richard_smith237

This reminds of a chat I had with a 'good old boy' when our flight had landed in Bangkok... I'm guessing he was about 75-80'ish... I helped him get his luggage down from the overhead... and we started a chat... He mentioned that he was 'visiting' Thailand and that he was in the 'Waiting room'... (as in waiting to die)... I asked him... "Which direction... up or down?"... he gave me a rye smile... I felt like high-fiving him !!! Thus on the "you can't take it with you" point - experiences are perhaps more valuable than belongings as this guy was looking to find out... Still - there are blurred lines between possessions and experiences.

I haven't had any booze for a couple of weeks... But... I do like to drink.... very often I'll enjoy a G&T in the afternoon by the pool... I'll enjoy wine or beer with dinner... And when with friends, it'll be plenty of wine and beers... I'll enjoy a Whisky later on in the evening. And when with friends it might be a fair bit of Whisky... Thus... A normal week - at least one beer a day.. or one or two beers and a whisky... or a glass or two, or a few of wine.... With friends I'll drink more and get drunk... maybe a few times a week, maybe once a week, or maybe not at all. I like drinking, I don't have to have a drink, but I do enjoy a drink... I just do what I want when I feel I want to without a great deal of concern... ... I don't suffer much of a hangover so an get up and do whatever I want the next day... which means I don't miss-out on family stuff if I have been drinking too much the night before. ... I don't misbehave when drinking, so thats also not an issue, I just become more chilled, light hearted and more amused by stuff.

I can accept that and recognises that others find and seek comfort in various faiths... however regarding your point on nihilism - Ricky Gervais makes a sound point that there are about 3000 religions in the world, those who don't believe in a god are just rejecting 1 more than those who only accept 'their' god... However, that doesn't deal with the overlap of the possibility of a 'supreme being' and that all religions and faiths have their own interpretation of such a being. Then there is the argument presented by Stephen Fry... the 'how dare you !' argument - if there is a supreme being pulling the strings, how dare such suffering be allowed... of course, that can be answered with more whatiffery. ..And thus, moving onto your last point: if I say "life has no meaning"... I'd ask what meaning could it have ?.. I think thats the original question asked, which is IMO, just a human concept - everything has to have a start, an end, a why and why not - our minds need explain or understand, we find comfort in 'ideas', theories, explanations... faith.... which of course leads questions regarding the meaning of life... which IMO are moot - in simple terms, we are, because we are. ... Why try to love ?... because it feels nice... and thats linked to why have kids ?... Its simple nature. The single most common facet of all life on earth is the underlying desire to reproduce, without that fundamental building block in every living thing, life ceases to exist. With regards to selfishness, and the idea that having kids is being selfish, I don't think so.. ... But then, from a 'nature' and evolution point of view - selfishness is an evolutionary necessity, so perhaps.

Karma doesn't explain anything - its a cognitive fallacy, something we have created to explain something we can't. The fairness or unfairness of life is simply inexplicable, trying to explain such is a human construct - its the same with luck. The same goes for 'the meaning of life'... there is no meaning, just as there is no meaning for flowers, insects and animals - life is just life, some of it more intelligent than other forms... The idea that there is any meaning to it is once again, just a human construct. This of course is the perspective of an atheist and the discussion becomes theological and one of faith... as far as I am concerned the idea of faith in any form of after-life is flawed - we're born, we live, we die - no meaning to it whatsoever... But, as we have consciousness, that does not mean there is no need to try to enjoy life and what we have in life... for many of us, that means enjoying the things we have and do as we pass through life..

That level of poetic justice is brilliant... I'm not sure what happened to trigger the altercation, but the motorcyclist is clearly a complete womble... This is what we are dealing with on the roads... Half the people around us are below average intelligence, and some of those are at the bottom of that scale. It was once mentioned to my a teachers... he said 'it frightened him to death to consider that some of the kids he has taught are now using the roads'.... There are complete idiots about who simply behave without self awareness or consciousness - they just 'act' and in doing so we witness utter stupidity.

Just in case that was typo and mean't... 'You can't buy guy health for money, and happiness'... I would not agree - You can buy good health.... we can have better insurance, that gives us better access to better medical care, more regular check-ups etc, faster resolutions and action etc... More money most definitely equals better health care - and that means better health. Of course, there are issues that money can't resolve, but in aggregate, better healthcare does equal better health and better health care can be bought. As far as 'money can't buy happiness' - I also think that is a fallacy... Money buys access to many things which make us happy... travelling, experiences, thrills, plus of course satisfaction and having things we enjoy. One of the best things I spend my money on is my Son's education - that gives me a great deal of satisfaction that I am providing the best I can for him... that money buys him the best education I can provide for him, its expensive, nevertheless giving him the best opportunities makes me happy...

You will wake up one day. Probably take you 10 years to realise though. And then get rid of all posessiions because I only really need the shirt on my back... Hmm... ... I don't think so.. I already enjoy life too much... - I enjoy camping in the UK in 'my tent'... - I enjoy playing golf with 'my clubs'... - I enjoy riding my Mountain Bike / or Road Bike (depending on location)... - I enjoy skiing on my ski's in my ski-boots... - I enjoy going out for a casual dinner and not looking like a bum... - I need my car / I enjoy my bike... - I enjoy and like my house... - I need my computer and phone... - I enjoy watching my iPad... - I like that I have more than one pair of shoes (I don't wear flipflops in the city). - I enjoy being in my house decorated nicely with ornaments... - I like listening to well recorded music on a quality sound system... - I like watching movies on my large TV (either in living room or up-stairs)... None of the above are essential and I can't take them with me - but they compliment quality and enjoyment of my life, and at the end of my days, if I have the opportunity to look back, I won't regret having had belongings that I've enjoyed but can't take with me... This 'equal net sum' at the start and end of life ideology of yours is flawed, because the net sum of all the things we 'can't take with us' transfers to experiences and enjoying life... and at the end of my life, if I'm lucky enough to look back and reflect it wont be with any regret because I owned a bicycle...

Yes it does... everywhere does... You have simply not understood that money creates a 'double coincidence of want'... ... You can sell your chair for money... you can sell your leather shoes for money... you can purchase items with that money. ... then there is the other facet to the point you argue... you can't get to 7-11 in the first place without those shoes.

Clinging onto stuff that you'll never use again... perhaps. Clinging onto stuff that offers no cosmetic improvement or personal value to your life... perhaos. We could go as far as, whats the point in decorating our house?, we can't take that with us... Whats the point in ornaments ?... they serve no practical value. This binary concept that inanimate objects are 'junk'... is flawed.. Our belongings fall on a spectrum of individual value from the utterly useless and pointless, through to the highly valued and useful items... ... some folk have no need for a car - and thus argue a car is not needed, while others find a car essential... The same can be said of a nice house full of items someone else may consider junk... but they find enjoyable to have around. Just because something is not 'needed' does not mean it is not benifitial to have around as we may need it at some point, or may find solace in keeping it... Watches are a perfect example - completely unnecessary in todays world... I had a lovely watch, purchased at a key moment in my life - later on I figured I didn't need it and sold it for a profit. I regret selling it on and would have taken a degree of happiness in passing that watch to my Son. Thus: I'll now look at getting another watch, something my Son can have when I pass, something that he will take sentimental value from. This perhaps leads me on to the main point - some people find no sentimental value in belongings, they call it junk. But, life is to be enjoyed, and if a person takes value from items, then it has contributed to their enjoyment. Thats not to say that without such items their life is not enjoyable, this would be a binary fallacy, but life can be complimented by many things we have and do.

Well, if the 'Op' makes a dumbed-down over simplified and generalised assumption and turns their own comprehension into a statement projected towards everyone else, then what would you expect ???... You're very thin skinned for someone who makes so many daft comments. Your Op makes no differentiation between animals and those of us with consciousness - while you are correct, we can't take anything with us, that does not mean our possessions are junk... they are a facet of life we experience, enjoy, and some of these items can be passed down to our loved ones. I'm wondering what possessions you would consider junk... From cars, motorcycles, coffee machines, TV's etc - all have their uses towards enjoyment of life. Clothing, of various types also bring comfort and enjoyment, especially those who may enjoy being more stylish than the average bum There are also items of great sentimental value, we can take them with us, but the though that they remain with loved ones is of value to some (many of us). Thus: the idea presented that 'objects are junk' is fundamentally flawed... Such comments are not to far away from such comments as "whats the point of living if we are going to die?"... Or.. "why bother getting educated, we die and thats it, so we can't take our education with us"... Given the Ops content - I suspect he has bought into this latter concept....

The real surprise here is that a 1 MB bribe was not accepted... Firstly its a daft amount to offer, but must really show how desperate the Russian was... But, I find it hard to believe that the BiB did not accept this - quite astonishing.

They couldn't even be bothered to get a 'reference photo' of the correct gender or race... Whats the point of these 'reference photos' - its getting really pathetic when they are so far off the mark they are not even remotely misleading !!.. Are we really that much more likely to read the article if it as a photo of 'anything'... if so, they may as well put a photo of an apple (or anything) there.... Which, actually, is pretty much what they are already doing...

But would if you could afford them... its easy to 'make the I don't need them' comment from the throws of relative indigence. The implication in this thread is that 'money doesn't buy you happiness'..... and that could be true, a person can't buy happiness... but, jeffing ek... money buys a great deal of fun and those experiences lead to happiness !!! If I had a great deal of wealth and could afford a great big Yacht, I'd go for it.. Of course, if I had a great deal of wealth I'd dabble in some philanthropy too..

Hardly worth staying really ! You mean, because one facet of life in Thailand is found disagreeable you think that supersedes all the positive aspects and still results in a net-negative?... so someone with an negative observation should leave ????... lordgrinz' post is quite right - the behavior on roads here is ridiculous... I disagree with the use of the term "cesspool society"... the ops negative bias has cast a shadow over his judgement of society on a whole - somewhat bigotted, IMO... though it can be said a greater proportion of those on the roads in Thailand are more dangerous and do more idiotic stuff than in many of our home countries.

Yawn - another posting from a 'fictional' account.. ... whats next.. posts from Sukhumvit-Sid, Pattaya Pat, NakhonNowhereNobhead.....

Agree - with the exception of a handful of ridiculous and even objectionable laws, the vast majority of laws in Thailand are solid.... ... the issue of course is a cultural one within the whole of society - Thailand is a wholly reactionary nation, rather than being proactive... I've heard the saying before... "in Thailand there is no law until there is law".. .i.e. everyone ingnores the law because its never enforced until something happens, when it may (or may not) then be enforced.

In the UK? In the UK turning right you give way to the left, entering a roundabout give way to the right. Not always - thats where 'road status' comes into it.

Well that explains why they can't use roundabouts and why motorcycles just dart out of a turning turning left without looking and expect everyone to avoid crashing into them ! unfortunately the laws of physics are not on the side of this silly traffic law..... well the interpretation of this law. I think it only applies at an "unmarked" cross road when you are wanting to turn right that's the only time this could make sense or else there can be no traffic flow as everyone on main roads would have to keep stopping for vehicles entering from side roads on the left. As Thailand is a left hand side of the road driving country I follow the UK rule of giving way to traffic coming from the right as the top priority but obviously mindful at all times of traffic from the left,behind,in front,to the right and occasionally ( only in Thailand) from above and below 😋 The law is often misquoted (as it was by Ivor)... and corrected by you.. - The priority to the left law is only in place when unmarked roads of equal status intersect. - On a traffic island - give-way to left rule does not apply (give way to the right is correct). - In the case of this example - the roads (are apparently) given priority and it would appear from those in the know that the Motorcylist had right of way. - Anyone also knows that at such junctions - little regard is given to actual laws and regulations. IMO - The reason Thai's struggle at traffic islands is firstly becase there are not many of them. Where traffic islands do exists people just follow what others are doing, and more often than not, others 'don't want to give way' as giving way is not a common traffic 'trait' at all in Thailand. Just watch two cars squeeze past each other at a narrow gap, taking far longer than they both would had just one of them stopped and allowed the other to pass first.

This happened in my home town in the early 90's... Poor woman lost her arm up to the elbow the same way. Why wasn't there an HSE process ??... there never is or it isn't followed. What a horrific injury - the poor lady will regret not unplugging the machine for the rest of her life. Employers can drill safety protocols into employees until they are blue in the face - but corners will always be cut and complacency will always slip in - this is then the employers job to ensure these cuts and complacency do not slip in. In my current work place there is an extremely strong HSE culture, people can get fired for taking short-cuts. There is a massive degree of HSE training and processes... everyone has learned the importance of HSE and it becomes an ingrained part of the work culture... ... Yet, daily, I see the same workers get in their cars and not use a seatbelt, I see the same workers get on a motorcycle and not use a helmet. As tragic as the consequences can be, taking a short-cut is a human trait, more so in some countries and cultures than others.

Can you tell 100% that your passport does not have any damage or a tear in it ? I travel as frequently as you do and just like you my passport is the single most important document I hold - without it I can't travel to work and would lose money. BUT... I cannot tell with 100% certainty that my passport has zero damage - I'd have to go and specifically inspect it and this is not something normal people usually do. I cannot tell with 100% certainty that my passport does not have a slight tear in the ID page. I can't say I've ever inspected my Passport for damage - and if there were any damage, noticing it would be nothing more than luck unless the damage was obvious.

A Dash-Cam has always been absolutely necessary... ever since driving began !!... Its only been in the last 15 years that they have been widely available, with advancements to front and rear cams, and now (or hopefully soon) widely available 360 degree cams. I've had front and rear facing cams on both my Car and my Motorcycle for about more than 10 years now. But they don't offer 360 degree coverage - which is what I'll look for on my next dash-cam purchase if available.

Some of the comments on this thread are dripping with self-righteous sanctimony, along with the predictable Brit-bashing. This was a mere 1cm tear. I've experienced a similar issue with a 0.5cm tear and thought nothing of it. Neither immigration nor check-in staff noticed the damage, and the passport was used without issue. I only noticed the tear when renewing the passport, so it's unclear how long it had been there. Anyone preventing travel over such a trivial matter is being a pedantic jobsworth. Those defending this decision instead of questioning its absurdity are doing so from a place of vulgar superiority. I travel frequently, and despite keeping my passport in a wallet, it inevitably shows wear and tear. Who routinely inspects their passport for minor damage? The only times I scrutinise my passport are during check-in and at immigration. I doubt many would notice a small tear until it's too late—except, of course, for the lying, sanctimonious individuals who claim this could never happen to them.

I completely agree... A lot of the issues and incidents we see here are from a combination of many factors from poor (no) driver education, very poor road engineering (poor signage, poor layout, poor lighting), and utlimately, poor (no) law enforcement. This and similar accidents are wholly preventable... - Clear Signage - Clear lighting - Traffic calming measures (in this case - *speed humps at the intersection which as to give way) - Unwavering Police enforcement (i.e. not the apathetic lazy plod we see). - Enforcement of Helmet Laws* *while speed humps are not usually part of a junction, with cars speeding across the junction in such locations as this incident, there needs to be something physical to slow cars down. *In Bangkok along the major roads I see about 80% of motorcyclists wearing a helmet, away from the major roads (Sukhumvit / Petchaburi rds) that number drops to less than about 40%.

The motorcyclist also was not wearing a helmet - the incident may otherwise have been survivable with recoverable injuries. IMO - not wearing helmet also makes the motorcyclist complicit in his own demise (as sad as that is).

If not your fault don’t accept the findings of a lowly police-man at the scene - they are not adequately trained & will make their decision based on emotion & bias - the path of least resistance. You gave in too easily in accepting fault - especially if you have cam footage which shows you were stationary in a legal u-turn lane.