But I Don't Give A Hoot !

[polecat]

You have got to be kidding. Writing book reviews is NOTHING like writing a column.

Yes, it is

Trink's book reviews are rarely solely concerned with the text. He often writes about himself and his views as much as the book. This is particularly the case when he chooses to review history books, or books about Thailand - which he does a lot. He puts a lot of his opinion into the reviews - which makes it A LOT like writing a column.

Here are a couple of quotes from the first two reviews that came up on my BP "book review" search.

"It never ceases to amaze me how some people can trivialise if not deny the Holocaust. Six million Jews were slaughtered, as well as Russian PoWs, gypsies, gays and others. The documentation is extensive and irrefutable. While Sobibor wasn't the death factory Auschwitz was, 250,000 were gassed and burned there during the 17 months of its existence. The amazing thing about Sobibor was that there was an escape from there." (27 Feb)

"That I review so many novels about Christ isn't because I am particularly interested in theology, but for the reason that they are the flavour of the decade. Until the end of the last century, writers accepted the traditional view of him as expressed in the New Testament. His miracles were taken at face value. Christmas carols, gospel singing, oratorios, prayer and sermons raised the spirits of the faithful." (13 Mar)

Both quotes illustrate the writer's POV and style, using the books as a jumping off point. So, not much different to a column then, eh?

Nuff said.

Edited March 23, 2009 by polecat

[PattayaParent]

Did he ever claim to be a doctor or make medical recommendations?

As you can see by the post from t.s. he referred to medical publications by qualified doctors conversant with the subject.

Trink was also unqualified to comment on medical opinion in a biased way that amounted to a recommendation - only a doctor should do that. In any case, he was wrong. HIV does cause AIDS, as any doctor will tell you and as I have seen in three people I know. Come to think of it, that www.virusmyth.com website that Trink valued so highly looks much the same as it did in the 90's - hardly indicative of a cause that is gathering momentum.

<snip>

Not any doctor, certainly not the doctors in the sources quoted as disputing the 'fact'.

And aren't you also commenting on a medical opinion in a biased way? And just what are your medical qualifications to do so?

[Ulysses G.]

You have got to be kidding. Writing book reviews is NOTHING like writing a column.

Yes, it is

I used to read his column and I still read his book reviews and they are very different. There might be a few little personal tidbits in the reviews, but he mostly describes the plot of the book. It is nothing like a half page of nothing but him going on about his own interests.

[astral]

In the later days he was just cutting and pasting to make up his column,

with little original material.

[dbrenn]

In the later days he was just cutting and pasting to make up his column,

with little original material.

Right - the whole thing had run its course. Besides, who wants to read about where to find the best blowjob in a family newspaper?

[dbrenn]

Not any doctor, certainly not the doctors in the sources quoted as disputing the 'fact'.

And aren't you also commenting on a medical opinion in a biased way? And just what are your medical qualifications to do so?

Even if there is a minority of conspiracy theorists who believes that HIV might not be the cause of AIDS, the vast majority of the medical profession disagrees. What right has a family newspaper to promote prostitution venues and in the same column downplay the risk of catching or spreading a fatal and nightmarish disease? I mean, whatever happened to responsibility?

I used to cringe at Trink's column, and feel sorry for poor Mr. Redneck Sextourist who might believe the self-styled Dr. Trink and his silly recommendations. I complained regularly to the Bangkok Post, as did others, and I was delighted when they summararily gave Trink the boot. His column would have been more appropriate for a porno mag.

Edited March 23, 2009 by dbrenn

[rixalex]

In the later days he was just cutting and pasting to make up his column,

with little original material.

Besides, who wants to read about where to find the best blowjob in a family newspaper?

Is there some sort of law that all daily newspapers should be written only for the family and can not deal with topics of an adult nature, given that it is done with taste?

Granted, a column on where to get the best blowjob isn't in great taste (for both reader and giver ), but i'm not so sure that a light-hearted column on eating out, nighttime entertainment and weekend activities, aimed mainly at single men, is the sort of topic that needs to be totally off-limits for a daily newspaper.

Dbrenn, you do sound like a bit of a moral crusader. To have taken the trouble to write letters of complaint certainly suggests you had strong feelings about Mr Trink which i myself can't really understand. I mean, if there's a column in a newspaper i don't like, i just don't read it. Nobody forces you. And nobody forces you to buy the newspaper. Letting your money do the talking for you, (as i do now with that poor excuse of a newspaper) saves one a lot of time and effort campaigning, and in the long run might make you a more laid-back, relaxed individual.

My advice is don't allow petty matters that are completely within your control to bother you because there are enough things in life that we have little or no control over that deserve our attention more.

[webfact]

does anybody remember the "Pink Section" in SF Chronice during the seventies? I trust to remember reading sometimes similar content what Trink was writing about. Not that explicit as Trink did sometimes but close to it.

Correct me please if my memories are wrong. But I remember all these ads of some premises in the SF's Tenderloin District offering some kind of special service...

Edited March 24, 2009 by webfact

[dbrenn]

....Dbrenn, you do sound like a bit of a moral crusader. ...

That's your opinion. I don't think that objecting to spreading ignorance of the type that puts people's heallth and lives at risks amounts to a moral crusade.

.... To have taken the trouble to write letters of complaint certainly suggests you had strong feelings about Mr Trink which i myself can't really understand...

I didn't write letters, I wrote emails to postbag, some of which were published. It wasn't any trouble, and it didn't take much time at all - no more time than posting here in fact, which both of us seem to be doing

..... My advice is don't allow petty matters that are completely within your control to bother you because there are enough things in life that we have little or no control over that deserve our attention more...

Thanks for your advice, but I don't think that AIDS is a petty matter. Have you ever seen anyone die from it? I know people who did. It's a long, slow, degrading and painful death, and it is transmitted by sex, no matter what Trink claimed. Most people don't even know that they have got it until they are hit by PCP, an awful from of pneumonia that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. Even though there are drugs now that can halt its progression, they are highly unpleasant and AIDS is certainly not a matter to be taken lightly.

I wouldn't give a hoot about Trink's pontifications about his favourite bars - I like to go out for a drink myself. What got my back up was that he was lulling people into a false sense of security about risks of catching what is a truly dreadful disease.

Good riddance to him. Turns out that it was within my control - I hope my input contributed in some way to his sacking.

Edited March 24, 2009 by dbrenn

[Gary A]

I used to read him faithfully and don't remember him ever advising unprotected sex. I actually stopped my subscription to the Post when they cut his former page to a tiny column. Some of you have poor memories or you have no idea what you are talking about.

oh really?

while he does not advise unprotected sex, he claims that HIV is near impossible to catch from vaginal intercourse

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not the type to take even small chances with my life when I can avoid it, but Trink was right about chances of contracting HIV through intercourse. There were a farang and his Thai wife living in a condo in the same building I lived in. She got sick and died quite quickly. She died from complications of AIDS. After five years of living with the woman and NOT knowing she was infected the guy was tested and found HIV negative.

To express my views again, I won't say that Trink was an exceptional journalist but I thoroughly enjoyed his page. If you are a bluenose type, you no doubt will not agree with me. I knew my way around most of the Bangkok bars and could relate to what he talked about.

[Ulysses G.]

Most doctors now say exactly what Trink said, that is is difficult for men to catch it by vaginal sex.

I am the paranoid type and would not take a chance on catching this or any other STD, but I know a lot of men who were having unprotected sex regularly at that time and not one caught AIDS. They did not use protection because they did not want to, not because of what Trink thought or said.

[dbrenn]

Most doctors now say exactly what Trink said, that is is difficult for men to catch it by vaginal sex.

I am the paranoid type and would not take a chance on catching this or any other STD, but I know a lot of men who were having unprotected sex regularly at that time and not one caught AIDS. They did not use protection because they did not want to, not because of what Trink thought or said.

I also know a lot of people who took risks and didn't catch AIDS, and they far outnumbered those who did. I don't think any of us know the true extent of the risk - do you think that people who do catch AIDS would go around admitting it to their friends? One guy I knew did take Trink at face value and was regularly quoting him and telling all and sundry that the HIV link to AIDS was a hoax. A couple of years back, he had trouble breathing and spent the next few days fighting for his life in the ICU with PCP. I saw that he had PCP when I and some others visited him in hospital, and it was written on a report that was lying next to his bed. He never mentioned that he had AIDS, but PCP is an illness that only people with HIV develop, so it was obvious what was reallly wrong with him. He disappeared from the social scene for a while, but still goes out from time to time thinking that nobody knows what is wrong with him.

Most people like to keep this kind of thing a secret or put health problems down to some other cause, particularly now that AIDS can be managed.

[t.s]

I'm not the type to take even small chances with my life when I can avoid it, but Trink was right about chances of contracting HIV through intercourse. There were a farang and his Thai wife living in a condo in the same building I lived in. She got sick and died quite quickly. She died from complications of AIDS. After five years of living with the woman and NOT knowing she was infected the guy was tested and found HIV negative.

To express my views again, I won't say that Trink was an exceptional journalist but I thoroughly enjoyed his page. If you are a bluenose type, you no doubt will not agree with me. I knew my way around most of the Bangkok bars and could relate to what he talked about.

so would you take him at his word?

by the way, please define "bluenose type" i am not up on the lingo of centuries past.

[t.s]

Most doctors now say exactly what Trink said, that is is difficult for men to catch it by vaginal sex.

I am the paranoid type and would not take a chance on catching this or any other STD, but I know a lot of men who were having unprotected sex regularly at that time and not one caught AIDS. They did not use protection because they did not want to, not because of what Trink thought or said.

I also know a lot of people who took risks and didn't catch AIDS, and they far outnumbered those who did. I don't think any of us know the true extent of the risk - do you think that people who do catch AIDS would go around admitting it to their friends? One guy I knew did take Trink at face value and was regularly quoting him and telling all and sundry that the HIV link to AIDS was a hoax. A couple of years back, he had trouble breathing and spent the next few days fighting for his life in the ICU with PCP. I saw that he had PCP when I and some others visited him in hospital, and it was written on a report that was lying next to his bed. He never mentioned that he had AIDS, but PCP is an illness that only people with HIV develop, so it was obvious what was reallly wrong with him. He disappeared from the social scene for a while, but still goes out from time to time thinking that nobody knows what is wrong with him.

Most people like to keep this kind of thing a secret or put health problems down to some other cause, particularly now that AIDS can be managed.

,

Now it is you who are making things up. PCP is found only in immuno-compromized patients.

While it is often AIDS that causes the the compromised immune system, it is not the sole cause. It is however the most common.

[Gary A]

I'm not the type to take even small chances with my life when I can avoid it, but Trink was right about chances of contracting HIV through intercourse. There were a farang and his Thai wife living in a condo in the same building I lived in. She got sick and died quite quickly. She died from complications of AIDS. After five years of living with the woman and NOT knowing she was infected the guy was tested and found HIV negative.

To express my views again, I won't say that Trink was an exceptional journalist but I thoroughly enjoyed his page. If you are a bluenose type, you no doubt will not agree with me. I knew my way around most of the Bangkok bars and could relate to what he talked about.

so would you take him at his word?

by the way, please define "bluenose type" i am not up on the lingo of centuries past.

Blue nose types are those who are better than thou and would NEVER even consider going into a girly bar. (They claim). They consider guys like me to be way below their social level. Their nose gets blue from being at a high altitude.

Would I take him at his word? That would depend entirely on what he is saying. He wrote his share of BS but I usually found it amusing.

[Old Man River]

Trink's column was a joke, pure and simple. It made Thailand in general, and Bangkok in particular, look like the most pathetic third world country imaginable.

Can anybody seriously imagine a leading newspaper in any other country giving over a whole page to what amounted to a series of advertisements about venues for prostitution?

I have to agree with everything you have written, but still I always found myself reading his columns. Some of his stands on things (Aids for one) were outrageous, but I guess this made them interesting. I never did the bar scene and didn't miss him when he retired, but now that it is mentioned, I have found myself reading this thread to find out whatever happened to him. After all, like him or hate him, Trink was a character.

[rixalex]

Thanks for your advice, but I don't think that AIDS is a petty matter.

I wasn't saying that AIDS was a petty matter. I was saying that a small column once a week in a daily newspaper was.

You act as if you were the only one able to think for yourself - and as if everyone else who read Trink's comments would suddenly rush out to have unprotected sex based on what he had written. You support this by the example you give of a friend who seemed to have done this exact thing. I'm sorry but i struggle with the idea that anyone is simple-minded enough to make such a big decision purely based on the writings of a frivilous columnist. It seems to me that if someone's mind was that soft, they would have got themselves into trouble of one sort or another without the help of Mr Trink.

[LooseCannon]

Most doctors now say exactly what Trink said, that is is difficult for men to catch it by vaginal sex.

Curious as to why you don't include women?

Is this because "most doctors" say that it is much easier for a women to become infected with HIV through vaginal sex than men?

Check out the 'Centers for Disease Control and Prevention' (CDC) website for some statistics (note these stats are specifically for the US in year 2007, but worldwide figures would not be much different). In the category "High-risk heterosexual contact" (I think I can be safe in saying this would be an appropriate category for foreign men having sex with Thai prostitutes) approximately 50% more women than men became infected.

Does Trink think Thai prostitutes have a lesser value than their foreign customers? Or is he just an ignorant &lt;deleted&gt;?

I would like to think that your phraseology is the product of your ignorance rather than some delibrate deception.

[Ulysses G.]

Your question is quite easy to answer and no conspiracy theory. Trink never said that women could not catch AIDS easily. His reading led him to believe that it was much more difficult for men to catch (vaginally) and he mentioned that in his column. Why would I mention women if he didn't? He knew that women catch it easier than men.

He did not make any value judgments about whose life was worth more - although you seem to be trying to do that - he merely presented his theory. The strange thing is that he was actually right.

Edited March 25, 2009 by Ulysses G.

[LooseCannon]

Your question is quite easy to answer and no conspiracy theory. Trink never said that women could not catch AIDS easily. His reading led him to believe that it was much more difficult for men to catch (vaginally) and he mentioned that in his column. Why would I mention women if he didn't? He knew that women catch it easier than men.

He did not make any value judgments about whose life was worth more - although you seem to be trying to do that - he merely presented his theory. The strange thing is that he was actually right.

You actually wrote "that is (your typo - it?) is difficult for men to catch it by vaginal sex" not it is much more difficult than [insert women here?]. Totally different meaning.

"Why would I mention women if he didn't? - don't you think that it would be necessary to mention women if you are making a comparison? what are we comparing? Men & chickens?

"He knew that women catch it easier than men." - so he knew but didn't mention it? He knew, mentioned it, but you didn't mention it? So knowing that women where in more danger than men he still promoted unsafe sex?

"He did not make any value judgments about whose life was worth more - although you seem to be trying to do that..." - I know he didn't, that is why I am asking the question. Did he choose to omit any mention of the increased dangers of infection to women out of ignorance or was he being deceptive? I don't expect you to know the answer - it is a rhetorical question.

"The strange thing is that he was actually right." - you just said he never mentioned women with respect to the dangers of infection, so how can he make any comparison as to the increased risks of women getting infected? I am assuming that you are still talking about relative risks of infection between men & women at this point, but if not.....

What was he exactly "right" about?

[Ulysses G.]

"Why would I mention women if he didn't? - don't you think that it would be necessary to mention women if you are making a comparison? what are we comparing? Men & chickens?

"He knew that women catch it easier than men." - so he knew but didn't mention it? He knew, mentioned it, but you didn't mention it? So knowing that women where in more danger than men he still promoted unsafe sex?

What was he exactly "right" about?

That it is difficult for straight men to catch AIDS from vaginal sex.

It seems to me that - like many posters on Thai Visa - you are trying to start a fight about nothing. Trink did not "promote" unsafe sex. He always recommended condoms, but he still felt that it was difficult for heterosexual men to catch AIDS from vaginal sex.

Also, he was not comparing between women and men. He felt that homosexual (mostly anal) sex and drug needles were the most common ways for men to catch the disease. He did not think that anyone's lives were any less valuable than anyone else's, but he felt that the public had been misled about some of the characteristics of the disease.

He also felt that HIV was not the cause of AIDS, and, at that time, there were a number of researchers who agreed with him. I do not and did not agree with him about that and it was not mainstream thinking, but there were eminant scientists that did promote these theories. Also, a lot of reporting was being done at that time about alternate AIDs possibilities.

[t.s]

I'm not the type to take even small chances with my life when I can avoid it, but Trink was right about chances of contracting HIV through intercourse. There were a farang and his Thai wife living in a condo in the same building I lived in. She got sick and died quite quickly. She died from complications of AIDS. After five years of living with the woman and NOT knowing she was infected the guy was tested and found HIV negative.

To express my views again, I won't say that Trink was an exceptional journalist but I thoroughly enjoyed his page. If you are a bluenose type, you no doubt will not agree with me. I knew my way around most of the Bangkok bars and could relate to what he talked about.

so would you take him at his word?

by the way, please define "bluenose type" i am not up on the lingo of centuries past.

Blue nose types are those who are better than thou and would NEVER even consider going into a girly bar. (They claim). They consider guys like me to be way below their social level. Their nose gets blue from being at a high altitude.

Would I take him at his word? That would depend entirely on what he is saying. He wrote his share of BS but I usually found it amusing.

i am certainly not a blunenose then.

[Pierrot]

"Why would I mention women if he didn't? - don't you think that it would be necessary to mention women if you are making a comparison? what are we comparing? Men & chickens?

"He knew that women catch it easier than men." - so he knew but didn't mention it? He knew, mentioned it, but you didn't mention it? So knowing that women where in more danger than men he still promoted unsafe sex?

What was he exactly "right" about?

That it is difficult for straight men to catch AIDS from vaginal sex.

It seems to me that - like many posters on Thai Visa - you are trying to start a fight about nothing. Trink did not "promote" unsafe sex. He always recommended condoms, but he still felt that it was difficult for heterosexual men to catch AIDS from vaginal sex.

You and him are wrong

http://www.medindia.net/news/Toronto-Man-P...est-45831-1.htm

A man from Toronto is urging all those who have slept with his stripper ex-wife to get an HIV test done, after he was infected with the virus through her.

Iamkhong had been sentenced in August 2007 to three years in jail after being convicted of criminal negligence causing bodily harm for infecting her ex-husband with HIV.

Suwalee Iamkhong, 39, who arrived in Canada from Thailand in 1995, danced at Toronto’s Zanzibar Tavern for most of her career, which lasted until 2004.

[hammered]

A thread on Tring. What next a thread on the delights of the old original Thermae?

Never had much time for Trink's column but didnt despise it either. Knew a bunch of old freeloaders who would always fight over a free copy of the paper to read his column to see at which bar the free food would be on a Saturday night. If you read the column for long enough it did have a habit of being repetetive.

Still in those days the BW/BP had character. Now.....

[dbrenn]

Now it is you who are making things up. PCP is found only in immuno-compromized patients.

While it is often AIDS that causes the the compromised immune system, it is not the sole cause. It is however the most common.

But ... AIDS stands for Acquired Immune Defficiency Syndrome, right? That is, immunocompromised people. PCP is usually the first AIDS defining disease, and is caused by a usually benign fungus that runs riot in people whose immune system has been compromised - found in people with HIV and a T Cell count of less than 200, or, rarely in cancer patients whose immune system has been compromised by chemo, or premature babies, or the elderly. Never in healthy middle aged people.

In any case, when I challenged him privately, the indivudual in question tild me that he did indeed have AIDS. Publically, he told people that his condition was 'a virus that he had picked up while on a recent business trip to Amsterdam'

[Ulysses G.]

You and him are wrong

ONE guy got it from his wife. That is your evidence? Difficult does not mean impossible and the article does not even mention if they were having anal sex.

[dbrenn]

You and him are wrong

ONE guy got it from his wife. That is your evidence? Difficult does not mean impossible and the article does not even mention if they were having anal sex.

You are assuming that everyone who catches AIDS goes around telling all their friends and the world at large. It's so much easier to say 'I had to spend time in hospital with pneumonia', or 'I've got cancer', and get the full sympathy of your social circle; than to say 'I caught AIDS by shagging prostitutes' and risk getting shunned and treated like a leper.

I know two hetero non drug using blokes who caught it from prostitutes for sure, and several others who had illnesses that could have been AIDS. Maybe, maybe not, but who wants to risk telling the world

The nearest thing we can get to an indication is the HIV ststistics, which seem to prove that it is definitely out there, and that it is rather common in the general population. Now if you don't believe what the vast majority of doctors and scientists say that HIV causes AIDS, then by all means take the risk ...

Edited March 25, 2009 by dbrenn

[Ulysses G.]

The nearest thing we can get to an indication is the HIV ststistics, which seem to prove that it is definitely out there, and that it is rather common in the general population. Now if you don't believe what the vast majority of doctors and scientists say that HIV causes AIDS, then by all means take the risk ...

Did you bother to read the thread? I do believe that HIV causes AIDS, but I also believe that it is fairly difficult for heterosexual men having vaginal sex to pick it up and the vast majority of doctors and scientists say that is true. However, I still wear a condom with every partner.

[rixalex]

However, I still wear a condom with every partner.

There's more than one?!

[Ulysses G.]

Even you could get more than one around these parts.