weejun

2 hours ago, LisuLover said:

Im with her. The carrier looks like Air Asia, (like Ryanair, the worst airlines in the world) and they will squeeze you until the pips in your oranges squeak.

Dude, she has two bags, and one is clearly oversized and overweight. This is not about squeezing anyone, this is about a stupid woman not giving a <deleted> about the rules. I mean it's one thing to have one bag and maybe a couple of kg more than allowed, but this? Christ.

"That's a Thai for you!"

Really? I would have thought Chinese or something. What makes her so "Thai"? I've seen Western people melt down like this as well.

Weird title for this topic.

My trips are always less than two weeks, usually around one week. It will take between 1-4 months between each trip. Does that mean I may not have to apply for a visa at all, even when going there multiple times within 12 months?

Ladies and gents, I'm trying to figure out if it's OK for me to go to Thailand without applying for a visa.

I'm from Norway so I can go to Thailand for 30 days without a visa. The problem is, I've been in Thailand so many times last year I had to start applying for visas as I heard that after 3-4 trips without a visa I could be refused entry.

Last time I was in Thailand was in November last year, and I naturally applied for a visa.

But now it's a new year, so will I still have to apply for a visa because I have been there so many times in the past 12 months? Or can I start fresh with a new year and go 3-4 times without a visa before I start applying for visas again later this year?

Or will I always have to keep applying for visas as long as I've been to Thailand more than 3-4 times in the past 12 months?

On 10/1/2018 at 3:29 AM, webfact said:

The move comes in the wake of an embarrassing incident for Thailand - the assault of a Chinese tourist at Bangkok's second largest airport by a security guard that was caught on video.

I don't get it. That security guard made Thailand safer for everyone else. Shouldn't he rather have been promoted?

On 10/1/2018 at 1:05 PM, gigman said:

Security has no right to punch any one. 

There is a training how to response in such situations and second security man reacted properly. 

That's international place and no one wants to be punched even if is wrong. 

On the other hand, he actually did something most people just think about doing when encountering one of these insanely annoying Chinese tourists. The poor guard lost his job too. Maybe we should set up a GoFundMe for him?

I mean, I am unfortunate enough to have been exposed to the insanity of some of these Chinese tourists... I don't really blame the guy for snapping.

8 hours ago, DrTuner said:

Even if it would kill you instantly Thais would still add that sewage plaraa to their somtam. Must be a genetic defect.

No racism to see here, move along.

On 6.5.2017 at 0:12 AM, ezzra said:

Thailand is a mecca for criminals with millions of gullible tourists and

holiday makers coming thru the many airports of the country making

them a hot bed for those criminals,

we never get to hear what have become of the hundreds of foreigners

criminals caught in the act of ATM scamming and other illegal activates,

presumably they got some light sentences and were sent home.....

Now, the important question is: Can we find some way to blame the Thais for this?

14 hours ago, overherebc said:

Never been a fan of thai food myself and never understood the reasoning behind eating food that has so much chilli in it. 

It always strikes me as strange that food should bring on a sweating session, red face and a need to drink litres of water to kill/cool off the burn. More like a competition than enjoyment. Locally I sometimes have TomYam Kung and ask them to bring the chilli in another side dish. Usually they bring 15 or so chillies in the dish for one bowl of soup.

Someone at the table will be happy to have them and add to their own bowl then sit there gasping, sweating and saying Aroi Aroi.

No way can that be good for your stomach lining or intestines over a lifetime.

Yes, imagine that. Someone else not liking the exact same things you do. What is the world coming to? Why can't everyone just like what you like and get over their personal preferences?

15 hours ago, soalbundy said:

I have noticed that, a herd mentality, no sooner are people on the aircraft everyone has to go to the toilet, they can't go in the airport ? same just before landing, quick, lets have a quick pee before landing, it has always astounded me. 

At the airport you have run around and worry about checking in, luggage, immigration, etc. (you don't know how long you'll wait in line to get your luggage or pass through immigration). On the plane you sit down, relax, and have the time to notice your body signaling that it needs to expel certain fluids and similar things.

On 25.4.2017 at 2:35 PM, clockman said:

Most Thais are stone deaf!

Are these kinds of comments really necessary?

On 7.4.2017 at 8:50 AM, clockman said:

Send it viral around the world. Only money matters to these people..

And that is different from businesses in the rest of the world?

21 hours ago, pomegranate said:

Open your eyes.

Sure. What am I supposed to see?

13 hours ago, HooHaa said:

So by your admission you know of at least 4 people who would act similarly. 

I know a lot of people. Your point being?

3 hours ago, pomegranate said:

She is typically a modern western girl.

No rule, no respect. Only following what she likes.

Sure of herself. Arrogant.

The female sweentness and gentleness are a legend, and the way to fool people.

You have strange friends and acquaintances. No western girl or woman I know would do something like this, with a maybe couple of exceptions. Similarly, no boys or men I know would do something like this, with maybe a couple of exceptions there as well.

Maybe you should get new friends, if your friends are rude and show no respect. You are who you associate yourself with.

5 hours ago, brain150 said:

Just because somebody might feel bad does not mean you can force somebody to do something he does not want to do !
Other peoples feelings are completely irrelevant.

Wearing a seat belt or not does not do any harm to anybody than the one wearing it ! It's his choice and he is free to do so.

 

Your whole point of people needing to be forced for what's good for them is simple insanity !

How do you know what's good for somebody else ? ... it's all based on your believes.

Mine might be different ... that's my right as a sovereign individual !

As long as somebody does not cause damage or harm to SOMEBODY else, the individual should never be forced to do something.

 

It's a big difference to have traffic rules for traffic safety and wearing a seat belt or helmet that are exclusively for individual safety !

If I crash my head it will not hurt you in any way ! If you drive me off my bike then you are responsible for hurting me and me wearing

a helmet or not or a seat belt or not is irrelevant !

 

The problem is how to drive a car and a certain amount of responsibility for ones actions !!!

Seat belts and helmets are completely irrelevant for overall traffic ... they are for personal safety and as such have to be a personal decision.

 

I never gave authority to anybody to care for my personal safety so anybody who claims it has to be either god or a dictator !

... so you are either god or you like dictatorships.

Comparing mandatory seat belt use to a dictatorship is a bit excessive, don't you think? How about a sense of proportion here?

I think I already explain how this is about more than people's feelings. You failed to address that.

Yes, sovereign individuals and all that. But the fact is that people's actions affect other people, and that means they are not as free to do what they want as if their actions didn't affect anyone.

4 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

Thankyou so you just confirmed you don't understand.

What is it that I don't understand, though? I already told you I'm not talking about how this will affect Thais. I'm talking about the general principle of enforcing traffic laws, specifically on seat belts.

1 hour ago, Kwasaki said:

Sorry but you really do not understand the Thai way of doing things, they have family in the back of there old trucks (pick-ups) because they can't afford a coach.

So it's goodbye to baht buses (songtels) then.

Yes, I do understand. But I'm not responding to these specific things. I'm responding to the people here who make it sound like enforcing such laws is a bad idea in general. I'm discussing the general topic of enforcing seat belts, not the specific way it might affect Thais.

5 hours ago, brain150 said:

Rightfully the people will continue what they think is rkght for them !

It's the will of the people !

 

Only brainwashed peole who constantly repeat what Governments tell them will think the will of the people is worth nothing.

What an odd argument. Just because one happens to agree with the Government enforcing this law doesn't mean one automatically supports everything else the Government is doing.

The will of the people, eh? As if the People are a single organism sharing the same thoughts and ideas. And what about the will of ignorant people who don't know their own good? Which leads me to the next part:

Quote

 

If you think it's good or bad, right or wrong is irrelevant !

The people have the right to chose for themselves !!!

 

Btw: It's a stupid law !

Next they do is to make a law telling everybody to eat more broccoli ... because it's healthy and as such good for the people !

 

Wearing a seat belt or not does not harm anybode else and also does not make traffic more safe !!!

Just like not wearing a helmet affects the safety of the traffic.

 

People generally have the right to choose for themselves. And they should have that right. Generally. But in many cases it is not wise to leave the choice up to the individual, such as with traffic safety. Traffic safety affects everyone. You can say "sucks for the victim" if someone gets himself killed for not using a seat belt, but the whole thing doesn't affect just him. It affects other people who were involved in the accident.

What about the guy in the other car who has to live with the fact that he killed another human being (even if the accident wasn't his fault)?

What about the family of the dead guy? Does their grief not matter? That they lost a loved one, and will miss him for the rest of their lives?

What about the first people on the scene? Maybe a young girl who saw the bloody, mangled body of the victim and is now mentally scarred for life?

Apart from the monetary cost (treating injuries that could have been prevented, emergency responders, etc.), there's the human cost.

Furthermore, your argument ignores the group effect. When there's no enforcement in place, people may become lazy and ignore the rules. And as more and more people ignore the rules, they affect others and make them more likely to ignore the rules as well. It becomes self-reinforcing. No one cares about the rules, and no one cares about staying safe in traffic because no one else does. In these cases, people need someone to guide them in the right direction. When voluntarily following the rules, or doing the right thing, doesn't work it's time for someone with authority to see to it that the people are guided.

14 hours ago, billy54 said:

I don't want to discuss the rights or wrongs of this , opinions' we all have them , but is this the thin end of the nanny state wedge , 

The fact is that people die on the roads. Seatbelts will save lives. Enforcing the use of seat belts makes sense from all perspectives. When people are unable or unwilling to take care of themselves, the government can step in. Remember, these accidents cost not only money, but they also cause human suffering (witnesses suffering from terrible sights, grieving friends and family, etc.).

6 hours ago, Billy Sweets said:

I have heard that some of the bars on Cowboy have changed ownership to Chinese and this type of behavior is not uncommon in cities in China.

Chinese? Where can I read about this?

On 3.4.2017 at 9:04 AM, Thaidream said:

If you doubt this story- you might want to peruse the internet- it's full of stories/reports about punters being ripped off on Cowboy from one of these 6 bars that are named very explicitly in the reports.

Got some links? I can't seem to find a whole lot of them. Just the story about the guy paying in cash and then getting a bill for the same amount which several people here have repeated.

So basically, you just order at fasttrackcoupon.blog.fc2.com, they send it to you through snail mail, you add the details yourself and get in the Fast Track line? For 400 THB? And it can be used on departure (worse to miss a plane than to be stuck for a little bit on entering the country I'd say)?

19 hours ago, BWPattaya said:

My Thai wife is the only person I know who read the whole of the Lord of the Rings. 

This library will be on my list of places to visit next time I go to Bangkok 

Where is it located, though? Anyone have the location on a map?

1 hour ago, yardrunner said:

just because a report is biased does not mean that it doesnt contain a kernel of truth

It means that the report is useless and shouldn't be used for anything. It should be ignored.

4 hours ago, dexterm said:

>>Wait, so occupying the enemy's land is apartheid? So the allied forces were guilty of apartheid when they occupied Germany during WWII? Or it is just wrong when a Jewish stat does it?...False analogy. Allied forces did not occupy with the intention of flooding the region with its own inhabitants in order to expand its own territory.

Neither did Israel. Israel didn't occupy the West Bank and Gaza until 1967, and they were forced to because they were attacked. They never even wanted to occupy the West Bank, but had no choice.

Quote

Israel's temporary occupation has now lasted 50 years!

Yes, because the Palestinians keep waging war against them.

Quote

 

Under the Geneva Convention, to which Israel and the USA are signatories, 

"The Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. 
Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.

The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Geneva_Convention#Section_III._Occupied_territories

 

As one of the pillars of Israel's apartheid strategy central to the OP report, preventing the original Palestinian inhabitants from returning to their homes , contrary to the Geneva Convention, is one of the chief methods Israel uses to retain its majority Jewish population and thus its phony Jewish State,  in order to maintain dominance over the Palestinian population.

 

You seem to be confusing different things again. Are you talking about the Arab Exodus in 1948, which did not happen from land Israel occupied, or are you talking about the West Bank today?

By the way, did you know that many Jewish West Bank settlements are in reality Jews returning to homes they were ethnically cleansed from in 1948?

And what about all the Jews that were expelled from Arab countries in 1948? There were far more of them than there were Palestinian refugees from Israel.

5 hours ago, dexterm said:

Your 2% disingenuously refers purely to settler buildings. What you fail to also mention is settler industrial and agricultural zones, and most important of all the local authority jurisdiction of these settlements which account for 42% of the West Bank, where Palestinians are forbidden to build

None of this is really relevant. If the goal was to take over the West Bank, the actual settlements would be spreading wildly. They are not.

That Palestinians are forbidden to build in places is a result of their war against Israel/Jews. Had they not been at war, Israel would not have been forced to take security precautions.