AsianAtHeart

With all due respect, that is patently false. It's called pantheism, and is closely related to panentheism. God is not the universe, and the creatures that He has made are not God. He did not create Himself. God made me, but I am not God. If I made a computer, I would not be the computer. Simple. God and His creation are separate entities. If God could or had created Himself, we're back full circle to circular reasoning--which can never hope to guide us out of the desert wasteland we find ourselves in seeking for truth. It's like a dog chasing its tail. No, everything is not God. To believe so is to accept that one should worship every object, every creature, including every human--even oneself. I know better, and everyone should be able to think clearly enough to realize that this cannot be the reality. I'm sorry, I must have missed it. I haven't been able to read all the posts, especially not the back-and-forth that seemed to be between others having nothing to do with my contributions to this discussion. Tag me or respond to me and I will be more likely to see it. (I don't see any post of yours on this page about the apocalypse...how far back was it?)

Trying to help yourself is like trying to lift yourself by your bootstraps. It can never hope to succeed. We are all caught in the trap of sin. There is no such thing as self-help to get out of it. If we do not have God's help, we are lost. The best we can do to avail ourselves of the help we need is to seek God. Looking into the mess we have within ourselves will only keep us in the mess. By beholding we are changed. Look at yourself and become like yourself? Circular. I want to behold God's character, and become as much unlike my present self as possible.

There's a word for those who focus on themselves. It has nothing to do with finding or being God. It's called "narcissism."

That's correct.

Oh, that's a casebearer. It eats spider webs, mostly, but can sometimes eat other natural fibers (including cotton). The grayish case surrounding the inner worm/caterpillar protects it from the spiders.

Sounds like a rather large specimen of a springtail, or collembola. I could be more certain if you had a picture. Usually they are more grayish in appearance, but they have an outer scaly surface that can be somewhat iridescent, and, depending on the lighting, might appear in other colors. If it is a collembola, it's rather harmless. Maybe something like this?

Officially, a "4-way" switch is called a "double-pole, double-throw" switch. You might try looking for something along those lines. I would think Thai Watsadu should have them, but I don't know. They do have more variety than some of the others. I've never actually purchased one in Thailand--but have installed them elsewhere. Yes, you definitely need a 4-way for any switch in the line sandwiched between two 3-way switches. You can use as many 4-ways as you like, but you will also need to have three wires running between them (two hots plus neutral), instead of just the hot and neutral for a normal circuit--unless you are creative with the neutral line. There are always two ways to wire a light: Power to the switch, or power to the light. The former is best, as when the switch is off, you won't risk electrocution to work with the wiring at the light. In the case of two or more switches, the power must enter at one of the 3-way switches, with the light connected at the other one.

I've been carefully reading through this thread, interested to see what people would say. I could easily tell you were not a teacher before I even got to the post where you stated such, so I'm responding to this one...but I have detected that there are multiple posters in this topic who are not teachers and who, as a result, offer flimsy advice, at best--to whom I am also responding. Your "a proper teaching training" does not include a methodology by which to handle today's problems. My own "training" (five years' worth) to become a teacher, plus the additional training I have had since to upgrade my credentials (two years' worth) has included nothing that would prepare me for today's problems--the sort that were highlighted in the OP. When I was training to become a teacher, smartphones did not yet exist. Furthermore, the ridiculous restraints on teachers forbidding any interference in the students' lives such as altering their grades, confiscating illegal or distracting items from them, calling for backup from a principal, manager, or disciplinary officer, or perhaps even contacting their parents--none of these restraints were addressed in behavior management courses. All of those options, and more, were considered to be on the table. The OP has specifically addressed corporal punishment. I have never hit a student. But I have confiscated their items (in rare cases) and later returned them, I have asked them to change seats, I have (once or twice only in my career) slammed the desk in front of them for effect (it only worked temporarily), I have arm-wrestled the biggest chap in the class who had been threatening to provoke a fight (this earned the respect of the class, as I was obviously smaller and less muscular in appearance, but won), I have used proximity control, I have reduced their percentage for participation in their grades, and many other methods. But there are times when these methods are still inadequate. Some students, whose parents couldn't care less and who simply have no interest whatsoever in learning, find pleasure in getting attention the only way they know how--being a troublemaker. In the classroom, it has often been the case in my experience that I could not legally leave the class at any time, nor leave any student unsupervised. This means it was not an option to send a student out, nor to lock the door. Management has often expected teachers to handle things themselves, and frowned on the teacher who calls for backup. I have often had no assistant, being the only adult in a classroom with 35 students. The level of disrespect that teachers can get today is astounding. In an American public school--in a small country town, at that--not some inner-city school, I was asked by students, entirely unprovoked by me, I can assure you, as I simply did not discuss nor suggest such impure thoughts in any form, if I were wearing my underwear that day. I was asked if I "got some" every night. Etc. Some students gave me hateful looks that made me fear for life--it would not have been difficult to sneak a gun into that facility. This was without any special provocation--I had not embarrassed the student, nor confiscated anything, nor made adjustments in the grade book, . . . nothing. Thailand is way better, as one poster said earlier. Thai students have more respect than American students. But Thai students have little incentive to learn, and English is one of their least favorite subjects, generally speaking. If you don't like the subject, and/or you don't like the teacher, you will have a poor opportunity to learn. This has been scientifically established. Proper pedagogy is a component of appropriate classroom management. But it cannot solve every problem. It cannot fix, for example, the emotionally broken students whose parents have split or who abuse them. Because schools require uniforms, a teacher also has less opportunity for some advance warning that a student has issues--issues which would manifest themselves by the student's choice of clothing often well before a student had reached the point of acting out. Yes, I'm opposed to school uniforms--even though I think they look wonderful and professional. If students have no opportunity to learn to make choices for less important matters such as what they will wear, they may be set up to make mistakes in matters of choice for the larger issues they face later on. I have yet to face the heat of a Thai public school classroom. But I have been in numerous private school classrooms, and have found that most of the students were quite respectful. It is my opinion that my teaching style attracts their interest sufficiently that they don't want to be distracted by their phones lest they miss something. I have never had much of an issue with phones. I regularly use diversions, tell stories, etc. as part of my lesson, in addition to teaching with some hands-on manipulatives for the tactile/kinesthetic learners. Most of my pedagogy favors the auditory learners, for sure...but they are kept engaged through the manner of presentation of the subject matter. I haven't needed to make or promulgate classroom rules. The mattayom students generally already know what proper classroom decorum should be. But if I were to make one, it would be to respect others. And they already know this. Respect begets respect. I respect them, and they return in kind. This solves the issue. I think a new teacher has to be careful not to make the wrong impression during the critical "honeymoon" period--the time when students are still sizing up their new teacher and deciding what sort of relationship to expect with him or her. It's easy to be either too strict (students will then want to rebel) or too permissive (students will walk all over you). I'm not one to follow the old adage, "Don't crack a smile before Christmas," but I think it is possible to smile and yet be firm at the same time in a kind, but not permissive, way. Once you lose their respect, you've lost classroom control. And you won't easily ever regain it. This may be the reason a clean start at a new school is necessary. In my opinion, corporal punishment cannot make up for the lack, any more than throwing buckets of ice water on a house fire when the roof is already ablaze will stop the flames. However, if corporal punishment is used in an established, procedural way, and not out of anger or revenge or spontaneity, and it if is used consistently from the beginning, I am not opposed to it as a means of maintaining classroom order. It's a real challenge. To be a teacher these days, one must first be a disciplinarian--and most teachers did not sign up for such. Perhaps schools should employ military drill sergeants as teachers! (For the record, that's facetious.)

My first thought would be a fuel filter issue. In that, I concur with several others here. Is this a gas or a diesel? (The comment saying this model doesn't have plugs makes me wonder, as I had assumed it would be an unleaded gasoline vehicle.--which I would expect to have plugs.) I'm not sure about the diesel engines, but for a gas engine you could buy some “Heat” / alcohol and add a few tablespoons to the tank to help the water pass on through the system. If it's not a water issue, you'll want to have the filters inspected and either cleaned or changed. They can be tricky to find sometimes, depending on the model. There are filters that are inside the tank, at the opening of the tank, in the fuel line, at the carburetor/fuel injector. This time of year, moisture problems could easily occur. Think of the wave action in the tank or filter every time the vehicle jolts or shudders. It might be just enough to clear the opening, allowing some fuel through, after which, as the ride smooths out again, the water again covers it (water is heavier, and sinks to the bottom, but could slosh to one side if the car is moving erratically; and sediment could slide a bit, too). That would be why it goes in fits and spurts. Water will not so easily pass through the fine screen of the filter as the fuel, due to its polarity and cohesiveness. I had a car once, though, that had a problem similar to the description which had something to do with the vacuum lines, and it's been too long to remember the details. But I don't recall that it was a consistent issue; more sporadic, I think.

Not entirely true. A non-Thai can be put into the blue book, provided that he or she has his or her residence certificate or has obtained citizenship--in both cases of which they must be put into the blue book. I don't even know any Burmese/Lao people with the pink card. I know only Westerners with it. No one has ever laughed or looked down on it. The yellow book and the ID are essentially the same thing, just like one's passport and passport card are virtually the same. I was told that the pink ID card could only be obtained after first acquiring the yellow tabien bahn book--so if those "migrant workers" have the pink ID, they must have yellow TBs as well. I expect some of the backwards amphurs that don't know the system well enough may do this by mistake, but if you have your permanent residency, you are supposed to be in the blue book. See comment just above. Possibly, . . . or you have obtained your residence certificate--as I said just above. You were very fortunate. I did ten 90-minute round-trips in about two weeks' time to obtain my yellow tabien bahn book and pink ID card. And sat in the amphur most the day on those days. HUGE rigamarole. And when I was done, they told us we had gotten it an an accelerated rate--just two weeks! They said it usually took at least a month. Not if you don't have your residence certificate, which is the closest thing to citizenship without being a citizen that you can get. If you have that, then yes, you go on the blue book. The RC has strict application requirements, and per-country annual quotas (100 people/country/year)--same as for citizenship. Agree with most of this. But to "qualify", as you say, "to be entered into a blue book" requires much more than you imply. It involves a lengthy process of application, with heaps of supporting documents and several years' residence requirement during which taxes are properly paid, etc. and/or large donations documented for Thai charitable projects/organizations, etc. And the application window is only open at certain times of year. It takes months to get this. I've been compiling all the Thai (and English, where available) application requirements and instructions toward that end--and have been looking at the whole gauntlet. It's a mess, but may be worth the trouble to be forever free of the 90-day reporting, annual visa extensions, etc. that are, themselves, a tremendous hassle as well.

Back in my homeland I have a green thumb...it's not so green here, unfortunately. I would suggest asking the locals. One interesting thing that some locals do in my area when planting trees (but I'm not familiar with your particular tree or whether this would work for it) is to plant a banana tree just beside it, which will later be chopped out once the other tree has taken off. They say the banana plant helps keep moisture in the soil, and that it nurtures the tree seedling. I think, however, that the banana would surely do something with the soil pH, and whether it would do the right something or not I do not know. Again, I'd advise that you ask the locals. They may know. But, don't just ask one--unless you are certain that he or she would not feed you a line just to look knowledgeable. I'd ask several people and see if you find a consensus. You might look online for: ตะลิงปลิง ต้นไม้ (Taling Pling tree) OR ต้นตะลิงปลิง (Talin Pling plant) One of the first sites I found claimed it was easy to plant and grow! (But it gives no details otherwise.) This article may be better, but I'm lazy to run it all through Google Translate to make it more readable.

From the scientific standpoint, there is a good video available on YouTube that documents some of the current challenges that scientists are facing with respect to origins. It includes elements of the history of Darwinism, including some quotes from Darwin and others, and compares these theories with modern discoveries. The first part of the video goes into some specific scientific studies that any science lover will enjoy, and the latter part touches on the philosophy aspect, which I think will interest several of those posting here who seem to enjoy philosophical issues. Enjoy! ...and let me know if you actually watched it what you think of it.

No, God gave man free will without conditions. It was never a "love me or else you will lose free will." God did, of course, ask that we obey Him. But wasn't that His right? And had He not earned our respect? He did create us, and provide beautifully for us--showing His love from the start. It was not at all unreasonable to ask that we obey Him. But there it is--ask. God did not program us to obey, so that we would have no choice. Nor did God ever remove our power of choice, even after sin. This is why we still have so much evil in the world today. Had God removed our free will, we could truly blame God for the evil all around us, because, after all, we didn't choose it--God forced it. Yes, the Old Testament portrays God as having a part in waging war on the behalf of His people. But were the Amalekites innocent? Did God deal with them unjustly? Hardly. On the contrary, God had given them much more time than was warranted. The Amalekites had been the first to make war upon Israel in the wilderness; and for this sin, together with their defiance of God and their debasing idolatry, the Lord, through Moses, had pronounced sentence upon them. For four hundred years the execution of this sentence had been deferred; but the Amalekites had not turned from their sins. The Lord knew that this wicked people would, if it were possible, blot out His people and His worship from the earth. Now the time had come for the sentence, so long delayed, to be executed. The forbearance that God has exercised toward the wicked, emboldens men in transgression; but their punishment will be none the less certain and terrible for being long delayed. While He does not delight in vengeance, He will execute judgment upon the transgressors of His law. He is forced to do this, to preserve the inhabitants of the earth from utter depravity and ruin. In order to save some He must cut off those who become hardened in sin. And the very fact of His reluctance to execute justice testifies to the enormity of the sins that call forth His judgments and to the severity of the retribution awaiting the transgressor. But while inflicting judgment, God remembered mercy. The Amalekites were to be destroyed, but the Kenites, who dwelt among them, were spared. This people, though not wholly free from idolatry, were worshipers of God and were friendly to Israel. Of this tribe was the brother-in-law of Moses, Hobab, who had accompanied the Israelites in their travels through the wilderness, and by his knowledge of the country had rendered them valuable assistance. Regarding the census, I think the payment from each person symbolized that they were God's people, and were beholden to Him. Others may find other ways to interpret that--I'm not sure that the Bible specifies an exact reason. But there is always a lesson, a symbolic value, to these practices. As for David, the problem was not with the payment of a fee on the part of each citizen counted. The issue was that David was looking at the strength of his people instead of trusting in the strength of God, who is powerful enough to work with a few (consider Gideon's 300), or two (Jonathan and his armorbearer), or even just one (Samson)--or without people at all (consider Sennacherib's army of 85,000, slain in one night by God's angel because they had dared to defy God, saying even God could not save Israel). I'm not following you here. Do you mean that sin had not yet occurred? or that Abraham had never sinned? Either way, this would be incorrect. Abraham had twice sinned greatly in not trusting God to protect him, and lying about his wife, saying she was his sister (i.e. not his wife). Once should have been enough, as he was rebuked for it. But, no, he had failed on this same point again. Then, when his wife had come with the proposal for him to have a child with Hagar, her Egyptian maid, Abraham had wrongly consented. The children of Ishmael later became a great source of distress for God's people. Abraham's great sin, again, was not the matter of lust, or polygamy, as many might see it--it was really a matter of distrust of God, and lacking faith in Him. Had Abraham trusted God, he would have believed that God's promise of him having a son would be fulfilled in God's time, even though his wife was aging and past the normal time of childbearing. But Abraham had failed this test. And now God must test him with something even more important, to see if Abraham had learned to have full confidence in Him. God already knew that Isaac would not perish. Even if Isaac had been permitted to die, which he wasn't, God could have raised him to life. Abraham, too, must have known this, or he would not have been able to go through with it. So how can one truly say that God did not have compassion?

Have you read the Bible yourself? You will find a different picture when you do. Yes, God asked His people to sacrifice animals to help them understand how grave sin was. When you have to kill an animal to atone for your sin, do you still want to sin again? It was an important lesson, with an even more important message: God would send His Son to die for our sins. We know that human life is of much greater value than that of an animal. God made the animals for our benefit, and not as our equals. The animals were placed in subjection to man from even before sin had occurred. We are God's special focus on this earth. Yes, God pities the animals, too. But far better to sacrifice an animal, and save a human life, than the other way around. As for the Flood, God found it necessary, for the sake of the righteous, to remove the wicked from the earth at that time. If you have a flock of birds, and discover that a few have died from avian flu, you might even kill the entire flock, the innocent ones included, to ensure that the contagion did not spread any further. But God did not kill any who were innocent. He did the best thing possible in order to preserve life, for the people had become so wicked that they would soon have destroyed themselves, and the righteous with them. God's people in the Old Testament are left in "Sheol", not "Hades." They mean the same thing, but "Hades" is from the Greek word, whereas "sheol", meaning the grave, is Hebrew. And people of both testaments die and go to the grave, whether righteous or unrighteous, until Jesus comes and restores them to life--the righteous to everlasting life, and the wicked to judgment and destruction.

Do you want to know if God exists? I mean...REALLY want to know? Or do you actually want there to be NO God because you would feel guilty in His presence, living as you do now? If you truly want to know Him, the Bible has promised that those who seek Him with all their heart will find. But if you are doubting and suspicious, wavering, do not expect to receive anything from God. I like the words of a song I learned a long time ago: 1. I've been waiting, oh a long time, Such a long time to see my Savior come... And I know He's, coming for me, And He's gonna take His children home. King of glory! Coming for me, With a million angels filling up the sky! King of glory, Reigning o'er me, Up to Heaven, we are gonna fly! 2. Oh, there's doubters, and there's scoffers, There's so many who say He'll never come... Well, I'm sorry, but so will they be, When they see Him, shining like the sun. King of glory! Coming for me, With a million angels filling up the sky! King of glory, Reigning o'er me, Up to Heaven, we are gonna fly! King of glory! Coming for me, With ten million angels filling up the sky! King of glory, Reigning o'er me, Up to Heaven, we are gonna fly! ... And it's up to Heaven, we are gonna fly! Notice the words to that second verse particularly. When that day comes, what will those who have rashly denied the truth, in order to persist in their own cherished views, say to those of us who have tried our best to share it? Will you be able to blame me for not having told you? Will I be blameworthy for not having shared in some better manner that would have persuaded you? This is a question I grapple with. I know for sure that God exists. I know that the Bible is true. I've experienced it. I have tasted and seen that the Lord is good, just as Psalm 34:8 invites us to do. I have not seen, however, that people are good. Far from it. As the Bible says, "there is none that doeth good, no, not one." I have, with age and experience, had increasing difficulty with trusting anyone. Once burned, twice shy, as they say. But God has never let me down. Oh, yes, I have often been tempted to blame God for bad things that have happened. But deep inside I know that it was not God's fault, and that it would unfair to lay it to His account. Soon, everyone will know the truth. It will be too late then, however, to change sides. Jesus will come in the clouds of glory, perhaps in just a few years from now--we don't know. The Bible says we must always be ready, for we do not know the hour when our Lord will come. Indeed, we could be taken abruptly from the earth at any moment--be it a car accident, a heart attack, an accidental stray bullet fired upward in celebration somewhere nearby, or any other unexpected event. We just do not know when our probation will be ended. God, in mercy, gives us the opportunity to learn of Him. Today, the Bible is online in most of the world's languages. We have the chance to read it for ourselves, rather than accept what others claim about it. We can know the truth for ourselves. But if you read the Bible with a critical attitude, expecting to find it untrue, you will certainly see things, true or not, that uphold your biased and erroneous views. The only way to know the truth is to ask God to show it you. Ask Him with a sincere heart, not for selfish reasons merely, but for the love of your soul and for the truth's sake. God loves you...immensely. He is just waiting for the chance to reveal Himself to you...but He waits like a Gentleman, leaving it entirely your choice whether or not you will come to Him.

It looks like the roof of the vehicle just caved in a little too much. Had the steel been a bit sturdier, he might yet be alive. From the photo, I wonder if he pulled back into his lane too quickly and ended up with a wheel off the road edge, which then dragged on the left side, tripping the vehicle which still had plenty of forward momentum. No sign of damage to the wall visible in the photo, so he doesn't seem to have gotten clear off the road.

That is not correct. I told them I had brought some dutiable goods and wished to pay the duty on them. They told me to go into the customs department with the receipts. They saw that the receipts were for house wiring, electrical receptacles, breakers, etc. They knew I was visiting my grandparents--same family name. But they began to press me--what is this for? (their house) . . . are YOU going to help them? What was I to say? Of course, they were supposed to give that job to a local. If I had known where to purchase the goods in that country and had not tried to bring them in, perhaps things would have been different. No one would have been the wiser. Now, I have a red flag on my permanent record, and any/every time I enter I am interrogated at the border. Literally. Grilled. After which I usually am allowed in. After all, I am visiting family.

You might contemplate differences in diet. For example, do you eat more savory/salty foods in one place or the other? more nightshade family of vegetables (can increase thirst for certain blood types)? Salt, while on one hand may tend to elevate blood pressure by helping the body retain water, must also be present to help the kidneys expel toxins (and water). So there is a balance to find with it. Generally, when one is acclimatizing to a new climate, whether more humid or more dry, one tends to drink more water than usual. This can be expected for at least three weeks, after which the body will adjust and the water intake may return to normal.

I was too honest. I was bringing in the electrical materials for the house, and was happy to do so legally, declaring the goods and paying duty on them. They started asking questions . . . . I've always been honest. Honesty gets punished sometimes.

I've been burned on this kind of philosophy too many times in my life. The laws need to change. They are pathetic and morally wrong. There should never be a law against good work like this. I was once forbidden to enter a country because I intended to help my grandparents, who were legal residents there, in restoring their home after a devastating house fire. Because I was not there to help, my grandfather ended up doing it all himself--without proper materials or knowledge--and the building is unsafe to this day. They didn't have the money to hire someone, so not having me there did nothing to provide someone a paid job. And I was unable to keep God's law which commands me to "honor" my parents. Helping one's parents to have a place to live is certainly a part of honoring them.

I hope he doesn't get into trouble over his work permit. Thailand requires a work permit just to volunteer.

To follow tradition, with no better reason than that your forefathers did thus and so, or merely for symbolic value, is simply to remain stuck in a rut. Each and every thing we do should be based, not on tradition, but on the question of what is right or best for the benefit of all concerned; what will be most suitable for this situation. For those saying they come to Thailand and then follow Thai traditions out of respect for the foreign country in which they are guests--how far will you take this? Do you know that there are ethnic groups here that, for example, will slaughter a chicken and eat it in your honor should you visit them as a guest in their village? What if you're a vegetarian? (And the tradition is so strong that many have struggled to avoid it.) And there are villages, in both Thailand and Laos, where male guests are welcomed by giving them one of the young virgins of the village for the night? (These same villages may follow the custom of the village elders having an "opening of the birth canal" ceremony in which they, ahem, "get to know" these young virgins before they are considered women--a coming of age ceremony.) Then there is the tradition of kissing the corpse of the departed loved one at the funeral that many locals here follow--and it can get even worse than this. Sickness is often spread in this manner. These are sacred traditions to them--and held to every bit as strongly, perhaps even more strongly, than is likely of your native tradition. Will you follow their traditions just because they are traditions and respected by them? I don't follow traditions unless they are worthwhile. Any tradition. My own country's traditions included. I have no respect for man-made cultures. I appreciate only those things that serve to set the standard higher and still higher. When no reason can be given for their existence, and often, even when such reason is yet remembered, traditions are best ignored. It is important to have mutual respect and courtesy, and those who hold to the crutches of tradition must be treated carefully, as most do not see how empty their traditions really are. If only their eyes could be opened, and they could see how much traditions had hindered them.

Malaria is not a virus, folks! And, lest my post be removed for lack of the facts, I'll take it simply from my dictionary: How does one develop a "vaccine" for a parasite? If they can, let's see if they can next develop vaccines against trichinosis, tapeworms, hookworms, scabies, amebic dysentery, etc. All a vaccine supposedly does is enhance the immune response--which is done by helping develop antibodies against the foreign substance. It does not confer bullet-proof-skin superpowers, and parasites can certainly still gain admittance. Being active foreign bodies, parasites will automatically show up on the immune system's radar without any need for a vaccine to train the immunity. Not being a virus, it is not antibodies needed to fight the parasite, but rather leukocytes (white blood cells/macrophages). See more evidence HERE.

It seems that the masks are the miracle answers to every health problem. Even if we all know they won't do a speck of good filtering out the toxic gas, perhaps the smell of one's own breath will "make it better." Everyone is used to smelling their own breath by now, anyhow--must be comforting.

Is one supposed to check his or her reasoning faculties in at the gate when entering a foreign country? Why would you think such an idea would make you look more mature and less childish? Are adults supposed to merely conform, having no ability to make decisions independent of those around them? As it happens, many Thais did not get the vaccine. There are some here who are capable of original thought.