joekicker

Apparently not. But what you write is probably right. I'm darned if I can figure out what is controversial or wrong about the original, simple statement that the Chinese (among many others) do not view the old British Empire favourably. It's just an isolated factlet, but it is absolutely factual. .

But of course the only country you can actually think of at the moment that has a past that it tries to forget is the United States. Fair go. It's hard to think of any other country that has ever had such a shameful past as a drought. There's probably not another country since Earth cooled with THAT shameful a past. Still.... I'll give you a few minutes, see if you can think of another example -- not as bad of course, but still has something in its past it tries to forget. Go ahead. Give it a shot. .

In that case I'll rather eagerly look forward, to your posts on the British export of mass warfare and genocide by many means, worldwide, and how without the British, there's quite a good chance it never would have spilled across so many borders. The sun never sets on British-inspired violence. The difference being that I don't blame the British people or British voters or "the British" or many living British for this. But just a few who know who they are. .

Don't start that xhit, Sam. Not in this thread, okay? Seriously .

I seem to recall a theatre or two in another part of the world. Wasn't there some sort of quarrel in Asia? Africa? Maybe I'm misremembering. I take your point about some Euros looking down their noses at the imperialistic Americans. But even so, I wouldn't put much if any of that on the Brits! You had a run-in with a landlord and a couple of other people. No one elected them to represent the country. .

And the reason you said "no" you had not heard of it? And? Your point is? The post by Johnny K said that among people who don't share a love or nostalgia for the British Empire are the Chinese. Number one, that is really, really, factual and true. Number two, there is a very good reason for their.... distaste and it is chiefly the opium wars. .

Well that explains quite a lot, and you're not even curious about this major, major issue to China which enriched the rapacious British and their nation and left China reeling and very bitter. But yes, because of it, "the Chinese", yes, just as the Canuck explained tersely. Don't feel TOO bad, most Americans don't know the Canadians burnt down the White House. But at least if you mention it to them they try to find out. But most people don't want to know their country's bad deeds. .

Does the phrase "opium war" do better? .

Sorry to hear that story, at least the humans weren't hurt, that's something. I've not had actual experience, but I get the very strong vibes from friends, the grapevine, complaints in the media and so one that free insurance might not be worth what you pay for it. It's too late now, but anyone who gets this type of deal should talk to the insurance agent, just as he would if he was buying the insurance. .

Thanks, nice photo essay indeed. That "Domestic Departures" sign seen in your first pic has got to be one of the world's weirdest airport signs. "Domestic" means the entire world with time zone clocks. That's funny. .

Thanks. It was just so weird to see "last week". My own update: It is almost certain that the museum and many of the airplanes are severely damaged if not destroyed. It is still flooded and largely inaccessible, and as your photos show, the museum is ground level and so are a lot of the displays. It does not look good. There's more damage assessment to do, but folks are very pessimistic about this very fine little museum. .

Very good pictures and thanks so much for this, but .... There's no flooding at all??? That doesn't seem possible "last week", although weirdly enough a friend of mine told me he will try to get his kayak into the place to check it out today (Monday). .

In that kind of circumstance, where you are employed or similar, and going for the one-year non-imm, you do not *usually* have to go back to your home country if you're already in Thailand. Usually, you can pick up the right visa at a nearby country. Sometimes, you can even just change your visa over in Bangkok. If I'm not mistaken, there is a *requirement* to get non-imm in your home country, but this is often, even routinely waived. .

Probably. These are not easy to get, and definitely you can't get that particular multiple anywhere near Bangkok. Multiple *tourist* visas are much, much easier. .

Not only "can be" but is, and I would change "most" to "all". I don't know of a country without police or prisons or anti-social elements or, well, axxholes. Labelling all people in a room, a town, a country or a country is so utterly impossible it reveals the labeller as (six-letter word deleted). .

Two air fares will be more than one, there is about a 100.01 per cent certainty of that. I'd never say "never", you might come up with a huge bargain on the Europe-Bangkok leg, but probably not. Whether Fare A + Fare B would be less than Straight Through Fare C + Tax, you'll have to work that out. Also, it's Europe - don't they have taxes and other add-ons on tickets there? Don't forget that possibility. If money is the only consideration, why not take the boat to Holland? Then you could walk or even use the saved money to buy a bike and ride to Greece or Turkey, then sell the bike to recoup the meal costs, fly from there? .

Nope, tried and tried and just can't! Darn it!

Let's see. Almost all emoticons are just "smiley's" anyhow. Does that still work? ?( :Z :X :#) xD :S :) ಠ_ಠ Hmmm, that's a very qualified yes.

Yes. I even wrote that several times. It would hard to duck out of it now. It's ethics, social interaction, trust and the like. Yes, I agree with *almost* everything. But I don't agree with everything. I don't agree in general with what I paraphrase as: "When I get a PM I'll decide whether to release it to the public". I think it's the other way around: "I would never release a PM publicly without permission except under extremly extenuating and unusual circumstances. Your regular PMs are safe with me." It's a matter of emphasis but it's also a matter of ethical approach, i.e. "You can trust me until you PROVE to me that you can't be, and shouldn't be, trusted because your PMs show you are obviously dangerous" somehow or other. .

Go back and read my FIRST post in this thread, which is the second post in the thread. I'll wait while you do that. Also Post 17, 20 posts ago. Go back and read my FIRST post in this thread, which is the second post in the thread. I'll wait while you do that. While you're at it, might as well stop at Post 17, have a read of that as well, which is also on the first page and written before you even entered the thread. .

I presume they would also allow a gentleman in, right? Just joshing ya. Thanks for the interesting tour. .

No sir. That was raised in Post 3 in this thread: And it's not a fact. Every time someone says it's a fact, I'll point out it's not. But I've said several times that is NOT the reason to keep most PMs private, most of the time -- which is ethical, not legal. Every time this "ownership" nonsense came up, I tried hard to steer it back to ethics, morality, trust, camaraderie and the like. And once again.... yes, it depends on the circumstances, and once again... no one has argued this point, that some PMs *should* or must be publicised. Threats, bragging about sex with kids, confessions of law-breaking -- those are a few. No one is arguing otherwise, which is why I told paps it was a strawman. Because it is, because no one disagrees. But *in general* if a person posts without permission a standard PM of the kind most of us see, most of the time -- I would judge him for sure -- probably negatively, and probably not worthy of my trust on even really small matters. .

Argue to whom? There's no such thing. There's no legal argument, anywhere in the world. You never own what someone else has written unless he agrees to sell, barter or give it to you. And then YOU own it and he has none of your alleged "equal rights" either. This is your strawman. I don't believe anyone has posted that those should be kept private, and almost everyone has specifically said they shouldn't. But I'll see your cunt you don't know, and raise you. I'd make it public if I *did* know him. .

Me too. I am POSITIVE it's one word. .

Joe already has, several times. Bazle almost got it, but didn't. It's quite simply called "fair use". Lawyers make money because there's no definition of how MUCH is fair use. For a normal-type PM like we do here, it would be almost (almost) certain that today's copyright laws would allow quoting ALL of it for comment. But again, as said above, being permitted to quote and use the PM fairly is not connected to ownership, which only belongs to the sender unless he legally gives it up. There's a lot more to a PM than copyright, though. Consider a not-hypothetical case. Man A sends a PM. Man B releases it, with comment. Man A sues B for releasing it because it was (part of) a (probably successful) attempt to libel/defame him. But again, the reason not to release a personal/private message is because of ethics and morality, not legal. If it were a question of the law, I'd probably publish every PM I get, no downside, probably. But I don't want to be known as an untrustworthy person, mainly because I'm not untrustworthy. .