Toolong

Thank you for that explanation, said very clearly. ????

Well said. ???? (For the most part......not sure it's fair to accuse reptiles of 'fear, bias, the need to ostracize and tribalize'! ????) PS: sorry for late response.

Thanks, Dave. ???? (PS: I actually assumed it was an - as u call it - 'address string'. No, no....please don't attempt to explain it to me, for heaven's sake.....I'm too old for that stuff! ????????)

I beg your pardon....???? I thought they were your own words, intentionally underlined to show some attitude! ???? (In my feeble defence....don't links usually have lots of gobbledegook coding in them? ????)

You've underlined it, by golly. Wow.

But does 'vaccination prevent infection by up to 90%' ? Are you certain? With respect, I haven't personally ever read of such a claim or anything like it as a proven statistic. Prevent death, yes, but infection? (I could be wrong. Perhaps I haven't been paying attention! ????)

Thank you for the link, jonnit. ????????

If, as you suggest, it's a matter of distinct & measureable degrees of difference in the infectability risk of vax vs unvax people, then I understand it is an important difference to pay attention to. ????????

Thanks for this, PoorSucker! ???????????? ("Hey! Who you callin' poorsucker?!" ????)

Much obliged for this link, JCP108. ????????

I understand why you say that, Lukkrueng, I do. Believe me, I do. These really are the strangest of times. ????????

I'm beginning to 'get it', soumanioco. ????????

Now this explains so much, I think. It certainly offers a better understanding of this matter (to me anyway) and I thank you very much for posting this, oldhand. ???????? (It does certainly suggest that 'logic' may after all be found in such restrictive & potentially unpopular & contentious measures/prejudice against unvaxxed folk. Potentially. Yet I doubt the particular logic of what is clear in your post underpins the Thai authorities' apparent stance on this. If it does, then surely they should better inform people, Thai & foreigner alike.) ????????

One feasible argument, in attempting to make sense of such a measure (restrictions on the un-vaccinated), is that it limits an un-vaccinated person's exposure to vaccinated people (therefore a great number of people in general) who could (regardless of having been vaccinated) pass on the virus to them. And so.....potentially 'benefiting' the un-vaxxed person. This point of view was posted earlier on this thread (sorry, dunno how to add it to this here post) by someone else. There is some logic to this, though I think it's doubtful that it is the main reason why the un-vaxxed are being threatened with such action against them. (The key words there being 'threatened' & 'against', I think. ????)

Not sure about that 'zero', edgarfriendly. I understand why you might say that, I really do ????.....but.......

Right. Your last point makes very good sense and appears to imply that such measures can actually be, in that sense, 'beneficial' to the welfare of those unvaccinated. I hadn't, until now, really seen it like that. ???? Thanks G Rex. ????

I don't wish to shift too much from the main issue here, which is essentially the possible imposition of restrictive & puntive social sanctions against those unvaccinated, but could someone just explain to me why I might be incorrect in thinking that if vaccinated people can still become infected with C19.....and if vaccinated people can still infect others with C19, why should it be assumed that UNvaccinated people are a particular risk to others? (A risk to themselves, yes.) It's a genuine query and I am happy to be shown up as having faulty logic or as being uninformed if that is the case. (I am fully vaccinated btw, but only cos I could see exactly this kind of s**t coming down the road.....and lo, here it comes.)

No, not a 'Debbie downer' at all. Your comment was well intended & by no means taken in a negative way. ???? The land was purchased from a well regarded local person of some considerable influence (not, as far as I know, linked to anything dodgy or underhand!), and in the middle of more land owned by the same person, so....who knows.....maybe it could one day be given a better land title? ???? I'm very grateful to you for the comment re my original query. I'll soon no doubt get a definitive answer from the land office, but for now I certainly think you might be right about there being no probs selliing within a year of purchase (????). And thanks too for the heads-up about the property tax paid on resale. Interesting. ????????

You and your wife's Sor Tor Gor land experience indeed sounds like a classic cautionary tale in the Thai context. Thanks for relating that. I certainly sympathize with you both for having been through that, though, as you say, the loss wasn't too great, fortunately. I must say your wife sounds like a very big-hearted, admirable sort of person to have been so forgiving. Good for her. ????

Indeed. Wisely put! ????????

Hi chrisandsu, Thanks for your comments. ???????? Yes, you're right about Wang Nam Kiao.....funny, but I have first-hand knowledge of the scenarios that have played out there! One must indeed be wary! ???? To answer your question about location, it is also in the Pakchong region but not so far north-easterly as WNKiao. The legality of the sale & whose land it was to sell on, is not in question (????????) and I don't have worries about that (famous last words, eh?!????). But thanks, chrisandsu, for your cautionary advice & help! ????????????????

Hello KhaoYai, Sorry for slow response. Thanks for your well articulated & interesting comments. Although I regret that my original query on this thread has largely turned out to be the very thing I declared I hoped it wouldn't become, ie, just about the +'s & -'s of pbt5 land in general, your comments were thoughtfully conveyed and I appreciate them. ???????? This may sound a bit sort of arrogant, or cocky.....and I certainly DON'T mean it that way, but....I am fully aware of the facts (or 95%) and the negative perceptions many (including me to some extent) have about pbt5. So I was careful, when considering to buy or not, to not make a very costly error, and without going into too detail about 'why', I am very confident that it wasn't an error by any means and am happy with the purchase. I should stress it wasn't bought as a way to make a few bucks on its resale. Never a plan to sell it at all, in fact....which brings me back to the query I have about (possibly, possibly not) selling it so soon after purchase if there are restrictions on that. For me, that remains the 1 question to which I most keenly wish to know the answer. On that point, I guess it's off to the land office to really know the score! But thanks to you for your advice/thoughts ????????????????

Yes, we did all the things you mention, farmerjo. We went through all the hoops one has to jump through! ???? And yes, I think your final point is spot on too. ???? Thanks ????????

Hmmmm, that sounds like a very sensible, doable idea, bojo. Your idea definitely has legs. (I'm certainly too old for too much 'donkey work'!????) Thanks for that!! ????????

40,000 per rai? Wow! Price we paid is considered cheap by folk around here, given location & potential. Already have interested buyers! Oh, well. ????????