eisfeld

The admins and mods decide what is acceptable content on this forum. They don't just go delete content that might just barely be maybe not 100% true or maybe just barely pulling someones leg. They from what I've whitnessed delete gross violations of the rules. When you said censoring opinions is the epitome of fascism that's just a generalization and extreme point of view. There simply are in a balanced society expressions that are not ok. I can't go and say it's my opinion that novacova is an evil person that likes to touch kids. It would be an outright lie and there is nothing bad about removing such a post. Same goes for claiming things that are flat out wrong and might be harmful to others if they believed what they read. Interaction and communication between humans can't be a free for all. Modern society has established rules that we live by to prevent total chaos. It's ok to doubt and question stuff from reputable sources. It's not ok to spread completely bogus misinformation. It's a core concept for a working society. But it's a balancing act where to draw the line and enforcement wont ever be 100% correct. That's life.

How do you know that they delete posts just because they don't agree with them? I've seen plenty of your posts being deleted because they were for example misinformation or conspiracy theorist content. It's easy to just assume the mods delete them because they have a different opinion but that's just an assumption on your part. The more likely scenario is that the posts simply broke the forum rules. I am actually surprised someone is allowed to accumulate 12 suspensions and continue.

Not falling for that trap, you are just baiting us to break the "no commenting on forum moderation" rule! :P Jokes aside I think it's a refreshing topic that shows admins are willing to be more open about the challenges and processes of running a community/forum. I applaud this effort. As for specific feedback: as mentioned by others in this thread there are a few members who open a lot of threads in the pub subsection that well... are pretty much bartalk. I don't have anything against people doing that but there is a section on the right of the page that shows active topics. I use this a lot for discovery and I think it would be great if the pub topics were not included in there unless one specifically browses that part of the forum. Ideally one could maybe configure which subforums one wants to show up there but I don't know if the software allows for that. That's what made Reddit so big. I was never a poster there but as a reader one could dive into the topics one was interested in without being forced to see stuff one didn't want. But at the same time one could easily see what is on offer in general if one so chose. My second biggest gripe with the forum is the personal attacks, baiting, trolling and general toxic attitude of some which I guess this topic is exactly about. I've read the posted file and found it gives a pretty good overview of the general issue of toxic posters and how to handle them. I fully agree with the light handed approach instead of dishing out bans.

Looks like she was doing more than 100kph from what I can see in the video. The car crossed the intersection in a bit more than a second. About twice as fast as the motorcycle. As a motorcycle rider myself I really hope she gets a very long stint in prison, this is completely reckless. I've observed also a lot of very aggressively driving Russians in the past year. They just do whatever they want with usually zero repercussions.

Have to be honest, high cc single from Ducati was not on my bingo card. Looks like fun but also sounds like it'll make the power all at the top instead of being a super punchy thumper? We'll see how it compares against the Huskies. I also have to say Audi is really pushing Ducati since they took over. Not bad.

Just gonna leave these here...

It even happened to me when leaving Thailand. The young immigration officer claimed my visa wasn't real. She said 2 year permission of stay don't exist. Took nearly 30min and a whopping 3 officers wondering about my passport if the stamps are real and looking through their system even though I explained it's from the BOI until a senior officer got a look and told them it's real... so yea anything can happen really :)

That means the e-Visa system is dynamic depending on the chosen embassy/consulate because I went through the system not long ago and it didn't ask for those pages. It didn't ask for financial proof either weirdly.

Wow, so they didn't unify the system even between EU countries? They don't ask for this on the Munich page. Is it just an old page on the helsinki website or does the e-Visa system really ask for those pages?

Tourists can be tax residents of course. The tax code does not care about what visa one has when it comes to determining tax residency. Over 180 days in the country? => tax resident. Never understood why people want to mix these two different topics 🙂

They only ask for the biodata page of the passport. What pages are you thinking of that would make someone falsify them? The passport info is not related to the proof of residence stuff.

Yes you do. And you have to apply at the respective embassy/consulate that is relevant for your foreign place of residence. But there is no way to check if you yourself are currently in that place. For example if you live in New York then you apply online and choose the New York consulate to process the application. You submit some proof of residence for New York. You can do that while visiting family in Canada. You do have to show your flight booking and I don't know if it would raise questions if that showed you were flying from Canada for example.

Since the e-Visa system was introduced you can be anywhere really. You don't get the visa glued into your passport anymore. You just get a digital version that you can print.

The second link I provided speaks of general visa-exempt entries. The reason why I included the the link regarding french nationals was because it is very recent and from the offical website of the Ministry of Foreign affairs. I doubt holders of official passports (diplomats) will have more stringent rules than people with ordinary passports.

The information I'm seeing on my local consulates website seems pretty clear (I quoted it earlier). Unlimited visa-exempt entries via air and 2 by land. That though doesn't mean that an officer wont find it strange if someone enters a lot of times by air and might ask questions. It's also in the immigration officers discretion to deny entry if they suspect someone might be working on a tourist visa or similar. This limitation does not apply to people holding a valid visa.

Can you maybe provide a little bit of information or sources instead of just saying "Nup." or "They are wrong"? That would be much more helpful. Here for example a recent (end of September and the rule they say is about to be implemented) announcement (for french passport holders but you get the idea): https://www.mfa.go.th/en/content/thfrvisaexemption-2?page=5d5bd3da15e39c306002aaf9&menu=5d5bd3dd15e39c306002ab1d My quote was from the Royal Thai Consulate-General Munich: https://munich.thaiembassy.org/de/page/visaexemption There's a note that changes to the visa application system mainly regarding the e-Visa stuff have gone into effect just just a few days ago (28th October).

Can you provide any evidence that the 90 day per 180 days rule is not applied? I quoted directly from the official website of my local german Thai consolute which on the same page has very recent information about new rules so it's not some outdated forgotten page. It was also confirmed to me by the staff two weeks ago.

Recently a rule was introduced that limits visa-exempt entries to a max of 90 days in a 180 day period starting from the first entry. Visas have to be obtained via the e-Visa system now and are handled by the embassy/consulate of your regular place of residence. Your best option for now might be to go for a multi-entry tourist visa which allows you to stay 60+30 days per entry. It is valid for 180 days so if timed perfectly it can give you up to 6months + another 90 days so a total of nearly 9 months. Enough to bridge the winter. There are no clear rules as to the limit of back-to-back tourist visas that one can use as far as I know. If you stay 6 months a year chances are it should be OK but there are no guarantees whatsoever and you might be refused at any point.

I hope you take her off every now and then 🙂

The CDC updated *their* definition of vaccines because the old one might lead some people to believe that vacciness will be in all cases cause immunity which of course can't be the case. They are not a 100% sure way of protection. They refined the wording to be more precise. This has nothing to do with mRNA in particular but is applicable to all vaccines no matter the type. And again, you misleadingly stated it as if the general definition of vaccines had to be changed and that it was due to mRNA. This is not the case.

The CDC refined the wording for their explanation on their website. They are not the ones who control the definition of the word vaccine. Nor were those changes done because of the introduction of mRNA vaccines. You are simply again misleading people.

Yea sure, I'll get my medical information from someone on Youtube who works in finance and for which immediately after searching his name one finds misinformation reports and claim debunks. Hey he even made it onto Reuters with his misinformation. I should not listen to the half dozen doctors that I had interacted with while accompanying my family members through years of cancer treatments. Got it, sounds like a smart plan. Not. https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-excess-mortality-idUSL2N2VS1BI

You don't die from cancer out of the blue at 60. Cancer in older people grows usually rather slowly as it is metabolism and cell growth related. I've had two cases of cancer in my immediate family plus one in the circle of friends so I'm familiar with the topic. This was months or years in the making. And it has nothing to do with Covid vaccines. You conveniently omitted the fact that he died of something completely unrelated in your earlier post and made it sound like it was vaccine related. For you anyone who dies and had the vaccine died because of the vaccine and anyone who didn't die from Covid-19 and didn't have the vaccine is proof that vaccines are not needed. That's bogus reasoning of course.

You have to use it on a human in order to study it. I did not say authorized, I said used. We have plenty of information for mRNA vaccines before they got approved for widespread use. That's why they got approved. You made it sound like they were something completely new and unknown. They were not.

mRNA vaccines have been used and studied on humans for over a decade. They are nothing new. Next one please...