The underlying coup agenda

Lest anyone doubt the complicity of the Palace in last year's coup, look no further than today's statement from the coup leader about the new constitution
Council for National Security (CNS) chairman Gen Sonthi Boonyaratkalin yesterday called for the new charter to enhance the monarchy's honour, power and status. Addressing a seminar on the constitution and the nation's future, he said Thailand would remain under a constitutional monarchy, so the charter should uphold the institution better.

Gen Sonthi's remarks followed the emergence of video clips deemed insulting to the King on the YouTube website. Several messages also deemed offensive to the King were posted on the Time website as the magazine's readers voted for candidates in the ''Time 100'' poll. Gen Sonthi raised the issue regarding the monarchy after saying that certain charter improvements he had suggested had not been addressed by the Constitution Drafting Committee (CDC).

Article 8 of the draft, which was being released to the public, retains Article 8 of the 1997 constitution. It states that the King ''shall be enthroned in a position of revered worship and shall not be violated and that no person shall expose the King to any sort of accusation or action''.Democracy, anyone?
http://www.bangkokpost.net/News/28Apr2007_news01.php

[Hmmm]

Let's see how sensitive the Thais are about the monarchy when the Prince (Sia O) takes the throne. The crown will have to confer one hell of a makeover.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maha_Vajiralongkorn

I know it is not polite to discuss such things as the monarchy, at least in terms of future monarchs. However, having spoken to a number of Thai's, I get the impression that whoever is thought to be in line for succession is not necessarily the one who will get it. I believe there to be a certain Princess waiting in the wings according to some. All said, deepest respect to his Majesty.

[Bob]

Yes, the Princess daughter is the person most Thais speak fondly of and it would be my guess that she would be very welcomed as the successor. About 10(?) years ago, a statute was passed that appeared to be laying the groundwork for the King to name his daughter as successor - the statute being passed at a time when the various transgressions of the Prince were fresher and more widely known. Yet, it seems that since early last year (with the somewhat royal blessing of the children of the current wife of the Prince), the pendulum is swinging toward the Crown Prince.

What's puzzling to me (but, of course, none of my business) is that the the Crown Prince has children by at least three different women (two of whom were wives). Based on what's happened since last June or so, it appears that only the Crown Prince's children by the current wife are now deemed succession material - a convenient but somewhat illogical (to me) step in any monarchy.

When the Princess' name comes up, Thais I've been around always express some form of admiration for her (she's widely known for her charitable and educational efforts). When the Prince's name comes up, there's either silence or a rather negative statement about him. If (Buddha forbid) something should happen to the King while the junta and interim government are in charge and if the Crown Prince became the next King, things could get very interesting.

[Hmmm]

Indeed, one of the theories regarding the reasons behind the coup is that it was Prem and the palace breaking up the cosy relationship between Thaksin and the Prince, thus restoring the Privy Council and the palace as the rightful arbiters of succession. This lends support to the idea that the likely successor may not be the Prince as assumed.

Indeed, one of the theories regarding the reasons behind the coup is that it was Prem and the palace breaking up the cosy relationship between Thaksin and the Prince, thus restoring the Privy Council and the palace as the rightful arbiters of succession.

It's more than just a theory.

As for succession, the people will not accept the Crown Prince as monarch, and the Prince's supporters (including the Queen) will not accept Princess Sirindhorn. Indeed, I think Sirindhorn's life would be in serious jeopardy in the unlikely event she was named to succeed the King.

Personally, I foresee the Crown Prince's infant child ascending the throne, with a regent hand-picked by the King making decisions until the child reaches majority.

[TrongpaiExpat]

I think that Crown Prince Vajiralongkorn will be the next King and will spend the rest of his live paying homage to his father in monument after monument and photo op after photo op with his mother by his side. The Thai people will pay respect to him out of reverence to King Bhumibol. In essence, the King Bhumibol will be ruling from the grave.

If it hadn't have been for this and if it hadn't have been for that. And, if this were to happen this may mean that will happen! If your aunts would have had balls, they would have been your uncles. Whist all of your theories are somewhat interesting, I am certain that the next monach has already been chosen, has been informed by the King and knows exactly what their position is and will be.

As Bob has already pointed out though, Buddha forbid indeed, that anything should happen to his majesty whilst the junta and interim government are in charge. Now that would be scary and give us all some serious shit to post about. http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u152/GeorgeThai/scared.gif


G.

As Bob has already pointed out though, Buddha forbid indeed... Surely God has given up, or couldn't care less? If there's a God who permits the Virginia Tech "event", why would such a creature care for what happens to the King of Thailand? S/he certainly didn't protect the Romanovs

As Bob has already pointed out though, Buddha forbid indeed... Surely God has given up, or couldn't care less? If there's a God who permits the Virginia Tech "event", why would such a creature care for what happens to the King of Thailand? S/he certainly didn't protect the Romanovs

God? Who said anything about God? http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u152/GeorgeThai/headscratch.gif


G.

Guys,

Do the posters know something that the rest of the World does not about the present monarch?? Queen Elizabeth the second is the same age and no one is pre supposing she is going to be disappearing anytime soon!

I hope for the peace and stability of this Country for the forseeable future, King Bhumibol the Great is around for quite a while yet.

Thailand has had its share of upheaval for the time being, military coups, unrest in the South, Bombs etc. It certainly does not need this kind of bad news thrust upon it as it could be the 'straw that broke the camels back'

Let's hope democratically held elections go ahead as planned,[ even though they picked the middle of the high season to do them!!] stability and common sense take power and Long live the King!

God? Who said anything about God?In what context are you using the phrase "Buddha forbid"?

Do the posters know something that the rest of the World does not about the present monarch?? Queen Elizabeth the second is the same age and no one is pre supposing she is going to be disappearing anytime soon!I certainly don't claim to know more than the rest of the world. However Bhumibhol's health difficulties are well known by everyone. He had heart problems only a few years ago, and spinal surgery last July. Foreign news reports from Bangkok-based journalists sometimes refer to him as "ailing". Why do you think the Thais are so worried? Monday "yellow" day madness continues, as they hope against hope that he'll live longer than the Crown Prince, whom most of them think is HIV+

God? Who said anything about God?In what context are you using the phrase "Buddha forbid"?

In the exact context in which I used it, Buddha forbid. Are you having a problem with that? If you are, I can't understand for the life of me why. http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u152/GeorgeThai/shrugs.gif


G.

[I can't understand for the life of me why.

Because it's stupid and makes no sense. You're trying to be witty by substituting "Buddha" for "God", when the two are not analogous.

[I can't understand for the life of me why.

Because it's stupid and makes no sense. You're trying to be witty by substituting "Buddha" for "God", when the two are not analogous.

I guess your handle says it all where you are concerned. Please don't say it is stupid and makes no sense. That may be true in your case as I believe you are stupid and make no sense, but I am sure that will not be the case where others are concerned. My statement with regard to Buddha, was originally a quote from Bob and one he had every right to use, he was also correct in doing so.

I guess only a genyus could probably construe that I was trying to be witty by using the phrase, although I am at a loss once again to understand how. http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u152/GeorgeThai/no_no-1.gif Please don't ever tell me again that I was substituting Buddha for anything, other than Buddha Himself. If I had meant God you moron, I would have said God.

Why does it not surprise me, that the only two people that seem to have had a problem with, first what Bob said and then with what I sad, were hommie and yourself. http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u152/GeorgeThai/rolleyes.gif

G.

My statement with regard to Buddha, was originally a quote from Bob and one he had every right to use, he was also correct in doing so.Bob was not correct, and neither are you. What does the phrase "Buddha forbid" mean, if Buddha is not a synonym for God? You've used a silly and meaningless expression and now cannot explain what it means, reinforcing the perception of stupidity or ignorance

[Bob]

I wasn't trying to be correct, Hom........and I couldn't care less of your approval or disaproval. As usual, thanks for your substantive input to the thread. :clown:

I wasn't trying to be correct, Hom........and I couldn't care less of your approval or disaprovalI neither approve nor disapprove. I'm merely stating the facts. As you say, you are not correct. Thank you for that clarification. Let's wait for George's pearls of wisdom on the topic

My first intention when I saw your post Hommie, was to ask you to arrange the following words into a well known phrase or saying. Those words being, Off Fuck. My reason for this was because of the posts I have seen of yours since joining the forum, plus older ones I have researched along with those of other members.

I believe that everyone should be afforded courtesy, with the exception of those that are undeserving of it and up to now, you have certainly fallen into that category as far as I am concerned. However, I am prepared to give everyone one chance, so here is yours along with the pearls of wisdom that you requested of me. I believe I will be wasting my time, as from experience I know it is impossible to teach someone anything, if they know all there is to know.

To begin with, I do not believe in God. Buddhist do not believe in God, so therefor would not substitute the name. I do believe in Buddha. As Buddhism is much older than Christianity, Buddha having been around some 500 years before your guy JC, if He is in fact your guy, so the religion I follow, (or Philosophy and way of life if you prefer) gives me every right in the world to use the term 'Buddha forbid'.

Jesus was a Bodhisattva or a 'Buddha in training', his teachings were almost exact to that of Buddha's. Jesus said he was god incarnate....people took that too literally and say the son of God like we think of a father and son relationship today.

As I have already said, Buddha predated Christ by over 500 years, and yet there are startling similarities between the life and teachings of these two figures.

One of the obvious differences between the teachings of Jesus and the Buddha, seem to be that Jesus spoke about enlightenment in a way that relied on the blessing of God, while Buddha taught that enlightenment would come through your own efforts.

Both have the intention of easing human suffering, one by salvation and one by arduous practice. Christ said 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'
Buddha said 'If you do not care for each other, who will care for you?'

Christ said, 'Don't worry about food and clothing and what you'll need tomorrow.' (paraphrased, it's the 'Lillie's of the field' speech) Buddha said, 'When wishes are few, the heart is happy, when desire ends, there is peace.'

In the Gospel of Thomas (so-called Gnostic text), there are several sayings which mention 'emptiness,' in the same manner as Buddha extolled.

I am not trying for one second to turn this into a debate over superiority, because Buddha never claimed to be a God, and he also believed that we should examine things and not just accept things as absolute truth.

The argument between us, should be discussion about why we assume the similarities are there (even the walk on water), and particularly the similarities in moral teachings.

Christianity teaches three key points, The first point is that their God's name is Jesus. It was believed that Jesus died for our sins and returned from the dead providing a way into Heaven. (Paradise.) The Christians Holy Text is called the bible.

The similarities between Christianity and Buddhism, are that they both have one central power, or higher being. In Christianity the higher being is called God, while in Buddhism they call the higher being Buddha. Another similarity between the two religions, are in both religions there is a life after death. In Christianity if one is good they will go to heaven, but if they are bad they will go to hell. However in Buddhism their after life is called Nirvana. Nirvana is a place where those who have done good go to, whilst those who are bad, stay on earth to get to Nirvana.


As I understand it, Gnosticism views Jesus as a man of normal biological birth, as Buddha was, who became a compelling teacher and perhaps (?) rabbi, who spoke out against the Roman Emperor's claim of divine birth.

Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha, was born in Nepal around 600BC into a royal family, as a young prince. He was struck by the differences between his existence and that of his people, this led him to leave his home and comforts, and pursue "the truth".

I have done my utmost here to attempt to explain my use of the phrase I chose in this thread, one which I used before this thread in other posts and one I will continue to use. So, that said, you donтАЩt have to like it or agree with it, I donтАЩt particularly care, but please get used to it, it will make your life easier and less stressful.

I have never been one to try and shove my beliefs down others throats and do not like those that do. I have raised what my beliefs are only in attempting to give you a full answer to your question. This reply is for you and you only, I do not intend to continue this argument here, so if there are still things you wish to pursue with regard to my reply, out of courtesy to others and in the fear that we may both bore them to death, Buddha forbid, you have my permission to do so by way of PM.

To close this post, I will do so by adding some more pearls of wisdom, this time from people much more worthy than I of giving them. Their comments, are all related to Buddha.

G.



Albert Einstein
"The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description тАжтАжтАжтАж If there is any religion that could cope with modern scientific needs, it would be Buddhism."

Professor Max Muller
тАЬThe BuddhaтАЩs moral code is the most perfect which the world has ever known.тАЭ

Albert Schweitzer
тАЬтАжтАжтАжHe gave expression to truths of everlasting value and advanced the ethics of not India alone but of humanity. Buddha was one of the greatest ethical men of genius ever bestowed upon the world.тАЭ

Aldous Huxley
"Alone of all the great world religions, Buddhism made its way without persecution, censorship or inquisition. In all these respects its record is enormously superior to other religions, which made its way among people addicted to militarism."

Professor Carl Gustav Jung
"As a student of comparative religions, I believe that Buddhism is the most perfect one the world has ever seen. The philosophy of the Buddha, the theory of evolution and the law of Karma were far superior to any other creed."

Bertrand Russell
" Buddhism is a combination of both speculative and scientific philosophy. It advocates the scientific method and pursues that to a finality that may be called rationalistic. In it are to be found answers to such questions of interest as тАЬWhat are mind and matter? Of them which is of greater importance? Is the Universe moving towards a goal? What is manтАЩs position? Is there living that is noble ? It takes up where science cannot lead because of the limitations of the latterтАЩs instruments. Its conquests are those of the mind."

H. G. Wells
"Buddhism has done more for the advance of world civilization and true culture than any other influences in the chronicles of mankind."

Arthur Schopenhauer
"If I am to take the results of my philosophy as the standard of truth, I should be obliged to concede to Buddhism the pre-eminence over the rest. In any case, it must be satisfaction to me to find my teaching in such close agreement with a religion professed by the majority of men. This agreement must be all the more satisfactory because in my philosophizing, I have certainly not been under its influence."

... you will know that I refer to Judaism, Christianity and Islam as "the Axis of Evil", so any notion that someone or other is "my guy" (a vomit-inducing phrase) is wide of the mark. I still don't understand what invoking Buddha as in the phrase "Buddha forbid" could possibly mean? Since, as you say, Buddha never claimed to be a god (in fact, said that all speculation about the existence of God is foolishness and a cause of suffering), what can the phrase "Buddha forbid" possibly mean? Furthermore, as I understand The Buddha's teachings we are to seek enlightenment through self-knowledge, and therefore the notion that Buddha would forbid anything is a contradiction in terms. His aim was to force his followers to figure things out for themselves. I feel you are falling into the trap of the Second Noble Truth - you are in denial, in this case about the nature of The Buddha, through your use of the phrase "Buddha forbid". As well, your desire to retreat into the realm of PM is entirely selfish - all of The Buddha's dialogs were conducted in public

Oct. 18, 2006 by Jesuiza Tay

After years of scientific research in an attempt to find where God truly is, scientists have concluded with a phenomenal discovery- Not only will God never come visit Earth, but He has, in fact, not been around for billions of years!

тАЬThe evidence all points to the same conclusionтАЭ remarks Shelly Warf, one of the head researchers in this study, тАЬIt also explains the violent and, at times, downright evil nature of this universe, despite there being an all-perfect, omnipotent being that created it all.

тАЬEver since humans first proclaimed that there must be a God, there have been others asking, тАШWhy would a God let such horrible problems happen?тАЩ For this, we finally have our answer. It just isnтАЩt what they expected it to be.тАЭ

But where is the evidence?

тАЬThatтАЩs simpleтАЭ Warf replies, тАЬEver wonder what a black hole really is? Most people think that they are collapsed stars that somehow still have their gravitational pull. But in this high-tech day and age, we know better than that silly mumbo-jumbo. The only thing that can contain so much power is God. Since God is invisible, itтАЩs only obvious that black holes must therefore be remnant of His body, which was blown up in the explosion that we call The Big Bang.

тАЬThis, of course, means that praying is pointless. God is dead- He canтАЩt hear you. Humans and their civilizations formed after The Big Bang, and so thus every human problem came to be without the help of God. This firmly explains, beyond a doubt, exactly why тАШa God would let this happen.тАЩ Because He didnтАЩt. ItтАЩs a ridiculous idea.тАЭ

There are still people that wonder- So how did The Big Bang occur in the first place? From the evidence gathered, God was extremely fond of explosives. But unfortunately, it seems God created an explosion so big that even He could not escape it.

... I still don't understand what invoking Buddha as in the phrase "Buddha forbid" could possibly mean?

You assume that my use of the word 'Buddha' in the phrase 'Buddha forbid', is a simple substitution for the word 'God' . You are correct to assume this, it is, or was initially, simply a word substitution with no great theological cause. Of course, when I was not a Buddhist, it may well have been common for me to use the phrase 'God forbid', so the phrase was a part of my vocabulary, picked up in childhood.

On embarking on the path to enlightenment, it struck me as ludicrous to continue to hang on to this phrase, which of course I could not say with any honesty as I no longer believed in God. So that said, how could a non-entity possibly forbid anything? However, as a creature of habit, the phrase popped in to mind and I resisted the urge to speak it. Instead, altering it to the phrase 'Buddha forbid', it at least in word form, assists me and helps to focus my thoughts.

As you and I have both pointed out, the characters 'God' and 'Buddha' are not analogous. Many people call their vacuum cleaners 'Hoovers', not because they are, but because the phrase hangs on. I am in no way suggesting, nor have I ever, that God and Buddha are one in the same. Clearly then, I am not as BG rather stupidly suggested, trying to be witty, which was the furthermost thing in my mind.


..., and therefore the notion that Buddha would forbid anything is a contradiction in terms.

On this point you are not totally correct. Do you imagine that Monks and other Buddhists, live under no organised set of rules or principles for life? There are 227 precepts that monks must observe, of which varying amounts of these need to be observed by novices. Clearly in setting out such precepts, Buddhism hopes to assist those that are serious about moving forward on the path. Forbid (in its formal usage) is a strong word and perhaps, if I could be bothered, I might retrain myself to use another phrase; however I haven't, so you'll just have to deal with it.


...His aim was to force (italics mine) his followers to figure things out for themselves. I feel you are falling into the trap of the Second Noble Truth - you are in denial, in this case about the nature of The Buddha, through your use of the phrase "Buddha forbid".

Really? If his aim was, as you say, 'to force his followers'; it doesn't really equate with the statement that you make, that 'his followers should figure things out for themselves'. Whilst self knowledge and self-actualisation are essential to Buddhism, clearly the precepts and vows are there to assist us on the path. Should we all simply 'figure things out for ourselves'? Surely the life of the Lord Buddha must count for something and we would be remiss not to follow such precepts? What is forbidden to Buddhists, are those things which as a result of our journey and our growing understanding of the Lord Buddhas correctness, we ourselves forbid in our lives, knowing that they do not assist us.


As well, your desire to retreat into the realm of PM is entirely selfish - all of The Buddha's dialogs were conducted in public

Selfish? In fact, because of my consideration for other members, I was in fact attempting to be the total opposite. These discussions about 'Buddha forbid', are effectively hijacking your thread by being completely off topic. Do you remember what the thread is about and why you started it? If you do, I doubt at this point that anyone else does. Does, what is turning in to a discussion of Buddhist concepts, really belong in this thread? At the time of my last post, we were having effectively, a personal dialog between two members. This in my opinion would have been better had it have been continued by way of PM and was the reason I suggested it. Particularly given, that it has little relevance to this threads original purpose.

Nevertheless , I hope this post of mine helps you to now at least understand my use of the term 'Buddha forbid', even if you disagree with it.


... you will know that I refer to Judaism, Christianity and Islam as "the Axis of Evil"

Actually, I didn't, even though I was aware that at times you give a pretty good impression of being the anti-Christ. http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u152/GeorgeThai/biglaugh.gif Had I have know this I wouldn't have made the statement that I did. At least I can conclude this post on a positive note, by informing you, that this is something that we both firmly agree on. Who would have believed that possible Hommie? http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u152/GeorgeThai/whistle.gif


G.

There are still people that wonder- So how did The Big Bang occur in the first place? From the evidence gathered, God was extremely fond of explosives. But unfortunately, it seems God created an explosion so big that even He could not escape it.

http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u152/GeorgeThai/roflao.gif http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u152/GeorgeThai/roflao.gif http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u152/GeorgeThai/roflao.gif Absolutely brilliant post jojopreppy. http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u152/GeorgeThai/luxhello.gif http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u152/GeorgeThai/luxhello.gif http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u152/GeorgeThai/luxhello.gif


G.

Dear George,

You, if you don't my saying, REALLY need to get yourself out more! Just an observation.


I'm logging off now before anyone can get one back in at me.




PS Did you know Leonard Nimoy who plays Mr. Spock is 6ft 11 inches. God/Buddha help him eh! and about as interesting!

Dear George,

You, if you don't my saying, REALLY need to get yourself out more! Just an observation.




K, I do believe that you may well be right with that statement and I am sure you will be pleased to hear that, I will be leaving home tonight to do some traveling for a week or more. I am sure that my absence will give you and a few others a chance for a well deserved rest. http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u152/GeorgeThai/biglaugh.gif

Choc Dee,

G.

[Aunty]

... I still don't understand what invoking Buddha as in the phrase "Buddha forbid" could possibly mean?

Well, Beryl, that's your misfortune. Try not to make it the whole boards now will you, you thick old bitch.

What a sad little post from George; hardly a recommendation for Buddhism as a belief system. That long list of the Great and the Good who recommended Buddhism reminds me of those lists homosexuals would recite among themselves to prove it was OK to be gay. Julius Caesar, Michaelangelo, Leonardo (da Vinci), Rock Hudson. George's list is no different, except I think almost none of them are practising Buddhists themselves.

..., and therefore the notion that Buddha would forbid anything is a contradiction in terms.
On this point you are not totally correct. Do you imagine that Monks and other Buddhists, live under no organised set of rules or principles for life?You are confusing what Buddha taught with what his followers subsequently developed - rather like Jesus and St Paul and the road to Cardinal Rottweiler (now Benedict XVI)

I'm fascinated to read that you are seeking enlightenment. How does this square with life as a sex-pat in Pattaya? It was no less a Buddhist authority than the Dalai Lama who pronounced that standard homosexual acts such as that old stand-by the head job, and buggery itself, were unacceptable - http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?o ... ew&id=1977 (http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1977). Pretty much every religion decries promiscuity as a distraction from the path to enlightment or holiness or whatever


altering it to the phrase 'Buddha forbid', it at least in word form, assists me and helps to focus my thoughts. How sad - and along the same lines, I find your swallowing whole all that tosh about Jesus being a boddhisatva tiresome, to say the least

..., and therefore the notion that Buddha would forbid anything is a contradiction in terms.
On this point you are not totally correct. Do you imagine that Monks and other Buddhists, live under no organised set of rules or principles for life?You are confusing what Buddha taught with what his followers subsequently developed - rather like Jesus and St Paul and the road to Cardinal Rottweiler (now Benedict XVI)

I'm fascinated to read that you are seeking enlightenment. How does this square with life as a sex-pat in Pattaya? It was no less a Buddhist authority than the Dalai Lama who pronounced that standard homosexual acts such as that old stand-by the head job, and buggery itself, were unacceptable - http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?o ... ew&id=1977 (http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1977). Pretty much every religion decries promiscuity as a distraction from the path to enlightment or holiness or whatever


altering it to the phrase 'Buddha forbid', it at least in word form, assists me and helps to focus my thoughts. How sad - and along the same lines, I find your swallowing whole all that tosh about Jesus being a boddhisatva tiresome, to say the least

... to be living in the same sort of world as Humpty Dumpty. You'll recall in Alice through the Looking Glass, written incidentally by a paedophile clergyman, that Humpty Dumpty says "When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less". If you want to communicate with other people, you need to use words and expressions as they are commonly understood. Hedda has the same problem. And you both live in Pattaya. Perhaps it's something in the water. Certainly your latest response avoids all the issues
http://www.sundials.org/about/humpty.htm

[Bob]

If you'll go back and look at the thread topic, you'll note your contribution to the topic was approximately zero. On the other hand, that's not entirely true. Actually, given you just derailed the topic to criticize in a silly fashion a side comment/phrase totally irrelevant to the thread, your contribution is less than zero.

Don't you really have something better to do? Go get laid or something.

Don't you really have something better to do? Go get laid or something.Not really, dear boy. It fills in the time between elevenses and luncheon, just as sodomy fills in the time between drinks and dinner

WOW. I'm so glad I looked. I usually ignore any thread that the Colonel starts, esp. pathetic pointless rages of jealousy on the new government - Im out of time, tired of setting the record straight. And ESPECIALLY those that he seems to have both started and always seems to be the last poster. I don't "put him on {ignore}", such droll tasks are beneath me, and not necessary to place himself in the lower reaches of the hells.

But this thread I finally checked out.

The Colonel is in fact quite correct to point out that the substitution of the Buddha for "God" in slang, using "the name" in vain, is completely pointless. Buddhists seem to have avoided developing Christian cussing, and that is good, and probably reflective of the superiority of Buddhist morality, if indeed Buddhism is a "religion" to be compared with others.

In fact, I ARNOLD was one of the early pioneers of that concept in one of our past Sawasdee religion threads or perhaps in discussions of the only flaws in a very popular book series about a Buddhist cop. So what does that say about the Colonel and the effectiveness of his self proclaimed putting me on his {IGNORE} key? I think he picked this argument up from someone else, ehhh Coloney?

George, you are correct on one point. Yes the Buddha came 500 years "before Christ" and yes he did warn never to believe anyone who would ever try to tell you that you should believe in a "superior being" and, yes, then came Christianity (about 400 years after Christ, by the way), and worst yet, Islam. Both came from pagan religions. And then came what appears to be your illusions as to what a "religion" should be. You say "don't believe in god (and you use a capital G, how odd) indicating you believe in it (which you say you don't) In case you haven't figured it out, there is no god to not believe in. You too, Coloney. Get with it, guys.

You mean,

This is ' AS GOOD AS IT GETS???' Oh God, I'm off for a lie down! Bit bloody unfair if you ask me.

War, Famine, Drought, Global warming, disease, Murder, Rape, ethnic problems, Religious differences,Sexual deviations and preferences,World heading for catastrophe and NOW you say its not gonna get any better, because there is no G.O.D.

Is there a Santa???

This has ruined my morning!

[Bob]

Yes, Kevin, there is a Santa. He's at one of the local bars, wears red briefs with #17, and has a 9" Mr. Happy. If you can catch him quick, you can save your morning....

Yes, Kevin, there is a Santa. He's at one of the local bars, wears red briefs with #17, and has a 9" Mr. Happy. If you can catch him quick, you can save your morning....


OK BOB,

Sure his name is St .Nick/or plain old Nick?? Don't want to cause any confusion with the Mamasan!

I'll ask around, saves me going in all the bars and walking out again if he's not there!!!!