Fat is a type of crazy

It is unfair whoever you target. What is an alternative solution? One way of looking at it is the big companies such as oil companies make windfall profits and other companies put their prices up freely, more than what the increase in oil price justifies based on demand, and make big profits e.g. Qantas. This causes inflation. The solution? Make things so tough for consumers that they can't afford the high prices and prices are forced to come down. So the individual consumer bears the brunt. Ideally the businesses could be forced to reduce prices in the first place but that reeks of market control or socialism. In theory it would be fair but in reality every business has different situations so it is not practical. How to achieve that other than interest rate hikes? Keep in mind interest rates had been unusually low for years and are still not high on a historical basis. Meanwhile the big corporations and governments keep a limit on wages to limit inflation too. Individual consumers loses again. I concur raising interest rates is not a subtle weapon targeting those who should necessarily be targeted but I am happy not to be targeted for once and to actually benefit from higher savings rates.

In my job I have to give advice to staff and I often find myself thinking 'Please, for the love of god, cut to the chase, get to the point, no need to tell me every step of how you got here or how you feel about the situation'. It can flow through to my personal life too where when people wax lyrical or tell long stories I find myself saying that phrase or similar. So it is normal and you work out some are on your wavelength and some not.

I deal with it by saying could care less means you could care less and if Americans think otherwise they are WRONG.

Couples don't normally sit happily chatting away about books films and philosophy. Especially after a few years and especially thai girls. Do you really want to come home from work and have someone discussing books films and philosophy? Sometimes if you can put the smile back on her face you might feel happier. Happy wife. Happy life. Happy child. Buy her flowers tomorrow. Make her feel wanted. Don't make her feel guilty for being who she is. No one's fault or both of your's fault the situation happened. Seems like you admit the problem may be you and your issues with the past so it is may be no better with a new lady. Given the financial situation you could breathe and realise marriage is a bit of a bore but make the most of it, or if it is beyond fixing as a couple talk to her and consider living separately together for the kid, or give it a go as a family in Thailand if that is an option. Or get a better job and pay lots of child support and get your freedom back but at a huge cost. It's not easy but hang in there.

Not many new points in your post so I'll leave it there except to note: You say 'This is where the guy you met contradicts himself. He says how it's so hard to prove a resident or non resident status because of all of this criteria in the gray area that can be argued by an appellant, but then says this is why the 183 day rule will not be brought in because there needs to be room for argument.' I can't see the contradiction in this. There does need to be room for argument so it is not appropriate to apply the 183 day rule to this situation. You seem to mix up the argument for the 183 day rule with individuals in a specific situation being where they have been many years overseas. The residency issue clearly is easier to decide in such situations. It appears at this time though, there is little appetite to go after people in this situation based on my discussion, but the applying of a 183 day rule is not applicable or relevant to the situation of those overseas for some years. There may be a different rule, e.g. 365 or 730 day rule, that might potentially work a bit better, though it could still be problematic to apply broadly, but that is not the topic. You acknowledge Robodebt was wrong because it applied black and white rules to a situation that is not black and white and put the onus on the individual to prove otherwise. Surely you can see that once bitten twice shy and neither party will be keen to repeat this type of mistake.

I don't know Lineker from a bar of soap but I think it is not totally unreasonable for high profile media personalities to be asked to limit expressing their private opinions on highly contentious issues. If I was boss I would limit it to those in the newsroom though, and not limit the ability of other hosts or entertainers such as those relating to soccer shows, to have their say.

I concur. For example in many countries a large percentage of covid payments went to those that should not be eligible. Terrible waste. Sadly that is how it works with large government under democrats and republicans. It should be a priority to upgrade government IT systems for example to better identify and target receipts and payments and reduce waste. However, all things being equal, in my opinion the government raising money on those earning over $400,000 and for large super profitable corporations can result in fairer outcomes.

Taken from the Knights Templar Order site as a different poster pointed out last time you pulled out this quote. Should acknowledge they are not your words though.

Whatever you think of Trump I guess we can all concur that, if there was any room for doubt previously, Fox News is a total disgrace and cannot be trusted and will say whatever it takes to make money. We can all concur on that I hope.

Came to this site to see what retirement in Thailand might be like. Hmmmm. Stories like this do not have me packing my bags.

You do have a propensity for hyperbole

Fair enough. I see it as a way of showing polite respect by not looking rather than being controlled. Being caught from time to time is probably natural. My girlfriend would be horrified if I did it as a matter of course. If you have no problem with her looking at men and it works for you both then no worries.

My favourites are: Green and Blacks milk, 70, and 85 per cent Lindt normal milk, 70, 78 and 85 per cent. Moser milk, 70, and 85 per cent from Aldi Whittakers milk, 72 Ghana, from New Zealand Cadbury Old Gold 70 per cent Toblerone and standard Cadburys too sweet for those who eat a lot of chocolate. I eat 60 to 80 grams a day. If I retire in Thailand I will have to pay much more. Not eating the horrible staff they mostly sell over there like hershey etc

Can't you see she was violently bitten including on her vagina you freaks.

Must admit I get tempted by their fares. I like too the direct flights Melbourne to Bangkok and Phuket. 8 or 9 hours so no big deal. Have one booked in May about AUD $360 return and similar in August. The flying experience is the same. Last time I flew Thai the seats were as cramped. You get a big meal you don't really want late at night and the odd drink. Prefer to spend it on nice hotels. Had no problems mainly with Jetstar but to be honest my last trip in August was 3 hours late there and a horrible 7 on the way back. So I may have to learn not to be tempted by the low cost.

Possibly I should call hotels direct more often. As I noted above I normally don't find that's the case though. I am a tourist who tends to stay at big hotels so maybe smaller hotels are more nimble and are happy to avoid the fees. As noted above too there are 2 big hotel booking entities rather than one - and some other smaller independent ones. Booking.com and Agoda owned by the same but definitely different pricing. I have assumed the basis is that booking.com has better customer service so charges a bit more but I am not sure that is the case now as Agoda is not too bad to contact too.

I was one of em. 1985. People didn't talk much about Thailand back then. Phuket a bit. Seemed exotic. Did the hill tribe thing and golden triangle. Flew to Bangkok then Surat Thani and then a boat and cheap huts. Nothing too expensive. Lots of backpackers. Rode bikes around Koh Samui. So I am still a bit sympathetic to those who fall foul of insurance dramas but this generation is or should be a bit better informed. Burma too. Went home and said they are actually fun. Better in some ways to Bali where most Aussies went.

For what it's worth I would disagree a bit in that sometimes there are substantial differences between Booking.com and Agoda despite having the same owners. I find most of the sites owned by Expedia Inc such as expedia, hotels.com, wotif, and tripadvisor itself tend to have the same prices but hotels.com differentiates itself by its 10 night 1 free policy. I am not sure why people are seeing different prices at different stages on Agoda because I don't.

Sounds good but I have had a number of occasions where say, I want to book or extend a stay, and the hotel quotes a higher price and says book on an accommodation site if you want a better price. Most hotel prices on their hotel sites are more expensive than on the sites discussed.

Exactly. It's weird how much cheaper Agoda and some other sites are now. Hotels.com will price match though and give the further discount if they can find the same price at the other site.

You can check your settings as Hummin said. I note on Tripadvisor for example you can alter the left hand options to either include tax or not. Getting the best price is getting tricky. If you search by tripadvisor or google or hotelscombined and link to agoda you'll get better prices than say agoda direct. Sometimes you can go by say tripadvisor then pick the cheapest option that takes you to a second comparison site. This then links to Agoda at an even cheaper price. Pre covid I'd find the cheapest price on whatever site and then call hotels.com which will match the price and, on top, offer one night free for 10 nights booked. The problem is that prices vary so much now that hotels.com may not be able to find the price you found as each search, and how you do that search, seems to now have different prices. They may not simply accept your screenshot. This would be for longer stays and nice hotels otherwise not worth the bother.

Following the flow of your argument it seems you think I am saying 17 year olds have no capacity to engage in the community at large, but I do think they can participate in intelligent discourse and can have well informed opinions, on a range of topics and issues. But obviously all things being equal, a 17 year old would be particularly vulnerable to poor decision making when walking down a street with a killer weapon in a tense situation. Greta at 17 with an M16 may not be the best combination. Actually it's not normally legal at 17 but whether 17 or 21 or 80, having such widespread gun ownership and letting people walk the streets with guns is silly.

Yes a 17 year old kid. In most countries people of any age don't walk the streets with any guns let alone allowing a 17 year old kid to walk the streets with an assault rifle. Silly.

Clearly the issue is with dumb laws that allow a little kid to walk the streets with a big gun. Silly America.

If you are out with your wife and her friends don't look at other girls. No one would like it. Embarrassing for your wife and her friends. Bizarre.