Bob

Yep, and I hereby change his name to "Jethro DeBodine."

That's when they're trying to bury me in the sandbox.... You're either a cat person or you aren't. I "aren't." Other than thinking most kittens are rather cute, I generally dislike cats with a passion. A lot of them don't do diddley - just sit there looking superior and occasionally piss on the walls or something of the sort. If I walk into a house and can smell a cat (which, thankfully, isn't too often), I just about gag. Okay....the cat lovers can have at me....hehe.

Never heard of him....but please take your camera next time you see him. He does sound just a wee bit wacky.

Hell, if you're in Pattaya, you don't need to look up to see something weird. Get yourself a chair on Walking Street on any late night and watch the alien show. I've heard Chewbacca's in town...hehe.

What does or doesn't happen sexually between Tiger, his wife, and other women isn't any of our business and should never be the subject of public discourse. Just my opinion. Again, at least in my view, the discussion going on in the press about their private lives says more the press and readership than it does about Tiger and his wife. Again, just my view. As to some rag reporter saying he knows anything about what is (or what isn't) happening between Tiger and his wife and their respective attorneys is pure and unadulterated bullshit. None of those lawyers would say a word about what was discussed (or not discussed) with their respective clients as it would be against their code of ethics to do so (and could lose their license to practice over it) and, besides, they'd be easily civilly sued for millions - and don't think for a nanosecond that Tiger or the wife wouldn't go after their attorneys if one of them so much as even acknowledged that there was a meeting with their client let alone anything about what was discussed at such a meeting.

As PT Barnum said, there's one born every minute. The Daily Beast? Probably edited by one of those guys who the aliens probed. But, frankly, how they would have any inkling of what Tiger and his wife are discussing with lawyers (if anything at all) is way beyond me.....and I wouldn't believe that stuff for a nanosecond.

About 12 years ago. Upper midwestern city by a well-regarded opthamologist/surgeon who had already performed 7 or 8 hundred of the procedures (he was well qualified and still highly regarded). $2,100.00 per eye (total of $4,200.00). Yep, they often do both eyes at once.

It was probably his brother Billy. I would have reported him too (not too many people thought he was human....). The surest sign that there is other intelligent life in the universe is that they obviously have chosen not to contact us.

The lasik procedure is pretty easy and I think they did both of my eyes in about 10 minutes or less. There are some alternative ways to do it now but this is how mine went. You're lying on your back in something that resembles a dentist's chair with your head somewhat restrained. First, they give you some eye drops that take a minute or two to anaesthesize your eyeballs. Then they use some clamp to keep your upper and lower eyelid open (yea, I'm sure it looks like one of those torture devices that you've seen in a horror movie on tv). Then, they lower some round metal object and it kinda sucks onto your eyeball (this device contains the blade that slices the cornea). You don't feel the slicing going on but what bugged me later is they don't tell you that everything goes totally black for a couple of seconds (it's when the blade passes right in front of your pupil - and, for a second or two, I thought everything had gone wrong and I was totally friggin' blind!). After that, the doc uses a pair of tweezers to lift up the flap that the blade just sliced. Then, a laser machine from above starts zapping (surfacing) your eyeball. After 20 seconds or so of that, the doc flips the flap back on to your eyeball, pats it down a bit until he's happy it's back where it should be, and then tapes a plastic disk over your eye socket (the disc is there so you don't poke your eye while the cornea is healing for a day or so). Then they move on to the other eye. After 15 minutes or so, they let me go home - of course, I had these damn plastic discs taped on both eyes. The discs have little tiny airholes in them and you can partially see a little by tilting your head so you can somewhat see through one of those airholes (the rest of the plastic, although somewhat clear, is very difficult to see through). The nurses there panicked a bit when they realized I was going to try to drive myself home (I only lived 10 blocks away and didn't want to bother with having a friend take me). What was a bit funny was they were all in a tizzy and I simply walked out the door; however, once I walked out the door, I couldn't remember which way you got off the office porch there so I walked left right into some bushes...hehe. I quickly turned around and walked the other way (hearing a few "oh my gods!" as I passed the office door again...haha), got in the car, and drove off. It wasn't easy to drive looking through one of those damn airholes....but I got home without killing anybody (at least as far as I could see!). You're supposed to keep the plastic discs on your eyes for 24 hours. They bugged me so I took them off within a few hours. Oh...what was neat....as soon as the doc put the flap back on my eyeball (after the slicing, dicing, and lasering), I could read the clock on the wall in that office...something I couldn't do without glasses just a minute or two before. Rather cool.

Well, it's nice to see that the immigration computers at least link to the convictions here in Thailand! Besides being a convicted criminal, she's obviously a few fries short of a happy meal.

Well put, Khun lvdkeyes. Again, we have a story that the press goes gaga over that says a hell of a lot more about peoples' "need to know" such details than what it says about the participants of the story itself. The whole story is none of our business and a responsible press would have never printed one word from the sleazy slut.

I'd have to agree with you as the simple reporting of an object in the sky that seems different or unidentifiable is a normal thing to do. On the other hand, I stand by my "friggin' nuts" comments regarding those who claim they saw an alien, were abducted by aliens, and/or were probed by aliens in places the sun don't usually shine....hehe.

What, that they're all friggin' nuts? (sorry, too easy......)

Carefully consider it before you take that option. I was about 20/400 (pretty damn near-sighted), had fairly thick glasses, and opted to have that done about 12 years ago. For about 2 months, I had trouble focusing in on something close (like the speedometer on my car) but my long-distance vision was fantastic, especially at night. After 5-6 months, I slowly stopped driving at night because I frankly couldn't see well enough. Eventually, I got some glasses (albiet, a very light prescription - and a hell of a lot more pleasant to wear than the old ones!) which I would wear when driving and then, after another few months, I began wearing them all the time (which I continue to do to this day). Some things were nice. I went water skiing and tubing, something I hadn't done since I was in my 20's (I didn't do it cause, frankly, I couldn't see shit without my glasses, not even somebody giving hand signals from the boat). But the biggest hardship was that I effectively lost all my short vision (within 20 inches or so). I used to do a lot of woodworking and, if I got a sliver in my hand or a finger, previously it was easy to focus in even within 3 or 4 inches of my eyes, find the sliver, and extract it). Now, however, if that happens, I have to put on a powerful set of reading glasses and, combined with a lighted magnifier, I have about a 75% chance of even seeing the damn sliver. And you'd laugh your ass off if you saw me trying to thread fishing line through the eye of a hook! So, there are tradeoffs. I can see almost 20/20 without the glasses and can, for example, go to the bathroom at night without putting on my glasses (something I couldn't do before as I'd walk into a wall). But, it's very frustrating doing close work even with the good glasses (bifocals, of course) that I have. And, while I enjoyed the few times I went water skiing and tubing, I guess I kinda forgot that 90% of my life was within 3 feet of my face. So, for me, it's a very mixed blessing.

I think that's a bit unfair. Nobody is putting the guy on a pedestal but a lot of people have given him praise for the tons of good works he's done in the last 28 years. And, in my opinion, he deserves every bit of the praise. And do I think his opinion on many topics is more believable than those of most other politicians? Yes, I do. I think he's earned that by being truthful in the past. He might not always be 100% correct but I don't doubt for a moment that he says exactly what he believes. And that's really something in the world of politics. Carter got a load of crap about his comments a few months ago regarding what he felt the Israeli government was doing to the Palestinians; regardless, I think he was 100% correct on that one and it's about time that we (the US) adopted the stance that the Palestinians and the Israelis have the equal right to a homeland free from interference from the other.

Hmmmmmm..... I wonder if I have anything to worry about. The photos that came up of "famous" ESTJ people included Charlie Manson, Jeffrey Dahmer, Herman Goebels, Pol Pot, etc.....

I'm a "ESTJ", whatever the heck that is. But my score result added a "PS" that said something to the effect that I'm criminally insane too. No news there!

Dern, Beer Chang and lvdkeyes are both using the same line I've used for years. I was in a catholic preparatory-seminary high school for four years and nobody ever hit on me either. Guess I should change my name to Rodney Dangerfield (who's the guy, I think, that came up with the line: I was so ugly they had to tie a porkchop to my face to get the dog to play with me!)?

Historically, that's exactly what they did do and helped cover up the crimes already committed and set the creep priest out with new bait. But, to be fair, that's prior history (new policies in the last many years are actually fairly good ones - presuming all the bishops follow those rules).

He has to....as the nuclear vibrator makes way too much noise...

I'll be the first in line to condemn what many priests (although, to be fair, it was far less than 5% of them) did and what the church did in reaction to it; however, as anti-catholic church as I may be, it'd be totally unfair of me to suggest that the church hasn't changed how it's dealing with the issue.

I understand the concern - that we're over-medicating everybody. But......it would seem that caring parents would consult an expert or two and follow their advice (and it may very well be child neglect if the advice weren't followed). Just saying "no" before hearing what the doctors say seems almost like a Nancy Reagan reaction.

Unfortunately (and I'm a catholic or was at least raised as one), those whose (correct English?) job it was to look over the flock were simply flocking them much too often.

If the doctors say it's a good idea, I see nothing wrong with it. It's time, perhaps, that medical experts decided what's safe and therapeutic for use.

Presuming he is released (it appears he'll be), I'll bet you 5 baht he's gone in a flash and, of course, he'll stay out of Switzerland for a while.