Fat is a type of crazy

2 minutes ago, StayinThailand2much said:

Well, I'm planning to use my card mostly just for hotel bookings (Agoda, etc.), anyway, perhaps to book trips, too. Still pondering whether I should take half or only a third in cash. Strange thing is, that some hotels, even if you book with card, still want cash on arrival. - Pre-Covid, I used to do all my bookings well before travelling, but that's not an option anymore.

Agoda and other big sites you can of course just pay in Thai Baht as though you were in Thailand. Exchange rate should be OK. No fees. 

If your card has a fee for overseas purchases and use of overseas ATM'S then cash might be better. In Australia there are cards that have no points but offer a good no fee service. If Thailand has the same that would be good.

If wanting NZ dollar to be bought with Thai Baht the best exchange rate might be at a money exchange in Thailand. In Australia the main money change companies have bad rates. NZ may be the same.

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Will the government provide safe rooms on the battlefield, too?

You are linking being gay with some sort of modern affectation. I suppose there is a line between accepting people for who they are while not indulging individual preferences at the expense of running of the army as a whole. I think you can say 'Jack is gay. It's what he is. He's fighting for America and risking his life the same as you. Now get on with it'. Something like that.  

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

That's not the issue. Used to be the military had a large pool of rough men to use as cannon fodder, but now society has degenerated IMO to the point that the average youth just couldn't cut it in the military.

Not a problem when only a small number of men are required for an all volunteer highly mechanised military, but will be a problem if things get so bad conscription is imposed, IMO.

 

BTW, when I was in the military I never ever felt that the government had my back. They certainly didn't give a <deleted> when I left as there were too many little tyrants to tolerate, despite having spent many thousands of $ to train me.

Treated us like <deleted> while in and not interested when we left.

In a sense you are making my case. It's not about mollycoddling you on the one hand, or ignoring you on the other, but just accepting and defending the basics of who you are and, in your case, looking to make you a better and stronger man and soldier. 

If you can get the Derek and Clive stuff they did it's pretty funny. 

10 hours ago, TropicalGuy said:

Border closure protects & does not limit those already inside those borders. Japan had no internal travel restrictions. Australia had National border shutdown  ( very good); then State border shutdown ( less good); then City border shutdown (nasty) ; then Local & Suburb shutdown ( nightmare) . 
But Aus did “ better” than Japan by keeping a few more very old alive a few years longer? At that tyrannical high cost.No they did not “do better” awful worst measures for democratic nation…….

I lived in the most locked down city in the world being Melbourne. Had it not been for a few bad eggs and a stuff up with hotel quarantine the lockdowns would have been much less. The state government is still popular in the polls so no problem with democracy. It was a different feeling pre vaccines and during their roll out. People wanted action. There was so much government support which meant many were the same or better off though some business did suffer badly. I will agree there was some cruel stupid measures keeping families and loved ones apart internationally and interstate. 

5 minutes ago, seedy said:

So ... guilty without a Trial ?

The "Club" does nothing illegal, the members of that club may well commit crimes.

This can be proven, and sentences handed down, with a trial - but judge or judge and jury.

You have heard the term "Innocent before proven Guilty have you ?"

You actually trust the "Gov't" when they enact such legislation ?

It is said that the people get the Gov't they deserve - and if people in WA agree with this then so be it.

Idiots.

My 2 cents is that given Australia has a strong, if not imperfect democracy, if enough feel the same as you the laws can be changed.

With these groups there's a line between a point of view e.g. anti immigration, and straight out racism and intimidation of certain groups, and then say fund raising for what the Australian government considers nefarious activities. The line may be difficult but I think there is a line. 

19 minutes ago, 1FinickyOne said:

would love to know the definition of that... one other frequent poster defined it as offering her the fantastic opportunity to pick fruit... and he was surprised that she was disappointed in him and chose to dump him and work at Makro... 

 

the somewhat implies that even you don't think you are giving her a good life... 

The reason I said a somewhat good life is that we have been separated due to covid. Besides getting some pocket money making some Baisee for the local temple she hasn't worked for close to two years. She used to work at a bank. The Baisee are the things below e.g. blue on left and small ones on right. She also does some flower arrangements. 

2 hours ago, The Hammer2021 said:

When I need to look at a list  of hits but can only hum one...

So you can only remember one song from Bat out of Hell that sold 47 million.  Can't recall I'd do anything for love that was no 1  in 28 countries and off an album that sold 15 million.  Have no recollection of numerous less noteworthy hits e.g. Dead Ringer for Love Top 5. Come on Hammer time. 

10 hours ago, ArcticFox said:

Ain't that the truth.  Look at China's military, then Russia's - then look at the Rainbow Coalition of Western Woke Military's..

Better use nukes cause the Western isn't going to win the next global war with boots on the ground.  The high-heels get stuck in the mud.  I feel sorry for those troops who are actually highly trained soldiers.  Now?  Those guys would be better off working as mercs. 

You wouldn't be the first to think that troops treated with more respect are 'softer' when in fact they can become more highly motivated to fight for their country. Proven not to be correct in the past. You may think it's bad form that gays can be gay in the military. Others see it as a sign of strength and that the government has your back as long as you do your job. 

25 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

It seems too many people here think love can only happen between similar people. Like i.e. a 20 year old pretty girl and a handsome young guy. Or maybe between an old ugly guy and an old ugly woman. Really?

If that would be true then i.e. disabled people would never be able to find a loving (not disabled) partner. And how about couples who met when they were 20 and they stay together until they are old. Do they find each other still attractive even if they are old and maybe overweight, etc.?

I think love is not only similar people finding each other. There can be many reasons. Maybe good look, maybe intellect, maybe strength, maybe money, the list is endless. And if one person thinks she can never fall in love with an old guy that doesn't mean this is also true for other people. 

I think we should stop pretending that we understand all human interactions. We clearly understand only a part of it. And if we don't understand it that doesn't mean it does not exist or is not possible. 

I agree. The contrarian in me just wants to point that sometimes it can seem a bit sad where the older guy just seems to be after the young girl as a status symbol or just to have someone to <deleted>. Not to share a life where she can be happy and free and where you can both live out  your dreams.

Still nothing wrong with that necessarily .. but it can just make you gag a bit to see. That's not to say that sometimes what can look ugly is actually a beautiful love story. 

Sounds like you are fit so it should be fine. I do gym and cardio and some sort of muay thai i.e. just kicking and boxing a bag or just into thin air. I had a couple of lessons just to get a bit of technique i.e. how to be stable, what your arms do when you kick, different sort of kicks. You probably know your limitations and the instructor will see when you are getting too tired.

In terms of actual fighting as sport you can see if your interest takes you that far but probably good just for fitness.  It could be fun though and you'll learn so much more about defense and attack by actually fighting of course. 

The more confident you are in your fitness and strength the less you'll care about petty disputes and hopefully you'd realise public fighting is not a good idea. 

40 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

LOL.  The bird analogy isn't as extreme as it is bizarre.  It doesn't fit at all and so makes for a terrible analogy.

 

Following is one of many flaws with your logic.  "It is based on observation and reliable sources including the media."  Since you are not omnipotent then it logically follows that your observations aren't all encompassing.  It is simply not possible for you to see all there is to see.  When I wrote, "Now let's assume for a moment that others see what you do not see," you completely exclude that possibility from your theory.

 

It doesn't escape my observation either that in your inappropriate analogy your theory is based on "observation and reliable sources."  But when you talk of the "different person" you ascribe to them no such observation taking place in their determination of their theory.  For them it's only what they "think."  LOL  Why didn't you just say what you probably truly think, "A different person" imagines "the birds are working together to take control."

Here's another little subtlety of logical fallacy in how you frame this abysmal analogy.  Again, your theory is based on "observation and reliable sources."  This different person, though, bases his theory on "some Internet sources."  Do you see what you're doing here?  I see it.  It's impossible to miss.

 

Your theory is based on "reliable sources" whereas the other person's theory is based on "some Internet sources."  You suggest that what you call reliable, which is is not only extremely subjective and includes your biases and isn't at all necessarily true, is infallible.  You also pretend to assume to know that the other person's sources are indeed "some Internet sources," which you don't and can't know.  You purposely give your sources an air of respectability and trustworthiness while colouring the other person's sources as dubious and shady.

Now when it comes to your sources you describe them as reliable.  And your sources are, I would assume you to assume, above reproach.  Then please explain how two of the most prestigious medical journals in the world, the New England Medical Journal and the Lancet were forced to retract bogus studies that undercut the idea of hydroxychloroquine for treating COVID-19?  The studies were published on May 1, 2020 and May 22, 2020.  Less that two weeks later three authors of the large observational analysis had retracted the papers for both studies.

I don't know whether or not those important incidences had fallen into your observable universe but it has been opined by some in the medical profession that the chances of an error of that magnitude happening to one journal, let alone two, given the absolute rigorous editing processes, are slim to none.  But it was enough to kill hydroxychloroquine in the crib as a viable therapeutic.

The above two instances unquestionably prove that what you consider reliable may in fact be unreliable, even in highly important life and death matters.  And may in fact even be exposed to corruption.  So your stance of "reliable sources" as impeccable is logically and provably false.  So too would be any assumptions you may be tempted to pass off as fact about the reliability and credibility of those other Internet sources which fall off of your personal list of quality sources.

Once all of your devices are exposed do you at all understand how your analogy grossly twists logic in order to make an extremely leading and invalid point?

 

Now I would love to take the rest of your post apart, line by line, to point out other logical fallacies contained within but this reply has grown long enough and it should serve well enough for you to reconsider some of your thinking.  If you are so inclined.

I think the point you miss is that I am talking about two different shades. It's a comparative discussion. I don't suggest my arguments are infallible, facts, or that reliable sources are beyond approach. We are all a bit subjective and I don't suggest otherwise. You and your penchant to extrapolate beyond what is there. 

I do though think my observations have a basis in fairly reliable consistent evidence based  reporting. I don't see that reporting backing theories such as yours and I look at a range of sources. 

I am saying my arguments have a lot better evidence to back them up than yours. No absolutes. No definitive right and wrong.

The bird example is an extreme version, and the fact it seems you can't back up the arguments you make, is similar in my opinion. Just be humble. You may have good or interesting ideas. They may seem instinctively true. They may be true.  

But be humble and accept your opinions, based on the available information to the average person, are a bit out there. Don't let the fact that you get a love heart or a trophy from other outliers on this site let you forget that. Just be ready that if you have unusual ideas people are going to push back. Like the bird guy you seem to have little evidence. Maybe something here and there but not something you can put together to make a compelling case. 

Delete

2 hours ago, Tippaporn said:

Thanks, Fat is a type of crazy, as your post leads me to make an extremely important point which explains much in the way of the unreconcilable differences of certain opinions.  What is crucial in understanding this point I'm about to make has everything to do with perspective.

Now here's what you wrote in your first post:

 

"I just get sick of people extrapolating beyond what they know."

 

And I replied to you with (to which you never answered):

 

"Is it a question of someone not knowing or is it a question of someone with a different point of view who then gets smeared as someone who is out of their league?  Which one is it?"

 

From your perspective, and in our present case, someone with an opposing point of view is considered to be speaking beyond what they know.  They may full well know what they speak of and be spot on in their knowledge.  Yet it is precisely because your view point is different (and usually that means opposite) that your perspective then leads you to believe that this someone knows not what they are speaking of.  It's contrarian.

Now, the exact same happens when we, or anyone, talk about conspiracy theory.  And I'll quote from your post (in which, coincidentally, you now accuse me of "extrapolating beyond what you know," LOL):

"Scientists and businesses around the world would like to become famous and or make money from a treatment be it vaccine or therapeutic. You imply there is some conspiracy. Implications but no evidence. Scientists have evidence for what they do by definition."

You have your worldview operating here, your perspective, in which scientists and businesses attempt to profit, in this case off of a "treatment be it vaccine or therapeutic."  I think I can safely say that you have an implied, yet unspoken, assumption operating that this activity is based in pure innocence.  That there is nothing at all nefarious going on.  That is your view, your belief, your perspective.

Now let's assume for a moment that others see what you do not see.  And what they see leads them to question.  Since your perspective assumes all is done in innocence and purity then any questioning is naturally  and automatically seen as an attempt to read into something something which is not there.  Under this perspective, and precisely due to this perspective, any evidence offered that all is not above board is in one way or another rejected.  Either by discounting it, distorting it, recontextualising it, minimising it, or outright ignoring it.

And so this then allows for your conclusion, made with absolute righteousness, of "implications but no evidence."  The evidence can be smack in your face but, as explained, you will reject it in one way or another using one of the means described above.

 

This entire idiocy of immediately claiming "conspiracy theory" at the slightest hint of someone's doubt or questioning, due merely to one's perspective, is the worst type of canard.  It is an entirely disingenuous practice and is purposed to dismiss out of hand any countering viewpoints, bona fide or not.  And to disparage and discredit the character of those who question.

It is a practice, in essence, of a self adopted closemindedness to the existence of any other possibilities other than your own.  Which, again, is disingenuous at it's core.

I'll remind you that at one time the mere mention that the UK was to adopt vaccine passports was dismissed as conspiracy theory.  It would never happen.  Does that not prove my point?

I have a theory that birds fly, eat and take care of their young. It is based on observation and reliable sources including the media. A different person thinks the birds are working together to take control. It's backed by some internet sources.

Now a less extreme example. My observations indicate scientists are not likely to act as one amalgam manipulated by some force. Further, evidence does not indicate the government, corporations and others including scientists,  have a long term plan to control us all, during this pandemic.

Those who believe in the alternate opinion are believing a conspiracy theory by definition. 

The alternate position is  not impossible but, for example, my claim that scientists and others have similar motivations to you and me , and are not acting as an amalgam, I think is more defendable. There are of course exceptions. There are bad people.

Similarly, my theory that governments have made their mistakes, but seem to generally be taking actions that attempt to balance freedoms and deaths and to end the pandemic, I think is borne out by the reality that lockdowns end, businesses open, and freedoms come back. 

Alternate theories may not be as extreme as the bird example but for me they are not consistent with observable reality and therefore require stronger evidence. 

In conclusion, I see a difference between my theories, possibly a tad idealistic but fairly consistent with observable reality, and yours, requiring a wholesale rethinking of how the world works. 

34 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Why would I, that's for Scientists.

Huh?  You have no thoughts whatsoever, nada, about the fact that in two years time not a single therapeutic or treatment has been developed and the only solution to the pandemic is a vaccine?  No questions enter your mind at all about what that might mean?  Your answer is to leave it to scientists?  Might that be your attitude to any aspect of this pandemic?  Leave it to the scientists.  Leave it to the politicians.  Leave it to the media to tell me what's what?  Where do you fit in?

 

 

 

This is an example of extrapolating beyond what you know. Scientists and businesses around the world would like to become famous and or make money from a treatment be it vaccine or therapeutic. You imply there is some conspiracy. Implications but no evidence. Scientists have evidence for what they do by definition. 

You also infer that the sheeple like me assume that politicians or any person including the media and scientists can necessarily be trusted. Wrong. People build reputations though. Common sense based on limited time can be used. Opinions can be updated if appropriate. 

You think there other motivations for lockdowns and other covid outcomes but have scant evidence. Lockdowns hurt the economy and tax revenue. Lockdowns always stop. 

I'll accept human nature is good and bad and therefore look for evidence based sources. 

On 1/11/2022 at 7:41 PM, Mac Mickmanus said:

I haven't booked the flight yet , just looking online at the options .

Local airlines from CR to BKK and international airlines to the U.K (Air Asia /Qatar) and Swampy .

   Considering the PCR tests and PLF would be checked and  verified at BKK , I assumed you would need to check in again at BKK .

Does the luggage go straight trough from CR to the U.K ?

I would have thought that would be problematic for people who were refused to board because of incorrect documents .

  Anyway, leaving it 30 minutes to get from the incoming flight and going through immigration and getting to the next flight is cutting it short

I booked a flight by Air Asia to Australia once. The Air Asia flight Bangkok to Kuala Lumpur was delayed a bit and the next plane didn't wait. Had to sit at the airport for hours till they put as in a 1 star hotel for the night. The two flights were the recommended flight by the airline. I would allow a few hours at least. That was a lesson about buying a cheap ticket too. So disorganised at Kuala Lumpur. 

5 hours ago, sirineou said:

 

   Roosters don't only cacadoodledo, in the morning to greet the rising sun, They they cacadoddloodoo all day. 

   Dogs everywhere barking day and night. If you are a lite sleeper don't move to issan , LOL

You have mentioned this before. To me it would be at the top of my list as reasons to move. Sometimes, if it doesn't seem to bother other people, you put up with it but I would want to get out of there fast. 

Why would she let them stay without getting payment while presumably continuing to pay a fee to list on the site. Yet Agoda did give you a refund. Strange story. 

I like hotels.com because they price match cheaper sites and you get a book ten nights and get one free deal. They have a decent call centre too.

I have noticed though in the last few years Agoda is consistently cheapest of the main sites. I did have one issue with Agoda and sent an email and got a fair prompt reply.