Thaksin 'fears Economic Recovery Will Shut Him Out'

[Publicus]

Awesome!

Any particular reason you seem compelled to repeat this word in every post you make?

If you are trying to be sarcastic, fine, but could you at least vary it up a bit.

ohh, i talked with an other member about the etymological origin of a certain britisch english word. he said it's norse, my position was it is more likley that the norse word in question is just a Cognate.

i wrote also a more abstrac entry and to demonstrate cultural difference in historiography and histories of histories i worte a little bit about the history of historical linguistics studies and the use of different term for the same thing. indo-european languages vs. indo-germanic languages and so on.

but than came the '76 peacecorps and declared everything for BS. after this i just let a tumbleweed roll through the intellectual defoliated steppe.

in an other case i stumbled across the following line: Thai culture and civilization are utterly incapable of producing ... an Obama. posted by a board member.

my reply using the word hubris got deleted. okay hubris is of greek origin an not british english. i ask members of the super team for an advice and what what would be the appropriate choice of words for a reply and their answer was somewhat Zen, oracularly and quickly.

i conclude i should rely more on the optimistic branch of Bokononism.

and i think awesome is a good choice. it has something rabelaisian in it, almost. it is a fell good message. it is awesome. it is also US-american. and the US-american viewpoint, attitude is never wrong at this webforum. the risk of a delete for whatever reason is less.it will be never off topic. if i write more than 3 lines the risk that it goes off-topic is much higher.

so what is your problem with that? other forum characters spend their whole time with posting repetitive and redundant comments since years. 4,5,6 sometimes words and a smiley. knee-jerk reactions. unamusing. the usual.

i still offer a mixture in the style of my comments. that Abhisit is awesome is the mainstream opinion here, so i cheer a lot of people up.

what the H#$$ he say?!?!?!

Who knows what he means to say, but in his Bokononistic way he says the same unintelligible thing each and every time albeit with new and obtuse twists. Bokononians have rather strong views towards educated persons, believing with certainty that most of us actually learned nothing for our efforts and that, further, the more we are educated the more vacuuous we become (see: definition #2 further above). It seems somehow to connect to some sort of intellectual defoliation or perhaps even the draining of one's essence (Dr. Strangelove?) but at this point the water gets too deep for this shallow water swimmer.

Returning to the topic at hand, the reminders above by animatic and jingthing serve to reiterate the point that while some people see the denotation of a word others can and sometimes see only its connotation. Yet others see both a word's dennotation and connotation and determine its intent based on context and other factors such as a knowledge of the forumist and his posts. A reader or listener also can infer a particular meaning from any statement regardless of its intent, any such inferences by the recipient being based on subjective factors such as for example the thread topic.

In any event and for the record, the OP wrote the dennotative meaning of the word and hopes the agitated forumist and his spouse have a pleasant and soothing evening, and that the fugitives Thaksin and his ex do not.

[animatic]

Bokononism....

hmmm I prefer Bookazine-ism, or Amazonism.

Read a lot and understand the world around via comparisons.

In any event I doubt Vonnegut would be amused with that last

semi-comprehensible missive from an purported acolyte of his fantasy world.

Something more clear, from the bard himself:

"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it,

and finds himself no wiser than before. He is full of murderous resentment

of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way."

I wanted all things

To seem to make some sense,

So we could all be happy, yes,

Instead of tense.

And I made up lies

So that they all fit nice,

And I made this sad world

A par-a-dise.

----------------------------

Tiger got to hunt,

Bird got to fly;

Man got to sit and wonder, "Why, why, why?"

Tiger got to sleep,

Bird got to land;

Man got to tell himself he understand.

Foma, foma, oh granfalloon nee stuppa!

wrang-wrang or same-same

In short;

"It is not possible to make a mistake."

So I don't.

Edited November 1, 2009 by animatic

[monkfish]

No, peasant is a perfectly valid word.

peasant

–noun

1. a member of a class of persons, as in Europe, Asia, and Latin America, who are small farmers or farm laborers of low social rank.

I agree the word can be used in a derogatory way, but the word in itself is not derogatory, especially when referring to poor rural farmers. Similar to farang ...

You obviously have no knowledge at all of the "ACTIVE" English language!

[Jingthing]

No, peasant is a perfectly valid word.

peasant

–noun

1. a member of a class of persons, as in Europe, Asia, and Latin America, who are small farmers or farm laborers of low social rank.

I agree the word can be used in a derogatory way, but the word in itself is not derogatory, especially when referring to poor rural farmers. Similar to farang ...

You obviously have no knowledge at all of the "ACTIVE" English language!

Spare us the personal insults. Please make your point about the subject and leave it at that ... So, please explain your point clearly in plain English as it sounds like it may be interesting, if you bother to make it.

Edited November 1, 2009 by Jingthing

[monkfish]

I don't no about the US but if you called anybody a "Peasant" in the UK it would be very insulting.

Is it insulting to call somebody Peasant in the US?

I am interested in culture differences between the US & UK language wise.

Edited November 1, 2009 by monkfish

[Jingthing]

I don't no about the US but if you called anybody a "Peasant" in the UK it would be very insulting.

Is it insulting to call somebody Peasant in the US?

I am interested in culture differences between the US & UK language wise.

Here we are talking about real peasant farmers. In the US, agriculture is controlled by a few huge corporations, so any of the few poor farmers left would not be called peasants. In the US when peasant is used for poor farmers, it is usually considered a more old country European word. In the context here, it was about poor farmers.

Note I never said the word isn't sometimes used as an insult. Interestingly an issue about the word peasant came up in the new Michael Moore movie, Capitalism, A Love Story. In the movie, it is revealed that large corporations like Citibank and Walmark are taking out life insurance policies on their regular workers paying to the company on their deaths. These deaths are called dead PEASANT insurance policies by these corporations. (These workers are worth much more dead than alive to these giant corps.) In this instance the word peasant is rather insulting (more the secondary definition of the word) as these aren't poor farmers but modern urban workers.

http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/frel/1430...rica_to_ignore/

Edited November 1, 2009 by Jingthing

[Publicus]

I don't no about the US but if you called anybody a "Peasant" in the UK it would be very insulting.

Is it insulting to call somebody Peasant in the US?

I am interested in culture differences between the US & UK language wise.

The USA and the UK are advanced economies and societies so yes, the use of the word 'peasant' there and in other such countries would almost invariably be taken as an offense and/or an insult. However, discussion of European peasants in a History class or in any intellectually respectable discussion or discourse would be naturally appropriate and completely in order.

It is in the latter context and pertaining to contemporary (and historical) Thailand that the word peasant is used, actively. One cannot reasonably or respectably juxtapose the radically different uses of the word. That is, the word 'peasant' simply hasn't the same, similar or identical meaning in Thailand and other such countries as it does in the USA or the UK.

In Thailand a 'peasant' is a real person who comprises more than 40% of the country's population. In N America and Europe a peasant is something read about in history books. Actively.

[monkfish]

So the word "Peasant" is insulting in the UK and US where it is spoken as the mother language a but not insulting in Thailand!

I don't get it please explain more I am very interested.

[Jingthing]

So the word "Peasant" is insulting in the UK and US where it is spoken as the mother language a but not insulting in Thailand!

I don't get it please explain more I am very interested.

It has already been explained, as above. Cheers.

[Publicus]

So the word "Peasant" is insulting in the UK and US where it is spoken as the mother language a but not insulting in Thailand!

I don't get it please explain more I am very interested.

Two accurate expositions have been presented immediately above concerning how and why the primary definition of the word applies in Thailand and how and why the secondary definition applies in the advanced countries. Additionally, the word is aired out well in posts which precede yours. Work it out, I'm sure you can.

Meantime, the posts are wandering away from the topic of the thread. Perhaps some wandering concerning the word 'peasant' was desirable or perhaps necessary, but only some. We don't need more.

[monkfish]

So the word "Peasant" is insulting in the UK and US where it is spoken as the mother language a but not insulting in Thailand!

I don't get it please explain more I am very interested.

Two accurate expositions have been presented immediately above concerning how and why the primary definition of the word applies in Thailand and how and why the secondary definition applies in the advanced countries. Additionally, the word is aired out well in posts which precede yours. Work it out, I'm sure you can.

Meantime, the posts are wandering away from the topic of the thread. Perhaps some wandering concerning the word 'peasant' was desirable or perhaps necessary, but only some. We don't need more.

OK no problem just wondering how you guys tick.

and by the way no clear explanation has been given.

Edited November 1, 2009 by monkfish

[peecee]

If you go by the laws on the books, the government IS legitimate.

Pub, I of course see the reasons to be cynical, but making them forget Thaksin is a good idea.

Doing it in ways that help the 'N. & N.E. people' is a good idea ANYWAY,

It is the right thing to do whatever the reasons.

Be nice if they helped the Hill Tribe peoples too.

-----------------------------

Certainly if PTP can't make hay while the economy sucks,

they will have to eat rocks when it picks up, and it 'looks' like the Dems are doing it.

Thaksin is still taking cxredit for having full coffers to 'stroke' the folks up north,

and the Dems currently don't have that luxury for 'patronizing the proles' as Thaksin did.

Yet.

Just what thinking person would want a group that thinks internationally sabatoging the country

for their own political gain, in the worst of possible economic times,

is going to do a good job while back in office?

The good of the country is just not

in their mindset, and that's obvious.

By the laws on the books, yes the govt is legitimate. However, the general public is the important arbiter about the issue, and it would appear that in the minds of many, winning a general election adds a certain amount of legitimacy to any govt Democrat or not.

The 'general public' voted on the constitution, and the Dems did it by the rules of that constitution.

That makes it legally done. No qualifying it by saying another election suddenly makes it more legt

changes the legitimacy argument one iota. The MP's in parliament were legaly elected,

and THEY decide on who the government is, NOT directly decided by the people.

It was like that for the 1997 Constitution too. Just the way it is here.

These same rules are not far from other parliamentary governments world wide.

Israel his a government put together by the 2nd biggest vote getters

because the winning party couldn't hold together a coalition... same same.

The vote on a new constitution was "Accept what we are offering or you won't get an election", some democracy eh? Most of Isan know it was a farce with no real legitimacy. The junta just picked a nice guy to front them.

[monkfish]

OK don't want to be off topic any more but this subject is so interesting I am thinking of creating a new Poll thread with the Title:

"Do you consider Thai Working Class people to be "Peasants"?

Just interested in cultural differences language wise between UK, US, Australia and Other nationalities on the word "Peasant".

I will give a reference to this thread to throw some light on the subject.

Will also recommend looking up English history to find out where the word originates.

What do you think?

Edited November 1, 2009 by monkfish

[Jingthing]

I think you need to separate POOR FARMERS (the primary traditional definition of peasants) from other categories of workers such as factory workers, etc, and I also think this subject has already been done to death here, but have it at it if it pleases you.

Thai peasants (poor farmers)

Historical European peasants (poor farmers)

Edited November 1, 2009 by Jingthing

[monkfish]

I think you need to separate POOR FARMERS (the primary traditional definition of peasants) from other categories of workers such as factory workers, etc, and I also think this subject has already been done to death here, but have it at it if it pleases you.

Thai peasants (poor farmers)

Historical European peasants (poor farmers)

Wow the likeness in the pictures is uncanny! even a river can I ask are they farming rice for the US in the lower pic?

Perhaps you are right, Thai farmers are still the equivalent of slaves and deserve the title "Peasant"

My self I would never call anybody a "Peasant" not even the poorest classes of Thailand.

But may be you do not no why? Which I could clear up in another thread as this is off topic here.

Edited November 1, 2009 by monkfish

[Rumfoord]

No, peasant is a perfectly valid word.

peasant

–noun

1. a member of a class of persons, as in Europe, Asia, and Latin America, who are small farmers or farm laborers of low social rank.

peasant

–noun

1. a member of a class of persons, as in Europe, Asia, and Latin
   
   
   America, who are small farmers or farm laborers of low social
   
   
   rank.
   
   
2. a coarse, unsophisticated, boorish, uneducated person of
   
   
   little financial means.
   
   

Dictionary.com Unabridged

Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/peasant

(accessed: November 01, 2009).

Obviously we have been talking about the primary meaning of this word. You have proven what exactly by posting the secondary one?

i was afraid that someone would start to assume that you deliberately copy&pasted just the part that would fits your argument and that you deliberately ignored the other. that was of course not your intention. i know you are not racist. to prevent any attacks, i just posted the full entry from the dictionary in a sober manner, impartial, neutral, nonpartisan, without any additional comment or further interpretation. doing so, i spoiled the chance for some gimmicky heckler to jump on it, took the wind out of the sails of a potential flame.

and i demonstrate on example how to cite a source in a proper way.

and now i see that there is something you haven't realised yet. your line "Obviously we have been talking about the primary meaning of this word" is a fallacy. there are obviously member on this board who argue that meaning suggested under 2. is the crucial point.

so gaining knowledge that there is also another meaning not bad at all for all of us, don't you think so?

[Publicus]

I think you need to separate POOR FARMERS (the primary traditional definition of peasants) from other categories of workers such as factory workers, etc, and I also think this subject has already been done to death here, but have it at it if it pleases you.

Thai peasants (poor farmers)

Historical European peasants (poor farmers)

Wow the likeness in the pictures is uncanny! even a river can I ask are they farming rice for the US in the lower pic?

Perhaps you are right, Thai farmers are still the equivalent of slaves and deserve the title "Peasant"

My self I would never call anybody a "Peasant" not even the poorest classes of Thailand.

But may be you do not no why? Which I could clear up in another thread as this is off topic here.

A reminder: A peasant is a poor person of low social status who works the land in a country where farming is still a common way of life. This definition is intellectually respectable.

In Thailand more than 40% of the population work in agriculture. Agriculture in Thailand amounts to 12% of GDP. China has an equally large percentage of peasants and a huge number of same. Likewise for dozens of countries of the world.

In the USA only 3% of the population work in agronomy which involves considerable hi tech. In the UK it's 2%; France 5%.

Incidentally, in the USA rice is grown in the lower Mississippi River Valley especially. Because in the USA farming is not still a common way of life, the people who grow rice there are rice farmers, not peasants.

Perspective, my man, perspective.

Edited November 2, 2009 by Publicus

[animatic]

If you go by the laws on the books, the government IS legitimate.

Pub, I of course see the reasons to be cynical, but making them forget Thaksin is a good idea.

Doing it in ways that help the 'N. & N.E. people' is a good idea ANYWAY,

It is the right thing to do whatever the reasons.

Be nice if they helped the Hill Tribe peoples too.

-----------------------------

Certainly if PTP can't make hay while the economy sucks,

they will have to eat rocks when it picks up, and it 'looks' like the Dems are doing it.

Thaksin is still taking cxredit for having full coffers to 'stroke' the folks up north,

and the Dems currently don't have that luxury for 'patronizing the proles' as Thaksin did.

Yet.

Just what thinking person would want a group that thinks internationally sabatoging the country

for their own political gain, in the worst of possible economic times,

is going to do a good job while back in office?

The good of the country is just not

in their mindset, and that's obvious.

By the laws on the books, yes the govt is legitimate. However, the general public is the important arbiter about the issue, and it would appear that in the minds of many, winning a general election adds a certain amount of legitimacy to any govt Democrat or not.

The 'general public' voted on the constitution, and the Dems did it by the rules of that constitution.

That makes it legally done. No qualifying it by saying another election suddenly makes it more legt

changes the legitimacy argument one iota. The MP's in parliament were legaly elected,

and THEY decide on who the government is, NOT directly decided by the people.

It was like that for the 1997 Constitution too. Just the way it is here.

These same rules are not far from other parliamentary governments world wide.

Israel his a government put together by the 2nd biggest vote getters

because the winning party couldn't hold together a coalition... same same.

The vote on a new constitution was "Accept what we are offering or you won't get an election", some democracy eh? Most of Isan know it was a farce with no real legitimacy. The junta just picked a nice guy to front them.

Most ALL referendums world wide for constitutional ratification are Yea / Nay propositions.

The USA constitution was vetted this way. So you can whine all you want, but the Thai people voted yea.

It was expected to be able to be amended it later, but most hoped this was a weak possibility,

because the checks and balances are STRONGER in this constitution, than in 1997.

The ones hating 2007 version are the ones who ran rough shod over the 1997 constitution.

Edited November 2, 2009 by animatic

[animatic]

I think you need to separate POOR FARMERS (the primary traditional definition of peasants) from other categories of workers such as factory workers, etc, and I also think this subject has already been done to death here, but have it at it if it pleases you.

Thai peasants (poor farmers)

Historical European peasants (poor farmers)

Wow the likeness in the pictures is uncanny! even a river can I ask are they farming rice for the US in the lower pic?

Perhaps you are right, Thai farmers are still the equivalent of slaves and deserve the title "Peasant"

My self I would never call anybody a "Peasant" not even the poorest classes of Thailand.

But may be you do not no why? Which I could clear up in another thread as this is off topic here.

I think you are confusing Land Bonded Serf and Peasantry.

Just like 'Villian' used to simply mean someone not living in the country side, but just in a village or town.

vs. the later one of city slicker of sharp practices, taking advantage of the more naive country side people.

And later thief, conman or userous landlord etc.

'Rainbow' or "Mala" crowd ladies still wear " Peasant Dresses ", which have a charming rustic look to them.

They clearly not looking down on the origins which are peasant. But more a return to those more simple times.

[Ricardo]

The ones hating 2007 are the ones who ran rough shod over the 1997 one.

Quite, they're the ones who now call themselves "true democrats", but whose leader when he was PM said "democracy is not my aim".

Personally I wouldn't regard the word 'peasant' as racist or derogatory, my mother was a poor country-girl from a farming-family in the UK, but that is perhaps worthy of a thread of its own, as others suggest.

On-topic, has anyone heard any ideas from Thaksin lately, about what he would now do to help the poor rice-farmers out ? I mean, not the schemes like village-loans or rice-buying boards, which are now seen to be well-intentioned failures, but anything new ?

[Steve2UK]

Just like 'Villian' used to simply mean someone not living in the country side, but just in a village or town.

Incorrect - however it's spelled, it has never meant that.

"Middle English vilain, vilein, from Anglo-French, from Medieval Latin villanus, from Latin villa" - Merriam Webster Online

"Middle English vilein, feudal serf, person of coarse feelings, from Old French, from Vulgar Latin villanus, feudal serf, from Latin villa, country house" - American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language

"from Old French vilein serf, from Late Latin vīllānus worker on a country estate, from Latin: villa" - Collins English Dictionary

etc.......

[Steve2UK]

<snip> but most hoped this was a weak possibility <snip>

Evidence for this assertion?

[Rumfoord]

A reminder: A peasant is a poor person of low social status who works the land in a country where farming is still a common way of life. This definition is intellectually respectable.

In Thailand more than 40% of the population work in agriculture. ...

In the USA only 3% of the population work in agronomy which involves considerable hi tech.

Incidentally, in the USA rice is grown in the lower Mississippi River Valley especially. Because in the USA farming is not still a common way of life, the people who grow rice there are rice farmers, not peasants.

Perspective, my man, perspective.

and i think that is the perpective that leads you to conclusions like the one below.

Thai culture and civilization are utterly incapable of producing a Vaclav Havel or an Obama so maybe a Lech Walensa can emerge from among these goups. I'd be satisfied if that could happen, but I'm still waiting................

it fits the pattern. Obama, the new Überleader, that is only possible in the USofA of course. Vaclav Havel, a playwright and intellectual , no, not here. Maybe a Lech Wałęsa, electrician at a shipyard, no special education, working class, Pole ................

what i don't get is why you are trying now to sell us that 'peasant' as innocent, neutral, sociological term for Thailands rice farmer. why you don't keep your stance coherent?

i am sure that you fully aware that it is derogatory otherwise the 'wit' of your sentence would become total toothless.

" Pardon the cynicism but ... the government should throw money at the peasants of the North until they forget about Thaksin."

iridicule. belittle and deride your target, that was your intention. but not for their farmer life, their social status in the first line, but because they are Thaksin supporters. and thaksin supporters are 'fair game' right?

i known you are not racist but your perspective is very narrow minded and you see a lot of things that are not like your beloved USofA as inferior instead to accept that it is just different and understand that you not superior.

[Jingthing]

Much ado about almost nothing. Just substitute poor farmers with peasants in your mind and be done with it!

Edited November 2, 2009 by Jingthing

[TAWP]

source: encyclopediadramatica.com/Not_racist

And incase it is lost somewhere, that is a humor-site, in many ways started as a ironic mirror of Wikipedia, but later grew into a place of 4chan-haven for events, meme's etc that would pass into the rest of the world.

[Steve2UK]

Much ado about almost nothing. Just substitute poor farmers with peasants in your mind and be done with it!

[Rumfoord]

source: encyclopediadramatica.com/Not_racist

And incase it is lost somewhere, that is a humor-site, in many ways started as a ironic mirror of Wikipedia, but later grew into a place of 4chan-haven for events, meme's etc that would pass into the rest of the world.

what would we do without TAWP? if you don't understand teh internets just wait until he shows up, he helps you if you lost somewhere and pass' it out to the world: meme, it's ironic.

[billd766]

I know that it is not polite to shout but

if you want to define various words in the English language could you please do so on a totally different thread and preferably a different website.

I for one have lost this thread completely so please GO BACK TO BEING ON TOPIC AND NOT WANDER OFF ELSWHERE.

THE THREAD IS CALLED THAKSIN FEARS ECONOMIC RECOVERY WILL SHUT HIM OUT.

YOU ARE DRIVING ME AND PROBABLY A LOT MORE PEOPLE CRAZY.

[Siripon]

Thaksin has stepped up his campaign to overthrow the government because:

a. His assets case verdict will be announced soon, personally I don't think the state will seize it all but they might take a considerable amount, obviously he wants to stop this case.

b. Quite rightly, if the economy improves under Apisit and the government offer more populist policies to the farmers, then this will surely undermine his support, though hatred for the Democrats is deeply rooted amongst some Issan people.

Personally I think choosing Chavalit is a big mistake, a minority used to see him as a genius regarding strategy but he's been nothing but bluster and blunders for years. The failure of the Issan green programme, the failure of his party, New Aspiration Party, sold lock, stock and barrel to Thaksin, the failure of his premiership, what has he done successfully in the last 20 years?

Some warn of a coup against Apisit but I don't think that will come from Anupong, only last week he strengthened his hand with post coup friends promoted.

If I was Apisit, I would occasionally talk about elections but all the time plan to stay on for another 2 years to the end.

The economic weakness of the government is the lack of coordination between the ministries and parties but that was the inevitable price for the political bargaining, what Apisit should do now is concentrate on the domestic economy, especially Issan and the north.

[Scott]

It is strongly suggested that posters follow the rules. That includes no flaming. If you don't like what a poster has to say, then don't respond to them. Two wrongs don't make a right.

One post deleted more to come.

Stay on topic as well.