The terms of the poll, 'any accuracy/fluency', are a bit vague. Plenty of foreigners learn to speak Thai with some accuracy on certain words or phrases without learning to read. On the other hand I've never met a foreigner whom I would consider fluent in Thai who wasn't also able to read Thai fairly well.

This brings us back to the old Thai Language forum debate on what defines 'fluency'. I don't see how an adult learner can achieve a proficiency of, for example, 4 or 5 on a scale of 5, without learning to read. From the perspective that 4+ is fluent, I'd say the answer is 'no'.

A proficiency level of 2 or 3 seems possible without reading, and if you call that fluent then the answer is 'yes'.

In answer to the poll question, well of course you can speak Thai fluently without being able to read it - there are numerous examples of people who can, be they native speakers, luuk kreung, or Thai-as-second-language foreigners, some of whom have posted here.

In answer to a slightly different (related) question, 'can you be considered fluent in the Thai language without being able to read?', then the reply would be 'no'.

Many people can read a language but not speak it and vice versa, but the only true fluency and understanding comes from being able to do both (+ probably write it as well). Even if you can converse for hours on end, if you can't read a simple street sign or a menu then you can't call yourself fluent in the language in general. That's not snobbery, simply fact.