- Popular Post
richard_smith237
-
Posts
36,751 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
34
Content Type
Events
Forums
Downloads
Quizzes
Gallery
Blogs
Posts posted by richard_smith237
-
-
10 hours ago, balo said:
It's about time Thailand joins the cashless world. I know it can be hard but at least all the big chains should go that way . I only use cash in bars or cheaper restaurants.
Thats somewhat of an odd statement - Thailand is already as 'casheless' as anywhere else and nearly everywhere accepts digital payment...
-
22 minutes ago, HighPriority said:
I guess the op wasn’t in Canada s o most of your post doesn’t really amount to much does it…? 🤷🏼♂️
Of course it counts - he is a Policeman far more real world experience of dealing with drunk drivers than we have... even those cockroaches who regularly drive while well over the limit.
The perspective MadAtMatrix provides is with the 'readings' and the fact that the levels stated by the Op show minimal alcohol consumption in the first place.
-
2 hours ago, Dr B said:
Depends what you mean by "ultimately". No building ever actually fell down becasue of corruption, and many buildings where corruption was involved are still standing. The main Thai levels of corruption are through the Government and bureaucratic channels, where the corruption "commission" is paid oave rand above the actual price for the purchase, out of Government funds i.e. taxpayers money. Buildings fall down for techncial reasons, and noting that some samples fail to meet the requirements of a prescribed standard is not a technical reason, unless it is also shown that the stress on the bar exceeded that test value. Corruption may be the excuse for a technical failure, but it doesn't make buildings collapse.
Well, in that case it could simply be argued that an earth-quake made the building collapse...
While it's technically true that buildings collapse due to structural failure, it's a fallacy to separate technical causes from the corrupt systems that allow them to exist. Corruption isn't just about misappropriated funds - it directly shapes the conditions under which technical failures occur.
If inferior materials are used because someone took a bribe to overlook quality standards, or if inspections are signed off without being conducted, then corruption is no longer an abstract background issue - it becomes a root cause.
Numerous real-world cases prove this. For example, the 1995 collapse of the Sampoong Department Store in South Korea involved both technical failings and clear corruption: bribed inspectors allowed illegal modifications to the building's structure.
In Thailand and other countries with similar systemic issues, building codes are often robust on paper but routinely ignored in practice due to bribes and kickbacks. So while the rebar might snap or the concrete might crumble, the reason those materials were allowed to be used in the first place is corruption.
Saying “corruption doesn’t make buildings collapse” is like saying “cutting corners doesn’t cause accidents” - technically inaccurate and deeply misleading. Corruption is the invisible hand behind many visible tragedies.
Also, to address your question of why other buildings didn't fall:
Just because corruption is widespread, it doesn’t mean every building is equally vulnerable.
Some "corrupt" projects might involve only minor skimming - say, slightly cheaper materials that still meet minimum requirements. Others involve outright fraud, like omitting rebar altogether or ignoring design standards.
So, it’s a spectrum and this building was at the 'extreme' end of that spectrum - there were plenty of other building under construction that did not collapse, and this building (that did collapse) was clearly at the 'extreme' end of that spectrum, 'beyond the tipping point' so to speak - it might highlight how much poorer the structural standards were in that building compared to every other building in Bangkok.
-
3 hours ago, Dr B said:
I think there is one other major factor that you have missed Richard, and that is language. Most of the reports of British bad behaviour, whether in the media or social media, can be derived in the English language and they are what searching in English will find. Media and social media reports in Chinese, Russian, German, Italian, Swedish of Hindi are much less likely to catch the eye of the ThaiTiger and AN searchers are they not?
Indeed, the language factor is perhaps one of the key reasons, in my view, that the British are so frequently covered in reports here.
It’s likely that this perceived ‘Britain-centric’ focus rankles many of the habitual Brit-bashers - those who find it irksome that a small island nation commands such disproportionate attention. For some, that prominence clearly grates.
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:
Good, these funds can now be spent to improve the lives of the US taxpayers.
Use other means to improve the lives of the US tax payers... for the US ending global health funding potentially has a harsh impact on the US tax payer...
If the US cuts global health funding, those in the USA will feel the impact too, there are numerous facets to this..
The 'per-capita' amount of the US pays is higher than other nations.
On a per-capita basis the US pays 2x the UK, 5x the EU, and 35x China... IMO the US would do better to lobby other nations to pay more... simply not paying could have issues... such as...
Higher Risk of Imported Infectious Diseases
Without strong disease surveillance and containment abroad, diseases can spread internationally before detection.
Think Ebola, Zika, or new flu strains—they don’t need a passport. Planes make the world small, and what festers in one region today can be in US emergency rooms tomorrow.
Elevated Ebola & Other Outbreak Risks
The US currently helps fund early detection, lab networks, and response teams in Africa and Asia.
Cut that, and you risk late detection and delayed response to outbreaks like:
Ebola in West or Central Africa
Marburg virus, a cousin of Ebola
Lassa fever, Nipah virus, or avian flu
If these aren't caught early, they can hop borders and oceans, especially if outbreak zones also lose infrastructure due to the funding pullback.
Strained US Public Health System
If an outbreak spreads to the US, hospitals, testing labs, and health departments could quickly be overwhelmed, as seen in COVID’s early days.
Diseases like drug-resistant TB or even measles can spread in under-vaccinated communities—and once they’re here, they’re expensive to treat and contain.
Skyrocketing Costs at Home
Preventing outbreaks abroad is orders of magnitude cheaper than managing epidemics domestically.
Ebola in the US (2014) cost millions for just a handful of cases.
COVID, of course, wrecked trillions in economic loss and health burden.
Pulling global health funding is like sacking your home’s fire department to save money, then praying no one lights a match.
Increased Risk of Dangerous Mutations
With less global vaccination and treatment, viruses and bacteria get more chances to mutate.
That means:
More drug-resistant TB
New COVID variants
Superbugs that antibiotics can’t touch
These could make their way into the US and render current medicines useless.
In summary:
Slashing global health funding doesn’t just hurt "over there" - it leaves America open to new pandemics, exotic diseases, and spiralling healthcare costs. The frontline isn’t just the US border - it’s every health outpost overseas that stops the next outbreak from becoming our the crisis - this is as equally important to all nations as it is the USA...
... All nations, at least developed nations should be paying into this with a per-capita equality.
-
1
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Cameroni said:
What if it's an affeminate gay man who likes to be penetrated, marries another guy and they adopt. He's a doting parent taking on the mother role, cleaning and cooking. Spends all his time with family. But bottoms in the bedroom.
Is he a real man?
... Do you think you are ???
-
1
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, GammaGlobulin said:
Quite rare, actually, on campus.
If you doubt this, then just walk on campus and count 1000 couples walking together, and then report how many were holding hands, arms, or whatever.
I know the answer, because I have already collected this data.
And, my data supports my conclusion.
Walking around the malls in Bangkok, I'd say - 1 in 20 to 1 in 10 couples, holding hands or the wife (or GF) holding the husbands (or BF's) arm... Thats probably a similar number to the UK... and doesn't really highlight a significant social difference from that specific perspective....
-
8 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:
Until I see your evidence, what you are saying is merely unsubstantiated talk.
So with literally every single response tell you you how mistaken you are...
... You don't believe anyone and will only accept your erroneous impression if you see it with your own eyes...
I'm not even sure you'd believe your own eyes at this stage...
-
5 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:
"The landscape of vaccination has evolved" is your way of putting it. Fine, I respect that.
I see that I received approximately 10 vaccine doses between the age of 0 and 18, and that this number has now risen to 70 as per CDC guidelines. No need to put a spin on it, that's the reality. And the inconvenient fact is that people nowadays are not healthier than the previous couple of generations, quite the contrary.
Development of vaccines that were not available to you and I in childhood is an incredible medical advancement.
Your statement is also flawed - life expectancy is higher now than its ever been. The reasons are multifaceted and vaccination can be factored in to that.
5 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:Those who start threads and routinely complain about "the rise of distrust in science" should take a step back, acknowledge these figures and understand that a significant number of people are simply not okay with this.
That’s all well and good - provided you’re also prepared to avoid international travel and accept the ethical responsibility of potentially endangering others, all based on personal, untrained beliefs.
If you find yourself placing more trust in the voices of anti-vaccine activists than in the collective knowledge of conventional medicine, it’s worth asking - what would happen if the tables turned?
If you became formally educated in virology, witnessed the overwhelming evidence first-hand, and shifted toward supporting vaccination, would your former peers simply dismiss you as having been “taken in by the mainstream”?
Likewise, if I immersed myself in virology and, despite the data, emerged convinced that vaccines did more harm than good - would the broader scientific community ignore me as just another anti-vax eccentric?
The real dilemma lies in who we choose to trust. And in a world where doubt is easily spread, I find grounding in one thing: statistics..... Life expectancy continues to rise. The heartbreaking images of children ravaged by Polio and Measles have faded. Smallpox has vanished. Diphtheria is virtually forgotten. Rabies? Hardly a death sentence anymore.
And that’s not magic. That’s medicine, thats vaccines.
Those who reject vaccination must understand - they aren’t just questioning science; they’re challenging decades of global health progress that has spared millions from suffering.
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:
Of course I get my anti-vaccine information from anti-vaccine sources, just as you get yours from pro-vaccine sources.
No.. I don't get my information from 'pro-vaccine' sources - I just get the information from 'scientific sources'...
You call them 'pro-vaccine'... for everyone else, its just scientific fact...
Whereas the anti-vaccination propoganda can so easily be debunked and picked apart.
2 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:Both will naturally be formulated according to their bias, emphasising or minimising specific aspects in order to convey the desired message.
The core issue is that people never think independently or research things in order to form their own opinion: they should.
It’s a bit of a conundrum, really. Take the flat Earth analogy: I could insist on travelling to space to see the planet’s curvature with my own eyes, or I could choose to understand and trust the science - and the testimony of those who have seen it for themselves.
Biology presents a similar case. I’ve never seen a cell with the naked eye, yet I accept its existence because scientists, armed with evidence and expertise, tell us so.
The reality is, we can't spend our lives independently verifying every claim. I believe Concorde flew at Mach 2, not because I witnessed it firsthand, but because the overwhelming body of evidence leaves little room for doubt.
Vaccination is no different. The scientific consensus, bolstered by decades of rigorous study, shows that vaccines work - and that they are overwhelmingly safe. Of course, like anything in life, there are risks. But then, even eating grapes carries a risk if you look closely enough.
2 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:As I said, people can get acquainted with the information, parse what they deem to be relevant or not and draw their own conclusions. That's all it is about. There are moral and ethical issues about certain facts, such as the use of aborted fetal cells to develop what is colloquially referred to as "medecine". I certainly have reservations about this, and the problem is that the vast majority of the population is not informed about it.
Do we really need to be informed about it ? Must we really be outraged about it?
I mean, let’s take a step back - what exactly is the moral dilemma in using fetal fibroblast cells, especially if they come from long-ago, ethically approved sources? If these cells - replicated for decades in a lab - can be used to develop life-saving treatments or vaccines, is that not a profoundly humane application?
Where, truly, is the ethical conflict? I struggle to see one. We’re not talking about new terminations or ongoing exploitation, but about scientific progress built on a legacy that, however complex, now holds the potential to preserve countless lives.
Isn’t that a moral good in itself?
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
51 minutes ago, Gottfrid said:Nothing of that is necessary! Why did you avoid answering the question? Was the answer too sad for you?
Been answered before enough times in other threads - I really should have that answer saved to keep for you when you repeat the same question across threads...
The involvement of British nationals in wrongdoing in Thailand is not necessarily disproportionately high compared to other nationalities. While British nationals are often highlighted in media stories about negative behavior, this is largely a perception driven by factors like the volume of British tourists, media coverage, and social media amplification, rather than an actual overrepresentation of Brits behaving poorly.
The reasons a varied - but here's a go a them...
Higher Number of British Tourists:
The UK is one of the largest sources of international tourists to Thailand, so there are simply more British nationals in the country. Statistically, if more Brits are visiting, the number of incidents involving them will naturally be higher, even if the rate of wrongdoing isn’t disproportionately higher compared to other nationalities.
Selective Media Coverage:
British media tends to focus more on their nationals abroad, especially when the incidents are controversial or sensational. This creates a skewed perception, making it seem like British tourists are more involved in wrongdoing than others. Media outlets often highlight the "bad behavior" of British nationals, feeding into the stereotype, even though tourists from other countries may be involved in similar incidents that just don't get the same media attention.
Social Media Dynamics:
British tourists are very active on social media, and when incidents occur, they often share them online. This increases the visibility of the situation, contributing to a greater perception that Brits are more involved in wrongdoing. Other nationalities may not post or share their experiences as widely, leading to an underrepresentation of negative incidents involving them.
Cultural and Behavioral Factors:
While British tourists may sometimes engage in behaviors that are considered out of place in Thailand (like drinking excessively or disrespecting local customs), these behaviors are not necessarily worse or more frequent than those of tourists from other countries. However, British nationals, especially those engaged in party scenes, may sometimes draw more attention for their behavior due to cultural expectations or stereotypes.
Volume vs. Proportion:
Because of the sheer number of British tourists in Thailand, their involvement in incidents might seem disproportionately high. However, in reality, this is likely just a statistical artifact—with more Brits in Thailand, the number of incidents involving them will naturally be higher, but this doesn’t mean they’re behaving inappropriately at a rate higher than other nationalities.
Other Nationalities and Arrests:
In contrast, tourists from other countries, such as Russians and Chinese, may be arrested more frequently in Thailand for various reasons (such as involvement in illegal activities or visa violations). However, these incidents often don't get as much coverage in social media. This lack of visibility can be attributed to a British-centric media focus—where stories involving British nationals tend to dominate, especially when those stories are sensational or controversial. As a result, while tourists from other countries may actually be involved in more serious or more frequent legal trouble, these stories don’t get the same media attention, contributing to the perception that Brits are more prone to misbehaving.
Media Imitation and Amplification:
When one high-profile incident involving a British national gets reported in Thai media, it can create a snowball effect, encouraging other outlets to cover similar stories. Media organisations often look for stories that have already gained some traction, as they are more likely to attract attention and generate clicks. If a story about a British tourist misbehaving or breaking local laws goes viral or gains significant attention, other media outlets, both in Thailand and internationally, are more likely to pick it up.
This "copycat reporting" phenomenon can lead to the perception that these incidents are happening more frequently than they actually are. Once one incident is reported, it can lead to more stories being covered, even if they are not directly related or involve similar circumstances. This amplifies the public's perception that British tourists are more prone to trouble in Thailand.
Social Media Contagion:
Social media plays a huge role in spreading stories quickly, especially those involving shocking or scandalous behavior. Once an incident involving a British tourist begins to gain traction on platforms like Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram, it can quickly become viral. As more people share, comment, and post about it, the incident reaches a wider audience, often including media outlets that rely on trending stories for their coverage.
The contagion effect here is the spread of attention from one incident to another. When a story involving a British national attracts large numbers of views or shares, others may follow suit, either because of the subject's inherent controversy or because the incident fits into a broader narrative (e.g., "British tourists misbehaving in Thailand"). This can create a loop where media and social media outlets continuously highlight similar stories.
Stereotype Reinforcement:
When incidents involving British nationals are widely reported, it can reinforce negative stereotypes about them, such as being disrespectful or uninformed about local customs. As these stories are repeated and amplified, they start to feed into the contagion effect, where more tourists (including Brits) may begin to engage in similar behaviors, consciously or unconsciously. This could be due to the belief that certain behaviors are acceptable or "expected" when visiting a destination like Thailand, further driving the cycle.
Focus on "Foreign" Behavior:
The focus on British nationals may also be part of a broader media tendency to report more on “foreign” behavior, especially when it contrasts with local norms. Stories involving tourists, especially from countries with cultural or behavioral differences, often get more attention. The more a certain type of incident gets reported—like a British tourist acting inappropriately or breaking the law—the more other similar incidents may get covered, thus perpetuating the cycle.
Now, that was a lot for you to read - so I'm expecting a one line flippant reply thats neither eloquent or remotely intelligent (and there's a reason I tucked this last comment away in the paragraph because I know you won't read this far !).
-
4
-
2
-
2
-
3
-
- Popular Post
39 minutes ago, Gottfrid said:1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:You sound extremely certain of your statement - proof is in the pudding, you are an overstayer ?
What kind of stupid question is that? You better eat you pudding instead. Yes I am sure on my statement. The day I am on overstay, will never come.
You said idiots overstay... so given your posts, naturally I thought.. ... ... .. ... erm
.....ok, doesn't matter now anyway...
-
4
-
32 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:
Things have changed a lot in ten years, this is part of the problem.
Yes, 17 doses is more than what the typical adult over 35 has had in a lifetime, so this meme was grounded in reality and thought-provoking (which is the purpose of memes), and as I stated in that thread, one would have to be dishonest to disregard the issue raised – if I realise I am not dealing with an honest interlocutor, I usually cut short as my time is very precious.
I've actually received more vaccinations in adulthood than I ever did as a child. I’d likely have had even more at a younger age had I been born a decade or two later.
As you've rightly pointed out, the landscape of vaccination has evolved significantly over the past ten years. That’s why your comment and info graphic was only misleading, it was alarmist and disingenuous...
... implying that infants today are somehow being 'over-vaccinated' and placed at risk, while adults are somehow being neglected.
That simply isn’t the case. In fact, the range of available vaccines has expanded considerably, not just for children but for adults as well.
Take a moment to consider: as an adult, haven’t you received vaccinations for Polio, Tetanus, Diphtheria, Typhoid, Tuberculosis, Hepatitis (A and B), Measles, or Mumps? Many of us have - because these vaccines either weren’t part of the standard childhood immunisation schedule when we were young because they weren't available back then - which is why children were still seen walking around with leg braces and horrific images of kids in iron lungs were not uncommon... that doesn't happen anymore.
-
1
-
-
6 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:
Here is information which those reading can go check by themselves.
Ingredients included in the vaccines injected into children's (often babies') bodies:
Polysorbate 80
Thimerosal Mercury
Aluminum
Formaldehyde
M59 Squalene
Acetone Sodium Borate (Borax)
2-Phenoxyethanol
SV40
Triton X-100
Bovine Calf Serum
Poultry Serum
Poultry Byproducts
Animal Organs Used To Make Vaccines:
MDCK: Madin Darby Canine Kidney, female Cocker Spaniel
VERO: African Green Monkey Kidney
FRHL: Fetal Rhesus Monkey Lung
CHO: Chinese Hamster Ovary
PK-15: Pork Kidney
RK-13: Rabbit Kidney
SIRC: Rabbit Cornea
Harvested human organs used to make vaccines:
HEK-293: Human Embryo Kidney, aborted female; used in development of Ebola & Covid
MRC-5: Human Lung, 14 week old aborted male; used in Polio, Rabies, Chickenpox, Hep A & Shingles
WI-38: Human Lung, 12 week old aborted female; used in Polio, Rabies, Chickenpox, Hep A & Shingles
RA 27-3: Human Kidney, 6 weeks old, used in the Rubella & MMR
PER-C6: Human Retina, 18 weeks old, used in the development of Ebola & Covid
IMR-90: Lung from a 16 week old fetus; to replace the WI-38 line
WALVAX-2: Lung from a 3 month old fetus; to replace the WI-38 and MRC-5 line
That list is clearly written to sound alarming... its the sort of list we see in an anti-vax social media post or an Anti-vax website...
Given your recent posting of a meme-like alarmist info graphic, I'd argue that you are getting your information of a Social Media Anti-vaccination group... Anti-Vax facebook group or something similar and simply repasting it here...
While the words and acronyms sound concerning its 'fear-washing'...
.... "would you really inject 'compound beta-162-zytenol' into your innocent little baby ?"... Or
..... "do you really think something made with Chihuahas left testis is safe to inject into a defenceless infant" ....
Lets face it - none of any of the list below is cause for any concern at all.... there is no Thimerosal Mercury in vaccines any more... the amounts of Aluminium are less than we acquire in daily consumption of food and water.
The list below - while 'close' to fact, is really alarmist and nothing more.... It has served to waste some time in a debate while I fact check and debunk... And this is the issue with such discussions, anti-vaxxers can paste lists and information which look alarming, and they take time and energy to fact check so most people don't bother - but when we do, your lists and information are readily debunked....
... how do you respond ?... "thats just mainstream thinking" ... its a no win, you'll just past more lists and compounds and mixtures no one knows or understands but sound alarming until they are fact-checked...
... "Compounds"... whoa... "you inject compounds into babies ??" - anything can sound alarmist, until fact checked....
This is my debunk:
Ingredients included in the vaccines injected into children's (often babies') bodies:
Polysorbate 80 – An emulsifier used to help ingredients mix properly; generally regarded as safe, though rare allergic reactions may occur.
Thimerosal Mercury – A preservative containing ethylmercury, not methylmercury; phased out of most childhood vaccines in the early 2000s due to public concern, though shown to be safe at low doses.
Aluminium – Used as an adjuvant to boost immune response; safe in small amounts used in vaccines, much less than environmental exposure.
Formaldehyde – Used to inactivate viruses during production; present in trace amounts far lower than naturally occurs in the human body; considered safe.
M59 Squalene – An adjuvant used in some vaccines (not all); has been used safely in flu vaccines in Europe with no evidence of harm.
Acetone Sodium Borate (Borax) – Used occasionally in stabilising solutions; borax can be toxic in high doses, but vaccine levels are far below harmful thresholds.
2-Phenoxyethanol – A preservative used in some vaccines; generally safe in low concentrations, though large amounts could cause irritation.
SV40 – A virus that was present in early polio vaccines in the 1950s-60s; no longer used, and current vaccines are free of SV40.
Triton X-100 – A detergent used in manufacturing to split cells; not present in significant amounts in final vaccines; considered safe in this context.
Bovine Calf Serum – Used as a growth medium for viruses; removed during purification; no evidence of harm in final vaccine products.
Poultry Serum – Used similarly to bovine serum in virus cultivation; well-controlled for safety; not present in final vaccine.
Poultry Byproducts – Used in egg-based vaccine production (e.g. flu); final vaccines are purified and free from byproducts; safe for most unless allergic to eggs.
Animal Organs Used To Make Vaccines:
MDCK: Madin Darby Canine Kidney, female Cocker Spaniel – Used to grow flu viruses for vaccines; highly purified in final product; no evidence of harm.
VERO: African Green Monkey Kidney – Used in making polio and other vaccines; cells are filtered out in processing; safe for human use.
FRHL: Fetal Rhesus Monkey Lung – Used in virology research and production; not present in final vaccines; processed to remove cells.
CHO: Chinese Hamster Ovary – Widely used in biotech for protein production; very common, thoroughly purified in end products.
PK-15: Pork Kidney – Used in viral vaccine development; well-regulated and not present in final product; no known risk to humans.
RK-13: Rabbit Kidney – Used in some research and vaccine processes; not part of final vaccine; no health risk to recipients.
SIRC: Rabbit Cornea – Used in lab testing and not typically found in final vaccines; minimal concern for safety.
Harvested human organs used to make vaccines:
HEK-293: Human Embryo Kidney, aborted female; used in development of Ebola & Covid – A cell line from a 1970s abortion; widely used for research; cells are cloned, not taken from new tissue; not harmful or present in final vaccines.
MRC-5: Human Lung, 14 week old aborted male; used in Polio, Rabies, Chickenpox, Hep A & Shingles – Cell line developed in 1966; only lab-grown descendants are used; no fetal tissue in vaccines themselves.
WI-38: Human Lung, 12 week old aborted female; used in Polio, Rabies, Chickenpox, Hep A & Shingles – Similar to MRC-5, developed in 1962; not part of final vaccine; used for growing viruses in early stages.
RA 27-3: Human Kidney, 6 weeks old, used in the Rubella & MMR – Virus strain originally grown in fetal cells; final vaccine does not contain these cells.
PER-C6: Human Retina, 18 weeks old, used in the development of Ebola & Covid – Developed in 1985; used in some COVID-19 vaccine production; cells not included in vaccines.
IMR-90: Lung from a 16 week old fetus; to replace the WI-38 line – Another lab-grown cell line from decades ago; safe and only used in early production.
WALVAX-2: Lung from a 3 month old fetus; to replace the WI-38 and MRC-5 line – A more recent cell line (2015); used in some vaccine research; not part of the final injectable product.
-
1
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, NoDisplayName said:
Gosh, this is exciting! Tell me more!
Was he tracked down by a BMW smart car for the expired visa?
Was he busted by an undercover McGruff the crime dawg during a sting operation?
Oh.
or.... broke up with his GF who grassed him up to the police - its then reported as outstanding police work !!!
-
1
-
-
8 minutes ago, Gottfrid said:
Anyone on overstay for any reason is a total idiot! That´s enough
You sound extremely certain of your statement - proof is in the pudding, you are an overstayer ?
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, rattlesnake said:
Interesting, I did not know that.
I have more of a problem with the heavy metals included in the recent versions, which are demonstrably problematic, as well as the frequency of inoculations in babies (c.f. the CDC graph from the other thread where one can verify that a minimum of 17 doses are injected into humans by the time they reach 6 months of age).
1) Which heavy metals ?...
Aluminium salts (adjuvants) - found in some flu vaccines, not MMR. They stimulate a stronger immune response. You actually get more aluminium from food and water than from a vaccine.
Thimerosal (ethylmercury) - found only in some multi-dose flu vials (not in MMR). It's a preservative and has been mostly phased out due to public concern, even though studies show it's safe in those tiny amounts.
2) In that 'other thread' you posted a very bold bright alarming infographic which stated a 6 month old baby has had more vaccinations than an us (the reader) ??... You've now changed that to 17 doses of vaccinations.
Interesting how the narrative evolves...
It was a decade ago - but I dont recall 17 doses for my son... if my count is correct - 5 vaccines is the number (12 doses in total - or if you wanted to be particularly alarmist DTP-Hib-IPV is a combo vaccine, so you could count thats as 15 doses - but to do so would really betray some bias.
BCG (Tuberculosis) - 1st dose – At birth (only dose)
Hepatitis B - 1st (Birth) / 2nd (2 Mo) / 3rd (6 Mo)
DTP-Hib-IPV (Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis, influenzae type B, Polio) - 1st (2 Mo) / 2nd (4 Mo) / 3rd (6 Mo)
Rotavirus - 1st (2 Mo) / 2nd (4 Mo) / 3rd dose (6 Mo)
PCV (Pneumococcal Conjugate Vaccine) - 1st (2 Mo) / 2nd (4 Mo) / 3rd (6 Mo)
-
2
-
-
2 hours ago, Stiddle Mump said:2 hours ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:
What does nature suggest if I get bubonic plague. Eat an apple. Go for a run.
Nature would say to take care of yourself. Eat nutritious food. Stay away for vaccines.
An apple a day - keeps the doctor away.
Wrong - nature would 'say'... 30 to 60% us are dead !...
... or if the infection progresses to septicemic or pneumonic plague - the fatality rate would be 100%
... but sure... take that apple..... ignore antibiotics !!! nature has a way, right ?
-
2
-
-
- Popular Post
- Popular Post
15 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:By all means, the superior members of society should devise an actionable Final Solution to resolve the "Antivaxxer Question"…
They already have.... they called it Vaccination !!!!...
The word "vaccination" comes from the Latin word vacca, meaning "cow."
In the late 18th century, English physician Edward Jenner discovered that milkmaids who had caught cowpox (a much milder disease) seemed immune to smallpox, a deadly disease at the time. In 1796, he tested this by taking pus from a cowpox sore on a milkmaid’s hand and inoculating it into a young boy. The boy didn’t get smallpox - and voilà, the first vaccine was born.
Jenner called the procedure "vaccination" to honour the cow connection - from variolae vaccinae, Latin for "cowpox." Over time, "vaccination" came to refer more broadly to any immunisation procedure.
-
2
-
1
-
3 hours ago, snoop1130 said:
Ing’s admission implicated him in the fatal assault charge, usually carrying three to five years in prison. However, due to his status as a minor, his sentencing might differ according to legal provisions applicable to minors.
So at best we have an unhinged child murder walking the streets when he is 23 years old...
This is not a fatal assault, its cold blooded murder, the 'man' is 18 years old and should be tried as an adult.
-
2 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:
A walk though a graveyard 100 years ago would see mark ups of many 90 to 105 deaths. At the some time there were some awful medical practices going on, that resulted in as many as as half the infants not making it to 5 years of age. Averages don't tell the story.
Rubbish - the average life expectancy tells the whole story... medical practices were not carried out on healthy people, most of those who needed medical intervention were already in a serious way.
2 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:Some of the biggest leaps forward in improved heath, came with public health measures. Garbage collections, sewerage systems and plumbing.
Absolutely.... Is that nature ?? because other animals don't do this.
2 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:Unfortunately the Big Pharma health system came in at the turn of the 20th. Industry created new hazards, Farming went yield crazy, ruining the food for billions.
Are we healthier now than 150 years ago? I doubt it. We have certainly put money before nature. And that, when all said and done, is what we are an intricate part of.
Yes, which is why we have a higher life expectancy...
Life expectancy 150 years ago was 30-40 years old - we died of good health did we ?
Our children's children are expected to see 150 years old.
2 minutes ago, Stiddle Mump said:I'm pretty sure, that if we took the road to nature, instead of the Big Pharma pathway of unending medical interventions, we would be healthier and happier. And the only part of the hospitals we would need is the A & E.
Comical tosh....
Why A&E - wouldn't you let nature find the way ?... Would you allow A&E to administer antibiotics for sepsis and infections ?
-
1
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, MalcolmB said:
Can you name them?
Nah.
Whoops
Au contraire cockroach..
Well over 70 pages of posters with the Emoticon M...
Most of them probably lurkers... but there are scores of forum members with the same colour emoticon initial.
You only jumped to the conclusions you do because you are stupid and don't know what you don't know.
-
15 minutes ago, MalcolmB said:18 minutes ago, Fat is a type of crazy said:
They pick someone special on April Fools
Now where have I seen that blue F before?
Awww cockroach.... Cute... but no cigar !!!
... Your observational skills are sorely missing... 'fat is a type of crazy's' emoticon or whatever its called has a badge...
-
1 minute ago, Stiddle Mump said:
You are nature Richard. Nature is you, Just as much as trees, elephants and chickens. You are coming at the subject of health on a completely different path to me.
The body has evolved to do basic things. Protect itself, grow, reproduce and then protect the babe; as it was itself protected.
Given the tools, the body will maintain itself to keep in the best of health. It will heal itself, and whatever it does, is for the goodness of itself. When symptoms arise, they are the body putting right something that is amiss.
The white-coats would have us believe that there is an entity, called a virus, behind every tree, round each corner, just waiting to pounce. And of course if/when they do, a vaxx, created in a factory will sort it. I don't subscribe to that view one little bit.
You can insult me all you want, but the truth is there for anyone to see. Just have to open eyes and mind. But I will say Richard, that you do attempt to discuss; unlike some others.
Nature has the answers we seek.
Interesting... So human life expectancy has got worse or improved over the last millennia then ?
Getting a 5 year motorbike license requirements
in Motorcycles in Thailand
Posted
Indeed... Its most definitely not a case of 'just turn up'...
In short, OP, you will need the same documents that were required for your initial 2 year temp license:
- Proof of Address (CoR from immigration or Affirmation of Address from your consulate)
- Medical Certificate (from a local clinic)
- Passport Copy (ID and Visa Page)
- Overseas license (copy of)
- Overseas IDP (If overseas license is not in English language)
You may need an appointment (depending on specific DLT).
- You will need to watch the 45min video online before hand (online)
- You will need to QR code from the end of the Video
- At the test centre you will carry out the 'class-room tests' (colour blindness, proximity, reaction etc)
- You will not need to do any outside practical test