Hey Koheesti,

I don't personally think Harcourt is a Troll, just as much as I don't think you, Chuck or UG are Trolls.

What I think is you have all got yourselves into a cycle of retaliatory strikes and like the middle east or Ireland, you do not know how to extricate yourselves.

You all have strong beliefs, but it would help if you actually listened to the other side, you might not agree with it, but it might, just might have some bearing and creedence.

Why don't we all concentrate on the issue at hand, any issue, and try and discuss it without petty schoolboy swipes and one line idiocy.

Just my view and if you think anyone is a Troll with bad intentions, pull apart their thread constructively not abusively.

Moss

I understand where you're coming from. I think if you research the threads one thing you will find that myself and others do in fact listen to him or Alex. That's the problem. They've made an unfounded accusation, I asked for proof to back it up and then the merry-go-round begins. If I wasn't listening, I would never get into any of these skirmishes. Trying to goad people into a bandwidth-wasting forum slug fest over nothing is a troll tactic. There, that's me backing up my accusation that he is a troll. There used to be a thread on here about how a few on the left here refuse to answer questions so having a meaningful dialogue with those people is nearly impossible.

Of all the rules they have around here I would add one more, "make an accusation and fail to back it up with any evidence and you get a week vacation". Like when Harcourt called me a racist the other day. Back where I come from, he'd probably be banned for that without backing it up. Racism isn't a sensitive topic around here so he got away with it and I didn't push the issue.

Would you be bold enough to make an unambiguous statement that you can't wriggle out of, such as, "If Harcourt (or anyone else) can quote me with saying anything that a reasonable person could construe as showing me to be racist, or a collection of quotes that together draw a picture of someone that appears to be racist, then I will take a self-imposed holiday for one month"?

OK Harcourt, show me something that states unequivacably that Koheesti states he is a racist and I will challenge him to take a self imposed exile for a week.

On the condition that if you can't, you do a weeks self imposed exile.

How about it guy's?

Moss, you give the man too much credit. History in this forum has shown me many times that he will either ignore it, obfuscate, prevaricate, spin things, or change the subject when he is caught out or wrong. That is why I want him to commit to it, in words that he can't wriggle out of.

When he commits to self imposed exile for a month.

Already he is making backup plans (for example, he claims not to be able to see that post of mine).

He is very fond of accusing others of ignoring questions (or neglecting to apologise) yet he is as big a culprit. One of his excuses for ignoring a post when it proves him wrong, when he is pulled up for ignoring it, is "I can't be bothered answering that troll" (or words to that effect or simmilar such responses).

Ad hominem attacks are also common. When he is on the backfoot in a debate, he will start to attack the person instead of the argument (and to be fair, he is not the only one that does that).

So....when he makes an iron-clad commitment, I will prove it or do the honourable thing myself. But I will not prove it until then.

I think it is important to clarify what constitutes racism beforehand, because he is bound to try to re-define the word, or find an obscure dictionary definition so that he can wriggle out if I come up with some quotes....that is why I suggested "what any reasonable person would construe...".

I understand where you're coming from. I think if you research the threads one thing you will find that myself and others do in fact listen to him or Alex. That's the problem. They've made an unfounded accusation, I asked for proof to back it up and then the merry-go-round begins. If I wasn't listening, I would never get into any of these skirmishes. Trying to goad people into a bandwidth-wasting forum slug fest over nothing is a troll tactic. There, that's me backing up my accusation that he is a troll. There used to be a thread on here about how a few on the left here refuse to answer questions so having a meaningful dialogue with those people is nearly impossible.

Of all the rules they have around here I would add one more, "make an accusation and fail to back it up with any evidence and you get a week vacation". Like when Harcourt called me a racist the other day. Back where I come from, he'd probably be banned for that without backing it up. Racism isn't a sensitive topic around here so he got away with it and I didn't push the issue.

Would you be bold enough to make an unambiguous statement that you can't wriggle out of, such as, "If Harcourt (or anyone else) can quote me with saying anything that a reasonable person could construe as showing me to be racist, or a collection of quotes that together draw a picture of someone that appears to be racist, then I will take a self-imposed holiday for one month"?

OK Harcourt, show me something that states unequivacably that Koheesti states he is a racist and I will challenge him to take a self imposed exile for a week.

On the condition that if you can't, you do a weeks self imposed exile.

How about it guy's?

Moss, you give the man too much credit. History in this forum has shown me many times that he will either ignore it, obfuscate, prevaricate, spin things, or change the subject when he is caught out or wrong. That is why I want him to commit to it, in words that he can't wriggle out of.

When he commits to self imposed exile for a month.

Already he is making backup plans (for example, he claims not to be able to see that post of mine).

He is very fond of accusing others of ignoring questions (or neglecting to apologise) yet he is as big a culprit. One of his excuses for ignoring a post when it proves him wrong, when he is pulled up for ignoring it, is "I can't be bothered answering that troll" (or words to that effect or simmilar such responses).

Ad hominem attacks are also common. When he is on the backfoot in a debate, he will start to attack the person instead of the argument (and to be fair, he is not the only one that does that).

So....when he makes an iron-clad commitment, I will prove it or do the honourable thing myself. But I will not prove it until then.

I think it is important to clarify what constitutes racism beforehand, because he is bound to try to re-define the word, or find an obscure dictionary definition so that he can wriggle out if I come up with some quotes....that is why I suggested "what any reasonable person would construe...".

I think what you are doing is called "projecting" or something like that. Everything you are attributing to me merely describes yourself.

My favorite Harcourt-refusing-to-answer? He was offended by a beautiful woman being called a "fox". I asked what he would call a beautiful woman and he couldn't answer and finally admitted that he wouldn't because it "must be somekind of trap". This fellow is in no position to be involved in a discussion about what "a reasonable person would construe" .

Despite what definition you want to use for racism, you, Harcourt, wrote about me, "You have made your racism obvious several times in the past.". So please post some of those "several times" and we'll search for a reasonable person to make the determination whether or not your slander has any merit..

I think what you are doing is called "projecting" or something like that. Everything you are attributing to me merely describes yourself.

My favorite Harcourt-refusing-to-answer? He was offended by a beautiful woman being called a "fox". I asked what he would call a beautiful woman and he couldn't answer and finally admitted that he wouldn't because it "must be somekind of trap". This fellow is in no position to be involved in a discussion about what "a reasonable person would construe" .

Despite what definition you want to use for racism, you, Harcourt, wrote about me, "You have made your racism obvious several times in the past.". So please post some of those "several times" and we'll search for a reasonable person to make the determination whether or not your slander has any merit..

More spin from you....and prevarication....and when I have time I will check out your accusations quoting me above....I may be able to add "liar" to the list of what you are....however that is irrelevant right now....

Commit to it. Just as you refused to commit to admitting you were wrong in the thread about the Afghan woman who had her nose cut off, just as you have ignored my pointing out your bizarre conclusion in the OP of this very thread.

BTW...do you deny that you plant sneaky little "traps", hoping someone will fall for it before you pounce?

Admit it, Koheesti. Admit you're a sneaky little trap setter waiting to pounce!!!!

As far as I am concerned Fox is pure propaganda. I get my news from other sources.

If you admit that the BBC, Al Jazzeera and CNN are just as guilty, I would agree with you. They all try to manipulate the public to their point of view.

guy has totally nailed my feelings on the subject.

Personally I am sick of the kid gloves towards Islam that has built in UK over the past 10 years. Instead of doing what they should have 10 years ago, which is totally stamp down on Islams hate message the Uk government decided to go the opposite & give it a huge voice & level of control over society. We now live in a society that "any" negative comment about islam is met with cries of "bigot & racist".

fuc_ks me right off & I honestly think there will be one almighty backlash on day soon. Did I say think? I meant hope.

guy has totally nailed my feelings on the subject.

A MOST excellent video. Check it out! This guy tells it like it is!

This guy is good. Thanks Boo!

http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell#p/a/u/2/mC35KHoI6_E

Following is an EDITORIAL I am hopeful our liberal friends will read. They don't open any of my links so I have quoted the EDITORIAL in it's entirety in the hopes some of if will sink in.

______________________________________________________

CRYING BIGOTRY - LAST REFUGE OF THE LIBERAL

By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

Liberalism under siege is an ugly sight indeed. Just yesterday it was all hope and change and returning power to the people. But the people have proved so disappointing. Their recalcitrance has, in only 19 months, turned the 40-year liberal ascendancy that James Carville predicted into a full retreat.

Ah, the people, the little people, the small-town people, the "bitter" people, as Barack Obama in an unguarded moment once memorably called them, clinging "to guns or religion or" — this part is less remembered — "antipathy toward people who aren't like them."

That's a polite way of saying: clinging to bigotry. And promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking.

Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party? Why, racist resentment toward a black president.

Disgust and alarm with the federal government's unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism.

Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia.

Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia.

Now we know why the country has become "ungovernable," last year's excuse for the Democrats' failure of governance: Who can possibly govern a nation of racist, nativist, homophobic Islamophobes?

Note what connects these issues. In every one, liberals have lost the argument in the court of public opinion. Majorities — often lopsided majorities — oppose President Obama's social-democratic agenda (e.g., the stimulus, ObamaCare), support the Arizona law, oppose gay marriage and reject a Ground Zero mosque.

What's a liberal to do? Pull out the bigotry charge, the trump that pre-empts debate and gives no credit to the seriousness and substance of the contrary argument.

The most venerable of these trumps is, of course, the race card. When the Tea Party arose, a spontaneous, leaderless and perfectly natural (and traditionally American) reaction to the vast expansion of government intrinsic to the president's proudly proclaimed transformational agenda, the liberal commentariat cast it as a mob of angry white yahoos disguising their antipathy to a black president by cleverly speaking in economic terms.

Then came Arizona and SB 1070. It seems impossible for the left to believe that people of good will could hold that: (a) illegal immigration should be illegal, ( the federal government should not hold border enforcement hostage to comprehensive reform, i.e., amnesty, © every country has the right to determine the composition of its immigrant population.

As for Proposition 8, is it so hard to see why people might believe that a single judge overturning the will of 7 million voters is an affront to democracy? And that seeing merit in retaining the structure of the most ancient and fundamental of all social institutions is something other than an alleged hatred of gays — particularly since the opposite-gender requirement has characterized virtually every society in all the millennia until just a few years ago?

And now the Ground Zero mosque. The intelligentsia are near unanimous that the only possible grounds for opposition is bigotry toward Muslims. This smug attribution of bigotry to two-thirds of the population hinges on the insistence on a complete lack of connection between Islam and radical Islam, a proposition that dovetails perfectly with the Obama administration's pretense that we are at war with nothing more than "violent extremists" of inscrutable motive and indiscernible belief.

Those who reject this as both ridiculous and politically correct (an admitted redundancy) are declared Islamophobes, the ad hominem du jour.

It is a measure of the corruption of liberal thought and the collapse of its self-confidence that, finding itself so widely repudiated, it resorts reflexively to the cheapest race-baiting (in a colorful variety of forms).

Indeed, how can one reason with a nation of pitchfork-wielding mobs brimming with "antipathy toward people who aren't like them" — blacks, Hispanics, gays and Muslims — a nation that is, as Michelle Obama once put it, "just downright mean"?

The Democrats are going to get beaten badly in November. Not just because the economy is ailing. And not just because Obama over-read his mandate in governing too far left. But because a comeuppance is due the arrogant elites whose undisguised contempt for the great unwashed prevents them from conceding a modicum of serious thought to those who dare oppose them.

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=545172

Following is an EDITORIAL I am hopeful our liberal friends will read.

I have quoted the EDITORIAL in it's entirety in the hopes some of if will sink in.

I always wonder who your liberal friends are that you mention.

As far as I know only your pal UG has ever said he voted for the guy ....

PS: I do agree though that most will hopefully/probably get voted out in Nov...at least those that are up for re-election.

But I am not hopeful given the replacements.

Would be nice if they really gave us hope & change with a

NONE OF THE ABOVE box to tick

Would be nice if they really gave us hope & change with a

NONE OF THE ABOVE box to tick

I'm for the NOTA option. But what happens when it receives the majority of votes? The seat just can't ist empty with no representative of the people. The incumbent shouldn't be allowed to continue because he didn't win either.

Would be nice if they really gave us hope & change with a

NONE OF THE ABOVE box to tick

I'm for the NOTA option. But what happens when it receives the majority of votes? The seat just can't ist empty with no representative of the people. The incumbent shouldn't be allowed to continue because he didn't win either.

The process just continues till a nomination by the people, for the people is satisfied.

As it stands now & has stood for too long we the people are afforded a choice of who is the least worst choice.

CRYING BIGOTRY - LAST REFUGE OF THE LIBERAL

By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

I love CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

Would be nice if they really gave us hope & change with a

NONE OF THE ABOVE box to tick

I'm for the NOTA option. But what happens when it receives the majority of votes? The seat just can't ist empty with no representative of the people. The incumbent shouldn't be allowed to continue because he didn't win either.

The process just continues till a nomination by the people, for the people is satisfied.

As it stands now & has stood for too long we the people are afforded a choice of who is the least worst choice.

Maybe if the NOTA would be used in primaries, that would greatly reduce the chance that NOTA option would garner the most votes in November. However it's done, you can't just keep doing the November election over and over leaving the country without reps for a long period of time. And the time needed between elections wouldn't be days, but weeksor months.

!00% are not funny, not clever, not informative, not entertaining - just a million dull responses with absolutely no value. This must be the only place that anyone at all would respond to such utter garbage.

well Harcourt... i see the troika at its best and you at a loss. of course you were dead wrong "playing the racist card". but it is not racism when in dozens of postings "facts" are cited which in a rather crude, derogatory, distorting and misrepresenting manner show the contempt of the poster(s) for a certain religion or ethnic group as long it is not clearly outspoken.

in Thaivisa Forum you can use the expression "racism" and "racist" without being scolded only when you refer to e.g. thai baht bus drivers and their fares, double pricing in thai theme parks, when a Farang is charged additional 10 Baht for a bowl of rice in a thai restaurant or if your thai outinlaws are treating you badly.

I can remind you of this one and still not spoil the suprise once he mans up and accepts the challenge.

What is refferring to an entire nation as child molesters?

From our koheesti, addressed to you, Naam...."You're a Kraut?? My great-great-great-uncle was in Austro-Hungary at the time of that war so it's doubtful he fought in the war with Mexico.

But let's examine your ridiculous question...

Taking over the territories you mentioned made America much richer which in the future enabled her to build enough weapons not only for themselves but for the British and Soviets in WWII (Lend Lease Act of 1941) which were used to kill as many of your Nazi relatives as humanly possible. By doing this, the German people and the rest of Europe were set free from the National Socialists and this freedom has allowed you to reap the benefits of doing who-knows-what to the children in the village you live in (it's well known why Germans come to Thailand). If there was any justice in the world, instead of enjoying the weather and children of Thailand you would be slaving back in Germany to send as much money as possible in reparations to the tens of millions of lives your ancestors were directly responsible for destroying. Hmmm, I guess your question wasn't so ridiculous after all...."

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/309970-afghanistan/page__view__findpost__p__3198008'

You talk of cherry picking but you yourself are guilty of it more than anyone else here. If anyone goes to the link you provided they would see not only what I was replying to, but the next lines that follow your cherry-picked excerpt above:

"OK, seriously, all that crap above is made in jest simply as a reply to your silly post, no harm intended. When my grandfather came to America, German was the language spoken in the home. I like Germany & Germans. Although I think with your size and wealth you could do more in the world other than sell cars. "

I don't think you should take a voluntary vacation. I think you should be out-right banned for life. If a group of the powers that be examined everyone's posts in OTB over the course of 2010, you most certainly would be with 80-90% of your posts attacking others.

You're still struggling. You're still spinning things. Taking paragraphs of your insulting words vs picking a single phrase out of context.

And you're still prevaricating!

I expect you will use a variation of the "it was only in jest" ploy to try to wriggle out of your racist comments too.

Just 2010? Why just the last 8 months? What are you afraid of prior to that? Lets examine the posts from 2009 until now. See who threw the first punch. And 2nd , and 3rd.

Lets see who is the antagonist and who has been simply responding.

And lets see who is racist here among us.

Closing this thread now. this BS is going to stop in OOB or the main participants will ALL be suspended. I do hope thats clear.