fishbrando

Any updates on this?  Were you guys able to upload your ATK results? 

I've noticed that the latest version of the Morchana app is from 3 months ago so I wonder if they've been able to update it to the new regulations.

Sheryl, as mentioned earlier in this thread, if your A/C units were 20 years old then they probably used the older R-22 refrigerant.

R-32 refrigerant, used by modern A/C units (especially inverter units) requires higher pressure and uses a different lubricant in the lines.

The technician should have replaced your lines (good) or at least cleaned the old/incompatible lubricant out (not so good).

If they didn't replace your lines, the higher pressure might have caused a leak.

If they did replace your lines, they might have introduced a kink in the pipes that is slowing the circulation and hindering the cooling. They also may not have insulated the lines properly which would lead not only to lower efficiency but also possible condensation issues in your walls/ceilings.

I realize the tech/chang is coming soon but it is good to go in to the visit as an informed consumer.

Cutting ties is a big weapon to use against one's parents.  If she's willing to use this weapon to control who her father dates, then you have to ask yourself in what other situations will she be willing to use this weapon?

"You're not wearing that disgusting red tie to our housewarming party....or you're cut off from our family!"

On 12/15/2017 at 9:41 AM, Gregster said:

 

His daughter is not racist. She has close, long-time Asian friends (whom I’ve met) and apparently she doesn’t hesitate employing Asians at her law firm.

 

 

 

"Asians are fine as friends and employees, but getting married to one, especially a younger one, is disgusting." 

I wonder what her Asian friends and employees would think of her if they knew about her attitude towards them.

40 minutes ago, rufanuf said:

I agree. This is really my whole point. So in the knowledge that everything is simply subjective, then I question the value of reviews. I do not however question the basic nature of negative conduct. It is by definition something that spreads like a disease thru society. Whether it be a written review or two guys having a brawl in the street. Why the majority of people cannot see that review websites thrive off the basic need of some people to spread negativity (and therefore rather than being doing a public service are simply just profiting from peoples love of complaining) is beyond me, but each to their own as I have said many times in this thread.

Just because reviews don't have value doesn't necessarily mean they should be stamped out.  I don't see much value being created by Keeping Up with the Kardashians but I wouldn't argue that it shouldn't be allowed to exist. 

Some review sites are better than others and hopefully the ones that serve everyone well will win in the marketplace.

The existence of negative conduct is the price we pay for a free society.  I'd prefer some negativity rather than having big brother watch and regulate everything.  As Justice Scalia said, “There is nothing new in the realization that the Constitution sometimes insulates the criminality of a few in order to protect the privacy of us all.”

6 hours ago, rufanuf said:

Says who? Why are business owners any more or less likely to legally or physically abuse anyone? The abuse starts with the review and really grows from there.

Because people who feel like their livelihood is being threatened tend to react in this manner.

Here are a few examples:

https://coconuts.co/bangkok/news/taxi-drivers-charged-threatening-uber-driver-pattaya/

6 hours ago, rufanuf said:

Well we are kind of getting to the core of the debate. What is the difference between free speech and defamation?

I don't know the legal definition of libel/defamation but it probably involves lying with intent to harm, either economically or via intimidation/incitement to violence.

Ultimately there's not much too difference as one man's free speech can be another man's defamation.  The legal bar needs to be high so that the powerful can't arbitrarily silence their critics.  Unfortunately the bar is not too high here.

7 hours ago, rufanuf said:

It still doesn't change the fact as a business owner you have no rights and cannot do much about dishonourable reviewers but as a member of the public you can write what you like? If you think that's fair, fair enough I guess, each to their own.

That's right, business owners have no rights when it comes to suppressing free speech.  I prefer it that way, otherwise we end up with cases like Jonathan Head.

I agree that many reviewers can be unfair and downright malicious and in many cases are folks who are trying to discredit their competition.  However I'd rather err on the side of free speech.

7 hours ago, rufanuf said:

This is not government, but imagine if government representatives where allowed to remain anonymous!

Not a good analogy as business owners tend to be more entreched in their community and have greater resources at their disposal than consumers.

Not all review writers are honourable either, why should they be allowed to hide behind anonymity?

Like I said: many business owners would not hesitate to legally or physically intimidate customers who post bad reviews.  Bad reviews are not as damaging as physical/legal intimidation.

On 11/22/2017 at 10:02 AM, rufanuf said:

What needs to change with review websites to make them fair is that KNOWONE should be able to publish reviews under a "nickname" or unverifiable ID. Strangely enough all these platforms are up in arms about this simple but fair idea, because they know they would be out of business in the blink of an eye. I wonder how many visitors to Trip Advisor wishing to publish a negative review would still do so if their name and address was up there in all its glory along with the businesses?

Imagine if someone in the government said this.  "I wonder how many government critics there would be if their name and address were up there in all its glory..."

Not all business owners are honorable and many would not hesitate to legally or physically intimidate customers who post bad reviews.

On 11/22/2017 at 4:46 PM, rufanuf said:

let me ask you a simple question. Do you think its fair that a business has NO CHOICE but to be listed on these sites? Surely a business should be allowed to be in control of its own marketing strategy?

Yes I think it is fair.  If you do business with the public, you should be able to tolerate public discussion about your business.  Removing your listing would be like a politician telling newspapers that they aren't allowed to write articles about him.

The best review sites allow the business to post a rebuttal to each review.  The businesses I see posting some sort of excuse for each bad review (e.g. blaming/insulting the customer) are the ones I avoid.  The ones that post reasonable replies are the ones that I patronize.

I'm sorry to hear about your accident.  From the video, it looked like you were in a lot of pain.  I hope your recovery is going well.

It is a bit enraging to see that he didn't even slow down for the intersection; you can tell by looking at the way his headlight moves that he just drove right in without stopping.  I've almost been hit by motorbikes deciding to play Russian Roulette at an intersection; they just barrel right in at full speed and there is maybe a 90% chance that they won't hit someone which must seem like pretty good odds to them.

I wouldn't go too easy on them if I were you.  They had enough money to buy the motorbike but no money when they've used it to cause injury to others.  The guy will just have to save up a bit longer to pay for his wife's sin sot. 

4 minutes ago, Hiro357 said:

I once saw a BF kicking and yelling at a crying GF on the street from my hotel terrace in BKK. People walked on by as if it was nothing. So I assumed domestic abuse in Thailand is common(still not OK).

He always apologized after she said. I don't know exactly what happened. But I get the impression that he would not get the punishment he deserves if she reports him.

In my opinion, any physical violence in a relationship should result in an immediate termination of the relationship.  

There should be no further consideration of pros or cons.  

"But he's so patient!"  He wasn't so patient when he lost face.  He's a violent bully.  No more trust. It's over.  

"But he's submissive and easy-going!"  He wasn't so submissive and easy-going when he was punching her.  He's a criminal.

"But he apologized!"  Empty words.  Look at his actions.  No second chance.

"But plenty of other people act just like him!"  Plenty of people are undateable.  He's below any reasonable standard.

Also, she should have reported him to the police to show that she's not going to help him cover up his crimes.

2 hours ago, Hiro357 said:

Not a single slap in the face but, getting on top of her and beating the shit out of her kind of violence.

All the other problems pale in comparison to this.  He had the opportunity to be violent and he took it.  She should have reported him to the police.

In the future, how far will he go with his beating before he calms down, steps back, and says, "Oh, I shouldn't have done that?"

These taxi drivers don't yet seem to realize that they have competition now.

I won't be shedding much of a tear for them when they lose their business.

First rule is: you can't question the rules.

I've bought the Switzerland Nescafe Gold at Gourmet Market in the past.

See's candies.

2 hours ago, The Dancer said:

Near Ploenchit? You're kidding right? Unless you're worried about a hiso type who's running low on cash jumping out of his Porsche and snatching your briefcase.

Try walking that stretch from Nana to Ploenchit one night.  You'll see what I mean.

The area around Hua Lampong rail station gets pretty iffy at night.  Plenty of dudes (and some women) just hanging around and drinking in groups.

The area between Nana BTS and Pleonchit BTS is shady too as you get close to Ploenchit.  Many thieves.

11 hours ago, John DDD said:

... On the picture of his passport, on the left of the last " signed ", a stamp in Thai language : " คดีความ "  Which means " lawsuit " in English...

...This may explain That...

My Thai isn't super-strong but I believe that  คดีความ can be translated as "case" (as in legal case) as well, which would make more sense in this "case". 

6 minutes ago, overherebc said:

 

If someone can happily post on another thread now and still not clear up exactly what the story is with this one ??????????

So he's not allowed to post anywhere else until he solves his own mystery?

12 hours ago, overherebc said:

Since the OP has not posted the real reason I am calling the whole thing SS, not BS but SS. Second S stands for stirring.

So because he hasn't solved his own mystery, he must be lying?  A major point in his story is that he doesn't know the reason.  I'm not saying he's not making the whole thing up, but just because he doesn't know the reason he was deported doesn't mean that he's not telling the whole story.

5 hours ago, autoc said:

By low quality vegetables I mean chemical poisoned vegetables as everybody is eating here. Of course, they look good, but cocaine also !

Cocaine is a hell of a drug...

Bank of American has mobile deposit where you take a photo of the check with your mobile phone (using their app) to deposit it.