klauskunkel

5 hours ago, webfact said:

Both stories gave the excuse for the raids that such illegal establishments did not keep proper records of visitors making it possible that criminal elements could be using them as bases.

yup, as evidenced by the picture...

This might be serious competition for the yesterday's holy anthill...

2 hours ago, webfact said:

Why do Expats Troll each other in Thailand?

You ended your article with the answer: "Who knows?"

Yesterday the PM needed "help to think". Today that help translated into "Govt Asks Netizens For Solutions". 

Looks like the PM is on an inactive post.

13 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

“My ideology is very clear. I will go for the party that can serve my purpose,”

A traditional ideology, time-honored and popular. Me, I, my and mine.

9 minutes ago, samsensam said:

 

haha, you only have to look a one of those machines to seriously question the standard of hygiene but plenty of people seem to using them without any harmful effects, yet...

I believe the PM is using them also, and now he needs help to think:

Quote

‘Help Me Think’ Prayuth Says, Dodging On Doi Suthep

^^ those hats don't fit thru the hatch, when the dive command comes...^^

"Oh holy Ant-Dick of Yasothon, please ejaculate my lottery numbers, I implore thee! Ommmmm."

12 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

Another survey was conducted last year and this time it covered altogether 50 districts, she said, adding that it was discovered that the problem was still there unrectified

I'm going out on a limb betting it won't be remedied in next year's survey either...

The real reason why ladies carry handbags: it makes them exempt from digging

29 minutes ago, ratcatcher said:

Surely you jest?  However, your color co-ordination is impeccable. The dtua dtalok himself would be proud.

... as would the Grand Poobah

2 hours ago, rooster59 said:

The White House said on Friday it had looked through records of motor vehicle incidents involving government vehicles and found only three that involved Jackson.

Only three? I have zero. Ha!!!

The PM's rationale on "sucking" as a time-honored democratic practice in Thai politics may or may not be true, as we all know the PM is by no means an expert in Democracy, or Thai Politics according to his own numerous statements to the effect. In my opinion, "sucking MPs" is unnecessary, as MP's and even whole parties are known to change allegiances and reverse ideologies at the drop of a hat when it suits them and therefore picking and choosing new allies is easy.

On the other hand, maybe the PM wants to convince the Thai people, that a "sucked MP" is a "good Politician" and a "unsucked one" is not, in other words: if you are not sucked, you suck.

Be it as it may, I suggest for the PM to practice on a lollipop prior to committing to the act.

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

It was an open examination of authority, not some shady back room coverup deal.

I wasn't questioning the way they arrived at their decision.

32 minutes ago, klauskunkel said:

First: "On Monday, Alfie's life-support equipment was switched off after a court ruling."

this means the court ruled that it was in the child's best interest to die.

 

Second: "A British court rejected an appeal by the boy's parents on Wednesday to take their son to Italy."

this means the court ruled that it was in the child's best interest to stay in the UK, where the previous ruling was that it was in the child's best interest to die.

 

or did I misunderstand this?

27 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I think the court's ruling is, based on medical advice, it is in the best interest of the child that he is not kept alive by medical intervention. 

 

The second ruling is, an affirmation of the first. 

 

The court is not choosing to let the child die, authorising removal of medical intervention, it is a subtle but very important distinction.

However, the child is alive and thus defying the court's ruling "it is in the best interest of the child that he is not kept alive by medical intervention"

Nevertheless, I would like to amend my previous interpretation: "Both courts' ruling say it is in the best interest of the child to die in the UK."

Personally, I am neither opposed to nor supportive of those rulings. I just like to question anyone, institution or person, who has been given or taken authority over other people's lives. Especially when they dress up their decision in claims that they can never substantiate or proof: it is in the best interest of...

First: "On Monday, Alfie's life-support equipment was switched off after a court ruling."

this means the court ruled that it was in the child's best interest to die.

Second: "A British court rejected an appeal by the boy's parents on Wednesday to take their son to Italy."

this means the court ruled that it was in the child's best interest to stay in the UK, where the previous ruling was that it was in the child's best interest to die.

or did I misunderstand this?

14 hours ago, snoop1130 said:

Saengchai Haelerttrakul said on Wednesday that he feels discouraged

Why discouraged? Just diversify and go into Religion or Politics, or both! "Faith Healer leads new People Power Health Party"

4 hours ago, webfact said:

“If people have to buy drinking water at Bt5 a litre, it means each system can save people about Bt600,000 a month,” Supanat said. 

That is some sound piece of math right there, my boy. Did you come up with this all on your own, or did you have the help of some 7-Eleven girls and their calculators?

He looks determined, steely-eyed staring ahead, fixed on the roadmap to democracy. 

Only the BiB disrupt that picture somewhat: the rotund commando front right would look more authentic with a milkshake in his hand, and the other two, they look like riding pillion on a tourist police segway...

Experts And Expats Cast Doubt On Thailand’s Offer To Host Trump – Kim Summit

The US Embassy in Bangkok declined to comment: "We just don't know what to say..."