jayboy

My little humour clearly failed. When I said Thaksin wanted to appear presidential, I didn't intend as in presidential style. The man has no style....though seeing him as 'admirable', to 'be taken seriously' in his little foray does seem to have impressed at least one red apologist. No, what Thaksin is doing is sending a message to his troops by pushing up against the boundaries for the red supporters at the same time as seemingly rising above the fray. Presidents are presidential. The subtext is there. Dog whistle politics. Nothing to do with being diplomatic. Some forum red supporters really are naive.

Your obsessive hatred of Thaksin has, not for the first time, caused you to lose focus and the last part of your post is simply unintelligible even taking into account English seems not to be your first language.I don't recall anybody stating Thaksin personally was admirable.It was his statement under reference that was admirable for reasons that Khun Vorani discussed in his article in the other paper, freely accepting the dubious motivation and hypocrisy involved.I commented that it was a great pity Abhisit had not made such a statement since there is good reason to believe he shares Thaksin's views on this subject (even though he is not innocent of playing political games with LM).

One of the finest activities at a funfair is shooting the row of ducks. Sometimes, once they have all gone down there is a big 'Ping!' noise and then you get the prize of a big fluffy toy. The ping! noise and ducks all in a row when arguing with the red fans is when the magic words 'Your obsessive hatred of Thaksin' comes up. I'll have the pink teddy bear please.

By all means take a fluffy toy.Your rather baffling funfair analogy doesn't however obscure the reality that most of your observations are indeed motivated by a hatred of Thaksin.Any attempt to introduce balance or context just prompts the Pavlovian dog response from you "red apologist".

OK ... I think we have debunked gk's posts, though I am still interested if he can come up with any JP Morgan Thailand scandal from 1999-2004! I think it is a silly attempt to muddy up Korn with unrelated dirt .. but if there is something I would like to know about it!)

There wasn't any scandal under Korn's tenure whether at JF Thanakom Fleming, JP Morgan or Chase.He was an honest and capable a banker as you could find in Thailand.Charm, good breeding and yes, good looks - the traditional public school boy strengths helped but like Cameron there was an impressive brain at work.

However he was operating in a Thai business environment and that means sailing close to the wind.Some of his advisory work involved recommending and implementing corporate structures which were clearly inconsistent with the letter of the law.But everyone was doing it.

I think Korn has huge potential.He is more personable than Abhisit (who isn't?).The only minor problem is his former PAD association which to be fair he has already distanced himself from.He needs to tell his wife to keep her mouth buttoned as well.

The party will recruit MP candidates who are accepted and respected by the silent group.

High caliber individuals like Chalerm's son, Mr. Happy Toilet Wan, and Thaksin's cousin, General Chaiyasit, as well as a half-dozen Red Shirt Terrorist Suspects Out On Bail.

Indeed, quite an impressive set of new recruits the PTP is lining up.

.

For those weary of puerile insults and tired partisan gibes, I suggest an intelligent and perceptive analysis of election prospects may be found in Shawn Crispin's latest piece in Asia Times

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/MD13Ae01.html

Strange, I didn't find Yoshiwara's post unintelligible in the least. I also didn't see any reason for the ad hominem attack on his use of English. What he said was quite clear.

It seems your Latin needs brushing up since you don't seem to understand apparently what is an ad hominem attack.

If the disjointed and obscure post under reference is clear to you well done.Don't bother to explain it however.

My little humour clearly failed. When I said Thaksin wanted to appear presidential, I didn't intend as in presidential style. The man has no style....though seeing him as 'admirable', to 'be taken seriously' in his little foray does seem to have impressed at least one red apologist. No, what Thaksin is doing is sending a message to his troops by pushing up against the boundaries for the red supporters at the same time as seemingly rising above the fray. Presidents are presidential. The subtext is there. Dog whistle politics. Nothing to do with being diplomatic. Some forum red supporters really are naive.

Your obsessive hatred of Thaksin has, not for the first time, caused you to lose focus and the last part of your post is simply unintelligible even taking into account English seems not to be your first language.I don't recall anybody stating Thaksin personally was admirable.It was his statement under reference that was admirable for reasons that Khun Vorani discussed in his article in the other paper, freely accepting the dubious motivation and hypocrisy involved.I commented that it was a great pity Abhisit had not made such a statement since there is good reason to believe he shares Thaksin's views on this subject (even though he is not innocent of playing political games with LM).

True but the statement itself is admirable and to the point.Of course one has to be cynical given its source but in this instance Thaksin is completely correct, not as Vorani points out that he is likely to agree with him on much else.

But for the fairminded (and I include you in this category) just think how much better if someone other politician had made this point, say Abhisit.But he didn't and once again Thaksin capitalises on the weakness of other politicians to achieve the moral high ground

No. The statement is not admirable when coming from Thaksin. It should be seen for what it is.

If it came from Abhisit, would you be saying the same thing? Even though Abhisit isn't the one putting forward charges of LM against anyone, you would still be the first one saying how two faced it was.

I agree with the statement. I don't agree with the way LM laws are used. But, coming from Thaksin, it's a two faced political statement.

But the point is it didn't come from Abhisit (I wish it had, and from what you say you clearly have no idea of what my reaction would have been), it came from Thaksin.Of course his motivation is highly suspect, but the content of the statement is admirable.Suggest anyone interested should read Vorani's article.

In the other paper today that most intelligent and perceptive commentator, Vorani Vanijaka, covers this issue.Your criticism of Thaksin while reasonable is I think a bit wide of the mark.His statement was in fact (pause for the usual suspects to choke on their own vomit)... admirable and should be taken seriously by all sides.Of course he has ulterior motives - which politician doesn't but if he wants to appear presidential (ie unbiased and above the fray) that is surely a good thing.The more telling criticism is that Thaksin was as bad as any other scummy politician in throwing LM charges around left, right and centre when he was in power.

Vorani's main point is that abuse of LM by politicians is the ultimate form of disrespect, and should be punished accordingly.At the moment there are no consequences for abuse of the law.

While it would be good if politicians, and non-politicians, stopped abusing (and even using) the LM laws, a statement like that coming from Thaksin is a bit hard to take at face value.

True but the statement itself is admirable and to the point.Of course one has to be cynical given its source but in this instance Thaksin is completely correct, not as Vorani points out that he is likely to agree with him on much else.

But for the fairminded (and I include you in this category) just think how much better if someone other politician had made this point, say Abhisit.But he didn't and once again Thaksin capitalises on the weakness of other politicians to achieve the moral high ground

Thaksin, in a Twitter message on Thursday, urged all sides to stop exploiting the monarchy for their own benefit by levelling lese majeste charges at each other.

Hello Pot.

By making an accusation against both sides he aims to achieve one important, very important objective. What might that be? He wants to appear presidential. A dishonest clown down to his boots.

In the other paper today that most intelligent and perceptive commentator, Vorani Vanijaka, covers this issue.Your criticism of Thaksin while reasonable is I think a bit wide of the mark.His statement was in fact (pause for the usual suspects to choke on their own vomit)... admirable and should be taken seriously by all sides.Of course he has ulterior motives - which politician doesn't but if he wants to appear presidential (ie unbiased and above the fray) that is surely a good thing.The more telling criticism is that Thaksin was as bad as any other scummy politician in throwing LM charges around left, right and centre when he was in power.

Vorani's main point is that abuse of LM by politicians is the ultimate form of disrespect, and should be punished accordingly.At the moment there are no consequences for abuse of the law.

In any case, Thaksin or anyone else, wikileaks is not damning evidence. It is a leaked cable of someone interpreting or commenting on something that might have happened. It might confirm in some peoples minds, but it is irrelevant in a court of law.

OK that's it.If you can't grasp my point I don't see a simpler way of putting it (and I'm getting bored with repeating it!)

How many times must I say I agree with you about court of law evidence.However that's not the true significance of Wikileaks whether in Thailand or elsewhere.

On a point of detail, you are completely incorrect to suggest that Wikileaks are "leaked cables of someone interpreting or commenting on something that might have happened".In most cases they are an Ambassador's reports of conversations he had directly with the people involved.

It depends what question one is asking.If the question is "will the evidence be accepted by a Thai court", the answer is almost certainly not.On that there is universal agreement I think.

However to say the truth isn't the point begs some difficult questions.One gets the impression that there are some who will twist and turn like banshees rather than face up to awkward facts.Still it doesn't much matter.We will all have to face up to reality soon enough.

Whether we believe they said it is irrelevant. Whatever "it" is.

It's whether it can be proven in court that is the point. And, it's hearsay. The guys will deny that they said it. The ambassador won't confirm or deny it.

It's hard going sometimes but the point is a fairly simple one to grasp.

The position regarding LM evidence in a Thai court is clear enough.

But because of Wikileaks the world at large knows the score now.The details are widely discussed among Thais etc etc etc .... this has nothing to do with any court or what it is prepared to accept as evidence.It's a sideshow along with the ridiculous Redshirt charges.You can pretend Wikileaks is just hearsay but the truth is what it is.Even the pretence that Wikileaks has nothing to do with the real world is clearly wrong: for the example the American Ambassador to Mexico has had to resign precisely because of the public airing of what he reported.

If Wikileaks had damning evidence against Thaksin I suspect the gauleiters would be singing a different tune.Actually it may yet:there is much more to come from Wikileaks on Thailand

Heaven knows what the above is all about other than dodging the issue, which is the likely truth of the Wikileaks reports (specifically that these are uncensored reports from American Embassies to the State Department which were meant to have been kept secret).On that I don't suppose we will ever get an honest opinion - just the flapping around we see above.

The truth, or otherwise, of the cable isn't really the point. The point is the likely hood of it being accepted as true by a court.

And we all seem to agree that it wouldn't be.

It depends what question one is asking.If the question is "will the evidence be accepted by a Thai court", the answer is almost certainly not.On that there is universal agreement I think.

However to say the truth isn't the point begs some difficult questions.One gets the impression that there are some who will twist and turn like banshees rather than face up to awkward facts.Still it doesn't much matter.We will all have to face up to reality soon enough.

Congrats for going straight back to the ad hominems! You seem to do this every time someone contradicts you (holds any view contrary to yours).

Common Sense:

unfortunately, there simply isn't a common-sense answer for many questions. In politics, for example, there are a lot of issues where people disagree. Each side thinks that their answer is common sense. Clearly, some of these people are wrong.The reason they are wrong is because common sense depends on the context, knowledge and experience of the observer. That is why instruction manuals will often have paragraphs like these:

When boating, use common sense. Have one life preserver for each person in the boat.

When towing a water skier, use common sense. Have one person watching the skier at all times.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#familiarity

The appeal to "common sense" particularly in politics -- yet another fallacious argument

Heaven knows what the above is all about other than dodging the issue, which is the likely truth of the Wikileaks reports (specifically that these are uncensored reports from American Embassies to the State Department which were meant to have been kept secret).On that I don't suppose we will ever get an honest opinion - just the flapping around we see above.

I wasn't privy (pun intended) to the discussion. I can't make the argument for or against it being true and neither can anyone else that wasn't there, and using a fallacious argument to try to get around that fact just doesn't work. You conceded my understanding of the US's official stance of wikileaks, but continue to use the argument? I don't get it.

Good on you for deleting a single ad hominem attack! (btw -- in case people don't know it, an ad hominem attack is yet another form of fallacious argument. If you can't debate the point raised, just attack the poster to deflect!)

BTW -- another fallacious argument is "because it is plausible it must be true."

I deleted the university remark because it seemed excessive and a bit rude.I remain a bit puzzled about your thought processes.Perhaps it's just a question of an untrained mind as the stuffier Cambridge dons used to say.

On the key issue you continue to flap around.Nobody with an ounce of intelligence or common sense is fooled.

Honestly I'm trying to be polite but I just don't get your point here? Which university did you say you went to? Do you understand what a prescriptive definition means?

"Which university did you say you went to?" LOL I absolutely love it when you take offense to being contradicted and go "personal" yet again

Fair enough -- I shouldn't have used quotation marks even though it didn't change the meaning of this .....

Why? Because even the State Department doesn't bother to deny these are the true and uncensored reports of senior Embassy officials, usually the Ambassador, to Washington.

Which by very nature is a fallacious argument (strawman, wishful thinking, whatever )

I deleted the university comment.

Question remains do you believe the Thailand wikileaks reflect the truth or not.Up to now you are just flapping around.

Laughable.

That was exactly my point that you made.

I made no remark regarding the truthfulness of wikileak, only the legality of it as evidence in a court case versus first hand videotape evidence in the case against Jatuporn.

Thanks for reiterating my point but no thanks for the, as said, completely unnecessary personal slight in your previous post and dragging out unnecessarily into a bickering session.... again.

.

So ignoring your usual personal abuse,, it seems we agree.That's a good thing isn't it?

So, it's a weak point, but you believe that the courts wouldn't accept the evidence of the cables, and you believe that they would accept the evidence of the video. So, it appears to me that you're agreeing with this weak point.

Doesn't follow.You have correctly identified what the Thai courts will accept as evidence.I was talking about the likely truth of the Wikileaks, specifically the overwhelming probability it is all true.So we are talking about different things.

But your argument as to the truth of wikileaks is built upon a strawman argument. "They don't even bother to deny them so they must be true", basically you have been caught out in a fallacious argument and are trying to doctor your replies now to attempt to match your statements (to jing?) earlier, imho.

Honestly I'm trying to be polite but I just don't get your point here? Do you understand what a prescriptive definition means?

The phrase you quote is yours not mine.What are you trying to deny here?

So, it's a weak point, but you believe that the courts wouldn't accept the evidence of the cables, and you believe that they would accept the evidence of the video. So, it appears to me that you're agreeing with this weak point.

Doesn't follow.You have correctly identified what the Thai courts will accept as evidence.I was talking about the likely truth of the Wikileaks, specifically the overwhelming probability it is all true.So we are talking about different things.

What might or might not have been said face to face with someone in private,

and then relayed and then exposed illegally as being said, is not necessarily a ilegal statement.

This is a huge stretch to say Prem did LM because what he said in private is allegedly repeated by others.

He did not say anything in public, and he is the 1st advisor to the monarchy as head of the privy council.

It is als a huge stretch to acuse him of LM.... the reds just hate his guts so they throw out the accusation.

That Jatuporn and his other two musketeers have JUST said things in public,

and ALREADY they are being charged speaks volumes about how over the top they MUST have gone at this rally for such a fast incrimination..

I agree most of this (though your last sentence is just conjecture on your part)

It would be absurd to charge Prem with LM, though absurd charges have been made against others in the past (eg Jonathan Head)

The law has become abused by charletans.That's why Abhisit wants to reform it.

Once again you completely unnecessarily attack the poster .

My only point is that in one case the evidence is second-hand and in the other case it is first-hand.

It was a very weak point for reasons I have already explained.

For Whybother, no and yes to your respective questions

jdinasia, you are right but not sure how this adds to the discussion.

Summary:lots of points to be made here and nobody has the monopoly of wisdom, but it would be very hard to demonstrate (actually impossible) that the Wikileaks aren't genuine uncensored despatches to the State Department.One can argue whether they are accurate or not but given the source one must give the benefit of doubt to the Ambassadors concerned.

Not just a Thailand issue of course.

Interesting additional information on Jatuporn and Vichien and Suporn lese majeste charges in the other paper today.

Also, regarding Jatuporn's threats to charge Prem, it's worthy to note this seems based on second-hand hearsay evidence in the form of wikileaks whereas the charges against Jatuporn are first hand video and audio evidence of his public speech.

You have made a study of the first hand video and audio evidence? Pray enlighten us

As for the second sentence you are talking nonsense.It is in the nature of the Wikileaks that they are as reliable sources of evidence as any available.Why? Because even the State Department doesn't bother to deny these are the true and uncensored reports of senior Embassy officials, usually the Ambassador, to Washington.You can call the American Ambassador a liar or a fool but most people would say that seems unlikely.

Once again awkward facts don't compute for you. so you rubbish the source (in this instance highly reliable).

It also avoids that rather than "seeking background from all sides", the PIC website utilizes Thaksin's Offspring Voice TV almost exclusively.

His earlier point was simply a rush to smear posters witout even bothering to assess the overwhelming reliance of the PIC to push Voice TV's agenda. And of course we've seen that time and time again from jayboy's own intellectual laziness.

Actually I was making a general point.

Sure doesn't read that way as it seems quite individualized.

So, rather than smear posters, why not address the points yourself?

Well you will have to take my word for it.

As for the second sentence, this is the advice I have been giving you for weeks.

It seems that just like in politics a single fact can be interpreted in many ways, the ranking of Universities is similar:

http://www.webometrics.info/top12000.asp

http://www.topuniversities.com/university-rankings/world-university-rankings

All seem to agree on at least one thing: Cambridge scores better than Oxford

Well it's a superior sort of place (coughs modestly)

But seriously you should check out the methodology used in these surveys.The one used by Animatic (4icu world University Ranking) is a complete joke, based on web hits!!

I believe the FT survey is pretty reliable.

And of course we've seen that time and time again from jayboy's own intellectual laziness.

Actually I was making a general point.As usual you ignore the content and smear the messenger.

For those more interested in intelligent analysis see Shawn Crispin's latest piece on the forthcoming from the Asia Times

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/MD13Ae01.html

Yes Abhisit went to the best and got his bachelors (converted to Masters) and that is impressive as well

I wonder whether you are aware of what converting to a Masters means in an Oxford context? Precisely nothing - wait a few years and pay a small fee.

Red posters like to highlight the academic achievements of the people they support, but is it really that impressive getting a Masters and MBA from a lowly ranked university? I thought it would be fairly common.

I imagine Kentucky State is a crap university and I would expect Kentucky University to be pretty shoddy as well.The best US universities (say the top 100) are among the best in the world.The rest are a mixed bunch, some downright dreadful.

Who cares what forum red posters (that unrepresentative body of blue collar foreigners) think about academic achievement any more than what forum foreign defenders - mostly blue collar as well - of the elite think (mostly ex warrant officers with submarine experience it seems).99% have come no nearer to an elite university than the truck drivers on the Oxford ring road, or a pizza delivery boy dropping off an Italian Spicy in Harvard Yard.

As a working class movement in a country which has yet to develop a meaningful university education system for most of its citizens, it's not surprising that the Red leadership on the whole lacks formal tertiary educational qualifications.The same was true of the British Labour Party before the working classes had reasonable access to university education.The ruling party here mainly the Democrats represent the middle and upper class, and not surprisingly are better educated - some like Abhisit and Korn with world class universities behind them.I'm a bit surprised there aren't more from top tier institutions.Perhaps there are:I don't really know.What I do know is that most Thai M.P's though graduates are of a fairly low calibre, mostly low grade US schools - though Kentucky State is probably towards the bottom of that rather unimpressive pile.