Thai army chief: Political gatherings banned during UN chief's visit

[Siam Simon]

Please troll a bit harder . But don't lose sight of Nick .

Rubbish. Throw baseless (borderline paranoid) accusations around and fail to follow them up. But silly to expect otherwise really.

While we're on about paranoid accusations, where are we up to with your accusation that I can edit my posts without leaving an edit timestamp ( )?

You missed SBK explaining that it had probably been modified by a mod? Or don't you pay attention?

Now please elaborate.

Nope. I pointed out to SBK her error that she was clearly mistaken in her assumption, and she didn't disagree. Or didn't you pay attention? Now please explain how I edited a post without leaving an edit timestamp (which you accused me of doing). Or are you calling myself and the moderating team liars?

[Insight]

You missed SBK explaining that it had probably been modified by a mod? Or don't you pay attention?

Now please elaborate.

Nope. I pointed out to SBK her error that she was clearly mistaken in her assumption, and she didn't disagree. Or didn't you pay attention? Now please explain how I edited a post without leaving an edit timestamp (which you accused me of doing). Or are you calling myself and the moderating team liars?

In other words: you can't elaborate after three separate requests - you just reply with diversions.

Just another baseless accusation from a red apologist.

[hanuman1]

Rubbish. Throw baseless (borderline paranoid) accusations around and fail to follow them up. But silly to expect otherwise really.

While we're on about paranoid accusations, where are we up to with your accusation that I can edit my posts without leaving an edit timestamp ( )?

You missed SBK explaining that it had probably been modified by a mod? Or don't you pay attention?

Now please elaborate.

Nope. I pointed out to SBK her error that she was clearly mistaken in her assumption, and she didn't disagree. Or didn't you pay attention? Now please explain how I edited a post without leaving an edit timestamp (which you accused me of doing). Or are you calling myself and the moderating team liars?

Mate, don't waste your time with people like this. We already know they're only interested in debate if it involves them slapping down other people's points of view. It's killed discussion on this forum if you ask me.

[rubl]

Rubi, I hope you've not been put up to the 'wearing down' modus operandi. It'd be a shame and a waste if you had. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and run you through things on this one so far, on the basis that you've lost track (but I'm only doing it the once though): Nick's professional credibility was brought into question. He explained in detail his journalistic acreditiations and made clear that these are not up for debate upon pain of libel, but his writings are open to reasonable debate. TAWP tried to make a wildly invalid argument about "detractors", so I clarified his nonsense for him. Glad to be of help.

Please note that even Nick didn't complain, but gave a sensible reply to TAWP ( )

Stay cool and keep smiling.

[Siam Simon]

You missed SBK explaining that it had probably been modified by a mod? Or don't you pay attention?

Now please elaborate.

Nope. I pointed out to SBK her error that she was clearly mistaken in her assumption, and she didn't disagree. Or didn't you pay attention? Now please explain how I edited a post without leaving an edit timestamp (which you accused me of doing). Or are you calling myself and the moderating team liars?

In other words: you can't elaborate after three separate requests - you just reply with diversions.

Just another baseless accusation from a red apologist.

But that's the problem isn't it? Us honest posters can elaborate until the cows come home. Devious bigots just distract and divert. It's S.O.P. from the little gang of bullys who try to dominate this part of TV.

[Insight]

Mate, don't waste your time with people like this. We already know they're only interested in debate if it involves them slapping down other people's points of view. It's killed discussion on this forum if you ask me.

Surely that really depends on your definition of a "point of view" - as in, is it really being passed off as a a point of view or a factual account?

[Siam Simon]

Rubi, I hope you've not been put up to the 'wearing down' modus operandi. It'd be a shame and a waste if you had. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and run you through things on this one so far, on the basis that you've lost track (but I'm only doing it the once though): Nick's professional credibility was brought into question. He explained in detail his journalistic acreditiations and made clear that these are not up for debate upon pain of libel, but his writings are open to reasonable debate. TAWP tried to make a wildly invalid argument about "detractors", so I clarified his nonsense for him. Glad to be of help.

Please note that even Nick didn't complain, but gave a sensible reply to TAWP ( )

Stay cool and keep smiling.

Rubi, Nick complained about being libelled/slandered on TV. TAWP had a pop at Nick in a wildly off-topic way. I took the p1ss out of TAWP (a thankless task, I concede).

Nick is a polite guy. But, more importantly, he would be a huge bonus to TV if he could be encouraged to stick around. We need to discourage the entrenched trolls.

[rubl]

Rubi, I hope you've not been put up to the 'wearing down' modus operandi. It'd be a shame and a waste if you had. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and run you through things on this one so far, on the basis that you've lost track (but I'm only doing it the once though): Nick's professional credibility was brought into question. He explained in detail his journalistic acreditiations and made clear that these are not up for debate upon pain of libel, but his writings are open to reasonable debate. TAWP tried to make a wildly invalid argument about "detractors", so I clarified his nonsense for him. Glad to be of help.

Please note that even Nick didn't complain, but gave a sensible reply to TAWP ( )

Stay cool and keep smiling.

Rubi, Nick complained about being libelled/slandered on TV. TAWP had a pop at Nick in a wildly off-topic way. I took the p1ss out of TAWP (a thankless task, I concede).

Nick is a polite guy. But, more importantly, he would be a huge bonus to TV if he could be encouraged to stick around. We need to discourage the entrenched trolls.

Your opinion to which you are entitled. I don't agree, my opinion.

I agree with 'We need to discourage the entrenched trolls', but fear my list will be somewhat different from yours.

[Insight]

We need to discourage the entrenched trolls.

entrenched trolls = Somebody who challenges Nick's account with other reports?

Somebody who asks for clarification on a considerably outlandish accusation?

[chantorn]

T.P.B.S. THAI PUBLIC BROADCASTING SERVICE (Live feed - Viphavadi - Din Daeng - 04.58 - 14 April 2009 - 646,818 views to date)

Note that this video may have been subject to censorship by the MICT in Thailand. Video - first nine seconds missing. The first time I saw this video - on some other video sharing site - I watched it in its entirety and don't recall any part of it as being missing. In fact - the opening seconds showed bodies being loaded into the back of those pick-ups.

Maybe it was edited, but I do not see any dead bodies. Do you?

Mark's army boys are not murderers. Some Red-shirts leaders are.

[Siam Simon]

Mate, don't waste your time with people like this. We already know they're only interested in debate if it involves them slapping down other people's points of view. It's killed discussion on this forum if you ask me.

I know exactly how you feel, but I find it easy to expose these one-eyed bigots. As is usually the case, they're just more vociferous than everyone else.

[Pi Sek]

Mate, don't waste your time with people like this. We already know they're only interested in debate if it involves them slapping down other people's points of view. It's killed discussion on this forum if you ask me.

Surely that really depends on your definition of a "point of view" - as in, is it really being passed off as a a point of view or a factual account?

You can apply this to us all, including every information medium ever in history. In my short life I have witnessed enough of some things to form an incorrect opinion and, due to the fact I witnessed evidence enough to pass judgement in my own mind, I consider it fact and will tell it that way.

For example, I once believed (point of view) that the Thai police force is totally corrupt, due to experiencing corruption every time without fail when dealing with them (fact). You could put that down to the business I was in, the area in which I was doing business, whatever - but in my experience I found the Thai police to be absolutely corrupt. Since then I have had some good experiences with Thai police, albeit not often (further fact). I still believe they are hugely corrupt, but nowhere near to the extent I had previously considered them to be (revised point of view).

My point is that points of view can change with the catalyst of further facts, aka education.

I believe that Jatuporn is a disgusting man and a liar (point of view). That's purely down to the fact that most of what he says is not the truth (fact). But, if he somehow comes up with irrefutable proof that Abhisit really did order "killing the people", then maybe I'll change my mind - but I doubt it due to his undefeated streak in this year's Bullshit Awards.

Just a little Jatuporn dig, and totally off-topic, because I find him so odious: "Don't use facts to distract from the truth" - I'm waiting for this one from Jatuporn, I'm sure it'll come sooner or later.

[rubl]

OP: Thai army chief: Political gatherings banned during UN chief's visit

Despite the ban and in good spirit a few hundred protesters have been allowed around the UN building. Police present to keep them in check. A number of petitions have been handed over to Mr. Ban. People dispersed.

Similar situation in Cambodia, from today in Vietnam.

Can we now closed this topic and move on?

[hanuman1]

Mate, don't waste your time with people like this. We already know they're only interested in debate if it involves them slapping down other people's points of view. It's killed discussion on this forum if you ask me.

Surely that really depends on your definition of a "point of view" - as in, is it really being passed off as a a point of view or a factual account?

I don't mind getting into discussions of semantic minutiae to clarify a point - which I'll do in a second - but when others do the same thing to call into question a point you and your ilk make, we are seen as diverting or digressing from the matter at hand (which is to accept your pronouncements as being correct). As a result, the finer detail of certain points is ignored and anyone trying to convince you of any possible alternative to your prejudiced view is left exasperated and unable to make their point. The end of discussion quickly ensues.

By way of contrast, I will indulge you now with what you yourself in another discussion would term 'a diversion'. My understanding of 'a point of view' is the expression of an opinion which may or may not be bolstered by the presentation of 'facts', which in turn may or may not be supported by various bits of evidence. That's just a starting point. If you have an alternative definition, and don't see this as a diversion, please let me know what your idea of a 'point of view' is, so we can find some common ground and develop a shared understanding of what we're talking about. See? It's almost like a constructive debate, this.

Similar to the selective condemnation of such 'diversions' there is the routine calling into question of the integrity of any - yes, any - evidence produced to back up ideas which question your stance. Yet in the face of quite widespread condemnation of a source such as The Nation as an unbiased and accurate provider of news, you continue to take your cue in large part from that.

Anyway, I've gone on too long. Just look at the state of these political threads over time - they are generally characterised by a lot of anti-red obsessive backslapping characterised by pockets of people trying to put an alternative view, quickly slapped down and not heard from again to restore the status quo, which does not resemble a balanced debate to me.

[Siam Simon]

We need to discourage the entrenched trolls.

entrenched trolls = Somebody who challenges Nick's account with other reports?

Somebody who asks for clarification on a considerably outlandish accusation?

Yes, when are you going to clarifiy your rather more than considerably outlandish accusation that I can edit my posts without leaving an edit timestamp? Your attempt to hide behind a moderator's mis-interpretation was exposed, so time for you to big-up. Are you man or mouse?

[Insight]

Rubl, hope this thread stays open so I can compose a reasonable reply to Pi Sek and hanuman1's posts.

Siam Simon - "man or a mouse" - PM me.

[rubl]

Totally off topic, but seem to interest posters here:

Can some one provide details on people missing during Songkhran 2009, March - May 2010. I have read about 'seen bodies carried away', 'hundreds missing', 'mass graves' , but no real details nor proof. Recently CRES or DSI said for the recent unrest they still had 25 people missing, down from original 80 - 90 or so. Some never missing, some return from Cambodia or elsewhere, some changed names (popular passtime in Thailand).

So ?

[chuang]

This is a military state.....

[Pi Sek]

I don't mind getting into discussions of semantic minutiae to clarify a point - which I'll do in a second - but when others do the same thing to call into question a point you and your ilk make, we are seen as diverting or digressing from the matter at hand (which is to accept your pronouncements as being correct). As a result, the finer detail of certain points is ignored and anyone trying to convince you of any possible alternative to your prejudiced view is left exasperated and unable to make their point. The end of discussion quickly ensues.

You have just summarised the real enigma of the red shirt cause very well (this is how I understand their complaint, anyway):

- "We want everyone to respect our vote"

- "Well, you're not educated enough to have anyone take your vote seriously, unlike us"

By way of contrast, I will indulge you now with what you yourself in another discussion would term 'a diversion'. My understanding of 'a point of view' is the expression of an opinion which may or may not be bolstered by the presentation of 'facts', which in turn may or may not be supported by various bits of evidence. That's just a starting point. If you have an alternative definition, and don't see this as a diversion, please let me know what your idea of a 'point of view' is, so we can find some common ground and develop a shared understanding of what we're talking about. See? It's almost like a constructive debate, this.

Similar to the selective condemnation of such 'diversions' there is the routine calling into question of the integrity of any - yes, any - evidence produced to back up ideas which question your stance. Yet in the face of quite widespread condemnation of a source such as The Nation as an unbiased and accurate provider of news, you continue to take your cue in large part from that.

Credibility of evidence is subjective, but I do believe such subjection is useful. For example, the red sympathisers like to call the credibility of The Nation into question, the red bashers do the same with Truth Today. What is useful is "Truth Today lied about xxx yyy zzz". What's not useful is "Truth Today always lies".

Anyway, I've gone on too long. Just look at the state of these political threads over time - they are generally characterised by a lot of anti-red obsessive backslapping characterised by pockets of people trying to put an alternative view, quickly slapped down and not heard from again to restore the status quo, which does not resemble a balanced debate to me.

Again, many parallels to the "real" red shirt cause and the pseudo-fascist attitude that definitely exists in Thailand, as shown in the top paragraph. And all this coming from someone who is an Abhisit sympathiser (me). Nice post :jap:

[rubl]

This is a military state.....

There must be a reason for this remark, but somehow it escapes me

[SergeiY]

This is a military state.....

There must be a reason for this remark, but somehow it escapes me

Well it is. Just the headline of this topic suggest that too.

Thai army chief: Political gatherings banned...

Who else should make the decision or give out orders about that if not the army chief?

And 'military state' doesn't have to mean something bad. Everybody in Thailand knows the army are the good guys, so to say 'military state' is a positive statement.

[TAWP]

T.P.B.S. THAI PUBLIC BROADCASTING SERVICE (Live feed - Viphavadi - Din Daeng - 04.58 - 14 April 2009 - 646,818 views to date)

Note that this video may have been subject to censorship by the MICT in Thailand. Video - first nine seconds missing. The first time I saw this video - on some other video sharing site - I watched it in its entirety and don't recall any part of it as being missing. In fact - the opening seconds showed bodies being loaded into the back of those pick-ups.

LIES - MICT cannot touch YouTube videos!

You clearly claim the full video was uploaded, and seen, by you on YouTube showing these things - so bring it.

Showing a video that shows NOTHING is NOT evidence.

[philw]

Rubi, I hope you've not been put up to the 'wearing down' modus operandi. It'd be a shame and a waste if you had. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and run you through things on this one so far, on the basis that you've lost track (but I'm only doing it the once though): Nick's professional credibility was brought into question. He explained in detail his journalistic acreditiations and made clear that these are not up for debate upon pain of libel, but his writings are open to reasonable debate. TAWP tried to make a wildly invalid argument about "detractors", so I clarified his nonsense for him. Glad to be of help.

Please note that even Nick didn't complain, but gave a sensible reply to TAWP ( )

Stay cool and keep smiling.

Rubi, Nick complained about being libelled/slandered on TV. TAWP had a pop at Nick in a wildly off-topic way. I took the p1ss out of TAWP (a thankless task, I concede).

Nick is a polite guy. But, more importantly, he would be a huge bonus to TV if he could be encouraged to stick around. We need to discourage the entrenched trolls.

You dead right.

[TAWP]

Furthermore - i have no problem with people discussing/criticizing my work as long as it stays within limits of politeness and the legally permitted. Everybody is entitled to his views, and to different interpretation of facts. Nevertheless, several of the posts here come very close to libel. Be advised that from now on i will file libel cases when i see comments about me that cross the legally permitted. u.

You need to get thicker skin or expect to not be able to work in any nation outside of Thailand - where you cannot threaten detractors with criminal libel cases.

That libel cases is here a criminal offense is a pathetic joke and an important left-over of the elite-controlled system the Red Shirts say they want to fight.

Just a note...

This is not a question of thick or thin skin. In very few other countries rumor based hate campaigns (often starting off in cyberspace) against journalists go to such lows as here right now, where as a result of such campaigns journalists receive regular death threats as a result of their work.

We work within the law, and the only defense we have is the law.

I disagree that this doesn't happen in other countries (the US is a primary example of where it is organized) and that the intensity of the hate therefor makes it ok for a libel offense to be a criminal matter. The law has been misused too much and your threats to misuse it further doesn't add to your credibility.

Death threats are despicable and already covered by the criminal stature.

Do a good work and let it speak for itself. No need to go after those that say 'bad words'.

[bulmercke]

QUOTE(hanuman1)):" Just look at the state of these political threads over time - they are generally characterised by a lot of anti-red obsessive backslapping characterised by pockets of people trying to put an alternative view, quickly slapped down and not heard from again to restore the status quo, which does not resemble a balanced debate to me."

That is correct. And I wonder why some of the anti-Red critics on this forum go the lengths they go to.

Nick Nostitz and others are trying to present evidence of serious wrong-doing by the military (April 2009) which is contrary to what has been reported in the state controlled media. And although everyone is aware that the media here exercises self-censorship in the extreme - we find ourselves under constant attack from those that will only believe the official line despite there being much circumstantial evidence to suggest otherwise. It's almost as if their lives depended on the official account of events remaining intact - whatever.

As hanuman1 pointed out - anyone who dares to express any pro-Red sentiments is immediately shouted down and ridiculed without any apparent consideration and serious debate of the details in question. It's almost as if they have a vested interest in retaining a veil of secrecy over events. It's as if their lives depended on it - such is their rabid enthusiasm and zeal to demean any who dare to hold an opposing view.

Edited October 28, 2010 by bulmercke

[bulmercke]

T.P.B.S. THAI PUBLIC BROADCASTING SERVICE (Live feed - Viphavadi - Din Daeng - 04.58 - 14 April 2009 - 646,818 views to date)

Note that this video may have been subject to censorship by the MICT in Thailand. Video - first nine seconds missing. The first time I saw this video - on some other video sharing site - I watched it in its entirety and don't recall any part of it as being missing. In fact - the opening seconds showed bodies being loaded into the back of those pick-ups.

LIES - MICT cannot touch YouTube videos!

You clearly claim the full video was uploaded, and seen, by you on YouTube showing these things - so bring it.

Showing a video that shows NOTHING is NOT evidence.

I think it's fairly obvious the video has been doctored. You see trucks and you see bodies in the back. I recall seeing them loading a dead or dead bodies the first time I viewed the footage. Maybe it was a YouTube video or maybe it was on another video sharing site - maybe one that has subsequently been blocked. I don't know. But this is an expurgated cut.

[TAWP]

As hanuman1 pointed out - anyone who dares to express any anti-Red sentiments is immediately shouted down and ridiculed without any apparent consideration and serious debate of the details in question.

I agree with this. It is if some pro-Red posters have no interest in the truth, just regurgitating the propaganda spouted in the dedicated magazines and radio stations.

[rubl]

Please note that even Nick didn't complain, but gave a sensible reply to TAWP ( )

Stay cool and keep smiling.

Rubi, Nick complained about being libelled/slandered on TV. TAWP had a pop at Nick in a wildly off-topic way. I took the p1ss out of TAWP (a thankless task, I concede).

Nick is a polite guy. But, more importantly, he would be a huge bonus to TV if he could be encouraged to stick around. We need to discourage the entrenched trolls.

You dead right.

You dead, right ?

Anyway, you've had your three words for the day, you can go back sleep dear philw.

[TAWP]

T.P.B.S. THAI PUBLIC BROADCASTING SERVICE (Live feed - Viphavadi - Din Daeng - 04.58 - 14 April 2009 - 646,818 views to date)

Note that this video may have been subject to censorship by the MICT in Thailand. Video - first nine seconds missing. The first time I saw this video - on some other video sharing site - I watched it in its entirety and don't recall any part of it as being missing. In fact - the opening seconds showed bodies being loaded into the back of those pick-ups.

LIES - MICT cannot touch YouTube videos!

You clearly claim the full video was uploaded, and seen, by you on YouTube showing these things - so bring it.

Showing a video that shows NOTHING is NOT evidence.

I think it's fairly obvious the video has been doctored. You see trucks and you see bodies in the back. I recall seeing them loading a dead or dead bodies the first time I viewed the footage. Maybe it was a YouTube video or maybe it was on another video sharing site - maybe one that has subsequently been blocked. I don't know. But this is an expurgated cut.

So what we have is you claiming to have seen a video and then you linking a video that doesn't show anything and a claim that 'the evils' have edited it. Reached out to all video-sites and gotten them taken down have they. And their own edited version uploaded. Presumably in other users name.

Story-teller, are we?

[bulmercke]

As hanuman1 pointed out - anyone who dares to express any pro-Red sentiments is immediately shouted down and ridiculed without any apparent consideration and serious debate of the details in question.

I agree with this. It is if some pro-Red posters have no interest in the truth, just regurgitating the propaganda spouted in the dedicated magazines and radio stations.

And isn't your "truth" merely the propaganda spouted by the government-controlled main stream media here?

Edited October 28, 2010 by bulmercke