Jump to content

humqdpf

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    899
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by humqdpf

  1. Cannot compare both countries as places to live just like that. You have to be more specific about what kind of place (capital city, countryside, seaside resort), especially in Philippines.

     

    If you compare Bangkok and Manila, I would take Bangkok any day. Manila has no Skytrain or underground and traffic is always terrible. Manila has a really terrible personal security situation - yes, you can live in Makati or Bonafacio and be bored to death. Hard place to make friends if you don't have a job where you can socialise with workmates and have them on your side. Cebu city is far preferable to anything that Manila has to offer.

     

    Philippines has the weather to contend with - for about 4 or 5 months of the year, every week a storm/typhoon or two comes in with floods and huge rain. By the time this stuff gets to Vietnam/Thailand, the force is well-spent. This disrupts everything and sometimes brings everything to a complete halt.

     

    Philippines has the benefit of people being able to speak English and you also can "buy" their retirement scheme once you get to 45 (I think this is correct - can't remember the exact age) by investing what was a few years ago about $15,000 in a "bond." That gave you all the rights of a citizen except voting - no stupid visa runs and reporting to surly immigration people who give you the run-around.

     

    But Philippines lacks some of the other benefits of Thailand, which is a more pleasant life in a more developed country - much of the Philippines is seriously underdeveloped with huge amounts of poverty and crime. Philippines does have spectacular beaches but they are often spoiled by the required level of security (I remember "enjoying" a meal on a beach in Mindanao with my then girlfriend while two armed guards watched the sea for potential kidnappers) or by the attendant slums and open sewers.

     

     

  2. 10 hours ago, ezzra said:

     

    Respect? really? so this is what you think it's all about? respect?

    Anyone who's not well versed in the history of the middle east

    should refrain from making uneducated silly comments.....

    And what silly comments are these? The person you accuse of making silly comments is only asking that certain Israeli politicians show a bit of respect to other countries, including those who have supported Israel in the extremely recent past (the USA has just given Israel a huge amount of military aid), and not to be referring to such countries as jackals.

     

    As for Netanyahu who has been living off the political capital based on the honour of his deceased brother (the commander of the raid on Entebbe and the only member of the force to have died on the raid), he has been driving USA presidents crazy for decades - even President Clinton when he was in office was once heard to remark after having to endure the usual hectoring lecture from Netanyahu, "Who does he think is the leader of the world power in the room?

     

    Israeli politicians should learn that indeed there are plenty of potential agreements to be made out there if only they would shut up and listen up. Even Saudi Arabia and Israel often find themselves on the same side of the argument (especially in relation to Iran, although both are probably on the wrong side of history in that regard). 

     

    Yes, because of his son-in-law, Trump, who is well-known to carry the impression of the opinions of the last person he has spoken to on a subject, is likely to be much more pro-Netanyahu (as opposed necessarily to the long-term interests of Israel and its citizens - these are not coincidental with Netanyahu's own personal interests which is to hang on to power at all costs and keep the Israeli citizens as frightened as possible so that he can keep playing the hardline militaristic card).

     

    But Trump could change his mind - I could imagine him being on the receiving end of one of Netanyahu's hectoring speeches and taking an extreme dislike to him. Shorn of its only real partner, Israel would be in for a hard time. Much better for the country's long-term security to put together other partners too beyond a couple of acquiescent neighbours, such as Egypt and Jordan whom Netanyahu pours scorn onto from time to time.

     

    Respect is earned and it is a pity that Netanyahu does not even try to earn it for his country.

  3. The big concern is leptospirosis that comes from rats - rats pee on themselves all the time and it gets everywhere. Take a walk through some damp long grass with a cut on your foot and you could be in serious medical trouble.

     

    Leptospirosis is found in most countries, including Western countries. It is just that Western countries have, with some exceptions, such as London, fewer rats and tolerance of rats and the leptospirosis does not get spread around so much.

     

    I therefore wonder why they are surprised that this waterway contains this kind of bacteria, especially after flooding. 

  4. 5 hours ago, jpinx said:

    Tip of the iceberg ;)  ....  and people wonder why UK wants out of the EU?

    In fairness to the UK, the narrow majority who voted in favour of Brexit did not care about Italy or Greece or even Ireland when all 3 went into economic/financial meltdown - the reason? Because the UK never had to pay or bail out because not in the Euro.

     

    The big deal in the UK Brexit is about immigration or more specifically migration of EU citizens to the UK. They never really had a problem with Italians going to the UK because there were relatively few of them and they gave the brits Italian cuisine. Their real problem is with the Eastern Europeans - the Poles because they do their work so well and show up the locals (and open up their shops on high streets and become therefore highly visible), the Romanians who sponge off the welfare and other European nationalities who arrive as criminals.

  5. 4 hours ago, catman20 said:

    we dont know she was a victim of attempted rape its only what she told police and what was reported by the papers. very easy for her to say he tried to rape her after she killed him. it could of just been an argument that got out of control and she now wants and need to justify her actions.

    Actually you only know what was in the police report. What you don't know is the following:

    - contents of the rape kit/medical exam report on the woman

    - any witness statements of the fight

    - where they got the idea that the man want to have sex with her before

    - statements from his drinking companions

    and much more.

     

  6. 5 hours ago, Moonmoon said:

    How to deal? let the lady go, award her with a medal for bravery and get her to hold a sponsored class nationwide for all females in Thailand: How to Stab the Rapist to death. Thank you.

    So how to you propose to deal with her? Tell her that she should just accept the rape? And then watch the guy get an easy punishment? Women are not allowed to defend themselves?

     

    Just based on the evidence, this guy was not taking no for an answer - attacked her in the field, chased her all the way home, then fought her etc.

  7. 16 hours ago, Kvanting said:

    Thanks Berkshire for your answer!

    Of course I don't know the full story. Of course there might have been some kind of quarrel between the men where my related person might have been involved. However only one from the group can have shot the victim meaning that only one person be guilty of murder.

    Why the other "friednd" carried a gun I don't know.

    Did you know about the quarrel?

    Did you know that your friend was carrying a gun?

    Did you know or have an idea about why your friend was carrying a gun?

    Did you suspect anything?

    Did you call the cops? If not, why not?

     

    Just saying that you could not have pulled the trigger does not mean that you were not involved in some way. For instance, even if you did not pull the trigger, you may have facilitated the gun man in some way, if you had any inclination of what might be going on, such as by driving him to the location.

     

    The best advice to you is to pay up, thank your lucky stars that you are not in even more trouble than you are and PICK YOUR FRIENDS BETTER IN FUTURE

  8. 18 hours ago, Keith Bennett said:

    Thanks, everyone.  I was wrong to assume that because it wasn't carried at 1 drug store (a Watson's), it wouldn't be at any.  I too was at Airport Plaza today,   at at a Watson's on the 1st floor, and bought an Omron upper arm unit, the one on the right of the attached photo. It was selling for 1,990 baht but for some reason they discounted it to 1,790.

     

    The guy told me I'd have to buy the batteries separately. It did not come with an AC adapter.  I bought some batteries at 7-11, went home, unpacked the unit, and a set of 4 batteries fell out!  (They did not sell batteries there and he was very helpful so I know this was an innocent mistake).

    20161212_122758.jpg

    If you can, purchase a blood pressure monitor that can be plugged into the electricity. This reduces the chances of getting false readings when your batteries run out.

     

    Avoid the wrist monitors - they provide unreliable readings

  9. 13 hours ago, ParadiseLost said:

    Most likely the hospital saw an insurance document, thought they hit the pot of gold, so gouged the hell out of her expecting an easy payday. Standard practice in the medical industry, no?

     

    Once they realised the victim/patient had no cash and started making a noise they obviously decided better to make it go away. No point getting bad publicity.

     

    One of the good things about social media.

    From what I could see on the bill there was something called PV (could be referring to the bleeding from the Vagina) and ultrasound. There is also the transfer to the other hospital and an overnight.

     

    There is nothing there that would indicate any costs above a few hundred dollars, not $3,000 (100,000 Baht) or so. Lets say $50 for the use of the ultrasound and another $50 for the interpretation, $50 for the consultant obstetrician, $100 for the transfer and another $100 for hospital stay. That makes $350, not $3,000.

     

     

  10. I get the feeling that the media just took the bait on this one.

    Boris is far to good a political operator to make an obvious mistake. Instead, I think that this was all cooked up by the Prime Minister and Boris together for several reasons:

     

    1. Someone needed to say something about this Sunni-Shia proxy war that has been going on for years and Theresa May is motivated possibly for religious reasons (she is a vicar's daughter) and to save Britain having to intervene in the Middle East yet again

    2. Theresa May also needed a reason to show that she is a bit of an "iron lady" by putting Boris in his place. It would also play well with the Remain group in her party and show the Brexit supporters among the Tories that she is no push-over.

    3. Boris gets to polish his credentials as the rebel of a sort, who gets to say it the way it is. Remember, he still has his eye on the prize of being prime minister one day.

     

     

     

  11. Starting to take a substance that is addictive is definitely not a good plan. And there are some indications in some early studies that nicotine alone may increase your risk of cancer (before, it was cigarettes containing tobacco which have a wide variety of carcinogens).

     

    But in the broad realm of addictions, addiction to nicotine is one of the lesser evils. It is not a gateway drug, it leads to very little crime and its use is not illegal. I notice that the doctor does not mention the huge evil of prescription addictive drugs that is stalking the land and possibly playing a part in the increase of adult mortality rates. In large part, these prescription drugs, such as Oxycontin, were originally prescribed by medical doctors for pain medication. Normal law-abiding citizens found themselves hopelessly addicted to these drugs following pain "management" for injuries or post-operative pain. I would much prefer that the good doctor would address this epidemic - and it would be interesting to see whether he gets funding for his projects or the ones he manages or the ones that occur in the same research centre where he works from the tobacco lobby!

  12. 8 hours ago, worgeordie said:

    " the police had now called him in for questioning.",dont get off your @rses,

    and go and arrest the suspect,it's a serious crime ?

    regards worgeordie

    Actually in Thailand discharging a firearm at another car on a highway is not that serious, given that the penalty imposed is usually a fine, not prison. Usually the gunman gets to keep the firearm and license too.

     

    Of course, in most or all other countries it is a serious crime, usually involving jail time

  13. Polanski plea-bargained to a charge of unlawful intercourse with a minor - no mention of any conviction regarding drugging the victim. He was never convicted of drugging and raping anyone.

     

    During a television interview on 10 March 2011, now much older, Geimer (the victim  blamed the media, reporters, the court, and the judge for causing "way more damage to [her] and [her] family than anything Roman Polanski has ever done", and opined that the judge was using her and Polanski for the media exposure.

     

    Polanski had originally agreed to a plea-bargain and time-served of 42 days in jail but the judge messed up the case so badly that there is no way Polanski could have been sentenced to prison subsequently anyway.

     

    Geimer sued Polanski but never alleged that she was intentionally drugged.

     

    I am not advocating what was alleged (e.g. having sexual intercourse with an underage girl) but just pointing out that the man never was tried in court and plea-bargained to a much lesser charge, which innocent people do every day just so as not to have to deal with the whole court thing. The fact that the plea-bargain was offered on those conditions (time already spent in jail = 42 days) indicates that the prosecution did not have much to go on.

     

    I have sympathy for Polanski to the extent that he was vilified even though never convicted of anything except what he agreed to plea under pressure. It is noticeable that unlike your typical pedophile, Polanski was never investigated for any underage sex before this incident or afterwards. Never even convicted of any other sexual offence. I also feel sympathy for Polanski because his pregnant wife was killed before the incident by Charles Manson's "Family" before this episode with Geimer and he was allegedly very drugged out as a result during that time.

  14. 6 hours ago, Saastrajaa said:

    I just arrived for a six week visit on Saturday, and my anecdotal experience so far is that tourism is WAY down...I'm staying in the heart of a tourist area, too (Sukhumvit in the 20s).  strangely, though, I got a price on my room that's 300 lower a night than what I paid last December!

    I took a flight recently from Vientiane, Laos to Bangkok (Subarnabhrumi) - only 20 on board a flight leaving late morning. There were more returning but the plane was far from full. I could put some of this down to the fact that it was impossible to book online (Bangkok Airways website) at least from Laos, but this would be a typical tourist flight (late morning on a Tuesday). The price was still $260 return, including 20kg luggage allowance.

  15. Lets get this part straight - I am not nor ever was a Trump supporter. Nor am I a supporter of stories that have really not much to do with a candidate or office holder. Yeah, so what if his son-in-law sent money to some political organisation. What is Trump supposed to do in that situation? Impose his will on who is daughter marries? Force the person his daughter marries not to donate to organisations that he does not like?

     

    Well, media, if there is no way in which Trump could change the situation, at least not ethically or legally, then there is no story here other than some guy who donated money. Now will the media stop writing stories about Trump except those that actually matter?

  16. 6 hours ago, Thaiwrath said:

     

    I think you are supposed to apply in person at Embassies to obtain a visa, in this case it would appear she did not.

    Giving a man $800 dollars to obtain it on her behalf should have raised a massive red flag.

    Try living in some African countries where everything has to be done through agents (often officials won't want to bother having to show up at the office to meet you) and there are always extra "fees." Yes, you can try the legitimate way for what you are entitled to but you just won't get it.

     

    I am not suggesting that American embassies are operating such a system but I have heard stories about even gaining access to embassies requires fixers and greasing palms to get through local "security" and other nonsense.

     

    What this amounts to is that it would not appear unusual for a citizen of certain African countries to have to pay someone to get a visa (or any official paper) on her behalf and no red flag would have been raised, to use your metaphor.

     

  17. 10 hours ago, Henryford said:

    Who wants to see the biased output of the Brussels Broadcasting Corporation.

     

    You clearly have not heard about Brexit!

    And you probably have not heard about the uproar in the UK that the BBC spent too much time on Brexiteer politicians than on Remain politicians and pundits - some believe that the reason for this was the former had the best quotes, a bit like Trump who could always be relied on for some "good copy."

  18. 2 hours ago, ezzra said:

    Just as well the same can be laid against the Palestinians state sponsored terrorism  inciting riots, killing and burning against humanity....

    Well then, go to Spain or Chile and file suit against them and see where it gets you.

     

    But then, no one would consider the Palestinian territories a state. That is something that Israel has prevented. So I would not give much for someone filing suit against what? Most likely it would be the occupying power, Israel.

  19. 7 hours ago, nightbird said:

    Bludging? Where in Thailand do you get free medical care? When I go to any hospital, private or gov't, I must pay the rate. And, I pay it in full. Most insurance is a scheme that preys on your fear and the collusion of big business, big Pharma, and a profit motive as the main ingredients. They arbitrarily decide on the worth of various procedures, treatments, etc., guaranteeing the profits for those in control. This, in effect, is against the people, as it makes a basic service, care and treatment giving, unaffordable for the masses. The only benefit having foreigners have their own health insurance is for the private hospitals who will be able to charge top dollar/euro for their service. 

     

    Try to rethink your response before coming to an absurd conclusion. 

    The argument for medical insurance for foreigners is not that they get free medical treatment in Thailand but that they are then covered and don't have to beg from others in order to either get treatment for a serious illness or repatriation. There might also be an argument that they should not be getting subsidised treatment that is only available to Thai citizens.

     

    Try getting medical treatment at all without insurance in many countries where you are not a citizen or resident! Even in some EU countries, it is either not easy or impossible (and that is for EU citizens who have neglected to remember to bring a certain form). Good luck with getting any medical treatment in the USA - my insurer which covers every country in the world will not cover me at all in the USA. I have to get special travel coverage for any trips there.

     

    Foreign tourists can get very cheap medical insurance for up to several months as long as they remain resident in a foreign country. Long term stayers can get either medical insurance in their own country or in Thailand.

     

×
×
  • Create New...