Why Some People Need To Get Out More....

[Kananga]

True. I just got the maid to read that post and she burst out laughing.

Your maid can read English?

Sure can.

She even wrote post 112 for me.

Be careful, she could probably almost double her salary if she decided to become an English teacher instead.

[EmptyBasementBin]

I doubt English teachers make that much mate.

[Kananga]

Difficult to say without knowing how much you pay your maid.

[Banzai99]

It must be quite an accomplishment becoming good friends with uneducated prostitutes in brothels.

EBB don't <snip> about, he comes shooting from the hip, and takes no prisoners.

Edited July 15, 2012 by metisdead

[Banzai99]

I totally agree .people who fail to integrate should go back to where they came from.And, stop telling people to "go back to where you come from."

Yeah, but if you don't like it, go back to where you came from.

[TommoPhysicist]

not all bargirls are prostitutes.

Thai bars, I agree

Farang bars, I disagree

[EmptyBasementBin]

not all bargirls are prostitutes.

Thai bars, I agree

Farang bars, I disagree

It doesn't matter mate. Plenty of people on here are 'real friends' with uneducated 'beer bar folk' who grew up in an alien culture.

[Banzai99]

A ladyboy told me he loves me, what should I do ?

[PaullyW]

A ladyboy told me he loves me, what should I do ?

Tell it you don't have much money.

[Thaddeus]

A ladyboy told me he loves me, what should I do ?

Tell it you don't have much money.

Did you set out to use the word 'it' intentionally or was that just a lapse in concentration, either one, it's not nice and quite demeaning, an inanimate object can be an it, but a person is always a person.

[Chonburiram]

A ladyboy told me he loves me, what should I do ?

Tell him/her: " Let's just be friends, ok?"

[PaullyW]

A ladyboy told me he loves me, what should I do ?

Tell it you don't have much money.

Did you set out to use the word 'it' intentionally or was that just a lapse in concentration, either one, it's not nice and quite demeaning, an inanimate object can be an it, but a person is always a person.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/it

it

¹    [it] Show IPA pronoun, nominative it, possessive its or ( Obsolete or Dialect ) it, objective it; plural nominative they, possessive their or theirs, objective them; noun

pronoun

1.

(used to represent an inanimate thing understood, previously mentioned, about to be mentioned, or present in the immediate context): It has whitewall tires and red upholstery. You can't tell a book by its cover.

2.

(used to represent a person or animal understood, previously mentioned, or about to be mentioned whose gender is unknown or disregarded): It was the largest ever caught off the Florida coast. Who was it? It was John. The horse had its saddle on.

Edited July 14, 2012 by PaullyW

[samsiam]

What is your understanding of the term 'friend'?

Someone who likes you for being you, someone who spends time with you without expecting a ROI, not someone who sees you as a potential future resource.

A friend of mine grabbed my penis in a bar once....he used it as an example of friendship.

I was not shocked cos I was drunk....and doing a puppetry of the penis impression......sailing ship from memory.

[samsiam]

A ladyboy told me he loves me, what should I do ?

Tell it you don't have much money.

Did you set out to use the word 'it' intentionally or was that just a lapse in concentration, either one, it's not nice and quite demeaning, an inanimate object can be an it, but a person is always a person.

That should be on a hallmark greeting card.

[Thaddeus]

A ladyboy told me he loves me, what should I do ?

Tell it you don't have much money.

Did you set out to use the word 'it' intentionally or was that just a lapse in concentration, either one, it's not nice and quite demeaning, an inanimate object can be an it, but a person is always a person.

http://dictionary.re...e.com/browse/it

it

¹    [it] Show IPA pronoun, nominative it, possessive its or ( Obsolete or Dialect ) it, objective it; plural nominative they, possessive their or theirs, objective them; noun

pronoun

1.

(used to represent an inanimate thing understood, previously mentioned, about to be mentioned, or present in the immediate context): It has whitewall tires and red upholstery. You can't tell a book by its cover.

2.

(used to represent a person or animal understood, previously mentioned, or about to be mentioned whose gender is unknown or disregarded): It was the largest ever caught off the Florida coast. Who was it? It was John. The horse had its saddle on.

Well done, you can use a search engine, and copy and paste, did you understand any of the results and then try and compare and contrast them to your use of the word.

Didn't think so, or you gave it scant regard, calling any person it is wrong in this context.

[PaullyW]

^^ To answer your question, yes I did, and, seems I nailed it.

[MJP]

^^ To answer your question, yes I did, and, seems I nailed it.

You did what????

[Thaddeus]

^^ To answer your question, yes I did, and, seems I nailed it.

You did what????

It think he thinks he nailed something, not too sure what it is yet.

[PaullyW]

^^ To answer your question, yes I did, and, seems I nailed it.

You did what????

It think he thinks he nailed something, not too sure what it is yet.

??

[MJP]

^^ To answer your question, yes I did, and, seems I nailed it.

You did what????

It think he thinks he nailed something, not too sure what it is yet.

??

We'd better move this off-topic to the DIY/Home Impoverishment sub-forum.

I think stainless nails are worth the money. No rust coming through paint work. I recommend Berger paint and never let me varnish your doors.

This is conversation is getting very lewd.

[theblether]

This guest issue........

Just face the facts and don't try to twist definitions, very few people of foreign extraction have security of tenure in Thailand. Effectively you can't own land, own your own home, and The only hope I can see is the ASEAN community eventually persuading Thailand to adopt a more liberal attitude to visa regulations and the like at some point in the future.

At that point all these so called experts on Thailand would be able to feel that they are more than a long term guest / holidaymaker. Just ask yourself this question........

If you were to ask a lawyer from your own country to judge your residential and property rights in Thailand, what would he say? Good deal? Bad Deal>? Or atrocious deal?

This is the primary reason why I will never attempt to be a permanent resident in Thailand, the legislation in place at the moment is so anti farang it's de facto racist.

So are you a guest?......yes you are........

Don't try to kid yourself otherwise, it's not becoming to see the indefensible being defended..........just face the facts of your true legal status and give up all this namby pamby self justifying crap.......it has the same effect as just farting in the wind.

[MJP]

This guest issue........

Just face the facts and don't try to twist definitions, very few people of foreign extraction have security of tenure in Thailand. Effectively you can't own land, own your own home, and The only hope I can see is the ASEAN community eventually persuading Thailand to adopt a more liberal attitude to visa regulations and the like at some point in the future.

At that point all these so called experts on Thailand would be able to feel that they are more than a long term guest / holidaymaker. Just ask yourself this question........

If you were to ask a lawyer from your own country to judge your residential and property rights in Thailand, what would he say? Good deal? Bad Deal>? Or atrocious deal?

This is the primary reason why I will never attempt to be a permanent resident in Thailand, the legislation in place at the moment is so anti farang it's de facto racist.

So are you a guest?......yes you are........

Don't try to kid yourself otherwise, it's not becoming to see the indefensible being defended..........just face the facts of your true legal status and give up all this namby pamby self justifying crap.......it has the same effect as just farting in the wind.

I think they have it right regards foreign ownership of freehold. It would just become another place of "investment" for land speculators, all that hot printed QE money flowing in and normal people would be priced out of their own home. Utter disaster.

I do agree with you regarding the visa situation, sort of. But is it not sensible to make sure people have sufficient funds to look after themselves? You have to keep £8000/400,000 THB in the bank for a marriage visa and £16,000/800,000 Baht for a retirement visa. It's not that big a deal.

Last I heard, a Brit needed £2,000,000 to get the Australian retirement visa becuase of health care costs. Two million quid!!!

[473geo]

I am Papa to my children, I am a husband to my wife, I am husband to my wife and Papa to my children in the eyes of my relatives and aquaintances.

To the rest of the 60 million + Thai people, expats, rich or poor, bar flies etc.........I can be whatever is in their minds, because I will probably never know, and therefore any name tag will not affect me in slightest..guest/farang/Papa/pillock.....

[theblether]

This guest issue........

Just face the facts and don't try to twist definitions, very few people of foreign extraction have security of tenure in Thailand. Effectively you can't own land, own your own home, and The only hope I can see is the ASEAN community eventually persuading Thailand to adopt a more liberal attitude to visa regulations and the like at some point in the future.

At that point all these so called experts on Thailand would be able to feel that they are more than a long term guest / holidaymaker. Just ask yourself this question........

If you were to ask a lawyer from your own country to judge your residential and property rights in Thailand, what would he say? Good deal? Bad Deal>? Or atrocious deal?

This is the primary reason why I will never attempt to be a permanent resident in Thailand, the legislation in place at the moment is so anti farang it's de facto racist.

So are you a guest?......yes you are........

Don't try to kid yourself otherwise, it's not becoming to see the indefensible being defended..........just face the facts of your true legal status and give up all this namby pamby self justifying crap.......it has the same effect as just farting in the wind.

I think they have it right regards foreign ownership of freehold. It would just become another place of "investment" for land speculators, all that hot printed QE money flowing in and normal people would be priced out of their own home. Utter disaster.

I do agree with you regarding the visa situation, sort of. But is it not sensible to make sure people have sufficient funds to look after themselves? You have to keep £8000/400,000 THB in the bank for a marriage visa and £16,000/800,000 Baht for a retirement visa. It's not that big a deal.

Last I heard, a Brit needed £2,000,000 to get the Australian retirement visa becuase of health care costs. Two million quid!!!

I take no pleasure from what I posted, however I think it's a bit pathetic for people to get involved in a p*ssing contest about terminology.

The bottom line is that the majority of farangs have no security of tenure in Thailand, end of story. So the word guest is valid.

So now the next battle, my grasp of Thai society is better than yours, my wife is better, prettier, better connected.........Yawn.

Stand on your own two feet, own your own home, and don't boast about your wife and wonderful connections, it's unbecoming.

[MJP]

This guest issue........

Just face the facts and don't try to twist definitions, very few people of foreign extraction have security of tenure in Thailand. Effectively you can't own land, own your own home, and The only hope I can see is the ASEAN community eventually persuading Thailand to adopt a more liberal attitude to visa regulations and the like at some point in the future.

At that point all these so called experts on Thailand would be able to feel that they are more than a long term guest / holidaymaker. Just ask yourself this question........

If you were to ask a lawyer from your own country to judge your residential and property rights in Thailand, what would he say? Good deal? Bad Deal>? Or atrocious deal?

This is the primary reason why I will never attempt to be a permanent resident in Thailand, the legislation in place at the moment is so anti farang it's de facto racist.

So are you a guest?......yes you are........

Don't try to kid yourself otherwise, it's not becoming to see the indefensible being defended..........just face the facts of your true legal status and give up all this namby pamby self justifying crap.......it has the same effect as just farting in the wind.

I think they have it right regards foreign ownership of freehold. It would just become another place of "investment" for land speculators, all that hot printed QE money flowing in and normal people would be priced out of their own home. Utter disaster.

I do agree with you regarding the visa situation, sort of. But is it not sensible to make sure people have sufficient funds to look after themselves? You have to keep £8000/400,000 THB in the bank for a marriage visa and £16,000/800,000 Baht for a retirement visa. It's not that big a deal.

Last I heard, a Brit needed £2,000,000 to get the Australian retirement visa becuase of health care costs. Two million quid!!!

I take no pleasure from what I posted, however I think it's a bit pathetic for people to get involved in a p*ssing contest about terminology.

The bottom line is that the majority of farangs have no security of tenure in Thailand, end of story. So the word guest is valid.

So now the next battle, my grasp of Thai society is better than yours, my wife is better, prettier, better connected.........Yawn.

Stand on your own two feet, own your own home, and don't boast about your wife and wonderful connections, it's unbecoming.

Oh, these topics become ridiculous, I know. Willy waving nonsense.

But on a purely unemotional non-BS level, do you think these two policies are wrong if looking at them from a Thai perspective?

I think they're right.

[theblether]

I won't be a hypocrite, yes I understand the Thai attitude to land ownership, I have no problem with that, ( although I think it could be tweaked to allow a married man to own his own home, as long as he sold it within one year of any subsequent divorce ).

The residence / visa situation is too harsh, but again a little bit of tweaking could sort that out.

The thing that annoys me about these topics is the utter hypocrisy of some of the people who post on it, we've members here pretending to be urbane and erudite, the same members that know if they told the truth of their situation to guys back at their hometown Golf clubhouse, they would be looked at like they had horns growing out of their head.

Just sayin'

[MJP]

I won't be a hypocrite, yes I understand the Thai attitude to land ownership, I have no problem with that, ( although I think it could be tweaked to allow a married man to own his own home, as long as he sold it within one year of any subsequent divorce ).

The residence / visa situation is too harsh, but again a little bit of tweaking could sort that out.

The thing that annoys me about these topics is the utter hypocrisy of some of the people who post on it, we've members here pretending to be urbane and erudite, the same members that know if they told the truth of their situation to guys back at their hometown Golf clubhouse, they would be looked at like they had horns growing out of their head.

Just sayin'

I like the married man home ownership idea. A lot actually. Malaysia does a limited freehold ownership of one or two freehold plots I believe.

I still don't think the criteria for visas is too harsh, it's not a lot of money.

[473geo]

Leave the land ownership laws as they are, they are not there to hinder the married man and stop him owning the land his house is on, they protect the Thai individual from the investment houses that would see many small farmers eventually becoming tennants in their own country, if they could afford the rent!

I am amazed that people moan and bitch without taking into account the broader effect on the rural Thai, just to enhance their sense of 'ownership' and security

[theblether]

I won't be a hypocrite, yes I understand the Thai attitude to land ownership, I have no problem with that, ( although I think it could be tweaked to allow a married man to own his own home, as long as he sold it within one year of any subsequent divorce ).

The residence / visa situation is too harsh, but again a little bit of tweaking could sort that out.

The thing that annoys me about these topics is the utter hypocrisy of some of the people who post on it, we've members here pretending to be urbane and erudite, the same members that know if they told the truth of their situation to guys back at their hometown Golf clubhouse, they would be looked at like they had horns growing out of their head.

Just sayin'

I like the married man home ownership idea. A lot actually. Malaysia does a limited freehold ownership of one or two freehold plots I believe.

I still don't think the criteria for visas is too harsh, it's not a lot of money.

It's not the money aspect, even just easing the reporting from 90 days to 180 days would be enough of a relaxation to be appreciated. There seems to be a whole lot of petty bureaucracy in place, it's just an annoyance.

[theblether]

Leave the land ownership laws as they are, they are not there to hinder the married man and stop him owning the land his house is on, they protect the Thai individual from the investment houses that would see many small farmers eventually becoming tennants in their own country, if they could afford the rent!

I am amazed that people moan and bitch without taking into account the broader effect on the rural Thai, just to enhance their sense of 'ownership' and security

I would suggest that the right of a married man to own his own home in his own name is a fundamental human right.