KevinBloodyWilson

I don't like to go into the debate about what is causing global warming, but here just some interesting facts on the melting of large bodies of ice:

1) Greenland; There is a very thick layer of ice on the land, melting it will cause sealevels to rise

2) Northpole; Floating ice, will only produce a very small rise in sealevels (because freshwater ice is floating on saltwater a small level increase will be seen)

3) Southpole; The antarctic peninsula is melting, however this is only a very small part of the whole southpole. There are no indications that the rest of the antarctic area is melting. However, since this is ice on land, it will influence sealevels greatly.

Now for the part where it get interesting for Thailand; First of all sealevels are not level! Large bodies of mass attract water, resulting that the water levels near Greenland and the poles are actually higher than around the equator. If, however these bodies lose mass due to melting, their gravitational pull will get less and the actual rise in sealevel will be seen on parts furthest away from that body. So when Greenland melts, sealevels will significantly go down in North america and Northern Europe, wheres the levels will rise a lot in areas on the Southern hemisphere and around the equator. The same happens if the antarctic melts, again raising sealevels around the equator and in this case the Northern hemisphere. No matter where it melts, Thailand is F#@%ed all the time!

The current scientific data suggests that only Greenland and the Northpole are melting at such a rate that it will cause rising sealevels, meaning that there is no threat of rising sealevels at the Northern hemisphere (due to the gravitational pull), but that the problems will occur around the equator and south of that.

Are you serious? The gravitational pull of Greenland means the water is deeper there? How about Australia? And Asia?

in any event I think you'll find that the gravitational pull of the sun (the same one that makes the Earth apple-shaped and not spherical, will pull the water down to between the tropics. Also that well-known maker of tides, the moon will have an effect though Idon't know where the orbit is for the moon - I should look it up really.

I am not doubting you, but I would love to know where the stuff about Greenland attracting all the water came from because it just doesn't sound right at all. Can you point me to it or are you ((after all) having a laugh?

As a matter of interest, how dangerous are the little ones with the built-in flashlight? Horrible noise and smell of ozone but are they effective in an attack situation I wonder?

Dam things had better work, thats what I got for myself!

Almost scared it might kill the bugger. Ferocious sparky thing.

You're obviously not interested in anything other than trolling and flaming. You haven't countered a point I've raised. You accuse all who disagree with you of childishness and being idiots, without making a single fact to backup your statements.

And out comes the fol-de-ro argument. careful - next youlll call me a nazi and you will automaticall lose under Godwin's rule.

You suddenly appeared on the forum without taking the courtesy of introducing yourself in the new members section,...

Oh I see! You are pissed because I didn't present myself for inspection...

and you have made it clear your thoughts on the intelligence of the very Thai's you laud for voting for Thaksin. Par for the course for the red huggers, I'm afraid.

I'm sorry. I have out-argued you and I understand you are unhappy with it. I apologise for my offence. Tell me where you live and I'll come round and buy you a beer to cry into.

the orginal kevin bloody wilson was much funnier too.

Hey Santa...wheres my fukcing bike?

The full quote was Hey! Santa you <snip>! Where's my f*cking bike.

Not as entertaining as hearing that Thaksin never won an election though...

My personal favourite though is: "My face is leaving town on the next stage, and I want you to be on it..."

note the ...

enough children here that must be protected from the badest of the bad swear words...

Ahhh. Fair play to you.

<snippety>

Just off the top of my head... By their actions shall you know them.

This isn't any ideology the party has, this is your childish attack on them what you think their secret agenda is.

Not the same thing.

Indeed, but the only response in the absence of any ideology at all. Nature abhors a vacuum.

But since you still think Samak was elected while Abhisit wasn't...nothing can really educate you.

:D

Thats right lad, TRT was never elected, Thaksin was never PM, PPP was never elected, Samak was never PM. The Democrats were elected, Abhisit is the choice of the people.

:D

Oh dear... is that snow?

Let me buy you a good-natured pint lad, it looks like you need it.

Neither was voted into position of PM by the people.

Diversion. This is like saying that swine flu doesn't kill anyone, it is pneumonia that kills them. But swine flu causes the pneumonia so the diversion is both irrelevant and transparent. It is - if you will - an accountant statement - technically correct but useless for all purposes other than a fine point of principle. In psychology we recognise this as characteristic of an anal retentive.

Never-the-less, you are entitled to make the anally-retentive fine distinction and I am entitled to draw conclusions from that.

Maybe you need to learn how the electoral process works here too?

Diversion and attempted straw man. I know how the electoral system works just fine thanks, I just don't stake my self-esteem on a pointless splitting of hairs. The point I made was clear enough. Thaksin won elections and Abhisit did not.

Dear oh dear you really are in the most awful trouble with this one arent you?

They where both in the position of PM the same way, as was Samak et al.

Diversion - you know, you really are not very good at this. We all know that the people who voted for TRT and PPP were voting for Thaksin by proxy. Including those who voted for Newin and his friends. The only way Abhisit scrambled his way into the PM's chair was that Newin was offered inducements to change sides by the army, who were believed to have brokered the deal on behalf of Prem.

You do know how, right?

I know a few things, and after your not very-skilled and almost completely off-topic contribution, I now know a few more.

A civil war will only occur if those commanding the various elite groups competing for power and there are more than two want it and allow it. As though they all stand to lose as they all have businesses etc if a live civil war comes along it remains moot unless they really lose control of their underlings. To date the demos even when pumped with a bunch of extra pay for play dudes have only reached a maximum of 100K or so for any side. That is still negligible compared to rallies in similalrly populated couintries and comes nowhere near the 500K Hezbollah turn out at every rally they hold in Beiruit (and provide the high angle access for the media to verify) or the 1 million the BBC estimated turned out for a concert in Havana last weekend. Even some football matches achieve over 100K.

Having said that getting a few tens of thousands on the street and then letting them kick off with improvised weaponry after a few rousing talks sometimes has an effect beyond its size although around Songkhran it failed in Thailand. Maybe next time......

Thailand has a lot of problems over division between rich and poor, regional division, urban-rural division, etc but that doesnt mean a civil war is coming. The recent Asia Foundation survey would suggets the opposite. Even trips into the rural heartlands reveal a lack of outright hatred even if one colour or another is favoured or symathised with. The zealots arent huge in number and the effects of all propaganda are limited. It is easy to find PTP and Dem voters getting along fine especially in villages where people rely on one another and other things often transcend politics. Sure some peole miss Thaksin but then again in some areas people revile him. However, they arent likely to come out fighting from what I see.

From a red perspective Jakrapob probably has it closer to reality in assessing only a long game can do it for them if any game can at all

Myabe if he wants to push it Thaksin should try a Zelaya manouver.Then again that takes some cojones and even red soft analysts doubt he has big enough ones to do that. We will see.

I don't think the numbers we have seen will do the job either. According to some, China is quite keen to resolve the Thailand geo-political anomaly and have been quietly white-anting for a year or two so the numbers may increase, but I think the view of most is that the protests are there to keep the flame burning rather than set Thailand ablaze just yet. Most of the people necessary for the ignition phase of the process will not step up to the plate unless there is a seismic shift in the prevailing circumstances.

What will happen at some stage is a collapse in the Thai morale and psyche, followed by a huge upsurge in resentment and the hatred you rightly say does not exist at the moment. At that point, the long game will become a short game and the man himself will come marching home. Until that time a waiting game is being played with just enough activity to keep the memories fresh and the resentment alive.

I believe you are generally right in what you say, my own experience in the provinces (at least the ones I go to), is that there is quite a lot of anger but not hatred. But I think that will change, though I don't know when. I would have predicted this year for the kick-off but it looks as if I would have been wrong.

But yes, you are right, he doesn't have the cojones for a camp-out in a foreign embassy. If he did it would be interesting.

the connection is obvious both stories involve evil foreigners coming to thailand and committing crime against innocent thai victims.[/qote]

Bastards

I think these guys might be in real trouble, didn't they realise that crime and corruption are reserved occupations

Just didn't do the due diligence. Hard to get the staff these days.

the orginal kevin bloody wilson was much funnier too.

Hey Santa...wheres my fukcing bike?

The full quote was Hey! Santa you <snip>! Where's my f*cking bike.

Not as entertaining as hearing that Thaksin never won an election though...

My personal favourite though is: "My face is leaving town on the next stage, and I want you to be on it..."

And at least he hasn't tried to dress up all the leaders in silly Asian costumes and go for a check-out-me-with-the-big-wigs photo op.

That at least is a considerable relief.

A sight to behold no doubt. I would love a piccy.

Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

This is called dissembling and if you cant do better than this then frankly I am not going to bother with you.

The facts as I understand them are these:

Thaksin's party was elected in 2002. Thaksin was elected PM. In normal conversation, this is called Thaksi winning the election.

Thailand went to the polls in 2006. The Democrats, rightly realising they were going to get a world-class kicking and were unelectable, boycotted the election, which was later declared unconstitutional For shame. before the re-run election, the powers behind the Democrats, rightly realising they were going to get another world-class kicking and were unelectable, engineered a coup.

in 2008, the PPP were elected and Samak was appointed PM.

Now all of this is really easy to understand, like I said, it isnlt rocket science.

So what you can do for me before I completely give up on you is this. How was it that the Democrats (according to you) won the election in the Thai voting system but were not elected? Please explain because this appears to be seriously out of the ball park thinking.

TRT/PPP/Thaksin have been elected by the electorate 3 times. No matter how much you twist, writhe, gyrate and dissemble, The Democrats/Abhisit have not been elected by the electorate.

I honestly didn't think it was going to be this hard. This really is democracy 101 and frankly if you cannot make sense at this level of rationality then you really ought to put in some study and come back later.

I don't know why you bother either, <snip>

Then we are agreed.

You're right. Thaksin never won an election. Abhisit was properly elected by the people. Fairies live at the bottom of my garden and Thailand is an outer province of Antarctica.

I'm sorry, I hope you will forgive me but you just don't seem to understand what everyone else in Thailand already knows. You seem only to want to use Schopenhauer dissembling techniques to get some kind of self-esteem boost and I just don't have the time to engage in silliness. Good luck with it though, doubtless you need the boost.

I am reminded of sage advice from a friend when I was in a similar position to this one. He said "Don't argue with idiots, they bring you down to their level and will win because of greater experience of being idiots".

Say hello from me to Santa Claus and the tooth fairy when you see them next.

"The 2007 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) report suggested that sea levels would rise by between 19 cm (7.5 inches) and 59 cm by the end of this century." (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig11-4.htm)

I guess the guy was very well informed about the reality. Even in the worst case scenario, 59 cm, Thailand would be hardly affected, little enough to justify what the Thai hydrologist said.

Also, who ever suggested that the sea level rise is even in all places? The following link might give you some idea:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NASA_sea...hange_trend.jpg

If sea levels rise 59cm, combined with the slow sinking of the land, the annual flooding in Bangkok will be catastrophic and the place will become virtually uninhabitable.

Exactly right. Bangkok is sinking by about 6cm a year due to draining the aquifer it sits on. And don't get all excited about the proposed 80km sea wall, remember who is going to build it.

I do. At least as much now as then. Nothing has changed for the better.

Apart from since the demise of Thaksin 2500+ innocent people havent been extra-judicially put to the sword remembering that everyone is innocent until proven guilty. It could be argued that is an improvement. Not everything under Thaksin was better whatever perspective. Sometimes in life the choices are equally bad and it is best to look for something better than either rather than to be drawn into a two tainted horses contest. imho.

Yep, you're right, although a few Rohingyans may not agree the situation has improved very much in that regard, and I suspect the red shirts believe they are being treated one way while the yellows can run riot wherever and whenever they choose, with impunity. They are also protected, even if Sondhi has apparently outlived his usefulness (and we haven't heard the last of him just yet ether).

As I said, nothing has changed for the better, Some things have changed but it is only the names and the faces. Everything else is the same same. But not for very much longer I suspect.

Which Junta, you're in the wrong country...

The military junta that created a coup and governed for a year afterwards. Don't you remember that? It was in all the papers

Why Abhisit's A_s ?

Because when I last checked, Abhisit is the current head of government. has something happened today that I donlt know about?

if there are 44 exactly involved.... and all people which belong to the class which is labeled "influential"..

well this verdict will cause many peoples eyebrows to raise - what the deal which was struck?

How about the "private Sector" highflyers like CP were involved in the bidding...

As I said, 40-odd. The deal was struck. if I say what the prevailing belief is in this forum, the post will be deleted - rightly, but we all know what it is. The deal was done, the fix was put in. I believe it, a lot of people out there certainly believe it. You probably don't. Which is OK... we all choose what to believe.

As for CP, right. Have you had a look at the CP shareholder's list? You should do. But the bottom line is this. It was unacceptable that Newin should be convicted. They were all in that same boat and so all of them had to be acquitted. This is the only scenario whch makes any sense at all of what is known.

As for Thaksins odious children, I don't know what will happen (and I don't care much - they are truly awful) - but I suspect a civil war is closer than most people think. Even a Thai-style civil war. The pressure is building.

Thaksin got a huge mandate from actual elections. people voted for Thaksin, So did the government which then had Samak hoisted on them (moron though he was and is). Abhisit just does not have the same legitimacy. What's to understand? The electoral numbers are out there, it isn't exactly rocket science.

Why not try looking at, and understanding, the electoral numbers, or is sub-rocket science not your forte? Thaksin was a list MP for the TRT, so nobody actually voted for him. <snipola>

Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

This is called dissembling and if you cant do better than this then frankly I am not going to bother with you.

The facts as I understand them are these:

Thaksin's party was elected in 2002. Thaksin was elected PM. In normal conversation, this is called Thaksi winning the election.

Thailand went to the polls in 2006. The Democrats, rightly realising they were going to get a world-class kicking and were unelectable, boycotted the election, which was later declared unconstitutional For shame. before the re-run election, the powers behind the Democrats, rightly realising they were going to get another world-class kicking and were unelectable, engineered a coup.

in 2008, the PPP were elected and Samak was appointed PM.

Now all of this is really easy to understand, like I said, it isn't rocket science.

So what you can do for me before I completely give up on you is this. How was it that the Democrats (according to you) won the election in the Thai voting system but were not elected? Please explain because this appears to be seriously out of the ball park thinking.

TRT/PPP/Thaksin have been elected by the electorate 3 times. No matter how much you twist, writhe, gyrate and dissemble, The Democrats/Abhisit have never been elected by the electorate, and in fact (I am not certain about this) I don't think the Democrat party has *ever* been elected by the Thai electorate, they have been appointed a few times and like the Surayud government were a complete joke.. I may be wrong about this I don't have time to check the sources but I think it is the case.

I honestly didn't think it was going to be this hard. This really is democracy 101, it really doesn't get any more basic than this, and frankly if you cannot make sense at this level of rationality then you really ought to put in some study and come back later.

Me and Mr sabai just had a pleasant morning row about something really pathetic. It was all to do with bikes and him taking me to work, and basically him having a conversation with his mum that he didn't tell me about. It was really small, but my opinion was that if he had explained to me what was going on at the time we could have worked out a solution, instead he just came up with his own idea, which I thought was wrong, and we had no time to resolve it, so we both got annoyed and had a fight (which I really hate doing before 9am!).

This is one of the main reasons we fight actually, and I want to see how many other relationships have this this problem, and whether it is usually the man or the woman that complains of it. The problem is that he does not mean to piss me off, he just doesn't think to tell me about something, not realising that I have already got my own plans. So then when I get annoyed, he too gets anoyed thinking I am overreacting, when my point is that if he had told me what was going on in the first place, and not just gone ahead and made his own plan, then I wouldn't have got annoyed. Does that make any sense?

Am I overreacting? Am I being a control freak? Is it part of him being a man, that he needs to make these decisions without me? Can he just not see that I wouldn't get annoyed if he had just opened his mouth in the first place? I think when I try and talk to him about it, he feels like I am not letting him make any decisions on his own...but this is not what I mean. I just want to avoid arguing about petty things, and instead discuss them beforehand to avoid an argument.

I have found that a lot of Thais make more assumptions than westerners. They assume you know what they know, think what they think and see what they see. This explains the driving and the failure to inform among other things. Of course sometimes it is just that they don't think, or they assume it isn't important and therefore don't bother. No point explaining, they have some rather large blind spots. Being told they are wrong is probably the biggest one - doesn't compute at all.

Is a "WARRANT" the exact term to ask them for? How do you ask for a warrant in Thai?

Not sure, but "ekkasan saan" (court document) should be easy to understand. Otherwise get your lawyer to talk to them before you 'invite' them in.

Not sure if the police need a search warrant here do they? Europe it ain't.

It didn't happen because the Thai govenment have no way of counting the number of unemployed.

Quite right.

Not enough fingers.

Very well written speech. Sounded a bit like a toady at the beginning.

Just some short observations.

But "full respect for the rule of law" ? the lewin case.

" back to normal" i hope he has better ambitions than that

"work for people of all colours on a non discrimanatory basis and we have done just that" no comment needed.

"law enforcement is fair" so he had no problem with his choice of chief then?

when he spoke of more openness i thought he would express his views on free press - but alas no

Or the failure to prosecute the yellow shirts at the airport.

Or the failure to prosecute the yellow shirts at the Cambodian border.

Or the treatment of the Rohingyans

Or the farcical verdict after the Tak Bai massacre.

Or the fact that no blue shorts have been arrested.

This Emperor has no clothes. He doesn't even have a fig leaf to cover what ought to be his overwhelming sense of embarrassment and shame.

Never mind, we'll all sing a nice song together, that'll fix it all up.

The man's an idiot.

I went for the possible factual basis in your posts. Whatever rhetorics you built on those, so far non-existing facts, is of no interest to me and I'm not going to argue those heaps of what I consider garbage.

No, you took the loser option, Question some things and seek to extend them across the whole post. it's a common strategy but not a very credible one.

I WILL change my attitude if you can show that there's some substance in your allegations.

Which 'allegation' shall we start with? The fact that Thaksin was elected and re-elected, then served as caretaker PM after the result was anulled because the democratic democrat party decided it couldn't win so took their ball and went home?

Or the allegation that the descendant part of TRT then went on to win another election?

Or the allegation that Abhisit has no electoral mandate under the Thai voting system which is why he had to wait until the elites kicked another democratically elected PM out before he could get a shot at the top job?

Or that he only did that because the quisling Newin did a deal to profit by shafting his old boss?

Which one shall we deal with first? Which one will you present credible argument against first? You have the floor my friend.

"People voted for Thaksin" - do you mean on proportional list ballots that had party names on them? What other numbers you want us to look at?

I mean Thaksin's PPP party was elected. Here's a clue for you... BEING ELECTED MEANS THEY WON THE ELECTION

As for numbers my friend, well any numbers at all would be nice but so far we haven't had any from you. If you are going to refute something then refute it. So far you haven't, though you have had lots of opportunity. Patience is all very well, but...

By that standard in 2007 elections more people voted for Abhsit than for Samak.

I see. Well if he got more votes than PPP, why did he not get elected then? (this ought to be good). You seem to have some difficulty understanding the democratic principle that they who get the votes get elected, whereas they who don't don't. You seem to be saying (and I assume with a straight face) that Abhisit got more votes and yet didn't get elected...

or perhaps you mean he got more votes on some other country's voting system? In which case, here's another clue: THE VOTING SYSTEM IN THAILAND IS THE ONLY ONE THAT COUNTS IN THAILAND.

Not shouting btw, emphasising. Trying to put things in terms simple enough to be understood. Being helpful.

Korean man arrested for stealing drinking water in Pattaya

PATTAYA: -- A South Korean man described to be drunk was arrested after he was spotted breaking into a grocery store and coming out with a drinking water bottle and two bottles of instant coffee.

The man, identified as Lee Sung Hook, was arrested at 2 am shortly after vendors at the Mae Wilai Market saw him using a stone to break the window of the shop on Central Pattaya Road.

The man claimed that he was hungry.

He was detained at the Pattaya police station pending further investigation.

-- The Nation 2009-09-23

The guy was hungry, so he naturally settled for a bottle of water and 2 jars of coffee?

With that kind of mental processing they'll probably make him an honorary Thai.

The only party with any ideology is the Democrat Party.

Yes, as odious and abhorrent as the ideology is, you are right.

Uh, what?

What exactly is it you think their ideology is?

1. Maintain the status quo

2. Maintain the sakdina

3. Keep the elites elite

4. Keep the troughs full and your snouts and two front trotters in them (same as any Thai government)

5. Clampdown. Clampdown, Clampdown. The nal that stands out must be hammered down

6. Conformity at all costs

7. Give the armed forces whatever they want

8. &lt;deleted&gt; the poor over at every opportunity

9. Maintain the illusion of integrity for the stupid foreigners who donlt understand thailand (same as every Thai government).

10. If it moves, swindle it. if it doesn't move, swindle it.

Just off the top of my head... My their actions shall you know them.

I had a e-mail yesterday reportedly from Paypal. The e-mail looked very authentic and it was asking me to verify my account details. It also said that if I did not respond my account would be suspended. I followed the link... and when it started to ask me for my credit card number and 3 digit code on the rear of my card along with my home address I started to get suspicious. I forwarded a copy to Paypal who informed me this was a scam e-mail and thanked me for my trouble. Just be very careful about e-mails from Paypal and banks I have just heard about another scam e-mail from HSBC bank asking the same to give bank account and credit card details. I know there have been many warnings about these scams, but I have to say the e-mails look so original and the real thing so BE CAREFUL..... Contact your bank if in doubt.... and NEVER give bank account details or credit card details to anyone who send you e-mails. Remember banks or creditcard companies will NEVER send you e-mails asking for such details..

Any email that warns your account is likely to be suspended is probably phishing.

This is nothing, wait another 6 months to a year, when the global depression takes its toll, then you'll see dangerous

it'll be years before any recovery

if it goes that way you will be right, it will be considerably more dangerous.

by the way, a couple of years ago I was chatting with a guy using 'PooyingHunter'. Not you by any chance?

Caveat:as my previous posts show, I am no fan of Thaksin, but I do believe that properly constrained and kept honest, he would be the best thing for Thailand.

So when you made a dog into a cat you consider it a pet for you. Cute, but not applicable to reality here.

*shrug* maybe. But when you neuter an undisciplined dog, it calms down and becomes more compliant. I still think that properly disciplined, he would be the best thing for Thailand, the present shower are not good for anything, that's for sure. While Thailand wasn't perfect under Thaksin by any means, it was still a better place in my opinion.

So I will assume that you arent worried about such things as formal equality in the eyes of the law, innocence until proven guilty, right to trial and dont give much thought to the most basic of human rights ie the right to not be offed because you got on some blacklist.

I do. At least as much now as then. Nothing has changed for the better.