unicorn

My neighbor said she hires a company to apply orange oil to prevent termites. I haven't noticed anything myself, but when I bought the property 4 years ago, it required termite treatment, and that involved tenting with toxic chemicals (no food, pets, etc.). The company my neighbor uses has only 2.3 stars on Yelp, so I called another company with 4.9 stars, which advertises orange oil. They say they only treat for actual infestations, not for prevention. There does seem to be some sense in a simple preventative care, to avoid more costly and difficult treatment later. But what do I know? Is there any sense in termite prevention? Do any of you do this?

Well, I doubt there's anywhere a changeable, highest court is bound by its own previous decisions. In the US, the SCOTUS has reversed many of its previous decisions, including its recent reversal of Roe v. Wade. However, I'd be surprised to learn that there's anywhere in which lower courts don't have to abide by higher court decisions. Otherwise, the litigant could just simply appeal to the higher court and reverse the lower court's ruling.

Thank you for correcting a (highly) factually incorrect posting. Civil juries are almost unique to the US. They are extremely rare in the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_trial "...In England and Wales (which have the same legal system), everyone accused of an offence which carries more than six months' imprisonment has a right to trial by jury. Minor ("summary") criminal cases are heard without a jury in the Magistrates' Courts. Middle-ranking ("triable either way") offences may be tried by magistrates or the defendant may elect trial by jury in the Crown Court. Serious ("indictable-only") offences, however, must be tried before a jury in the Crown Court. Juries sit in few civil cases, being restricted to false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, and civil fraud (unless ordered otherwise by a judge)...". Jury trials are also extremely rare for civil cases in Ireland: "...In the Republic of Ireland, a common law jurisdiction, jury trials are available for criminal cases before the Circuit Court, Central Criminal Court and defamation cases, consisting of twelve jurors...". I think both of you are incorrect regarding jury trials in Cyprus. There are no jury trials, even for criminal cases, in Cyprus: https://e-justice.europa.eu/18/EN/national_ordinary_courts?CYPRUS&member=1 "...The District Courts hear at first instance all civil cases (except for admiralty cases) and criminal cases for offences punishable by a term of imprisonment of up to 5 years. Each administrative district in Cyprus has a District Court. Case are tried by one judge and there is no jurys are heard ... The Assize Courts hear criminal cases only. As a rule they try the most serious cases involving offences that are punishable by a term of imprisonment of over 5 years. Each Assize Court consists of three judges. Decisions are taken by majority vote. There is no jury...". As you correctly pointed out, defamation is a criminal offense in many places, including many US states. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation "...on the state level, 23 states and two territories have criminal defamation laws on the books: Alabama, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Wisconsin, Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands. In addition, Iowa criminalizes defamation through case law without statutorily defining it as a crime...". I don't know about Thai law, but it certainly may be the case that Thailand is unique in allowing truthful statements to be considered defamatory. In all civilized countries, a truthful statement cannot be defamatory. I believe it's absolutely shameful, for sure, if one can be jailed in Thailand for posting something truthful. The OP didn't make reference to any reliable source, so I leave it up in the air as to whether I believe the statement that truthful statements can be considered defamatory in Thailand. I'll wait for a more reliable source (given all of the factually incorrect statements from the Pataya TImes source, that source is obviously unreliable).

Whether he was charged or not, unless the video was doctored, he did it. A 10 year-old can never give consent to that.

I sometimes troll Model Mayhem for wanking material, and this man's self-introduction gave me a chuckle: https://www.modelmayhem.com/youssefkayaz "As you can see, I'm really attractive, charming, humble, modest and very photogenic. It would be a shame for all that to go to waste. That's why I model. A bit more about me? Well I have an undergraduate degree (BA) and am in second year Nursing studies. In addition to modeling and acting, I have many interests, including sports, current events, world peace, etc. However, my greatest goal is to one day rule over the fashion/modeling industry by using my intellect and impressive personalty ..". His humility and modesty really come through in his self-description! 😄 I'm not sure he'll ever "rule over" the industry with his intellect and personalty, though. 😁

Really, now. There's video of him performing horrific acts on pre-pubescent children. I don't need to wait for a jury to feel outraged, nor do I feel I'm being self-righteous. Unless those videos are fake, he's a monster, and I don't feel I'm being self-righteous in saying so, just because this hasn't gone through the legal process. I hope that at least has the decency to plead guilty, and not force the jury to witness the video evidence. 🤮No one should have to look at that, and if he forces anyone to look at this because of his denial, I hope the law comes down hard on him.

Interesting theory. I wonder if has any scientific basis.

Well, he's innocent in the eyes of the law. A person is always either innocent or guilty, regardless of the legal determination. 😉

Book you really should read:

It may not be possible for her to run, but my understanding is that Michelle Obama has the best chance of defeating Trump.

A Biden statement from yesterday's interview shows where his mindset is: https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/06/politics/biden-abc-interview-analysis/index.html "So, one fatalistic statement in the ABC interview about how he’d feel next January if Trump won is likely to inflame concerns of many Democrats about his mindset, his understanding of his situation and what will happen in November. “I’ll feel as long as I gave it my all and I did the goodest job as I know I can do, that’s what this is about,” Biden said." He's saying that it doesn't matter to him if our country goes down the crapper with Trump at the helm. What's most important to Biden are his own personal feelings. I get it that (hopefully) this is about his dementia and not that he's always been a prick. To say the election isn't about the country, but just about him--that really got me hot under the collar.

That was a quick 180. Weren't you just defending him 2 days ago?

You've got to be shitting me. Is this actually the law in the entire Kingdom of Thailand???

Neither I nor anyone else has any idea what the fuck you're trying to say. Why don't you write what you're trying to say (in Russian) into an app such as Google Translate so you can try to communicate your thoughts. It's not that fucking complicated. Ни я, ни кто-либо другой понятия не имеет, что за херню ты пытаешься сказать. Почему бы вам не написать то, что вы пытаетесь сказать (на русском языке), в такое приложение, как Google Translate, чтобы вы могли попытаться передать свои мысли. Это не так уж и сложно.

You think? What could that possibly mean? I'm sure these "wisest Democrats" are really trying hard to figure it out. Reminds me of clueless Justin Bieber's song, in which he remarks that people want to have sex with him, but don't enjoy his company, and he keeps asking "What does that mean?".... Wanna argue all day, makin' love all night (All night) First you're up, then you're down, and then between ('Tween) Oh, I really wanna know What do you mean? Oh, oh

Congenital means present at birth. You were probably thinking of congestive heart failure. Another genital Freudian slip? Cock on your mind much?

There is no party, other than Russia, with the motive to commit such crimes. If not the FSB, who else would have had the motive to blow up the Museum of Occupation in Riga? Obviously, the FSB has the resources to make tracing of these crimes difficult to impossible. What will you tell us next? That Yevgeny Prigozhin died of natural causes? Putin had nothing to do with it? Every year the number of these "unsolvable crimes" increases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suspicious_deaths_of_notable_Russians_(2022–2024) "...Ravil Maganov, chairman of the national oil company Lukoil, fell from a Kremlin Hospital window under suspicious circumstances, according to reports: CCTV cameras had been "turned off for repairs", President Putin was visiting the hospital the same day, and associates did not believe he was suicidal...". There's even a name for this, Sudden Russian Death Syndrome. 🧟‍♂️ The whole point is that Putin wants to make it clear he's responsible, and will kill anyone of any importance who opposes him. Even you know this.

As for the governors--really, now! I find it difficult to believe that you can't understand that these people cannot say publicly what they're probably telling him privately. Biden is still the candidate, so they cannot be telling everyone Biden can't do the job, or it will be more of a landslide than it will already be if Biden stays in the race but most governors back him. And, obviously, even if Biden were a corpse, even that would be preferable than having the lunatic Trump in the oval office. At this point, it's clear Biden can't win the race. Michelle Obama clearly polls better than Trump, and what should be important is the good of the country, not the personal feelings of Biden. The fact that Biden can't understand this is all the more evidence of cognitive loss. The fact that even some Democrats have put this forward speaks to this truth.

The policy hides the truly malicious item as #9/10, lumping it in with a bunch of other items with which everyone would agree. Obviously, action must be taken against verbally or physically abusive passengers. However, comments about negative experiences on "social media" or "the internet" should not result in adverse action. Negative comments could be taken constructively--to help the airline identify areas for potential improvement. Too bad JAL/ANA don't see it that way.