World News closed: Entertainment News still open.

[puchooay]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

That's what I said, if you read it properly. The present posters might have joined up when considerably younger, which is what I did.

 

How many young people do you know that want to know where to buy a pizza in Pattaya when they don't live there?

 

I have no reason to not want young people to join, as long as the forum doesn't abandon it's primary purpose of being a resource for those living in or visiting Thailand to cater for them. You made that up.

 

Excellent. You are trying your best to ween your self out of this but failing. Now you seem to think there are no young people living in Pattaya. You previously said tourists have joined TV. So, no young tourists in Pattaya either. Amazing.

[thaibeachlovers]

37 minutes ago, puchooay said:

Excellent. You are trying your best to ween your self out of this but failing. Now you seem to think there are no young people living in Pattaya. You previously said tourists have joined TV. So, no young tourists in Pattaya either. Amazing.

LOL. Did you ever go to Pattaya before corona? It wasn't a young person town, and no bagpackers that I saw visited- probably because they seem to go around in couples and IMO western women have no interest in Pattaya, for obvious reasons.

 

So despite your attempt to score points, no, not many young western tourists stayed in Pattaya, and why would they? it doesn't have the vibe of KSR or Pai. Bagpackers had a well trodden trail to follow from KSR to the gulf islands ( Had Rin for full moon or other times for half moon parties  ), across the peninsula to Krabi , then up to Chiang Mai, then Pai and perhaps the Mae Hong Son Loop before heading up to Thaton. Kanchanaburi was also popular for the railway, and that would have taken most if not all their time in LOS. Not much in Pattaya to entice them, and no hostels like their more popular destinations have.

[ozimoron]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. Did you ever go to Pattaya before corona? It wasn't a young person town

 

I was about 30 when I first visited Pattaya. For the couple of years before that I used to take girls from soi cowboy and go to a backpacker beach on Phuket named Ao Sane. I had not long returned from a trip to Kathmandu where I met a couple of backpackers who introduced me to soi cowboy. On my way to Kathmandu, I went to Samui where there were no tourists except backpackers. Now I'm 66.

[puchooay]

26 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. Did you ever go to Pattaya before corona? It wasn't a young person town, and no bagpackers that I saw visited- probably because they seem to go around in couples and IMO western women have no interest in Pattaya, for obvious reasons.

 

So despite your attempt to score points, no, not many young western tourists stayed in Pattaya, and why would they? it doesn't have the vibe of KSR or Pai. Bagpackers had a well trodden trail to follow from KSR to the gulf islands ( Had Rin for full moon or other times for half moon parties  ), across the peninsula to Krabi , then up to Chiang Mai, then Pai and perhaps the Mae Hong Son Loop before heading up to Thaton. Kanchanaburi was also popular for the railway, and that would have taken most if not all their time in LOS. Not much in Pattaya to entice them, and no hostels like their more popular destinations have.

Not talking about the backpackers (not bagpackers). Talking about the hundreds of teachers, scuba dive instructors, 20 something tourists that spend their R and R time on 28/28 rotations from work. Loads of them.

 

Anyway, my initial response to you was with regards to young people in Thailand as a whole. So, those places that you mentioned are included in that. As are the myriad of places that have young teachers, volunteers and the like. Many of whom use the internet and would likely be interested in some new injection of subjects on TV. 

 

 

Edited April 11, 2021 by puchooay

[ballpoint]

To me, the writing was on the wall for world news when governments began passing legislation making Facebook and Google responsible for news items posted on their sites, and therefore becoming liable to pay royalties to newspaper and television companies, even when it was their members and not themselves doing the posting.  While TV was able to legally provide news stories by negotiating with press agencies, I'd imagine the challenge of removing unauthorised content posted by members in multiple threads, and the multiple replies quoting that content - all the while knowing that even just one post missed could present a legal challenge, got to be too much, and it was far simpler, and safer, to totally remove the world news forum.

[Jingthing]

11 minutes ago, ballpoint said:

To me, the writing was on the wall for world news when governments began passing legislation making Facebook and Google responsible for news items posted on their sites, and therefore becoming liable to pay royalties to newspaper and television companies, even when it was their members and not themselves doing the posting.  While TV was able to legally provide news stories by negotiating with press agencies, I'd imagine the challenge of removing unauthorised content posted by members in multiple threads, and the multiple replies quoting that content - all the while knowing that even just one post missed could present a legal challenge, got to be too much, and it was far simpler, and safer, to totally remove the world news forum.

I doubt that theory

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[ballpoint]

17 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I doubt that theory

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

You just have to look at Facebook's reaction to Australia's new legislation on news stories - initially banning all links to Australian news items posted by any users, as well as banning all links to any news items, no matter what country they came from, when posted by Australian users, before reaching an agreement with the government which involves Facebook having to negotiate with, and pay royalties to, Australian media companies.  Given the resources and reach of Facebook, would it be so surprising for a much smaller social platform to take a far simple option by removing just two (counting Entertainment News, which also relied on international news sources for its material) sub forums out of the many Thai related ones, which, after all, are what this place is all about?

 

It was one thing for TV to close down the world news forum, but to also remove all trace of it from the internet suggests that it wasn't just the task of ongoing policing of current and future posts that was the concern, but what was written and on record in previous ones also played a part in the decision.

[Jingthing]

Just now, ballpoint said:

You just have to look at Facebook's reaction to Australia's new legislation on news stories - initially banning all links to Australian news items posted by any users, as well as banning all links to any news items, no matter what country they came from, when posted by Australian users, before reaching an agreement with the government which involves Facebook having to negotiate with, and pay royalties to, Australian media companies.  Given the resources and reach of Facebook, would it be so surprising for a much smaller social platform to take a far simple option by removing just two (counting Entertainment News, which also relied on international news sources for its material) sub forums out of the many Thai related ones, which, after all, are what this place is all about?

 

It was one thing for TV to close down the world news forum, but to also remove all trace of it from the internet suggests that it wasn't just the task of ongoing policing of current and future posts that was the concern, but what was written and on record in previous ones also played a part in the decision.

I think it was probably about search engine indexing.

[ballpoint]

7 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

I think it was probably about search engine indexing.

Dammit, how can I play the Devil's advocate when you keep coming along with sensible replies?

[polpott]

4 hours ago, ballpoint said:

To me, the writing was on the wall for world news when governments began passing legislation making Facebook and Google responsible for news items posted on their sites, and therefore becoming liable to pay royalties to newspaper and television companies, even when it was their members and not themselves doing the posting.  While TV was able to legally provide news stories by negotiating with press agencies, I'd imagine the challenge of removing unauthorised content posted by members in multiple threads, and the multiple replies quoting that content - all the while knowing that even just one post missed could present a legal challenge, got to be too much, and it was far simpler, and safer, to totally remove the world news forum.

The same sources still get quoted in other forums, the Covid  forums for instance.

[dbrenn]

TV advertising revenue would be well down because of all the fallout from Covid. 

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, puchooay said:

Not talking about the backpackers (not bagpackers). Talking about the hundreds of teachers, scuba dive instructors, 20 something tourists that spend their R and R time on 28/28 rotations from work. Loads of them.

 

Anyway, my initial response to you was with regards to young people in Thailand as a whole. So, those places that you mentioned are included in that. As are the myriad of places that have young teachers, volunteers and the like. Many of whom use the internet and would likely be interested in some new injection of subjects on TV. 

 

 

Who made you a grammar policeman? I've been calling them bagpackers for decades and will continue to do so.

[thaibeachlovers]

9 hours ago, puchooay said:

 

 

Anyway, my initial response to you was with regards to young people in Thailand as a whole. So, those places that you mentioned are included in that. As are the myriad of places that have young teachers, volunteers and the like. Many of whom use the internet and would likely be interested in some new injection of subjects on TV. 

 

 

By all means let as many people as possible use TVF, but I haven't seen any suggestions as how TVF can become a more attractive place for them, other than making it like facethingy and making it easier to post pictures ( not that I've ever had a problem doing so ).

I'm interested to read your suggestions for a new and improved TVF. Don't leave it up to "someone else" to come up with the answer.

Edited April 11, 2021 by thaibeachlovers

[CharlieH]

For those that wish to look at/post world topics and events, new sub forums have been created in the  "home country" forum.

 

 

[puchooay]

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

By all means let as many people as possible use TVF, but I haven't seen any suggestions as how TVF can become a more attractive place for them, other than making it like facethingy and making it easier to post pictures ( not that I've ever had a problem doing so ).

I'm interested to read your suggestions for a new and improved TVF. Don't leave it up to "someone else" to come up with the answer.

It is my understanding that another poster mentioned making TV more attractive for younger people, not I.

 

I was merely asking you why you think there are no young people living in Thailand.

[polpott]

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Who made you a grammar policeman? I've been calling them bagpackers for decades and will continue to do so.

Bagpackers and backpackers are 2 different demographics and the term "bagpackers" hasn't been around for decades.

[7by7]

On 4/11/2021 at 1:17 PM, thaibeachlovers said:

Due to things invented during WW2 life began to change quite quickly after it was over. The first operational electrically operated computer was invented to break Enigma, and that started probably the largest change in human behavior ever. Also major advances in aircraft eg the jet engine.

It's got to the stage where it seems new inventions are obsolete even before they are taken up in significant numbers. IMO hydrogen is going to replace battery cars even before they become universal, no doubt to Elon's disappointment.

 

No argument from me over any of that.

 

But it doesn't have much to do with your comment

On 4/11/2021 at 12:49 PM, thaibeachlovers said:

Many of the changes that have been made since WW2 have been disastrous for the environment, and the primary motivation of business now seems to be making a profit rather than serving humanity.

and my response

On 4/11/2021 at 1:00 PM, 7by7 said:

Since WWII? No. 'Twas ever thus; even before the Industrial Revolution, but more so since.

 

Even less to do with the topic of this thread!

[7by7]

15 hours ago, CharlieH said:

For those that wish to look at/post world topics and events, new sub forums have been created in the  "home country" forum.

 

 

"NO POLITICAL discussions."

 

I'm sure that you and your fellow mods plus the admin team fought hard for this concession from the owners; but, with respect; a forum where one can "look at/post world topics and events" without political discussion is akin to non alcoholic beer.

 

Watered down and pointless.

[CharlieH]

7 hours ago, 7by7 said:

"NO POLITICAL discussions."

 

I'm sure that you and your fellow mods plus the admin team fought hard for this concession from the owners; but, with respect; a forum where one can "look at/post world topics and events" without political discussion is akin to non alcoholic beer.

 

Watered down and pointless.

Just as well then that your approval nor your participation are required.

 

[polpott]

4 hours ago, CharlieH said:

Just as well then that your approval nor your participation are required.

 

Just let the forum quietly die.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 4/13/2021 at 10:54 AM, polpott said:

Just let the forum quietly die.

I always thought that the POSTERS are what the forum is about. Without US, there isn't a forum, by default.

If, as seems apparent by certain comments, posters are not what the forum is about, and not even important, then I agree with you. Time to pull the plug, perhaps.

 

I'll be sorry to see it go after it was a big part of my life for many, many years, but everything ends. I used to post more on Lonely Planet than on TVF till it went badly down hill and most of the regular posters left ( including me ) Last time I looked at it, it was too pathetic to even bother with, IMO.

[polpott]

Just now, thaibeachlovers said:

I always thought that the POSTERS are what the forum is about. Without US, there isn't a forum, by default.

If, as seems apparent by certain comments, posters are not what the forum is about, and not even important, then I agree with you. Time to pull the plug, perhaps.

 

I'll be sorry to see it go after it was a big part of my life for many, many years, but everything ends. I used to post more on Lonely Planet than on TVF till it went badly down hill and most of the regular posters left ( including me ) Last time I looked at it, it was too pathetic to even bother with, IMO.

What puzzles me is that political discussion, apart from Thai politics is now effectively banned. Most of that discussion appeared in World News. To mitigate the closure, new topics were opened in home country forums. However, all writ large with "NO POLITICS". What was the point in creating them?

 

So political discussion is now banned on TV.

 

Recently NWG's PA acquired a competing forum. PA is known for banning all politics. Is this move in preparation for the acquisition of TV by PA?

[thaibeachlovers]

31 minutes ago, polpott said:

What puzzles me is that political discussion, apart from Thai politics is now effectively banned. Most of that discussion appeared in World News. To mitigate the closure, new topics were opened in home country forums. However, all writ large with "NO POLITICS". What was the point in creating them?

 

So political discussion is now banned on TV.

 

Recently NWG's PA acquired a competing forum. PA is known for banning all politics. Is this move in preparation for the acquisition of TV by PA?

Far as I know, politics has always been banned on all subforums except news. That was my first suspension for posting a political post on a different subforum.

[thaibeachlovers]

33 minutes ago, polpott said:

To mitigate the closure, new topics were opened in home country forums. However, all writ large with "NO POLITICS". What was the point in creating them?

I don't see the point of opening them and I have no idea what people will post on them, if they can't be discussed.

Non political posts were always OK on home country subforums.

[impulse]

On 4/7/2021 at 7:10 PM, KannikaP said:

Let's have a poll.....how many of you log on in order to see the adverts,  have looked or responded to one of the ads on TV?

 

When I first got on TVF, (2011) I often clicked on ads, and sometimes even spent money based on that action.  Then, during one of the many format changes, the ads got so intrusive and detached from Thailand that I could hardly download and view the forum at all.  So I installed an ad blocker.

 

One of my pet peeves about living in Thailand is that we usually hear about activities after the fact, if at all.  Car races, boat races, scooter races, cycling activities, sailboat races, jet ski races, trade shows, exhibitions, pet shows, concerts, parties, and on and on.    Plus, it's often hard to find eclectic stuff that I missed from "back home".   So the ads were interesting.  There's a genuine place for ads.  But those weren't the ads we were seeing during some of the TVF incarnations, and the ones we did see often took up most of the screen and took forever to download and you'd see 5 copies of the same irritating, oversized ad on a single page, blotting out all the rest.  Often made the site unusable, peddling stuff to make my skin whiter and the hair on my bald head shiny and manageable.  

Edited April 14, 2021 by impulse

[CharlieH]

3 hours ago, polpott said:

What puzzles me is that political discussion, apart from Thai politics is now effectively banned. Most of that discussion appeared in World News. To mitigate the closure, new topics were opened in home country forums. However, all writ large with "NO POLITICS". What was the point in creating them?

 

So political discussion is now banned on TV.

 

Recently NWG's PA acquired a competing forum. PA is known for banning all politics. Is this move in preparation for the acquisition of TV by PA?

When the World news forum was open, it wasnt just politics.

Any newspaper doesnt consist of just politics. If you wanted to discuss/comment on anything that is happening in the world  (not political) where would you post it prior to those sub forums being created ?

Now members have a place, prior to that, if it wasnt posted in World news as a topic, there was nowhere anyone could discuss/post items, now there is.