Are Bangkok Bank executives marching in front lines of White rallies?

I expect them, as any other business, to financially support both sides from time to time, depending on prevailing winds, and I expect them to stay away from any public rallies.

So, why are they mentioned in this thread exactly?

Exactly, especially your 2nd para.I don't see why this is controversial at all and (with all due respect to SBK) certainly not defamatory.

Are Bangkok Bank executives marching in front lines of White rallies?

I expect them, as any other business, to financially support both sides from time to time, depending on prevailing winds, and I expect them to stay away from any public rallies.

So, why are they mentioned in this thread exactly?

Exactly, especially your 2nd para.I don't see why this is controversial at all and (with all due respect to SBK) certainly not defamatory.

and as per 3rd paragraph, posted unnecessarily...

I don't know about the legal issues here, but but you can't just say that such and such gave money to do this and that without any evidence.

In case of Bangkok Bank - it's accused of sponsoring what some call "terrorist" attacks, and the poster in question called overthrow of the state.

Well, own up, I say.

The day that non-accountable bloggers, especially ones so loose with the truth as bangkok pundit often is, are considered a "recognized news source", as requested for by Admin, is the day they close down Reuters.

For those not familiar with Bangkok Pundit I should point out that it is not and doesn't claim to be a news source although it has probably the best set of links to news sources available.Unlike some other forums there is no self censorship apart from where respecting Thai law is concerned.Its editorial line is broadly pro-Red and anti-PAD/elite but would probably feel uncomfortable with my simplistic summary.However BP has condemned excesses and foolishness wherever they occur.

PAD zealots hate BP because it encorages full and open discussion,

I don't know about the legal issues here, but but you can't just say that such and such gave money to do this and that without any evidence.

In case of Bangkok Bank - it's accused of sponsoring what some call "terrorist" attacks, and the poster in question called overthrow of the state.

Well, own up, I say.

I did it twice, and corrected my statement to "allegedly".

Now for the third time.

Any more posters with difficulties reading for whom i have to repeat this?

The day that non-accountable bloggers, especially ones so loose with the truth as bangkok pundit often is, are considered a "recognized news source", as requested for by Admin, is the day they close down Reuters.

For those not familiar with Bangkok Pundit I should point out that it is not and doesn't claim to be a news source

< reactionary personal flaming snipped >

I agree bangkok pundit is not a "recognized news source"

Red Shirts/yellow shirts are you listening??

The day that non-accountable bloggers, especially ones so loose with the truth as bangkok pundit often is, are considered a "recognized news source", as requested for by Admin, is the day they close down Reuters.

For those not familiar with Bangkok Pundit I should point out that it is not and doesn't claim to be a news source

< reactionary personal flaming snipped >

I agree bangkok pundit is not a "recognized news source"

Do try and keep up.Nobody ever suggested BP is a news source.But I would be interested to know what you mean by BP being "loose with the truth".Examples please.

If you simply mean you don't agree with the broad editorial line, that's fine - but you shouldn't imply lack of honesty (unless of course you have examples -see above).

If you would me to explain why your use of the word "reactionary" doesn't make much sense in the context you used it, feel free to PM.

Finally, sorry to interrupt your interesting and witty exchange with Tilt.

The day that non-accountable bloggers, especially ones so loose with the truth as bangkok pundit often is, are considered a "recognized news source", as requested for by Admin, is the day they close down Reuters.

For those not familiar with Bangkok Pundit I should point out that it is not and doesn't claim to be a news source

< reactionary personal flaming snipped >

I agree bangkok pundit is not a "recognized news source"

Do try and keep up.Nobody ever suggested BP is a news source.But I would be interested to know what you mean by BP being "loose with the truth".Examples please.

If you simply mean you don't agree with the broad editorial line, that's fine - but you shouldn't imply lack of honesty (unless of course you have examples -see above).

If you would me to explain why your use of the word "reactionary" doesn't make much sense in the context you used it, feel free to PM.

Finally, sorry to interrupt your interesting and witty exchange with Tilt.

Actually, your friend is a bit more amusing. Your moderator-deleted flames preempt your getting a deserving reply.

strange things happen at The Nation, exactly the same article (okay, a few changes in the punctuation) appears today again with a big UPDATED button at the start page at www.nationmultimedia.com

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/05/12...cs_30102434.php

but the name of the author has changed, now it is By Avudh Panananda, Published on May 12, 2009.

a photo is added with the caption Bowornsak, but Bowornsak don't get mentioned in this article.

6th paragraph. It reads, "It also includes officers in the Army who did nothing while senior officers staged the coup, as well as people who collaborat-ed with those who drafted the troubled and anti-democratic junta-sponsored 2007 charter - such as Borwornsak Uwanno, secretary-general of the King Prajadhipok Institute"

With the name change- do you suspect something?

classical example that The Nation is a low quality Newspaper. not reliable and nothing you can trust. this was a big editorial mistake. the link opens now another text, but there is no note about the correction and change. no excuse for the error.

and okay, the name from the caption of the photo is also mentioned in the article, but with a different spelling.

Why isn't anyone discussing the

Rally To Give Peace A Chance?

Rather than railing on and on about their standard pet peaves...

I think "peace" is the wrong word. There isn't any war. There is conflict and this needs to be resolved with open, honest debate and at the ballot box--not at a rally.

This should be the "I don't give a s*hit" rally.

From what I see, Thailand had peace when Khun Thaksin was Prime Minister.

Peace was lost when PAD started to protest, when army made a coup in 2006, when PAD blocked Government House and airports after months of violence and when the party we voted for was dissolved twice.

Who hurts Thailand?

Edited May 12, 200917 yr by Koo82

Actually, your friend is a bit more amusing. Your moderator-deleted flames preempt your getting a deserving reply.

So to sum up you're unable to justify your slur on Bangkok Pundit. I assume that the problem is simply that you dislike its editorial line.Best to say so rather than accuse it of being "loose with the truth"

As to the deletion of part of my post by moderators I'm sorry if I unwittingly caused offence.I didn't think it was a flame but I always accept moderators judgement - as no doubt you do in respect of several of your flames deleted over the last few weeks.

Actually, your friend is a bit more amusing. Your moderator-deleted flames preempt your getting a deserving reply.

I didn't think

We agree again.

Now can you stop the incessant baiting or do you require more moderator intervention?

It's good to remember the thread title... Give Peace A Chance

Edited May 12, 200917 yr by sriracha john

<< deliberately provocative flame snipped>>

It's good to remember the thread title... Give Peace A Chance

Always happy to give peace a chance on my side.