Useless insects.

They are really good at jumping. Scary good.

34 minutes ago, Ralf001 said:

Defoe pre maccas/kfc days for sure... back then any lass over 30kg was considered a chubster.

30 kgs? That's what my 9 year old daughter weighs. Sad that some men actually go after women that weigh less than 40 kgs. That's a control issue unless the girl is very short with no boobs. It's young girl teenager weight. My ex wife was small and 44 kgs. 148 CM.

4 minutes ago, blaze master said:

They are really good at jumping. Scary good.

Every time I walk through the Texas brush I need to check when I arrive home. I didn't have this problem when I lived in New Jersey until 1985, although it's gotten worse there, as the NE, Connecticut, is where Lyme was identified.

1 minute ago, fredwiggy said:

30 kgs? That's what my 9 year old daughter weighs. Sad that some men actually go after women that weigh less than 40 kgs. That's a control issue unless the girl is very short with no boobs. It's young girl teenager weigh. tMy ex wife was small and 44 kgs. 148 CM.

30kgs is prisoner of war weight. She must be sick with no boobs.

4 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

6 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

30 kgs? That's what my 9 year old daughter weighs. Sad that some men actually go after women that weigh less than 40 kgs. That's a control issue unless the girl is very short with no boobs. It's young girl teenager weigh. tMy ex wife was small and 44 kgs. 148 CM.

30kgs is prisoner of war weight. She must be sick with no boobs.

Jeez he was joking. Life is not meant to be taken so seriously. Damn guys... 🤣

1 minute ago, marin said:

Jeez he was joking. Life is not meant to be taken so seriously. Damn guys... 🤣

Joking? I don't think so.

4 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

30kgs is prisoner of war weight. She must be sick with no boobs.

I've been with a gal, possibly in the 30kg range, but she was also, short and petit, though very healthy. There's a major advantage being with someone that petit ... 😜

Just now, KhunLA said:

I've been with a gal, possibly in the 30kg range, but she was also, short and petit, though very healthy. There's a major advantage being with someone that petit ... 😜

35 to 40kgs they weigh. No adult should weight under 30kgs.

11 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

30 kgs? That's what my 9 year old daughter weighs. Sad that some men actually go after women that weigh less than 40 kgs. That's a control issue unless the girl is very short with no boobs. It's young girl teenager weight. My ex wife was small and 44 kgs. 148 CM.

My house maid looks stunning mopping my floors.

2 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

I've been with a gal, possibly in the 30kg range, but she was also, short and petit, though very healthy. There's a major advantage being with someone that petit ... 😜

God bless em.

Actually meant to type 40kg in my previous (30kg typo) but hey...its created some heat which is good for the forum.

Just dropped the house maid on the scales... time to move her on...she's now 37 :-(

Just now, Ralf001 said:

My house maid looks stunning mopping my floors.

Buy her a few hamburgers

1 minute ago, Ralf001 said:

My house maid looks stunning mopping my floors.

I didn't know GG was already back in Thailand.

2 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

35 to 40kgs they weigh. No adult should weight under 30kgs.

Obviously way below 'average', size, but way above average 'smile' level.

12 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

30 kgs? That's what my 9 year old daughter weighs. Sad that some men actually go after women that weigh less than 40 kgs. That's a control issue unless the girl is very short with no boobs. It's young girl teenager weight. My ex wife was small and 44 kgs. 148 CM.

I don't mind a few extra lbs. Especially if they're in the right places. It's the cottage cheeze. Especially in the young 'uns. That doesn't bode well for the future.

20 years ago most gals did not have a smart phone to sit and stare at mindless videos and texts all day and night. So the gals were generally more interested in actually sitting and talking with customers, practicing their english etc.

To me it was much more fun all around pre everyone having smart phones to "entertain" themselves and bore others to death saying hey look at my pics or videos etc.

Not to mention that fewer falangs spent time trying to film every single person event place to post on social media with many looking to make a few cents on click bait. Or sitting in public places like pools, gyms, restaurants, bars, etc yaking away loudly on their phone or playing some crap music or video with no ear phones.

2 minutes ago, impulse said:

I don't mind a few extra lbs. Especially if they're in the right places. It's the cottage cheeze. Especially in the young 'uns. That doesn't bode well for the future.

Same here. Curves aren't a bad thing, especially if they're active.

20 years ago there was no double pricing.. We could go to a National park for similar price as a netizen or maybe 20 THB more instead now .. The exchange of the THb was much better, which gave me more money to spend, people were less stressed as nowadays and more happy as you can hear everywhere ....and the prices were lower in the supermarkets..Chabaa fruitjuice was 59 THB now 85.. and Nescafe was 189/199 THB and now 299THB just as an example

1 minute ago, ikke1959 said:

20 years ago there was no double pricing.. We could go to a National park for similar price as a netizen or maybe 20 THB more instead now .. The exchange of the THb was much better, which gave me more money to spend, people were less stressed as nowadays and more happy as you can hear everywhere ....and the prices were lower in the supermarkets..Chabaa fruitjuice was 59 THB now 85.. and Nescafe was 189/199 THB and now 299THB just as an example

Dual pricing existed 20 years ago in national parks and muay thai.

Compare to big trip in 2004.

Jetstar and others have made airfares cheap for Australians. I paid between $1100 and $1500 return I think - now better.

Basic travel websites back then - seem cheaper now relatively except maybe Phuket and parts of Bangkok. AirBnB makes for good monthly deals.

Food and stuff is more but seems a bit the same relative to Australian wages. Weak AUD doesn't help.

Massage still the same price as 2004 in a lot of places - not sure how the girls survive as clearly costs have gone up.

As an aside tsunami happened as girl friend from Phuket arrived in Australia.

Just now, Fat is a type of crazy said:

Compare to big trip in 2004.

Jetstar and others have made airfares cheap for Australians. I paid between $1100 and $1500 return I think - now better.

Basic travel websites back then - seem cheaper now relatively except maybe Phuket and parts of Bangkok. AirBnB makes for good monthly deals.

Food and stuff is more but seems a bit the same relative to Australian wages. Weak AUD doesn't help.

Massage still the same price as 2004 in a lot of places - not sure how the girls survive as clearly costs have gone up.

As an aside tsunami happened as girl friend from Phuket arrived in Australia.

Massage prices have increased from 200 to 300 on average. Still cheap.

16 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

Massage prices have increased from 200 to 300 on average. Still cheap.

I seem to recall foot and thai 200 and oil 300 at stock standard places in Phuket. Same as Jomtiem now.

3 hours ago, Harrisfan said:

Prices in Australia have risen 70% since 2006. Wages have doubled.

Airline tickets have fallen 30%.

Thai hotels were 400 baht then and 400 baht now.

Krapow moo was 30 baht then and 50 baht now.

The thai baht was 28 baht then and now 22 baht.

So apart from currency Thailand is actually cheaper now lol

You are amazing. First you say that Thailand is cheaper now, than 20 years ago. To come to that conclusion, you take away the currency fluctuations against the Thai baht.

How in the world can you do that? That way the topic fails to deliver, as you in reality argue directly with yourself.

Even if you try to state that the prices remain same, you still get 22,5% less buying power. In reality, that tells you its 22,5% more expensive now.

That´s just pure facts. However, you are probably going to argue about that too, as that is the single reason you have for start all your threads

2 minutes ago, Gottfrid said:

You are amazing. First you say that Thailand is cheaper now, than 20 years ago. To come to that conclusion, you take away the currency fluctuations against the Thai baht.

How in the world can you do that? That way the topic fails to deliver, as you in reality argue directly with yourself.

Even if you try to state that the prices remain same, you still get 22,5% less buying power. In reality, that tells you its 22,5% more expensive now.

That´s just pure facts. However, you are probably going to argue about that too, as that is the single reason you have for start all your threads

Wages double, baht rises 30%. Thai inflation is low. So it is actually cheaper.

Glad I can educate you.

2 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

Wages double, baht rises 30%. Thai inflation is low. So it is actually cheaper.

Glad I can educate you.

That wages go up, regards all the western world countries. If you have more money or not, is totally irrelevant here. If so, you could say that you won a lottery, and then it got cheaper in Thailand. That´s ridiculous!

The fact still remains. Disregarding how much money a person has, the currency fluctuation tells all the proof you need. For your money, you get 22,5% less than 20 years ago.

So, as you see, you didn´t educate anybody. The only thing you achieved was to make yourself look dumber to the rest.

6 minutes ago, Gottfrid said:

That wages go up, regards all the western world countries. If you have more money or not, is totally irrelevant here. If so, you could say that you won a lottery, and then it got cheaper in Thailand. That´s ridiculous!

The fact still remains. Disregarding how much money a person has, the currency fluctuation tells all the proof you need. For your money, you get 22,5% less than 20 years ago.

So, as you see, you didn´t educate anybody. The only thing you achieved was to make yourself look dumber to the rest.

Your post makes no sense. First you claim money does not matter than you claim 22.5% difference matters.

Make up your mind lol

1 hour ago, fredwiggy said:

Every time I walk through the Texas brush I need to check when I arrive home. I didn't have this problem when I lived in New Jersey until 1985, although it's gotten worse there, as the NE, Connecticut, is where Lyme was identified.

... yep, same siht in central EU and on top we've got severe encephalitis spread by those effers since I can remember.

In 2005 I paid 3,000 baht deluxe samui bungalow direct price. Now 6,000 baht.

In 2023 I paid 900 baht deluxe lanta cabana with agoda.

Same standard much cheaper.

Agoda was only founded in 05 and didnt list such great deals back then.

$3000 at 28 is 84,000 in 2006

$6000 at 22 baht is 132,000 in 2026

132/84 is a rise of 57% which is more than inflation which was 42% over that period.

4 hours ago, Harrisfan said:

You are 20 years older. You are slower. Less fit. Less atttractive.

Guys in 2006 said it was better in 1986!

If anything its better now cause there's more farang food!

It was better in 1986.

1 hour ago, Harrisfan said:

Dual pricing existed 20 years ago in national parks and muay thai.

I don't know what you want as you seem to tackle every comment..... Happy for you that time stood still for you... 20 years ago I dis not need to pay 500/600 THB for entrance fee at a National Park, but maybe 100 THB even 10 yrs ago....while Thais could enter free or 20 THB...