Thai Judges Filmed From Sacked Secretary's Seat

[whybother]

Ridicule for divergent or tangental thinking is not part of proper debate.

And ridicule for not changing focus to someone elses points in a group forum debate, has even less place in civilized society. But that then begs the question of whether some poster thinks this is civilized discussion. Or if they imagine that ONLY their points make it civilized, and other opinions are of no consequence and therefor the posters are of no consequence by extension.

Really? You don't seem to have studied the history of debating since ridicule has an important role where deserved.Read the Lincoln - Douglas debates or the exchanges between Gladstone and Disraeli.

In this particular the point being made was indeed absurd, namely to ignore the compromised Court and focus to the exclusion of all else on the whistleblower.It's not a rational position.

Your thoughts on who I believe to be of consequence are misplaced.It is very evident who adds value and who does not.

Buchholz answered an on topic question with an on topic answer. Ofcourse, it didn't follow the line of the agenda you want everyone to follow, so you had to ridicule it.

[jdinasia]

Ridicule for divergent or tangental thinking is not part of proper debate.

And ridicule for not changing focus to someone elses points in a group forum debate, has even less place in civilized society. But that then begs the question of whether some poster thinks this is civilized discussion. Or if they imagine that ONLY their points make it civilized, and other opinions are of no consequence and therefor the posters are of no consequence by extension.

Really? You don't seem to have studied the history of debating since ridicule has an important role where deserved.Read the Lincoln - Douglas debates or the exchanges between Gladstone and Disraeli.

In this particular the point being made was indeed absurd, namely to ignore the compromised Court and focus to the exclusion of all else on the whistleblower.It's not a rational position.

Your thoughts on who I believe to be of consequence are misplaced.It is very evident who adds value and who does not.

Buchholz answered an on topic question with an on topic answer. Ofcourse, it didn't follow the line of the agenda you want everyone to follow, so you had to ridicule it.

bringing to the forefront

Argumentum ad hominem (argument directed at the person). This is the error of attacking the character or motives of a person who has stated an idea, rather than the idea itself. The most obvious example of this fallacy is when one debater maligns the character of another debater (e.g, "The members of the opposition are a couple of fascists!"), but this is actually not that common. A more typical manifestation of argumentum ad hominem is attacking a source of information -- for example, responding to a quotation from Richard Nixon on the subject of free trade with China by saying, "We all know Nixon was a liar and a cheat, so why should we believe anything he says?" Argumentum ad hominem also occurs when someone's arguments are discounted merely because they stand to benefit from the policy they advocate -- such as Bill Gates arguing against antitrust, rich people arguing for lower taxes, white people arguing against affirmative action, minorities arguing for affirmative action, etc. In all of these cases, the relevant question is not who makes the argument, but whether the argument is valid.

It is always bad form to use the fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. But there are some cases when it is not really a fallacy, such as when one needs to evaluate the truth of factual statements (as opposed to lines of argument or statements of value) made by interested parties. If someone has an incentive to lie about something, then it would be naive to accept his statements about that subject without question. It is also possible to restate many ad hominem arguments so as to redirect them toward ideas rather than people, such as by replacing "My opponents are fascists" with "My opponents' arguments are fascist."

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html#Argumentum ad hominem

Most of the comments originating from some people are of the first type --- direct attacks against the man and don't even mention the content of their posts.

see also :

• Argumentum ad Hominem
  Translation:
  "Argument against the man" (Latin)
• The Fallacy of Personal Attack

Exposition:

A debater commits the Ad Hominem Fallacy when he introduces irrelevant personal premisses about his opponent. Such red herrings may successfully distract the opponent or the audience from the topic of the debate.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html

[animatic]

Ridicule for divergent or tangental thinking is not part of proper debate.

And ridicule for not changing focus to someone elses points in a group forum debate, has even less place in civilized society. But that then begs the question of whether some poster thinks this is civilized discussion. Or if they imagine that ONLY their points make it civilized, and other opinions are of no consequence and therefor the posters are of no consequence by extension.

Really? You don't seem to have studied the history of debating since ridicule has an important role where deserved.Read the Lincoln - Douglas debates or the exchanges between Gladstone and Disraeli.

In this particular the point being made was indeed absurd, namely to ignore the compromised Court and focus to the exclusion of all else on the whistleblower.It's not a rational position.

Your thoughts on who I believe to be of consequence are misplaced.It is very evident who adds value and who does not.

They ridiculed ideas, not the men themselves. Big difference.

And I have READ Lincoln Douglas and Gladstone Disraeli,

back in the day. Not the Cliff Notes versions.

And own an 1866 bio of Lincoln, with the debates in it.

[Thai at Heart]

Passports and accusations of hidden cameras. Does anyone find it surprising that friends of judges get access to exams ahead of time?

I would honestly love to challenge any governmental employee from the guard with a whistle in front of the driving license agency, to the highest court to prove absolutely that his wealth is earned completely and utterly from his salary alone.

Does anyone who has lived in Thailand for longer than 2 minutes believe this?

So as I uttered previously, "The entire system cannot survive the slightest scrutiny".

To insinuate that this is some weird red conspiracy to shame a few judges misses the point as far as left is from right. The system in and of itself is so rotten, and has been for longer than most of us have been here, it is now falling down around the ears of even the highest courts, and this should bring some very respected people to resign.

The country that I presume that most of us love (since most of us are here) is going through some massive growing pains. This is the same system that pronounced Thaksin not guilty for giving his maid hundreds of millions of dollars of shares for free. It allowed blatent vote buying to persist, it allowed airports to be seized and it allowed shopping centres to be burned down. There is no obvious punishment for even the slightest wrongdoing by government employees or private individuals if the courts of the day pronounce so. This situation has to stop, and this case is as good as any to start with.

Whilst we sit on this narrow thread, on another, a company has got out of jail free to pay 60k compensation for giving its employees lung diseases. This 10 years after the original judgement and subsequent appeal.

I don't want to see mayhem in the country, but the system is so rotten that it cannot be trusted, and it needs to be torn down and built up again. Get rid of 90% of them all and quadruple/octouple or dectouple salaries of those provably honest if that is what it takes.

If there is anything that a man like Abhisit is qualified to do, it is starting the reform of the system. Unfortunately, if he dares to shine a true light on Thai MP's; running like cockroaches is an understatement.

Now he should shine a light on the judges of country. I wonder how many live in houses worth more than 20mn baht and drive supposedly privately earned Mercs. Serving the country can be so tiresome.

Unfortunately, he is more likely to get shot before he even contemplate the minutia of creating laws that even insist that a bottle of whisky is more expensive by alcohol volume than beer.

This is how much business has infiltrated politics in Thailand and it will take 20 years of hard minded, honest prime ministers and strong parties to reform this country to a point that businesses are responsible for their actions, and people contribute and take from the state according to some form of proper need or legal legitimacy.

The desire of probably 200 families to compel or buy the government of the day to work on their behalf is ingrained in this country. I love Thailand, but I despair of what I see today.

Is this country moving forward, or is it OK for your relative who is respected judge to give you the exam? There is no defence that can be made, and unfortunately it gives credence to Thaksin's plea that he has been wronged.

Thaksin hasn't been wronged at all,he broke the law, but should average Somchai get ripped off, where is his recourse? Thaksin's plea resonates straight to the belly of the masses. They cannot fight the power of big Thai business. Thaksin has the inbuilt advantage of selling them a phone, instead of living off the land to sell their foodstuffs for export.

If the courts are proven to be bent, as someone else proffered the quote, if peaceful revolution is denied to people, violent is all that remains. If this endless cycle of selective judgement of conduct to suit the whim of the day doesn't end, the outcome will pull the country asunder.

I don't care who brought the message, but it shows that the judges themselves are in no way beyond moral or legal criticism and should resign. I am sure a few decent companies in Bangkok will pay them a consultancy long into their old age.

Edited November 9, 2010 by Thai at Heart

[rubl]

Passports and accusations of hidden cameras. Does anyone find it surprising that friends of judges get access to exams ahead of time?

I would honestly love to challenge any governmental employee from the guard with a whistle in front of the driving license agency, to the highest court to prove absolutely that his wealth is earned completely and utterly from his salary alone.

Does anyone who has lived in Thailand for longer than 2 minutes believe this?

So as I uttered previously, "The entire system cannot survive the slightest scrutiny".

To insinuate that this is some weird red conspiracy to shame a few judges misses the point as far as left is from right. The system in and of itself is so rotten, and has been for longer than most of us have been here, it is now falling down around the ears of even the highest courts, and this should bring some very respected people to resign.

The country that I presume that most of us love (since most of us are here) is going through some massive growing pains. This is the same system that pronounced Thaksin not guilty for giving his maid hundreds of millions of dollars of shares for free. It allowed blatent vote buying to persist, it allowed airports to be seized and it allowed shopping centres to be burned down. There is no obvious punishment for even the slightest wrongdoing by government employees or private individuals if the courts of the day pronounce so. This situation has to stop, and this case is as good as any to start with.

Whilst we sit on this narrow thread, on another, a company has got out of jail free to pay 60k compensation for giving its employees lung diseases. This 10 years after the original judgement and subsequent appeal.

I don't want to see mayhem in the country, but the system is so rotten that it cannot be trusted, and it needs to be torn down and built up again. Get rid of 90% of them all and quadruple/octouple or dectouple salaries of those provably honest if that is what it takes.

If there is anything that a man like Abhisit is qualified to do, it is starting the reform of the system. Unfortunately, if he dares to shine a true light on Thai MP's; running like cockroaches is an understatement.

Now he should shine a light on the judges of country. I wonder how many live in houses worth more than 20mn baht and drive supposedly privately earned Mercs. Serving the country can be so tiresome.

Unfortunately, he is more likely to get shot before he even contemplate the minutia of creating laws that even insist that a bottle of whisky is more expensive by alcohol volume than beer.

This is how much business has infiltrated politics in Thailand and it will take 20 years of hard minded, honest prime ministers and strong parties to reform this country to a point that businesses are responsible for their actions, and people contribute and take from the state according to some form of proper need or legal legitimacy.

The desire of probably 200 families to compel or buy the government of the day to work on their behalf is ingrained in this country. I love Thailand, but I despair of what I see today.

Is this country moving forward, or is it OK for your relative who is respected judge to give you the exam? There is no defence that can be made, and unfortunately it gives credence to Thaksin's plea that he has been wronged.

Thaksin hasn't been wronged at all,he broke the law, but should average Somchai get ripped off, where is his recourse? Thaksin's plea resonates straight to the belly of the masses. They cannot fight the power of big Thai business. Thaksin has the inbuilt advantage of selling them a phone, instead of living off the land to sell their foodstuffs for export.

If the courts are proven to be bent, as someone else proffered the quote, if peaceful revolution is denied to people, violent is all that remains. If this endless cycle of selective judgement of conduct to suit the whim of the day doesn't end, the outcome will pull the country asunder.

I don't care who brought the message, but it shows that the judges themselves are in no way beyond moral or legal criticism and should resign. I am sure a few decent companies in Bangkok will pay them a consultancy long into their old age.

OP: Thai judges filmed from sacked secretary's seat !

Some arguments may be valid, but as reaction on the OP not relevant. Complain as much as you want, but NOT ON THIS OP! It would be same as on a topic with k. Sanan meeting k. Thaksin I start complaining about bent politicians like Banharn or Newin.

PS Thai at Heart, true or just a sarcastic nickname ? Both could be appropriate

[rubl]

It's like 'déjà vu'. Some patriotic person only thinking about the good of the Nation has posted another clip, already said to be 'slightly' doctored. Sure, sure, nothing to do with PTP, UDD, or the current Dem's case. Just coincidence

CONTROVERSIAL COURT CLIPS

Another court clip posted online

By The Nation

Published on November 10, 2010

Another video clip relating to alleged abuse of power at the Constitution Court has been released on YouTube ��" leading to an unsuccessful bid by the ICT Ministry to block it from being seen here, on claims the content breached the emergency decree.

The latest clip is titled “Confession of a admission exam cheater” and was posted on Monday by the same source as earlier ones �" “ohmygod3009”. It is 5.36 minutes long and has captions.

The clip shows a meeting between Pasit Sakdanarong, the now dismissed secretary of the Constitution Court, with two young men. They are named as children of judges who work at the court and alleged to have received help from three judges to pass a test to get work at the court office.

The sound quality of the clip isn’t very clear, except the voice of Pasit, who speaks most of the time, while the two others mostly nod in agreement.

Pasit was recorded as telling the two to admit they cheated in the recruitment exam and they nod their heads. After some talk, one of the two men admits that a court judge brought the exam answers to his home while the other man admits receiving the exam answers at a judge’s office.

It then appears the video was edited and what follows is Pasit telling the two to never admit they received the exam answers in advance. The two then nod their heads.

The clip states the name of another staff member at the court, who is a relative of a judge, but he is not seen. The caption in the clip also claims one judge held a press conference in an attempt to undermine the credibility of the court by those who have failed to receive favours from the court but the judge cited in the clip apparently failed to take account of what really took place, which is shameful.

The clip also accuses the government of double standards, alleging that a senior policeman in Tak province “caught” in a separate video clip harassing a female subordinate not long ago was prosecuted, but it said nobody bothered to go after the person who took and released the video.

It claimed the government was now trying to curry favour with the court by trying to hunt down the person behind the video leak despite the fact that previous incidents had eroded public faith in the court.

A postscript claims that one judge played golf in Singapore and “did something more” and that people wanting to see this otherwise morally righteous judge unmasked should make their request heard.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2010/11/10/politics/Another-court-clip-posted-online-30141887.html

Edited November 9, 2010 by rubl

[jayboy]

They ridiculed ideas, not the men themselves. Big difference.

And I have READ Lincoln Douglas and Gladstone Disraeli,

back in the day. Not the Cliff Notes versions.

And own an 1866 bio of Lincoln, with the debates in it.

You are right on reflection about Lincoln-Douglas where the debates were primarily ideas oriented.You are wrong on Disraeli - Gladstone where there was much (well deserved) personal mockery.

[Piengrudee]

The 3rd set of clips have already been release in the same youtube site. It is even more damaging than the 1st 2 put together. A nail in the coffin. However, Thai govt is quick to block it. Not quick enough, as some media is already playing the self-censored version on air this morning.

[jayboy]

Most of the comments originating from some people are of the first type --- direct attacks against the man and don't even mention the content of their posts.

Polite suggestion: instead of going on a slightly pointless cut and paste bonanza (in any case confusing ad hominem attacks with something quite different) try and concentrate on the substance of the posts concerned.

If you feel that the Constitutional Court has not been compromised and its reputation has not been ruined by all means let's hear your arguments.Somehow I doubt we will hear considered thoughts on the matter in hand, though I would be pleasantly surprised if we do.Oh and if you are gently mocking I shan't as some do retreat into a hissy fit.But I'm primarily interested in the serious issues.

[rametindallas]

AFAIK, he has not.

He has been fired from the position for which he was issued a government official passport.

Question -----

Is there an "unofficial passport"? or are they meaning to say that he had a Diplomatic passport and that that has been cancelled (in which case --- did he use that or an ordinary Thai passport to enter HK? If he entered on a passport that has since been revoked then his permission to stay is automatically revoked. If he didn't ...

There are "ordinary" passports (left) and "official" passports (right). * the actual sizes of both are the same *

It was reported earlier that he had entered Hong Kong with the now cancelled official passport:

Two days before the scandal broke Pasit abruptly departed for Hong Kong, using his official passport.

http://www.thaivisa....dpost&p=3995992

and

Pasit Sakdanarong, secretary to the high court president, used his official passport to take a Cathay Pacific flight departing around 5.45 pm last Wednesday.

http://www.thaivisa....dpost&p=3964746

And yes, now that the passport he used to enter Hong Kong with has been since been revoked, he's in Hong Kong without permission.

He's on borrowed time before apprehension and return to Thailand.

Well done.You have really managed to get to the heart of this matter.It's all about diplomatic passports and Pasit's borrowed time.What a great sense of context and perspective you have, ie to cut through the peripheral irrelevancies like a disgraced and compromised Court and concentrate on pursuing the whistleblower - the really important thing.

You, sir, are denigrating the court with your unfounded, unproven innuendo. You should know this is an actionable offence if you are in the Kingdom. I urge you to stop the accusations which you try to explain away as 'puplic opinion'. You should know that all 'public opinion is not printable' in the Kingdom. Several newspapers have been charged for reporting the illegal words of others. You may or may not know that PTP spokesperson Noppadon recently made some disparaging remarks about the court and now the PTP is worried about dissolution and several of their party leaders have resigned. The newspapers will not quote his offensive language as they would be just as guilty. I think you can make your case that the issue should be investigated by non-involved parties without using any illegal adjectives to describe the court. Thank you; no offence.

[Piengrudee]

The blocking of ICT on this clip คำสารภาพคนโกงข้อสอบ (translated as the confession of the exam cheaters) by ohmygod3009 is not effective. A few more upload has already been seen in youtube fully accessible. Also it is all over the TV & Radio already.

[rametindallas]

Ridicule for divergent or tangental thinking is not part of proper debate.

And ridicule for not changing focus to someone elses points in a group forum debate, has even less place in civilized society. But that then begs the question of whether some poster thinks this is civilized discussion. Or if they imagine that ONLY their points make it civilized, and other opinions are of no consequence and therefor the posters are of no consequence by extension.

Really? You don't seem to have studied the history of debating since ridicule has an important role where deserved.Read the Lincoln - Douglas debates or the exchanges between Gladstone and Disraeli.

In this particular the point being made was indeed absurd, namely to ignore the compromised Court and focus to the exclusion of all else on the whistleblower.It's not a rational position.

Your thoughts on who I believe to be of consequence are misplaced.It is very evident who adds value and who does not.

This is not a debating forum, this is a discussion forum.

[Piengrudee]

The clip also accuses the government of double standards, alleging that a senior policeman in Tak province “caught” in a separate video clip harassing a female subordinate not long ago was prosecuted, but it said nobody bothered to go after the person who took and released the video. . . . It claimed the government was now trying to curry favour with the court by trying to hunt down the person behind the video leak despite the fact that previous incidents had eroded public faith in the court. . . . nation

[jayboy]

You, sir, are denigrating the court with your unfounded, unproven innuendo. You should know this is an actionable offence if you are in the Kingdom. I urge you to stop the accusations which you try to explain away as 'puplic opinion'. You should know that all 'public opinion is not printable' in the Kingdom. Several newspapers have been charged for reporting the illegal words of others. You may or may not know that PTP spokesperson Noppadon recently made some disparaging remarks about the court and now the PTP is worried about dissolution and several of their party leaders have resigned. The newspapers will not quote his offensive language as they would be just as guilty. I think you can make your case that the issue should be investigated by non-involved parties without using any illegal adjectives to describe the court. Thank you; no offence.

I think you have demonstrated very clearly a certain type of blinkered mindset, namely to bluster and threaten - anything to intimidate a free discussion.The facts in this case speak for themselves and have been taken aboard by most politically aware Thais.The Constitutional Court has been compromised in the eyes of the country.If however you have evidence exonerating its actions by all means provide it.Your ignorant nonsense about PTP leaders resigning suggests however you have nothing to offer but childish bluster.

[rubl]

deleted, duplicate

Edited November 10, 2010 by rubl

[rubl]

Post deleted. Reason: memory item found 'don't feed the troll even with a nice name like piengrudee

Edited November 10, 2010 by rubl

[jdinasia]

I see yet more of jayboy's ad hominem attacks.

Jayboy --- you are making unsubstantiated claims about the constitution court and how most Thais feel about the court at the present time. Please feel free to prove your point. Do realize if you use an editorial or opinion piece that it will be taken as just that. The opinion of a person or an editorial position of a newspaper. Do also realize that if you have previously denigrated the person writing the opinion piece that and are now holding him up as someone to be believed that you will have left yourself exposed.

I do note that you never answered my questions earlier in the thread.

I also stand by my point that in this thread and others you almost never remark on the content of a post and usually attempt to discredit the poster instead. By nature that is the very example of an ad hominem attack.

[silp1979]

what did they guy actually film?

[animatic]

You, sir, are denigrating the court with your unfounded, unproven innuendo. You should know this is an actionable offence if you are in the Kingdom. I urge you to stop the accusations which you try to explain away as 'puplic opinion'. You should know that all 'public opinion is not printable' in the Kingdom. Several newspapers have been charged for reporting the illegal words of others. You may or may not know that PTP spokesperson Noppadon recently made some disparaging remarks about the court and now the PTP is worried about dissolution and several of their party leaders have resigned. The newspapers will not quote his offensive language as they would be just as guilty. I think you can make your case that the issue should be investigated by non-involved parties without using any illegal adjectives to describe the court. Thank you; no offence.

I think you have demonstrated very clearly a certain type of blinkered mindset, namely to bluster and threaten - anything to intimidate a free discussion.The facts in this case speak for themselves and have been taken aboard by most politically aware Thais.The Constitutional Court has been compromised in the eyes of the country.If however you have evidence exonerating its actions by all means provide it.Your ignorant nonsense about PTP leaders resigning suggests however you have nothing to offer but childish bluster.

But the court, nor any of it's members, have been convicted of anything in any other court, and so this is still just accusation and innuendo.

Unless you think that suffices for 'discrediting' or 'compromising in the eyes of the country' without sufficient and complete investigation, and trial followed by conviction by their peers. Other wise it's just invective and wishful thinking proposed as acredited fact.

"anything to intimidate a free discussion.The facts in this case speak for themselves and have been taken aboard by most politically aware Thais"

Actually no they don't, YET, only the accusations do.

And the probable intention of these accusations is to do "anything to intimidate a free" and fair court decisions on either case of the democrats.

Edited November 10, 2010 by animatic

[animatic]

I see yet more of jayboy's ad hominem attacks.

Jayboy --- you are making unsubstantiated claims about the constitution court and how most Thais feel about the court at the present time. Please feel free to prove your point. Do realize if you use an editorial or opinion piece that it will be taken as just that. The opinion of a person or an editorial position of a newspaper. Do also realize that if you have previously denigrated the person writing the opinion piece that and are now holding him up as someone to be believed that you will have left yourself exposed.

I do note that you never answered my questions earlier in the thread.

I also stand by my point that in this thread and others you almost never remark on the content of a post and usually attempt to discredit the poster instead. By nature that is the very example of an ad hominem attack.

Style before substance?

Distraction before veracity?

[cdnvic]

One mangled post deleted. Poster may repost fixed version.

[jayboy]

I see yet more of jayboy's ad hominem attacks.

Jayboy --- you are making unsubstantiated claims about the constitution court and how most Thais feel about the court at the present time. Please feel free to prove your point. Do realize if you use an editorial or opinion piece that it will be taken as just that. The opinion of a person or an editorial position of a newspaper. Do also realize that if you have previously denigrated the person writing the opinion piece that and are now holding him up as someone to be believed that you will have left yourself exposed.

I do note that you never answered my questions earlier in the thread.

I also stand by my point that in this thread and others you almost never remark on the content of a post and usually attempt to discredit the poster instead. By nature that is the very example of an ad hominem attack.

Style before substance?

Distraction before veracity?

More personal attacks.Nothing predictably on the serious substance.

[jdinasia]

I was very careful to make sure there was NO personal attack in what I wrote Jayboy and I called you on your style again and asked direct questions about what YOU state is fact but apparently is only your opinion. You failed to answer.

You have implied I was a visa runner, a drunk, a teacher, etc etc etc in various threads in an attempt to discredit my posts while never addressing the FACTS in my posts I have refrained from returning the favor, as I assume your behaviour will be duly noted in time

[TAWP]

Jayboy, shouldn't you be over in the Visa section claiming that foreign lawyers are here practicing law in Thai courts?

[Siripon]

What is the minimum number of Constitutional Court judges needed to judge a case?

If 3 or 4 judges resign over these clips, their successors are chosen from a committee including senators, but the appointed senators' terms expire next February so the committee to select the new judges may be unable to act until the election of new senators.

Consequently a verdict on the Democrats' case could be postponed for a year!

[jayboy]

I was very careful to make sure there was NO personal attack in what I wrote Jayboy and I called you on your style again and asked direct questions about what YOU state is fact but apparently is only your opinion. You failed to answer.

You have implied I was a visa runner, a drunk, a teacher, etc etc etc in various threads in an attempt to discredit my posts while never addressing the FACTS in my posts I have refrained from returning the favor, as I assume your behaviour will be duly noted in time

Honestly you should try and transcend all your personal issues.If you focus on the matter at hand I'll be happy to discuss.

[jayboy]

Jayboy, shouldn't you be over in the Visa section claiming that foreign lawyers are here practicing law in Thai courts?

Are members only allowed one area of interest?

And as a postscript I never said foreign lawyers can practise in Thai courts.They can't.

[animatic]

I see yet more of jayboy's ad hominem attacks.

Jayboy --- you are making unsubstantiated claims about the constitution court and how most Thais feel about the court at the present time. Please feel free to prove your point. Do realize if you use an editorial or opinion piece that it will be taken as just that. The opinion of a person or an editorial position of a newspaper. Do also realize that if you have previously denigrated the person writing the opinion piece that and are now holding him up as someone to be believed that you will have left yourself exposed.

I do note that you never answered my questions earlier in the thread.

I also stand by my point that in this thread and others you almost never remark on the content of a post and usually attempt to discredit the poster instead. By nature that is the very example of an ad hominem attack.

Style before substance?

Distraction before veracity?

What? You take posing questions as insults?

kettle vs teapot, waste of time, Gladstone.

Edited November 11, 2010 by animatic

[TackyToo]

It's hard to follow all the details of this story, even if I wanted to, which I don't. One basic premise comes forth though: It's not so important whether unethical or illegal things were done. In the view of the Justices, the only two things that matter are;

1. sweeping the whole matter under the rug as soon as possible.

2. punishing the person who made the videos.

Whistle blowers should be commended rather than vilified. In some societies (certainly not in Asia), whistle blowers are rewarded for useful and true information that uncovers improprieties. I admit, secretly filming court members' private discussions is questionable in terms of ethics, but now that the cat is out of the bag, let the public see whether any illegal or improper activity has been going on.

Heck, law enforcement does it all the time, when snooping on common citizens - how about turning the tables and seeing what those at the top are doing?

.....and I agree that Mr. Amsterdam should keep his fat nose out of these matters. These are disciplinary and ethical issues for Thais to deal with.

Check out the latest news:

CONTROVERSIAL COURT CLIPS

Police complaint filed against YouTube user

By The Nation

Published on November 11, 2010

Three judges yesterday lodged a police complaint against the person who released the latest video-clip on YouTube.

The 5.36-minute-long clip with sub-titles entitled "Confession of a admission exam cheater" was posted on Monday by "ohmygod3009" "the same person who posted the previous clips.

Lawyer Napol Arunasirakul, who is representing the Constitution Court judges Charoon Inthajarn, Suphot Khaimuk and Chalermpon Ake-uru, lodged a complaint with police against the person who posted the clips allegedly showing the three judges favouring certain candidates in getting jobs at their court. The complaint says posting of the video-clips was a violation of the Computer Crime Act.

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

"Don't kill the messenger"

„This idea was expressed by Sophocles as far back as 442 B.C. and much later by Shakespeare in 'Henry IV, Part II' and in 'Antony and Cleopatra' (1606-07) The word kill may be used as a substitute for 'shoot."

Hard to understand that the LOG (Land of Gossip) don't recognize this famous quote!

Maybe they prefer this one:

"if you can't sweep it under the rug, then it gets treated as furniture"

[jdinasia]

I was very careful to make sure there was NO personal attack in what I wrote Jayboy and I called you on your style again and asked direct questions about what YOU state is fact but apparently is only your opinion. You failed to answer.

You have implied I was a visa runner, a drunk, a teacher, etc etc etc in various threads in an attempt to discredit my posts while never addressing the FACTS in my posts I have refrained from returning the favor, as I assume your behaviour will be duly noted in time

Honestly you should try and transcend all your personal issues.If you focus on the matter at hand I'll be happy to discuss.

again with a sweeping personal attack

Issues are listed above ----- in previous posts where I pointed out you were stating your opinion or that of an opinion piece or editorial and then making statements about people in general. You have never posted any facts, just personal opinions and personal attacks