U N Human Rights Commissioner Says Thailand Should Try Those Responsible For 2010 Deaths

[nurofiend]

Which is wrong anyway, a comical genius would be a genius who acts in a comical and usually unintended fashion to the amusement of others, a great comedian should be referred to as a comedic genius.

The upshot of which is.

Thaksin = Clown.

Followers = Amusing, but dangerous.

And I doubt that you would find a genius anywhere between the front and the back of the pack.

who said anything about a great comedian?

a comical genius would be a genius who acts in a comical and usually unintended fashion to the amusement of others

and where did you gather this valuable definition may i ask?

Oh, I don't know, it may have something to do with having more than a basic understanding of the English language, and not just copying in haste an image that suited an agenda at the time.

Why do you ask?

prick, prick, prick goes thaddeus's devil fork.

Edited September 22, 2012 by nurofiend

[nurofiend]

still, i'm awaiting your answer to the original question.

Nope, sorry, the original question if memory serves was, what would you have done?

and i said that.

if the question actually means what would i have done ie what i would have for dinner then i must've misunderstood it.

[nurofiend]

anyway thaddeus, i really don't have the time or energy for this kind of nonsense with you.

because that's all it ever amounts to when trying to talk with you.

[Roadman]

What a cop out!

IMHO the clear-out should have been done earlier, and with better intelligence on the presence of those armed with military weapons. But I still would have expected quite a few deaths given that there would be conflict between armed forces. And that is with 20/20 hindsight, so I accept that with the reluctance to cause deaths there was a delay which allowed barricades to be built.

Over to you.

so you would have cracked down even faster with the military, now there's a surprise!

even though it's been establised that the protest related deathtoll previous to the military crackdown proper was what? and after it was what?

i already said i would have held the military off for longer, i wouldn't have sent the military in at all at the start when the rally itself was completely peaceful.

noting of course with the hindsight we all now have, that the first military death in the protest areas was post SOE afaik....

and now i'll wait for whybother's answer.

The army wasn't really involved until after the red shirts stormed parliament and Thaicom. At Thaicom the ref shirts were throwing Molotov cocktails. If you think that is peaceful, well, what can I say.

Sent from my HTC phone.

see edit to my above post to the question i was asking you.

well what can you say? because i never said throwing a molotov cocktail is peaceful

Gee...now that didn't hurt to acknowledge that throwing molotov cocktails is not peaceful. So some of the Reds throwing molotov cocktails among their other terrorist acts were not peaceful protestors. Well done.

[nurofiend]

Gee...now that didn't hurt to acknowledge that throwing molotov cocktails is not peaceful. So some of the Reds throwing molotov cocktails among their other terrorist acts were not peaceful protestors. Well done.

gee... now that doesn't hurt to make everything black and white and simplistic does it?

and when did i ever say that some of the reds were not peaceful protestors?

thanks for your time.

[whybother]

The army wasn't really involved until after the red shirts stormed parliament and Thaicom. At Thaicom the ref shirts were throwing Molotov cocktails. If you think that is peaceful, well, what can I say.

Sent from my HTC phone.

see edit to my above post to the question i was asking you.

well what can you say? because i never said throwing a molotov cocktail is peaceful

You say you wouldn't have sent the army in while the protest was peaceful and then admit that the protests weren't peaceful, so it must have been ok to have the army there.

As to the question, you are the one saying they should have done things differently, but you avoid answering the question that you were asked first as to what you would have done.

Sent from my HTC phone.

how is it avoiding the question when i said what i would have done, re-read it.

and as for your first paragraph, i suggest stop twisting and re-read what i said again.

so i repeat for the umpteenth time, what would you have done?

You didn't say what you WOULD have done. Re-read it.

Sent from my HTC phone.

[nurofiend]

You didn't say what you WOULD have done. Re-read it.

Sent from my HTC phone.

I WOULD have held the military off for longer, as i i've said numerous times already but you still can't get it into that head of yours.

just keep avoiding the question yourself, you're boring me now.

[Thaddeus]

You didn't say what you WOULD have done. Re-read it.

Sent from my HTC phone.

I WOULD have held the military off for longer, as i i've said numerous times already but you still can't get it into that head of yours.

"What do we want?"

"Immediate Action"

"When do we want it?"

"Next week, maybe"

[rixalex]

actually the main point of my post was to put the lack of weight behind your 'plus was here to witness some of it' quote.

if you have seen something of significance that you think makes a difference to any outcome of events and something that has not already reported in any media piece, then i would suggest you tell the world.

otherwise it's meaningless to any debate on here.

Witnessing something with your own eyes doesn't necessarily make you better informed about a given situation, but it does give you a different perspective on things, when they unfold not on pages on the internet, or on pictures on your TV screen, but right before you. You see different things. Smaller details. You get a sense of mood, a sense of tension, the smells, the fears. It's why news agencies send their journalists thousands of miles around the world every day.

Before my grandfather died, i spent as much time as i could getting him to recount stories of his time in the war. I found it fascinating hearing first hand accounts of things that happened with his troop. None of it of any real value to a historian. No great revelations. No important battles. But fascinating nonetheless to me.

Not that of course my experience, before the stupid charge is made, was anything like that of my grandfather.

I do think though that being in a place at a time, gives you a different insight.

Funny how it is always the ones who weren't here falling over themselves to tell us how meaningless being here when it happened is.

[nurofiend]

You didn't say what you WOULD have done. Re-read it.

Sent from my HTC phone.

I WOULD have held the military off for longer, as i i've said numerous times already but you still can't get it into that head of yours.

"What do we want?"

"Immediate Action"

"When do we want it?"

"Next week, maybe"

yeah, because there would be no decision making involved in how long i would wait to decide on getting them 'properly' involved.

still pricking away i see with that fork.

Edited September 23, 2012 by nurofiend

[nurofiend]

actually the main point of my post was to put the lack of weight behind your 'plus was here to witness some of it' quote.

if you have seen something of significance that you think makes a difference to any outcome of events and something that has not already reported in any media piece, then i would suggest you tell the world.

otherwise it's meaningless to any debate on here.

Witnessing something with your own eyes doesn't necessarily make you better informed about a given situation, but it does give you a different perspective on things, when they unfold not on pages on the internet, or on pictures on your TV screen, but right before you. You see different things. Smaller details. You get a sense of mood, a sense of tension, the smells, the fears. It's why news agencies send their journalists thousands of miles around the world every day.

Before my grandfather died, i spent as much time as i could getting him to recount stories of his time in the war. I found it fascinating hearing first hand accounts of things that happened with his troop. None of it of any real value to a historian. No great revelations. No important battles. But fascinating nonetheless to me.

Not that of course my experience, before the stupid charge is made, was anything like that of my grandfather.

I do think though that being in a place at a time, gives you a different insight.

Funny how it is always the ones who weren't here falling over themselves to tell us how meaningless being here when it happened is.

No great revelations.

and therein lies my point.

i'm not saying it was meaningless being there as far as feeling the atmosphere goes, i'm saying "unless you have seen something of significance that you think makes a difference to any outcome of events and something that has not already reported in any media piece" then it's not really significant in that aspect.

and re 'the sense of tension and the fears', i believe everyone in thailand at the time felt that, i know i did.

[rixalex]

Smileys can indeed fill voids when reasoned argument fails you.

The people who laugh about Abhisit's coalition government being legitimate, are the very same people who stand behind such practices as billionaires buying up all the small parties in the land, to take power; the same people who have no problem with a coalition government being formed with the help of a smaller party, that in its election campaign, lied about promising to not work with certain other parties.

OK, sir, so you do think that Abhisit's government was legitimate. I certainly do not agree. But our opinion never counted anyway. The point of the protests in 2009 and 2010 was exactly this question. Many Thais viewed his government as illegitimate and the legitimate government as having been removed (again) by the military - this time with the help of the courts.

When people here claim that the UDD were trying to unseat the legitimate government, then they are starting with a false premise - at least as far as those protesting were concerned.

Were there ever 6 years of turmoil after past coups? Back when the elites were basically playing among themselves for control of the government, no. But IMO one of the things which changed after 1997 is that the Thai people are not only participating more in their country's democracy, they have come to expect their votes to count and their choices to stand rather than to see them discarded when the governments they elect don't suit the old-guard power base. After the coup, when they had the chance to go to the polls again, they chose a government. That government lasted how long?

The protesters in 2010 viewed their position as justified. That much seems very clear.

What you and I thought/think hardly matters at all.

Baffling how these people, such sticklers for democracy being fully adhered to in their eyes, are the same people who stand in support of a billionaire who when he decided he wanted to run the country, went around simply buying up all the small parties, the same people who stand in support of a man who did all he could to erode checks and balances that are considered a vital part of democracy functioning, the same people who stand in support of an on the run criminal who when he felt that PM Samak was not serving his interests, dumped him and brought in his brother-in-law. None of any of that activity was any less undemocratic than a group of politicians meeting in a general's home. And yet they happily support it all.

This has nothing to do with democracy being adhered to, nothing to do with legitimacy or illegitimacy. The reds don't care about that, any more than the yellows. Pretending they do, pretending this is all for some higher noble cause of their democratic right, is a nonsense. They have the mentality of some football fans. When their player fouls a player of the opposition, the opposition player dived. When one of their players is fouled, they scream for a penalty.

[AleG]

so you would have cracked down even faster with the military, now there's a surprise!

even though it's been establised that the protest related deathtoll previous to the military crackdown proper was what? and after it was what?

i already said i would have held the military off for longer, noting of course with the hindsight we all now have, that the first military death in the protest areas was post SOE afaik....

i wouldn't have sent the military in at all at the start when the rally itself was completely peaceful.

and now i'll wait for whybother's answer.

i'll just repeat the question

i have no idea what you would or would NOT do either but you still haven't answered the question of what you WOULD do?

The rally wasn't completely peaceful, you know that.

The question was referring to what would you have done in the real world, not some fantasy alternative universe were the protesters hadn't already committed several violent actions already.

[nurofiend]

so you would have cracked down even faster with the military, now there's a surprise!

even though it's been establised that the protest related deathtoll previous to the military crackdown proper was what? and after it was what?

i already said i would have held the military off for longer, noting of course with the hindsight we all now have, that the first military death in the protest areas was post SOE afaik....

i wouldn't have sent the military in at all at the start when the rally itself was completely peaceful.

and now i'll wait for whybother's answer.

i'll just repeat the question

i have no idea what you would or would NOT do either but you still haven't answered the question of what you WOULD do?

The rally wasn't completely peaceful, you know that.

The question was referring to what would you have done in the real world, not some fantasy alternative universe were the protesters hadn't already committed several violent actions already.

up to a certain stage it was very peaceful in the beginning as far as politicial rallies go!

what i would have done in the real world, which is what i thought i was talking about but anyway, i would have waited until when i deemed it absolutely necessary to put an army that's known to be sometimes quite unhinged when dealing with such matters (if history is anything to go by), in charge.

and i don't think at the time of the thaicom incident and the government house incident that things were beyond resolution without setting the army loose.

that's my opinion on it.

[rixalex]

No great revelations.

and therein lies my point.

i'm not saying it was meaningless being there as far as feeling the atmosphere goes,

I'm not claiming it was meaningful in terms of great revelations.

[nurofiend]

No great revelations.

and therein lies my point.

i'm not saying it was meaningless being there as far as feeling the atmosphere goes,

I'm not claiming it was meaningful in terms of great revelations.

well, we're in agreement then.

[nurofiend]

also to add on to what i would do, i probably would have dissolved parliament 'immediately' and called a general election, long, long, long before things got ugly....considering anyone in their right mind would legitimately question the governments electoral mandate.

imagine how many lives could have been saved then...

[TheKrayTriplet]

also to add on to what i would do, i probably would have dissolved parliament 'immediately' and called a general election, long, long, long before things got ugly....considering anyone in their right mind would legitimately question the governments electoral mandate.

imagine how many lives could have been saved then...

I believe that General Anupong suggested that parliament be dissolved, http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/politics/thai-army-chief-moots-dissolution-of-parliament_100346631.html.

Of course Suthep and CRES got involved and played this down,

CRES and Army Spokesperson, Colonel Sansern Kaewkamnerd, on Tuesday stated that the media's interpretation of the interview given by General Anupong about house dissolution did not reflect what his boss intended to convey.

The remark given by the spokesperson echoed the interview of Deputy Prime Minister overseeing Security Affairs, Suthep Thaugsuban, on Tuesday that the army chief did not press the government to dissolve the house before the time

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/356044-bangkok-red-shirt-rally-live-wednesday/#entry3504748

[Moruya]

also to add on to what i would do, i probably would have dissolved parliament 'immediately' and called a general election, long, long, long before things got ugly....considering anyone in their right mind would legitimately question the governments electoral mandate.

imagine how many lives could have been saved then...

We can all see how democracy works inside your cranium.

Meanwhile, in the real world, governments do not step down because of 2,000 violent, paid pawns

[rixalex]

also to add on to what i would do, i probably would have dissolved parliament 'immediately' and called a general election, long, long, long before things got ugly....considering anyone in their right mind would legitimately question the governments electoral mandate.

imagine how many lives could have been saved then...

Politics is a power game. When you have it, you don't offer it up to see if anyone else might like it. You wait until such a time as suits you.

Not really surprising, with PPP not calling elections when it was disbanded, as it was perfectly able to do, that the Dems didn't call them either. Yes they lacked a mandate, but let's not be naive, they aren't the first to lack that, and parties don't generally tend to go to the polls out of principle, they go to the polls when they think they can win most seats.

Perhaps had Abhisit had a cystral ball at the time, and had he known the lives Thaksin was prepared to have sacrificed for his power and money struggle, he might have acted differently. Who knows.

[473geo]

actually the main point of my post was to put the lack of weight behind your 'plus was here to witness some of it' quote.

if you have seen something of significance that you think makes a difference to any outcome of events and something that has not already reported in any media piece, then i would suggest you tell the world.

otherwise it's meaningless to any debate on here.

Witnessing something with your own eyes doesn't necessarily make you better informed about a given situation, but it does give you a different perspective on things, when they unfold not on pages on the internet, or on pictures on your TV screen, but right before you. You see different things. Smaller details. You get a sense of mood, a sense of tension, the smells, the fears. It's why news agencies send their journalists thousands of miles around the world every day.

Before my grandfather died, i spent as much time as i could getting him to recount stories of his time in the war. I found it fascinating hearing first hand accounts of things that happened with his troop. None of it of any real value to a historian. No great revelations. No important battles. But fascinating nonetheless to me.

Not that of course my experience, before the stupid charge is made, was anything like that of my grandfather.

I do think though that being in a place at a time, gives you a different insight.

Funny how it is always the ones who weren't here falling over themselves to tell us how meaningless being here when it happened is.

Good post, goes a long way to exposing the mentally challenged who attempted to ridicule the the Nick Nostitz information provided on this forum.....

[rixalex]

actually the main point of my post was to put the lack of weight behind your 'plus was here to witness some of it' quote.

if you have seen something of significance that you think makes a difference to any outcome of events and something that has not already reported in any media piece, then i would suggest you tell the world.

otherwise it's meaningless to any debate on here.

Witnessing something with your own eyes doesn't necessarily make you better informed about a given situation, but it does give you a different perspective on things, when they unfold not on pages on the internet, or on pictures on your TV screen, but right before you. You see different things. Smaller details. You get a sense of mood, a sense of tension, the smells, the fears. It's why news agencies send their journalists thousands of miles around the world every day.

Before my grandfather died, i spent as much time as i could getting him to recount stories of his time in the war. I found it fascinating hearing first hand accounts of things that happened with his troop. None of it of any real value to a historian. No great revelations. No important battles. But fascinating nonetheless to me.

Not that of course my experience, before the stupid charge is made, was anything like that of my grandfather.

I do think though that being in a place at a time, gives you a different insight.

Funny how it is always the ones who weren't here falling over themselves to tell us how meaningless being here when it happened is.

Good post, goes a long way to exposing the mentally challenged who attempted to ridicule the the Nick Nostitz information provided on this forum.....

Does strike me as odd the way that those who tend to advocate NN writings as having extra validity as he was here, as he experienced it, are the same people quick to dismiss any value in members here who haven't just read things from the net, but also lived through them, albeit in not quite the front-line position that NN's work led him to.

As for ridiculing NN, i hope i have never been guilty of that. I have often complimented him on how well informed he is. I just happen to disagree with some of the conclusions he reaches. Hope that is ok.

[473geo]

actually the main point of my post was to put the lack of weight behind your 'plus was here to witness some of it' quote.

if you have seen something of significance that you think makes a difference to any outcome of events and something that has not already reported in any media piece, then i would suggest you tell the world.

otherwise it's meaningless to any debate on here.

Witnessing something with your own eyes doesn't necessarily make you better informed about a given situation, but it does give you a different perspective on things, when they unfold not on pages on the internet, or on pictures on your TV screen, but right before you. You see different things. Smaller details. You get a sense of mood, a sense of tension, the smells, the fears. It's why news agencies send their journalists thousands of miles around the world every day.

Before my grandfather died, i spent as much time as i could getting him to recount stories of his time in the war. I found it fascinating hearing first hand accounts of things that happened with his troop. None of it of any real value to a historian. No great revelations. No important battles. But fascinating nonetheless to me.

Not that of course my experience, before the stupid charge is made, was anything like that of my grandfather.

I do think though that being in a place at a time, gives you a different insight.

Funny how it is always the ones who weren't here falling over themselves to tell us how meaningless being here when it happened is.

Good post, goes a long way to exposing the mentally challenged who attempted to ridicule the the Nick Nostitz information provided on this forum.....

Does strike me as odd the way that those who tend to advocate NN writings as having extra validity as he was here, as he experienced it, are the same people quick to dismiss any value in members here who haven't just read things from the net, but also lived through them, albeit in not quite the front-line position that NN's work led him to.

As for ridiculing NN, i hope i have never been guilty of that. I have often complimented him on how well informed he is. I just happen to disagree with some of the conclusions he reaches. Hope that is ok.

"Those who tend"...who would that be then?

And let us make this very clear, just in case your waffling is causing confusion......if you were not there at the actual happening, (as Nick was on many occasions).....your views and opinions are based on second hand information....ok? So don't give us "not quite in the front line" a statement that suggests if you saw the smoke you can ascertain the true cause of the fire.

Edited September 23, 2012 by 473geo

[rixalex]

"Those who tend"...who would that be then?

Not going to give you a list. Sure you have read pretty much the same posts as i have, so you know what everyone's position is, what people have said.

And let us make this very clear, just in case your waffling is causing confusion......

Oh dear, gone from a "good post" to "waffle" in the space of hours. What a fickle chap you are.

if you were not there at the actual happening, (as Nick was on many occasions).....your views and opinions are based on second hand information....ok?

I wasn't there for every happening, or even a lot of them (as Nick was) but i was there for some, so i do at least have some first hand experiences to go on. Not all my views and opinions are based on second hand information.

[473geo]

"Those who tend"...who would that be then?

Not going to give you a list. Sure you have read pretty much the same posts as i have, so you know what everyone's position is, what people have said.

And let us make this very clear, just in case your waffling is causing confusion......

Oh dear, gone from a "good post" to "waffle" in the space of hours. What a fickle chap you are.

if you were not there at the actual happening, (as Nick was on many occasions).....your views and opinions are based on second hand information....ok?

I wasn't there for every happening, or even a lot of them (as Nick was) but i was there for some, so i do at least have some first hand experiences to go on. Not all my views and opinions are based on second hand information.

Oh dear indeed, the 'waffling', a reference to your following post which was cloaked attempt to merge the true input from a person that was actually present at a location, and one that was 'in the vicinity' at the time.

I have not seen a great deal of 'on the ground' report from you regarding the active discussions surrouding the incidents so cannot comment on the validity of such reports.

Perhaps I should have phrased my response better as in "So don't give us "not quite in the front line" a statement that suggests if one saw the smoke one can ascertain the true cause of the fire."

Edited September 23, 2012 by 473geo

[rixalex]

Oh dear indeed, the 'waffling', a reference to your following post which was cloaked attempt to merge the true input from a person that was actually present at a location, and one that was 'in the vicinity' at the time.

Nick's closeness to what went on is not a matter i have ever disputed, nor something i envy or would have wanted to compete with. I stayed as far away as i could, but there were times, when i couldn't avoid entering certain areas. I went in and got out as soon as i could.

So I am aware and appreciate the level of difference in closeness to the events as experiences by myself and Nick. I am also aware and appreciate the level of difference in closeness to the events as experienced by me and as by you. I think that is your problem. You seek to belittle my first hand experiences as being of no importance whatsoever, because you don't have any. Pretty sad.

I have not seen a great deal of 'on the ground' report from you regarding the active discussions surrouding the incidents so cannot comment on the validity of such reports.

Something you can't comment on? There's a first.

[rixalex]

Perhaps I should have phrased my response better as in "So don't give us "not quite in the front line" a statement that suggests if one saw the smoke one can ascertain the true cause of the fire."

And you say i waffle.

[tlansford]

Smileys can indeed fill voids when reasoned argument fails you.

The people who laugh about Abhisit's coalition government being legitimate, are the very same people who stand behind such practices as billionaires buying up all the small parties in the land, to take power; the same people who have no problem with a coalition government being formed with the help of a smaller party, that in its election campaign, lied about promising to not work with certain other parties.

OK, sir, so you do think that Abhisit's government was legitimate. I certainly do not agree. But our opinion never counted anyway. The point of the protests in 2009 and 2010 was exactly this question. Many Thais viewed his government as illegitimate and the legitimate government as having been removed (again) by the military - this time with the help of the courts.

When people here claim that the UDD were trying to unseat the legitimate government, then they are starting with a false premise - at least as far as those protesting were concerned.

Were there ever 6 years of turmoil after past coups? Back when the elites were basically playing among themselves for control of the government, no. But IMO one of the things which changed after 1997 is that the Thai people are not only participating more in their country's democracy, they have come to expect their votes to count and their choices to stand rather than to see them discarded when the governments they elect don't suit the old-guard power base. After the coup, when they had the chance to go to the polls again, they chose a government. That government lasted how long?

The protesters in 2010 viewed their position as justified. That much seems very clear.

What you and I thought/think hardly matters at all.

Baffling how these people, such sticklers for democracy being fully adhered to in their eyes, are the same people who stand in support of a billionaire who when he decided he wanted to run the country, went around simply buying up all the small parties, the same people who stand in support of a man who did all he could to erode checks and balances that are considered a vital part of democracy functioning, the same people who stand in support of an on the run criminal who when he felt that PM Samak was not serving his interests, dumped him and brought in his brother-in-law. None of any of that activity was any less undemocratic than a group of politicians meeting in a general's home. And yet they happily support it all.

This has nothing to do with democracy being adhered to, nothing to do with legitimacy or illegitimacy. The reds don't care about that, any more than the yellows. Pretending they do, pretending this is all for some higher noble cause of their democratic right, is a nonsense. They have the mentality of some football fans. When their player fouls a player of the opposition, the opposition player dived. When one of their players is fouled, they scream for a penalty.

Your first paragraph sounds like you are trying to say what I think - but that is not what I think. I guess that makes it a strawman.

Your second paragraph sounds like you are trying to say what the red shirts think - but who are you to say the reds don't care about democracy? That sounds like something that each decides for him/herself. Looking at the events, the UDD calls for elections, the PAD call for military intervention. You call them the same? No different?

[tlansford]

"Those who tend"...who would that be then?

Not going to give you a list. Sure you have read pretty much the same posts as i have, so you know what everyone's position is, what people have said.

And let us make this very clear, just in case your waffling is causing confusion......

Oh dear, gone from a "good post" to "waffle" in the space of hours. What a fickle chap you are.

if you were not there at the actual happening, (as Nick was on many occasions).....your views and opinions are based on second hand information....ok?

I wasn't there for every happening, or even a lot of them (as Nick was) but i was there for some, so i do at least have some first hand experiences to go on. Not all my views and opinions are based on second hand information.

I don't jump on the "you were there / weren't there" bandwagon. It's not terribly relevant for the purposes of debating.

Many of us have our personal experiences with the different political events which have occurred. That is certainly interesting for each of us.

But no one has seen everything that happened, and everyone relies on the accounts of eyewitnesses and the reporting of historical events in order to understand the situation. Clearly, proximity to any particular event is not relevant to understanding and comprehension. Good information is.

[473geo]

Oh dear indeed, the 'waffling', a reference to your following post which was cloaked attempt to merge the true input from a person that was actually present at a location, and one that was 'in the vicinity' at the time.

Nick's closeness to what went on is not a matter i have ever disputed, nor something i envy or would have wanted to compete with. I stayed as far away as i could, but there were times, when i couldn't avoid entering certain areas. I went in and got out as soon as i could.

So I am aware and appreciate the level of difference in closeness to the events as experiences by myself and Nick. I am also aware and appreciate the level of difference in closeness to the events as experienced by me and as by you. I think that is your problem. You seek to belittle my first hand experiences as being of no importance whatsoever, because you don't have any. Pretty sad.

I have not seen a great deal of 'on the ground' report from you regarding the active discussions surrouding the incidents so cannot comment on the validity of such reports.

Something you can't comment on? There's a first.

Let us take a look at the post you responded to

"Good post, goes a long way to exposing the mentally challenged who attempted to ridicule the the Nick Nostitz information provided on this forum...."

Can you point out which part of this post is relevant to you, given your subsequent revelations?

No? Then why did you respond, and then you turn this around as though it is a personal affront?.....as you appear to enjoy posting can you explain why you would take this rather bizzare route?

Actually it would appear there maybe are couple of words in there that are applicable.....

Edited September 23, 2012 by 473geo