Liverpool Lou

No to both because those options for applying for nationality are not offered by the Nationality Act which specifies applications from women married to Thai men.

You're wondering how they will apply the Nationality Act in which Section 9 references a foreign woman marrying a Thai man? Why? A foreign homosexual man would not be a foreign woman.

This is, obviously, the wrong place for that.

And where does it say it was parked there. It says NEAR there not NEXT to there. The restaurant is on Pattanakarn Soi 12, the car was parked on Soi 12, that's what was reported and that is how the place is located.

"Dunno the stats..." "...the divorce/disaster rate of falang marrying hooker is about 50%" You don't know the statistics but you'll state that lack of knowledge as probable fact, anyway? Brilliant, par for the AN Poster course!

The car was right next to the place in which they both worked, that's probably why it had been parked there.

"...the process for gaining custody..." "There is no dispute over custody, and I just want to legalize the situation". You need to clarify what it is that you are talking about, "legalising" yourself as the father and "custody" of the child are entirely different things. Do you just want your name on the child's birth certificate naming you as the father?

That's what can happen to those who ignore eviction notices from the owner of private land.

A phone call to their English-speaking call centres would tell you quicker, and more accurately, than asking here and, regardless of the replies here, you're still going to have to make that/those calls to confirm.

So lame, but you know her? Didn't think so. Maybe English is my second language?

You don't express opinions Lou, you merely answer other peoples posts in an argumentative manner often quoting what they said out of context. That's your subjective opinion, it is not factual. Doubtless, though, you have an example of what I am being accused of to quote? Put your money where your mouth is. Have you (and all the others) considered that my opinion, sometimes differing from others, being called "argumentative", by definition, means that those having different opinions to mine must also be "argumentative"? Or perhaps there are just different rules applied to me here?

Thank you. At least I wasn't doing the, oh so, predictable.

Yes he does, Only ADMIN can delete posts WHOOSH! Gawd... I was referring, tongue-in-cheek, to this part of his comment... "...so I can look like an idiot".

Not "disconnected" enough to be a full IATA member, though. Could be that the number of people who recognise scat as an activity is very restricted, to the extent of being insignificant to normal air travellers but hilarious to AN members by which, of course, all standards are measured!

Sounds like you are annoyed about the rules. Not at all, but it does look as though you can't understand my comment.

It’s complicated Wasn't that complicated, many were able to do it, without issue.

just the travel costs were keeping her down. tough being a single mum with 5 kids in the Philippines Bizarre, unfounded speculation.

What is odd is you misquote, or twist to simply cause an argument. Yet you cannot provide one example of that! And you seem to assume (wrongly) that you have the ability to know what other members' intent is...how could you ever know that?

They're here, many of them!

He loves to argue and will twist words or even completely change them to get an argument in when there was none. it is his style. To justify that accusation, an example of my "loving to argue" and "twisting words for an argument", as opposed to expressing an opinion that may differ from other's, would be interesting. It's odd that so many posters see my opinions, on a forum that encourages opinions, to be "argumentative" simply because they differ from theirs!

Doesn’t change things, who said it does? Well, you seemed to be suggesting that it may have done!... "Dates seem to match up with Covid".

Growing up in poverty, widowed, family to support and caught out by Covid. She was poor, really, but she wasn't so poor that she couldn't travel to Thailand twenty-six times? What's her being a widow got to do with it, even if she is? What family was it reported that she had to support that those of us who comply with the rules don't have? Provisions were made by the authorities for those stuck in the country, due to Covid restrictions, to be legal, so how did she "get caught out" by it?

"I wasn't making any claim that there would be any sort of "legal protection" applicable here". Really? Your post suggested that there is..."Historically, places of worship have been sort of like sanctuaries, and in some cases, legally such". "I also didn't claim or even remotely imply that acts of war would be applicable here, so why on earth would you mention that?" I mentioned it because you brought it up... "This protection can also be seen in how places of worship are given special consideration during war" and I didn't want you to cloud this issue with it. "Remedial reading 101..." Indeed. Perhaps you should do some, there is no such deficiency in my English-reading ability.

Yes, you probably are. Why should there be any empathy (or sympathy) for those who deliberately abuse the system, from those who comply with it? Is she special?

Did you need their assistance for that?