Totster

So how about some empathy for the poor thai's operating those food stalls.

How about some empathy for those poor Thai's only receiving the minimum wage, or worse still not even getting that.

Totster

The GMMZ HD box has a card number and serial on the base, but the GMMZ smart just seems to have a number and barcode on a sticker (could be card or serial). In any case you need these numbers when you call and activate your box for pay channels.

GMMZ has 3 subscription plans (PAYG) including the CTH stadium channels, so these boxes are definitely not just for FTA channels.

AFAIK FTA channels are not encrypted, so you should be able to receive them using any system. (I am not the most knowledgeable, so please correct me if I am wrong)

totster

/edit, I believe that C band provides the most FTA channels

If there is a car rental service at Roi Et airport I would be very surprised. I'm saying this because there are really not many flights going to Roi Et. So why have a car rental service there? It beats me.

There may not be a desk that is manned full time, but if you visit the airport website (link above) you will see the details that I posted above. The company serving the airport is actually the same as one of those in town whose number I'd given in my first post. I have to say that parts of this thread are examples of TVF at its worst - with the 'I'm not sure but it must be so' brigade at the fore.

I agree, very strange thread,

One poster saying categorically that Roi Et does not have an airport, and another saying there can't be a car hire company in Roi Et because someone would have told him !! And of this he is pretty sure because he DOESN't even live in Roi Et !!

Astounding.

totster

Where I am the bars can re-open at 6pm - I thought this was standard.

totster

LOL - worst troll EVER ^^

totster

Thanks for the replies, I'm actually trying to help a friend get them set up, the latest is that he can now see the channels on Ku band but the signal is poor, so he has someone coming in to adjust the dish.

GMMZ have advised all ready to activate once the signal is improved.

totster

Which original point ? That the OP is clueless, and being taken for a long joy ride, even a soi dog can see that.

My original point.

totster

Thai women in most cases look younger than they actually are (to us), this being the case, if she looks 35 then she's probably early 40's

totster

Love the stereotype, it equates to say that foreigners are unable to observe, to learn from experience, and unable to do simple arithmetics.

I recently moved to Thailand and learned to know a Thai woman on Thai Love Links

This would indicate that the OP is still in the discovery phase.

Stereotype or not, I stick by my observation.. I disagree with you assumption that it equates to foreigners not being able to observe, learn and carry out simple arithmetic.. think about it, even making these arguments proves my original point to be true.

totster

Sorry you still don't understand.

By making it impossible to instantly block and/or delete PM threads, that gives a user TIME to either further respond to the PM in the thread and/or report the thread with it's content intact to moderation.

I've already explained this a number of ways, and yes, that DOES solve the issues of the OP.

He did ask for something ridiculous, that users should never have a way to block PM streams or block PMs from users. That is going to be rejected, you can be sure. I am suggesting a compromise enhancement which I don't think is necessary but it would do the trick.

I think you are getting increasingly confused, maybe it's time for your nap.

I can't see where the OP has mentioned 'that users should never have a way to block PM streams or block PMs from users', he just wants it to be in such a way as it cannot be used improperly.

Try not to make this complicated.

totster

I give up. You should test this system with a friend and then you might get it.

I understand the system and it's failings very well.

totster

His complaint resulting from what he saw onscreen (or didn't see more like it) when another user (ha ha) did put a user block on an existing PM thread.

Well done, you have it !

Surely a user should be able to keep a record of previous messages exchanged before a 'block' is added rather than wiping out all history, that would make more sense to me.

totster

Another tip, try getting your post straight and correct before clicking the 'post' button. People are able to see your unedited posts in my quote.

totster

Sorry you still don't understand.

By making it impossible to instantly block and/or delete PM threads, that gives a user TIME to either further respond to the PM in the thread and/or report the thread with it's content intact to moderation.

I've already explained this a number of ways, and yes, that DOES solve the issues of the OP.

He did ask for something ridiculous, that users should never have a way to block PM streams or block PMs from users. That is going to be rejected, you can be sure. I am suggesting a compromise enhancement which I don't think is necessary but it would do the trick.

I think you are getting increasingly confused, maybe it's time for your nap.

I can't see where the OP has mentioned 'that users should never have a way to block PM streams or block PMs from users', he just wants it to be in such a way as it cannot be used improperly.

Try not to make this complicated.

totster

Sorry, it's not really a technical fix as that implies of course that something is broken. It's an enhancement of the PM system, which exists, which is not broken, which a member here has asked for a change that will allow PM's not to be blocked by users. I am suggesting the idea of taking away this power from users is not good, but adding a time period before it can be done would be more useful.

Enhancement ??

You advised with instructions the OP to block the person (yourself) if they were being a nuisance, and referred to this earlier as " I have already suggested a potential easy technical fix"

It was not a fix, or technical, and didn't even address the issue the user first reported.

The OP does not want to block anyone (as he stated, and repeated by me), so your contribution (and I'm not sure why you keep repeating it) is worthless.

The OP simply would like to be able to record and reply to PM's that have been sent, so that users like yourself cannot abuse it. In my mind, the enhancement would be that even if the sender blocks the recipient, the recipient still retains a copy of the previous PM's from that sender.

totster

do you think the cops can get it back?

No.

totster

...

By the way, using an already current software function to provide a resolution is not a 'technical fix'.

...

Adding TIME so that users can't delete PM threads or block PM members in that thread right away is not a technical fix? Could have fooled me. There is no functionality of adding any time now. Adding time would be a technical change, no? A simple one I would think for a programmer if they want to go into that code, not that I think it is really justified.

I really have no idea what you are talking about now, I hope talking nonsense is not another part of your need to have the last word.

Are you interested in solving the OP's so called complaint, or just pouring on more personal insults when you don't have the foggiest what the actual facts are or how totally full of lies are in the OP's report?

Calling it a complaint is kind of an over reaction, we only have your word that the OP is telling lies as even though you claim to have a strong defence you won't post it.

I don't know the psychological motivation of why the OP would shovel such outrageous lies, except that I suspect he was making an effort to push my hot buttons and smoke me out (sadly, that worked).

It's unfortunate that you could not stay away from this topic, even when you assumed (correctly or incorrectly) that it was about you (Carly Simon hahaha). If you had not dropped yourself in it we would all still be none the wiser and this topic probably not even a page long.

"Your life is the fruit of your own doing. You have no one to blame but yourself." - Joseph Campbell

totster

Anyone else believe now the OP was about a technical issue?

The OP was never about a 'technical issue'. It was a comment about a considered failing with how the PM system can be manipulated.

totster

edit/ added a missing word

Again, it was already explained how to BLOCK messages from anyone.

There is no technical problem.

Just use block.

The OP said he didn't want to block anyone, he just wanted the facility to be able to reply to someone who is obviously abusing (as you put it in a previous post, then edited) the PM system.

totster

OK, if you actually believe that was the real reason that the OP created this "issue" fine, would you like to buy the Brooklyn Bridge from me?

Well, we all had no reason not to believe the OP's intention, then BOOM you made a drama out of it. In fact, the OP still has a valid point.. and unless you can provide a different version of events..... tough shit.

totster