playtheblues Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 That is why the REAL issue of principle should be discussed exactly in this thread and not in a separate one' date=' namely to put the whole thing back into the right perspective.[/quote'] But it's so boring. Stupid law, right. HM even thinks so, right. Draconian sentence, yeah, yeah. Bad for Thailand's image, yawn. Maybe somebody needs to come up with a new angle on it. Reminds me of that New Yorker writer's dilemma of political choice: "Communism is too boring and fascism is too exciting". Up to you if you find Nicolaides-san being an exciting subject. Judging from pictures he doesn't look too promising in the fun department though... Anyway, point has been made and I can enjoy my otium cum dignitate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 I think Mel would go for it, after all, it would be chance for him portray a 40 year old. TH I think the guy just sold another book. I think Gomer Pyle could play the part if they make a movie of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaiHome Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 I beleive Jim Nabors is dead (of AIDS I seem to remember). TH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozpharlap Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 He is not dead - he is enjoying a relaxing life in Hawaii running a macadamian nut plantation. Actually, I don't think he his gay either - I recall an anecdote that he use to be good friends with Rock Hudson. Rock implicated that they had both done the horizontal tango together - which was false, and their friendship fell apart, with Jim Nabors never speaking to him again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 If he is gay, then he is pulled off one hell of a don't ask don't tell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaiHome Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 My mistake. I guess I was thinking of his bout with hepatitis B that caused him to require a liver transplant. TH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drogon Posted February 24, 2009 Author Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 Please don't joke about hepatitis -> I can tell you that I wasn't having fun when I caught it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozpharlap Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 Jim Nabours sexual preference has been labeled 'a matter of dispute' ... sha-zayam He has been described as a person who has never married and a non-romantic love life. Link Maybe, he had a sex disease and in the past, a social STD could be a devastating social trauma. My sincere apologies, for side-tracking this post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaiHome Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 I donâ??t think I was making fun of it at all. Was just saying I seemed to remember Jim Nabors as dying. I was mistaken, he almost died but got the transplant in time. TH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted February 24, 2009 Report Share Posted February 24, 2009 ...In other words: with a law like this: next time it might be me if some dark force would like to settle some account - maybe just discussing the law might be twisted to be considered an indirect form of LM... My understanding is, this is exactly how the LM law works. Basically an accusation of LM is made, but the specifics cannot be discussed, as that too is LM. might have misread some comments here but should a person's character, if he he is dumb, an asshole or a moron be of any relevance in a discussion about the relevance or severity of a penalty? Nice guys can go free, morons should go to jail, right? I thought the idea of a the legal system in a democracy is equality under the law. Exactly the point! And why do we keep getting pressed in a direction that is obviously irrelevant? Well, for starters, often times a judge will consider the charater of the defendent in passing sentence. If he is basically a nice guy who is sorry for his act, has a clean record and is likely to not repeat the crime or commit others then he gets a lighter sentence than say some arrogant guy who is not at all sorry and appears likely to commit the same crime again, or commit other crimes. Attitude or perceived attitude plays heavy in these situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.