Avoid Delta and Atlanta

Miguel Cruz wrote:
Mxsmanic wrote:
The Reid writes:
is the difference here between a perception of an "international"
district and one of the country in general?

Perhaps it is the difference between a civilized metropolis and a
backward countryside.

Call them what you will, they still work hard and have no trouble with
the climate.

Of course Tak is up north and it is significantly cooler there than in
Bangkok or the south.

I agree with the "they still work hard" and I'm kind of offended by the
"backward countryside" remark. The Thai are not "backward" in my
experience.

Miguel Cruz wrote:
"Tchiowa" wrote:
The majority of people in Thailand have A/C available. Whether they
choose to buy it or not is a different story. In Bangkok probably 95%
of the middle class has A/C and half of the poor.

Half of the poor? What? Have you stepped outside the Paragon and the
Skytrain recently? You clearly move in rarefied circles that do not
represent the reality of Bangkok. Walk along the railroad tracks, along
the khlongs, all the really high-density areas. I'd be surprised if half
the poor in Bangkok have running water and four walls, let alone AC.

There is not a chance in hell that 50% of the Thai population has AC
available, unless you mean they have the option to walk into a 7-Eleven.

miguel

If you look at the poorer sections of Bangkok as you drive through
you'll see A/C units mounted on a substantial portion of them. Wooden
houses that don't seem (and probably aren't) sealed well enough to
fully take advantage of A/C still have them.

So, yes, in Bangkok (as I said) probably half of the poor have access
to A/C and not from 7-11.

I hope your comment about half not having 4 walls was intended to be a
facetious exageration because it has no bearing on the reality of
Bangkok in 2006.

In fact the water situation has improved so much over the past couple
of decades that the doctors no longer warn people to avoid it.

And remember that Bangkok is largely middle class (the poor are a small
and shrinking minority in Bangkok). So the poor are not representative
of Bangkok.

JohnT wrote:
"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...
Miguel Cruz writes:

This isn't what actually happens. I am sitting in front of the computer
with one fan and my skin is dry to the touch. The humidity today is in
the high 80s.

Your skin is never dry. You're just losing water to evaporation
before you notice it accumulating on your skin.

Lose what? People here are happy and comfortable.

Well, no, they aren't. In hot climates without air conditioning, it's
routine to complain continually about the heat.

Miguel says not. Miguel is respected on travel ngs. Mixi is not. QED.

Miguel is indeed well respected on travel ngs. But that doesn't alter
the fact that the statement above was 100% right: People in hot
climates without air conditioning regularly complain about the heat.

And since you asked someone else their experience in hot climates let
me point out that mine includes living and working in places like
Nigeria, Angola, DR Congo, Indonesia, Papua Niugini, Thailand and more
than a few other "hot climate" areas. Probably 80% of my time over the
past couple of decades.

My wife is Thai, born and raised, and always complained about having a
hard time sleeping during the hottest times of the year until I put A/C
in our house up country.

"Tchiowa" wrote:

The Reid wrote:

Nonsence, I live and work in a free market capitalist system that
chooses to fund medical care from taxes, that isnt a failed
communist state. you dont seem to be able to differentiate the
two.

You don't seem to understand that what you just described is called
"Socialism".

By you, obviously. Not by people who understand what socialism is.

Mike, you know the advice about arguing with an idiot, don't you?

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/

Padraig Breathnach wrote:
"Tchiowa" wrote:

The Reid wrote:

Nonsence, I live and work in a free market capitalist system that
chooses to fund medical care from taxes, that isnt a failed
communist state. you dont seem to be able to differentiate the
two.

You don't seem to understand that what you just described is called
"Socialism".

By you, obviously. Not by people who understand what socialism is.

Socialism is an economic system where businesses are either owned or
controlled by the government, which is *exactly* what the Socialized
Medical programs we're discussing are. Or to look at others'
definitions:

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition

"Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the
means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a
centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."

WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

"a political theory advocating state ownership of industry"

Mike, you know the advice about arguing with an idiot, don't you?

That's a lot easier than actually responding to the documented points,
isn't it?

"Tchiowa" wrote:

Padraig Breathnach wrote:
"Tchiowa" wrote:

You don't seem to understand that what you just described is called
"Socialism".

By you, obviously. Not by people who understand what socialism is.

Socialism is an economic system where businesses are either owned or
controlled by the government, which is *exactly* what the Socialized
Medical programs we're discussing are.

********. States "own" armies and navies. By such a definition, they
would be instances of socialism.

Or to look at others'
definitions:

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition

"Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the
means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a
centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."

That is not a profound definition, but still does not come anywhere
near supporting your claim.

WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

"a political theory advocating state ownership of industry"

A trivial definition which tells us almost nothing.

Mike, you know the advice about arguing with an idiot, don't you?

That's a lot easier than actually responding to the documented points,
isn't it?

Given the quality of the points you make and the weighty documentation
that you adduce, it's no more trouble than swatting a fly.

But it's not worth my while. Your approach to argument is (to put it
mildly) unsatisfactory.

--
PB
The return address has been MUNGED
My travel writing: http://www.iol.ie/~draoi/

Padraig Breathnach wrote:
"Tchiowa" wrote:

Padraig Breathnach wrote:
"Tchiowa" wrote:

You don't seem to understand that what you just described is called
"Socialism".

By you, obviously. Not by people who understand what socialism is.

Socialism is an economic system where businesses are either owned or
controlled by the government, which is *exactly* what the Socialized
Medical programs we're discussing are.

********. States "own" armies and navies. By such a definition, they
would be instances of socialism.

And you were under the impression that armies are a "business"????

Or to look at others'
definitions:

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition

"Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the
means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a
centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."

That is not a profound definition, but still does not come anywhere
near supporting your claim.

It *exactly* supports my claim.

WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

"a political theory advocating state ownership of industry"

A trivial definition which tells us almost nothing.

"State ownership" doesn't mean anything??? It's what causes the system
to fail.

Mike, you know the advice about arguing with an idiot, don't you?

That's a lot easier than actually responding to the documented points,
isn't it?

Given the quality of the points you make and the weighty documentation
that you adduce, it's no more trouble than swatting a fly.

But it's not worth my while. Your approach to argument is (to put it
mildly) unsatisfactory.

Particularly since it proved you wrong. You obviously find that quite
"unsatisfactory".

The Reid wrote:
Following up to Mxsmanic


More people die from cold than hot.

No, more people die from hot weather. Hot weather is the most lethal
of natural weather phenomena.


what time of the year do most deaths occur in the northern
hemisphere?

Does it differ in the southern part of the planet?

Mxsmanic wrote:

Dave Frightens Me writes:


No it is not. Hypothermia is a much greater risk that hyperthermia.


Right now officials in California are complaining that they don't have
enough space to contain all the dead bodies from the heat wave. You
don't often hear that in winter, even when the cold is very extreme.


Can you cite this?
I am in California, and I seemed to have missed this on the local news.

JohnT wrote:

What extreme cold is there in Southern California? it did snow once in San
Diego, briefly, but that was in 1912.

It snows quite a bit in SoCal.
You must know about those big things that rise thousands of feet above
sea level? You know, mountains.