richard_smith237

No need... I believe you that EV's can catch fire... as do normal ICE's I'm neither pro nor against EV's... but I do prefer to see factual rather than misleading information. Evidence suggests that petrol cars are more likely to catch fire than an E.V. Some stats (from link below). A recent study by US insurer, AutoinsuranceEZ found that hybrid cars had the worst fire record, while EVs were the least likely type of car to catch fire. - Hybrid cars had 3474 fires per 100,000 - Petrol cars had 1,530 fires per 100,000 - EVs had just 25 fires per 100,000 https://thefifthestate.com.au/energy-lead/energy/while-the-ev-markets-on-fire-the-vehicles-are-not/#:~:text=A recent study by US,25.1 fires per 100%2C000 sales. https://thedriven.io/2023/05/16/petrol-and-diesel-cars-20-times-more-likely-to-catch-fire-than-evs/ https://belux.edmo.eu/fact-check-do-electric-cars-catch-fire-more-often-than-combustion-engine-cars/

Decathlon has quite a range, if near a decathlon its well worth a visit and going to checkout the quality etc yourself. Silly discussion about poles - there are rigid poles and flexible poles. The type of pole and material you have depends purely on the type of tent you have, whether its a-frame, popup, rigid etc...

They couldn't swim and went out on a boat without any life jackets ??? RIP and all that, but really, this was outrageously daft... a complete absence of any common sense whatsoever - tragic and completely 100% avoidable loss of life.

To be fair...... have we not also read of numerous reports of ICE vehicles in flames here in Thailand (and elsewhere)..... The reality is any vehicle presents an extremely minor risk of combustion when something goes wrong or it is involved in an accident etc... E.V's certainly do not have a monopoly on combustion - any implication otherwise is simply presenting false and bias information.

Nearly every estate agent website etc has loads of listings... ... they're nearly always old. Why ?.... landlords list on multiple websites and don't update agents when they have rented out their property with someone else. Thus, when making an enquiry it is only then that the agent follows up with the landlord and finds out the property is no longer available. When were were looking to rent most of the decent properties we found online were no longer available, agents wasted our time with viewings of different properties we found undesirable. Thus: IF the Op has found a property he likes for the price he likes in an area he likes... then go for it if all else feels right. The request to prove you can afford it is hardly invasive, its just 'safe business practice'... those arguing otherwise probably can't afford 65,000 per month rent anyway... AND... those who left laughing emoji's at the 65,000 per month rent certainly can't afford it !!!!

What happens in another country with a different system is utterly irrelevant. If you want to talk about rent in your country, go for it... in a forum with a thread about 'rent in your country' !!!!

I think thats fair enough - IF the landlord wants proof that you can afford the rent, then paying up front is a reasonable solution, most landlords would be happy with this. i.e. Sign a years contract - pay 6 months up front (+ 2months deposit), thats fair. IF someone is not willing to present proof of funds for a 12 month contract and is not willing to pay upfront, is going to argue about leaving a 2 month deposit - they really are not really 'good tenant' material and can go forth.

Incorrect. It depends on location and the property.... If you are not prepared to give up some basic information that proves you can afford the rent for the duration of the contract then its probably because you are unable to. You are clearly not the type of tenant a self respecting landlord wants. I'd tell you, good luck & bye. ... so you'll find yourself in a place where the landlord has no requirements, but good luck getting any professional response when you need it... i.e. when the property needs repairs or when moving out and expecting your deposit back.

Erm... because we are in Thailand and 'not where you live'..... things work differently here. IF there were a government body which 'holds onto the deposits' (same as escrow), I'd be more concerned that the amounts are siphoned off by corrupt officials !!!!... OR, some corrupt officials concoct some hair-brained idea to improve the escrow service etc, but of course that involves some 'investment' (from the escrow funds) and bingo, there is the access and opportunity to pocket some money !! IMO Any such official systems here is more likely to be abused than a landlord keeping the deposit. I've always had my deposit returned - so not all landlords are unscrupulous, we can evaluated this and use our judgment when dealing with how professional the landlord behaves.

If you are not prepared to give up information to prove you can afford the rent for the rental duration, or to provide personal details such as passport information then you are not the sort of person anyone ideally wants as a tenant as there is no 'recourse' should you become a tenant from hell (even if you are potentially an excellent tenant, the landlord doesn't know that). The fact that a landlord wants such information implies he is operating on a professional level and is less likely to screw you over come moving out time if you've looked after the place.

Realistically, if the owner is asking such questions in a professional manner, then you are likely to be dealing with a professional landlord who will live up to his side of the agreement. Perfectly reasonable questions. 1) Proof of funds. 2) Source of income. 3) Passport Copies. 4) Permanent overseas address (if there is one). It may feel like an invasion of privacy, but you are about to move into someone else's home & if it's a good home with a professional landlord then you're in an ideal situation. IF you are the type of person who expects to keep such information private, you may also be the type of person a landlord may not want.

Well done... you are debating the qualities of commercial drone batteries in a thread about electric motorcycles. This is as disjointed as another thread where a poster asked about clearances around a tumble drier in the home and then another poster started arguing how he was more knowledgeable with his experience of 25 kgs commercial driers !!!... Any 'genuine' concern for batteries is about as real as there would be general concern for putting an extremely flammable liquid in a tank and driving around with it if petroleum technology were a new tech today. As such, the concern isn't so genuine as it is ill-informed paranoia.

Considering you have Thai Nationality, thats extremely strange. OR, are you registering as a foreigner ?

Exactly... IF Airlines were to charge more for heavier people it does nothing for the others in the same cabin, it simply profiteering. IF a person is so physically large to fit in an economy class seat, then they can't fit and thats that. If they can fit, then they can fit, and thats that. If someone is unfortunate enough to sit next to an overwhelmingly obese person who can fit in an economy class seat with the arms down, then thats just tough - its not as if this is a frequent occurrence. On about 34 flights per year - this is not an experience I have had to encounter - I've sat near extremely large people but there has been a seat between us. I've sat next to 'large people' but none so large that they were spilling into my seat - I think some of the comments here take the hyperbolic example to exaggerate and strengthen their position.

I'm not so sure about that... On other threads a number of the 'same complainers' argue that there should be 'adults only' flights on which children are banned.

In 'areas' of Phuket, Samui and also Pattaya there is an a somewhat unhealthy atmosphere, one were there is a general sense of disregard compared to the innocent indifference we see elsewhere. I always guessed it was because those in specific parts of such area's are less likely to be from that area, less likely to be community spirited and more mercenary in their hunger for money. Such area's are often a tinderbox for fighting factions, fragile ego's, incendiary responses to simple events. That the police do very little to enforce the laws in such area's highlights the utter absence of any grasp the Thai Police have on law and order in the nation in general.

Unless of course the water is safe to the point that officials never considered the 'subsurface injection' option as there was simply no need whatsoever, just as there isn't at any other nuclear power-station. Water injection carried out in the oil industry is usually to maintain pressure in depleting or migrating reservoirs, being able to get rid of waste water is simply a bonus.

And his had his fine ready? A few possibilities here I guess. 1) he didn't have the money to pay the fine. 2) His overstay was significant enough to warrant being black-listed. i.e. if he has overstayed for more than 90 days he'd be prevented from re-entry to the Kingdom within 1 year. I'm guessing #2 is more likely, but doesn't this sort of stuff happen every day, I'm not sure this is particularly news worthy at all, unless Immigration deliberately trying to send out a message - another crack-down perhaps.

Relax man, it's just a little overstay, not murder. He's shown an unhinged degree of inflexibility and an element of Schadenfreude at someone else's misfortune. I know people who have overstayed by a day or two through none other than the simplest of misunderstandings - i.e. purchased a Thai Elite Visa and were not made aware they have to make an extension of stay every 90 day - only finding out when they first made their 90 day report on day 94 and had to pay 2000 baht overstay. Gottfrid would first call these folk who make such innocent, innocuous and harmless mistakes scum and insist that they are arrested. When people have such outspoken hardline attitudes is usually a giveaway as to who the scum really is.

Decathlon helmet Sizing for adults: 59-62cm = L There are 'some' helmets sold by Decathlon Thailand that come in XL size.

The footage was not lost - it had been transferred to other forms of media or also recorded by other media. Thats it, nothing to wrap your head around really, it was simply SOP to reuse the tapes (according to reports). This is only a conspiracy for those who are concentrating on '200,000 tapes erased' as if to hide some evidence of a conspiracy... The implication by conspiracists ignores the fact that no footage was lost - which is typical of conspiracist arguments; they hold on to one shred of information which appears to lend some feasible leverage to their argument - but that shred of evidence can easily be explained and the 'conspiracy' readily debunked.

Why is he 'obviously telling porkies'.... He [KhunLA] has stated that he has operated 'kit' (drone & E-MB) in the rain and the batteries neither shrunk nor exploded. He's providing real world experience that they hysteria against batteries may be just that, hysteria and while there is well documented risk of batteries catching fire, the real world incidence is rare. Its the same for the batteries mobile phones - while there is some hysteria, the real world experience for pretty much all of us is that the phones we have possessed have not exploded or caught fire.

Thats the excuse presented... it was also mentioned that re-use of tapes was SOP at the time. Its not as if they erased all tapes - I think its just the ones where they considered the footage unexceptional or doubled up etc. The footage on tapes recorded over is not lost, as that footage was also recorded else where. As such, there is no 'missing data' (contrary to some implications / arguements). 200,000 tapes - what is the cost of a tape ? (a complete guess >> equivalent to $10 each in 1970???)... Thats a saving of 2 Million $$ which is equivalent to 44 Million in real terms today. Thus: Why over wright the tape ??? SOP there was no reason not to, footage was stored elsewhere and there was significant saving in reusing the tapes.

Using Thai Airways Air miles is nearly an impossibility - I'm not sure why TG makes it so difficult. We have enough Airmiles to fly 3 of us return to the UK business class, but, no seats (even 330 days out - max days for pre-booking Airmiles seats) - That said, the Tax on business Air-miles seats is high such that its not really worth it. We managed to secure Airmiles flights to Japan. Had to book one way first (because of Max 330 days booking in advance) and then wait a little longer before booking the return flight... Wife was up in the earlier hours of the morning to get ahead in the queue. It was amazing the see that the 'seats sold out' so quickly - I suspect some of the staff giving air-miles seats to their friend etc.

Last year TG were offering seats BKK-LHR for about 10,000 baht - well worth a punt I thought. However, the return offset this and was about 30,000 baht... By far the better option was Emirates (which at the time was about 30,000 baht) and we could breakup the journey stopping over in the UAE for a swim and dinner. We fly to Japan with Thai Airways... and as you point out, the aircraft interior on some of the aircraft seems dated now - simply not up to the standards of Emirates or Qatar.