Longwood50

I am sick and tired of Bangkok Bank.  I have used them for 4 years for my monthly deposits to verify my 65,000 minimum monthly transfers.  Each time it has been a hassle.  Only once was I given the correct items the first time.  First off for some unexplained reason you have to go a branch office and ORDER a 1 year bank statement.  I worked in banking for 40 years and 40 years ago we could print off a statement for a customer at a branch office.  Second, you are repeatedly told that ONLY THE BRANCH OFFICE YOU OPENED YOUR ACCOUNT AT CAN HELP YOU.  Now that is truly nonsensicle again 40 years ago we could assist a customer irrespective of what office an account was opened at.  Does Bangkok Bank really think that we believe that the information on a customers account is only directed back to a specific office where the account was opened.  Heck the ATM's know my transaction history irrespective of their location.  

This year was worse than most.  I went to the bank which was where I opened the account.  I asked for a 1 year bank statement and the letter required by immigration.  Instead I got a 6 month statement and the letter only the current balance in the account. After getting home and looking at the statement I discovered it was only 6 months, I had to return to the bank, pay another 100 baht wait another week, because Bangkok bank did not originally give me the full 1 year statement which I specifically told them was needed for my visa extension.  I then got to immigration who told me that the letter from the bank was not acceptible and they showed me a letter by a bank that monthly showed each deposit.  I said, I recognize that because I got one of those last year from Bangkok Bank who interestingly I got from a branch that was not where I opened my account and they correctly gave me the 1 year bank statement but again I had to make a second trip to the bank to retrieve it and this branch is further away than the one I opened my account at.  So now yet another trip back to the bank to wait to talk to the manager, who I showed the sample letter from immigration only to be told that "no we don't do that"  We only do what we already gave you.  After much prodding saying that Immigration would not accept that, she agreed to prepare such a letter, but of course that would necessitate yet again another 100 baht charge and you guessed it at least 24 hours to prepare. 

So, I am looking for those out there who have accounts with other banks and have a smoother time, getting a 1 year bank statement and proper letter authorization.  There has to be something better out there than Bangkok Bank.  

21 minutes ago, James105 said:

Since America already has gun control whats the problem with the controls being tightened to make it a tiny bit harder for the next lunatic to kill quite as many kids in the next school massacre?  

I am for that.  Please explain exactly how you do that.  Seems like the USA already has a myriad of laws making it illegal to import, sell, or use numerous drugs.  How has that worked out with upwards of 107,000 dying in the USA each year from just the opiod based drugs like heroin, and fentanyl.  

Try this for harder.  Mexico has only 1 legal gun store.  It is on a military base in Mexico City.  To legally purchase a gun takes months of background checks, and no matter where you live in Mexico you must travel to Mexico City to purchase the gun.  How has that worked out for the murder rate in Mexico from guns? 

What is accomplished is that law abiding citizens will be hampered in securing a firearm that will be used properly and those who can't legally obtain a gun will now have to buy it on the black market.  

PS of all the mass shootings, there is not one instance of the shooter having anything in their background that precluded them from purchasing the guns legally.  So this "tiny little bit" harder statement is blatantly false. 

You want to stop gun violence.  The overwhelming majority of it is not mass shootings but rather gang violence involving drugs.  Stop the drug trafficking by making it more difficult to enter the USA from Mexico and a lot of that violence goes away.  You will never stop the madman from inflicting mass death if that is their aim.  Some have chosen cars, trucks, snow plows.  Timothy McVeigh showed what can be done with just  a few plastic barrels filled with ordinary fertilizer and diesel fuel bringing down an entire building and 168 deaths. 

9 hours ago, Credo said:

Those guns have no other purpose than killing people.  They are a weapon of war and do not belong in a civil society.   

You are wrong.  The rifle most often characterized as an assault rifle is the AR-15 which does not stand for Assault Rifle.  In terms of power the AR-15 and others like it use the .223 caliber bullet.  That caliber is banned for deer hunting in 10 states because they game officials find the caliber to small to effectively kill a deer.  

Now lets assume that those who wish to ban those "scary" looking military style rifles.  What is accomplished is that those who wish to create carnage merely purchase the identical rifle, that does not have the muzzle flash, pistol grip, plastic stock, or the plastic forearm that gives it the "look" of a military rifle.  The Ruger mini-14 comes as a Rancher model and looks like an everyday hunting rifle.  The Ruger tactical has the appearance that it is used in the military but that is purely cosmetic.  Functionally the two are identical.  They shoot the same exact ammunition, can carry the same number of cartridges, and fire at exactly the same rate.  It is like putting a spoiler, hood scoop, dual exhausts, and racing tires on a car.  It may make the car look like a powerful race car but it is purely cosmetics. 

The other choice would be for the person who is bent on killing people to upgrade to something truly lethal.  The .30-06 caliber is one of the most popular hunting cartridges and can be used on game as large as a grizzly bear.  at .30 it is significantly larger than the .22 caliber used in the AR-15 and similar rifles.  

Lethality of a rifle is based on the speed of the bullet, the construction of the bullet and its weight.  A golf ball is the same size as a ping pong ball but if traveling at the same speed the ping pong ball slows down quicker and has less knock down power because it is lighter.  Same with bullets.  The .223 comes in weights as low as 40 grains and only as large as 77 grains.  By contrast the 30-06 starts at 109.6 grains and goes as larger as 220.7 grains enough to kill a moose or grizzly bear. 

So congratulations banning those puny rifles may well put something truly deadly in their hands instead. 

AR-15-platform rifles are among the most popular firearms being sold. They are today's modern sporting rifle.  The AR in "AR-15" rifle stands for ArmaLite rifle, after the company that developed it in the 1950s. "AR" does NOT stand for "assault rifle" or "automatic rifle."  AR-15-style rifles are NOT "assault weapons" or "assault rifles." An assault rifle is fully automatic -- a machine gun. Automatic firearms have been severely restricted from civilian ownership since 1934.

It's best to look at the states that don't allow deer hunting with . 223 diameter bullet or an AR-15 rifle. Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Virginia, Ohio, New Jersey, Washington, and West Virginia require larger bullets to be used to hunt game.

On 2/7/2023 at 12:50 PM, Trumpton said:

Can a 30 year lease be taken out at the same time as the house is bought in her name so I'm sure of somewhere to live for the next 30 years if we split up?

Yes I have two neighbors who did that in lieu of setting up a company.  It does give you the right to stay in the house for the 30 years even if you split but the house eventually belongs to her.  Another alternative would be to set up a company and have the company buy the home.  You could through a will give her the stock to the company upon your death.  The difference is that if you were to split up, you can change the will.  If you get a new woman, perhaps it would be more attractive to the new woman that she rather than the former GF would be your beneficiary. 

1 minute ago, Bkk Brian said:

How many bullets would it have taken? Where would it have travelled to before it eventually landed?

Hint:  Fighter Aircraft have 50 caliber machine guns 

3 hours ago, pomchop said:

so are u still clinging to the idea he should have ordered it shot down over montana or the badlands of south dakota....that "logic" makes zero sense

And what sense to you ascribe to it not being shot down over the badlands.  Mine is that you stopped it from traveling 3,700 km across the USA picking up intelligence.  And yours for not shooting down is what? 

50 minutes ago, pomchop said:

So first u wanted it shot down over montana then over  the badlands and now over the Aleutian islands...do u have any clue as to the depth of the pacific ocean is there not to mention it is the middle of winter with very likely rough seas

Are you indicating that was "the reason" it was not shot down"  I saw nothing about the excuse being they wanted to retrieve anything.  The excuse was that they did not want to bring it down over a populated area.  

One thing is for sure, if they had fired bullets at the balloon rather than a sidewinder missle the balloons would have slowly leaked air making the descent far more gentle.  That would be true whether that was over Montana or the Aleutina Islands.   The fact remains he let the spy sattelite operate for 8 days completing its spy mission before being destroy.  No matter how you spin that, it was a stupid move. 

7 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

The case here is simple. Trump didn’t prioritize the importance of vigilance to the intelligence community. President Biden did.

And just exaclty where do you cite this from other than the crevices of your mind.  

As said, even if I buy your position that Biden is the one who heightened the security (WHICH I DOUBT)  He is unquestionably the one who let the balloon go undeterred for 8 days as it crossed thousands of kilometers both in the USA and Canada.

If you believe that is prioritizing the importance of vigilance I can sure understand why you are a Biden backer.  Your logic makes about as much sense as one of his speeches. 

 

2 minutes ago, nauseus said:

I don't think it is clear who identified the balloon first but if it was not the US military then that would be a worry. It seems that this only became public knowledge once Larry Meyer had his photographs published in the Billings Gazette.

I am not sure either.  However the balloon was first spotted over the Southern Tip of the Alaskan Aeultian islands.  So if anything "Bidens" crack surveillance should have detected and destroyed it over the Pacific Ocean on January 28 when it was first spotted.   One way or another the balloon was allowed to travel for thousands of kilometers across an expanse of Canada and the United States.  It is pure bunk that the balloon had to travel thousands of kilometers across vast unpopulated regions to reach the Atlantic Ocean before being shot down.  

This "credit" to Biden for increased surveillance is nonsense.  One has no idea who ramped up the ability of the USA to detect these balloons.  However we sure know who let the thing travel for 8 days.  What good did it do to detect it and then let it travel to gather intelligence. 

42 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

It is really not that confusing. President Joe BIden has demonstrated that by prioritising to the intellgence community the importance of vigilance and assets deployment on his first day of office. Trump didn't. It is that simple. 

LOL now that is funny.  Your dislike for Trump is so great you make up assertions.  

So lets see, the Pentagon did not know that the balloons existed, but Trump should have prioritized detecting them, which Biden did only because the Pentagon later discovered their gap. 

In the meantime, this was the path of the balloon which traveled for thousands of kilometers across the southern tip of Alaska, Canada, and first detected by 'BIDENS" enhanced vigilance in Montana.  Now this "enhanced vigilance" led Biden to only let it completely traverse 3,700 Kilometers across the continental United States despite it being over near empty areas of Montana.  

Yep, I can sure see why you think Biden was spot on in his prioritizing the speedy response to this threat for only 8 days between January 28, and February 4.   I can see why you are a Biden Supporter.  You sound like him. 

— The balloon was spotted over the Aleutian Islands along the southern tip of Alaska. 2. It was sighted Wednesday over south-western Montana, ...
 

26 minutes ago, Eric Loh said:

That seem to be the lapse in detecting the past surveillance ballons. No orders from the Commander-in-Chief to the intelligence community to increase vigilance and deployment of assets to detect spy ballons from enemy states.

Now is there a part of this statement you find confusing.  So according to you, Trump should have increased vigalance and the deployment of assets to detect spy balllons that were not "detected"  

Amazing insight on your part. 

“I will tell you that we did not detect those threats, and that’s a domain awareness gap,” said Gen. Glen D. VanHerck, the commander of the Pentagon’s Northern Command.

 

17 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

We didn;t hear about that too. Too much coverup during Trump's adminstration to give him a pass on any benefit of doubt. 

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/02/06/politics/pentagon-balloon-monday/index.html

17 hours ago, Eric Loh said:

You know nothing about the incursions because it was not disclosed by the Trump's administration.

Oh but now you do?  You infer that it was hidden.  Check google.  It can be your friend. 

“From every indication that we have, that was for brief periods of time — nothing at all like what we saw last week in terms of duration,” said Mr. Kirby, referring to the balloon that spent much of last week traversing the country before the United States shot it down

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/06/us/politics/china-spy-balloon-trump-administration.html

.

WASHINGTON — The top military commander overseeing North American airspace said Monday that some previous incursions by Chinese spy balloons during the Trump administration were not detected in real time, and the Pentagon learned of them only later.

“I will tell you that we did not detect those threats, and that’s a domain awareness gap,” said Gen. Glen D. VanHerck, the commander of the Pentagon’s Northern Command.

One explanation, multiple U.S. officials said, is that some previous incursions were initially classified as “unidentified aerial phenomena,” Pentagon speak for U.F.O.s. As the Pentagon and intelligence agencies stepped up efforts over the past two years to find explanations for many of those incidents, officials reclassified some events as Chinese spy balloons.

 

11 minutes ago, Scott Tracy said:

The question in my mind is: If the package was the size of 3 busses, as I seem to recall was reported in UK news, why was it not spotted earlier? It made Alaska and Canada....

You raise a good question.  This is the path that the Daily Mail UK states the balloon took You sure would have expected that the balloon would have been spotted as it approached Canada and certainly as it crossed over Canadian airspace before entering Montana.  One thing is for sure, the balloon should have been destroyed over Montana which is largely open land.  It appears the balloon also went over South Dakota close to Rapid City.  For anyone who has traveled to that area of South Dakota whidh is called the Black Hills, it is rugged mostly uninhabited and a huge National Park.  Hardly something that would raise a concern over falling debris from the balloon. 

16 minutes ago, BigStar said:

Yup, but the law doesn't specify ALL buildings. Why not read the law?

I don't need to read the law.  As stated. If it says that certain buildings built after 1992 must have sprinkling systems, there should be none, since construction should not have been permitted after that. 

If the law stipulates that certain buildings must be retrofitted, then it begs the question why has it not been enforced for the past 20 years. 

One way or another the passage of a law does not solve the issue of how to pay for such sprinkling systems.  The law may issue a judgement against a person for 10 million baht.  But it the person does not have the 10 million baht such a judgement is meaningless. 

The same is true of a regulation that mandates that a building own must have a sprinkling system.  If that owner lacks the money or the ability to borrow it then the regulation is unenforceable. 

I am sure it was just for his own personal use. 

1 hour ago, BigStar said:

The law's been in effect since 1992, two decades before COVID, plenty of time. And, as I mentioned earlier, money doesn't have to be laying lying around.

I am not sure what law you are referring to however if it merely requires new buildings built after 1991 to have sprinkling systems then there should be no buildings in the past 20 years that don't have them since the law would prohibit their construction.

If the law says retrofit then it begs the question why it has not been enforced for upwards of 20 years. 

As to money laying around, I beg to differ with you.  When you contact the installation company they are going to ask for payment before proceeding.  

As with your own personal expeditures on your residence, you only have two choices take it out of money you have in reserve or you borrow it.  Given covid I doubt that hotels, and apartments that were impacted by covid have substantial reserves left after they tapped whatever money they saved to tide them over for two years. 

As to borrowing it, that assumes that the person could do that, and that they could then raise the community fees or apartment rates sufficient to cover payments back on the loan.  It is exteremely naive to believe that all the buildings that would require retrofitting would have access to money to pay for it.  And I seriously doubt any contractor would start installing a sprinkler system without being paid.