richard_smith237

FaceBook Market Place is a great place to buy and sell items.... But it comes with major caveats - Only ever make a transaction in person - Verify the product & verify again I see loads of Watches, Rolex Submariners etc on FB Market-Place - I'd never go near them... which is a shame, because cutting out the 'middle-men' from second hand dealers can save plenty of money, but that comes at such a risk... (If buying).

I indeed... Seems like he escalated the sitation, deliberately so... quite the tool. Many men who frequent these bars prefer to keep a low profile; they certainly don’t want their faces plastered all over social media. Unfortunately, many of the foolish TikTokers and others fail to grasp this, wrongly believing that anything happening in public is fair game to film. There’s a complete lack of respect for others’ privacy, even if they are out in a public venue or area. Just a few weeks ago, I was in a bar showing a friend something on my phone when a couple of the women and the owner, or perhaps the Mamasan, came over initially in a rush somewhat agitated and told me not to film... I smiled, and showed them that I'd deliberately held the phone to cover the camera lens... clearly signalling my understanding.... a simple act of de-escalation.... after that they weren't bothered at all. But, if a tool is going to kick off about such things, then they kind of deserve a response.

Todays AQI across various cities worldwide.... If you live in Dubai, Toronto, Paris, Munch... well... you're not going anywhere better ! Rank - City - AQICity - AQI Kinshasa - 189 Cairo - 170 Dubai - 153 Santiago - 114 Jakarta - 112 Johannesburg - 113 Toronto - 59 São Paulo - 58 Paris - 57 Munich - 56 Bangkok - 55 Madrid - 54 New York City - 53 Chicago - 52 London - 44 Los Angeles - 38 Dublin - 37 Brussels - 37 Amsterdam - 33 Stockholm - 31 Rome - 31 Berlin - 28 Vienna - 28 San Francisco - 20 Sydney - 16

Such as Vaccines and Antibiotics. You manage, quite impressively, to undermine the legitimacy of your own opinions without any external help. As an anti-vaxxer, your arguments are so riddled with absurdity that they do more to strengthen the pro-vaccine position than weaken it. No one with even a passing grasp of science or critical thinking could react to your claims with anything but laughter. You parade flawed science in the threadbare costume of credibility, but the masquerade fools no one beyond the gullible and woefully uneducated.

In which case in can get his 'extension of stay' transfered from his 'expiring A-Passport' into is 'B-Passport' and use that as his main Passport for use in Thailand. Meanwhile, before his 'A-Passport Expires' he can apply for renewal. That is of course: If as you mentioned, he has 'Two concurrent Passports A & B' from his home country to aid-international travel and visa convenience. --------- If the above is not true: Then theoretically, his original Passport, which carries his extension of stay, is no longer valid, it should have had the a hole punched through it (in the UK they cut the corner off) and he should have entered with his new Passport and stamped in according to his extension of stay (as shown on his old passport)... then advised to go to Immigration and get his Extension of stay transfered into his new Passport (or continuing showing the original extension in his old passport while using the new passport for travel purposes)

There’s a certain subset of posters whose sole purpose appears to be provocation. They operate under the thinly veiled guise of asking seemingly innocuous questions - carefully crafted to spark controversy - or by making outrageous claims they know will inevitably ignite conflict. It’s not discussion they’re after, but disruption masquerading as curiosity.

Book and Appointment at Amphur Office 1st. Get a full list of their requirements (have them sign and date that list). Then go and get all the required documentation needed (that may take a lot of faffing about - which for many is why they don't bother). Ultimately - only you can decide if its worth it. Given the hassles you keep encountering, it might simply be easier to get the Certificate of Residence each time you need it. For me: the Amphur office put up some resistance, even stated my Visa was invalid etc. We pushed, got and appointment - which they gave us 3 months away !!!... (I guess hoping we'd give up). Come appointment time, I had all the documentation.. (which as I live in BKK was relatively easy to come by but with a bit of legwork - to Embassy and MFA). The Amphur officer at first reluctant, but lightened up - the paper work took her over an hour (nearly two perhaps)... Getting the pink ID was an additional 15 mins at the same office. Ultimately - it just depends if the leg work of getting this 'one' document (Yellow Book) will save you time and effort down the line if needing repeated CoR's etc... or opening Bank accounts etc - only you can decide if its worth while.

Both are, and in their own ways, entirely predictable. RP simply regurgitates content from anti-vaccination sites - often without the faintest hint of critical thought - favouring sheer volume over substance in a desperate attempt to overwhelm rather than inform. Rumak, meanwhile, relies on low-effort memes and then takes deep personal offence when challenged, as though being called out for posting nonsense were some form of injustice. To his credit, Stiddle at least doesn’t seem to take criticism personally - though his views are so far out on the fringe, I genuinely struggle to grasp how anyone could engage with him seriously. That said, Rattlesnake stands out. His posts are, at times, genuinely insightful and provide a useful lens through which to understand anti-vaccine perspectives from an intelligent and articulate angle - something those of us who support vaccination can actually learn from. It’s just unfortunate that his thoughtful contributions are so often drowned in the noise of the fools he seems to have aligned himself with.

Yellow Book Paper Work: 1) Embassy Notarised of Copy of Your Passport 1.1) Official Translation of Embassy Notarised Copy of Your Passport 1.1.1) MFA Verification of Official Translation of Embassy Notarised Copy of Your Passport 2) Your Passport (and Visa stamp - Pref Non-Immigrant Visa) 3) If married: Marriage certificate + Thai translation and legalisation (if married) (being married makes it easier - some Amphur offices don't give yellow book unless married) 4) Original House Blue Book 5) House Owners ID (ID Card) 6) Proof of ownership: title deed (Chanote) 7) Two Thai Witnesses (can be friends / family) - With their Thai ID. With all this: They may then book an appointment (careful, as they might book the appointment so far ahead and then claim the documents are out of date). Ideally - if you really want the Yellow House Book - play the game and make it impossible to say no.

IF you have the Cert (Certificate of Residence) from Immigration, then all you need to do is go down to the local DLT with your Wife (and Blue Book) and Your Passport (as ID) and you can place the car in your name - its fairly quick process (you will need to pay some transfer tax). As far as your other comment - its difficult to understand.. As far as the Yellow Book - I agree, their goal initially is to deter, as its a lot of paperwork for the Amphur Officer.

As per Khun LA... ... All you need is - Certificate of Residence (from Immigration).... or - Affirmation of Address (from your Embassy - if they do it). There is no need for a Yellow House Book, but you may find that making the effort now to go through the process to obtain a Yellow House Book can have advantages in the future, in the way of making similar endeavours easier (such as renewing driving license etc (If that specific DLT accepts the YellowHouseBook / Pink ID combo). On the Yellow Book... there is often resistance as its a lot of paper work for the Amphur Office Staff - but realistically, if you want one, push for one - legally they cannot say no... So be a little more firm with them. The two Thai witnesses part is true (easy if you have Thai friends etc) - We only took 1 (Mother in Law) and they were happy with that, but experiences across the forum really vary on this).

+1 on this... We have the smaller ones in the bedrooms and the large one in our living room. https://shopee.co.th/เครื่องฟอกอากาศ-Xiaomi-Mi-Air-Purifier-4-Pro-Pro-H-4-Lite-กรองฝุ่น-PM2.5-กรองฝุ่นอย่างมีประสิทธิภาพ-กลิ่น-ควัน-PM.-2.5-i.160152941.2395138697 That said: they don't get much use... our place seems fairly well sealed so the PM is always quite low. Its only at the worst time of year (usually over Dec/Jan) that they might get turned on.

While I remain a staunch advocate for free speech, your words alone is are a shining example of why some people should never be entrusted with it. The information you've shared is not only wildly misleading but dangerously irresponsible. In the wrong hands - or worse, believed by the uninformed - your word will cost lives. A person bitten by a rabid dog will die unless immediate post-exposure vaccination is given. Rabies has a near-100% fatality rate once symptoms appear. A simple scratch from a rusty nail leading to tetanus can kill - fatality rates range from 10% to 70%, higher in the elderly or unvaccinated. Japanese Encephalitis? Up to 30% fatality. Yellow Fever? As high as 50% in severe cases. Meningococcal Meningitis? It can kill in under a day, with fatality rates of 10–15% even with treatment. This is not academic pedantry - it is the line between life and death. Your careless presentation of misinformation isn’t just misleading. It’s potentially lethal to anyone foolish enough to take you at your word. Fortunately, its easy to recognise you for what you are - a vocal nuisance, largely harmless. The extremity of your claims makes the sheer absurdity of your misinformation so self-evident, it’s easily dismissed by anyone with the faintest capacity for critical thought.

Link ? where exactly has the BBC issued an internal directive in 2020 stating: "Do not hold debate with any anti-COVID people, whether they are right or not"? I suspect you're conflating that with their editorial policy to avoid amplifying claims that lack sufficient evidence or credibility. Do you also believe mainstream media should give serious airtime to Flat Earthers, people who deny the existence of pathogenic viruses, or those who claim antibiotics are unnecessary because “nature has the answer”? There's a reason such views aren't given equal platform: they aren't grounded in credible science. Let’s be honest - even most of your fellow anti-vax posters on this forum don’t agree with you that pathogenic viruses don’t exist. There’s a difference between questioning COVID-19 vaccines and rejecting the fundamentals of microbiology and virology. And even within your own circles, you’re often seen as occupying the farthest fringes of anti-scientific thought - so far out, in fact, that you don’t even get support from like-minded sceptics. Meanwhile, there are legitimate grey areas, such as the long-term implications of mRNA vaccines, where serious, independent research is not only warranted but essential. And yes, such studies should be completely free from bias - this is where scientific scrutiny belongs. However, as has already been noted, if these studies ultimately contradict the anti-vaccination narrative, they will simply be dismissed. You won't pause, reflect, or reconsider - you'll pivot to claiming further conspiracy. Or, worse still, if one adverse event in 100,000 doses results in something like VITT, you'll call that a vindication - declaring vaccines dangerous while wilfully ignoring the overwhelmingly positive impact on public health at large. And this, yet again, is precisely why I refuse to be drawn into these kinds of debates with you (specifically). Engaging with such a fundamentally flawed outlook is utterly draining. You seize upon a fragment of fact, twist and conflate it to suit your narrative, and in response, one is forced to craft a detailed, evidence-based reply - complete with sources, data, and nuance. And yet, it’s all summarily ignored as you simply pile on with more threads, more misinformation, all designed to drown out the facts within the comfort of your own echo chamber.

Of which you have verifiable proof of course, right ??? Perhaps AN ought to issue a formal internal directive prohibiting the publication of unfounded nonsense by conspiracy cranks and armchair experts. In a way, they already have - by creating the 'Off the Beaten Path' section, they’ve neatly cordoned off a space where people like yourself can air unverifiable, often baseless opinions under the guise of alternative insight. It’s a clever way to spotlight fringe commentary without contaminating the main discourse, fitting in well with conspiracy theories such as the Moonlandings, TwinTowers, FlatEarth, CancerCure Suppression, Aliens-pyramids.... etc etc.. you're in good company !!!! ------- Of course: There is no public evidence that the BBC ever issued an internal directive that explicitly said: “Do not hold debate with any anti-COVID people, whether they are right or not” However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, many mainstream media outlets adopted editorial guidelines that prioritised public health messaging and scientific consensus. This often meant limiting airtime for views deemed to be misinformation or outside the scientific mainstream - including certain forms of vaccine scepticism, lockdown opposition, or alternative treatments. Critics saw this as censorship or bias; many media outlets saw this as responsible journalism during a public health crisis. Some relevant facts specifically on the BBC's outlook: - In 2020, the BBC reaffirmed its commitment to avoid giving “false balance” to fringe views, particularly on climate change, and applied similar logic during the pandemic. - BBC Editorial Guidelines do allow for excluding certain viewpoints if they’re considered to lack sufficient evidence or credibility. - Internal guidance likely emphasised reliance on official sources like the NHS, WHO, and UK government briefings. - BBC Verify (launched later), aimed to fight disinformation, reinforcing that approach. Too long for you to read: heres a TLDR Summary: There’s no evidence or indication of a documented directive that the BBC and other responsible media outlets actively avoided giving a platform to people challenging the mainstream COVID narrative - regardless of whether some later turned out to have valid concerns. It was more policy by well established editorial culture than a smoking-gun memo-that never existed...

This guy is quickly taking over as forum troll...

like this has ever truly been on the table You mean... kind of like prohibition... My point, however, was to highlight the absurdity of the measures being taken by drawing attention to similar hypothetical knee-jerk responses that would be equally ludicrous and wildly exaggerated. Thailand has a tendency to sidestep the root causes - issues that require genuine effort and structural change - and instead opts for broad, sweeping actions. In doing so, it repeatedly shoots itself in the foot. The so-called solutions offered by those in positions of authority are often inverted, misaligned, and strikingly detached from reality.

The Juvenile Mindset of Policy-Making: A Farce in Motion If STDs are a concern, ban sex. If alcohol causes problems, ban booze. If road deaths occur, ban driving. If obesity is a problem, ban food. If online scams are increasing, ban the internet. If teen pregnancies are up, ban hormones. If domestic violence occurs, ban marriage. If mobile phone addiction is rising, ban phones. If depression is spreading, ban feelings. If fake news is a concern, ban thinking. If people misuse freedom, ban freedom. This is the level of thinking we’re dealing with - reactionary, simplistic, and devoid of any genuine depth or critical reasoning. The root causes are never examined, let alone addressed. There's no discussion about better education, improved access to healthcare, community support, or behavioural awareness. Just sweeping, kneejerk prohibitions that scream: “I have no idea what I’m doing, but I want to look like I do". It’s worrying. These people gain prominence, pushing absurd announcements that make it painfully clear they lack the intellectual tools to govern. Yet no one challenges them - and that’s the deeper rot. In a culture crippled by kreng-jai, where subordinates won’t call out idiocy, even the most moronic policy goes unchallenged. Nobody dares say, “No, boss… that’s utterly dumb”. And so we watch another Emperor strut proudly in his new clothes - stark naked, but surrounded by silence.

How hard is it ??... No one checks my Immigration records in country... I fly in.. passport goes in the safe and I leave it there.... usually within 90 days cos I travel a lot) - but it would be just as easy to carry on with regular life here for years... no one stops me and asks for immigration status. I reckon I could go years without getting caught - especially if I moved away from my initially registered address... Unless of course I pass an immigration crack-down and am then expected to prove visa status (which has never happened do me here in decades).

I'm wondering if there will be any investigation into the brand (and quality) of rebar used... (possible the SKY brand from the Xin Ke Yuan Steel Co >>> ???? ) - all initially condemned and since whitewashed as safe... ... Yet this looks like another 'rebar failure' or very poor workmanship...

There is, admittedly, a trace of anti-tertiary education bias in some circles. Those who’ve graduated from the "School of Hard Knocks" or the "University of Life" might carry a touch of bitterness - or perhaps just pride in having carved out success on their own terms. That success, however, often comes through alternative paths that are not without their own costs and compromises. Another undeniable factor is the financial burden of university. Tuition fees, accommodation, and living expenses add up significantly - and that’s before we consider the opportunity cost of delaying full-time work by three or four years. For many, that’s a serious deterrent, especially when immediate income is needed or when the return on investment isn’t guaranteed. In my own case, university was indispensable. My career would have been impossible without it. Yet, I sometimes wonder if I might have been happier taking a different route - becoming a plumber, perhaps, starting my own business, working with my hands. There’s a certain appeal in the straightforwardness of skilled trades. But in the UK, that too comes with complications: as your business grows and crosses tax thresholds, financial penalties can feel disproportionate to the rewards. That said, having a degree undeniably expands your options. It provides professional and geographic mobility, and if it’s from a highly regarded university, it opens doors that might otherwise remain closed. It’s not just about the job - it’s about access, credibility, and perceived competence. It’s about being able to choose: to work for someone else, to work for yourself, or to shift careers entirely if life demands it. Some have floated the idea of bypassing university altogether - taking the money saved and giving it to our children to invest instead. It sounds enticing, but raises tough questions. How long would that money last? What happens if the investments fail? What’s the fallback plan? Without a qualification, what do you lean on if the venture collapses? That, ultimately, is the crux of the university argument: it's something to fall back on. But the same might be said of a trade - a solid, practical skill can be just as much of a safety net. Then there's the looming presence of AI. In twenty years, which jobs will still exist? Will pilots still be necessary, or will automation rule the skies? Will we have a trained pilot on every flight - just in case? No one really knows. Forecasting the future is a fool’s errand, but what seems certain is this: the capacity for critical thinking, adaptability, and continuous learning will be invaluable. In that sense, education - formal or otherwise - is a form of future-proofing. Finally, we can’t ignore the social capital that top-tier universities offer, both in the UK and the US. These institutions are often less about the education itself and more about the networks they create. But then again, elite international schools in places like Thailand offer similar networking value, often tailored to local or regional contexts. In the end, university isn’t the only path, but it is a path - and for many, a valuable one. What matters most is not whether someone has a degree, but whether they have real options, a plan, and something solid to fall back on when life inevitably throws its curveballs.

Exactly what is it you have against young men? You were one once, weren’t you ? Out of curiosity: how old are you? And what, in your view, constitutes “young men” ? Are we talking under 30? Under 40? Under 50? It’s just that in several recent threads, you’ve launched into what can only be described as unhinged rants against young men as a group. It comes across as bitter, poorly thought out, and riddled with flawed generalisations. I can’t help but wonder - what exactly is driving this hostility?... On this thread we have unhinged posters making any accusations and sweeping negativity against all foreigners. .... we have unhinged posters making sweeping negative remarks against Western Females. .... we have unhinged posters making sweeping negative generalisations against all things Thai. .... we have unhinged posters making sweeping negative comments against Thai's in general. They all clearly have issues with balance and controlling their bias - so, what triggered your upset agains the 'young' (whoever they are and whatever age 'you' consider as young... ?

Understood - in that case, there was likely 6 months tax owed on the previous registration. i.e. the tax had expired on the Motorcycle (under original plates) for 6 months prior to your 're-registration. Thus; Your 12 month Tax payment (the square you get) was back-dated to 6 months and you get the remaining 6 months on the new registration plate before having to re-tax for another 12 months.

That was a pathetic, unintelligent, and unfounded dig. Throughout my comments, I’ve consistently pointed out the absurdity of the sweeping generalisations some are desperately trying to shoehorn into this discussion - driven more by bitterness than balanced thinking. Young lads, old lads, and everyone in between - most are decent. The problems come from a handful of losers scattered across all ages. Yet your confirmation bias conveniently focuses only on the misbehaviour of younger offenders, ignoring the fact that older idiots exist too - perhaps because you identify more closely with them. Maybe you’re a bitter boomer trying to live vicariously through a demographic you relate to, which blinds you to the same barstool nonsense and misdeeds you’re so quick to blame elsewhere. You’re also repeatedly attempting to force an argument with me, but instead you underscore your lack of critical thought which is overridden by your bias. Instead of accepting that you might be wrong, you’d rather throw barbs. There are fools in every age group, and the young here are not the sole purveyors of dumbfluckery... far from it IMO.

Quite the post… and yes, it perfectly illustrates the point: no generalisation or stereotype truly holds water - despite the efforts of some to dress up their lack of thoughtful insight, like claiming there are more young troublemakers than old fools, as some sort of wisdom.