DocN

Oh, I guess all the champions of justice, freedom and democracy, who are flocking out to throw tantrums, when one man's name is mentioned, will totally accept the ruling of an international court and drive back those, who are against this kind of justice and these nationalistic, backward thinking enemies of justice will be chased back to the holes, they crawled out of, right? Right?

>crickets<

I highly doubt, these are travel warnings. There is a (judicial) difference between a travel advice and a a travel warning.

With "nothing" happening at the moment, those might be travel advice.

These are your CHILDREN, &lt;deleted&gt;! Thailand-oh-we-love-our-family-traditions-so-much-my @$$!

People can bash them all they want, but I will give them props for trying to make things safer

Seat belts never used to be mandatory when and where I grew up ... but slowly that all changed

This kind of massive change will take time .. but this is the starting point

Is throwing a pig into the air and waiting for it, to grow wings, a starting point, too?

yeah right.....and who is going to follow up and enforce this???

I am appalled by the fact that it took (insert number) accidents with (insert number) casualties in the last (insert number) months, for the Thai Transportminister to wake up...

Doctors, health workers join nationwide amnesty protest

My goodness, haven't these people heard that PTP won the election? Don't they know that PTP can do as they please, that they can "rule eternally". Completely destroying the rule of law for one person, bankrupting the country to keep their voters onside and taxing the rest into oblivion is surely no cause for protest.

At the official counting of the votes the PTP had less then 50% of the votes.

As such, they are not able to do as they please.

Because of the Thai system, the PTP received the majority of the seats in the house.

As such, they still are not able to do as they please.

As a democratic party, in a democratic country, the government is beholden to govern for all the people.

Yes, "these people" heard that the PTP "won" the election.

That does not take away their right to protest, although PTP would like to repress all protest.

Why is the protest growing?

Because PTP is misusing their power.

I presume I do not have to serve you examples?

I think you might find that ramrod711 was playing the jester.

Doesn't matter!

Some people are like Pawlov's dogs and start drooling and barking whenever they hear "PTP", "Yingluck" or "Thaksin"...

Yeah...I get it!

Again: who cares?

How can anyone ever proof to anyone else, that Starbucks WILLINGLY let this guy off the hook?

Did any Starbucks-customer complained to Starbucks- headquarter, that somewhere in the jungle of a 3rd world country a certain Somchai Watchingporn is pushing a cart, crowned by a logo, that in some way resembles the original Starbucks logo?

Or was it rather some overactive Starbucks- employee who wanted to be important for 5 minutes and reported to his boss, that he spotted something, that will bring down the empire?

They could just have turned a blind eye and let him go, pretended not to notice- problem solved!

And when some REALLY starts copy-catting...sue that guy!

PERSPECTIVE!

Recently went to "Maggie Choo's" in the "basement" of the Novotel Fenix Silom.

To quote my friend:" This is awwwwwwwwwwwwwesome!"

Still: they sue a push-cart- vendor! Get real, folks! Get some perspective! ...or show me the armada of original Starbucks- push carts....

Let's just say that they follow your failed logic and ignore bunghole boy and his stealing of their logo. And when the next fourteen coffee carts start sporting the Starbucks logo? Then one coffee shop, then five shops, and then when Starbucks finally does go into a courtroom it will be "Well, you let all these other people use your logo!" Starbucks does not just have a legal right to protect their property (logo), they have a responsibility to do so. I strongly suspect that the legal and marketing people at the Starbucks company have substantially more expertise in this than you or I do. Starbucks has to protect it's company's logo.

BM Rametindallas explained it very well in the one of the other Starbucks thread.

If Starbucks knowingly lets one person violate their trademark, then they have to let anyone violate their trademark. Once the precedent has been set, (that you don't care who uses your trademark) then any large company can come in and do what the small offender did and there would be nothing Starbucks could do about it. You can't have selective enforcement. It is costing Starbucks much more in legal fees and bad publicity that even ten pushcarts like Mr. Bung runs but they have to protect their trademark or lose all rights to it. I don't know why this is so difficult to understand.

Another point would be, why does it make a difference if the thief is small time or big time; you have still been robbed. Let me personalize it for you. Would it make a difference to you and your family if a poor thief with six children to feed robbed your house or a gang of professional thieves robbed your house? You suffer a loss in both cases. With your logic, you would let the poor thief off with no punishment (and even allow him to reoffend) and prosecute the professional gang. What would your family (stockholders), that your are responsible to, say about your generous spirit?

<snip> ...trademark violation is much more damaging to a company to ignore, than copyright violations. Why do you think Starbucks is spending so much money on these two 'little' guys? Why do you think they are willing to accept so much bad publicity. It is because they HAVE to. They have spent millions building their trademark and have stockholders' investments to protect. It would be corporate malfeasance to not protect their trademark.Here's the difference. If copyright violators are not prosecuted, the owner of the copyrighted material is only out money but if trademark violation is not prosecuted (knowingly allowed), the owner of the trademark loses control of the trademark and everyone is legally free to use it. Everyone could then open any coffee shop and legally call it Starbucks and use the exact Starbucks logo. <snip>

The keyword still is "perspective".

If someone opens a SHOP, with chairs and muffins and plasters it with a copy-cat starbucks- logo....fine!

Sue his @$$ off!

Push carts?

Seriously?

Maybe they get nice photo- opportunities, soon....

Still: they sue a push-cart- vendor!

Get real, folks!

Get some perspective!

...or show me the armada of original Starbucks- push carts....

Brown people want to be white. White people want to brown. Same same.

Not at all the same and doesn't get more right by repeating this non-sense!

White people want to be TANNED, because it is a fashion statement or (at the max) they think it looks nice and healthy!

Thais (Asians) want to be white, because it is a question of social status!

Not at all the same!

As much as I think, they are right to stop this insane bill...where are all of them, when politicians of all colors fxxx over the country on a daily basis, when corruption is rife (oh yeah...68% like it, if it benefits themselves!), when they hang the poor and let the rich and connected go scott- free...and...and...and...

...some more Hitler- murals?

How do you know what the students are thinking? Perhaps student's choose a symbol that represents one of the most horrid regimes in history to express their dissatisfaction with society. It's called "anger". It does get attention, ask Sid Vicious when you meet him. Moreover, don't they have the right to be a Nazi if they want to? Are you going to deny them this right because of what you perceive to be politically or morally incorrect?

There are plenty of Christians out there ready to "dam_n you to Hell" for shagging a bar girl or drinking too much. There are fanatical Muslims that are willing to die with a suicide bomb to take you out and believe that will be blessed by God for doing such.

How can you be right is my question?

Do you know, what I was talking about?

Even better: do you know, what YOU are talking about?

...some more Hitler- murals?

It somehow always worries me, when the Army- chief is worried....

Let them go!

If they can not accept an international court ruling, because they are so dam special...let them get a special @$$- kicking!

You simply should not become a nurse, if your willingness to help the sick or wounded is dictated by your political believes.

Period!

Ah!, so they realize that things are not going to go their way,

they had their chance many years ago to fight the ruling and

I don't think they bothered to turn up.

Some of them act like children if they cannot get what they want.

regards Worgeordie

Many years ago at the original ruling, Thailand had politicial troubles inside and could not do anything.

Than for decades Cambodia and Thailand were happy to govern the area together and avoid any conflict by calling it "overlapping" area.

Than Thaksin made his shady deal with Hun Sen for his island resort in Cambodia in exchange for the temple land, that causes the Nationalists on both sides to wake up.

I should have known Thaksin would have been behind it! Don't you obsessives ever give up. During those decades that conflict was avoided did they include the two and a bit years when Abhisit was PM? No, now what do you think caused conflict with the RTA lobbing cluster shells over the border. Couldn't possibly be abhisit and co trying to cosy up to the nationalist nutters aka the old PAD, oh no, surely not.

If your demagogue was here and not in Dubai, just imagine how he and his crony Hun could work it all out under the table, and then lie to the public and make it all go away.

Which -of course- would be much, much worse than just going into Cambodia and insisting, the borders are illegal or ...let's say...outright war, now wouldn't it!

Oh why do I even bother...

To quote King Aragorn from The Lord of the Rings: You are Thais- you bow to no one!

...oh wait...that was the Hobbits, they did something admirable and it was a fantasy- movie!