androokery

7 hours ago, mercman24 said:

its the family on a scooter that gets me, mum on the back holding a tiny baby aloft,  just waiting to get thrown down the road, every day occurance, they have no western values as to road safety, its the shoaling fish attitude, my amulet will save me or it will never happen to me, statistics prove otherwise

I'm seeing different versions of this solution more frequently now... A child seat on a scooter, sometimes with a little belt... 

20 hours ago, UbonThani said:

They are protected. That's what gloves are for.

“Gloves reduce the number of cuts caused, but British Medical Associationresearch has stated that gloves do not reduce brain injuries and may even increase them, because the main cause of injury is acceleration and deceleration of the head, and fighters wearing gloves are able to punch harder to the head. Gloves may reduce the amount of eye injuries, especially if they are thumbless, but retinal tears and detached retinas still occur to boxers wearing modern gloves.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxing_glove

37 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

With a high blood pressurecteading this makes some sense as people often tense up at first and indeed a second reading while more relaxed is likely more accurate.

 

Makes zero sense for pulse oximeter. "White coat syndrome," doesn't lower pO2.

I get different values when I take shallow breaths and have bad posture as opposed to a few deep breaths with my chest out:) 

Are we measuring actual oxygen levels or the capacity to oxygenate the blood? I mean, if you get a low reading and there is no difference between the results in the two situations above, there seems to be an issue with the capacity of the patient to oxygenate the blood. Or?

2 minutes ago, UbonThani said:

You are preaching nonsense. Non sporting people never have any idea. People die in rugby matches at all ages.

 

People die running on the road or cycling down a hill at all ages.

 

"Do gooders" are really just a waste of space. No idea about what they preach.

So that's a "no"? Kids should not be protected in any way and can engage in any kind of activity (a "sport") since all manner of other activities are also potentially unsafe? Are you overdoing some testosterone treatment or are you always this aggressive? 

3 minutes ago, Nakmuay887 said:

Not in the least. 

 

Can you name some more worthwhile activities that children in Thailand get up to? Especially ones with little to no family and family structure? As I've said in previous posts, I didn't invent Muay Thai or Lethwei. You'd have to go back several hundred years to find the culprits. Are you even slightly aware of how big boxing is in Thailand? 

 

If we go by your opinion that means every sport for every child in the world is child abuse. These kids aren't being forced to do anything. At least not here with me. 

 

 

There are sports where the violence is NOT the central part of the activity. Sure, people get hurt playing football and running in the forests and ice skating. But the main purpose of those activities is NOT hurting the other participants.

The argument that it helps pay the bills is a weak one. As others have pointed out, that is not how we judge if the activity is good for the kids. 

8 hours ago, RichardColeman said:

I love them. Have about half a dozen living in our house. Quite happy to let them stay under the fridge or behind the shelf or in some kitchen crevice. They eat the bugs and the ants and the small flies - even caught one eating a cockroach. One certainly has an affliction for chocolate !

 

But then, I have a relentlessly clean wife who mops and scrubs the floors twice a day !

 

My advice if you really wanted them gone - get a cat !

Is there an end to this strategy - what do you get to rid yourself of the cat? A python?

So I have 70,000 baht to spend and I have seven days in Thailand. Just as an example. 

I can fly to Surat Thani or Nakhon Si Thammarat with AirAsia and get the combined bus/ferry ticket for a few thousand baht. The problem is that it will cost me time. You need to allocate most of a day to get there and another whole day to get back to Bangkok.  The cost is around 2,000 baht. That leaves me with 68,000 baht to spend over the remaining five days. 

Or I can fly Bangkok Airways direct from Bangkok. It will just take me 1-2 hours each way. But it will cost me upwards of 9,000 baht. Now I have 61,000 baht to spend over seven days. 

Or, if they let low cost carriers fly direct to the island, I would have 68,000 baht to spend over seven days. 

For a short trip of seven days I would probably not spend two whole days just on transportation. So I would go somewhere else. And I would either spend 68,000 baht in a local economy (maybe Krabi?) or 61,000 baht (BA and five days on Koh Samui). It seems to me that if the tourist has any kind of budget (which most people do), more money would be spent on hotels, food, adventure and entertainment if the transportation is cheaper. So even if you argue that keeping Koh Samui expensive helps keep out budget travellers it also keeps out people with limited vacation time. 

16 minutes ago, talahtnut said:

Just seen one peeping out behind a picture frame,

I'm sure he winked at me.

There are worse things creeping about in Pattaya.

 

Definitely worse things about. Wonder if we can use sticky paper for the soi dogs running around... ?

I had almost the exact same request from a Thai lady friend a few years back; sister, mother, house in danger, buying back rubber tree land etc.

Is the OP's friend the same lady as my friend? Or are these stories standardised now to a point that they're almost like franchises? You can just pick up one of these stories and base a scam business on it? No need to change any of the details. 

I did not help out with the request, maybe that's why the particular lady is no longer interested in talking to me. ????

4 hours ago, Liverpudlian said:

Wish i was on board !  great value for the price paid extra booze & tucker . 

I read the passengers are getting a full refund and vouchers for a cruise in the future. So two cruises for the price of none. 

On 2/7/2020 at 12:30 AM, kilslug said:

Oh trust me I learned that the hard way and I told her during our last conversations that if she keeps this up she's going to get the HIV if she doesn't have it already. She had a rapid HIV test done at the clinic that was negative so hopefully it wasn't faked. Of course she denies bare-backing anyone and claims she's a puritan outside of her work. This is part of the reason I left also. If you can't get people to admit to their reckless's and stupidity there is little you can do to help or change them. I was screened for everything and everything was fine. I need a second test for HIV in a month or two to make sure but I know I wont have it because I'm not gay or on heroin. 

You had bareback sex with a massage girl and she's the reckless one...?

https://www.style-seal.com 
 

StyleSeal may have some left.

3 hours ago, UbonThani said:

Not much. 90% plus from the left. You need to get out more and experience the world.

So the national socialists in Germany were an anomaly, not representative of other right wingers as yourself? Or were they the 10%?

9 hours ago, Yinn said:

Revenge is paid.

Overreaction of gargantuan proportions.

Nationalism has very few benefits but comes with huge drawbacks if we look at the 20th century. 

I personally don't like the flag of my country as it doesn't represent me nor do I particularly like the national anthem. But it's a free country so I can still stay there. I never chose it. I was just born there. Much as these nationalistic U.S. citizens posting here about the respect you owe to a piece of fabric were just accidentally born in that particular country. 

25 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

would you trust a man called tedross adhanayom ghebreyesus?

I was OK with it until the yesus part

18 hours ago, jonclark said:

You know for all the comments on here about how violent 'pit bull' type breeds are (and I agree) . Their violent nature pales in comparison to the violence that the species know as homo-sapiens is able to inflict on itself and every other species on the planet. If an aggressive and violent pit bull attack results in people calling for the whole genetic family of pit bulls and associated lineages to be eradicated. What I wonder do they think a fit punishment should be for our species? Extermination too? Or do those arguments not apply because we are too educated and important. 

I'm guessing your argument is also valid for mosquitoes, ticks and rats?

On 1/29/2020 at 7:27 AM, welovesundaysatspace said:

My question was how it matters with regards to the issue here, which is a guy going bareback on prostitutes before going bareback on his wife. I don’t think a questionable statistic from a condom manufacturer would give anyone the right to put a loved one at such risk. 

I agree.

????

4 minutes ago, Scot123 said:

You obviously know nothing about dogs. Jumping on the frenzy band wagon about Pit Bulls totally ignoring the fact that other breeds attack more. Small dogs bit far more people than large dogs. The problem in Thailand is soi dogs, packs of farral dogs roaming every street. Thai peoples lack of accountability for failing to keep their animals under control. Unbelievable laws and police attitudes that place dogs above human rights. Any dog can turn on its owner regardless of breed and an example would be to roll about on the ground playing with 2 or more dogs and see what happens when there excitement level rises and the pack instinct kicks in. Let us ignore the facts that for every pit bull attack there are dozens of other breed attacks. RESPONSIBLE OWNERS OF ALL DOGS, CORRECT TRAINING AND BEING ON A LEAD IN PUBLIC AT ALL TIMES. 

You have a point - but the average pit bull is a lot more powerful than the average soi dog, which is usually some medium-sized scrawny dog that I think I can probably hurt with a good kick. A pit bull - not so much. I don't know anything I could possibly do to an attacking pit bull that might help, unless I am armed. Which, you could argue, a pit bull owner is. The dog is the weapon. 

46 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

breed specific legislation is for ignorant individuals 

I sort of agree. I'm fine with banning all dogs. If that seems too extreme I'll accept a weight limit. As in a dog may not weigh more than one kilo.