PadPrikKhing

I clicked through to the actual article and the article's title was "PM Thanks U.S. for Additional COVID-19 Supplies" The verbiage about "handing over" is in the subtitle, and whoever posted this thread to this forum repeated that in the thread title.

I've been trying to plan for my retirement stint there, but as long as there is a risk of being forced into a medical incarceration that my insurance won't cover, I have to say I can't do it. I'm not going to serve myself up for a likely multi-thousand-dollar con.

The disconnect that I think is occurring is that insurers have yet to realize that if a government points a figurative gun at the head of a traveler and forces them to be medically incarcerated, that incarceration is "medically necessary" enough in that if the traveler refuses it, they could be actually jailed, if only for refusing to pay a 100,000 baht extortion. If insurers are uninterested in saving their customers from that situation, maybe they need to reassess.

I've been wondering for a while: couldn't I get work as a copywriter and/or copy editor and/or proofreader of English business materials, under the same rationale as allows English teachers to work under a work permit? The same principle works—that it's something I'm a specialist at, the way an English teacher is a specialist at that.

Thank you.

(continuing) The only way I can imagine this working is that the agent somehow totally controls the bank account being used for this, and the client doesn't even have access to it throughout the year. Then when show-and-tell time comes, the agent gives temporary access (this is where the "bank book" comes in?) to the client—or maybe that's not even necessary—and then after the deal is done at the IO, the client goes back to not having access to that account. Is this how it works?

Good point. That's another aspect of this that I was going to get around to asking about. I was wondering how anyone meets the continuing balance requirement if they're working with an agent's money. Sounds like you have to commit to working with an agent long-term, which I have no problem with if that's what works. Here's another puzzle for me: looking at it from the agent's side, if the agent is putting 400k/800k of his/her money into the client's account and leaving it for months, how does the agent trust that the client won't abscond with it? I hope you don't say "by holding onto the client's passport," because I don't really want to be leaving my passport in an agent's or anyone else's possession. That would prevent me from going out of the country, plus you're supposed to have it in your possession all the time.

In my case personally, I absolutely would attend the classes if I chose to go this route (except if I had diarrhea that day ????). I'd like to learn the skills. But from what I'm reading here about the non-O retirement, I think I'm going to go that way. It sounds like as long as I choose a well-connected, prominent agent with a good rep, it should go okay.

Thanks for this. It sounds like key info, exactly the kind of "intel" I'm seeking. I'm kind of famous for worrying about contingencies that have never happened before. It's just the way my mind works in order to sort through scenarios to get prepared for something. I probably should have had a career at a major insurance company inventing claim scenarios that the carrier can deny.

You sound very confident of that... I like it.

Thank you. That is exactly the kind of nuance I'm thinking of. So perhaps the choice of agent who facilitates this is very key (I had already assumed that it would have to be a highly connected one).

Sounds perfect! I'll have my lawyer call you.

An excellent question, and quite aligned with the spirit of this post...

Believe me, I'm also considering that way as well. But it worries me because no one has been able to assuage my fears that doing it that way could result in suddenly being found out at any time and deported. You're right, this way is about 25,000 a year, and I see that the self-defense visa (at least if using this cmlocals.com as agent) costs about 38,000-40,000 a year, so quite a bit cheaper than the ED. I'm trying to negotiate between my distaste for the idea of needing to park 800k in a bank, and going with the agent-enhanced no-deposit retirement visa but worrying all the time. Are you sure that there is no situation that could come up where some officer comes out of left field and demands to see the bank account holding 800k that backs my visa, and I'm unable to show one? Like, are you sure that can't happen to me as I'm re-entering the country from a jaunt to a nearby country? I realize that once I have the right visa in my passport, that's usually all anyone needs to see and they wouldn't question further... but is it one of those things where I could have an unlucky day and an immigration officer might just be "in a mood" and make such a demand for no real reason and catch me flat-footed? That's what I'm afraid of, and I'm looking for someone (preferably multiple someones) to convince me that that won't happen. If I can be convinced that won't happen, I'll definitely go for the agent-facilitated retirement-visa-without-the-bank-funds way.

True, sorry. It's https://www.cmlocals.com/emergency-self-defense/

Yes, this is what I need to look into. The website of one outfit that is selling this visa package (cmlocals.com) describes it as a thing that easily affords a year at a time, and they say that they'll handle all of the immigration drudgery for you (including accompanying you to the IO). They also imply that renewing and getting a second year is not a big deal. So you can see why I'm suddenly attracted to this.

It's starting to look like a viable alternative to the Non-O and retirement extension, mainly because it doesn't require the huge money deposit. I wouldn't mind learning self-defense two nights a week, two hours each class. That sounds easy. I'd be looking at doing it in Chiang Mai. One thing that is still confusing about it is that the info I was looking at says that with this arrangement, you can leave the country for up to 30 days at a time, but I don't get how that works with the two nights a week requirement. Also, if I lived in Chiang Mai I would probably need to leave during the peak of smoke season 2023, and I wonder if I'd be able to do that with this visa. Are there any pitfalls or drawbacks to this visa that you guys know of that I don't see yet? The info says that it's easy stuff and they don't put you through any gnarly physical training, which sounds good because I'm probably too old for that. But it'd be no problem to learn some gun disarm moves, eye-gouges, and things like that.

Yikes, so vividly described and true. I grew up in that environment, imagine that (not LA itself, but the beach cities about 15 miles south). I finally got out in 1998 but moved up north where I thought it would be better (it wasn't). Now after about 24 years in Northern California I'm ready to go to Thailand, where women actually talk to men.

That fan setup is far from optimal... they're blowing straight across the top of the canopy (and up too high), but in indoor cultivation you really need strong air also aimed to blow down low, moving all the leaves around and circulating the air down there between the pots. I foresee powdery mildew and other problems for that crop.

Reminds me of a scene from one of those absurd 1980s comedies... I think it had Rodney Dangerfield in it. There was a pool party, and one character who didn't like the pool crowded and wanted it all to himself unwrapped a candy bar (a Baby Ruth, I think) and let it float in the pool. People started screaming and running in a panic, and the pool was emptied in seconds.

Yes, that 0.2% stuff is hemp. It's basically not psychoactive at all. THC levels for pot that "works" is anywhere from 3% to near 30%. The Thai Stick of the good old days was probably somewhere around 10%-15%. The uber-potent indoor stuff that gets sold in the pot stores in the US is often around 25% (or is claimed to be, at least).

Fasten your seat belts, because you're about to have lots of 'em...

This is the part of the agent trickery that I don't understand... if they're lending you the 800k temporarily for the initial proof, and then take it back, how do they get you around the problem that it won't show in bank records as having been sitting in your account for all the later months? So let's say an agent gets you through your Non-O application by staking you 800k for a few hours. Then they take the money back out, I assume... how do they fix the problem that immigration will want to see that the money was sitting there for two months before application for the 1-year extension? Do they actually just leave 800k in your account or two months leading up to the application? Then take it out again? Or is it just graft that is so complete that the money rules don't even matter? Couldn't immigration simply demand to see the bank records and would then see the fast deposit and then transfer back to the agent? How does this game work? I can't decide whether to play if I don't know how it works.

That's a rich phrase, I'm borrowing that. But I'm going to hyphenate corn-fed

That's an interesting idea which kind of makes sense, because Coke (cola) is terribly acidic with a ton of phosphoric acid in it. Ordinarily, this is what makes it really bad for you (the acid in it literally leaches minerals out of your bones), but since kidney stones are accumulations of alkaline material, this sounds like it would work. Not that the cola itself would reach the kidney stones to dissolve them, but probably makes your blood slightly more acidic, which would help dissolve them...? Ultrasonics. It uses sound waves to break them up.