Some countries are more corrupt than others, but I don't know any that AREN'T corrupt. There are always payoffs for "little favours". The USA has even set up a system where groups barter with politicians to get "little favours" done... supposedly for the benefit of the public.

All governments have corruption within them. Why did you feel it necessary to single out the US as having a special system?

Within every government there is a system for corruption. It's called politics and politicians and is not unique to the US.

Here is a link to government corruption in 2009, with the cleanest countries listed first. Surprisingly NZ is ranked number one. Probably because there isn't anything there worth stealing.

http://www.worldaudit.org/corruption.htm

There must be some relation to gov't salaries and the levels of corruption. For example, if the cops or low level bureaucrats aren't getting paid enough to feed their families, they're going to take bribes every chance they get. If they are well paid, they have less incentive to cheat. Many of the top countries on that list are socialist and I'm sure they get nice salaries and benefits.

As for US politicians...when I lived in Moscow I would tell my Russian friends when the subject of corruption came up (which was often in those days) the difference between American and Russia politicians is that the American variety might make a shady deal to get a million bucks here or there whereas the Russian politicians were getting hundreds of millions.

There are always payoffs for "little favours". The USA has even set up a system where groups barter with politicians to get "little favours" done... supposedly for the benefit of the public.

"The USA even set up a system..." - that system was set up centuries before Columbus ever thought of crossing the ocean.

Why do you septics always have to be so defensive? I am sure that Ian wasn't attacking America.

Why do you septics always have to be so defensive? I am sure that Ian wasn't attacking America.

Most of us septics aren't mind readers. We have to base our opinions and judgements on what people actually say.

Thus my question to Ian...Why did he feel it necessary to single out the US in his post as he did. If you looked at my link, you will find there are 149 countries listed, yet the US was the only one mentioned in his post. My question was hardly defensive in nature.

Curious, methinks, and worthy of the question.

I rest my case.

I rest my case.

spoken like a true american lawyer

Why do you septics always have to be so defensive?

Why do the Shittish (Don't be offended. It is just American rhyming slang) have to moan and complain all the time?

Why do you septics always have to be so defensive? I am sure that Ian wasn't attacking America.

Most of us septics aren't mind readers. We have to base our opinions and judgements on what people actually say.

Thus my question to Ian...Why did he feel it necessary to single out the US in his post as he did. If you looked at my link, you will find there are 149 countries listed, yet the US was the only one mentioned in his post. My question was hardly defensive in nature.

Curious, methinks, and worthy of the question.

"...We have to base our opinions and judgements on what people actually say..."

....But you don't! You judge the person first, then interpret what he says based on that judgement. You do not read with unbiased eyes.

Perhaps Ian singled out the US because it is often the US's defenders that try to appear to be on a moral high horse in this forum.

What IS curious, is your use of the word "methinks".

Curious because you have often accused me of using seldom used words and in so doing, I am, according to you, pompous and attempting to appear intellectual.

Right back at ya.

I wasn't just singling out the US, it's everywhere. It is the lobbying system that I was referring to.

As already mentioned, low paid government employees are more likely to accept bribes if they are in a position of authority. The police in all those countries that end in "stan" have to accept bribes just to survive. For the most part, third world countries are the most corrupt because they have been taught by their superiors. The Philippines and Mexico are a disaster. In Canada it is a "little" more hidden, but most civil servents haven't any authority to help themselves with a bribe, so it doesn't happen. But, the politicians certainly push big business contracts in certain directions when they are "helped" into power... or kept in power. I'm constantly getting annoyed when I see my tax money helping businesses destroy the habitat and fisheries of my country. I see legal, protective environmental clauses mysteriously disappear from the books when it suits a certain company.

I wasn't just singling out the US, it's everywhere. It is the lobbying system that I was referring to.

As already mentioned, low paid government employees are more likely to accept bribes if they are in a position of authority. The police in all those countries that end in "stan" have to accept bribes just to survive. For the most part, third world countries are the most corrupt because they have been taught by their superiors. The Philippines and Mexico are a disaster. In Canada it is a "little" more hidden, but most civil servents haven't any authority to help themselves with a bribe, so it doesn't happen. But, the politicians certainly push big business contracts in certain directions when they are "helped" into power... or kept in power. I'm constantly getting annoyed when I see my tax money helping businesses destroy the habitat and fisheries of my country. I see legal, protective environmental clauses mysteriously disappear from the books when it suits a certain company.

Thank you for the explanation. That is all I was asking for.

Why do you septics always have to be so defensive? I am sure that Ian wasn't attacking America.

Most of us septics aren't mind readers. We have to base our opinions and judgements on what people actually say.

Thus my question to Ian...Why did he feel it necessary to single out the US in his post as he did. If you looked at my link, you will find there are 149 countries listed, yet the US was the only one mentioned in his post. My question was hardly defensive in nature.

Curious, methinks, and worthy of the question.

"...We have to base our opinions and judgements on what people actually say..."

....But you don't! You judge the person first, then interpret what he says based on that judgement. You do not read with unbiased eyes.

Perhaps Ian singled out the US because it is often the US's defenders that try to appear to be on a moral high horse in this forum.

What IS curious, is your use of the word "methinks".

Curious because you have often accused me of using seldom used words and in so doing, I am, according to you, pompous and attempting to appear intellectual.

Right back at ya.

But, you see, Harcourt, you are wrong again. This seems to be a regular occurence for you lately. I like IanForbes. He makes some interesting posts and his fishing talents are legendary.

Ian answered the question in a much better fashion that your "Perhaps" answer.

Harcourt, methinks you are full of it.

If you followed my writing style of the past 7 1/2 years on this forum and longer on some other BKK based forums, you would realize I use the word, "methinks" quite often. I kind of like the word. I can, however, honestly say I have used "puerile" only once before and that was to correct a forum member's spelling misteak.

Here is a little test especially designed for you, Harcourt. I passed and and would bet you can, if anybody can.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If you can raed this, you have a sgtrane mnid too

Can you raed this? Olny 55 plepoe out of 100 can.

I cdnuolt blveiee that I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd what I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid.

Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in what oerdr the ltteres in a word are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is that the frsit and last ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can still raed it whotuit a pboerlm.

This is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the word as a wlohe. Azanmig huh?

Yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!

If you can raed this forwrad it to yuor firedns.

What IS curious, is your use of the word "methinks".

Curious because you have often accused me of using seldom used words and in so doing, I am, according to you, pompous and attempting to appear intellectual.

The point is, that he uses it correctly.

Why do you septics always have to be so defensive? I am sure that Ian wasn't attacking America.

Most of us septics aren't mind readers. We have to base our opinions and judgements on what people actually say.

Thus my question to Ian...Why did he feel it necessary to single out the US in his post as he did. If you looked at my link, you will find there are 149 countries listed, yet the US was the only one mentioned in his post. My question was hardly defensive in nature.

Curious, methinks, and worthy of the question.

"...We have to base our opinions and judgements on what people actually say..."

....But you don't! You judge the person first, then interpret what he says based on that judgement. You do not read with unbiased eyes.

Perhaps Ian singled out the US because it is often the US's defenders that try to appear to be on a moral high horse in this forum.

What IS curious, is your use of the word "methinks".

Curious because you have often accused me of using seldom used words and in so doing, I am, according to you, pompous and attempting to appear intellectual.

Right back at ya.

But, you see, Harcourt, you are wrong again. This seems to be a regular occurence for you lately. I like IanForbes. He makes some interesting posts and his fishing talents are legendary.

Ian answered the question in a much better fashion that your "Perhaps" answer.

Harcourt, methinks you are full of it.

If you followed my writing style of the past 7 1/2 years on this forum and longer on some other BKK based forums, you would realize I use the word, "methinks" quite often. I kind of like the word. I can, however, honestly say I have used "puerile" only once before and that was to correct a forum member's spelling misteak.

Here is a little test especially designed for you, Harcourt. I passed and and would bet you can, if anybody can.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If you can raed this, you have a sgtrane mnid too

Can you raed this? Olny 55 plepoe out of 100 can.

I cdnuolt blveiee that I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd what I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid.

Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in what oerdr the ltteres in a word are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is that the frsit and last ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can still raed it whotuit a pboerlm.

This is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the word as a wlohe. Azanmig huh?

Yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!

If you can raed this forwrad it to yuor firedns.

Thank you chuck. You have just vindicated me, and I think you owe me an apology.

"Methinks" is not a word that most people use. But you use it habutally! I accept that. (and no, I have not followed your writings at all over time)....but for some reason, my use of "puerile", which is demonstrably more used than "methinks", was not normal and thus indicative of my pompousness. ?

The reading test is amusing. But I wonder why it asserts that it is strange to be in the 55th percentile? Surely, by definition, the 45% that can't read it are in the minority, and are thus the "strange" ones?

Or was that first sentence yours?

"...We have to base our opinions and judgements on what people actually say..."

....But you don't! You judge the person first, then interpret what he says based on that judgement. You do not read with unbiased eyes.

Perhaps Ian singled out the US because it is often the US's defenders that try to appear to be on a moral high horse in this forum.

What IS curious, is your use of the word "methinks".

Curious because you have often accused me of using seldom used words and in so doing, I am, according to you, pompous and attempting to appear intellectual.

Right back at ya.

But, you see, Harcourt, you are wrong again. This seems to be a regular occurence for you lately. I like IanForbes. He makes some interesting posts and his fishing talents are legendary.

Ian answered the question in a much better fashion that your "Perhaps" answer.

Harcourt, methinks you are full of it.

If you followed my writing style of the past 7 1/2 years on this forum and longer on some other BKK based forums, you would realize I use the word, "methinks" quite often. I kind of like the word. I can, however, honestly say I have used "puerile" only once before and that was to correct a forum member's spelling misteak.

Here is a little test especially designed for you, Harcourt. I passed and and would bet you can, if anybody can.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If you can raed this, you have a sgtrane mnid too

Can you raed this? Olny 55 plepoe out of 100 can.

I cdnuolt blveiee that I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd what I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid.

Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in what oerdr the ltteres in a word are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is that the frsit and last ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can still raed it whotuit a pboerlm.

This is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the word as a wlohe. Azanmig huh?

Yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!

If you can raed this forwrad it to yuor firedns.

Thank you chuck. You have just vindicated me, and I think you owe me an apology.

"Methinks" is not a word that most people use. But you use it habutally! I accept that. (and no, I have not followed your writings at all over time)....but for some reason, my use of "puerile", which is demonstrably more used than "methinks", was not normal and thus indicative of my pompousness. ?

The reading test is amusing. But I wonder why it asserts that it is strange to be in the 55th percentile? Surely, by definition, the 45% that can't read it are in the minority, and are thus the "strange" ones?

Or was that first sentence yours?

I am so pleased you feel vindicated, that is good enough for me.

As far as your use of the word "puerile" is concerned...I frankly find it rather puerile.

I did not design the reading test nor did I write the first sentence. I do read it habutally (sic) so I can keep in practice for reading your posts. It keeps me on my toes.

"...We have to base our opinions and judgements on what people actually say..."

....But you don't! You judge the person first, then interpret what he says based on that judgement. You do not read with unbiased eyes.

Perhaps Ian singled out the US because it is often the US's defenders that try to appear to be on a moral high horse in this forum.

What IS curious, is your use of the word "methinks".

Curious because you have often accused me of using seldom used words and in so doing, I am, according to you, pompous and attempting to appear intellectual.

Right back at ya.

But, you see, Harcourt, you are wrong again. This seems to be a regular occurence for you lately. I like IanForbes. He makes some interesting posts and his fishing talents are legendary.

Ian answered the question in a much better fashion that your "Perhaps" answer.

Harcourt, methinks you are full of it.

If you followed my writing style of the past 7 1/2 years on this forum and longer on some other BKK based forums, you would realize I use the word, "methinks" quite often. I kind of like the word. I can, however, honestly say I have used "puerile" only once before and that was to correct a forum member's spelling misteak.

Here is a little test especially designed for you, Harcourt. I passed and and would bet you can, if anybody can.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If you can raed this, you have a sgtrane mnid too

Can you raed this? Olny 55 plepoe out of 100 can.

I cdnuolt blveiee that I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd what I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid.

Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in what oerdr the ltteres in a word are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is that the frsit and last ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can still raed it whotuit a pboerlm.

This is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the word as a wlohe. Azanmig huh?

Yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!

If you can raed this forwrad it to yuor firedns.

Thank you chuck. You have just vindicated me, and I think you owe me an apology.

"Methinks" is not a word that most people use. But you use it habutally! I accept that. (and no, I have not followed your writings at all over time)....but for some reason, my use of "puerile", which is demonstrably more used than "methinks", was not normal and thus indicative of my pompousness. ?

The reading test is amusing. But I wonder why it asserts that it is strange to be in the 55th percentile? Surely, by definition, the 45% that can't read it are in the minority, and are thus the "strange" ones?

Or was that first sentence yours?

I am so pleased you feel vindicated, that is good enough for me.

As far as your use of the word "puerile" is concerned...I frankly find it rather puerile.

I did not design the reading test nor did I write the first sentence. I do read it habutally (sic) so I can keep in practice for reading your posts. It keeps me on my toes.

Nice to see that you've aquired "(sic)".

Your welcome.

I am so pleased you feel vindicated, that is good enough for me.

As far as your use of the word "puerile" is concerned...I frankly find it rather puerile.

..........

# Rather contradictory to find my use of a word both intellectual and puerile.

# Again you show lack of honour in refusing to apologise. Since you have more than once pointed out your US military background...... another negative advertisement for the US military with regard to honour and decency.

I am so pleased you feel vindicated, that is good enough for me.

As far as your use of the word "puerile" is concerned...I frankly find it rather puerile.

..........

# Rather contradictory to find my use of a word both intellectual and puerile.

# Again you show lack of honour in refusing to apologise. Since you have more than once pointed out your US military background...... another negative advertisement for the US military with regard to honour and decency.

My sentence about the use of puerile makes perfect sense, when used in the literal context.

To put it another way, "As far as your use of the word "puerile" is concerned...I frankly find it rather childish." (edited in)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Main Entry: pu·er·ile

Pronunciation: \ˈpyu̇(-ə)r-əl, -ˌī(-ə)l\

Function: adjective

Etymology: French or Latin; French puéril, from Latin puerilis, from puer boy, child; akin to Sanskrit putra son, child and perhaps to Greek pais boy, child — more at few

Date: 1652

1 : juvenile

2 : childish, silly <puerile remarks>

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now I will play your silly game. Tell me exactly where and how I offended your very tender sensibilities.

If I feel it warrants an apology, one will be forthcoming. If not, one won't.

I am so pleased you feel vindicated, that is good enough for me.

As far as your use of the word "puerile" is concerned...I frankly find it rather puerile.

..........

# Rather contradictory to find my use of a word both intellectual and puerile.

# Again you show lack of honour in refusing to apologise. Since you have more than once pointed out your US military background...... another negative advertisement for the US military with regard to honour and decency.

My sentence about the use of puerile makes perfect sense, when used in the literal context.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Main Entry: pu·er·ile

Pronunciation: \ˈpyu̇(-ə)r-əl, -ˌī(-ə)l\

Function: adjective

Etymology: French or Latin; French puéril, from Latin puerilis, from puer boy, child; akin to Sanskrit putra son, child and perhaps to Greek pais boy, child — more at few

Date: 1652

1 : juvenile

2 : childish, silly <puerile remarks>

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now I will play your silly game. Tell me exactly where and how I offended your very tender sensibilities.

If I feel it warrants an apology, one will be forthcoming. If not, one won't.

Your use, to describe my use, as you have defined, might make sense if you had not also said that it was intellectual for me to use the word....so I don't know why you brought up the definition. The definition of the word had nothing to do with my saying that you have contradicted yourself.

As to the "silly game"; You have more than once accused me of being pompous for using words that are not normally used by most people. I have responded each time by saying it is normal for me (and my social circle). You have every time rejected my response, either directly or by the fact of repeating your "pompous" accusation.

Yet you use a word that is not usually used by most people.

So it is either the pot calling the kettle black, or by some introspection you will understand that I too have words that I use and am not pompous for it.

So entertaining laydies(sic)

So entertaining laydies(sic)

Stay tuned, ND. Some good may come out of all this after all.

[

# Rather contradictory to find my use of a word both intellectual and puerile.

# Again you show lack of honour in refusing to apologise. Since you have more than once pointed out your US military background...... another negative advertisement for the US military with regard to honour and decency.

My sentence about the use of puerile makes perfect sense, when used in the literal context.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Main Entry: pu·er·ile

Pronunciation: \ˈpyu̇(-ə)r-əl, -ˌī(-ə)l\

Function: adjective

Etymology: French or Latin; French puéril, from Latin puerilis, from puer boy, child; akin to Sanskrit putra son, child and perhaps to Greek pais boy, child — more at few

Date: 1652

1 : juvenile

2 : childish, silly <puerile remarks>

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Now I will play your silly game. Tell me exactly where and how I offended your very tender sensibilities.

If I feel it warrants an apology, one will be forthcoming. If not, one won't.

Your use, to describe my use, as you have defined, might make sense if you had not also said that it was intellectual for me to use the word....so I don't know why you brought up the definition. The definition of the word had nothing to do with my saying that you have contradicted yourself.

As to the "silly game"; You have more than once accused me of being pompous for using words that are not normally used by most people. I have responded each time by saying it is normal for me (and my social circle). You have every time rejected my response, either directly or by the fact of repeating your "pompous" accusation.

Yet you use a word that is not usually used by most people.

So it is either the pot calling the kettle black, or by some introspection you will understand that I too have words that I use and am not pompous for it.

I have carefully read your claim about me offending you and, guess what? You didn't say anything.

Therefore I have deemed no offense was committed by me to either you personally or your social circle and no apology is required or forthcoming from me.

Oh Joy......................

Yes, as I've said so many times before, this SF should be renamed 'Inside the Sandbox'.

Now come on kiddies, shake off the sands and then shake the hands...

Oh Joy......................

Kind of makes you want to start another topic, doesn't it.

Oh Joy......................

Kind of makes you want to start another topic, doesn't it.

You have offended me with that comment, because I never said it, oh yes you did, oh no I didn't.

Prove it, I already have, you are just sounding arrogant instead of perceived intelligence, I never said it I tell you.

Israel is right, oh no it isn't, why are only Americans being singled out, no they are not, stop trying to keep your land dummies, I never said it, oh yes you did, prove it I already have.....................................................................

Oh Joy......................

Kind of makes you want to start another topic, doesn't it.

You have offended me with that comment, because I never said it, oh yes you did, oh no I didn't.

Prove it, I already have, you are just sounding arrogant instead of perceived intelligence, I never said it I tell you.

Israel is right, oh no it isn't, why are only Americans being singled out, no they are not, stop trying to keep your land dummies, I never said it, oh yes you did, prove it I already have.....................................................................

You're missing some punctuation there.

No shit Sherlock