Thai Opposition Leader Abhisit Meets With Aung San Suu Kyi

[rubl]

begin removed ...

crying off topic when something you don't like (due to your leanings) appears in a thread seems to be a personal trait of yours.

Not at all, dear chap. Only when confronted with BS, bovine excrement, nightsoil of a well-fed male oxen and the like. Tally ho, IMHO and all that.

well there was no bs in what i said so...

Let's be friendly and rephrase to 'only a personal opinion which I do not agree with'. So let's go back to the OP and contents rather than critisizing posters.

[nurofiend]

anyway, i brought up what i brought up.

it's there in black and white, if people want to disagree with my point that this was a truly undemocratic call, then that's fine... very difficult to understand but fine.

[Jimi007]

it's also hypocritical for a man who was openly calling for a prime minister to be given office without any civilian or government input, to be championing democracy with the likes of her.

begin removed ...

crying off topic when something you don't like (due to your leanings) appears in a thread seems to be a personal trait of yours.

Not at all, dear chap. Only when confronted with BS, bovine excrement, nightsoil of a well-fed male oxen and the like. Tally ho, IMHO and all that.

well there was no bs in what i said so...

I disagree. Your first post was BS.

[nurofiend]

I disagree. Your first post was BS.

so what if you disagree?

bs = something not true

what i said was fact.

Edited February 18, 2012 by nurofiend

[rubl]

I disagree. Your first post was BS.

so what if you disagree?

bs = something not true

what i said was fact.

Which part, the quoted theNation article or your interpretation?

"Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva called on Thaksin to quit and asked HM the King to appoint a new prime minister and Cabinet to end the current crisis.

The Democrat's call for royal intervention followed similar calls from academics, activists and other prominent figures, who see the move as a way to peacefully break the political deadlock hanging over the country."

"It's also hypocritical for a man who was openly calling for a prime minister to be given office without any civilian or government input, to be championing democracy with the likes of her"

Edited February 18, 2012 by rubl

[nurofiend]

I disagree. Your first post was BS.

so what if you disagree?

bs = something not true

what i said was fact.

Which part, the quoted theNaion article or your interpretation?

"Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva called on Thaksin to quit and asked HM the King to appoint a new prime minister and Cabinet to end the current crisis.

The Democrat's call for royal intervention followed similar calls from academics, activists and other prominent figures, who see the move as a way to peacefully break the political deadlock hanging over the country."

"It's also hypocritical for a man who was openly calling for a prime minister to be given office without any civilian or government input, to be championing democracy with the likes of her"

what do you mean my interpretation?

i said he called for a prime minister to be appointed without the input of the public or the government.

he asked for the king to appoint the prime minister... how does that fall under 'interpretation' rather than statement of fact?

it's you that seems to be doing the interpreting!

a man who called for something that is the extreme opposite of democracy, who is championing democracy = the very definition of hypocritical.

fact.

/

[Jimi007]

I disagree. Your first post was BS.

so what if you disagree?

bs = something not true

what i said was fact.

Which part, the quoted theNaion article or your interpretation?

"Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva called on Thaksin to quit and asked HM the King to appoint a new prime minister and Cabinet to end the current crisis.

The Democrat's call for royal intervention followed similar calls from academics, activists and other prominent figures, who see the move as a way to peacefully break the political deadlock hanging over the country."

"It's also hypocritical for a man who was openly calling for a prime minister to be given office without any civilian or government input, to be championing democracy with the likes of her"

what do you mean my interpretation?

i said he called for a prime minister to be appointed without the input of the public or the government.

he asked for the king to appoint the prime minister... how does that fall under 'interpretation' rather than statement of fact?

it's you that seems to be doing the interpreting!

a man who called for something that is the extreme opposite of democracy, who is championing democracy = the very definition of hypocritical.

fact.

/

Way off topic, but the fact is Thailand is a Constitutional Monarchy...

[rubl]

I disagree. Your first post was BS.

so what if you disagree?

bs = something not true

what i said was fact.

Which part, the quoted theNaion article or your interpretation?

"Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva called on Thaksin to quit and asked HM the King to appoint a new prime minister and Cabinet to end the current crisis.

The Democrat's call for royal intervention followed similar calls from academics, activists and other prominent figures, who see the move as a way to peacefully break the political deadlock hanging over the country."

"It's also hypocritical for a man who was openly calling for a prime minister to be given office without any civilian or government input, to be championing democracy with the likes of her"

what do you mean my interpretation?

i said he called for a prime minister to be appointed without the input of the public or the government.

he asked for the king to appoint the prime minister... how does that fall under 'interpretation' rather than statement of fact?

it's you that seems to be doing the interpreting!

a man who called for something that is the extreme opposite of democracy, who is championing democracy = the very definition of hypocritical.

fact.

Taken out of context, my dear fiend of the nuro kind. The article you provided a link to and of which I quoted a minor part indicates that.

Well now, let's see. nurofiend provides a link and asks us to use only a minor part of the article linked to. Ignore the rest as it doesn't fit his type of fact. Interesting to say the least

[nurofiend]

@jimi007 that doesn't nullify my point one bit unless you're claiming abhisit doesn't champion democracy?

thought not.

Edited February 18, 2012 by nurofiend

[nurofiend]

Taken out of context, my dear fiend of the nuro kind. The article you provided a link to and of which I quoted a minor part indicates that.

Well now, let's see. nurofiend provides a link and asks us to use only a minor part of the article linked to. Ignore the rest as it doesn't fit his type of fact. Interesting to say the least

it doesn't matter what context it was in.

i provided the link for people to read didn't i, i wouldn't have if i was trying to hide anything from it.

it's not a 'type of fact'.

what i said is a fact, the only one trying to spin anything is you.

[Jimi007]

@jimi007 that doesn't nullify my point one bit unless you're claiming abhisit doesn't champion democracy?

thought not.

Who cares? I really don't. What has happened is history, the fact he met with Aung San Suu Kyi is the headline, not who has championed democracy in Thailand...

Edited February 18, 2012 by Jimi007

[nurofiend]

@jimi007 that doesn't nullify my point one bit unless you're claiming abhisit doesn't champion democracy?

thought not.

Who cares? I really don't. What has happened is history, the fact he met with Aung San Suu Kyi is the headline, not who has championed democracy in Thailand...

fair enough, but if you don't care then don't ask me about it.

[rubl]

Taken out of context, my dear fiend of the nuro kind. The article you provided a link to and of which I quoted a minor part indicates that.

Well now, let's see. nurofiend provides a link and asks us to use only a minor part of the article linked to. Ignore the rest as it doesn't fit his type of fact. Interesting to say the least

it doesn't matter what context it was in.

i provided the link for people to read didn't i, i wouldn't have if i was trying to hide anything from it.

it's not a 'type of fact'.

what i said is a fact, the only one trying to spin anything is you.

I'm a patient man (normally), so just trying again. From the link provided by nurofiend:

""Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva called on Thaksin to quit and asked HM the King to appoint a new prime minister and Cabinet to end the current crisis.

The Democrat's call for royal intervention followed similar calls from academics, activists and other prominent figures, who see the move as a way to peacefully break the political deadlock hanging over the country.""

Within this context the call by k. Abhisit doesn't seem undemocratic. On the other hand if it was undemocratic then lots of "academics, activists and other prominent figures" who made a similar call before can be accused of the same undemocratic stand. People in any country where a National cabinet is called for must be undemocratic, following the same logic.

Now providing the link, using a single sentence from the article linked to AND ignoring the sentence following which provides context, now that's plain manipulation to desperately try to come to the 'fact' one would like to postulate. You are correct when you say you do not hide, but just ignoring is not much better.

As for spinning, you may want to take a paracetamol tablet the way you've been going round. Take care of your health, it's precious.

[Jimi007]

@jimi007 that doesn't nullify my point one bit unless you're claiming abhisit doesn't champion democracy?

thought not.

Who cares? I really don't. What has happened is history, the fact he met with Aung San Suu Kyi is the headline, not who has championed democracy in Thailand...

fair enough, but if you don't care then don't ask me about it.

If your first post was straight forward, I wouldn't have bothered!

[nurofiend]

@jimi007 that doesn't nullify my point one bit unless you're claiming abhisit doesn't champion democracy?

thought not.

Who cares? I really don't. What has happened is history, the fact he met with Aung San Suu Kyi is the headline, not who has championed democracy in Thailand...

fair enough, but if you don't care then don't ask me about it.

If your first post was straight forward, I wouldn't have bothered!

it was.

[nurofiend]

Taken out of context, my dear fiend of the nuro kind. The article you provided a link to and of which I quoted a minor part indicates that.

Well now, let's see. nurofiend provides a link and asks us to use only a minor part of the article linked to. Ignore the rest as it doesn't fit his type of fact. Interesting to say the least

it doesn't matter what context it was in.

i provided the link for people to read didn't i, i wouldn't have if i was trying to hide anything from it.

it's not a 'type of fact'.

what i said is a fact, the only one trying to spin anything is you.

I'm a patient man (normally), so just trying again. From the link provided by nurofiend:

""Democrat Party leader Abhisit Vejjajiva called on Thaksin to quit and asked HM the King to appoint a new prime minister and Cabinet to end the current crisis.

The Democrat's call for royal intervention followed similar calls from academics, activists and other prominent figures, who see the move as a way to peacefully break the political deadlock hanging over the country.""

Within this context the call by k. Abhisit doesn't seem undemocratic. On the other hand if it was undemocratic then lots of "academics, activists and other prominent figures" who made a similar call before can be accused of the same undemocratic stand. People in any country where a National cabinet is called for must be undemocratic, following the same logic.

Now providing the link, using a single sentence from the article linked to AND ignoring the sentence following which provides context, now that's plain manipulation to desperately try to come to the 'fact' one would like to postulate. You are correct when you say you do not hide, but just ignoring is not much better.

As for spinning, you may want to take a paracetamol tablet the way you've been going round. Take care of your health, it's precious.

it doesn't 'seem undemocratic'? it is undemocratic.

there was no intent of manipulation, it was a true statement.

to me it doesn't matter what context it was in, when the point i was making is that it was undemocratic.. it was undemocratic.

posting the whole article wouldn't have changed that statement of fact.

and keep the veiled slurs to yourself.

[rubl]

@jimi007 that doesn't nullify my point one bit unless you're claiming abhisit doesn't champion democracy?

thought not.

nurofiend's point is 'Abhisit is undemocratic'. If jimi007 claims 'abhisit doesn't champion democracy' that nullifies nurofiend's point.

Normally I tend to say 'logic, thy name if woman', but at the moment I'm slightly at a loss for words

[Jimi007]

it was.

In your own mind! Like I said it was cryptic to me!

[rubl]

it doesn't 'seem undemocratic'? it is undemocratic.

there was no intent of manipulation, it was a true statement.

to me it doesn't matter what context it was in, when the point i was making is that it was undemocratic.. it was undemocratic.

posting the whole article wouldn't have changed that statement of fact.

and keep the veiled slurs to yourself.

Yes, friend. No, friend. Whatever, fiend. Have fun by yourself.

[nurofiend]

@jimi007 that doesn't nullify my point one bit unless you're claiming abhisit doesn't champion democracy?

thought not.

nurofiend's point is 'Abhisit is undemocratic'. If jimi007 claims 'abhisit doesn't champion democracy' that nullifies nurofiend's point.

Normally I tend to say 'logic, thy name if woman', but at the moment I'm slightly at a loss for words

really? do i have to explain this one... and you talk about logic!

it would nullify my point, yes well done but wait for this now rubl, it might blow your mind...

i asked the question because i knew he couldn't answer that abhisit doesn't champion democracy, because.. wait for it..... he does.

[nurofiend]

it was.

In your own mind! Like I said it was cryptic to me!

indeed!

[Jimi007]

it was.

In your own mind! Like I said it was cryptic to me!

indeed!

Ah, one of those whom must have the last word? Hehe!

[nurofiend]

it was.

In your own mind! Like I said it was cryptic to me!

indeed!

Ah, one of those whom must have the last word? Hehe!

you win

oops.

[rubl]

@jimi007 that doesn't nullify my point one bit unless you're claiming abhisit doesn't champion democracy?

thought not.

nurofiend's point is 'Abhisit is undemocratic'. If jimi007 claims 'abhisit doesn't champion democracy' that nullifies nurofiend's point.

Normally I tend to say 'logic, thy name if woman', but at the moment I'm slightly at a loss for words

really? do i have to explain this one... and you talk about logic!

it would nullify my point, yes well done but wait for this now rubl, it might blow your mind...

i asked the question because i knew he couldn't answer that abhisit doesn't champion democracy, because.. wait for it..... he does.

After this brilliant explanation from dear nurofiend who seems to like to dig his own grave (figure of speech of course) I rest my case, your honour.

[473geo]

It would appear nurofriend is proffering the notion that a man who forwards the selection proposal as Abhisit did (according to the quote) has not really shown his support for all out full on democracy but rather a selection process that would appear to ignore certain democratic process

Hence the comment based on the quote

[nurofiend]

@jimi007 that doesn't nullify my point one bit unless you're claiming abhisit doesn't champion democracy?

thought not.

nurofiend's point is 'Abhisit is undemocratic'. If jimi007 claims 'abhisit doesn't champion democracy' that nullifies nurofiend's point.

Normally I tend to say 'logic, thy name if woman', but at the moment I'm slightly at a loss for words

really? do i have to explain this one... and you talk about logic!

it would nullify my point, yes well done but wait for this now rubl, it might blow your mind...

i asked the question because i knew he couldn't answer that abhisit doesn't champion democracy, because.. wait for it..... he does.

After this brilliant explanation from dear nurofiend who seems to like to dig his own grave (figure of speech of course) I rest my case, your honour.

oh man, oh man... my point was that abhisit is a champion of democracy, who had called for something that was extremely undemocratic.

if jimi007 had said 'but abhisit isn't a champion of democracy' then that would have nullified my whole point of him being hypocritical, get it yet?

[Jimi007]

@jimi007 that doesn't nullify my point one bit unless you're claiming abhisit doesn't champion democracy?

thought not.

nurofiend's point is 'Abhisit is undemocratic'. If jimi007 claims 'abhisit doesn't champion democracy' that nullifies nurofiend's point.

Normally I tend to say 'logic, thy name if woman', but at the moment I'm slightly at a loss for words

really? do i have to explain this one... and you talk about logic!

it would nullify my point, yes well done but wait for this now rubl, it might blow your mind...

i asked the question because i knew he couldn't answer that abhisit doesn't champion democracy, because.. wait for it..... he does.

Oh my.. Brilliant! No wonder your avatar is a clown... Rather pathetic I wasted my time... Oh well, it won't happen again!

[nurofiend]

@jimi007 that doesn't nullify my point one bit unless you're claiming abhisit doesn't champion democracy?

thought not.

nurofiend's point is 'Abhisit is undemocratic'. If jimi007 claims 'abhisit doesn't champion democracy' that nullifies nurofiend's point.

Normally I tend to say 'logic, thy name if woman', but at the moment I'm slightly at a loss for words

really? do i have to explain this one... and you talk about logic!

it would nullify my point, yes well done but wait for this now rubl, it might blow your mind...

i asked the question because i knew he couldn't answer that abhisit doesn't champion democracy, because.. wait for it..... he does.

Oh my.. Brilliant! No wonder your avatar is a clown... Rather pathetic I wasted my time... Oh well, it won't happen again!

see post above please!

it was rubl who claimed my point was a simple black and white "abhisit is undemocratic", not me.

i said for a guy who called for what he did, being a champion of democracy is hypocritical.

i was responding to what my point was not what rubl said my point was.

maybe this is all just too 'cryptic' for you to understand though.

[473geo]

No problem with Abhisit meeting the lady, hopefully he absorbed some relevant information as to where the various factions sit in a true democracy

[rubl]

No problem with Abhisit meeting the lady, hopefully he absorbed some relevant information as to where the various factions sit in a true democracy

With all respect for the lady, but she hasn't any experience of being in a true democracy. She may have passed her ideas on what constitutes a 'true democracy' and those ideas may conform with 'Western' democratic ideas. Not sure those are really a 100% accurate description of a 'true democracy'. For sure with what she expressed over the years she's more into democracy than any of the Myanmar Generals still ruling.