Advanced Members
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

5,451 Excellent

1 Follower

About TallGuyJohninBKK

  • Rank
    Thaitanium Member

Profile Information

  • Location

Previous Fields

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

34,298 profile views
  1. BTW, when I was buying my bottle of Huy Fong at Central Chidlom in BKK the other day, I recalled another poster here previously having talked about buying Huy Fong from the online market Lazada -- which I didn't even know was carrying the product at that point in time. At any rate, here's the current listing on Lazada for Huy Fong: The Lazada listing works out to about 97 baht per bottle for the smaller 266 ml size. Although Chidlom was out of the smaller size the other day, their price for that same bottle is 80 baht. So obviously, if you have the option of buying Huy Fong thru Central or Tops at that price, it's going to be a better deal than Lazada's current pricing. At least here in BKK, Tops Online now is also showing they're stocking the large and small size bottles of HF for delivery. Meanwhile, I don't think this is a real Huy Fong product, although it's hard to tell from the picture. But at least, it's another reasonably priced and hopefully not too wimpy/bland salsa/chili sauce choice available here. I've never seen this one before at all.
  2. I know you know it, but you're neglecting to mention one big thing... CRIMINAL DEFAMATION in Thailand! That's the reason crooks like this don't get named and shamed in the media, along with, sometimes, the influence that builders have thru advertising relationships with said media outlets. Another example of how the Thai legal system works against the good interests of its own people.
  3. In years of flying out of Thailand internationally to the U.S. and elsewhere, I don't think I've ever been asked here to show the bank card I used for the purchase. On the other hand, I have often been asked to show in when departing from the U.S.
  4. I'm not sure what your comment and referring to that sentence from the article is supposed to mean... Yes, they had a head-on collision. But who was driving in what lane? And who presumably was driving in the wrong direction lane? The OP article doesn't address that.
  5. So they arrested three politicians in this case already. Where's the photo of them sitting behind a police table in custody? Where's the photo of the victims pointing at them (with their faces suitably blurred out)? Where's even the naming of the three people they arrested??? One code of treatment for ordinary crime suspects. An entirely different code if they happen to work for the government.
  6. I'm not defending the guy or excusing what happened. I started off my original post with the very clear statement: "The article and events are bad, that's for sure." Just saying, the details as laid out in the OP article may not be exactly accurate, as if often the case with media reports here, in terms of just how the final fatal collision occurred. [The article's notion that he was fleeing police would seem to be at odds with the separate statement in the article that he was heading for lunch at Central when the final crash occurred.] To be fair, the guy's degree of real blame would depend on just exactly how that final collision occurred -- and the article provides very little real explanation of that. That's what actual accident investigations are supposed to resolve.
  7. Well, the bottom line is, there seems to be little doubt or dispute that this guy was in a head-on collision that left two of the people on the motorcycle dead. How exactly that occurred, I wouldn't rely on the account in the article as having a high probability of factual accuracy. However, it also would seem to be true that the guy also was involved in some kind of prior property damage incident at some point earlier, and didn't stop for that. That detail, leaving aside any notion of a supposed police pursuit, certainly doesn't put this guy in a better position re the second/fatal incident. But I would agree with your general guess that it's probably pretty unlikely that the BIB were right on this guy's tail in hot pursuit of when when the fatal crash occurred. It's possible, of course, but the BIB rarely seem to be that fast to respond to anything... so who knows. Best I can say is, this guy doesn't appear to have been someone who ought to have been driving in his then-current condition, whatever that was.
  8. The article and events are bad, that's for sure. But I'm not sure what to make of the "fleeing" the scene of the accident and being chased by police bit. The article kind of makes it sound like the guy was running away from the accident and police when the fatal crash occurred. But at another point in the article, after the initial smaller accident, it says he was heading to Central for lunch. He obviously didn't stop after the initial minor accidents. But it also doesn't sound like he was like racing away to avoid the police when the second, fatal crash occurred. Not sure what was going on with this guy, but he does certainly seem a menace on the road. Wonder what his "mental illness" is all about.
  9. I haven't seen the technical details of this proposed project, and I'm not sure anyone in the public has, as yet. But... 1. I'd seriously doubt they're planning a rail line of this length that would have NO ground-level crossings. But I sure wish they could manage that. 2. Apart from whomever builds the system, there's also the follow-on issues of who's going to operate and maintain it... the same guys who crashed their two SRT trains together at Hua Lamphong this past week?
  10. We typically only find out when the same guy ends up getting arrested again for a similar offense a year or two down the road, and we find out then that he had been let out of jail recently, and/or was released early due to government pardons, reductions of sentence, etc etc. It's an repeating cycle of crime and lack of appropriate/corresponding punishment, except for mushroom pickers and talking about the wrong family. Those found guilty in those kinds of cases get the book thrown at them.
  11. I think we're getting the medicine names confused here: It's pseudoephedrine that was the original primary sinus medication, and unfortunately the one that was restricted to hospital prescription-only in Thailand some years ago (and similar elsewhere) because of its ability to be repurposed into making illegal meth. It's phenylephrine that in many places was then substituted as the available, over-the-counter medication for sinus problems. And, most/many of the former OTC medications that used to use pseudoephedrine were reformulated with phenylephrine, but kept the same or similar product name. Unfortunately, phenylephrine was been widely shown to be considerably less effective than pseudoephedrine for combatting sinus congestion. The only good news about this is, pseudoephdrine is still available by prescription from hospital doctors in Thailand, although some/many seem reluctant to prescribe much of it, probably because of hospital policies and or concern about getting undue attention from government drug enforcement regulators.
  12. Here's a somewhat shoddy BBC report on the issue of fire sprinklers for the UK's older high-rises. I say shoddy because it explains that sprinklers weren't required for pre 2007 high-rises, but doesn't say who exactly made that decision, when it was made, or what if any debate went into reaching that conclusion. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-40293035 Threre's also an inherent contradiction between what the report says in two different places, as noted in bold above.
  13. If only the guy had been wearing his amulets at the time, then everything would have been OK, and he'd still be here to tell his story.
  14. Having read all of this thread now, I come away with one gnawing conclusion: finding appropriate, competent medical care for a problem like this particular one shouldn't be so hard. What I'm struck by in this discussion is clearly there are different levels of medical technology on offer at different hospitals here. But you can darn well bet that if you go to one of the hospitals that doesn't have the latest/best MRI equipment, they're still going to want to diagnose and treat you with whatever they have, even if you could do better elsewhere. And I'd imagine the likelihood of any doctor here saying, well, you might be better off going to XXXXX because they have a better MRI technology, is almost nill. Does anyone think the Drs. at Bummers with the 1.5 MRIs are going to even mention to their patients that they might get a better, more clear and telling test result if they go to another hospital that has the 3 version MRIs??? Obviously, I know the equipment and the technology is only part of the equation, along with the expertise of the drs and such. But I guess I should be glad that TVF exists as a place where these kinds of things can be discussed and debated. Because more than likely, you're probably not going to hear about these kinds of choices and differences from your Dr. here.
  15. If you look back to my post #11 in this thread and the 2014 BBC report I excerpted there, that's exactly what they were saying: The one issue I can think about that is, an MRI is a much more expensive test than a PSA test. So I can see doing an MRI if there's some indication of a prostate problem. But just to do one as a screening technique absent any symptoms, that I'm not sure about. I thought Sheryl did a good job in her couple of prior posts in this thread in laying out the current, best practice thinking on this issue, and that's that there's nothing inherently wrong with a PSA test, although it can have a fair rate of false results. But the main problems come in when either patients or doctors take the PSA results alone and start running off to the races with potentially unwarranted biopsies and surgeries and such....