Eindhoven

3 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

When it comes to chocolate, there's issues of taste, and then there's issues of health, which are entirely separate.

 

The sugary chocolate tastes great for those with a sweet tooth, but isn't very good for you in many ways.

 

On the other hand, the high-cacao chocolates (80-90%) have healthful properties if consumed in moderation.

 

If I remember right, ideally for health, you want the levels of protein and sugar to be about equal, 5g or so per serving....which is what you get with the 80-90% cacao varieties. But those also have a much more bitter taste than the typical store chocolates.

 

Interesting that you are comparing two completely different things. Which makes me thing that you are confusing them

Cacao and cocoa. Most commercial chocolate bars contain cocoa, not cacao. So I'll be interested in finding out to which bars you are referring, with 80-90% cacao.

I think certain companies just change the name for marketing purposes.

https://web.facebook.com/tulipchocolate/posts/cacao-vs-cocoa-what-you-need-to-knowcacao-cacao-is-the-purest-form-of-chocolate-/1742846232615015/

5 minutes ago, asiacurious said:

I guess we'll have to disagree.  I've been cooking and baking with Chocolate for more years than I care to admit.  

 

If you're comparing 60% to 70% to 80%, or milk chocolate (about 10-20% cocoa) then yes, sugar content is different.  But chocolate with 70% cocoa is the going to be basically the same regardless of whether it comes in coins, blocks, or thin foil wrapped retail bars.

 

Of course there can also be a difference in the quality of ingredients, but as I've said, the Schmidt stuff is a good quality import from Europe.

We can disagree, but I am right and you are wrong.

Baking chocolate can contain no added sugar at all, wherein high cocoa content bars will almost always have sugar added.

That is why it is call baking chocolate or cooking chocolate. Because it is different.

If it just a large piece of normal chocolate, then that is what it is. But baking chocolate and cooking chocolate is different.

Don't even get me started on cacao. I know my chocolate.

On 7/1/2020 at 10:55 PM, Trillian said:

High quality 100% cocoa powder, Tulip brand, is available in many supermarkets for about 125 baht per kilo. It makes excellent inexpensive drinking chocolate and if you really crave European chocolate bars, perhaps try making your own.

What is 100% cocoa powder? 125 baht per kilo? That stuff would be no good for making chocolate, 

2 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

Has anyone ever read how high the sugar content is on chocolate, if you don't care and have a sweet tooth, well, what can I say, noting the cheaper the chocolate, the higher the sugar content usually, no thanks.

Actually no, as baking chocolate will often have little to no sugar and can be cheaper than a chocolate bar.

But I agree sugar is added to many foodstuffs as it is a relatively cheap ingredient.

13 minutes ago, asiacurious said:

It's shape and wrapping.  Cocoa content is what matters in chocolate bars.  Doesn't matter what shape or packaging it comes in.

 

That said, if you're looking for flavored chocolate (sea salt, orange, mint, caramel) then yes, there is obviously a difference between buying thin foil wrapped bars with added flavors, and bulk chocolate used for baking.  But if you're comparing a good 70% cocoa baking chocolate sold in in 1KG (or 10KG) bars/blocks/coins and 100g of thin foil wrapped bars, you'll find very little difference.

 

I'm not talking about Godiva chocolates or specialized candy (those are obviously very different).  I'm talking the basic Lindt style bars vs a good bulk chocolate.  Which is what, in my experience, Schmidt sells.

Nope, you are wrong. A little research would have shown you this. It would have only taken you a few seconds.

The main difference is actually the sugar content. There may also be a differing ratio of cocoa butter.

48 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

Good for you.

Not my experience, apparently neither for another poster.

So we can conclude that, as for Immigration offices and officers, each of us has different experiences.  

As I told you, twice, it is because I go to the same bank and counter each time. Nothing about which to complain. 

19 hours ago, Sametboy2019 said:

Can you explain what you are talking about? 

Take it easy on Kwasaki....

1 minute ago, Pib said:

I haven't had any recent issues or fees when using my US debit cards at Bangkok Bank or Krungsri Bank to do counter withdrawal (a.k.a., cash advance although it not really a cash advance for a debit card but is for a credit card).  But a couple years ago the Bangkok Bank I typically used didn't want to do counter withdrawals for a debit card; but gladly did it for credit cards.  But since then they have changed their attitude....maybe just a branch management thing.

 

And definitely watch out if using SCB for counter withdrawals/cash advances as they provide a lower rate for credit cards...attempt the DCC thing....take a look at the bottom of the Foreign Exchange Rate webpage.

https://www.scb.co.th/en/personal-banking/foreign-exchange-rates.html

 

Certainly looks that way. The worst bank in Thailand. I know you do your research. 

Just now, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

The U.S. banks can't be quite cagey about that... As I said above, many will say THEY don't charge any FCF, when in fact they're passing along the VISA/MC network fee, which other true no-fee banks waive.

 

I don't have any experience with US products. But I do have a UK credit card that explicitly states that they pass on the 1% VISA charge for transactions outside Europe. Needless to state that I do not use that particular card outside of Europe.

So everything is made clear in the UK.

Just now, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Assuming you're talking about counter withdrawals. IME, it's a cr*p shoot here... not anything consistent from company to company or even branch to branch.  Anytime you walk in a branch, you're taking your chances, unless/until you can find one that consistently knows what they're doing.

 

That's what I do. Always same branch. No need to seek out others if this one works and is efficient.

Just now, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

SCB specifically has a lower exchange rate for foreign card counter withdrawals, AFAIK...

 

Some banks claim THEY don't charge any FCF, when in fact, they're actually passing along/charging the 1% FCF that the MC and VISA networks nominally charge. That's what I meant by "hidden" fees... You actually need to test the real exchange rate you're getting, not just what the bank staff tells you.

 

Bank staff don't tell me anything. I check the T&C and hold them to it. No hidden charges. Everything is as stated in the T&C.

Let me know of any bank that you know that does not conform. I will check their T&C.

Just now, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

SCB specifically has a lower exchange rate for foreign card counter withdrawals, AFAIK...

 

Some banks claim THEY don't charge any FCF, when in fact, they're actually passing along/charging the 1% FCF that the MC and VISA networks nominally charge. That's what I meant by "hidden" fees... You actually need to test the real exchange rate you're getting, not just what the bank staff tells you.

 

Erm...no. The banks that charge 1%, state that they charge 1%. The ones that do not, do not.

That is with my extensive experience of U.K banks. Perhaps different in your country.

Just now, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

Transferwise, in general, is going to be more expensive, and the costs vary by country, because they're charging a funding fee and then a commission on the amount sent....

 

But as you pointed out, sometimes trying to do a counter withdrawal here can be a real headache of clueless, uncooperative staff, card machines they claim they can't get to work properly, etc etc....  I've had a lot of headaches with that thru the years, which is why I prefer to stick to no-fee ATM transactions... But then again, I don't need more than 30K per shot.

 

Perhaps different for me, as I use the same bank every time. Perhaps not the same if you have to find a new bank whilst travelling.

Just now, luckyluke said:

I used this way for a long time.

Bank staff usually don't like it, it is time consuming. They have to use the credit Card device, some can't handle it properly and of course they claim there is something wrong with your C.C..

Then for one or another reason they can not put the funds directly to my bank account. Instead I received the money in cash, and had to sign for it. Than have to fill in a form that I transfer the funds to my bank account, than my bankbook is updated.

All this can't apparently not been done by the same employee, so different staff are involved plus a manager who has to sign in in the computer.

And now for about 2 years I use Transferwise from the comfort of my home.

I make the transfer around 8 a.m., the funds are on my bank-account around 2 p.m..

For some it goes even quicker.

I think that you are generalising. I have no problem with bank staff. Some banks will do it and some won't. But the ones that do make no issue of it at all. Sometimes they even come around the counter for a friendly chat.

Never something wrong with my card, unless there is.

Nothing wrong with receiving the cash and then handing it back to them. Seems thatyou are a bit difficult and you want everything streamlined just for you. ???? 

TransferWise has it's place. If it's more convenient for you, that's great. But no need to disparage bank staff along the way. I have a generally good experience every time.

22 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

In general, the best deal a person's going to get in Thailand with electronic transactions is going to be using a no foreign currency fee debit card either with a no-fee bank counter advance or via an Thai ATM where the Thai 220b is either waived or reimbursed by the card-issuing bank.

 

But either of the above approaches require the card holder to be well informed and careful... Careful that their home country bank isn't charging an explicit or hidden foreign currency conversion fee. And on the Thai end, that the Thai bank handling the counter withdrawal isn't charging a reduced exchange rate on foreign cards as some do, like SCB....

 

The counter advance has the advance of allowing larger single transaction withdrawal amounts, but requires the person to present their passport, and sometimes banks/bank staff that will refuse to do them. The ATMs have the advantage of being easy and convenient, but limited to a max of 30,000 baht per withdrawal.  But again, IF there are no FCFs being charged anywhere along the processes.

 

 

Not quite, since most debit cards will be rejected for cash advances or an admin charge would be applied(SCB). In general you need a no-fee credit card.

Of course if it is a no-fee card, you won't have to check for hidden forex fees. Not sure quite what you were thinking when you wrote that.

Don't think SCB do anything with the rate, but they do apply a 180 baht Admin Charge, so one should avoid them at the best of times.

23 hours ago, tiocfaidh said:

In this instance I doubt she was trying to hoodwink you, I think she was confused or maybe lost in translation.

Hmmmm...perhaps if she thought he was referring to Microsoft Office.

But since she mentioned Windows 10 Pro for 600 baht...

Though perhaps she was used to PCs coming without Windows installed, as it used to be prevalent and hadn't updated her knowledge.

But I am going to come down on the side of scam, since it seems unlikely they would use a legitimate product key for Windows in the first place.

Scam either way.

What giddyup appears to be stating, correct me if I am wrong, is that you could get away with a lot of nasty poo in the past. So as long as you got away with it then, it's absolutely fine.

Is that it?

Just now, giddyup said:

Voicing an opinion, same as anyone else.

Sorry, what was your opinion? I must have missed it.

To recap, what I have seen thus far is you incorrectly quoting the age of consent, as if to state that the law thinks it is ok. It does not and you made no comment acknowledging that fact.

Then you stated something about how it was all so different 200 years ago. 200 years ago we had slavery. Was that considered morally acceptable or was it just exploitation?

So far you seem to be digging yourself a hole in a swamp.

7 minutes ago, giddyup said:

Unproven, and I don't answer to hypotheticals.

How did it become a hypothetical after you already stated that it is an allegation?

So it might be true or it might not. He asked you how you felt about it, not whether you thought it was true of not.

11 minutes ago, giddyup said:

I'll say this. Different times, different standards. What was off limits 50 years ago is now permissible, what was acceptable 200 years ago is maybe now illegal or unacceptable. Porn is everywhere, catering to every taste, no matter how deviant. I try not to get too het up about a few 16 year olds giving hand jobs as the end of the world.

So why are you posting here? Troll?

13 minutes ago, KhunBENQ said:

Best case for a VISA Euro withdraw.

Select 30000 Baht.

Be debited 30220 Thai Baht = 869.60 Euro assuming no fee by your bank!.

 

Transferwise

869 Euro gives you 30119.71 Baht for cheap transfer option.

 

So even with best case ATM transaction, TW will still give a bit more.

More realistic are added fees of 1.5% to 3% by the foreign banks.

 

https://www.visa.co.uk/support/consumer/travel-support/exchange-rate-calculator.html

https://transferwise.com/

30000 baht withdrawn over the counter with a Mastercard yesterday would have cost me the equivalent of 862.33 Euro.

TW is useful in it's own right, but not for me.

Just now, giddyup said:

Double standards.

Deflection. We are trying to determine YOUR moral stance. It is only you who attempts to use the Age of Consent(and failed) as your moral compass.

If you don't agree with the laws(even though you clearly do not understand them), what is your stance?