richard_smith237

Thats your only angle - another comment of yours so readily debunked... If you lack the eloquence to articulate an effective argument you could look back and either blame your education, your lack of learning ability, or simple lack of intellect... reading your comments, I'd blame all three.

The truth strikes and you use "Artificial Intelligence" to counter say it ain't true. You're clinging to this tired "AI" accusation - feel free to run my comments through every AI checker you can find; it won't change a thing. As I said before, and it's even more accurate now: "The truth strikes, and you have no intelligent response." Your inability to engage with substance speaks loudly enough - you don't have the tools to debate this intelligently. You misrepresented 'it' as something it was not, and now part of your anti-vax argument clings desperately to the idea of something a research group merely considered. Your relentless doubling down on a broken and readily debunked argument only serves to highlight the fundamentally broken thinking that underpins it.

In the interests of balance, does he also give a voice to those whose lives have been saved by vaccines? Of course, that’s harder to showcase — it’s impossible to know whether you, I, or anyone else was personally saved. Yet statistical modelling makes it clear: without vaccines, nearly half of us wouldn't even be here to argue about it. The correct emotional response is, of course, empathy toward any suffering. Thus, while compassion is essential, the wellbeing of the greater whole must take precedence over the rare misfortunes of a few. In the grand scheme, vaccines have dramatically reduced human suffering rather than caused it. Though big-picture thinking must never lose sight of individual hardship, the overwhelming body of evidence makes clear that those adversely affected remain an extreme minority.

Yes reads to me like an AI generated flowery word fest thanks. The truth strikes and you have no intelligent response, when your focus shifts to attacking how something is said, rather than what is said, it usually means the truth hit a little too close for comfort - your comment and lack of intelligent response highlights the weakness in your argument and the strength in mine. As always, anti-vaccination arguments are laughably easy to dismantle - and predictably, the only defence is a half-witted tantrum or some absurd claim that we’ve somehow failed to "open our minds" to the real science, meaning YouTube gurus and anecdotal rants that collapse the moment they’re held up against decades of peer-reviewed evidence and undeniable statistical reality.

You've dressed this up by falsely presenting it as something actively planned - when in truth, you clumsily stitched together a fragment of reality to peddle a flimsy distortion. And no, it is not remotely alarming for theories to be tested or proof-of-concept studies to exist - that's called science, a discipline that moves forward by evidence, not by catering to the manufactured outrage of the perpetually confused. Many of the anti-vaccination comments here dangle onto scraps of truth like drowning men clutching driftwood, desperately trying to feign credibility, all while hoping no one notices the gaping, fundamental flaws rotting away at the core of their arguments.

There has never been a serious plan to unleash mosquitoes as flying syringes for mass vaccination; only limited proof-of-concept trials, nothing more. While the idea moved forwards in tiny studies, it immediately collapsed under the weight of glaring problems like uncontrollable dosing, ethical nightmares, and predictable public outrage. This is the inevitable tragedy of debating with the ill-informed: hand them a voice, and you eagerly spew half-truths, blissfully unaware of the gaping, fundamental flaws that make their comments little more than polished ignorance.

That self-proclaimed superiority rearing its cocky head again… It's up to others to assess whether you are smart or not. There’s no doubt that, despite your opposing views, both of you tower intellectually over the forum’s average. Unfortunately, in threads like this, the collective IQ, dragged into the abyss by a few galactically idiotic contributors, plummets so far that sheer mediocrity begins to masquerade as brilliance....

Fair enough - in that case, would you not be better placed to go and look at a few academies around town (wherever you are) and make a decision based up on the standards of coaching you see ? Not all will be poor. Again - where are you located ?? Given the area, others maybe able to recommend some academies that have excellent coaches, I recommended two already - though I've seen these 'coaching' sessions only briefly, before or after I've been playing myself - but all kids looked well engaged and were kept very active. Unless there's a major issue, negative feed back in such a situation is likely to go unwelcomed and ignored. I imagine its more of a 'spectrum' - I don't think its fair to make as sweeping generalisation about all coaches. I have Harrisfan on block because his comments are only ever idiotic - I can only imagine his response above is an equally ill thought out dumb one liner - and if so, you will see with whom your sweeping generalisation aligns itself. That said: If your nephew has become disheartened due to the quality of coaching, then your criticism of this specific coach (and the coaches you've seen) is valid - but there are plenty of other coaches. This seems to matter to you - so I'd recommend going around and taking a look to find a better option. --------- I've done the same with both extra curricular Thai Classes and academic classes where my Wife and I moved our son around, spoken to people and found the best solution that works for him.

I'm not sure the 'maintain clean environments' is a valid preventative measure - People are getting bitten at the beaches, not in our homes.

Thats way to sensible for many of the neurotic-mental-case nutters on this thread... As you say, be healthy, take precautions and if necessary, revert to medical expertise. ------ Sandflies are an absolute nuisance - whenever we hit the beach, my Son and I get hammered, thats even with repellant - we'll still both get about 10 bites over our legs and back etc an the bites itch like hell. The issue with sandflies is that we just don't see them and only notice we've been 'attacked' after it happens, usually in the evening when the bites 'swell' up. Antihistamine usually helps with the 'irritation' side of things - I was unaware of this parasitic illness, the article leading this thread has provided good information; something to keep in mind if we start feeling unwell have receiving a some bites at the beach.

OK - so you found one coach who you don't think is very good and draw a sweeping generalisation about all coaching ?... I'm not sure you have the critical thought to sensibly evaluate what you see when making such leaps of assumption. If you find one coach not very good - switch to another. Coaching, be it gymnastics, swimming, football, rugby, cricket etc in BKK (particularly at my Son's school) is outstanding - I've witnessed it with friends children and mine. Some, yes, some no - I guess you'll have to do some research: Also, where are you located ? - you may get recommendations on here. i.e. PKFC Cruzeiro Soccer (BKK - Sukhimvit 71) and Polo (Bkk) both have good football classes and coaching. Sure... how would you like someone who has no experience telling you how to do your job ? If its not for you - just move along.

‘come on bearded tickler - you’ve got to do better than that…

Awwwww…. Upset ‘cos you’d be the swallower ???

I never saw any… in school or on TV news reports etc - does that mean it didn’t happen ??? Of course, I’m too young & never grew up under such concerns - but to ignore the past & suggest it didn’t happen because I didn’t see ‘it’ is ignorant.

Because you seem think this did not occur. I’m a lot younger than you & I’m aware of the fear that polio & measles brought to families…. You can see the photos & risk stats any time you choose.. You’ve over glossed over those worries. The “didn’t happen to me so didn’t happen” mentality is not exactly an intelligent approach to such discussions.

Thats a textbook example of survivorship bias. Its the same as the 'seatbelt argument'...... "I never used a seatbelt and I’m fine" It ignores the countless individuals who didn’t survive because they didn’t wear a seatbelt. You only hear from those who made it through. The same flawed logic applies when people say, "We survived childhood without vaccines and we turned out fine." Those fortunate enough to survive deadly diseases like smallpox, measles, polio, cholera, and tuberculosis were the lucky ones - often with better genetics, access to care, or sheer chance. They went on to have children, and their children had children. The millions who weren’t so lucky? They died. Often young. Often before reproducing. And because of that, their line ended there. Their potential offspring - and their descendants - were never born, never given the chance to look back and say, "See? We didn't need vaccines." So no - the "we survived without vaccines" narrative is not proof of anything except that you’re a statistical exception, living in the echo of a privilege or fortune you likely don't even recognise. It’s anecdotal survivorship, not a valid argument. And, diseases like autism, diabetes, and cancer also existed back then. They just weren’t diagnosed. Medical science didn't have the tools, tests, or terminology to understand them properly. People died of what were often vaguely labelled as "wasting diseases," "nervous conditions," or simply "failure to thrive." Infant mortality was tragically common. Life expectancy was dramatically lower. Many of today’s chronic illnesses were either misdiagnosed or not understood at all. So when people romanticise the past with “things were better before vaccines and modern medicine,” what they’re really saying is, "We survived because others didn’t."

You've completely ignored the context in his (Mad's post) regarding impairment - that does not vary in different countries and is thus, as relevant in Thailand as it is in Canada or anywhere else. Thus: in the context of impairment - the Op was under the level of DUI for England and Wales which highlights how close he was to 'not being over the limit' - it also indicates he was 'hardly impaired'... As quoted by Mad... BAC Effects Experienced .02-.04% Lightheaded – Relaxation, sensation of warmth, “high,” minor impairment in judgment The Op was 0.027% which is on the low end of 'light headed'... The perspective here is that others are suggesting he was driving while drunk - whereas there's an argument to suggest he was not impaired at all given his low readings that are within legal limits for many other nations.

The car was never doing 180 kmh - the force of impact threw / dislodged the needle in the speedo, thats all.. I've seen this numerous times on news reports here in Thailand where the 'final speed' is reported from the stuck-needle (speedo) and doing so is flawed at a very simple and basic level. I'm astonished at the amount of crashes with stationary objects there are here in Thailand - its as if people become so complacent when driving they don't feel they need to look ahead where they are going. I've excited numerous taxi's mid journey because the driver refuses to stop watching a video on the phone he's placed on the dash... So many drivers here seem not to understand the risks they place themselves and others at with carelessness.

Its not though is it... The Op will still need to provide all the documentation and attend in person... All an agent provides is an additional layer of efficiency with queue cutting (if they have some arrangements with the DLT staff) and holds your hand through the process - hardly necessary. An agent doesn't do anything that can't so very easily be done alone.

Don't overthink things, I'm not trying to argue with anyone and simplifying things (without distorting them) is quite suitable to get insight into a particular aspect of an issue. Much has been made about the guys level of drunkenness but I'm pretty sure in the UK it wouldn't matter a jot if he failed the evidentiary test (2 chances are allowed) he'd be in the cells until sober (ie he could pass) or overnight if he was going to be in court in the morning. I'm trying to find out what the situation would be elsewhere and it seems more than fair to ask a guy who should know. Yeah, apologies - my initial response read more aggressively than I intended.. I'd already edited and toned down my comment a bit, though the question did seem somewhat loaded... If thats not the case, apologies again... Once processed and a reading is given, I don't think any police officer (in developed nations) have the discretion to 'let a guy walk' if they tested over... As you correctly point out, the initial roadside tests are indicative and carried out using a handheld breathalyser device, which may be subject to calibration drift. Therefore, the official reading is the one taken later at the police station, using an evidential breathalyser. This device is regularly calibrated and maintained to meet legal standards, and its results are considered legally reliable and admissible in court. Additionally, the timing of the tests is taken into account, and the recorded result is used to estimate the driver’s blood alcohol level at the actual time of driving.

No it didn't... News a couple of days ago stated that a 'new draft ministerial directive to allow eligible drivers to 'soon' renew their driving licences online has been approved'... So.. nothing online yet, its also completely unknown, and unlikely, that this will be extended to non-Thai's as systems such as this will likely be tied to the Thai (Blue) ID card, as foreigners still need a written proof of address that can't simply be approved by a digital system.

So in your time on the job and with your experience of multiple cases, would you let a guy walk because he was only a little bit over the legal limit? ..thats somewhat of a poor 'Framing Effect' and a loaded question...

Urgh.. Creepy much ???

You don't have an answer to the gay bottom parent question then? No.. are you looking to give grades for correct answers or something ?

I have to say.. there some very amusing replies to this thread.. ... the best so far is the response below !!.. What do you mean, has it tickled many nut sacks?