FarangCravings

tombkk, on 2010-09-26 22:42:49, said:

Awesome reply, dont like someones opinion scream troll like a little girl! Yawn.

Marriage should be for man and women only, now im not saying if to people of the same sex want to commit to each other for love, benefits thats fine, it just shouldnt be called marriage....i think the term civil union or something along those lines, in fact call it what the hel_l you want but NOT MARRIAGE.

Nuff Said.!

mojo80, on 2010-09-26 22:15:21, said:

Exactly!  

JohnLeech, on 2010-09-26 02:28:25, said:

BoldExactly what I have been saying! The OP asked about 'marriages', nothing else, no mention at all of civil partenerships/unions or whatever.

Had he posed the question,"I am just curious do you guys think that same sex civil partnerships will ever be legal in Thailand?" I wouldn't even have replied. As I've said before, a marriage to me is the bonding of a male and a female and in my humble opinion always will be.

Have a nice day.

Bigoted and not progressive??  

We are all bigoted in some respect for various reasons and on various subjects, are we not? Non progressive? maybe.

To elaborate, what people do with their own lives is totally up to them and with that I have no qualms whatsoever. It is just that to me, the 'institution of marriage' is a bonding of people from opposite sexes, nothing more, nothing less. Husband/wife - Father/mother etc.

Yes, things change but as same sex marriage is a subject I know pretty much nothing about, I'll just remain old fashioned and say no more. I think I've made my point.

Have a nice day.

John,


'South' has already claimed his total ignorance of the subject matter thus:

"Yes, things change but as same sex marriage is a subject I know pretty much nothing about, I'll just remain old fashioned and say no more."


However, unlike his statement that he will "say no more." he carries on like a typical bar-room barrister,  who has little or (in this case) no knowledge of the subject matter, but insists on making uninformed statements thereby proving to all concerned of his total ignorance, and biased view against equality for gay people.

Mestizo, on 2010-09-28 21:45:03, said:

LOL..  Yes, I intentionally did not put the location in there.. but did want to see if you'd respond.   

To be honest though, if it becomes more successful then other places will copy, which would be a good thing.  And they'd need even more curvy beer chicks to handle the increased demand..   But my lips remain sealed for now.

Please mod me back up +1  !  My reputation is hurting.

FarangCravings, on 2010-09-25 21:54:05, said:

Maybe I can sue the people who give me red -s

wintermute, on 2010-09-24 21:09:39, said:

Hi wintermute. I have been reading your posts, I think I understand where you’re coming from; you don’t advocate bullying as part of soldiers training, you’re simply highlighting history, and pointing out the use of bullying as an effective training method. Well, you’re right about one thing the old school armed forces around the world that used, and still use bullying as way to gain, blind abidance and in essence make their troops more afraid of disobey an order than carry it out.  Both the SS and 2nd Rep (French Foreign Legion) to name two from the old day carried this stigma. Back in the day this was seen as a good way make your soldiers tough and compliant. Things change, I know for a fact, 20 years ago 2^nd Rep were just as tough as their reputation of old….But with no outward signs of system bulling, they were bright intelligent guys with a strong “espree de corp” you don’t get that feeling by being bullied! The SS…….. Whatever happened to them boys? Fact! The SS were very good soldiers, because of training…..Not bullying, the bullying just made them bigger Assholes than they were when they joined.

Bullying is out dated in the modern armies of the world, the days of sending thousands of men “over the top” is over, (unless your Chinese of North Korean, “Unlucky boy”) a small fact; The British army tried to eradicate system bullying in the armed forces in 1914 because so many army recruits were dying from over enthusiastic instruction! It would seem British Generals, at the time thought it was far more sporting to let the enemy kill all our young men!  So a way was needed to find a method to instill non questioning obedience under fire, they did this by Foot Drill, Squire bashing……..Synchronized walking, for hours and hours, a precise action for a precise order, and he was shown how to make a good “bed block” (anyone old  Brit squaddies remember them?) and fire a couple of rounds. Bullying too Brainwashing in one go, worked a treat but not in a good way!

I do take umbrage at some of your comments! Allow me to tell you why. Reading your posts I have the feeling you have very little respect for armed service personal, OK, It’s a free world, of sorts! Your basically inferring that the wests ground forces are only good at playing at war and doesn’t really know what a war is as it’s soldiers only get to push poor ill-equipped flip flop wearing natives about…..Big men a! How hard can that be? Well having been attacked by “flip flop” dirt poor kids high on “brow brown” (cocaine and cordite) sporting AK47’s and RPG’s laughing their heads off! Soldiers today don’t know what war is? Please go and tell that to the Grunt, or Grav with his face pressed in the dirt with rounds cracking just over his head, shot at by some 10 year old boy in some shitty little insignificant “peace keeping” mission. I’m sure he’ll feel very lucky and take some comfort he’s not fighting in a major conflict of old!

wintermute, on 2010-09-24 21:09:39, said:

The "last time there was any war that was the size or scale of WW2" was 65 years ago, so rather before my time.

What exactly are you comparing when comparing modern warfare to "the wars of old", and to what end? How does WWII compare to WWI in your book? Or WWI to the Crimea? Or the Crimea to the Hundred Years War?

Your grasp of what "history shows" is evidently as limited as your grasp of actual history. Between 35 and 50 million people have died in wars in the last fifty years, but leaving out counter-insurgency operations and conflicts in what you would probably call "undeveloped" countries, a number of developed countries with developed military forces have fought wars for their "survival" in the last 50 years, from the Lebanon to the Iran-Iraq war, the first Gulf  War (Kuwait), Chechnya, Kosovo, Serbia, and various Arab-Israeli wars.

The idea that a JNCO abusing a recruit (as appears to be the case here, but it could quite easily be something different) "does work" and turns them into "men who aren't afraid to do certain things" is not only wrong, but if it were true it would be even more reason to make it unacceptable. The military today has to observe the "niceties" because if it doesn't then it has no chance of winning the hearts and minds of those "destitute brown people" you believe it is "pushing around" - it would be far easier for the military to simply "bomb them back to the stone age", but that is not their job.

Somehow I doubt if you have ever seen any sort  of warfare at first hand, or you would not post such uninformed rubbish  about the military or about warfare over the past 50 years.

GuestHouse, on 2010-09-24 08:11:41, said:

Yes! You got it.

OK, admins/mods so right now 32 percent say they WANT to turn off the feature for themselves. Would 1/3 of us opting out hurt the board very much? How about it? Can we PLEASE have the enhancement that we can TURN OFF the reputation feature PERMANENTLY for ourselves? In other words, reset to ZERO for good and no power to give or get greens or reds? How about it?

midasthailand, on 2010-09-23 17:34:48, said:

Hi midasthailand, I can’t really comment on Armed services other than British, and then really only in my line of sight, I’ve just spoke as I saw it.

Your 2^nd paragraph, for me sums it up very well, as part of SF selection involves an “Escape and Evasion” phase, this inevitable ends up as an integration….No one ever escapes, or evades, (they set the RV points) and it’s rigged to get you on or around the day 4 of being on the run.  No violence or threats of violence was used, but being cold, wet, nack’d and hungry the psychological effect of two day with your head in a sand bag hearing the blood curdling screams of other prisoners being beaten up and electrocuted…………(not really, But sounds like it,) It's strange the worst thing I remember about it all was, the barstewards played “Brown girl in the ring” really loud over and over again for had to be 48 hours, Funny thing, if I ever hear it playing now, I get cold sweats and dread the song coming to an end as I might hear screaming again! Don’t know about 5 minutes alone with the alleged bully (OP’s Topic)It’s been 30 years but, I would still give my right nut for 2 minutes alone in a room with “Bonnie M” and a  1ft rubber hose pipe. Did I ever feel bullied in the E&E phase, No.

    

Personally, the reputation thing is a nasty distraction for me. Yes, I do use it, but I would much prefer the OPTION to be able to TURN IT OFF so that I couldn't give or get reds or greens, and my reputation would be stuck eternally at ZERO.

Now we know the management here likes the feature for financial reasons, so our desires are not the highest priority here. So we know the feature isn't going away.

But what about the OPTION of turning it off for OURSELVES, user by user? Wouldn't it nice to have the CHOICE to participate in this game, or not? Would you USE that option to turn off the feature for YOU?

Anyone have a link to the video clip? The moving one, not just still photos.

FarangCravings, on 2010-09-23 13:23:47, said:

Another case of Farang Craving b*tching, which is all I ever see you do on here.