AddyA

Thanks, ThirdCulture and Ro54 for responding. This bike is starting to appeal to me more and more. I'd never even considered it before I saw that Facebook ad. Anyway, I'm going to keep a lookout for one locally. It seems like a no-brainer if I can find a well-taken-care-off second-hand model ????

Thanks for posting that, Troy Tempest. I still have some reviews to get through, but the vibration issue is not something I've come across until now. I guess a test ride will tell me if it's a buying issue or not ????

Great response, thank you, Sunmaster. Your old bike looks beautiful. I have read some reviews, and there seemed to be an issue with the cracked welding around the engine mount. But I'm not sure if that was an issue with earlier bikes (pre-2020). Other than that, it does tend to get a decent write up. Any 2011 bike with only 14,000 KM on the clock is a rare find indeed. My problem is that I'm a perfectionist, so I don't buy secondhand bikes with visible chips and scratches, not even old ones. I have two bikes, including a 17-year-old Honda Wave with 80,000+ KM on the clock. Even that has no scratches, chips, or dents. So, I'd sooner wait until the right model comes along. If the ER6N 650 in the pic above was in Chiang Mai, I would have been to view it already. Not least because of its price tag of only 75,000 Baht ????

Anyone here know anything about the older Kawasaki ER6N 650cc, around 2011? There's a beauty for sale in Bangkok (see pic) that's only done 14,000 KM. It looks new in the photos, and seems to have a few aftermarket parts. But bikes always look great in phots, right. I'm in Chiang Mai, so Bangers is quite a trek to go and view something that might not be as it seems. The bike does look interesting, so I may keep my eye on the local buy and sell bike forums. But I've never owned Kawasaki's before, hence this post. Anyway, I just wondered if anyone here had ridden these older models, and if yes, please share your experience. Thank you.

You know there are experts (doctors) who disagree with vaccinating children and healthy adults, right? If not, you haven't considered to the opinions of opposing experts. So that means you disagree with my point above. That is, no one can make well-informed, independent decisions without listening to all sides of an argument. Of course, you are free to agree or disagree with anyone about anything. But it's better to agree to disagree than spout anti-vaxxer rhetoric at anyone who chooses to question the COVID-19 response.

The anti-vaccine rhetoric in your response is my point. No discussion, just slagging off the thoughts of others. And for the record, I have never said I'm an anti-vaxxer or that I haven't been vaccinated. I'm simply pointing out that it's impossible to make well-informed, independent decisions without listening to all sides, that's all. If you disagree with the last point, that is perfectly fine. But at least say why in your response.

How many folks who vaccinated themselves and their kids made well-informed, independent decisions? It's a question only you can answer. I've said it before, and I'll keep on saying it. People only search for material they want to believe in and disregard the rest. You can find anything to support your tenet if you look for it. Reading and listening to experts who reinforce what you want to be true is a physiological comfort. That's especially the case when it comes to health-related issues. On the other hand, it can be terrifying to listen to brave experts who dare to share opposing views. That's probably why some find it easier to mock them than engage in an intelligent debate. Alas, it seems that most are easily swayed when the media giants use their influence to silence critics. And that's why they do it. The cancel culture is toxic yet growing. But people don't seem to mind as long as those canceled are on the opposing side of thier beleifs.

Maybe it's time to see all the faces of all those behind AseanNow. I mean, surely it must the only faceless businesses left on the web?

What do you think?

@MrFill makes a valid point; the world has a grossly overmedicated population. Indeed, prescription drugs are the third leading cause of death after heart disease and cancer in the US and Europe. And prescription drugs (especially painkillers) kill more Americans than heroin, cocaine, and smoking combined. Another study linked statins to a higher risk of diabetes and other health disorders. So be careful what you take, folks. Sadly, people are too quick to accept whatever DRUGS doctors tell them without questioning the said substance. But none of this makes sense unless you accept the recognized channels of expert opinion, of course. I refer to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), PubMed.gov, and others. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25355584/ https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2011/p1101_flu_pain_killer_overdose.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/07/well/live/statins-may-increase-risk-of-diabetes.html

Well, the mask discussions have overtaken the COVID vaccination debates, which sometimes got quite nasty. Some of the responses to masks are pretty cutting, though. Still, they're nothing compared to those earlier vaccination threads. So that's one down, one to go, then the virus will become a non-news event... at least for those who let it go.

Fair comment. Which ones are you referring to in particular?

There's an estimated 8.7 million living species on planet earth, yet humans are the only mugs that have to pay exists. Go figure!

Your response suggests you've never looked at the findings and opinions of opposing sides. Again, it kind of proves my assumptions in the earlier post. I'm not trying to catch people out, but I fail to see how anyone can support a claim when they've not considered opposing sides. I mean, how could they possibly? Thus, it seems that skeptics of this topic—and other hot debates—are better informed.

I'm just curious, Nobodysfriend. What do you do when you come across material from respected scientists who DON'T believe the current climatic activity is manmade? Do you ignore the above experts and search for material that only agrees with what you want to be true? Or, do you consider both sides of an argument before making an informed decision? I may be wrong, but I think skeptics of any scientific doom tend to listen to all sides of an argument before they become skeptical. I think that because the skeptics often say why they disbelieve in a thing. In contrast, the easy-believers tend only to believe the mainstream narrative and paste links to their heroes. Those who merely quote others are not what you might call independent thinkers. I could be 100 percent wrong in my assumptions, in which case, please, do correct me.

You will find that doctors globally are not practiced industrial hygienists. So it's better to listen to the latter than the former regarding PPE's efficacy. It makes sense, right? Doctors often like to give nutritional advice, too. But they're not qualified nutritionists, either. Heck, physicians are still telling folks that saturated fat clogs the arteries and causes heart attacks. My point is that to get qualified advice, one should look to those educated in a particular field. It's the only way to make a truly educated decision.

Ain't that the truth? I had a pack of six or seven mad mongrels of varying sizes chasing me out of a hilltop temple a few weeks back. As I sped off on the motorbike, one of the buggers leaped up and held on to my trouser leg for dear life. Then, finally, it lost grip but quickly leaped up again, this time puncturing my shoe with its fangs before rolling off into the dry dirt. Seriously, these rabid beasts had the devil in their eyes. I love dogs, but I wouldn't be sorry to see that lot in a canine casserole.

Good points, well made ????

Then my advice to you is to keep your healthy fear of pitbulls and stay well away from the mutts and thiose who own them. But pitbulls aside, be careful who you play fetch the stick with.

Perhaps it's the result of the few <deleted> dog owners that raise (for want of a better word) this otherwise loving breed. Could it just be that any dog would turn into a canine killer if the same idiots kept them? Maybe, just maybe, the stereotypes start with the dog owner rather than the dog? It's just a thought.

There is some merit in what you say. "A pit bull is no more likely to unpredictably attack than any other breed. That’s a fact. To say that a pit is a natural-born killer is nothing more than stereotyping." These are the words of the world renowned dog behaviorist Cesar Millan. The nastiest pet I have ever come across was a psychopathic pet Chihuahua. It was so aggressive that visitors to the said house had to call in advance so the owners could lock the frenzied bitch in a separate room.

My NaturesPlus, Vitamins D3 & K2, 90 Tablets have just arrived from iHerb. It's my first order with the company. The delivery due date was early October, so I was surprised to get the product this morning. I think this product is a good balance going by the responses from those here who know a thing or two about supplements. It has 2500 IU of D3, and 120mcg (4800 IU). I'm not sure why D3 is mentioned in IU and K2 only in mcg, but I guess there must be a reason.

This is a perfect example of how you can find anything to support any argument on any topic from credible sources if you look for it. So who's right? Person A, who chooses to believe the views of one set of experts, or person B, who thinks the results of other experts are correct? There is no right or wrong answer until research is proven true without question or doubt. But, unfortunately, most of it isn't, and there lies the problem. But the "I'm right, and you're wrong" response can never be a part of an intelligent debate when there is no definitive answer.

It's no different to the many non-PPE experts informing the public on Mask Science. Yet millions took (and continue to take) their word on the efficacy of masks. But regardless of the messenger/researcher, what I posted above is either true or it's not, and that's the point. Perhaps your response would have made more sense if you tried to disprove the above evidence, if indeed you do disagree with those findings?

You are correct, and most studies err on the side of caution with preliminary findings. And I also understand the conflicts between correlation and causation. But even so, it would be somewhat naive to discard those findings as rubbish based on the above. Here's a quote from Amiel Dror, MD, the lead study author and a doctor at Galilee Medical Center. "We found it remarkable, and striking, to see the difference in the chances of becoming a severe patient when you are lacking in vitamin D compared to when you're not." He goes on to say.... “We checked a range of timeframes and found that wherever you look over the 2 years before infection, the correlation between vitamin D and disease severity is extremely strong,” Dror told The Times of Israel. “It emphasizes the value of everyone taking a vitamin D supplement during the pandemic, which, consumed in sensible amounts in accordance with official advice, doesn’t have any downside.”