Rude Thai girls foiled by phone jammer

Ubangi Me, Ibangi U says:

"This is almost as ridiculous as George W. Bush's claim that AIDS can be tackled by urging people not to have sex ."

*sigh* I'll post on this ONCE in this thread and then let it go back to its original intent.

First, the basic point: Nobody thinks that abstinence is a cure or a fix for HIV. Not even us stupid Americans.

The position is that abstinence is a proven way to combat the SPREAD of HIV/AIDS, and therefore should be used in any comprehensive program to battle HIV. The reasoning is: You cannot contract HIV simply by casual contact with an infected person. The gay lobby has spent inestimable time and money to tell everybody about this. On this, if not much else, they happen to be right, inasmuch as their opinion happens to be backed up by statistics and scientific theory.

Compared to a probability of virtually zero of contracting HIV when you don't have intercourse, the odds are at least somewhat higher for protected intercourse. Thus, protected intercourse is not as good at PREVENTING of the spread of HIV/AIDS as abstinence. This is the Bush administration's position. Why is this so hard to understand?

From yet another statement by Randall Tobias, the US Global AIDS Co-ordinator: "Abstinence worksÖ.Being Faithful worksÖ.Condoms work. Each has its place... I want to get something straight about the US position on prevention, because there seems to be a lot of confusion and misinformation. Preventing AIDS is not a multiple-choice test - there is no one right answer to preventing the spread of this pandemic. Those who want to simplify the solution to just one method - any one method - do not understand the complexity of the problem.î

Is the US doing everything it possibly could about this problem? Probably not. Is the US doing more than anybody else, on ALL fronts, about this problem? Probably.

Jules says:

Well done Ubangi, not a single reference to mobile phones and jamming them in your entire post.

Jamming has my full support. Nobody asks if they can disturb you by conversing on the phone, normally a string of inanities. Anyone who carries a phone feels free to answer its puerile ring and jabber on without considering others. So why should I consider their feelings when jamming them?

In Thailand the worst culprits are the sad wankers who answer calls in the cinema.

Where can I get one????????

P.S. I have also sufferred the ring during sex. And you are right, Dave, that is the time to make use of her ring. HHHAAAAAA

TANAI KWAI says:

"Thus, protected intercourse is not as good at PREVENTING of the spread of HIV/AIDS as abstinence. This is the Bush administration's position. Why is this so hard to understand?"

It's not hard to understand at all. Just blithely ignores the grim reality of the situation.

"From yet another statement by Randall Tobias, the US Global AIDS Co-ordinator: "Abstinence worksÖ.Being Faithful worksÖ.Condoms work. Each has its place... "

Sure, but the trouble is that women -- who bear the statistical brunt of the epidemic, more so each day -- are not in a position to abstain from sex in many third-world countries. Nor are they in the position to negotiate the use of condoms when their promiscuous husbands demand unprotected sex. Female condoms, while promising, are too expensive and easily detected by a man keen on going bareback.*

If Bush II were not so hellbent on avoiding the fate of Bush I (a one-termer because he lost the right-wing over his "no new taxes" betrayal and his failure to appear evangelical enough) he would plow that $15 billion dollars into microbicide research. A microbicide (several are in development) would permit a woman to reduce the chance of HIV transmission even when subjected to unprotected sex because the agent could be applied several hours before an anticipated sexual contact.

But protecting women (or people in general) isn't really Bush II's fundamental objective. Obviously, I am not suggesting he wants these victims to die. But his conservative, Bible-thumping base can't get rowdy and excited over any approach except A-B-C, no matter how ultimately ineffective. Why is that so hard to understand?

(...)

*The other concern is that women in such nations labor under patriarchal legal regimes that utterly dispossess a wife of all of her worldly belongings in the event her husband should die (the husband's family inherits all). Guess how these widows eke out a living for themselves and their children (assuming those aren't also taken away under the inheritance laws, as they often are) after that? Here's a hint: it doesn't involve Abstinence, Being Faithful, or Condoms. And so it goes.

niall says:

Sorry but you are all gutless. I make it a condition of the bar fine that the phone is switched OFF for the duration. They don't like it, they come up with a million excuses why it should stay on, but in the end if you make it CLEAR that if the phone stays on then no baht, then the phone is switched off.

Simple.

Farangutan says:

I was recently fortunate enough to be on the opposite side of the fence - A girl I'd come back to Bkk to see had been snakily avoiding me for weeks for one reason or another. I'd given up on her and found someone else to err...discuss Proust with.

While lazily engaging in some oral intercourse one sunday afternoon, my phone rings and its gf #1. My new gf happily slurped away on my stump while I talked to gf#1 - a most satisfying and subtle form of revenge....so yeah...the phone thing can go both ways...(much like gf#2!)

Ubangi Me, Ibangi U says:

TK, you seem pretty intelligent and reasonable, so maybe you can explain this one to me: If a woman is somehow being forced or coerced into sex, such as by a demanding husbend, then she has no leverage to demand that her husband/lover use a condom. How then are condoms an answer for this woman? Don't we at least attempt to protect women like these by persuading their husbands/lovers to refrain from extramarital dalliances? At least then there's a chance, however small, that her husband is not carrying HIV during the coercive encounter. While not airtight, there seems no better alternative in this scenario.

If a woman is forced to eke out a living as you say, and I think we all got your drift, she usually DOES have the choice of condoms, if not abstinence. The Bush administration is not adverse to this scenario, as noted in their many (unpublicised) quotes and policy statements on this topic.

As far as microbicides, please see this reference: http://bidmc.harvard.edu/display.asp?leaf_id=5475 You are quite correct, this is a promising therapy, and one not precluded by the Bushies or anybody else. In fact, the most promising microbicide, Carraguard, is being developed and tested right here in the US. See also this reference: http://aidsinfo.nih.gov/drugs/htmldrug_tech.asp?int_id=0400
Note that this is published by the US National Institutes of Health, and the Department of Health and Human Services. Supporting or even publicising this would be odd behavior indeed for a government insensitive to the plight of women at risk of AIDS.

The leftist media continues to fail to report this stuff, preferring to report the left-wing spin that the Bush administration is fiddling while Rome burns. You, TK, seem too smart to fall for it.

Ubangi Me, Ibangi U says:

An on-topic post now: In terms of public places, why does a cell phone jammer strike me as the same sort of idea as a smoking ban, something which has been enacted throughout the US? I see bans on smoking in public places simply as capricious attempts by some people to impose their wishes on other people. Similarly, why should somebody else decide if my cell phone should work without my consent?

Granted, inappropriate cell phone use in public places is extremely rude, just as lighting up in an inappropriate place is rude. But what of the person who has a sick parent, is expecting an important call from a client, etc., and has their phone set on "vibrate"? Do you have the right to pre-judge that somebody you don't even know will do something wrong if you don't jam their cell phone? I thought we farangs departed the West, preferring the more free-wheeling laissez-faire societies of countries like Thailand, to escape thinking like this?

As far as the phone-gabbing BG, I would suggest a cheaper alternative that would achieve the same goal: As soon as she gets into the room, you instruct her to power off her cell phone; then make it clear that if she fails to do so, or if she powers it on and/or talks on it with at the wrong time, you will simply show her the door you won't pay her "salary" for the evening. Not only will you save the 160 quid on the cell phone jammer, you can keep the errant girl's "salary" to boot!

* Late addition to this post: Damn! Others beat me to the last point! Guess I should keep my postings shorter! I know you all would be relieved! LOL!

Blinded by the right says:

The leftist media continues to fail to report this stuff, preferring to report the left-wing spin that the Bush administration is fiddling while Rome burns. You, TK, seem too smart to fall for it.

Total pebble -thick-hick-cataract-blind-stick-right-wing-nut. Cheney needs love too!! Give Wolfowitz a blowy too, but don't forget to spit.

buffalo _bill says:

Got one of those jammers , the one on the photo with the two antennas. Unit is an absolute killer in steel cages like busses or railways , works fine in restaurants and is not worth too much in open areas. The emergency doctor who is expecting possibly life-saving cellphone calls should not be so ignorant to leave his sick people alone, there are a million reasons why his phone might not work, I am just one of them. HIV kills more people than my jammer, so let's first solve that problem.

Respectfully

Buffalo_Bill

tonychang says:

How much are they and where do you get them?

Jules says:

Sorry Ubangi but I would not be resorting to Western dogma.

In the West I would be expected to form an action group to pressurise the authorities to erect signs and extract fines for misdemeanours.

In the free wheeling East I just turn on my mobbie blocker.

What could be less PC than that???

Mr. White says:

I don't think that comparing cell-phone jammers to a smoking ban is quite appropriate.

"why should somebody else decide if my cell phone should work without my consent?"
By the same token, why should someblody else be able to pollute my lungs with their second hand smoke? While both blocking someone's phone and forcing someone to passively smoke, can be considered rude or ill-mannered, only one of these actions contributes to a deadly disease.

Ubangi Me, Ibangi U says:

"The emergency doctor who is expecting possibly life-saving cellphone calls should not be so ignorant to leave his sick people alone..."
Because doctors deserve no life outside the hospital, I have no qualms about cutting off their means of communication?

"...there are a million reasons why his phone might not work, I am just one of them..."
Purposely depriving somebody of a means of communication they might be depending on is the same thing as that means momentarily failing due to technical limitations beyond anybody's control?

"HIV kills more people than my jammer, so let's first solve that problem."
What I'm doing (probably) isn't killing anybody, so what's the harm? What other things should we disregard because AIDS is more deadly?

"In the West I would be expected to form an action group to pressurise the authorities to erect signs and extract fines for misdemeanours."
Correct, the idea being to take away somebody else's rights because YOU have decided they don't really need them, and because YOU know what's good for society better than some simple-minded cell phone user. What could be more Western than that?

"While both blocking someone's phone and forcing someone to passively smoke, can be considered rude or ill-mannered, only one of these actions contributes to a deadly disease."
True. Nobody is condoning impolite or unsafe behavior. However, it is the choice of remedies that is in question here.

The laissez-faire way to handle this problem is to walk away, frequent restaurants where people don't do the thing you object to, find friends who don't engage in the improper behavior, etc. The Western way of solving this problem is to arbitrarily restrict somebody else's right to do the things you object to.

It's interesting that people easily relate to this reasoning when discussing the content of entertainment: "If you don't like what's on channel A, you have every right to switch to channel B!"

Also, to some extent, I believe we just have to cut people some slack sometimes. Certainly not your evening's choice for paid female entertainment, that's quite another matter. However, if we want to try to stuff everybody into the mold of good public behavior, aren't we simply joining Hope and Crosby on "The Road to Singapore"? Again, I thought that was what we went to Thailand to get away from.

I am generally not effronted if somebody is simply using a cell phone in my vicinity. One wonders if at least some of this attitude is left over from when people used to flash cell phones as status symbols. Hell, they are as common as cigarette lighters these days.

By the way, I am not particularly passionate about this one, and I think people who abuse cell phones are rude, too. I turn mine off in theaters, etc., keep it on "buzz first, ring later", and take my calls outside in restaurants and other quiet public places. This just seemed an interesting topic of conversation.

John U says:

It's OK Ubang, we'd already guessed it was you.

I'm REALLY glad you're not passionate about it.

Cog says:

^LOL!

bubi says:

tonychang,

look at the opening post, website globalgadgetuk , I just ordered the larger unit to cover more open space in future. Negative about jammers is that they also cut your own cellphone but thank's god I am not a doctor lol.

ubangi me , ubangi u

I tried to read your post but it is to complex, I am a simple person .

cheers

bubi

kelake says:

Abstinence is a nice easy black and white answer. Of course if you don't have sex your chances of contracting HIV are greatly reduced. Unfortunately abstinence flies in the face of human nature and the condition of many of those who are at greatest risk.

As far as those jammers go, it seems like a nice joke on your date for the evening but with mobile phones being essential for many people now it has every reason to be banned.

mr peter says:

Is there a similar device to stop people sending emails? this is becoming more of a pest than the phone abusers. Of course both put the poor little kiddies at considerable risk from all sorts of pervy types. Some councils in London are reported to want the use of picture phones banned in playgrounds and near schools lest some sicko takes a few quick snaps and hurries back home for a wank.The email stopper would be a boon on this site, now lets see who would I want to stop posting first, mmm?-peter

John U says:

Are you receiving nuisance emails for some of the rambling arseholes ( or should we call them "ad nauseums" ?) on here Mr. Peter?

Or do you mean just to stop them posting on this site?

If it's the first, I find that surprising, because I haven't had any obnoxious ones - yet. Not that I'm complaining mind you.

mr peter says:

I only seem to get emails offering me viagra, vallium and prozac at inflated prices, invitations to view cock hungry cum sluts and people offering to make my tits bigger as well. More recently I have been getting the ones offering fake degrees, and I must admit I cold do with one of those. I wonder what happened to all the cock enlargement ones and gents from nigeria offering me $20 million because a relative I'd never had just got eaten by a hippo. So happily no nutcases from here as yet find there way into the junk. I meant just to stop the wankers club posting, beyond technology as yet I fear.
I think I'd get one of those jammer thingys if they were about £60 but not at the price they are. What would happen if everyone started to carry them around?-peter

John U says:

I'd get one as well if they were universal. I'm fucked if I'm going to get one for Thailand and another for the UK.

Of course before switching on I'd have a careful look around to see if there were any doctors, nurses, firemen, policemen or anybody with a worried look.

I'd also ask my GF if her mother, father, brother, sister, buffalo or anybody in the family was seriously ill.

After that I'd have some fucking fun.

I wouldn't leave it on constantly. I'd just use it to cut off some arsehole having a really annoying loud conversation. Soon as the call was cut off I'd switch back off again. If he/she was reconnected I'd contiunue to cut the call. :<)

Once in the room it would be left on for the duration, but I'd ask at reception if there were any doctors, nurses, firemen,policemen...... in adjoining rooms.

I am a really caring person.

Who said childish? Cheeky cunts.

TANAI KWAI says:

Ubang... writes,

"you seem pretty intelligent and reasonable..."

Golly. When somebody says "you seem pretty intelligent" I think that means that they are SUPER-DUPER intelligent. It also means you have given them sufficient basis to deem you (at least conditionally) to possess adequate intelligence to speak with them! Jeepers, I'll take a compliment from somebody like that that any day of the week! Let the learning begin!

"so maybe you can explain this one to me: If a woman is somehow being forced or coerced into sex, such as by a demanding husbend, then she has no leverage to demand that her husband/lover use a condom. How then are condoms an answer for this woman?"

Did you even read my post or do you just perceive a blurry fog of opposition in which you crawl on all fours? Baby Jesus Christ, I never made the argument that condoms are the answer. Indeed, I said the motherfucking opposite.

"If a woman is forced to eke out a living as you say, and I think we all got your drift, she usually DOES have the choice of condoms, if not abstinence."

"Usually" don't pay the bills. Glad that little fantasy sustains you, though. Perhaps if you are ever imprisoned you will "usually" get the chance to receive this kind of consideration from those who would abuse your body. (Such a discussion would only occur in the unlikely event that your burly cellmate failed to your arguments in favor of abstaining from pounding your ass.)

"As far as microbicides, please see this reference: http://bidmc.harvard.edu/display.asp?leaf_id=5475... You are quite correct, this is a promising therapy, and one not precluded by the Bushies or anybody else."

Should have known you had this URL in reserve in anticipation of your heretofore undisclosed expertise about microbicides -- you were way ahead of me. Serves me right for purporting to expose the abstinence solution as child-like and politically motivated. (By the way, if the NIH were totally under the sway of the Bush administration they would devote an even less meaningful sum to microbicidal research. So I wouldn't go crowing about it as some kind of flagship Bush initiative. Those dumbasses are myopic -- its A-B-C or nothing.)

"The leftist media continues to fail to report this stuff...You, TK, seem too smart to fall for it...[blah, blah, blah]."

Thank your lucky stars I'm not as smart as you are or you wouldn't be able to obliterate my arguments like such a champ.

You say the "left-wing" media has brainwashed me. Typical knee-jerk reaction, simply because you aren't used to dealing with people who think for themselves. You parrot whatever information you've garnered from the right-wing without diving into the best the left has to offer.

You might want to check out some of the posts under the June 01, 2004 thread, for example, as proof that life is usually about 50% more complicated than people would have you believe.

(from your friendly left-wing shill)

John U says:

Jesus, tap dancing, Christ :<)

(I love that one TK. Sticks in my mind.)

Here we go again. 15 all, Ubangi to serve. This game is going to be a long fucker, I can tell.

Mind you, there is one thing which puzzled me.

"leftist media" That to me seems to be a contradiciton in terms. Most media is controlled by a money mogul, very few of those are leftist, and they want their media to reflect their leanings don't they? Why have control of media otherwise?

In the US, I believe it's even more so than here in the UK.

At least we have the BBC, and every government in power, left or right, hates the BBC, so they must be doing something right.

There is only one left leaning newspaper ( I disregard the extremist ones), and there is one independent newspaper, which perversely is called The Independent. :<) An excellent newspaper.

A must-read for every true floating voter (swing voter I think they say in the US)

Get a life says:

"Is there a similar device to stop people sending emails?"

It's called a spam filter, Mr. P.

Try http://us.mcafee.com

Bento Box says:

Do you think I could get a Ubangi and Tanai jammer? How about we lock the two of them in a room and let them exchange long and boring posts that no one wants to read eh?

Ubangi Me, Ibangi U says:

"Golly. When somebody says "you seem pretty intelligent" I think that means that they are SUPER-DUPER intelligent."
Thanks, but this was not the intent, nor is it the truth. As I have said before, I have no beef with anybody here; I simply wish interesting and challenging conversation. Is this not possible without the constant personal attacks? I did not attack you or anybody else (although I suppose I could have omitted the backhanded compliment), and am not quite sure of the reason for your vitriol and sarcasm.

"Did you even read my post or do you just perceive a blurry fog of opposition in which you crawl on all fours? Baby Jesus Christ, I never made the argument that condoms are the answer. Indeed, I said the motherfucking opposite."
Actually, I did read the post. No I did not perceive only opposition, hence my agreeable comments and links on microbicides.

Although you mentioned antimicrobials, the best estimates are that their practical real-world use is a decade in the future. If you are saying abstinence is not the answer, condoms as the solution is the motherfucking opposite of your opinion, and antimicrobials are 10 years down the road, I guess I would be left wondering what you ARE suggesting, at least in today's world.

That is not intended as a challenge to you, by the way. How about answering it as a simple rhetorical question that seeks dialog?

"You say the "left-wing" media has brainwashed me. Typical knee-jerk reaction, simply because you aren't used to dealing with people who think for themselves."
Actually, what I said was, "The leftist media continues to fail to report this stuff, preferring to report the left-wing spin that the Bush administration is fiddling while Rome burns." No mention of brainwashing. Yes, perhaps another backhanded complement, though. OK, I take back every nice thing I ever said about you! :) Again, no intent to "take apart arguments" was made; I thought my amplifying positive comments on microbocides would be taken as comity. (No, not comedy.)

By the way, not that you asked, but my political philosophies are not straight-line right-wing. I tend to be more conservative on fiscal matters, and agree more with the lefties on social things than my right -wing brethren. I am especially in agreement that the right wing is myopic on the subject of HIV/AIDS, that abstinence-only initiatives should not be a major part of an effort to stem the tide of HIV/AIDS, and that the ultra-religious fanatical far-right has little of value to contribute to much of any dialog; they are the al Queida of American socio-political discourse. That may or may not come out in my posts, as I use this avatar in shrill-sounding combative exchanges.

TK, I generally agree with you, and sought no argument. The rhetorical question about women and condoms was not intended as a challenge to you, although I guess it did spark some revery about my ass.

I have no quarrel with anybody in this blog. Not even Isabull/Beak/Godzilla. I simply seek entertaining dialog.

Ubangi Me, Ibangi U says:

Yo, Bent-over! Don't read 'em, eh?

Ubangi Me, Ibangi U says:

JohnU, etc., for opinions on both sides of the liberal media question, see these links:

http://www.whatliberalmedia.com/
http://www.thatliberalmedia.com/

Ubangi Me, Ibangi U says:

See also

http://www.capitaleye.org/mediacontribs.6.2.03.asp

Ubangi Me, Ibangi U says:

An on-topic link about phone jammers, from Slate:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2092059/

Ubangi Me, Ibangi U says:

Another

http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/story1a092200.html

Jules says:

John U,

Good idea, jam them when they spark up in the cinema, restaurant or during sex.

She answers her phone and you pull out your double antennaed monster and zap.

Toby says:

great gadget, but i think i'll pass on paying a couple hundred bucks just so the whore who i employ for the evening isn't able to demonstrate a grotesque display of bad phone etiquette and general manners.
they're whores, your getting yours, so who cares. i think there are a lot more nuisances and things you have to worry about with these girls other than their phone habits.
and for those of you who take on these bitches as girlfriends, you're all suckers, what the fuck are you thinking?
love em, fuck em, leave em, but you don't fucking need em.

GGreer says:

Slapping the phone out of their hands and in the same movement a backhander across the mouth usually works .This is much cheaper than a phone jammer.

Ubangi Me, Ibangi U says:

Wow! I've been out-aggressived!

Jules says:

Inserting it somewhere on her person such that you cannot hear it anymore might be more appropiate.

I used to wonder why TV remotes in cheap hotels were plastic wrapped. Used to....

If you keep it facing the TV watch her face light up as you skip through the soap operas.

As this works for TV watching girls why not for mobiles?

Chopper Harris says:

Excellent. Tanai Kwai has finally met his match. Someone who is even more verbose and opinionated than himself.

Step forward and take a bow - Ubangi me Ibangi U (you key-tapping cunt).

Kind regards

Chopper

Ubangi Me, Ibangi U says:

Pithy post. Aren't you the moron that wants to meet a bunch of men in a park where katoeys hang out and have the pork-sausage sword fight?

Toby says:

what ever , the phone jammer is ridiculous. who, in the civillian sector or private sector, could possibly have any practical use for jamming communications.
it's over kill. just so your rented tilak won't yap her head off while you're trying to stick it to her.
that happened to me once, but it was cool because the girl immediately went in to the doggie style position with the phone in her hand, i forgave her right away, and it kind of turned me on. give them some slack, their professionals, their there to provide a nice warm and wet hole for your drunken exploits.
the next time it happens to me, i hope it's a boyfriend or something calling to check up on her.
quit making love to them and fuck the living day lights out of them already.

Nigel says:

As Tony Chang asked:
How much are they and where do you get them?

Can someone answer these questions?

Chopper Harris says:

Ubangi

You seem to know a lot about where the katoeys hang out. How so ? Do you want to inform the group of your other favourite haunts ? (In less than five sentences please).

Best wishes

Chopper

Bento Box says:

Yes, Ubangi, and let us know when you'll next be there. We'd love to meet you.

Jules says:

Toby,

Like all good gadgets they are completely frivolous, unneccessary and cool. They will be used once and then forgotten.

I WANT ONE

Ubangi Me, Ibangi U says:

Chopper Harris. Lemme see, back to the web to look up another pathetic has-been... Ah yes, here we are...

Chopper Harris. You are either:
1) A woozy ex-footballer with most of his teeth and permanent grass stains above his single eyebrow from too many face-plants,

2) A drug-addled rock band by the same name, or

3) Some douchebag impersonating one of these. Doesn't matter which one.

Choppy, dear, it wasn't me who invited a bunch of strange men (I count myself among this contingent) to meet you for a tea and man-chowder party, so don't confuse me with either you, our pathetic Bent-over, or Marshal McLoser, who is undoubtedly off someplace trying to figure out how to exume Richard Nixon so as to suck his rotted root.

Sounds like you and the guy with the Bent-over Box are already having a love-in; you don't need me. Just exchange your fetid fluids and leave us out of it, eh?

Anonymous says:

I guess the phone jammer is useful for the faithful conservatives and old timers who have a particular disdain for cel phones and those who use them in public.
last year my friend watched a tow truck driver beat a very old man at a bar&grill. the old man was pretty drunk and kept mouthing off to the tow truck driver for using his cel phone in the restaraunt. it escalated in to the truck driver giving him a full force punch to the gut knocking the wind out of him and putting him on the floor. from what i'm told the other old men at the table were terrified and just about had a heart attack.
how funny is that? some big tatted-up truck driver just belting one in to a fragile old man. how come i never get to see cool shit like that? i'd have been there cheering him on. i love violence.

s kin mee of says:

Fuck SAKE!!! All i wanted was to read about this fasinating gadget that impressed me for what ever particular purpuse. And i got some CUNT babbling about aload of BOLLOCKS. So there's me waisted fucking shit loads of my time for nothing. By the little fucker here if your in the uk and i think they deliver ---> http://www.globalgadgetuk.com/Personal.htm

Ubangi Me, Ibangi U says:

You wanna read about gadgets, have your nurse teach you how to search the web. You want babbling cunts? We're here!

Toby says:

S kin mee, you sure do talk funny. i feel sorry for your boyfriend. by the way, if i ever make it to your miserable little country i'm gonna fuck you up white boy.

crash says:

i have one of these wonderful little gadgets. works very well in a small space like the skytrain or a hotel room but not very good in a large area like a cinema except to blank those people around you.

as for abstinence, it's like telling people the best way to avoid getting injured in car crashes is don't drive. everyone knows the american policy is the result of having to appease the right-wing god squad.

Tolerant says:

Well, I always like the mutually negotiated settlement of the issue. After all, what's the prime objective?

So, she can talk on her cell phone all she wants (or listen if she's not in a position to talk at the moment) and I have no objection. And in compensation, she will have no objection to my watching a full episode of Star Trek on the playback system. With a beer.

She gets what she needs and I get what I like. All at once.

If only world leaders could view North Korea as a particularly touchy bar girl........

jim jones says:

where can i buy a phone jammer in bangkok ?

daniel says:

yes yes, i truly want one, if they work as well as has been said then my awful times at the cinema are truly over.

it was in a stickman post that i first realised that when thais go to the cinema, if they dont like the film its ok to talk to whoever or get out the bloody mobile.

many thais have a certain mentality about films, books etc..............

"it was good"........"it was no good"

no opinions, no debate, its that simple for many thai's im sorry to say.

i am a patient man but after asking several times for some people to stop chatting away on {phones}, three thai's behind me... i had to resort to saying " turn off the fucking mobile's or i will get someone to remove you, or i will do it myself.

its a case of thai's backing down here because they may be to worried about losing face.
so they all smiled and were quiet for a while afterwards things got a little better but not much, but really what could i do, i did'nt want to get arrested.

so next time i go to the cinema, ignorant persons on phones, thai or otherwise.

your gong to be fucking zapped!