AsianAtHeart

I know nothing about any of this--but I would refuse to read anything that I knew had been inspired through a Ouija board. If what you are saying is true, and this "Seth" communicated to Jane via a Ouija board, then "Seth" is by no means a figment of her imagination, but a real being. Just not a human being. The devil and his cohorts work through those boards to communicate with people. I could tell you hair-raising stories, but it is best to give no glory to the devil and to focus, instead, on God who is much stronger. Oh, and both God's angels and the fallen angels (devils) are highly intelligent and much superior to us intellectually. They have had the advantage of thousands of years of existence in which to learn. Anything they inspire will be powerful stuff--but, even if some of it might be correct (the devil knows he will be most successful when mixing a little falsehood with a greater amount of truth), it is pure folly to trust anything coming from the dark side.

For the record, I am not saying that marijuana causes mental illness (the CDC said that, not me--perhaps they evaluated heavier users). What it causes, per my personal observations, is not particularly an illness; and it frequently does not exhibit itself in every area of life, but only in some particular area of thought. In that area, a person can become imbalanced in thinking or judgment--whereas he or she had not exhibited any imbalance in that area prior to marijuana use. I have not, personally, observed a strong correlation to one's emotional well-being--only to the ability to rationalize, analyze things clearly, and make proper connections. Post-marijuana use, there is a long-lasting tendency toward mild incoherence on certain subjects, the particular subjects varying from person to person. The thinking becomes a little "far out" in that area, and attempts to have a rational discussion on that subject may be disappointing. The memory issues for marijuana use that I have observed have been that memories made prior to the marijuana consumption will be retained, but new memories are made with much greater difficulty--and this effect seems permanent. This would, obviously, be less than desirable for any student. Alcohol has a similar effect on memory, but with alcohol, staying dry for 6 months to a year will restore the memory to near full capacity. In terms of public danger, alcohol trumps marijuana, hands down. But in terms of permanent alterations to the brain, marijuana is the riskier drug. As I think about the potential medical connections between the observed symptoms, it occurs to me that marijuana use may be depleting the body's stores of vitamin B12 which is important to nerve activity, being involved in the nerve signaling process. Prolonged deficiency in B12 is known to cause brain damage, and if not caught early enough, the brain damage will be permanent. This may, therefore, be the actual mechanism behind the observed results. That's saying it just like I see it.

Maybe you would believe the CDC, though, after noting the "long-lasting mental disorders" (bolded in the quote below), they focus on schizophrenia. I do know whereof I speak...but you are unlikely to be persuaded of it if you have a taste for weed.

To a point, perhaps. But the mental impairments with alcohol are much less permanent, with the exception of memory. Once sober, a drinker will still have possession of sound logic and judgment. Marijuana disrupts one's reasoning abilities and its effects are more lasting.

The Bible is true for everyone. For example, go and rebuild the city of Tyre--if you dare. It will never happen, because God said it wouldn't, as is recorded in the book of Ezekiel (look at the last verse of this quote especially). CITY OF TYRE And it isn't impossible to rebuild a city--or even to build one new. Longview, Washington was built on a marsh in two years by one man some years ago. The city of Rome was rebuilt after Nero burned it to the ground. Many cities have been rebuilt. With but $5 each from all the unbelievers in Britain and America, there would be sufficient to rebuild Tyre. Why don't the atheists pool together and disprove the Bible once and for all? Why not form an infidel colony on the site of old Tyre, go into the fishing business in a modern manner, and there, in defiance of prophecy, dare to answer God’s challenge, ‘Thou shalt be built no more; for I the Lord have spoken it?’ The site is habitable: ten million gallons of water daily gush from the springs, and fertile fields stretch clear to the distant mountains. Since there are millions of determined doubters who write numberless books to disprove the Bible, how did any prophet have the breath-taking daring to utter such a defiant prophecy? For two thousand years no skeptic has dared say the prediction is untrue. In fact, Volney, the French skeptic, tells of visiting this spot and observing fishermen drying their nets on the rocks, just as the prophet said they would.” (“Travels,” Vol. 2, page 212). Every year, every day, every minute that Tyre has remained in utter ruin it has disproved the emphatic declaration of skeptics that Bible predictions are vague or were made after the events which they foretell took place. TEMPLE IN JERUSALEM The thought of actually trying to disprove a prophecy is not so fantastic. It is just what ought to occur to the logical mind. It did occur to one determined doubter. There lived a learned man about A. D. 300 who read the words of Jesus in Luke 21:24: ‘Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled.’ He had once been a Christian, so he knew the predictions. He made up his mind that Jerusalem should be trodden underfoot by the Israelites instead of by the Gentiles. This man also knew that the Bible foretold the utter destruction of the Jewish Temple and its services, that the Jews were to be scattered to all nations of the earth, and that Christianity was to go to ‘every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people.’ He was determined to overthrow Christianity, not by killing its adherents, which had been tried by his predecessors for 250 years and had served only to increase its followers, but by the more effective method of shattering the prophecies. Thus he would prove Jesus a liar. And he had the power, if anyone ever had, for he was Julian, emperor of Rome, with an immense army and the wealth and power of the civilized world at his command. That he intended to stage a contest between himself and God, that he consciously planned to disprove prophecy, is stated by a writer as infidelic as Julian himself — Edward Gibbon, the world’s accepted authority on that period, in chapter 23 of his famous history. Rather than paraphrase, I will include Gibbon’s account: Julian could have rebuilt a whole city with his wealth and power, but he could not rebuild a single temple. He began his work with a great flourish of trumpets, advertised to the whole world his purpose, and the reason for it; he was going to disprove the Bible prophecies and so destroy Christianity. Account for it as you please, two facts remain: First, Julian boasted he was going to disprove Bible prophecy by doing what the Bible had said would not be done; second, with all the wealth and power of the world at his command, he failed. Now, some might ask whether God predicted the event and then supernaturally intervened to see that His word was not thwarted. Was it not rather the superstition of the workmen that defeated the project? But it is immaterial whether the workmen were discouraged by superstition or not. The prophets did not say how such attempts to rebuild were to be defeated. The public were invited by God Himself to defeat His prophecies if they could. Here was a man who boldly, boastingly accepted the challenge, put the power and wealth of the Roman Empire into the endeavour, and miserably failed. God had said all such attempts would fail. It is fortuitous that if the endeavour was to be made, one who was wealthy, and who was more powerful than any man now living, tried it. No one else since Julian’s day has made a similar experiment. BABYLON Or consider that the Bible prophesied that Babylon would be abandoned and never inhabited (by people) again. If you want to prove that God does not exist or that the Bible is not true, all you have to do is go live in Babylon. This wouldn't even require much money--just a plane ticket and a tent would suffice. Whether you admit these facts or not, they are true and cannot be disproven, because God has spoken and He does not lie. And, regardless of whether you believe the Bible or not, these prophecies still hold true. This is why I assert that the Bible is true, not only for those who are told so, but for everyone on earth.

If the Bible were so simple that it required no diligence in study to grasp it, who would believe it could have come from God? Would God give all instruction at, say, a third-grade level? There are parts of the Bible that are extremely simple and easy to understand at face value. And then, if you study it more deeply, it may be possible to understand it on a whole different level. It is this very complexity and depth that authenticate its origin. The Bible has material for all to consider and enjoy, from the simplest child to the wisest scholar. And what is most fascinating is that it can be the very same Bible passage under consideration for both! What's more, the Bible tells the straight truth, detailing the weaknesses of humanity in addition to his accomplishments--both good and evil get fair representation, without hiding the objectionable points of its heroes. It is this transparency, this honest presentation of the facts, that helps us see not only its authenticity, but also that we, too, though we have defects, may yet find acceptance with God if we should seek Him whole-heartedly.

I heard someone say to me not long ago that it is now illegal in Thailand to kill a dog. Can anyone confirm this? And if this were the case, would there be an exception for one proven to be savage and dangerous?

I haven't been in Bangkok for a long time. Most of the northern and northeastern provinces have these checkpoints.

Then there's the Thai signs that say "CITY LIMIT PRODUCE SPEED." See a photo of one HERE.

That would be a difficult spot to insulate, too. They just need to reinstall the street light that was supposed to be standing there--two birds with one stone.

Pit bulls are powerful, and despite any training they might receive, they seem more unpredictable than some other types. They do have more aggression in their blood than many others; e.g. collie, cocker spaniel, Saint Bernard, etc. Once the dog has shown its capability for destructive violence like this, it should be put down. If it is not put down, the owners make themselves responsible for whatever harm the dog may do again--so if the dog later kills someone, the owners would be guilty of murder. Putting the dog down is not a matter of punishment, but a matter of protecting others. And it must be done.

There have been multiple incidents in the news of the police using the cameras to track people down, Yingluck being among the most high-profile of cases. Have you driven around Thailand much, and especially at night? If you have, you may have noticed that there are lots of police checkpoints where no police are checking anyone, but all the traffic is forced to weave through cones in a single lane. Pay attention and you will see that there is always a camera there, recording every passing vehicle. So, while the police may not be physically present at the checkpoint, they have their virtual presence there always--and, you can be sure, the camera is not merely there for looks. The cameras are on all major highways, and the information they provide can locate a vehicle to within a particular district--not, perhaps, to your very door. To come to your door would require going "the extra mile." Give them enough incentive, and there's nothing stopping them from it.

Thank you for referencing scripture--I appreciate that! I've read the Bible more than once, and it may actually say more than what many people interpret in the passage you have quoted. Consider Jesus' words in a related passage: The first commandment of the Decalogue, as we know, is this: While the subject is the same, these seem to be interpreted differently. Of course, Jesus was actually quoting from what is well known among the Jews as the "Shema"--a passage in Deuteronomy which all good Jews memorize early, that starts with the Hebrew word "shema," hence its name. The word "first" which Jesus used to reference this commandment is the Greek "protos" (think "prototype"). It can mean first in a chronological sense, but it is often used to indicate first in importance, just as we sometimes would use the word in English. Certainly, the first commandment of the Ten is to have no other god in the presence of Jehovah (Hebrew says literally "[to/before/beside/above/together with/by] my face"). To worship is to love; and God asks us to love Him more than anyone or anything else. That is the first commandment of all. So, while focusing on the "first" commandment, Jesus appears to be saying BOTH that it was the first chronologically AND that it was the first in importance (the "great" commandment). To know God is to love Him, since we love Him because He loved us first, and we learn this as we get to know Him. God is love, and the more we see His love, the more it will fill our own lives with its sweet influence.

Regarding the years, was going off of memory and didn't look it up: correction accepted. Regarding the effects of marijuana, I had earlier addressed its effects on the mind, and later was addressing its effects on crime. Surely you can still see the distinction between these two, can't you? or have you already smoked too much marijuana?

You are evidently not a teacher. The job is not of interest to you, therefore you cannot understand why it should be attractive to others. But the fact is, many people take up a line of work because they have talent and interest to do so--regardless of the wages. Teachers are not alone in the category of "underpaid" in Thailand: far from it. If pay were the only thing to be considered, there are many disagreeable jobs that would find no shortage of workers; and many honorable jobs, such as teaching, that would suddenly be unfilled. If you have children, you must appreciate that someone was willing to teach them--and especially if that someone did so in dedicated fashion, putting his or her heart into the work to mold the mind of your child(ren). There is no reason to disparage teachers simply because they are teachers.

There's a difference between alcohol and marijuana. Alcohol is much easier to produce illegally. When America disallowed the production and sale of alcohol for 18 years (called "Prohibition"), it flourished on the black market, and became a magnet for crime. This led America to rescind the amendment and legalize the poison again. Marijuana, for various reasons, is much less likely to foster these same problems. But there certainly should be more education on the alcohol issue, and stricter controls to prevent drunken driving, etc. Banning sales of alcohol during certain times of the day is ineffective because people know what the hours are and simply buy ahead. All of these narcotics, to include alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine, should not be permitted to be sold or advertised to minors. Because people are addicted to these, however, and because the producers have a good lobby with legislators, and/or the legislators stand to profit by their sale, restrictions are never quite what they should be. Until the people demand changes of their leaders, no change can be expected. So I am happy to see people bold enough to voice their concerns. In Thailand, this is precious.

Depending on the source of the electric shock, it is possible to dislodge someone by sheer momentum, as in knock the person loose from the current by taking a run at them and slamming your weight into them. If you happen to be a featherweight, though, it may be a bit risky to try this, as electricity certainly can "stick" and hold a certain amount of weight. Any arc welder knows how easy it is to "stick" the rod--which is why it is joked that this is why they call it "stick welding"--because everybody sticks the rod sometimes. NOTE: I've never tried the body slamming technique--I've only heard of it. I'm thankful never to have needed it. This is just something to consider as a last resort. First option, naturally, would be to find a cutoff breaker somewhere close by and stop the current. But promptness of action can be critical. Now, if only those GFCI breakers were more commonplace...surely, many lives would be saved.

Thailand is a bit unusual with respect to garbage collection fees. Where I rent, I pay the electricity and water on my own--but, apparently, garbage fees would be charged directly to the landlord (the homeowner)--if they are even charged. We just dump our garbage into a couple of large blue barrels that sit out streetside near the house. Collection takes places during the night, around 3-4 a.m. Our landlord told us when we first rented that we could just use the bins, and if there were any issues, such as if the collectors thought we weren't contributing our fees, we might later have to chip in 100-200 baht a month for our share (the bins are shared by multiple neighbors). So far, we have paid nothing. Perhaps the neighbors are satisfactorily covering the fees. As I said, it's a bit unusual the way it is handled. In my opinion, the 500-baht fee for trash collection in Chiangmai sounds reasonable. I'm not in Chiangmai, and it might be a bit less here.

As I said, too strong for showering. This is not the dosage for normal maintenance, it's for a full cleanout. You'd have to wait until it dissipated before using the tank again. You could, of course, just use less, like you are doing now. But, keep in mind, the 250 mL is a quarter of a liter--not the full liter-size bottle.

If you intend to leave the house for several weeks or more, you could always, a day or two ahead of your departure, shut off the tank inlet, shut off the city water until the tank was dry (then turn only the city water back on), and leave the tank empty while you were away. Alternatively, put about 250 mL of plain bleach (not the scented stuff!) into the 1000-liter tank before you go and/or when you return. It will be a bit stronger than pool water, and you may not wish to shower in it for a couple of days until the chlorine gases off/dissipates, but it would kill bacteria and algae that may have chanced to grow in the tank. Good tanks will have a cover that should keep out insects and vermin, but they are not airtight.

If the water pressure is adequate at some points of the day, the better solution, in my opinion, is to install a tank without a pump. Be sure the bottom of the tank is elevated at least 2 meters above the showerhead. Each ~2.3 ft. of elevation/drop will mean 1 psi of pressure--about 4 psi is the minimum for the average Thai showerhead to get a full, comfortable flow. Then install two one-way valves (check valves): one on the municipal connection, after your water meter, to make sure that you don't backfeed through the meter and lose what you paid for (plus it could be a source of contamination to the city system); and the second check valve on the tank outflow into your home, to prevent the tank from backflow from the city water pressure and allow the tank to fill only at the top of the tank on the inflow, controlled by a float valve that should keep it from overflowing. I have done this with a 1000-liter tank, and it's all working just fine. I built my own platform to hoist it nearly 3 meters above ground level, resting on the ground beside the house (but yours, for a second-story, would need to be about double that). However, be aware that a 1000-liter tank, when filled with water, has the weight of nearly half-a-dozen medium-sized pianos--so that tank must be adequately supported. (1000 liters will be 1000 kgs / 2200 lbs.) If you're not sure that where you have chosen to place it will be strong enough, do consult an engineer. The advantages with the pumpless system are: 1) No electrical consumption or requirement (lower electric bill) 2) No noisy pump (which would run all the time that water is being used if there is no tank) 3) Stored water during an outage 4) Fewer parts to require servicing The disadvantages would be: 1) Requires more space 2) More difficult to install 3) Will only fill when the municipal supply has adequate pressure to reach the level of inflow 4) May need a little bleach/chlorine added to the tank on occasion to control growth of algae (if the tank is too dark to permit the entrance of sunlight, this will be less of an issue) FWIW, my connection to the city water is on 1/2" pipe, which increases to 3/4" shortly afterward, all the way to the tank. It averages about 4 psi to the house (inadequate for a second story--which we don't have). During the day, pressure regularly drops by half or more, and the tank cannot fill. At night, the tank fills when few are using water. It takes about 2.5 hours for the tank to fill completely, and should there be an outage this would last nearly two days on our current average usage. Given these specifications, our tank is rarely less than half full. NOTE: I have found that Thai-made valves are not reliable. The cut-off (float) valve in the tank has not been faithful in actually stopping the flow, and the tank has overflowed, causing me to have to shut off the valve on the pipe leading to the tank--after which I later learned that valve is also defective. You may wish to have a backup valve, and/or be sure to buy a quality valve so as not to make the same mistake. Wherever you place your tank, be prepared for this contingency. You may find that a smaller size tank is adequate for your needs, in which case it would require less space and support. EDIT: I should add that the total system cost for my system, including the tank (about 3300 baht), the steel, the paint for the steel, welding rods, etc., and the valves came up to about $400-500 USD. The tank and valves were about a third of that, and the platform construction to support the tank was the larger part. But the system cured our water outages!

My comment remains valid. Only a suggestion. Not just "trapped in a damaged vehicle", (your words) - careful to avoid "behind the steering wheel", AS REPORTED! Actually, those wearing seatbelts will be restrained by them all the more. If the vehicle has been crushed in, limiting movement, it may not be possible to reach and/or release the belt. The belt, which may have prevented ejection during the accident, becomes an additional obstacle once the accident has taken place.

And I bet they treated him without the vaccine! But the headline for this article should read: "Unvaccinated 105-year old conquers covid in under two weeks"

I don't know why it wouldn't. The posts here regarding A/C units having "inverters" that would defeat the GFCI are, in my opinion, made in ignorance of the facts. It doesn't matter what the appliance does with converting voltages or frequency cycles within the appliance--these variables will not affect the GFCI breaker, so long as there is no ground fault. The only products that GFCI would not run are the products that are unsafe and should be taken off the market, e.g. products that leak power to ground--the type that cause a person touching them to receive a shock. We have a rice cooker that developed into a shocking machine after years of use. If you don't unplug it before scooping out your rice, prepare for a shock! That sort of shock would trip a GFCI breaker. But I doubt many here would defend the benefits of having that type of product in use in a public facility. If it doesn't run on GFCI, it is better if it isn't run, as it is an obvious hazard.

I think it's all part of the worldwide agenda to gain control of the populace through fear. If the rain comes, or if it doesn't, just being warned will already have had some effect to this end. But I had similar thoughts to you when I first read the article.