Liverpool Lou

Nonsense.

What does his current visa have to do with his question?

It's also unlicenced in Thailand, therefore illegal and uninsured. That could be why it has to be so cheap!

It matters? Yes. Mistruths matters. We wouldn't want another lying Fox News on our hands, would we? What you referred to weren't mistruths or lies, they were inconsequential journalistic errors but there are much worse things that we could have on our hands here, CNN, MSNBC come to mind very quickly.

Do you misunderstand or misinterpret all the posts you read on here No, I don't.

It matters?

He wasn't. "Ignore it" posted that he was so ignore it.

It's just a "wording" thing. Is it? You have no idea and your following 97 paragraphs of explanation are just speculation about the premises in question.

Bit of a pointless silly comment if you thought about it. Yours bettered mine in the "silly comment" stakes. Well done!

We've been that, at least, for the past 20 years, so what's the news? Perhaps you may have been. "we" certainly have not.

Speak for yourself.

Where did it say that the salon was rented, not owned?... "...she became the new owner..." "...his girlfriend who is the previous salon owner..." "...the salon was legally sold and transferred..."

Because the homeless don't have the right to access other people's paid for property. Do you allow the homeless into your place when you're not there?

.

I suggest that you don't give advice on a subject of which you are ignorant; his 90-day reporting obligation is re-set when he leaves Thailand and starts 89 days after he re-enters the country. Using your bizarre logic, what if he had reported, say 85 days before he left, are you seriously claiming that he would have to report again five days after he left while he was still out of the country?

No, it does not, it is irrelevant to my comments, the dog in question was not a stray or wandering around unattended, neither was it part of a pack of dogs, it was brought to the boy's mother's house/business by a relative. You are right, I was suggesting that the boy could be solely at fault based on the fact that he has a history of instigating problems with this dog as confirmed by his own mother

Who are you implying it applies to? And what "exact same offences." "Who are you implying it applies to?" I can't say...read the first few posts on this thread, I don't need a holiday right now. "And what "exact same offences."" Whatever Mr Trump has been indicted for, those offences, the same ones, the same rules should apply to everyone for the same offences, whatever they are.

How do you know, you don’t know what he’s been indicted for? I don't need to know that specifically! I'm saying that whatever he's being indicted for should apply to everyone else who could be in a similar position.

It doesn't show any longer and hasn't done for a few weeks.

That'd be because the regulation isn't in effect until 23rd June (originally, now 1st July)!

Couldn't be facial recognition that prevented the transfer as you claim, it hasn't started yet! Original date quoted was June 23rd, now it's 1st July.

They're not posting it on the app any longer and haven't been for at least a couple of weeks.

Do it online with your laptop or use a card.

It's only been mentioned in relation to phone banking apps, not computer transacted business. There's no notifications showing for BBL, Krungsri, UOBT or Kasikorn.

Others who took government documents, many classified, and refused to return them? Who are these others? Read the posts in the early part of thread, we're not permitted to say the names.