Evil Penevil

Because those weren't the words by which you were quibbling. He is an imam and it's reasonable to expect he speaks with some authority on Islamic matters. Those were the imam's words, not mine. He means "more conservative" than the standards of dress that are generally applicable in the West. Because it is an example of an Islamic dress code that is enforced by police. I am well aware that if someone runs naked down the high street in many cities, they will be arrested or at least detained. But it is quite a different thing for a woman to be "confronted" for wearing capri pants or a tight sweater or for a taxi driver to be arrested for transporting a woman whose dress violates the code. Here is where you are quibbling. The Quran DOES give guidance on dress, so do other texts regarded by Muslims as canonical. From the Quran: Tell the believing men that they shall subdue their eyes (and not stare at the women), and to maintain their chastity. This is purer for them. God is fully Cognizant of everything they do. And tell the believing women to subdue their eyes, and maintain their chastity. They shall not reveal any parts of their bodies, except that which is necessary. They shall cover their chests, and shall not relax this code in the presence of other than their husbands, their fathers, the fathers of their husbands, their sons, the sons of their husbands, their brothers, the sons of their brothers, the sons of their They shall not strike their feet when they walk in order to shake and reveal certain details of their bodies. All of you shall repent to God, O you believers, that you may succeed.* (24:30-31) O prophet, tell your wives, your daughters, and the wives of the believers that they shall lengthen their garments. Thus, they will be recognized (as righteous women) and avoid being insulted. God is Forgiver, Most Merciful. (33:59) "They shall not reveal any parts of their bodies, except that which is necessary. They shall cover their chests, and shall not relax this code ..." Doesn't that amount to guidance on dress? How about "... tell your wives, your daughters, and the wives of the believers that they shall lengthen their garments ..."? I'm not speaking on behalf of any Muslims, be they many or few. I am relating what I have observed and learned from written accounts. Millions of Muslims around the world (and I consider that many) accept restrictions on dress as part of their faith. Do you dispute that? No one has ever said ALL Muslim women are forced to wear the burqa. There are women from Muslim backgrounds who are porn stars and hundreds of thousands of Muslim women in the U.S., U.K. and other Western countries don't bother with any form of covering, ditto some Muslim women in Thailand. But they live in countries where secular law guarantees them that choice. Whether a Muslim woman is punished for violating Islamic dress standards or caned for drinking a beer depends on whether she does it in a jurisdiction under Sharia law. This is a "straw man" argument. Some countries have laws on what is considered "indecent exposure," others don't. There is no uniformity. A court in Canada has upheld a woman's right to walk down the street topless (http://www.canlii.or...canlii1119.html). Many countries in Europe and South America allow topless sunbathing at beaches and in parks. For the most part, the standard used in the jurisdictions which have laws on indecent exposure require male genitals and the genitals and nipples of women be covered. The "Naked Cowboy" performs in Time Square in NYC to large crowds wearing only very skimpy briefs. What would happen to him in Teheran? In most Western countries, an individual's dress won't cause comment unless it threatens public order, whether it involves nudity or not. If you walk into a bank wearing a mask, you will indeed be arrested at gun point even if you have no plans to pull a stick-up. But that is a far cry from a dress code based on a religious text. The basis of the Islamic dress code is offense to Allah and his revealed word; in the West, dress-related offenses have to do with public order. You are saying it is all the same when it's not. The basis, justification and enforcement of dress standards is totally different in Muslim-dominated and non-Muslim-dominated societies. You should check out this report from Human Rights' Watch: http://www.hrw.org/node/97049 The argument I'm making is that the politicized form of Islam which imposes Sharia law is inherently a violation of human rights. Nothing wrong with Islam as a matter of personal conscience and an individual's path to Paradise, but the basis and practice of Sharia can be in direct opposition to human rights and freedom of choice as understood in Western society. Evil

You are quibbling over words, Joe. The Quran decrees modesty in dress for men and women, but there are many interpretations of what that means. All religion is a matter of interpretation. What matters is who is doing the interpreting and how much authority, moral and otherwise, they have to enforce their interpretation. At one time the Christian Bible was interpreted to allow the burning of heretics and the enslavement of human beings. That has changed with time. Think what would happen if the Pope or Archbishop of Canterbury or the Rev. Billy Graham put out a hit on an author whose book they didn't like. In many Muslim countries, the men doing the interpreting still have considerable power to inflict their views on the real lives of the citizens of those countries - and even on non-citizens beyond the borders of their countries. Here what a U.S. based imam writes about Islamic rules on clothing (my highlights) : http://www.almasjid....amic_dress_code "The Islamic Dress Code promotes modesty and seeks to minimize vice and immorality in society. One of the ways it does so is by requiring modest dress. Islam sets the standards of decency for both men and women. .... Islam prescribes a more conservative minimum dress code for both men and women. In Islam, both men and women are expected to dress simply, modestly, and with dignity. A man must always be covered in loose and unrevealing clothing from his navel to his knee. This is the absolute minimum covering required. He must never, for example, go out in public wearing a short bathing suit. When leaving the home, a Muslim woman must at least cover her hair and body in loose and unrevealing clothing, obscuring the details of her body from the public; some also choose to cover their face and hands. The wisdom behind this dress code is to minimize sexual enticement and degradation in society as much as possible for both men and women. Obeying this dress code is a form of obedience to God. " And here's what the police chief of Teheran had to say a few years back: http://www.worldpres...ideast/2334.cfm Islamic Dress Code to be Strictly Enforced "According to authorities, the crackdown's objective is to put pressure on the women and girls who "pay no attention to the Islamic social values by the way they dress." Offenders are mainly young women and girls who wear shorter, tight-fitting coats, capri pants, smaller scarves, and light-colored dresses. Such items burst onto the clothing scene during former president Mohammad Khatami's reformist administration, when women had other choices beside the traditional long, dark-colored, loose-fitting gowns which had been previously compulsory. On Tuesday, April 18, Tehran's chief of police, Morteza Talaee, officially announced that officers would deal harshly with offenders of "the Islamic dressing values." He warned that the "non-compliants" who wore short or tight-fitting coats, loose or small scarves that failed to cover the hair properly, capri pants, or those who refused to wear socks in public, would be "confronted." Talaee also said that even taxi drivers who transported "improperly clad" women would be punished. Under the new plan, 50 new police squads — including female police officers — will help to enforce the Islamic dress code." Clearly, there is in the minds of many Muslims an Islamic dress code and it is enforced by moral suasion or physical force in some countries. If you are arguing this isn't the "real" Islam on some universal plain, yes, that argument can be made, just as it can made about any religion. Catholicism or evangelical Christianity isn't the "real" Christianity, etc., etc., etc. But according to many Muslims would follow Sharia (which isn't only a legal code but also governs everyday behavior), a dress code is a crucial part of the Muslim way of life). Again, many Muslims may choose to ignore the stricter interpretations, just as many Catholics ignore prohibitions on abortion, but that is in countries where secular law guarantees them the freedom to do so. Evil

The FCO explains the difference between honorary consuls and consular officers here: http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-us/who-we-are/ambassadors/honorary-consuls In short, an honorary consul is not a diplomat as defined by the Vienna Convention, a career consular officer is. Evil

There are Christian and Jewish sects which place restrictions on women's dress and behavior, but that is a matter of personal piety, not civic obligation. Anyone who chooses to is free to leave those sects. Muslim women who live under Sharia law are OBLIGED to cover and follow all the other rules; otherwise, they are punished. It's not uncommon for men and women to be executed in some Muslim countries for crimes against morality. I don't see much difference in a Muslim woman wearing the burqa or the clothing worn by some Catholic sisters and Amish women. It's not the clothing itself, but the degree of compulsion behind Muslim dress codes that is offensive. If Muslim women were free to choose whether or not to cover (and there are some in the U.S, U.K., etc who do just that), then there would be no objection. I see covered Muslim women every day in NYC. Nobody gives a damn, except when full facial veiling becomes a security risk. The same goes for other "inferior status" questions under Sharia law. If a woman agrees to it within the walls of her home, that's her business. But when secondary status is forced on her through the law and she's not allowed to "opt out,", then it's wrong. Evil

I never wrote any such thing, nor do I believe it. I'm well aware there are citizens of Malaysia who aren't Malay and aren't Muslim. I'm also aware no one in Malaysia is forced to convert to Islam. The sentence which maaark quoted and it to which you refer is limited to Malaysians who are legally defined as ethnic Malays, not all Malaysian citizens. It had nothing to do WHATSOEVER with forced conversion to Islam. Ethnic Malays are born into Islam. The difficulty is they can't change their status except in extremely rare circumstances. Therefore, the ethnic Malay group in Malaysia has a level of religious hegemony that is close to 100%. By definition, under the constitution of Malaysia, Malays must be Muslim. It is one of the legal "tests" of anyone who claims the special status afforded to Malays. In Malaysia, the ethnic Malay group enjoys a type of affirmative action on steroids. Here is what I wrote, repeated for the third time. How joe could construe that to mean I was referring to forced conversion TO Islam is difficult to fathom. Maybe you better start reading posts before you answer, not just look at the pictures. The following has to be an orgy of "straw man" arguments. Joe is attempting to refute my position by claiming I said things I never did. I never mentioned conversion TO Islam in my post; I mentioned in one sentence the difficulties of Malay Muslims in LEAVING Islam. It is exactly the same subject as I raised. The law is very much much involved in the conversion of ethnic Malays TO another religion. Sharia courts must give their approval to an application by an ethnic Malay to change their religion as recognized under Malaysian law (religion is noted on national ID cards in Malaysia). Sharia courts virtually never approved such applications. Also, non-Muslims must convert to Islam to marry a Muslim. The marriage is not recognized otherwise. You can read more about it here: Lina Joy's despair This was a benchmark case, involving a ruling by the highest court in the country that effectively disallowed Lina Joy to change her legal status to Christian. Absolutely wrong. I was referring to conversion by ethnic Malays AWAY FROM Islam. I never wrote any such thing. Can you quote the sentence that supports that assertion? Malaysian law is very much involved in the conversion of Muslims TO another religion, as Sharia courts must approve such applications. . Evil

In my post, I mentioned neither Muslims nor Arabs. But anyway ... It's true that not all Muslims are Arabs; in fact, the majority of the world's Muslims aren't Arabs. And not all Arabs are Muslims, just like not all Thais are Buddhists; not all Indians are Hindu; not all Irish are Catholics; not all Israelis are Jews; not all Swedes are Lutherans and not all Alabamans are Baptists. What does that prove, other than there is almost no hegemony in terms of ethnicity, nationality and religion? The one exception might be Malaysia, where, according to the constitution, all Malays are by definition Muslim and conversion to another religion by Malays is impossible except under very rare circumstances. What's more significant is that the vast majority of Arabs are Muslims and the societies in which they have been brought up and live have been heavily influenced by Islamic precepts, including the discriminatory treatment of non-believers under Sharia law. When a citizen of the USA, the UK and other Western democracies discriminates on the basis of religion, he or she is violating secular law. When a Muslim discriminates against an infidel, he is acting in accordance with Sharia law. Several hundred years ago in the West, religion became a matter of individual conscience, not civic duty. That isn't the case in Muslim societies, although Mustafa Kemal Ataturk made a valiant attempt in Turkey to secularize his country. Very few people on this board (or in real life) object to Islam on purely theological grounds. It is the politicized form of Islam that is determined to replace secular laws with ones based on revelation to which opponents of Islamism object. It's the supremacy ( in the minds of Muslims) of the Quran over man-made law and convention that causes problems. You can see it at the geopolitical level - Muslims are currently involved in armed conflicts with Christian, Jews, Buddhists and Hndus - as well as on the streets of Pattaya. I no idea whether the guys I encountered on WS were good or bad Muslims, or even if they were Muslims. But one thing was for sure - they were definitely assh*les. And that behavior is largely due to the societal norms to which they are accustomed. Evil

I'm not worried about a few burqa-clad women on Walking Street. It's more guys like this who are a concern: I almost got into a 9/11 memorial battle with them on Sept 11.. One was drunk and very aggressive and they were all going to have go at me. Thais intervened to keep the peace, so nothing really happened, but it was very tense for a few minutes. I wasn't going to back down and thought I'd finally got my chance to do a Davey Crockett, or perhaps more culturally accurate, a Gordon at Khartoum. It was interesting experience. A couple of WS freelancers came in on my side and starting yelling at those guys to "Go away," then invited me to sit with them at their table. The restaurant owner and even the toilet attendant, mop in hand, got involved. I took it those guys weren't well liked. Evil

According to the map in the link, there are four, with one for fast-track & VIP. Evil

There are actually three, but one is for fast-track and VIPs. On the departure level, the two that ordinary passengers can use are located behind check-in row A and rows TU, roughly at the east and west ends of the departure hall. See the map here: http://www.suvarnabhumiairport.com/indoor_map_passport_control_en.php The fst-track passport control area is roughly in the middle of the terminal. Evil

Anyone seen him recently (in the past week)? Evil

Who would have thought, but there is a porn actor (hardly a star) who uses the moniker "FLB Boy." Perhaps he got his inspiration from a certain WS hostess bar. You can't see much of FLB Boy's face, but his physique and full head of hair tend to make it unlikely he's a regular FLB customer. You can see the vids at www,acheronvideo.com under the POV section. The FLB Boy scenes are unremarkable, but sort of amusing if you like raw gonzo-type films. Evil

Flying out on Christmas Day is often cheaper. I used to do that when I worked abroad. Not much demand for flights on the 24th or 25th December. Evil

For many months, the second immigration control area had been closed due to renovations. Now it's open again and that should help keep lines shorter most of the time. But definitely, if one area is bulging at seams, try the other. Too bad that fast-track has to be ordered on-line by those who don't get a pass from their airline. I imagine a lot of people would be willing to pay for fast-track rather than standing 45 minutes or more in line. Evil

Immigration control in Thailand has always been hit-and-miss. Occasionally there are huge queues, but mostly it goes pretty quickly. That was the situation for years at Don Muang, it's the same at Swampy. Actually, that's the way it is at almost all airports when a number of full flights land at the same time. Immigration control systems can't handle "rush hour syndrome" very well, which results in long delays for arriving/departing passengers. I've experienced hour-long waits at JFK, LAX, Newark, London Heathrow and Gatwick, Hong Kong and Beijing as well as Don Muang in the day and now Swampy. Not often, but it has happened. The company I used to work for paid for fast-track service on arrival/departure if it wasn't included in the fare. Now I have to pay for it myself if I want it. I haven't seen any noteworthy queues on arrival at BKK on the flights that touchdown between 10 p.m. and midnight. There have been on occasion huge queues early in the morning and during normal business hours. I usually pay for fast-track service for flights departing/arriving Swampy between 8.00 a.m. and 7 p.m., but chance it outside those hours. Because of my FF status, I always get "priority" tags on my luggage, so my bags are among the first down the chute. Using fast-track means I'm out of the airport in 20-30 minutes all told. Sometimes it goes just as quickly without fast-track, but you never know when there will be queues. For me, it's always worth paying 1,200 baht to avoid standing in line a long time at Immigration Control. Evil

My doctor prescribes Sonata, a light but effective sleep aid. It lasts about four hours and doesn't make you feel groggy. The doc said that if you're sleeping sitting up, you should wake up and walk around after four hours, then take another dose of Sonata and sleep an additional four hours if still tired. If you're in a biz seat that reclines 130 degrees or lies flat, you can sleep as many hours as you like. The risk of sleeping long hours in a cramped sitting position comes from deep-vein thrombosis. I've gone the Sonata route many times on trans-Pacific flights. Usually four hours sleep is enough for me, but if I'm tired, I repeat the dosage and sleep eight. Once on the now-defunct 17 1/2 hour non-stop between JFK and BKK, I repeated it twice and slept about 12 of those hours. Evil

Not sure, but might have been Aug. 11. I always get a three- bag allowance because of my FF status on Continental. Silver Elite gets you two bags, Gold or Higher gets three. Evil

Korean Airlines is a member of SkyTeam and so is Delta. You might want to check the prices for Delta flights compared with United. Usually, they are very similar, but not always. It depends on whether both are offering discounted tickets for the dates you want. Should you fly Delta, you can take advantage of the SkyTeam Elite benefits through your Morning Calm status and that should give you an allowance of two bags per person. If you have to fly United, the suggestion to get the Chase card is a good one. That would at least give you a bunch of FF miles that help offset the cost of your next flight. Also, as a non-Elite passenger on United, you would have to pay an extra $70 US for a second checked bag. If $1,170 is still a much lower fare than what you can get elsewhere, then it wouldn't be a bad idea just to pay for the second bag. Be sure that you are comparing final prices for airfares. Often the initial search result won't include all taxes and fees. I fly Continental and United to BKK four or five times a year and have never had a problem. But the O'Hare-Narita leg is on an old 747 that doesn't have individual screens for inflight entertainment. The NRT-BKK leg does. Evil

Actually, what he says is: If tomcat finishes work on the 29th early enough to catch a late-evening flight that same day, he would be in BKK before noon on Dec. 31. If he has to wait until the 30th and takes the United flight at about 11.30 a.m., he would be in BKK about 11.00 p.m. on Dec. 31. But if he takes an evening flight on Dec. 30, he wouldn't arrive in BKK until Jan. 1. It's the same pattern with flights from the East Coast of the U.S. Several times I've gone straight from work to JFK or EWR to catch an"overnight" flight on EVA or Air China than arrives +2 days in BKK. Evil

I haven't read any reports that he's been sighted since he was taken into custody the second time. That doesn't mean he hasn't been released, but so far, no indication that he has. Evil

It depends on which airline he uses. If he flies on United, he would depart LAX around 11.30 a.m. on Dec. 30 and arrive BKK at 10.50 p.m. on Dec. 31. If he flies Thai (non-stop) or EVA or China Southern on Dec. 30, he would depart in the late evening and arrive before noon on Jan. 1. Of course, if he's able to depart late evening on Thai or EVA (930 p.m. or 1130 p.m.) on Dec. 29, he would arrive on Dec. 31 before noon. Evil

It depends a bit on when you are arriving. If it's the 10.30-11.30 p.m window for the UA-Continental flights from the U.S., then you might want to go with Bangkok as it's a 30-minute ride into town as opposed to at least a 90-minute trip to Pattaya. If your arrival is earlier, then it's really a coin toss. There are parties at every bar and night spot in both cities. If you're in BKK, head to either Nana Plaza or Soi Cowboy. But book your hotel room NOW, as NYE is traditionally a night when many hotels are sold out. Evil

Very lucky, indeed. Had he pulled that stunt elsewhere, say AC or even NYC, he could have been in contention for a Darwin Award. Evil

According to a post by Stickman on the Secrets board, the Immigration Police have today again taken the German guy into custody. I hope the German authorities have put pressure on their Thai counterparts to deport that poor soul so he gets the medical treatment he so desperately needs. If the German government can donate billions of euros so Greeks can continue to retire at age 60, it should be able to cough up a few thousand to help one of its own. Evil

That depends on whose definition of vegan you use. There are ethical vegans who shun all types of products that come from animals whether edible or non-edible - leather; honey; items made of animal horn, bone, etc. Many of them take their inspiration from Jainism and won't even swat flies or stamp on cockroaches. Others, who at least call themselves a type of vegan, basically eat a vegetarian diet that excludes dairy products and eggs. Just like not all Muslims are Salafists, not all Christians are evangelicals and not all Jews keep kosher, not all people who consider themselves vegans follow the strictest interpretation. He thought cooking hurt the nutritional value of some vegetables. He didn't trust Thai restaurants to wash raw vegetables properly, so he did it himself.. I don't agree him and I'm not personally worried about pesticides or fertilizer, nor did I explore the idea in any great depth with him. I'm just reporting what he told me. His premise was that you don't have to go a vegan restaurant to eat a (basically) vegan diet. If he is faux or not, that's between him and the orthodox vegans. I REALLY don't care. I was just relating one person's solution to eating (sort of ) vegan in Pattaya. . Evil

While eating a decidedly non- vegan meal (Thai omelet stuffed with pork) in a hole-in-the-wall restaurant, I met a Swiss guy who was a vegan. He said he just told the cook what to prepare for him and it was fine. He ate in that restaurant every day. He didn't eat any sort of animal product (no dairy or eggs as well as no meat or fish), but he only cared about the dietary aspects, not the spiritual side. He wasn't concerned about the same utensils being used for meat and vegetables, nor was he concerned about a splash of fish sauce. He said he wanted to eat more raw vegetables, but he had to be very careful about that in Thailand because of the pesticides and fertilizers. He bought fresh vegetables himself, then soaked them in a special solution he brought with him from Switzerland and finally peeled them. He didn't trust restaurants when it came to raw vegetables. So as long as you're not too strict a vegan and don't primarily eat raw food, it's not hard to mostly tow the vegan line in Pattaya restaurants. Evil