E-cigarettes - "light up" and face years in jail

[user82374298374]

For what's it worth, I think vaping indoors should be banned. The vapor lingers longer than smoke and you'll end up with a Turkish bath, the visibility turns to zero.

This is a flat-out lie. The vapor dissipates much more quickly than smoke, there's no odor to cling to drapes, etc.

What motivates you to post such an easily-demonstrated falsehood?

[anotheruser]

For those who need their nicotine E-cigarettes is a much healthier way to take it rather via normal tobacco cigarettes with all the associated health problems.

Nicotine on it's own is not carcinogenic but just about everything else in a tobacco cigarette is. E-Cigarettes are encouraged in some countries in preference to tobacco cigarettes which kill people. But no not in Thailand, it is more important to collect tax rather than save lives.

suppositories are better. You get some satisfaction and it is also better than a patch because your physical and physchological cravings are met.

[Keesters]

Was sitting at the beach the other day and a couple of Thai guys had these things blowing smelly (to me it smelt awful) smoke (I know its vapor but it looks like smoke) all around the place. It was very inconsiderate of them and disturbing not only to me and my mate but others around us. Yes they should be banned from public places not because of what they are but because of what they do. Same goes for those stinky BBQ pork 3 wheelers where the vendors wear masks to protect them from the smoke but are quite happy for the general public to suffer with it.

*You were sitting on the beach the other day .... sooo, a wide open space with (probably) sea breezes?

*A couple of guys .... that's an awful lot of people.

*Blowing smelly smoke all around the place .... hmmm, a couple of guys in a wide open space smoking e-cigs (which don't put out much smoke, btw - I know this for a fact)????

This picture Mr Keesters is painting is seriously messed up, and I'm calling BS. The only thing that could have created this scenario is a shisha (or whatever it's called).

**BTW, it should be noted that half or more of the liquids I see on sale are non-nicotine - I started on e-cigs with nicotine added, and then reduced until I was smoking non-nicotine liquid. AND ... tah-dah, Mr Keesters, it didn't stink up my enclosed living room.

I'm so sick and tired of the bad press that e-cigs are getting. They're an excellent aid to quitting tobacco - the only real worry is what's in the liquids. So, simple answer - produce safe liquids under licence. Do us all a favor.

(Actually, there is a second worry - that of inhaling vapor into the lungs - some issues there, I believe - but that's a story for another day.)

As you were not there you would know nothing of the situation and your comments are therefore BS. Hardly a wide open space when you're jam packed into chairs where the backs touch each other.

And little breeze as it was sunny and the vendors had put up umbrellas to shade the area but unfortunately they stopped any breeze from the sea.

A couple of guys on the crowded table next to me. It only takes one idiot to spoil it for many others. In this case it was TWO idiots. Perhaps THREE if we count you.

Blowing smelly smoke (yes it did smell, my nose told me so (I know that for a fact)

The picture you are painting is the messed up one where a small number of people can ruin many others experiences. SELFISH SELFISH. Perhaps that is you too.

And until the liquids are safe then they should perhaps be banned.

BTW I was a smoker for many years at two packets a day until I quit cold-turkey 6 years ago. No patches, no e-ciggies, no gum, no nothing just pure will power.

Your last sentence explains everything about your lack of tolerance, and your confrontational attitude, and personal attacks, which by the way are frowned on by the Mods! e.g.

" It only takes one idiot to spoil it for many others. In this case it was TWO idiots. Perhaps THREE if we count you." - - - comment totally uncalled for

"Blowing smelly smoke (yes it did smell, my nose told me so (I know that for a fact)"

It wasn't "smelly smoke", it was vapour - that's why they call it "vaping" and just because it looks like smoke doesn't make it smoke! Dry ice is used frequently by performers on stage as an effect for their performance, and it looks like smoke - but it isn't, and if it was, the smoke alarms would be set off!

"the vendors had put up umbrellas to shade the area but unfortunately they stopped any breeze from the sea."

Must have been b****y big umbrellas!

I have seen your lack of tolerance before, and it is true what they say that "reformed smokers are the worst" - you have just proved it, and your smug closing sentence does nothing to make you a bigger or better man - in my eyes anyway. I am also a reformed smoker - 1 to 2 packets a day for more than 50 years, and I used patches for one week, and then no "aids". I have now been stopped for a few years, but I have nothing but sympathy for those that are trying to quit and finding it hard, and are trying to do so with whatever means are available to them.

And they don't need "SELFISH, SELFISH" intolerant people like yourself even getting on at them when they are in the open air - on a beach for goodness sake, (Doesn't sound like an enjoyable experience anyway, being packed in like sardines the way you describe it!) You'd probably even complain if you walked to the top of a mountain and there was someone vaping there!

So calling someone an idiot is not OK in your books but calling someone a liar (by stating BS) with no evidence is OK That is one twisted set of morals you have.

Yes they were bloody big umbrellas. If you have never seen how a Thai beach is kept in the shade then I suggest you get out more.,

I know it was vapor...didn't I say so in my first post. Please read before making unnecessary comments.

Yes we were packed in like sardines...nowhere else to get a beer and some food before going back in the water. Again you never been to a Thai beach?

And because it was packed I would have expected a little more tolerance and less SELFISH SELFISH attitude from the vapor blowers. If they were gasping for a fag they could have gone out into the open area. That would have shown some consideration for their fellow human beings seated near them.

And NO I wouldn't probably complain if I was at the top of a mountain as I could probably be able to avoid the vapor blower unless he happened to come and sit right next to me which is what happened on the beach. Your assumption of unknown facts is ridiculous and insulting.

[Keesters]

In this case it was TWO idiots. Perhaps THREE if we count you.

My calculations come to one. The one who crams himself into a crowded beach and expects pristine air. Wrong place for that, wrong country mostly. Maybe on the mountain tops, when it's not the burning season.

That said, vaping does produce clouds that linger a while, they don't leave any residue or smell on surfaces like smoking does. Best done in well ventilated spaces if you want to see anything.

But I'm sure even if it was deemed to be extremely healthy, the second hand smoker crowd whose only joy in life comes from managing to restrict the freedom of others would be screaming their lungs out.

I still count three. If regular cigarette smoking is banned from public places in Thailand why not e-cigs? The annoyance is similar. I couldn't care less about how long it lasts it lasted long enough to be annoying,

"Best done in well ventilated places." yes that is exactly where the vapor blowers should have gone to have their "fix". The vapor blowers showed total selfishness and inconsideration in "lighting up" in close proximity of others.

Would you too do the same? As you appear to be on the side of vapor blowers I'd guess yes.

[SABloke]

It must be a big crime , Thailand wake the hell up. Paradise lost.

No, you get it wrong. It's not about the E-cigarettes themselves, which are probably much safer than the ordinary variety which are loaded with health damaging toxins!

It's the tax issue. The Government wants to get money from this product. Thailand is no different from anywhere else.

Sugar is one of the most addictive known substances, proven to be more addictive than cocaine. The consumption of sugar is far higher than consumption of e-liquid and tobacco, so why not "start the tax fight" with the sugar industry and the sugarcane farmers? Most Thais would still keep adding sugar to literally everything, and tax money for more arms and ammunition would flow into the flabby Treasury.

Really? I've never had the urge to wait in the cold at 2am for sugar

[DrTuner]

For what's it worth, I think vaping indoors should be banned. The vapor lingers longer than smoke and you'll end up with a Turkish bath, the visibility turns to zero.

This is a flat-out lie. The vapor dissipates much more quickly than smoke, there's no odor to cling to drapes, etc.

What motivates you to post such an easily-demonstrated falsehood?

On occasion my condo has been so thick full of vapor I had to open the doors to ventilate. First hand experience, you don't even have to chase clouds. It's easily demonstrated, take an empty glass and blow the vapor in it. It lingers for a few minutes if undisturbed by air movement. Imagine a couple of dozen cloud chasers in a club.

The crappy Chinese juices don't produce much vapor to begin with, but with a throat hit like shoving barbed wire down your gullet who'd want to vape those.

[farcanell]

For what's it worth, I think vaping indoors should be banned. The vapor lingers longer than smoke and you'll end up with a Turkish bath, the visibility turns to zero. Recipe for hurting yourself by tripping in stairs, etc. At the very minimum have efficient ventilation.

Whilst not denying that second hand e cig use can cause detrimental effects to others, not enough research has been done to date (which is perhaps why the FDA have not approved them?)

That said, a 2013 study " E cigarettes: a short review" has determined that E vapor has a half life of ten seconds, which is 100 times less than cigarette smoke (i.e.; cigarette smoke has a half life of 1000 seconds)

Also.... With no "slip stream" smoke, which is far more harmful than exhaled smoke (because 80% of inhaled nicotine goes into the inhalers body) e cigs are a clear winner, for non smokers suffering from others use

It is also self evident that any smoking, farting, bad breath etc is worse in a non ventilated area, so outside is better for all... And I can accept that a very crowed beach, under a forest of umbrellas, could be construed as a quasi enclosed area.

Anyway... I would humbly suggest, due to the fact that e cig use is ostensibly a means for smokers to reduce / quit smoking, that non smokers are better off encouraging the use of e cigs, as the long term result may well lead to an overall reduction of people who smoke, and therefore a reduction in harmful second hand smoke for all.... Which is obviously also a win

Change takes time... Perhaps one day the world will be smoke free... But in the meantime, surely a reduction in effect (for both users and non users) is also a win... Due consideration needs paying to the pros and cons

So who looses? Obviously the poor barstool who had one blow up in his face, but also the tax man.... And I say f£k the tax man, who is just looking for another reason to bleed us dry.

As for me... I'm a non smoker, living with (now) an e cig smoker, and I'm happier than I've ever been with the situation... although that may change if one blows up in her face... But then, I wouldn't be too happy if she had to breath through a hole in her throat, either

[DrTuner]

Perhaps this will demo the visibility problem I mean a bit better, go to 3:20:

I rarely vape in a car.

[farcanell]

Perhaps this will demo the visibility problem I mean a bit better, go to 3:20:

I rarely vape in a car.

F.ing hilarious... I think the doc just earned himself the "last word" here ?

[SiSePuede419]

"I rarely vape in a car."

I vape in cars, buses, trains, on grassy plains, but not on planes or in Spain.

Fortunately I live in a sane country and have a prescription for medical cannabis and the vapor contains non-addictive, anti-tumor drugs like THC and CBD, not tumor-promoting, addictive drugs like nicotine.

Big diff, 555

[GeckosDiving]

So.. smoking weed is actually less of a problem than vaping if I understand correctly.

Somehow that does make sense.

(For reference: http://www.thailand-lawyer.com/marijuana-arrest.html )

[GeckosDiving]

Funny I was in a Tesco yesterday and there was a shop still selling E-cigarettes !

[sambum]

Let's not overlook increasing reports of these things going off like small thermonuclear devices, resulting in explosive burns that range all the way to third degree, with permanent maiming often the outcome. To me, that is the greater concern. These devices simply aren't, and more importantly, can't be engineered safely enough, as 'knock-offs' and quality variance across the different manufacturers/price points on both the apparatus and the cartridges would remain an impenetrable obstacle to any attempts at safety regulation. I would not seek to tell someone what they can or cannot ingest. However, there are just too many irremediable liability issues surrounding the manufacture, sale and use of this product for it to be sanctioned by any consumer protection agency worth its salt.

Wind it in sunshine.. There have been a "few" reports of exploding e-cig devices. and these rare cases can be mostly put down to misuse.

All Lithium battery -ion can, and DO explode. Many phone batteries explode. Are you also calling for all Laptops, Mobile Phones, torches, Fitness devices, etc to be banned or is it just E-cigs that are dangerous?

I had a top of the range tablet that had a global recall related to batteries exploding.

Any device that uses Lithium-Ion batteries can explode, and e-cigs are no expection

My post is neither alarmist, nor inaccurate, Sunshine. None of your false equivalencies have intentional incendiary properties, other than perhaps the torch. Absolutely nothing in life is safe. However, some products lend themselves too easily to risk and/or malfeasance. This is certainly one of them.

"None of your false equivalencies have intentional incendiary properties" No none of these device have intentional incendiary properties..

what on earth are you wittering on about?

But hey : malfeasance

In response to Mr. Sambum, who states:

"No wonder they say English is a difficult language to learn! Some people just LURVE to use big words when smaller, simpler ones will do. What's wrong with "None of these gadgets are meant to blow up"?"

There's no particular 'lurve' (love?) involved, Mr. Bum. English is a difficult language to learn purely because of the degree of absurdity embedded within, the consequences of which are evidenced by the degree of mastery found on pretty much any site we encounter on the web. However, this is an English-only forum (per the regs/mods), and no doubt to your never-ending dismay, this is how I happen to speak. Sorry if it has somehow offended your sensibilities, or otherwise caused you discomfiture. As for your final statement, it is technically correct, at least grammatically speaking, but for one minor point; it does not accurately convey what I said. Thanks just the same for attempting to 'dumb it down' for the masses, as there is at least one other that seems to have struggled with the text. Regardless, I of course concede that your final statement is true. as I don't for a second think there was any intent for the aforementioned 'gadgetry' to actually blow up. Doesn't seem to prevent them from doing so, however.

Yes, "lurve', "love", - same same, and although English was my favourite subject at school (Literature and Grammar), I fail to see the point in statements like:-

"purely because of the degree of absurdity embedded within, the consequences of which are evidenced by the degree of mastery found on pretty much any site we encounter on the web."

You have not offended my sensibilities, or caused me discomfiture (?), but I am sorry to say that I regard such "eloquent usage of the English language" as "gobbledygook", and while I agree that this is an English-only forum, I should imagine that a great number of posters on here are indeed wondering what you are waffling on about!

And by the way, I don't mind Mr. Sambum but please do not refer to me as Mr. Bum - sorry, I don't like that - it sounds like failed anal sex! So if you don't mind please refrain from using that abbreviation in future!

[tifino]

get caught...

......go to jail, and then have to fork out money for real tobacco, as that's all you can get... without having your Sentence extended

[Songlaw]

Let's not overlook increasing reports of these things going off like small thermonuclear devices, resulting in explosive burns that range all the way to third degree, with permanent maiming often the outcome. To me, that is the greater concern. These devices simply aren't, and more importantly, can't be engineered safely enough, as 'knock-offs' and quality variance across the different manufacturers/price points on both the apparatus and the cartridges would remain an impenetrable obstacle to any attempts at safety regulation. I would not seek to tell someone what they can or cannot ingest. However, there are just too many irremediable liability issues surrounding the manufacture, sale and use of this product for it to be sanctioned by any consumer protection agency worth its salt.

Wind it in sunshine.. There have been a "few" reports of exploding e-cig devices. and these rare cases can be mostly put down to misuse.

All Lithium battery -ion can, and DO explode. Many phone batteries explode. Are you also calling for all Laptops, Mobile Phones, torches, Fitness devices, etc to be banned or is it just E-cigs that are dangerous?

I had a top of the range tablet that had a global recall related to batteries exploding.

Any device that uses Lithium-Ion batteries can explode, and e-cigs are no expection

My post is neither alarmist, nor inaccurate, Sunshine. None of your false equivalencies have intentional incendiary properties, other than perhaps the torch. Absolutely nothing in life is safe. However, some products lend themselves too easily to risk and/or malfeasance. This is certainly one of them.

"None of your false equivalencies have intentional incendiary properties" No none of these device have intentional incendiary properties..

what on earth are you wittering on about?

But hey : malfeasance

In response to Mr. Sambum, who states:

"No wonder they say English is a difficult language to learn! Some people just LURVE to use big words when smaller, simpler ones will do. What's wrong with "None of these gadgets are meant to blow up"?"

There's no particular 'lurve' (love?) involved, Mr. Bum. English is a difficult language to learn purely because of the degree of absurdity embedded within, the consequences of which are evidenced by the degree of mastery found on pretty much any site we encounter on the web. However, this is an English-only forum (per the regs/mods), and no doubt to your never-ending dismay, this is how I happen to speak. Sorry if it has somehow offended your sensibilities, or otherwise caused you discomfiture. As for your final statement, it is technically correct, at least grammatically speaking, but for one minor point; it does not accurately convey what I said. Thanks just the same for attempting to 'dumb it down' for the masses, as there is at least one other that seems to have struggled with the text. Regardless, I of course concede that your final statement is true. as I don't for a second think there was any intent for the aforementioned 'gadgetry' to actually blow up. Doesn't seem to prevent them from doing so, however.

Yes, "lurve', "love", - same same, and although English was my favourite subject at school (Literature and Grammar), I fail to see the point in statements like:-

"purely because of the degree of absurdity embedded within, the consequences of which are evidenced by the degree of mastery found on pretty much any site we encounter on the web."

You have not offended my sensibilities, or caused me discomfiture (?), but I am sorry to say that I regard such "eloquent usage of the English language" as "gobbledygook", and while I agree that this is an English-only forum, I should imagine that a great number of posters on here are indeed wondering what you are waffling on about!

And by the way, I don't mind Mr. Sambum but please do not refer to me as Mr. Bum - sorry, I don't like that - it sounds like failed anal sex! So if you don't mind please refrain from using that abbreviation in future!

Wittering, and Waffling. The plot thickens. As for the 'Mr. Bum' reference, I just took a chance that the name was Sam Bum. I certainly did not mean to evoke any sort of imagery, of either a failed, or successful nature, though to each their own. As for your equation of eloquence with gobbledygook, no apology necessary. Again, to each their own. As I said, there is at least one other who had similar difficulties. Carry on.

[gdgbb]

On 21/06/2016 at 4:21 AM, The stuttering parrot said:

So it's ok for Hiso families to drive around drunk killing innocents and getting virtually Scott free but you light up an artifice bunger and you 5 years in the slammer.

What's wrong with this picture Thailand ?

What's wrong is your ridiculous distortion of the facts in general, as it is not ok for anyone "to drive around killing innocents and getting virtually Scott free" [sic].   Your bizarre attempt to make an analogy from completely disparate situations is equally wrong.

[gdgbb]

On 21/06/2016 at 6:49 AM, donsonny said:

_{New day and a new big laugh. Thailand is becoming more funny than Monty Pyhton and Fawlty Towers. Thailand is amazing and the happy General and his gang continues to make Thailand the worldwide fool. As written amphetamines to be taken off the narcotics list and get in the monkey house for smoking on E- cigarettes. The way to go.}

 

_{Amphetamines are not going to be taken off the narcotics list and the use of them can lead to prison because they are illegal, just like e-fags.}

[gdgbb]

On 21/06/2016 at 5:36 AM, Brer Fox said:

For those who need their nicotine E-cigarettes is a much healthier way to take it rather via normal tobacco cigarettes with all the associated health problems.

Nicotine on it's own is not carcinogenic but just about everything else in a tobacco cigarette is. E-Cigarettes are encouraged in some countries in preference to tobacco cigarettes which kill people. But no not in Thailand, it is more important to collect tax rather than save lives.

 

E-cigarettes save lives, says who?

[gdgbb]

On 21/06/2016 at 7:01 AM, thesetat2013 said:

I guess most of the street vendors in bkk and pattaya are exempt from this law. They still have them for sale and I am sure the police are aware of what goods are being sold in those shops.

As for the crime I would assume that if you bought your e-cigarette before 2014 that you are exempt from this law if you are caught in possession of it?

 

Only in the same (il)logical way that if you bought heroin or cocaine before it's possession was outlawed would you be exempt from possessing it now.

[gdgbb]

On 21/06/2016 at 7:54 AM, Gforcejunkypkt said:

I don't give a flying <deleted> what the FDA or the American Lung Association think about e-cigs and vaping -- they're both in the pocket of pharmaceuticals and Big Tobacco.... And if you took the time to really research some of their claims you've listed above @Suradit69 by re-posting that drivel, you'd know they're absolute BS! I'm not going to go through every point, but one blatant lie is that when properly used, e-cigs DO NOT contain more formaldehyde (or even a measurably dangerous amount) -- people do not normally vape at the temps/conditions that biased test used! I humbly suggest for you to do some more objective research and get your facts straight before you start promulgating such ludicrous propaganda, which I can bet you have little personal experience with...

So again, the FDA and ALA can stick it where the sun don't shine -- after 25 years and nearly 3 packs of stinkies a day, 1 1/2 years ago I switched to completely over to vaping (a process which took about a week) -- and haven't touched a cigarette since! And I feel 5 times healthier; I cough less than most non-smokers and can also run or MTB rings around most non-smokers. I also don't smell like an ashtray anymore (same with my clothes/room), making life more pleasant/healthier for my daughter and dogs. So are you and the FDA REALLY going to tell me e-cigs (which contain approx. 4,000 less harmful chemicals than cigarettes) are worse (or even equally bad) when compared to traditional tobacco products????

" I humbly suggest for you to do some more objective research and get your facts straight before you start promulgating such ludicrous propaganda, which I can bet you have little personal experience with..."

 

Your indignant rant and suggestion begs the question of what experience do you have of the issue apart from smoking them which is not objective?  Your feeling "5 times healthier" is a meaningless statement.  Although you may not stink like an ashtray now you don't realise that you do stink like e-cig pollution and that is unpleasant to non-smokers of either variety.

[55Jay]

Once Thailand gets a weed up their arse about some random thing, they sure do get stupid about it.  

[Brer Fox]

2 hours ago, gdgbb said:

What's wrong is your ridiculous distortion of the facts in general, as it is not ok for anyone "to drive around killing innocents and getting virtually Scott free" [sic].   Your bizarre attempt to make an analogy from completely disparate situations is equally wrong.

Early days for you yet gdgbb. Things will become clearer as you mature so no need for unnecessary agitation. In the meantime try relaxing with a fag.

[reallybigken]

On 6/20/2016 at 9:56 PM, tuanku said:

My best friends daughter was smoking a real cigarette in bed when she fell asleep and the bed caught fire and she and all her family were killed!

What is your point? One apocryphal defective e-cigarette of unknown provenance is not an argument against them, any more than a defective car is an argument against driving or a defective mobile phone is an argument against using phones.

What is your point? Oh ...I get it now ....two wrongs must make a write ... nice one ... I get it now. Everything fails, so don't tell anyone.

So if you saw what I saw, you would tell anyone? OK that gives me some insight into you decision making process.

[Ace of Pop]

 

Only in the same (il)logical way that if you bought heroin or cocaine before it's possession was outlawed would you be exempt from possessing it now.

But if your Nation gave You Cigs,Alcoholl and Speed to help a Long mission as they did in my day, how will you slime past that fact Mr Perfect World?.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[55Jay]

E-cigs/vaping is alright.  I used it as a replacement tool to quit smoking cigarettes.  It is nowhere near as offensive as smoking tobacco.  Stand in a bar where people are smoking fags.  Then stand in one where they vaping.  No contest, but you can whinge about it on principle, which is what the hard core anti-smoking nutters are on about.  They ought to be pleased with a less offensive alternative.  Nope.  They are just as militant about this.  If it wasn't this, it would be something else, that's how these tight &lt;deleted&gt; are.

 

My Mom is a mild anti-smoking person, never smoked in her life.  Despised me smoking even outside on her balcony because it stinks so bad.    At my last holiday staying at her house, she was thrilled I had quit smoking cigarettes and was curious about my little vaping pen, never saw one up close before.   I showed her how it worked, did a vape and exhaled.  She said, "Oh!  Well, that's not bad at all!  Has a faint cherry odor to it!"  - I used cherry or other fruit liquids.    She had no problem with me using it in the house after that, could sit on the sofa, watch TV and vape.

 

[Apiwan2]

I've seen thais in malls and restaurants vaping.

Still no definitive answer.

legal or not ?

[Bureaucrat]

Is there something we don't know? There seems to be a competition within Thai government to come up up with the most absurd,  stupid ideas.

Harsh or lenient inappropriate sentencing. Legalizing methamphetamine Thai 4.0? E- cigarettes? 

[Thomas Hannah]

On 6/20/2016 at 11:20 PM, Thechook said:

Are the tobacco companies pulling a few strings. I thought people turn to E cig in a bid to kick the nicotine habit.

Only taxes.Money number one.

[Thomas Hannah]

On 6/28/2016 at 2:41 PM, sambum said:

My post is neither alarmist, nor inaccurate, Sunshine. None of your false equivalencies have intentional incendiary properties, other than perhaps the torch. Absolutely nothing in life is safe. However, some products lend themselves too easily to risk and/or malfeasance. This is certainly one of them.

 

"None of your false equivalencies have intentional incendiary properties" No none of these device have intentional incendiary properties..

what on earth are you wittering on about?

But hey : malfeasance

 

In response to Mr. Sambum, who states:

"No wonder they say English is a difficult language to learn! Some people just LURVE to use big words when smaller, simpler ones will do. What's wrong with "None of these gadgets are meant to blow up"?"

 

There's no particular 'lurve' (love?) involved, Mr. Bum. English is a difficult language to learn purely because of the degree of absurdity embedded within, the consequences of which are evidenced by the degree of mastery found on pretty much any site we encounter on the web. However, this is an English-only forum (per the regs/mods), and no doubt to your never-ending dismay, this is how I happen to speak. Sorry if it has somehow offended your sensibilities, or otherwise caused you discomfiture. As for your final statement, it is technically correct, at least grammatically speaking, but for one minor point; it does not accurately convey what I said. Thanks just the same for attempting to 'dumb it down' for the masses, as there is at least one other that seems to have struggled with the text. Regardless, I of course concede that your final statement is true. as I don't for a second think there was any intent for the aforementioned 'gadgetry' to actually blow up. Doesn't seem to prevent them from doing so, however.

Yes, "lurve', "love", - same same, and although English was my favourite subject at school (Literature and Grammar), I fail to see the point in statements like:-

"purely because of the degree of absurdity embedded within, the consequences of which are evidenced by the degree of mastery found on pretty much any site we encounter on the web."

You have not offended my sensibilities, or caused me discomfiture (?), but I am sorry to say that I regard such "eloquent usage of the English language" as "gobbledygook", and while I agree that this is an English-only forum, I should imagine that a great number of posters on here are indeed wondering what you are waffling on about!

And by the way, I don't mind Mr. Sambum but please do not refer to me as Mr. Bum - sorry, I don't like that - it sounds like failed anal sex! So if you don't mind please refrain from using that abbreviation in future!

Well said.enjoyed that.We seem to live in a world were it is a big issue that you made a spelling mistake and not what you are trying to say.and be understood.We all know that lithium batterys can explode if used wrongly.we all know that thailand has banned them because of the taxes lost.Money number one.

[onemorechang]

Thailand Forging ahead, with Trivial nonsense

Trailblazing a path for the world to follow.

Good Job

 

How many died today,  of E-Cigarettes  0

How many died on the roads today,  80 ish

 

Ban them E-cigarettes.,  they are very dangerous indeed