The abandoned condo building at bali hai pier on google

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎7‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 5:17 PM, JAZZDOG said:

Never realized a structure could be antisocial. What's with that? 

Building a structure in front of the lookout/ memorial that obstructed the view was clearly antisocial. Just because farangs don't understand that, doesn't matter. The Thais certainly didn't like it, and the antisocial, greedies that didn't care are now paying the price, which is poetic justice and proof that sometimes there really is such a thing as karma.

[JAZZDOG]

1 minute ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Building a structure in front of the lookout/ memorial that obstructed the view was clearly antisocial. Just because farangs don't understand that, doesn't matter. The Thais certainly didn't like it, and the antisocial, greedies that didn't care are now paying the price, which is poetic justice and proof that sometimes there really is such a thing as karma.

I suggest you read the definition of antisocial least you appear uneducated. I agree the building maybe unappealing, non-conforming, blight on the neighborhood and should never been approved. Antisocial is an adjective reserved for living things. Now it might be possible some antisocial squatters currently reside there which might be yet another reason to pull it.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎7‎/‎9‎/‎2018 at 7:12 PM, JAZZDOG said:

I suggest you read the definition of antisocial least you appear uneducated. I agree the building maybe unappealing, non-conforming, blight on the neighborhood and should never been approved. Antisocial is an adjective reserved for living things. Now it might be possible some antisocial squatters currently reside there which might be yet another reason to pull it.

I used antisocial in the context of applying to the greedies that invested in it and those that built it.

[KneeDeep]

On 7/9/2018 at 1:12 PM, JAZZDOG said:

I suggest you read the definition of antisocial least you appear uneducated. I agree the building maybe unappealing, non-conforming, blight on the neighborhood and should never been approved. Antisocial is an adjective reserved for living things. Now it might be possible some antisocial squatters currently reside there which might be yet another reason to pull it.

 

Not sure why you created a post just to argue about semantics.

Anti-social definition; Contrary or injurious to the interests of society in general.

 

Building a structure in front of the lookout/ memorial that obstructed the view was clearly contrary or injurious to the interests of society in general.

 

Works for me.

A bit over the top to suggest that someone appears uneducated over such a small thing. Especially when not clear they were wrong to use the word in the first place.

[pattayadude]

11 hours ago, KneeDeep said:

 

Not sure why you created a post just to argue about semantics.

Anti-social definition; Contrary or injurious to the interests of society in general.

 

Building a structure in front of the lookout/ memorial that obstructed the view was clearly contrary or injurious to the interests of society in general.

 

Works for me.

A bit over the top to suggest that someone appears uneducated over such a small thing. Especially when not clear they were wrong to use the word in the first place.

you keep posting same ol' rhetoric like broken record without even mentioning or naming the enablers of this project ONCE.

Because you need courage to blame the authorities that allowed it, courage! something you lack great deal.

It's safe to blame the developers and buyers but it's risky to blame the real bandidos, isn't it!

Man up and once mention about the corruption around this project blaming ALL and not just the investors.

IT TAKES TWO to complete this kind of monster under the watchful eyes of millions of Thais, NOT JUST ONE.

 

You leave your front door unlocked night after night and eventually your property will be broken in and your stuff be stolen and inhabitants will potentially be harmed or even killed.

If you allow, permit  and actually watch a 50 floor structure built  to completion (for  the number of years it took to build) next to a well-known sacred site and you -my friend-only blame a developer , something wrong with your logic!.

Don't forget that the same authority, the same mentality who allowed this "illegal" project, actually runs the city you live in, whose "lack of commitment" to fixing the problems of this city might come back and haunt you one day because so much illegalities slip under the radar with mind-boggling  impunity!

Edited July 12, 2018 by pattayadude

[pattayadude]

16 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I used antisocial in the context of applying to the greedies that invested in it and those that built it.

AGAIN , NOT A WORD ON CULPABLES WHO ALLOWED AND PERMITTED IT TO BE BUILT!

again only  blaming buyers and builders. that is safe! right thaibeachlover? yup, it's safe!...but weak.

Also,am I right to be sensing admiration but mostly jealousy here? of course you won't admit it.

Most non-thai people who are against this project eventually show signs of jealous tendencies considering the location( not the sacredness as they don't care and obviously won't admit for obvious reasons ) and expansive views from it .

Edited July 12, 2018 by pattayadude

[Rimmer]

A reminder of this rule:

6) You will not post comments that could be reasonably construed as defamation or libel.

Defamation is the issuance of a statement about another person or business which causes that person to suffer harm. It does not have to be false to be defamatory. Libel is when the defamatory statement is published either in a drawing, painting, cinematography, film, picture or letters made visible by any means, or any other recording instruments, recording picture or letters, or by broadcasting or spreading picture, or by propagation by any other means. Defamation is both a civil and criminal charge in Thailand.

[KneeDeep]

12 hours ago, pattayadude said:

you keep posting same ol' rhetoric like broken record without even mentioning or naming the enablers of this project ONCE.

Because you need courage to blame the authorities that allowed it, courage! something you lack great deal.

It's safe to blame the developers and buyers but it's risky to blame the real bandidos, isn't it!

Man up and once mention about the corruption around this project blaming ALL and not just the investors.

IT TAKES TWO to complete this kind of monster under the watchful eyes of millions of Thais, NOT JUST ONE.

 

You leave your front door unlocked night after night and eventually your property will be broken in and your stuff be stolen and inhabitants will potentially be harmed or even killed.

If you allow, permit  and actually watch a 50 floor structure built  to completion (for  the number of years it took to build) next to a well-known sacred site and you -my friend-only blame a developer , something wrong with your logic!.

Don't forget that the same authority, the same mentality who allowed this "illegal" project, actually runs the city you live in, whose "lack of commitment" to fixing the problems of this city might come back and haunt you one day because so much illegalities slip under the radar with mind-boggling  impunity!

 

Sorry, but cannot be bothered to read this long-winded nonsense.

It's not the first time that you have jumped to the conclusion that I live in Pattaya.

It's a place that I visit. The rest of you post I couldn't be bothered to read, as it would a complete waste of my time.

 

When you have some actual information, rather than just another rant, do let me know and I might read it.

 

 

[pattayadude]

10 hours ago, KneeDeep said:

It's not the first time that you have jumped to the conclusion that I live in Pattaya.

It's a place that I visit

then why this strange interest in a halted building on a far corner of a city  you  visit from time to time?

Do you- for instance- post on an "Amsterdam forum" or a "Paris forum" or a "Beijing forum" or a city that you visit once or twice a year and post on their similar sites to express your opposition towards their "antisocial buildings"?

You clearly want this building to be pulled down "yesterday" and I respect your view, even though I disagree.But your argument doesn't hold water if you only blame one side as culpable.

I explained in my previous posts, and now for the last time, my opposition towards parties involved in allowing this building to be built on a sacred part of a country. I also explained that any developer-given the opportunity-would erect a structure of this size or  higher next to the Taj Mahal or the Tower of pizza or the Westminster Abbey or the White House (again) given the chance...

If you allow them? They will build...period!

I am not ranting. I am just expressing my unbiased opinion on all who were involved in this royal mess!

I don't blame you for your lack of interest in this topic unless it is "new information" as I also am losing interest in it as well but sorry to burst your bubble, there will not be any new information until the elections IMHO.

Edited July 13, 2018 by pattayadude