Thaksin's Son Praises Sonthi For 'Unlocking Nation'

[tlansford]

Thaksin's son says nice things about Sonthi as well as about reconciliation and the bill going before parliament.

Sonthi appears to be playing a key role in the process - as he did in 2006. It makes sense, in that regard, for Thaksin's son to make this kind of a gesture & statements.

Does anyone criticizing him here really expect him to do otherwise? I don't.

And does anyone here not think that their own son should be supportive of them - their father or mother? I think nearly 100% would.

So you agree that it was a filial obligation statement made by a young man of no notable achievement, and a few serious misdemeanors, who has lived an insulated pampered life far removed from that of 99.99% of the people of Thailand, and who lives in luxury thanks to his father's ill-gotten gains?

But enough about Abhisit.

ouch!

how far removed is England, anyway??

[OzMick]

Thaksin's son says nice things about Sonthi as well as about reconciliation and the bill going before parliament.

Sonthi appears to be playing a key role in the process - as he did in 2006. It makes sense, in that regard, for Thaksin's son to make this kind of a gesture & statements.

Does anyone criticizing him here really expect him to do otherwise? I don't.

And does anyone here not think that their own son should be supportive of them - their father or mother? I think nearly 100% would.

So you agree that it was a filial obligation statement made by a young man of no notable achievement, and a few serious misdemeanors, who has lived an insulated pampered life far removed from that of 99.99% of the people of Thailand, and who lives in luxury thanks to his father's ill-gotten gains?

But enough about Abhisit.

ouch!

how far removed is England, anyway??

not as far as the US

[Buchholz]

So you agree that it was a filial obligation statement made by a young man of no notable achievement, and a few serious misdemeanors, who has lived an insulated pampered life far removed from that of 99.99% of the people of Thailand, and who lives in luxury thanks to his father's ill-gotten gains?

But enough about Abhisit.

ouch!

how far removed is England, anyway??

not as far as the US

Ouch

.

[tlansford]

-- deleted due to quote limits --

So you agree that it was a filial obligation statement made by a young man of no notable achievement, and a few serious misdemeanors, who has lived an insulated pampered life far removed from that of 99.99% of the people of Thailand, and who lives in luxury thanks to his father's ill-gotten gains?

But enough about Abhisit.

ouch!

how far removed is England, anyway??

not as far as the US

didn't know Thaksin's son was born, raised and educated in the USA. Interesting tidbit.

[bigbamboo]

Well sorry if I offended you but praising someone for a coup is praising them for a coup whether it's non violent or not. However, if you had highlighted the sentence as you suggested I would have immediately got your meaning.

My apologies.

But Thaksin was in power by illegal means that violated the constitution and Thailand was on the way to a 1 party system like the Soviets and East Germany.

That justifies just anything including a coup.

Thaksin's son says nice things about Sonthi as well as about reconciliation and the bill going before parliament.

Sonthi appears to be playing a key role in the process - as he did in 2006. It makes sense, in that regard, for Thaksin's son to make this kind of a gesture & statements.

Does anyone criticizing him here really expect him to do otherwise? I don't.

And does anyone here not think that their own son should be supportive of them - their father or mother? I think nearly 100% would.

Quite right. Of course you would expect a son to be supportive of his father regardless of any misdemeanour just as his dad supported him after the embarrassing exam cheating affair.

Family loyalties, the ties that bind.

[tlansford]

Well sorry if I offended you but praising someone for a coup is praising them for a coup whether it's non violent or not. However, if you had highlighted the sentence as you suggested I would have immediately got your meaning.

My apologies.

But Thaksin was in power by illegal means that violated the constitution and Thailand was on the way to a 1 party system like the Soviets and East Germany.

That justifies just anything including a coup.

Thaksin's son says nice things about Sonthi as well as about reconciliation and the bill going before parliament.

Sonthi appears to be playing a key role in the process - as he did in 2006. It makes sense, in that regard, for Thaksin's son to make this kind of a gesture & statements.

Does anyone criticizing him here really expect him to do otherwise? I don't.

And does anyone here not think that their own son should be supportive of them - their father or mother? I think nearly 100% would.

Quite right. Of course you would expect a son to be supportive of his father regardless of any misdemeanour just as his dad supported him after the embarrassing exam cheating affair.

Family loyalties, the ties that bind.

seems like a normal family dynamic, and I can't imagine most people thinking that their children should / would not support them - TVF posters included.

[Buchholz]

I can't imagine most people thinking that their children should / would not support them - TVF posters included.

Post # 98 sounds a lot like what was said 94 posts ago from it.

[whybother]

So you agree that it was a filial obligation statement made by a young man of no notable achievement, and a few serious misdemeanors, who has lived an insulated pampered life far removed from that of 99.99% of the people of Thailand, and who lives in luxury thanks to his father's ill-gotten gains?

But enough about Abhisit.

Young man?

[mca]

So you agree that it was a filial obligation statement made by a young man of no notable achievement, and a few serious misdemeanors, who has lived an insulated pampered life far removed from that of 99.99% of the people of Thailand, and who lives in luxury thanks to his father's ill-gotten gains?

But enough about Abhisit.

Young man?

I can only work with the material I'm handed mate!

[geriatrickid]

Sometimes elections do not work.

Sometimes countries are not ready for elections. Look at China and India. India has a democracy and the country is extremely corrupt and the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. China is doing much better without a democracy. People must be ready for a democracy to work. Some countries are just not ready. And this has mainly to do with education.

Are you saying that when you are elected you can do whatever you want? What if an elected leader is corrupt as hell? What if he buys his way around any legal system? Who should stop these kind of elected leaders? Or should we just watch and see and accept what he is doing because he is elected?

Despite all of its faults, India and its people would not give up their electoral system in favour of the Chinese system. The Indians have an ability to select their system, The Chinese do not. The Chinese have never been given the opportunity to decide on the manner in which they wish to be governed. Your statement is incredibly condescending and is an argument in favour of totalitarianism. You assume that the Thai leadership that came to power outside of elections was not corrupt. Even the most resolute of Thaksin opponents in TVF would have a difficult time acepting a Thai military dictatorship as the best form of government. Whatever the faults of the Thai electoral process are, it does allow for dissent and some checks and balances. Look at the reconciliation bill. At least those opposed have an opportunity to oppose it and to make their arguments. Some are valid, some are not. Under the military option, there is no opportunity for argument unless one takes to the streets.

Your position is indefensible as it argues against the emancipation of people.

Who are you to decide who should be allowed to vote? It wasn't too long ago that women were not allowed to vote in the west, and in the England , only tax payers had the right to vote. The arguments used to support those positions were the same as yours.

[h90]

Sometimes elections do not work.

Sometimes countries are not ready for elections. Look at China and India. India has a democracy and the country is extremely corrupt and the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. China is doing much better without a democracy. People must be ready for a democracy to work. Some countries are just not ready. And this has mainly to do with education.

Are you saying that when you are elected you can do whatever you want? What if an elected leader is corrupt as hell? What if he buys his way around any legal system? Who should stop these kind of elected leaders? Or should we just watch and see and accept what he is doing because he is elected?

Despite all of its faults, India and its people would not give up their electoral system in favour of the Chinese system. The Indians have an ability to select their system, The Chinese do not. The Chinese have never been given the opportunity to decide on the manner in which they wish to be governed. Your statement is incredibly condescending and is an argument in favour of totalitarianism. You assume that the Thai leadership that came to power outside of elections was not corrupt. Even the most resolute of Thaksin opponents in TVF would have a difficult time acepting a Thai military dictatorship as the best form of government. Whatever the faults of the Thai electoral process are, it does allow for dissent and some checks and balances. Look at the reconciliation bill. At least those opposed have an opportunity to oppose it and to make their arguments. Some are valid, some are not. Under the military option, there is no opportunity for argument unless one takes to the streets.

Your position is indefensible as it argues against the emancipation of people.

Who are you to decide who should be allowed to vote? It wasn't too long ago that women were not allowed to vote in the west, and in the England , only tax payers had the right to vote. The arguments used to support those positions were the same as yours.

I know a couple of Chinese and they are satisfied with their government. I know only a few Indians and they call their government corrupt bunch of ido***.

Of course that sample is too small, but I doubt many Chinese want to change to the Indian situation (and the Indian is not the worst).

Also the Chinese government is not as totalitarian as it seems. Whenever there are protests they act in a sensitive matter and the top of the government is traveling there and speaking with the protesters.

Something I never saw in the democratic west.....

Not all is as it seems and not all is as the media tells us.

[pastitche]

Oh dear, I didn't realise you supported the coup. Wouldn't you rather have had the Democrat Party do the democratic thing and vote Thaksin and his party out at the Polls in the October Election? They would only have had to wait about a month before they had their chance. They obviously took it seriously as they were campaigning this time as opposed to boycotting.

D'oh! The coup was conducted by the RTA, not the Democrat Party. The fact that the Democrats were seriously campaigning suggests that they had no idea it was about to happen.

How do you produce such twisted logic?

I was upbraiding rubl for choosing a coup as a democratic alternative to removing an elected PM and government rather than relying on a good old fashioned election that had been announced. I'm sure the democrat party had nothing to do with carrying out the coup, that's why I pointed out they were campaigning for the October election.

Sometimes elections do not work.

Sometimes countries are not ready for elections. Look at China and India. India has a democracy and the country is extremely corrupt and the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. China is doing much better without a democracy. People must be ready for a democracy to work. Some countries are just not ready. And this has mainly to do with education.

Are you saying that when you are elected you can do whatever you want? What if an elected leader is corrupt as hell? What if he buys his way around any legal system? Who should stop these kind of elected leaders? Or should we just watch and see and accept what he is doing because he is elected?

You are making an interesting point but what are you suggesting should be the way forward for Thailand? Democracy may not be the only style of government but is certainly the most legitimate. I agree that education of the electorate is important but who is to judge when their education is sufficient?

[rubl]

Thaksin's son says nice things about Sonthi as well as about reconciliation and the bill going before parliament.

Sonthi appears to be playing a key role in the process - as he did in 2006. It makes sense, in that regard, for Thaksin's son to make this kind of a gesture & statements.

Does anyone criticizing him here really expect him to do otherwise? I don't.

And does anyone here not think that their own son should be supportive of them - their father or mother? I think nearly 100% would.

Young Panthongtae praised in a very condescending manner which in Thai culture would be deemed very bad manners and showing lack of culture. "But after he realised that the coup was not the right solution, he was man enough to lead the efforts to solve this situation". So I criticize k. Thaksin's son and up to a point MP Gen. Sonthi. The fact that the son supports is father is no problem to anyone here I think, it's just the way in which he does so.BTW is the son relying on the fortune his father gave him, or did he manage to make an honest buck ?

[waza]

Thaksin's son says nice things about Sonthi as well as about reconciliation and the bill going before parliament.

Sonthi appears to be playing a key role in the process - as he did in 2006. It makes sense, in that regard, for Thaksin's son to make this kind of a gesture & statements.

Does anyone criticizing him here really expect him to do otherwise? I don't.

And does anyone here not think that their own son should be supportive of them - their father or mother? I think nearly 100% would.

Young Panthongtae praised in a very condescending manner which in Thai culture would be deemed very bad manners and showing lack of culture. "But after he realised that the coup was not the right solution, he was man enough to lead the efforts to solve this situation". So I criticize k. Thaksin's son and up to a point MP Gen. Sonthi. The fact that the son supports is father is no problem to anyone here I think, it's just the way in which he does so.BTW is the son relying on the fortune his father gave him, or did he manage to make an honest buck ?

If he made an honest buck he would be the first in his family to do it.

[rubl]

I was upbraiding rubl for choosing a coup as a democratic alternative to removing an elected PM and government rather than relying on a good old fashioned election that had been announced. I'm sure the democrat party had nothing to do with carrying out the coup, that's why I pointed out they were campaigning for the October election.

Oh chide me not and certainly not for something I didn't even say.

With a condescending person like young Panthongtae saying "after he realised that the coup was not the right solution, he was man enough to lead the efforts to solve this situation" I just mentioned "Gen. Sonthi should be praised for the non-violent coup". Should I have highlighted non-violent for better understanding ?

Well sorry if I offended you but praising someone for a coup is praising them for a coup whether it's non violent or not. However, if you had highlighted the sentence as you suggested I would have immediately got your meaning.

My apologies.

My dear chap, no offence meant, no offence taken. We just cross swords in a friendly manner.

I do hope you don't mind me addressing you like I do. It's a polite thing without really trying to suggest we are (close) friends. I mean, me having gone to work today and walking around wearing a yellow shirt might be slightly embarrassing to some and for sure I do not mean to give any offence.

If I may offer a little piece of advise, being a Dutch uncle and such, your replies sometimes indicate an interpretation too much flavoured by your believes rather than real facts. IMHO that is

[gand]

I was upbraiding rubl for choosing a coup as a democratic alternative to removing an elected PM and government rather than relying on a good old fashioned election that had been announced. I'm sure the democrat party had nothing to do with carrying out the coup, that's why I pointed out they were campaigning for the October election.

Oh chide me not and certainly not for something I didn't even say.

With a condescending person like young Panthongtae saying "after he realised that the coup was not the right solution, he was man enough to lead the efforts to solve this situation" I just mentioned "Gen. Sonthi should be praised for the non-violent coup". Should I have highlighted non-violent for better understanding ?

Well sorry if I offended you but praising someone for a coup is praising them for a coup whether it's non violent or not. However, if you had highlighted the sentence as you suggested I would have immediately got your meaning.

My apologies.

My dear chap, no offence meant, no offence taken. We just cross swords in a friendly manner.

I do hope you don't mind me addressing you like I do. It's a polite thing without really trying to suggest we are (close) friends. I mean, me having gone to work today and walking around wearing a yellow shirt might be slightly embarrassing to some and for sure I do not mean to give any offence.

If I may offer a little piece of advise, being a Dutch uncle and such, your replies sometimes indicate an interpretation too much flavoured by your believes rather than real facts. IMHO that is

Don't you just love Dutch humor? Would it be a coup as well, if a PM refuses to leave office he no longer legally holds?

[Thai at Heart]

Still none the wiser why sonthi is the man spear heading this. Doesn't anyone have anything better than fear of prosecution having left the army. A though they dont have an extraordinarily profitable history of taking care of their own.

His conduct is absolutely bizarre in a thai political environment. Maybe he didnt

Edited May 30, 2012 by Thai at Heart

[tlansford]

Still none the wiser why sonthi is the man spear heading this. Doesn't anyone have anything better than fear of prosecution having left the army. A though they dont have an extraordinarily profitable history of taking care of their own.

His conduct is absolutely bizarre in a thai political environment. Maybe he didnt

I ask myself the same question, and no, I don't have any reasons that are not pure speculation.

[phiphidon]

I was upbraiding rubl for choosing a coup as a democratic alternative to removing an elected PM and government rather than relying on a good old fashioned election that had been announced. I'm sure the democrat party had nothing to do with carrying out the coup, that's why I pointed out they were campaigning for the October election.

Oh chide me not and certainly not for something I didn't even say.

With a condescending person like young Panthongtae saying "after he realised that the coup was not the right solution, he was man enough to lead the efforts to solve this situation" I just mentioned "Gen. Sonthi should be praised for the non-violent coup". Should I have highlighted non-violent for better understanding ?

Well sorry if I offended you but praising someone for a coup is praising them for a coup whether it's non violent or not. However, if you had highlighted the sentence as you suggested I would have immediately got your meaning.

My apologies.

My dear chap, no offence meant, no offence taken. We just cross swords in a friendly manner.

I do hope you don't mind me addressing you like I do. It's a polite thing without really trying to suggest we are (close) friends. I mean, me having gone to work today and walking around wearing a yellow shirt might be slightly embarrassing to some and for sure I do not mean to give any offence.

If I may offer a little piece of advise, being a Dutch uncle and such, your replies sometimes indicate an interpretation too much flavoured by your believes rather than real facts. IMHO that is

I'm not the one wearing a yellow shirt, remember.

[volk666]

.."and Thailand was on the way to a 1 party system like the Soviets and East Germany." hmmm, just as an aside, That not only seems like a stretch to me given the political structure in Thailand (constitutional monarchy), but it seems very unlikely that the democratic party at the time would have agreed with your assessment, either... As for the reality of the time, and becoming a 1 party system, there was that scheduled election, ...

Oh dear, I didn't realise you supported the coup. Wouldn't you rather have had the Democrat Party do the democratic thing and vote Thaksin and his party out at the Polls in the October Election? They would only have had to wait about a month before they had their chance. They obviously took it seriously as they were campaigning this time as opposed to boycotting.

D'oh! The coup was conducted by the RTA, not the Democrat Party. The fact that the Democrats were seriously campaigning suggests that they had no idea it was about to happen. How do you produce such twisted logic?

I was upbraiding rubl for choosing a coup as a democratic alternative to removing an elected PM and government rather than relying on a good old fashioned election that had been announced. I'm sure the democrat party had nothing to do with carrying out the coup, that's why I pointed out they were campaigning for the October election.

Oh God, there was no scheduled elections at the time of the coup, no announcements, no campaigning. The October date was abandoned months earlier when the Election Commissioners were dismissed, convicted and imprisoned. New EC was elected just a couple of days before the coup and haven't had even a single meeting, let alone announce new elections.

I thought that these two distinguished anti coup posters would learn at least some basic facts about their favorite topic but no, six years on and still the same misinformation...

[OzMick]

I'm not the one wearing a yellow shirt, remember.

Metaphorically, I have never imagined you in any colour but blood red.

[OzMick]

Unlocked the nation? Or let slip the dogs of war?

Cry havoc! and let slip the dogs of war, that this foul deed shall smell above the earth with carrion men, groaning for burial. WS

[rubl]

Well sorry if I offended you but praising someone for a coup is praising them for a coup whether it's non violent or not. However, if you had highlighted the sentence as you suggested I would have immediately got your meaning.

My apologies.

My dear chap, no offence meant, no offence taken. We just cross swords in a friendly manner.

I do hope you don't mind me addressing you like I do. It's a polite thing without really trying to suggest we are (close) friends. I mean, me having gone to work today and walking around wearing a yellow shirt might be slightly embarrassing to some and for sure I do not mean to give any offence.

If I may offer a little piece of advise, being a Dutch uncle and such, your replies sometimes indicate an interpretation too much flavoured by your believes rather than real facts. IMHO that is

I'm not the one wearing a yellow shirt, remember.

My dear non-yellow chap, I would really appreciate when you read posts a bit more carefully. I didn't suggest you were or would be wearing a yellow shirt.

Of course there's the distinct possibility that your last remark is just a sneaky way of suggesting my "your replies sometimes indicate an interpretation too much flavoured by your believes rather than real facts" implies that the yellow-shirts suffer from this misperception.

As I didn't even mention a colour for you, nor even vaguely indicated that you might be a specific colour supporter I do start to take offence. If it wasn't agaist forum rules I might even go so far as to call you a bloody fool and conniving lying bastard. That's out of the question of course, so let me just say that the way you always seem to try to bend and twist till somehow it may look to some you are right only makes you a misguided person who should seek professional help.

Now, don't worry, just make that appointment tomorrow

[tlansford]

- deleted for quote limits -

Oh dear, I didn't realise you supported the coup. Wouldn't you rather have had the Democrat Party do the democratic thing and vote Thaksin and his party out at the Polls in the October Election? They would only have had to wait about a month before they had their chance. They obviously took it seriously as they were campaigning this time as opposed to boycotting.

D'oh! The coup was conducted by the RTA, not the Democrat Party. The fact that the Democrats were seriously campaigning suggests that they had no idea it was about to happen. How do you produce such twisted logic?

I was upbraiding rubl for choosing a coup as a democratic alternative to removing an elected PM and government rather than relying on a good old fashioned election that had been announced. I'm sure the democrat party had nothing to do with carrying out the coup, that's why I pointed out they were campaigning for the October election.

Oh God, there was no scheduled elections at the time of the coup, no announcements, no campaigning. The October date was abandoned months earlier when the Election Commissioners were dismissed, convicted and imprisoned. New EC was elected just a couple of days before the coup and haven't had even a single meeting, let alone announce new elections.

I thought that these two distinguished anti coup posters would learn at least some basic facts about their favorite topic but no, six years on and still the same misinformation...

you are wrong. And on TVF you have a lot of support in being wrong, too.

The October date was not abandoned months earlier, but rather mcot reported the king's endorsement of the election date less than 2 months before the coup. Even with the delay in the date - from the proposed Oct 15th to about 1 month later, the election campaign may not have been in full swing but still the Dem's & TRT were staking out campaign positions at the beginning of September and there was much speculation about Thaksin, too (http://nationmultimedia.com/2006/09/01/politics/politics_30012474.php)

So on TVF the misinformation continues - in the form of asserting that others are misinformed.

[Macmundi]

the grasshopper's words have no weight. who cares.

[rubl]

you are wrong. And on TVF you have a lot of support in being wrong, too.

The October date was not abandoned months earlier, but rather mcot reported the king's endorsement of the election date less than 2 months before the coup. Even with the delay in the date - from the proposed Oct 15th to about 1 month later, the election campaign may not have been in full swing but still the Dem's & TRT were staking out campaign positions at the beginning of September and there was much speculation about Thaksin, too (http://nationmultime...cs_30012474.php)

So on TVF the misinformation continues - in the form of asserting that others are misinformed.

(the 'you are wrong' refers to another poster, just read the original post)

The article quoted seems similar to remarks currently made by political parties, even without a general election in sight. The 'not months earlier' and 'less than 2 months before' lack distinct qualification and may even scale down to the same timeframe.

So with this type of information it is perfectly clear and really obvious that on TVF the misinformation and obfuscation continues. Now that is a real surprise

Edited May 30, 2012 by rubl

[whybother]

you are wrong. And on TVF you have a lot of support in being wrong, too.

The October date was not abandoned months earlier, but rather mcot reported the king's endorsement of the election date less than 2 months before the coup. Even with the delay in the date - from the proposed Oct 15th to about 1 month later, the election campaign may not have been in full swing but still the Dem's & TRT were staking out campaign positions at the beginning of September and there was much speculation about Thaksin, too (http://nationmultimedia.com/2006/09/01/politics/politics_30012474.php)

So on TVF the misinformation continues - in the form of asserting that others are misinformed.

The October elections were likely to be postponed because the election commissioners would not have enough time to organise them.

Sent from my shoe phone

[Buchholz]

.."and Thailand was on the way to a 1 party system like the Soviets and East Germany." hmmm, just as an aside, That not only seems like a stretch to me given the political structure in Thailand (constitutional monarchy), but it seems very unlikely that the democratic party at the time would have agreed with your assessment, either... As for the reality of the time, and becoming a 1 party system, there was that scheduled election, ...

I was upbraiding rubl for choosing a coup as a democratic alternative to removing an elected PM and government rather than relying on a good old fashioned election that had been announced. I'm sure the democrat party had nothing to do with carrying out the coup, that's why I pointed out they were campaigning for the October election.

Oh God, there was no scheduled elections at the time of the coup, no announcements, no campaigning. The October date was abandoned months earlier when the Election Commissioners were dismissed, convicted and imprisoned. New EC was elected just a couple of days before the coup and haven't had even a single meeting, let alone announce new elections.

I thought that these two distinguished anti coup posters would learn at least some basic facts about their favorite topic but no, six years on and still the same misinformation...

It is amazing how often the "elections were scheduled soon" disinformation gets thrown out there in hopes of sticking.

,

[OzMick]

.."and Thailand was on the way to a 1 party system like the Soviets and East Germany." hmmm, just as an aside, That not only seems like a stretch to me given the political structure in Thailand (constitutional monarchy), but it seems very unlikely that the democratic party at the time would have agreed with your assessment, either... As for the reality of the time, and becoming a 1 party system, there was that scheduled election, ...

I was upbraiding rubl for choosing a coup as a democratic alternative to removing an elected PM and government rather than relying on a good old fashioned election that had been announced. I'm sure the democrat party had nothing to do with carrying out the coup, that's why I pointed out they were campaigning for the October election.

Oh God, there was no scheduled elections at the time of the coup, no announcements, no campaigning. The October date was abandoned months earlier when the Election Commissioners were dismissed, convicted and imprisoned. New EC was elected just a couple of days before the coup and haven't had even a single meeting, let alone announce new elections.

I thought that these two distinguished anti coup posters would learn at least some basic facts about their favorite topic but no, six years on and still the same misinformation...

It is amazing how often the "elections were scheduled soon" disinformation gets thrown out there in hopes of sticking.

,

But we all agree that "it was a coup between elections".

[rixalex]

So you agree that it was a filial obligation statement made by a young man of no notable achievement, and a few serious misdemeanors, who has lived an insulated pampered life far removed from that of 99.99% of the people of Thailand, and who lives in luxury thanks to his father's ill-gotten gains?

I've never met this person and am in no position to make such a statement, so the answer is "no, I do not agree with that".

Come on Tom. Nothing whatsoever in what Mick has stated that isn't blatantly obvious common knowledge. That you should try to avoid having to agree with it with the deliciously conveniently timed "i need to have met a person before expressing an opinion on them", is frankly a bit silly considering you haven't met any of the people we discuss here, and yet that doesn't usually get in the way of you offering us your opinion.