manarak

10 hours ago, shady86 said:

Makro is under CP now. Not all their products are cheap. I mostly shop from vegetables and seafood there, its cheaper than Tesco.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk
 

I posted hoping Makro executives will notice and understand people will in the end vote with their feet.

When I looked into the carbonara freezer, there were a couple of Thais there cursing about the price increase and in the end tossing a couple of packs back into the freezer, they didn't buy any.

before, this product was made by S&P "Foodservice", it tasted exactly the same - is S&P also part of CP?

Makro's Unique Selling Proposition is to deliver products in wholesale quantities to wholesale buyers at wholesale prices.

Over the years, I couldn't help but noticing how wholesale prices are progressively replaced by retail prices !

Examples:

- Thai frozen ribeye steaks are sold more expensive in 1Kg packs at Makro than individual fresh Thai ribeye steaks at my local supermarket

- Emmental cheese was available at around 550 baht/Kg (and my local supermarket still carries it at that price in 100g portions), now Makro has discontinued the brand and instead sells it double the price

- "Carbonara" sauce spaghetti used to be sold at around 180 baht for 4 portions (approx. 1Kg), now a CP product has replaced it, selling 3 portions at approx 200 baht (660g)

...

there are other examples, but these are what came to mind... I hope Makro can find back to its purpose.

This is Thailand.

Officials have been known to make up rules as needed on the go in order to be able to extract baht.

2 minutes ago, spiderorchid said:

I do not doubt for an instance your forensic capacity, your knowledge of events and that you will be called as an expert witness in the yet to come inquiry.

But how about the tiniest bit of compassion for the 7 dead service persons, their family and shipmates. Surely they do not need your intellect just yet.

sorry, is this a condolences thread where condolences must be repeated with every post? my mistake then.

of course I feel sorry for the lives that were lost - at the same time I don't think posting condolences should be required from every poster.

10 hours ago, ddavidovsky said:

 

Okay, now it makes sense. The freighter obviously turned back to see what damage it had caused, saw the Fitzgerald was still afloat, then carried on its original route. As to the cause of the collision: my money is on human error arising from a freak combination of circumstances.

which apparently puts 100% of responsibility on the Fitzgerald - not able to avoid a freighter on autopilot broadcasting its position on AIS.

Rather than the "freak combination of circumstances", I rather think a reckless manoeuver by the Fitzgerald caused the collision.

Again from the damage pics, the metal seems to have been bent towards the Fitzgerald's aft and if true, this would mean the Fitzgerald was going faster than the Crystal, trying to cut in front.

apparently, the captain, Commander Bryce Benson, was sleeping at the moment of the collision and his cabin has been crushed and he was injured. He was described as "lucky to be alive", I wonder how severely he has been wounded, because when metal is crushed... hope everyone recovers.

Unless the captain made changes to Navy procedures or otherwise influenced negatively the safety of the ship, he seems clear of any responsibility for the collision as he was sleeping at the time.

It's a bit disappointing that we don't have an explanation of what could realistically have caused the erratic navigation of the ACX CRystal prior to the collision.

6 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Don't speak too soon. Apparently the freighter did not maintain a constant course as it was required to do.

Whatever, all will be revealed at the inquiry.

in fact, no, all may not be revealed in the inquiry, especially not US Navy practices the USN doesn't want to become public.

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

According to the latest reports the Phillipine vessel turned in to the destroyer when it should have been on a constant course so it could be avoided, as it was on the right hand side of the destroyer.

Be interesting to see the reason it did so.

 

RIP to the dead sailors.

maybe it simply wasn't aware there was a destroyer there.

AFAIK, Aegis class destroyers are furtive and minimize their radar echo, and usually navigate lights off.

in any case, the destroyer was much too close to the freighter.

can Navy men here say if warships usually try playing a hiding game near other, bigger ships, same as subs do?

2 minutes ago, spiderorchid said:

The Crystal plowed into the Fitzgerald which was crossing its bows.

aaaah, case closed then, thanks sherlock !

19 minutes ago, pegman said:

The account I read on the BBC stated the U-turn occurred 25 minutes prior to the collision.

here is a vid of the course.

if the collision is 25 minutes after the U-turn, it occurs approximatively in the middle of the part where the ship is heading west.

8 minutes ago, pegman said:

The account I read on the BBC stated the U-turn occurred 25 minutes prior to the collision.

where would the collision be on the recorded course?

another theory would be that after turning back into the channel, the ACX Crystal was accelerating and the Fitzgerald somehow missed that fact and thought to pass in front of the ACX Crystal.

update about the erratic manoeuvers: they could have been the consequence of "restricted navigation" rules, such as if a ship loses its channel, it must make a U-turn and get back in line where it left the channel.

also, the collision appears to have been more or less a glancing blow, if the Fitzgerald had been T-bones, it would probably have sunk, the container ship being about 4 times heavier.

from the damages, it appears that the Fitzgerald was stopped or nearly stopped at time of the collision. or, if it was not stopped, it was going at a similar speed as the freighter.

assuming the container ship hit the destroyer after the U-turn, here is a theory:

there is a first sharp right turn - it could have done this to avoid the destroyer a first time.

this manoeuver could have led the container ship outside its channel, so it does a u-turn to find back into its navigational channel.

and then human error on both sides did the rest.

2 hours ago, Gulfsailor said:

I assume you meant to say that the Philippines vessel had right of way. 

But just 30 minutes prior to the collision the PH ship made a strange U turn and then nearly straight into the destroyer, with only a last minute adjustment in course, hence the damage on the PH vessel just on the port side of its bow. After the collision the PH vessel turned again back on its original course heading northnortheast. Very strange the erratic behavior of the container vessel and very strange that the destroyer never appeared to have seen it coming. 

If this was the start of a Tom Clancy novel, I would put my odds on a live test of some new cyber warfare equipment, which made the US destroyer go blind and altered the autopilot on the PH container ship. 

do you have the timeline for that course?

is it established that the collision occured after the U-turn?

a simple explanation could be that the collision occured first, and then the Fitzgerald appeared at first ok, but then not sure, the container ship made a u-turn to assist if needed, but then resumed course once the Fitzgerald confirmed it was Ok?

and then, what is that other strange manoeuver north of Oshima on your map?

24 minutes ago, thequietman said:

Yes, that's exactly right. You asked 3 people, they all liked it, so yes 100 per cent of the people you asked liked it.

If 1 didn't like it then 66.66 per cent liked it and so on.

You should apply to Mastermind. Topic : The Obvious.

don't feed the trolls

13 minutes ago, Badbanker said:

Seeing as I live at the IDC and court

err... you live at the IDC ?

next question is, will they fine anybody 2000 on their way out if they don't have the slip ?

22 minutes ago, Ace of Pop said:

Is the cost of 5year Licence going up to 6K Bht for all folk.?


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

what ???

16 minutes ago, humbleguy said:

of course is more than 9 days .there is nothing happened  between feb6 or feb7th. The Immigration  officers took me straight to IDC after I refused to pay so we being held at custody little over 10 hours, then took us to IDC. this is not point I am trying to make, my point is very simple : Where is immigration  headquarters in bangkok? to whom am I  supposed  to call in order to  know my file? As u know that ,u must have insider at immigration  in order to get anything u want.

That is why I hired a new lawyer to find out why my name got blacklist?  and how to fix this. My new lawyer told me last night  he knows  a very high ranking immigration  officers can find out for him everythings  about my case. as I mentioned before  my previous post that I had never comitted  any crime to anywhere in the world. now  I am depend on my thai lawyer. He is very active and fast. let us see and wait ,

so you refused to pay, but why were you asked to pay anything?

as far as I know officers, when asking for a bribe they usually have a valid motive, somehow the law was broken.

So what did the immigration officers say as to how you broke the law?

Or did it get out of hand at some point if you lost your temper?

8 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

Who wrote that. I don't have the time or desire to back t  look through all the posts. It is easy to quote part of a post by by highlighting it with your mouse and then quoting it. That is how I just did it.

At this point in time it really does not matter IMO. You seem to be intent on bringing things up to berate the OP.

The OP wrote that.

My intent is not to berate OP, but he tends to leave out important information that could help to understand what actually happened, but getting the information feels like pulling teeth.
I feel there is something pivotal he doesn't say about what really happened that morning when he was taken into custody.

from the same post I linked above:

Quote

I personally  called my embassy to help me ,a guy from embassy showed up Monday afternoon, 2 days after  then we both met at idc.we had very fruitful  conversation.

He brought me the courts'decision

Maybe finding and posting that document would help to understand.

8 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

It has been a little over 5 years since it happened. Perhaps he got confused about the number of days when he first posted the 9 days.

For me it makes no difference whether it was 9 days or 9 weeks.

ok. then we have the problem of what actually happened?

according to OP, he stayed in his room, showed his passport, they searched the room, etc. and then... 

Quote

His visa was valid but was canceled  a short time ago because he didn't  cooperate with officers

so something probably happened between OP and the officers, there, in his room in the early morning ??

Just now, ubonjoe said:

Read what has been posted carefully and you will find it was more than 9 days.

we can infer this from the posted information - yet OP hasn't made any statement clarifying the duration of detention.

I wonder if for him three weeks of detention felt like nine days, or... ??

If I was detained for three weeks I certainly wouldn't forget that.

The dates given by OP for the detention still don't add up. Was it more than 9 days ?

1 minute ago, thetruth revealer said:

even argues with IO wouldnt justify a life Ban for FRAUD ....or arbitrary decisions have been made, which is not impossible here in LOS

depends how the arguing went... physical and with insults ? I wish more arbitrary decisions were made in other countries against abusive people.