55Jay

5 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

So, trying to be the best you can with the abilities you have, means to step on a slippery slope? Please tell me how "finding yourself" is in any way dangerous or detrimental to your mental sanity. Are you threatened that much?
I don't think I recommended you to read a single book or told you to follow any one person throughout my posts, so no, no religious pimp here. Thank you very much.

All I said was, that to evolve we have to search for the Truth within and don't give up at the first obstacle. 
I'm sure you'll agree that to follow this simple guideline, you don't need to be religious, nor do you have to dismiss it because you're atheist.

Indeed, I'm terrified about what I might learn fooling around in the corners of my mind where gods and spirits roam, like sea monsters just over the horizon of flat Earth. 

I don't mean to knock the spiritual gurus, just that they seem to follow a pattern in how they roll out their script in these kinds of discussions. 

Your post, the one I responded to, starts out with a passive aggressive dig at skeptics and atheists.  "For those who only believe what is rational, measurable and "categorizable". 

"Only believe".  That they limit themselves to a single source - science.  It's a soft shoe suggestion that, therefore, their understanding of the world and themselves, is limited.

* - Fair play I suppose.  Science geeks tend to razz the religious in the same way. ????

Next is the false dilemma with a confounding question.  In this case, Love.  Can you measure it?  "No, you can't!".  So you see, science can't answer everything! 

The question itself is meant to create a pause to be exploited, like an Amway salesman rushing the pitch before the door slams in his face.

The spiritual mongers will disarm by saying they're not religious, but god, et al, is woven into the script.  God was the second to last word in your comment. 

You are right though.  Science goons prefer the ordered, scientific process, and sure, they gravitate toward the rational, measurable and categorizable - even better, discoveries that create new, exciting categories.  Something religion and it's cousin, spirituality, don't offer.

The one thing you omitted in your characterization of rational science types is they will reject those who attempt to mystify something that's already known.  Like Love.  These days, a 7-year old with smart phone is able to learn about the fundamental chemical process in what we humans call "love", just as easily as they can learn why their finger will hurt if they smash it with a hammer, or what causes them to "feel" hungry.  

On 4/24/2019 at 1:03 PM, Sunmaster said:

Another thing to think about...

For those who only believe what is rational, measurable and "categorizable".
Do you think love exists? Do you feel it for your family members, friends, pets etc?
If you say yes, how can you prove it exists? 
Can you measure its length, weigh it, tell me what color it is?
You can't. You can only describe it in very limiting words, because it's a personal experience. You can describe it by telling me the consequences of loving. Yet, when you describe it, others who feel the same can relate to it and understand what you're saying.

Now let's take it a step further. 
God, Spirit, the Universal Force is by definition the ultimate Force, infinite Love, the converging point of all that is Good, True and Beautiful. 
That's why I find it funny when people ask "Which God?". God, the way I see it, is non-dual, the Gods you're talking about are simply different manifestations of the ONE. They are ways to describe the undescribeable, to put into form/words something that is beyond form and words. Hence, those (human!) descriptions will always be imperfect and create imperfect/faulty understanding.

Our life's goal as a human species, ought to be to expand our ability to love. First we love our parents, our family, then friends, then spouse, then children, some love their country (this is were most people stop), but also YOURSELF, Mother Earth, all living beings and so on, up to feeling love for God itself.

Thanks, Dr. Phil.

This is the slippery slope the "find thyself" spiritual mongers surf on.   Create and exploit doubt, fill the gap with the prescribed word salad from the Jesus Incorporated handbook about how to live your life according to "Him who is He".  They try to pass themselves off as neutral, "all we need is love" hippies, but they're no different to the religious pimps.

On 4/21/2019 at 1:41 PM, Cereal said:

No, I don't believe in God for the same reasons I don't believe in The Tooth Fairy, The Easter Bunny and Santa Claus: I'm not 4 years old and I'm not gullible.

A oft repeated cliche.  But it is maddening how religious parents eventually tell their kids the truth about those, but the jesus/god lie prevails, and infects future generations.

5 minutes ago, Pib said:

I would cry.   The UK/US/AU/DK embassies bugged-out and pretty much left their wounded citizens on the battlefield.   And no one can convince me the embassies still providing the income letters do any real income verification.

May have mentioned elsewhere before, chatted with a Canadian guy on Facebook.  He got a fresh income affidavit from his Embassy.   Appointment.  Show pension doc printed off the internet.  Letter issued.  In and out, 20 minutes, same as before.  Said TI accepted it no questions.  Funny old world. 

Just now, Pib said:

Yeap...the new carpet bombing rules are creating a lot of collateral damage...some innocent good guys are getting blown-up (unable to meet extension renewal requirements) because they were not given enough advance warning time to reach the bomb shelter...develop an alternate battle plan.  

A few embassies took direct hits and waved the white flag.  Others carry on with income affidavits same as before and it's all good with TI. 

Don't know whether to laugh or cry.  ????

23 minutes ago, jesimps said:

You must have a degree in stating the obvious. We all realise this and that's the reason we're attempting to comply rather than leave, especially those of us married with family here. We can all afford to abide by the new rules but it's difficult sometimes trying to comply with them and supply the proof that TI are demanding. These new rules have been badly thought out and I think that most on here will agree with that. I'll say again, it does NOT serve us right!

Not only does it not serve the intended recipients, it doesn't serve TI's raison d'être.  In particular the new 800k rule(s) to catch dodgy visa agents and their dodgy clients.   Saw a visa agent advert on Facebook the other day.  Bank account and Immigration "show money".  Not even trying to be discreet, right out in the open.

That's how these things go.  Crackdowns are dumb bombs.  TI doesn't have the brains or the drive to launch a few missiles and take out the bad guys surgically.  They are 1/2 the problem to begin with.  Meanwhile, the foot soldiers carry on carpet bombing innocent civilians because that's their "job".  Just following orders.

25 minutes ago, Spidey said:

I found it quite scary. I saw a long black tunnel with a purple horseman on a purple horse at the end of it. Apparently, a common phenomenon related to the brain being starved of oxygen. After that nothing, nada, zilch, carked.

Wow! ????

I fell last year, knocked myself out in an RV/caravan at 0200.  Wife said she held me in her lap on the floor as I gurgled and snored trying to breathe.  She thought she was watching me die, the last moments before it all goes still. 

I have no recollection, I was out, gone.  If I hadn't come back around, that would have been it, and I wouldn't know.  Khalas.  Finito.  Curtains.

Similar to watching our favorite old dog die here a few years ago.  In the last moments, she struggled up to her front legs unsteadily, looked at me, almost straight through me, baring what remained of her teeth, strained look on her face, and then it all washed away and everything relaxed, bowel/bladder, etc.  And that was it. 

19 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I'm not, as not understanding the genuinely important things, annoys the hell out of me!

 

Which is why I hope that our spirit/soul is separate from our bodies, and that this spirit/soul will be released to understand after we die.

Where and when did you get this idea about spirits and souls?  Released to where?  Understand what?  The moment after you die isn't important.  You won't even notice.  Cuz ur dead.

29 minutes ago, Gweiloman said:

Best method to use in reducing contact time with immigration is the 800k/400k method.
You already started another thread that you have at least 2 million in bank deposits in Thailand. Why complicate matters?


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Using the monthly income method, there is no 3 month post-extension seasoning, and no 400k hold limit on the account.

From an American perspective, cause he was one.  Some will consider it a cop out.  Others might consider it enlightenment, achieved near the end of his 'journey'.

3 minutes ago, Mansell said:

<snip> as you grow and evolve and have thousands of experiences of God and Spirit, so your knowledge expands as you move towards enlightenment <snip>

I've selected a snip of your comment, not to play "gotcha", rather, I mused that I could substitute "God and Spirit" with any number of man-made constructs and it would be "true" to the people who subscribe to it.   You could also delete it entirely and the sentence still works; in my opinion, it would be more honest and realistic, and is rather self-evident.

A more honest, simplistic view of us, as a species, is we are merely another strain of animals on this planet.  We are born, search for and consume food and water, defecate, reproduce, try not to get killed by other animals, and then we die.  Same as the soi dogs around my moo baan.

What sets us apart from other species is once our basic needs are met, we get bored and start concocting questions and making shit up to answer them.  Then we try to sell to others in the clan.  Who am I? Why am I here?  What's my purpose?  It's a billion dollar industry designed to extract money from people desperate to avoid a truth they refuse to accept. 

Sometimes the simplest, most obvious answer is, in fact, the answer.  Occam's razor.

On 4/17/2019 at 6:57 PM, NotYourBusiness said:

In the 60's and 70's the astronomer Carl Sagan announced that there were two important criteria for a planet to support life: The right kind of star, and a planet the right distance from that star. Given the roughly octillion—1 followed by 24 zeros—planets in the universe, there should have been about septillion—1 followed by 21 zeros—planets capable of supporting life.

With such spectacular odds, the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, a large, expensive collection of private and publicly funded projects launched in the 1960s, was sure to turn up something soon. Scientists listened with a vast radio telescopic network for signals that resembled coded intelligence and were not merely random. But as years passed, the silence from the rest of the universe was deafening. Congress defunded SETI in 1993, but the search continues with private funds. As of 2014, researches have discovered precisely bubkis—0 followed by nothing.

What happened? As our knowledge of the universe increased, it became clear that there were far more factors necessary for life than Sagan supposed. His two parameters grew to 10 and then 20 and then 50, and so the number of potentially life-supporting planets decreased accordingly. The number dropped to a few thousand planets and kept on plummeting.

Even SETI proponents acknowledged the problem. Peter Schenkel wrote in a 2006 piece for Skeptical Inquirer magazine: “In light of new findings and insights, it seems appropriate to put excessive euphoria to rest . . . . We should quietly admit that the early estimates . . . may no longer be tenable.”

As factors continued to be discovered, the number of possible planets hit zero, and kept going. In other words, the odds turned against any planet in the universe supporting life, including this one. Probability said that even we shouldn’t be here.

Today there are more than 200 known parameters necessary for a planet to support life—every single one of which must be perfectly met, or the whole thing falls apart. Without a massive planet like Jupiter nearby, whose gravity will draw away asteroids, a thousand times as many would hit Earth’s surface. The odds against life in the universe are simply astonishing.

Yet here we are, not only existing, but talking about existing. What can account for it? Can every one of those many parameters have been perfect by accident? At what point is it fair to admit that science suggests that we cannot be the result of random forces? Doesn’t assuming that an intelligence created these perfect conditions require far less faith than believing that a life-sustaining Earth just happened to beat the inconceivable odds to come into being?

There’s more. The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces—gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the “strong” and “weak” nuclear forces—were determined less than one millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction—by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000—then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp.

Multiply that single parameter by all the other necessary conditions, and the odds against the universe existing are so heart-stoppingly astronomical that the notion that it all “just happened” defies common sense. It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?

Fred Hoyle, the astronomer who coined the term “big bang,” said that his atheism was “greatly shaken” at these developments. He later wrote that “a common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology . . . . The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies has said that “the appearance of design is overwhelming” and Oxford professor Dr. John Lennox has said “the more we get to know about our universe, the more the hypothesis that there is a Creator . . . gains in credibility as the best explanation of why we are here.”

The greatest miracle of all time, without any close seconds, is the universe. It is the miracle of all miracles, one that ineluctably points with the combined brightness of every star to something—or Someone—beyond itself. - Eric Metaxas

Long story made short..... the answer to the Big Question is:  We don't know.  Yet. 

I'm cool with that. 

Our "Stuff"  ????

Just now, elviajero said:

Because he has the option of applying based on income or 800K in the bank. If he does the former he can do whatever he likes with his money. If the latter he must keep minimum balances.

 

Using income gives more flexibility.

 

It doesn’t matter if your office check or not. You need to maintain the minimum balances if you want to renew next year.

Don't disagree with what you're saying, and I know you've got the OP's best interests at heart when talking about the merits of the income method.  I was simply giving my opinion based on the question OP asked. /// 

8 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Surely you do it the other way around. Show the income first, and only if that’s not accepted pull out the account with 1M.

 

IMO opinion there is no advantage in needlessly tying up 800/400K.

Why are you talking about income?  OP's doing 800k show money in the bank and has to decide which account to use well before he ever gets to immigration, ie - tell the bank which account to base the bank letter on.  Just my opinion, use the cleaner one, keep it simple/straight forward.

Question of locking money up in a Thai bank isn't really relevant to OP's question. 

FWIW, my Immi office informed me last month that I had to leave my 800k untouched for 3 months after, and said it was subject to verification at my first 90-day report. Nothing in writing, they didn't specifically tell me I had to bring the bank book with me at the 90 day report either, but it was implied.  

Given the inconsistency around the country with Immigration, if it were me, I would use the fixed account with the solid 1m in it and the cleaner looking bank book.  Here's the bank letter, here's the matching bank book, lump of money seasoned properly.  You're done.  KISS. 

The other account/book would work but if you have a choice, which you do, then use the cleaner one and avoid giving bait to an I/O.

4 hours ago, Orton Rd said:

I did it once in 2010, just decided enough is enough. Left 800k on the table went to the airport and bought a Thai Airways one way to Heathrow. Checked in and was having a drink of wine when the Mrs called and persuaded me to go back. Getting back out from airside at the airport once checked in was no easy matter for some reason, but at least my visa was not cancelled.

Did you feel guilty for leaving like that, and let her keep the 800k?  ????

Go bag is, IME, a term used by SPECOPS military folks or sometimes first responders. 

No Go Bag for me, I'm way too comfortable and soft these days.  Even if the shit hit the fan here, civil unrest or some other calamity, depending on the circumstances, we would probably ride it out in place rather than trying to move overland during a shit storm.  As CharlieH said, depends on the circumstances, anticipated duration, etc.

Edit: another good example a few posts above -  "go bag" discipline is a prudent mindset living in areas prone to flood/storms, etc.  Keep all those critical documents in one place, grab and go....

21 minutes ago, connda said:

Ubonjoe.  Is there a link to those rule in Thai?  Perhaps Kastan can print out the Thai, have a native Thai lightlight that section of the law in yellow highlighter, and then return to the office for another try. 

And if they refuse again declaring that law isn't really the law - what options does the extension applicant have?

Possibly take the former Police Order as well and highlight the relevant sections in both - diplomatically of course.

Didn't read all, but yeah, she's right if this isn't your first extension.  I know as I just did my first retirement extension last month, after several years of married ones.  Seasoning was 2 months, not 3.  Will be 3 next year the second time around.