joekicker

The 35 mm of alcohol - is that in a shot glass. And is it measured with or without ice? .

Yeah, but I didn't mean to argue about it at all, just saying that Thailand doesn't do much money or legal work on contingency, not yet anyhow. .

But you haven't engaged them in Thailand, right? For a variety of (mostly good) reasons, contingency is not popular, well known, or respected. Some day, someone will probably break that glass ceiling, but it might be quite a while under the current legal circumstances. .

Thanks. I think you were playing with them as I posted, sorry about that. When I posted, it showed only "IP.Mobile". I didn't much like the yellow. Paradox is very well done but I've never been partial to dark/black. I want to register my "thanks" here for all your work on stuff like this. Phuocking with skins is above and beyond, in my opinion. .

AAaaarrgh! The original skin is gone? And no pic-uploading allowed in this section? .

To be even clearer: The colour choice (and the relocation of the "new content" link" are ONLY in the Mahna Mahna skin. .

Reading the thread would definitely help. There's pictures as well as short words. .

Sorry about my big nose but - why is she your girl friend? .

Your link is wrong. It is kiangtalayresort.net. This is the English link. I was there for a half-a-day function months ago. It was the standard all-in-one, don't-go-outside, self-contained resort, I don't recall anything outstanding either way. I'm sure the rooms are fine and the service is good. All I did was park, drink coffee and have lunch, it worked fine. .

Good stuff. That's what I kind of envisioned when the new board went up. That "view new content" placement is horrible, though. All in all, back from Mahna-Mahna to Blah-Blah format. .

Part of the story may be missing, but we know for certain it was NOT anonymous. Couldn't it simply be that the guy rented the room, took them to the room and they hated the room? .

Crazy person?? Good story. Reminds me of one, but I won't bore you. Not now anyhow, heh. .

Because someone gave them something they didn't want, and then pressed them to be grateful. Happens all the time. The bar owner sounds a really good guy, I'm with LD - name him and let's reward him. But in the eyes of the crazy people, he gave them a pair of socks for Christmas, and they're simply not all that grateful about it. .

How disappointing. But refreshingly honest. In the same spirit, I admit I didn't draw these, but kind of liked them: .

Caution, and this is why I just addressed one single unique fact. The Admiral made an horrendous and ridiculous error, now corrected. Nuf said. You are quickly going to delve into an area of hundreds of possibilities and alleged statistics. There are a LOT of benefits that are not unemployment benefits. Benefits and unemployment aren't linked directly or in most statistics. Lots of employed people get stuff from government, just for example. .

What fairyland do you inhabit where every single person in the county works or is officially unemployed, from the day of birth until the day of death? No wonder you can't do math - you never had a moment to learn, apparently. Not to mention logic. Don't know about where you live, but in the US (and Thailand come to that) there are quite a few school children, many babies, lots of housewives and househusbands, a lot of retired people, many disabled people unable to work.... and so on. They don't work, ever - they are never employed and therefore they are never unemployed. There are not 30 million people unemployed in the US. It's pretty easy to find, if you have a mind, from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics that, "The number of unemployed persons (is) 13.7 million". .

.

No, and no. You're not doing statistics, but damned lies. So far as the Americans getting handouts, the number matters, of course it does. You made it matter by bringing in a comparison. I think you're very confused. I believe somewhere around 50 per cent of, er, taxpayers in the US don't pay net income taxes. That may be what you're referring to. And 10 per cent unemployment in a country of 300 million people is a LOT less than 30 million - WAY less. .

Short version: Thanks for your ideas, it's helpful. It sounds like you are mostly rating posts most of the time. It's sort of a good idea. My one-and-only rating of a post was your free-speech one. I rated THAT POST, not your other posts where you often have goofy political ideas. And I'm not qualified to rate you, the person. You seem to agree that rating/ranking people isn't a great idea. Even after your post, I can't really grasp it, still. About. You can't tear a stripe off if there's no body - but there are many kinds of punishment apart from tearing off that strip. .

Well, see, that's a useful post for me, to get your thinking on it. I do grasp the idea of rating POSTS. The one and only actual real rating I ever did was your POST on free speech. I rated the post and content. Sure, in a way, I guess I was rating you, because it absolutely seemed authentic, otherwise I wouldn't have rated it. But it was my intention to rate the post, what it said and the way it said it, because it was a cogent post saying something that should be said often, and embraced always. But here's the deal. I think you often do a very good job of getting across really dumb ideas ... whoops, let me put that another way, heh. No, seriously. My point is I'd rate your political views with a big minus, but then maybe rate your expositions of them with a plus. Any given post might be a plus AND a minus. That's why "rate the user" is not something I'm grasping, whereas "rate the post" or "rate the thread" makes some sense. You can make a good case for something I really believe is beyond the pale - and that deserves a plus. But holding that view? Pee-ew! Minus territory, baby! There are a few bad people here, but usually they're on the way out anyhow, why bother clicking their - button? There are a few angels here and it'd be nice to recognise them with a + I suppose, but so much of THEIR work is behind the scenes anyhow, right Glen? Most of the rest of the people have mixed-value posts, contribute differently on different days and threads, and just help make the board what it is. I'd probably rate many of them differently, day to day, topic to topic. Which is why I don't want to rate them at all, really. Does that make sense? In a negative way, of course? .

Don't be doing that!! I thought by now they'd have user-changeable skins like... oh, Google Mail, say, click and it changes for YOU. Customising skins is horrible, don't do it! It doesn't look crappy at all, just sort of blah. Having it working is way better than having it look good, way better. .

I guess I got a "fail" on that post, then, but that's surely at least partly because you either just had to make a lousy pun or didn't realise "corporal" is a state, meaning having a real body. Yes, jacko, you are a real person, as am I. We don't know each other, likely never have even met. I've never seen your corporal entity, so far as I know. You can't rate me on my real personage, and vice versa. Yet that's what the rating partly does - for those who know the party they are rating an actual person they know - and partly does NOT, since the rater doesn't actually know the person. Not an argument. There's no correct answer, I believe. As I said I don't "get" rating, not that I want to cank it. If somone can explain how it's meaningful or excellent in some way, I'd be grateful. Because I'm kind of mystified by it. .

In the sense that "interesting" is an interesting word. I don't really get the rating. I can see rating a thread, or rating a post, but I don't "get" rating people -- because they're not really people -- just virtual, fly-by-night beings really, with not much, even no relation to their corporal identity. And the ratings system is really just an invitation to abuse and cliques and ganging up and (not here so much, but in general, on many forums using this software) bullying and gang-bullying. It's a feature, but I'm from Missouri on its value. I'm kind of with danboy (immediately above) but I'm trying to visualise what "used correctly" would be, really. I'm kind of surprised there aren't skins. I'd have thought forums would always have skins these days. I'm thinking an awful lot of combinations would be better than this. And I say that as someone who LIKES "vanilla" looking interfaces. .

Well, heck, if you're climbing out on a limb go all the way out. Brew-Ins. In five, very possibly a sweep. .

If you don't know the game, you don't notice how newbie commentators handle it. One that still grates and makes me wince after 40-plus years is how US hockey announcers refer to "throwing" the puck forward across the blue line. This doesn't mean they are "wrong" (except in a technical sense of course since it's illegal to throw the puck) - but they definitely are not following the old, established announcer's handbook. In one way, new references are refreshing; in another they grate. The very best announcers (not you, Coleman) *DO* make up new terms. .