cocopops

Thank you Ubonjoe I entered the country from Penang 11th February this year for my 2nd year course.

Was the visa you've been extending issued in February 2014 or February 2015?

Here in Chiang Mai they're saying they won't extend a single ED visa for more than one year in total (i.e. you get the first 3 months + 3 * 3 month extensions, then you gotta go get a new visa), so if your visa was originally issued in 2014 that's probably the issue. You will need to get a new non-imm ED from somewhere. And, so long as you're still going to school, will probably be able to use it to stay a year.

?

I can agree but good intentions are not enough when dealing with people's personal details. Beside, if common sense was to prevail all the time, Thailand it would be a very different country.

Not only Thailand...

Weren't a lot of women topless in "Traditional Thai Costume" ?

Apparently not, as your poignant posting shows.

The large heading says "Thai culture". then above the left-hand side - "Don't do this! Dressing like this is not the way of the civilized Thais". And on the right - "Do this! Civilised Thais dress like this."

Underneath the pictures, in case you didn't get the message first time - "You must stop dressing like this!" and "Start dressing like this!" both with the "hey <deleted> this is an order" grammar particle....

Awesome stuff.

So what is your topic about?

I would have thought that anyone, with a brain at least the size of a green pea, would be able to comprehend the text in the OP.

So for you only.

If foreign currencies get weaker against the Thai Baht, it is only logical that importing goods from those countries becomes cheaper in Thai baht terms, especially since also shipping cost have declined because of the 50% decline in oil prices.

So since most Western currencies, except the US$, have weakened by about 30% and prices of imported goods in Thai shops have increased by at least 30% during the same period, prices have actually increased by 60% where there logically should have been a reduction of 30%.

So where is the logic the prices of imported goods increase instead of decrease.

Thai logic: stronger Baht = lower import price = much higher profit increasing sales price.

they increase prices because quite obviously they can. quite often i find that some expensive goods which i am willing to buy are out of stock.

Correct. Goods are priced in order to maximize the profitability of the enterprise, not to satisfy anyone's sense of fairness. The people running these operations have an ethical reponsibility to their shareholders to ensure that it is so.

Why are they "ASKING" 3,500 employees to retire? That is similar to Thai Airways do something along those lines. The resulting payouts will amount to the same as the annual salary payments, without any benefits being seen. Just tell them to leave, but that is nothing to do with Thainess, or Thai business culture. Ex-pats, go home and leave them to do what is Thai so they can just keep on being and doing what they do best - being Thai and believing they are the superior race.

Presumably because the redundancy payments required by law would be higher than the package they're offering.

I'm stumped by "English to Thai speak"...

Is that Pidjin for "English as I speak it to Thai people" or "Thai as I translate it from English"?

If the former, I've found any Thai who can speak Tinglish can understand the real thing well enough anyway. If the latter, I wouldn't worry about it. The way you sound to yourself when you listen to a recording is not necessarily reflective of the impression you leave on Thai ears in real time...

'Proven fact', eh?

Is a fact unproven, or something proven not a fact?

Who writes this stuff?

There are of course many unproven facts, some of which will become proven in the future. Most proven facts were themselves at one point unproven. By adding "proven" the author represents that this particular fact has at some point been demonstrated in such a way as to make repudiation unlikely. It is a fact not just in the opinion of the author, but in the opinion of all rational minds privy to the proof.

Clearly they won't cross paths.

But if they did, I wonder if Mr Thaksin would maintain some dignity? Or act childishly in some manner?

And the same question about the Prime Minister...

This post makes me envious.

Here in Chiang Mai this time of year we would love a few days of tastefully polluted Bangkok air.

You insensitive clods!

Happy Birthday Prime Minister.

You have all my heart.

I've never seen such a man crush in my life, you need to seek medical help mate!!

It's not man crush, my friend.

It's Admiration for the Man and what he stands for.

I think it's gone way beyond that. Seriously.

I'm curious though - are there any other public figures anywhere in the world who you admire as much? Or historical figures? I'd really like to know who else you place on his level!

Should be (a) levied on the undeveloped value of the land and ( b ) levied on all land regardless of the financial status of the owner or how many other plots they own.

Condo owners charged pro-rata based on the value of the dirt their condo building is sitting on top of.

Ditto! Racism is definitely a social construct, maintained and financially supported by the elite, as a means for dividing and controlling the masses. The so-called Holy Bible reeks of racism, among the ancients. From a sociological point of view, The United States, as a 238 years-young nation, is still in it's diaper stages of development, compared to Middle Eastern, and Asian cultures. All things (by comparison) considered, the American social system construct, is a millenium more advanced, than what I've seen of 5,000+ years-old Asia.

The Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's was completely unnecessary. The 1964 Congressional passing of the Voter's Rights Act, sufficiently eradicated the main problem. The 1965 Civil Rights Act was ludicrous at best, and a cunning con-game played on all the citizens of the U.S., whites included.

Re: Police racism in Ferguson, MO. If black people would simply grow-up (from a cultural point of view), and start behaving like responsible citizens, police themselves, then the "racism" from whites would simply fade into obscurity. I wonder if the "Reverends" Jesse Jacksons, and Al Sharptons are preaching that sensible notion of civil behavior patterns of development, from their Sunday morning, Gospel singing Pulpits

Wouldn't it be better if everybody could just treat everybody else as an individual? Instead of simply assuming that all members of a race behave identically? Which is, as I understand it, the definition of racism.

I'm no more responsible for the actions of other falang than black resident of Ferguson X is responsible for the actions of citizens Y and Z. Even if they happen to be black as well. (!!)

Yet another thread demonstrating the correlation between basic literacy and progressive views on drug prohibition.

The only exceptions appear to be a small fraction of those with an authoritarian bent, who are apparently at least able to express their perverse joy at the execution of these smugglers without misspelling every third word or using more than one consecutive punctuation character.

Thai farmers are in this respect unexceptional. The officials making these requests are impressively optimistic though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

This is how I understand it. I was registered as "Citizen of the UK and Colonies", as a Minor, in 1968 and I have the original certificate. Both my parents were British.

I don't believe I will have any problems getting my child a UK passport, however, if anyone thinks otherwise I would be very grateful to know why.

I am afraid it might not be as simple as you believe it to be. I would advice you to ask questions about this in the "Visas and migration to other countries" forum, but you could start out by reading this post.

I am not British so what little knowledge I have about this topic comes from reading ThaiVisa over the years, so what I am about to say should be taken with more than a grain of salt. But my understanding is that people born outside of Great Britain to British citizens are classified as "British by descent". If someone who is British by descent has a child, he/she can only automatically pass on their British citizenship to their child if that child is born inside Great Britain. However, it's a little more complicated than that, I believe that if the child can demonstrate enough ties to Great Britain (e.g. grows up and goes to school in Great Britain), the child may still be able to claim citizenship. Also, a child born outside of Great Britain (e.g. in Thailand) to parents who are both British by descent must probably be able to claim British citizenship, as the child would otherwise be left stateless.

But British citizenship laws are quite complicated, so you should take some time to investigate this more thoroughly.

Good luck.

Sophon

Thanks for the link. I've had a quick read of it and as I read it, if my child gets a UK passport, his/her children will not automatically be entitled to British citizenship unless he/she can show ties to the UK.

I'm still fairly confident that my status as a British citizen, despite being born in Rhodesia in 1960 to British parents, and having held full British citizenship since 1968, means my children will be automatically entitled to a UK passport.

But I'm interested in other opinions!

If I've understood correctly, you yourself are a "British citizen by descent". As a result, in order to pass your citizenship on to your child, you must have at some stage in your life lived in Britain for 3 years. Not sure if they have to have been continuous or not. You have to apply before the child is 16.

At least I think that's the case. I'd be checking with the embassy or immigration department back home sooner rather than later though...

Some fares are high, some fares are low. Not the business of the government. Its up to us to decide who we use. I find a return fare Bangkok to Brisbane for Bht 18,395. but others are charging Bht 25,350....................guess which one i will use.

Free markets don't always work as advertised. When the bar to entry in a market is high (how much does it cost to start an airline?) and there are only a few players, then it's not unheard of for companies to collude in over-charging consumers. This can even work informally when a handful of competitors are all wary of starting a price war. I'm not saying that governments should set prices, but it doesn't hurt for governments to ensure that companies are using fair pricing practices or at least raising consumer awareness (e.g., as to why airlines persist with fuel surcharges when oil prices are dropping).

I think this is an important point generally, but not one that necessarily applies to airlines. The price of air travel has been consistently dropping for forty years. And a good percentage of folks who buy tickets shop around first - hence the success of the low-fare carriers. IMO, the free market system works well in this industry.

" had been used by various groups as tools to stir hatred against their political rivals. As a result, the country had been caught in a political quagmire."

That's not hate speech.

It's disagreement and angry debate.

Not saying angry political diatribes are good things, but it's not hate speech.

Thou shalt not disagree? Don't think that's ever going to happen.

Whether or not it's hate-speech, the unscrupulous and incessant vilification of political opponents, and the populations willingness to lap it up, does seem to me to be a huge part of the underlying problem. Surprising really, in a country with such strict defamation laws. Alarming too, when you consider what the same kind of thing has led to in this and other countries in the past.

I sincerely doubt that it is a problem the CDC can fix by adding a few clauses to the constitution though...

Unless a bullet is fired straight up, stops and then falls, it follows an arc trajectory. It's losing speed all of the time due to wind resistance and other factors.

We'd have to know the exact type, not just caliber to look up it's muzzle velocity. Then we'd need to know the distance it traveled before it hit the roof to estimate its terminal velocity. Then we'd need to know the angle at which it hit the roof to guess the speed it hit the table. The roof would slow it down some.

If it was in describing an arc, but dropping and was actually aimed at the table when it penetrated the roof it could possibly have also penetrated the table.

It probably wasn't just falling or it probably wouldn't have penetrated the roof.

Assuming it was fired more or less into the air, why would it's horizontal velocity make a difference? Surely the only significant factor contributing to the impact speed is the height it falls from?

(High School Physics! I knew it would come up eventually!)

If you fire a bullet straight up into the air, it will stop and the only power it has while falling is the force of gravity.

If you fire it somewhat upward so it describes an arc, it will retain a lot of the original muzzle velocity for a long distance.

I get it now, thanks. You're saying that even if the gun is fired at a steep angle, the remaining part of the horizontal component of the muzzle velocity might still end up being much greater than the vertical component caused by gravity. Which seems intuitive once pointed out...

I have very little to do with guns.

Unless a bullet is fired straight up, stops and then falls, it follows an arc trajectory. It's losing speed all of the time due to wind resistance and other factors.

We'd have to know the exact type, not just caliber to look up it's muzzle velocity. Then we'd need to know the distance it traveled before it hit the roof to estimate its terminal velocity. Then we'd need to know the angle at which it hit the roof to guess the speed it hit the table. The roof would slow it down some.

If it was in describing an arc, but dropping and was actually aimed at the table when it penetrated the roof it could possibly have also penetrated the table.

It probably wasn't just falling or it probably wouldn't have penetrated the roof.

Assuming it was fired more or less into the air, why would it's horizontal velocity make a difference? Surely the only significant factor contributing to the impact speed is the height it falls from?

(High School Physics! I knew it would come up eventually!)

In order to bring more along, although Awakening is a personal experience, he could have given a list of lives with information which could be investigated.

But then, how could he prove that each of those lives were actually incarnations or re births of himself?

I don't think he would need to. Simply proving he was able to observe lives that occurred in the past would be miracle enough to support everything else he says. Suppose I claimed to recollect my past life as a cab driver in 18th century London. Or even just a few specific events from it. Even if we couldn't really "prove" things one way or another, I suspect that a very brief interrogation would show whether or not my recollections were real or imagined.

If you study human behavior you'll find most have beliefs and look for things which support those beliefs, rather than be truly open to investigation.

Perhaps, Ven Maha Boowa understood that no amount of proof will persuade those mired in their beliefs?

It's certainly possible that he believed so. And I would accept there are probably people like that out there. The devotees of Abrahamic religions for example. But it should be fairly obvious that a very great number of people would be extremely interested in anything approaching a concrete proof of reincarnation. Are you seriously suggesting otherwise? That such an event would not change the world?

At a bare minimum, I think the OP would be very interested.

I have a lot of time for Buddhists. And I'm no master, but there is no doubt that meditation has improved my life and made me a better person. As it has for millions of others. But that doesn't change the fact that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The most likely reality remains that meditation and other exercises of the mind are good for you, and Buddhism provides a body of empirically researched data to support this, but that's as far as it goes. Reincarnation, omniscience, nirvana (at least in the way that a layman uses the term) - are all imaginary concepts.

Even the Ven Maha Boowa, upon awakening, viewed his passed lives and said: "My, the number of past lives I've lived is so great, the bodies would fill all of Thailand?

I don't know much about this kind of buddhism, but it seems that the question should have been decided while this man lived. If he could "view his past lives" in any meaningful way, should it not have been trivial for him to prove this by sharing knowledge that could not have been obtained any other way?

Do we know if Ven Maha Boowa ever made such an attempt? Or offered an explanation as to why doing so would not be helpful?

Yes, this was part of the point being made in the opening post.

Ven Maha Boowa was explaining his path (practice & insights) to and of Awakening.

The only way to be able to become aware of such things is through Awakening, a state which can only be known/understood through self experience.

But the OP's question was, to simplify, should we take the more extreme claims of Buddhist teachers seriously?

When it comes to Ven Maha Boowa, some of the other claims that he makes - being able to view past lives - should be verifiable. It should be possible for such an individual to reveal some historic fact that can be verified by archeology or some other method. He should be able to "prove" that he can see his past lives. And if so, then certainly we should take his claims regarding the possibility of the complete cessation of suffering and achievement of nirvana very seriously.

However, if he is (was) unable to provide any kind of proof that he really can see past lives, then we should take that into account when evaluating the plausibility of everything else he says... No?

Even the Ven Maha Boowa, upon awakening, viewed his passed lives and said: "My, the number of past lives I've lived is so great, the bodies would fill all of Thailand?

I don't know much about this kind of buddhism, but it seems that the question should have been decided while this man lived. If he could "view his past lives" in any meaningful way, should it not have been trivial for him to prove this by sharing knowledge that could not have been obtained any other way?

Do we know if Ven Maha Boowa ever made such an attempt? Or offered an explanation as to why doing so would not be helpful?

Pick pm? Then pick prayuth.

Why? Becase he has done the bidding of his masters.

Another mess which could backfire in Thailands face one they follow this route of picking Prime Ministers. The argument about democracy here keeps going on and on and it would seem that it just isn't going to happen with the ruling elite. At least other countries let the people vote and they feel they have the choice of selecting the prime minister. here they are blatant, the common person just isn't going to get the chance and it would seem they will have to do what they are told.

Once the country goes down this path it can be difficult to get back. It certainly can't be called a democratic country. You might as well keep it as a military rules country and be open and honest about it.

You do know that the 1997 and 2007 constitution had MPs "picking" the Prime Minister don't you? Do you also know that in the UK, Aus, and many other countries that use the Westminster system, that Thailand also uses, they also "pick" their PM.

It's already been explained to you how the PM is selected under the Westminster system yet you persist in misleading.Once again then.MPs do not pick the PM.The sovereign asks the leader of the party with largest number of seats to form an administration.The key point is that the PM must be able to command support in the House of Commons and if necessary he must form a coalition.At no point do MPs have a vote to select the PM.

John Major became PM as a direct result of enough conservative MPs voting for him...

How about hitting up on Suthep and the mad monk to pay up their share along with the Army and Police who stood by and let it happen.

With many posters having told me a government shouldn't use its army if it has a functioning police force, I don't think you should include the army here.

Anyway, didn't Pheu Thai already threaten or actually sue the EC when they asked permission to postpone the elections? That would mean that one way or another they're screwed.

As I recall it, Yingluck asked the army a number of times for assistance in dealing with the ferals. It was not forthcoming.

Was the Police Force not functioning ?

BTW how would it look if a government uses the Army to be able to have an election? Wouldn't voters be intimidated?

Remember Khun Suthep spent his first month on stage vilifying the police. A handful of unarmed plain-clothes police officers were even apprehended and beaten by his security guards this time last year. As a result using the police for anything at all during the entire crisis would almost certainly have provoked more violence than it prevented. He was clever in that respect.

Few will acknowledge it, and many that do will doubtless find some nefarious motive to attribute it to, but it really is to the previous government's credit that they recognized a dangerous situation and chose to avoid it.