Riobard

The main distinction seems to be Visitor versus Temporary, with over a dozen subcategories across the two. In this case, the remote work seems feasible within several categories because not associated with a Brazilian institution. A central question would be length of stay per entry. The e-visa is Visitor category and mandatory but seems might be more limited in stay duration allowances and total annualized days allowed. Thus, choice of type may be worth exploring by the candidate depending on anticipated preferences that may emerge, covering a specific set of circumstances and bypassing the need to later transition between visa formats.

Since the contingency of an eventual segue from a 1-month visit to longer durations is now included in the mix (what do I know? and how can I know your entry privileges in the absence of context?), not remote, I recommend deep-diving into the implications and relative merits of acquiring a consular visa versus the recently reinstated e-visa requirement. It may be worth pursuing a consular visa up front. If a foreign national that is subject to visa necessity and is granted the e-visa 5 or 10 years (these are linked irreversibly to passport), and if a consular visa is possibly later preferable in terms of privileges conferred (eg, visit durations etc), you may get more assiduously grilled if desiring to later supplant the e-visa with said consular visa. Throwing good money after bad may raise eyebrows. AFAIK, Americans in either visa category acquire 10 years, Australians and Canadians 5 years. Compare the number of annual days allowed, the start and endpoint number of days allowed per entry, and extension contingencies that may involve local federal police authorizations, etc. That said, there are likely far better candidates than me to weigh in on this aspect, based on their own experience. Otherwise, more sunblock?

OP indicates a month, one month (!), a duration matched, exceeded, and plunged into by most posters on this board that travel to Brazil irrespective of other obligations when there. Therefore, in what way does remote employment status uniquely enter into how to plan the playbook, other than structuring time and activity in a particular way and protecting company gear from out-calls? Or just do this:

Maybe there are braille formats of the aforementioned brochures.

The ones I follow have an “X” symbol and the content sure reflects that rating grade. I especially like the ones where my historical in-person choreography with them generally replicates that of the majority of their clip scenes. Although much more external prophylaxis.

Maps be keeping nosy neighbours running in circles and in the dark. LOL.

Meanwhile the GSK investigational gonorrhoea vaccine study is recruiting in Brazil, among several other global locations.

The biggest and alarming incidence escalation is in congenital syphilis, therefore the increase is considerably disproportionate among women of childbearing age. That skew alone reveals little in terms of MSM rate trends and their reproductive crossover. In terms of gonococcal infection prophylaxis research the Meningococcal Group B vaccine (Bexsero) placebo-control trial underway, with results still a few years off, now has recruitment in 2 Bangkok locations.

No. Counterintuitively, it’s where #88 would be situated. Eleven 8-inchers yields 88, or eight 11-inchers what have you … don’t ask. Street probably still runs north to the 2-way Joana Angelica, so if the driver missed the cue and did not take you that way, you can hop out at the corner of Joana Angelica and walk a few steps south.

For what it’s worth to the nickel-and-dime-&-garment-choreography oriented brigade, Dre (above) is a sweet, intelligent, articulate Ghanaian, age late 20s, with whom I connected thru a different channel and met at my Silom area hotel I had reserved exclusively for play dates for a month as separate from my self-cater lodgings elsewhere. Without the Apollo handle with the same name he used with me in person, following a more typical but vague online yet not explicitly “MB” pseudonym, I would unlikely have made the connection with this thread’s recent post. I have more pics as well as (ahem) unreleasable contact info. Just a few days ago erased our text chat. I had pretty much ruled out spa outings ahead of time following months-long appraisal of various photo lineup spreads etc. I did modestly tip the Arena floor captain plunked on his chair in the outdoor mall perimeter outside the venue’s entrance, for him to scroll thru the 3 dozen current roster fellows to make sure FOMO would not follow my immediately snubbing the place. There were lots more options more appealing to me, including predominantly SEA indigenous, and I preferred to bypass deeper in-person hunt strategies among the vast array of spas in order to conserve time for more conventional travel activities and a local trainer not at all hard on the eyes. In other words, any frenetic unipolar hypomanic tendencies that emerged betwixt and between jet lag-induced power naps were geared to asexual on-and-off the beaten track sights and food-seeking. In retrospect, I cannot imagine having struck a more optimal balance that worked for me. BTW, I ❤️ shameless Macaroni’s not too cheesy blog articles, so Mac I take the liberty of sticking a feather in your cap.

Shillelagh one would guess one numb Irish fella’s game murder weapon as: diminutive Colonel Trout sourced verbal diarrhea blasting from his bowel ? In the Irish country manor loo but really everywhere when it come down to it? Which make his posts aiming for last word, erm, a tiresome trial ?

Rude. Clueless. Disingenuous. I did get it right.

What answer? I copied a report made to admin in order that members be aware of the misanthropic antics of others. There was no query? I asked no question other than a line of inquiry directed at the moderators. Let’s just speedily enter these here his Éire lordship’s Belfast posts in the Blarney Baloney pageant inn’t. FullSizeRender.MOV

How exactly is that assertion manifested ? Harmless yet dried out water bombs of comments such as yours do nothing worth raising one‘s head from the Inisherin pint for.

My expectations, to be clear, as written threats have been made here regarding sharing my government issued identity, or any version of my actual identity, for that matter, are that I forbid it. This is on the record here, but naturally limited in direct targeted messaging by the degree to which I am privy to any information regarding most members other than Board pseudonyms. I do not expect that my identity would be appropriated by another, ie, somebody would masquerade as me, but obviously that is similarly prohibited. What mystifies me is how a member would extort another member with assertions of possession of said identity and threats of sharing my government identity details without my consent, and do so with impunity on our board. I have not provided this information to any other board member at any time, knowingly or volitionally. I do not consent to any dissemination of such information. At this juncture, what I will do is circle back to my USA academic contacts to apprise them of further developments regarding a previous unfortunate exposure to an individual that may be a person of interest regarding masquerading as a particular class of professional. Such an impersonation, if substantiated, would not go over very well within medical school settings up here where I have faculty status. I am probably as correct in my assumptions as previously but will be open to being disabused of mistaken suppositions. The possible misappropriation of my government identity puts a new slant on it. As far as I gather there has been no reversal of the hostage aspect of my government ID.

This, the doing lines quip I see in the quote, is classic decompensation meets troll hour meets cluelessness. DM if you like. You seem to be one of the brighter lights on the tree. The post he dropped was big on noise, minuscule on signal in the noise/signal ratio. Having fun yet?

This comment makes no sense. Yes you are stupid in the telling. You would be saying that somebody that responded to HV was projecting. A person may project introjects but not behavioural uptake of drugs. Likely was a projection of self-admiration; that tracks. I believe you are an avid cannabis consumer and project erotic images of youth. You might project cannabis by shot-gunning? I don’t know all the terms. But picking on HV tracks. Perhaps the only young fellas of value are those that pepper your blog agenda. Pompous arbitrary sorting much? I suggest you tamp down the amateurish formulations. I believe your drug use could be exacerbating impulsivity. Hazing him may be a projection of a drug haze; there, run with that in your next post. I’ve closed with a stupid idiom, but you might appropriate it.

A propos of this comment, do keep your vaccination records of any regimen, half, complete, what have you, locked up in a safe. We can see all sizes and backgrounds, young, big, pint-level included, are open targets for bullying.

Unfortunate. Murder is the worst, no doubt. So sad this has to happen as a wake up call to others. You could also attend a sauna and the ultimate outcome might be crossing paths interpersonally with another person where the path leads to threats of blackmail, various degrees of expressed intentional harm. Hypervigilant vetting is the right call at all times in all contexts of the transactional sex agenda.

I have not shared any personal official government-issued identification with any member of the board. It has come to my attention that one or more members of our board has claimed possession of that level of documentation. I have had face-to-face contact with 3 members of the board. I have not ever turned over any ID of this nature. Anybody in possession of my identification or facsimile thereof is holding stolen or misappropriated property. Anybody that has declared such possession is, similarly, in violation of the law. I believe it is termed identification theft. Tread on thin ice at your peril. I add that, formally, I urge anybody in possession of the aforementioned material to assiduously document how they came to be in possession of it, including any contextual factors, in case of a memory lapse going forward. Optionally, direct mail me here if you see fit. I will deal with the ‘peanut gallery’ later as I do not have access to all submitted content while handling the central demands of the bully brigade. My prediction is that it is misguided hostile pejorative ridiculing content from guys not particularly bright in some matters.

Half right half-vaxx. Let’s back this up. The OP never had an issue with your content. Lurking trolls will spread shade at any opening they can get and where the shade lands is usually random and often peculiar. Like the flavour of the week. They may be inclined to misappropriate the true provenance of terms such as ‘ugly American’. Narcissistic scammers within the lurking troll community will declare a vigilante stance over the most droll occurrences, putting forward implausible deniability about MO. In this case we see an open admission from such a narcissist S that his selectively gunning for somebody R was that, via hearsay, a third party, B presumably as B is the most likely candidate (besides T and F the only others possible otherwise, having personally crossed paths with R) didn’t particularly like somebody he eventually crossed paths with, R, with whom a positive exchange over months previously lead to a meet-up for a meal. Historically, S is a bitch on wheels with R and prone to amateurish diagnostic formulation. This is ironic considering R’s status. S openly described legitimizing his insane belligerence by attempting to distance himself from obvious manifestations of narcissism attributed to him. His source B was somehow cloned and evidently a series of mitosis yielded an enormous grouping of persons throwing shade on R. Delusions abound. S also declared personal contact with R in a mutual setting, a contact that never occurred but was fabricated scam-grade in a desperate manipulative attempt to self-justify his pejorative impressions. High-grade manipulative weaponry is the hallmark of a narcissist. S’s ground-bound cape progressively shredded owing to R’s astute grasp of reality, S then misanthropically appropriated the shenanigans of L(J), U, and M, themselves narcissistically inclined, related to their inappropriate cunty assertions that a member on another board and R, here, are the same person. S having done this is reflected to R by a friend as R is not want to view the toxic material of a flagrant narcissist. This sad ungentlemanly behaviour, now reported on two boards and under review, also reeks of implausible deniability and what we see is the representation of a few pathetic jackasses slithering about and a few small-minded minions getting sucked in by them. R doesn’t have a pressing need for allies and interprets lack of open board empathy as reflective of understandable distance stance from conflict, not as cowardice. R has a backchannel support system here and a radius of personal social support. Getting back to B; B, an inveterate scammer himself, would have wondered why R’s demeanour changed when on to the scam. B is not well. R has known and worked with others that impersonate various high-profile professions. An abrupt change in R-B dynamics and desperation by B to maintain his scam seems to be the source of the aspersions cast upon R and that form the basis of S’s narcissistic ammo. My friend tells me that a few out of control maniacs here may have identifying info about R they are open to sharing. Nobody here would consent to it and if being held hostage is not grounds for a ban, what is? These assertions (by S? others?) are, well you get the picture. These last few assumptions are less verifiable because R never openly confronted B and R can only assume that S’s reference to a young person is B. R’s friend described that S has declared a cadre in type and age of members that have labelled R as creepy, unhinged, mentally unwell. B may be sociopathic and an in-person encounter was what flipped the lid off the black box of his fabrications. R has never shared B’s ID or handle. B had staked a claim to a bizarrely vast set of professional credentials and affiliations. R, himself a high profile academic, cannot fathom why B thought R so naïve. B apparently catfishes locals with fraudulent social capital. B is charming on the surface and it is sad that B cannot just be himself. R has no desire to harm B but referencing him is essential in elucidating the well-established history of S’s derogatory and condescending commentary. In some ways, B and S should just get a room. However, two personality disorders fellows would not fly well, inn’t. B and R have a lengthy recorded text history. If B were to have breached boundaries, not surprising for a characterologically unhinged fellow, and as my friend has suggested when reading the thread, the Hiroshima/Nagasaki fallout would be such that the person most likely to brush off the ashes and walk away is R, make no mistake. R has all the goods, has B’s ‘number’. Openly disclosing info about R is forbidden. A written record of slander/libel now exists. A statement of blackmail lives on the board. Guess who is in control. R’e assumptions about B are presumptive and R reserves definitive judgement but Hakim’s Razor is often a solid guiding principle. R has not revealed B’s identity and would wish to be judicious in this regard. However, R would welcome any concrete record of what was said about R behind R’s back, and if in conjunction with ID, that has taken things to a very different level. T and R are friends. F may be somebody that can grow on R, an acquired taste taken in small doses, but runs in many directions. One can take or leave F and he can be inflammatory according to some of his content. R can handle F as F is well, basic, basic and at heart a good guy, maybe? B is out of the picture for years but it appears lives in perpetuity vis-a-vis S’ batch of flimsy slings and arrows. R has no interest in a connection with L(J), U, or M. S is somebody R wouldn’t give the time of day to but S certainly applies for such time and attention relentlessly. S is the most interesting from an academic viewpoint, a scratching post rehearsal for the exigency of how-to manuals related to co-existing among social media trolls. S is not definitively a narcissist and R has described impressions but a formal diagnosis is deferred and is not R’s role or prerogative. It’s just social media Board, and perceptions are, as such, subject to limits. So, scammer is an apt term as put forward by HV. Coke merely a metaphor for insatiable attention-seeking cravings. Coke is corrosive. Don’t drink the coke. R would not drink coke between clinically related expert witness testimony breaks.

Not a significant contribution. I am not frustrated. I deal with pomposity like yours all the time and made a damn good living out of it. I am qualified; you are not. Your job is blogging eroticized images of youth. My background is very much clinical and you are coming across as ultra-amateurish and overly simplistic, formulaic clichéd. Knowing your place would serve you. You are serving DJT incoherence. That makes you soooo easy. This is not a discussion. I’ll let you know if it qualifies as a discussion. You left the discussion earlier and anything more is out of fashion window dressing. This is me dealing with pathetic antipathy, rudeness, and dismissiveness. You own up to nothing, so nothing is of substance as you schoolmarm your path thru this. Your talking down to me is both sad and amusing. My mental health rests on speaking my piece. Get help yourself if you have such a pressing need to be dictatorial. I am not cheap porn fodder for one of your sad Schpielberg fiascos. Go for that SAG, yaz queen. Next?

Barcelona is not near on my event horizon but I will definitely try to follow the events. I think that all factions were pretty much not objecting to the abolitionist model. When you think about it, a small proportion of the community cares a whit, and Spain wouldn’t be a standout by criminalizing. It will take some drilling down to stratify the ideology across party platforms.

I am not looking for further discussion from the broad membership. I have been adequately informed about the existence of posted content on this board and the other MSM board, content that underpins the basis of my protest. Moderators can take it from here. Their Board, their rules. Wear a condom, literally and figuratively. You never knows, do ya. From what I can gather so far, a similar complaint has been brought upstairs over at the other gay forum. There are a few good dependable guys to lean on.