Pheu Thai And Red Shirts Do Nothing To Help Their Own

[nicknostitz]

The reason/excuse then supposedly given for said sticker (it looks cool) is then so weak one would have to be very gullible and/or biased to believe the excuse without further evidence.

Incredibly weak, and the fact that Nick simply accepted this reasoning - it looks cool - as being a plausible and reasonable explanation, and the fact that he didn't respond back with "come on guys, nobody is going to buy that crap - the sticker is highly offensive and completely undermines any good work you might be doing, and furthermore, you placed it on the boats not because it looks cool - stop insulting me with that BS - but because it reflects how strongly you feel about people who are not aligned with your political view - and whether or not you really would refuse to help someone who wasn't a red, it makes little difference when that is what you are so publicly advertising", speaks volumes about Nick's position, not that it wasn't already blatantly obvious of course.

As others have said though, i actually do respect the work Nick does and would be the first to acknowledge how well informed he is. I just wish he would be a little more candid about his agenda in all this - it is after all exposed in just about every thread in which he contributes.

My position is that i have been taught some manners, and will not attack people in such a rude way, especially when they give me satisfying, open and honest answers to all the questions i have asked, and were very friendly to me while i pestered them.

If you would ave read my posts i have stated to them, after the interview, that i find these stickers not a very smart idea, but in a more polite way as you suggested here.

And i was very clear about "my agenda" many posts back. Read the post, please.

And personally, i find the attitude of some posters here quite sickening (that is not you, right now). The almost professional moaning, whining and shitting on people, the incredible negativity that is going on here on Thaivisa is beyond believe.

I honestly hope that i will never meet some of these posters in real life.

[Moonrakers]

The reason/excuse then supposedly given for said sticker (it looks cool) is then so weak one would have to be very gullible and/or biased to believe the excuse without further evidence.

Incredibly weak, and the fact that Nick simply accepted this reasoning - it looks cool - as being a plausible and reasonable explanation, and the fact that he didn't respond back with "come on guys, nobody is going to buy that crap - the sticker is highly offensive and completely undermines any good work you might be doing, and furthermore, you placed it on the boats not because it looks cool - stop insulting me with that BS - but because it reflects how strongly you feel about people who are not aligned with your political view - and whether or not you really would refuse to help someone who wasn't a red, it makes little difference when that is what you are so publicly advertising", speaks volumes about Nick's position, not that it wasn't already blatantly obvious of course.

As others have said though, i actually do respect the work Nick does and would be the first to acknowledge how well informed he is. I just wish he would be a little more candid about his agenda in all this - it is after all exposed in just about every thread in which he contributes.

My position is that i have been taught some manners, and will not attack people in such a rude way, especially when they give me satisfying, open and honest answers to all the questions i have asked, and were very friendly to me while i pestered them.

If you would ave read my posts i have stated to them, after the interview, that i find these stickers not a very smart idea, but in a more polite way as you suggested here.

[rixalex]

And if they indeed disallowed any non-red shirts to get on the boat, this would surely be classified as a reprehensible and indefensible act, very much like what some others did a couple of years back by occupying the airport.

Where would a red-shirt defence be without the obligatory airport occupation mention? It's stood them in good stead for many years now as a way of avoiding addressing their own misdemeanors, but dragging up history that far back is starting to stretch an argument that from birth was already dead on its legs. They must be praying for the yellows to do something again of equal stupidity, so as to give them some fresh material with which to explain away all their own ongoing stupidity.

[rixalex]

My position is that i have been taught some manners, and will not attack people in such a rude way, especially when they give me satisfying, open and honest answers to all the questions i have asked, and were very friendly to me while i pestered them.

Wasn't suggesting or encouraging you to attack anyone, simply expressing disappointment, if not surprise, that rather than simply accept the weak and pathetic, "we thought it looked cool" response, (which amazingly it seems you thought was "satisfying, open and honest"), you didn't challenge this explanation whatsoever, but accepted it in an "ah ok, now i see, it all makes sense" manner.

Forgive me for saying this, but it does seem you would have been ready to accept any explanation they would have cared to give you.

[Gweiloman]

And if they indeed disallowed any non-red shirts to get on the boat, this would surely be classified as a reprehensible and indefensible act, very much like what some others did a couple of years back by occupying the airport.

Where would a red-shirt defence be without the obligatory airport occupation mention? It's stood them in good stead for many years now as a way of avoiding addressing their own misdemeanors, but dragging up history that far back is starting to stretch an argument that from birth was already dead on its legs. They must be praying for the yellows to do something again of equal stupidity, so as to give them some fresh material with which to explain away all their own ongoing stupidity.

Actually, I think it's called perspective. Reprehensible and indefensible acts are not the exclusive domain of red shirts.

The airport occupation happened two years ago. Thaksin's crimes, much longer than that. Guess which gets dragged up more often?

I doubt if any red supporters are praying for the yellows to do something again of equal stupidity (kudos for acknowledging that, unlike some other posters). The yellow supporters on this forum are doing a much better job.

[longway]

The reason/excuse then supposedly given for said sticker (it looks cool) is then so weak one would have to be very gullible and/or biased to believe the excuse without further evidence.

Incredibly weak, and the fact that Nick simply accepted this reasoning - it looks cool - as being a plausible and reasonable explanation, and the fact that he didn't respond back with "come on guys, nobody is going to buy that crap - the sticker is highly offensive and completely undermines any good work you might be doing, and furthermore, you placed it on the boats not because it looks cool - stop insulting me with that BS - but because it reflects how strongly you feel about people who are not aligned with your political view - and whether or not you really would refuse to help someone who wasn't a red, it makes little difference when that is what you are so publicly advertising", speaks volumes about Nick's position, not that it wasn't already blatantly obvious of course.

As others have said though, i actually do respect the work Nick does and would be the first to acknowledge how well informed he is. I just wish he would be a little more candid about his agenda in all this - it is after all exposed in just about every thread in which he contributes.

My position is that i have been taught some manners, and will not attack people in such a rude way, especially when they give me satisfying, open and honest answers to all the questions i have asked, and were very friendly to me while i pestered them.

If you would ave read my posts i have stated to them, after the interview, that i find these stickers not a very smart idea, but in a more polite way as you suggested here.

And i was very clear about "my agenda" many posts back. Read the post, please.

And personally, i find the attitude of some posters here quite sickening (that is not you, right now). The almost professional moaning, whining and shitting on people, the incredible negativity that is going on here on Thaivisa is beyond believe.

I honestly hope that i will never meet some of these posters in real life.

Why didn't you ask them the origin of the sticker? Their reason only makes any kind of sense if they were given them, and if the were then it could have a wider implications.

BTW did you ask who controls them?

Edited November 3, 2011 by longway

[TomnearCentral]

Good news everybody! It looks like they removed the famous stickers!

So, either they took Nick's advice or somebody else told them that it might be a good idea to remove the stickers if their intention is to help everybody.

However, as expected I was not "disappointed" in finding the boats once again stationary at their tends.

Well, one can only ask for so much.....

Edited November 3, 2011 by TomnearCentral

[Moonrakers]

Well that's at least something if true.

But are they the same boats? The painted on text is different (although, granted, the pictures are taken from different sides)

[Buchholz]

And if they indeed disallowed any non-red shirts to get on the boat, this would surely be classified as a reprehensible and indefensible act, very much like what some others did a couple of years back by occupying the airport.

Where would a red-shirt defence be without the obligatory airport occupation mention? It's stood them in good stead for many years now as a way of avoiding addressing their own misdemeanors, but dragging up history that far back is starting to stretch an argument that from birth was already dead on its legs. They must be praying for the yellows to do something again of equal stupidity, so as to give them some fresh material with which to explain away all their own ongoing stupidity.

They'd be without a spin.

Even Nostitz has said on here that PAD is irrelevant today. Admittedly, they are spent force, but that doesn't mean they can't be be brought right back and interjected into all discussions of very current events as the requisite excuse for any and all Red Shirt actions.

.

Edited November 3, 2011 by Buchholz

[rixalex]

Where would a red-shirt defence be without the obligatory airport occupation mention? It's stood them in good stead for many years now as a way of avoiding addressing their own misdemeanors, but dragging up history that far back is starting to stretch an argument that from birth was already dead on its legs. They must be praying for the yellows to do something again of equal stupidity, so as to give them some fresh material with which to explain away all their own ongoing stupidity.

Actually, I think it's called perspective.

It's not perspective, it is an attempt to play down one act, or at the very least, shift attention, by bringing into the discussion a completely different act. It seems it is quite impossible for some to simply condemn. There has to be a tag thrown on at the end, that somehow in someway excuses or lessens what they are condemning. Some might not call that condemning at all.

Reprehensible and indefensible acts are not the exclusive domain of red shirts.

Who said they were? What, every time the red shirts do something reprehensible and indefensible, we have to go through a list of all the other people or groups who have also done likewise?

The airport occupation happened two years ago.

Pretty much three actually.

[rubl]

begin removed ...

Regarding the controversial sticker issue, they said that they had them from the beginning on their boats, mostly because they thought it looked cool, and didn't really think much about it, especially that this could become such a controversy.

... end removed (follow link for original)

After rereading this post I started to wonder again. Rather than giving my interpretation of what you are saying here, may I ask you to elaborate a bit on the "mostly because they thought it looked cool". What do you want to suggest here, or what didn't you want to tell here?

No answer, although lots of posts by the 'usual suspects'

So let me be a bit more explicit. The "mostly because they thought is looked cool" suggests that there are more reasons other than only the 'looking cool'. Please elaborate

Edited November 3, 2011 by rubl

[rixalex]

Thaksin's crimes, much longer than that. Guess which gets dragged up more often?

Perhaps the ones that some found more appalling? Clearly not you. A one week sit in protest at an airport managed to disgust you more than what Thaksin got up to in many years of tyranny. I might be closer to understanding such a position had they torched the building when they left, rather than clearing it up.

I doubt if any red supporters are praying for the yellows to do something again of equal stupidity (kudos for acknowledging that, unlike some other posters). The yellow supporters on this forum are doing a much better job.

Who are these yellow supporters? Which members?

[hanuman1]

And if they indeed disallowed any non-red shirts to get on the boat, this would surely be classified as a reprehensible and indefensible act, very much like what some others did a couple of years back by occupying the airport.

Where would a red-shirt defence be without the obligatory airport occupation mention? It's stood them in good stead for many years now as a way of avoiding addressing their own misdemeanors, but dragging up history that far back is starting to stretch an argument that from birth was already dead on its legs. They must be praying for the yellows to do something again of equal stupidity, so as to give them some fresh material with which to explain away all their own ongoing stupidity.

It's stood them in good stead for many years now as a way of avoiding addressing their own misdemeanors, but dragging up history that far back is starting to stretch an argument that from birth was already dead on its legs.

On the subject of the 'shelf life' of indefensible acts as political point scoring tools in these important discussions, how long would you give, say, the 2006 coup or the fighting last year in Bangkok? 10 minutes and forever respectively, I'd imagine. Although of course I'm prepared to be proved wrong.

Edited November 3, 2011 by hanuman1

[hanuman1]

Good news everybody! It looks like they removed the famous stickers!

So, either they took Nick's advice or somebody else told them that it might be a good idea to remove the stickers if their intention is to help everybody.

However, as expected I was not "disappointed" in finding the boats once again stationary at their tends.

Well, one can only ask for so much.....

Thanks for the photo!

It seems they started to consider the views of others outside their immediate circle of friends. Fair enough. If they'd known how upset some anonymous farangs would get because of their sticker, they would probably have [complete the sentence for your own amusement].

Edited November 3, 2011 by hanuman1

[rubl]

Good news everybody! It looks like they removed the famous stickers!

So, either they took Nick's advice or somebody else told them that it might be a good idea to remove the stickers if their intention is to help everybody.

However, as expected I was not "disappointed" in finding the boats once again stationary at their tends.

Well, one can only ask for so much.....

Thanks for the photo!

It seems they started to consider the views of others outside their immediate circle of friends. Fair enough. If they'd known how upset some anonymous farangs would get because of their sticker, they would probably have [complete the sentence for your own amusement].

... printed their label in a larger font size, even if that's against forum rules

Edited November 3, 2011 by rubl

[whybother]

Well that's at least something if true.

But are they the same boats? The painted on text is different (although, granted, the pictures are taken from different sides)

Could that mean that the stickers are only on one side?

Edited November 3, 2011 by whybother

[hanuman1]

Well that's at least something if true.

But are they the same boats? The painted on text is different (although, granted, the pictures are taken from different sides)

Could that mean that the stickers are only on one side?

The original shot questioned by Monkfish was of the sticker on the other side. Then someone else posted a shot of the other side of the boat - which also had the sticker - to discredit Monkfish's allegation.

So they've probably taken it off. Or maybe they haven't. Depends how you feel, really.

[Moonrakers]

Well that's at least something if true.

But are they the same boats? The painted on text is different (although, granted, the pictures are taken from different sides)

Could that mean that the stickers are only on one side?

The stickers were on both sides.

There's another photo that shows that, but it doesn't show the (apparently) painted on text.

[whybother]

Could that mean that the stickers are only on one side?

The original shot questioned by Monkfish was of the sticker on the other side. Then someone else posted a shot of the other side of the boat - which also had the sticker - to discredit Monkfish's allegation.

So they've probably taken it off. Or maybe they haven't. Depends how you feel, really.

You're right. The first picture (around post 100) had the stickers on the right hand side. The second picture (around post 200ish) had the sticker on the left.

I would assume that they removed the stickers from both sides.

[hanuman1]

Could that mean that the stickers are only on one side?

The original shot questioned by Monkfish was of the sticker on the other side. Then someone else posted a shot of the other side of the boat - which also had the sticker - to discredit Monkfish's allegation.

So they've probably taken it off. Or maybe they haven't. Depends how you feel, really.

You're right. The first picture (around post 100) had the stickers on the right hand side. The second picture (around post 200ish) had the sticker on the left.

I would assume that they removed the stickers from both sides.

I would assume that they removed the stickers from both sides.

Steady on, old chap. That kind of talk could get you labelled a red apologist by some of the esteemed analysts on this forum. Better to keep an open mind, whatever your beliefs. :jap:

[Buchholz]

Good news everybody! It looks like they removed the famous stickers!

So, either they took Nick's advice or somebody else told them that it might be a good idea to remove the stickers if their intention is to help everybody.

However, as expected I was not "disappointed" in finding the boats once again stationary at their tends.

Well, one can only ask for so much.....

Thanks for the photo!

It seems they started to consider the views of others outside their immediate circle of friends. Fair enough. If they'd known how upset some anonymous farangs would get because of their sticker, they would probably have [complete the sentence for your own amusement].

The whole issue came to light and was derived from Thais that were upset by it.

All the photos initially posted came from Thai forums and emails.... well, except for the anonymous farang who didn't believe it and ginned up a huge FAKE photo reproduction of it and maintained his belief, along with others, of refusing to believe they were real.

Whatever the reason that that particular "splinter Red Shirt" group had for removing the stickers, its removal was replaced with perhaps yet another splinter Red Shirt group doing similar with the Maxliner boats as evidenced by yet another Thai photograph and comments of the latest photo.

.

Edited November 3, 2011 by Buchholz

[yoshiwara]

Good news everybody! It looks like they removed the famous stickers!

So, either they took Nick's advice or somebody else told them that it might be a good idea to remove the stickers if their intention is to help everybody.

However, as expected I was not "disappointed" in finding the boats once again stationary at their tends.

Well, one can only ask for so much.....

Thanks for the photo!

It seems they started to consider the views of others outside their immediate circle of friends. Fair enough. If they'd known how upset some anonymous farangs would get because of their sticker, they would probably have [complete the sentence for your own amusement].

The whole issue came to light and was derived from Thais that were upset by it.

All the photos initially posted came from Thai forums and emails.... well, except for the anonymous farang who didn't believe it and ginned up a huge FAKE photo reproduction of it and maintained his belief, along with others, of refusing to believe they were real.

Whatever the reason that that particular "splinter Red Shirt" group had for removing the stickers, its removal was replaced with perhaps yet another splinter Red Shirt group doing similar with the Maxliner boats as evidenced by yet another Thai photograph and comments of the latest photo.

.

The old canard was to blame violent and/or reactionary activities on 'fake reds'. Thaksin showed the way when he blamed the break up of the 2009 ASEAN Conference in Jomtien on 'fake reds'. A complete lie of course, but the tactic got picked up by most of the thuggish reds last year. Lying that is. Now we have a slightly softer lie which is to blame 'splinter' red groups when nasty things come out of the woodwork (or even pasted on the woodwork). Each onion layer of Thaksin's support network can and will deny anything just to keep up the spirit of the thing. Selling coolness? You have to be kidding. The forum apologist meanwhile can whitter on about a decentralised organisation as if it is a liberation movement. Such incisive questions. Roll over and tickle my tummy.

[rixalex]

On the subject of the 'shelf life' of indefensible acts as political point scoring tools in these important discussions, how long would you give, say, the 2006 coup or the fighting last year in Bangkok? 10 minutes and forever respectively, I'd imagine. Although of course I'm prepared to be proved wrong.

I don't think there is a shelf life in discussing those incidents you mention. The issue is bringing those issues up, to, in some way, justify something else.

[hanuman1]

On the subject of the 'shelf life' of indefensible acts as political point scoring tools in these important discussions, how long would you give, say, the 2006 coup or the fighting last year in Bangkok? 10 minutes and forever respectively, I'd imagine. Although of course I'm prepared to be proved wrong.

I don't think there is a shelf life in discussing those incidents you mention. The issue is bringing those issues up, to, in some way, justify something else.

I don't see it as a justification of something else. It's more like saying 'Here's an incident (A) which you don't decry, which is comparably bad to an incident ( which you do decry (repeatedly and at length)'. Any linkage between the two incidents apart from the fact they serve to illustrate an inconsistency in your (or whoever's) reaction to each, is purely what you imagine, I would suggest. And what you imagine, I feel, is fueled by the notion that in this argument there is no quarter to give, no middle ground to be found and no common understanding possible.

Just my 2 Adjustable Galactic Dollars' worth.

[Siripon]

Jatupon seems to be talking more and more nonsense. After accusing the army of wanting a 'water coup' by claiming they wanted an Emergency decree, he now says Yingluk wants to share half the blame with them if the flood measures don't work out by giving the army 5 provinces to alleviate the flood problems.

In addition he said the floods were good luck for Thailand as they have stopped enemies of the government from plotting its overthrow in December!

Perhaps he's swallowed too much dirty flood water and bacteria has reached his brain.

Jatuporn really said the floods were good for Thailand? Freedom of speech is one thing, but absolute lunacy is another. If he really said that the proper authorities should be notified and an escort to a mental asylum would be in order.

After Payao red shirts told him to go away, now Phrae red shirts have joined in, saying Jatuporn should not come to Phrae to involve himself in local elections, but rather as a Party List MP he should stay in Bangkok helping flood victims.

[Gweiloman]

On the subject of the 'shelf life' of indefensible acts as political point scoring tools in these important discussions, how long would you give, say, the 2006 coup or the fighting last year in Bangkok? 10 minutes and forever respectively, I'd imagine. Although of course I'm prepared to be proved wrong.

I don't think there is a shelf life in discussing those incidents you mention. The issue is bringing those issues up, to, in some way, justify something else.

I don't see it as a justification of something else. It's more like saying 'Here's an incident (A) which you don't decry, which is comparably bad to an incident ( which you do decry (repeatedly and at length)'. Any linkage between the two incidents apart from the fact they serve to illustrate an inconsistency in your (or whoever's) reaction to each, is purely what you imagine, I would suggest. And what you imagine, I feel, is fueled by the notion that in this argument there is no quarter to give, no middle ground to be found and no common understanding possible.

Just my 2 Adjustable Galactic Dollars' worth.

Rixalex couldn't see the point even in my very simple post about perspective. I doubt very much if he could make sense of yours

[siampolee]

Siripon # 595.

After Payao red shirts told him to go away, now Phrae red shirts have joined in, saying Jatuporn should not come to Phrae to involve himself in local elections, but rather as a Party List MP he should stay in Bangkok helping flood victims.

With good luck and a following wind Jutuporn may have found this item below.

Edited November 4, 2011 by siampolee

[Buchholz]

Jatupon seems to be talking more and more nonsense. After accusing the army of wanting a 'water coup' by claiming they wanted an Emergency decree, he now says Yingluk wants to share half the blame with them if the flood measures don't work out by giving the army 5 provinces to alleviate the flood problems.

In addition he said the floods were good luck for Thailand as they have stopped enemies of the government from plotting its overthrow in December!

Perhaps he's swallowed too much dirty flood water and bacteria has reached his brain.

Jatuporn really said the floods were good for Thailand? Freedom of speech is one thing, but absolute lunacy is another. If he really said that the proper authorities should be notified and an escort to a mental asylum would be in order.

After Payao red shirts told him to go away, now Phrae red shirts have joined in, saying Jatuporn should not come to Phrae to involve himself in local elections, but rather as a Party List MP he should stay in Bangkok helping flood victims.

What would it take for the Red Shirts to impeach, disbar, remove (or whatever term they use) Jatuporn from supposedly their movement? Can Payao and Phrae Red Shirts jointly voice their collective dismay to the other Red Shirt Leaders (or the Interim Red Shirt President Thida) and strip him of his Red Shirt status? OR... are they resigned to be stuck with this unsavory character as he is one of its founders?

Now would be a good opportunity for this so-called movement to attempt to improve their credibility by availing itself of the perfect timing to kick out the nutters in it.

.

Edited November 4, 2011 by Buchholz

[yoshiwara]

Jatupon seems to be talking more and more nonsense. After accusing the army of wanting a 'water coup' by claiming they wanted an Emergency decree, he now says Yingluk wants to share half the blame with them if the flood measures don't work out by giving the army 5 provinces to alleviate the flood problems.

In addition he said the floods were good luck for Thailand as they have stopped enemies of the government from plotting its overthrow in December!

Perhaps he's swallowed too much dirty flood water and bacteria has reached his brain.

Jatuporn really said the floods were good for Thailand? Freedom of speech is one thing, but absolute lunacy is another. If he really said that the proper authorities should be notified and an escort to a mental asylum would be in order.

After Payao red shirts told him to go away, now Phrae red shirts have joined in, saying Jatuporn should not come to Phrae to involve himself in local elections, but rather as a Party List MP he should stay in Bangkok helping flood victims.

What would it take for the Red Shirts to impeach, disbar, remove (or whatever term they use) Jatuporn from supposedly their movement? Can Payao and Phrae Red Shirts jointly voice their collective dismay to the other Red Shirt Leaders (or the Interim Red Shirt President Thida) and strip him of his Red Shirt status? OR... are they resigned to be stuck with this unsavory character as he is one of its founders?

Now would be a good opportunity for this so-called movement to attempt to improve their credibility by availing itself of the perfect timing to kick out the nutters in it.

.

Not going to happen. He is an essntial part of the Thaksin apparatus. And Thaksin decides.

[Buchholz]

Jatuporn really said the floods were good for Thailand? Freedom of speech is one thing, but absolute lunacy is another. If he really said that the proper authorities should be notified and an escort to a mental asylum would be in order.

After Payao red shirts told him to go away, now Phrae red shirts have joined in, saying Jatuporn should not come to Phrae to involve himself in local elections, but rather as a Party List MP he should stay in Bangkok helping flood victims.

What would it take for the Red Shirts to impeach, disbar, remove (or whatever term they use) Jatuporn from supposedly their movement? Can Payao and Phrae Red Shirts jointly voice their collective dismay to the other Red Shirt Leaders (or the Interim Red Shirt President Thida) and strip him of his Red Shirt status? OR... are they resigned to be stuck with this unsavory character as he is one of its founders?

Now would be a good opportunity for this so-called movement to attempt to improve their credibility by availing itself of the perfect timing to kick out the nutters in it.

Not going to happen. He is an essential part of the Thaksin apparatus. And Thaksin decides.

oh well, it was just a passing thought. They've not shown much interest in having credibility for a long time.

.