Pheu Thai And Red Shirts Do Nothing To Help Their Own

[Publicus]

Yes I am. I have always said that I thought you were a very fair reporter in documenting events you have witnessed personally.

Thanks.

.

I too am trying to find the "international journalist" in this mix. All I can come up with however is a local red.

Edited October 29, 2011 by Publicus

[Gweiloman]

KISS also means keep it stupid, simple.

You say the OP's piece is "blatantly biased" and that "only the prejudiced and insanely blind can defend it." What we can see is that you are a master of the understatement. I also note your consonantal alliteration "blatantly biased." Not just biased, but blatantly biased. Wow, I figure we should be impressed.

I and many others happen to believe the OP's piece has merit. You can respect that or disrespect it.. You choose a barely restrained disrespect that borders on abuse.

All journalism has bias. Modern journalism recognizes the fact of bias because recent generations of consumers of journalism are more educated and culturally more sophisticated than previously. That's not blatant so I guess you missed it.

.

Thanks for the English lesson but first, learn how to post quotes properly.

Keep it stupid, simple? Makes no sense whatsoever. I would wager that it's grammatically incorrect even. On second thoughts, keep your English lesson.

You and many others believe (that) the OP's piece has merit. You would of course.

"All journalism has bias. Modern journalism recognizes the fact of bias because recent generations of consumers of journalism are more educated and culturally more sophisticated than previously."

Er, do you know how to speak/write normally?

[Buchholz]

But yes, if these stickers are indeed on their boats, and if they also do exclude non-Red Shirts in their relief work, this would be quite scandalous. And it would be against stated UDD policy

More satisfying would be, as mentioned earlier, the condemnation from any Red Shirt faction regarding the actions of the responsible Red Shirt faction.

That is, if the so-called "stated UDD policy" actually meant anything.

.

[rubl]

It doesn't. I was talking about this particular situation, photo, NN's comment. Any extrapolation you think you can do from there is strictly your opinion.

No offence, but keeping an eye on the flooding / non-flooding situation makes a wee bit more sense at this moment. Written from a (luckily) still dry Khet Dusit

whatever

and no offence, but you can save your usual and predictable topic changing attempt to take the moral high ground in the conclusion of your post, for a thread that is about keeping on eye on the flooding... *smiley face*

Amazing! Truly amazing! We agree on one thing: whatever

Why don't we focus on what's really important, the welfare of the people...i'm sure we are both more concerned over that more than anything else :)

When I say 'keeping an eye on flooding ...' I'm topic changing to a point of whatever and now you say "Why don't we focus on what's really important, the welfare of the people"?

Even the government doesn't manage to contradict itself within so short a time

[cdnvic]

The photo has been altered. Don't get so worked up about it,

[nurofiend]

When I say 'keeping an eye on flooding ...' I'm topic changing to a point of whatever and now you say "Why don't we focus on what's really important, the welfare of the people"?

Even the government doesn't manage to contradict itself within so short a time

it was an attempt to mimic your posting style

do keep up

[Siam Simon]

You missed the boat in your remarks about the OP as a journalist. The test of the OP's opinion piece is whether it is provably false or whether it was written with a reckless disregard of the facts. That's the standard of modern jounalism and has been so for 40 years. Yet I continually read forumists here who attack legitimate journalism as it appears in the Nation. The Nation, as with the BP, practice modern journalism, which presents sound reasoning based on facts. That is the contemporary standard of English language journalism globally. The contemporary standard also extends to newspapers in foreign democracies. Some democracies have more strict laws of libel and slander, others less strict laws. Thailand has some certain speech laws that are strictly enforced but Thailand, on the whole, also has a vibrant and free press which managed to survive the varieties of insidious and pernicious censorship practiced by Thaksin during his rule.

The days of the objective, facts only, balanced news story are the bad old days of pretensions, of a false propriety and of outright tomfoolery. I'm pleased to say the illusion of a factual, objective and "balanced" news story or editorial were left behind long ago. The old primary school level of journalism and the body politic is kaput. Get used to it. The facts of journalism are that the Nation and the BP are respectable newspapers that publish respectable opinion.

I believe you confuse gutter journalism with modern journalism. There are many very interesting publications that have vibrant, modern approaches to journalism. None of them in Thailand can hold themselves long though, and are most definitely not to be found in either the Nation or in the Bangkok Post, which, by international standards, are so bad that you cannot even call them antiquated. And no - neither the Nation nor the Bangkok Post have ever been proponents of modern journalism. Thailand has far better publications in the newspaper genre anyhow, such as Matichon or Thai Rath.

The few good journalists at the Nation and the Bangkok Post do unfortunately not change this sad fact. Go to India for excellent newspapers, and to a free and vibrant press, if we want to stay in this part of the world.

If you want to read modern journalism you have to read for example Germany's Lettre for top standard journalism, or Colors in his heyday for extremely modern magazine journalism.

And in the world of journalism i am working, that is international publications, the fact based story is far from dead. Several publications i regularly work with have entire departments that are checking facts of each single story before it goes to print. Journalists that are liberal with facts are soon out of job and their reputations destroyed, and even possible legal consequences follow, if found out.

Anyhow, here a few beauties of Thanong that are provably false, with reckless disregard of the facts, or simply idiotic:

Thanong:

The police force is an idle watcher of the tragedy.

False.

The police is actively working in the flood districts. I have been with police officers patrolling on boats inundated neighborhoods, trying to guard them against thieves. I have photos of police officers helping people evacuate, both on boats and lorries. Etc.

In most countries in the world it is anyhow soldiers that are foremost asked to do disaster relief work. Police has still their regular duties to perform.

Thanong:

Korbsak Sabhavasu, the Democrat's strategist,

...who with his antiquated and completely confuse election campaign strategies has strongly contributed to the election loss of the Democrats. I shudder seeing this man in charge of anything. I could tell you a few more funny stories about him.

Thanong:

Pheu Thai MPs and ministers are not helping flood victims. They are nowhere to be seen. Where are they?

False, and the answer: out there working. I have seen Sae Daeng's daughter inspecting one of the worst areas. Today i have seen the Dusit Pueah Thai MP at the breach at Samsen Soi 21, inspecting the repair works by soldiers and residents. She was in the water. They may not have the time to drop into Thanong's office so he can see them.

Thanong:

Red-shirt leaders have not come out to help those affected by the floods either.

Entirely false. They have been helping since the beginning of the floods, both being on the ground (as can be seen on their TV station), and managing donation centers, lead relief teams, collect donations for victims, etc.

Thanong:

At the same time, Pheu Thai wants to go against the military by pushing for legislation to nullify the coup in 2006. Jatuporn Promphan, a red-shirt leader, is trying to have the Defence Ministry's regulations amended so that the government can have more control over the reshuffling of military posts

That attempt to reign in the military has already begun long before the floods. And what is so wrong about having a military under control of elected governments?

Thanong:

Yingluck has refused international assistance although Thailand is facing bankruptcy from the floods. I was told that Ban Ki-moon, the secretary-general of the United Nations, asked the prime minister how the UN could help. Yingluck's response was to the effect that UN assistance would not be needed. The US offered to send aircraft carriers, which were also refused. Why did she refuse international assistance, which now has to go through private channels rather than official channels.

Where has the Thai Government refused international assistance, please? The US ambassador has already stated that the article by AFP about the refusal of the aircraft carrier is false. In FROC are international experts. etc.

And is UN assistance needed now? I see so far the authorities handling the mess quite well. On the ground things are as well ordered as can be under the circumstances.

Thanong:

Who are the invisible hands who apparently have a malicious intent for Thailand?

If you, dear "Publicus" are calling this ending "modern journalism", then you have me baffled. I call this right wing loony conspiracy theory rubbish.

And Publicus (before his posting hiatus) was a regular proponent of conspiracy theories and other such nonsense. He made a categorical statement that Abhisit's government was influenced by the political postings on this forum. He spent awhile arguing that any poster on TVF not supporting the actions of the military crackdown in 2010 were guilty of insurrection. And so on and so forth. I put him firmly in the 'TheyCallMeScooter' category of posters.

[serenitynow]

The photo has been altered. Don't get so worked up about it,

Which photo and on what basis is your statement made?

[Buchholz]

But any way even if the sticker is true they are also clearly transporting Non RED shirt people.

I didn't think red shirts were required to wear red 24/7, yet

Red Shirts haven't exclusively worn actual red shirts for literally, years.

.

[rubl]

The photo has been altered. Don't get so worked up about it,

Which photo and on what basis is your statement made?

The one with English text and diagonally FAKE

[nurofiend]

But any way even if the sticker is true they are also clearly transporting Non RED shirt people.

I didn't think red shirts were required to wear red 24/7, yet

Red Shirts haven't exclusively worn actual red shirts for literally, years.

.

genuinely not baiting here ....could you break down exactly what you mean by that?

[rubl]

When I say 'keeping an eye on flooding ...' I'm topic changing to a point of whatever and now you say "Why don't we focus on what's really important, the welfare of the people"?

Even the government doesn't manage to contradict itself within so short a time

it was an attempt to mimic your posting style

do keep up

Ah, mimicking, the truest form of admiration! I'm honored to the point where I have a problem holding back tears. Get me some tissues before I add to the flooding misery

[Buchholz]

But any way even if the sticker is true they are also clearly transporting Non RED shirt people.

I didn't think red shirts were required to wear red 24/7, yet

Red Shirts haven't exclusively worn actual red shirts for literally, years.

genuinely not baiting here ....could you break down exactly what you mean by that?

The assertion was made that the boat held "Non RED shirt people"... presumably because they were not wearing actual red shirts.

.

[longway]

How do you conspiracy theorist explain this photo then? Also photoshopped?

Tell me which bit you want changing!

The white stickers on the boats please, thanks.

By the way, I can do that myself as well, but it would not look and be real. And I doubt that you could do a better job than me but please go ahead and prove me wrong!

Its obvious the first picture is a fake but the second picture not so clear because it's not on water.

But any way even if the sticker is true they are also clearly transporting Non RED shirt people.

What's funny are the touches of RED to the original picture to make it more authentic

But anyway YES I could fake it and you would not know the difference. It would take

about 4-5 hours to reconstruct the boats in 3D and then Photoshop them together.

I worked in Special effects bussiness for a long time and can make a pig talk if you want.

Question is how much is somebody prepared to spend making fake pictures?

Nick seems to be right about the boats being from a red community radio show, but the photo was taken Ratchadapisek apparently, not on Phahonyothin, however your 'analysis' seems be as bogus as you claim the photo to be.

However I cant believe they would actually carry out relief operations and not help non-red shirts, but then why bother with the sticker?

This photo is from another forum that was taken by one of the forum members. It does back up the other photos. While I understand the points that the others make about this being the work of individuals rather than sanctioned by the group, it is interesting that they feel that the group they affiliate with will not censure them by this display of obnoxiousness.

Edited October 29, 2011 by longway

[serenitynow]

Tell me which bit you want changing!

The white stickers on the boats please, thanks.

By the way, I can do that myself as well, but it would not look and be real. And I doubt that you could do a better job than me but please go ahead and prove me wrong!

Its obvious the first picture is a fake but the second picture not so clear because it's not on water.

But any way even if the sticker is true they are also clearly transporting Non RED shirt people.

What's funny are the touches of RED to the original picture to make it more authentic

But anyway YES I could fake it and you would not know the difference. It would take

about 4-5 hours to reconstruct the boats in 3D and then Photoshop them together.

I worked in Special effects bussiness for a long time and can make a pig talk if you want.

Question is how much is somebody prepared to spend making fake pictures?

Nick seems to be right about the boats being from a red community radio show, but the photo was taken Ratchadapisek apparently, not on Phahonyothin, however your 'analysis' seems be as bogus as you claim the photo to be.

This photo is from another forum that was taken by one of the forum members. It does back up the other photos. While I understand the points that the others make about this being the work of individuals rather than sanctioned by the group, it is interesting that they feel that the group they affiliate with will not censure them by this display of obnoxiousness.

Certainly looks genuine, though bizarre. What the hell kind of pickup is that where a mans head is the same height as the side mirrors. Should be an easily identifiable group one would think.

[nurofiend]

When I say 'keeping an eye on flooding ...' I'm topic changing to a point of whatever and now you say "Why don't we focus on what's really important, the welfare of the people"?

Even the government doesn't manage to contradict itself within so short a time

it was an attempt to mimic your posting style

do keep up

Ah, mimicking, the truest form of admiration! I'm honored to the point where I have a problem holding back tears. Get me some tissues before I add to the flooding misery

again, he's here all week people

don't forget to buy your tickets... it's side splitting stuff

[Publicus]

KISS also means keep it stupid, simple.

You say the OP's piece is "blatantly biased" and that "only the prejudiced and insanely blind can defend it." What we can see is that you are a master of the understatement. I also note your consonantal alliteration "blatantly biased." Not just biased, but blatantly biased. Wow, I figure we should be impressed.

I and many others happen to believe the OP's piece has merit. You can respect that or disrespect it.. You choose a barely restrained disrespect that borders on abuse.

All journalism has bias. Modern journalism recognizes the fact of bias because recent generations of consumers of journalism are more educated and culturally more sophisticated than previously. That's not blatant so I guess you missed it.

.

Thanks for the English lesson but first, learn how to post quotes properly.

Keep it stupid, simple? Makes no sense whatsoever. I would wager that it's grammatically incorrect even. On second thoughts, keep your English lesson.

You and many others believe (that) the OP's piece has merit. You would of course.

"All journalism has bias. Modern journalism recognizes the fact of bias because recent generations of consumers of journalism are more educated and culturally more sophisticated than previously."

Er, do you know how to speak/write normally?

You failed to notice the unaligned quotes began before I posted a response. Why should I have to bother to correct them? Who are you to place the responsibility on anyone? Call a moderator if you're upset about unaligned quotes in a post.

To the language Nazi types, "keep it stupid, simple" is a manner of speaking. As such it is a twist of the original statement. It is effective and legitimate communication. There are many Englishes. Learn to live with this and other differences between them.

[Publicus]

You missed the boat in your remarks about the OP as a journalist. The test of the OP's opinion piece is whether it is provably false or whether it was written with a reckless disregard of the facts. That's the standard of modern jounalism and has been so for 40 years. Yet I continually read forumists here who attack legitimate journalism as it appears in the Nation. The Nation, as with the BP, practice modern journalism, which presents sound reasoning based on facts. That is the contemporary standard of English language journalism globally. The contemporary standard also extends to newspapers in foreign democracies. Some democracies have more strict laws of libel and slander, others less strict laws. Thailand has some certain speech laws that are strictly enforced but Thailand, on the whole, also has a vibrant and free press which managed to survive the varieties of insidious and pernicious censorship practiced by Thaksin during his rule.

The days of the objective, facts only, balanced news story are the bad old days of pretensions, of a false propriety and of outright tomfoolery. I'm pleased to say the illusion of a factual, objective and "balanced" news story or editorial were left behind long ago. The old primary school level of journalism and the body politic is kaput. Get used to it. The facts of journalism are that the Nation and the BP are respectable newspapers that publish respectable opinion.

I believe you confuse gutter journalism with modern journalism. There are many very interesting publications that have vibrant, modern approaches to journalism. None of them in Thailand can hold themselves long though, and are most definitely not to be found in either the Nation or in the Bangkok Post, which, by international standards, are so bad that you cannot even call them antiquated. And no - neither the Nation nor the Bangkok Post have ever been proponents of modern journalism. Thailand has far better publications in the newspaper genre anyhow, such as Matichon or Thai Rath.

The few good journalists at the Nation and the Bangkok Post do unfortunately not change this sad fact. Go to India for excellent newspapers, and to a free and vibrant press, if we want to stay in this part of the world.

If you want to read modern journalism you have to read for example Germany's Lettre for top standard journalism, or Colors in his heyday for extremely modern magazine journalism.

And in the world of journalism i am working, that is international publications, the fact based story is far from dead. Several publications i regularly work with have entire departments that are checking facts of each single story before it goes to print. Journalists that are liberal with facts are soon out of job and their reputations destroyed, and even possible legal consequences follow, if found out.

Anyhow, here a few beauties of Thanong that are provably false, with reckless disregard of the facts, or simply idiotic:

Thanong:

The police force is an idle watcher of the tragedy.

False.

The police is actively working in the flood districts. I have been with police officers patrolling on boats inundated neighborhoods, trying to guard them against thieves. I have photos of police officers helping people evacuate, both on boats and lorries. Etc.

In most countries in the world it is anyhow soldiers that are foremost asked to do disaster relief work. Police has still their regular duties to perform.

Thanong:

Korbsak Sabhavasu, the Democrat's strategist,

...who with his antiquated and completely confuse election campaign strategies has strongly contributed to the election loss of the Democrats. I shudder seeing this man in charge of anything. I could tell you a few more funny stories about him.

Thanong:

Pheu Thai MPs and ministers are not helping flood victims. They are nowhere to be seen. Where are they?

False, and the answer: out there working. I have seen Sae Daeng's daughter inspecting one of the worst areas. Today i have seen the Dusit Pueah Thai MP at the breach at Samsen Soi 21, inspecting the repair works by soldiers and residents. She was in the water. They may not have the time to drop into Thanong's office so he can see them.

Thanong:

Red-shirt leaders have not come out to help those affected by the floods either.

Entirely false. They have been helping since the beginning of the floods, both being on the ground (as can be seen on their TV station), and managing donation centers, lead relief teams, collect donations for victims, etc.

Thanong:

At the same time, Pheu Thai wants to go against the military by pushing for legislation to nullify the coup in 2006. Jatuporn Promphan, a red-shirt leader, is trying to have the Defence Ministry's regulations amended so that the government can have more control over the reshuffling of military posts

That attempt to reign in the military has already begun long before the floods. And what is so wrong about having a military under control of elected governments?

Thanong:

Yingluck has refused international assistance although Thailand is facing bankruptcy from the floods. I was told that Ban Ki-moon, the secretary-general of the United Nations, asked the prime minister how the UN could help. Yingluck's response was to the effect that UN assistance would not be needed. The US offered to send aircraft carriers, which were also refused. Why did she refuse international assistance, which now has to go through private channels rather than official channels.

Where has the Thai Government refused international assistance, please? The US ambassador has already stated that the article by AFP about the refusal of the aircraft carrier is false. In FROC are international experts. etc.

And is UN assistance needed now? I see so far the authorities handling the mess quite well. On the ground things are as well ordered as can be under the circumstances.

Thanong:

Who are the invisible hands who apparently have a malicious intent for Thailand?

If you, dear "Publicus" are calling this ending "modern journalism", then you have me baffled. I call this right wing loony conspiracy theory rubbish.

And Publicus (before his posting hiatus) was a regular proponent of conspiracy theories and other such nonsense. He made a categorical statement that Abhisit's government was influenced by the political postings on this forum. He spent awhile arguing that any poster on TVF not supporting the actions of the military crackdown in 2010 were guilty of insurrection. And so on and so forth. I put him firmly in the 'TheyCallMeScooter' category of posters.

Thank you for grossly misrepresenting me.

[rubl]

When I say 'keeping an eye on flooding ...' I'm topic changing to a point of whatever and now you say "Why don't we focus on what's really important, the welfare of the people"?

Even the government doesn't manage to contradict itself within so short a time

it was an attempt to mimic your posting style

do keep up

Ah, mimicking, the truest form of admiration! I'm honored to the point where I have a problem holding back tears. Get me some tissues before I add to the flooding misery

again, he's here all week people

don't forget to buy your tickets... it's side splitting stuff

I haven't left the country since April 2002, so what the heck are you talking about?

[nurofiend]

Red Shirts haven't exclusively worn actual red shirts for literally, years.

genuinely not baiting here ....could you break down exactly what you mean by that?

The assertion was made that the boat held "Non RED shirt people"... presumably because they were not wearing actual red shirts.

.

i get that but i'm just not sure what you mean by saying "Red Shirts haven't exclusively worn actual red shirts for literally, years."

do you mean that not every single one dresses in red all the time? or that as individuals they don't exclusively wear red shirts?

or it's a policy change?

and who is this they? the actual established UDD members or all of the red shirt followers?

so years ago, they did exclusively wear red shirts?

i'm really not trying to niggle but i just don't understand the full meaning of your sentence.

[nurofiend]

Ah, mimicking, the truest form of admiration! I'm honored to the point where I have a problem holding back tears. Get me some tissues before I add to the flooding misery

again, he's here all week people

don't forget to buy your tickets... it's side splitting stuff

I haven't left the country since April 2002, so what the heck are you talking about?

LOL, Nevermind mate...

[Buchholz]

Red Shirts haven't exclusively worn actual red shirts for literally, years.

genuinely not baiting here ....could you break down exactly what you mean by that?

The assertion was made that the boat held "Non RED shirt people"... presumably because they were not wearing actual red shirts.

i get that but i'm just not sure what you mean by saying "Red Shirts haven't exclusively worn actual red shirts for literally, years."

do you mean that not every single one dresses in red all the time? or that as individuals they don't exclusively wear red shirts?

or it's a policy change?

and who is this they? the actual established UDD members or all of the red shirt followers?

so years ago, they did exclusively wear red shirts?

i'm really not trying to niggle but i just don't understand the full meaning of your sentence.

Red Shirt people wear shirts in colors other than the color red.

They have done so for years.

It is a false assertion that because the people in the boat were not wearing red shirts, they were "Non RED shirt people"

Edited October 29, 2011 by Buchholz

[nurofiend]

Red Shirts haven't exclusively worn actual red shirts for literally, years.

Red Shirt people wear shirts in colors other than the color red.

They have done so for years.

It is a false assertion that because the people in the boat were not wearing red shirts, they were "Non RED shirt people"

"It is a false assertion that because the people in the boat were not wearing red shirts, they were "Non RED shirt people" "

I agree

"Red Shirt people wear shirts in colors other than the color red.

They have done so for years. "

it's just your comment suggested that years ago, they did wear red shirts exclusively... that's all.

[Siam Simon]

Certainly looks genuine, though bizarre. What the hell kind of pickup is that where a mans head is the same height as the side mirrors. Should be an easily identifiable group one would think.

The 'vertically challenged Red Shirts faction'?

[Buchholz]

Red Shirts haven't exclusively worn actual red shirts for literally, years.

Red Shirt people wear shirts in colors other than the color red.

They have done so for years.

It is a false assertion that because the people in the boat were not wearing red shirts, they were "Non RED shirt people"

"It is a false assertion that because the people in the boat were not wearing red shirts, they were "Non RED shirt people" "

I agree

"Red Shirt people wear shirts in colors other than the color red.

They have done so for years. "

it's just your comment suggested that years ago, they did wear red shirts exclusively... that's all.

Pretty much, they used to. So much so, that many people still today mistakenly believe that if someone isn't wearing a shirt that is colored red, they are not Red Shirt people (as exemplified in the quote).

I believe it was Natthawut who prompted the change to wearing other colors in an effort to make the police task of identifying them more difficult.

.

Edited October 29, 2011 by Buchholz

[serenitynow]

Red Shirts haven't exclusively worn actual red shirts for literally, years.

Red Shirt people wear shirts in colors other than the color red.

They have done so for years.

It is a false assertion that because the people in the boat were not wearing red shirts, they were "Non RED shirt people"

"It is a false assertion that because the people in the boat were not wearing red shirts, they were "Non RED shirt people" "

I agree

"Red Shirt people wear shirts in colors other than the color red.

They have done so for years. "

it's just your comment suggested that years ago, they did wear red shirts exclusively... that's all.

Pretty much, they used to. So much so, that many people still today mistakenly believe that if someone isn't wearing a shirt that is colored red, they are not Red Shirt people.

I believe it was Natthawut who prompted the change to wearing other colors in an effort to make the police task of identifying them more difficult.

..

I know that's all true but the thought that occurs to me is, where else on earth would people even be having discussions about this kind of thing? It is the theater of the absurd, surreal. Weather's generally nice though.

[nurofiend]

Red Shirts haven't exclusively worn actual red shirts for literally, years.

Red Shirt people wear shirts in colors other than the color red.

They have done so for years.

It is a false assertion that because the people in the boat were not wearing red shirts, they were "Non RED shirt people"

"It is a false assertion that because the people in the boat were not wearing red shirts, they were "Non RED shirt people" "

I agree

"Red Shirt people wear shirts in colors other than the color red.

They have done so for years. "

it's just your comment suggested that years ago, they did wear red shirts exclusively... that's all.

Pretty much, they used to. So much so, that many people still today mistakenly believe that if someone isn't wearing a shirt that is colored red, they are not Red Shirt people.

I believe it was Natthawut who prompted the change to wearing other colors in an effort to make the police task of identifying them more difficult.

i just don't get how someone can make a conclusive comment like red shirts exclusively wore red shirts years ago and not now.

obviously during a protest or demonstration, they are going to wear red... just as supporters of a football team would wear their colours.

but to put forward the point about red shirts not exclusively wearing red for years, in response to a picture of members of the public in a rescue boat, sounds to me like you were saying they used to exclusively always wear red shirts while going about their normal daily lives

and i don't believe that was ever true... remember you said 'exclusively'

Edited October 29, 2011 by nurofiend

[Siam Simon]

Red Shirt people wear shirts in colors other than the color red.

They have done so for years.

It is a false assertion that because the people in the boat were not wearing red shirts, they were "Non RED shirt people"

A so-called Red Shirt relief boat approaches a flooded community with it's prominently displayed sticker making it clear that the supplies onboard are only for Red Shirt supporters:

Scene 1

Boat: "Are you people red shirt supporters?"

Community: "Yes, are there any Red Shirt leaders in nearby boats who we can kiss ar$e to? That large sack of rice looks really heavy. Can we give you some help offloading it?"

Scene 2

Boat: "are you people Red Shirt supporters?

Community: "Away with you, you filthy Red Shirt dogs, we would rather starve than accept your tainted hospitality."

Does anybody know how this alleged shirt-coloured relief actually works? (other than as daft propaganda by right wing extremists on TVF, of course)

[Buchholz]

A so-called Red Shirt relief boat approaches a flooded community with it's prominently displayed sticker making it clear that the supplies onboard are only for Red Shirt supporters:

Scene 1

Boat: "Are you people red shirt supporters?"

Community: "Yes, are there any Red Shirt leaders in nearby boats who we can kiss ar$e to? That large sack of rice looks really heavy. Can we give you some help offloading it?"

Scene 2

Boat: "are you people Red Shirt supporters?

Community: "Away with you, you filthy Red Shirt dogs, we would rather starve than accept your tainted hospitality."

Does anybody know how this alleged shirt-coloured relief actually works? (other than as daft propaganda by right wing extremists on TVF, of course)

I removed my post to your reply because your reply to it had nothing to do with my post.

[rubl]

A so-called Red Shirt relief boat approaches a flooded community with it's prominently displayed sticker making it clear that the supplies onboard are only for Red Shirt supporters:

Scene 1

Boat: "Are you people red shirt supporters?"

Community: "Yes, are there any Red Shirt leaders in nearby boats who we can kiss ar$e to? That large sack of rice looks really heavy. Can we give you some help offloading it?"

Scene 2

Boat: "are you people Red Shirt supporters?

Community: "Away with you, you filthy Red Shirt dogs, we would rather starve than accept your tainted hospitality."

Does anybody know how this alleged shirt-coloured relief actually works? (other than as daft propaganda by right wing extremists on TVF, of course)

Scene 3:

Boat: "are you people Red Shirt supporters?

Community: "why you ask and who cares? We're all Thai in need. You come here to help us, or to ask stupid questions?"